View Full Version : Enchanter CHA

10-16-2012, 10:19 AM
This was originally posted in General Chat, but I didn't want such a good discussion to slip into the yawning depths of the back pages!


I feel that the most important thing to take from the thread is

Ok so I grabbed a cleric (thanks Kriven) and charmed goos in COM, and the results were very striking.

First, I found a pet who was just on the cusp of charming viability. At level 52 I grabbed a goo hitting for 116. Prior to this we tried a goo hitting for 120 but even with full charisma gear could not keep it charmed with duration good enough to exp reliably. This choice was intentional, because what I really care about is keeping the best mob I can for as long as I can. I'm sure results would be very different for a light blue mob. On every break the mob was tashed and re-charmed. I just pulled all the data out of my log file after our session and crunched it all using excel. results are as follows:

High Charisma dataset (CHA = 224)
Time of trial: 0:40:18 (or 0.672 hours)
Breaks: 7
Breaks per hour(extrapolated): 10.42
Avg Duration: 5.76 minutes
Median Duration: 3 minutes 10 seconds

Low Charisma dataset (CHA = 95)
Time of trial: 0:58:04 (0.968 hours)
Breaks: 25
Breaks per hour(extrapolated): 25.83
Avg Duration: 2.32 minutes
Median Duration: 1 minute 4 seconds

So conclusion -- charisma has a massive effect on charm duration when charming mobs at the high end of the "viable pet level" spectrum at level 52 in this dataset. In this case, I had almost 2.5 times more breaks per hour (10 to 25) with 95 charisma vs. my normal charisma of 224. This translated into more than doubling my charm durations on average (2.32 minutes with low charisma boosted up to 5.76 minutes with 224 cha). Even with a few caveats discussed below, I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. The cleric I worked with (who didn't specifically know which data set was which) pretty much figured out within three minutes when I had pulled off my charisma gear, and didn't even want to keep going as it was so clear cut. I forced him to deal with my lower charisma for another 55 minutes.

As to the caveats -- first, I have no qualms whatsoever about the one hour duration of the low charisma set. Breaks came so fast and so consistently I am confident to say I could repeat that set a million times and get pretty similar results. However, my high charisma set was probably too short, which is compounded by the much less frequent breaks meaning there's less data to look at. We were working on a very short time window before he had to go. I think the high charisma set durations are fairly accurate overall but I could see the numbers changing there more significantly if the test was repeated. Regardless, it is extremely unlikely they would shift enough to call the conclusion into question.

Second, a few goofs in the experiment. During the low charisma set higher level enchanters came by and twice tash'ed my pet w/ their better tash (they saw how often I was breaking and wanted to help!). This means that for a significant portion of the "low" test my pet actually had lower MR (and assumedly a reduced break chance) vs. my high test. Fortunately this really has no relevance on the conclusions.

Finally, something else I found interesting. Based on each charms individual duration breaks are definitely weighted to the early side of the spectrum. The median duration for both sets was significantly lower vs. the average (Median was 3:10 for high and 1:04 for low). So it is not just our imagination that pets seem to behave forever and then suddenly break repeatedly. Charms tend to break early and often, but once they've lasted a few minutes tend to keep lasting (ie become more stable).

I'd like to repeat this with longer durations, and CHA 200 vs 255 to determine how charisma over 200 helps, but no promises I'll have the motivation :D I expect the differences will not be nearly as stark, meaning much longer sample times to see a meaningful pattern.

-Propo Fol


10-16-2012, 02:54 PM
Thanks for looking out gnomie! I would've missed this in general.