Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[loramin]

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

Why wasn't everyone using WC caps? Why wasn't everyone farming root nets? Why wasn't everyone using GCD clickies? Why wasn't everyone a pro charmer?

The answer to all these questions is largely the same, except that being a pro charmer was ALSO hampered by crappy internet connections on top of the other reasons, giving all the more reason for it to not be a widely-done thing back in the day.

Where's that "straw man" guy, you're making his argument?

Knowing that you can use a spell on your spell list to be the best DPS class in the game is NOT comparable to knowing that some obscure item out of ten trillion exists. It IS comparable to Cann-dancing though.

Again, if Shaman could figure out the mechanics of server ticks and how to optimize medding and casting a spell around them ... Enchanters could master casting a charm, and breaking it. People may have been ignorant back then, but this was an Internet-base game, and we communicated over class message boards. Basic aspects of how to play a class were well-known and widely shared (at least among the forum-reading segment, and their knowledged filtered down to the rest of the server).

Crappy internet connections DO NOT explain why Enchanters wouldn't have figured out "I can charm mob A, and use it to kill mob B". When you make such an argument, you're being intellectually dishonest to me and yourself: you're a smart guy Tecmos, don't be willfully dumb to defend your "tribe".

Again, everyone in this thread can keep talking past each other if they want. But this is not about "wahhh class X is powerful", and this is not about "I disagree with classic evidence". Again, just like with Bards, the classic evidence for AoE kiting every mob in OT was there ... but it wasn't classic, and this place is about classic EverQuest.

[cd288]

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

Where's that "straw man" guy, you're making his argument?

Knowing that you can use a spell on your spell list to be the best DPS class in the game is NOT comparable to knowing that some obscure item out of ten trillion exists. It IS comparable to Cann-dancing though.

Again, if Shaman could figure out the mechanics of server ticks and how to optimize molding and casting a spell around them ... Enchanters could master casting a charm, and breaking it.

Crappy internet connections DO NOT why Enchanters wouldn't have figured out "I can charm mob A, and use it to kill mob B".

Again, everyone in this thread can keep talking past each other if they want. This is not about "wahhh class X is powerful", and this is not about "I disagree with classic evidence". Again, just like with bards, the classic evidence for AoE kiting every mob in OT was there ... but it wasn't classic, and this place is about classic.

Arbitrary standard should apply to nerf a whole class. We've got it, thanks dude. We also know it's not going to happen because of said arbitrary standard. I think we can all move on.

[loramin]

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

Arbitrary standard should apply to nerf a whole class. We've got it, thanks dude. We also know it's not going to happen because of said arbitrary standard. I think we can all move on.

Yes: my "arbitrary standard" ... that Project 1999 should do its best to emulate classic EverQuest ... suggests that if any class (Bards, Enchanters, Shaman, whoever) is clearly working differently than how it was in 1999, it should be "nerfed" (in some sense, although really what we're talking about is just getting more accurate/classic mechanics here).

[Tecmos Deception]

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

Knowing that you can use a spell on your spell list to be the best DPS class in the game is NOT comparable to knowing that some obscure item out of ten trillion exists. It IS comparable to Cann-dancing though.

Lol.

Knowing that cannidancing is a thing is barely better than knowing that sitting down while you're using lich is a thing.

Cannidance is mixing two mechanics, med ticks and a spell, to a greater combined effect. The chanter equivalent is knowing you can stack berserker strength and rune for extra protection, or that you can use an illusion AND alliance for greater faction modification.

Effectively charming requires knowing dozens of different little mechanics, many of which are no less obscure than WC hats or root nets or GCD clickies. I mean, all of those things ARE used by an truly effective charmer. Lol. You just shot down your own argument. You believe those things weren't widely known, but they're literally essential parts of a totally effective charmer.

Comparing knowing how to canni dance to knowing how to effectively manage a high-blue, dual-wielding, hasted pet in a group, or to knowing how to effectively solo a high-end camp in era, is ridiculous.


You guys are acting like all it takes to be level 50 and hold a level 45 pet that does 100 DPS for 7 minutes at a time nonstop for hours is putting tash, a stun or two, mez, and charm on your bar. You're being really disingenuous because I know at least some of you realize that it takes a lot more than that to actually do well enough that it is worth doing. Especially if you're going to do it solo.

[loramin]

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

Effectively charming requires knowing dozens of different little mechanics, many of which are no less obscure than WC hats or root nets or GCD clickies.

C'mon man, that's patently not true!

Charming requires knowing how to cast charm, and how to break it. Effectively charming just requires understanding how pet XP distribution works (something people did in fact understand back then), and adding that knowledge in.

That's it! You charm mob A, break charm before you kill mob B, and you're off getting decent solo XP. Pretty quickly anyone even trying that would figure out how to optimize it by killing off the charmed pet too.

Goblin Ghazughi Rings and everything else is nice, but the core of an Enchanter charming is Charm + Break Charm. And again, if Shaman could figure out Cann-dancing, Enchanters (AND Druids, Bards, and Necromancers!) could have figured out charming ...

... BUT THEY DIDN'T. So there's only two possibilities. The intellectually dishonest one, "they were dumb", or the honest one, which is "even if we got 99% of the mechanics around Enchanters right, something here isn't classic."

[cd288]

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

Yes: my "arbitrary standard" ... that Project 1999 should do its best to emulate classic EverQuest ... suggests that if any class (Bards, Enchanters, Shaman, whoever) is clearly working differently than how it was in 1999, it should be "nerfed" (in some sense, although really what we're talking about is just getting more accurate/classic mechanics here).

Except it's not CLEARLY working differently. That's the point. You're applying some arbitrary argument of because fewer people did it back then it must mean that things worked differently.

Way more people played Warriors back then because they didn't realize how much better SKs and Pallys were as group tanks, so that must mean Warriors are operating differently than on P99 right?

Way more people played Wizards back then because people didn't completely realize/appreciate how a high Wizard downtime meant overall DPS went down, thereby making Wizards not as valuable to a group, so that must mean that Wizards operated differently than on P99 where no one wants them in groups that much right?

There were fewer Iksar back then because people didn't truly realize how OP the regen and AC boost were for min/maxing certain classes, so that must mean Iksars operated differently right?

There were more Rogues back then because people didn't realize exactly how gear dependent they were, so Rogues must have operate differently than on P99 right?

There were fewer instances of Shamans tanking back then because people didn't realize that a Shammy in banded could operate as an efficient tank, so Shamans must've operated differently back then than on P99 right?


It's just such a ridiculous argument that I can't believe you've spent so much time and writing repeatedly trying to make it lol

[cd288]

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

C'mon man, that's patently not true! ... BUT THEY DIDN'T. So there's only two possibilities. The intellectually dishonest one, "they were dumb", or the honest one, which is "even if we got 99% of the mechanics around Enchanters right, something here isn't classic."

Then go find evidence for it and I'm sure the staff will change things. Otherwise it's a pointless discussion.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

C'mon man! That's patently not true!

Charming requires knowing how to chast charm, and how to break it. Effectively charming just requires understanding how pet XP distribution works (something people did in fact understand back then), and adding that knowledge in.

That's it! You charm mob A, break charm before you kill mob B, and your off getting decent solo XP. Pretty quickly anyone even trying that would figure out how to optimize it by killing off the charmed pet too.

Goblin Ghazughi Rings and everything else is nice, but the core of an Enchanter charming is Charm + Break Charm. And again, if Shaman could figure out Cann-dancing, Enchanters (AND Druids, Bards, and Necromancers!) could have figured out charming ...

... BUT THEY DIDN'T. So there's only two possibilities. The intellectually dishonest one, "they were dumb", or the honest one, which is "even if we got 99% of the mechanics around Enchanters right, something here isn't classic."

If being able to charm solo means you're an effective charmer, then knowing how to sing hymn of restoration makes you an effective bard.

Of course, both those things are untrue. There is a lot more that goes into truly being "an effective charmer" than knowing how to kill 2 mobs at a time with charm in a safe area, just like there's more to being "an effective bard" than knowing how to sing one useful song while you go afk.

You're not being consistent anyways. You're claiming that charm soloing for exp is effective charming, then you're claiming that enchanters didn't figure charm out. What? Obviously chanters were charm soloing for exp on live. It's in era-appropriate guides and in comments and in logs. Either you have to admit that chanters did figure out charm back then, or you have to admit that charm soloing isn't the same as "having figured out charm." Both options support my take on things, not yours.

[loramin]

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

Except it's not CLEARLY working differently. That's the point. You're applying some arbitrary argument of because fewer people did it back then it must mean that things worked differently.

Way more people played Warriors back then because they didn't realize how much better SKs and Pallys were as group tanks, so that must mean Warriors are operating differently than on P99 right?

Way more people played Wizards back then because people didn't completely realize/appreciate how a high Wizard downtime meant overall DPS went down, thereby making Wizards not as valuable to a group, so that must mean that Wizards operated differently than on P99 where no one wants them in groups that much right?

There were fewer Iksar back then because people didn't truly realize how OP the regen and AC boost were for min/maxing certain classes, so that must mean Iksars operated differently right?

There were more Rogues back then because people didn't realize exactly how gear dependent they were, so Rogues must have operate differently than on P99 right?

There were fewer instances of Shamans tanking back then because people didn't realize that a Shammy in banded could operate as an efficient tank, so Shamans must've operated differently back then than on P99 right?


It's just such a ridiculous argument that I can't believe you've spent so much time and writing repeatedly trying to make it lol

So, we can yell at each other about how we're right, or we can try and walk in another man's moccasins.

I've set the scene already. It's 1999: we've got class message boards, and literally hundreds of members of every class is playing the game, casting spells, trying things out, and posting about what they've done so hundreds of other players can do the same.

In this environment every class is figuring out how to use their tools. Rogues are learning what they can pickpocket and how to use sneak cleverly, Shaman are cann-dancing, and so on.

Now, imagine in this environment you play an Enchanter. You have a spell list, and you know every spell on it and what it does (even if you didn't have the manual and Prima guides and such, you had Caster's Realm and other sites back then that listed them all).

So what is your argument?

That Enchanters didn't look at Charm on their list?

That every Enchanter on the server cast it once, and decided, this is crap?

How can you honestly imagine every one of the hundreds of forum-posting Enchanters NOT realizing that they could do more damage than any other class in the entire game?

I'd say, you can't. You can't honestly wave all this away as "every last one of them was" dumb. Something HAD to be different back then.

[cd288]

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

So, we can yell at each other about how we're right, or we can try and walk in another man's moccasins.

I've set the scene already. It's 1999: we've got class message boards, and literally hundreds of members of every class is playing the game, casting spells, trying things out, and posting about what they've done so hundreds of other players can do the same.

In this environment every class is figuring out how to use their tools. Rogues are learning what they can pickpocket and how to use sneak cleverly, Shaman are cann-dancing, and so on.

Now, imagine in this environment you play an Enchanter. You have a spell list, and you know every spell on it and what it does (even if you didn't have the manual and Prima guides and such, you had Caster's Realm and other sites back then that listed them all).

So what is your argument?

That Enchanters didn't look at Charm on their list?

That every Enchanter on the server cast it once, and decided, this is crap?

How can you honestly imagine every one of the hundreds of forum-posting Enchanters NOT realizing that they could do more damage than any other class in the entire game?

Like I've said, provide evidence instead of arbitrary opinion/explanation and I'm sure the staff will change things. If you feel this strongly about it, you probably should've spent the significant amount of time you've spent in this thread researching to find evidence instead.