Spells: Enchanter Mesmerize does mem wipe too frequently

[azxten]

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

You should really search the forums before making a post:

Old mem blur and Mez Post

Then when you do that get a real test going (in that post someone did 96 Mez casts to see if they were close to what was expected) and actually post a log that shows what you say it does. You are making an assumption that because it is giving it's aggro message again that it was blurred. Maybe that is correct and maybe it isn't, but you haven't proved that here and it could just as easily be a side effect of the mob being mez'd rather than blurred.

Once you have proven that what you say is happening is actually happening - i.e. 100% blur rate with a large sample size (not the 12 casts you have in your log) - then actually work out the math given your stats, the mobs level and the spells "bonus" to the mem blur chance (in this case 1%) and see if it lines up with what is expected.

If you still think this calculation is wrong then you need in era evidence with specific mob levels and specific CHA stats and a decent enough sample size to show that the calculation currently being used is incorrect. I mean maybe if you get enough in era posts then you won't need all of that, but you have to do better than this garbage for evidence.

That thread has no logs, a 404 link, and an out of era dev quote that can no longer be found. The "96 tests" is a claim with no log which verifies out of era math that seems wrong. I already told you I proved the aggro message indicates blur by using hide. There is no evidence to support that CHA impacts mesmerize mem blur success rate or that mob level matters. Let's ask ourselves a very simple question....

The player is given a percentage bonus based on level, lower is better. < 17, bonus = 100, > 53 bonus = 25.

This seems to be the "dev quote" which can no longer be viewed. My question though is were they talking about mem blur or mesmerize mem blur chance?

If you get a 100% success chance to mem blur any mob below level 17 using Mesmerize why would the EQ devs have created a level 12 spell called Memory Blur? The only utility this spell would have is to eventually be better at mem blur success rate after you were fighting mobs that are level 17+ and really it would only have significant difference after 20+. It seems likely that math is related to memory blur spells but NOT the Mesmerize spell's mem blur component. It makes zero sense that they would give you a level 4 spell that has 100% mem blur success rate and then a level 12 spell that offers a higher success rate that is useless until you're higher level.

In classic people used the Memory Blur spell to kill steal mobs. No one was going around casting the level 4 mez spell to kill steal but apparently it had a ~100% success rate making it more efficient?

The level 4 mez spell, and all classic mez spells, never mem blurred mobs at any kind of significant rate. Certainly not ~100% success rate at level 30.

[cubiczar]

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

The level 4 mez spell, and all classic mez spells, never mem blurred mobs at any kind of significant rate. Certainly not ~100% success rate at level 30.

Prove it. Seriously man do your research and bring evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong, what I am saying is you haven't done any actual research and you have provided no evidence. Do the work or don't make a report. All of your posts are like this, lots of feels but no evidence.

Also you said that you proved it but you didn't, you used hide one time not every time. If you want good logs then do it right, cast invis con the mob then re-mez. More work? Yes, but it's better proof of what you are saying and relies on no assumptions. Again I'm not saying you are wrong just that you didn't bring the evidence you thought you did.

[azxten]

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

Prove it. Seriously man do your research and bring evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong, what I am saying is you haven't done any actual research and you have provided no evidence. Do the work or don't make a report. All of your posts are like this, lots of feels but no evidence.

Also you said that you proved it but you didn't, you used hide one time not every time. If you want good logs then do it right, cast invis con the mob then re-mez. More work? Yes, but it's better proof of what you are saying and relies on no assumptions. Again I'm not saying you are wrong just that you didn't bring the evidence you thought you did.

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

[cubiczar]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

Feels aren't evidence, logic isn't evidence... do some work man. There are lots of things that don't make sense in this game, but it doesn't prove they weren't classic.

[Brocode]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

have you looked at some gear that give AGI to casters? why would a dev do it.

Bring proof to the game or go post your rant in RNF, because it seems more RNF than a BUG per say.

[cubiczar]

That thread has no logs, a 404 link, and an out of era dev quote that can no longer be found. The "96 tests" is a claim with no log which verifies out of era math that seems wrong. I already told you I proved the aggro message indicates blur by using hide. There is no evidence to support that CHA impacts mesmerize mem blur success rate or that mob level matters. Let's ask ourselves a very simple question....

That thread has no logs, has no evidence (well it has more than you it had a dev quote that used to work at least) and nothing got changed... see the point here?

Also you don't seem to get the point of the 96 tests, that was someone that thought the chance to blur was lower than what the poster was saying the calculation was, did the testing and proved to themselves there was no issue. So there was no need to post the evidence because they didn't think there needed to be a change.

You on the other hand DO think that something needs to change, therefore YOU need to bring evidence to prove that what is currently in game is wrong. In general the devs have made the game work in a certain way based on something, if there is an issue with that they want evidence showing there is a problem. So prove it, otherwise it's sorta pointless to post (unless Dolalin gets interested and does the work for you).

[DMN]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

Good lord, man. Memory blue causes ZERO hate and CANNOT be resisted. Some mobs are also totally immune to mesmerize, on top of just being able to resist it.

[Jibartik]

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

Good lord, man. Memory blue causes ZERO hate and CANNOT be resisted. Some mobs are also totally immune to mesmerize, on top of just being able to resist it.

Giants and raid mobs?

Mez causes like no hate. (in fact right now it erases all the hate lol)

And you don’t see a creature that’s it’s immune to mez until you’re level 50...

I mean look I’ve been enjoying that mesmerize has made me not need to memorize or even buy a member in the entire time that I’ve played green but come on guys let’s be a little honest here it’s pretty obvious that this is a bug.

what are you gonna say next that creatures are supposed to be able to run through walls and off of cliffs when you pull them?

[Droxx]

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

And you don’t see a creature that’s it’s immune to mez until you’re level 50...

All giants (sand, hill, fire, ice, cyclops, frost, storm) are immune to mez and you can encounter a lot of them in your 30s.

[cubiczar]

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

Giants and raid mobs?

Mez causes like no hate. (in fact right now it erases all the hate lol)

And you don’t see a creature that’s it’s immune to mez until you’re level 50...

I mean look I’ve been enjoying that mesmerize has made me not need to memorize or even buy a member in the entire time that I’ve played green but come on guys let’s be a little honest here it’s pretty obvious that this is a bug.

what are you gonna say next that creatures are supposed to be able to run through walls and off of cliffs when you pull them?

I think what we are saying is bring some evidence, 12 casts with questionable assumptions about the aggro message aren't very convincing. First prove what you say is happening is happening (i.e. 100% blur with lvl 4 mez), then show that this number is different from what it should be (either with in era evidence or at least use the old threads to calculate what you think the % should be).

I haven't played my enchanter on blue lately, but when I did level 4 mez WAS NOT a 100% blur, I used it with crag spiders (level 18-22 mobs), they didn't fast regen often. When I used mem blur they didn't always start fast regen but they "usually" would. So yeah I'm skeptical of his assertions because he brought garbage evidence and then backed it up with nothing. My experience is that it doesn't work the way he says it does so until there is better evidence I'm going to assume he is doing it wrong.

Stack on top of that the fact that this guy obviously doesn't enchanter. He is assuming that the spell stat of Memblur(1%) means that Mez had a 1% chance of blurring the mob. While at the same time he completely ignores the fact that Memory Blur has a stat of Memblur(10%) and definitely worked more often than 1 in 10 both on live and here. What are the real numbers on how often mez should blur? I don't know but I know it wasn't ever 1% just like I know Memory Blur was never 10% but if I was trying to prove that I would at least have a couple of links to back that up.