After using the enchanter Direct Banishment AA, another root cast (greater fetter, eg) will not hold the mob in place when the Direct Banishment root component wears off. If I charm the mob afterwards, it shows the greater fetter spell icon in place, it just doesn't hold the mob for whatever reason. I have to wait till I get the message that the Direct Banishment root has worn off before the next root will work. Is this intended?
Known bug, has been around for 2 years now. Devs are either unaware or don´t care. It mostly affects solo chanters and devs play other classes...
That's sad to hear. Rangers have their blusterbolt line of spells that are functionally equivalent to this. Rangers can root immediately following the blusterbolt, with the new root overriding the blusterbolt root component. Seems to be something that should easily be corrected.
I could be wrong, an enchanter will hopefully correct me, but I believe this has not only been known about for a few years but that a few attempts have been made to fix some of the root stacking issues. I remember at one point, enchanters asked to leave something alone (it was the lesser of two evils) but honestly I'm not sure if it's this exact stacking issue or not.
The issue is that both our Greater Fetter line of roots and our Beguilers Banishment share the same slot. So one doesn't overwrite the other. There had to be a fix for this. However. We have beaten this topic to a bloody pulp in the past with no response whatsoever. Starting a topic like this is good. It brings the issue back to the table (again) so.. You are right. It is a known bug. It's been around longer then two years. Ever since 85 was the level cap. So around 3 - 4. It effects all enchanters. However. In reality It effects solo enchanters the least. But I'm not going to bother explaining how or why I came to this conclusion due to your final statement. I had no idea you had private insight into what the Developers play.. Oh. Right. You don't. How about we stick to talking about the actual topic in this thread instead of making wild accusations that are not based on any form of logic or fact? Perhaps if we actually discuss the issue. We may have a solution?
You are correct Crystilla. However the attempts to fix this yeilded no results. You are also correct in us asking to leave something alone. This is not that specific thing.
Actually they broke it when they invented the blusterbolt line. And were unable/unwilling to fix it.Because it had strange side effects on some raid encounters. Well, they fixed it once by accident and the fix was active about 2 months till the next patch...
This bug bothers me mostly when i am solo reverse charming, so i somewhat doubt your conclusion. Every single chanter i know of knows about the bug and has to deal with it someway. Devs are blissfully unaware of it to a degree, that made it totally clear that none of them cares. Might have changed in the last few months, im not up to date on new devs...
1. I believe that Dandin is completely wrong on this one. When I reverse charm I rely on root for positioning, which IMO is more important when I'm alone than when I'm in a group, when I have more time and flexibility to move stuff around. There was a big thread on this in the last year or so and I was surprised to find that Enchanters that don't reverse charm don't even really understand what the issue is to us solo charmers. I felt that even the explanation of the issue was completely mischaracterized and misunderstood, from the perspective of what I was experiencing every session. I know that when I group, I don't really care about the root bug, it's barely even an an inconvenience. It's when I'm reverse charming that it becomes an issue and is quite inconvenient. It makes a huge difference in how a reverse charm session goes, from the inital pull and charm to the position of the fight itself to the mob running away at the end. Of course, I can work around it and I do but to say that it doesn't effect a charming enchanter is just flat out wrong. 2. How did this come to be? As I recall, this was broken on purpose, because the old slot used for BDB interfered and overwrote the root from blusterbolt. Before that, the most recent root (BDB vs Gretter Fetter) was the one that overwrote and stuck. If you rooted prior to BDB wearing off, GF would overwrite and hold the mob in place. If a mob was rooted with GF, when you banished it, the banishment root would wear off in 2 tics and the mob was free. It was like this since the inception of banishment. At the time, it was reported that raiders didn't like that BDB interfered with blusterbolt, so the coding on BDB was changed (so that BDB and regular root share the same slot) and the situation is as it is now: you can root all you want, as soon as banishment root wears off, the mob is unrooted. I'm not a raider and I'm not connected so I don't know how it came to be (and I'm not trying to be anti-raider with this, that's just what was said at the time), what I do know is it was claimed that our BDB root was changed so that blusterbolt wouldn't be interfered with. 3. I believe the devs are well aware of what is going on, it certainly has been talked about a lot on the boards. It was fixed briefly, as mentioned, but after a couple months it was changed back (it was reported that raiders complained that enchanter BDB was interfering with ranger BB and suddenly BDB didn't work anymore. Again).
Look. In terms of how this root issue works. You have the needs of the many vs. the needs of the one. I charm solo also. Alot. But that doesnt mean that i want to see the bug fixed for a specific strategy, when the result of getting the fixed hurts so many more. Your going to say, Oh.. your a Raider. you dont get it. Sure. I raid. but look at my Magelo. look at my gear. Im the same as most group geared ENC. If not worse. I can do this without BDB. so can you. The issue is. there is only so many spell slots that the dev's can assign to spells. If you switch one to the other.. Raids become REAL hard. Solo strat.. easily fixable.. dont punt. Raids... Not so easy!
Well, at least that is a good explanation of why the change was made. Better than any I've ever heard. I don't know if it's really what the devs are thinking. Someone up-thread, I believe it was Dandin, made a sarcastic comment about someone else claiming to have insight into what they devs were doing : ). But at least this explanation makes sense. One of the most frustrating things, to me, is that as far as I am aware there has never been an official statement about it. I might quibble about 'the needs of the one' part, since looking at these boards there are clearly more than me that don't appreciate this change. Changing it to a more accurate 'needs of a few' - should the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Maybe. I don't raid. Do raids really become 'REAL hard' with banishment breaking blusterbolt (or whatever the issue is)? That seems a little farfetched to me. If it were true, I could agree, sure, that the needs of the many raiders outweigh the needs of the relatively few enchanters it affects since we can work around it. On the other hand, if that is blown out of proportion and the truth is that 'some raids for some guilds with a certain makeup become harder' then I think it's crap that the needs of these few outweigh the needs of these other few. Lastly, about you 'not getting it', I had come back to this thread to apologize to you, since I singled you out and did infer that you don't reverse charm and so didn't realize what we were complaining about. When I read the recent charm thread I realized that you do reverse charm and have just adjusted your technique to account for the root bug. Good for you (seriously, not being snarky). You seem to swarm charm, using BB on the horde at the same time. I have used that method as well, though typically not so many mob. And I do work around the 'root bug' in other ways, usually just extra clicks with more careful attention to timing. I freely admit that I'm just annoyed that I have to, especially since there has been no definite statement from SOE devs that this is the way it is going to be and it won't be changed. I guess, like many, I keep hoping one day they'll 'fix' it. Yes, I get stuck in my ways. I still long for the days when our main job was crowd control and mez was the main thing we did. BTW: I did look up your magelo: whereas you have 74K HP, I have about 45K. That makes a huge difference in what you are able to do and how easy the work around seems. What I find is that with more than about 3 mobs, it is not uncommon for one to break banishment root early, or start running, or be stunned in place while the others move, then, using BB I've got mobs all over the place. Or if I BDB the mob that breaks from the group, the others break while I'm waiting for the BB cooldown and I've got mobs all over the place. It makes it exciting but depending on where I am (just hit 96 mostly charming in Beasts Domain) I can't take many hits before I'm dead. I also acknowledge that you may just be a better player than me.
Good point. However, blusterbolt was a chanter ability that was given to rangers and i DO think it´s weird, that we got to suffer for that. Now of course it would have helped if the devs had taken the time to come to this board and explain it, as you just did. And say: look, thats the way the raiders want it, and it is going to stay that way. I already had mentioned an easy fix about a year ago: Single BDB root duration needs to be about 30 seconds. That way i dont have to reroot it at once.
I never claimed to have insight as to what the Dev's where doing. in truth. The only thing I've done is silently attend a few IIRC chats and read. and beta tested a few things. Well, I will admit there are quite a few Chanters that don't Raid. Summarily I thought of a fix that would help both group ENC / Solo ENC and keep the raiding Enc happy, also. Consider this. On our punts, There are two spells, Yes? One that is the root (The first one) and the second one that triggers the blur. What if, the first root had a duration similar to VP and PP ( So like.. a minute). This way, the Root would still hold, and act like our current root. Now. This by no means would hurt us or make Greater Fetter Useless. as Greater Fetter still has a longer duration. Mobs would then, get punted, STAY there, and still apply blur as intended. No stacking issue. Just... change the duration of the root portion of the effect to be longer. Thank you for your apology. Its noted. although unnecessary.. i have fairly thick skin and I appreciate you promoting discussion. I just learned to work with what we DO have. I guess The AA line "Clinging Root" Will help with the bolded part of this statement. its well worth the investment, along with the AA line Forceful Banishment. In terms of HP wise, statistically it doesnt matter. Because if you use Runes. (Which is vital) If the mobs are busting through your runes, your in trouble already. Look at the level 95 Spell ARCANE UNITY. This Rune line will save your %^&^# More times then you will care to shake a stick at. While mana intensive, It is worth the cast, and will give you another 30k+ oh hp to manage. Also. Avoid using Cleric mercs while doing this. they cure tash,. which can be a disaster. Aura wise, when RCharming, i run MR aura and in your case would be GOVERNING AURA to reduce breaks. I went ahead and crossed out the statement there that wasn't true. =D Actually. The bolded statement is incorrect. i nelieve rangers got Blusterbolt ... first? And in reality, we dont suffer as much as you think. We just need to use interesting mechanics to get around the issue. But believe me. its for the greater good. if i used Cone banish, and a ranger tryed to punt one farther back and the slots where the same... mass chaos.. would be an issue as i said before. there are limited slots. I agree Increase the duration of the root portion? all is well. EVERYONES happy. In terms of Dev's Coming here to talk.. Send Elderoth or Piestro a PM. say HEY Come look at this -Dandin
The clingin root helps with the duration of BDB, but thats all. Because it does not effect the CHANCE to break root. Excample: You root something and your root is supposed to hold 1 minute. With clinging root it would be 90 secs. However the thing got high MR anyway and the longest you can hope for is 50 secs, because of the chance to break root, which is not affected at all. Thats why i consider higher ranks of clinging root - well - useless. It´s virtually impossible to reverse charm with cleric mercs, because they heal my pet But for names i get them out and for the purpose you can block the (heal) spells that cure tash. Pretty sure that blusterbolt was a BDB clone, but the discussion is useless anyway.
There is an easy work around for this -- pet block the renewal line of heals (xxxxx Renewal). Some of the group heals (Word of xxxxx) will also cure tash/charm. If you check the logs its pretty evident which spell breaks charm. I have found a cleric merc can not keep a charmed pet alive. They use a lot of mana and eventually the charm pet will lose despite the longer battle. The balance can be tipped by nuking the enemy. Fighting in this manner is situational (best left for boxing a named mob or progression task). Miz
I reverse charm quite a bit and feel the frustration of this bug! As a workaround, I root the mob (broken pet, add, whatever) then tash, then charm, then use the AA companion's relocation to position them where I need them. It's not pretty but it works. If I have to deal with multiple mobs rushing me at once, a quick aoe mes & roots all around before I start debuffing & positioning.
Swarm kiting and to a lesser extent, reverse-charming are unforeseen. Yes, we've been doing it for a decade, but still, it's not really what I imagine they think is an important part of our class. I would also suggest that if the developers could wave a magic wand and have swarming go away without breaking anything else, they'd jump at the chance. Thus, asking for improvements to swarming or reverse-kiting is as likely to go over as Headshot improvements, or making it safer to Beam kite. I suggest we need to use "normal use" examples when making our case, as the examples posted above actually hurt our cause.
So I heard back from Dev. It's a known bug that Dev cares about but doesn't have a fix for at this time. This is not intended behavior, but we do have a bug in our bug tracker software to hopefully get it fixed in the future.
