When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[loramin]

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

Swarm kitting bards? hmm? the masses of quad or more kiting druids and wizards?

We're just going in circles here, so I won't try to refute you point by point, but I had to say something about that last one ...

Have you not heard about the "unclassic" (and yet I would argue more classic) 25 mob AoE limit? It very much did address unclassic Bard behavior, and is a perfect example of doing exactly what I'm talking about.

[commongood]

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

Have you not heard about the "unclassic" (and yet I would argue more classic) 25 mob AoE limit? It very much did address unclassic Bard behavior, and is a perfect example of doing exactly what I'm talking about.

Just making sure I understand:

You refer to the case with bards where the mechanic was working as it had worked in classic but which lead to “unclassic” behavior where bards (and aoe groups in Chardok) were monopolizing content / gaining unreasonable exp.

How is this comparable to this issue raised on charm? I thought the argument on which side you stand is that the charm mechanic as it is implemented on p99 is incorrectly implemented?

Sorry, just trying to make sure I understand

[loramin]

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

You refer to the case with bards where the mechanic was working as it had worked in classic but which lead to “unclassic” behavior where bards (and aoe groups in Chardok) were monopolizing content / gaining unreasonable exp.

How is this comparable to this issue raised on charm? I thought the argument on which side you stand is that the charm mechanic as it is implemented on p99 is incorrectly implemented?

Throughout this whole conversation (not just in this thread) I've asserted one thing, that I'm sure of because I played in classic: Enchanters here aren't classic!

What I haven't said is why: I leave that to smarter folks than myself, ie. the classic researchers here like Dolalin (who've suggested something about channeling and/or resists). "But how can you know if it's wrong if you don't know what's wrong?" I hear you ask.

Imagine your buddy made a Street Fighter 2 emulator, and he invites you over to play. Your other buddies are already playing, and you notice whenever anyone plays Ryu, they don't dragon punch. You ask why and everyones says "dragon punch sucks, so we're not using it."

Now, do you need to know the exact number of points of damage the original Ryu dragon punch did in the original code to say something's wrong? Do you need to know any other mechanics, like how hits and misses work? Or can you just say "in the original Street Fighter 2, dragon punching was good, and people used it: therefore, something isn't right about this emulator?"

[DMN]

The rabbit hole rectifying "unclassicness", as a result of people simply playing the game differently in 2022 due to player knowledge/tecnhology improving, is bottomless.

[Jibartik]

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

Swarm kitting bards? hmm?

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

We're just going in circles here.

Wait................................... this pun was accidental?

[loramin]

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

Wait................................... this pun was accidental?

I swear, I did not make that on purpose ... but I'm so glad you caught it, and now I will pretend like it was entirely intentional [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DMN]

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

That's why the people I keep referring to (eg. Dolalin) have posted evidence to the Bug forums.

wow. look at those goal posts move. proof and evidence are not the same thing.

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

But that doesn't mean there isn't evidence of how it worked. Also, it's like you're completely ignored my Street Fighter II example: you don't need to know exactly how the original worked to know the emulator isn't emulating it correctly.

i didn't even read your analogy past streetfighter. it was dumb. analogies are incredibly poor ways to communicate ideas, and you only use them when someone lacks a frame of reference to understand something. if you can't properly comminucate ideas when we are all sitting here have decades of experience with this game, then there is something seriously wrong with your communication skills -- or, more likely, you are just blowing smoke because that's alll you've got.

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

We'll have to wait for the fix to see, but here's why I think you're wrong: Enchanters in live were not soloing gods, or charmers in groups, on live during classic! So we have tons of historical evidence that color flux didn't make them so, because (for two years, across tens of servers) it didn't do that.

*We* don't have to wait, though you might. Enchanters were the stongest dungeon solo'r recogized by everyone that was in the upper spectrum of players mid way through kunark. addditonally they would use charm pets until they had bokren and staggered the spawns in the camps they wanted to hold when in groups. then they would lose the pet as there was no real need to keep it. But you've never been in the upper spectrum of eq players, so your ignorance is understandable; your persistence in maintaining it is not.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by cannobeers3 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The entire, "Nobody did it back then because internet connection" nonsense is almost appalling. Sorry you were a teen in the sticks while many of us had plenty of bandwidth elsewhere.

Confirmation bias and feelings are not conducive to pragmatic conversation.

it must be sad to live in a world of so many splendid colors yet only see things in black and white.

Truth is, it wasn't as simple as people just didn't have access to cable. While it is true that a significant portion ofthe population could not actually get cable, "the sticks" as you say, i'd wager that the majority of people who didn't have cable or better COULD have had cable. The problem was having to convince mumsy and/or dadsy to shell out 150+ dollars a month so you can more effectively stare at elf tiddies all day, a habbit they are already increasingly concerned with. needless to say, many kids couldn't formulate the right pitch to sell their parent(s) on it, especially since they were already paying for a second phone line most likely. And ya 150ish is about right if they hadn't already been using cable(adjusted for inflation). Even as a young adullt having to shell at that kind of cash when you are just starting out in life is not particularly appealing.

[-Catherin-]

Now consider this:

As far as we know, charm itself had no fundamental changes from its inception right up to the point where it got nerfed around GoD. How is it exactly that something that was too risky and not worth using all of a sudden is considered way too powerful?

Keep in mind also, that by this point in EQ’s timeline, a caster in cloth was lucky to survive one round of NPC melee. The gap in power between an NPC and a player continued to widen as the game matured. The risk of charming was actually increasing.

So since we are talking about facts, help me understand how charm, which remained pretty much the same over those years, all of a sudden was too powerful to keep as is? What exactly changed in those years?

It was hardware, internet, and general knowledge of the game that changed. It is a fact that these things took exponential leaps over the years. They became the norm rather than the exception. But I really am asking this question too. Something about charm itself may have actually been changed to suddenly make it OP that nobody has found or mentioned. I’m willing to concede when I’m wrong, and if someone can find some evidence of this it would go a long way towards this discussion.

[Eleandra]

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

Now consider this:

As far as we know, charm itself had no fundamental changes from its inception right up to the point where it got nerfed around GoD. How is it exactly that something that was too risky and not worth using all of a sudden is considered way too powerful?

Keep in mind also, that by this point in EQ’s timeline, a caster in cloth was lucky to survive one round of NPC melee. The gap in power between an NPC and a player continued to widen as the game matured. The risk of charming was actually increasing.

The changes were new spells: charm was level capped at 51 (dictate aside; not typically used for regular play, though) through Luclin, so the increasing power gap with mobs didn't much matter. As well, PCs were still level-capped at 60 in luclin, so mobs didn't get much more powerful either, raid targets aside. (And please forgive me, I don't totally remember how AAs actually changed things. I know they affected duration, and maybe resists, but I don't recall they let you charm higher *level* mobs?).

Then came PoP and charm jumped to lvl 64. The difference between a level 51 mob, and a level 64 mob, is *enormous*. Additionally, PoP added an instant free 1500hp rune to enchanters, and much better gearing, lowering risk of charm. And this is when charm really got going widely (sooo much bastion of thunder ... or was it halls of Honor? IT's been a long time), as well as at least some designed raids in PoP which allowed the use of charmed mobs.

This is when people started really noticing the power of charming. Charm was nerfed as or just before Omens of War was coming out, I believe, when the level cap of mobs, characters, and charm would increase yet again. (and GoD generally did have much tougher exp mobs than PoP, iirc.).

It was hardware, internet, and general knowledge of the game that changed. It is a fact that these things took exponential leaps over the years. They became the norm rather than the exception. But I really am asking this question too. Something about charm itself may have actually been changed to suddenly make it OP that nobody has found or mentioned. I’m willing to concede when I’m wrong, and if someone can find some evidence of this it would go a long way towards this discussion.

Those things may have mattered too, but I think the level change with the resulting vast increase in charmed mob power was more important, and staring down yet *another* such increase caused the nerf.

Blah blah charm charm.