Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[sentinel]

Well yeah, Chanter is the #1 most played class on Green/Teal. Of course there will be a strong resistance to any negative change to charm.

I just find it interesting how certain some folks are that the current mechanics are classic. None of us know, it is a best guess done by the p99 admins. That's all it is.

[bubur]

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

Well yeah, Chanter is the #1 most played class on Green/Teal. Of course there will be a strong resistance to any negative change to charm.

I just find it interesting how certain some folks are that the current mechanics are classic. None of us know, it is a best guess done by the p99 admins. That's all it is.

p sure its actually druids but whatever. who cares about facts?

the problem im having with this "debate" is people are not reading any nuance in these anecdotes or arguments. what I am actually starting to believe is that charm worked *almost* the same, but there were small changes that made a huge difference in people's willingness to charm

for example: if invis doesnt break charm on classic - what do you do to reliably break charm? this doesn't make the strat infeasible, but it's a lot less in the player's control, therefore less people would do it to solo like they do on p99

or: did charm pets eat group xp? or was there a *belief* that charm pets ate group xp - then no one would want you to do it, even if it was actually very efficient. the community would have pressured enc's, who already didn't want to take the risk, to not do it

or: did going linkdead cause your charm pet to go haywire on you and your entire group? people may have been averse to this for a variety of reasons

for these types of nuance, you can do what you can to recreate classic, but what if being invis while having a charm mob allows someone to exploit and single pull out of a camp, like sneak pulling did before the staff nerfed it? people want 100% classic, but people also don't seem to understand that classic was broken as all fuck in so many weird and everquesty ways

you're asking the staff to do the impossible, or maybe the improbable (because the devs are pretty dang good), but they wont prioritize this over existing issues without EVIDENCE. there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

why am i still typing. this will be buried and people will read five words of my wall of text and say "hurr durr enc bad" or "hurr durr enc good"

end this madness

[kul69]

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

there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

Why is Necro lifetap nerfed then? Why can't pets be given daggers to reduce attack delay? Oh that's right, because it would cause an excessive amount of necro/pet classes to lock down all the content. Same as is happening with Enchanter now.

The whole "needs evidence" argument is pretty damn tired when there are already a dozen non-classic changes implemented specifically to address the same kind of issues we're seeing with Enchanter.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

p sure its actually druids but whatever. who cares about facts?

the problem im having with this "debate" is people are not reading any nuance in these anecdotes or arguments. what I am actually starting to believe is that charm worked *almost* the same, but there were small changes that made a huge difference in people's willingness to charm

for example: if invis doesnt break charm on classic - what do you do to reliably break charm? this doesn't make the strat infeasible, but it's a lot less in the player's control, therefore less people would do it to solo like they do on p99

or: did charm pets eat group xp? or was there a *belief* that charm pets ate group xp - then no one would want you to do it, even if it was actually very efficient. the community would have pressured enc's, who already didn't want to take the risk, to not do it

or: did going linkdead cause your charm pet to go haywire on you and your entire group? people may have been averse to this for a variety of reasons

for these types of nuance, you can do what you can to recreate classic, but what if being invis while having a charm mob allows someone to exploit and single pull out of a camp, like sneak pulling did before the staff nerfed it? people want 100% classic, but people also don't seem to understand that classic was broken as all fuck in so many weird and everquesty ways

you're asking the staff to do the impossible, or maybe the improbable (because the devs are pretty dang good), but they wont prioritize this over existing issues without EVIDENCE. there DOES need to be evidence, because this is not just a simple "Ok, we'll just tune down dmg on charm pets, or make it easier to resist." that kind of unclassic arbitrary change is opening the door to a lot more negative than youd be solving. help out and find some real evidence or go kick rocks

why am i still typing. this will be buried and people will read five words of my wall of text and say "hurr durr enc bad" or "hurr durr enc good"

end this madness

I read it all. These are the sorts of reasons I've been giving for why enchanters are more popular on here and why charm is more widely used than it was on live.

I mean, even on blue back in the early days, chanters were a low pop class (6% or so on the like 2013 surveys I saw I think). What changed? Did charm get buffed on blue? Not that I recall. Chanters even went through a number of nerfs since classic on blue. What changed was the SAC got a lot of attention, and people started streaming enchanters, and the wiki got more updates, etc.

During Tecmos's and Noman's heydays when I was making videos and streaming and playing on blue a ton, I got multiple tells almost every time I was on from chanters saying stuff like "Oh man, I never knew how cool enchanters were until I saw your videos!" or "I'm still not great, you make charming look so easy, but I am figuring it out and it is fun!" or "I made a chanter because of you" or picking my brain about a hundred different chanter things. And PMs on the forums. And threads on here. Etc etc.


99.99% OF PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE CHARM CORRECTLY!!!

[derpcake2]

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

99.99% OF PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE CHARM CORRECTLY!!!

This a very rude way of saying "git gud, newbs".

Well done.

[Thrawndor]

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

This a very rude way of saying "git gud, newbs".

Well done.

Doesn't make it any less true. Going on 20 years of watching retards do low-brainpower retard moves in game.

[bubur]

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

[Mushman]

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

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

Noone knows or will ever know the exact classic formula. If you possibly have non classic data already in use it's absurd to suggest you can't replace it with anything but proven classic values that can never be acquired.

As for your opinion, many disagree. The enchanter offers unmatched CC for camp breaking, and busted strong charm that does top end DPS so it's power and clear potential outweighs that of multiple people and naturally locks down content short handed because of charm.

On my SHM as an example if I join an enchanter for level appropriate content duo we are killing so fast that there is no benefit to inviting anyone else to the "group". Already killing all named in the vicinity and duo XP. This charmquesting is unhealthy and unclassic. It's pretty obvious that charm replaces players.

[bubur]

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

Noone knows or will ever know the exact classic formula. If you possibly have non classic data already in use it's absurd to suggest you can't replace it with anything but proven classic values that can never be acquired.

what "formula"? are we talking about magic resist code? we can know it, or approximate it as best we can over a decade of trial and error, which we are

are we suggesting charm had a different MR code? we can know that too. we just need to do more digging

if this is about enc charm pet dmg, we can be pretty certain of that too, as far as it appears in logs, some of which survived

the invis breaking charm is something we can and should investigate further. i'm in full support of this or other classic nerfs as long as it doesnt present other technical issues and exploits AND its actually classic

i guess im not just not ready to throw my hands up and say "ok i give up, just nerf it with custom values" and i dont think we should be sending that message to the devs about any feature. its very, very classic that a shaman and enc can duo content made for groups. they're both strong classes that have unique weaknesses but complement each other well. and we definitely shouldnt be getting emotional and hyperbolic about this. its a game yes, but its also a museum project for the staff, which have signed some sort of contract to keep it that way. for all we know they can't go and rebalance things and make "custom" content because they made a commitment in writing to DBG to only restore classic... but that's just me talking, i dont know the extent of that contract.

[kul69]

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

enc charm is not causing content to be locked down excessively imo. which camps are you actually talking about?

i am not familiar with the lifetap change. the daggers are probably a titanium client thing

the 'needs evidence' argument will never be tired as you claim it is. too much hyperbole in your claims for this to be taken seriously. for instance, the "dozens" of changes you mention: a lot of them are probably client issues due to the emu base we're using

Necro lifetaps should be unresistable by everything. Daggers should reduce pet delay. Has nothing to do with the client.

It was nerfed intentionally because it is overpowered. Same as Bard AE, Chardok AE, etc. It's disruptive and allows a class too much power.