Average Player Population by Class and Level - data fun!

[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]

Originally Posted by webrunner5 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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/sh...67&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]

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

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]

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

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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 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]

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

Who are these jackasses quitting necros before they hit 60?

Never fully quit, just slowly levelling [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[stormlord]

I made a thread about the population last year here:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...187#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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 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.