Enchanter is #1 solo class? What is this madness

[Snaggles]

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

We've had huge revisions to how mage pets work on p99, and we know the ac/atk for NPCs (and so too pets?) is kina borked in a way that attempts to emulate classic feels, but isn't strictly classic, so who knows how classic combat between enc animation pets and xp mobs really is.

If you slow something from 50-70% and haste a summoned pet, while buffing with Boon and spotting with bedlam, it’s gonna kill most things one would grind for exp. Enchanters can even dot and nuke.

Played like a mage, it’s not even that bad of a class.

[loramin]

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

They can easily solo 1-60 with just the animation if they wanted. Not as fast and more work but a lot safer.

The classic answer (well, almost classic: 2003) was:

Originally Posted by https://web.archive.org/web/20030829110003/http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/classes.html?class=13

Enchanters can solo. Depending on level, zone, and mobs you're fighting, you can solo with your animation or with a charmed pet. Charmed pets are 5 times more powerful than your ani will ever be, but of course with charms you run the constant risk of the mob breaking charm. Ani soloing can work in certain, very rare circumstances. Your ani just doesn't have enough HP to last most battles. And, if you try to help him out with nukes, mezzes, roots, or whatever else, the mana it takes to kill a mob is completely not worth it.

Of course, that's just one player's report, but I thought it was nice that "GLASS Scholar" answered from across the decades [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EDIT: From that same page, the perspective that Enchanters were a grouping class:

Do you want to be more effective in a group (enchanter) or more effective solo (Beastlord)? Also depends on what your goals are in the game. If you would like to be a necessary and desired class in the high end game, go with an enchanter.

[Goregasmic]

That sounds about right for p99 too. Animation is also trash here but you can make it work if you have to, it is just a bit more work but doable when it comes to xp grind. I'd also like to point out once again that on live the player skill floor was basically below the mariana trench so one guy saying shit is hard is indicative of nothing.

That's beyond the scope of the classic discussion but on p99 the main reason to get an ench in your group/raid is charm. You don't really need ench level CC or even slow really so you'd just become a c2/haste bot and the occasional raid sieve.

If all that stuff goes through before new server hits, expect a LOT MORE shamans/necros. I know I'd be going necro as soon as kunark hits.

[loramin]

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

If all that stuff goes through before new server hits, expect a LOT MORE shamans/necros. I know I'd be going necro as soon as kunark hits.

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

[Snaggles]

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

You're really going to argue charmers (including but not limited to Enchanters) don't have to channel to solo?

Nope, I’m just just tired of the crying about the broken CHA duration and charm durations. If we have receipts, let’s wait for the fix.

That leads me to overreach with my generalizations. I’ve said many times before, I don’t play an enchanter, I respect people who do it’s just not my thing.

This “one wild trick” isn’t the reason everyone charms on p99. Outside dumb luck, there is a huge spread of skill with people who play these classes. The good ones will die, the bad ones will die far more often. Tweak charisma, let duration, channeling, humanity will adapt…it always does.

Digging up 20 year old forum posts about people acknowledging enchanters grouped isn’t necessary. We all remember finding them for our groups. People generally filled out a balanced group. PUG’s were a thing, they aren’t here. I’m sure they soloed as well, charming or without it.

[loramin]

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

If we have receipts, let’s wait for the fix.

I already linked the receipts. You can wait, but Nilbog has been sitting on them for four years: I wouldn't hold my breath.

To be clear though: this is Nilbog's server. If he wants to make it 95% classic, but keep his pet class a bit more powerful ... great! That is one of the smallest forms of repayment he could possibly ask given how much he's done for everyone here.

It just drives me crazy when people say stupid stuff about Enchanters being the gods of classic EverQuest. They were far from it, yet people talk about how Verant should have given half their spells to Wizards [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If that had been anywhere close to reality, the classic EQ population would have demanded that Verant nerf Enchanters. After all, demanding that other classes be nerfed was very classic.

But, it wasn't the reality. Enchanter power comes from imperfections in our emulator ... not a flaw in the original game.

[Goregasmic]

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

It just drives me crazy when people say stupid stuff about Enchanters being the gods of classic EverQuest. They were far from it, yet people talk about how Verant should have given half their spells to Wizards [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If that had been anywhere close to reality, the classic EQ population would have demanded that Verant nerf Enchanters. After all, demanding that other classes be nerfed was very classic.

But, it wasn't the reality. Enchanter power comes from imperfections in our emulator ... not a flaw in the original game.

It is true that p99 is skewed toward them but I feel like this is the worst argument. People had like 10+ years to git gud with enchanters on here with 15 years of prior knowledge while on live they had 3 years from scratch. And even then theres some chanter that posted a guide during classic and explained how it worked and said he was very effective with it.

I'd be extremely curious to know how many chanters knew to stack charisma, how to do the charm routine and how to deal effectively with a charm break. I would guess very little as the skill ceiling can be quite high in a game where most people weren't very good, mostly due to lack of knowledge.

I'd even argue than getting proefficient with charm takes quite a while and even then it can be mentally taxing to deal with both heavy CC and a pet at the same time so no wonder people with low experience and shit gear didn't bother back then. That and when zones were so crowded you only got a dozen mobs in camp every 20-28mins, there's no point in keeping a pet around. The increased DPS wasn't worth the liability.

[loramin]

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

I'd be extremely curious to know how many chanters knew to stack charisma, how to do the charm routine and how to deal effectively with a charm break. I would guess very little as the skill ceiling can be quite high in a game where most people weren't very good, mostly due to lack of knowledge.

They absolutely knew! This whole "live people were dumb" thing only applies to obscure knowledge; in everything else Live players were not dumb.

Charisma was even mentioned in an old post I was looking at today (although I closed the tab so I can't quote it). They were talking about how there was a soft cap at 200 Charisma, and it didn't appear to help much beyond that, but (apparently) Charisma up to 200 made a big difference for charm resists on live.

I could go find the post, but what would be even better is if you and other curious folks looked for yourself using Dolalin's incredible classic research search engine: https://search.eqarchives.org/

That way it won't be just me shouting into the wind, and the classic posts can speak for themselves.

[commongood]

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

...

Our emulator clearly doesn't emulate the original, and it's clear the person in charge of the server wants things to remain that way. It's his server, so it will. Nevertheless, I remain appreciative for the 95% of the server that is classic, and I can't really fault Nilbog for keeping his pet class unclassicly powerful: I certainly don't have the talent or energy to build a 95% classic server and run it for over a decade, so I can't really complain .

You have mentioned several times throughout this thread that enchanter is Nilbog's "pet class". Is that something Niblog has declared or how do you know?

[loramin]

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

You have mentioned several times throughout this thread that enchanter is Nilbog's "pet class". Is that something Niblog has declared or how do you know?

It's inferred from the fact that Nilbog is fanatical about making everything else classic here, but when it comes to charming being way easier than it was on live ...

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

In other words I don't know, but I'd bet you $20 that if we could get Nilbog to say what class he played on live, it would be Enchanter.