Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[Rooj]

I dunno, I don't recall people not knowing about CHA back then. I was never an Enchanter and I always knew CHA affected Charm. People figured it out pretty early I believe? I think CHA is one of the easiest stats to raise also, not to mention ENCs get a CHA buff lol.

[Ligma]

Mobs do get nerfed when you charm them.

Yeah, in GoD

[Tilien]

I think part of this goes back not only to what dedicated players knew, but what casual players knew.

On P99 most players are fairly dedicated and know their own class inside and out as well as every other class in their group. On live this wasn't the case, not because people were stupid but because a larger percent of the player base were playing casually.

On p99 what percent of players dedicate time to learning about game mechanics? 50%? 70%?

On live what percent were doing the same? 20%? Probably most people wanted to hop on and whack a few orcs for an hour or two. It wasn't what was known as optimal, but what fraction of the player base cared to learn or act on it.

[keithjinternet]

fwiw, I played a level 65ish Enchanter on live from 1999 - 2003. We never used charm. Ever. It's not because we didn't know to have high charisma (mine was 210+ buffed) or because we didn't use tash before charming. It's because the spell itself was unreliable.

Why else would they have made a level SIXTY spell, when Kunark was released, that guaranteed an unbroken charm? Is that spell even relevant with today's mechanics?

And this isn't even to mention the druids or necros who are also using charm to solo. This was virtually unheard of on live because, again, the spell wasn't reliable -- especially for those with low charisma / inability to lower magic resistance on their target.

Unlike today, when I see druids charming effectively because the spell itself is so reliable.

[cd288]

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

fwiw, I played a level 65ish Enchanter on live from 1999 - 2003. We never used charm. Ever. It's not because we didn't know to have high charisma (mine was 210+ buffed) or because we didn't use tash before charming. It's because the spell itself was unreliable.

Why else would they have made a level SIXTY spell, when Kunark was released, that guaranteed an unbroken charm? Is that spell even relevant with today's mechanics?

And this isn't even to mention the druids or necros who are also using charm to solo. This was virtually unheard of on live because, again, the spell wasn't reliable -- especially for those with low charisma / inability to lower magic resistance on their target.

Unlike today, when I see druids charming effectively because the spell itself is so reliable.

Sounds like a lot of "I remember it being this way and so that's how it was and should be" without posting any actual evidence.

Always surprising how people will grab their pitchforks over something and be so adamant about something that they can't even find evidence for.

[keithjinternet]

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

Sounds like a lot of "I remember it being this way and so that's how it was and should be" without posting any actual evidence.

Always surprising how people will grab their pitchforks over something and be so adamant about something that they can't even find evidence for.

How can you post evidence of something that didn't need to be fixed? Most patches are to nerf or change something. How can I prove that something worked? It's kind of a catch 22.

[cd288]

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

How can you post evidence of something that didn't need to be fixed? Most patches are to nerf or change something. How can I prove that something worked? It's kind of a catch 22.

I'm not a coding expert, but I assume most if not all of what is on P99 is based on some sort of source coding. So, if you think Charm is overpowered compared to what it was on live at launch, then it's probably based on EQ code from a time when Charm was that powerful. If that code is from later in the timeline, then presumably there would be some sort of patch note or evidence at some point saying that they had upgraded the effectiveness of Charm.

If evidence of the claims can't be presented, then it has to be presumed that the current coding is accurate for the classic era. For every person who says that they're 100% sure that something worked X way, there's another person who says they're 100% sure it worked Y way. Personal memories or anecdotes are insufficient to change something. That's just the way it is.

[sentinel]

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

I'm not a coding expert, but I assume most if not all of what is on P99 is based on some sort of source coding. So, if you think Charm is overpowered compared to what it was on live at launch, then it's probably based on EQ code from a time when Charm was that powerful.

So we don't know and that's fine. Ultimately this is whatever the admins want it to be. Considering it is free and well run, that's a great deal.

But I do wonder where they got their numbers/code regarding not just Charm, but lull, resists, etc.

[loramin]

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

I'm not a coding expert, but I assume most if not all of what is on P99 is based on some sort of source coding. So, if you think Charm is overpowered compared to what it was on live at launch, then it's probably based on EQ code from a time when Charm was that powerful. If that code is from later in the timeline, then presumably there would be some sort of patch note or evidence at some point saying that they had upgraded the effectiveness of Charm.

If evidence of the claims can't be presented, then it has to be presumed that the current coding is accurate for the classic era. For every person who says that they're 100% sure that something worked X way, there's another person who says they're 100% sure it worked Y way. Personal memories or anecdotes are insufficient to change something. That's just the way it is.

No one has access to the original code. Literally no one: not even Daybreak (the current rights holder) has the original EQ server source code, at least as far as anyone knows.

And that's the frustrating thing about all this, because there's this mix of "known exploits" and "unknown exploits", ie. stuff that was wrong on live but Nilbog's fixed it here, and stuff that was right on live but Nilbog has it wrong here.

Nilbog has taken a "fix exploits, leave broken negative stuff" approach to making Green/Teal (not) classic, which is a completely reasonable option, and makes total sense. BUT... as with anything, the devil is in the details, and the details work out to Nilbog nerfing the hell out of (say) Mages (in the one era they're kinda decent, before they become complete crap), because they had very obvious things that he can see and fix (or in the case of spells, leave unfixed).

Meanwhile, because there's no proof one way or the other, Nilbog just goes by whatever research he's got when it comes to Enchanter resists ... even if that makes the most powerful class in the game, now and through Velious (ie. forever here), even more powerful.

At some point I truly hope Nilbog will realize that, like it or not, he's become a game designer, and when viewed holistically (ie. not separately, in isolation) some of his design decisions are making the game worse, and less classic. When he blindly fixes only the obvious "exploits", which tend to fall more heavily on "weak" classes, simply because they're the ones that are clear and known, while ignoring the obvious (but virtually impossible to prove) imbalances in the most powerful class, he's making one of those choices ... implicitly, whether he means to or not.

It doesn't matter whether Enchanters had better or worse charm resist rates on live: one class being able to burn through the game's content vastly better than any other class is just as much an "implicit exploit", fully worthy of fixing, if not more than many of the other explicit exploits he's fixed.

Or maybe Nilbog is just a huge Enchanter lover at heart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But I really doubt that: I really think he's absolutely trying to do the right thing, and using good criteria on every individual decision he makes. So I just hope he can take a step back, look at the bigger picture, realize "something isn't right here", and thus realize that a fix is needed, like say making charm resists SIGNIFICANTLY higher.

And I say that even IF P99 resists are currently 100% accurate vs. live (which seems unlikely), and he only makes the change for a "classic environment" reason. He's made tons of "classic environment over classic mechanics" decisions on Blue and (especially) Green/Teal already.

Increasing charm resists would ABSOLUTELY make Green/Teal feel more classic, because NO ONE remembers Enchanters being like this. But again, this likely isn't just about "classic feelings": it seems likely that the class has benefited for far too long here from having more obscure mechanics, and even if that's corrected with higher resits, it likely still would be the most powerful class in every single era of classic EverQuest!

[Rooj]

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

I'm not a coding expert, but I assume most if not all of what is on P99 is based on some sort of source coding. So, if you think Charm is overpowered compared to what it was on live at launch, then it's probably based on EQ code from a time when Charm was that powerful. If that code is from later in the timeline, then presumably there would be some sort of patch note or evidence at some point saying that they had upgraded the effectiveness of Charm.

If evidence of the claims can't be presented, then it has to be presumed that the current coding is accurate for the classic era. For every person who says that they're 100% sure that something worked X way, there's another person who says they're 100% sure it worked Y way. Personal memories or anecdotes are insufficient to change something. That's just the way it is.

Erm, how would the staff have access to the source code? The entire point of creating an emulator is that you DON'T have access to the source code so you must write it all yourself. There's no way to get the source code without being given it or stealing it. I'm pretty sure neither of those have ever happened.

While formulas are normally a part of said code, things like mob's stats and resists are kept in a database, which I doubt the staff has access to either. Developers generally want the server to send the client as little data as possible (since it makes it easier to manipulate/hack), although since EQ is an old game, there's no telling what was obtainable from the packets being sent.

Also any developer (I'm sure even the staff here will attest to this) will tell you that NOT everything is listed in the patch notes. There's too many things to keep up with and frankly patch notes are a courtesy, not a requirement.

Anyway, the charm code that the staff is using isn't BASED on anything. It's written from scratch, that's what an emulator is. It isn't impossible to get more concrete data but I can almost guarantee you the staff 100% winged it when it came to charm effectiveness.

You guys should start parsing when in parties and show some parses of charmed mobs against your group or raid, and then afterwards remember what a large amount of damage comes from Haste and Clarity on top of that. I've already done this in the past so I already know what to expect. Be sure to include your party level and camp.

One final note, from https://web.archive.org/web/19991127...tersrealm.com/
"Small question and answer from a chat I had with GZ yesterday:

Q: Does a spell's level have any affect on resists. Ie: A level 50 casting the level 4 mesmerise v. the level 49 dazzle. Generally speaking do higher spells have less chance of being resisted or more? What pattern, if any, is there in relation to this.

A: Some spells have a built in harder resist - for example, a higher level of fear spell is harder to save against than a lower level of fear spell (meaning that the higher level version is more likely to work). Some do other things - for example, the different types of roots all save the same (ie: have the same chance to be resisted), but have different effects as to duration, or chance of breaking once they have succeeded."

Whether or not this is implemented on P99, I have no idea, but it's possible that lower level charm spells are just not scaled properly. And Charm might not be the only spell-line culprit.