Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[loramin]

I think this is the key. P99 has left a lot of things in that were changed later that most people agreed were for the better, like the unjustified hybrid XP penalty. Yes, they have done some things that weren't quite classic for a variety of reasons, but for the most part keeping it classic has been their guide.

The XP changes were 100% classic. The original EQ devs removed them at a certain point in the timeline, so the P99 devs did at the equivalent point for Blue (and will do so on Green/Teal when appropriate).

But otherwise, you're absolutely correct, this place is all about classic, and a single wiki page mostly sums up everything that isn't: http://wiki.project1999.com/Non-Classic_Compendium.

To be clear, my argument is not "Enchanters are powerful because of classic mechanics, let's make them less powerful to make the environment feel more classic".

My argument is ...

We're all in favor of more classic (ie. as it was in 1999-2001) mechanics ... but emulating something from 20 years ago is hard. Nilbog's a fucking god at it, but even he's not perfect, because it's really hard.

Bard AoEing mechanics were a perfect example. Just like in that case, we have no proof that anything is wrong, and an argument could be made that this is "just a player knowledge difference."

But just as in that case, I think if you rigorously challenge it, it falls apart, and that in turn suggests that a mechanic ... just 1 out of the 10 trillion Nilbog has gotten right ... is wrong.

[bubur]

god who cares

just remove it then

[bwe]

Tecmos was big brained and could charm solo on live unlike the other idiots in 1999

[loramin]

Not to me.

But I can't really answer what it smells like with a blank slate because I mained a chanter on live who spent most of his time charm soloing to level, and when in groups also charmed (but at a reduced clip during classic era compared to luclin and pop). Lol.

EDIT: Crap, ignore what I wrote, I originally misread your post. I want to hear more about your soloing 1-50 on live with an Enchanter. In your opinion, why wasn't every other Enchanter back then doing the same, talking about it on the Enchanter boards, etc.?

[Tecmos Deception]

Tecmos was big brained and could charm solo on live unlike the other idiots in 1999

I'm actually kinda getting excited about deleveling Noman to 50 and stripping some gear to match likely good gear at 50 classic era, making my UI less useful, banking all my clickies and stuff, and trying to solo some classic cash camps while occasionally doing stupid shit like nuking or casting cripple.

Noman is heading to WFP to delevel right now, heh.

[d-tron]

EDIT: Crap, ignore what I wrote, I originally misread your post. I want to hear more about your soloing 1-50 on live with an Enchanter. In your opinion, why wasn't every other Enchanter back then doing the same, talking about it on the Enchanter boards, etc.?

Uhh dude they were talking about it on enchanter boards, see my link on previous page.

[Tecmos Deception]

EDIT: Crap, ignore what I wrote, I originally misread your post. I want to hear more about your soloing 1-50 on live with an Enchanter. In your opinion, why wasn't every other Enchanter back then doing the same, talking about it on the Enchanter boards, etc.?

This kinda seems like a loaded question, and I'm not sure how to answer it well without writing a book. I'm respectfully not going to try, and instead am working on deleveling Noman to 50... lol.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Chanter-players ITT claiming that P99 Bard swarming was rightfully nerfed, while simultaneously defending their own Class (for OBVIOUS reasons)

Niiiiiiiicccccceeeee!!!!!

[Ligma]

I don't think anyone even said that

[kjs86z]

lol this thread is still going strong

[fadetree]

Loramin, you are totally wrong in every respect. Discuss. Your response will be judged by word count, the more the better.

[Bazia]

ENC is the best pet class, the best INT class, the best group dps class, best solo class, best utility class

just sayin

[kjs86z]

ENC is the best pet class, the best INT class, the best group dps class, best solo class, best utility class

just sayin

they hate us cuz they aint us

[Dolalin]

Just to sort of add something semi-relevant to the thread, I found a post from Absor stating that pets do steal xp from a group if they outdamage the group. Crucially this is before the Dire Charm xp changes in PoP.

It's in the group pet xp bug thread now.

[Nirgon]

Just to sort of add something semi-relevant to the thread, I found a post from Absor stating that pets do steal xp from a group if they outdamage the group. Crucially this is before the Dire Charm xp changes in PoP.

It's in the group pet xp bug thread now.

ah and there we have it

https://i.imgur.com/Qp1tGzW.gif

[cd288]

I don't think anyone even said that

Lol for real

[Tecmos Deception]

I can just smell the pursuit of classic up in this thread. It smells amazing.

Noman is down to 56 but I got DCed on a death and now I am having trouble getting back in too. QQ.

[kul69]

Just to sort of add something semi-relevant to the thread, I found a post from Absor stating that pets do steal xp from a group if they outdamage the group. Crucially this is before the Dire Charm xp changes in PoP.

It's in the group pet xp bug thread now.

Sweet

[Vormotus]

TLDR from behemoth thread:

Enchanters Right now on P99

https://i.imgur.com/U1TqX4y.gif

Everybody else on the thread :

https://i.imgur.com/AXd6TfX.gif

This is actually quite entertaining to be honest, let us hope it reaches 60+ pages

[Teppler]

Welcome to classic Everquest people. 2019 version is likely the culmination of no lag and information.

Blue wasn’t like this either because we still didn’t have all the if information still.

The next progression server will be different too. It will probably have even more enchanters because people are adjusting to the meta.

Information matters.

[Teppler]

For people who want a true classic experience you’re going to need a server on an extremely shaky server and 20 year old computer that takes minutes to zone.

[Rooj]

Here's a cool thread from June 2001 on caster's realm about enchanters discussing charm tactics:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010630090908/http://forums.castersrealm.com/cgi-bin/eq/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=004889

Dabbling in this thread got me thinking about some things.

I've noticed a lot of these old threads that talk about charming don't often bring up the exact mob that they are charming. It's usually just what the mob conned to them. However it seems that mobs did in fact have their own numerical resist values just like players. So,

1. It's obviously impossible for us to determine numerical Resists for any mob, other than ones we know were 100% MR. Reading through some old threads you get some pretty opposite spectrum responses, with some people claiming how easy it was to charm and others saying charms were spam breaking. So I think it's possible that people who weren't successful were trying to charm higher MR mobs, and those who were successful were maybe charming low MR mobs.

2. What ARE resists set to on P99? Sadly we'll likely never know.

3. Don't caster mobs cast Resist Magic on themselves and nearby mobs?

4. Does Tash/Malo overwrite Resist Magic?

5. What effect could having negative resists have on the formulas? (for example, in an early patch note they fixed a bug where negative resists were showing up as 255)

[Teppler]

I can’t remember any mob ever casting MR on themselves and I don’t believe malo/Tash overwrites.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

I can’t remember any mob ever casting MR on themselves and I don’t believe malo/Tash overwrites.

I think he's inferring that different mobs have different BASE MR values (not referring to buffs)

EDIT: Well my point stands. DO different mobs have different innate magic resistance values?

[Teppler]

I think he's inferring that different mobs have different BASE MR values (not referring to buffs)

3. Don't caster mobs cast Resist Magic on themselves and nearby mobs?

[Prova]

Of all the things that emulators did well, resists I feel like resists and mob AC were a huge guess. The HP values were largely known, but AC seems to almost entirely be a function of level and resist for most things is base zero. It feels like the scale with level and the chance to break on duration are totally finger in the air. This isn't exactly a knock, I don't know that the information is out there to get this stuff right. But assuming that the way it is right now is classic just because we don't have enough detail to change it seems a bit naive.

[Tecmos Deception]

Welcome to classic Everquest people. 2019 version is likely the culmination of no lag and information.

Blue wasn’t like this either because we still didn’t have all the if information still.

The next progression server will be different too. It will probably have even more enchanters because people are adjusting to the meta.

Information matters.

Blue also had a lot of not classic features at the point green is at that have since been corrected. And a few classic features that have since been altered.

Like... I charmed solod lord and AM and stuff in lguk on a necro on blue during classic. But it was largely a matter of "buff the shit out of an undead, send it in, throw a couple dots, then FD around a corner since FD doesn't break charms." You could LOS NPC spellcasts so they wouldn't go off. Invis pulling. And lots more.

[Buellen]

Regarding monsters/npc

I remember in live (dont rem exact timeline) the devs told use all the monsters in everquest where different(Orig game only )having different stat lines etc etc. Sometines same type of mobs would have wildly different stats etc.

There was a patch where they straightened all this out. If a mob was a warrior type it would have warrior stats. If it was a wizard it would have wizard stats. and so on.

I even asked this about p1999 monsters /npc where they like live during the time they had varying stat lines or where they like they are on live post patch where they standardized them. They told me p1999 monsters/npc where created by them which would make sense since they prob did not all the data from live.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Regarding monsters/npc

I remember in live (dont rem exact timeline) the devs told use all the monsters in everquest where different(Orig game only )having different stat lines etc etc. Sometines same type of mobs would have wildly different stats etc.

There was a patch where they straightened all this out. If a mob was a warrior type it would have warrior stats. If it was a wizard it would have wizard stats. and so on.

I even asked this about p1999 monsters /npc where they like live during the time they had varying stat lines or where they like they are on live post patch where they standardized them. They told me p1999 monsters/npc where created by them which would make sense since they prob did not all the data from live.
Yes everything is customized here by the P99 devs. That is the very root of this discussion in fact. IE do mobs on P99 have too-low a base magic resistance that causes Charms to last too long etc.

[Buellen]

Ok

But there is no data for what the mobs where like before they where standardized right?

SOOO just because people feeeel that charm is off or it lasting to long then they should change it right ?

maybe people should just accept that its never going to be perfect towhatever your interpretation of that is.

by all means if DEVS feel the side that wants it nerfed have shown enough HEART in there 50 plus page discussion to go ahead and nerf it then i will of course play by there dicision. for now ill cont to play teal charming 2mobs close to each other and doing the chanter thin you guys hate so much BAH

[Rooj]

No one hates Enchanters.

No one hates Enchanters charming.

No one is saying remove charm from the game.

What people are saying is that it's more than just overpowered, that it has a massive impact on the game, grouping, raiding, and the economy/looting by leaps and bounds further than pretty much anything else in the game. And when I say massive, I am talking about 1 Enchanter equating to several+ members' DPS in a group.

Charming is a neat gameplay feature that you don't see too much of in modern MMOs, and I think every player appreciates the playstyle being a part of Everquest. Not a single person here wants to see it removed, players just want to see its effect reduced to a state that feels in-line with Classic Everquest and Classic Feel, AKA the P99 Staff's vision.

Funny story, just read that apparently in Omens of War charm was changed so that mobs only did around 50% of their damage and couldn't be hasted, which is hilariously pretty much exactly what my suggestion for fixing it was going to be. Responses to the news basically amounted up to "too long overdue," which was too true. Looks like it didn't stop people from charming, of course! (because that's how stupidly broken it is)

[Tecmos Deception]

players just want to see its effect reduced to a state that feels in-line with Classic Everquest and Classic Feel, AKA the P99 Staff's vision.

Ah yes. How could I be so mistaken about all of this. When nilbog says he wants to make classic changes to recreate classic eq, what he obviously must have actually meant was he'll make unclassic changes to recreate a different game that feels kinda similar to what classic eq felt like to some people.

[jacob54311]

What people are saying is that it's more than just overpowered, that it has a massive impact on the game, grouping, raiding, and the economy/looting by leaps and bounds further than pretty much anything else in the game. And when I say massive, I am talking about 1 Enchanter equating to several+ members' DPS in a group.



Exactly. We aren't talking about Chanters just leading a group in DPS. They are out damaging entire groups, just about, in many situations. No one expects perfect class balance. That's not what people are talking about.

[cd288]

Exactly. We aren't talking about Chanters just leading a group in DPS. They are out damaging entire groups, just about, in many situations. No one expects perfect class balance. That's not what people are talking about.

Okay so what we’re hearing is you guys have now reverted to simply saying a class needs to be nerfed in a non classic manner because you have no evidence that charm isn’t otherwise accurate to what it was on live.

I think we can move this to resolved since we know they aren’t just gonna randomly nerf a class because you’re whining

[jacob54311]

Okay so what we’re hearing is you guys have now reverted to simply saying a class needs to be nerfed in a non classic manner because you have no evidence that charm isn’t otherwise accurate to what it was on live.

I think we can move this to resolved since we know they aren’t just gonna randomly nerf a class because you’re whining

I'd say we need to look very closely at the evidence. This is having a big effect on how the game is being played.

[Tecmos Deception]

I'd say we need to look very closely at the evidence. This is having a big effect on how the game is being played.

I'm sure the staff did look closely at evidence when they created charm and probably more than once in the years since. It's not like people haven't had YEARS to bring this matter up and figure it out already, right? This isn't the first time people got annoyed at charm being stupidly powerful.

Plus the most recent evidence posted in this thread, which is also the only data that I recall seeing in here, supports that p99 charm durations are probably about right.

The issue is that the people who want charm nerfed want charm nerfed regardless of whether it was actually this powerful in classic. They aren't interested in sticking to the classic mechanic, despite that being the repeatedly-stated goal of the staff and p1999, unless the classic mechanic is coincidentally the way they want it to be. So they just keep arguing in circles, trying to get what they want by being loud instead of being correct.

[kul69]

The issue is that the people who want charm nerfed want charm nerfed regardless of whether it was actually this powerful in classic. They aren't interested in sticking to the classic mechanic, despite that being the repeatedly-stated goal of the staff and p1999, unless the classic mechanic is coincidentally the way they want it to be. So they just keep arguing in circles, trying to get what they want by being loud instead of being correct.

It's already clear it isn't classic. I've brought up channeling many times already. That is also clearly broken and undeniably unclassic and it directly relates to Charm being overpowered here and unclassic.

Regardless of that, I want consistency. Either we recreate classic or we modify it to balance the game. The game is already being balanced by the devs. I didn't advocate for nerfing Necro pets or not letting Rogues steal items from player corpses or all the rest of the classic stuff that isn't included here. If that is the path the devs have already chosen then Enchanter clearly needs to be on the list for an adjustment.

People try to say oh then we should nerf ports or whatever stupid analogy they're right to make. No, Enchanter is clearly impacting the game way too much and in a negative way. The player counts support it. Everyone's experience playing support it. It's obvious. Enchanter has become the top meta on P99 and no it was never like this in classic. You just said "charm durations" being the same mean this isn't an issue. The problem with charm goes way beyond duration. You're trying to isolate the discussion to a single aspect of charm.

Fixing experience so groups lose if pet out damages them is needed to balance Charm among other things like fixing channeling.

[Rooj]

Ah yes. How could I be so mistaken about all of this. When nilbog says he wants to make classic changes to recreate classic eq, what he obviously must have actually meant was he'll make unclassic changes to recreate a different game that feels kinda similar to what classic eq felt like to some people.

I'm pretty sure you're not new here.

Over the past 10 years the staff has said AND DONE unclassic changes to fix things to be more in line with Classic Feel over Classic Mechanics. Not sure what you're getting at here.

[cd288]

It's already clear it isn't classic. I've brought up channeling many times already. That is also clearly broken and undeniably unclassic and it directly relates to Charm being overpowered here and unclassic.

Regardless of that, I want consistency. Either we recreate classic or we modify it to balance the game. The game is already being balanced by the devs. I didn't advocate for nerfing Necro pets or not letting Rogues steal items from player corpses or all the rest of the classic stuff that isn't included here. If that is the path the devs have already chosen then Enchanter clearly needs to be on the list for an adjustment.

People try to say oh then we should nerf ports or whatever stupid analogy they're right to make. No, Enchanter is clearly impacting the game way too much and in a negative way. The player counts support it. Everyone's experience playing support it. It's obvious. Enchanter has become the top meta on P99 and no it was never like this in classic. You just said "charm durations" being the same mean this isn't an issue. The problem with charm goes way beyond duration. You're trying to isolate the discussion to a single aspect of charm.

Fixing experience so groups lose if pet out damages them is needed to balance Charm among other things like fixing channeling.

“Something something stuff that’s not gonna happen”

Thanks for your contribution. I think we’ve beat a dead horse multiple times here and no need to do so further

[jacob54311]

Plus the most recent evidence posted in this thread, which is also the only data that I recall seeing in here, supports that p99 charm durations are probably about right.



I've seen anecdotal evidence from both sides in the thread. I'm not seeing this clear cut evidence that favors the pro status quo crowd. No one seems to have access to formulas or anything like hard data from the old days.

What the status quo crowd do have in their favor is that the P99 team has decided that this is how it should be for the time being at least. It's up to the players who want a change to make a convincing case for that change and conflicting stories from old forums doesn't cut it, I give you that.

However, if there's some gray area in the P99 team's data when it comes to charm, and they were just working with best guesses, then I think a decent case could be made that chanters could be toned down just a little bit, based on what's going on in game. That's assuming that they didn't have any hard numbers either and were just doing their best based on memories of how the game was played back then.

I have no idea if that gray area exists. They don't really get into details about the more technical stuff that goes on under the surface, WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. If they went into depth with their thinking behind every decision they made, it'd just stir up more debate. They do this for fun, so not wanting to get into that kind of thing with the player base makes sense.

Ultimately, it's up to them, obviously. If they keep everything the same, I'll continue to play and just shake my head and sigh when I see a chanter out damaging a full group. Just like I did during the POP era. :)

[Rooj]

Okay so what we’re hearing is you guys have now reverted to simply saying a class needs to be nerfed in a non classic manner because you have no evidence that charm isn’t otherwise accurate to what it was on live.

I think we can move this to resolved since we know they aren’t just gonna randomly nerf a class because you’re whining

For me, this was never about evidence and things working or not working like they did back then and honestly I don't think it was for many others here either. I think the inaccuracy arguments mostly came from the fact that Live era charm use wasn't as widespread as it is on P99, so people assume something is wrong, and that's the logical first guess, that spells or stats or resists and the charm formula aren't functioning properly. I've stated before I personally don't think it's all THAT far off. (though I do personally believe that all or most mobs on P99 are sharing some sort of static Magic Resist value, and that makes it so charming is much more accessible than it was on Live because the mobs that are supposed to be more resistant, aren't)

For me, and surely others, this is about mathematics and Classic Feel. It's not about a class being overpowered or being able to solo, it's about to what EXTENT that overpoweredness is, and the impact that it has on the game and its community.

If discovering more accurate formulas and impact of stats and all the other variables is part of making charm have Classic Feel, then so be it.

If a flat out nerf to charmed mob damage is part of making charm have Classic Feel, then so be it.

Charm is no different from any other mechanic in the game, if it is causing TOO much of an issue, like all of the other issues that the staff have implemented unclassic changes for, then you're not going to convince me that the staff won't consider changes.

[cd288]

For me, this was never about evidence and things working or not working like they did back then and honestly I don't think it was for many others here either. I think the inaccuracy arguments mostly came from the fact that Live era charm use wasn't as widespread as it is on P99, so people assume something is wrong, and that's the logical first guess, that spells or stats or resists and the charm formula aren't functioning properly. I've stated before I personally don't think it's all THAT far off. (though I do personally believe that all or most mobs on P99 are sharing some sort of static Magic Resist value, and that makes it so charming is much more accessible than it was on Live because the mobs that are supposed to be more resistant, aren't)

For me, and surely others, this is about mathematics and Classic Feel. It's not about a class being overpowered or being able to solo, it's about to what EXTENT that overpoweredness is, and the impact that it has on the game and its community.

If discovering more accurate formulas and impact of stats and all the other variables is part of making charm have Classic Feel, then so be it.

If a flat out nerf to charmed mob damage is part of making charm have Classic Feel, then so be it.

Charm is no different from any other mechanic in the game, if it is causing TOO much of an issue, like all of the other issues that the staff have implemented unclassic changes for, then you're not going to convince me that the staff won't consider changes.

K.

55+ pages of this rambling nonsensical stuff. I think you’ve said your piece and maybe the staff will take the time to read through all of this and then throw it in the trash. But they probably won’t even read it.

I think we should end this thread now

[bwe]

cd288 mad that people are trying to take away his toys

[Tecmos Deception]

Charm is no different from any other mechanic in the game, if it is causing TOO much of an issue, like all of the other issues that the staff have implemented unclassic changes for, then you're not going to convince me that the staff won't consider changes.

What other unclassic class balance changes have they done? I'm honestly drawing a blank.

[Rooj]

K.

55+ pages of this rambling nonsensical stuff. I think you’ve said your piece and maybe the staff will take the time to read through all of this and then throw it in the trash. But they probably won’t even read it.

I think we should end this thread now

And you've said yours, but that isn't stopping you either is it?

I don't really get why you keep responding to it if you dislike it so much and think it's such a waste of time. I would feel differently if you were actually contributing, like some of the others on the opposing side of the discussion. Instead you just keep talking about how pointless the thread is but keep bumping it, lol. Thanks, I guess?

[Rooj]

What other unclassic class balance changes have they done? I'm honestly drawing a blank.

I'm talking about any change, not just class balance, not sure why it being about class balance makes a difference. An unclassic change is an unclassic change.

Adding level requirement for Epic quests.
Seafury drops change.
Ivandyr's Hoop change.
Life Tap vs. raid mobs change.
Limiting the number of mobs an AOE can hit.
Having OP Whirl Till You Hurl on Blue but not Green.

I know there are other things. I'm sure you can think of some too!

[Tecmos Deception]

I'm talking about any change, not just class balance, not sure why it being about class balance makes a difference. An unclassic change is an unclassic change.

Adding level requirement for Epic quests.
Seafury drops change.
Ivandyr's Hoop change.
Life Tap vs. raid mobs change.
Limiting the number of mobs an AOE can hit.
Having OP Whirl Till You Hurl on Blue but not Green.

I know there are other things. I'm sure you can think of some too!

If it's not different, then why do you suppose they've made all these unclassic changes but never done anything about the ENORMOUS class imbalances present in classic EQ? :)

[vossiewulf]

Yeah so if Enchanters are a super-effective solo class, something is wrong. In the first months of live chanters were a rare sight because they were the most useless of all casters, pet was useless, nukes were nearly useless. Once chanters had Clarity and people were higher levels requiring good CC chanters started to become more popular as group members.

But early on, the characters least likely to be seen were rogues, bards, and chanters.

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to change anything based on anecdotes but I do think that if chanters on Green/Teal are running rampant in the way I'm seeing described, then some more research is suggested to figure out where the delta is.

Is there no data anywhere on the popularity of character types at various points? If found that would always provide a solid reality check on how close to classic you are.

[Rooj]

If it's not different, then why do you suppose they've made all these unclassic changes but never done anything about the ENORMOUS class imbalances present in classic EQ?
Maybe the same reason Verant didn't? Because most players weren't playing a certain way back then, so they didn't need to?

Don't you think that many of the normal things that go on on P99 would've been changed by Verant if they'd been normal during era? I LOVE reading through old MMO patch notes and dialogue from developers, and time after time again Verant talked about balance. Whether or not they were good at it is another discussion, but it's pretty clear that they WANTED and STROVE to achieve class balance. And in my opinion, for the most part they did a decent job. In every single patch they ever did there was SOME sort of balance change whether it was a spell, an item, a mob, or a mechanic.

But I can't think of any class imbalance that compares to Charm. Other than that, I don't think that the classes are "ENORMOUSLY" imbalanced. I think that with or without Charm, Enchanter is the strongest and most effective class in the game, but I also think that all of the things it can do including charm are a part of its identity. Enchanters should 100% be charming. But they shouldn't be doing the amount of damage they are doing, on top of all the utility that they provide.

Is there imbalance? Well, duh. This ain't a homogenized modern MMO. I truly believe that having unique classes directly produces imbalance, yet I'd still much rather have unique classes than homogenized ones. I don't really care about imbalance that much, except for in extreme cases like this.

So why did Charm make it so long like this on live? If I had to guess, it's because parsing wasn't really a thing yet even for developers. Might also have to do with the fact that making an MMO is hard as fuck because you are literally creating another world, practically with its own laws of nature. Either way, it only took 4 years for them to finally start nerfing charm, and look at all the things they did to it:
-Charmer gets 50% of the agro of the pet. (I don't see this in official patch notes, only on forums about the test server. it may not have gone through, but players were saying that if they were also the slower, they'd have to delay sending in their pet or they'd get agro)
-Healing a charmed pet now generates an appropriate amount of hate for
the healer.
-Charmed pets now take up to one third of the experience for each NPC
killed. This amount scales down based on the percentage of damage to
the target that the pet does. Dire charm pets still take the same
experience they always have.
-Charmed pets are no longer selected as a monster's preferred target
if there are many players available for the monster to attack instead.
-The resist modifiers on several charm spells (such as Beckon, Call of the Arch Mage, Command of Druzil and Word of Terris) have been removed, making them a bit easier
to resist.
-Changed Charm spells so that NPCs spell use will now be interrupted once the charm has expired. (I believe the point of this was that people were waiting for pets to start casting a spell before attempting to recharming them, removing any chance of being hit before recharming)
-Curious what this means: -The Hole now uses Kunark-level Mez/Charm/Taunt rules
-Most importantly (I can't find this in any patch notes but the QQ is definitely visible on the internets), charmed pet damage was reduced by around 50%.
"They also nerfed charmed pet damage. If you fully buffed a charmed pet, he still did much less damage than he would have uncharmed and unbuffed. Of course, the second he broke charm, he did his full damage to you. I fully admit, enchanters were too damned powerful before. An enchanter who was good at crowd control could turn certain wipes into easy exp as the mobs lined up waiting to be killed. When PoP was first released, a good charming enchanter could solo mobs that normally took a raid to kill. The only way to get through some Gates of Discord content was to build a party around a charming enchanter (the expansion was balanced for level 70, but the level cap stayed at 65, so a warrior couldn't tank the incoming damage. An enchanter would charm a pet, the pet would tank, and the rest of the party was there mainly to keep the enchanter alive on charm breaks)."

Those are the changes to charm within the first 5 years of Everquest, but after Luclin launch of course. Look at how DRASTIC they are. Wonder why...

[bubur]

It's because charm was op in classic

[derpcake2]

Those are the changes to charm within the first 5 years of Everquest, but after Luclin launch of course. Look at how DRASTIC they are. Wonder why...

They implemented dire charm.

It was an endless duration charm that worked on mobs up to lvl 46, at 59.

They obviously didn't see charm as an issue, or that would never have made it ingame.

Can you imagine how strong a 59 char with a 46 pet is in sebilis, given that the pet will never break? Right.

ps. it also has a -1000 mr resist check.

[derpcake2]

-Changed Charm spells so that NPCs spell use will now be interrupted once the charm has expired. (I believe the point of this was that people were waiting for pets to start casting a spell before attempting to recharming them, removing any chance of being hit before recharming)

No, this was changed to stop people from starting faction wars.

Faction wars work like this: you charm a caster on faction A, and spam /pet attack and pet off on a mob on faction B, until your pet starts casting a detrimental spell.

You break charm while your pet is casting, this will make the cast land after the pet is no longer charmed, as a result the mobs would engage in combat.

Mobs from either faction could be trained into the fighting mobs, assisting their own faction.

Doing 1 damage to a mob before it died would give you xp from it.

This resulted in bards and enchanters clearing entire zones. PoTactics was very popular, but it also worked very well in one of the luclin towns.

This is classic, lets ask for it.

[Ligma]

Changed Charm spells so that NPCs spell use will now be interrupted once the charm has expired. (I believe the point of this was that people were waiting for pets to start casting a spell before attempting to recharming them, removing any chance of being hit before recharming)

This was because you could make a charm pet start casting on a mob, then break charm and it would agro the mob. Which caused a NPC battle that was abused by pulling mobs of opposite faction into it. As long as you did 1 damage on a 55+ mob you would get full exp.

Those are the changes to charm within the first 5 years of Everquest, but after Luclin launch of course. Look at how DRASTIC they are. Wonder why...

Tbf the whole thing was exasperated by Sony. They put snareable, non summoning, charmable mobs in almost every PoP zone, many that did upwards of 1k dps. Then they release GoD where progression is dependent on a stacked group charming 2k dps mobs carrying through 1 or 2 mortals at a time.

[Rooj]

They implemented dire charm.

It was an endless duration charm that worked on mobs up to lvl 46, at 59.

They obviously didn't see charm as an issue, or that would never have made it ingame.

Can you imagine how strong a 59 char with a 46 pet is in sebilis, given that the pet will never break? Right.

ps. it also has a -1000 mr resist check.

Dire Charm also:
-Has a 72 minute recast timer! Something goes wrong, your game crashes, you get kicked offline, your pet dies, you get trained... RIP.
-Wasn't infinite duration at release, but did last a few hours then I believe
-Was dispellable. Ouch, a 72 minute recast being dispellable, lol.
-Wasn't anywhere near as good as regular Charm.
-Doesn't seem like people even used it anymore after Luclin, because of the above. Regular Charm was just way too much better.

But you're right, they didn't see that Charm was an issue, which is exactly what the problem was. Seems like when parsing started to get big in the MMO community all of a sudden charmed pet DPS gets cut in half and they start taking up to 33% of the EXP LOL

[Jimjam]

We know mob atk and ac values were ball parked as there were no live sources.

Yes there are complaints about too many enchanters, but people also complain about their AC not working as well as they remember.

Nerfing mob attack will make melee more desirable as tanks AND reduce the effectiveness of charm. We know mob attack values are best guess and not exact classic.

This would be my first avenue of attack if i felt melee and enchanter charm weren't working classically.

[Dolalin]

My first avenue of attack would be to look for evidence of increased mob resistances at higher (35+) levels, because it exists.


Level 35 or above wizards will find that their spells (Magic, Cold, or Fire) much less likely to be resisted. This effect stacks with the Staff of Temperate Flux and enchanter, shaman, and magician resistance debuffs.

This change was made to increase the effectiveness of wizards at about the level that all spell-casting classes start seeing their resistance rates go up.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Patch_Notes#Wizard_Enhancement


There is player evidence of this too in-era, lots of chanter complaints about resists.


Verant, we are broken. We are resisted on EVERYTHING we do .. way too often. How can you crowd control when you get resisted? Not once, not twice but sometimes through the whole fight. THen the only good you are is a target the monster(s) are trying to hit (thereby ignoring everyone else pounding on it/them).

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417200925/http://eq.castersrealm.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000223-11.html



(2) charm line of spells (3 spells) - Resists are so high and duration so unpredictably short that the entire charm line of spells is now a suicide spell to cast on anything blue or above. NOTE: this line of spells is rendered useless in the planes as even with tashania you cannot cast these unresisted on anything and even if you could the duration would be so short that there would be no practical use.

(7) Mezz and Stun series (3 Stun, 3 mezz) - ALL USELESS in the planes! All become very highly resisted at level 44. I have cast 5 unsuccessful stuns in a row against blue mobs and I am level 44 and have a charisma of 203.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417200925/http://eq.castersrealm.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000223-11.html



I'd also like to see our mez spells actually take hold after we tashan the stupid things. What is the point in lowering their magic resistence when all your spells just bounce off? And they are bouncing off of blues and greens! NOT YELLOWS OR REDS! Does that make sense?? I really don't think so.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417200223/http://eq.castersrealm.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000223-10.html



The biggest problem with Enchanters is our role is VERY limited in a group. We debuff and do crowd control .. or we try too. Verant continously upgrades the magic resitance on EVERYTHING without THINKING of how it will effect US. Now we're stuck with a spell book full of spells that are resisted constantly by /blues.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417230726/http://eq.castersrealm.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000223-9.html



I love Enchanters, they are a really cool class. But as Verant are riding their perpetual nerf-a-coaster, this time they have left us behind. Steadily but surely, they are either A: Decreasing our power to give other classes more or B: Just introducing more high level monsters on the Planes and forgetting that all of our spells get resisted by them.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010417230726/http://eq.castersrealm.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000223-9.html


There's the usual bitching and exaggeration factor to take into account but I do think resistances could use a bump at the higher end.

I think chanter charm power is the result of lots of little things adding up to a big thing.

[jacob54311]

There is player evidence of this too in-era, lots of chanter complaints about resists.




That's not strong enough to make changes, I'm guessing.

Either the P99 team has pretty strong numerical evidence that chanters really were like this back in the day or they just dig on chanters and are choosing to go with the higher end when it comes to estimating what they could do.

After giving it some thought, I think we're just going to have to accept the situation.

I can do that. Playing my ranger back in the days of POP, chanters were pretty uber too. I still had fun. And I'll have fun on my druid here on P99.

[Dolalin]

As always, it's really tough to get hard numbers on anything like this. Even ShowEQ didn't show raw mob resistances.

[cd288]

And you've said yours, but that isn't stopping you either is it?

I don't really get why you keep responding to it if you dislike it so much and think it's such a waste of time. I would feel differently if you were actually contributing, like some of the others on the opposing side of the discussion. Instead you just keep talking about how pointless the thread is but keep bumping it, lol. Thanks, I guess?

I did contribute previously, but realized it was a fruitless exercise when people like you just continue to whine about the same thing no matter what.

You literally came to play on a server that is designed to reflect classic mechanics as much as possible and are writing paragraphs upon paragraphs about how a class needs to be un-classicly nerfed because you feel it was unbalanced in the classic era. I mean...lol...what? Why play on a classic server if you have such an apparently huge issue with how classes are vis a vis one another? If that's such a big problem for you, why not play on a server that goes later into the timeline, such as the Luclin or PoP emulated servers or the TLPs? You came here for classic apparently, which means you get classic.

Quick side note, if you nerf Enchanters such that they're not as great at soloing anymore, their spots will just be taken by Necros. Then you'll say "there are too many Necros soloing everything and holding down camps now! That's not classic atmosphere." Then you'll have them nerfed. Then those people will roll Shamans and you will have the same issue. Point being, the issue that you have, at the end of the day, isn't really with Enchanters, it's that you don't think that various camps being soloed by a given class is classic...and the types of players that are doing that will then just switch to the next best soloing class and continue to do it because that's how they like to play. You may be right that there weren't as many soloers in the classic era, but it's just a symptom of how far we've come in terms of the knowledge of the game...in order to change the amount of soloers holding down camps, you'd essentially need to nerf every class that's capable of soloing well or people will just switch to the next best one each time something is nerfed.

[cd288]

cd288 mad that people are trying to take away his toys

Lol I main a Rogue on Green dude. I have lowbie Mage and Wizard alts along with a low Enchanter who isn't even double digits yet because I'm not sure I enjoy the class.

Tecmos also isn't playing an Enchanter right now on Green per his statements. You don't have to have an agenda (i.e. be playing that class) to realize when something is just simply stupid.

[Cuktus]

You may be right that there weren't as many soloers in the classic era, but it's just a symptom of how far we've come in terms of the knowledge of the game...in order to change the amount of soloers holding down camps, you'd essentially need to nerf every class that's capable of soloing well or people will just switch to the next best one each time something is nerfed.

So this here, I would love to explore a bit deeper. While I am on Team Chanter and don't want to see anything nerfed, lets have a conversation (at 59 pages deep lol).

What is too strong? Is a 60 shaman with torpor soloing fungi's too strong? Is a 50 necro root/rotting frenzy too strong? Is quad kiting things too strong? Is being able to handle two standard outdoor spawns too strong? 4? 6? I am really interested in this. Where is the line drawn?

What about duo's? Should a duo be able to solo x, y, z? How do you quantify that?

[cd288]

So this here, I would love to explore a bit deeper. While I am on Team Chanter and don't want to see anything nerfed, lets have a conversation (at 59 pages deep lol).

What is too strong? Is a 60 shaman with torpor soloing fungi's too strong? Is a 50 necro root/rotting frenzy too strong? Is quad kiting things too strong? Is being able to handle two standard outdoor spawns too strong? 4? 6? I am really interested in this. Where is the line drawn?

What about duo's? Should a duo be able to solo x, y, z? How do you quantify that?

That's precisely the point. Thanks for articulating it so well. Where's the line? It's not really an Enchanter issue at the end of the day. Enchanters just happen to currently be one of the strongest solo classes with tons of utility so the people trying to solo camp everything play those. If you nerf them, they will just switch to the next best choice to accomplish their goals, which is likely Necro. The issue people really have is that everyone has had so many years playing EQ that soloing is no longer difficult or scary, and everyone knows the prime spots to go, so they go solo those. I totally agree that you would never have seen this many soloers back in the day, but that's not an Enchanter issue, that's a player issue. And if you want to get rid of it completely under the idea of "classic atmosphere" then you'll need to unclassicly nerf essentially every class that can solo effectively.

[douglas1999]

That's precisely the point. Thanks for articulating it so well. Where's the line? It's not really an Enchanter issue at the end of the day. Enchanters just happen to currently be one of the strongest solo classes with tons of utility so the people trying to solo camp everything play those. If you nerf them, they will just switch to the next best choice to accomplish their goals, which is likely Necro. The issue people really have is that everyone has had so many years playing EQ that soloing is no longer difficult or scary, and everyone knows the prime spots to go, so they go solo those. I totally agree that you would never have seen this many soloers back in the day, but that's not an Enchanter issue, that's a player issue. And if you want to get rid of it completely under the idea of "classic atmosphere" then you'll need to unclassicly nerf essentially every class that can solo effectively.

This is essentially the 'ol "Since we can't do everything, let's do nothing!" argument and it's very weak. Charm is absolutely absurd on this server and it totally wrecks the spirit of the game for a lot of people.

[derpcake2]

So this here, I would love to explore a bit deeper. While I am on Team Chanter and don't want to see anything nerfed, lets have a conversation (at 59 pages deep lol).

What is too strong? Is a 60 shaman with torpor soloing fungi's too strong? Is a 50 necro root/rotting frenzy too strong? Is quad kiting things too strong? Is being able to handle two standard outdoor spawns too strong? 4? 6? I am really interested in this. Where is the line drawn?

What about duo's? Should a duo be able to solo x, y, z? How do you quantify that?

The point is this is 2020, and people think their feels-based feedback matters.

Shit isn't classic.

The drivel in this thread would result in the posters getting locked out of future beta's, that is how SoE handled it.

[derpcake2]

This is essentially the 'ol "Since we can't do everything, let's do nothing!" argument and it's very weak. Charm is absolutely absurd on this server and it totally wrecks the spirit of the game for a lot of people.

If charm "wrecks the spirit of the game", you should quit. As far as I see all the servers are doing quite fine.

Blue didn't 'get wrecked' due to charm, green and teal are a blast, so what is actually getting wrecked besides your feels?

There is always going to be a top dog, and it won't be a participation-trophy player, so the flood of tears won't ever stop.

[douglas1999]

The way chanters are played here you might as well just abolish all classes, and just have one generic class called "Fantasy Character" that has every ability in the game.

[Cuktus]

This is essentially the 'ol "Since we can't do everything, let's do nothing!" argument and it's very weak. Charm is absolutely absurd on this server and it totally wrecks the spirit of the game for a lot of people.

I completely disagree with you. This is a game, the devs absolutely can do everything, if they decided to do that.
I also completely disagree with you about charm. While yes, it is a powerful tool, there are many other powerful tools granted to many other classes. Making the argument that "if X is nerfed, then Y should be too", is perfectly reasonable. And if that is the rabbit hole, the question remains, where is the bottom?
How many mobs should a person be able to kill per hour? Per minute? How many should a group? This is the foundation of the problem. How large of a camp should a single player be able to break and then hold? For a warrior in level appropriate gear, probably not very many. For a druid in an outdoor zone.... more? Where is your vision of the game? What do you think should, and shouldn't, be possible?
I know this requires a lot more thought than a simple "charm OP, plz nerf", but I think putting things into absolute terms will really help clear up exactly where the problem lies, if indeed, there even is one.

Edit: I wanted to respond to this logic down here.
The way chanters are played here you might as well just abolish all classes, and just have one generic class called "Fantasy Character" that has every ability in the game.
This is how I feel about the situation if we start up the nerf train. The only way to achieve true balance is to limit everyone to lvl 1 warriors. This is why I ask questions about the definition of what OP is, rather then making comparisons between classes.

[Lojik]

I really think people are barking up the wrong tree in regards to enchanter charm. From what was posted charm length seems pretty similar to 99 era. You should probably focus your efforts elsewhere, like pets taking xp in groups, npcs ksing xp on charm break, gcd nerf, recharge nerf, maybe summoning hate mechanics? Would the best enchanters be greatly affected? No, but you'd probably see far fewer enchanters being played the way they are now.

[bum3]

Ench says.. i'm dps.. if you want CC.. get a bard or root the mob.... me... oh man it started storming here real bad... /quit.

I didn't quit. I just disbanded him.

[A1551]

Just to sort of add something semi-relevant to the thread, I found a post from Absor stating that pets do steal xp from a group if they outdamage the group. Crucially this is before the Dire Charm xp changes in PoP.

It's in the group pet xp bug thread now.

Wow...this would be huge, would really re write the way chanters need to play in groups. Probably wouldn't matter in full groups with real dps but basically any strat involving keeping a pet in a smaller group would be hit hard. This would be a cool change to see if classic, would require chanters weigh a lot of risk/benefits, might invalidate or otherwise nerf some current playstyles, etc. Of course it would have no impact on solo chanters at all...

Between this and charisma maybe not impacting charm (depending on implementation) that could be two very big differences!

[cd288]

Wow...this would be huge, would really re write the way chanters need to play in groups. Probably wouldn't matter in full groups with real dps but basically any strat involving keeping a pet in a smaller group would be hit hard. This would be a cool change to see if classic, would require chanters weigh a lot of risk/benefits, might invalidate or otherwise nerf some current playstyles, etc. Of course it would have no impact on solo chanters at all...

Between this and charisma maybe not impacting charm (depending on implementation) that could be two very big differences!

True, but as far as the charisma goes the evidence is inconsistent so I doubt that would get changed

[311junkie]

My first avenue of attack would be to look for evidence of increased mob resistances at higher (35+) levels, because it exists.



There is player evidence of this too in-era, lots of chanter complaints about resists.


There's the usual bitching and exaggeration factor to take into account but I do think resistances could use a bump at the higher end.

I think chanter charm power is the result of lots of little things adding up to a big thing.

I think your post makes a lot of sense. However, if you start increasing overall magic resistance then you'll have a lot more people bitching besides charmers about how useless their magic based spells are. There's also the issue of quantifying the changes like others have already noted in this thread.

[kjs86z]

60 pages

[eunomios]

They implemented dire charm.

They obviously didn't see charm as an issue, or that would never have made it ingame.


No, this is your bias concluding such.

AAs were a major selling point to keep people subscribed into another expansion, even though most people hadn't even gotten their kunark progression finished (let alone velious).

Dire Charm was sold by the devs to enchanters as FINALLY a working long duration charm (with a limitation).

If you take a look at the AAs as a whole in Luclin and PoP expansions, you will see that the intent was to fix loose ends and poor viability throughout all the classes.

During live (shortly before kunark -> Luclin) I mainly played enchanter. I gave charming a shot at many points [I was always advised in group/raid to not use it] solo. MR values in live EQ were the absolute devil. Tash resisted, DDs resisted almost 90%, Color stuns resisted, Mesmerize resisted, root broke/resisted, and charm was no exception. << not even talking Charm Duration - but rather what happens after a break - when mes resisted, recharm resisted, color stun resisted, root failed often a charm break left an enchanter with low mana and a pissed off healer.

Yes things resist on p99 - but the resist rates even with tash/malo on live were absolutely brutal in comparison. Part for why I think Wizards get so shafted on p99 is because their Evo nukes were designed to resist much less (8-10% or so) than other classes [not just lures].

[Ligma]

Tash is unresistable.

[derpcake2]

No, this is your bias concluding such.

AAs were a major selling point to keep people subscribed into another expansion, even though most people hadn't even gotten their kunark progression finished (let alone velious).

Dire Charm was sold by the devs to enchanters as FINALLY a working long duration charm (with a limitation).

If you take a look at the AAs as a whole in Luclin and PoP expansions, you will see that the intent was to fix loose ends and poor viability throughout all the classes.

During live (shortly before kunark -> Luclin) I mainly played enchanter. I gave charming a shot at many points [I was always advised in group/raid to not use it] solo. MR values in live EQ were the absolute devil. Tash resisted, DDs resisted almost 90%, Color stuns resisted, Mesmerize resisted, root broke/resisted, and charm was no exception. << not even talking Charm Duration - but rather what happens after a break - when mes resisted, recharm resisted, color stun resisted, root failed often a charm break left an enchanter with low mana and a pissed off healer.

Yes things resist on p99 - but the resist rates even with tash/malo on live were absolutely brutal in comparison. Part for why I think Wizards get so shafted on p99 is because their Evo nukes were designed to resist much less (8-10% or so) than other classes [not just lures].

Thanks for sharing your feels.

I understand people considered you terrible.

Is there more you want to share? We are here for you.

Those tash resists must have been hard. Do elaborate.

[derpcake2]

This was not always the case.

Tell us more.

Special people should share their stories.

[derpcake2]

Wow...this would be huge, would really re write the way chanters need to play in groups. Probably wouldn't matter in full groups with real dps but basically any strat involving keeping a pet in a smaller group would be hit hard. This would be a cool change to see if classic, would require chanters weigh a lot of risk/benefits, might invalidate or otherwise nerf some current playstyles, etc. Of course it would have no impact on solo chanters at all...

Between this and charisma maybe not impacting charm (depending on implementation) that could be two very big differences!

it doesn't matter, since every great group has at least 6 chanters, none of their pets do over 50% of the damage

real green experience

[Dolalin]

Tash is unresistable.

Not from launch until May 1999 it wasn't.

[derpcake2]

Not from launch until May 1999 it wasn't.

That timing would be perfect, hopefully by then mage pets are patched so I can revert to the class you previously wrecked.

[Dolalin]

Nilbog told me to keep researching so you might be in luck.

[derpcake2]

Nilbog told me to keep researching so you might be in luck.

I look forward to reading more of your strawman posts, like the one on "does CHA affect charm too much", without any proof that charm actually lasts longer compared to live.

You keep swinging names like Haynar and Nilbog around, yet you downright fucked up when it came to mage pets.

I'm going to repeat that your apology on that topic is worthless, as long as you continue your practices.

Can you let us know who you are in game?

[Lojik]

it doesn't matter, since every great group has at least 6 chanters, none of their pets do over 50% of the damage

real green experience

I think each pet takes xp as a group member if the rest of the group doesn't out damage any pet?

[derpcake2]

I think each pet takes xp as a group member if the rest of the group doesn't out damage any pet?

unsure, me and the other chanters get about 12 yellow per kill so its hard to see

muh feels say paladins should be nerfed though, they have bronze and that just isn't classic

@dolalin how do i best make a straw man argument about it? can you consult your connections?

[Dolalin]

You sound obsessed. I bet you still think that Alakazam Rich Waters quote is faked and Absor did 9/11.

[derpcake2]

You sound obsessed. I bet you still think that Alakazam Rich Waters quote is faked and Absor did 9/11.

It isn't me that made dozens, if not hundreds of posts to get mage pets nerfed, only to have staff revert part of their work.

It isn't me trying to get feels-based EQ made a reality based on partial evidence and strawman arguments. You never did reply to my inquiry on that.

So who are you ingame again? So people know which person is crusading?

[A1551]

it doesn't matter, since every great group has at least 6 chanters, none of their pets do over 50% of the damage

real green experience

My bad ur right!

[urbanbo]

I played a chanter back in '99 into the 20's. Charm was so unreliable back then that I never put a second thought into it and groups never expected it - AT ALL.

[Dolalin]

It isn't me that made dozens, if not hundreds of posts to get mage pets nerfed, only to have staff revert part of their work.

It isn't me trying to get feels-based EQ made a reality based on partial evidence and strawman arguments. You never did reply to my inquiry on that.

So who are you ingame again? So people know which person is crusading?

Imagine being this angry about Everquest in 2019. :rolleyes:

[derpcake2]

I played a chanter back in '99 into the 20's. Charm was so unreliable back then that I never put a second thought into it and groups never expected it - AT ALL.

share your feels

try starting a support group, lots of feels in this thread, maybe crying together brings solace

[derpcake2]

Imagine being this angry about Everquest in 2019. :rolleyes:

Imagine lulz level of posting as your last resort.

Can't wait until you post shitty shoes.

Along with your choice of mcflurry, make sure to mention which of your awesome connections you consulted, we care a lot.

[Rooj]

Point being, the issue that you have, at the end of the day, isn't really with Enchanters, it's that you don't think that various camps being soloed by a given class is classic

Please show me in any of my posts where I have complained about Enchanters soloing, or anyone soloing, lol.

Once again, I am here about math, specifically about math related to a single class equating to many.

I know exactly what Classic Everquest is. Classic Everquest is a world with its own laws of nature, in which the developers constantly made changes in order to balance it, in every single patch they ever did.

[derpcake2]

Please show me in any of my posts where I have complained about Enchanters soloing, or anyone soloing, lol.

Once again, I am here about math, specifically about math related to a single class equating to many.

I know exactly what Classic Everquest is. Classic Everquest is a world with its own laws of nature, in which the developers constantly made changes in order to balance it, in every single patch they ever did.

Please consider the feels-based-balance group, Dolalin can give you an invite. He'll also get you up to speed with how to present fake arguments to support your feels-based requests.

Sending positive thots and players.

[eunomios]

Tell us more.

Special people should share their stories.

Okay tash didn't resist except in odd poison immune, or raid boss instances (where there was a supposed full spell immunity but still a small % chance to land).

Everything else resisted a ton - even with Tash - generally every mob that entered camp was tash'd before any other spells were attempted from any class and partly why the eventual nerf to Tash Taunt was considered by live Devs.

There was also a Massive MR overhaul patch at release of Luclin (that lowered MR in many places), and Im certain there was another at a future point of the EQ Titanium timeline.

[bwe]

You seem upset

[urbanbo]

share your feels

try starting a support group, lots of feels in this thread, maybe crying together brings solace


I don't give a F if it stays or gets changed. Just sharing my 2 cents about the reality of it in '99.

[DMN]

Classic Everquest is a world with its own laws of nature, in which the developers constantly made changes in order to balance it, in every single patch they ever did.

And according to developers enchanters were nary nerfed a single time from day one to velious. V ritually all buffs, in fact.

[Jimjam]

And according to developers enchanters were nary nerfed a single time from day one to velious. V ritually all buffs, in fact.

They tashed, charmed and buffed the devs into doing their bidding.

Encs were so OP they were the deep development of Norrath!!

[Rooj]

And according to developers enchanters were nary nerfed a single time from day one to velious. V ritually all buffs, in fact.

While I believe they mostly did a good job of balancing, they are only human and clearly made mistakes (and still do today), such as this one. Also the most prominent difference here is that... they were balancing Live, not P99. P99 doesn't have the same data as Live and we have no way of figuring out exactly what numerical values and formulas were set for everything on Live. Basically its a fuck ton harder to balance things on P99 than Live because so many values have to be guessed rather than already known.

Community discussion and debate has been causing changes in MMOs since they began, and that's not gonna stop today or tomorrow. Developing an MMO is a huge undertaking and devs have been relying on players to assist with balancing, changes, and feedback since the start, and Everquest was developed in this manner as well.

[cd288]

No, this is your bias concluding such.

AAs were a major selling point to keep people subscribed into another expansion, even though most people hadn't even gotten their kunark progression finished (let alone velious).

Dire Charm was sold by the devs to enchanters as FINALLY a working long duration charm (with a limitation).

If you take a look at the AAs as a whole in Luclin and PoP expansions, you will see that the intent was to fix loose ends and poor viability throughout all the classes.

During live (shortly before kunark -> Luclin) I mainly played enchanter. I gave charming a shot at many points [I was always advised in group/raid to not use it] solo. MR values in live EQ were the absolute devil. Tash resisted, DDs resisted almost 90%, Color stuns resisted, Mesmerize resisted, root broke/resisted, and charm was no exception. << not even talking Charm Duration - but rather what happens after a break - when mes resisted, recharm resisted, color stun resisted, root failed often a charm break left an enchanter with low mana and a pissed off healer.

Yes things resist on p99 - but the resist rates even with tash/malo on live were absolutely brutal in comparison. Part for why I think Wizards get so shafted on p99 is because their Evo nukes were designed to resist much less (8-10% or so) than other classes [not just lures].

Lmao DD resisted 90% of the time? Wtf are you talking about no it didnt

[cd288]

While I believe they mostly did a good job of balancing, they are only human and clearly made mistakes (and still do today), such as this one. Also the most prominent difference here is that... they were balancing Live, not P99. P99 doesn't have the same data as Live and we have no way of figuring out exactly what numerical values and formulas were set for everything on Live. Basically its a fuck ton harder to balance things on P99 than Live because so many values have to be guessed rather than already known.

Community discussion and debate has been causing changes in MMOs since they began, and that's not gonna stop today or tomorrow. Developing an MMO is a huge undertaking and devs have been relying on players to assist with balancing, changes, and feedback since the start, and Everquest was developed in this manner as well.

And that’s where you’re wrong. This is a museum (or a museum to the extent possible) not an mmo brah

[cd288]

Imagine being this angry about Everquest in 2019. :rolleyes:

I do think he raises a point I haven’t thought about before. You crusade against a lot of things and I do think it’s somewhat funny you won’t tell anyone who you are in game

[Glasken]

I love this thread.

[jacob54311]

Lmao DD resisted 90% of the time? Wtf are you talking about no it didnt

Tash resisted too!

[Vizax_Xaziv]

I played a chanter back in '99 into the 20's. Charm was so unreliable back then that I never put a second thought into it and groups never expected it - AT ALL.

I'm of this opinion as well. I dont remember Chanters charming until Velious (and moreso Luclin and POP)

I also remember certain mobs (Ghouls specifically) always being HIGHLY resistant to everything magic-based

[cd288]

I'm of this opinion as well. I dont remember Chanters charming until Velious (and moreso Luclin and POP)

I also remember certain mobs (Ghouls specifically) always being HIGHLY resistant to everything magic-based

Well that settles it everyone! He remembers! Why didn’t you say so earlier? You could’ve saved us 60 pages of thread and the staff could’ve fixed things right away.

[Izmael]

People who remember stuff being resisted all the time probably simply were low level back then.

When you're a level 20 druid or some shit, yeah, your snare will be resisted a lot by level 17-19 mobs, on P99 or live.

Try doing CC on P99 at, say, MM CE camp when you're a level 28-29 enc, you'll get constantly resisted by blue mobs.

Anyway, this thread can probably be left to peacefully die now.

[kul69]

Lmao DD resisted 90% of the time? Wtf are you talking about no it didnt

Oh thats right it did. How does it work on P99?

On Live classic Enchanter nuke was all or nothing and that is why it resisted so often. While other DDs might nuke for a few less damage in that case Enc nuke was full resist. Is that how it works here?

[jacob54311]

Oh thats right it did.

Source for your statistics? It's such a nice round number, I think possibly it's just a guess.

[derpcake2]

Source for your statistics? It's such a nice round number, I think possibly it's just a guess.

extensive feels

[kul69]

extensive feels

Oh here it is.

Magic-based all-or-nothing nukes, because the resist check is for the built-in stun effect (only a split second, but interrupts casting). No stun equates to no nuke landing. The stun is also a large source of aggro (all stuns are) which is what leads to enchanter nukes being labeled "uber taunts".

http://xornn.tripod.com/Spells/spell.htm

Is this how it works on P99 or are Enchanters getting partial resists on nukes?

[jacob54311]

Oh here it is.



http://xornn.tripod.com/Spells/spell.htm

Is this how it works on P99 or are Enchanters getting partial resists on nukes?

I don't see any source for your numbers there.

[derpcake2]

Oh here it is.



http://xornn.tripod.com/Spells/spell.htm

Is this how it works on P99 or are Enchanters getting partial resists on nukes?

From that link u posted:

CHarm: "Truly one of the most awesome spells in the enchanter arsenal, as well as one of the most dangerous. With one cast, a power-hitting, high-hitpoint, created-to-challenge-players-in-groups mob becomes your pet. Capable of dropping mobs more powerful than itself, or several in a row that are weaker, especially with your assistance. However, this mob is yours for a purely random duration; at any moment you could be the only thing near the top of the ex-pet's hate list. Truly, the risk versus reward is extreme in both directions. An amazing power both in solo and group situations, granting the ability to transform a deadly attacker into a powerful ally. Duration will always be randomly generated, though is seems a higher Charisma will help lower resists on your initial cast. Level-caps on the target mob are the real difference between the various charms, as Charm only allows you to affect up to a level 24 mob; after that you must use Beguile, which bears a larger mana cost, and greater casting time. With each upgrade, it takes more mana to charm your target, and a longer casting time to establish your hold."

Absolutely noone ever used charm in classic.

Conflicting feels.

[cd288]

Oh thats right it did. How does it work on P99?

On Live classic Enchanter nuke was all or nothing and that is why it resisted so often. While other DDs might nuke for a few less damage in that case Enc nuke was full resist. Is that how it works here?

90%? Now you’re just being stubborn and disingenuous lol. I love watching people’s arguments fall apart and they just start trying to make shit up and post stuff as evidence that literally says nothing about what they’re trying to prove. I’m cracking up please keep going

[TripSin]

Absolutely noone ever used charm in classic.



What do you mean by classic? Do you mean before expansions? I started when Kunark was released and as an enchanter I used charm when I couldn't get a group.

I think OP is full of garbage tbh. I was charm soloing before any AA talents even existed to "make it viable" and it definitely didn't just "break within 10 seconds most of the time."

[douglas1999]

I don't think anyone has a problem with enchanters using charm to solo for xp if they can't find a group, the issue is that on this server it's used to trivialize content intended for entire groups or even full raids. Most people don't remember that from classic, and even if they do, it's not unreasonable to suggest it should possibly be looked into. The mechanics are certainly not *exactly* what was on live in 1999. We know this because the code here is modified stock eqemu code, which was largely guesswork. Given that it's definitely not right, it could only therefor be underpowered currently or overpowered currently, relative to how it was in classic. Considering how much high end content is completely trivialized by it on p99, I'd have to assume that it's certainly not *under* powered relative to classic. Either resist rates, or charm break rates will hopefully be adjusted.

[Cuktus]

I don't think anyone has a problem with enchanters using charm to solo for xp if they can't find a group, the issue is that on this server it's used to trivialize content intended for entire groups or even full raids. Most people don't remember that from classic, and even if they do, it's not unreasonable to suggest it should possibly be looked into. The mechanics are certainly not *exactly* what was on live in 1999. We know this because the code here is modified stock eqemu code, which was largely guesswork. Given that it's definitely not right, it could only therefor be underpowered currently or overpowered currently, relative to how it was in classic. Considering how much high end content is completely trivialized by it on p99, I'd have to assume that it's certainly not *under* powered relative to classic. Either resist rates, or charm break rates will hopefully be adjusted.

I'm sorry, what content? Are classes capable of charming soloing Vox? I think I would have heard about that. What zones are group only zones designed to never let a skilled solo player be in? What camps?

Less to you duglas and more to the thread as a whole, why will no one simply state what the maximum ability a solo character should have? Where is "You should not be able to handle camp X, mob Y, solo. Period." "A duo should not be able to handle camp z, or mobs j". I would love to have that discussion.

[vossiewulf]

We played from the first week through PoP... the one with PoK, I think that's it. I had a total of almost 200 levels with various characters and I can honestly say I do not remember grouping even once with an enchanter using a charmed pet. What I remember is the standard line was that it was just too dangerous, it would break randomly and always at the worst time so it was thanks, but no thanks.

The enchanters I played with who were good were good because they did CC really well making difficult camp-breaking much easier and their utilities made everything go faster. I don't remember an enchanter ever leading the dps of any group. I was almost always the group leader, so I paid close attention to who was doing what and how well.

And since an enchanter's ability to charm a high level mob to tank would have been useful like, always, I think that would be clearly remembered.

I don't play a chanter so it doesn't really bother me either way, but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly.

[bubur]

charm was being exploited in velious, and reached peak brokenness in pop for those in the know

just more evidence that people didnt share information to the wider population in an effective way and all of our memories are not useful

[jacob54311]

charm was being exploited in velious, and reached peak brokenness in pop for those in the know

just more evidence that people didnt share information to the wider population in an effective way and all of our memories are not useful

PoP is when I started. I remember them being quite godlike in a lot of situations.

The complaints were about identical to what you're hearing here on Green.

[vossiewulf]

PoP is when I started. I remember them being quite godlike in a lot of situations.

The complaints were about identical to what you're hearing here on Green.

That's possible, by that time we were almost always soloing one character or another, it could have changed without it really registering with us. Almost all contact at that point was paying him/her for KEI on the way to hunt, and we never joined guilds so no guild chat to tell you what the rest of the world was doing.

[bubur]

Plane of Tactics:

Apparently the entire zone was on two seperate factions. It was possible to charm one of the casting wraiths and sick him on a boar and just before he finished casting a spell, break charm with invis. The spell would land and all hell would break loose as all nearby mobs joined in the fight. The trick was to feed in more mobs from whatever faction was starting to lose. Eventually when the whole pit was involved you could begin pulling the giants into the fight. All experience regardless of damage was earned and all the mobs loot remained on the corpses.

Was the best time I ever had in EQ. It was also very dangerous because as soon as one faction had wiped out the other, everything aggroed on you. Me and a few friends finally got caught and teleported to the catacombs where a GM threatend us for awhile.

Wish I still had the screenshots or me gaining 2 AA points in 50 seconds.


source: http://web.archive.org/web/20080911231049/http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/35658-eq-cheaters-nostalgia-eq1s-greatest-exploits-rumors-9.html

this thread is a very good read, to remind ourselves that eq was always a broken game, and charm was broken at least in pop (and probably always was until the super nerf in like GoD era)

as was fear, necro pets, and pathing in general in actual classic

[bubur]

there were those who joined groups, mezed and shot the shit in our early teens and 20s (irl) and no one pressured us to charm

then there were those of us who sat on top of ct temple and casted down the entire zone where nothing could reach them

it was always about information. if you didnt have it, that doesnt mean people werent doing it. i suspect charm was the same way. only questions i have are

a) when did invis break charm?
b) did charm pets take xp from groups?

need evidence for these. they would totally change the meta on p99. find it and submit bug reports and itll be done

[cd288]

We played from the first week through PoP... the one with PoK, I think that's it. I had a total of almost 200 levels with various characters and I can honestly say I do not remember grouping even once with an enchanter using a charmed pet. What I remember is the standard line was that it was just too dangerous, it would break randomly and always at the worst time so it was thanks, but no thanks.

The enchanters I played with who were good were good because they did CC really well making difficult camp-breaking much easier and their utilities made everything go faster. I don't remember an enchanter ever leading the dps of any group. I was almost always the group leader, so I paid close attention to who was doing what and how well.

And since an enchanter's ability to charm a high level mob to tank would have been useful like, always, I think that would be clearly remembered.

I don't play a chanter so it doesn't really bother me either way, but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly.

Alright staff he remembers. Get in here and change things based on random player’s memory from over a decade ago!

[kjs86z]

65 pages of people crying about enchanters on an elf emu in 2019

lol

[silo32]

65 pages of people crying about enchanters on an elf emu in 2019

lol

^
this

also charm is so over powered, I just don't think we understood it like we do today.

I laugh when groups say "you are not suppose to force your pet to dw and haste it" then you blend xp and they say "you are the best enchanter I have ever seen".

Pet does more dmg than 3 rogues of similar level.

Also yea imagine playing an elf simulator in 2023, re evaluate your life

[kul69]

65 pages of people crying about enchanters on an elf emu in 2019

lol

Says the 60 beta enchanter.

Also yea imagine playing an elf simulator in 2023, re evaluate your life

Maybe the only thing that could be more sad is posting on an elf simulator forum in 2023 and not actually playing.

[cd288]

Says the 60 beta enchanter.



Maybe the only thing that could be more sad is posting on an elf simulator forum in 2023 and not actually playing.

So I guess you’re describing yourself as well then?

[silo32]

So I guess you’re describing yourself as well then?

got em

[metatron]

yes ench charm is op here but remember when all casters had to look at their spell book to med with no knowledge of what was happening around them but sound? i think that might be one big reason enchanters can multitask to this level now

[Corbin]

We played from the first week through PoP... the one with PoK, I think that's it. I had a total of almost 200 levels with various characters and I can honestly say I do not remember grouping even once with an enchanter using a charmed pet. What I remember is the standard line was that it was just too dangerous, it would break randomly and always at the worst time so it was thanks, but no thanks.

The enchanters I played with who were good were good because they did CC really well making difficult camp-breaking much easier and their utilities made everything go faster. I don't remember an enchanter ever leading the dps of any group. I was almost always the group leader, so I paid close attention to who was doing what and how well.

And since an enchanter's ability to charm a high level mob to tank would have been useful like, always, I think that would be clearly remembered.

I don't play a chanter so it doesn't really bother me either way, but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly.

My wife and I started during POP. However, we focused on mains, leveled up fast and ended up doing a lot of raiding. Most of our grouping (beyond duoing with each other) was done in POP content and beyond. Like you, most of the time in our groups, charmed pets were not used, for various reasons.

However, Solo and duoing enchanters could clearly experience in zones which most players would require larger groups during POP. I saw them routinely and witnessed guild chanters do their AA this way. Less gear dependent, more risk and quite fast.

I was never a caster, but I think there are two big differences in that era, that even I can see. MR's and mob dps. It likely became much riskier. Pure casters in current content that was challenging to their individual progression were insanely brittle.

GOD's release emphasized those risks, yet good enchanters (with a little help) found ways to do group trials that normally required a group which included a well geared raid tank, a slower a cleric and dps at 65. They were the only ones with this kind of magic to my knowledge.

Likely, this had something to do with the great charm nerf around GOD. I had been told about the monk nerf Luclin era. A monk in our guild had been a well known contributor to the resulting protest. Many enchanters during GOD felt similarly and subsequently quit their class. We lost a few.

[vossiewulf]

Alright staff he remembers. Get in here and change things based on random player’s memory from over a decade ago!

but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly

Reading classes, you needs em. Anecdotal in the context of information verification uses the second definition of the word, "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay". i.e., NOT actionable or deterministic.

However, when you have a body of anecdotal information that seems to be aligned, that suggests you may in fact have a problem and if it's important, then a search for actual hard data is strongly suggested.

And it really shouldn't be too hard to use the wayback machine to check the enchanter forums from back then and see if you can find dozens of threads about how Charm is totally awesome.

[GnomeCaptain]

Lol, terrible troll thread.

How did this trash get to 66 pages? LOL!

Charm is wonderfully classic =)

Unlike OP, some of us actually played classic EQ =)

[cd288]

but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly

Reading classes, you needs em. Anecdotal in the context of information verification uses the second definition of the word, "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay". i.e., NOT actionable or deterministic.

However, when you have a body of anecdotal information that seems to be aligned, that suggests you may in fact have a problem and if it's important, then a search for actual hard data is strongly suggested.

And it really shouldn't be too hard to use the wayback machine to check the enchanter forums from back then and see if you can find dozens of threads about how Charm is totally awesome.

Sounds like you must be pretty late to the party here. The whole history of this thread is as follows:

- Someone says the current mechanics aren’t classic
- People ask for evidence
- Other people reply that evidence can’t be found but they KNOW and REMEMBER that the P99 mechanics aren’t accurate compared to the mechanics on live
- The people who asked for evidence say well nothing is likely to change unless you can provide evidence
- People with apparent perfect memory about a video game from 20 years ago say that even if the mechanics are currently accurate, that since not nearly as many people rolled Enchanters (due to lack of knowledge and/or years of perfecting strategies) on live, that we should arbitrarily nerf the class just to discourage people from playing it so that we reflect the number of Enchanters on live.

So to your point, no evidence about things being inaccurate has been able to be located so now we’ve spent about 30 pages of people who came to a classic server whining that even if Enchanters are classic as currently reflected they should be nerfed anyway because it’s not balanced versus other classes. Hope I saved you 60 pages of reading since your point has already been addressed and refuted.

[kul69]

Sounds like you must be pretty late to the party here. The whole history of this thread is as follows:

- Someone says the current mechanics aren’t classic
- People ask for evidence
- Other people reply that evidence can’t be found but they KNOW and REMEMBER that the P99 mechanics aren’t accurate compared to the mechanics on live
- The people who asked for evidence say well nothing is likely to change unless you can provide evidence
- People with apparent perfect memory about a video game from 20 years ago say that even if the mechanics are currently accurate, that since not nearly as many people rolled Enchanters (due to lack of knowledge and/or years of perfecting strategies) on live, that we should arbitrarily nerf the class just to discourage people from playing it so that we reflect the number of Enchanters on live.

So to your point, no evidence about things being inaccurate has been able to be located so now we’ve spent about 30 pages of people who came to a classic server whining that even if Enchanters are classic as currently reflected they should be nerfed anyway because it’s not balanced versus other classes. Hope I saved you 60 pages of reading since your point has already been addressed and refuted.

What are you talking about? This thread is full of evidence things don't work as they do here. Invis, exp in groups, nuke resists (are they partial or not, I'm not talking about 90%), CHA impacting charm check tickets after charm, channeling being broken (no evidence needed there). "Kunark era" charm rules. I'm sure even more I forgot.

And yet regardless of it all...


EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER, ENCHANTER NEEDS TO BE NERFED SAME AS NECRO AND OTHER CLASSES THAT AREN'T GETTING CLASSIC BEHAVIOR DUE TO GAME IMPACT.

Get it through your thick fucking skull. You've been here crying no evidence now probably 30 times. It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence. Enchanter should still be nerfed. Why does Necro not get to be the uber class that every group stands back and heals their pet? That is how it was in actual classic EQ. Necro was nerfed. Enchanter needs to be nerfed.

[bwe]

Unnerf pet daggers

[Ligma]

U mad bro?

[cd288]

What are you talking about? This thread is full of evidence things don't work as they do here. Invis, exp in groups, nuke resists (are they partial or not, I'm not talking about 90%), CHA impacting charm check tickets after charm, channeling being broken (no evidence needed there). "Kunark era" charm rules. I'm sure even more I forgot.

And yet regardless of it all...


EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER, ENCHANTER NEEDS TO BE NERFED SAME AS NECRO AND OTHER CLASSES THAT AREN'T GETTING CLASSIC BEHAVIOR DUE TO GAME IMPACT.

Get it through your thick fucking skull. You've been here crying no evidence now probably 30 times. It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence. Enchanter should still be nerfed. Why does Necro not get to be the uber class that every group stands back and heals their pet? That is how it was in actual classic EQ. Necro was nerfed. Enchanter needs to be nerfed.

So with your giant all caps text you literally just proved my point about the ridiculous nature of this thread lol. Came to a classic server and saying that we need to make changes to balance classes even if it’s not classic, because you don’t like it. L.m.a.o.

[azeth]

So with your giant all caps text you literally just proved my point about the ridiculous nature of this thread lol. Came to a classic server and saying that we need to make changes to balance classes even if it’s not classic, because you don’t like it. L.m.a.o.

Have you ever posted anything that made any sense? What an incredible streak you're on. You're like Ken griffey fuckin jr of dumbass bullshit posting.


It's incredible

[cd288]

Have you ever posted anything that made any sense? What an incredible streak you're on. You're like Ken griffey fuckin jr of dumbass bullshit posting.


It's incredible

Why thank you sir!

[bubur]

It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence.

ya i think i'm done here. good luck with your all caps screaming and crying buddy

[cd288]

ya i think i'm done here. good luck with your all caps screaming and crying buddy

Lmao, right? “It doesn’t matter I want what I want”

[sentinel]

two sides are fighting.

1. Charm mechanics are not classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we don't like it)

2. Charm mechanics are classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we like it)

[cd288]

two sides are fighting.

1. Charm mechanics are not classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we don't like it)

2. Charm mechanics are classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we like it)

TBH, I wouldn’t care if they change the charm mechanics at all, but only if they do so based on actual real evidence

[TripSin]

I literally played an enchanter, starting about the time that Kunark came out and literally charm solo'd as an enchanter when I couldn't find a group. I was like 14 years old at the time, but you can't tell me it didn't happen. I wasn't even the only one, I distinctly remember having to regularly compete with other enchanters who were also charm soloing hill giants in rathe mountains.

I haven't tried out charm on P99, but people like OP who are saying that charming wasn't viable in classic are wrong.

[jacob54311]

Literally? You don't mean figuratively? Like you're saying you solo'd an enchanter as some kind of metaphor or something?

Kidding. Sorry.

[TripSin]

Literally? You don't mean figuratively? Like you're saying you solo'd an enchanter as some kind of metaphor or something?

Kidding. Sorry.

Literally! :D

[Zuranthium]

It's going to be pretty much impossible to get concrete data about charm from back in the day. I do think it's likely, however, that it used to break at least somewhat more commonly. I remember Enchanters in their high 40's getting a lot of breaks when trying to charm level 40 mobs (the original gate guards at cities).

Charm back in the day was definitely not used to the extent, and with the widespread ease, that it is now. Enchanters usually didn't permanently charm a pet back then. They would charm something to throw into another mob, let them beat on each other, and then the group (or themself solo with a DD spell) would finish off both mobs when they got low. It wasn't until Velious era that Enchanters were more commonly using Charm for reliably longer lasting pet, which could mean 2 other factors as well - a lot more Enchanters being high 50's/60 at that point, increasing the level gap of what a low blue con mob would be, and also how high their CHA was.

Either way, Charm as it's used now would have been nerfed back then, had the game evolved quickly enough for the devs to target the problem. The argument about Necromancers on Green being nerfed from what they actually were in classic is an extremely good argument for why Enchanters should also be nerfed.

[A1551]

EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER, ENCHANTER NEEDS TO BE NERFED SAME AS NECRO AND OTHER CLASSES THAT AREN'T GETTING CLASSIC BEHAVIOR DUE TO GAME IMPACT.

Get it through your thick fucking skull. You've been here crying no evidence now probably 30 times. It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence. Enchanter should still be nerfed. Why does Necro not get to be the uber class that every group stands back and heals their pet? That is how it was in actual classic EQ. Necro was nerfed. Enchanter needs to be nerfed.

Oh ok, if you say so. Since you used BIG LETTERS AND ALL CAPS im sure the staff will get right on implementing your very persuasive argument!

[Wurl]

Hopefully staff can cut through the noise from pixel-poisoned enchanters in this thread, and they remove the un-classic on-tick charm break bonus from CHA.

[kjs86z]

It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence.

typical liberal mentality

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Charm was just a gimmick during Vanilla. People Charming the Kelethin guards to kill the POD was about all it was used for!

[Mushman]

[QUOTE=sentinel;3035015]two sides are fighting.

1. Charm mechanics are not classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we don't like it)

2. Charm mechanics are classic! We know this bc of anecdotal evidence! (and we like it)

One group wants a better and more classic experience. The other group wants to have charm centric easy mode enabled for selfish reasons.

Some might honestly believe that the data is accurate and have no self interest in mind but... I think most of the loud voices saying, "charm is perfectly classic, go away!" are most concerned with being able to lock down lots of content and pixels with very little man power on the back of game trivializing charm.

[sentinel]

Well yeah, Chanter is the #1 most played class on Green/Teal. Of course there will be a strong resistance to any negative change to charm.

I just find it interesting how certain some folks are that the current mechanics are classic. None of us know, it is a best guess done by the p99 admins. That's all it is.

[bubur]

Well yeah, Chanter is the #1 most played class on Green/Teal. Of course there will be a strong resistance to any negative change to charm.

I just find it interesting how certain some folks are that the current mechanics are classic. None of us know, it is a best guess done by the p99 admins. That's all it is.

p sure its actually druids but whatever. who cares about facts?

the problem im having with this "debate" is people are not reading any nuance in these anecdotes or arguments. what I am actually starting to believe is that charm worked *almost* the same, but there were small changes that made a huge difference in people's willingness to charm

for example: if invis doesnt break charm on classic - what do you do to reliably break charm? this doesn't make the strat infeasible, but it's a lot less in the player's control, therefore less people would do it to solo like they do on p99

or: did charm pets eat group xp? or was there a *belief* that charm pets ate group xp - then no one would want you to do it, even if it was actually very efficient. the community would have pressured enc's, who already didn't want to take the risk, to not do it

or: did going linkdead cause your charm pet to go haywire on you and your entire group? people may have been averse to this for a variety of reasons

for these types of nuance, you can do what you can to recreate classic, but what if being invis while having a charm mob allows someone to exploit and single pull out of a camp, like sneak pulling did before the staff nerfed it? people want 100% classic, but people also don't seem to understand that classic was broken as all fuck in so many weird and everquesty ways

you're asking the staff to do the impossible, or maybe the improbable (because the devs are pretty dang good), but they wont prioritize this over existing issues without EVIDENCE. there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

why am i still typing. this will be buried and people will read five words of my wall of text and say "hurr durr enc bad" or "hurr durr enc good"

end this madness

[kul69]

there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

Why is Necro lifetap nerfed then? Why can't pets be given daggers to reduce attack delay? Oh that's right, because it would cause an excessive amount of necro/pet classes to lock down all the content. Same as is happening with Enchanter now.

The whole "needs evidence" argument is pretty damn tired when there are already a dozen non-classic changes implemented specifically to address the same kind of issues we're seeing with Enchanter.

[bubur]

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

[Mushman]

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

Noone knows or will ever know the exact classic formula. If you possibly have non classic data already in use it's absurd to suggest you can't replace it with anything but proven classic values that can never be acquired.

As for your opinion, many disagree. The enchanter offers unmatched CC for camp breaking, and busted strong charm that does top end DPS so it's power and clear potential outweighs that of multiple people and naturally locks down content short handed because of charm.

On my SHM as an example if I join an enchanter for level appropriate content duo we are killing so fast that there is no benefit to inviting anyone else to the "group". Already killing all named in the vicinity and duo XP. This charmquesting is unhealthy and unclassic. It's pretty obvious that charm replaces players.

[Nirgon]

68 pages of flailing

[Tecmos Deception]

Hopefully staff can cut through the noise from pixel-poisoned enchanters in this thread, and they remove the un-classic on-tick charm break bonus from CHA.

The data in this thread suggests charm durations are about right on p99, but that charisma is part of what is getting us there. If they nerf charisma, they'll have to buff charm directly to remain classic, and it will actually be a net buff to enchanters since they'll be charming as well as ever but without needing to gear for charisma instead of just hp, ac, and int.

[bubur]

Noone knows or will ever know the exact classic formula. If you possibly have non classic data already in use it's absurd to suggest you can't replace it with anything but proven classic values that can never be acquired.

what "formula"? are we talking about magic resist code? we can know it, or approximate it as best we can over a decade of trial and error, which we are

are we suggesting charm had a different MR code? we can know that too. we just need to do more digging

if this is about enc charm pet dmg, we can be pretty certain of that too, as far as it appears in logs, some of which survived

the invis breaking charm is something we can and should investigate further. i'm in full support of this or other classic nerfs as long as it doesnt present other technical issues and exploits AND its actually classic

i guess im not just not ready to throw my hands up and say "ok i give up, just nerf it with custom values" and i dont think we should be sending that message to the devs about any feature. its very, very classic that a shaman and enc can duo content made for groups. they're both strong classes that have unique weaknesses but complement each other well. and we definitely shouldnt be getting emotional and hyperbolic about this. its a game yes, but its also a museum project for the staff, which have signed some sort of contract to keep it that way. for all we know they can't go and rebalance things and make "custom" content because they made a commitment in writing to DBG to only restore classic... but that's just me talking, i dont know the extent of that contract.

[derpcake2]

The data in this thread suggests charm durations are about right on p99, but that charisma is part of what is getting us there. If they nerf charisma, they'll have to buff charm directly to remain classic, and it will actually be a net buff to enchanters since they'll be charming as well as ever but without needing to gear for charisma instead of just hp, ac, and int.

Please take your reason out of here. People are angry, children are crying, you need to consider their feels.

I hope Roegan reads all this and starts a feezls besed server.

[cd288]

The data in this thread suggests charm durations are about right on p99, but that charisma is part of what is getting us there. If they nerf charisma, they'll have to buff charm directly to remain classic, and it will actually be a net buff to enchanters since they'll be charming as well as ever but without needing to gear for charisma instead of just hp, ac, and int.

Yeah it's somewhat ironic that this whole thread could technically cause Charming to be made even easier if they really do remove the effect of CHA and correspondingly modify the mechanic to reflect live (which it looks like may have been accurate to P99 mechanics, but without the added burden of needing the CHA save lol). Although, I will also add that it's sort of weird that people have been having a dispute about CHA at all since the P99 Wiki Statistics page literally has a quote from Brad in the Charisma section saying that CHA affects saving rolls on certain Bard and Enchanter spells (charm in particular)...you'd think that a direct quote from the creator himself would suffice as evidence that CHA has a positive impact on Charming lol.

[Tecmos Deception]

p sure its actually druids but whatever. who cares about facts?

the problem im having with this "debate" is people are not reading any nuance in these anecdotes or arguments. what I am actually starting to believe is that charm worked *almost* the same, but there were small changes that made a huge difference in people's willingness to charm

for example: if invis doesnt break charm on classic - what do you do to reliably break charm? this doesn't make the strat infeasible, but it's a lot less in the player's control, therefore less people would do it to solo like they do on p99

or: did charm pets eat group xp? or was there a *belief* that charm pets ate group xp - then no one would want you to do it, even if it was actually very efficient. the community would have pressured enc's, who already didn't want to take the risk, to not do it

or: did going linkdead cause your charm pet to go haywire on you and your entire group? people may have been averse to this for a variety of reasons

for these types of nuance, you can do what you can to recreate classic, but what if being invis while having a charm mob allows someone to exploit and single pull out of a camp, like sneak pulling did before the staff nerfed it? people want 100% classic, but people also don't seem to understand that classic was broken as all fuck in so many weird and everquesty ways

you're asking the staff to do the impossible, or maybe the improbable (because the devs are pretty dang good), but they wont prioritize this over existing issues without EVIDENCE. there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

why am i still typing. this will be buried and people will read five words of my wall of text and say "hurr durr enc bad" or "hurr durr enc good"

end this madness

I read it all. These are the sorts of reasons I've been giving for why enchanters are more popular on here and why charm is more widely used than it was on live.

I mean, even on blue back in the early days, chanters were a low pop class (6% or so on the like 2013 surveys I saw I think). What changed? Did charm get buffed on blue? Not that I recall. Chanters even went through a number of nerfs since classic on blue. What changed was the SAC got a lot of attention, and people started streaming enchanters, and the wiki got more updates, etc.

During Tecmos's and Noman's heydays when I was making videos and streaming and playing on blue a ton, I got multiple tells almost every time I was on from chanters saying stuff like "Oh man, I never knew how cool enchanters were until I saw your videos!" or "I'm still not great, you make charming look so easy, but I am figuring it out and it is fun!" or "I made a chanter because of you" or picking my brain about a hundred different chanter things. And PMs on the forums. And threads on here. Etc etc.


99.99% OF PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE CHARM CORRECTLY!!!

[derpcake2]

99.99% OF PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE CHARM CORRECTLY!!!

This a very rude way of saying "git gud, newbs".

Well done.

[derpcake2]

The data in this thread suggests charm durations are about right on p99, but that charisma is part of what is getting us there. If they nerf charisma, they'll have to buff charm directly to remain classic, and it will actually be a net buff to enchanters since they'll be charming as well as ever but without needing to gear for charisma instead of just hp, ac, and int.

The data in this thread mostly proves that people will bitch and whine about things they don't understand, with a direct correlation between ignorance and loudness.

[bubur]

as a sidenote can any op enc come and farm freeti on teal for a while?

havent seen even one pair of fruity boots yet. im payin well

[Tecmos Deception]

as a sidenote can any op enc come and farm freeti on teal for a while?

havent seen even one pair of fruity boots yet. im payin well

Fruity boots. That's awesome.

[douglas1999]

The data in this thread mostly proves that people will bitch and whine about things they don't understand, with a direct correlation between ignorance and loudness.

It sounds like you understand it. Care to expound? How should it be?

[jacob54311]

Where's this hard data that Chanters are playing like they did back in '99?

I mean, I haven't seen hard data from the other side either, but neither have come forward with verifiable numbers.

What the status quo crowd has going for it is that the P99 team agrees with them. It falls on the people demanding change to make a case for things being the way they want them (as it should).

[Nirgon]

Where's this hard data that Chanters are playing like they did back in '99?

I mean, I haven't seen hard data from the other side either, but neither have come forward with verifiable numbers.

What the status quo crowd has going for it is that the P99 team agrees with them. It falls on the people demanding change to make a case for things being the way they want them (as it should).

A mob was charmed against AoW in a consistent matter that led to the AOW's death. That is currently possible with the code here. You're asking for changes that would not make that possible, aka not classic.

[jacob54311]

A mob was charmed against AoW in a consistent matter that led to the AOW's death. That is currently possible with the code here. You're asking for changes that would not make that possible, aka not classic.

An old story about a charmed mob being used against AoW back in Velious isn't exactly what I meant by hard data.

[Tecmos Deception]

Where's this hard data that Chanters are playing like they did back in '99?

You're asking the wrong question. The server isn't trying to recreate the way classic players played. It is trying to recreate classic mechanics for modern players.

There is data in here from a classic era chanter testing charm durations on different mobs, with and without Resist Magic on it. The min, max, and average charm durations are pretty similar to the same sort of conditions on p99.

[jacob54311]

You're asking the wrong question. The server isn't trying to recreate the way classic players played. It is trying to recreate classic mechanics for modern players.

There is data in here from a classic era chanter testing charm durations on different mobs, with and without Resist Magic on it. The min, max, and average charm durations are pretty similar to the same sort of conditions on p99.

OK, that would be more like it.

I must have missed it. It's along thread. :)

[Tecmos Deception]

Yeah, for sure. I'm too lazy to find it. The same info is also in the much shorter big thread about vharisma affecting charm if you want to look there.

[Thrawndor]

This a very rude way of saying "git gud, newbs".

Well done.

Doesn't make it any less true. Going on 20 years of watching retards do low-brainpower retard moves in game.

[kul69]

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

Necro lifetaps should be unresistable by everything. Daggers should reduce pet delay. Has nothing to do with the client.

It was nerfed intentionally because it is overpowered. Same as Bard AE, Chardok AE, etc. It's disruptive and allows a class too much power.

[bwe]

unnerf pet daggers

[Swish]

It was nerfed intentionally because it is overpowered. Same as Bard AE, Chardok AE, etc. It's disruptive and allows a class too much power.

Not overpowered, people are just shitheads with it. Chardok AOE was an RMT magnet as well as shutting off a zone people enjoyed grouping in for the purposes of fast XP/levels for alts in top guilds...who then camp out more strategically at each dragon pixel location. I'm glad it was stopped, the attitude of the AOE'ers thinking they owned the right to the entire zone because of their plat farming operation was indication enough that something had to be done.

kul69 needs to open his own classic server the way he wants to see it. Would people play? Would he accept the criticism for something not being entirely perfect?

[Ligma]

For many it seems mandatory lobotomies would be required for a real classic server.

[Nirgon]

In this thread - transabled Norrathians

[kjs86z]

Just wait until these people arrive in Kunark and enchanter pets start rocking Swarmcallers for free slows!

/popcorn

[loramin]

This thread is like 70 pages of Enchanter players lobbying for unclassic EverQuest: any of y'all who played on live and know (whatever else you might know about specific mechanic details) that this isn't right/Classic should feel bad for being on that side.

[bubur]

This thread is like 70 pages of Enchanter players lobbying for unclassic EverQuest: any of y'all who played on live and know (whatever else you might know about specific mechanic details) that this isn't right/Classic should feel bad for being on that side.

again, you can format your posts with italics, bolds, and all caps comic sans if you want, but what is your actual solution? a blanket dmg nerf? an MR boost? you want to just remove the spell, or what?

no, i dont feel bad for not agreeing with you. the reality is much more nuanced than "its not classic"

[Not_Mikeo]

This thread is like 70 pages of Enchanter players lobbying for unclassic EverQuest: any of y'all who played on live and know (whatever else you might know about specific mechanic details) that this isn't right/Classic should feel bad for being on that side.

Like you've got any idea what happened during classic dude. Quit your bullshit and go back to ruining the wiki.

https://i.imgur.com/al1IpHe.png

[cd288]

Like you've got any idea what happened during classic dude. Quit your bullshit and go back to ruining the wiki.

https://i.imgur.com/al1IpHe.png

Lmao

[cd288]

Necro lifetaps should be unresistable by everything. Daggers should reduce pet delay. Has nothing to do with the client.

It was nerfed intentionally because it is overpowered. Same as Bard AE, Chardok AE, etc. It's disruptive and allows a class too much power.

I think you're leaving out some additional context here though. For something like pet daggers, I think that's a bit more cheesey than Enchanter charming. Giving a Necro pet daggers requires no knowledge of mechanics, a strategy for how to maximize what you're doing and how to minimize disaster if things go wrong, etc. Giving a Necro pet daggers requires just doing a trade and hitting pet attack. If I had to guess, I would say the staff would differentiate that nerf from Charm killing on the basis that you have to implement an actual strategy, know how the mechanics work, and have some level of skill to be a good Charm killer. Kind of different from the whole cheesey pet dagger thing (although personally I couldn't care less if they were to revert to allowing pets to have daggers...doesn't really bother me).

As others have explained, Chardok AE isn't really applicable to this argument. Chardok AE was nerfed because (i) it was a huge promotion of RMT and (ii) specific people were using it to essentially lock down an entire zone for themselves. Saying because Chardok AE was nerfed to prevent a select group of individuals from controlling an entire zone that therefore Enchanter Charming should be unclassicly nerfed because people got better at the game and can now solo a specific camp that some might not have soloed back on live is not valid. Chardok AE is not analagous to this.

For similar reasons as Chardok (although not really RMT, more just the zone disruption issue), Bard AE isn't really applicable either. Bard AE was nerfed because you had a Bard running around and taking like virtually every mob they could kill in the Overthere or the Karanas for example, such that no one could even find anything to kill. Again, not analogous to saying that there are some camps throughout the world being soloed by Enchanters because people got much better at Charm killing/Enchanters are powerful. I haven't seen an Enchanter go into a zone and kill every mob there and prevent anyone else from getting any EXP in that zone. Bard AE is not analagous here.

What you really need for your argument to work is an instance where the P99 staff essentially unclassicly nerfed an entire class to prevent it from being effective at soloing powerful mobs. For example, if they nerfed Shamans or Necros such that they couldn't solo, or nerfed quad kiting. But you don't have that because, again, it's not classic.

As an aside, it's kind of funny that people have come into this thread and essentially said "Enchanters are monopolizing all the popular and valuable camps in the game" yet no one will cite examples of which camps they're talking about even though it's been repeatedly asked.

[TripSin]

Like you've got any idea what happened during classic dude. Quit your bullshit and go back to ruining the wiki.


GAWT EM

[kjs86z]

Imagine a world where people just played the game...

It only gets worse as the enchanter spell / pet toy / clicky arsenal increases.

Y'all aint seen nuttin yet.

[Mushman]

The context given about necro nerfs because "cheesy" but charm isn't because such high skill is laughable. Using proper rotation, information,and not acting like a primate when you get an untimely break isn't some super challenging feat most of the player base can't perform.

It's the same issue as NEC except charm has remained unaddressed. Charm replaces players where it's being used by the charm alone being more valuable than other players. As for specific camps, how about almost any one a half decent ENC chooses? Charm does a great job of eroding socialization and team work by replacing players with charmed pets like a mercenary system. Not classic, sorry but not sorry.

[bwe]

Unnerf pet daggers

[sentinel]

What it comes down to is Green/Teal are classic-ish servers with a dash of admin preferences (things like linkable items, FS dagger nerf, whirl til you hurl nerf, etc).

For whatever reason, charm is used in a non-classic fashion. The reasons have been discussed at length, but are essentially supported by 1) memories and 2) guessing.

It is unlikely that the admins change charm, but it would make sense if they did. Current charm mechanics are just a guess and they may want to scale things back to more of classic take of Everquest. How could/should they do that? That's up to them.

[enjchanter]

I dont group cuz I dont need em

Froglok illis knight, elementalbone skeleton and icepaw champion are the only friends I need

[cd288]

The context given about necro nerfs because "cheesy" but charm isn't because such high skill is laughable. Using proper rotation, information,and not acting like a primate when you get an untimely break isn't some super challenging feat most of the player base can't perform.

It's the same issue as NEC except charm has remained unaddressed. Charm replaces players where it's being used by the charm alone being more valuable than other players. As for specific camps, how about almost any one a half decent ENC chooses? Charm does a great job of eroding socialization and team work by replacing players with charmed pets like a mercenary system. Not classic, sorry but not sorry.

I'm not saying it necessarily requires like an expert player to do, but to say that a Charm killing strategy is equal to just giving your pet, which can't break, two FS daggers and clicking your pet attack macro is just silly.

[cd288]

What it comes down to is Green/Teal are classic-ish servers with a dash of admin preferences (things like linkable items, FS dagger nerf, whirl til you hurl nerf, etc).

For whatever reason, charm is used in a non-classic fashion. The reasons have been discussed at length, but are essentially supported by 1) memories and 2) guessing.

It is unlikely that the admins change charm, but it would make sense if they did. Current charm mechanics are just a guess and they may want to scale things back to more of classic take of Everquest. How could/should they do that? That's up to them.

Again, it's not "unclassic" just because over time people figured out how much benefit you can get by Charm killing. It's somewhat ridiculous to say that everything needs to emulate exactly how players played at launch in EQ when nobody knew what they were doing. If that's what you want, then we need to do other things, such as delete the Wiki so no one can reference any of the vast troves of information we now have available. You need to put caps on how many of each class there can be on the server and force people to play classes like Warriors, Wizards, and Rogues that are unpopular today but more people played back then because they didn't realize the downsides to those classes. You need to force every group (or the majority of groups) to have a Tank class in the group (just as an arbitrary requirement) because people back then didn't fully realize how effectively pets could tank or that Shamans in full banded could be effective tanks; and they didn't really know about the EXP penalties either, so you need to force groups to take hybrids because they wouldn't have refused them back in the day like they do now because of the EXP penalty. When Kunark comes out, you need to limit the number of Iksars able to be rolled because it's "not classic atmosphere" that everyone has realized on day 1 of Kunark how OP the AC and regen of Iksars are. Do stuff like that and then maybe you'll have an argument. Otherwise, stop singling out one specific class because "muhhh my pixels!!1!!11!"

Also, people were definitely Charm soloing relatively extensively by the Kunark era, so it's not "unclassic" that this is happening in general on a classic era server when we know about the strategy at launch as opposed to several months into the game.

As an aside, as I've mentioned in other comments here, if you nerf Enchanters just because people are soloing on them, those people will then switch to another good soloing class. They'll roll necros, because they want to be effective soloers. Then people like you will be complaining how many Necros there are and that they need to be nerfed. Then those people will switch to a class like Shaman if Necros are nerfed, and so on.

You came to a classic server and are now complaining about people using classic abilities to their advantage while playing a class and want some arbitrary nerf. It's insane lol.

[TripSin]

The people crying about Enchanters being "nonclassic" are just absolutely ignorant and obviously did not play enchanter back in the day because it really isn't that much weaker or stronger than it used to be. I'm talking about before AAs and all that other junk which made it even stronger. People just use it more now. You want to nerf it just because people use it more now than they did back in the day? That's seems pretty stupid imo.

[sentinel]

Again, it's not "unclassic" just because over time people figured out how much benefit you can get by Charm killing.

The rest of your post was based off this assertion and you embarrassed yourself by being rude/adolescent. So, I'll just address this first sentence.

If you are right and folks back on release were simply too stupid or 56k modems would light on fire and prevented the charm mechanics we see today, then fair enough. Technology + knowledge = current charm practices. That's that, don't change it. Well, except p99 admins do change classic mechanics all the time for the betterment of the game, but that is beside the point. I actually agree if this was the way classic Everquest worked mechanic wise, leave it alone.

But I don't see any evidence of that. The best evidence I see isthe AoW charming and a few posts that simply discuss the topic. Again -- why act so sure the mechanics are right? We're still figuring how much spells cost for pete's sake. And you are certain the level/mr/chr checks mirror classic?

[TripSin]

But I don't see any evidence of that.

What kind of evidence do you expect? You want to build a time-travelling machine to go back in time and see it for yourself? I only played enchanter in classic. Charming back then was about as strong as it is now in p99. Again, I'm talking even before the introduction of things like AA that made charming even better. It just wasn't the meta back then, people wanted to play safer. Times have changed and the meta changed. Now in p99 it's just more popular to use charm. If you think it should be nerfed because people use it more now - fine, whatever. But if you want it to be changed just because you think it's better than it was back in the day, you're being ignorant.

[sentinel]

To my knowledge, p99 (and other EQ emulators) use educated guesses for all mechanics. What's wrong with discussing whether or not this one mechanic is accurate?

I get that EQ knowledge has increased as have faster, more stable internet connections. And many folks want the conversation to end there (and they are mad!). But what I'm interested in knowing is where the p99 mechanics came from -- how did they arrive at the resist checks and what not they currently use?

[jacob54311]

To my knowledge, p99 (and other EQ emulators) use educated guesses for all mechanics. What's wrong with discussing whether or not this one mechanic is accurate?

I get that EQ knowledge has increased as have faster, more stable internet connections. And many folks want the conversation to end there (and they are mad!). But what I'm interested in knowing is where the p99 mechanics came from -- how did they arrive at the resist checks and what not they currently use?

Have they ever even hinted at that "under the hood" stuff?

Can't blame them if they haven't. If they started explaining the mechanics of the game it would just throw fuel onto the fire of threads like these while opening themselves up to more criticism.

[Nirgon]

ITT
Frozen Moses gives y'all a swirlie, hope y'all can take it


Unnerf pet daggers

Good post.

[sentinel]

Have they ever even hinted at that "under the hood" stuff?

Can't blame them if they haven't. If they started explaining the mechanics of the game it would just throw fuel onto the fire of threads like these while opening themselves up to more criticism.

Yeah, it probably would. Again, I doubt anything gets changed regarding charm, but it is interesting to see how/why they made the server the way it is. It is a custom job, after all.

[cd288]

The rest of your post was based off this assertion and you embarrassed yourself by being rude/adolescent. So, I'll just address this first sentence.

If you are right and folks back on release were simply too stupid or 56k modems would light on fire and prevented the charm mechanics we see today, then fair enough. Technology + knowledge = current charm practices. That's that, don't change it. Well, except p99 admins do change classic mechanics all the time for the betterment of the game, but that is beside the point. I actually agree if this was the way classic Everquest worked mechanic wise, leave it alone.

But I don't see any evidence of that. The best evidence I see isthe AoW charming and a few posts that simply discuss the topic. Again -- why act so sure the mechanics are right? We're still figuring how much spells cost for pete's sake. And you are certain the level/mr/chr checks mirror classic?

I wasn't being rude. I was being serious. What you and some other people on this thread want is for Enchanters to be nerfed because you argue that having this many of them on the server, wityh a decent number soloing, is an un-classic atmosphere. My point is, there are literally a million things on this server that create an un-classic atmosphere simply because of all the knowledge and acquired ability that we have now that we didn't have then. Sop if you want a non-classic nerf for Enchanters because what you're looking for is a "classic atmosphere" (whatever that means), then you need to change all the other stuff too. If what you're really looking for is for Enchanters to be nerfed because you've decided you don't actually want things to be classic and you think they are OP and it upsets you, well that's not gonna happen bub.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Not overpowered, people are just shitheads with it. Chardok AOE was an RMT magnet as well as shutting off a zone people enjoyed grouping in for the purposes of fast XP/levels for alts in top guilds...who then camp out more strategically at each dragon pixel location. I'm glad it was stopped, the attitude of the AOE'ers thinking they owned the right to the entire zone because of their plat farming operation was indication enough that something had to be done.

kul69 needs to open his own classic server the way he wants to see it. Would people play? Would he accept the criticism for something not being entirely perfect?
And people are 100% using overpowered Chanter Charm so farm items and RMT them.

Same thing goes for overleveled Chanters thinking that they "own" full camps over level-appropriate groups.

Charm is literally damaging the server as a whole atthis point. There was a Chanter Charm-soloing every single named mob in Upper Guk last night.

[cd288]

And people are 100% using overpowered Chanter Charm so farm items and RMT them.

Such as? What items pre-Kunark would those even be besides the legacy ones, which are subject to the list system lol

[loramin]

GAWT EM

Yeah, you totally got me: I admitted to smoking pot, and therefore nothing about my argument has any validity. :rolleyes:

[Vizax_Xaziv]

To my knowledge, p99 (and other EQ emulators) use educated guesses for all mechanics. What's wrong with discussing whether or not this one mechanic is accurate?

I get that EQ knowledge has increased as have faster, more stable internet connections. And many folks want the conversation to end there (and they are mad!). But what I'm interested in knowing is where the p99 mechanics came from -- how did they arrive at the resist checks and what not they currently use?
And it's interesting:. Enchanter Charm is really the only thing people are complaining about right now, in terms of class mechanics.

Theres currently no other spell/spells that people have identified as not being "classically spirited." Yet it is being complained about, and quite frequently so, meaning there is a standout level of class-power that MANY people have identified. This has been surmised for YEARS now.

The launch of Green/Teal has only cemented this suspicion as we're now witnessing completely ungeared Enchanters Charming with nearly the same efficacy of a 255CHA Chanter on Blue.

Anecdotally speaking, I just watched a lvl 18 Chanter sit in the CB Throne Room last night Charm soloing. He had an Orc Emissary charmed and it lasted effectively the FULLEST duration EVERY TIME he charmed it.

So the defensive arguments are as follows:


1) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest figured it out.
2) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest was "skilled enough" to pull it off
3) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest discussed their discovery of this extremely overpowered mechanic

[cd288]

Yeah, you totally got me: I admitted to smoking pot, and therefore nothing about my argument has any validity. :rolleyes:

I think it was less that quote and more what the poster actually said to you

[cd288]

And it's interesting:. Enchanter Charm is really the only thing people are complaining about right now, in terms of class mechanics.

Theres currently no other spell/spells that people have identified as not being "classically spirited." Yet it is being complained about, and quite frequently so, meaning there is a standout level of class-power that MANY people have identified. This has been surmised for YEARS now.

The launch of Green/Teal has only cemented this suspicion as we're now witnessing completely ungeared Enchanters Charming with nearly the same efficacy of a 255CHA Chanter on Blue.

Anecdotally speaking, I just watched a lvl 18 Chanter sit in the CB Throne Room last night Charm soloing. He had an Orc Emissary charmed and it lasted effectively the FULLEST duration EVERY TIME he charmed it.

So the defensive arguments are as follows:


1) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest figured it out.
2) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest was "skilled enough" to pull it off
3) it was always like this, just nobody in the first two to three YEARS of EverQuest discussed their discovery of this extremely overpowered mechanic

Yeah, you're right it's interesting that the tests posted in the Bugs thread seem to indicate that CHA doesn't have significant effect on Charm duration, which would seem to mean that someone ungeared on Green could potentially have similar Charm durations to someone with 255 CHA. Guess we resolved that one. Thanks for stopping by!

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Such as? What items pre-Kunark would those even be besides the legacy ones, which are subject to the list system lol

It's all relative man. U can check the aftermarket sales websites to see just how cash-valuable coin is on Green/Teal.

If you really think nobody is RMTing on Green/Teal then you're even more delusional that I'd already suspected!

[cd288]

It's all relative man. U can check the aftermarket sales websites to see just how cash-valuable coin is on Green/Teal.

If you really think nobody is RMTing on Green/Teal then you're even more delusional that I'd already suspected!

First, you didn't say coin, you said items. Second, any cash camps in the classic era can be effectively soloed by other classes such as Necros. So, if you have this altruistic concern that Enchanter Charm is promoting RMT, then I guess we should probably start looking into what we'd have to nerf for multiple other classes to keep them from easily soloing anything otherwise they will just replace the Enchanters in the RMT scheme. Right?

[Vizax_Xaziv]

First, you didn't say coin, you said items. Second, any cash camps in the classic era can be effectively soloed by other classes such as Necros. So, if you have this altruistic concern that Enchanter Charm is promoting RMT, then I guess we should probably start looking into what we'd have to nerf for multiple other classes to keep them from easily soloing anything otherwise they will just replace the Enchanters in the RMT scheme. Right?
People generally RMT coin not items. They farm high value items to acquire said coin for sell.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

First, you didn't say coin, you said items. Second, any cash camps in the classic era can be effectively soloed by other classes such as Necros. So, if you have this altruistic concern that Enchanter Charm is promoting RMT, then I guess we should probably start looking into what we'd have to nerf for multiple other classes to keep them from easily soloing anything otherwise they will just replace the Enchanters in the RMT scheme. Right?

You spent this entire thread rallying AGAINST nerfing Enchanters but you're perfectly fine with other classes getting nerfed.

Almost as if you have a class bias.

[cd288]

People generally RMT coin not items. They farm high value items to acquire said coin for sell.

I agree. So what items in the classic era are of such high value that they would be worth an RMTers time and are not already subject to the list mechanic?

Also, if RMT issues are your argument, then what nerfs would you propose to other solo-capable classes to ensure they don't fill the RMT void left by all these supposedly RMTing Enchanters? The 3 primary classes I think you should address are Necromancers, Shamans, and Magicians, but feel free to propose nerfs to others as well.

[cd288]

You spent this entire thread rallying AGAINST nerfing Enchanters but you're perfectly fine with other classes getting nerfed.

Almost as if you have a class bias.

I'm not for it at all. But in order to resolve your RMT concern it's what you'd have to do. Right? Or could your RMT argument just be arbitrary BS that you're making because you don't have much of an actual argument about Enchanter mechanics.

If you're serious about the RMT argument, then please explain what you'd propose to nerf for other classes so they can't fill the void following an Enchanter nerf.

[vossiewulf]

I still have no intention of playing an Enchanter, so still in the end I have no skin in the game whichever way it goes, but it made me curious as to whether I'm remembering accurately.

Earliest snapshot I could find of EQ Caster's Realm was November 7 1999, and yeah that's what I remember, enchanters being excited to charm mobs 6 levels below theirs for four minutes. I poked around a bit, first mentions I see of consistently using charmed mobs as a replacement pet of DB stature start around the time of Kunark. Not sure if it was items or spell changes that pushed out the duration, but something must have. As per the comments below, and this is what I remember from the early months, was that it was possible to charm a DB mob but with a short end on the duration being possibly shorter than a single pull, it was a no-go for groups.

Also the comments show it was known how to break charm at a time of the caster's choosing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010108023600/http://eq.castersrealm.com/spells/enchanter/spelldescriptions.asp?SpellID=43

Spell description:

This spell charms the target and turns it into a pet of the caster. Normal pet commands will work on this pet, unlike animations. Note that when the charm breaks, the formerly charmed creature will be extremely aggressive towards the caster. Many tactics for Enchanters involve the use of this spell, which has been responsible for both incredible victories and abject defeats. Use with awareness of the randomness of the spell's duration.

Comments:

Careful with this one - Mecha Spectre
The duration is unstable, but it's always reliable in one way -- It's short. It won't last long. And then you'll have two things to fight. It's also fairly hard to charm ... well, anything white or above, from my experience. They break out of it alot faster, as well.

Extending Charm duration -
Hi, I did a little research involving Orc Centurions in GFay to find out about the duration of this spell. That time I was lvl 12 or 13, I do not remember. My charisma is 115. This seems to be important for success as well as duration. Anyway, I did quite extensive experiments with about 15 to 20 orc cents. in all cases, the spell lasted around 30 seconds to 1 minute. But in the cases where I used Tashan first, the shortest duration I had was more than 4.5 minutes! One was well over 8 minutes, if I remember correctly. You should be aware that with higher lvl opponents, like the Nybright sisters, the effect of Tashan is still quite obvious, but of course the duration is not as good. With them, I had duration times of about 2 to 5 minutes, while without Tashan they break the charm almost instantly (less than 30 seconds in most cases). One last comment: This whole thing was about a month ago, and it can very well have changed since then. Anyway, perhaps this helps. I didn't see it in the comments on this spell. Nagisa

The duration isint really random - Asmodan
charm is based on the resistance of the creature but any creature will break free eventually so i guess the testing agianst the charm gets stronger the longer it is. my suggestion is charm griffawns you can use green griffawns to kill red crag spiders and the griffawn dies from poison so remember to cast taishan before charm:)

Easy pet release for dark elves - Nincarnas
It's easy to release your charmed pet when *you* want with a dark elf - you just need to hide, which is one of the dark elves natural abilities. To give yourself more time for whatever you wish to do with your former pet, make it sit down first (/pet sit down) and move away from it.

Pet release for non-Dark Elves. - Miria
Invisable will also release a charmed creature. Useful when you want to use charm to just to move the creature to a more suitable area to fight.

[kul69]

1. Tashan should resist. Proof was already provided. It shouldn't be a lure.
2. Pets should take experience from groups if they do the most damage.

Two changes that need to happen and were proven. As mentioned above tashan is required to get any meaningful duration out of charm but on P99 it is unresistable making pulling with tashan and charm an easy win combo. If you pulled with tashan and it got resisted somewhat regularly that is significantly more challenging as it also prevents reliable charming until landed.

Groups likely didn't use pets like Osargen in HHK because they would take the experience. This explains why everyone enchanter didn't run around with charmed backstabbing pets like we see on P99. It actually killed experience same as soloing with a charmed pet and letting it get kills.

Also didn't it say 75% of experience is taken and not 50% if a pet gets highest damage?

[bubur]

put the proven bit in the bug forums, or nothin will happen

[fadetree]

People, people. Nobody that can make a difference is listening. Lets say all this arguing came to a point and everyone ITT agreed that charm should be nerfed. Then what? We post a strongly worded thread to the devs?
They made a mistake by listening to the whining about a few earlier problems, and gave you guys the idea that if you bitch enough they might change something. They are not going to do the same here without LOTS of actual numerical evidence from parselogs. By all means, keep arguing b/c its kind of entertaining, but it aint gonna get sh*t done.

And an overlevelled anybody CAN keep a camp according to the rules. Deal with it. It's a dick move, sure, but that's life.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

I agree. So what items in the classic era are of such high value that they would be worth an RMTers time and are not already subject to the list mechanic?

Also, if RMT issues are your argument, then what nerfs would you propose to other solo-capable classes to ensure they don't fill the RMT void left by all these supposedly RMTing Enchanters? The 3 primary classes I think you should address are Necromancers, Shamans, and Magicians, but feel free to propose nerfs to others as well.

It's relative my dude. Just one thousand plat on Green/Teal is the equivalent of many many thousands of plat on blue due to mudflation.

Again u can check the sites and see that there are plenty of ppl attempting to sell plat on the new servers. And I'm sure the GMs are monitoring things VERY closely. Wouldn't be surprised if on of the infamous "RMT Banwaves" hits in the first few months.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

People, people. Nobody that can make a difference is listening. Lets say all this arguing came to a point and everyone ITT agreed that charm should be nerfed. Then what? We post a strongly worded thread to the devs?
They made a mistake by listening to the whining about a few earlier problems, and gave you guys the idea that if you bitch enough they might change something. They are not going to do the same here without LOTS of actual numerical evidence from parselogs. By all means, keep arguing b/c its kind of entertaining, but it aint gonna get sh*t done.

And an overlevelled anybody CAN keep a camp according to the rules. Deal with it. It's a dick move, sure, but that's life.
Why not? They nerfed the hell outta Mages based on just a handful of links. Why should Chanters get preference AGAIN here as well?

[cd288]

It's relative my dude. Just one thousand plat on Green/Teal is the equivalent of many many thousands of plat on blue due to mudflation.

Again u can check the sites and see that there are plenty of ppl attempting to sell plat on the new servers. And I'm sure the GMs are monitoring things VERY closely. Wouldn't be surprised if on of the infamous "RMT Banwaves" hits in the first few months.

I find it highly interesting that you won’t respond to my other point in any of your other replies. You don’t have proposals for needing the other classes that would inevitably fill the soloing gap and be utilized by supposed RMTers following an Enchanter nerf. Therefore, I can only assume that this RMT concern of yours is just fake altruism and trying to grasp at any possible straws to get Enchanters nerfed just because.

[cd288]

Why not? They nerfed the hell outta Mages based on just a handful of links. Why should Chanters get preference AGAIN here as well?

Because the Mage links were actually verified information

[Buellen]

Jesus !

Why is this thread still going? bug thread has been submitted already.

You all need to do like the Frozen movie says and "LET IT GO"

LOL

[Nirgon]

Why is this thread still going?

butt hurt afk medders mad about active/skilled chars making GAINS

[cd288]

butt hurt afk medders mad about active/skilled chars making GAINS

Prob Necros who are annoyed that there is another good solo class that they have to share valuable solo spots with lol

[Swish]

Imagine a world where people just played the game...

[winter888]

Prob Necros who are annoyed that there is another good solo class that they have to share valuable solo spots with lol

And the funny part is Chanters are not only self-interested, their abilities are farrrrrr more often used for common interests of all group mates.

Solo as a chanter is absolutely unefficient for the risk of charm broken,for the corpse retrieve, for the exp loss, and for the lost of /list right, which is more effective as Necro/Mage/Shmmy and alot of other classes......

Solo is only kinda hobby when ya are boring with leveling. Something to challenge yourself,when everything gets bored. It's exciting. If for cash-making sake, i'd rather watch a movie and have an necro fded at some competitive camp,sell my loot rights or what.

Start a naked chanter in Green and exp to high lvl just for the sake of solo cashes? I doubt anyone who support this argument had ever played a chanter. What a noob view.

[derpcake2]

Groups likely didn't use pets like Osargen in HHK because they would take the experience. This explains why everyone enchanter didn't run around with charmed backstabbing pets like we see on P99. It actually killed experience same as soloing with a charmed pet and letting it get kills.

Didn't you previously say noone used charm because it was unreliable?

It's getting kind of ridiculous and sad seeing this happen again. Enchanters were not this OP in classic. Charm happened in classic and it broke within 10 seconds most of the time and that is why no one ever used it in groups regularly


Now it didn't get used because the pets took xp?

I'm trying to keep up with all this fast-paced crying, its not easy.

[cd288]

2. Pets should take experience from groups if they do the most damage.

Groups likely didn't use pets like Osargen in HHK because they would take the experience. This explains why everyone enchanter didn't run around with charmed backstabbing pets like we see on P99. It actually killed experience same as soloing with a charmed pet and letting it get kills.

Also didn't it say 75% of experience is taken and not 50% if a pet gets highest damage?

Actually, you're misstating this. Based on the lats information posted in the bug thread, pets only took EXP if they outdamaged the entire group in the aggregate. So if you had a pet in the group, and it does 100 total damage to the mob, but the total damage done by all players taken together is 110, the pet gets no exp.

Each pet was also treated as an individual group member, so if fore example you have two pets in the group who each do 60 damage and the total damage done by the players in the group taken together is 100, the pets get no exp even though together they did more damage than the players did.

A single pet has to outdamage the entire group. This is why you eventually saw people not needing to get rid of their pets in groups, because it was discovered that (i) it's sometimes pretty hard for a single pet, even a charmed mob (with some exceptions), to out-DPS an entire group if people are being active and damaging the mob, and (ii) the more pets you have the better since it then makes it harder for a single pet to do more damage than the entire group as a whole.

So I think we can put this whole pet argument to bed with respect to Charming, since it's simply not accurate.

[kjs86z]

And the funny part is Chanters are not only self-interested, their abilities are farrrrrr more often used for common interests of all group mates.

Solo as a chanter is absolutely unefficient for the risk of charm broken,for the corpse retrieve, for the exp loss, and for the lost of /list right, which is more effective as Necro/Mage/Shmmy and alot of other classes......

Solo is only kinda hobby when ya are boring with leveling. Something to challenge yourself,when everything gets bored. It's exciting. If for cash-making sake, i'd rather watch a movie and have an necro fded at some competitive camp,sell my loot rights or what.

Start a naked chanter in Green and exp to high lvl just for the sake of solo cashes? I doubt anyone who support this argument had ever played a chanter. What a noob view.

https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

[Vormotus]

Holy crap 76 Pages! You almost made me lich myself to death today!


The thread that keeps on giving! :D


https://i.imgur.com/sCueVMg.gif

[loramin]

Holy crap 76 Pages! You almost made me lich myself to death today!


The thread that keeps on giving! :D

/shrug Enchanters like being unclassically powerful, and everyone else is jelly. Seems like the perfect recipe for a 100+ page thread.

But to be fair, if Shaman got some unclassic boost here that I couldn't prove was classic ... but I couldn't prove it not classic either ... I'd be fighting for 70+ pages too :)

[Dreenk317]

So, I havent read anything, but here's my guess as to what lit the fire.
1. OP is salty because the camp he wanted was being soloed and said soloer wouldn't share, rough, but its p99. Welcome to the server.

2. OP is salty because he is some class that cant solo without velious gear, and he gave a lvl 4 enchanter 25 plat for spells when he was lvl 35, and the next day, that enchanter was soloing OP's groups exp spot at lvl 37, while OP was still 35. In which case, they are an enchanter, if your jealous, make one, learn to charm, make others jealous.

[cd288]

/shrug Enchanters like being unclassically powerful, and everyone else is jelly. Seems like the perfect recipe for a 100+ page thread.

But to be fair, if Shaman got some unclassic boost here that I couldn't prove was classic ... but I couldn't prove it not classic either ... I'd be fighting for 70+ pages too :)

More of the same. Commenting about something being not classic without providing any evidence at all. Keep it going brah! Eventually I’m sure the staff will make some changes based on Loramin’s personal memory of something from 20 years ago lmao

[kul69]

More of the same. Commenting about something being not classic without providing any evidence at all. Keep it going brah! Eventually I’m sure the staff will make some changes based on Loramin’s personal memory of something from 20 years ago lmao

Still can't grasp that it doesn't matter if it's classic. The experience isn't classic and should be nerfed the same as other classes like Necro or those classes should be left as classic.

[Evets]

My charm breaks plenty. all it takes is a push of 3 buttons in a matter of seconds to re charm. Mez, Tash, Charm. unless you want charm completely broken and breaking every 5 seconds which probably wasn't classic either I don't see what the fuss is about...

If you hate an OP class because they are so much more powerful than you (which every game usually has and eq has several) then become the OP class.... and if you hate playing said class then stop trying to ruin other peoples chosen class to prop your chosen class up.

[cd288]

Still can't grasp that it doesn't matter if it's classic. The experience isn't classic and should be nerfed the same as other classes like Necro or those classes should be left as classic.

Lol I grasp your point, it’s just a simply idiotic point.

You mention necros constantly, sounds like you’re a salty necro who doesn’t like that he got hit with some very minor nerfs and is also annoyed that you aren’t the only strong solo class on the server and therefore you have to compete with others for camps. #OkNecro

[bubur]

put the proven bit in the bug forums, or nothin will happen

press the button

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Holy crap 76 Pages! You almost made me lich myself to death today!


The thread that keeps on giving! :D


https://i.imgur.com/sCueVMg.gif

The itching may be the drugs

[Meiva]

This cancel culture has gotten out of hand.

[jacob54311]

This cancel culture has gotten out of hand.

Cultural appropriation is a core chanter ability (illusion). Class needs to be removed from the game.

[Evets]

Ermagerd that high elf turned into an Erudite! BLACKFAAAAACE!

[cd288]

Ermagerd that high elf turned into an Erudite! BLACKFAAAAACE!

Lmao

[Wurl]

fix enchanters

[bubur]

delete em!

[Bazia]

just a quick reminder that the most accomplished tank on green/teal is an imp protector :)

[WaffleztheAndal]

No one gave a shit/just laughed and trolled when mages were hit with the nerf hammer (our class is still actually half broken lol), so I’m gonna lol when the charm thread in the bug forum gets the chanters nerf batted as well.

[cd288]

No one gave a shit/just laughed and trolled when mages were hit with the nerf hammer (our class is still actually half broken lol), so I’m gonna lol when the charm thread in the bug forum gets the chanters nerf batted as well.

Except ironically all the charm thread really shows is that CHA apparently has a minimal effect on Charm saving rolls. Which means one of two things (I) that would explain why lower level low gear enchanters are having charm last longer, if P99 is accurate to the classic mechanic, or (II) P99 is putting too much importance on CHA in the saving rolls, and if they remove it it will arguably make it even easier for Enchanters on Green in their cloth/no CHA boost gear to Charm lol.

The bug thread makes things worse for the 3 of you who want to see Enchanters nerfed in an unclassic manner because they’re contesting the spots you want to solo on your Necro lol

[WaffleztheAndal]

Except ironically all the charm thread really shows is that CHA apparently has a minimal effect on Charm saving rolls. Which means one of two things (I) that would explain why lower level low gear enchanters are having charm last longer, if P99 is accurate to the classic mechanic, or (II) P99 is putting too much importance on CHA in the saving rolls, and if they remove it it will arguably make it even easier for Enchanters on Green in their cloth/no CHA boost gear to Charm lol.

The bug thread makes things worse for the 3 of you who want to see Enchanters nerfed in an unclassic manner because they’re contesting the spots you want to solo on your Necro lol

You underestimate these researchers. Give it time, you’ll feel the pain as we did.