Forums » The Enchanter

Current state of charm

    • 363 posts
    March 30, 2019 2:25 PM PDT

    Ever since the premier of the pure-caster spell list, there were a few notable areas within the Enchanter listing that stood out to me. Many of the spells seemed fine, although a bit plagiarized from the Everquest 1 Enchanter spell list (16 out of 28 of the listed abilities are a copy paste of mechanics). Of those spells, only one type in particular had me scratching my head, and that was how charm worked mechanically. Now, I do know this is far too early and we could expect some changes. With that said, one change that I felt would have to come is the issue of a permanent charm and the underlying mechanic of charm in particular.

    Before I continue, it's important for those who do not know, I played an Enchanter in EQ1 almost exclusively for seven years. This topic is going by my experience with the class and how it bore out in not just Everquest 1 but also Everquest 2 (Coercer and Illusionist) and Vanguard (Psionicist). 

    Going by what's been revealed in the current iteration, having a spell as well as a passive that gives a chance at your regular charm to permanently charm that target means you will have Enchanters charming and recharming in one place until it’s permanent. They can create limitations but this can be offset with memory blur, zoning or exchanging targets. The design pushes many within that class to this type of play style. When the charm is permanent, they are now effectively more powerful of a pet class than Summoner. This applies to Dire Charm with the component and with Mental Terraformer stacking with Dire Charm for an increased chance. Even if at a chance, the class shouldn't have such a gimmicky mechanic that through RNG allows them to be one of, if not the most powerful DPS class in the game, not to mention at little to no risk. Then on top of that is the way charm functions and how you effectively use an NPC as a pet. Already a powerful creature and managed somewhat easily under the right hands can be even stronger if you're allowed to give it two weapons and buff it, in this case, with melee haste. For a class that's already more powerful than the EQ1 counterpart, I feel this is one area that needs to be addressed.

     

    Another issue that came up was with the Summoner. Summoners were given two spells that require the Enchanter or possibly the Bard to be in the group for it to work. Considering the apparent availability of the Control archetype said to be in Pantheon, this shouldn't be an issue. However, the mechanics alone make the spells somewhat pointless and even dangerous. The two spells in question are Summon Creature and Summon Behemoth. When that NPC is summoned, it will turn on the Summoner and/or nearby players. This can spell certain doom for people and even be used to grief players in PvE. The other issue is, why would an Enchanter use a summoned creature when a perfectly good NPC could be used during the CC process or pulled from the fray? By that measure, not only are two spells devoted to another archetype, but they may not be used much, if at all in the current iterations.

    The below changes are a first phase and can be altered but give a somewhat balanced approach without having an RNG system. Values are merely arbitrary and can be adjusted for balancing requirements.

     

    Enchanter

     

    Charm(Original)

    Charm: (Change)

    Standard Charm line. When your target is charmed, its power is reduced by 40-50%. This includes Health, Mana, AC, and Attributes. It has access to all abilities within reasonable restrictions but they too operate at a reduced potency. Target attacks you upon break. Charmed mobs cannot be given weapons or buffed. Duration is random with standard no delay recast.

     

    [Epic] Dire Charm: (Change spell into one of two options below)

    [Epic] Astral Projection(Change Option 1)

    You pull an ethereal projection from your target. This projection is permanently under your control but operates as a shadow of its sourced entity. Power structure is around 20-25% the power of your target (quite a bit less than that of Summoner Pets). It has access to all abilities within reasonable restrictions but they too operate at a reduced potency. While you have the projection under your control, you may not use any Charm spells to include Shock & Awe. Astral Projection cannot be given weapons but can be buffed.

    [Epic] Astral Projection: (Change Option 2)

    Your astral being separates from your corporeal body allowing you to move around the battlefield in three dimensions to include vertically (similar to moving around through water in-game but without movement restrictions) giving you a strategic advantage of the field of combat around you. While in this state your body remains, canceling any auto-follow commands. At this point, any spells cast will be from your astral projection. Aggro will be attributed to your corporeal body and any damage to your body will not interrupt the casting of your astral presence. Once the spell ends or you end it, you're warped back into your body. Range limitations can be set for balance.

     

    [Epic] Mental Terraformer: (Original)

    [Epic] Premonition: (Change)

    You’re alerted 6 seconds before a charm is to break. During this time, your charm spell has its cast time halved for 12 seconds.

     

    Shock & Awe: (Original)

    Shock & Awe:  (Change)

    Have said spell operate on same power curve as Charm with a 40-50% reduction and a static duration of 30 seconds. Shock & Awe may not be used when Charm or Astral Projection (pet version) are in use. Target does not attack you upon break as is the case with Charm. Confused target cannot be given weapons or buffed. Recast set to 90 seconds.



    Ghaven’s Wild Display: (Original) [This fits outside of Charm but I felt it was important to add]

    Ghaven's Wild Display: (Change)

    Link the cooldown with previous versions. This is to prevent chained stun webs and the creation of Point-Blank Area Effect (PBAE) groups made popular in EQ of which were considered unbelievably overpowered.

     

    Summoner

     

    Summon Creature: (Original)

    Beckoning Gate: (Change)

    Summons a random regular creature or NPC from the zone. The creature remains out of phase for 18 seconds until taken control of by an Enchanter or Bard. Once charmed, it has a static duration of 60 seconds. After 60 seconds, the gate closes and the creature is pulled back through. Power and scale of said mob summoned is unaltered. Recast set to 5 minutes. Mob in question cannot be given weapons or hasted. If during the 18 second summoned phase it is not charmed, it's then promptly pulled back through the gate. At either point when the gate closes, the recast timer then counts down on the spell.

     

    [Epic] Summon Behemoth: (Original - Remove or Change)

    Change: Remove this ability and/or give Summoners an Epic ability that either affects their pets, themselves or the group. They shouldn't have two spells, one being [Epic] that requires one class of two possible types to be in the group. This has been a point of contention with a lot of them.

     

    With this new Summoner and Enchanter synergy, they can effectively team up to unleash a devastating amount of damage equal to what charm would be normally but with a hefty delay. The creature summoned would be a better option for the Enchanter over using a random mob due to the power capability being unchanged and having a static duration without risk of reprisal.


    This post was edited by Janus at April 22, 2019 12:40 PM PDT
    • 1632 posts
    March 30, 2019 2:31 PM PDT

    From what I see, both issues can be easily solved.

    For permanent charms, simply not notifying the caster if its permanent or not easily solves that.

    For griefing with the summons, if the mob only agroes the summoner and immediately disappears as soon as the summoner is dead/zones/whatever, then it can't be used to grief.

     

    As far as a permanent charm being more powerful than a summoner, that may or may not be true.  On occasion they have talked about mobs not being full power when charmed.  Whether or not that comes to fruition or not we don't know.  But I do agree, a permanently charmed pet that is at full power for the original monster is very powerful.

    • 363 posts
    March 30, 2019 2:35 PM PDT

    "For permanent charms, simply not notifying the caster if its permanent or not easily solves that."

    Then you run into the problem of the mechanic being gimmicky and basically relying on an RNG for a class to either be slightly overpowered or massively overpowered eclipsing that of a Summoner.

     

    "For griefing with the summons, if the mob only agroes the summoner and immediately disappears as soon as the summoner is dead/zones/whatever, then it can't be used to grief."

    The issue here is even with that, the concept makes little to no sense as why would a Summoner risk it, especially if an Enchanter can pull a mob from around them? As it stands, it's a mechanic that Summoners seem to hate and having two spells with one being an Epic spell makes little sense for them. This helps alleviate that.

     

    "On occasion they have talked about mobs not being full power when charmed.  Whether or not that comes to fruition or not we don't know.  But I do agree, a permanently charmed pet that is at full power for the original monster is very powerful."

    That's where my power phasing comes into play where the overall capability is reduced when under said effects. I do hope they go that route, but it also plays into if they can be given weapons and or buffed. If done incorrectly, it can get horribly out of hand.


    This post was edited by Janus at March 30, 2019 2:37 PM PDT
    • 1632 posts
    March 30, 2019 2:51 PM PDT

    You and I see it being a gimmick totally different.  I see it as a bonus.  You charm a monster, you use the monster as a pet, and if it never breaks charm that's great!

    As for the summon spells point, assuming the class is well balanced without those spells, what's the problem with them being there?  I'm sure every class will likely have spells that they generally don't use (I know enchanter in EQ1 had a plethora of spells that were generally useless).

    As for charmed monsters, I would like to see NPCs that are smart enough to recognize that the group is using a charmed pet and if they have the ability to, dispel the pet.

    • 363 posts
    March 30, 2019 2:57 PM PDT

    "You charm a monster, you use the monster as a pet, and if it never breaks charm that's great!"

    Do you not see how powerful that is though? This ends up taking you from slightly overpowered to massively overpowered based on a random element that you can toy with, even if there's no notification.

     

    "As for the summon spells point, assuming the class is well balanced without those spells, what's the problem with them being there?  I'm sure every class will likely have spells that they generally don't use (I know enchanter in EQ1 had a plethora of spells that were generally useless)."

    It was the issue of how they are designed currently. They serve very little purpose and for many who have issue with it, they have said it makes them feel reliant on an Enchanter. This is especially the case when for them, having an Epic ability go this route was worse. My intent was to bring it to where they aren't wasting an epic ability and to where it would actually have a use. Current iteration currently has little to no use as mentioned.

     

    "As for charmed monsters, I would like to see NPCs that are smart enough to recognize that the group is using a charmed pet and if they have the ability to, dispel the pet."

    That's an option as well and I like it, although outside of the mechanics of each spell listed. Let's hope though something like that and other ideas come into play as well, especially with the beefed up AI.


    This post was edited by Janus at March 30, 2019 2:58 PM PDT
    • 685 posts
    April 12, 2019 7:36 PM PDT

    @Janus, I think you should know that charmed NPCs will be less powerful than their uncharmed version.  The devs have said that charm won't be the super powerful ability it was in EQ1.  I'm expecting charmed NPCs to be similar in power to the summoner's pets (this is just an assumption).


    This post was edited by Darch at April 12, 2019 7:36 PM PDT
    • 363 posts
    April 13, 2019 2:03 AM PDT

    "@Janus, I think you should know that charmed NPCs will be less powerful than their uncharmed version.  The devs have said that charm won't be the super powerful ability it was in EQ1.  I'm expecting charmed NPCs to be similar in power to the summoner's pets (this is just an assumption)."

    I hope you're right and I'm not doubting you but do you have a quote or know roughly where this may have been talked about? The other issue on top of that is that even with the power curve, we still have the problem with the Dire Charm mechanic as well as the Summoner function. The other question I would have is can we buff them and hand them weapons? If so, that increases their power or capability by a much higher rate, even exceeding that of an un-charmed mob depending on the mechanic.


    This post was edited by Janus at April 13, 2019 2:06 AM PDT
    • 685 posts
    April 13, 2019 7:30 PM PDT

    I'm not one to find quotes - I think you would have just as much luck as me, but I'm pretty sure it was said in one of the streams.  I will also say that Dire Charm is an "epic ability" which will require quests similar to epic weapons in EQ1; but even then, the only difference is that there is less chance to resists the charm and a "chance" to permanently charm (which is more cool than overly powerful if its just basically a summoner pet).  You would be able to buff up a summoner pet (and presumably a necro pet) just as much as you could an Enchanter pet so I wouldn't be concerned about that either.  I wish I remembered which stream the devs addressed this in, but I can only say that it has been addressed.  Charm won't be the powerhouse it was in EQ1.

    • 363 posts
    April 15, 2019 5:34 PM PDT

    "I will also say that Dire Charm is an "epic ability" which will require quests similar to epic weapons in EQ1"

    I'm not comfortable with the idea of having something that's so overpowered based on both an RNG and through an 'Epic quest'. The point is, everyone will have it and it will be cheesed until it's commonplace where you get people using duration sequencing to get a permanent pet, then they'll remain there either soloing the dungeon or acting as one of the best DPS classes in the game if not the best and getting picked up in-zone by other groups before any DPS. Aside from that, the idea of an RNG for that skill just feels so terribly designed. There were a few spells that felt like the person or people thinking it/them up either didn't know much about the class mechanics or just half-assed them. I may be a rare type but charm itself was fine but required some alterations in itself, but a permanent charm based on an RNG effectively makes the class unwieldy and forces that player into a very toxic playstyle that affects not just his play time but other DPS classes in the game, especially, the Summoner.

    "(which is more cool than overly powerful if it's just basically a summoner pet)"

    We aren't Summoners, nor are we DPS. We shouldn't be getting that close to a Summoner both in mechanics/design and capability with even the possibility of surpassing them in their role. It was a spit in the face with having two of their abilities requiring an Enchanter and possibly Bard, that would be like throwing salt into the wound.

    "You would be able to buff up a summoner pet (and presumably a necro pet) just as much as you could an Enchanter pet so I wouldn't be concerned about that either"

    Going by a standard such as in Everquest, since Pantheon seems to have a very similar power disparity between mobs and players. Summoner pets would in essence be about 35-40% of the power of a mob with that disparity growing to about 25-5% of that mob at higher levels. Even if you charmed a mob that had 50% of its power reduced, it's still going to be stronger than the Summoner pet. The concept of not having them equip weapons and or, be buffed would circumvent that issue. You play into the dynamic of, if they can hold weapons or be buffed, they always will be, so you have to design them, or balance them on the notion they will be.

    "Charm won't be the powerhouse it was in EQ1."

    That's what I'm hoping for and why this isn't something I plan to address directly until we have the dynamic in game to see for ourselves and perhaps, in Alpha and when play testing the Enchanter. This was mainly to begin the discussion which I'm happy to see a few people decided to chime in as criticism is helpful. However, they could have thought up of a much better mechanic than a low chance RNG for a permanent charm. It creates such a caustic playstyle for Enchanters that now feel as though they are reliant on it. I'm not sure how some people don't see this glaring flaw.

    Trust me, when I was younger in the beginning of EQ, I to would have loved a permanent charm, but I knew of the problems that came from it. I also knew if they decided to put it in on some RNG instead of a static distribution or some kind of gross range coefficient with a raw adjustment in scope/power, it would have been stupid. I had this issue in Luclin and noticed when they introduced Dire Charm as a class based AA. It was broken in that I was better DPS than any DPS class and without risk. It was then made near useless to useless after Luclin in the PoP+ era since it was basically limited to level 46 mobs and lower. My idea at the time, (along with a regenerative Rune) was to have the spell alter the mob aligned to a similar structure as with that of other pet classes. So in essence, you charm it, it uses the same abilities etc., although tuned to the level, but is tied to the arbitrary power curve applied by the algorithm. The issue is, to do that is more complicated than simply creating a level limiter on said spell.

    My hope is they allow for a bit more developer controls at this point regarding spell mechanics.


    This post was edited by Janus at April 15, 2019 5:43 PM PDT
    • 14 posts
    April 25, 2019 11:00 PM PDT

    Disclaimer: what I'm talking about below is before I've had a chance to test out the enchanter in-game. I became a VIP today, so hopefully I'll get to log in and play one for myself so I can gauge their level of power for myself. Until then, I'm just purely speculating and talking mechanics here (not that I would be able to talk about it because of the NDA anyway). Also, I need to define charming and permacharming for the sake of my arguments. When I say charmed pets, I mean using the ability Charm. When I'm talking about permacharm, then the mob is permenantly charmed through MT (not Dire Charm, I'll talk about that below).

    Here's my take on this issue. I definitely do not want to see charmed pets lose any kind of power as compared to their uncharmed state. If you can successfully charm a mob, then you earned the right to manipulate them to your will. That's the entire point of the enchanter. They nerfed enchanter charming mechanics really hard in eqlive (cut their damage by 50% with the same amount of risk that comes with charming), and it made me straight up quit. Not because I wasn't "OP" anymore, but because it was an incredibly lazy way to "fix" a problem at max level.

    Since you've played an ENC for 7 years, you know how hard it is to dungeon crawl solo. Not only are you limited to charming lower-level mobs, but those mobs will break charm randomly if you didn't have maximum charisma and a high level gap between you and the mob, not taking into account the MR of the mob in question. My point is, yes, Enchanter's have great DPS, but it's incredibly fickle. When I'm doing a dungeon crawl, I'm in a constant state of fear and my pet will break charm and kill me before I can get a stun off. Enchanters are the definition of high-risk, high-reward classes, and they should remain that way. Period. I became interested in crowd control when I played my first enchanter, but I fell in love with them after I learned how to solo with them. They weren't nearly as powerful as Necromancers, but they had the tools to go toe to toe with them, if you were one of the elite Enchanters on the server that knew what he was doing.

    I do agree that Enchanter permapets should be weakened, but only when permanently charmed with Mental Terraformer. (They could work this into the lore that a mobs mind is warped to the point of even subduing their will to fight; this would make complete sense, as if they were overcharmed "on accident"). If I charm a normal mob and it cannot defeat another of its same type even 5-6 levels below it 1v1, then what is the point of charming? What happens when an enchanter can't find a group but still wants to do a dungeon crawl? I think classic EQ almost perfected that formula. Enchanters were great soloers from 12-49, but after that, mobs weren't so easily charmed, and they lost most of their "overpoweredness" at max level. You don't see Enchanters charming mobs at max levels raids because they were all too powerful to be mentally swayed. If you did somehow manage to survive constant recharming while preparing for a boss, the last thing you need to worry about is recharming when you're busy debuffing the raid boss and providing support to your group. I think that's how it should be.

    Depending on how hard it is to aquire the Epic skill Mental Terraformer, then the permacharm mechanic may need to be rethought. Until we know more about it, I can't really speculate on how powerful/OP it will be until we know more.

    Going back to my earlier point, I don't believe Enchanters were overpowered in classic EQ. Only a few top-tier enchanters could crawl through the hardest dungeons and come out alive. It took an incredible amount of skill to be powerful as an Enchanter, and that's only because they were given the tools to do so.  90% of enchanters do not solo, and prefer group play. If MT isn't even gained until damn near max level, they won't be worried about charming a pet during raids. If they are able to permacharm a pet, having a normal-charmable mob isn't going to be outdpsing the pure DPS class, especially if you have to charm several levels below your current level. All of the permacharm overpoweredness will solely depend on how high level VR allows mobs to be charmed. I think they should stick with the tried-and-tested formula of level cutoffs, or make most high levels mobs be uncharmable, which would nerf the ability to have a permacharmed pet without sacrificing its damage, or the utility that comes along with having an epic spell. There are other ways of dealing with these issues than simply nerfing all of the abilities into the ground like they recently did on eqlive. You just need to find the right solution that will fix the problem without completely destroying a class's potential killing power.

    Obviously, this is all speculation at this point, so we won't know until after the game is released. The game is still in pre-alpha, and they probably won't focus on game balance until after the game is in Beta (which is usually the point of beta testing).

    Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that MT will become what you think it will, here's my idea of how to "fix" that hypothetical problem of Mental Terraformer. Instead of making the skill Passive with RNG involved in permacharms, make it a castable ability. Change the mechanic to where you need to cast MT on an already charmed pet for a small chance to permanently charm it. If you fail the permacharm, then the mob will break out of the charm and become enraged/berzerk. If you fail an MT permacharm, then that should probably spell your doom unless you're an elite enchanter. Stack this on top of a long-recast with large mana requirements. Regardless, I want this ability to have an element of skill, with high-risk, high-reward opportunities instead of just nerfing it. If this skill was to ever become a problem of balance, I believe this skill could be given a second thought that would complement an Enchanter's high-risk, high-reward style of play.

    EDIT: I forgot about Dire Charm, which is essentially what I described my idea of MT to be. I still like my idea of what MT should be, so maybe Dire Charm could be reworked to a chance to berzerk your pet that's under your control instead of permacharming. I just do not like the idea of pets becoming losing their power because of whatever reason. Regardless, they should make charming an accomplishment rather than just letting everyone do it without any kind of risk that could give very mediocre DPS. That, IMO, goes against the spirit of being an enchanter.


    This post was edited by Rickenjack at April 25, 2019 11:17 PM PDT
    • 1627 posts
    April 26, 2019 4:24 AM PDT

    Rickenjack said:

    A lot.

     

    Not answering every paragraphs one by one but you do realize all you're asking for is the ability to solo, which every class supporter does ask at least once with the very same "convinced" arguments ?

     

    High risk high reward is not an excuse for having a class that is both a pillar of a group and a beast alone.

    Not finding a group is an issue any class will experience, and even more for swappable classes like Dps, as they are only usefull at reducing the TTK and offer little to nothing more.

     

    So, should every leftover class have the abilities to dungeon crawl alone ?

    What are the negatives of high risk high rewards versus high risk no reward (rogue or warriors solo in EQ ?)

     

    I get you're passionnate, because your class was great in EQ1 and due to emergent gameplay, went even stronger than before. But it's a reliquate of different mechanics outplayed by emergent gameplay in a different game, and there is little to no chance for it to be as broken as it was even if it was surely appreciable for players back then.

    Now charm kiting is no longer "emergent play", it's just common knowledge everyone expect from an enchanter in eq, and not a rare flake in a mass of dust.


    This post was edited by MauvaisOeil at April 26, 2019 4:25 AM PDT
    • 14 posts
    April 26, 2019 10:56 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Not answering every paragraphs one by one but you do realize all you're asking for is the ability to solo, which every class supporter does ask at least once with the very same "convinced" arguments ?

    I'm not asking for the ability to solo... theoretically, they are given the toolset to do it. Since they are modeling the Enchanters after the EQ Enchanter, I'm merely speculating at the ability to utilize their given toolset as a means of soloing, if they choose to do so. Yeah, maybe I'm making a bit of a reach, because I don't know how they will actually play in game. Have you played them yet?

    MauvaisOeil said: 

    So, should every leftover class have the abilities to dungeon crawl alone ?

    Sure, why would I object to a class discovering a method for soloing? Good for them. Most classes aren't given the tools to be able to solo, though. Enchanters are given those tools, but somehow, we'll be expected to use them solely for group play? Why? I don't like anyone telling me I need to play a specific way, if we're given the tools to play another way.

    I understand that Pantheon is a group-based game. I want it to be that way. I want to group 90% of the time I'm playing. However, I'm also going to be playing a class that potentially has the ability to solo, so I want that have that kind of Pantheon experience, too. I don't see what your objection to my post is. The entire point of my post was to not nerf charmed pet DPS. There are other ways to fix that (if it ever becomes an issue) besides nerfing the damage of the pets.

    If Pantheon doesn't want Enchanters (or anyone, really) to solo, so be it; but, do not give them the toolset to do that, and then later cry fowl when they aren't playing the way you want them to play. If Enchanters aren't expected to be very good DPS, then why give them three abilities to charm/permacharm, with other supporting abilities that is conducive to charm soloing?


    This post was edited by Rickenjack at April 26, 2019 10:58 AM PDT
    • 467 posts
    April 26, 2019 11:44 AM PDT

    Solo content will exist. No idea what. "Some classes may solo better than other classes." We don't have numbers for anything and it wouldn't matter if we did until Alpha/Beta testing begins. You both have good points so let's just see what we have down the road. 

    • 14 posts
    April 26, 2019 11:57 PM PDT

    I asked a question about how mob power will be effected by Charm during yesterday's Developer Roundtable. Joppa basically said that the team wants to strike a balance between retaining mob power and charm duration. He went on to talk about Charm will become more potent as Enchanter's grow more powerful. He gave an example of how at lower levels, mobs may do less damage than they normally would, with less time charmed. Damage and duration would increase as we level up. At this point, I would be totally happy with having a charmable, max-level pet do 10% less damage with longer durations. Obviously, he said the cinks will need to be worked out during later iterations of testing, but I feel like the devs are at least considering these edge-cases, and are tailoring the mechanics of each class to resolve most issues that may arise. I wouldn't be surprised if they have already thought about most of the concerns that Janus has with permacharm, and other emergent gameplay that might arise to take advantage of overlooked mechanics. I think there will be clever solutions to these problems without having to straight up nerf damage/duration/other in order to strike a balance.


    This post was edited by Rickenjack at April 26, 2019 11:58 PM PDT
    • 1627 posts
    April 27, 2019 1:14 AM PDT

    Rickenjack said:

    I'm not asking for the ability to solo... theoretically, they are given the toolset to do it. Since they are modeling the Enchanters after the EQ Enchanter, I'm merely speculating at the ability to utilize their given toolset as a means of soloing, if they choose to do so. Yeah, maybe I'm making a bit of a reach, because I don't know how they will actually play in game. Have you played them yet?

    The problem is this one : if everyone has the tools to solo, then everyone will solo and the game will be globally hurt and not better than any other games out there.

    If it's "emergent gameplay only", like it was in eq, it will take a few weeks / months before someone figure it out and everyone just start doing the same. It was even already the case with druid's. Kiting in eq and most people rerolled druid once it was "common knowledge".

    There were "special flakes" back when 2k subscribers were a lot, but the market expanded and was of sharing videos and tutorials expanded to the points secrets are flawed as fast as possible fore more youtuve subs.

    If the game is modeled after eq with little to no limits, the same problems will happen, warriors only true tanks, rogues best dps, cleric only worthwhile healer, etc...

     

    For the game to bring new and fresh tennets, it needs to cut out some flaws,including enchanters beeing solo beasts with a charmed pet beeing tank and dps at the same time.

    Sure, why would I object to a class discovering a method for soloing? Good for them. Most classes aren't given the tools to be able to solo, though. Enchanters are given those tools, but somehow, we'll be expected to use them solely for group play? Why? I don't like anyone telling me I need to play a specific way, if we're given the tools to play another way.

    I understand that Pantheon is a group-based game. I want it to be that way. I want to group 90% of the time I'm playing. However, I'm also going to be playing a class that potentially has the ability to solo, so I want that have that kind of Pantheon experience, too. I don't see what your objection to my post is. The entire point of my post was to not nerf charmed pet DPS. There are other ways to fix that (if it ever becomes an issue) besides nerfing the damage of the pets.

    If Pantheon doesn't want Enchanters (or anyone, really) to solo, so be it; but, do not give them the toolset to do that, and then later cry fowl when they aren't playing the way you want them to play. If Enchanters aren't expected to be very good DPS, then why give them three abilities to charm/permacharm, with other supporting abilities that is conducive to charm soloing?

     

    The fact, everyone wants to be able to play "solo" at times. But it can dire the game as much as it was in EQ. If some class do and some other don't, then why ? Then everyone will ask for it, then melee classes will be screwed due to unavoidable damage, and to counter it, have cooldowns for the occasionnal solo game.

     

    The whole spinoff beeing : eq was a good game but had many loops that ended used by players for solo, exploit or feats. It might dire the game and emerge with as many solo class there were in eq (druids,monks, ench, wiz, nec,mag and bards).

     

    I'm hoping for a grouping game where solo is only possible against blue mobs at most. I don't bind to expectations to play alone against even mobs that are relevant to big stuff.

    • 14 posts
    April 27, 2019 1:54 PM PDT

    Technically, every class in EQ can solo, but most classes are not very efficient at it. Melee classes can solo blues/light blues/greens, but they will be low health and have to bind wound, and have lots of downtime to recover lost health/mana. It's the same thing with casters with no means of healing. Even casting classes that do have a means for healing, they had to meditate for mana (which, admittedly wasn't near as much downtime as recovering health by resting). Most classes learn that by around level 5-7 that it wasn't very fun to solo a mob, then have 10 minutes of downtime. Necro's, Druids, and Enchanters became known for their ability to solo effectively, with varying amounts of downtime. This doesn't take away the fact that a vast majority of old EQ players much prefer the company of a group to grind xp or take down a dungeon, and I feel like I'm in that same group of people that enjoy playing with others.

    Even though VR will be sticking to their tenets in order for Pantheon to be a group-based game, that doesn't mean that they have to force players into grouping. The best way to design it, IMO, is to design combat mechanics, combat pacing, and everything else that is involved with combat to suggest that if you don't group, then you won't survive. For the brave folks that want to try to push the emergent-gameplay side of Pantheon, I say go for it. I believe that the vast majority of players interested in Pantheon do not want to solo to max level. People want class-interdependence, people want to group; because they like that style of play, myself included.

    I definitely hear your side of the argument that if Pantheon makes soloing trivial, then it will turn into just another MMO that will be forgotten. However, they aren't designing the game that way. When I brought up soloing in the first place, I meant it as a very difficult alternative to grouping, not as the main method for playing the game.

    Hope that clears a few things up, my dude!


    This post was edited by Rickenjack at April 27, 2019 1:56 PM PDT
    • 1627 posts
    April 27, 2019 2:17 PM PDT

    Rickenjack said:

    Technically, every class in EQ can solo, but most classes are not very efficient at it. Melee classes can solo blues/light blues/greens, but they will be low health and have to bind wound, and have lots of downtime to recover lost health/mana. It's the same thing with casters with no means of healing. Even casting classes that do have a means for healing, they had to meditate for mana (which, admittedly wasn't near as much downtime as recovering health by resting). Most classes learn that by around level 5-7 that it wasn't very fun to solo a mob, then have 10 minutes of downtime. Necro's, Druids, and Enchanters became known for their ability to solo effectively, with varying amounts of downtime. This doesn't take away the fact that a vast majority of old EQ players much prefer the company of a group to grind xp or take down a dungeon, and I feel like I'm in that same group of people that enjoy playing with others.

    Even though VR will be sticking to their tenets in order for Pantheon to be a group-based game, that doesn't mean that they have to force players into grouping. The best way to design it, IMO, is to design combat mechanics, combat pacing, and everything else that is involved with combat to suggest that if you don't group, then you won't survive. For the brave folks that want to try to push the emergent-gameplay side of Pantheon, I say go for it. I believe that the vast majority of players interested in Pantheon do not want to solo to max level. People want class-interdependence, people want to group; because they like that style of play, myself included.

    I definitely hear your side of the argument that if Pantheon makes soloing trivial, then it will turn into just another MMO that will be forgotten. However, they aren't designing the game that way. When I brought up soloing in the first place, I meant it as a very difficult alternative to grouping, not as the main method for playing the game.

    Hope that clears a few things up, my dude!

     

    Don't worry I don't see you as a "super solo centric player" or whatever playertime willing to have the best class or anything. It's simply a subjective point of view that has been seen in almost every "class forum", where passionnate players want to revive the power of their class withouth risking to consider it might hurt the overall game.

    Taking my own example, I played as a rogue in EQ and honestly it was the worst soloing class, even worse than clerics that could root/nuke or even kite with a snare if inoruuk inclined, worse than warriors with their tremendous defense and passive offense (double/triple attack, dual wield), or monks with their mixed set of offense and defense with mend wounds, stonestance, and flop on the ground for bad pulls.

    The frontal rogue was just a weak ranger with average melee damage, a chainmail defense with low HP and absolutely no tools or sustain to even envision some soloing.

     

    The grouped (an geared) rogue was an unstoppable beast with an unlimited DPS associated with little to no ressource generation (until OoW I guess), and a control over his own threat allowing him to never stop dpsing.

    I honestly wouldn't want that again, because that simply meant as long as you had fights during more than a few minutes, you only wanted rogues in the end, and every other DPS class will just end up on the shelf as long as it will remain. It also meant you had no safenet in any situation, and were unable to manage yourself alone in most situation (stealth detector were your doom even to exploration).

     

     

    To end I will simply say : The enchanter is a control archetype, it brings power in the form of buffs, pace of battle over the threat engaged, and mana management for mana relative classes. If using charms does put them rivaling the DPS (and it will if they can charm mobs built to be a threat for groups with no drawbacks, they WILL rival DPS) and either : Keep their utility / hinder their utility at the cost of beeing turned into a DPS, that will be unfair and unacceptable.

    Not because the enchanter will be a fun class, but because it overlaps on two roles in a team, and allows them a flexibility any class would be in their right to ask at well.

     

    I'm fine if the enchanter has low DPS nukes that are more utility than added DPS and charm is their MAIN WAY to contribute to DPS, but not to the point they are doing more than 50% of a regular DPS class.

    I'm not fine if that's an added DPS to their already 50% pushed by nukes, dots, on top of possible haste buff to teamates.

    And even less fine if it doesn't hinder their ability to control or deal damage in the form of other sources.

    To me, the best way to balance it is simply to make charm drain mana overtime, forcing the enchanter to focus on his mana conservation, drains and such, if he wants to keep his charmed pet. But it might not be balanced enough with itemization, and the charmed pet lone power is still a big concern by itself (for DPS, but for tanks too).

    • 71 posts
    May 27, 2019 2:42 PM PDT

    Im fine with enchanters being like they were in EQ1.... I have seen great enchanters and not so good ones.... You can disagree with me all you like and give a ton of facts on your pointasnd I still say let that part of the enchanter be.... I will say VR I thought said... A charmed mob will not be as powerfull as it is not charmed so there is that.... I like watching a good enchanter do its thing and I laughed so hard when it all went belly up... everyone makes these youtube videos of all the times it went well funny how you do'nt see the bad....

    Let it come down to skill not nerfs.... 

     

    Personally I laugh when I see these types of threads because I knew there would be screams of nerf charm in the threads... Personally I think its a shame that VR will nerf it but we will see how it turns out... 

    If it was so easy everyone would be an enchanter.... yet you are not why is that? And if you really were then you know its not as easy as everyone says.... sure there are times when it goes great but remember the times it didn't.... I would like to see the chanters try and go deep in that dungeon...

    Alas it seems like most people think like you... But all we can do is wait and see what VR has instore.....If you do take away charm to that point what do you give them? let me guess The chanter is supposed to be your mana battery and mez yeh that sounds fun.... 

     

    By the way, I don't think i am going to be an enchanter  this go round.... Just want to  make that clear before I hear sure you want a chanter to be that strong cause you are wanting to be one argument...

     

     

     


    This post was edited by Nytman at May 27, 2019 2:46 PM PDT
    • 156 posts
    May 29, 2019 5:08 AM PDT

    I hope they don't let enchanters do too much damage with pets and haste on top of the unrivaled crowd control and all the group centric amazing abilities they get.

    • 274 posts
    May 29, 2019 11:29 AM PDT

    LucasBlackstone said:

    I hope they don't let enchanters do too much damage with pets and haste on top of the unrivaled crowd control and all the group centric amazing abilities they get.

     

    I totally disagree. Leave the mobs as is and let the enchanter buff them. If this was so OP everyone would have been an Enchanter in EQ. They weren't. It was an extremely rare class. Hasting a charmed pet, then having charm break, would mean nearly certain death on any mob worth EXP'n. Charm was extremely strong but I would say that it was fairly balanced in that the risk/reward of lost EXP from a death because Charm Broke right as you attacked another mob... so now you have two mobs chasing you one likely hasted. 

    • 156 posts
    May 30, 2019 2:00 AM PDT

    EppE said:

    LucasBlackstone said:

    I hope they don't let enchanters do too much damage with pets and haste on top of the unrivaled crowd control and all the group centric amazing abilities they get.

     

    I totally disagree. Leave the mobs as is and let the enchanter buff them. If this was so OP everyone would have been an Enchanter in EQ. They weren't. It was an extremely rare class. Hasting a charmed pet, then having charm break, would mean nearly certain death on any mob worth EXP'n. Charm was extremely strong but I would say that it was fairly balanced in that the risk/reward of lost EXP from a death because Charm Broke right as you attacked another mob... so now you have two mobs chasing you one likely hasted. 

    It's fine to totally disagree, but it doesn't make sense to let them do more damage then most other classes while also being able to CC groups of mobs and have mana regen and haste. It sort of defeats the purpose of having class roles. Not too mention unbreaking Dire Charm = zero chance of risk on anything except the Behemoth summons from the summoner. Their group role isn't DPS, it's crowd control and utility.

    • 2466 posts
    May 30, 2019 10:26 AM PDT

    LucasBlackstone said:

    It's fine to totally disagree, but it doesn't make sense to let them do more damage then most other classes while also being able to CC groups of mobs and have mana regen and haste. It sort of defeats the purpose of having class roles. Not too mention unbreaking Dire Charm = zero chance of risk on anything except the Behemoth summons from the summoner. Their group role isn't DPS, it's crowd control and utility.

    No use trying to convince those in the "let enchanters be OP" camp. 

    • 274 posts
    May 31, 2019 1:54 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    LucasBlackstone said:

    It's fine to totally disagree, but it doesn't make sense to let them do more damage then most other classes while also being able to CC groups of mobs and have mana regen and haste. It sort of defeats the purpose of having class roles. Not too mention unbreaking Dire Charm = zero chance of risk on anything except the Behemoth summons from the summoner. Their group role isn't DPS, it's crowd control and utility.

    No use trying to convince those in the "let enchanters be OP" camp. 

     

    Super helpful. Just blow off everyone. Really adds to the discussion.

     

    @Lucas 

    I agree with Dire Charm. That would be broken. We don't currently know how Epic Abilities are going to work. I'd hope that certain mobs that would make the Enchanter completely OP would be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    The chance of charming breaking is the risk and the amount of DPS is the reward. If charm can't break, that would alter the scale of risk/reward and either the mob needs to have its damaged reduced or it needs to be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    In EQ you didn't see a ton of Enchanter charm groups. Its not that they didn't exist, they just typically weren't worth the effort. If you had a full group and any sort of CC your entire mana bar was already spoken for. You didn't have a ton of room to squeeze in a charm pet. Now on the rare occasion where we had two enchanters you'd see them pick up charmed pets because they split the CC/Buff load. This again was extremely rare.

     

    For what its worth I plan on maining a Bard in Pantheon assuming its there at launch. I just have literally hundreds of days played on an Enchanter so I felt I could add to this subs conversation more. 

    • 2466 posts
    May 31, 2019 4:41 PM PDT

    EppE said:

    Super helpful. Just blow off everyone. Really adds to the discussion.

     

    @Lucas 

    I agree with Dire Charm. That would be broken. We don't currently know how Epic Abilities are going to work. I'd hope that certain mobs that would make the Enchanter completely OP would be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    The chance of charming breaking is the risk and the amount of DPS is the reward. If charm can't break, that would alter the scale of risk/reward and either the mob needs to have its damaged reduced or it needs to be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    In EQ you didn't see a ton of Enchanter charm groups. Its not that they didn't exist, they just typically weren't worth the effort. If you had a full group and any sort of CC your entire mana bar was already spoken for. You didn't have a ton of room to squeeze in a charm pet. Now on the rare occasion where we had two enchanters you'd see them pick up charmed pets because they split the CC/Buff load. This again was extremely rare.

     

    For what its worth I plan on maining a Bard in Pantheon assuming its there at launch. I just have literally hundreds of days played on an Enchanter so I felt I could add to this subs conversation more. 

    Really isn't much to add to this topic that has been circled so many times already. Seems to me there are those with their heads in the sand wishing for an exact copy of EQ charm and then there are those that recognize that it would be a terrible fit for Pantheon.

    It was OP in EQ but worked out well enough because the game wasn't highly balanced between classes, nor were the classes designed to fill specific roles in a group. 

     

    Arguing that risk/reward or skill (in EQ it was punishing but not particularly difficult to do, just required paying attention more than most any other class) somehow makes it balanced or okay for a game like Pantheon where each class has a specific role to fill and cannot otherwise compete in different roles is absurd.

    • 71 posts
    May 31, 2019 6:49 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    EppE said:

    Super helpful. Just blow off everyone. Really adds to the discussion.

     

    @Lucas 

    I agree with Dire Charm. That would be broken. We don't currently know how Epic Abilities are going to work. I'd hope that certain mobs that would make the Enchanter completely OP would be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    The chance of charming breaking is the risk and the amount of DPS is the reward. If charm can't break, that would alter the scale of risk/reward and either the mob needs to have its damaged reduced or it needs to be immune to Dire Charm.

     

    In EQ you didn't see a ton of Enchanter charm groups. Its not that they didn't exist, they just typically weren't worth the effort. If you had a full group and any sort of CC your entire mana bar was already spoken for. You didn't have a ton of room to squeeze in a charm pet. Now on the rare occasion where we had two enchanters you'd see them pick up charmed pets because they split the CC/Buff load. This again was extremely rare.

     

    For what its worth I plan on maining a Bard in Pantheon assuming its there at launch. I just have literally hundreds of days played on an Enchanter so I felt I could add to this subs conversation more. 

    Really isn't much to add to this topic that has been circled so many times already. Seems to me there are those with their heads in the sand wishing for an exact copy of EQ charm and then there are those that recognize that it would be a terrible fit for Pantheon.

    It was OP in EQ but worked out well enough because the game wasn't highly balanced between classes, nor were the classes designed to fill specific roles in a group. 

     

    Arguing that risk/reward or skill (in EQ it was punishing but not particularly difficult to do, just required paying attention more than most any other class) somehow makes it balanced or okay for a game like Pantheon where each class has a specific role to fill and cannot otherwise compete in different roles is absurd.

    And you think the classes will be bvaleanced in Pantheon? Because they will not be.....

    Why is it that that the people that want it to be like EQ have there head in the sand is thaty because we disagree with you.... so you take a stab and insult us? you do know what a discussion is right if everyone thought the same there would not be much to talk about.... So we all need to agree with you because some how you are the expert on all this? 

     

    This is a forum people can have there own oipinions... we will just have to wait and see what VR does

     

    Plus Iksar you seem to be up for a discussion.... why so disgruntled about this...  Im sure you know what is said in here has little effect on what they are doing now.... Plus I know you know they already said what they wanted it to be like and it will not be like EQ1... cheers mate... they are not attacking you by having a different oppinion. =)


    This post was edited by Nytman at May 31, 2019 6:57 PM PDT