Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[Ligma]

Yes, because everyone on the raid could click an earring for instant 1k damage then go and recharge it cheap. This made 32k hp raiding very, very dumb. And would actually gimp zland, kland and sont too.

[Mushman]

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

Yes, because everyone on the raid could click an earring for instant 1k damage then go and recharge it cheap. This made 32k hp raiding very, very dumb.

Totally get it, sounds like a wise change. One could argue the same point as I'm seeing in this thread however, "It's classic deal with it.". It's not that simple though and judgement should and has been used in the past.

The way out of whack power of enchanter because of charm isn't classic and has a negative impact on the game the same way nuking a raid mob with clickies has a bad impact.

[loramin]

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

Lor - what exactly do you think has been done to make enchanters stronger than they were on live? The most recent evidence (and pretty solid evidence, imo, which it sounds like you didn't look at because it's legit testing done not random zam anecdotes or cherry-picked lines about charm being dangerous) about charm durations in this thread suggest p99 charm strength is pretty close excepting perhaps charming MUCH lower-level mobs (which isn't what makes charm OP anyways).

And in a general "OP chanters are bad" sense, as someone else mentioned, the main changes towards unclassic mechanics have been done to ease CSR problems (raid timers and rotations, bards monopolizing zones, etc), not to address overall game balance (charm numba 1, class exp penalties ahead of timeline changes, monks in late velious, etc).

I think you're missing my point: what has been done to make Enchanters stronger than on live? In a sense, everything [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I mean by that is, there's no one thing I can point to. I don't know (and even with what limited evidence we have, let's be honest: you don't either) exactly how charm resists worked. No one has the formula. Nilbog had to make a judgement call, and pick some numbers, based on the limited evidence we have.

But then there's also the Mages not having spells thing. What does that have to do with Enchanter charming you ask? This game isn't "Enchanter SoloQuest": it's a MMOG. A world with twelve different classes of players all playing together.

Even if Nilbog got every last subjective decision about Enchanters 110% correct ... if he nerfs every other class on the server, then Enchanters will be unclassically powerful (while still being "100% classic"). Not because he got the Enchanter decisions wrong, and not even because he go the other decisions "wrong" either. Again, I think every decision he made was likely "right" by some very reasonable criteria.

But the net result is a server that doesn't look like live, and I think if anyone, even an Enchanter fan like yourself, takes a step back and looks at the situation honestly ... it's clearly apparent that something (probably many things, many totally reasonable and rational decisions) have resulted in Enchanters being clearly unclassic here. Again, not in an "X is wrong" way, but in a "if you played on live and are honest, you KNOW something isn't right" way.

[Wurl]

I feel like what it's coming down to is that charm pets were glitchy and unreliable in classic:

1. Charmed pets didn't reliably follow /pet commands
2. You couldn't break charm reliably with invis until 2002
3. Pets would sometimes attack group mates or wander or continue other parts of their script
4. Charm breaks may have been more frequent

[Ligma]

I don't believe the thing about invis not breaking charm. Keep in mind that would also mean you can have a charm pet and be invis, which adds another powerful ability.

[Wurl]

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

I don't believe the thing about invis not breaking charm. Keep in mind that would also mean you can have a charm pet and be invis, which adds another powerful ability.

You're arguing against patch notes, not me.

Originally Posted by blanks77 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In official patch notes why does it say "Charm is immediately removed from charmed NPC's when the character that charmed them casts invisibility"

Were enchanter not able to break charm with invis prior to this time?

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/hist...es-2002-1.html

[strawman]

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

2. You couldn't break charm reliably with invis until 2002

If the operative word in that patch note is "immediately", it's also possible that there was a delay between invis landing and charm break occurring which was fixed in that patch.

But even if invis didn't break charm until 2002, that means enchanters were simply using cancel magic (same mana cost as invis) or nullify magic (20 more mana) until then.

[Izmael]

Despite the OP being obnoxious at promoting his thesis, he actually has a point. We didn't run around soloing Efreeti back in classic. We shouldn't do it on Green/Teal either.

I think we might as well just disable charm on Green/Teal. It IS a powerful spell and back then wasn't used nearly as much (for technological reasons, but that's not important).

To further match Grean/Teal's experience with the one people had back then, simply taking charm out of the picture, until the final patch hits, might be the way to go. Unclassic change for a classic'er experience - P99 has done it before (and rightly so. Examples are Chardok AE, Epic item min level 46, etc).

This will promote grouping as opposed to solo / duo, and that's definitely IS a good thing for the progression servers.

[Nirgon]

People had max CHA and reliably charmed Blizzardwalker and other giants against AOW.

CHA is doing what it is supposed to.

If you're not good enough at Enchanter and mad other people are, and resorting to this... whew.

[Wurl]

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

If the operative word in that patch note is "immediately", it's also possible that there was a delay between invis landing and charm break occurring which was fixed in that patch.

Fair enough. Any implementation of invisibility not consistently, instantly breaking charm would be a step in the right direction of making charm not as reliable as it is currently on P99.