Charm mechanic changes next patch?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The exact impact this has is documented in another thread.

It is going to be extremely bad for enchanters charming mobs around their level, for a lvl 60 enchanter charming a lvl 52ish mob it means around +35 MR for the mob.

Anyone that wants to test the impact this has can just take of their CHA gear, or if level 60, try charming a 52ish mob without tash.

The impact for a level 60 chanter charming a lvl 45ish or lower mob is close to zero, since the level difference and tash already bring those level mobs to the lowest MR possible they can have for the purpose of the charm break check.

This will mostly impact level 40-55 enchanters, since those typically charm mobs closer to their own level, level 60s charming higher level mobs, and of course every group with either of those.

Sounds a whole lot more like classic to me [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[bilirubin]

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

Are the glory days of enchanters over?

It seems so. There are p99-era web captures of devs explaining explicitly that charisma does in fact affect charm duration. Alas, some EQdev has inferred from PoP-era data that CHA does not. Of course, this may be true about PoP-era charm but that doesn't necessarily apply to the era p99 devs are interested in emulating. I don't buy the idea that the original devs misunderstood how charm worked. There's a recent interview on YT with Geoffrey Zatkin, EQ's original spell designer, where he goes into detail how Brad, himself, and the other devs would frequently meet and discuss the minutia of EQ's mechanics for hours and hours. You don't get the sense that Zatkin would misconstrue how this essential spell worked.

[everquestfun]

Logged into HS and my level 57 enchanter got Rekd by entrance mobs. All charms and roots broke very quick. I continued to work the entrance mobs and root and charm broke very quickly.

[branamil]

This server isn't any closer to classic than other EMUs. Not sure why that's still the goal when they've deviated so far from it.

[Jimjam]

I’m amazed by all these people apparently with access to the trilogy, eqemu and p1999 source codes who are as such able to make definitive statements on how hidden classic mechanics worked and whether p1999 is moving closer or further from that.

[derpcake2]

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

I’m amazed by all these people apparently with access to the trilogy, eqemu and p1999 source codes who are as such able to make definitive statements on how hidden classic mechanics worked and whether p1999 is moving closer or further from that.

If you had kept track of the discussion, you'd know everyone involved admitted "we aren't certain how it worked".

Despite that, mechanics get changed based on "feels" based posts, and extensive whining.

As long as people complain long enough in a positive tone and throw in some smileys, they'll succeed at getting things nerfed despite lack of evidence.

Hope this helps clear your confusion.

[Jimjam]

What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?

[derpcake2]

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

What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?

What is the majority of p1999 based on?

Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is the majority of p1999 based on?

A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?

Firsthand experience ("Feelz") is very flawed evidence, but as Lionel Hutz pathetically expresses "Conjecture and hearsay are kinds of evidence". If there is not enough hard evidence to swing an argument either way, but one side can make a more convincing 'feelz' argument and a dev is willing to try out that suggestion then I think that is fair. If the suggestion ends up feeling further from classic then make the 'factless' argument and revert.

[derpcake2]

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

A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.

So do you think things should be changed based on many posts by a few?

We can disagree on that. I don't see what point you are trying to make if not that.