Quote:
Originally Posted by vossiewulf
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly
Reading classes, you needs em. Anecdotal in the context of information verification uses the second definition of the word, "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay". i.e., NOT actionable or deterministic.
However, when you have a body of anecdotal information that seems to be aligned, that suggests you may in fact have a problem and if it's important, then a search for actual hard data is strongly suggested.
And it really shouldn't be too hard to use the wayback machine to check the enchanter forums from back then and see if you can find dozens of threads about how Charm is totally awesome.
|
Sounds like you must be pretty late to the party here. The whole history of this thread is as follows:
- Someone says the current mechanics aren’t classic
- People ask for evidence
- Other people reply that evidence can’t be found but they KNOW and REMEMBER that the P99 mechanics aren’t accurate compared to the mechanics on live
- The people who asked for evidence say well nothing is likely to change unless you can provide evidence
- People with apparent perfect memory about a video game from 20 years ago say that even if the mechanics are currently accurate, that since not nearly as many people rolled Enchanters (due to lack of knowledge and/or years of perfecting strategies) on live, that we should arbitrarily nerf the class just to discourage people from playing it so that we reflect the number of Enchanters on live.
So to your point, no evidence about things being inaccurate has been able to be located so now we’ve spent about 30 pages of people who came to a classic server whining that even if Enchanters are classic as currently reflected they should be nerfed anyway because it’s not balanced versus other classes. Hope I saved you 60 pages of reading since your point has already been addressed and refuted.