Quote:
Originally Posted by whydothis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
But you have no proof so stop bringing it up. You keep going on and on and on about this but it's just a bunch of crap until you prove it. People charmed. Just because you didn't do it or see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
|
My proof is basic logic, the same as with Bard's AoEing 100 mobs. No one could "prove" that classic mobs weren't AoEing 100 mobs all over the place ... but everyone who played on live
knew (and could support with basic logic) that they weren't.
Similarly here, if we have variables A (how easy charming is, mechnically) , B (player knowledge of tricks like GCD clickes), C (external factors like crappy internet connections), and D (% of charm class players that charm), where A + B + C = D ... it doesn't add up.
D is
massively different here compared to live, so that means one of either A, B, or C, or some combination, must have changed to account for it.
But B and C alone simply can't explain the discrepancy: not knowing about GCD clickies and crappy internet connections alone do not explain why thousands of Druids thought root/rot was a faster way to get to 60. It does not explain why the vast, vast majority of Enchanters (and literally every one I knew on live) leveled in groups, not solo. It doesn't explain D.
So again, basic logic ... and basic knowledge of what live was like ... dictates that A is not the same here as it was on live. And that's to be expected in an emulated game where the original code is lost to time ... but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still strive to improve that emulation, and make it more classic.
P.S. And
even if I'm wrong and A wasn't a factor ...
even if Nilbog perfectly reproduced every last mechanic related to charm
exactly ... if our goal is to re-create classic EverQuest here, and something (just like Bard's AoEing 100 mobs) looks massively unclassic because of B + C factors, we should still fix it ... just as we did with AoEing.
But again, I just don't see how B + C can account for the entire discrepancy.