Enchanter OP impact poll

[azxten]

Even as a high level Enchanter myself now I am still working on getting this ridiculously overpowered and non-classic class fixed. We know charm never worked this well in classic, we know all pet HP is too high and double so for Enchanter pets, we know channeling rates are too successful, and so on. There are multiple bug reports on these issues if you want to review the evidence. In spite of the evidence that has been gathered Enchanter remains a ridiculously overpowered class that was never this way in classic. I feel it really ruins a lot of the EQ experience in various ways.

I wanted to ask the community, how do you feel about Enchanter? Is it overpowered compared to classic? Does it impact the game by trivializing solo, group, and/or raid content?

[Snortles Chortles]

unless paralyzing root is intentionally amazing
my experience as a live root nuking wiz noob was consistent root breaking
can’t imagine consistent charm is era accurate

[Cen]

Classicly OP where dialup made things scarier for charm

[bomaroast]

The easiest way to kill the bees on isle 6 is with charm pets? That shit is not classic and obviously not right.

[Tunabros]

The enchanter is only as powerful as the player

so no nerf

[Gustoo]

Its overpowered we just don't know exactly how or why.

Based on P99 experience enchanter is god mode kill it all charm king.

On live enchanter was great for having clarity and crowd control.

I don't think live players were so dumb. I think something is different here. Many of us have now played project 1999 longer than we played live, so its hard to rememeber. What to do? Who knows.

[bomaroast]

Charm never lasted this long on live. If charm lasted for a couple minutes, then that was a good charm. Everyone knows it, but the devs are biased for some reason. Who knows /shrugs

[Snortles Chortles]

must be hard to code or unknown variables lost to time

[Gustoo]

bombaroast - Dev's just need facts and no one had provided detailed facts to back it up.
snortles - yep

Wait a sec can't we play one of the modern everquest TLP servers and see how these spells operate? Wouldn't it give us some base line?

[loramin]

bombaroast - Dev's just need facts and no one had provided detailed facts to back it up.

I mean, in general here yes, absolutely.

But there's been over a decade of bug reports about Enchanters, often with evidence ... and nothing has ever come of them. So it kinda makes you think more bug reports, with more evidence, isn't going to change the underlying issue (and that the underlying issue may actually be that Nilbog's a big Enchanter fan ;)).

[azxten]

Classicly OP where dialup made things scarier for charm

To me this fits into classically OP and needs a nerf. Same as Bard AE kiting, AE groups, pet attack delay from given weapons, etc. The same reasoning around disruption/trivialization of content from a classic mechanic that is too successful due to modern technology can be applied to Enchanter.

People questioning what proof exists. There is already bug reports showing charm was so unreliable and buggy in classic pre-kunark it would mostly result in dying. Everyone knows in classic pets pathed odd, fell through world, etc but on P99 they're almost perfect. We also already proved channeling rates are too high on P99 particularly at lower levels which greatly benefits Enchanter and allows them to survive. Saying there is no evidence just isn't true anymore. Pets as well. All pets across the board have too much HP and Enchanter has a similar pet to Nec/Mag when on live their pet was paper thin and had something like half the other classes pet HP. This is a minor aspect but it's just another way Enchanter gets more unclassic benefits than every other class.

The evidence is all there. P99 Enchanter is mostly accurate for a level 60, max channeling, and highly geared Velious era Enchanter. Except it plays that way from level 1 and the start of classic era. People keep trying to dismiss this. One of the latest Enchanter bug threads even has links to classic era posts of Enchanters talking about how completely useless they are and that they can't even mez. Mez was talked about as an emergency back up and multiple people even said they don't keep it memmed because of how buggy it was.

Live classic Enchanter died all the time from mez in groups where tanks couldn't pull aggro. They didn't tank 3-5 mobs and channel mez through it to solo large groups of mobs.

In a recent bug thread it was also proven mez should not mem blur mobs on recast. If a mob is mezzed, it can be mem blurred, and then it won't blur again until the spell wears off and is reapplied. This meant a mob being re-mezzed was actually stacking up aggro on the Enchanter instead of it being wiped regularly with each re-mez. Mem blur rates are too high on mez as well.

The evidence is there...

[Vivitron]

I mean, in general here yes, absolutely.

But there's been over a decade of bug reports about Enchanters, often with evidence ... and nothing has ever come of them. So it kinda makes you think more bug reports, with more evidence, isn't going to change the underlying issue (and that the underlying issue may actually be that Nilbog's a big Enchanter fan ;)).

Which bug reports are open with the balance of evidence suggesting P99 is wrong? I've been following azxten's quest and afaict the only report supported by evidence is animation hp (with showeq npc pet hp evidence).

[Vivitron]

One of the latest Enchanter bug threads even has links to classic era posts of Enchanters talking about how completely useless they are and that they can't even mez. Mez was talked about as an emergency back up and multiple people even said they don't keep it memmed because of how buggy it was.

Live classic Enchanter died all the time from mez in groups where tanks couldn't pull aggro. They didn't tank 3-5 mobs and channel mez through it to solo large groups of mobs.

In a recent bug thread it was also proven mez should not mem blur mobs on recast. If a mob is mezzed, it can be mem blurred, and then it won't blur again until the spell wears off and is reapplied. This meant a mob being re-mezzed was actually stacking up aggro on the Enchanter instead of it being wiped regularly with each re-mez. Mem blur rates are too high on mez as well.

The evidence is there...
You've been seeking negative descriptions of enchanters in the archives and credulously latching on to them.

[azxten]

Which bug reports are open with the balance of evidence suggesting P99 is wrong? I've been following azxten's quest and afaict the only report supported by evidence is animation hp (with showeq npc pet hp evidence).

I'd suggest reviewing this latest bug report thread.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=378303

Particularly near the end and the links Dolalin provided.

1. October 2000 thread from castersrealm forums, pretty good comments about effectiveness:

https://web.archive.org/web/20001211...ML/000811.html

2. June 2002 thread from castersrealm forums, a little out of era but still worth a read, mentions an 'upgrade patch' that might be worth nailing down, probably in Luclin if I had to guess:

https://forums.crgaming.com/cgi-bin/...c&f=9&t=007423

3. Nov 2003 thread from therunes.net (enchanter class site), touches on the 1% issue and it maybe not being totally accurate, pretty far out of era though, idk:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040104...php?p=9731&amp

4. Jan 2004 thread on Castersrealm, along with #1 it mentions that a chanter refreshing mez will never get a blur chance on a refresh of the mez, only if mez is not already active on the mob, also applies for other enchanters trying to refresh a mez. Again, rather far out of era though:

https://web.archive.org/web/20041107...p?p=861536&amp

5. This eqenchanters mailing list post from March 2000 says the following:

Quote:
Hey Horchata, enthrall is a good spell, (entrance is better)
and yes it does have the properties of a memblur, but its not %100.
I thought they nerfed mesmerize way back level 30 mobs kept attacking after
i mesd them. Its because the higher level they are above the spell level,
the more chance they resist the memblur part. Anyway when fighting level
35-53 mobs

youll find the mes series doesnt quite wipe the hate list, and will find
yourself attacked very often. Memblur isnt %100 either but its chance for
success are much higher. If a mob is in combat how do you wipe its hate if
it aggros you or a caster? Enthrall may only make it angry with you.
https://github.com/dbsanfte/eq-archi...html/2440.html

6. CastersRealm forums thread from June 2002 that is pretty detailed and has logs of tests comparing mem blurs and mez/enthrall etc, defo worth a read:

https://web.archive.org/web/20020718...c&f=9&t=007338

7. CastersRealm forums thread from November 1999 talking about mez and blur chances:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000606...ML/000002.html

8. Everlore page for Memory Blur, in era, but not much here, typical low-quality Everlore page.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010714...ory+Blur&type=

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
#33
Old 02-11-2021, 10:11 PM
Dolalin Dolalin is offline
Planar Protector

Dolalin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,210

Default
From alt.games.everquest:

1. Thread from April 2000 discussing mem blur on mes:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.game...m/WBo1eHiX-roJ

2. Another one from June 2000 by the same ench that goes into some more detail:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.game...m/Ra2vvSHE-o0J

3. This is an "enchanters nerf list" from Feb 2000 and claims chance to mem blur on mes was reduced, not sure about timelines or veracity:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.game...m/cIxhxuPKEk8J

There is a ton of great info in those links showing what the classic Enchanter experience was like and it's nothing like P99. People not memming mez because it didn't work so often from LOS bugs? AE Mez ignoring Z axis and hitting mobs through walls? Least played class?

Read through the posts, it's pretty telling. Enchanter was a garbage broken class in classic. You can even see that you could actually DOT mobs while they were Mezzed and Enchanters thought this was normal and expected. They consider it a nerf when it was changed. Absolutely zero discussion of charm as a viable way to play. It's almost never discussed. There is another bug thread where Dolalin provided links to evidence of how buggy charm was. Not just breaking often but just ridiculously bugged. Charmed pets wouldn't respond, would fall through world, etc.

My feeling after reviewing a lot of this is that charm was so broken and worthless it wasn't discussed often in classic era and so there isn't much info to go on in terms of how exactly it should function. I don't think P99 devs want to introduce horrible bugs like falling through world and such to provide the full classic experience. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place. When is a bug too much of a bug to consider it part of classic and when does fixing a bug result in a non-classic experience?

My argument is that if Enchanter charm was so bugged as to be mostly dangerous then allowing Enchanters to use it in classic era without those bugs is non-classically OP and it needs a nerf in some kind of way.

Ha ha! I can't tell you how many times I have had to sit down in
the middle of a horde to memorize Mesmerization FAST while the
tanks keep everything taunted off of me. Nowadays I keep it
ready, even if I can't really cast it because of the LOS bugs,
because it is still the group's "Get out of jail free" card. We
rarely have anyone who can evac.

No kidding. If you catch yourself with your Mesmerization, you are
going to fall down dead in approximately 24.5 seconds, and the rest
of your party will soon follow.

The spells through the wall bug is a killer. Any AE spell, like
Mesmerization, is going to wake up whatever is above you, below
you or through the wall. I wish Verant would fix that so that if
you can't see it or affect it, it doesn't notice the spell.

Oh ya, and where are all these enchanted items we were 'supposed' to be
able to make ??? Enchanters seem to be the most overlooked class in the
game .. maybe that's why there's so few of us ? I've been doing player
counts lately and found that the ONLY class that is less popular than
Enchanters is Shadow Knights .. even the rogues have us out-numbered =(

When's the last time the Enchanter was given an upgrade or had a spell
made more effective ?? (I'm not talking about the ability to make a
useless vial of mana either)

[azxten]

You've been latching on to any negative description of enchanters you can find in the archives and credulously latching on to them.

So first it's "show me the evidence" and then it's "you're only finding the bad evidence."

How about you find some evidence that charm was a relied upon tactic in classic EQ? Not Kunark, not Velious, but classic EQ. Find me someone talking about how useful it was and not the countless stories of Enchanters crying their class was a broken mess, the least played, and ignored.

I showed you mine, show me yours.

[Toxigen]

Can't you just enjoy this free game?

[azxten]

Charm wearing off message didn't work?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369688&highlight=charm

Classic bugs with Charm

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359961&highlight=charm

Charm was less desirable in classic, in part, due to the myriad bugs associated with it. I thought I would post a thread I found that summarizes them, in case there's a desire to tune charm in the future:

http://web.archive.org/web/200006082...ML/001072.html

Charm didn't always stick:
Quote:
2. I hit the monster with charm and nothing happens! I don't get a resist message. Nothing. It just as if the mob didn't get charmed at all. One time I charmed a gargoyle in Mistmoore who proceeded to attack me while his intiate familiar friend beat on him. That sounds pretty bugged to me.
Pathing was very bad for charmed pets (and pets in general, tbh):
Quote:
3. You charm your mob and it amazingly disappears! Goes off somewhere and vanishes from sight. You get the 'Your Charm' has broken message. I just tell my party to zone, because you know it pulled the whole damn place down around your head. Usually a minute later, the whole zone shows up in one mass mob, your screen goes red with damage and you die.
You would occasionally take melee hits that were meant for your pet:
Quote:
Once in Kedge I charmed a piercer and sent it after another mob. As the piercer was valiantly killing off the mobs I was getting whacked along with it. Talk about symbiotic connection! However it was able to kill one of the 4 on it so I got exp right before I swam like a girly-man to the zone.
Pet would attack groupmates, e.g. if it were DoTed by a groupmate, even while charmed:
Quote:
the worst is when it gets bugged, but the charm goes off so you have a pet that it attacking groupmates, not attacking mobs, and your group cant fight back root/etc.. you also cant mez it because its your pet, rechaming is useless.

so you have to sit down, flip from quick access spells through 4 or 5 pages to get to invis. mem cast, get bashed.. mez.

---

If your charmed pet is attacking a group mate it is probably because they DoT'd the mob before you charmed. It still feels the DoT even though it is now under your control. About the only thing you can do is constantly issue the /pet back off command or just break the charm since the pet is pretty useless now.

---

Also, I'm not quite sure this works but in guk I had a druid get whaled on a few times by my pet because he had a dot on it.
/pet guard here and /pet sit down were bugged:
Quote:
/pet sit down and /pet gaurd here do some really funky things to my charmed pets.

They both do the same thing. I'll use one of the commands and my pet will stand still for a few moments. As soon as I back off a bit though, the pet will start wandering off in a different direction... I have to catch up to it and command it to follow me.
Charm break message seems to have often arrived late and been unreliable/bugged:
Quote:
Another buggy aspect is when a group member casts inviso undead on me to break the charm and I don't get the charm break message until a few seconds after.

---

Mixilplix, I have one better. I had a mob break charm, due to "natural" circumstances, and the message finally popped up 3 seconds AFTER my party had killed the loving thing (about a 15-20 second fight).

---

Root is in the same slot as charm, so i got the "you may only have one pet at a time" message, slapped myself in the forehead and rooted him. About 30 seconds later, I get the break message, and wait for the pet to come beat on me. But he doesn't, so i hit F1 twice, and sure enough, he still shows up as my pet. Later I got his break message. I'm guessing that even though the second charm didn't go through because I already had a pet, it still got counted, and so i got a break message for it.
So really there was a lot wrong with charm in classic. P99 has too many of these 'bugs' fixed

[azxten]

Can't you just enjoy this free game?

Yes, I do enjoy it.

I don't understand why people cry so much about trying to recreate an accurate classic experience. Even in the threads I just linked from Dolalin what is the first reply to all the classic charm bug evidence?

seek help

People are so fucking angry about what is obviously a non-classic, trivializing, OP class that sucks a lot of the challenge out of the game potentially being nerfed.

Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence? I can't see! Where? What? Huh? Dial up! People didn't know how to play! They're just making up stories! No one knew how EQ worked that's why Enchanter was the least played, most buggy, and most likely to die in any given situation.

Ok, clear evidence charmed pets attacked group members and so on. No, must have been dial up.

THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY CLEAR.

[Jimjam]

Can't you just enjoy this free game?

I'd enjoy it more if it was even harder for warriors to get yellow/red con mobs off of enchanters.

[azxten]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=343453&page=3&highlight=channeling

While we're at it let me add this as well..

So Torven sent me the logic they use on TAKP which I've given to the P99 devs. They took their code from a client decompile so it's as close as I imagine you could get to accuracy. A Trilogy client decompile would be interesting to see, perhaps the logic is in there too (TAKP's client code has a few extra lines to handle channeling AAs, they modify the roll a bit). But looking at it I doubt it changed much.

Based on what I see, channeling is indeed overpowered on p99.

Low level characters should start out with only a 10% chance to channel through hits, which climbs a hill from a minimum roll of 39 to a maximum roll of 370, out of 391, as you progress your levels and channeling skill. It caps at 95% chance to channel.

Additionally you get a level bonus to channel if the spell you are casting is more than 5 levels lower than you are.

Chance to channel is effectively capped at 10% until level 6. Then it scales slowly upwards as a function of level and channeling skill.

My level 3 iksar shaman was about 50/50 to channel through hits on p99 which always felt off. Her chance should be 10%.

A level 10 caster with max channeling and casting a level 8 spell should have a 16% chance to channel.

A level 20 caster with max channeling and casting a 20th spell should have a 31% chance to channel. But casting level 4 gate, they would have a 44% chance to channel due to level bonus.

A level 55 SK with 210 channeling, casting Feign Death (level 30 spell for them) would have a 73% chance to channel (due also to level bonus).

That should give you an idea of how it scales.

At level 1 on P99 you have the channeling success rate of level ~30. This ridiculously successful channeling rate on P99 greatly benefits Enchanter especially at lower levels. Really though this is a whole other can of worms about why P99 is so easy and everyone just stacks up at max level easily zerging raid mobs.

[Vivitron]

So first it's "show me the evidence" and then it's "you're only finding the bad evidence."
Read any thread about game mechanics and you'll see contradictions and rampant cluelessness. A single forum post making a claim about a mechanic without describing how they came to their belief is just not credible.

[magnetaress]

To me this fits into classically OP and needs a nerf. Same as Bard AE kiting, AE groups, pet attack delay from given weapons, etc. The same reasoning around disruption/trivialization of content from a classic mechanic that is too successful due to modern technology can be applied to Enchanter.

People questioning what proof exists. There is already bug reports showing charm was so unreliable and buggy in classic pre-kunark it would mostly result in dying. Everyone knows in classic pets pathed odd, fell through world, etc but on P99 they're almost perfect. We also already proved channeling rates are too high on P99 particularly at lower levels which greatly benefits Enchanter and allows them to survive. Saying there is no evidence just isn't true anymore. Pets as well. All pets across the board have too much HP and Enchanter has a similar pet to Nec/Mag when on live their pet was paper thin and had something like half the other classes pet HP. This is a minor aspect but it's just another way Enchanter gets more unclassic benefits than every other class.

The evidence is all there. P99 Enchanter is mostly accurate for a level 60, max channeling, and highly geared Velious era Enchanter. Except it plays that way from level 1 and the start of classic era. People keep trying to dismiss this. One of the latest Enchanter bug threads even has links to classic era posts of Enchanters talking about how completely useless they are and that they can't even mez. Mez was talked about as an emergency back up and multiple people even said they don't keep it memmed because of how buggy it was.

Live classic Enchanter died all the time from mez in groups where tanks couldn't pull aggro. They didn't tank 3-5 mobs and channel mez through it to solo large groups of mobs.

In a recent bug thread it was also proven mez should not mem blur mobs on recast. If a mob is mezzed, it can be mem blurred, and then it won't blur again until the spell wears off and is reapplied. This meant a mob being re-mezzed was actually stacking up aggro on the Enchanter instead of it being wiped regularly with each re-mez. Mem blur rates are too high on mez as well.

The evidence is there...

Yep. P99 plays more like pop showdows of luclin.

[Keebz]

I don't think many Enchanter spells worked properly at all until Velious or so. As such, this version of game balance, where enchanter spells work extremely well is not historically accurate.

It's important to remember, the eq emu code and values are not 'classic'. They are largely based off (read: guessed from) later versions of the game. Again with emphasis, this is an _emulated_ server. The status quo is no evidence of accuracy.

Unless the devs have deliberately tried to tune chanter mechanics and values to classic levels, they are wrong. I'd love to see where the devs got their current values/formulas.

[Vivitron]

Charm wearing off message didn't work?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369688&highlight=charm

Classic bugs with Charm

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359961&highlight=charm

I considered posting on this one, because I experienced several of these "bugs" while leveling up on P99. Charm silently broke because I forgot I had swapped out charm for memblur or pacify. The thing hitting me in Kedge was an add I didn't see. The charm break message was delayed because my chat window was scrolled up a couple lines.

Maybe player dotted pets really did hit players, that seems more plausible than the other claims.

[azxten]

Read any thread about game mechanics and you'll see contradictions and rampant cluelessness. A single forum post making a claim about a mechanic without describing how they came to their belief is just not credible.

How about the multiple posts about pets attacking group members if DOTed? Pets wandering away? Charm message not working or working inaccurately?

I'm glad I posted all that on the second page of this thread. You can pick and choose but it's clear by the large body of evidence that Enchanter is non-classically OP on P99 and needs a nerf.

My original request was that only channeling be fixed because I feel it is the greatest contributor to Enchanter being OP. There are a lot of things to look at and channeling at least seems well proven at this point.

Actually I've wanted to write out a list again of what seems proven...

1. Mez should only mem blur on initial cast and not on recasts. It had to wear off in order for mem blur to work on recast. This greatly impacts aggro generation on Enchanters and may be a part of the missing extreme aggro situations Enchanters had on live. Remezzing a mob would stack aggro and never blur. Proven via old player posts.

2. Enchanter pet HP is too high. All pet HP seems too high but Enchanter more so since their pet is also classically low on HP compared to Nec/Mag. Proven in old capture provided in bug report.

3. Charm was very buggy. There are many different potential bugs to choose from. Pets warping, wandering away, bad pathing, attacking group members from DOTs, and various bugs with the text messaging you would see related to charm which made it difficult to understand status. Proven via old player posts.

4. AE spells like AE Mez ignored Z axis and went through walls. On P99 this spell is used often where these bugs would result in massive trains and wipes. Proven via old player posts.

5. Channeling rates are much too high on P99. Proven via multiple player reports and TAKP client disassembly data.

There are a few other things which are known but not necessarily proven with as much evidence like mez mem blur rates being too high. As someone said earlier there are stacks of Enchanter bug reports at this point.

[Snortles Chortles]

I'd enjoy it more if it was even harder for warriors to get yellow/red con mobs off of enchanters.

[Vivitron]

I agree with you that the channeling rate is worth reviewing.

If pathing and ae los were marginally buggier on live I'm not sure that it seems beneficial to try to track down and recreate those bugs.

[Nirgon]

You can get whatever you want here if you cry and threaten to quit enough. No mercy, get it done.

[Snortles Chortles]

it’s pretty ridiculous i can channel 6 second cast dots through melee

[Jimjam]

You can get whatever you want here if you cry and threaten to quit enough. No mercy, get it done.

IDK, man, I didn't get to keep my server's premier Erud Superiority guild.

[Nirgon]

They cried enough to get it disbanded. Excellent point but not game mechanics related.

I haven't petitioned for it back as I'm still enjoying them actually getting rustled to the point of harassing the staff into doing it.

But we are talking item and game mechanic changes. Just make them do it like the other stuff.

[DMN]

Oh good lord, this idiot again.

The animations, which are trash in the firstplace, have the approiate hit point s on p99, at least on the 44 and 49 pets. didn't bother to test others?

You just keep lying and making stuff up because you are a bad enchanter so now you farm for over powered and easy mode shaman gear.

[Nirgon]

You mock him but his tactic is proven to be very effective.

[cd288]

Even as a high level Enchanter myself now I am still working on getting this ridiculously overpowered and non-classic class fixed. We know charm never worked this well in classic, we know all pet HP is too high and double so for Enchanter pets, we know channeling rates are too successful, and so on. There are multiple bug reports on these issues if you want to review the evidence. In spite of the evidence that has been gathered Enchanter remains a ridiculously overpowered class that was never this way in classic. I feel it really ruins a lot of the EQ experience in various ways.

I wanted to ask the community, how do you feel about Enchanter? Is it overpowered compared to classic? Does it impact the game by trivializing solo, group, and/or raid content?

I think you need some help given that you seem to be obsessed with this topic. I don’t think we need another spam thread about it.

No actual evidence has been presented that there’s anything non classic about enchanters on P99. The only non classic thing is that a lot of people now know how efficient charm killing is and also have the tech specs on their computer and internet to do it safely.

[cd288]

They cried enough to get it disbanded. Excellent point but not game mechanics related.

I haven't petitioned for it back as I'm still enjoying them actually getting rustled to the point of harassing the staff into doing it.

But we are talking item and game mechanic changes. Just make them do it like the other stuff.

Sad to see people using “I’m offended by the guild name because it’s racist” as a made up excuse to get a guild they don’t like in trouble

[cd288]

How about the multiple posts about pets attacking group members if DOTed? Pets wandering away? Charm message not working or working inaccurately?

I'm glad I posted all that on the second page of this thread. You can pick and choose but it's clear by the large body of evidence that Enchanter is non-classically OP on P99 and needs a nerf.

My original request was that only channeling be fixed because I feel it is the greatest contributor to Enchanter being OP. There are a lot of things to look at and channeling at least seems well proven at this point.

Actually I've wanted to write out a list again of what seems proven...

1. Mez should only mem blur on initial cast and not on recasts. It had to wear off in order for mem blur to work on recast. This greatly impacts aggro generation on Enchanters and may be a part of the missing extreme aggro situations Enchanters had on live. Remezzing a mob would stack aggro and never blur. Proven via old player posts.

2. Enchanter pet HP is too high. All pet HP seems too high but Enchanter more so since their pet is also classically low on HP compared to Nec/Mag. Proven in old capture provided in bug report.

3. Charm was very buggy. There are many different potential bugs to choose from. Pets warping, wandering away, bad pathing, attacking group members from DOTs, and various bugs with the text messaging you would see related to charm which made it difficult to understand status. Proven via old player posts.

4. AE spells like AE Mez ignored Z axis and went through walls. On P99 this spell is used often where these bugs would result in massive trains and wipes. Proven via old player posts.

5. Channeling rates are much too high on P99. Proven via multiple player reports and TAKP client disassembly data.

There are a few other things which are known but not necessarily proven with as much evidence like mez mem blur rates being too high. As someone said earlier there are stacks of Enchanter bug reports at this point.

Provide actual data mining/disassembly or posts/patch notes from EQ staff or shut up about it already. Old player posts mean nothing especially considering how little anyone knew about anything back then. For every player post saying one thing, you can find an old player post saying the exact opposite.

[azxten]

Provide actual data mining/disassembly or posts/patch notes from EQ staff or shut up about it already. Old player posts mean nothing especially considering how little anyone knew about anything back then. For every player post saying one thing, you can find an old player post saying the exact opposite.

I already linked to the bug report of the disassembled client showing channeling is wrong. Everyone knows channeling is wrong here. You don't get a 50%+ chance to cast a spell when being hit at level 1. Anyone arguing against this is an obvious crybaby who wants non-classic easy mode mechanics. Go play WoW. EQ casters had difficulty casting when being hit. Deal with it.

Find me an old player post from classic era talking about how useful charm is and how great it is for soloing. Anything about charming planar mobs. Anything about using a charmed pet to tank dragons and get first kill.

I mean, what a joke, P99 Naggy is first killed with a charmed mob almost every time by a small group of players and we're supposed to believe EQ live would have allowed this or anything close to it? Oh well, I guess the players outsmarted us, let's give them their loot. This is Brad "The Vision" McQuaid who nerfed DOTs on running mobs because players figured out kiting and he didn't like it.

Anyone who tries to claim Brad and Verant would allow a charmed sonic bat to tank Nagafen for ~20 players to get a first kill on the server is a total fucking idiot. They would have shut down the server mid kill and nerfed charm into the stone age right on the spot. They would have told the players involved to go fuck themselves and maybe even suspended them for abusing mechanics.

[cd288]

I already linked to the bug report of the disassembled client showing channeling is wrong. Everyone knows channeling is wrong here. You don't get a 50%+ chance to cast a spell when being hit at level 1. Anyone arguing against this is an obvious crybaby who wants non-classic easy mode mechanics. Go play WoW. EQ casters had difficulty casting when being hit. Deal with it.

Find me an old player post from classic era talking about how useful charm is and how great it is for soloing. Anything about charming planar mobs. Anything about using a charmed pet to tank dragons and get first kill.

I mean, what a joke, P99 Naggy is first killed with a charmed mob almost every time by a small group of players and we're supposed to believe EQ live would have allowed this or anything close to it? Oh well, I guess the players outsmarted us, let's give them their loot. This is Brad "The Vision" McQuaid who nerfed DOTs on running mobs because players figured out kiting and he didn't like it.

Anyone who tries to claim Brad and Verant would allow a charmed sonic bat to tank Nagafen for ~20 players to get a first kill on the server is a total fucking idiot. They would have shut down the server mid kill and nerfed charm into the stone age right on the spot. They would have told the players involved to go fuck themselves and maybe even suspended them for abusing mechanics.

Ok so you provided evidence for one thing. The rest is just your speculation and hearsay posts from two decades ago that could be false or are otherwise contradicted by other hearsay posts.

No one needs to provide you with evidence of anything. You’re the one whining and demanding a change, so you’re the one who needs to provide real evidence.

[enjchanter]

i have no idea how strong they were back in the day but dont nerf so i dont have to group with ppl

[TripSin]

Did enchanters kill azxten's parents or something? This dude is constantly spouting nonsense and whining while never having any real evidence to backup his garbage claims. He's always so triggered over the existence of chanters. By 2030 I bet he'll have made this thread at least another 5 times.

The main reasons chanters are stronger in p99 compared to live are because everyone has fast internet connections, every chanter worth anything is using GINA or similar, everyone knows everything about the game and uses the wiki for anything they might not, everyone has jboots and goblin ring, GCD clickies, is stacking and maxing out CHA, and etc. etc.

[G13]

There is no way OP can prove charm effectiveness from Classic era as opposed to now

For one, enchanters back in the classic era stacked INT. Not Charisma. Back then everyone assumed CHA was a useless stat. The meta was INT mana, mana, mana (always need more mana)

"Everyone knows" this

By that fact alone it's virtually impossible to prove his claims

As someone else mentioned in this thread, the tactic is a never ending whine assault until the GMs don't want to listen to him anymore and give in

Maybe if he called the spell racist he's have some success

[azxten]

There is no way OP can prove charm effectiveness from Classic era as opposed to now

For one, enchanters back in the classic era stacked INT. Not Charisma. Back then everyone assumed CHA was a useless stat. The meta was INT mana, mana, mana (always need more mana)

"Everyone knows" this

By that fact alone it's virtually impossible to prove his claims

As someone else mentioned in this thread, the tactic is a never ending whine assault until the GMs don't want to listen to him anymore and give in

Maybe if he called the spell racist he's have some success

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitewind/gtxt/guides/UChantGuide.htm

Charisma - The second school supports raising CHA as high as possible for two reasons. Firstly, many believe that high CHA has a profound impact on charm durations, stun-locking, fear durations, and mezzing. Nearly all enchanters give credit that it does help, especially in charming scenarios. The second reason is that most Charisma items do not have an armor class raise attached. At higher levels, enchanters start steering toward AC/HP/Mana items, and many INT items carry those stats, especially AC. My research has proven to me that CHA has a profound impact on charming, without a doubt. Mezzing is slightly impacted by it, as my mezzing resists are always lower with high charisma, but only barely lower, so much that I had to cast it 100 times and keep track of the resists to be able to tell. I haven't tested it with stunning and fearing yet... that's next on the list.

No, it was quite well known CHA impacted charm. Tired arguments are tired.

In fact if people would stop making up bullshit and claiming I'm lying about everything and instead go back to page 2 and read the actual links provided you'll see people knew potentially even more than the average P99 player does even with the wiki. You'll see discussions about mem blur efficiency and so on. It's a stupid and tired argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter during live and that's why they weren't overpowered.

Charm - Here it is. The big dog. The secret to uber-soloing. When you cast this, the target mob (max level 25) becomes your pet to command. NPC mobs hit much harder, have more hitpoints, and basically outweigh all PC pets in every way. If two mobs fight (one as your pet) and you nuke the enemy once, your pet should win the fight, though almost dead. Then you kill your pet for full experience. No class can touch our ability to solo with this method. Dropping double-yellow mobs with two bubbles of mana is basically mind-blowing, and double-blues can be great xp still. It's also extremely hazardous. I really don't feel we have the ability to charm solo until the Fifth Circle, when you have our entire spell-line available. If you insist on trying it now, you'll just have to skip ahead and find a work-around to not having Mesmerization, which I feel is critical to be successful. Also, you need a massive Charisma. I'm talking about 170+. At 182, I'm semi-comfortable with Charm-Solo, and I still prefer Kamikaze-Solo.

What? Is that an old Angelfire Enchanter page clearing spelling out CHA for charming and also clearly describing exactly how charm solo works on P99? I thought no one knew about any of this? What else do they say about charming?

Should you choose to perform crowd control in groups, solo kamikaze-style, kite (or reverse) with a steady partner, or truly show nerves of steel with daring charm-solos, you have seen the avenues lain before the enchanter, and gotten a feel for the spell lines required for each, as well as learned to manage your eight spell slots well.

Charming solo was very dangerous. It could pay off in experience if well geared and played well. However, it's also noteworthy they don't talk about Charm soloing in dungeons for experience like happens on P99. Their examples are all outdoors. This is nothing like P99 by the way. People try to claim that "you should try it" become saying Enchanter is easy. Bull fucking shit. Enchanter is brain dead easy to charm solo on P99. There is nothing daring or dangerous about it except at higher levels when doing named camps that no other class can touch solo.

Charm-Solo - Okay, you've patiently waited all this time because of my recommendations, but enough is enough, and you want to try charm-soloing out. Get CHA gear and get your CHA to 170+. If you think I'm kidding, try these methods without it. Below 150 is suicide, and below 170 is difficult at best. Let me explain in the simplest terms what the goal of charm soloing is:

That's odd my P99 Enchanter is below 170 CHA and was well below that at lower levels but Charm worked just fine and was far from difficult to use for soloing.

Charm-Solo - Tashani is a beautiful addition to Charm-Soloing, and one you will love. Keeping Color Shift instead of Flux memmed will buy you an extra two seconds for regaining control, though it's typically not needed--during charm-solo you want the faster casting time of Color Flux. Stun-Locking can be used to make sure your pet wins the fight when it's close, but I recommend against that because Charm breaking right after you stun can make regaining control very difficult. Just nuke it if it looks close. Soon you will have a longer casting time charm spell, and then Color Shift will be mandatory.

Strange. I still charm solo without ever using stun. I just let mobs hit me and cast Charm right through it. Wonder why people needed to use stun in classic. Channeling?

The crazy part is that one on one either of these mobs would have slaughtered me if I tried to fight them one on one with no pet--but I can take both of them out without breaking a sweat, right? Wrong. While the ease you dispatch mobs with is amazing, when things go wrong it can go really wrong. When charm broke, what if Root broke? That's two mobs beating on me now. What if Color Flux resisted? Not going to get Charm off while getting beaten on--or what if Color Flux on gets one of them stunned? What if the second Charm resisted? Getting beaten again. What if the initial mez bounces? I'm stuck dealing with a very aggro mob and have no pet.

You certainly will get Charm off while getting beaten on when playing on P99. In fact on my Enchanter I would regularly be getting hit by 5 mobs and still cast mez or charm right through it. It's so reliable it's a joke to claim live was anything like this.

Like I've always said, P99 channeling makes Enchanter OP. In actual live Enchanter died a shit load simply due to channeling chance. You couldn't just stand there in melee casting long spells like Charm and expect it to work. Just like someone said earlier in thread, casting a 6 second DOT in melee with an experience giving mob, and succeeding more often than not is a glaring problem with P99's classic nature.

The argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter is tired and proven false. People knew about CHA. They knew exactly how to Charm solo. It just didn't work well due to the risk of death from failing channeling and therefore was also mostly limited to outdoor zones where you would have SoW/JBoots to run away due to unlucky rolls.

Group-Tactics - Your role in groups is clearly defined in this point. After the buffing guidelines above, you have two real jobs: First, you must do crowd control, of course. Then you either Tashani/Tepid Deeds (which has an amazing impact on the fight), or if a single mob stun-lock when mana is surplused. Tepid Deeds uses 100 mana, while stun-locking for two "rounds" uses 120 mana. It is unlikely the stun-locking will go past two rounds (the mob will die by then) and the tanks will have taken practically no damage.

I wonder why not even a single time does this page discuss using a charmed pet in a group? I think we all know why. It's because pets, and charmed pets even more so, acted insane in dungeons for most of classic. No group would ever want a charmed pet anywhere near them.

I guess no one in classic was smart enough to figure out you could charm a backstabbing mob and just sit there in a group practically AFK since Charm almost never breaks even with low CHA and out damage every other class. No one knew!

Just like when early guilds were zerging Naggy with 100+ players and binding in his lair. Not a single Enchanter ever thought to just charm a mob and sit back while it soloed a dragon with a cleric to CH it. What a totally insane a complicated strategy that clearly was completely possible on live but no one was smart enough to try.

[Baler]

OP is a hater, I mean... Enchanter is classicly one of the most powerful classes in everquest. This trend continues not only through classic, kunark and velious. In luclin and Planes of Power they're even stronger. Later during and after omens of war they're so strong they can technically raid tank with the right buff loadout.

The part that's missing for many young enchanters however is it takes some skill to play the class to it's fullest. Enchanters wear cloth armour, so their AC is nothing to brag about. This gets a bit better in velious but not enough for the avg enchanter to do god level solo kills. An enchanter with some BiS velious raid gear, of ****ing course will do amazing on P99. HOWEVER compared to later Eras, calling them OP is a far shot.

[Snortles Chortles]

gonna need a more qualified opinion
(LOL)

[G13]

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitewind/gtxt/guides/UChantGuide.htm



No, it was quite well known CHA impacted charm. Tired arguments are tired.

In fact if people would stop making up bullshit and claiming I'm lying about everything and instead go back to page 2 and read the actual links provided you'll see people knew potentially even more than the average P99 player does even with the wiki. You'll see discussions about mem blur efficiency and so on. It's a stupid and tired argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter during live and that's why they weren't overpowered.

Again, the majority of players that PLAYED, (not wrote obscure angelfire guides nobody read back then) stacked INT. Chanters were mezing and buffing back then. 99% of enchanters back then stacked INT. Everyone knows this.



What? Is that an old Angelfire Enchanter page clearing spelling out CHA for charming and also clearly describing exactly how charm solo works on P99? I thought no one knew about any of this? What else do they say about charming?

Nobody back then probably read that. There weren't things readily available like wikis. We're talking 20 years ago. Again, 20 years ago enchanters were stacking INT. Maybe there was a cry in the wilderness, but that doesn't prove anything.



Charming solo was very dangerous. It could pay off in experience if well geared and played well. However, it's also noteworthy they don't talk about Charm soloing in dungeons for experience like happens on P99. Their examples are all outdoors. This is nothing like P99 by the way. People try to claim that "you should try it" become saying Enchanter is easy. Bull fucking shit. Enchanter is brain dead easy to charm solo on P99. There is nothing daring or dangerous about it except at higher levels when doing named camps that no other class can touch solo.

You're trying to validate your claims based upon an angelfire page that nobody even read back then and it doesn't PROVE anything. Get a grip.

That's odd my P99 Enchanter is below 170 CHA and was well below that at lower levels but Charm worked just fine and was far from difficult to use for soloing.

You don't keep your pet when charm soloing. Especially when leveling. You don't need it hold for very long.

Strange. I still charm solo without ever using stun. I just let mobs hit me and cast Charm right through it. Wonder why people needed to use stun in classic. Channeling?

Channeling is a skill with skill ups. It's not far fetched to believe the higher your skill at channeling the better your ability to cast a spell through combat. That's the point. Again, you have proved nothing. Everything is conjecture based upon a bias against the spell. Every argument against you is a bias for the spell. There simply isn't anything concrete that proves charm wasn't as reliable back then as it is now. Believe me, I've checked and it always comes back to the differences between playstyles, knowledge and meta NOW as opposed to 20 years ago.

You certainly will get Charm off while getting beaten on when playing on P99. In fact on my Enchanter I would regularly be getting hit by 5 mobs and still cast mez or charm right through it. It's so reliable it's a joke to claim live was anything like this.

Yes and you should be able to get it off

Like I've always said, P99 channeling makes Enchanter OP. In actual live Enchanter died a shit load simply due to channeling chance. You couldn't just stand there in melee casting long spells like Charm and expect it to work. Just like someone said earlier in thread, casting a 6 second DOT in melee with an experience giving mob, and succeeding more often than not is a glaring problem with P99's classic nature.

Have you ever watched a good enchanter play the class? They don't rely on their channeling skill to keep things locked down

The argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter is tired and proven false. People knew about CHA. They knew exactly how to Charm solo. It just didn't work well due to the risk of death from failing channeling and therefore was also mostly limited to outdoor zones where you would have SoW/JBoots to run away due to unlucky rolls.

It has not been proven false. You are in error if you believe that "nobody knew how to play an enchanter back then". The point is they played the class DIFFERENTLY then they do now. Stop being so pig headed.



I wonder why not even a single time does this page discuss using a charmed pet in a group? I think we all know why. It's because pets, and charmed pets even more so, acted insane in dungeons for most of classic. No group would ever want a charmed pet anywhere near them.

You have this weird all or nothing thinking about everything. Just because it wasn't discussed on some obscure angelfire page does not automatically lead to your biased conclusion that "we all know". Stop with the mental gymnastics and childlike attempts at manipulation.

I guess no one in classic was smart enough to figure out you could charm a backstabbing mob and just sit there in a group practically AFK since Charm almost never breaks even with low CHA and out damage every other class. No one knew!

The reality is we won't ever know. There is simply no way to prove it. You can keep trying but it's a pointless endeavor. We're talking about dozens of servers with thousands of players on each server. All that data in regards to how each individual person played their respective class is lost in time.

Just like when early guilds were zerging Naggy with 100+ players and binding in his lair. Not a single Enchanter ever thought to just charm a mob and sit back while it soloed a dragon with a cleric to CH it. What a totally insane a complicated strategy that clearly was completely possible on live but no one was smart enough to try.

Pure speculation and flawed childlike reasoning

Your perspective is completely skewed by this need to nerf a class and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself

[azxten]

Again, the majority of players that PLAYED, (not wrote obscure angelfire guides nobody read back then) stacked INT. Chanters were mezing and buffing back then. 99% of enchanters back then stacked INT. Everyone knows this.





Nobody back then probably read that. There weren't things readily available like wikis. We're talking 20 years ago. Again, 20 years ago enchanters were stacking INT. Maybe there was a cry in the wilderness, but that doesn't prove anything.





You're trying to validate your claims based upon an angelfire page that nobody even read back then and it doesn't PROVE anything. Get a grip.



You don't keep your pet when charm soloing. Especially when leveling. You don't need it hold for very long.



Channeling is a skill with skill ups. It's not far fetched to believe the higher your skill at channeling the better your ability to cast a spell through combat. That's the point. Again, you have proved nothing. Everything is conjecture based upon a bias against the spell. Every argument against you is a bias for the spell. There simply isn't anything concrete that proves charm wasn't as reliable back then as it is now. Believe me, I've checked and it always comes back to the differences between playstyles, knowledge and meta NOW as opposed to 20 years ago.



Yes and you should be able to get it off



Have you ever watched a good enchanter play the class? They don't rely on their channeling skill to keep things locked down



It has not been proven false. You are in error if you believe that "nobody knew how to play an enchanter back then". The point is they played the class DIFFERENTLY then they do now. Stop being so pig headed.





You have this weird all or nothing thinking about everything. Just because it wasn't discussed on some obscure angelfire page does not automatically lead to your biased conclusion that "we all know". Stop with the mental gymnastics and childlike attempts at manipulation.



The reality is we won't ever know. There is simply no way to prove it. You can keep trying but it's a pointless endeavor. We're talking about dozens of servers with thousands of players on each server. All that data in regards to how each individual person played their respective class is lost in time.



Pure speculation and flawed childlike reasoning

Your perspective is completely skewed by this need to nerf a class and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself

Sorry channeling is way too successful and plays right into Enchanter charm being OP. Accept it. Evidence already provided.

10 year old P99 thread on Charm which has a FOH guild post quoted which is now lost

https://www.project1999.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35049.html
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/90145-post124.html

I have been using charm for many years in much the same way I use it now. Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets. When kunark was released, we kept pets in groups in Sebilis that doubled the entire groups experience over a 4 or 5 hour experience grind. During Velious, we could charm giants in Kael that easily netted twice the exp normally recieved in an experience group. Velious is where the environments started to change and become much more favorable to charming. Once equipment and player stats started reaching the proportions they did in velious, the risk of charm became trivial. The only problem with Velious and Luclin was that there were not many areas where charm soloing was much more effecient then grouping. So most enchanters ignored the ability.

Exactly as I've stated. Classic Enchanter was not as OP as Velious Enchanter. It was a very gradual ramp up in power. Note they never mention using pets in groups until Kunark. They call out risk of charm only being trivial with Velious level gear. Fits with earlier quotes from Angelfire page on needing 170+ CHA minimum to have some level of success.

Back before kunark, we would go solo fire giants for the thrill. IT was damn scary because a charm break at the wrong time meant about an 80% chance of death. With POP, a charm break at the wrong time means you cast the following spells: wom, run til spell gems refresh, mez your pet, retarget the prey, cast root. If it knocks your rune off, pop eldritch rune and root. ZERO risk. none, nada. You have to be a complete and utter idiot to die to a situation like that.

Exactly. Using charm was very risky pre-Kunark and things like fire giants would more often than not result in death if charm broke. Their description of the trivial nature of charm in POP sounds more like classic era P99. Oh charm broke? Whatever, just channel whatever spell you want right through the melee. Channeling is the key to why Enchanter couldn't charm easily especially in dungeons where they would be getting hit and had no space to kite for recasts.

Enchanter COULD do certain things but it was very risky in the sense that a few random rolls could guarantee death in just a few seconds. That doesn't happen much on P99 in my experience. The tank can always pull aggro off the Enchanter. The Enchanter can always channel in melee. The risk side of the risk v reward equation is missing.

I cast this on a Dark Ritualist in the MM tower the other day for grins, and it was lasting upwards of 5+ minutes. To give you an idea of how long this lasts, two of my buds had time to duel, the loser got rezzed, and then medded to full all w hile the pet remained charmed. This wasn't a one-time shot either. I've noticed this routinely lasting for 4 to 5 minutes before breaking (though I've sometimes had it break after 20 seconds LOL) Not only that, in the new patch as of today we will get a message when Charm is going to break. WOOHOO!!!!! No more sudden surprises when that Hill Giant or Seafury is about to turn on you The run of chanter twinks with each patch continues.

Again, talking about how Charm was getting better in 2001, people are starting to play Enchanter now. This old P99 thread is fascinating because it's a bunch of Enchanters crying that OP Charm was nerfed and trying to prove it was more powerful. It sounds like Charm was eventually mostly returned to it's overpowered state after being nerfed in the past.

I suspect this happened, based on that thread, because people were able to prove "charm duration" was different for live than P99 had nerfed it to. This still ignores the channeling side of the equation though. They likely proved duration was unclassically nerfed to be too sporadic and the other side who wanted Charm nerfed was unable to pin down what exactly made charm non-classic.

It's channeling...

Channeling remains the elephant in the room and is most often referenced in classic era posts by Enchanters when mentioning "dying immediately" and "charm risk." Charming in a confined space was accepting a high percentage chance of a guaranteed death and this isn't true on P99.

The FOH poster even hits that nail on the head when they mention Velious had more spread out mobs and larger zones which allowed Enchanters to charm more effectively than classic/Kunark.

Why are bigger zones better for charm? Channeling. You had space to root mobs. You had space to run around. You could step out of zone and jboot/sow and actually use run speed to kite in Velious areas like Kael.

[Baler]

azxten Why are you constantly making, Let's nerf p99 threads?

I mean, I just came back from a long break and here you are, right on queue with the. X class is OP.

[azxten]

OP is a hater, I mean... Enchanter is classicly one of the most powerful classes in everquest. This trend continues not only through classic, kunark and velious. In luclin and Planes of Power they're even stronger. Later during and after omens of war they're so strong they can technically raid tank with the right buff loadout.

The part that's missing for many young enchanters however is it takes some skill to play the class to it's fullest. Enchanters wear cloth armour, so their AC is nothing to brag about. This gets a bit better in velious but not enough for the avg enchanter to do god level solo kills. An enchanter with some BiS velious raid gear, of ****ing course will do amazing on P99. HOWEVER compared to later Eras, calling them OP is a far shot.

False. In fact POP is when Enchanter charm gets nerfed as it had reached levels of absurdity currently seen on P99 from the start of classic. You can see classic era info of people crying when charm gets nerfed in POP.

It's exactly the same situation as P99 classic as well. Even the same people saying, you really didn't think being able to out damage entire groups was OP and needed to be nerfed?

This didn't happen until Velious and later and then was nerfed in POP. Classic Enchanter is literally a trash tier class that did not charm backstabbing mobs for groups EVER. Kunark Enchanter is a powerful class but not ridiculously overpowered due to the still existing risk of charming in tight areas and summoning mobs. Velious Enchanter becomes overpowered because the zone design allowed them to go into the highest level zones and no longer have that guaranteed chance of death due to inability to channel. Then once AAs are introduced Enchanter finally becomes similarly overpowered as classic P99 era.

Again it's not rocket science. All the evidence points to channeling being the issue and that is why charm usefulness was so heavily tied to the area and mobs it was being used on. Confined areas and dangerous mobs made it something that could work occasionally but more often than not would get you killed. It was just a roll of the dice for that "perfect" charm session in a bad spot with hard mobs. On P99 that roll of the dice is stacked in the Enchanters favor due to channeling being stupidly easy.

However, there are multiple proven bugs with Enchanter outlined earlier and all supported with evidence. Charm is just one. Saying over and over that there is no evidence doesn't make it true.

As I've said, over and over, just fix channeling and Enchanter will be fixed as well. No one should be arguing that channeling on P99 is classic. A level 1 channeling 50%+ of the time isn't classic and it has a HUGE impact on the difficulty of the game.

[azxten]

azxten Why are you constantly making, Let's nerf p99 threads?

I mean, I just came back from a long break and here you are, right on queue with the. X class is OP.

You mean why am I constantly talking about making P99 more classic? Because the game is pretty fucking boring right now with all the known non-classic mechanics. I'd like a return to a more difficult and social EQ and so I'm going about proving why P99 is so trivial.

What I find fascinating is that on something like channeling where people like you have always argued there is no evidence, I'm making it up, etc and then we finally do get hard evidence from a client compile and no one cares. The bug report just slides down and no one gives a shit that a core mechanic is basically on easy mode on P99 affecting almost every aspect of the game.

Multiple times now I bug report something I just know isn't classic and people cry and then the evidence comes out and everyone scurries away like roaches and the thread dies so I bring it up again on occasion.

This has happened so many times now that we have a list of Enchanter bugs needing SOMETHING. A word from the devs. A fix. A rebuttal with actual evidence to the contrary of the evidence provided.

Others in this thread have said the same thing. Hard evidence bug reports are being ignored for Enchanter but other classes like Druid get shit on all the time when flimsy evidence is put forward about their mechanics. I'm not the only one wondering why Enchanter bug reports are left in the dust bin as it continues to be the most OP class on P99 and completely non-classic in its ability and risks.

[Baler]

It's 2021 not 1999. see G13's posts that people played differently back then.

There is no "fixing" Channeling. You would have to overhaul the entire emulator code and tick system to accomplish this. And being on a server that favors nerfing to 'solve' problems. You shouldn't expect this to be resolved.

As G13 said enchanter's back in 1999 stacked INT, not CHA. Information like archives, comment sections, memories and the p99 wiki have ultimately curved the avg players direction they go flying. Like opening flood gates it can't be closed.

Another issue you're facing, Are those enchanter charm issues BUG related to the classic everquest environment? It's unlikely they will ever reproduce bugs perfectly to match live's classic gameplay.

Please don't get me wrong, I want pure 1:1 everquest classic. it's a dream but I can't help but feel frustrated for you with these threads you make about these topics. I count the QOL Blessings we have rather than dispute their impact on the classic gameplay. Because it's Project 1999, not because I don't want pure classic.

Others in this thread have said the same thing. Hard evidence bug reports are being ignored for Enchanter but other classes like Druid get shit on all the time when flimsy evidence is put forward about their mechanics. I'm not the only one wondering why Enchanter bug reports are left in the dust bin as it continues to be the most OP class on P99 and completely non-classic in its ability and risks.

getting evidence to the attention of the server owners is not an easy task. Example, after years of evidence they fixed skill spell specialization. I know this because I started the the last bug report thread about it, that finally got the ball rolling on fixing it. I know just how 'dumb' it can feel to try and shove evidence in their face hoping they fix it.

[chowdah555]

I can't speak for earlier expansions because I didn't play an enchanter at first. However, by the time the Planes of power rolled out, charming was common place. I used to do lots of it in the PoTactics pits and it was a common strategy for Rallos Zek to charm his adds against him.

I would agree with what many saying that it wasn't common in groups in Kunark and Velious. Cc and buffs were the expectation. I found it really unusual grouping my first times in blue in KC in my early 50s when I came back to the game and people expected me to automatically pick up a pet.

[tankboyt]

Never played an Enchanter til green but I charmed a lot as a nec and could regularly get charms to last during Veksar era EQ.

Having played enchanter to 59 on green to be good at the class you almost have to pay attention almost 100% of the time. Exp will be flowing like crazy then charm will almost on cue break at the worst possible time and it’s a wipe.

I think the power of the enchanter is offset by the need for undivided attention and the need for a healer pref a cleric cause you’re gonna die.

[azxten]

It's 2021 not 1999. see G13's posts that people played differently back then.

There is no "fixing" Channeling. You would have to overhaul the entire emulator code and tick system to accomplish this. And being on a server that favors nerfing to 'solve' problems. You shouldn't expect this to be resolved.

As G13 said enchanter's back in 1999 stacked INT, not CHA. Information like archives, comment sections, memories and the p99 wiki have ultimately curved the avg players direction they go flying. Like opening flood gates it can't be closed.

Another issue you're facing, Are those enchanter charm issues BUG related to the classic everquest environment? It's unlikely they will ever reproduce bugs perfectly to match live's classic gameplay.

Please don't get me wrong, I want pure 1:1 everquest classic. it's a dream but I can't help but feel frustrated for you with these threads you make about these topics.

Except people did play exactly the same as evidenced by that Angelfire site and many other sources. Everyone knew how charm could work. It just didn't work that way often and certainly not like P99 with minimal risk.

What are you talking about there is no fixing channeling? I've looked at the exact code that handles it and even proposed pseudocode to fix it in the bug report about it.

The Wiki argument is stupid. Allkhazam existed in classic. Tons of class specific sites existed with tons of detailed info and players absolutely read them. Such a stupid argument.

So far based on the poll results the majority thinks Enchanter is OP and needs to be nerfed. I guess that makes you the minority on P99 who thinks Enchanter is fine as is.

[Baler]

So far based on the poll results the majority thinks Enchanter is OP and needs to be nerfed.

This is all you wanted.

I want pure classic as it was in 1999, unadulterated by jaded neckbeards and staff.

[azxten]

This is all you wanted.

Yes, all I wanted is for Enchanter to be nerfed based on all the evidence that exists. In fact, all I've ever said I wanted was for channeling to be fixed which I felt would fix Enchanter.

Now we see a majority of the players seem to also feel Enchanter is detrimental and non-classic. Yes, I also wanted to point out the majority feels this way and the vocal forum trolls who attack me until I provide evidence are in the minority and most likely play Enchanter and enjoy it's OP nature.

Even if Enchanter was 100% classic in it's current mode, which I don't think it is, it would still deserve to be nerfed for trivializing content the same way other things have been nerfed on P99 in non classic ways.

There are so many ways to look at this that all point to nerfing Enchanter to improve the P99 experience. Doesn't matter if you think it's classic or not. Doesn't matter. In the end current Enchanter mechanics are detrimental to the server in a variety of ways that no other class comes close to. They're no different than Bards AE kiting or Chardok AE groups or Necros giving their pets fine steel daggers. Tons of classic mechanics that were nerfed on P99 to enforce more social and balanced play.

Also it's not just charm. As already mentioned the bug with Mez mem blur allowing wipes on recasts is also a big deal. These are proven bugs. Not theories. Evidence is provided for all of them.

I don't like playing EQ where the game is easy mode. It's simple as that. That's why I bug reported Kith mobs having low HP. It's why I complained about the ZEMs until they changed. People only cry when I bring up Enchanter it seems.

I want pure classic as it was in 1999, unadulterated by jaded neckbeards and staff.

Sounds good, let's return all the classic mechanics that were nerfed and I won't complain about Enchanter anymore. Nerfing all kinds of classic shit on P99 and then saying "Enchanter is classic! Don't touch!" is bullshit. All I want is equal treatment. Either all OP bullshit classic stuff gets nerfed or none of it gets nerfed. Don't nerf Bard AE kiting and then let Enchanter trivialize planes with charm. Either or. Also all the said, Enchanter is still not classic, and it's due to channeling for the most part.

[Snortles Chortles]

he's absolutely right about channeling
i played a wizard on live and mobs only had to sneeze on you to interrupt

[Baler]

Sounds good, let's return all the classic mechanics that were nerfed and I won't complain about Enchanter anymore. Nerfing all kinds of classic shit on P99 and then saying "Enchanter is classic! Don't touch!" is bullshit. All I want is equal treatment. Either all OP bullshit classic stuff gets nerfed or none of it gets nerfed. Don't nerf Bard AE kiting and then let Enchanter trivialize planes with charm. Either or. Also all the said, Enchanter is still not classic, and it's due to channeling for the most part.

https://i.imgur.com/gRNyh0i.gif

[Snortles Chortles]

pick the wrong race for enchanter too, eh?
(LOL)

[Vexenu]

I support azxten's efforts here and salute his perseverance in digging up evidence. Everyone who played in the Classic era knows Enchanters were nothing like they are on P1999. The reason OP is getting such pushback is not because he's wrong, but because so many P199 players have an Enchanter they use to solo/duo farm with. Reminiscent of the old quote that "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it".

It's too late to undo the damage OP Enchanters have caused at this point, but it would be very nice if they were brought classically in line for the next iteration of Green. I think the evidence he's gathered is very compelling if people would actually bother to look at it. Also keep in mind that some of the best evidence that Enchanters in general and charm in particular is OP is the glaring LACK of evidence in wayback EQ posts of discussion about exploiting the power of charm. This is exactly the same situation we had with combat bind wound, which was another ridiculously unclassic mechanic that people were exploiting. They tried to claim there was no evidence that it didn't exist in classic. Which was correct. Because it wasn't a thing. The best evidence against it was the fact that NO ONE TALKED ABOUT IT. Whereas if it had existed it would have been talked about non-stop especially on the Monk forums as a soloing tactic. But there was literally not a single mention of it anywhere. Routine Enchanter charm soloing occupies a similar situation in the classic era. It wasn't talked about simply because there was nothing to talk about! Everyone who tried it recognized that it was basically suicidal and horribly XP inefficient, especially indoors and solo/unbuffed. It wasn't a thing back then and it shouldn't be a thing on P1999. But not only is it a thing here, it is THE thing, to the extent that it's literally the defining aspect of the class on P1999 above and beyond buffing and CC. Absolutely unclassic.

[Snortles Chortles]

forum dunk

[cd288]

This is all you wanted.

I want pure classic as it was in 1999, unadulterated by jaded neckbeards and staff.

He’s not worth arguing with because even when you prove him wrong he refuses to acknowledge it. Like you said he wants his own non classic changes but knows he can’t get them without lying and saying they’d be classic.

In a few months he’ll make another whiney thread about this same topic.

[HalflingSpergand]

Enchanters are shit

[magnetaress]

Enchanters are gay

[azxten]

I support azxten's efforts here and salute his perseverance in digging up evidence. Everyone who played in the Classic era knows Enchanters were nothing like they are on P1999. The reason OP is getting such pushback is not because he's wrong, but because so many P199 players have an Enchanter they use to solo/duo farm with. Reminiscent of the old quote that "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it".

It's too late to undo the damage OP Enchanters have caused at this point, but it would be very nice if they were brought classically in line for the next iteration of Green. I think the evidence he's gathered is very compelling if people would actually bother to look at it. Also keep in mind that some of the best evidence that Enchanters in general and charm in particular is OP is the glaring LACK of evidence in wayback EQ posts of discussion about exploiting the power of charm. This is exactly the same situation we had with combat bind wound, which was another ridiculously unclassic mechanic that people were exploiting. They tried to claim there was no evidence that it didn't exist in classic. Which was correct. Because it wasn't a thing. The best evidence against it was the fact that NO ONE TALKED ABOUT IT. Whereas if it had existed it would have been talked about non-stop especially on the Monk forums as a soloing tactic. But there was literally not a single mention of it anywhere. Routine Enchanter charm soloing occupies a similar situation in the classic era. It wasn't talked about simply because there was nothing to talk about! Everyone who tried it recognized that it was basically suicidal and horribly XP inefficient, especially indoors and solo/unbuffed. It wasn't a thing back then and it shouldn't be a thing on P1999. But not only is it a thing here, it is THE thing, to the extent that it's literally the defining aspect of the class on P1999 above and beyond buffing and CC. Absolutely unclassic.

Thank you and in particular for understanding that nuance. When P99 has an overpowered mechanic it's very difficult to "prove" it wasn't that way because no one talks about something overpowered that didn't exist in classic. If you provide player posts saying how charm was trash, dangerous, etc the rebuttal is just that they didn't understand how to use it. Same as the bind wound thing.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter in my opinion because it's obvious charm is abused/overpowered and if it was this way on live it would have been nerfed. Bind wound is the same thing. Just because a tiny number of players may have known about what essentially amounts to a game breaking mechanic and it didn't get nerfed during live doesn't mean wide spread abuse should be ignored on P99. People want to say I hate Enchanter or something. No, I just like P99. What I see right now is a very anti-social MMO and a huge part of it is Enchanter. It's like the key that holds together all the trivialization at all levels of the game.

I'd really love to see if there is a single provable example of an Enchanter in classic era charming planar mobs with any degree of success. I have found a few mentions that such things never happened. Enchanters complaining that they feel useless in planes and can't even mez due to resists and aggro problems.

I've always struggled to understand how the hordes of Enchanter pets I've seen on raids on P99 during classic era were ever possible in live classic. Not even just from a mechanic perspective but also the outright in your face overpowered abusive nature of it that there is zero chance would be ignored by the developers at the time. The hardest mobs in the game at the time and Enchanter is allowed to easily control them and use them in teams to generate insane DPS trivializing planar clears? I don't see it flying. I don't see it even having been possible as an edge case. It was certainly possible in a roll the dice for your 10% chance to not wipe the raid or kill yourself sense and that is how the in era posts talk about it.

Similarly, why do Enchanters never struggle with aggro like they did on live? Is it really true no one knew SKs could cast disease cloud or whatever? No, it seems to be the mez mem blur not reapplying on every cast. Enchanters would mez a mob 2-3 times and it would all be stacked aggro whereas on P99 it mem blurs each cast giving you only a single mez worth of aggro. Everyone remembers Enchanters panicing and jumping around like idiots even when they knew they should stay still. Nothing would break that aggro but on P99 it's a total non-issue and on the rare chance you do get any kind of aggro you can just channel any spell you want to take care of it. No root getting interrupted 5 times and you die. It'll go right through and save you.

[magnetaress]

It's clear people like to type A Lot of words about Enchanters, and that's OK.

But charming should definitely get them killed way more often.

[HalflingSpergand]

Ya enchanters are gay

[Canelek]

So much victimhood and weird revisionist-whining in one thread.

[TripSin]

I support azxten's efforts here and salute his perseverance in digging up evidence. Everyone who played in the Classic era knows Enchanters were nothing like they are on P1999.

You're just supporting ignorance. No shit enchanters weren't played at all the same as they are played now in p99. How p99 EverQuest is played in 2020 is NOTHING like it was in 1999. You people like to ignore the fact that WE, THE PLAYERS IN 2021, ARE THE MOST NONCLASSIC THING ABOUT P99 BY FAR. I mained enchanter in live and while I did at times charm solo (especially after PoP release but even before and also WITHOUT J Boots or a Goblin Ring too mind you!), when I was in a group I almost never charmed. But, Azxten is completely ignoring the real major factors why this is the case: faster internet connections and hardware, software assistance like GINA, and massive game knowledge for a 20-year-old game so we know how to do things like maxing CHA. Back in live, you weren't expected to charm but you are expected to now in p99 for these reasons. Things like much less delay, not having GINA audio cues, and the knowledge we have today makes a WORLD of difference.

Also, Azxten has a history of making bullshit assertions with no real evidence. He's made basically this exact thread already and he'll make it again sometime in the future. The guy has issues. He's been like this for so long and can't let it go.

[cd288]

You're just supporting ignorance. No shit enchanters weren't played at all the same as they are played now in p99. How p99 EverQuest is played in 2020 is NOTHING like it was in 1999. You people like to ignore the fact that WE, THE PLAYERS IN 2021, ARE THE MOST NONCLASSIC THING ABOUT P99 BY FAR. I mained enchanter in live and while I did at times charm solo (especially after PoP release but even before and also WITHOUT J Boots or a Goblin Ring too mind you!), when I was in a group I almost never charmed. But, Azxten is completely ignoring the real major factors why this is the case: faster internet connections and hardware, software assistance like GINA, and massive game knowledge for a 20-year-old game so we know how to do things like maxing CHA. Back in live, you weren't expected to charm but you are expected to now in p99 for these reasons. Things like much less delay, not having GINA audio cues, and the knowledge we have today makes a WORLD of difference.

Also, Azxten has a history of making bullshit assertions with no real evidence. He's made basically this exact thread already and he'll make it again sometime in the future. The guy has issues. He's been like this for so long and can't let it go.

/thread

Embarrassing for OP to get totally owned like this on his own post

[Scalem]

Bad post, bad poll. Dude clearly has a vendetta against enchanters. Next he’s going to want torpor changed because shamans back then weren’t using it like they do on p99.

[Izmael]

Nerf enc, necs, shamans who solo too well.
Also monks who aren't meant to take hits so well.

Definitely nerfs bards too. AE kiting LOL.

Then maybe we can finally enjoy some EQ?

[enjchanter]

if ur class cant solo shit then whats the fuckin point of playing it lol

[Mesocyclone]

enchanters suck alone, let em be.

[Vexenu]

You're just supporting ignorance. No shit enchanters weren't played at all the same as they are played now in p99. How p99 EverQuest is played in 2020 is NOTHING like it was in 1999. You people like to ignore the fact that WE, THE PLAYERS IN 2021, ARE THE MOST NONCLASSIC THING ABOUT P99 BY FAR. I mained enchanter in live and while I did at times charm solo (especially after PoP release but even before and also WITHOUT J Boots or a Goblin Ring too mind you!), when I was in a group I almost never charmed. But, Azxten is completely ignoring the real major factors why this is the case: faster internet connections and hardware, software assistance like GINA, and massive game knowledge for a 20-year-old game so we know how to do things like maxing CHA. Back in live, you weren't expected to charm but you are expected to now in p99 for these reasons. Things like much less delay, not having GINA audio cues, and the knowledge we have today makes a WORLD of difference.

Also, Azxten has a history of making bullshit assertions with no real evidence. He's made basically this exact thread already and he'll make it again sometime in the future. The guy has issues. He's been like this for so long and can't let it go.

These excuses simply don't hold water. People on P1999 like to pretend that players in the classic era were all wholly ignorant of game mechanics and playing the game on toasters connected to the internet through a tin can and a string. The reality is that the mechanics of the game were well-understood by the hardcore playerbase in the old days, and that plenty of people were playing on high-end gaming PCs with broadband internet. I know because I was one of them.

There were plenty of old school players who were extremely talented, knowledgeable and who had good hardware and connections. And yet Enchanters were not the godlike charming class in the classic era the way they are on P1999. They were a class that specialized in CC and buffing. Further, as azxten pointed out, anyone who played in the classic era remembers just how contentious an issue class balance was for both the developers and the playerbase. The idea that Enchanters would have been knowingly allowed to run roughshod through the game with charm when the original developers were still in charge is completely asinine. If such things had been happening Enchanters would have been nerfed into the ground with a vengeance. But they weren't because charm mechanics in the classic era were already much more unforgiving than on P1999, and so no nerf was needed.

[Spit]

http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/bard_charm.php

a discussion about charm from possibly one of the most knowledgeable players overall in classic - velious EQ. If you read through all eras of charm are discussed briefly, and gives the indication that charm was used by Enchanters as well in the classic, kunark, and velious era.

[azxten]

Nerf enc, necs, shamans who solo too well.
Also monks who aren't meant to take hits so well.

Definitely nerfs bards too. AE kiting LOL.

Then maybe we can finally enjoy some EQ?

Necro and Bard already were nerfed retard. That's part of the problem is that other classic mechanics were nerfed but Enchanter who has non-classic mechanics is being left alone.

[azeth]

Op is right about every single thing he said

[DMN]

Op is right about every single thing he said

I doubt OP has been right about anything in life. He's repeatedly lied on here on about easily testable facts in order to continue this bullshit crusade of his against enchanters. He's demonstrated zero understanding of enchanters on p99 or during the classic time period. All he does is cherry pick things and ignore all contrary evidence. I can find you plenty of contemporary shaman saying they are the worst class in the game, their buffs don't do any, etc. Doesn't make it true some moron was bleating about something on a newgroup or wherever.

[Jibartik]

This thread is pretty sad.

[azxten]

I doubt OP has been right about anything in life. He's repeatedly lied on here on about easily testable facts in order to continue this bullshit crusade of his against enchanters. He's demonstrated zero understanding of enchanters on p99 or during the classic time period. All he does is cherry pick things and ignore all contrary evidence. I can find you plenty of contemporary shaman saying they are the worst class in the game, their buffs don't do any, etc. Doesn't make it true some moron was bleating about something on a newgroup or wherever.

What did I lie about? What are these easily testable facts? I'm always open to evidence or claims opposing what I'm stating.

I am still waiting for that evidence Enchanters were charming in planes during classic era and using charmed pets in dragon fights. All the evidence I see supports the idea that charm soloing was possible but it was only efficient in outdoor zones with good gearing. There was also charm soloing in dungeons on big mobs like FGs in solb but many posts openly admit the huge risk of death in these situations that is minimal on P99.

Everyone gets caught up in the idea that Charm obviously was possible like it is on P99. They're ignoring my argument that the risk is just not as present as live primarily due to channeling. I don't know why that enrages everyone. Channeling is not classic. End of story.

Are you saying the channeling evidence isn't good enough? It doesn't impact Enchanter? I don't know. All you seem to do is come in here and insult me like a pathetic loser.

P.S. Most of the claims in this thread and links to bug reports aren't even from me. I'm just aggregating everything to show how much Enchanter is being ignored in terms of bugs. So my "lies" are just primarily the work of others like Dolalin. I'm just pushing the issue instead of letting all these evidence backed bug reports fade away. Also for the record I completely understand the devs difficult position related to these bugs but it has reached a point that the P99 meta is too heavily focused on Enchanter and is damaging the community. That's all.

[DMN]

You've lied about memory blur rates being too high on mez and you've lied about enchanter animation HPs, which have the correct HPs that were verified in show EQ logs.

Pretty much everything that could be objectively tested/looked at in your various assortment of cherry picked fairy tales you've lied about.

[knucklehairs]

Op why does this hurt you so much I don't play enchanter for a few reasons one of them is because I like to go afk but I think it would suck if you got them nerfed
I

[loramin]

When did all you Enchanter defenders stop caring about classic EverQuest? NO ONE remembers Enchanters being like this in classic EverQuest!

[DMN]

When did all you Enchanter defenders stop caring about classic EverQuest?

Never, and considering I was the second level 50 enchanter on fennin ro, I actually know WTF I'm talking about, both then and now.

[azxten]

You've lied about memory blur rates being too high on mez and you've lied about enchanter animation HPs, which have the correct HPs that were verified in show EQ logs.

Pretty much everything that could be objectively tested/looked at in your various assortment of cherry picked fairy tales you've lied about.

Ok, let's talk about mem blur rates. I noticed it seemed high and reported it and I believe Daldaen said he noticed the same and provided evidence and testing showing it was too high. We got a ton of evidence in that thread about mem blur from mez but nothing exact was proven.

Did I ever say this was confirmed somehow? No, I didn't. What did come out in that thread though was the proven mem blur doesn't reapply on each cast unless it wears off. That issue I did state as proven.

So you're actually saying that if I make a claim something seems off and discuss it on the bug forum I'm lying and making stuff up. Ok, whatever.

Enchanter animation HP as far as I know was never confirmed to be correct. The HP amounts from the capture didn't match the Wiki. I don't think anyone has actually tested in game to see if the wiki is right or wrong?

That bug report thread I believe ended with confirming all pet HP is too high, that level range is wider for all summoned pets, and that Enchanter pet is much lower than other pets (my original claim). As far as I know no one has tested HP values in game on P99 to compare to the capture. However, I do know that Enchanter animations weren't soloing yellow con mobs ever and it was always a paper thin DPS addition as all classic statements on those pets confirm. Yet on P99 the Enchanter animation is practically just an uncommanded mage/nec pet.

Did you test it in game? Did I miss something? That bug report and capture seems to confirm things are broken yet you think it confirms everything is fine. I could be confused or missing something, let me know.

[azxten]

Op why does this hurt you so much I don't play enchanter for a few reasons one of them is because I like to go afk but I think it would suck if you got them nerfed
I

Not in my opinion. It would make EQ more difficult and in line with classic which is a good thing. P99 has a serious problem right now with being too easy. That's fine if you like a casual easy game but it's nothing like classic.

I enjoy a challening game. I don't like to mostly AFK in the middle of "challenging raids" and wait for my loot with the other 200 players who easily coasted to max level on broken Enchanter mechanics and such.

Most P99 players wouldn't have the time to get to max level in true classic EQ.

[knucklehairs]

I've never made it to 60 on live or here but I can honestly say they could remove enchanter from the game and it would not affect me at all but I'm sure it would take away from alot of people that play the class this game isn't hard not now not ever

[Jibartik]

When did all you Enchanter defenders stop caring about classic EverQuest? NO ONE remembers Enchanters being like this in classic EverQuest!

because Ive played this game long enough to know that what people remember =/= reality.

[Canelek]

We doing feelings-based science again? This should go to rnf.

[DMN]

Mister "high level enchanter", who is so supposedly concerned about classic who ostensibly should be able to easily test the animation hit points himself, care to explain why you haven't actually tested it but still decided to make two different threads regarding it now, both making incorrect claims on the matter?

[Snortles Chortles]

When did all you Enchanter defenders stop caring about classic EverQuest? NO ONE remembers Enchanters being like this in classic EverQuest!

[Jibartik]

Thread: https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/

[DMN]

"No one" remembers bards killing dozens of mobs either, or shaman soloing all sorts of the shit they can on p99.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially given 90% of the players back then were comprehensively awful.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

I had EQ at my moms house (shit tier computer) and my dads house (reasonably fast and able to handle EQ, at least in classic). I remember channeling through WAY more stuff on my dads faster PC that was probably doing low 20s FPS instead of high single-digit FPS.

Don’t discount how much your PC affected your EQ experience. Fall damage, bashing, tanking hits and sliding etc... this was all WAY worse when you had a bad PC. Even going from 100 FPS to 60 FPS a few patches ago made it seem way worse trying to channel through mobs beating on you.

Also (I’m not going to read through everything again and quote), didn’t you quote someone from the Angelfire page saying they charmed blues AND yellows for 5 minutes? I mean, isn’t that evidence that charm did last and also that we were much dumber then? How much longer than 5 minutes are peoples charms lasting? Group charming with malo maybe 12-15?

[loramin]

"No one" remembers bards killing dozens of mobs either

Swarm kiting was definitely a thing on live. Maybe not with as many mobs as people do here, but it was certainly a thing.

or shaman soloing all sorts of the shit they can on p99.

Again, not true. I played a Shaman back then, and our forum (The Shaman's Crucible) had tons of talk about soloing tough high level mobs (eg. this was slightly after the classic period, but even 20+ years later I can still vividly remember the first time someone posted about soloing Lodi on that forum).

Never, and considering I was the second level 50 enchanter on fennin ro

And you solo charmed your way to being the second 50? You didn't instead ... you know ... group, like every other Enchanter did (at least primarily) back then?

[magnetaress]

I think charm was only reliable between 1-2 minutes on live in Kunark.

I mean, sure it could last but just was progressively more terrifying. After 2 mins.

I distinctly remember rooting and kill chanters pet end of every single pull. 2-3 mobs max and we were hozed if we got two or 3 casters or healers.

[DMN]

Don’t discount how much your PC affected your EQ experience. Fall damage, bashing, tanking hits and sliding etc...



Indeed. Dagnor's Cauldron was notorious for people falling to their death because a just a little bump in lag as they enter the water and they would fall through the water and smash on the lake bed.

Getting a cable modem and ditching AOHell was like night and day for me back then. GCD clearing clickies was also only latently adopted on a large scale in classic, which has a massive impact on enchanter performance.

[Jimjam]

When did all you Enchanter defenders stop caring about classic EverQuest? NO ONE remembers Enchanters being like this in classic EverQuest!

Enchanter appeals to people who are into accruing power through deceit, distortion and manipulation.

[DMN]

Swarm kiting was definitely a thing on live. Maybe not with as many mobs as people do here, but it was certainly a thing.



Again, not true. I played a Shaman back then, and our forum (The Shaman's Crucible) had tons of talk about soloing tough high level mobs (eg. this was slightly after the classic period, but even 20+ years later I can still vividly remember the first time someone posted about soloing Lodi on that forum).

I sometimes wonder if you are just dumb or intentionally obtuse, Loramin. The quotes around "no one" was not some kind of typo.



And you solo charmed your way to being the second 50? You didn't instead ... you know ... group, like every other Enchanter did (at least primarily) back then?

No. I did very little soloing to 50 in vanilla on my enc, but I did a good bit post kunark and a lot of douing as well. I did plenty of soloing on my necro in the same time frame -- who also had charm. So, ya, I got plenty of experience with it back then.

[Jibartik]

Enchanter appeals to people who are into accruing power through deceit, distortion and manipulation.

What's the other way, winning the lottery? :D

[magnetaress]

Enchanter appeals to people who are into accruing power through deceit, distortion and manipulation.

This is why they should be nerfed into the weakest class regardless of classic or anything.

Everquest would have been WOW if it weren't for Enchanters.

[azxten]

We doing feelings-based science again? This should go to rnf.

Nope, channeling proven too successful from client decompile. Not to mention the multiple other evidence backed bugs people don't even want to talk about like mez mem blur.

Mez mem blur is a big one and people seem to hate it being brought up. You know how you can use level 4 mez to just step away from a mezzed mob and then wipe it and walk away? Yeah, that shouldn't be possible. You have to let mez break and then re-mez for it to wipe at which point in most dungeons the mob will be in range to re-aggro.

Mezzing already mezzed mobs to mem blur and walk away is not classic and proven so.

Also if a fight goes long and you use the level 4 mez multiple times that aggro stacks on the Enchanter and is not wiped away with recasts. Contributing to more difficult aggro management than exists on P99.

Ignoring the evidence and claiming it's made up feelings doesn't make it true. Feel free to browse all the linked evidence bug reports and classic era discussions on page 2 of this thread.

Don’t discount how much your PC affected your EQ experience.

Yes, this was also tested by me and confirmed. You can just alt tab away from EQ to simulate lag and check your /loc as a mob hits you vs having game focused. You will see a massive difference in move distance.

However, people are acting like this means we should leave things as they are. Wait why was Bard AE and Chardok AE nerfed due to "technical limitations" if we're going to use that as an excuse to leave channeling alone?

Also regardless of that aspect channeling is also too successful on P99. Proven as mentioned above and linked on the second page of this thread.

DMN

Confirmed angry Enchanter? Where did you go? You've been here calling me an idiot, telling people to ignore me, saying all my evidence is made up and contradicted. I ask you to clarify on things like mez and pet HP and now you're off arguing with other people and ignoring me. Ok. I think it's pretty clear who is lying and making up bullshit to protect Enchanter.

Swarm kiting was definitely a thing on live.

I am personally responsible for the AE limit introduced on live to nerf Bard AE kiting because I wrote a paid article for a cheat site on how to walk underwater, use /circle, and other automation to level from 1-60 in a day. The day the article came out it was reposted on Sony forums and nerfed by end of day. Yes, it was a thing on live.

I will probably compile another list of all the evidence and issues with Enchanter to better define the power curve of charm through the classic era. From what I've seen there is more than enough solid technical proof, in era discussion, and existing precedent for nerfing abused/overpowered mechanics on P99 to make a very compelling argument.

Also for the record people act like I'm saying Enchanter should be a gimped worthless class. Only at the start of classic and especially at lower levels. P99 Enchanter in Velious era seems pretty accurate other than the channeling rate. There is a charm power curve that doesn't exist on P99 but did exist on live.

By the way earlier someone linked an Afterlife Bard thing, it actually says Bards are better than the other classes at charm and were able to charm planar gods before Verant figured out the loophole and nerfed it. Is everyone cool if Bards get to charm raid bosses like on live but Enchanters can't? That's totally cool right and we should leave it in game until the same time it was nerfed on live no matter how many Bards go into planes and solo clear the entire thing with some help, right?

[knucklehairs]

This thread is petty let it die or move it to rnf

[DMN]

Curious. You forgot a couple dozen words to quote following my name. Wonder why?

Mister "high level enchanter", who is so supposedly concerned about classic who ostensibly should be able to easily test the animation hit points himself, care to explain why you haven't actually tested it but still decided to make two different threads regarding it now, both making incorrect claims on the matter?

[magnetaress]

Nope, channeling proven too successful from client decompile. Not to mention the multiple other evidence backed bugs people don't even want to talk about like mez mem blur.

Mez mem blur is a big one and people seem to hate it being brought up. You know how you can use level 4 mez to just step away from a mezzed mob and then wipe it and walk away? Yeah, that shouldn't be possible. You have to let mez break and then re-mez for it to wipe at which point in most dungeons the mob will be in range to re-aggro.

Mezzing already mezzed mobs to mem blur and walk away is not classic and proven so.

Also if a fight goes long and you use the level 4 mez multiple times that aggro stacks on the Enchanter and is not wiped away with recasts. Contributing to more difficult aggro management than exists on P99.

Ignoring the evidence and claiming it's made up feelings doesn't make it true. Feel free to browse all the linked evidence bug reports and classic era discussions on page 2 of this thread.



Yes, this was also tested by me and confirmed. You can just alt tab away from EQ to simulate lag and check your /loc as a mob hits you vs having game focused. You will see a massive difference in move distance.

However, people are acting like this means we should leave things as they are. Wait why was Bard AE and Chardok AE nerfed due to "technical limitations" if we're going to use that as an excuse to leave channeling alone?

Also regardless of that aspect channeling is also too successful on P99. Proven as mentioned above and linked on the second page of this thread.



Confirmed angry Enchanter? Where did you go? You've been here calling me an idiot, telling people to ignore me, saying all my evidence is made up and contradicted. I ask you to clarify on things like mez and pet HP and now you're off arguing with other people and ignoring me. Ok. I think it's pretty clear who is lying and making up bullshit to protect Enchanter.



I am personally responsible for the AE limit introduced on live to nerf Bard AE kiting because I wrote a paid article for a cheat site on how to walk underwater, use /circle, and other automation to level from 1-60 in a day. The day the article came out it was reposted on Sony forums and nerfed by end of day. Yes, it was a thing on live.

I will probably compile another list of all the evidence and issues with Enchanter to better define the power curve of charm through the classic era. From what I've seen there is more than enough solid technical proof, in era discussion, and existing precedent for nerfing abused/overpowered mechanics on P99 to make a very compelling argument.

Also for the record people act like I'm saying Enchanter should be a gimped worthless class. Only at the start of classic and especially at lower levels. P99 Enchanter in Velious era seems pretty accurate other than the channeling rate. There is a charm power curve that doesn't exist on P99 but did exist on live.

By the way earlier someone linked an Afterlife Bard thing, it actually says Bards are better than the other classes at charm and were able to charm planar gods before Verant figured out the loophole and nerfed it. Is everyone cool if Bards get to charm raid bosses like on live but Enchanters can't? That's totally cool right and we should leave it in game until the same time it was nerfed on live no matter how many Bards go into planes and solo clear the entire thing with some help, right?

100% accurate.

I was there. Thank you for your service.

[azxten]

Curious. You forgot a couple dozen words to quote following my name. Wonder why?

Sagar's Animation

https://wiki.project1999.com/Pet_Guide#Enchanter_Pets

450-700

[Sat Mar 20 13:06:59 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:02 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 34 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:11 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 9 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:17 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:23 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 7 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:23 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 2 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:26 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 22 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:26 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 17 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:29 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:29 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:29 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:38 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:41 2021] A skeletal monk hits Xibaner for 50 points of damage.


441

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369148

Mynthi Davissi in Mistmoore had their 29th circle enchanter pet captured in the sheet. It was 25th level with 442hp.

Ok so there is some basic testing to confirm I'm right that HP is too high. Level 29 captured pet had same HP as level 24 pet on P99. HP scaling is off as I thought that thread had confirmed already. Wiki seems mostly accurate and shows the larger incorrect HP values.

I see Summon Dead giving 21-25 pets in the sheet.

Summon Dead (lvl29) is another pet spell whose range was wider on live than on P99 as evidenced in the sheet.

Confirmed if you look at data in bug report as well. Level 21-25ish pets had ~450 HP but were summoned by the level 29 spell. On P99 you get these HP values from the 24 spell.

All pet classes should have pet HP nerfed and level ranges increased.

Channel rates should be reduced.

Mez should be fixed to not mem blur on recast.

Reasses Enchanter after.

P.S. Look at this:

Haunting Corpse 24 18-22 650-700
Sagar's Animation 24 19-23 450-700

Level 19 Enchanter pet from data has 316HP.
Level 19 Necro pet from data has 642HP.

Maybe it is just Enchanter? In any case, there is your proof. Enchanter pet HP value is too high like I always said.

So I'm an idiot, lying, making up shit, blah blah blah, right?

[Jimjam]

Good work there! You need to do more than just identify what is wrong, you also need to find evidence for what the correct numbers (or at least less incorrect) are to get a change made.

[DMN]

Well, isn't that strange that mister "high level enchanter" doesn't have a 29th level summon spell to compare to the exact same summon spell level of the pet he hopes to compare it to. Makes sense. Not.

If it was a level 24 summoned pet, it's far below any level 25 ish mob, which appeard to be what you are fighting, which measn the mob should be hitting your pet 80-90% of the time, yet strangely despite being in combat long enough for around 6 kicks, the monk mob in question never lands a single kick, making me suspect your log is complete bullshit.

But let's assume it's not bullshit. The pet in question would have regenerated around 50 HP by the end of this fight, and the last hit of 50 damage could have overkilled the pet by 49 points of damage, leaving you with what could have been closer to 341, not 441.

At a minimum You should have found a level 25 pet summoned by the level 29 spell, though I could excuse not considering regen and overkill as a factor of your mental handcap.

[azxten]

Well, isn't that strange that mister "high level enchanter" doesn't have a 29th level summon spell to compare to the exact same summon spell level of the pet he hopes to compare it to. Makes sense. Not.

If it was a level 24 summoned pet, it's far below any level 25 ish mob, which appeard to be what you are fighting, which measn the mob should be hitting your pet 80-90% of the time, yet strangely despite being in combat long enough for around 6 kicks, the monk mob in question never lands a single kick, making me suspect your log is complete bullshit.

But let's assume it's not bullshit. The pet in question would have regenerated around 50 HP by the end of this fight, and the last hit of 50 damage could have overkilled the pet by 49 points of damage, leaving you with what could have been closer to 341, not 441.

At a minimum You should have found a level 25 pet summoned by the level 29 spell, though I could excuse not considering regen and overkill as a factor of your mental handcap.

I don't have the pet spell because I haven't needed them. I assure you I could go higher but I don't care. I knew you'd cry about that which is why I included the 24 pet summon data of a level 19 pet.

So you're asking about kick, which would just make the pet HP even higher, okay. I likely didn't consider it when filtering.

[Sat Mar 20 13:07:01 2021] A skeletal monk tries to strike Xibaner, but misses!
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:08 2021] A skeletal monk tries to strike Xibaner, but Xibaner dodges!
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:16 2021] A skeletal monk tries to strike Xibaner, but misses!
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:24 2021] A skeletal monk tries to strike Xibaner, but misses!
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:32 2021] A skeletal monk strikes Xibaner for 25 points of damage.
[Sat Mar 20 13:07:40 2021] A skeletal monk strikes Xibaner for 9 points of damage.


It's actually strike. That extra 34hp roughly makes up for any regen. You're right maybe it did more damage on the last hit. So the data says 316hp, we see a pet that had 441 + 34hp with -50regen and a max overhit of -49. So something like 475 damage taken - 99 potential non-max HP damage/regen which is 376. So in the most generous calculation the pet still has too much HP by about 60hp if compared to a level 19 pet summoned with the level 24 spell. That's a lot of difference on a pet that should only have 316hp.

Dec 15, 1999

Not sure if who knows this or not, but there is pet that spawns that you can
kill over and over and over again. The respawn time on this pet is roughly
7 seconds. It's level 21-25, doesn't run, has around 500 hp's, and is
currently camped by groups for hours on end, for the above reasons. It's a
level 29 enchanter animation.


Only the level 29 summon reaches pet levels that have this level of HP. A level

What does Wiki say P99 level range is?

19-26 for 24 spell
22-28 for 29 spell

Is this accurate? I don't know but it's not in line with that data where a level 29 Enchanter pet should be level 21-25. Level 22 pet was 382 and level 23 402 for Enchanter. The classic data being referenced from the capture matches with this 1999 post.

Who's pet is the level 23 data? Ezmirella in NK. Level 30 Enchanter so it's the level 29 summon. Who's pet is the level 19 data? Rephas in QHills level 28 Enchanter so it's the level 24 summon. Rephas has a max level pet of 20 from the level 24 summon spell and the HP total is 336. That is 30hp lower than the lowest possible HP total for my test of a level 24 summon on P99.

So even if I got lucky and got the highest level 24 pet summon on my one test, you add regen, and "overhit", the pet has 30/336 HP too much which is 9% too much. Except your regen rate was 7 plus a little to get 50hp of regen in 42 seconds. And the overhit likely wasn't 1hp. So the pet is likely closer to 15% too much HP.

So, yes, even with regen and the most possible "overhit" scenario the pet still has too much HP for a level 24 summon according to this classic data.

Don't fight it.

If it was a level 24 summoned pet, it's far below any level 25 ish mob, which appeard to be what you are fighting, which measn the mob should be hitting your pet 80-90% of the time, yet strangely despite being in combat long enough for around 6 kicks, the monk mob in question never lands a single kick, making me suspect your log is complete bullshit.

By this way this is fucking hilarious to me because the pet actually almost soloed that monk. It had 10% hp left at the end. Yeah, exactly. A level 24 pet summon by an Enchanter shouldn't be soloing mobs that are same/higher level than it but that is what they do. They function just like a mag/nec pet.

[Baler]

What are your thoughts on druid, shaman & necromancer charms.
Is it classic for druids to charm wolves in Kael?
Did necromancers run charasis back in the day?

And how about puppet strings, the recharge cost is too dang high.

[azxten]

What are your thoughts on druid, shaman & necromancer charms.
Is it classic for druids to charm wolves in Kael?
Did necromancers run charasis back in the day?

And how about puppet strings, the recharge cost is too dang high.

Yes, it's all good except you had to actually risk channeling chance. Also as I've said over and over the main issue is lower levels where channeling chance was much lower than on P99. Way to miss the point though.

Same with the pet HP. It's primarily an issue with level 1-20ish when the pet is still being used. It plays into how Enchanters are able to easily solo with pet from 1-12 to charm when in reality 1-12 as an Enchanter on live was a horrible time and why most people gave up on the class.

People are just generally too stupid to understand the concept of how things work on a curve though. P99 Enchanter should be compared to charming wolves in Kael and no thought should be given to actual pre-Kunark era charm which is mainly what I'm discussing.

It's cool I'm putting together a larger narrative that addresses all the common fallacies used to dismiss the truth about Enchanter needing a nerf.

By the way, isn't it funny how people simultaneously are claiming that the Wiki makes everyone ultra powerful on P99 and that is why Enchanter is so OP but yet the Wiki is also completely wrong and all the data for Enchanter pets and should be ignored? Which one is it? Is the Wiki overpowered or is the Wiki wrong? If it's the former then pet data shows Enchanter's need a pet nerf. If it's the latter then it dismisses the argument that we now have infallible data to trivialize the game.

My pet max hit for 26 by the way, the max damage listed for a 24 pet with a max level of 23 which isn't a classic summonable pet level with the 24 spell. Thus why it's able to solo equivalent mobs and has too much HP.

[Jimjam]

I recently rolled another enchanter (red), and I have to say the pet was far stronger than I remember for 1-12 than my enchanter I played on TZ pre-Velious.

My classic experience was xp mobs were hard and would mince my pet, even easier xp mobs, whereas on red the pet could happily solo a bunch of xp mobs.

No numbers, just vague feels, though.

[DMN]

I recently rolled another enchanter (red), and I have to say the pet was far stronger than I remember for 1-12 than my enchanter I played on TZ pre-Velious.

My classic experience was xp mobs were hard and would mince my pet, even easier xp mobs, whereas on red the pet could happily solo a bunch of xp mobs.

No numbers, just vague feels, though.

Probably to do with the heightened regen rate of pets, which I believe only occurred when the pet was out of combat but I have no proof of that being the case so /shrug.

[magnetaress]

There were two combat overhauls one after vanilla, and one later on towards Lublin or pop. Enchanters and pet classes got massively more powerful.

That said, mages feel a bit under powered.

A ench pet with two fs daggers and swift like the wind used to be a broken killing machine.

I think pets relied less on con and had better innate stats, p99 seems to make up for it with raw hp, melee hits.

Pets probably just had really great ac/atk value on live but much lower ***HP, so they consistently could tank and dps red to the pet mobs. This makes total sense need a lot of combat logs with both pet end mob con plus running stats to prove that. I would, but I'm outgrowing the game sadly got serious illness to consider first.

Also high agi did make us run faster and stop us from being encumbered, I proved that with like 10 posts from external forums and an ancient real angelfire website that account got NUKED in a fit of wrath though. I was quite popular with mblake, ever after despite his animosity towards others like me and he was also a pretty straight laced fella that got devoured in a fit of cultural reassignment.

Anyway the proof is out there guys. I want to do EQ from scratch with vulkan api because I would get it right and publish a closed source licenced moldable server with FOSS level design tools.

Good luck getting mezzed fix and charm duration down to under 2 minutes 90% of the time as well as better agro requiring more focus on CC and cleaner pulls and probably halving the channeling rate for low AC cloth wearers.

Get that done, and it will feel tons better. Enchanters should also absolutely be splattererd into gibs by raid mobs in hate and fear. By the time you realize u got agro, it should be:LOADING PLZ WAITZ. Maybe a slim chance to live if you're planning your kite, cc and not waiting around like a goof with a charmed cleric ready to perma stun you, resist root and kill you with one totally unavoidable quad while disease cloud tries to land.

Im outa this thread for now folks, enjoy the recreation. It's fun. Even though it's not real.

[Disease]

Yes, it's all good except you had to actually risk channeling chance. Also as I've said over and over the main issue is lower levels where channeling chance was much lower than on P99. Way to miss the point though.

Same with the pet HP. It's primarily an issue with level 1-20ish when the pet is still being used. It plays into how Enchanters are able to easily solo with pet from 1-12 to charm when in reality 1-12 as an Enchanter on live was a horrible time and why most people gave up on the class.

People are just generally too stupid to understand the concept of how things work on a curve though. P99 Enchanter should be compared to charming wolves in Kael and no thought should be given to actual pre-Kunark era charm which is mainly what I'm discussing.

It's cool I'm putting together a larger narrative that addresses all the common fallacies used to dismiss the truth about Enchanter needing a nerf.

By the way, isn't it funny how people simultaneously are claiming that the Wiki makes everyone ultra powerful on P99 and that is why Enchanter is so OP but yet the Wiki is also completely wrong and all the data for Enchanter pets and should be ignored? Which one is it? Is the Wiki overpowered or is the Wiki wrong? If it's the former then pet data shows Enchanter's need a pet nerf. If it's the latter then it dismisses the argument that we now have infallible data to trivialize the game.

My pet max hit for 26 by the way, the max damage listed for a 24 pet with a max level of 23 which isn't a classic summonable pet level with the 24 spell. Thus why it's able to solo equivalent mobs and has too much HP.

Alot of solid proof. Thank you sir.

[Jibartik]

Yes, it's all good except you had to actually risk channeling chance. Also as I've said over and over the main issue is lower levels where channeling chance was much lower than on P99. Way to miss the point though.

Same with the pet HP. It's primarily an issue with level 1-20ish when the pet is still being used. It plays into how Enchanters are able to easily solo with pet from 1-12 to charm when in reality 1-12 as an Enchanter on live was a horrible time and why most people gave up on the class.

People are just generally too stupid to understand the concept of how things work on a curve though. P99 Enchanter should be compared to charming wolves in Kael and no thought should be given to actual pre-Kunark era charm which is mainly what I'm discussing.

It's cool I'm putting together a larger narrative that addresses all the common fallacies used to dismiss the truth about Enchanter needing a nerf.

By the way, isn't it funny how people simultaneously are claiming that the Wiki makes everyone ultra powerful on P99 and that is why Enchanter is so OP but yet the Wiki is also completely wrong and all the data for Enchanter pets and should be ignored? Which one is it? Is the Wiki overpowered or is the Wiki wrong? If it's the former then pet data shows Enchanter's need a pet nerf. If it's the latter then it dismisses the argument that we now have infallible data to trivialize the game.

My pet max hit for 26 by the way, the max damage listed for a 24 pet with a max level of 23 which isn't a classic summonable pet level with the 24 spell. Thus why it's able to solo equivalent mobs and has too much HP.

I have a rule of thumb, if you think people are generally too stupid to understand your ideas, it's generally your stupid messaging that's the problem getting them across, hope this helps :o

Looking forward to your larger narrative!

[azxten]

I have a rule of thumb, if you think people are generally too stupid to understand your ideas, it's generally your stupid messaging that's the problem getting them across, hope this helps :o

Looking forward to your larger narrative!

Yeah that is probably true

[rahmani]

Read any thread about game mechanics and you'll see contradictions and rampant cluelessness. A single forum post making a claim about a mechanic without describing how they came to their belief is just not credible.

So much this

[derpcake2]

Enchanters are fine.

It would help the community if some whiney bitches got banned though, we all know that even if enchanters are changed, they'll just bitch about something else.

I think the saying is "shit always sinks to the bottom"?

[DMN]

Please move to RnF where this trash belongs.

[azeth]

No one charmed until dire charm, and you all know it

[azxten]

Please move to RnF where this trash belongs.

Still mad you were proven wrong.

Oh and hilarious, I pop over the bug forum and see you're begging to have Torpor nerfed. You're such a baby. Going around crying about Torpor while you defend Enchanter bugs.

[Jimjam]

Please move to RnF where this trash belongs.

Resolved aNd Fixed?

[loramin]

No one charmed until dire charm, and you all know it

[DMN]

Still mad you were proven wrong.

Oh and hilarious, I pop over the bug forum and see you're begging to have Torpor nerfed. You're such a baby. Going around crying about Torpor while you defend Enchanter bugs.

Dude, all you showed is you were a moron on top of confirming you are a liar. Torpor was FACTUALLY nerfed to cost mana with undeniable evidence. You imagination of what enchanters SHOULD be isn't even in the same universe as that issue.

[Zuglok]

Played a necro on live, playing an ench on green.

I used charm extensively on my necro from Kunark to LDoN in every zone that had undeads, mostly in groups because fear kitting was so much more comfortable in solo, but I recon it was not something common among the playerbase.

As an ench on p99, I recon that charm probably needs to be toned down (even if it's in a non classical way). I mainly play the class for the CC and group interraction, no need to be a DPS powerhouse as well.
Plus, having to charm a pet with random breaks for hours in xp groups because people expect you to do so can get annoying and taxing on the nerves.

Also, dire charm, lol, no one used that trash. Sometimes you had that green rogue pet that did the job, but it was junk most of the time.

[azxten]

Dude, all you showed is you were a moron on top of confirming you are a liar. Torpor was FACTUALLY nerfed to cost mana with undeniable evidence. You imagination of what enchanters SHOULD be isn't even in the same universe as that issue.

Capture of enchanter pet HP from classic era says you're wrong. Both should be nerfed as should all the other issues like channeling, stats over 200, etc. You just think it's fine for other classes but not your own.

[bwe]

Everyone pretends people in classic were morons because they don't want their enchanters to be nerfed

[cd288]

For anyone looking for a TLDR on OP’s rantings and ravings: Basically he has a vendetta against enchanters (maybe one was mean to him once) and likes to whine that things should be nerfed but for almost every single one of his demands he provides no actual solid evidence to support them. Saved you minutes of your life reading his long winded rants

[loramin]

Everyone pretends people in classic were morons because they don't want their enchanters to be nerfed

[bwe]

cd288 defends enchanters in every single iteration of this thread. I remember him posting the same overly defensive arguments in a "enchanters op?" thread at the beginning of green

[Jimjam]

For anyone looking for a TLDR on OP’s rantings and ravings: Basically he has a vendetta against enchanters (maybe one was mean to him once) and likes to whine that things should be nerfed but for almost every single one of his demands he provides no actual solid evidence to support them. Saved you minutes of your life reading his long winded rants

I feel OP has received some great constructive criticism and is really upping his game in terms of eq web archaeology.

Perhaps animation hp will be the next vendor charm nerf?!

[qezelia]

I find it amusing that WoW Classic has had a very similar experience to classic EQ.

All these raids that many people remembered as being challenging are now often beaten by pugs.

DPS warriors were largely considered bad because they'd just pull aggro and die - now half of a raid is warriors. Kinda like how enchanters were terrible because if they charm they just die!

People spamming consumables, world buffs, engineering bombs, and everything else at their disposal to further trivialize things that aren't very difficult in the first place -> clickies/wort pots/etc.

Mages aoeing down entire instances -> bards swarming

[chowdah555]

No one charmed until dire charm, and you all know it

Dire charm was only good up to a lvl 46 mob so it generally made it pretty useless. It was only good for camping lower lvl dungeons where you need a reliable pet for long durations.

[Jimjam]

Dire charm was popular in plane of innovation and plane of storms. Loads of POP zones seemed to have a 46 just for people to dire charm (and players would argue over whose turn it was to use the mob!)

[DMN]

Capture of enchanter pet HP from classic era says you're wrong. Both should be nerfed as should all the other issues like channeling, stats over 200, etc. You just think it's fine for other classes but not your own.

Nope, like I said, it just further shows how dumb you are. you are trusting the wiki to be gospel. Turns out the wiki is almost entirely wrong on every mobs stats in the game, including pets. if you would be able to rub two brain cells together you would have check that first before rely on any of the information found in it. Garbage in, garbage out; gargabe poster, garbage thread.

[Nirgon]

Waiting for them to cave and post the patch note any day now. Keep hitting em. You're winning the ruin EQ war.

[cd288]

cd288 defends enchanters in every single iteration of this thread. I remember him posting the same overly defensive arguments in a "enchanters op?" thread at the beginning of green

And I don’t even play an enchanter. I just think OP is whiney and annoying and either needs to find actual evidence or stop spamming whiney threads

[Cen]

I find it amusing that WoW Classic has had a very similar experience to classic EQ.

All these raids that many people remembered as being challenging are now often beaten by pugs.

DPS warriors were largely considered bad because they'd just pull aggro and die - now half of a raid is warriors. Kinda like how enchanters were terrible because if they charm they just die!

People spamming consumables, world buffs, engineering bombs, and everything else at their disposal to further trivialize things that aren't very difficult in the first place -> clickies/wort pots/etc.

Mages aoeing down entire instances -> bards swarming

Its actually kind of cool how far we came in MMO skill though. The latest FFXIV content is actually excitingly challenging in terms of mechanics the likes of which no other MMO, even WoW has achieved. Like, no game has ever come close to the technicality and difficulty of the mechanics. Thats the best part of that game

[bubur]

ah this thread again. anyone propose a reasonable charm nerf yet?

if it just lasts less time or got resisted more it will only cost more mana to do aoe stuns and remezzies; they'll still be the best levelers and decent groups and competing guilds will still ask you to do it

enc has a pretty strong toolset all around. Imo the cats outta the bag on this one. enc players are legitimately more familiar with it in 2021 than they were in 1999. and yes I'm open to discussing a nerf, just not sure what meaningful fix you could apply without just making up unclassic rules like restricting the target levels to greens only or something else with no classic precedent

even then, all youd have to do is adjust and reverse charm and you're still on top, except in a new, custom way we would Know is unclassic instead of just debating from memory

[Jibartik]

Waiting for them to cave and post the patch note any day now. Keep hitting em. You're winning the ruin EQ war.

[formallydickman]

Yeah but for real though, as someone who played back in the day... It isn't quite the same . Something is easier and more sustainable about ENCH and we all know it. Some ppl attribute it to the latency/better computer etc, but I don't think that is entirely it. Some values are off and could use tweaking (vague- I know.) Also, Cdnumbers and DMN- who hurt ya'll? Chill out. It is... after all... just a game.

[this user was banned]

It’s all overpowered until you really need to take a shit and your charmed hasted, dual wielding pet could force you to pinch off a loaf early as you worry if your party managed to stun/root it when the charm breaks as you are pushing as hard as you can.

Yeah you could just memblur and recharm it later, but it’s such a hassle.

There’s a lot of risks and drawbacks to charming pets, one is not being able to take a worry free, relaxing shit like rogues can.

[yyrkoon]

i play a warrior and quite frankly i have to agree with the OP
it's some bullshit .

i literally cannot kill a green mob unless it's 30 levels below me . and even then, as soon as it starts to flee, i have to chase it and aggro more shit .

i see enchanters and necros soloing whole camps for mad cash while i still have banded in some slots and i'm 50+ .

i dont know what pisses me off more though, enhanters or necros . at laest the enchanters get blown to pieces half the time their pet breaks or they LD or somehing . necro fear and snare combo is borderline an exploit of game mechanics . i can guarantee verant never intended people to snare and fear mobs and kill them without ever getting hit . this is called SKIPPING CONTENT, content in this case being getting your face smashed in by the monsters .

in the same fashion as root and snaer do not stack, (and root and fear do not stack), fear and snare should not stack .

let me repeat it for the distracted . FEAR AND SNARE SHOULD NOT STACK

[magnetaress]

i play a warrior and quite frankly i have to agree with the OP
it's some bullshit .

i literally cannot kill a green mob unless it's 30 levels below me . and even then, as soon as it starts to flee, i have to chase it and aggro more shit .

i see enchanters and necros soloing whole camps for mad cash while i still have banded in some slots and i'm 50+ .

i dont know what pisses me off more though, enhanters or necros . at laest the enchanters get blown to pieces half the time their pet breaks or they LD or somehing . necro fear and snare combo is borderline an exploit of game mechanics . i can guarantee verant never intended people to snare and fear mobs and kill them without ever getting hit . this is called SKIPPING CONTENT, content in this case being getting your face smashed in by the monsters .

in the same fashion as root and snaer do not stack, (and root and fear do not stack), fear and snare should not stack .

let me repeat it for the distracted . FEAR AND SNARE SHOULD NOT STACK

I fear kited on my cleric without snare all the time.

[Toxigen]

A lot of words for "I have class envy but don't have the capacity to play an enchanter well."

[cd288]

Yeah but for real though, as someone who played back in the day... It isn't quite the same . Something is easier and more sustainable about ENCH and we all know it. Some ppl attribute it to the latency/better computer etc, but I don't think that is entirely it. Some values are off and could use tweaking (vague- I know.) Also, Cdnumbers and DMN- who hurt ya'll? Chill out. It is... after all... just a game.

I’m all for changing something if you can provide evidence that it’s incorrect. For every person who says “well it’s definitely different than it was in classic, trust me I remember” there’s someone who says the exact opposite. Your “memory” and random 21 year old forum posts from players contradicting each other isn’t evidence. If you’ve got actual evidence, post it in the bug forum...otherwise don’t make some whiney long winded post about wanting something changed.

[Nirgon]

Mobs were charmed thru the first AoW kill. The end.

[TripSin]

i play a warrior and quite frankly i have to agree with the OP
it's some bullshit .

i literally cannot kill a green mob unless it's 30 levels below me . and even then, as soon as it starts to flee, i have to chase it and aggro more shit .

i see enchanters and necros soloing whole camps for mad cash while i still have banded in some slots and i'm 50+ .

i dont know what pisses me off more though, enhanters or necros . at laest the enchanters get blown to pieces half the time their pet breaks or they LD or somehing . necro fear and snare combo is borderline an exploit of game mechanics . i can guarantee verant never intended people to snare and fear mobs and kill them without ever getting hit . this is called SKIPPING CONTENT, content in this case being getting your face smashed in by the monsters .

in the same fashion as root and snaer do not stack, (and root and fear do not stack), fear and snare should not stack .

let me repeat it for the distracted . FEAR AND SNARE SHOULD NOT STACK

By your and OP's logic you want them to nerf classes that can solo because you're frustrated after choosing a class that can't. Enchanter, necro, bards, mages, shaman, druids, and wizards can all be powerful solo'ing classes but it doesn't make sense to nerf them just to make you feel better. EverQuest is full of design flaws but it is what it is. They were more excusable back in the day because EverQuest was a first-of-its-kind, novel industry-changer.

[Nirgon]

These people are usually too lazy and/or lack the motor skills to play enchanter. This kind of "if I can't then no one else is allowed to" is the community's poor sports on display again. You see it everywhere and would hope it wouldn't infect our escapisms. Sadly, it does. Being a poor sport shouldn't be celebrated and it isn't brave.

[azxten]

These people are usually too lazy and/or lack the motor skills to play enchanter. This kind of "if I can't then no one else is allowed to" is the community's poor sports on display again. You see it everywhere and would hope it wouldn't infect our escapisms. Sadly, it does. Being a poor sport shouldn't be celebrated and it isn't brave.

If only that was true. In reality these kinds of people crying about Enchanter being nerfed are the ones who can't handle playing a difficult class. They need channeling rates to be 10x higher than classic so they can pretend to be good.

Don't worry though I'll have a few videos of me playing Enchanter. You can see my fine motor skill at work when I'm in melee with 5 mobs and channel charm right through it. You heard right. Not stun. Not root. Fuck all that.

Mobs were charmed thru the first AoW kill. The end.

Almost like everything I said is true and charm wasn't a big thing until Velious.

By your and OP's logic you want them to nerf classes that can solo because you're frustrated after choosing a class that can't. Enchanter, necro, bards, mages, shaman, druids, and wizards can all be powerful solo'ing classes but it doesn't make sense to nerf them just to make you feel better.

Necro gets no pet attack delay reduction, Bard has AE kite limit, Mage no has pet attack delay reduction, Shaman is about to get Torpor nerfed, etc. Blah blah blah. I already have an Enchanter.

It’s all overpowered until you really need to take a shit

Enchanter so OP the only downside is if you're AFK.

[TripSin]

Don't worry though I'll have a few videos of me playing Enchanter. You can see my fine motor skill at work when I'm in melee with 5 mobs and channel charm right through it. You heard right. Not stun. Not root. Fuck all that.



Do it then. Let's see you charm through 5 mobs meleeing you. All you do is talk ridiculous garbage. It's so pathetic.

[azxten]

Unfortunately, someone was in Unrest basement so I'll have to try again later. I couldn't find 5 mobs together and the monk is green. Don't worry though I did successfully channel charm the two times I casted it while in melee. Just wanted to post this because it's hilarious that I successfully channel through a dark terror's knockback.

[Mon Mar 22 07:50:16 2021] You begin casting Beguile.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:16 2021] A skeletal monk hits YOU for 2 points of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:16 2021] A skeletal monk tries to hit YOU, but misses!
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:16 2021] A dark terror hits YOU for 54 points of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:17 2021] A skeletal monk strikes YOU for 25 points of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:19 2021] A dark terror hits YOU for 51 points of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:19 2021] A massive force knocks you backwards. You have taken 1 point of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:19 2021] A dark terror hits YOU for 15 points of damage.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:19 2021] Dearbaby begins to cast a spell.
[Mon Mar 22 07:50:19 2021] You regain your concentration and continue your casting.

Take 5 melee hits and a knockback spell? Yeah, we can channel through that. I'll build ever more ridiculous evidence of this including consecutive ridiculous channeling events all on video to prove I'm not cherry picking. Try it yourself some time.

I will admit it took me 10 years of P99 to finally come to the conclusion that not casting long ass spells in melee is inefficient and newb shit from live EQ that doesn't apply here. I bet a lot of people don't even try so they havn't realized yet just how easy it is.

[magnetaress]

These people are usually too lazy and/or lack the motor skills to play enchanter. This kind of "if I can't then no one else is allowed to" is the community's poor sports on display again. You see it everywhere and would hope it wouldn't infect our escapisms. Sadly, it does. Being a poor sport shouldn't be celebrated and it isn't brave.

A computer program can play an Enchanter.

[magnetaress]

Unfortunately, someone was in Unrest basement so I'll have to try again later. I couldn't find 5 mobs together and the monk is green. Don't worry though I did successfully channel charm the two times I casted it while in melee. Just wanted to post this because it's hilarious that I successfully channel through a dark terror's knockback.



Take 5 melee hits and a knockback spell? Yeah, we can channel through that. I'll build ever more ridiculous evidence of this including consecutive ridiculous channeling events all on video to prove I'm not cherry picking. Try it yourself some time.

I will admit it took me 10 years of P99 to finally come to the conclusion that not casting long ass spells in melee is inefficient and newb shit from live EQ that doesn't apply here. I bet a lot of people don't even try so they havn't realized yet just how easy it is.

You're supposed to stun/mez then charm. Isn't there like a .5 spell that stuns?

[TripSin]

Unfortunately, someone was in Unrest basement so I'll have to try again later. I couldn't find 5 mobs together and the monk is green. Don't worry though I did successfully channel charm the two times I casted it while in melee. Just wanted to post this because it's hilarious that I successfully channel through a dark terror's knockback.



Take 5 melee hits and a knockback spell? Yeah, we can channel through that. I'll build ever more ridiculous evidence of this including consecutive ridiculous channeling events all on video to prove I'm not cherry picking. Try it yourself some time.

I will admit it took me 10 years of P99 to finally come to the conclusion that not casting long ass spells in melee is inefficient and newb shit from live EQ that doesn't apply here. I bet a lot of people don't even try so they havn't realized yet just how easy it is.

Stop being pathetic and moving the goalpost and show us the video of you charming through 5 mobs meleeing you like you claimed you would. You writing some text means nothing. And don't just choose green mobs that are missing you. Get some blue cons at least. You're obviously going to try to cherrypick footage anyways.

[TripSin]

A computer program can play an Enchanter.

At least the program would have to be constantly active unlike with most other classes that can and do literally AFK during a group and people wouldn't even notice. Like it's so hard to turn on auto attack and stand there.

[azxten]

Stop being pathetic and moving the goalpost and show us the video of you charming through 5 mobs meleeing you like you claimed you would. You writing some text means nothing.

lol.. I didn't move shit, I just wanted to show that in 1 minute I can already capture a stupid channeling moment without even trying. I'll include the video with the larger analysis I mentioned.

You're supposed to stun/mez then charm. Isn't there like a .5 spell that stuns?

Why waste the mana? I've been eating melee on Enchanter and regen with Troll illusion during my unbreaking charm fight. Saves on rune costs and is the pro way to play. My HP bar is just an alternate mana bar and believe me even if I'm down at 20% health I'm still charming because we all know there is zero risk as an Enchanter if anything happens. I'll just channel whatever I need through whatever happens including rune. Charm broke? Better rune myself while in combat at 10% health and then charm while in combat.

lol... people say I'm making up ridiculous shit aren't gonna believe it when I post these videos. I didn't believe myself that Enchanter was so stupidly broken and OP due to channeling until I played one myself.

[TripSin]

lol.. I didn't move shit, I just wanted to show that in 1 minute I can already capture a stupid channeling moment without even trying. I'll include the video with the larger analysis I mentioned.



Except you literally did. It's right there in the text to see. Stop making excuses and let's see you charm through 5 mobs hitting you and blue cons, not just green cons that are missing you. In your defense, you probably actually have no idea what constitutes strong, empirical evidence. This is likely more the fault of your education system than it is of yours.

[Disease]

Unfortunately, someone was in Unrest basement so I'll have to try again later. I couldn't find 5 mobs together and the monk is green. Don't worry though I did successfully channel charm the two times I casted it while in melee. Just wanted to post this because it's hilarious that I successfully channel through a dark terror's knockback.



Take 5 melee hits and a knockback spell? Yeah, we can channel through that. I'll build ever more ridiculous evidence of this including consecutive ridiculous channeling events all on video to prove I'm not cherry picking. Try it yourself some time.

I will admit it took me 10 years of P99 to finally come to the conclusion that not casting long ass spells in melee is inefficient and newb shit from live EQ that doesn't apply here. I bet a lot of people don't even try so they havn't realized yet just how easy it is.

Wow! One log file, casting one spell. You're really putting in some work with getting this fix put in!

[Vivitron]

lol.. I didn't move shit, I just wanted to show that in 1 minute I can already capture a stupid channeling moment without even trying. I'll include the video with the larger analysis I mentioned. Should channeling through a few hits really be an outlier at your level? I remember channeling through that on live without surprise.



Why waste the mana? I've been eating melee on Enchanter and regen with Troll illusion during my unbreaking charm fight. Saves on rune costs and is the pro way to play. My HP bar is just an alternate mana bar and believe me even if I'm down at 20% health I'm still charming because we all know there is zero risk as an Enchanter if anything happens. I'll just channel whatever I need through whatever happens including rune. Charm broke? Better rune myself while in combat at 10% health and then charm while in combat.
Lol. If that were my experience I would probably be asking for a nerf too.

[loramin]

I love how everyone who played on live remembers what Enchanters were actually like ... but the Enchanter players here, who don't want to play a classically difficult class, demand a PhD dissertation of proof ...

... again, just to tell us what everyone who played in classic already knows: Enchanters weren't like this on live!

EDIT: We have this forum called the Starting Zone, and every week or so we get a new person in it saying "OMG I played EverQuest back in the day and now I get to play it again here; this place is amazing!!!"

I challenge anyone who thinks Enchanters are accurate here to ask one of those people (a completely unbiased observer, with no "skin in this game") what they remember about Enchanters ... and whether they were the soloing gods of the game :rolleyes:

[azxten]

Should channeling through a few hits really be an outlier at your level? I remember channeling through that on live without surprise.




Lol. If that were my experience I would probably be asking for a nerf too.

Yes, it's actually kind of ridiculous people are even arguing this point. ANYONE can go test this in game and you'll absolutely see channeling is too successful even at level 1. There is already a client decompile proving this.

A level 1 on P99 has about a 50-70% success rate at channeling. On live at level 1 you had like a 10% chance. At 50+ on P99 channeling is similar to live. Again it's all about the power curve being wrong not that the final destination wasn't reachable on live. Same with charm and people comparing a naked level 20 Enc charming pre-kunark dungeons and soloing huge parts of it saying that's totally classic because they remember a level 60 Velious Enc in max gear doing similar.

[TripSin]

I love how everyone who played on live remembers what Enchanters were actually like ... but all the Enchanter players here who don't want to play a classically difficult class require a PhD dissertation of proof ...

... again, just to tell us what everyone who played in classic already knows: Enchanters weren't like this on live!

Nice strawman. Nobody is saying that enchanter isn't played drastically different from live. Almost nothing in p99 is played like it was played in live because it's literally impossible once you put in players from 2021. The point of contention I have with OP and his like is that they are attributing it to the wrong reasons.

Azxten continues to make outlandish, garbage claims without providing any actual reputable, empirical evidence.

[loramin]

Nice strawman. Nobody is saying that enchanter isn't played drastically different from live. Almost nothing in p99 is played like it was played in live because it's literally impossible once you put in players from 2021. The point of contention I have with OP and his like is that they are attributing it to the wrong reasons.

Everyone who played an Enchanter back from 1999-2001 was an idiot who didn't know what they were doing or how to play the class

Sorry, but that's a garbage argument: there were literally 20x as many Enchanters playing then as there are now, and at least a decent percentage knew how to play their class.

There was an entire Enchanter forum dedicated to Enchanter knowledge, and if it was as easy to solo here as it was on live I guarantee that knowledge would have been known, and shared on that forum.

[magnetaress]

Chsnneling rates are pretty redic.

Ur just pro channeling to bully azxten cuz of posting style. Not facts.

[TripSin]

[QUOTE=TripSin;3277112]Nice strawman. Nobody is saying that enchanter isn't played drastically different from live. Almost nothing in p99 is played like it was played in live because it's literally impossible once you put in players from 2021. The point of contention I have with OP and his like is that they are attributing it to the wrong reasons.



"Everyone who played an Enchanter back from 1999-2001 was an idiot who didn't know what they were doing or how to play the class".

Sorry, but that's a garbage argument: there were literally 20x as many Enchanters playing then as there are now, and they 100% knew how to play their class.

There was an entire Enchanter forum dedicated to Enchanter knowledge, and if it was as easy to solo to 60 here as it was on live I guarantee that knowledge would have been known, and shared on that forum.

First of all, you're wrong. If you think everybody was even stacking cha like they are now, you're just being completely ignorant. Second of all, that's not even my argument. But thanks for trying to misrepresent it. I like how you even use the quote function to misrepresent what I said. Absolutely pathetic.

[magnetaress]

A lot of players are better at supporting ench too. On live in pugs ench didn't rely on healers or other casters being good enough to help them charm.

Charming should be more dangerous solo.

[Vivitron]

Yes, it's actually kind of ridiculous people are even arguing this point. ANYONE can go test this in game and you'll absolutely see channeling is too successful even at level 1. There is already a client decompile proving this.

A level 1 on P99 has about a 50-70% success rate at channeling. On live at level 1 you had like a 10% chance. At 50+ on P99 channeling is similar to live. I feel like I am stating the obvious here but level 1 has nothing to do with whether channeling beguile through a few hits is classic.

[TripSin]

I love how everyone who played on live remembers what Enchanters were actually like ... but the Enchanter players here, who don't want to play a classically difficult class, demand a PhD dissertation of proof ...



I literally only asked that he provide what he literally himself said he would provide, which is videos of him charming through 5 mobs meleeing him. I did add the caveat though that they should be at least blue con mobs, because doing it against green con mobs that are missing you isn't impressive. I would love to see it. But, to my knowledge, Azxten has never been able in all these years to back up his ridiculous claims with real evidence. I'd love to see an exception, but I'm not optimistic he will deliver.

[azxten]

Azxten continues to make outlandish, garbage claims without providing any actual reputable, empirical evidence.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=343453

Originally Posted by Dolalin View Post
So Torven sent me the logic they use on TAKP which I've given to the P99 devs. They took their code from a client decompile so it's as close as I imagine you could get to accuracy.

In a thread started by someone else the decompile evidence is obtained, posted, and given to devs.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm mostly repeating the work of others but people love to attack me for not shutting up and letting valid bug reports that impact core game mechanics fade into oblivion.

[loramin]

First of all, you're wrong. If you think everybody was even stacking cha like they are now, you're just being completely ignorant. Second of all, that's not even my argument. But thanks for trying to misrepresent it. I like how you even use the quote function to misrepresent what I said. Absolutely pathetic.

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

When you resort to ad hominem, you basically just admitted you have nothing to say to my actual argument.

And speaking of that argument, if I misrepresented your position then tell me what I got wrong. But you can't have it both ways: either the 20x Enchanters on live were all incompetent (or only a tiny secretive fraction were competent, and they didn't share that super secret info) ... or a decent number on live knew how to play their class, and something is different, mechanically, here.

[TripSin]

Stop moving the goalpost. Let's see the videos of you charming through 5 mobs hitting you.

[Dolalin]

I've submitted some Channeling skill changes to the P99 devs, taken from Torven / TAKP, which are more classic and will rebalance the low level caster game. Channeling at low levels is very OP here on P99.

Ideally we could try to reimplement a few of the classic charming 'bugs' too, but I recognize that might be problematic:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359961

[TripSin]

[QUOTE=TripSin;3277116]



When you resort to ad hominem, you basically just admitted you have nothing to say to my actual argument.

And speaking of that argument, if I misrepresented your position then tell me what I got wrong. But you can't have it both ways: either the 20x Enchanters on live were all incompetent (or only a tiny secretive fraction were, who didn't share that super secret info) ... or a decent number on live knew how to play their class ... but something is different, mechanically, here.

Says the person constantly making straw mans. Do you actually think every enchanter was stacking CHA? My posts with my arguments are there for anyone to see. I'm not just going to keep rewriting it all out for you.

[azxten]

Stop moving the goalpost. Let's see the videos of you charming through 5 mobs hitting you.

Don't worry we'll get there but I have to wonder, who is moving the goalpost? My videos shouldn't be the evidence needed, the decompile is, which is why I just linked it again in case you hadn't seen it.

I'll make some funny videos though, sure, and you'll claim it's all doctored or cherrypicked or whatever. Right now I'm playing with one of my children though so you know priorities.

[TripSin]

Don't worry we'll get there but I have to wonder, who is moving the goalpost? My videos shouldn't be the evidence needed, the decompile is, which is why I just linked it again in case you hadn't seen it.

I'll make some funny videos though, sure, and you'll claim it's all doctored or cherrypicked or whatever. Right now I'm playing with one of my children though so you know priorities.


You're the one who claimed you would provide those videos. I didn't ask you before that to do it, you just said you would. Now that you said you would, I would love to actually see them. So let's see em?

[cd288]

Sorry, but that's a garbage argument: there were literally 20x as many Enchanters playing then as there are now, and at least a decent percentage knew how to play their class.

There was an entire Enchanter forum dedicated to Enchanter knowledge, and if it was as easy to solo here as it was on live I guarantee that knowledge would have been known, and shared on that forum.

I mean by PoP enchanters were rampant on a lot of servers because the meta of charm killing had become much more known.

Charm killing as a strategy simply wasn’t as widespread through Kunark. By Velious you started to see it ramp up more as a result of people starting to realize how OP Enchanters were in terms of their toolkit. Before then people just didn’t fully appreciate it, they thought it was a CC and support class. People also thought pets stole exp from groups for quite awhile so people were asked not to have pets in some groups. People also stacked INT on casters aggressively...people min/maxing CHA just wasn’t a common thing, everyone thought that was just most relevant for bards lol

Another factor for the rampant number of enchanters from day 1 on P99 is everyone knowing what the extremely valuable items and camps are and knowing exactly what class can and can’t hold down those camps solo. Back then, that level of knowledge also wasn’t as widespread so you didn’t have the meta of “if I want to farm the most valuable loot, I need an enchanter because there are camps you simply can’t solo as another class.”

There’s simply so many things that go into why you see so many Enchanters that have nothing to do with things being incorrect mechanically. The only thing I agree with is that channeling is probably too easy on P99 vs. classic but as another commenter said I think you’d basically have to rebuild the client to solve that issue.

There’s been no other actual evidence of any other mechanics being broken. If there is, people would go post it in the bugs forum rather than ranting about it here.

[azxten]

I mean by PoP enchanters were rampant on a lot of servers because the meta of charm killing had become much more known.

Charm killing as a strategy simply wasn’t as widespread through Kunark. By Velious you started to see it ramp up more as a result of people starting to realize how OP Enchanters were in terms of their toolkit.

There’s been no other actual evidence of any other mechanics being broken. If there is, people would go post it in the bugs forum rather than ranting about it here.

Or maybe it's all the in era posting, people's memories, evidence, etc showing pets ran all over the zone, fell through the world, attacked group members, and so on that stopped charm being viable. Maybe we should look at the FOH guild postings specifically calling out charming in classic and charming for FG raids which had a 80% chance of death on any given attempt. We could look at all the classic in era references clearly stating Enchanter needed CHA for Charm. On and on all the evidence is there that yes, our memories of charm are exactly how it was, viable in certain situations like outdoor zones when SoW was available, absolutely not possible for a solo Enchanter to be charming packs of mobs in dungeons where they had no room if things went bad.

No evidence? Channeling? Why do people who make the same tired arguments about "people didn't know how to play" keep ignoring channeling being too successful and proven so?

This is getting old, just let the thread die, I'll make a new one. Thanks for the advice on clarifying messaging.

[loramin]

People were ignorant on live

Again, that's what your argument boils down to ... and it defies reason. Yes, people on live were ignorant about certain things ... but they were not so ignorant that they didn't try to play their class. Again, 20x the number of people that play here (probably more) were all playing this class: experimenting with it, trying Cha gear, trying to solo, etc.

I tried to find proof of as much on the Enchanter forums, but it looks like Wayback doesn't have an archive past 2003 :( (https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/http://www.therunes.net/forums/) I strongly suspect this is a big part of the problem: no one can "prove" obvious facts (eg. that classic Enchanters absolutely did think Charisma was important).

But look, people thought far less important stats (eg. Agility!) were important for their class. Enchanters knew Charisma and Intelligence were important, and they knew Charisma was related to charming. Maybe they didn't know the exact details, but the game made Charisma green for a reason :)

So again, it defies reason to suggest that despite 20x P99's Enchanter population all trying to solo and group (because every class tried to both solo and group back then) the vast, vast majority of them chose to group out of ignorance. No, they chose to group because it made more sense to do so ... in the real classic EQ.

[azxten]

I tried to find proof of as much on the Enchanter forums, but it looks like Wayback doesn't have an archive past 2003 :( (https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/http://www.therunes.net/forums/) I strongly suspect this is a big part of the problem: no one can "prove" obvious facts (eg. that classic Enchanters absolutely did think Charisma was important).

I linked some earlier in this thread. I found an old Angelfire Enchanter page. Here....

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitewind/gtxt/guides/UChantGuide.htm

Charisma - The second school supports raising CHA as high as possible for two reasons. Firstly, many believe that high CHA has a profound impact on charm durations, stun-locking, fear durations, and mezzing. Nearly all enchanters give credit that it does help, especially in charming scenarios. The second reason is that most Charisma items do not have an armor class raise attached. At higher levels, enchanters start steering toward AC/HP/Mana items, and many INT items carry those stats, especially AC. My research has proven to me that CHA has a profound impact on charming, without a doubt. Mezzing is slightly impacted by it, as my mezzing resists are always lower with high charisma, but only barely lower, so much that I had to cast it 100 times and keep track of the resists to be able to tell. I haven't tested it with stunning and fearing yet... that's next on the list.

Also, you need a massive Charisma. I'm talking about 170+. At 182, I'm semi-comfortable with Charm-Solo, and I still prefer Kamikaze-Solo.

You first find two mobs to make fight each other. Charming a mob and then looking for something to attack with it is just increasing the chance for the charm to break right in the middle of the fight, which gets you killed. Very often, this is unavoidable, but that's your own risk you must take upon yourself if you so choose. I choose not to. I'm 16th level, just got all my CHA gear on, and have 164 CHA now. Not quite 170, but I'm too anxious to wait--and honestly 164 is a damned good CHA for this level--should be good enough for now.

I was charming regularly with like 130 CHA and zero issues with breaks. Yes, everyone knew CHA mattered. Also Charm seemed to require much higher CHA than P99 to get similar effects.

charm to break right in the middle of the fight, which gets you killed. Very often, this is unavoidable

....due to channeling....

I remember dying often to channeling failures and resists and it just doesn't happen much on P99. Even just soloing a mob if root broke I'd be there recasting, recasting, recasting.. interrupted repeatedly and then you die. It was one of those unforgettable rage inducing things about EQ for me. When you "should have won" a fight and a series of bullshit rolls would shit all over you and a blue mob would just fuck you up from something like interrupts.

Anyway, I'm done, will repost soon.

[loramin]

I linked some earlier in this thread. I found an old Angelfire Enchanter page. Here....

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitewind/gtxt/guides/UChantGuide.htm

Thank you Axten ... and also just thank you in general.

It is really hard to argue for classic things here, against a massive chorus of "my class is not broken, don't you dare fix it". I personally have raised this issue before, but I didn't play an Enchanter on live (and only have a low-level alt here), so I can't speak to the specifics; I can only point to the giant, basic logic inconsistencies, and remind people "live wasn't like this!"

But you're doing the truly hard work, of finding evidence, digging into the details and supporting your position ... again, against a cascade of vitriol. I've been on your end before, so I understand how truly draining it is to keep up such a "fight" ... and I salute you for it :D

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

[Vivitron]

How do you go fromThere was an entire Enchanter forum dedicated to Enchanter knowledge, and if it was as easy to solo here as it was on live I guarantee that knowledge would have been known, and shared on that forum.ToI tried to find proof of as much on the Enchanter forums, but it looks like Wayback doesn't have an archive past 2003 :( (https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/http://www.therunes.net/forums/).
Without including a retraction and apology?

[Nirgon]

even the poll options reek of ass hurt

[loramin]

How do you go fromTo
Without including a retraction and apology?

I can only point to the giant, basic logic inconsistencies, and remind people "live wasn't like this!"

I don't need "proof": basic logic dictates that if you have many thousands of Enchanter players, and a good chunk are communicating on a forum, that they're going to share useful information with each other and make that information widely known (eg. the information that you can earn XP a whole lot faster by soloing than you can in a group).

[Vivitron]

I don't need "proof": basic logic dictates that if you have many thousands of Enchanter players, and a good chunk are communicating on a forum, that they're going to share useful information with each other and make that information widely known (eg. the information that you can earn XP a whole lot faster by soloing than you can in a group).

As far as I know they did.

[qezelia]

I don't need "proof": basic logic dictates that if you have many thousands of Enchanter players, and a good chunk are communicating on a forum, that they're going to share useful information with each other and make that information widely known (eg. the information that you can earn XP a whole lot faster by soloing than you can in a group).

And when the majority of those people are bad players who are getting clapped left and right (which is still the case on P99, most enchanters can't charm solo well at all) the overwhelming message is going to be that charming is bad/not worth it. There may be a few in there claiming and arguing that it's awesome and OP, but they're gonna get drowned out by the majority claiming it sucks because they couldn't make it work - people generally aren't good at admitting they need to improve. Even still on P99, I hear plenty of enchanters claim their charm breaks 3 times per pull even though that's clearly nonsense. You give way too much credit to the average player.

[Nirgon]

"It's clearly unfair wizards and druids can port all around the world within minutes. Way too OP for raid mobilization."

Keep it on the WoW boards.

[Danth]

Dunno about charm, but it sure seems like the Great Lull Nerf isn't present on P99 and never has been (folks have been bringing this one up since 2009). The artificially high resist rate given to the lull type spells was done host-side in the original game and hence wasn't reflected in clientside spelldata files. I don't want to see folks nerfed on P99 badly enough to scrounge the net for the relevant quotes--at this point in my life I prefer letting it be and let folks have their fun--but its another factor making Enchanters relatively stronger on P99 than in the original game. Also benefits some other classes as well (like my Paladin) and generally makes pulling slightly trivial here.

Danth

[Dolalin]

Dunno about charm, but it sure seems like the Great Lull Nerf isn't present on P99 and never has been (folks have been bringing this one up since 2009).

Lull probably needs attention too.

I would say people generally want 'silver bullet' solutions to problems, and conversely, they expect problems to have one or two major causes.

In reality, that's not always the case. Rather, it's more common that lots of small related problems multiply into a big one.

(I've seen this pattern a lot in society and it's a big reason why we keep stalling on making progress on many issues in life, because we expect all problems to have big, obvious causes. If you suggest attacking tons of little problems, people start thinking it's a waste of time because they look at each little cause in isolation and think 'how could that cause all this?', so they lose interest and the thing never gets fixed. It's a flaw in human psychology.)

Enchanters being OP is a lot of little problems, with a few medium-sized ones like Channeling being OP on P99, that all multiply into a bigger issue. You have to attack all the little things in order to solve it.

[DMN]

I don't need "proof": basic logic dictates that if you have many thousands of Enchanter players, and a good chunk are communicating on a forum, that they're going to share useful information with each other and make that information widely known (eg. the information that you can earn XP a whole lot faster by soloing than you can in a group).

The sad truth is 90% of the players back then ranged from bad to terrible. Only 5% were competent, and only 5% elite. perhaps even sadder, as this thread demonstrates, many of those original 90% still are in the bad to terrible range on p99 today, though thankfully the vast majority have moved into the competent range of the spectrum.

Now, many people back then didn't post their various exceptional accomplishments for fear of competition(other people copying them and then competing with them) as well as the main issue: the fear that the nerf hammer was just around the corner for anyone being a bit too boastful of their exploits. For reference see the necromancer for the first year or so of classic. Nerfed in virtually every patch. No one wanted to be the next necromancer. I solo'd the froglok king on my SK at level 50 with non-planar gear back then. Do you think I posted on any SK forums about it? Nope. Know why? First, the majority of people wouldn't believe it, most of the rest would use it as "proof" Sks are overpowered or don't have any other outstanding issues with the class, second, I didn't give a shit. I was in the 5% elite range, and I only cared what that 5% thought, not the 95% peanut gallery.

[Snortles Chortles]

cool forum fanfic that didn’t happen
(LOL)

https://i.imgur.com/t9OSGZy.gif

[knucklehairs]

https://images.app.goo.gl/SnBxtvx2FVGic2Kw9

[Jimjam]

Enchanters being OP is a lot of little problems, with a few medium-sized ones like Channeling being OP on P99, that all multiply into a bigger issue. You have to attack all the little things in order to solve it.

I think part of the channelling 'issue' is a hardware one.

A lot of client side stuff is tied to frames, like fall damage. It wouldn't surprise me if interrupts through push are handled similarly, and like fall damage, having a high FPS modern machine while things are exploding could tip the balance in favour of the player and stop a hit becoming an interupt.

[DMN]

If channeling was made worse, it would certainly impact enchanters ,making them theoretically worse. However, it would actually make the enchanter relatively better than any other casters, thanks to:

https://wiki.project1999.com/Color_Flux

Careful what you wish for.

[Jimjam]

Careful what you wish for.Projecting here.While some people might be wanting to nerf chanters to 'bring balance', I just want to find things that aren't classic and put them right. I put a lot of work into bringing attention to battle bind so it could be made more classic (even though I used it constantly in p1999).



Playing in swamp atm and kobold hunters be dropping woven armour on the regular and that is NOT CLASSIC. Bug report filed. There goes some good newbie pp :'(

[DMN]

Projecting here.While some people might be wanting to nerf chanters to 'bring balance', I just want to find things that aren't classic and put them right. I put a lot of work into bringing attention to battle bind so it could be made more classic (even though I used it constantly in p1999).



Playing in swamp atm and kobold hunters be dropping woven armour on the regular and that is NOT CLASSIC. Bug report filed. There goes some good newbie pp :'(

Not sure what you mean by projecting. Anyway, it's an interesting rabbit hole to climb down.

Perhaps we also need:
artificially 1 minute minimum zoning tim.
artificially giving everyone a ping in the 300s.
10-20% chance whenever you try to zone, you actually get spit back in the zone you came from even after having to wait that minute
Heavily restrict resolution and UI manipulation.
Removal of the "wow " camera mode.
Every zone with more than 30 people in randomly crashes at least twice a day.

I could go on.

[Nirgon]

Time to move to rnf

[loramin]

The sad truth is 90% of the players back then ranged from bad to terrible. Only 5% were competent, and only 5% elite. perhaps even sadder, as this thread demonstrates, many of those original 90% still are in the bad to terrible range on p99 today, though thankfully the vast majority have moved into the competent range of the spectrum.

Now, many people back then didn't post their various exceptional accomplishments for fear of competition(other people copying them and then competing with them) as well as the main issue: the fear that the nerf hammer was just around the corner for anyone being a bit too boastful of their exploits. For reference see the necromancer for the first year or so of classic. Nerfed in virtually every patch. No one wanted to be the next necromancer. I solo'd the froglok king on my SK at level 50 with non-planar gear back then. Do you think I posted on any SK forums about it? Nope. Know why? First, the majority of people wouldn't believe it, most of the rest would use it as "proof" Sks are overpowered or don't have any other outstanding issues with the class, second, I didn't give a shit. I was in the 5% elite range, and I only cared what that 5% thought, not the 95% peanut gallery.

I disagree: MMOG players are MMOG players, and humans are humans. The humans 20+ years ago are no different than the humans today.

Yes, we have more game knowledge today then we had back then: that is true and valid. But no, it does not explain why it was possible for Enchanters do vastly better soloing than grouping back then ... yet very few chose to do so ... and none of those few were wiling to communicate as much on the forums of the time.

Occam's razor: either only a few secretive uber players knew how to play the game, out of the thousands that played, and they didn't share that super l33t knowledge .. or the game was different back then, and what we have currently isn't classic.

[loramin]

Lull probably needs attention too.

I would say people generally want 'silver bullet' solutions to problems, and conversely, they expect problems to have one or two major causes.

In reality, that's not always the case. Rather, it's more common that lots of small related problems multiply into a big one.

(I've seen this pattern a lot in society and it's a big reason why we keep stalling on making progress on many issues in life, because we expect all problems to have big, obvious causes. If you suggest attacking tons of little problems, people start thinking it's a waste of time because they look at each little cause in isolation and think 'how could that cause all this?', so they lose interest and the thing never gets fixed. It's a flaw in human psychology.)

Enchanters being OP is a lot of little problems, with a few medium-sized ones like Channeling being OP on P99, that all multiply into a bigger issue. You have to attack all the little things in order to solve it.

As much as it's easier to believe that Nilbog just has a blind spot for Enchanters, I strongly suspect that it's really far more about this "little things" conjecture.

And again, a salute to you good sir for also doing the hard work (of nailing down all the small things that are wrong, and finding evidence of them).

https://i.imgur.com/Z4GkHlJ.gif

As a side note; ever have any luck in getting that classic research holy grail site back up?

[this user was banned]

The humans 20+ years ago are no differnt than the humans today.

Citation needed.

[cd288]

I don't need "proof": basic logic dictates that if you have many thousands of Enchanter players, and a good chunk are communicating on a forum, that they're going to share useful information with each other and make that information widely known (eg. the information that you can earn XP a whole lot faster by soloing than you can in a group).

Unless you have patch notes or statements from devs (or data mining that indicates something is broken as in the case of channeling) then it’s not relevant to discuss changing something. For every player post saying X from 21 years ago you could find a post saying the exact opposite.

Find real evidence or stop spamming the forums with posts about enchanters and your whining about them (OP).

[DMN]

I disagree: MMOG players are MMOG players, and humans are humans. The humans 20+ years ago are no different than the humans today.

Yes, we have more game knowledge today then we had back then: that is true and valid. But no, it does not explain why it was possible for Enchanters do vastly better soloing than grouping back then ... yet very few chose to do so ... and none of those few were wiling to communicate as much on the forums of the time.

Occam's razor: either only a few secretive uber players knew how to play the game, out of the thousands that played, and they didn't share that super l33t knowledge .. or the game was different back then, and what we have currently isn't classic.

But enchanters weren't 25% of the server population back then, closer 2-3%. You've already read comments posted in this very thred of contemporary enchanters that were soloing fire gaint and ghoul lord camp. Hence, at this juncture Occam's Razor clearly suggests it was happening, you just simply never observed it.

[Jibartik]

I remember soloing nagafin with my enchanter back in 99 and you cant prove me wrong, idk what you guys are on about

[Jibartik]

I disagree: MMOG players are MMOG players, and humans are humans. The humans 20+ years ago are no different than the humans today.

Yes, we have more game knowledge today then we had back then: that is true and valid. But no, it does not explain why it was possible for Enchanters do vastly better soloing than grouping back then ... yet very few chose to do so ... and none of those few were wiling to communicate as much on the forums of the time.

Occam's razor: either only a few secretive uber players knew how to play the game, out of the thousands that played, and they didn't share that super l33t knowledge .. or the game was different back then, and what we have currently isn't classic.

Lets be a little realistic, nobody did anything with enchanters until triangle and tecmos made how to videos back in 2012-14. And even then it wasn't until around 2016 that "everyone" started doing the same tricks.

I played p99 where chanters were soloing everything and people were ranking themselves on the solo artist challenge, while 99% of P99 still had no idea how to even group as one let alone solo everything.

[DMN]

A contemporary "elite" enchanter from FoH:

Vanilla:
"Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets."

Kunark:
"When kunark was released, we kept pets in groups in Sebilis that doubled the entire groups experience over a 4 or 5 hour experience grind. "

Velious:
"During Velious, we could charm giants in Kael that easily netted twice the exp normally recieved in an experience group. Velious is where the environments started to change and become much more favorable to charming. Once equipment and player stats started reaching the proportions they did in velious, the risk of charm became trivial. "


Any questions from the peanut gallery?

[Jibartik]

If we want to fix the game, here's how we do it: nuke the wiki and ban anyone who posts links on how to do stuff.

Make the power secret.

Make the magic magic again.

Let the freaks hang out in a secret corner of the internet mastering everything and dominating all the content like this game is meant to be played.

[Dolalin]

As a side note; ever have any luck in getting that classic research holy grail site back up?

Yes I've finished indexing with Open Semantic Search. It is not nearly as clean as Azure was, it thinks dates are phone numbers and all sorts of silliness, but the contextual search works great.

I need to clean it up a bit and at that point I'll see about making it publicly accessible.

[Snortles Chortles]

Not sure what you mean by projecting. Anyway, it's an interesting rabbit hole to climb down.

Perhaps we also need:
artificially 1 minute minimum zoning tim.
artificially giving everyone a ping in the 300s.
10-20% chance whenever you try to zone, you actually get spit back in the zone you came from even after having to wait that minute
Heavily restrict resolution and UI manipulation.
Removal of the "wow " camera mode.
Every zone with more than 30 people in randomly crashes at least twice a day.

I could go on.

sign me the fuck up

[cd288]

A contemporary "elite" enchanter from FoH:

Vanilla:
"Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets."

Kunark:
"When kunark was released, we kept pets in groups in Sebilis that doubled the entire groups experience over a 4 or 5 hour experience grind. "

Velious:
"During Velious, we could charm giants in Kael that easily netted twice the exp normally recieved in an experience group. Velious is where the environments started to change and become much more favorable to charming. Once equipment and player stats started reaching the proportions they did in velious, the risk of charm became trivial. "


Any questions from the peanut gallery?

They’re just going to tell you that those quotes don’t matter because they have quotes showing the exact opposite. Only things that they can use to try and make their whiney demands are things that they’ll consider valid

[Jimjam]

Not sure what you mean by projecting. Anyway, it's an interesting rabbit hole to climb down.

Perhaps we also need:
artificially 1 minute minimum zoning tim.
artificially giving everyone a ping in the 300s.
10-20% chance whenever you try to zone, you actually get spit back in the zone you came from even after having to wait that minute
Heavily restrict resolution and UI manipulation.
Removal of the "wow " camera mode.
Every zone with more than 30 people in randomly crashes at least twice a day.

I could go on.

Please DMN, not all in one go, I'm overwhelmed by the joyous classicness! Some excellent QOL suggestions!

[azxten]

They’re just going to tell you that those quotes don’t matter because they have quotes showing the exact opposite. Only things that they can use to try and make their whiney demands are things that they’ll consider valid

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

[Jimjam]

We need to create a compendium of pre-Velious pet AI/pathing bugs, if we could get some of them implemented in time for next iteration, that would be great! Mages / Necro / Enc really smashed it on Green's opening, but I remember horror stories from veterans of how badly behaved pets were predating my start (RoK).

[loramin]

We need to create a compendium of pre-Velious pet AI/pathing bugs, if we could get some of them implemented in time for next iteration, that would be great! Mages / Necro / Enc really smashed it on Green's opening, but I remember horror stories from veterans of how badly behaved pets were predating my start (RoK).

https://wiki.project1999.com/Non-Classic_Compendium could always use more additions (or even a separate "non-classic pet stuff" page) ...

[DMN]

Lull probably needs attention too.
.

Not sure what the "great lull nerf" actually was , since there were two big nerfs.

Originally lulls had the same resist rate as most spells, like root. It also originally lacked critical lull component( no aggro from failing). i believe this a was the first nerf/thing added relatively early, the resist increase in the second nerf.

P99 seems to have both of those nerfs currently in place.

[G13]

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

"Larger Analysis"

Oh please.

Any analysis you provide will be incomplete propaganda because you have already made up your mind before the analysis even began. We don't trust you. We don't like you. You clearly have an agenda. Your motivations are deeply rooted in bias, therefore any supposed "analysis" you provide should be thrown out.

The only "evidence" I would accept at this point, is for you and Dolalin to track down an original EQ Dev, specifically the people who coded enchanter mechanics and get them on the record about this issue. Trying to rely on posts, musing and thoughts of PLAYERS (20 Years Ago) is comical at best trying to prove something like this.

Are there any patch notes that comment specifically on the reliability of charm? Any? Made better? Made worse? Charisma having an effect? You're standing on a soap box thumbing your nose at a lot of people playing a specific class. The burden of proof needs to beyond angelfire pages, forum posts and blogs.

People like you and Dolalin were why mages were running around for months at lvl 50 with lvl 34 pets. Even after admitting it was a mistake, which affected the gameplay experience and made life miserable for mages everywhere, the person responsible for that travesty was never held accountable for it. No apologies to mages. Nothing.

They just moved onto the next "How can we ruin the game for someone else" and feel they have some moral superiority for doing so because they have no life and can dedicate all their time to cherry picking unreliable data scattered across the internet from 20 years ago

The reality is you are not proving anything and you cannot prove anything. You are attempting to create a "narrative" to get the devs to make gameplay changes you want at the expense of everyone else. I hope the devs don't fall for this manipulation.

Whining should be frowned upon. Whiners should be shunned. Whiners should not be rewarded for whining.

[Dolalin]

Not sure what the "great lull nerf" actually was , since there were two big nerfs.


Not sure either, I haven't gone down that rabbit hole yet.


People like you and Dolalin were why mages were running around for months at lvl 50 with lvl 34 pets. E

There weren't any pets past 29 for mages for like 2 months after launch. It was the most classic EQ mage launch experience since 1999. Sorry :)

[DMN]

More like large anal cyst.

[Keebz]

"Larger Analysis"

Oh please.

Any analysis you provide will be incomplete propaganda because you have already made up your mind before the analysis even began. We don't trust you. We don't like you. You clearly have an agenda. Your motivations are deeply rooted in bias, therefore any supposed "analysis" you provide should be thrown out.

The only "evidence" I would accept at this point, is for you and Dolalin to track down an original EQ Dev, specifically the people who coded enchanter mechanics and get them on the record about this issue. Trying to rely on posts, musing and thoughts of PLAYERS (20 Years Ago) is comical at best trying to prove something like this.

Are there any patch notes that comment specifically on the reliability of charm? Any? Made better? Made worse? Charisma having an effect? You're standing on a soap box thumbing your nose at a lot of people playing a specific class. The burden of proof needs to beyond angelfire pages, forum posts and blogs.



Is there proof that the current mechanics are era classic? I personally have no idea where the devs got their formulas, etc. from. This is an _emulator. Most formula are best guess.

To your point, the evidence presented by OP et al is largely circumstantial, but it might be stronger than evidence showing the current implementation is correct.

[Jimjam]

Things don’t have to be perfectly classic, it is okay to make imperfect changes to move closer to classic.

[Jibartik]

Oh hey guys, happy monday! Hows everyone feeling today up ITT.

[Dolalin]

I'm a bit hungover tbh.

[cd288]

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

Literally loled at some nerd saying “larger analysis” as though they’re putting together a report for the UN security committee or something

[Snortles Chortles]

the elf cabal

[DMN]

https://xornn.tripod.com/Circles/4th_circle_(12-15).htm

"Find your blue mob (I always fight blue mobs unless Charm-Soloing--and even then I suggest blues, but you can manage white/yellow if you're just really into dangerous fights"

So this guy is posting mostly from early classic time period and he is managing to charm solo using yellow and white mobs.

It gets better

"Drekaar solos charm style with 85 Charisma."

And he isn't even using a GCD clicky yet charm soling yellow cons with 85. ROFLMAO.

edit:

More fun inclusions:
Blanket of Forgetfulness - Targetted AE Memory Wipe, and the source of my absolutely favorite solo style now with Mr. Jerky. (I'll explain later.) I haven't had the amazing spell not blur anything yet, though reaggros still occur.

100% memblur chance, right? So much for all those aggro problems, eh? Heh. Like I posted in the bug forum this and the other AoEs blurs are currently nerfed on p99 and do not target pets, tough they should.


Well that's settled. Enchanters need a big buff on p99.

[DMN]

Oh looky here:

"Theft of Thought - I mentioned one of those spells you can't imagine not having... this is one of them. 25 mana per cast, which you target a caster with. 2 seconds later you will have 346 mana (51st) to 400 mana (60th) from your target. Wandering Mind move over, there's a new mana tap in town. The recast, 2 minutes--which is a pain, but when you've got a lot of mezzing to do, regaining 20% of your mana bar every two minutes is really nice. If your group won't leave a caster mob till the last kill of a multiple pull, train them, it's just free mana waiting for you. Now, in addition to this, there's a handy little trick you can use when you find yourself low on mana (and needing it badly) with no casters around. /duel someone in your group, whichever you like. You will no longer be able to buff them, but you can both /camp when death is not imminent. You can cast Theft of Thought on anyone you're dueling, and even if they don't have mana, it will still tap them. They will also fall victim to PB stuns, AoE Mezzing, and any mistarget casts you have, so take care. Still, when you have 10% mana and you're going to lose control of the fight, that monk over there is a limitless source of mana just begging to be tapped."

Since he mentioned wandering mind this was the case at least in velious.

Enchanters are nerfed on p99 need buffs. Waaaaah!

[G13]

Is there proof that the current mechanics are era classic? I personally have no idea where the devs got their formulas, etc. from. This is an _emulator. Most formula are best guess.

To your point, the evidence presented by OP et al is largely circumstantial, but it might be stronger than evidence showing the current implementation is correct.

That's the point

It can't be proven

People did not play enchanters 20 years ago like they play them now. Not even close.

When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it. That doesn't mean the mechanics are broken and need a nerf

There is nothing "rock hard" that can prove it either way, but the OP already knows this. This thread is a narrative campaign to get the devs to make changes HE wants. It's all rooted in ego.

[Baler]

For those unaware OP tried these same shenanigans ~5 months ago
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368657

[Keebz]

That's the point

It can't be proven

People did not play enchanters 20 years ago like they play them now. Not even close.

When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it. That doesn't mean the mechanics are broken and need a nerf

There is nothing "rock hard" that can prove it either way, but the OP already knows this.

Are the devs using the formula's from live in era? If not, then it's not classic. Unless a dev comes forward and says, "Yes, we have the source code" then we can safely assume it's not correct.

You're basically saying the status quo, which very likely is entirely emulated code based on formulae reverse engineered from a version of the game many years past classic, shouldn't be questioned. Like, feel free to be unconvinced by OP and provide constructive criticism, but saying stuff like "it can't be proven" is defeatist and not in the spirit of the project.

This is your opportunity to counter the thesis of OP with evidence to the contrary, not a flippant appeal to "When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it".

At this point, Project 1999 is a _research_ project. So, research.

[DMN]

My pet max hit for 26 by the way, the max damage listed for a 24 pet with a max level of 23 which isn't a classic summonable pet level with the 24 spell. Thus why it's able to solo equivalent mobs and has too much HP.

https://xornn.tripod.com/Circles/7th_circle_(24-28).htm

"Sagar's Animation - Upgrade to our animation, a scimitar and shield now. You're back to using only 1 Tiny Dagger, and during my testing I saw maximum damages of 16 to 26. Each pet spell rank, the lowest and highest max damage typically increase by 2. This animation will Bash, Kick, and Double Attack almost every round. Truly amazing damage machine now."

[Keebz]

https://xornn.tripod.com/Circles/7th_circle_(24-28).htm


That site was updated into 2002 so some of the values might not be entirely in timeline, but it's definitely close.

[Keebz]

Speaking of research, this note is interesting
"Charm is immediately removed from charmed NPC's when the character that charmed them casts invisibility."

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20020213.html

Did it not work like this before?

[G13]

You're basically saying the status quo, which very likely is entirely emulated code based on formulae reverse engineered from a version of the game many years past classic, shouldn't be questioned. Like, feel free to be unconvinced by OP and provide constructive criticism, but saying stuff like "it can't be proven" is defeatist and not in the spirit of the project.

I'm so tired of this pathetic tactic

"So you're saying" (followed by nothing I actually said) Ok Cathy Newman

"Everybody Knows" OP constantly does this

These are phrases used by people that don't have an argument or any evidence in an attempt to persuade stupid people. I've sarcastically even used them a few times in this thread

We're 10+ years into the project. "Research" is a joke because it consists of trying to find obscure angelfire pages or guild blog posts that nobody ever read to prove something that could potentially affect the gameplay of a lot of people. I'm sorry, I have a standard of evidence and that isn't it.

Go find an original EQ developer. Get the original source code. You know REAL data to compare it to. Then we can have a discussion.

That's not what this thread is though. This thread is yet another attempt at creating a narrative to get what the OP wants. It's dishonest and yes, that annoys me.

[Keebz]

Go find an original EQ developer. Get the original source code. You know REAL data to compare it to. Then we can have a discussion.

This entire project is based on evidence much less direct than what you suggest is the barrier to entry for "a discussion".

[cd288]

This entire project is based on evidence much less direct than what you suggest is the barrier to entry for "a discussion".

I mean it’s based in part on the client code and then patch notes and legitimate EQ sources. From what I understand, it’s pretty rare that a random hearsay post from a random player from 21 years ago is used as evidence to make a change

[cd288]

https://xornn.tripod.com/Circles/4th_circle_(12-15).htm

"Find your blue mob (I always fight blue mobs unless Charm-Soloing--and even then I suggest blues, but you can manage white/yellow if you're just really into dangerous fights"

So this guy is posting mostly from early classic time period and he is managing to charm solo using yellow and white mobs.

It gets better

"Drekaar solos charm style with 85 Charisma."

And he isn't even using a GCD clicky yet charm soling yellow cons with 85. ROFLMAO.

edit:

More fun inclusions:
Blanket of Forgetfulness - Targetted AE Memory Wipe, and the source of my absolutely favorite solo style now with Mr. Jerky. (I'll explain later.) I haven't had the amazing spell not blur anything yet, though reaggros still occur.

100% memblur chance, right? So much for all those aggro problems, eh? Heh. Like I posted in the bug forum this and the other AoEs blurs are currently nerfed on p99 and do not target pets, tough they should.


Well that's settled. Enchanters need a big buff on p99.

Can’t believe I forgot about that one. That’s probably the most in depth enchanter guide that we have available (it’s on the wiki as well) and the guy literally talks about charming as the Enchanter’s most powerful tool.

So OP, as I said for every post you can find of someone saying it was like X back in the day, you can find posts directly contradicting them.

[Keebz]

I mean it’s based in part on the client code and then patch notes and legitimate EQ sources. From what I understand, it’s pretty rare that a random hearsay post from a random player from 21 years ago is used as evidence to make a change

Those are good sources, but wouldn't contain things like exact resist formulae for certain spell lines.

My point is not so much to say OP's evidence is compelling, but that such discussions can be valuable if they are rooted in evidence and research. I disagree with the attitude that "we can never know" and that even considering it is a waste of time.

[G13]

Those are good sources, but wouldn't contain things like exact resist formulae for certain spell lines.

My point is not so much to say OP's evidence is compelling, but that such discussions can be valuable if they are rooted in evidence and research. I disagree with the attitude that "we can never know" and that even considering it is a waste of time.

We won't ever really know

Unless you have access to the original code from Verant 20 years ago

Feel free to find it and post it

Otherwise threads like this are purely speculation and the suppositions can never be proven. Not to mention the changes they are asking for are never in good faith or altruistic AT ALL

P.S. I don't play an enchanter and have no skin in the game, but threads like this trying to get a class nerfed while said poster continues to enjoy their class is about as low as it gets

[magnetaress]

Lots of creepy ppl seem rly pro Enchanter unclassic OPness. Guess they are into nonconcentual charming/domming. Manipulation. Controll. Brainwashing.

Makes a lot of sense they don't want their virtual rohypnol nerfed.

[DMN]

Lots of creepy ppl seem rly pro Enchanter unclassic OPness. Guess they are into nonconcentual charming/domming. Manipulation. Controll. Brainwashing.

Makes a lot of sense they don't want their virtual rohypnol nerfed.

Your evidence is incredibly compelling, megatardess.

[Jimjam]

Ooh nice research DMN, get them bugs reported !

[magnetaress]

I'm ok with Enchanters as long as they don't use spells like choke, fear, suffocate, or dictate.

[Jimjam]

I'm ok with Enchanters as long as they don't use spells like choke, fear, suffocate, or dictate.

Some kinda creepy spells in that book for sure!

[magnetaress]

I'm only into clarity and glamor.

[Jibartik]

usually the highest pet I have on an enchanter is like in the teens, people ask me to make a pet and im like..

uhhhh, is there anyway you're going to be OK with me not?

Only once has it been a problem, friggen gnomes in sol A! I wanted to tank my faction :( Those charms were not worth it. Its almost worth it cus gnomes killing each other is like watching ugly kids fight to the death but the breaks are super annoying.

edit: I bet OP would like charming to feel like charming gnomes in sol a :mad:

[magnetaress]

I would never force an enchanter to do something they didn't want to do.

[Jibartik]

pug'ing on green produces often comically strange results with comically strange people.

[magnetaress]

pug'ing on green produces often comically strange results with comically strange people.

That's why I post here but play on red.

[Izmael]

Nice research, DMN.

Looks like P99 enchanters need to be buffed, according to the classic evidence ITT.

[Toxigen]

OP is a well adjusted adult.