Charm mechanic changes next patch?

[Jimjam]

Thanks for anticipating and appreciating my good humour!

I’m not really sure what your point to me was - i mist compliment you on this: you’re opaque and manipulative (though funny!) - a perfect enchanter - but that makes it difficult for me to understand what you’re trying to communicate with your posts. Maybe you aren’t trying to communicate, more achieve something? Either way, I’m not very good at political games.

I feel like we’ve been lead on a bit of a wild goose chase. So i’ll just back track. There is no reason to treat much on p1999 as sacrosanct: the server it is largely ‘fake’ (as in it isn’t the original product). That said, I’d rather have fake that feels classic.

Remember when AC got overhauled from one unclassic implementation to another? It’s still verifiably unclassic, but at least it feels closer to classic. I can’t remember if it was a nerf or not, but I hope this charm change goes the same way - if all the ‘charm is broken’ threads stop like the ‘ac is broken’ threads stopped that would be a boon.

[Chortles Snortles]

whoa guys chill and read my wiki
(LOL)

[starkind]

Enchanters are all about removing consent.

Rip ur brains.

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

[Stonewallx39]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

[starkind]

Originally Posted by Stonewallx39 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

the real irony is both increased MR resists and charisma check only applying on first cast or check are probably true and u can play 3 characters on takp if this game is too hard for u

also considering channeling - it's being looked into seriously by dedicated curators

P99 is really great.

It is really great at what p99 does.

The spirit and soul of classic matters too, and the feel does aswell. I'm glad Nilbog sticks to his guns and demands serious evidence. It means changes like this are more likely to stick. Still, I wish I could run my classic feeling custom box. It wouldn't be p99 though.

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by Stonewallx39 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

The sample size is also extremely limited when it comes to mob level ranges.

There is no way to extrapolate this data, it simply is lacking.

The only possible outcome is making changes based on what it "feels" like, which p1999 never used to be about.

@loramin perhaps you and your buddies can elaborate on how the available data can be extrapolated into a model that covers caster level ranges 20-60, vs mob level ranges 20-60.

Given the high quality of the source material (which you claim anyway), this shouldn't be a problem?

Looking forward to that! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

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

As I pointed out a few posts ago, the information which is described as "excellent work", contains a statement from the poster acknowledging that said information is at best "lacking" due to a small sample size.

You conveniently ignored this, of course.

I understand disinformation and acting stupid are parts of your forum persona, so if I need to requote that a few times more lmk.

I ignored nothing (and also refrained from personal insults, something you don't seem to have the basic decency for).

I responded by pointing out that classic evidence doesn't come in nice/neat/tidy packages where someone from 1999 spells out exactly how everything worked with no controversy: virtually ALL classic evidence is some crappy two-sentence hint in the comments section of Allakhazam from 2002.

Unfortunately, that's just the reality of trying to piece together a 20+ year old game with zero original source code, from a time before the Internet was fully archived! But A) if that's all you have, you have to make the best of it, and B) Nilbog has lots more evidence that we can't see, so presumably that post wasn't the entire basis for the decision: it was just one more "break the camel's back" straw.

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

@loramin perhaps you and your buddies can elaborate on how the available data can be extrapolated into a model that covers caster level ranges 20-60, vs mob level ranges 20-60.

Maybe instead of coming at this with the mentality of child who's had their toy taken away, you could have a little respect for the project you have so much passion over?

[derpcake2]

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

Maybe instead of coming at this with the mentality of child who's had their toy taken away, you could have a little respect for the project you have so much passion over?

I asked you a very simple question.

Is this strawman the best you can do, or did your reading abilities fail you?

Let me know if you need me to take this a few steps back. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

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

I asked you a very simple question.

Is this strawman the best you can do, or did your reading abilities fail you?

Let me know if you need me to take this a few steps back. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you're attacking me personally, not my argument, but you have the gaul to (misuse) logical fallacies like The Strawman Argument? You must have been a star debater at your high school.

Meanwhile, you ignored my three paragraph response to your question.

[Tunabros]

person who doesn;t play p99 comes in to talk about charming

lol!