Grouping is almost never worth it if you are good at this game, lol.

[Tann]

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

P.S. Fixing channeling would also make other classes want to group more. Nilbog could literally change a single variable in the code (the channeling resist rate) and make P99 feel far more classic overnight.

I hope I'm not out of line when I say that, based on a statement like this, that you probably have no idea how programming works.

Also, posting in another "nerf enchanters" thread! Perhaps someone can take the open source takp client and remove enchanters entirely cause they remember enc only buffing and crowd controlling. Instead we could have a slash command for a pink wisp to appear and give brain buffs and haste. I'd suggest "/crack" for simplicity. After buffing the player and mezzing an add, it'll shout "oh what a lovely tea party" and poof.

[loramin]

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

I hope I'm not out of line when I say that, based on a statement like this, that you probably have no idea how programming works.

Yeah, it's not like I'm a professional programmer (and former university programming instructor) or anything [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course it could be that simple:

Originally Posted by Pseudo C++ Code

- float channelRate = 0.9;
+ float channelRate = 0.85;

It's entirely possible (not to mention likely) that there is a constant variable in the P99 code, which is multiplied by a randomly-generated number between 0 and 1, and the result determines whether you succeed or fail at channeling. That's just how you give anything, in any game, an X% chance of success.

But also ... of course it might be more complex. I never claimed to have seen the P99 code (or even the stock EQ Emu code), nor was I submitting a pull request ... I was just making a casual claim in a forum comment.

[cd288]

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

Yeah, it's not like I'm a professional programmer (and former university programming instructor) or anything [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course it could be that simple:



It's entirely possible (not to mention likely) that there is a constant variable in the P99 code, which is multiplied by a randomly-generated number between 0 and 1, and the result determines whether you succeed or fail at channeling. That's just how you give anything, in any game, an X% chance of success.

But also ... of course it might be more complex. I never claimed to have seen the P99 code (or even the stock EQ Emu code), nor was I submitting a pull request ... I was just making a casual claim in a forum comment.

Loramin can you just go create a megathread for your Enchanter opinions? Feels like anytime Enchanter is mentioned in any way whatsoever in any thread you just start doing this. I feel like you could go make your own post about it and just contain your pontificating to there rather than bringing it up elsewhere.

[loramin]

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

Loramin can you just go create a megathread for your Enchanter opinions? Feels like anytime Enchanter is mentioned in any way whatsoever in any thread you just start doing this. I feel like you could go make your own post about it and just contain your pontificating to there rather than bringing it up elsewhere.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ciderpress]

As usual "classic" = loramin's personal memory lol

[loramin]

You're absolutely right Ciderpress, just my memories ... and, you know, all the evidence (submitted over three years ago) ... eg. forum posts from live EQ devs, who (after breaking channeling in a 2006 patch) explained key details of how the mechanic worked.

[Ciderpress]

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

You're absolutely right Ciderpress, just my memories ... and, you know, all the evidence (submitted over three years ago) ... eg. forum posts from live EQ devs, who (after breaking channeling in a 2006 patch) explained key details of how the mechanic worked.

So, presumably nilbog, after making many many changes based on evidence, arbitrarily decided not to make this one.... why?

Cause he personally plays an enchanter on his own server and likes it being easier?

Couldn't it be more likely that during actual classic, people didn't fully understand what their chosen class was capable of, and now 20 years later they do?

I'm not claiming all the values are perfect and correct, but you seem to have some degree of paranoia that the main devs here are working against you, rather than just not being satisfied with the provided evidence?

I also don't really see channeling almost always working as being hugely game breaking. Encs die all the time on p99, especially when trying to do risky and bold things. They might not die as much as you'd like, I suppose?

[loramin]

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

I'm not claiming all the values are perfect and correct, but you seem to have some degree of paranoia that the main devs here are working against you, rather than just not being satisfied with the provided evidence?

I also don't really see channeling almost always working as being hugely game breaking. Encs die all the time on p99, especially when trying to do risky and bold things. They might not die as much as you'd like, I suppose?

Look, I've played a Shaman to 60 here and on live: the experience is amazingly, incredibly, close. I had access to a 60 Druid on live too, and he played just like my P99 Druid. The same is true for every other class I've played, or played with ... save one.

Both here and on live Shaman were solo/grouping class. Necros and Druids were primarily solo classes, while Warriors and Clerics were mainly grouping classes. Every class has the same fundamental role both here and on live ... except for Enchanters.

Me pointing out that on live, Enchanters were a primarily grouping class that could solo, and here they are almost exclusively a solo class, is not paranoia. Neither is me linking evidence (that people smarter and harder working than me have uncovered) which explains at least part of why they are unclassic here.

[Zuranthium]

It may not be worth it for faster leveling or loot gain sometimes, but grouping is the essence of the game. It's what creates the memories that matter most. Frieren: Beyond Journey's End has been an inspiring pro-grouping piece of media that everyone should watch.

Although, LOL, I wish there was some kind of way for a game to accurately rate how good of a group member someone is, and have that score by viewable by everyone else. Then people could sort themselves into more appropriate groups.

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

So, presumably nilbog, after making many many changes based on evidence, arbitrarily decided not to make this one.... why? I'm not claiming all the values are perfect and correct, but

I don't get why you're talking. Charm, Lull, and Channeling are all proven to be coded very incorrectly on p99 compared to Classic EQ. Why it hasn't been fixed yet is irrelevant. It's wrong.

[loramin]

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

Weebs pick Ryu.

LOL I was a Blanka player myself (which I'm sure was a terrible choice). I picked Ryu's dragon punch as a common frame of reference.

And just like a Street Fighter II emulator where no one dragon punches, a classic EverQuest emulator where grouping is unpopular can't be an accurate emulator:

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

grouping is the essence of the game

Now look, some stuff is environmental and outside Nilbog's control. We're all older now for instance, and adults (wanting shorter sessions) are more likely to solo. We all have internet connections that last, so we can solo without fear of dying from link death. And so on.

But there are also environmental factors that are in Nilbog's control, both classic code fixes and "unclassic" things like the 25 mob AoE limit (which made this place feel so much more classic). As cider noted, he has done an amazing job with this emulator. In almost all respects, despite whatever has changed in past 25 years, it still feels almost exactly like EQ did in '99-'01.

Zura, myself, and others, are just pointing out some key things that still aren't classic ... because Nilbog has converted us all into classic-ists! I swear, I didn't give a fig about classic when I came here years ago, but Nilbog sold me on it.

Now that he has, we're just trying to "sell" his own vision back to him, and advocate for making P99 even more classic. Imagine how great it would be if you could have Green, but just with a few tweaks that made it fun to group again!