When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[loramin]

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

With something like the internal mechanics of a spell like charm, whatever people are saying about their own personal experiences with the spell does not stand up as evidence. On Zam, especially during classic, a huge chunk of these reported experiences are wildly innacurate or just plain wrong. Or they were even true, but only because they had some bad luck or just sucked (happens here too). Hardly anyone really knew anything about anything, even if they had access to the raw data. Which was also not the case with charm.
....
I hate tying anything involving this game into real life because it is just pretty cringy. But I will say that legal systems have statutes of limitations for certain cases for several reasons. One of them being that what you think you "experienced" or "how you "felt" decades ago is not evidence as there is a very high likelyhood it is not accurate compared to the actual facts. There would be a lot of wrongful prosecution otherwise.

P99 is based X% on "hard evidence" ... data taken directly from logs, from ShowEQ recordings, from screen captures, or reports of Verant staff (all from the original classic servers, that one Mac EQ server, or occasionally live servers) ... and Y% based on "soft evidence", what we can glean from classic message boards, websites, etc.

I too wish that wasn't the case, and that we had perfect info to base our emulator ... but the reality is we don't, and so that's just how a twenty-plus-year-old emulator has to be built.

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

I think we can all agree that charm WAS significantly harder during live classic. But it was harder because of real things that have already been pointed out that none of us need a wayback machine to confirm as fact. (knowledge, hardware, server stability, internet connections etc.)

Trying to tease out the difference is hard, especially since it almost certainly is "a little from column A, and a little from column B". But to me personally (again, someone with no real Enchanter character, ie. no "dog in this race"), it seems clear that those factors alone can't explain the massive difference between Enchanters and every other class. Again, no other class plays fundamentally differently here, despite the fact that every other class has access to far more information, better internet connections, etc.

Look, ultimately even my you and my fellow detractors agree:

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

the typical population of enchanters for most of classic was around 5-7% percent of the server, in vanillla on some servers it was as low as 2-3%. The population on p99 is, what? 30%?

Whatever the reason for it, that's an major difference between here and live. If the goal of this place is to be a museum, and let people play the game from '99, it's absolutely, positively clear that our emulator is failing to do that with Enchanters (even as, again, it does an impeccable job with just about everything else).

[DMN]

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

Whatever the reason for it, that's an major difference between here and live. If the goal of this place is to be a museum, and let people play the game from '99, it's absolutely, positively clear that our emulator is failing to do that with Enchanters (even as, again, it does an impeccable job with just about everything else).

The shaman population is also well over 400-500% higher than classic, too. Shaman were also one of the rarest classes back in classic, only behind bard/enc on most servers. Meanwhile in classic half the population was playing a ranger/SK/paladin. Now if you add all those together on p99 I doubt it's even 10%. So why indeed are hybrids played 5 times less, and shaman/en played 5 times more? got any ideas?

[loramin]

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

The shaman population is also well over 400-500% higher than classic, too. Shaman were also one of the rarest classes back in classic, only behind bard/enc on most servers. Meanwhile in classic half the population was playing a ranger/SK/paladin. Now if you add all those together on p99 I doubt it's even 10%. So why indeed are hybrids played 5 times less, and shaman/en played 5 times more? got any ideas?

I've played a Shaman here for a long time, and I've played an identical Shaman (same name/race/face!) for years on the Bristlebane server. I promise you, Loramin plays fundamentally the same on both servers. On both servers he could (and did) both group and solo ... which makes sense because, again, our emulator is pretty damn awesome overall.

But look, I'm not in any way saying "my class" is perfectly classic (not that Shaman even is "my class" anymore ...) Every class should be as classic as they can, so I'm in favor of classic nerfs on any class. If someone finds proof that (say) Torpor only healed half the damage we think it does, I'll be second in line (after whoever found the evidence) to grab a torch and pitchfork and demand Nilbog make the change.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
(I'm the little guy)

Also I agree that, because of player knowledge, better connections, the "top-heaviness" of the server, etc. our the game plays a little differently from Live. I'm not denying that at all, and it may explain in part why Shaman are so popular here. They rock at 60 with Torpor, but on Live few people got 60/Torpor ... hell, I skipped straight to Quiescence, or whatever spell came next.

All I'm saying (repeatedly) is that those factors can't explain why only one class plays fundamentally differently here vs. on live.

[Nycon43]

edit: nm

[Kich867]

Idk loramin, bored at work so I decided to just start reading the old allakhazam enchanter forums, there's pretty thoroughly documented explanations of exactly how to use charm the way its used here. I was surprised at how many people specifically cited how incredibly fast they were leveling by charming.

There's definitely some posts suggesting that charm breaks incredibly fast, but the posts I see from enchanter's in their 30's and 40's in the year 2000, one notable post from 2000 citing "At level 16 Enchanters become the most powerful solo class in the game" and goes on to describe exactly how you would use charm to beat two monsters up and then kill them both.

"If you know how to charm you'll do just fine soloing" from 2000.

"Charm should last a good while with high charisma on a blue and wizard NPC's are by far the most damage you can get for your mana. Way more mana efficient damage then *anything* a player can do." from 2001.

Saw a handful of specific mentions of charms lasting anywhere from 2.5 minutes to 5.5 minutes without breaking.

Lots of posts of people having to explain that Charisma drastically improves how long charm lasts.

http://web.archive.org/web/200201292...s=13&start=450

I just started from the back and went forward while searching "charm". From what it looks like to me, a few people did figure out that enchanters were incredible at soloing and how to do it, and there was just a lot of people who never learned how to do it. The posts from the very few people citing that enchanters are primarily a grouping class are also some of the same people saying shit like Ranger's are good at tanking.

I actually have a lot more trust in the handful of people raising their hand like, "Hey...you guys know this is fuckin busted, right? Charm kiting is insane, why isn't everyone else doing this?"

Considering there are people, today, right now, that I've grouped with who still had fundamental misunderstandings about basic EQ mechanics...it's far more likely to me that charming is just a bit more mechanically complicated than the majority of other ways people soloed or grouped. Stigma also carries a ton of weight during various times...if the perception was that Charming was dangerous, despite it not actually being so, then Charming was dangerous and enchanters would all agree that it was too dangerous to do in groups and you'd get yelled at for doing it in groups. The same kind of shit applies all across a variety of games, just look at the meta from Vanilla WoW, it wasn't until just before BC dropped that people realized druids were valid raid tanks and had enormous long-term threat generation and huge damage mitigation because they were perpetually told Warriors were the only viable raid tanks. You can't even replicate that in Classic WoW because they use different talent trees now, that weird era is totally lost. There were plenty of misconceptions that were propagated that were bullshit during that time but everyone went along with because people are dumb and don't try things.

I mean just look at grouping. I've had people try to defend that grouping is the best way to level when it almost categorically isn't for most classes. People still sit in unrest spamming LFG because they think its "the best place" to level meanwhile they spend 4 hours dealing with trains and corpse runs in order to try and control like 8 blues on 22 minute timers in a full group. It's not that farfetched to me to think that most people at that point in time didn't get charm kiting because it was too complicated and the prevailing sentiment was that grouping was the only way to level.

[Dolalin]

I spent three years archiving over 50GB of classic EQ sites and my best hunches on charm in classic are:

1) mob resists over lvl35 may have been higher in classic than they are on p99. Level 35 was a magic number for resists according to devs.

2) lots of little charm bugs that existed in classic that don't exist on p99 and would be hard to replicate (I compiled a list somewhere)

3) channeling at low levels is broken on p99, it's waaaaaay too easy to channel, a level 5 shaman succeeds like 80% of channels on p99 but only succeeded about 10% in classic, that matters

Just off the top of my head.

[Kich867]

Ugh, my edit got eaten, but...

http://web.archive.org/web/200112020...ubb=forum&f=20

Link to an in-era forum of enchanters all talking about charm kiting to solo and where best to do it...

I found another half-dozen or so posts from 2001 all recommending Charm kiting as the way for enchanters to solo, how strong it is, how enchanters are some of the best soloers, having 200 charisma allowing them to charm red cons, etc. etc.

I honestly do not see a strong case to suggest that enchanters weren't charming the same exact way they are now back then.

Some more quotes since I'm bored:

"Don't be afraid to charm at early levels. Oasis is a great place to start. Its loads of fun to charm a croc and send it after another. Just slow the enemy reptile and your pet is almost sure to win. Since these reptiles don't agro on you a succesful mem blur will get them off of you for good if charm breaks or you get into a fight you can't handle. I only had a charisma of 78 when charming blue to even cons and most charms lasted for about 2 kills.

PS People don't know much about enchanters, especially at this level, so they will think your pet is some unusual invincible croc because they won't be able to hit it until charm breaks." - 2001

"I was in FM recently and charmed a giant and all was great, except that I had a hard time controlling him, and then he seemed to be charmed for FOREVER! Is there a way to break the charm cycle???" - 2001

"As for charm, dont, thats something that takes several hours and lots of death to master, but once you do its very powerfull. I suggest learning on spectres in oasis, but its not something required for normal grouping (tho to be l33t you should be able to solo at least 5 blue mobs at once)." - 2001, joking about how enchanters can handle 5 blue mobs at once with charming...

"Using charm you can solo the whole island of spectres at a much lower level. It would also be more mana efficient on a kill by kill basis." - 2001

"As for how well charisma effects spells. At 120 cha charm will stick, but not every time and did not last long. At 160 charisma I could charm stuff higher level than me and hold them for most of a battle. At 200 cha, I can charm something red almost everytime, and hold it for most of a battle, and recharm with little or no trouble." - 2001

"Solo wise there are many ways for an enchanter to solo, I have posted one on how to solo with pets. You can also be normal and do the charm techniques. We are one of the best soloers due to the fact that when it is us vs one, we can't take just one most of the time. What we are good at is soloing 2, 3, or 4 at a time. Charm style." - 2001, emphasis mine, specifically citing that charm soloing is "the normal" thing to do.

[NegaStoat]

Kich867, that was an amazing find. I spent over 20 minutes just browsing through the old posts from the pre Luclin era and chuckling over the comments of what players were dealing with back then. "FFA = Fighters Filch All" was classic. But I did read for myself the things you cherry picked, as well as the other posts relating to Enchanters solo play, group play, and acting as a damned party puller using Lull while keeping a charmed pet active (the chardok group post).

Unless someone can dig something up to contradict this, I think your evidence is a rock solid reference.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Idk loramin, bored at work so I decided to just start reading the old allakhazam enchanter forums, there's pretty thoroughly documented explanations of exactly how to use charm the way its used here. I was surprised at how many people specifically cited how incredibly fast they were leveling by charming.

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

So again, I'm not arguing classic players never charmed. What I'm arguing is, charm was more risky in classic, and as a result far fewer charmed. The fact that so many here charm, and so few charmed on live (or, again, that the Enchanter class is played differently here ... while every other class is played the same) is evidence our emulator isn't as risky as the original game was.

[Kich867]

I'm not arguing that you didn't think that, I'm arguing that your assertion that enchanters played differently in classic era than they do here looks wrong given the evidence of players discussions at the time.

You specifically said that you wouldn't find a lot of enchanters talking about doing it, or a forum of enchanters doing it, but there was a forum of enchanters talking about doing it and there were a lot of enchanters talking about doing it at the time.

There's no evidence that it was more risky back then, there's just people saying that it is risky. But there's also lots of posts of people doing actual research at the time and proving that it probably wasn't as risky as people claimed it to be. The consensus I read from this history is that: people thought it was risky because they were dumb and considering enchanters seemed to prioritize Int over Cha at the time and so it DID break more often for them because they didn't properly invest.

There's even a bunch of posts of people basically saying: "I initially went for int, and then I rerolled High Elf to go into Charisma, and the difference in charm duration is huge."

It's incredibly clear that by 2001, people were finally starting to understand charm and how powerful it was, how to build properly around doing it, and how to convince people it was safe to do. Like I said, stigma carries a lot of weight--if the general consensus at the time was that charm was dangerous, then it was dangerous regardless of whether it actually was. Maybe you were just one of those people that always heard it was dangerous and broke all the time and just followed suit while people were out there ballin with their charmed pets?

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.

To be clear--there are lots of people saying that at that time. Almost every single mention of Charm in what I've posted is people citing how strong it is as a solo option. I'm sorry but I don't trust the handful of people saying "charm broke all the time and is too dangerous to do" over the people who posted their Charisma breakpoints for charm durations and did actual testing on the subject demonstrating that it was definitely the way to do things.

I'd absolutely concede P99 might not have it _perfectly right_, but how could they? There were multiple posts of people talking about how their charmed pets would last several fights, or upwards of 5 minutes in length before breaking. The evidence doesn't align with, and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but I thought I saw you say this earlier--your assertion that charm broke in seconds and never actually lasted long enough to be safe and viable regularly. Given the fact there was a pretty steady discourse around whether Enchanters should stack Int or Cha, it means you had a large enough playerbase who didn't invest in Charisma, who would inevitably complain that Charm broke too often to be safe and reliable, compared to P99 where every enchanter is cranking the shit out of charisma and understands how it actually works.