Pacify duration greatly reduced

[Grif]

Pacify's duration went from more than six minutes, to about two minutes. Didn't see any documentation in today's patch regarding if this was intended or not.

[p99portage]

Nah, not intended. they just fucked it up as per usual.

The original thread showing when it was changed is here : https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=328802

I wouldn't expect a fix any time soon if past fuckups are anything to go by.

[Solist]

It was never meant to be so long.

RIP time to bank the donals bracers again on all the clerics. Back to calm spam.

[p99portage]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by p99portage [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

I checked out the thread, lots of compelling arguments and references were made. Thanks for pointing it out!

[shalpin99]

Yeah .. so died multiple times due to this .. my ENC(60) is unplayable for me .. at least until I learn to adapt.

Seems this update was made in error?

I guess I'll play something else .. something without Pacify [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

Originally Posted by p99portage [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

So Nilbog has been building this place for a decade now. I think it's safe to say he's not biased towards any particular class ... or if he is, he's biased towards Enchanters [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He also has been compiling classic evidence for a decade, which means that he likely has access to more classic research than anyone (even including our classic researchers, like Dolalin or Rygar).

So which makes more sense? That Nilbog had access to evidence beyond what was mentioned in that thread, and he corrected the spell's duration accurately ... or that he "nuked" Enchanters based on "single point of unreliable data"?

[Jimjam]

I do wish he’d dump evidence in relevant thread before making changes. Yet again, it is not classic to see the man behind the curtain, so I understand maybe why not.

[Croco]

Just another in a string of countless examples where if players think something is bugged they have to submit 10 pieces of classic evidence, a blood sample, a 23 and me, and an affidavit from an OG everquest dev but if nilbog wants to change something he doesn't have to say shit to anyone or present any of the reasons why the change is happening. Rules for thee but not for me.

[Vivitron]

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

So Nilbog has been building this place for a decade now. I think it's safe to say he's not biased towards any particular class ... or if he is, he's biased towards Enchanters [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He also has been compiling classic evidence for a decade, which means that he likely has access to more classic research than anyone (even including our classic researchers, like Dolalin or Rygar).

So which makes more sense? That Nilbog had access to evidence beyond what was mentioned in that thread, and he corrected the spell's duration accurately ... or that he "nuked" Enchanters based on "single point of unreliable data"?

The most recent changelog now includes "Telin: Recorrected pacify to a classic era duration." And the thread has a 2019 Telin "Fixed, pending update." from when he fixed it from 42s to 7 min years ago.

So reading the tea leaves here I think Telin has been following that thread and updating Pacify's duration to match the balance of evidence there. IMO the post bivoac added after the recent patch thoroughly swings the balance of evidence back to 7 minutes, so maybe the latest change will be reverted.