Game Mechanics: AoE spells should only hit limited targets until September 1999 patch era

[Sahazar]

This and spellbook med?? Yessss!!

[dbouya]

I quite clearly remember being impressed by a bard AoE'ing all/most of kerra isle in 1998/early1999. It caused me to travel to blackburrow, die under the waterfall, and just give up on playing that character ever again, I was still bound in toxxila. I gave up on the character, because I needed GM assistance to travel on boats, because my computer was too shitty to zone fast enough to stay on the boat when zoning. I will also say, I believe in my non-evidence based anecdote the bard was debuffing 10+ mobs but may not have been able to effect them with pbaoe damage spells (in the anecdote the particle effect I remember was the shiny clear/silver/blue one of debuffs). As a result I'm sure pbaoe debuff spells were working, for sure. It's possible the bug only effected the damage spells not the debuff spells. There's absolutely no evidence in the quoted post about debuff pbaoe, it only mentions damage songs. In fact my GUESS would be that my memory was specifically of the song http://wiki.project1999.com/Largo%27s_Melodic_Binding

Even if the bug was fixed in September, it may have been introduced later than launch.
By September 1999 the boats were also fixed, so my non-evidence based anecdote couldn't've happened then.

This said, 'most' of kerra isle is closer to maybe 10-15 mobs than 25 or 50. I'm not sure how the number 4 was reached. It almost can't be 4, since pbaoe spells were specifically the only type of spell that could effect more than 4 targets. I don't see any evidence to set the number to 4, even if it should be less than 25. In 1999 most bards wouldn't've wanted to swarm 25+ anyways because of lag and bad computers making groups that large more dangerous.

Not to mention the "evidence" in question is just blatantly incorrect, the bard who wrote that seemed to think a rain spell could trigger 12 times (4x3), when rain spells can only trigger 4 times (3x1 2x2 or 1x4). If you read the section of his post where he mentions the number 4 he seems to specifically think casters are using rain spells as AoE spells. If the "proof" from 1999 is a quote where a bard confuses the numbers 4 and 12. I'm not sure why the number 4 is the one that's seen as correct. The bard specifically seems to be confusing the situation in which a rain spell is used on a single target and triggers 3 times in 3 "pulses" with a similarity with the fact that bard song pbaoedot also is balanced around 3 "pulses". He's just incorrect though.

His mistake is quoted by me below for reference:

"What DDD has going for it is the speed to cast it, two and a half seconds,
and the fact that it delivers all of it's damage at once, rather than
requiring the target mob stay in the rain area for all three pulses most AOE
requires. It's also point blank, working just like any AoE bard song, the
four closest mobs will be in the effect radius."


I'm also not entirely sure why classic bards need a nerf (although I am a big fan of the nerf on pbaoe from 50-25 because in 1999-2001 on dialup and with single digit megabytes of VRAM no one would've been insane enough to pbaoe 50 enemies). During kunark era I'm 100% sure bards could charm swarm kited. Which is even more effective than pbaoe swarm kiting this tactic already won't be possible at any point in p99's timeline due to social aggro changes that apparently can't be fixed. Or at least I assume that's why social aggro works this way on p99.

I don't play a bard on p99, I don't pbaoe kite, I don't think it's a fun way to play the game, and in 1999-2001 era GM's basically outlawed typical bard swarm kiting if anyone but the bard was in the zone and wanted to play. It was done as part of the play nice policy about zone disruption. I understand p99 doesn't have as large of a gm staff, and a nerf to this type of play totally makes sense. The number 4 though just makes no sense it doesn't seem like it can be classic. If the bard we're quoting from 1999 confused the numbers 4 and 12, I'd say 12 would be a better compromise. In the quoted "evidence" the bard is describing what would be the number 12, despite him actually saying the number 4. Or if you're deadset on making it 4. At least leave pbaoe debuff effects alone in this change and leave them at 25. (Pbaoe effects is a fringe case no one cares about, but IMO it would be a more classic choice of numbers, that is much more well supported by the available evidence). Basically, since this sort of thing was frowned upon by sony staff in 1999-2001 era, I'm totally fine with p99 staff ruining it. It's just that the so called evidence isn't as specific as I'd like for the purposed change.

[Dolalin]

dbouya, I'll invite you to read post #18 in this thread.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...7&postcount=18

This isn't just "some bard", it's Kendrick, a game dev.

There was nothing stopping any bard from pulling tons of mobs and singing AoEs on the group of them, but before September 1999 they would be hitting only 4 mobs at once in the swarm. If they were stacked up you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by looking, you'd need to be close enough to see how many were being hit in the combat window.

[dbouya]

Ahh, I see! I guess I'd only found the bard quote on page 1 of the thread, who was the one I was quoting as wrong. The guy on page 2 makes a lot more sense.

That said.

"
That's correct, all bard AoE (and most AoE spells in general) have a maximum
of four targets now.
"

NOW.

That leads me to believe sometime between march1999 and april1999 bard AoE effected more than 4 targets. Since a dev wrote the word NOW in may 1999.
I started playing in december 1998 (I was in closed beta). So I'm 100% willing to admit it is possible that bard AoE was nerfed on the day the game was released. I could've seen a bard hitting more than 4 targets in beta. Release was actually a lot more buggy than beta, which made it a lot harder to play and form memories about it.

To my reading, that's 4 months without pbaoe, not 6. Of course I'm not in charge. Also you're entirely right about the whole not being able to tell how many targets were effected when I wasn't actually the one playing the bard. Although the bard had done it "on purpose". Of course they were singing an attack speed debuff song (presumably, it could've been some sort of mez or calm I suppose too based on the colors). This wasn't at all a pbaoe kiting swarm tactic. Bard's were a lot less informed about their abilities in 1999. Basically what the bard was doing was something no one on p99 would do, because it wasn't correct, they were debuffing and melee'ing a group of lower level enemies, heck, since I wasn't them, and they actually just caused me to leave, they may have just been trying to gain skillups in defense or dodge or some such.

Come to think of it release was actually so buggy I couldn't even login for a week or two. Despite playing in beta beforehand just fine even when gfay regularly had 250+ people in it. So, it's possible the devs nerfed all aoe's in march 1999 in order to help address server strain. Server strain definitely almost killed the game. Day 1 of release is a time between day 1 and may1999. The dev would've had a prospective even more pronounced than mine (of not really seeing everquest 1 as having started in march1999, for me it started in december 1998, and for him it started in 1997 or some such).

It's probably impossible to find out when pbaoe was nerfed between march1999 and may1999. Which means I totally understand going with the limit of 4. Although, one thing the dev does mention in his example post.... is something about aggro'ing 7 enemies despite only effecting 4. This could explain what the bard I saw was doing. They may have even thought their song was working on more than 4 targets, even if it in fact was not. Since the discussion seems to be about the fact that in may 1999 pbaoe spells would aggro ALL enemies in their range, despite only effecting 4. It would be really cool though if someone did find proof of when pbaoe was nerfed. Personally I still believe that at very least before release of the game the nerf down to 4 had not been implemented yet. It would be pretty silly though for p99 to leave in the game something the devs deemed to be a horrible problem and patched out as soon as possible. So even if someone did find proof that it worked for the first 2-6 weeks or some such, it might make sense to not act on it.

On p99 I think enemies are only aggro'd by pbaoe if they're effected by it. Right? However it probably makes sense to leave it that way, since it was likely unintended that the songs would aggro more targets than they would effect?

[Dolalin]

It must have been the case that the AoE would "tag" all mobs around but the effect would only process on the closest four. That's how I am interpreting the comments of the person he's replying to.

It was a buggy game at release, as you say.

I would guess "now" meant at release versus during beta.

[Jibartik]

FWIW here is a discussion about how bards absolutly SUCK in 2000, and not once is it mentioned that they can solo using AoE out of almost 100 complaints about how bards suck, and counterarguments about how awesome bards are.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010124...ML/000262.html

the down side is it sounds like mez resist should resist at least 50% of the time on extremely green mobs, and that charm should break often. But dont put those fixes in lol we are just about to get bards that group on green99 lol

[Dolalin]

Bards had big problems. Their aoe mez had a 2x resist check I think which is why it sucked so badly for such a long time.

Bards in groups in vanilla mostly just played mana song, at least in their 30s.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by dbouya [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ahh, I see! I guess I'd only found the bard quote on page 1 of the thread, who was the one I was quoting as wrong. The guy on page 2 makes a lot more sense.

That said.

"
That's correct, all bard AoE (and most AoE spells in general) have a maximum
of four targets now.
"

NOW.

That leads me to believe sometime between march1999 and april1999 bard AoE effected more than 4 targets. Since a dev wrote the word NOW in may 1999.
I started playing in december 1998 (I was in closed beta). So I'm 100% willing to admit it is possible that bard AoE was nerfed on the day the game was released. I could've seen a bard hitting more than 4 targets in beta. Release was actually a lot more buggy than beta, which made it a lot harder to play and form memories about it.

To my reading, that's 4 months without pbaoe, not 6. Of course I'm not in charge. Also you're entirely right about the whole not being able to tell how many targets were effected when I wasn't actually the one playing the bard. Although the bard had done it "on purpose". Of course they were singing an attack speed debuff song (presumably, it could've been some sort of mez or calm I suppose too based on the colors). This wasn't at all a pbaoe kiting swarm tactic. Bard's were a lot less informed about their abilities in 1999. Basically what the bard was doing was something no one on p99 would do, because it wasn't correct, they were debuffing and melee'ing a group of lower level enemies, heck, since I wasn't them, and they actually just caused me to leave, they may have just been trying to gain skillups in defense or dodge or some such.

Come to think of it release was actually so buggy I couldn't even login for a week or two. Despite playing in beta beforehand just fine even when gfay regularly had 250+ people in it. So, it's possible the devs nerfed all aoe's in march 1999 in order to help address server strain. Server strain definitely almost killed the game. Day 1 of release is a time between day 1 and may1999. The dev would've had a prospective even more pronounced than mine (of not really seeing everquest 1 as having started in march1999, for me it started in december 1998, and for him it started in 1997 or some such).

It's probably impossible to find out when pbaoe was nerfed between march1999 and may1999. Which means I totally understand going with the limit of 4. Although, one thing the dev does mention in his example post.... is something about aggro'ing 7 enemies despite only effecting 4. This could explain what the bard I saw was doing. They may have even thought their song was working on more than 4 targets, even if it in fact was not. Since the discussion seems to be about the fact that in may 1999 pbaoe spells would aggro ALL enemies in their range, despite only effecting 4. It would be really cool though if someone did find proof of when pbaoe was nerfed. Personally I still believe that at very least before release of the game the nerf down to 4 had not been implemented yet. It would be pretty silly though for p99 to leave in the game something the devs deemed to be a horrible problem and patched out as soon as possible. So even if someone did find proof that it worked for the first 2-6 weeks or some such, it might make sense to not act on it.

On p99 I think enemies are only aggro'd by pbaoe if they're effected by it. Right? However it probably makes sense to leave it that way, since it was likely unintended that the songs would aggro more targets than they would effect?

When the AoE spells/songs were introduced in beta they all had infinite numbers of targets. As an interesting side note, believe it or not, from my recollections they were actually more concerned with server instability than anything related to balance.

[Vyal]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That isn't right at all here's the proofs.

http://www.wtfman.com/mcd/mayjunejuly.htm

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DMN]

Maybe they were exaggerating for effect? I doubt there are even 45+ tadpole spawns in the swamp, doubly so with the troll/ogre newbies running around killing them. 3 pulses of damage would be 12 dead tadpoles per cast, probably spectacular enough to boast a bit for a newb. He also says "spells", plural, when he only got one at 24. Also, "at one time" is a phrase one can take some liberties with, and it even makes more sense why he would choose to use "spells", since it could mean he cast multiple.


Edit:
For those who don't want to read through, it's some old blog/diary of an EQ player, he/she writes:

5/18/99

. . . After hitting 24th I promptly purchased my new spells, and gathered together every froglok tadpole in the land into one nice big group, laughed as they tried to nibble me as they did oh so not long ago, and basked in the light of self satisfaction watching all 46 of them die at one time to the new improved area effect spells.