Average Player Population by Class and Level - data fun!

[bigforest]

Hey all, so during solo downtime I've been doing /who all count surveys to get a better picture of the server's population.

This includes tonight's population at 9pm EST. I've been testing every day for the last 7 days at varying times from 6PM EST - 1AM EST. The total population has been over 500 in every survey.

http://i.imgur.com/Z2MaG.png

http://i.imgur.com/mnevS.png

I'm probably going to do some more of these. Draw your own conclusions!

[Flunklesnarkin]

probably a bit skewed because you can't see what people who are anon classes are.

[lostclover]

With /who all class count you get a higher number than /who all class

I think the count shows anon?

[ArumTP]

Could have guessed the paladin and ranger, seeing that their kunark armor is dirt cheap. Pair of tolans gloves were merched for a week there. On the other hand everyone and their mother seems to have a SK twink on the side.

[Boombha]

I think this is pretty cool.

I think a class by lvl would be interesting, say lvl 5 up. It seems that the lower levels (teens) are inundated with monks, rogues, wizards and bards.

[MissingNo]

I think this is pretty cool.

I love visual representations of data.

[Galaa]

I'm surprised that paladins are lower than rangers...

[Daliant17447]

I think the count shows anon?

it does

[bigforest]

There was an average discrepancy of 26 players between the population number on project1999.org and the total sum of all /who all class count, so I don't believe it counts anon.

Unless there's another explanation?

[Reikerx]

/who all x count does include anonymous players.

[Phased]

Tonight there was not a single 30-39 warrior, paladin, or SK for over an hour. After seeing that graph it definitely makes sense why.

[Bazia]

Tonight there was not a single 30-39 warrior, paladin, or SK for over an hour. After seeing that graph it definitely makes sense why.

Because everyone is 50+?

[Phased]

Because everyone is 50+?

Not sure what chart you're looking at, but there's over 50% more people that are 1-49 than 50+. Take away the EC mules and it's still greater, so I'm not sure how you define the word 'everyone'.

[fischsemmel]

There was only an average of 26 rp and/or anon characters out of 500+?

Not a chance.

[bigforest]

There was only an average of 26 rp and/or anon characters out of 500+?

Not a chance.

I couldn't believe it either - maybe I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion.

But why at all times was the pop number on project1999.org 20 or so higher than the total number of /who all counts? Guides /GMS?

[Boombha]

I think what you did is amazing, so /anon numbers are right or not, isn't much of the point, it gives a nice representation of the server.

For those of us geeky types who like numbers and graphs, it's pretty cool!

[DoucLangur]

There was an average discrepancy of 26 players between the population number on project1999.org and the total sum of all /who all class count, so I don't believe it counts anon.

Unless there's another explanation?

Are you sure it wasn't just the discrepancy between people logging on and off while you were doing your /who all checks?

[MissingNo]

What's up with all the druids considering what people say about them not really desirable for groups 50+? Is it just people's farmers? If that's the case, why is it so much higher than necros or shaman or enchanters?

[bigforest]

Are you sure it wasn't just the discrepancy between people logging on and off while you were doing your /who all checks?

Pretty confident it isn't, since I mapped buttons to do the checks and with everything windowed it takes less than a minute to enter the data into google docs.

I might have assumed that the website population number was just not refreshed (seems like it is every 15 mins or so), but since I did it at 6pm when pop numbers are trending up and at 1am when pop numbers are trending down I don't think this is the case either.

[john_savage1982]

Pretty confident it isn't, since I mapped buttons to do the checks and with everything windowed it takes less than a minute to enter the data into google docs.

I might have assumed that the website population number was just not refreshed (seems like it is every 15 mins or so), but since I did it at 6pm when pop numbers are trending up and at 1am when pop numbers are trending down I don't think this is the case either.

You mean you don't automate this from the log file?

[Raavak]

What's up with all the druids... This surprised me. I wonder where they are all hiding.

[webrunner5]

Thanks for the effort bigforest. Very interesting data. Yeah, I agree. I don't see that many Druids on either??

Finding a Tank anymore in this game is really becoming a chore at level 45 and below.

[Bazia]

Thanks for the effort bigforest. Very interesting data. Yeah, I agree. I don't see that many Druids on either??

Finding a Tank anymore in this game is really becoming a chore at level 45 and below.

I played a warrior here and quit it at level 30ish due to all the uber DPS twinks that constantly criticize your ability to hold aggro when they have incredible gear and don't do anything to help you with aggro control.

[Zuranthium]

I played a warrior here and quit it at level 30ish due to all the uber DPS twinks that constantly criticize your ability to hold aggro when they have incredible gear and don't do anything to help you with aggro control.

And thus we see why twinking breaks game immersion and even basic playability.

[WhatIsAJuggalo]

i have a question regarding making an ez mode levelling group that will still have application in higher level content. me and three others are getting back into eq. two of them are playing monk and shaman for sure, and obviously those two alone will be able to breeze through most content.

the other is leaning towards shadowknight (he mained beastlord on live but obviously none here) but looking at these statistics it seems like shadowknight, paladin, and ranger are classes that will be shunned in classic end game content (if we even intend on doing raiding, we'll see).

getting around to the question, not that we'll have many problems, but what would be the ideal classes to fill out after the monk and shaman. will we really need a full tank, and if we do, will pallies or sks even be considered for end game?

also, if he ends up sticking with tank, i cant decide on the remaining utility/DPS class. each of the remaining DPS/casters have benefits (except ranger lawl). wizard would get ports, mage would have a reliable pet + nuke combo, enchanter is just plain useful and would have decent buffs for the other three, rogue along with the monk would end lives quickly. necro probably wouldnt contribute that much. they all sound appealing :(

[Ele]

i have a question regarding making an ez mode levelling group that will still have application in higher level content. me and three others are getting back into eq. two of them are playing monk and shaman for sure, and obviously those two alone will be able to breeze through most content.

the other is leaning towards shadowknight (he mained beastlord on live but obviously none here) but looking at these statistics it seems like shadowknight, paladin, and ranger are classes that will be shunned in classic end game content (if we even intend on doing raiding, we'll see).

getting around to the question, not that we'll have many problems, but what would be the ideal classes to fill out after the monk and shaman. will we really need a full tank, and if we do, will pallies or sks even be considered for end game?

also, if he ends up sticking with tank, i cant decide on the remaining utility/DPS class. each of the remaining DPS/casters have benefits (except ranger lawl). wizard would get ports, mage would have a reliable pet + nuke combo, enchanter is just plain useful and would have decent buffs for the other three, rogue along with the monk would end lives quickly. necro probably wouldnt contribute that much. they all sound appealing :(

I would fill out the rest of that foursome with an SK and Cleric.

[Grozmok]

No clerics on that list?

/sadpanda

[WhatIsAJuggalo]

forgot about druid/cleric :S

thanks for the advice... looking at cleric, i think ill roll that and the other dude will go with SK.

[webrunner5]

There is Nothing wrong with a SK or a Pally even in raids. It is mostly the Hybred penalty that kills them off. The 40% or more penalty slows down group XP, which makes it harder to get a group, and they get tired of seeing their friends they started with being level 50 while they are level 30. That is the problem.

[Mcbard]

I love visual representations of data.

One of my favorite sites: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/

[bakkily]

the thing though, in 2-4 months the pop will jump up again a few 100-300 peeps due to summer time

[MissingNo]

One of my favorite sites: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/

that is awesome!

[Kika Maslyaka]

QUESTION: anyone want to try to make a Race popularity chart? (how many people play what race?)

[Smilkers]

just wanted to bump this.
pretty cool thread. thanks for the original info charts OP!

would love to get more detailed info on class/level combined, as well as race.

[RiffDaemon]

the thing though, in 2-4 months the pop will jump up again a few 100-300 peeps due to summer time

And there'll be 20 paladins instead of the 15 I saw last night :D

[falkun]

I couldn't believe it either - maybe I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion.

But why at all times was the pop number on project1999.org 20 or so higher than the total number of /who all counts? Guides /GMS?

The pop numbers from project1999.org are the same numbers provided by the server list. I would bet these numbers are "people connected to the server", which would include people sitting at character select. These accounts (people) are logged into the server, but do not have a character in the game world (therefore would not show up on a /who count). 26 seems very reasonable in that case.

[Gamkek]

The pop numbers from project1999.org are the same numbers provided by the server list. I would bet these numbers are "people connected to the server", which would include people sitting at character select. These accounts (people) are logged into the server, but do not have a character in the game world (therefore would not show up on a /who count). 26 seems very reasonable in that case.

Yeah, I'm on board with this accounting for the discrepancy. People tend to take sudden and/or long afks from EQ, or just log off their character for a bit to stay safe but intend to come back, so it makes sense there would be quite a few people just sitting at the log in screen.

I'm quite surprised that there are so many freaking druids. Everything I've read has always seemed to indicate clerics + shamans > druids at high levels. But I guess there are a lot of solo players/farmers who are in it for the travel spells, heals and kiting. Now that I think about it, sounds more or less like what Live was like back in 2000. :D

[bigforest]

I would bet these numbers are "people connected to the server", which would include people sitting at character select.

This is the most reasonable explanation I've heard or considered. Thanks!

All new sets of data coming next week...

[kazroth]

Any new data? :)

[doacleric]

Tonight there was not a single 30-39 warrior, paladin, or SK for over an hour. After seeing that graph it definitely makes sense why.

Not sure why people are always complaining about the lack of tanks. I'm a Pally in my 30's, and I can sit LFG for 2-3 hours at a time and not get a single tell. We might be low in number, but we also don't seem to be highly desirable. Instead, groups I join are usually lacking some form of crowd control.

[Scavrefamn]

There are too many Erudite Paladins.

Curse you shield of the stalwart seas!

[kazroth]

bigforest quit playin'? Last word was more graphs would be comin'!

[stormlord]

There is Nothing wrong with a SK or a Pally even in raids. It is mostly the Hybred penalty that kills them off. The 40% or more penalty slows down group XP, which makes it harder to get a group, and they get tired of seeing their friends they started with being level 50 while they are level 30. That is the problem.
I agree that the group penalty is a big turn off, but an exp penalty limited to yourself alone is not going to kill the game, at least for me. I started a ranger on live in 1999 and played one all the way up to 2010. But this is mostly because I soloed a lot and made friends easily and it didn't bother me if they out-leveled me. In fact, that was the rule. I played off/on and everybody always out-leveled me. I liked being a ranger. I guess if you have a core group of friends and you're leveling slower than them it would be a problem.

I don't think all the classes have to be equally desirable for them to work. I think it's a mistake to think that way. I think a class is only broken when nobody plays it. Different players have different tolerances and different interests. It makes sense to me that some classes might be less popular for this reason. This also applies to games. Some games are less popular than others. That doesn't mean they're bad games. It could just mean they attract a different smaller audience. And that's what I actually believe.

But if this game could be done over again I think that one would have to look at the experience penalty and either change it so it doesn't get in the way of other players or to add a different penalty. I am of the opinion that the ranger really was a powerful class, but only in the right content and, seeing as it usually wasn't the right kind in large groups, they only prospered alone or in small groups. I don't blame that on the ranger itself, I blame it on the wrong kind of content being made. Rangers are/were supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades; a hybrid. Kind of like the SK and Paladin. But the game really excluded them in a lot of ways by not giving them the right kind of content so they can be useful. Ideally, I'd like to see more games where everybody can be a jack-of-all-trades, not just certain classes. And where you can solve problems using many different methods. But that would be a game that's more skill-based and where you can easily train/untrain. In class-based games, there'd need to be a multi-class system or some way to switch classes on the fly.

(also... why should a jack-of-all-trades need a penalty if when you add up their total skills it's equal to any other class? since they had an exp penalty, it argues that they WERE overpowered. this discussion i think is one that's continually overlooked because many people have never played a ranger for long. from my perspective, the possibility that they overpowered the ranger to compensate for toned-down skills still exists. this implies that they later -after they removed exp penalties- also nerfed the ranger; its defense skills?)

Btw, check out the link in my signature (Server class distributions):
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=382767&postcount=7

Somebody on the team did a rundown on the classes a while ago. So check the link. It also shows you that druids, while popular, don't necessarily survive to max level just because they're popular.

To save you time, this is what the march to max level looks like:
Enchanter (+266%)
Cleric (+216%)
Magician (+160%)
Rogue (+140%)
Monk (+120%)
Shaman (+0%)
Wizard (+0%)
Necromancer (-10%)
Warrior (-33%)
Druid (-37%)
Bard (-50%)
Ranger (-50%)
Shadowknight (-75%)
Paladin (-80%)

Put another way, more enchanters survive the gauntlet from level 1 to max level than any other class.

[Ephirith]

Ideally, I'd like to see more games where everybody can be a jack-of-all-trades, not just certain classes. And where you can solve problems using many different methods. But that would be a game that's more skill-based and where you can easily train/untrain. In class-based games, there'd need to be a multi-class system or some way to switch classes on the fly.

They basically tried this exact philosophy in World of Warcraft. In vanilla, all the classes were fairly distinct and you NEEDED certain classes for certain encounters. Then there was a movement at the end of Burning Crusade toward class homogenization, using the tagline, "Bring the player, not the class". They added dual spec which meant many classes could change roles on the fly.

They accomplished their goal in that, for the majority of the playerbase in non-progression raiding or grouping, you could bring nearly any combination of classes and still be viable. I liked that. What I didn't like was how all the classes just felt like different shades of the same color, but it certainly wasn't gamebreaking for me. (For what was gamebreaking, see any internet discussion of WoW, anywhere, ever)

[Nordenwatch]

Necros are -10%? Who are these jackasses quitting necros before they hit 60?

[stormlord]

They basically tried this exact philosophy in World of Warcraft. In vanilla, all the classes were fairly distinct and you NEEDED certain classes for certain encounters. Then there was a movement at the end of Burning Crusade toward class homogenization, using the tagline, "Bring the player, not the class". They added dual spec which meant many classes could change roles on the fly.

They accomplished their goal in that, for the majority of the playerbase in non-progression raiding or grouping, you could bring nearly any combination of classes and still be viable. I liked that. What I didn't like was how all the classes just felt like different shades of the same color, but it certainly wasn't gamebreaking for me. (For what was gamebreaking, see any internet discussion of WoW, anywhere, ever)
Well I just came from EQ2. And I got the distinct impression that the classes were homogenized. For example, the rogues all play the same mostly. When you examine their powers, they have different names and buff different forms of dps, but overall, the way they play is not really different. But I mostly blame the content in the game, not the classes. The content is just too run of the mill. There's no need for diverse skills to overcome it, so they can get away with these cookie-cutter classes that behave similarly.

I ended up playing a Warden because they can heal and do some combat and root and so on. But the only reason they can do lots of things is because early on in the game anybody can tank just about. But if I had continued to play I'd eventually hit a wall and suffer from lacking good defense and dps. Paladins, on the other hand, can tank a lot better. In fact, I almost considered playing a paladin since they at least are more like a hybrid. But overall, in EQ2 the classes all have roles and pretty much stick to them.

When I say jack-of-all-trades, what I'm really getting at is interesting gameplay. By this I mean you're using diverse techniques to solve problems. You're not always doing the same thing. In traditional games a rogue is a rogue and is stuck with it. They solve problems by usually either stabbing something in the back, poisoning it and/or stealing its gold. This is what I disagree with because I think it's too restricting and makes the game boring. Games should be diverse and if they put us in one role too much then there's not enough to keep us interested. So when I say jack-of-all-trades, it's the gameplay I'm prioritizing, not the distribution of skills. If a game could add enough depth to EVERY class then it could work, but not many games are deep enough and so they have to have jack-of-all-trades to keep things compelling. Or you have to box to achieve that feel.

Boxing is a great way to do it, but it's a clumsy and expensive way.

in EQ, ironically, I've always felt that enchanters and necromancers had some diverse gameplay. While they can't tank or track or some other things, they can mez and charm and feign death and other things. Necromancers are more suited for solo-play, though, since they have so many dots. Enchanters, if they're in good content, can be very fun to play. But in bad content they're a chore. As a chanter, I most enjoyed those moments when things got frantic and I had to mez/etc (do crowd control). I enjoy juggling all of their abilities.

Necromancer is best class if you like to go afk and don't like to wait for groups :) That right there is a big plus. No other class than the monk or sk has the ability to pause the game (FD) and go afk.

I didn't know anything about necromancers or enchanters when I started EQ. I started as a ranger and mostly stuck with that until 2010 (off and on ofc). But evne look back on all of it, I've never been compatible with the necromancer/enchanter lore. I love the forest and love axes and like ranger lore and being a bad*** wildman. So it's just me being honest when I say that wielding swords/axes and/or a bow is right up my ally.

[Swish]

Who are these jackasses quitting necros before they hit 60?

Never fully quit, just slowly levelling :D

[stormlord]

I made a thread about the population last year here:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=382187#post382187

The chart is here:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dlll6e.jpg

I redid the percentages to reflect all the level ranges before max level. All I did was average the percentages of players per class per level range for all previous ranges. Then I compared this average to the percentages of each class at max level:

Enchanter (+234%)
Cleric (+159%)
Monk (+138%)
Rogue (+127%)
Warrior (+109%)
Wizard (+107%)
Shaman (-104%)
Necromancer (-121%)
Bard (-131%)
Ranger (-133%)
Magician (-134%)
Druid (-159%)
Shadowknight (-162%)
Paladin (-172%)

NOTE: 100% means no change. -101% means 1% loss in population share at max level. For example, if a class is averaging 8% share for all previous level ranges and falls to 7.92% at max, it's -101%.

As can be seen, the revised figures show magicians didn't succeed well at max level. Druids and Necromancers are the same. They're all popular, but don't translate to max level effectively.

These classes did exceptionally well at max level:
Enchanter
Cleric
Monk
Rogue
Warrior
Wizard

This one just compared the class percentage in the FIRST level range to the max level:

Enchanter (+266%)
Cleric (+216%)
Magician (+160%)
Rogue (+140%)
Monk (+120%)
Shaman (100%)
Wizard (100%)
Necromancer (-110%)
Warrior (-133%)
Druid (-137%)
Bard (-150%)
Ranger (-150%)
Shadowknight (-175%)
Paladin (-180%)

[webrunner5]

[QUOTE=stormlord;767967]

Necromancer is best class if you like to go afk and don't like to wait for groups :) That right there is a big plus. No other class than the monk or sk has the ability to pause the game (FD) and go afk.

Some classes. Druid comes to mind have Hide ability. Works just as good going AFK for long periods of time.

But you have a good point on Nerco's.

[Pyrion]

Druids per se do not have hide. For a lot of druids it's a racial ability (maxed at 50, so not really reliable). Druids can invis though.

[stormlord]

Necromancer is best class if you like to go afk and don't like to wait for groups :) That right there is a big plus. No other class than the monk or sk has the ability to pause the game (FD) and go afk.

Some classes. Druid comes to mind have Hide ability. Works just as good going AFK for long periods of time.

But you have a good point on Nerco's.

I agree that HIDE is a tremendous help for going afk. And this is true for any class that can be a wood elf or a halfling, I think. It's true for rangers (75 max) and rogues (highest skill of any class). While cinvis monsters can break it, I LOVED it and would recommend it to anybody that's making a class that doesn't come with it.

(say, a hafling warrior is good pick... and 90% more exp than a ranger, is swell! at any given time, the ranger gets 60 and the hafling warrior gets 114.5. 114.5/60 = 90%.)

Personally, I think most or all mmorpgs should have something like FD or Hide for every class or skill-combination. I think being able to pause is an important trait of gaming since RL happens a lot.

Something like this allows the game to be as complex as it wants to be without causing you to stay hooked to your computer without being able to go afk. Complex pathing/aggroing/cc/etc. Otherwise, without this you get trapped in the dungeon without a means to easily walk away from the computer.

But I think it has to be looked at carefully so it's not exploitable and doesn't diminish the danger inside the game. To me the danger is everything. If it's not there, I am bored beyond belief. So this whole functionality has to be designed into the game from the ground up so it's adding less unknown variables ripe for abuse.

The danger aspect is why I tended in my past to gravitate towards harsh games or pvp servers. It's just in my blood. It's a bit of thrill seeker. A lot of players don't share this same desire I have for danger. They're not less than me. They're just not as reliant on the need for danger to stay entertained. It's a vice.

[Elements]

My warrior has hide. Very useful for going afk as you said. I think dark elves get it too no?

[India]

My warrior has hide. Very useful for going afk as you said. I think dark elves get it too no?

You are correct, DE's get hide too

[Twilight-Sparkle]

Why so few Paladins? They get good heals (Superior/Celestial) and buffs (Resolution/90%res), and can't they tank raids like Warriors and SK's?

Also, they get Fiery Defender, THE coolest looking weapon in the game.

[stormlord]

Why so few Paladins? They get good heals (Superior/Celestial) and buffs (Resolution/90%res), and can't they tank raids like Warriors and SK's?

Also, they get Fiery Defender, THE coolest looking weapon in the game.
They get root too. Root is awesome for survival purposes and sometimes for kiting. Ofc, their root only lasts up to 12 seconds, but that's long enough to cast a few heals. Rangers get a root at 49 that lasts for over a minute. Still, even a 12 second root can be very useful and only 30mana per cast. Good for indoors. Snaring works best outdoors. Indoors snaring isn't nearly as good because of close proximity to other aggroes.

(Note: Paladins do get a 1 minute-plus root at level 54.)

Warriors own tanking in the upper game. I think when EQ first started there was a unfair advantage to other classes in terms of tanking but they had to fill that hole afterwards to stop the complaints. You can notice this when leveling up. Even a wizard can tank somewhat. The difference got bigger with time.

In some RPGs warriors are the simplest class and also the least capable overall. They're a good way to introduce yourself to the game. AFter that you'd multi-class or add non-warrior skills for more power. But this idea is kind of lost in most MMORPGs due to classes being equally powerful. I wish it could see more experimentation. IMHO, there's only so many ways to skin a sheep. Warriors are warriors are close-combat fighters, you know? That gets awfully boring after a while. There's healing, there's crowd control, there's long range attacks, there's spell casting and buffing, there's traps and poisons, there's traveling, there's knowledge skills and what else? A game has to try REAL hard to give a close-combat fighter enough tricks to stay interesting. It's futile, IMHO.

[Arrisard]

The standard Root spell has a duration of just under a minute, not 12 seconds.

[Danth]

Warriors are tanks? I maintain the impression that when a Warrior joins the group, everyone else becomes a tank. :D

The Kunark era represents the nadir of the hybrid classes. It should not surprise anyone that they're the least-played classes on P1999. Here's food for thought: The hybrids are actually *better* on P1999 than they were on live during this same era.

Druids will always maintain popularity because they possess superb utility for practically every secondary game role--plat farming, powerleveling, travel, and so forth. It's a highly useful class to have on your game account.

Danth

[Twilight-Sparkle]

Are Paladins or SK's even capable of maintanking a raid boss? Or do you absolutely NEED a Warrior for that job?

[Danth]

Hybrids are capable of tanking most raid bosses presently in game.** They require considerably more healing than a Warrior, but it can be done and may even be preferable if your raid happens to have abundant healing. Warriors become a lot more necessary for the tougher Velious named.

Danth

**It's possible the hybrids may have tanked all of them, but there are a few I'm unsure of so I won't make the absolute claim.

[Twilight-Sparkle]

Does a Pally need a shield to tank or can they do it with Fiery Avenger/Defender?

I remember hearing something about Pallies being able to use Bash with Avenger or Defender, I just don't know what era it is implemented.

[Kika Maslyaka]

2hander bash comes from AA - which was either Luclin or PoP

[falkun]

Fiery Defender allows bash without AA. Its the only weapon in the game to allow this. SKs would complain, but most of them are troll/ogre and already have slam. I think Innoruuk's Curse eventually gets buffed to allow bashing, but I don't know when.

[kaev]

Fiery Avenger also allows bash (or did on live, haven't got it here yet.) The problem with hydrids using a two-hander to tank a raid boss is that they give up shield AC, and shield AC ignores the AC cap. This matters especially before the melee revamp in Velious. If p99 melee mechanics are the same as (or close to) live mechanics during Kunark, Warriors mitigate incoming damage noticeably better than Paladin/SK do. It's not a huge difference, but it can matter a lot.

As I recall it (lol memory), knights did not tank the more difficult Velious raid bosses until after they were geared from the expansion, Warriors were doing it while they and their guilds were in the process of gearing up.

[webrunner5]

Warriors are king in Velious as Tanks hands down.

[Twilight-Sparkle]

Fiery Avenger also allows bash (or did on live, haven't got it here yet.) The problem with hydrids using a two-hander to tank a raid boss is that they give up shield AC, and shield AC ignores the AC cap. This matters especially before the melee revamp in Velious. If p99 melee mechanics are the same as (or close to) live mechanics during Kunark, Warriors mitigate incoming damage noticeably better than Paladin/SK do. It's not a huge difference, but it can matter a lot.

As I recall it (lol memory), knights did not tank the more difficult Velious raid bosses until after they were geared from the expansion, Warriors were doing it while they and their guilds were in the process of gearing up.

Doesn't the Fiery Defender act like a shield on its own though? I recall it does have AC.