Fellow shaman on Green

[Cathulu]

I have been (slowly) leveling a shaman as of late, and couldn't help but to notice there are a LOT of us (even for project 1999 standards). Normally this doesn't bother me, but I wanted to ask all of you how difficult it is for you to find groups in higher levels? what about raid guilds, do they still want shaman?

I play shaman for the group aspect of it, I don't really care about the fact that they solo very well (which i assume is the reason they are so abundant).

How has this saturation affected you as a shaman who enjoys grouping? Is it something I should or should not worry about? Should I consider playing another class (or an official TLP) if I wish to spend most of my time in groups meeting new people? Thank you!

[Cen]

Its a good solo class, so even with a high number its still good. It could be trouble for groups maybe?

Shamans are far more overplayed here right out of the gate compared to classic because its known as one of the 4 OP classes which people didn't so much back then.

[Furitor]

I've been in multiple groups levelling where there were 3-4 Shaman and it only proved how OP shaman could be lol.

Sometimes I played during euro hours where tanks were scarce and oddly even DPS was scarce but the class is so versatile we just slow-tanked everything.

I remember in a HK goblin group with 4 Shaman late at night + 2 DPS. I was pulling for a group and tanking+slowing, another Shaman buffing and offhealing, a primary healer Shaman, and then a DoT/Nuke Shaman. 3 Pets from what I remember. We had no problem getting all the way down to raider room.

The best thing is, you'd think this was just level 27-35... but no, I've tanked Nobles in the 40-50 range a few times too with 2 other shaman healing and a rogue pulling.

I personally don't see as many Shaman at the 45+ range right now. I think most of the Shaman started when the server came out, got to 50 already and just stopped really caring or quit because some of them realized it was so many button clicks compared to most classes.

And I mean, make friends and form semi-static groups and you won't have any trouble grouping.

Dunno about the raid demand, though.

[Smellybuttface]

Shamans are versatile, but most groups up to 40 your slows and DOTs aren’t needed, fights should be over long before they’re effective. If you’re in a trio the slows might be more useful, and 40+ they can be worthwhile. Otherwise, you’re just canni-dancing, healing, regen, malo (make enchanters life easier), and the oft-nuke.

Your DOTs, like necro’s, are going to be effective when soloing. Not much help in a well-rounded group.

[Tecmos Deception]

A couple months ago there were more shamans than there are now. I usually only see 9-11% of online characters as shamans, compared to like 12-13% when the server was brand new.

It's my opinion that quite a few folks started shams thinking about how powerful they are at 60 with torpor and gear, and gave up on those shams when they realized how mediocre they are 1-33 or how they still can't faceroll stuff even at 50.

I played mostly solo to level up, but when I did want to group there was never a problem getting into one because they already had a sham. That a lot of shams DO solo helps the relatively high number of shams not be too many for the groups that are out there, I think. Shams do tend to be a bit of a red-headed step child in raids. Their buffs are great, malo is nice, slow is important, but you don't need 5 of them in a raid of 40. But, spot heals are still useful, so while a raid may prefer a cleric or a rogue or whatever instead of a 4th or 5th sham, you probably aren't going to be turned away from raids.

[Lartanin63]

If you enjoy the class I wouldn't let the server population deter what you enjoy the most. When people say groups they always think about 6 man min max groups. With the versatility of your class you can make all kinds of groups. Don't over look they duo/trio and makeshift 4/5 man of hybrids and yourself going to random lower population areas. Id stick it out imo. Good luck with the shaman.

[VexNemox]

I played retail back in the 99-2001 days. Green is very reflective of how things were with some exceptions, there were more Rogues and Rangers and Shadow Knights back then. Back then it was more about playing an ideal than playing the most effective levelling machine which today's min/maxing have skewed the class diversity on. Less people were aware of the hybrid penalty when creating their characters, less people were aware of ZEM, etc.

[Tecmos Deception]

Back then it was more about playing an ideal

This is mostly only because we didn't thoroughly understand the classes and their balance and their playstyles back then. I don't think many/any people knowingly picked an underpowered class because they liked the "ideal" of it. We picked classes based on what sounded cool, on what the developers and the flavor text seemed to intend the class for.

I don't think it's fair to say that being aware of game balance and mechanics is skewing things so much as straightening them out. It was skewed in the first place, with deceptive/incorrect information about the game being what people relied on to make their decisions.

[VexNemox]

This is mostly only because we didn't thoroughly understand the classes and their balance and their playstyles back then. I don't think many/any people knowingly picked an underpowered class because they liked the "ideal" of it. We picked classes based on what sounded cool, on what the developers and the flavor text seemed to intend the class for.

I don't think it's fair to say that being aware of game balance and mechanics is skewing things so much as straightening them out. It was skewed in the first place, with deceptive/incorrect information about the game being what people relied on to make their decisions.

Ideal has 2 definitions, Im using one, you are using another.

1. satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
2. existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

Im using 2, you are using 1.

So in my opinion a lot of people gravitated to Rogue, Ranger and Shadow Knight for the fantasy of playing those classes more than for the best, most min/maxed options, of the time. Today the most min/maxed options are heavily skewed as favorites.

[Grakken]

I play shaman for the group aspect of it, I don't really care about the fact that they solo very well

I'd say, don't play a shaman. I'm a 50 shaman. But in no ideal group do you want a shaman. You're a poor man's healing option, a poor man's dps option.

Shaman's most min max best role in a group is prolly the tank. Drowsy spam for aggro, decent enough mitigation and a smaller XP penalty than Paly/SK/Ranger. Wars are teribad aggro.

[Evets]

Play what's fun for you! I love a shammy in my group.

[shovelquest]

Its such a great legacy class:

Red Plate
Manastone
Cant be Dark Elf
Giant/Large Race

Its one legacy item above a druid for legacy coolness.

Runners up:

Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Ogre, Troll, Barb

[Tecmos Deception]

I'd say, don't play a shaman. I'm a 50 shaman. But in no ideal group do you want a shaman. You're a poor man's healing option, a poor man's dps option.

Shaman's most min max best role in a group is prolly the tank. Drowsy spam for aggro, decent enough mitigation and a smaller XP penalty than Paly/SK/Ranger. Wars are teribad aggro.

:confused:

[cd288]

Many are playing them because in late game they become one of the best solo classes so people which use them to farm plat and loot.

[red_demonman]

Consider playing one if you don't mind setting up some awesome duos. Duos can be some of the best exp in the game and shammy pairs really well with a lot of other classes.

I've had a lot of success duoing with mages recently. Just drop a slow and sick both pets = profit. Duos open up some camp options that full groups don't (especially with how crowded it is in the upper level zones).

[Smellybuttface]

I'd say, don't play a shaman. I'm a 50 shaman. But in no ideal group do you want a shaman. You're a poor man's healing option, a poor man's dps option.

Shaman's most min max best role in a group is prolly the tank. Drowsy spam for aggro, decent enough mitigation and a smaller XP penalty than Paly/SK/Ranger. Wars are teribad aggro.

Definitely not. No parry, no riposte, max 75 dodge; yes you can get aggro, but no one wants you to with such low mitigation. Warriors might not be great at getting aggro compared to the knight classes or even a Ranger, but I’d much rather just cast root on the mob and let the War tank it over a Shaman. To put it in perspective, a Rogue is a far better tank than a Shaman.

Shaman best role is off-healer/utility (can be a decent main healer if they stay up on Canni-dancing/regen). Malo, slowing mobs 40+, moderate nuking ability.

[Siege]

Shamans are a sought-after secondary support because they bring more to the table than Druids. They obviously bring unique stat buffs, but they also bring slow and haste, which is useful if there isn't an Enchanter or Bard in the group. Their pet, while weak, is mana-free sustained DPS, and their nukes aren't terrible if there's already plenty of healing. They're also more effective than Druids at main or off healing because of Cannibalize and (eventually) Torpor.

Basically, a good Shaman is rarely considered a waste of a slot. They're similar to Bard in that they can be slotted into almost any group and figure out something useful to do.

[DMN]

Shamans are a sought-after secondary support because they bring more to the table than Druids. They obviously bring unique stat buffs, but they also bring slow and haste, which is useful if there isn't an Enchanter or Bard in the group. Their pet, while weak, is mana-free sustained DPS, and their nukes aren't terrible if there's already plenty of healing. They're also more effective than Druids at main or off healing because of Cannibalize and (eventually) Torpor.

Basically, a good Shaman is rarely considered a waste of a slot. They're similar to Bard in that they can be slotted into almost any group and figure out something useful to do.

Rather have a druid if necro or enchanter can charm. Then you can have a max hasted dual wielding machine of devastation permanently ensnared. Kill things fast is the most efficient healing.

[Grakken]

Definitely not. No parry, no riposte, max 75 dodge; yes you can get aggro, but no one wants you to with such low mitigation. Warriors might not be great at getting aggro compared to the knight classes or even a Ranger, but I’d much rather just cast root on the mob and let the War tank it over a Shaman. To put it in perspective, a Rogue is a far better tank than a Shaman.

Shaman best role is off-healer/utility (can be a decent main healer if they stay up on Canni-dancing/regen). Malo, slowing mobs 40+, moderate nuking ability.

I've tanked efreeti, fire giants, frenzy, lord, nobles. Mitigation differences are near meaningless, the true advantage of warriors and knights are their health pools for CHeal efficiency. Fully buffed I'm at 2400 hp while a warrior is around 3200 iirc. Remeber a shaman tank on xp mobs casts slows for aggro which generally aren't cast otherwise.

Shaman start off okay at healing but suck by end game. Their nukes are meh and lackluster in efficiency. Malo is only worth casting on charm pet. Slows are too much mana for how fast mobs die. At every turn another class is better than shaman. All these things added together make a good solo class. But, they are really terrible for groups. OP is only interested in groups. Play a cleric or Bard. You will always get a group.

[dareo]

I played a shaman in classic, it was great, chose Enc this time. Shaman is a lot of clicking and i believe its overplayed today. You can solo really hard mobs if you have to. I root kited a red con named in rather mtns once, took 45 mins using the disease dots but i got it killed. Didn't drop anything. If you have some good gear and pull with slow you can take a beating while dps classes do their thing. In classic/kunark era i never had trouble finding a group when i wanted it or being able to root rot stuff when i was just popping on for a bit.

[eqravenprince]

I remember Shamans in 1999 being considered underpowered and Wizards needing nerfed. Sometimes I miss the days of not knowing.

[VexNemox]

Back in 99 the cap was 50 so Shaman didn't really come in to being overly strong til later. P99 will never truely be the real classic experience, just like Classic WoW isn't how it was back in 2005-6. To much is known, meta exists, etc.

[dareo]

I believe the classic shaman to be reasonably balanced but once you get lvl 51, turgurs insects, they become OP.

[shovelquest]

I remember Shamans in 1999 being considered underpowered and Wizards needing nerfed. Sometimes I miss the days of not knowing.

I wonder if I would enjoy a version of everquest where everything is randomized including spells and skills to make up classes of bizarre random types that we have to just figure out before the server resets in a year.

I dont even care if the mithral 2h sword drops off of the froglock squire so long as whoever figures that out uses that power to be the top guild that year. :D We're talking a server where you might have a complete healing life sucking warrior as a class lol

[eqravenprince]

I wonder if I would enjoy a version of everquest where everything is randomized including spells and skills to make up classes of bizarre random types that we have to just figure out before the server resets in a year.

I dont even care if the mithral 2h sword drops off of the froglock squire so long as whoever figures that out uses that power to be the top guild that year. :D We're talking a server where you might have a complete healing life sucking warrior as a class lol

Would be interesting to figure it out again and again. That is part of the fun.

[bum3]

Do not worry even in mid to late 40s many shaman tanks out tank many tanks on green. They hold agro better and as a cleric healing them it's still 1 CH per mob... same as most tanks.

[Smellybuttface]

Do not worry even in mid to late 40s many shaman tanks out tank many tanks on green. They hold agro better and as a cleric healing them it's still 1 CH per mob... same as most tanks.

I've never EVER seen this. Paladin's and SK's can easily hold aggro as well as a Shaman, and while a Warrior has trouble, I'd much rather just root the mob and let a Warrior tank with amazing mitigation as opposed to letting a Shaman try to. Hell, even a Ranger can hold aggro decently well with snare/flame lick, and they get parry/dodge/riposte.

Shaman's only defensive skill is dodge which maxes out at 75. Even a cleric would out-tank a shaman, and could hold aggro just as well using Stun.

[Fammaden]

what about raid guilds, do they still want shaman?

You're correct the class is overpopulated on green, and while some spot healing and a wider spread of buff casters can be nice on raids, the class does not stack that well at all. You can quickly reach a saturation point where additional shamans are completely superfluous.

They can be nice for groups but stack even worse for a six man, so any 40's+ xp group will never want to invite a second if they can help it, despite people claiming that slow tanking shaman are somehow common or welcome.

You can of course solo well, if you can find the camp you want open these days.

In the long run its not really the best choice for pick up grouping, nor for raiding unless you like death and constant buff requests. And to get to the super powerful level 60 solo god status you will need to acquire very rare and high priced Kunark drop spells.

Good luck, have fun.