Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[loramin]

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

what level should I be able to charm mobs while XPing efficiently? at 12 I don't have enough mana to charm kill more than 2, but with an animation I can kill several mobs in a row.

I think it's less about specific levels, and more about when you can kill four mobs with the same animation, or two mobs with fresh animations, faster than you can charm two. And "faster" should take into account mana regen time.

If you keep your animation you're only getting 1/2 XP, which means you need to kill four mobs to get the same XP that you'd get from killing two another way. For instance, if you fight a mob down to low HP, then kill off your pet before you finish the mob off, you get full XP (but of course that takes longer), and the same is true in charm fighting because you break charm before either dies.

So your options (for equal XP) are:

• four with same animation
• two, killing the animation before each one's death
• two, killed via charm fighting

For any given level/hunting spot just kill six mobs each way, and time it, then do whichever is fastest. It will depend on lots of other factors (eg. high damage/low HP mobs are great for charming, while the reverse are probably better for your animation).

EDIT:

P.S. As for all the other nonsense in this thread ... OF COURSE Enchanters could charm in classic. No one (serious) has ever disputed that Charm existed in classic and that Enchanters had it.

(Shaman did too, but in one more piece of evidence for the crazy "Nibog <3s Enchanters" theory, which I absolutely don't believe in but keep finding more and more evidence for ... they had it removed from their very brief, 100% classic period of having it ... while Enchanters have been unclassicaly charming here for over ten years).

Back to the point, the question has always been about the fine details of the mechanics (or possibly missing mechanics). Those fine details are hard to pin down, and hard to argue about definitively (thus this insanely long thread) ... but to me all you have to do is "zoom out", and then it's apparent to everyone (except Enchanter defenders) that those mechanics can't possibly be accurate relative to live.

[cd288]

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

I think it's less about specific levels, and more about when you can kill four mobs with the same animation, or two mobs with fresh animations, faster than you can charm two. And "faster" should take into account mana regen time.

If you keep your animation you're only getting 1/2 XP, which means you need to kill four mobs to get the same XP that you'd get from killing two another way. For instance, if you fight a mob down to low HP, then kill off your pet before you finish the mob off, you get full XP (but of course that takes longer), and the same is true in charm fighting because you break charm before either dies.

So your options (for equal XP) are:

• four with same animation
• two, killing the animation before each one's death
• two, killed via charm fighting

For any given level/hunting spot just kill six mobs each way, and time it, then do whichever is fastest. It will depend on lots of other factors (eg. high damage/low HP mobs are great for charming, while the reverse are probably better for your animation).

EDIT:

P.S. As for all the other nonsense in this thread ... OF COURSE Enchanters could charm in classic. No one (serious) has ever disputed that Charm existed in classic and that Enchanters had it.

(Shaman did too, but in one more piece of evidence for the crazy "Nibog <3s Enchanters" theory, which I absolutely don't believe in but keep finding more and more evidence for ... they had it removed from their very brief, 100% classic period of having it ... while Enchanters have been unclassicaly charming here for over ten years).

Back to the point, the question has always been about the fine details of the mechanics (or possibly missing mechanics). Those fine details are hard to pin down, and hard to argue about definitively (thus this insanely long thread) ... but to me all you have to do is "zoom out", and then it's apparent to everyone (except Enchanter defenders) that those mechanics can't possibly be accurate relative to live.

It’s clearly not “apparent to everyone” since there’s like 4 people including you who are the only people constantly complaining on this thread. But a theme with your posts is offering your own opinion as fact that everyone agrees with, so I’m not surprised by this comment.

[bubur]

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

but to me all you have to do is "zoom out", and then it's apparent to everyone (except Enchanter defenders) that those mechanics can't possibly be accurate relative to live.

Ok hear me out. I'm actually going to use punctuation here, so you know this is serious business.

Actual live classic used a different client, so there were absolutely fine details that were different. 100% with you there. Pathing, pet commands, pet bugs, agro mechanics with things as simple as your char sitting down, so i get that. There may have also been server instability, home client instability, community pressure for enc to just "do their job and mez." Also remember that the classic most of us remember is only about 2 years of time around Y2K. By Velious there's a mounting evidence people were charming in raids, and by PoP they were using it to solo Bastion. Then sometime in GoD (starting Feb, 2004) they did the big enc nerf, so between 1999-2004, enough came to the attention to staff to want to nerf charm. What we seem to be disagreeing about is what the staff should do right now

The argument I and perhaps others have kept making is: the actual charm spell itself may have been the same (you have to admit its a possibility), but all kinds of factors play into the community using it as we do 10 years later on emulation. It's not that the community back then was stupid. It could have been all of the reasons I mentioned above. No one knows exactly when charm turned from "not widely used" in classic, to "nerf-worthy" in GoD within those 4 years.

and here's a little about that nerf from this random website:

The enchanter summoned pets, more correctly referred to as animations, and frequently nicknamed Shiny Bob are low in HP and attack rating relative to most other summoned pets, excluding shadowknight pets and druid bear pets. To counterbalance this, enchanters have the ability to charm mobs, although this ability has now been severely restricted following the nerf which severely limits the DPS of charm mobs in many of the newer zones, i.e. those after Gates of Discord expansion.

The nuance with this is that the enc charm was nerfed while they were given other tools, like better dps, runes, damage shields, etc. They traded in charm strength for other tools. If you apply the nerf on p99 as a blanket (which isn't even how they did it on live, which was new zones only), you really run the risk of destroying enchanter's ability to solo anything. If that's your goal, fine, we can discuss that too...

But let's be clear. What is being floated as a proposal here is asking the staff to implement a strictly custom solution to the charm "problem" which I summarize as enc's being more powerful at solo content and better dps than anyone else in the game, when geared and used effectively. So I'll level with you... let's talk solutions:

-do we reduce all dmg on charms? 50% dmg is better than 0% so in raids people will still do it and for soloing, people will reverse charm
-do we make it so charm can't hold agro? enc have root, dru and necro have snare
-do we increase the resist rate on charm? if so, what's the goal? do you want it to only last 30 seconds on average? or are we lookin at 2-3 min? or what is it? at that point you walk a fine line of just removing charm from the enc toolset as a viable option
-do you want to add diminishing returns on a target to charm? that may force them to cycle through mobs, but i dont think it will slow anyone down.. also its asking the staff to problem something new in an archaic code. maybe they can do it, but is it worth the work? what is the benefit to the community by doing this? can we measure it?

I'm afraid that what you'd really be doing is presenting a trivial challenge for the hardcore players that are already locking down dungeons and optimizing charm mob dps on raids to get creative and use the same tools in a slightly different way, while totally demolishing the power of charm for everyone else. That's a real concern with a nerf directly aimed at the "hardcore players" like this, and I don't want the emotions seen in this thread to obscure that potential. The grass is not always greener.

Also, think about an enc toolset. It's not just charm: you have your color shift, mes, tash, recharm... rinse repeat. If you can get a big enough, quick-enough regenning mana pool you can charm all day. What I don't agree with is that enc on teal/green are some godly force, the ungeared ones have plenty of problems holding a charm and surviving if they dare to haste it. The risk-reward is still there.

You call me an "enchanter defender" but I don't main one. I've played an enc, but I don't mind if they get a nerf. I'd even still play a mage right now, whenever I'm done with my op druid, so I am not just defending enchanters for no reason. I don't like the idea of nerfing something just because a handful of people made a thread and called everyone that disagreed with them retards and trolls. Just because it's now a long thread doesn't mean its any more of a good idea. It just means we keep bumping it.

But how do we realistically level the playing field? That is, to a) lessen the enc's ability to "trivialize content", while b) not removing charm as a viable tool altogether, and c) in a way that is feasible to ask of the staff. When you start getting into custom coding for diminishing returns, for example, you're going into writing new spell mechanics... something I haven't seen on really emulated everquest, probably for some coding challenge reason that I am not skilled enough to understand. Something about spaghetti ?

Let's look at the other "OP" thing in bard kiting: On blue, they changed it from entire zones to 25 mob max on blue. 25 mobs is still a lot. Staff clearly didn't want to stop bards from doing it entirely. They don't mind if you level your bard in a way that is far and away more efficient than anything else in the game. Staff interest was in preventing zone disruption, so a single bard can't completely consume Overthere and Burning Woods. On green/teal they reduced it to 4 because Rogean was presented with sufficient evidence (it only took 1 post btw).. and it will eventually be brought back to 25.

I don't yet see a clear solution (or a real equivalent justification) that can be applied to charm. I see any disruptive problems here. Who is losing out on content due to enc's? On teal I wish we had more dungeon farmers (necro and enc alike), because our economy is slow. Guy cant even get ahold of an embroidered black cape round here.

meh im trying to be reasonable, if not a little trolly on pages 40 or 80 or whatever... but being constantly disregarded as an enc defender, a retard, and someone who hates classic is tiring. there is a legit reason to resist unclassic (or at least customized) nerfs, even if there is a precedent, time, and place for them. I'm not convinced this is it

yeah its a lot of text. it wasn't worth it

[ArunaGreen]

Simply reducing the max level of mobs that you can charm is the best way to accomplish the nerf without destroying the spell. This would also require the least amount of work as all that would need to be changed is a single # I believe. If you don't think enchanters are a godly force then you're simply clueless. A single chanter doing the equivalent of an entire raid force in DPS is what exactly if not ridiculously OP/godly? No other class except a necro doing the same exact thing in Lguk is anywhere near the power level of an enchanter.

[cd288]

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

Simply reducing the max level of mobs that you can charm is the best way to accomplish the nerf without destroying the spell. This would also require the least amount of work as all that would need to be changed is a single # I believe. If you don't think enchanters are a godly force then you're simply clueless. A single chanter doing the equivalent of an entire raid force in DPS is what exactly if not ridiculously OP/godly? No other class except a necro doing the same exact thing in Lguk is anywhere near the power level of an enchanter.

Not classic. If you want non-classic nerfs based on arbitrary “balance” (read: I can’t monopolize the camps because Enchanters are doing them instead) concerns, maybe try a different server.

You sound like a Necro who is annoyed there are people better at soloing than you. #OkayNecro

[derpcake2]

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

yeah its a lot of text. it wasn't worth it

In case you didn't notice, Loramin is a very happy, positive, and friendly troll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This specific kind of troll hides its nature by pretending it lives under a rainbow, but its still just a troll.

[Wurl]

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

Ok hear me out

I read all of your post, thanks for the effort. I think there's a good discussion to be had about what exactly we should do to fix enchanters being un-classicly the highest DPS class.

[cd288]

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

I read all of your post, thanks for the effort. I think there's a good discussion to be had about what exactly we should do to fix enchanters being un-classicly the highest DPS class.

#OkNecro

[Frostback]

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

I read all of your post, thanks for the effort. I think there's a good discussion to be had about what exactly we should do to fix enchanters being un-classicly the highest DPS class.

I think that's the point you're missing, enchanters are classicly the highest DPS class.

proper manipulation of their spells will cause the enchanter to outperform any other class, it's just a matter of using the correct spell

https://web.archive.org/web/20000621...enc_ruri.shtml

[loramin]

C'mon people, enough with the straw men!!! Have an honest discussion!

For those that don't understand what a straw man is, allow me to explain this dishonest rhetorical tactic.

Person A says something reasonable, like say "Enchanters are obviously not the same here as on live". Person B has nothing logical/rational they can use to argue with person A's point ... so they create a "straw man", ie. the pretend person A was arguing for something they weren't, because they can argue with that.

These are straw men:

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

I saw tons of Enchanters charm soloing on many different servers during the course of my CSR duties. You’re simply wrong.

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

any guide that you can find from 1999-2001 supports the conclusion that enchanters were capable of charming the same on live as here on p1999.

And I already directly addressed these straw men earlier:

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

P.S. As for all the other nonsense in this thread ... OF COURSE Enchanters could charm in classic. No one (serious) has ever disputed that Charm existed in classic and that Enchanters had it.

So, when I say "live wasn't like this", and your response is "but live totally had Enchanters charming", it just shows you have nothing to say to the point I'm actually making, and you have to shadow box with your imagination of what I'm saying to have anything to argue over.