Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[cd288]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The evidence is that IT'S NOT LIKE 1999!!! That's all the evidence we need. AGAIN, with Bards every last piece of existing evidence said "Bards can AoE 100 mobs and take all of OT".

But the even more important evidence was "BARDS DIDN'T DO THAT IN 1999!" AoEing every mob in OT was unclassic, and that was all Nilbog needed to go looking for the mechanic he was missing.

The exact same thing is true here. We have mountains of evidence, all correct and arguing Enchanters should be the most powerful DPS class in EverQuest. And then we have even more important evidence that says they weren't even in the top five on any server (out of the many, each with thousands of players, that existed back then). 1 + 1 =2, and shit's not classic.

And the only way you can argue that it should be that way is if you think every Enchanter back then was too stupid to try using their spells. That's not an honest argument, that's a "please don't classically nerf my class because it's my class" argument.

And there could be a variety of different reasons why the atmosphere is not like it was in 1999 and Enchanters weren't as popular. It could be that people didn't know as much about Charm killing strategies. It could be that people didn't know how OP Enchanters could be (which is probably part of it, since Enchanters did become very popular in the Classic era, just not right away). It could be that the mechanics are indeed different. If it's the latter, then you need to find evidence for it because the arbitrary standard you're trying to apply to change things isn't sufficient to get something changed. Get some actual evidence about the mechanics themselves rather than your arbitrary "evidence" that could actually have multiple different reasons for why it was the way you allege it was, and then you can post about it and see how the discussion goes/if things get changed on P99.

[jacob54311]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It could be that the mechanics are indeed different. If it's the latter, then you need to find evidence for it because the arbitrary standard you're trying to apply to change things isn't sufficient to get something changed.

I think this is the key. P99 has left a lot of things in that were changed later that most people agreed were for the better, like the unjustified hybrid XP penalty. Yes, they have done some things that weren't quite classic for a variety of reasons, but for the most part keeping it classic has been their guide.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by jacob54311 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think this is the key. P99 has left a lot of things in that were changed later that most people agreed were for the better, like the unjustified hybrid XP penalty. Yes, they have done some things that weren't quite classic for a variety of reasons, but for the most part keeping it classic has been their guide.

The XP changes were 100% classic. The original EQ devs removed them at a certain point in the timeline, so the P99 devs did at the equivalent point for Blue (and will do so on Green/Teal when appropriate).

But otherwise, you're absolutely correct, this place is all about classic, and a single wiki page mostly sums up everything that isn't: http://wiki.project1999.com/Non-Classic_Compendium.

To be clear, my argument is not "Enchanters are powerful because of classic mechanics, let's make them less powerful to make the environment feel more classic".

My argument is ...

We're all in favor of more classic (ie. as it was in 1999-2001) mechanics ... but emulating something from 20 years ago is hard. Nilbog's a fucking god at it, but even he's not perfect, because it's really hard.

Bard AoEing mechanics were a perfect example. Just like in that case, we have no proof that anything is wrong, and an argument could be made that this is "just a player knowledge difference."

But just as in that case, I think if you rigorously challenge it, it falls apart, and that in turn suggests that a mechanic ... just 1 out of the 10 trillion Nilbog has gotten right ... is wrong.