Charm is too strong

It's nothing at all like that. In your example, the guy is better at quake because he became more skillful through practice. Charm is just an overpowered mechanic that has almost nothing to do with skill. A better analogy would be if people were mad at the quake guy because he was given unlimited ammo and zero delay rocket launchers or something like that.

I think this horse was dead 10 pages ago.

A small group is belligerent and angry about enchanters not fitting their expectations in which all classes are generally homogenous and want it changed at any cost.

A much larger group would like it to not change because its a unique dynamic of the game and helps provide a fun experience and attracts players to the game.

I think the lesson for us all here is... everquest players can and will complain about anything and everything. not enough TLP's, too many TLP's, not released soon enough, not the right ruleset, evil boxers, not enough boxing, not classic enough, etc. What a dismal bunch..

The primary concern you seemingly have here that the enchanter/healer combo you were planning to roll soon won't be able to farm camps with the tune down in charmed pet dps people are proposing in general is a misplaced one. Don't worry. It might not end up being as ezmode as early, and you might be killing things slower and with more margin for things could go wrong error, but you would still ultimately be left with the ability to duo farm that loot you want.

As for any of this stemming out of a "jealously" of min/maxers, I can't speak for anybody else pushing for a re-balance of player charm in this thread, but I'd probably be willing to guess that I'm in that 1% club that has likely spent more total hours min/max playing EQ then your sane user will ever do. My issue here isn't attacking the min/max play style in general. I'm pointing out this specific aspect of the game for how i see it as somebody who's played on both sides of the fence. Player charm has needed a re-balance for years. Not going to claim any different in this thread just because I could (and will) continue to benefit from that.

I'm not saying that it's a competition, or that total number of people posting is a reliable metric... but if it was a competition (it's totally not), I'd use the numbers of people posting in this thread as a gauge for how the forum-questers feel.

In that hypothetical, totally non-competition, for every person asking for a nerf, two people are asking to please not nerf this element of the game. It's not like anyone is counting since it's not a competition, but if I did count, which I wouldn't, even though I totally did count, it would be 65/35 split towards asking that we please not break enchanters as these folks are suggesting.

Just saying... in case folks get misled by the sheer number of times the same anti-fun, nerf enthusiasts have been posting in the thread.

For the number of claims that everyone rolls ench/cleric I’ve seen it’s surprising that raids are still always short on enchanters and clerics. Think we need more people to roll enchanters and clerics.

What if I told you a single cleric can hold down entire camps on undead side....

What's imaginary is your claim that if there was not an OP class carrying all the dps weight that people would just grab whoever/whatever for dps. That is false. Once the game hits the point where no single class (charmer) can carry such a heavy load, groups STOP inviting randoms and get far more selective. Alternatively, in the rare situations in which a group does have its dps needs fully covered by one character (usually by going back in prior era content) they DO go and invite whoever/whatever to fill the group up again.

The idea that putting in oow-era balance changes that cause groups to need multiple GOOD dps classes to be able to handle large camps would result in anything other than exactly what happens in oow-era content with groups seeking multiple top tier dps and ignoring weak classes is what is imaginary. We KNOW what will happen if charm is nerf because SOE literally nerfed charm in exactly the way people are asking for.

I suppose it depends on the cleric and what you mean by a camp. I wasn’t specific about the scenario in my original post, so I’ll just add that I based it on my own experience of being able to clear and hold all of HAMLORD with my 48 chanter / 37 Druid. Chanter didn’t even need to be that high to do it - just happened to be my level at the time.

I think it’s funny that people think I plan to roll an enchanter and that I’m somehow afraid it might ruin my plans. I’ve said multiple times I don’t play enchanters. I pretty much only play monk + bard. I just don’t want to see a good game ruined by some jealous haters that think balance is the end all be all of gaming. Show me a perfectly balanced game and I will show you a boring game that nobody wants to play. Like parcheesi.

Since you really haven't done anything but attempt to troll this thread with combative sarcasm since jumping in, before then of course quickly chalking up anybody challenging your own opinion as beating a dead horse and being asinine/belligerent/angry in that obvious attempt to further derail any potentially productive/enlightening discussion on the topic, I decided to double check your math there.

For unique posters actually expressing something that could be construed as openly committing one way or another to a for or against re-balancing player charm, I came up with a rough total of 31 for vs 26 against. So no shocker that really didn't end up adding up to have much actual substance or desire to have an honest debate on the matter either.

Interesting note though is that out of all of those against people, there really was only a handful of them that have offered a direct answer to the underlying question on whether player charm in itself presents a vastly unbalanced variable to the leveling game. Again, lots seemingly have just choose to keep dancing away from addressing that by simply replying with their own then exaggerated misrepresentations of other people's opposing opinion .....almost as if acknowledging that unbalance would somehow make it not ok

Count me for one that hopes this doesn't get changed.

For the record, you aren't very good at counting. I had about 19 for and 30 against, I think you may be biasing responses. Either way, I agree that it doesn't matter.

For real friend, just let it go already, you've spoken your mind and now you are just battling people and raging out on them. I don't know where this vendetta against enchanters is coming from but I hope you work it out. TLP's sure are a lot of fun and I'd hope you can bring some positive thinking to the game.

See outside the paper scenario where the ideal is always an immediate available option and within the actual TLP game world my own experiences in that regard has been completely opposite.

With a hasted chanter pet running point if one of the dps slots has to log in my min/max setup I never really found myself pressing for that immediate replacement. Still having the pet shedding through mobs, if all that I saw available was a sub optimal dps replacement class (assuming they weren't a guildy as I'm not a heartless bastard), I was much more apt to leave them LFG and wait it out for that more optimal option to present itself. Or even better, another enchanter if I didn't already have one.

Taking the charmed pet damage out of that equation on the other hand changed that surrounding variable table quite a bit though. Since without the pet dps to carry the damage, one of the dps having to log generally presented a greater immediate replacement need in relationship to to what we were grinding (with exceptions of course in the event pull spawns were limited). So to keep the party rolling along if my only/best available dps replacement option was to pick up the lfg rogue sitting at the zone line, I typically would pick up that rogue rather then wait.

In all honesty I won't be upset or jealous if charm is left the way it is. EQ TLP is already an easy game, but if some of you want to play it with the training wheels on, go for it. Doesn't bother me at all.

I just think it's silly how people can defend one class having the best buffs, CC and DPS. There are only a few mobs throughout the game that actually make charm a high risk/high reward, it's more like mild inconvenience/high reward.

Well, I think your math is off too based on your own bias need to have it add up differently.

I also haven't been the one raging out on anybody. In fact it's been quite the opposite imo lol. I personally just find the topic interesting to debate with people who might actually want to have one. Which granted outside that actual rage that has occurred here that was naturally going to come with the idea of taking somebody's op'ness away hasn't netted as much interest as I'm sure people that wanted to do similar have hoped. If you want to jump in and construe my opposite opinion to your own as raging when I've done my best to actually be direct in every reply I've given...have at it.

To note though, most of the people I have engaged in debate here are those that keep just trying derail the thread and the very idea of even discussing it by beating down misrepresented strawmans. The people not doing that and popping in to chime in that yeah they believe charm is very imbalanced on the grouping level, but hey it's fun for them and they like it that way....I really have nothing to debate with that. I mean I disagree with the end conclusion, but I do get it without feeling much further understanding inquiry need on the matter.

If you dont think charm is op then just /w all enc on launch day!

1. I have never seen or had a problem with a group of 3 enc, cleric, shaman and bard locking down the entire dead (or live) side...
2. Most people would agree that charm is OP like many other skills/abilities.. but also they don't break the game... because we have a playable game... (this should be self explanatory for anyone with average intelligence)
3. " An enchanter can solo the king room". I assume we are talking seb king room here. It's possible but highly problematic (requiring a sweat) for the vast majority of the ENC community; essentially, "sweat" is required.... lame exaggeration.
4. "Enchanters can maintain charm on RED MOBS". Assuming you find a red mob that you can actually charm, this again is possible, but the pet would break so often and cause so much damage that it's not worth it; essentially it's very inefficient so why would people do it in normal game play? they just wouldn't bother... more anecdotal nonsense based on fantasy scenarios.
5. "completely busted".. more exaggeration...
6. "A Charmed pet is stronger than 6 rogues". Lol, what kind of nonsense comparison is this? again, you will NEVER see a group of 6 rogues and I have never seen a genuine 6 group of ENC doing exp. What about 6 clerics vs 6 warriors? this comparison is just as stupid.
7. "If they all flaged red, and an enchanter with a pet fought 6 rogues then Enchanter would win. It wouldn't even be close."... more nonsense comparisons that will never happen...

You mention "nonsense"... but you're post is full of it. Your post (and many others.. lets be fair) is full of lame far fetched personal opinions, unnecessary exaggeration and hyperbole in an attempt to try and promote a change that has very low to zero chance of ever happening...

The hyperbole is going too slow.

I saw a single charm pet win a DPS race against 72 people and they KSd Naggy solo.

You are terrible at debating

it will just be another reason TLP gets stale and dies in 3 months, no reason to keep playing when its the same boring meta of cleric/enc box

Ignoring that population goes every 3 months for awhile.

Your talking about people who replay servers with the same settings in the same eras every year. Doesn’t matter what the meta is, they will repeat the meta every time.