Devs, Please restrict casting on (charmed) pets by players not in group. #greiffing

Have a link to that rule?

Another thread, quickly heading for a lock.

• You cannot dispel charm without repercussion.
• Since NPCs are FFA and camps don't exist you cannot STEAL an NPC.
• Again, camps DO NOT EXIST!

Falls under the grievance rule, https://help.daybreakgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/230629007-Everquest-Rules-of-Conduct
and it has been stated so on this very forum, but you're going to have to search for it.

No I have been very clear how I look at Lower Smuck and understand the game reaches far past LG and Solb and pretty much avoid both places due to all the dicks they attract.

Anyone going there is signing an implied contract they are going to run into crappy behavior and it is expected. Basing some game functions on those places is pretty dang shallow.

Ever wonder why Gate does not dispel the charm?
Think maybe it is useful to people with some influence? ummmm... could be

https://help.daybreakgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/230629007-Everquest-Rules-of-Conduct

2. You may not harass others.

Harassment is defined as specifically targeting another player or group of players to harm or inconvenience them. As harassment can take many forms, the Game Master involved will make a determination as to whether or not a "reasonable person" would feel harassed.

3. You may not disrupt the normal playability of a zone or area.

Zone/Area Disruption is defined as any activity designed to harm or inconvenience a number of groups rather than a specific player or group of players. This includes, but is not limited to:

o Monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area.

o Deliberately blocking a doorway or narrow area so other players cannot get past.

o Making excessive and inappropriate use of public channels of communications (/shout, /ooc, etc.).

o Intentionally causing excessive zone latency (creating excessive corpses, abusing spell effects, etc.).

o Causing intentional experience loss to other players (deliberately impeding fleeing players by blocking their escape route, intentionally training NPCs on other players, etc.).


Can make a case for either rule

[quote="Rhodz, post: 3557374, member: 6438"
Ever wonder why Gate does not dispel the charm?
Think maybe it is useful to people with some influence? ummmm... could be[/quote]

Well there's somewhat of a solution. Make charm fall off when the chanter gates. Doesn't solve the problem in all cases but helps solve one of the main ones.

Otherwise, if a chanter charms a named mob there shouldn't be any reason why you can't dispel the charm as part of the DPS race to kill the named.

Or, you could make named mobs who drop decent loot un-charmable. I don't think this would impact charming overall as I don't think there are many normal situations where you would charm a named mob with good loot for xp/various things. Wouldn't impact your ability to charm anything else (dps pet) for xping/fighting named mobs. I haven't played an enchanter so I can't confirm this or add insight into the repercussions of this but food for thought.

See that is the point, it is obvious isn't it?
Been that way how long? Always, and there is the tell.
Someone does not want it to change because if you reload the zone on a gate (breaks charm clears agro) it's not a bad evac and stays in zone. For all bindable zones gate becomes an evac.

So people found a way to use the "anti-evac" method to steal your mob and run certain existing err bugs (that word keeps me out of trouble) for benefits. Some still in the game to this day and likely will always remain. Useful

Edit: Of course making the zones non-bindable just could never work... *sighs*

i dont think either of those apply to dispelling charm pets in either a dps race situation, or a case where a chanter charms a named mob engaged on someone else and attempts to gate away with it.


now if someone is just randomly following an enchanter around and dispelling their charm pet, thats different. but i dont have a problem with people dispelling charm pets in any kind of DPS race situation or if chanter492 tries charming the named mob ive been camping.

DBG staff won't ever make a rule that specific, because they just dont have the time or staff to enforce it. Rules are broad so that they can quickly adjust to clever players that try and find loopholes. That said, the rule while not perfect can thwart those that would try to abuse dispel.

Now to combat Enchanters that abuse the charm and in zone gate mechanic?

As an Enchanter main on Phinigel, this is a good idea,

How about one step further, and don't allow binding in dungeons period.

In a DPS race situation, as it has already been pointed out, dispelling is no different from training on principle if not severity. That you justify it to yourself does not change this. Is what it is

Frankly yall can play whatever Lower Smuck games yall wish, I wont go in till the game moves on past those places and I can enjoy them without so many arseholes in close proximity. Then yall can gripe about Necors in RoK and I can play my game in peace.

I'm with you.

And, it's funny because people will actually request entire class changes for items that will be ~500pp upon the launch of Kunark.

I don't know what the logic is for what dungeons you can bind in and which ones you can't. You can bind in upper guk, for example, but not in lower guk (AFAIK, I haven't tried it in years). You can't bind in SolB, can you?

To use Gate to steal a mob you have to be able to bind in zone. I don't play that way but if they are complaining about it then either you can or they are trolling.

All about the kronos man, turns people stupid.

You can bind in solb

Well, I definitely think there are better mobs in other zones, but for disco, that wizard is the tizzles. He hits harder than just about every mob down there that's not named, and he runes himself.

He only seems good because it is basically the only level 53 mob that spawns in disco. You'd be better off charming one of the level 53 warrior mushrooms, or any level 53 warrior frog you can find. Particularly easy to do if you have a mage in the group.

For every rule there is the exception...

Cue Bill and Ted:

I guess if that is the case, the Enchanter could be banned for taking most of Seafurry Island to begin with.

And every AoE-PL group ever... just saying...

Damn.