Spells: Pacify duration incorrect for timeline

[Goregasmic]

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

Trying to Lull blue cons while having a good amount of charisma often did not work. As shown in the other thread, Lulls simply got resisted far more often back then, which also meant more critical resists, meaning it was rarely a reliable tool.

My chanter is 55 with 243 charisma self buffed and this week I was reliably pulling the froglok king and his PH (level 47) from behind using calm crit resists to work around his throne's LOS.

So by your own logic it's fine.

[nyclin]

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

That's not true at all. Castersrealm pulled the info directly from the server and was confirmed correct by devs back then.



Trying to Lull blue cons while having a good amount of charisma often did not work. As shown in the other thread, Lulls simply got resisted far more often back then, which also meant more critical resists, meaning it was rarely a reliable tool.

CR was a terribly basic, rarely updated website. It didn't pull anything "directly from the server" (what does this even mean?) and relied on user-supplied info, not spdat parses or "the server."

On live I had an ENC bound outside of Sebilis during early-mid Velious and I would regularly solo my way to NG while naked, using Lull. Also never had much of an issue with charm breaks, despite all of the claims to the contrary that I see in this forum.

[Nuggie]

... this is going to be huge.

Excellent sluething OP!

[Isey]

Complete noob, but does update mean next download? Or are there regular server side updates?

(I've been soloing in an area that would love a 7 min lull...)

[loramin]

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

Complete noob, but does update mean next download? Or are there regular server side updates?

(I've been soloing in an area that would love a 7 min lull...)

Generally speaking the staff releases server-side fixes that require client updates in tandem with fixes that don't. In other words, usually yes, you'll have to wait for the next downloadable patch file to appear before this will be in the game.

But since this fix could be made without changing anyone's client, in theory it could happen sooner ... I just wouldn't expect it. You have to keep in mind that for developers every "release" has a cost, so they generally don't make unnecessary releases unless there is a pressing reason (and since this has gone unfixed for ten years, it's sort of the opposite of "pressing").

[Isey]

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

Generally speaking the staff releases server-side fixes that require client updates in tandem with fixes that don't. In other words, usually yes, you'll have to wait for the next downloadable patch file to appear before this will be in the game.

But since this fix could be made without changing anyone's client, in theory it could happen sooner ... I just wouldn't expect it. You have to keep in mind that for developers every "release" has a cost, so they generally don't make unnecessary releases unless there is a pressing reason (and since this has gone unfixed for ten years, it's sort of the opposite of "pressing").

Makes perfect sense and thank you for taking the time to explain.

[Isey]

Also - wake of tranquilty also has a Pacify effect so assuming that it will also be bumped to 7 minutes?

[Dolalin]

Pacify has an empty duration in the in-era spdats. It's quite odd. Lull does not.

In fact, from the castersrealm link above, 2nd page comment:

DOES THIS SPELL WORK?, By Bubba the enchanter (1/28/2001)

I have Tried this spell Numerous times on Dwarves in BB, (the two near the Dock) and have had 0, zip, nill, Nada luck with it. I have Casted it on myself (resisted 9/10 times and it seems to last about 2 sec) So I ask, Does this spell work?

Was Pacify simply broken in-era with a zero duration?

[Dolalin]

I've found evidence that 7mins is not the correct duration. It was an out-of-era break that persisted for awhile (months) but was eventually fixed:

From 7093287746748478679
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fb739,6d4783b7c5c031d6
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb739,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-22 14:05:16 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!tethys.csu.net!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!ene ws4
From: "Richard Lawson" <nouma@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.games.everquest
Subject: Re: Nerf to Pacify
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:38 -0800
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <bs7ofs01dkl@enews4.newsguy.com>
References: <vuehkr9911jf8a@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-251.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.games.everquest:12933

"Robin Russell" wrote:
> Does anyone have and real info on the nerf to pacify.
> Was it intentional? What are the new limitations? etc..

Pacify wasn't nerfed. It was broken - broken for months. It started as a
spell of 42-second duration, then somehow had its duration increased to five
minutes. Finally, SOE got around to fixing that, and now it's back down to
its original, intended 42-second duration.

It's had practically no effect on me, because I never assumed the duration
would ever be longer than 42 seconds. I never took advantage of the
unintended extended duration because I didn't want to become dependent on
it. And I knew it would eventually be fixed. I'm surprised it took them as
long as it did to fix it.

During all my play sessions that I was using Pacification, I always recast
it every half-minute. I was never sure if the bug was fixed because I never
tried testing it - I always relied on its intended duration.

It's really too bad SOE took as long as they did to fix the Lull line, as
many people did, in fact, become dependent upon it. I wish they'd fix
things faster; I missed Poofy the cleric pet for a long time.

Anyway, to make a long story short (too late!), Pacify wasn't nerfed. It
was just fixed to only run as long as the spell description listed.

-Richard

https://dbsanfte.github.io/eq-archiv...msg-229357.txt

I am not sure if Pacify was totally broken in-era or there is some other weirdness going on with the spdat, I am not an expert in spdats [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But based on the above, the duration change should be reverted back to 7 ticks until we determine anything else.

[Zuranthium]

Interesting thing about that quote - it's more evidence of the entire Lull mechanic being highly unreliable during classic: "It's really too bad SOE took as long as they did to fix the Lull line". There are mountains of posts out there talking about how bad Lulls were. Posts from post-Classic era also specifically talk about Lull spells being improved (see link below).

As for the duration, Casters Realm spell lists were taken by scraping server data, and Geoffrey Zatkin (EQ's spell designer) confirmed they were accurate. Every other spell on Casters Realm is listed accurately. If it says Pacify was a 2 min duration in era, that's very likely correct. Also, the person who built Casters Realm was an Enchanter. The duration of Pacify is still listed as 2 minutes in 2002 and then changed to 42 seconds as of May 2003 - https://web.archive.org/web/20030508...ell.asp?Id=115

So there's a clear timeline: Lull spells were much less powerful before Luclin era, but Pacify had a 2 minute duration when it worked. Sometime during 2002, Lull spells were improved. Then during the first half of 2003, Pacify's duration was changed to 42 seconds (presumably because it was considered overpowered now that the Lull line was buffed). Then at some point later in 2003 the spell was bugged to have the 7 minute duration, and got changed back to 42 seconds.