What classes are over populated

[shortbuslower]

I played eq from 1999-2003 and thinking of making shaman but if they are overpopulated later in game on server then i dont want to go that route. just looking for a class easy get a group. Only reason im asking I duhno if classes that are needed have changed since classic eq or if a certain class is overpopulated because that class was not over populated in classic and and was easy get a group.

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by shortbuslower [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I played eq from 1999-2003 and thinking of making shaman but if they are overpopulated later in game on server then i dont want to go that route. just looking for a class easy get a group. Only reason im asking I duhno if classes that are needed have changed since classic eq or if a certain class is overpopulated because that class was not over populated in classic and and was easy get a group.

Play a tank, cleric, or enchanter if you want groups.

[Vendar]

Originally Posted by SupaflyIRL [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Play a rogue, tank, cleric, or enchanter if you want groups.

fix't

[SirAlvarex]

Tanks, if they have the equipment, will have a fairly easy time getting a group 10-30 (the only levels I've played a Warrior). On my Warrior, I'd get random tells all the time asking if I was LFG, and if I'd come join a group. I *never* got such tells on my Necro, Druid, or Mage.

The problem with a tank is that even if you do get asked to groups all the time, those few precious times when all the groups seem scarce, you can't really do anything. SKs might not have that issue, but Warriors sure do.

Enchanter's are probably the most over-populated class 50+, but you'll be able to solo effectively and still be loved in groups. But if you have trouble paying attention in groups, just be a healer. The only thing they have to watch is the health pools of everyone and rebuff.

Shaman's are pretty over-populated, but you'll still have a nice balance of soloing / grouping.

[shortbuslower]

thanks Im thinking of shaman if still can groups alright since i want to be able solo some only reason im staying away from cleric is be able solo if i need do something. I have a baby but want to be able raid when i get too that point where i can. If shamans are still desirable at 60 for raiding ill go with shaman but if they are overcrowded in guilds ill change class

[shortbuslower]

sorry about no pauses im on iphone

[ElanoraBryght]

From just over a month ago -
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...2&postcount=25

There are a good number of shaman on the server, but as long as you don't mind solo'ing when you can't find a group they're a fun class. At 60 they're very much desired in exp groups and raids.

Bard, Rogue, and Wizard are the three classes I wish I saw more people playing. Both for exp, and in raids.

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by ElanoraBryght [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From just over a month ago -
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...2&postcount=25

There are a good number of shaman on the server, but as long as you don't mind solo'ing when you can't find a group they're a fun class. At 60 they're very much desired in exp groups and raids.

Bard, Rogue, and Wizard are the three classes I wish I saw more people playing. Both for exp, and in raids.

Why wizard?

[shortbuslower]

thanks for all the info =)

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by ElanoraBryght [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bard, Rogue, and Wizard are the three classes I wish I saw more people playing. Both for exp, and in raids.

Even though I play one, i'll admit wizards bring the least to nearly any group (except AoE, where wizards do shine). Even Rangers bring more sustained damage over time. The wizard stun line is ok, but chanter stuns cast a lot faster and seem to draw less aggro, so are more useful for critical interrupts. Sure, wizards can frontload damage in a bad situation - but there are still tons of better classes to deal with a bad situation.

Aside: i'm just being honest - I still love the class and play it as well as I can in any situation - I just prefer to be honest about comparing it with other classes and deal with that reality rather than convincing myself my class is better than it is.

Think of a wizard level 51-59 (sunstrike @60 is roughly 3.59 damage per mana, any of the draught nuke line are about 3.06-3.1 depending on level) as pretty much this:

( [mana regeneration over T time period] x ~3.06 ) - resists = Sustained damage over T

Aside: my #'s on med ticks and c2 might be slightly off, but the point stands)

So, without clarity: [200 mana in 10 ticks or 60 seconds] x ~3.06 = 612 damage per minute = 10.2 DPS.

With C2: [310 mana in 10 ticks or 60 seconds] x ~3.06 = 948.6 damage per minute = 15.81 DPS

Ranger dps with average gear = ???

I don't know what it is, but i'm betting it's higher than 15.81, not including VoG or some other haste...

If rain spells like Tears of Druzzil didn't have such high resist rates and pets didn't eat their ticks (which is a classic mechanic unfortunately), they'd be useful. And it's sad to say, but Splurt alone, with its 6.88 damage per mana ratio and 17 dps over its full duration, is pretty much better than wizard sustained dps (if every mob fought was splurted and took the full duration, which might not happen - but the necro's pet and other dots, although less efficient than splurt, make it no contest).


But suffice it to say, the wizard's benefit is on larger raid mobs where they can dump their damage on a single target in a small window of time or in a situation where AoE is useful...and quad kiting is definitely effective and fun.

But we suck in typical groups.