Reoccurring Amnesia Broken

[Raemius]

Currently the spell Reoccurring Amnesia has no duration, whereas it should have a duration of 4 ticks, causing the memblur to occur four times. Currently the memblur only occurs once.

Please see attached evidence that shows a screenshot from EQCaster (loaded with spdat.eff from EQ Trilogy CD), and the parsed extracts from the current P1999 spells_us.txt. I'm glad to supply the supporting files if necessary.

If working as intended with no intention to fix, please just say 'as intended' so I know :)

Thanks

http://imgur.com/84Oqn

[Splorf22]

From Xornn's Enchanter Guide on the wiki:

"Reoccuring Amnesia - 3 second casting time, 24 second recast delay, 100 mana. Single target repeated memory blur. Appears to drop Memory Blur on your target each tic for 4 tics, or until the blur "takes". You can buy this spell in South Qeynos down by the docks."

[Raemius]

bump

[Raemius]

Can Nilbog or another dev please reply? :(

[Extunarian]

out of curiosity, how are you testing this?

[Raemius]

out of curiosity, how are you testing this?

I didn't use an in-game test, I parsed directly from the spells_us.txt file provided in the p1999 patches. However, this is also easy to test in game:

Test A:
Cast R.A. on yourself, you will only ever receive the "You feel your mind fog." one time instead of four.

Test B:
1) Root an unagro'd, 'ready to attack', low level orc in EC.
2) Cast R.A. on it.
3) Invis yourself and con the mob -- it should con back to 'indifferent' to evidence the blur having worked.
4) Immediately tash the mob to re-agro it.
5) Re-invis, and the mob will never con back to 'indifferent' because the additional 'ticks' that are supposed to happen over 24 seconds never happen.

[Raemius]

Still appears to be bugged

[Itap]

I mean, the name of the spell should be self explanatory :cool:

[Sanvarin]

Bump

This spell is still broken as it does not "stick" as an effect and only seems to memblur one time as opposed to four. Please look into this as this spell is a pain in the butt to obtain.

[apdosp01]

This spell seems to still only attempt to memblur once.

[fash]

This issue still exists.

[wwoneo]

Bump

[wwoneo]

^ Bump - Just tested this spell still does not work correctly!

[wwoneo]

Bump

[wwoneo]

still exists

[wwoneo]

Is this anything that will ever be looked into, or should I just stop trying? Original post was 2012.

[wwoneo]

^

[Triiz]

Bump. This should be an OP spell, instead it's currently not even worth using.

[Rygar]

Don't hate the messenger, but there is a chance this spell may be working as intended in classic. Search for "Abashi: ENCHANTERS EXIST TOO!" In the sticky link for EQ newsgroups (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/alt.games.everquest)

This poster's explanation seems to match exactly how you are describing the p99 spell to be working:
Reocurring Amnesia (Even though it was pathced a week ago) STILL doesnt do more than one memory blur pulse. I can punch a snake for 1 damage, cast Reoc on it and it stops attacking just like with mem blur. I immediately hit the snake again for 1
point and it never gets blurred again!!! The spelll lasts for 30 seconds yet only does 1 actual memory blurring pulse!

Do possibly nilbog came across this and tried to mimic the behavior?

I did some patch message searches and didn't notice anything about a fix, closest i saw was:
"Reoccurring Amnesia" has had its casting time reduced

That was a February 2000 note.

The message in which the OP is referring to the spell being psyched looks like the January 20th, 2000 patch:
Reoccurring Amnesia has been made more effective

Found some other mentions, this one from December 2002:
Reoccurring Amnesia - Reoccurring mem blur, like a mem blur dot. Very odd hatelist behaviour when it suddenly works late in the fight. Medium odds of it working (maybe 50%), for 100 mana.

Note that the percent chance of it working I gave is -not- counting resists. If the spell lands at all, it still frequently doesn't do a damn thing. I've actually had
nearly as good luck clearing aggro with mez as any blur line spell. They give percentages on lucy, with mezzes varying from 1-2% and mem blurs varying from 10-30

Seems to suggest the mem blur lines are just terrible and better success with mez, so it could just mean the spell is terrible, although there is the mention of a late fight blur behavior (could just be six seconds from a single pulse though).

However, another corroborating post with a suggestion of it only pulsing once (suggests initial cast has a chance, then one more pulse? ) comment from March 2000:
"enhancements" to enchanters...
...
- Reoccurring amnesia broken (doesn't reoccur)
(been fixed recently to reoccur once, not a timed duration, and this is a level 49 spell)

I apologize for not linking those direct, my newsgroups links never work, but you can search the phrases to confirm.

Conclusion: Reoccurring Amnesia is working as intended?

[Rygar]

Also, for what its worth, it may be feasible that early on live this spell worked, but was later 'fixed' to only pulse once. Remember enchanters used to group a lot on live (not just solo in PoM), if you mez a mob, then cast Reoccuring Amnesia that lasts 30 seconds, it doesn't just clear YOU from the hate list, it clears the ENTIRE hate list.

Saw some mentions of the dangers back in 99 that if you cast this after you mez a mob, and mob is then engaged by tank, the tank could sporadically lose all agro and melee / wizards / healers could get destroyed easy.

Wouldn't put it past Verant to have put some 'fix' in place to shorten the pulse to please the tanking community or something like that.

Edit: OK last contribution, also saw mention that this could be a dangerous spell with 30 seconds of pulses as it clears entire hate list, and (at least back in the day) if a DoT did the last bit of damage on a mob but the hate list was clear the corpse would poof leaving no corpse (I'm assuming the DoT would do damage first before adding the member to the list?). So seems there were a lot of reasons why they wouldn't want this spell to pulse for so long.

[Triiz]

It currently doesn't reoccur at all. You cast it, it lands as soon as the spell is done casting like every other memblur, and that's it. If people are saying it worked "late in the fight" obviously it's not working as intended.

I also doubt we got the 2000 "RA has been made more effective" patch. It's basically useless, I would never use it if I didn't sporadically check to see if it's been fixed.


[Sat Nov 11 13:03:18 2017] You begin casting Reoccurring Amnesia.
[Sat Nov 11 13:03:21 2017] You feel your mind fog.

^That's it. It has a 3 second cast time.

Here it is on a mob, same thing.


[Sat Nov 11 13:06:28 2017] You begin casting Reoccurring Amnesia.
[Sat Nov 11 13:06:30 2017] A forest giant sapling tries to kick YOU, but misses!
[Sat Nov 11 13:06:31 2017] A forest giant sapling tries to hit YOU, but misses!
[Sat Nov 11 13:06:31 2017] A forest giant sapling blinks a few times.

[Rygar]

The "late in the fight" comment was December 2002, so would need to pin point if and when that occurred (could have just casted the spell late in the fight, causing the same hate list behavior).

The March 2000 comment about "fixed recently to reoccur once" could have just been interpreted as such from a dev post and the patch notes (we all know how EQ claimed things were fixed...), the February post mentions specifically how the spell is working on P99 and that the spell is still not reoccurring.

I've tried to find more info but coming up a bit short, maybe there are some casters realm posts out there.

If someone can dig up some posts or a log file in era it may help besides just asking for a fix.

[Para99]

All information taken from Casters Realm (https://web.archive.org/web/20011125033135/http://eq.castersrealm.com:80/spells/spelldescriptions.asp?Id=145)

November 2001
Description: This spell will cast a memory blur on the target every six seconds until it wears off.
Very useful to cast before doing any other spell attempts on an NPC as it will constantly be having its taunt value for you lowered.


Description indicates it was useful to cast before large aggro generation spells because it would continue to mem blur the mob for the entire duration of the spell.


THE PLANE BUSTER SPELL, By Carbon puppetmaster - rodcet nife (1/28/2001)

Since Verrant has fixed this spell, it is one of the best spells enchanters posses. It makes crowd control a breeze. In the past, most enchanters had to lead with tash on high level mobs to make an alluire or dazzle stick. This of course agros the hell out of the mob and we spend the next 10 seconds or so hoping that someone taunts the mob off us or getting lucky and get a dazzle or allure off; otherwise we are dead (even with good clerics in ones group). This spell buys us the time to get our dazzle or allure off. Lead wtih RA, then tash, mob agros, hits you once or twice, mezzes, and you hit with allure or dazzle. Get resisted, no biggy, take another one or two hits, and try again (repeat until the allure or charm sticks). I have utilized this technique in HATE with amazing results. Puller snags two clerics and a golem usua;;y means trouble! Not in this case, just apply above mentioned to clerics while tanks deal with golem and you will have to clerics staring out into space! The best part is the little damage we take! I suggest my fellow enchanters give it a try. Going to use in a fear breakin latter this weekend, should make for interesting results.

This indicates Reoccuring Amnesia did infact reoccur, was broken earlier in the timeline, and was fixed sometime before 1/28/2001. I think he mispoke when he said "mezes while you hit with Allure or Dazzle", and meant to say memory blur. If a mob was already mezzed you wouldn't need to Dazzle it.

NOT REOCCURING IN PLANES, By Venture (1/28/2001)

i solo seafuries and to test it out i reoccured on 10 out of 10 seafuries all with random times in the battle with my pet where the mob was blurred not right away.... in Hate however either time or the lack of it not working gave me over 3 bubs of exp loss with 49 reses so be careful in hate enchanters this spell is next to useless

Ignoring the broken English, poster indicates 10 out of 10 times on Seafuries Reoccuring Amnesia blurred after the initial cast. He think's it's broken in the planes, but it's likely the mobs weren't blurring or he was still in aggro range after each blur.


A FEW THINGS..., By Vokos (7/22/2001)

First off, Carbon obviously has no idea what he's talking about... with duration and recast both 24 seconds, you cannot keep this on multiple mobs.
Second, note it says 'will cast a memory blur'. Not 'will memory blur.' So, it's essentially like casting the same old crippled Memory Blur on the target every six seconds.

THIS SPELL HAS BEEN FIXED, By Xila cloudweaver (1/28/2001)

This spell now does reoccur but is resistable so its use is very situational.

More evidence this spell was fixed in 2000 or early 2001 and shouldn't be broke on P99.

GREAT SPELL NOW, By Menenu -- brell (1/28/2001)

3.0 casting time and unresitable. Every wish your charmed pet would not attack you after it breaks charm? cast this spell on it then go invs and you are safe from harm(as long as you are out of argo range) Enjoy fellow enchanters =) Menenu 50 enchanter
Indicates it is unresistable. I assume when the other poster was saying it was resistable he was suggesting that it didn't always mem blur, which is to be expected even with 4 ticks, not that it was completely resisted.


I can't get the Wayback Machine to load the comments prior to January 2001, but it seems the only question is when this was fixed. The post Rygar quoted "Enchanters Exist Too" was posted in January, 2000 so we can deduce it was fixed some time between January 2000 and January 2001. Regardless of the exact date it was fixed, it should currently be reoccurring on P99 and all evidence shows that it doesn't. There isn't a single comment that I see on Casters Realm that suggests it was still broken in 2001.

[Rygar]

Nice detective work!

I seem to remember coming across a dev interview question about this, something about clarifying that it "only reoccurs once" feature. I think he said once you get a successful blur the spell stops. So testing to have it work on a mob, then re engaging a mob and expecting it to pulse again would never happen.

Will try and dig that up.

[cubiczar]

Nice detective work!

I seem to remember coming across a dev interview question about this, something about clarifying that it "only reoccurs once" feature. I think he said once you get a successful blur the spell stops. So testing to have it work on a mob, then re engaging a mob and expecting it to pulse again would never happen.

Will try and dig that up.

Maybe that's how it "worked" when it was broken? Most of these talk about the blur obviously landing multiple times after the patch.

[Rygar]

Maybe that's how it "worked" when it was broken? Most of these talk about the blur obviously landing multiple times after the patch.

I didn't specifically see where it said a successful blur occurred multiple times in those comments. A late blur yes, but not continued blurs after a successful one.

The one comment says he even took a few hours after if dazzle or allure is resisted.

My guess is it was originally broken to either pulse once or maybe on initial cast. Later fixed to pulse as intended.

[Baylan295]

I didn't specifically see where it said a successful blur occurred multiple times in those comments. A late blur yes, but not continued blurs after a successful one.

The one comment says he even took a few hours after if dazzle or allure is resisted.

My guess is it was originally broken to either pulse once or maybe on initial cast. Later fixed to pulse as intended.

I would argue that the name of the spell itself runs contrary to this assertion, and it makes little sense to have a spell that would stop blurring after a successful blur. If so, the spell is has some very marginal uses because any other blur can hit the exact same mechanic by casting repeatedly. Plus, it’s rendered worthless if the blur occurs when cast if there is no recurring blur. It makes far more sense for this spell to have 4x chances to blur over 4 tics.

If there is evidence out there to the contrary, i’ll review my position, but I haven’t seen anything that makes me think otherwise at this time. That being said, there’s also a ton of dev decisions that were made that don’t make sense to me. /shrug

[Para99]

I didn't specifically see where it said a successful blur occurred multiple times in those comments. A late blur yes, but not continued blurs after a successful one.

The one comment says he even took a few hours after if dazzle or allure is resisted.

My guess is it was originally broken to either pulse once or maybe on initial cast. Later fixed to pulse as intended.

The spell description its self.

Very useful to cast before doing any other spell attempts on an NPC as it will constantly be having its taunt value for you lowered.

"Constantly" to me means more than once. It also says RA casts a memory blur every 6 seconds until it wears off, not until it successfully memblurs.

If you can find the dev comment, great, if not I think it should be patched to match the spell description and have the possibility to blur 4 out of 4 times.

In that scenario of resists it reads to me like he is talking about multiple blurs.
1 - Cast RA
2 - Tash
3 - He gets hit
4 - Successful blur
5 - Cast Dazzle or Allure (6 second cast time)
6 - Mob Resists Dazzle or Allure
7 - No biggie, take another one or two hits
8 - Successful blur
9 - Try again to cast a Dazzle or a 6 second cast time spell


If there wasn't a second blur he'd be taking more than 1 or 2 hits casting a 6 second cast time spell at level 49+ on a mob he makes no mention of slowing.

RA has double the recast time of every other memblur, 24 seconds, I would argue that also lends credibility to it having a set duration.

[Rygar]

I've been busy lately and I'm just recalling from memory, perhaps I'm wrong. But to say the spell description alone is evidence is not solid proof (the spell 'memory blur' is only a chance to succeed, doesn't mention that in the spell title), and that comment about constantly seems like just speculation on how it should work without in field control tests.

I agree though that unless evidence is found it stops after a successful blur it should have a chance to blur 4 out of 4 ticks (even after successful blur).

[cubiczar]

I didn't specifically see where it said a successful blur occurred multiple times in those comments. A late blur yes, but not continued blurs after a successful one.

The one comment says he even took a few hours after if dazzle or allure is resisted.

My guess is it was originally broken to either pulse once or maybe on initial cast. Later fixed to pulse as intended.

Well it's right here like I said in one of the above posts (take note of the bold section)

THE PLANE BUSTER SPELL, By Carbon puppetmaster - rodcet nife (1/28/2001)

Since Verrant has fixed this spell, it is one of the best spells enchanters posses. It makes crowd control a breeze. In the past, most enchanters had to lead with tash on high level mobs to make an alluire or dazzle stick. This of course agros the hell out of the mob and we spend the next 10 seconds or so hoping that someone taunts the mob off us or getting lucky and get a dazzle or allure off; otherwise we are dead (even with good clerics in ones group). This spell buys us the time to get our dazzle or allure off. Lead wtih RA, then tash, mob agros, hits you once or twice, mezzes, and you hit with allure or dazzle. Get resisted, no biggy, take another one or two hits, and try again (repeat until the allure or charm sticks). I have utilized this technique in HATE with amazing results. Puller snags two clerics and a golem usua;;y means trouble! Not in this case, just apply above mentioned to clerics while tanks deal with golem and you will have to clerics staring out into space! The best part is the little damage we take! I suggest my fellow enchanters give it a try. Going to use in a fear breakin latter this weekend, should make for interesting results.

They aren't saying to ever recast RA, and specifically talking about the mob hitting them, then blurring (they say mezzes which isn't accurate but for a few seconds it is functionally the same as what happens on a successful blur even when close to the mob), giving them time to recast another spell then being hit again on a resist and on and on till the true mez sticks.

Also when they talk about using RA for enchanter pets I read that as cast before charm then charm and when you use invis later the repeated mem blur will have wiped you off the aggro table for your pet (since the spell was cast before charm it would land on subsequent recurrences after your charm). However this one is speculative given the way the spells normally work on pets (i.e. you can't land negative spells on your own pets so casting RA shouldn't land at all if they are still your pet). I'll admit this isn't as clear as the first example but when paired with the first one seems likely they are speaking of it working this way.

[cubiczar]

I've been busy lately and I'm just recalling from memory, perhaps I'm wrong. But to say the spell description alone is evidence is not solid proof (the spell 'memory blur' is only a chance to succeed, doesn't mention that in the spell title), and that comment about constantly seems like just speculation on how it should work without in field control tests.

I agree though that unless evidence is found it stops after a successful blur it should have a chance to blur 4 out of 4 ticks (even after successful blur).

Really? You should really read the whole thing first then comment.

THE PLANE BUSTER SPELL, By Carbon puppetmaster - rodcet nife (1/28/2001)

Since Verrant has fixed this spell, it is one of the best spells enchanters posses. It makes crowd control a breeze. In the past, most enchanters had to lead with tash on high level mobs to make an alluire or dazzle stick. This of course agros the hell out of the mob and we spend the next 10 seconds or so hoping that someone taunts the mob off us or getting lucky and get a dazzle or allure off; otherwise we are dead (even with good clerics in ones group). This spell buys us the time to get our dazzle or allure off. Lead wtih RA, then tash, mob agros, hits you once or twice, mezzes, and you hit with allure or dazzle. Get resisted, no biggy, take another one or two hits, and try again (repeat until the allure or charm sticks). I have utilized this technique in HATE with amazing results. Puller snags two clerics and a golem usua;;y means trouble! Not in this case, just apply above mentioned to clerics while tanks deal with golem and you will have to clerics staring out into space! The best part is the little damage we take! I suggest my fellow enchanters give it a try. Going to use in a fear breakin latter this weekend, should make for interesting results.

Again take note of the bold section. Not sure why you are set on this spell not ever working as written in the spell description but the in era evidence suggests that at some point it worked as described. The evidence is not just the spell description but someone talking about a very specific situation (and zone) in which they have used it in a very specific manner with multiple blurs happening on one cast.

[Rygar]

Again take note of the bold section. Not sure why you are set on this spell not ever working as written in the spell description but the in era evidence suggests that at some point it worked as described. The evidence is not just the spell description but someone talking about a very specific situation (and zone) in which they have used it in a very specific manner with multiple blurs happening on one cast.

Listen, I don't like your tone. I'm trying to be civil here and admitted that I am recalling from memory and if I'm wrong I'll admit that and in absence of evidence allow multiple successful blurs.

That guy is making it seem like the blur has a 100% chance per tick to wipe, it is why I said lack of a controlled test by seeing multiple successful blurs on an orc pawn or something to that effect, not in a chaotic raid scene where all kinds of crazy are happening.

[Rygar]

So I took a quick look at one of my resources and thus far only found this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010822063935/http://eqvault.ign.com:80/archive/arc25.shtml
1/29/2001
Reoccurring Amnesia: The reports are pretty overwhelming, this spell does not reoccur.

Seems to contradict earlier comments which claim they were reoccurring, which was commented on 1/28/2001.

Not sure exactly when that post was made (EQVault posted it, not sure if it was a few days later or anything).

Will try and look into it more tonight.

[Para99]

So I took a quick look at one of my resources and thus far only found this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010822063935/http://eqvault.ign.com:80/archive/arc25.shtml
1/29/2001


Seems to contradict earlier comments which claim they were reoccurring, which was commented on 1/28/2001.

Not sure exactly when that post was made (EQVault posted it, not sure if it was a few days later or anything).

Will try and look into it more tonight.

July is quite a while after January 29th
A FEW THINGS..., By Vokos (7/22/2001)

First off, Carbon obviously has no idea what he's talking about... with duration and recast both 24 seconds, you cannot keep this on multiple mobs.
Second, note it says 'will cast a memory blur'. Not 'will memory blur.' So, it's essentially like casting the same old crippled Memory Blur on the target every six seconds.

I would also say that's secondhand information, while the Casters Realm posts are first hand. We have no way to know if that guys "reports" were from 2 hours before he posted it or 2 years. There is no dispute it wasn't reoccurring at one point before January 2001.

[cubiczar]

Listen, I don't like your tone. I'm trying to be civil here and admitted that I am recalling from memory and if I'm wrong I'll admit that and in absence of evidence allow multiple successful blurs.

That guy is making it seem like the blur has a 100% chance per tick to wipe, it is why I said lack of a controlled test by seeing multiple successful blurs on an orc pawn or something to that effect, not in a chaotic raid scene where all kinds of crazy are happening.

Ok point taken, reading that last post back sounds more snarky than it did in my head. Sorry about that, just seems to me though with multiple posts claiming it works and then just memory of something saying it doesn't work you should default to the evidence in hand. The real question is there any patch notes about it? Seems like maybe it would be around the January 2001 mark given the statement that they "fixed it".

[Rygar]

So I'm digging into this further, the main comment that is convincing everyone here is this one:
THE PLANE BUSTER SPELL, By Carbon puppetmaster - rodcet nife (1/28/2001)

Since Verrant has fixed this spell, it is one of the best spells enchanters posses. It makes crowd control a breeze. In the past, most enchanters had to lead with tash on high level mobs to make an alluire or dazzle stick. This of course agros the hell out of the mob and we spend the next 10 seconds or so hoping that someone taunts the mob off us or getting lucky and get a dazzle or allure off; otherwise we are dead (even with good clerics in ones group). This spell buys us the time to get our dazzle or allure off. Lead wtih RA, then tash, mob agros, hits you once or twice, mezzes, and you hit with allure or dazzle. Get resisted, no biggy, take another one or two hits, and try again (repeat until the allure or charm sticks). I have utilized this technique in HATE with amazing results. Puller snags two clerics and a golem usua;;y means trouble! Not in this case, just apply above mentioned to clerics while tanks deal with golem and you will have to clerics staring out into space! The best part is the little damage we take! I suggest my fellow enchanters give it a try. Going to use in a fear breakin latter this weekend, should make for interesting results.

The legitimacy of this post is really called into question because of Dev interview comments on 1/29/01:
Reoccurring Amnesia: The reports are pretty overwhelming, this spell does not reoccur.

Later poster calls him out on the recast timer not being able to sustain on 2 mobs as he claimed to do:
A FEW THINGS..., By Vokos (7/22/2001)

First off, Carbon obviously has no idea what he's talking about... with duration and recast both 24 seconds, you cannot keep this on multiple mobs.
Second, note it says 'will cast a memory blur'. Not 'will memory blur.' So, it's essentially like casting the same old crippled Memory Blur on the target every six seconds.

Some very late commentary I found seems to imply this is still broken in 2006 and a sucky spell:
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/spell.html?spell=194
Jan 12 2006
This spell memblurrs 25% initially, and does nothing for the remaining time it is on the creature. The spell description shows it only memblurrs 25%, it does not reoccur, like the title suggests. This spell has never worked as intended, and most likely never will.

In regards to the 25% memblur (which the wiki page lists and most likely is not accurate), this Carbon makes it seems like every tick is going to work and you only re-aggro with spells. However, old Lucy history shows this used to be a terrible 1% mem blur chance in the old spdat.
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spellhistory.html?id=194&source=Live
2002-03-19 05:50 Changed Slot 1 from "Memblur(1%)" to "Memblur(25%)"

This 1% value was referenced in my other links previous in the page, which by Dec 2002 had the higher values mentioned as well on the page:
Reoccurring Amnesia - Reoccurring mem blur, like a mem blur dot. Very odd hatelist behaviour when it suddenly works late in the fight. Medium odds of it working (maybe 50%), for 100 mana.

Note that the percent chance of it working I gave is -not- counting resists. If the spell lands at all, it still frequently doesn't do a damn thing. I've actually had
nearly as good luck clearing aggro with mez as any blur line spell. They give percentages on lucy, with mezzes varying from 1-2% and mem blurs varying from 10-30


At the time of that post the SPDAT was a 25% per pulse, and often (assuming it was pulsing) would not work at all. If our in era SPDAT is 1-2%, it would certainly explain why it would hardly be working even if it pulses 4 ticks. I'll try and obtain a legit copy of the SPDAT for the value (I'm assuming the dev team has one anyways).

In other words, this Carbon guy seems like he read up on the spell and made himself out to be this amazing plane buster enchanter but was called out on a lot of falsehoods in his story.

Even so, other commentary implies it 'works on seafury cyclops' but 'doesn't work in hate' (if true, another strike against Carbon the Plane buster), other people saying around 1/28/01 that it now works, yet documentation that it was still broken after this or a terrible success rate. Perhaps it was buggy, perhaps it worked for a short time but got broke again, not absolutely sure.

All I know is I'm not seeing a lot of praise for this spell even out of era after the 25% chance to blur, so even if fixed to allow multiple successful blurs (I couldn't find that interview), the odds would be so low I can't imagine you'd want it in your spell line up.

[Para99]

So I'm digging into this further, the main comment that is convincing everyone here is this one:


The legitimacy of this post is really called into question because of Dev interview comments on 1/29/01:


Later poster calls him out on the recast timer not being able to sustain on 2 mobs as he claimed to do:


Some very late commentary I found seems to imply this is still broken in 2006 and a sucky spell:
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/spell.html?spell=194


In regards to the 25% memblur (which the wiki page lists and most likely is not accurate), this Carbon makes it seems like every tick is going to work and you only re-aggro with spells. However, old Lucy history shows this used to be a terrible 1% mem blur chance in the old spdat.
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spellhistory.html?id=194&source=Live


This 1% value was referenced in my other links previous in the page, which by Dec 2002 had the higher values mentioned as well on the page:


At the time of that post the SPDAT was a 25% per pulse, and often (assuming it was pulsing) would not work at all. If our in era SPDAT is 1-2%, it would certainly explain why it would hardly be working even if it pulses 4 ticks. I'll try and obtain a legit copy of the SPDAT for the value (I'm assuming the dev team has one anyways).

In other words, this Carbon guy seems like he read up on the spell and made himself out to be this amazing plane buster enchanter but was called out on a lot of falsehoods in his story.

Even so, other commentary implies it 'works on seafury cyclops' but 'doesn't work in hate' (if true, another strike against Carbon the Plane buster), other people saying around 1/28/01 that it now works, yet documentation that it was still broken after this or a terrible success rate. Perhaps it was buggy, perhaps it worked for a short time but got broke again, not absolutely sure.

All I know is I'm not seeing a lot of praise for this spell even out of era after the 25% chance to blur, so even if fixed to allow multiple successful blurs (I couldn't find that interview), the odds would be so low I can't imagine you'd want it in your spell line up.

That post you linked says he wrote it the day before, so it was written on 1/28/01 at the latest. We can say with certainty the reports he was basing that comment off of were from no later than 1/28/01, but again we have no idea if he was talking about it being broken 2 hours before he typed that up or 2 years. There is no possible way to know.

That's not the main comment that convinces me, four different people saying it was fixed is what convinces me. Two different people specifically say "Verant has fixed this spell". I could get the argument for one person, not four.

Seafuries have a small aggro range compared to planar mobs. If you are standing near a mob when it blurs it immediately reaggros and breaks the blur. That is likely what was happening to the second guy.

A person saying 6 months later it was casting "4 crippled memory blurs" solidifies that it wasn't broken again. If you read the comments for any memory blur people mostly thought they sucked because they thought it was dumb they didn't always work, there was no message that said if they were "resisted"(didn't work), and they didn't really get the usefulness of them.

What we have:
4 first hand comments from 1/28/01 or later saying it was fixed and worked
1 dev comment based on second hand information from 1/28/01 or before saying it was broken with no idea what time frame he was referencing.

Lucy data isn't full proof. There is probably 20 comments from Casters Realm forums saying Glamour of Kintaz was able to mez level 56/57 mobs in 2001, specifically Seb Juggs and the higher level Myconid but Lucy data doesn't have it being able to mez mobs over 55 until 7/24/2002. I would make a bug report about GoK but I haven't got around to spawning Undertaker Lord to make sure it's broken on P99 based on that wrong spell data since I found those comments, though I'm pretty sure it is.

[Rygar]

I keep searching for the smoking gun, curious how every comment was around 1/28/01. Perhaps there was a dev comment about 'oh by the way we fixed this last patch, forgot to mention it'. There are no patch notes about a fix before then. Initially people sing high praises, but then later people say the spell is unreliable and sucks.

5/14/01: (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.games.everquest/amnesia%7Csort:date/alt.games.everquest/vQebt3hdukE/ptIdV7Se8kkJ)
Mem Blur doesn't. Well, not always. In fact, it fails way too often (in my
experience, 1/3 to 1/2 of the time). Mez has a better and better shot of
mem blurring as you get your new mezzes. Reoccurring Amnesia (level 44 or
49, I forget) isn't much better than level 12 or 16 Mem Blur.

I guess, I'm willing to believe it was fixed to pulse properly (4 ticks) around this 1/28/01 date, however I think there may have been a bug where it was working too good (i.e. 100% chance or damn near during the duration), and it was nerfed to a lower percentage. There is just too much mid-to-late and post velious commentary about this spell not being worth memorizing.

In regards to lucy data being off and being crappy like mem blur line because of no message, I thought Reoccurring Amnesia gives you that message? Seen logs post about 'soandso blinks a few times' when it succeeds. So either that doesn't fly or in era it never had the success message.

I'll see what I can come up with in obtaining an old spell SPDAT for reoccurring amnesia, I've never done that kind of thing so have to figure that out.

[Para99]

Rygar, you should read this post so you'll have a better understanding of how memblur's are/should be calculated. The 1% is misleading. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250990

The calculation of a 1% blur

Example 3: let's use a max level Illis Froglok in Sebilis, when using level 4 Mesmerize, and again 255 CHA.

1. Level Component for level 53+ mob = 25%
2. Raw Value for Memory Flux = 1%
3. Charisma Calculation for 255 CHA = (255-150)/10 = 10.5%
Sum = 25+1+10.5 = 36.5% Chance your Level 4 (or any mez due to them all having a 1% memblur) should roll a success and blur a target.

Assuming it is 1% for RA on P99 and we were testing it only against level 53+ mobs, it should still have almost a 40% chance of success on each role if cast by a 255 CHA Enchanter. I've tested it against level 2-53 mobs and it blurs instantly and stops. On mobs on the lower end of that scale it should have 100% success rate on every tick, just like feign death always memblurs low level mobs.


Very few Enchanters on Live thought it was valuable to have 200+ CHA, but a few did. Maybe the plane buster had 255 CHA and was casting it on level 49 planar mobs, lower level Clerics of Innoruuk, while the guy farming seafuries after level 49 using a summoned pet had 120 CHA and was casting it on level 53+ mobs like higher level Fear gorillas. Again, we have no way to know.

TLDR - Even if this was a memblur 1% chance 4 out of 4 ticks it would be useful.



In regards to lucy data being off and being crappy like mem blur line because of no message, I thought Reoccurring Amnesia gives you that message? Seen logs post about 'soandso blinks a few times' when it succeeds. So either that doesn't fly or in era it never had the success message.


It says that regardless if it works or fails, all memory blurs do. The complaint was that it didn't say "Soandso doesn't blink a few times, he remembers you". It gave the same message no matter what. The only way to see if a blur worked is 1) invis/ivu if applicable 2) Out of combat regen if applicable 3) see if the mob still wants to kill you. That applies to all blurs.

[Baylan295]

Rygar, you should read this post so you'll have a better understanding of how memblur's are/should be calculated. The 1% is misleading. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250990

The calculation of a 1% blur



Assuming it is 1% for RA on P99 and we were testing it only against level 53+ mobs, it should still have almost a 40% chance of success on each role if cast by a 255 CHA Enchanter. I've tested it against level 2-53 mobs and it blurs instantly and stops. On mobs on the lower end of that scale it should have 100% success rate on every tick, just like feign death always memblurs low level mobs.


Very few Enchanters on Live thought it was valuable to have 200+ CHA, but a few did. Maybe the plane buster had 255 CHA and was casting it on level 49 planar mobs, lower level Clerics of Innoruuk, while the guy farming seafuries after level 49 using a summoned pet had 120 CHA and was casting it on level 53+ mobs like higher level Fear gorillas. Again, we have no way to know.

TLDR - Even if this was a memblur 1% chance 4 out of 4 ticks it would be useful.



It says that regardless if it works or fails, all memory blurs do. The complaint was that it didn't say "Soandso doesn't blink a few times, he remembers you". It gave the same message no matter what. The only way to see if a blur worked is 1) invis/ivu if applicable 2) Out of combat regen if applicable 3) see if the mob still wants to kill you. That applies to all blurs.

I will confirm that blur mechanics on this server (and as I recall them on live) make it extremely difficult to know if something has been blurred. There are techniques, as Para indicates above, but there are no logs or other clear indicators one way or the other which would confirm that a blur was successful. My p99 experience on blurs is that green mobs are practically a 100% chance to blur. I can’t recall and instance where they weren’t blurred.

I’ll also say that in the absence of compelling evidence that a spell was “classically broken”, we should strive for spells that work as intended.

Maybe the devs will disagree, but I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that the spell was broken as of 1/28/01 in the timeline, and would argue that the spell should work as Para has outlined in this thread. Also, I look forward to using it in TOV to goalie 😂

[Rygar]

Assuming that formula is accurate (i was unaware of it), then i do concede that reoccurring amnesia does indeed appear to pulse at some point around 1/28/01 according to whatever formula the dev team has implemented. The original link to that formula was not working, so unsure of date and time for its accuracy.

I will still look for the spdat around this time as it seems there would be an enormous difference between 1% and 25% in this formula.

The mem blur calculation has given me reasonable doubt about the comments being inconsistent (cha, levels, etc). Good job all!

[cubiczar]

Yeah this is again one of those reminders that spdat sometimes means nothing. EQ had so many server side only chunks of code that it is amazing how much has been reproduced here. I didn't realize the mem blur formula was as complicated as that but it did always tend to work (aoe mez especially) really well on greens and terribly on those mobs close to your level where you really needed it to work.

It's like this comment (pulled from another post of Rygar's):

Gordon Speaks on Shaman Changes
On the Gameplay board, Gordon Wrinn made the following post regarding the Shaman class:

Hello all,
We just got out of our tuning meeting for this week. I did want to talk a bit about the Shaman changes that occurred on Test last week, and let you know about our plans for the production servers:

Strength: Last week we changed this spell on test to limit its effect and bring it in line with other 49th level shaman stat buffs. However, today we decided to leave it as it is on the production servers.

Togor's Insects: Despite the fact that information was changed in the spdat.eff file, the maximum effectiveness of the spell didn't change. This is another case where something that was previously controlled in code was moved to the spell database. Those parsers really only show half the picture.

Check the UltraDeath spells (1, 2, & 3) for details.

-Gordon

The spdat might be a good starting place but ultimately it often isn't accurate and so first hand accounts can give a better picture of how things actually worked.

[Rygar]

It looks like the 11/16/2000 SPDAT that Ele hooked me up with doesn't list percentages:
Reoccurring Amnesia
Wipe Hate List


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classes: Enc (L49)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to Target: 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skill: Alteration
Allowable Targets: All

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resistance Check: Magic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mana Required: 100
Spell Duration: 4 ticks (24 seconds)
Duration Formula: 7
Casting Time: 3.0 seconds
Spell Recovery: 2.25 seconds
Recast Delay: 24.0 seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spell cast on you: You feel your mind fog.
Spell cast on someone: Soandso blinks a few times.

I see no difference to the 4/05/2001 SPDAT he gave either:
Reoccurring Amnesia
Wipe Hate List


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classes: Enc (L49)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range to Target: 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skill: Alteration
Allowable Targets: All

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resistance Check: Magic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mana Required: 100
Spell Duration: 4 ticks (24 seconds)
Duration Formula: 7
Casting Time: 3.0 seconds
Spell Recovery: 2.25 seconds
Recast Delay: 24.0 seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spell cast on you: You feel your mind fog.
Spell cast on someone: Soandso blinks a few times.


So not sure when they started listing the percentage value in the memblur calculation. Late Velious or Luclin? I'll have to poke around some more.

[Para99]

Duration Formula: 7

Any idea what this means?

If evidence can't be found to support it being 25%, it'd be better to have a 1% chance for 4 ticks until evidence is found supporting 25% instead of the version we have now.

[Baylan295]

Any idea what this means?

If evidence can't be found to support it being 25%, it'd be better to have a 1% chance for 4 ticks until evidence is found supporting 25% instead of the version we have now.

Formula schenanigans aside (some of the conversation earlier in this thread is above my head), the chance to blur each tic at 25% makes a lot of sense to me. It will result in a roughly 70% chance to blur, but you lose control of the timing of the blur, and its far from a sure thing. If you mean something else, please do clarify. A 1% chance is so small that even over 4 tics it’s unlikely anyone would have ever found this useful.

[Para99]

Formula schenanigans aside (some of the conversation earlier in this thread is above my head), the chance to blur each tic at 25% makes a lot of sense to me. It will result in a roughly 70% chance to blur, but you lose control of the timing of the blur, and its far from a sure thing. If you mean something else, please do clarify. A 1% chance is so small that even over 4 tics it’s unlikely anyone would have ever found this useful.

1% is just 1/3 of the calculation. Level 4 mez is 1%, I'm sure you would agree it blurs more than 1 out of 100 casts, especially on pre-51 mobs. If the calculation is the same as live, it would be a 36% chance to blur on each tick on a lvl 53+ mob, and a higher chance on lower level mobs.

I would prefer 25% as you do, but I'd much rather have a 1% RA that works as intended than a non-working one because we can't find evidence for the 25%.

[Baylan295]

1% is just 1/3 of the calculation. Level 4 mez is 1%, I'm sure you would agree it blurs more than 1 out of 100 casts, especially on pre-51 mobs. If the calculation is the same as live, it would be a 36% chance to blur on each tick on a lvl 53+ mob, and a higher chance on lower level mobs.

I would prefer 25% as you do, but I'd much rather have a 1% RA that works as intended than a non-working one because we can't find evidence for the 25%.

Based on that explanation I think 1% fits with the likely developer intent, and 25% would likely be OP as hell.

[Para99]

Based on that explanation I think 1% fits with the likely developer intent, and 25% would likely be OP as hell.

I think it's entirely possible it was 25%. Blanket works out to an 80% chance on a 53+ mob with 255 CHA and it's the same level spell, hits multiple targets, and has half the recast time.

The problem is if it's not in the spell data it will probably be borderline impossible to find irrefutable evidence that it was 25%. With RNG being RNG even if someone found multiple comments saying it blurred 4 out of 4 ticks that wouldn't prove the percentage.

No other memblur has less than 10% chance so it seems unlikely this one would since it is one of the highest level memblurs, but with this being the only dot style memblur I suppose it possible.

[Baylan295]

I think it's entirely possible it was 25%. Blanket works out to an 80% chance on a 53+ mob with 255 CHA and it's the same level spell, hits multiple targets, and has half the recast time.

The problem is if it's not in the spell data it will probably be borderline impossible to find irrefutable evidence that it was 25%. With RNG being RNG even if someone found multiple comments saying it blurred 4 out of 4 ticks that wouldn't prove the percentage.

No other memblur has less than 10% chance so it seems unlikely this one would since it is one of the highest level memblurs, but with this being the only dot style memblur I suppose it possible.

Blanket has an 80% chance at 60 with 255 Cha?? You just confirmed why I use it all the time. I need to see the math on this one. Any idea where this formula can be found?

[Para99]

Blanket has an 80% chance at 60 with 255 Cha?? You just confirmed why I use it all the time. I need to see the math on this one. Any idea where this formula can be found?
Daldaen's post from the thread I linked earlier, I'd recommend reading the entire OP. He misstated the name, but he meant BoF. Again, this is assuming P99 uses the same formula as Live but I feel like if it's not exactly the same formula it's very similar. We'll never know for sure the exact formula on P99.


Example 2: let's use any ToV trash mob (excluding baby drakes), with an enchanter using Blanket of Confusion, again with 255 CHA.

1. Level Component for level 53+ mob = 25%
2. Raw Value for Blanket of Confusion = 20%
3. Charisma Calculation for 255 CHA = (255-150)/10 = 10.5%

Sum = 25+20+10.5 = 55.5% Chance your Blanket of Confusion spell should roll a success.

HOWEVER! This check is performed twice. So the chance that either both rolls are a success or atleast one roll is a success is most easily calculated by:

1-(1-.555)^2 = 80.2% Chance that you Successfully memblur (basically check the chance of failing both rolls and see the difference from 100%)

[Rygar]

Any idea what this means?

If evidence can't be found to support it being 25%, it'd be better to have a 1% chance for 4 ticks until evidence is found supporting 25% instead of the version we have now.

I looked at that 'Duration Formula: 7' and it just seemed to be some kind of flag in the data to allow the spell to tick. Saw similar things on Fear SPDAT and other dots if I recall.

As it stands there is at least a mention in the lucy data that in March 2002 it was changed from 1% to 20%+, so you would absolutely need some definitive proof for a 25% calc.

Also, keep in mind I'm no dev, entirely possible the nilbog will not be convinced this spell ever worked properly in era, so you are at his mercy.

[Para99]

Bump. In case a dev missed it in the 3 pages of discussion afterwords, the post with the evidence to support this change was on Page 3.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2717579&postcount=23

[Pringles]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/hjoRH9V4V3I/hD13VH2XIjgJ

Unsure if relevant but it seems this spell was broken for quite some time

1/30/00
3) Mem blur effects : One of the classic enchanter abilities and now
rendered useless as the one high level zone where it could be used to good
effect (Plane of Sky) the spells are uncastable. Reocurring Amnesia (Even
though it was pathced a week ago) STILL doesnt do more than one memory blur
pulse. I can punch a snake for 1 damage, cast Reoc on it and it stops
attacking just like with mem blur. I immediately hit the snake again for 1
point and it never gets blurred again!!! The spelll lasts for 30 seconds
yet only does 1 actual memory blurring pulse!

[Para99]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/hjoRH9V4V3I/hD13VH2XIjgJ

Unsure if relevant but it seems this spell was broken for quite some time

1/30/00

Forgot about this thread. I think Rygar posted that quote a few years ago. It's relevant and reinforces that it was broken from launch until sometime late 2000-January 2001. I don't disagree with that, but the combination of multiple people saying it was fixed in January 2001 and the lack of anyone complaining about it being broken after January 2001 make a pretty convincing case it should be 4 ticks on P99 at this stage imo.

Reposting the Casters Realm link incase a dev has a minute to take a glance
https://web.archive.org/web/20020113142946/http://eq.castersrealm.com:80/spells/spelldescriptions.asp?Id=145&Page=2

[PabloEdvardo]

Forgot about this thread. I think Rygar posted that quote a few years ago. It's relevant and reinforces that it was broken from launch until sometime late 2000-January 2001. I don't disagree with that, but the combination of multiple people saying it was fixed in January 2001 and the lack of anyone complaining about it being broken after January 2001 make a pretty convincing case it should be 4 ticks on P99 at this stage imo.

Reposting the Casters Realm link incase a dev has a minute to take a glance
https://web.archive.org/web/20020113142946/http://eq.castersrealm.com:80/spells/spelldescriptions.asp?Id=145&Page=2

So someone said it was fixed only 2 months after velious release. Chardok 2.0 was some time after that, I assume?

[scifo76]

So since this spell is broken, what spell do chanters use for mem blurring at higher levels? Do they use the level 12 spell Memory Blur?

[Doctor Jeff]

So since this spell is broken, what spell do chanters use for mem blurring at higher levels? Do they use the level 12 spell Memory Blur?

Blanket of Forgetfulness does 2 checks and has a very low resist rate. I land it on level 65 mobs more often than not. .

[Bristlebaner]

BUMP

[Brocode]

bump