When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[loramin]

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

Do you have any idea of how much this damages your credibility when you make such broad sweeping claims about "how things were in classic" when you knew virtually nothing about it?

Velious lasted a year, and I started right when it started. Plus, even after Velious,the game remained largely the same in Luclin, especially if you weren't 60 and working on AA's yet. All the classic/Kunark/Velious zones played just about identically in both eras (no one was, say, dire charming in Velious, or at least not for months after Luclin's release).

So yes, I played for a year in the classic era, and I have plenty of memories from that year. Plus, I have plenty of memories from the Luclin era after that are "almost classic".

But a year (plus Luclin) isn't enough to have memories of classic because ...?

[loramin]

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

Remember how not so long ago we had numerous folks swearing up and down that combat bind wound was totally legit and people didn't use it back in the day only because everyone back then were morons who couldn't play? They kept up those claims--vehemently, at times--'till irrefutable proof was found.

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

But seriously, yes I do! And combat bind wound is just one of the most obvious cases: there's been lots of things like that here over the years (emulating a 20+ year old game is hard) ... but most players don't realize it because Nilbog and company have done an awesome job of correcting them, and most of that stuff is now far in the project's past.

[-Catherin-]

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

But a year (plus Luclin) isn't enough to have memories of classic because ...?

I'll bite.

Because even though Velious was still considered classic, it really was the beggining of the end of an era. A lot of changes had been made (not charm) where things were the furtherst from classic that you can get while still being called classic. Twinks were becoming a much bigger thing at this point. Melee were beggining to overtake cloth casters in usefulness. More than just the top guilds were getting ahold of epics (got mine during Velious). There was a noticeable magic resistance spike across most mobs, For Druids in particular, the writing was on the wall.

You got a third of the experience, and that third was exponentially different from the rest. The spike from vanilla to Kunark was nowhere near as extreme. So yeah, you really don't have the proper experience on this subject.

[DMN]

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

Velious lasted a year, and I started right when it started. Plus, even after Velious,the game remained largely the same in Luclin, especially if you weren't 60 and working on AA's yet. All the classic/Kunark/Velious zones played just about identically in both eras (no one was, say, dire charming in Velious, or at least not for months after Luclin's release).

And you likely spent the entirety of that year playing with largely clueless newbs who just started in velious as well, not people who spent 2+ years mastering their class and increasing general gameplay knowledge.


I think it's safe to say at this point that one could describe your knowledge of "classic" at best as pathetic, or at worst fictional.

[loramin]

So you're saying that in this thread I'm talking about Enchanters grouping, but my experience with that subject is invalid because ... I only spent a year grouping with Enchanters in classic? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Meanwhile, my own personal experience has nothing to do with the wealth of classic evidence that also shows Enchanters were considered a group class in classic. You don't like my message, so you're shooting the messenger ... but it doesn't change the veracity of that message.

If you want to attack the message, post classic evidence that shows most Enchanters were charm soloers ... don't shoot the messenger for "only" playing a year of classic, and remembering how Enchanters were back then.

[-Catherin-]

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

my own personal experience has nothing to do with the wealth of classic evidence that also shows Enchanters were considered a group class in classic.

Except it's been made pretty clear that your evidence is not actually evidence. You put yourself out there as a pretty knowledgeable guy, so surely you understand what evidence actually is. You have also implied time and time again that your own experiences validate your arguement. They don't.

[Jibartik]

I still stand by the idea that the reason people were not charm soloing for 3 years when the game first came out, is the same reason they were not until like 6 years after p99 came out.

Anyone like catherin want to school me on how charm soloing was something that the server did from day one?

[Danth]

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

Anyone like catherin want to school me on how charm soloing was something that the server did from day one?

Charm solo'ing on P99 was very much done right off the bat. You had enchanters charming red-con dars and solo'ing lower guk because things like high-con resist rates weren't implemented and charm lasted full duration every time (you could and they did set their clocks by it). Whatever tuning it might need at present, charm is MUCH better than the absurdly broken mess it was at P99 launch!

And yes, there were people who pinky-swore that even that level of brokenness was totally classic and legit. Funny stuff.

EDIT: Let's not forget how silly whirl till you hurl was, that also made crowd control and damage mitigation a breeze.

[loramin]

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

Except it's been made pretty clear that your evidence is not actually evidence. You put yourself out there as a pretty knowledgeable guy, so surely you understand what evidence actually is. You have also implied time and time again that your own experiences validate your arguement. They don't.

I consider both my year of playing during the classic era and the various guides and Allakhazam posts I've listed to be relevant, yes.

If you don't, well ... I'd just point out that you have a dog in this fight (you don't want your class to get less powerful), whereas I don't: I'm purely arguing for the point of this place, ie. to make it as classic as possible. But look, if all I provided was a single Caster's Realm guide with a single player saying anything to the effect "you should group because charm is risky solo" ... I'd still have provided more evidence than you have to this conversation.

But I would love to see you provide some! If I'm wrong, it should be easy to find tons of posts of Enchanters (and Druids/Bards/Necros) shouting from the rooftops "hey, charm is easy and safe, it's the way to level in this game". You can absolutely find tons posts for Necros saying "soloing beats grouping" right? Because Necros did solo a ton in classic! If Enchanter solo charming (or even group charming) was such a common thing in '99-'01, there should be lots of people saying as much back then.

And yet ... I expect you won't (just like you won't find people talking about combat bind wounds in classic). You'll certainly find examples of Enchanters charming, but not that that most Enchanters in classic thought charm soloing was the fast way to level, or that charming in groups was a reliable thing you could do all the time ... because (again) charm was not easy and safe in classic. As a result, most Enchanters grouped, and only charmed rarely when they did.

[Jibartik]

whats the like going consensus on the more accurate charm?