Root resist?

[Seredoc]

I know it isn't just me, but did something change in a recent patch or something? I went from getting full duration roots and snares to now I am lucky if root sticks on a low db or high green(the mobs formerly know as LB)

What gives, are we now required to carry pocket enchanters/shammies? Also I noticed a higher resist rate on dots and charm as well, even with new spells.

[GinnasP99]

Paralyzing earth is a shadow of it's former self

[Bazia]

have had zero issues landing paralyzing earth on dark blues for long enough durations that i can still root every mob on the way to a farm spot and then camp the aggro before it breaks

i get the feeling you are exaggerating at least a little bit

[fastboy21]

working as intended. read the last patch notes.

it is much more in line with the classic resist/break rate for root now.

[zanderklocke]

working as intended. read the last patch notes.

it is much more in line with the classic resist/break rate for root now.

Maybe.

Green level 10 mobs are now able to resist level 60 players on snares, roots, and dots. Maybe this happened on live, but it seems a bit odd.

[Kaym]

Yeah, early breaks/flat resists on root as well as other spells on level 48 mobs that are malosini'd... Can't be classic.

[Tasslehofp99]

Nah there is deffinetly something fucked up with resists.


Just had an orc pawn resist my 60 shaman's paralyzing earth. I also had a rattlesnake resist shaman epic click and pox...deff not classic.

Just wanted to add: root having a chance to break every tick is classic...no issues there. My issue is with any mob 20 to 30 levels lower than me with its MR debuffed by 60 resisting any of my spells, this is clearly not classic. Blue cons? Sure no issue there but greens should have like a 1% chance (if that) of resisting.

[Alanus]

I had a level 30 shark in Kedge resist charm at 56 (first time that's happened in 1.5 levels there) and root twice as well (again, first time it's ever been resisted there). Something seems different.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Maybe.

Green level 10 mobs are now able to resist level 60 players on snares, roots, and dots. Maybe this happened on live, but it seems a bit odd.

You act like you know classic, but if you really played you know that root is totally solo oriented here and not at all what it was. Back on VerantEQ dots had a good chance every tick to break, almost like a nuke - the way it is here is a concession to the need for soloers (or perceived need). Necros and shaman on live could not do half of what they can here solo- same with AOE chanter stuns etc - makes people here feel like they are totally awesome eq playerz - but it is a lie. When they wrote the scripts here they knew it was for low pop, so they made soloing easy -ALSO chanter charm here is waaay more reliable than live. This server is ez mode in several ways when it comes to concessions to solo classes. But if it makes you feel better about yourself and your mad skillz go ahead and believe what you want.

[fastboy21]

Maybe.

Green level 10 mobs are now able to resist level 60 players on snares, roots, and dots. Maybe this happened on live, but it seems a bit odd.

there is definitely tweaking that needs to be done...especially in the scenario you mentioned, player and mob are of widely different lvls: low lvl mobs should have almost no chance of landing spells on high lvl players...and high lvl players should have almost no chance of being resisted by regular low lvl mobs.

i think the OP is referring, however, to the old expectation of never getting an early root break while root dotting (or even a resist). This was just plain broken, and that is working properly now.

[Daldaen]

You act like you know classic, but if you really played you know that root is totally solo oriented here and not at all what it was. Back on VerantEQ dots had a good chance every tick to break, almost like a nuke - the way it is here is a concession to the need for soloers (or perceived need). Necros and shaman on live could not do half of what they can here solo- same with AOE chanter stuns etc - makes people here feel like they are totally awesome eq playerz - but it is a lie. When they wrote the scripts here they knew it was for low pop, so they made soloing easy -ALSO chanter charm here is waaay more reliable than live. This server is ez mode in several ways when it comes to concessions to solo classes. But if it makes you feel better about yourself and your mad skillz go ahead and believe what you want.

I'd love to see you back up your claim that DoTs should have a chance to break a root each tick they are active.

[Tasslehofp99]

Yeah I deffinetly feel like root broke a lot more on live than here also.


I know for a fact that I wasn't getting charmed by evil eyes at lvl 60 though...that just happened lol.

[Messianic]

You act like you know classic, but if you really played you know that root is totally solo oriented here and not at all what it was. Back on VerantEQ dots had a good chance every tick to break, almost like a nuke - the way it is here is a concession to the need for soloers (or perceived need). Necros and shaman on live could not do half of what they can here solo- same with AOE chanter stuns etc - makes people here feel like they are totally awesome eq playerz - but it is a lie. When they wrote the scripts here they knew it was for low pop, so they made soloing easy -ALSO chanter charm here is waaay more reliable than live. This server is ez mode in several ways when it comes to concessions to solo classes. But if it makes you feel better about yourself and your mad skillz go ahead and believe what you want.

Root's checks to break early occurred on the 6 second tick intervals. The dots had nothing to do with that.

[webrunner5]

Maybe.

Green level 10 mobs are now able to resist level 60 players on snares, roots, and dots. Maybe this happened on live, but it seems a bit odd.

Pretty much what he said. I think they have went too far with the tweak. I am aware even on live root always was hit or miss on some mobs duration wise, or didn't stick at all, but they have taken it too far on last patch. :eek:

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

I'd love to see you back up your claim that DoTs should have a chance to break a root each tick they are active.

Chance to break is supposed to be upped proportionally to damage inflicted during the tick. However here it is limited to melee and initial nuke damage. This is wrong. That's why there is such an emphasis on snaring rootrotted mobs in the early 2000 data we have. If you think that the solo classes here operate under the same rules as back in 2000 you are just being willfully ignorant.

[Ciroco]

Chance to break is supposed to be upped proportionally to damage inflicted during the tick. However here it is limited to melee and initial nuke damage. This is wrong. That's why there is such an emphasis on snaring rootrotted mobs in the early 2000 data we have. If you think that the solo classes here operate under the same rules as back in 2000 you are just being willfully ignorant.

Melee doesn't break roots here, and you couldn't snare rooted mobs in early 2000.

[fastboy21]

Melee doesn't break roots here, and you couldn't snare rooted mobs in early 2000.

this is correct.

also, to the best of my recollection i do not recall on live the size of the DD having any impact whatsoever on the likeliness of the root breaking. it was a chance to break every tick and every time a DD hit the mob (whether a 1 damage dd or a sunstrike). no evidence for this, just my recollection from live playing a wizard as main.

as for dots breaking root...i don't think this happened on live (nor is it happening here). since root checks every tick for a break and dot damage applies every tick, it might SEEM like the dot damage is causing the root break...buts its most likely just happening at the same time as regular tick resist check.

as for level resists, again, entirely based on recollection. but, it seemed to me on live that player resists increased sharply at lvl55 to me. i remember doing halls of testing in TOV and noticing much more resists at 55 than at 54 using the same gear/buffs. i also recall others thinking the same thing. again, just my personal recollection that the curve wasn't perfectly smooth but spiked as you go close to max lvl.

the formulas for all this stuff are always going to need tweaking...but i feel like the current situation (breaking the complete safety for root rotters) was worth the problems and is definitely a step in the right direction. also, although it is an indirect nerf on chanters using root/charm tactic, it is also a benefit for chanters because ghetto cc by rooting is now less reliable making chanter mez more desirable now.

[tristantio]

Yea, root rot was pretty OP pre-change, as a necro from 50 to 57 it was all I needed (superior in almost every fight to fear kiting or using pet in any way).

[Clark]

working as intended. read the last patch notes.

it is much more in line with the classic resist/break rate for root now.

No way dude its totally broken. Mr and root are freakin screwed and we need GMs to hurry up with a damn hotfix patch for the love of all that is good. Shit is retarded.

[fastboy21]

No way dude its totally broken. Mr and root are freakin screwed and we need GMs to hurry up with a damn hotfix patch for the love of all that is good. Shit is retarded.

it isn't perfect, by far. i've pointed out that the mr formula is cujrrently wrong...especially so as the levels of mob and player get further apart.

but, i still think its better than it was. since launch until the last patch, using root was functionally an exploit that made risk in leveling/farming obsolete for any root rotting class. kicking that shit out of p99 is a step forward...they can tweak the mr formula to perfection now, but we are moving in the right direction finally.

[Clark]

Idk I think the devs dropped the ball big fuckin time here and the players are suffering from massive amounts of bull shit unwarranted deaths. They need to get some work in and fix this garbage. Should have been fixed last week. Quite possibly the worst and most unneeded patch that I can remember in 4+ yrs.

[Scrubosaur]

The thing is that root checks per tic was proportionate to the spell level and level of casting PC vs level of NPC. I don't think that PC level vs NPC level works on p99 in regards to resists; so really the only way to handle it, is a percent chance to break per tic. This sucks as a green has the same chance to break as a dark blue but I don't know if there are other options.

[changeresists]

This resist change has been so aggravating I had to create a forum account. Needs to be changed back or massively tweaked asap. No change should ever go from not classic but manageable to not classic but significantly worse for every caster in the game. It's not just roots. Spells that should never be resisted are being resisted by level 1's. I understand the need to try and fix it from the way it was before, but this patch was a massive pendulum swing to the other extreme.

[Disillusion]

Resists seem a bit messed up now... theft of thought has a neg 1000 magic mod and has been resisting on green con's since last patch.

[Destron]

I heard this will be fixed post velious. ;-)

[tanknspank]

I don't know about root breaking, but Snare is resisting far more than it ever did in classic. Since the change I am getting 2-3 resists on Snare on blues (and not high blues at that) fairly regularly. In live-classic getting 2-3 resists on a blue was by far the exception and usually took no more than 1-2 casts to land it.

[August]

EQ was created from a DnD campaign.

In DND, there is a 5% chance for anything to happen - success when failure is guaranteed, and failure when success is guaranteed.

You can see this most easily with tradeskills - a 250 JC can fail a lvl 17 combine - and will, 5% of the time. Additionally, a lvl 17 JC can succeed on a 250 combine - 5% of the time.

Wouldn't surprise me if the new checks are factoring this in. If you have a 2 minute root there's 20 checks for failure - if each are at least given a 5% chance to break, there's a ~65% chance it will break early. If there are other mitigating factors, it's almost guaranteed to break early (even at just 8% per tick it goes up to 81% to break early)

[webrunner5]

Wouldn't surprise me if the new checks are factoring this in. If you have a 2 minute root there's 20 checks for failure - if each are at least given a 5% chance to break, there's a ~65% chance it will break early. If there are other mitigating factors, it's almost guaranteed to break early (even at just 8% per tick it goes up to 81% to break early)

That sounds like some Hillbilly math. A 65% chance would be crazy stuff. There would not be a Caster playing on the whole damn server. We would all slit our wrists. I know there are checks, but lots of resists to level 1 mobs as a level 60 is bull shit. They screwed up and lets not sugarcoat it. Not everyone one here has a total mind block on how the game was years ago. :o

[August]

That sounds like some Hillbilly math. A 65% chance would be crazy stuff. There would not be a Caster playing on the whole damn server. We would all slit our wrists. I know there are checks, but lots of resists to level 1 mobs as a level 60 is bull shit. They screwed up and lets not sugarcoat it. Not everyone one here has a total mind block on how the game was years ago. :o

If every check there is a 5% chance to break, and there is 20 checks to break in 2 minutes, then the chances of it breaking early is 100 - the chances of it never breaking, or .95^20, or 100-35.8485922, or 64.151%.

[Visual]

What is the point of being a caster if you are repeatedly being resisted by green cons

[koros]

August is 100% correct with the math.

Additionally, on live there was indeed a minimum 5% chance for a resist to occur on initial cast or during break checks. It's likely they added that in to some degree.

Taps shouldn't be subject to that restriction.

[Daldaen]

I've yet to see any evidence brought forth regarding this base "5% chance to get resisted on all spells by even level 1 mobs" notion.

[kruptcy]

I don't know where all this indignation comes from... on Live during this time period I would consider myself lucky to get 2 or 3 ticks from root OR charm on blue enemies -- on p1999 they are about 10x more reliable. My nuke however is a resist machine, but that was always the case on live as well.

[koros]

I've yet to see any evidence brought forth regarding this base "5% chance to get resisted on all spells by even level 1 mobs" notion.

There were often screenshots posted of ice comets being resisted by moss snakes due to that very base chance. It was quite well documented. I'm at work at the moment, but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a screenshot showing as such.

[Daldaen]

Please do so when you find free time. Because in my extensive bug reporting, though I've never specifically searched on this topic, I haven't seen this. Nor do I remember it.

I understand the thought process behind it since that's how Tradeskills work. I just never remember spells having a fixed failure rate regardless of level.

[koros]

Please do so when you find free time. Because in my extensive bug reporting, though I've never specifically searched on this topic, I haven't seen this. Nor do I remember it.

I understand the thought process behind it since that's how Tradeskills work. I just never remember spells having a fixed failure rate regardless of level.

Here's a quick post referencing it that I quickly googled. This is from an eq2 forum talking about ice comet in eq1 at 50.

"
Tom is correct. I played a Wizard on one account and a Rogue on another from the day the game went live.

I was one of the first 50s on my server, and when I went through the NUTTY quest to get the Ice Comet spell, I almost passed out when the first moss snake I cast it on resisted it. (gg Sony.)

The second one, however, got spanked for 1150 dd.

At level 50, it would use a little over a full bubble of mana...and to get a resist REALLY pi$$ed me off. :)
"

https://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/index.php?threads/ice-comet.171551/

When I get some time I'll find an era appropriate reference, but that was the first result.

[Scrubosaur]

Lol that is the same ol eq myth regurgitated by someone on a random forum. It's funny though that is always ice comet that gets resisted and always vs a snake. I have read/heard that story 100 times from people that it actually happened to. Still funny every time though even if it's not true.

[koros]

Lol that is the same ol eq myth regurgitated by someone on a random forum. It's funny though that is always ice comet that gets resisted and always vs a snake. I have read/heard that story 100 times from people that it actually happened to. Still funny every time though even if it's not true.

You're just flat wrong. Here's a forum posting on level 1 mobs resisting things that's actually from 1999. For the record, people used moss snakes vs ice comet because people framed the context as "weakest mob resisting strongest spell"

Dorian Brytestar
12/15/99


hehe that is quite a difference =)
I have had rats resist root as well as orc pawns sometimes..This was not long ago
either!
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 40 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar

: My mistake, it was a pic text box, showing a Decaying Skeleton resisting the


: level 39 root being cast by a level 42 Wizard. It's on the Graffe's Wizard
: Compilation page, at
: http://www.graffe.com/
:
: Sorry for the mixup. I honestly thought it was Ice Comet when I looked at the
: page before.
:
: Marc Fuller

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.games.everquest/ice$20comet$20resist%7Csort:date/alt.games.everquest/TJZvN8T5qio/AFuaJ5fAploJ

[tanknspank]

There's two separate issues here. One is the rate of root breaking (on tick, from damage, whatever). That did need some nerf. Is it like classic now? I can't speak to that as I haven't root-rotted much.

The second issue is the calculation of resists in general. I'm not sure if that needed a boost, but the boost it received it's more severe than it was on live.

[Pringles]

IDK, but it sure seems odd a tash'd level 1 mob could possibly resist a level 58's root, but that happened to me yesterday.

[fastboy21]

There's two separate issues here. One is the rate of root breaking (on tick, from damage, whatever). That did need some nerf. Is it like classic now? I can't speak to that as I haven't root-rotted much.

The second issue is the calculation of resists in general. I'm not sure if that needed a boost, but the boost it received it's more severe than it was on live.

i've said before that i think the new formula needs some tweaking, especially in the area of players being able to resist green mobs casting on them.

however, i think casters here have been spoiled for way too long. i had never gotten a resist on a charm spell (on my bard, chanter, or necro) unless the mob was out of level range of spell until the last patch...i don't mean it was rare, i mean it never happened. casters here have reaped the benefits on non-classic resists in their favor for YEARS. so, while i think tweaking is needed its hard for me to feel too badly right now after personally taking advantage of this for so long. i'm more than due a few resists---even resist deaths.

as for the hard-wired 5% thing, i'm not sure if its correct. i will say though, that I played a wizard in live during classic as my main. i can recall getting green mob resists---even on lvl 1 mobs when i was casting at max level. like many folks, the first thing i did after getting ice comet was gate to gfay and blow random junk up...and i did get a resist or two while playing around that day. i don't know if it was a hard-wired 1%, 5%, or .01% chance...but it did happen. graffe's (the classic wizard forum) had threads regarding resists. i doubt it was a hard wired 5% chance to fail because something like that would have been extremely easy to parse out...and i don't recall seeing any reliable posts about it. nonetheless, i think the pnp role playing game analogy holds true---and was built into EQ---there should always be a chance of success or failure on any die role, regardless of level or other formula. i just don't think it was exactly 5%, and my intuition is that at the extremes of the curve (max lvl char vs lvl 1 mob) it was considerably less.

has anyone here actually tested out the 5% hypothesis on p99 since the last patch? it would be very easy to confirm or refute.

in any case, in the long run, i think this patch is good. it moves the game-play forward in the right direction (more like it was in classic) despite needing some tweaking. like other major patches (sit aggro, removing spell lists, etc.) players will eventually see its merits. by the way casters...keep enjoying other non-classic benefits like ducking out of spells, no spell book, etc...casters in classic EQ are so over powered compared to straight melee. charm and root breaks? dd resists? its part of the reason why some folks preferred to play the less explosive but more consistently reliable melee classes during classic era.

[August]

IDK, but it sure seems odd a tash'd level 1 mob could possibly resist a level 58's root, but that happened to me yesterday.

I think there's definitely a 'base chance' to resist that all mobs qualify for, just like in DnD.

The real question is what percentage it's set to.

[brecon]

There have been a series of recent changes that have really changed game dynamics.

Think about giants. They are now (1) unstunnable and unmezzable, (2) constantly resist or break high level roots, and (3) constantly resist enchanter and bard charm (i had a DB giant resist 6 charms in a row yesterday, prior to patch resists and charm breaks on 18 second charm were occasional but infrequent). CC is next to impossible now on these mobs.

I can't say whether this is classic or not, but it's certainly detrimental to the style of gameplay that has been on this server. Enchanters were prized before because they are the best CC, but in a pinch, you could root CC, Necs and Bards could ghetto CC, and you could charm CC giants. Now, none of these are consistent.

[tanknspank]

i had never gotten a resist on a charm spell (on my bard, chanter, or necro) unless the mob was out of level range of spell until the last patch...i don't mean it was rare, i mean it never happened.
I've had resists on appropriate level charm before the patch (Charm Animal vs teen-level blues/lt blues) but fewer than I would have expected in classic. So that did need some boost. It feels however the resist boost was too much across the board. Whereas I think the nerf to charm/root/etc should have been less so on resist and more on the chance to break.

One reason I didn't use charm too much in classic was not the initial resistance, but how short/unreliable its duration was. Here, before the patch, the initial resistance was low, but particularly the duration was almost always very long. Once you had it, it was very reliable to keep that for a good duration, unlike the 1-2-3 tick charms you often had in classic.

casters here have reaped the benefits on non-classic resists in their favor for YEARS. so, while i think tweaking is needed its hard for me to feel too badly right now after personally taking advantage of this for so long. i'm more than due a few resists---even resist deaths.
I can understand the sentiment, but at the same time the benefits reaped by a 60 enchanter who could farm to their heart's content aren't something the new, untwinked 30 shaman trying to root-rot should pay for.

as for the hard-wired 5% thing, i'm not sure if its correct.
I agree with you. I (hazily) seem to remember getting resists on ridiculously green mobs, but I feel they were lower than 5%. Likewise, the odd super-greenie managed to land spells on my 50/60, but that was extremely rare. Fire/ice/poison/disease seemed to land a lot more than magic as well in these situations (probably because of partial not binary resist?).

has anyone here actually tested out the 5% hypothesis on p99 since the last patch?
I'm going to start gathering some data. If anyone wants to help out or donate clarity, it'd be much appreciated.

in any case, in the long run, i think this patch is good. it moves the game-play forward in the right direction (more like it was in classic) despite needing some tweaking.

like other major patches (sit aggro, removing spell lists, etc.) players will eventually see its merits.
I agree it's a good change. Root and charm were far too easy/safe. But I think it's not yet time to call work on resist rates/system done.

charm and root breaks? dd resists? its part of the reason why some folks preferred to play the less explosive but more consistently reliable melee classes during classic era.
I remember classic being filled with a lot of casters too. Bards and enchanters were far less common however. Wizards were a lot more common however (I guess people didn't understand the efficiency calculations as much vs rogue). And there were a lot of rangers.

[Decad]

Paralyzing Earth, Fetter all have a chance to break randomly with a very random duration on live. Unlike the long lasting duration here

Root was a last line of option for many caster classes, usually to park mobs and thus buying them slightly more random time to allow an enchanter to mez, or players to run for the zone, casters to cast gate etc.

On live enchanters are always in demand for the CC...via mesmerization line of spells. Not via roots.

Using roots as CC would only mean any other root class is a CC class. Not the traditional enchanter mesmerization line. And there are several enchanters here who are exactly doing that, using root and not mez line of spells.

[tanknspank]

So far, 106 casts of Snare (27 DRU) vs lvl 1 WFP mobs, 2 resists. This puts it at 1.88679% ± 0.23641%. Will continue after I score a new clarity.

[brecon]

Assuming a normal distribution, how gauche.

[tanknspank]

Assuming a binomial distribution, which is a fair assumption as neither myself nor the mob changed from cast to cast.

[Daldaen]

So far, 106 casts of Snare (27 DRU) vs lvl 1 WFP mobs, 2 resists. This puts it at 1.88679% ± 0.23641%. Will continue after I score a new clarity.

Requesting permission to AutoFire spam some ES Gauntlet Snares overnight against a level 1 mob for resist test purposes. Please don't ban me!

[koros]

Assuming a binomial distribution, which is a fair assumption as neither myself nor the mob changed from cast to cast.

+1