Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[Corbin]

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

We played from the first week through PoP... the one with PoK, I think that's it. I had a total of almost 200 levels with various characters and I can honestly say I do not remember grouping even once with an enchanter using a charmed pet. What I remember is the standard line was that it was just too dangerous, it would break randomly and always at the worst time so it was thanks, but no thanks.

The enchanters I played with who were good were good because they did CC really well making difficult camp-breaking much easier and their utilities made everything go faster. I don't remember an enchanter ever leading the dps of any group. I was almost always the group leader, so I paid close attention to who was doing what and how well.

And since an enchanter's ability to charm a high level mob to tank would have been useful like, always, I think that would be clearly remembered.

I don't play a chanter so it doesn't really bother me either way, but that's the way I remember it. And that's just as anecdotal as anything else in the end, but srsly.

My wife and I started during POP. However, we focused on mains, leveled up fast and ended up doing a lot of raiding. Most of our grouping (beyond duoing with each other) was done in POP content and beyond. Like you, most of the time in our groups, charmed pets were not used, for various reasons.

However, Solo and duoing enchanters could clearly experience in zones which most players would require larger groups during POP. I saw them routinely and witnessed guild chanters do their AA this way. Less gear dependent, more risk and quite fast.

I was never a caster, but I think there are two big differences in that era, that even I can see. MR's and mob dps. It likely became much riskier. Pure casters in current content that was challenging to their individual progression were insanely brittle.

GOD's release emphasized those risks, yet good enchanters (with a little help) found ways to do group trials that normally required a group which included a well geared raid tank, a slower a cleric and dps at 65. They were the only ones with this kind of magic to my knowledge.

Likely, this had something to do with the great charm nerf around GOD. I had been told about the monk nerf Luclin era. A monk in our guild had been a well known contributor to the resulting protest. Many enchanters during GOD felt similarly and subsequently quit their class. We lost a few.

[vossiewulf]

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

Alright staff he remembers. Get in here and change things based on random player’s memory from over a decade ago!

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.

[GnomeCaptain]

Lol, terrible troll thread.

How did this trash get to 66 pages? LOL!

Charm is wonderfully classic =)

Unlike OP, some of us actually played classic EQ =)

[cd288]

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.

[kul69]

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

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.

What are you talking about? This thread is full of evidence things don't work as they do here. Invis, exp in groups, nuke resists (are they partial or not, I'm not talking about 90%), CHA impacting charm check tickets after charm, channeling being broken (no evidence needed there). "Kunark era" charm rules. I'm sure even more I forgot.

And yet regardless of it all...


EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER, ENCHANTER NEEDS TO BE NERFED SAME AS NECRO AND OTHER CLASSES THAT AREN'T GETTING CLASSIC BEHAVIOR DUE TO GAME IMPACT.

Get it through your thick fucking skull. You've been here crying no evidence now probably 30 times. It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence. Enchanter should still be nerfed. Why does Necro not get to be the uber class that every group stands back and heals their pet? That is how it was in actual classic EQ. Necro was nerfed. Enchanter needs to be nerfed.

[bwe]

Unnerf pet daggers

[Ligma]

U mad bro?

[cd288]

Originally Posted by kul69 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What are you talking about? This thread is full of evidence things don't work as they do here. Invis, exp in groups, nuke resists (are they partial or not, I'm not talking about 90%), CHA impacting charm check tickets after charm, channeling being broken (no evidence needed there). "Kunark era" charm rules. I'm sure even more I forgot.

And yet regardless of it all...


EVIDENCE DOESN'T MATTER, ENCHANTER NEEDS TO BE NERFED SAME AS NECRO AND OTHER CLASSES THAT AREN'T GETTING CLASSIC BEHAVIOR DUE TO GAME IMPACT.

Get it through your thick fucking skull. You've been here crying no evidence now probably 30 times. It doesn't even matter if there is no evidence. Enchanter should still be nerfed. Why does Necro not get to be the uber class that every group stands back and heals their pet? That is how it was in actual classic EQ. Necro was nerfed. Enchanter needs to be nerfed.

So with your giant all caps text you literally just proved my point about the ridiculous nature of this thread lol. Came to a classic server and saying that we need to make changes to balance classes even if it’s not classic, because you don’t like it. L.m.a.o.

[azeth]

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

So with your giant all caps text you literally just proved my point about the ridiculous nature of this thread lol. Came to a classic server and saying that we need to make changes to balance classes even if it’s not classic, because you don’t like it. L.m.a.o.

Have you ever posted anything that made any sense? What an incredible streak you're on. You're like Ken griffey fuckin jr of dumbass bullshit posting.


It's incredible

[cd288]

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

Have you ever posted anything that made any sense? What an incredible streak you're on. You're like Ken griffey fuckin jr of dumbass bullshit posting.


It's incredible

Why thank you sir!