Least played classes? [Archive]

sedrie.bellamie

02-25-2013, 10:23 PM

which classes are the least played now a days, and often sought after because of their rarity?

Paladin

I don't think anyone is ever thinking; you know what this group needs is a paladin

Wizards mages tanks rogues

And rangers post 30

It can be hardish for a wizard to find a pick up group but can be useful at the 50+ levels

mages can find groups and do some damage: not really that rare

Tanks: I guess you mean warriors, SKs, and monks: none of these are rare

rangers post 30 are super common

rogues are common but a really good rogue or two are always welcome

I may consider going something that there isnt many of, just to make getting groups an easier time.

Bards are kinda middle of the road on commonality. There are alot of low level ones twinking up and then it depends if the player can either group or kite to level up. That kinda sorts out the bards: with a good number of high level bards. Some that are excellent kiters or others great in groups. As long as you are not in some ranger/paladin/shadow knight/hybrid death match group, I could see a variety of groups wanting a bard.

Itap

02-25-2013, 10:25 PM

I don't think anyone is ever thinking; you know what this group needs is a paladin

Actually, my response was directed toward this

I was wondering which classes are the least played now a days

GG

Kevynne

02-25-2013, 10:26 PM

Have yet to see paladins past20
Monk is never tank.
rarely see wizards and mages
Almos 0 tanks 1-50

Ephirith

02-25-2013, 10:28 PM

Two informative threads on class data. The second one is a bit older:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94797&highlight=class+data

and

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65239&highlight=class+data

Danth

02-25-2013, 10:30 PM

Paladins and Rangers are roughly tied for least-played classes. However, it can't really be claimed that either of them are particularly sought after by groups. Wizards are also uncommon and are sought by some raid guilds, but tend to be shunned in the group game. Mages and Rogues might be the least common classes that groups tend to like having around. Bards are also less common than their numbers imply owing to their common use as trader mules.

Basically, class popularity on P1999 puts solo classes and monks at the top, the rest of the standard group classes in the middle, and the classes that neither solo well nor are especially desired in groups at the bottom. If you want to be unique it comes at the price of not necessarily being all that desired.

Danth

VincentVolaju

02-25-2013, 10:39 PM

Hmm, noone really mentioned Cleric, does that mean there is a pretty good amount of them at all levels? I was assuming most people wouldnt want to play Cleric because I figured they required a group pretty much to play as, or Bard because its apparently a hard/stressfull class to play.

Danth

02-25-2013, 10:50 PM

Clerics are mid-range for popularity. They're neither especially common nor terribly rare.

EDIT: I've played a Paladin and a Shadow Knight to 50+ here on P1999 (the SK to 60). You know what's funny about being a tank? A lot of folks complain that there aren't enough tanks, yet it's miserable trying to find a group as a tank past about level 35 or so. I'd say there are enough tanks in terms of their population versus what the grouping player base requires.

Danth

sedrie.bellamie

02-25-2013, 10:51 PM

your right about bards and clerics. What is nice 'bout p99 there are alot of epic clerics of all shapes and sizes. You will see clerics of all races - which I think is pretty cool

Mad Genius

02-26-2013, 12:11 AM

There are classes that are sought after, but not because of their rarity. The classes that are rare are that way for a reason.

webrunner5

02-26-2013, 05:19 AM

Other than a Wizard all the rarest Classes are Hybrids. The XP hit is just a ball buster both solo and grouped. I know a Iksar Monk is even worse with a 44% hit but at least they are wanted in groups and can kill the crap out of stuff. Try that with a Pally :eek:

ArumTP

02-26-2013, 05:54 AM

Post 50 hybrids
Wizards
Rogues, kinda
These are rare

Wizards are sometimes wanted, and their accounts can be sold very easy to TMO for a 50+ one. Rogues more common, and always welcome. Hybrids not named bard never liked at any level, and only gruelingly taken when there is no other tank or dps options

fugazi

02-26-2013, 06:02 AM

Are wizards truly that horrible to level? I'm sitting on a level 16 wizard and had been thinking of playing him solo for a bit.

Duckforceone

02-26-2013, 06:14 AM

http://p1999pop.dmsimard.com/

check this list out...

Kagatob

02-26-2013, 06:14 AM

Are wizards truly that horrible to level? I'm sitting on a level 16 wizard and had been thinking of playing him solo for a bit.

It depends on who you ask, and what type of people you want to group with.

According to the jobless, basement dwelling, who play the game by the #'s only because they are pixel addicted, wizards are the worst class since Hand to Hand rangers because they don't have this sustained dps thing in groups that have 0 downtime.

For the rest of us, wizards are a great class because of evac spells, crowd control because like their nukes, their roots tend to be resisted less and the ability to burn down a mob in a pinch.

Pscottdai

02-26-2013, 06:17 AM

Are wizards truly that horrible to level? I'm sitting on a level 16 wizard and had been thinking of playing him solo for a bit.

They are not hard to play at all actually just boring once you are out of mana and have to med forever :)

VincentVolaju

02-26-2013, 06:18 AM

edit: question was answered by the time I posted this =X

Kagatob

02-26-2013, 06:19 AM

Still surprises me how few bards there when all I see everywhere is bards kiting up a storm. I still need to learn how to swarm kite properly.

VincentVolaju

02-26-2013, 06:22 AM

Im kind of between Rogue and Wizard atm, maybe Bard also. I always assumed Wizards were amazing dps because dont they have the highest dmg nukes in the game? I thought they were even more sought after in end game for raids and such. What is it that turns people off from them so much that they would be one the least played classes?

Kagatob

02-26-2013, 06:26 AM

Don't let a few vocal neckbeards get you down. It's like the guy in the other thread who assumes nobody wants to group with a hybrid because of the xp penalty. You only hear the bad because the people who understand the good are :eek: playing and enjoying the game. :eek:

Danth

02-26-2013, 06:31 AM

Wizard or Rogue? Take your pick as to which sort of bias you prefer:

Wizards have something of a bad reputation on P1999 for attracting the sort of players who like to waste all their mana on a single monster then go AFK for ten minutes at a time. Rogues have a reputation as the standard twink alt class; a lot of folks don't even take them seriously if they don't have their epic at level 1.

Danth

Duckforceone

02-26-2013, 06:37 AM

well trying to deny the problems, won't make them go away...

it won't make the xp suck of hybrids go away, and it won't make some of the classes more sought after for grouping or endgame either...

sure it's always, play what you want, but if what you want, ends up making you quit because you can't find a group or don't feel useful, then it won't matter in the end does it?

I'd say, find a class that you enjoy, and you know you can keep playing even when the going get tough... sure if you are the kind that know you can stick through a sub par class, by all means, go for it...

i just like all the truths to be up front and don't tell them, "you are fine jim" stuff

Kagatob

02-26-2013, 06:43 AM

Don't let a few vocal neckbeards get you down.

well trying to deny the problems, won't make them go away...

it won't make the xp suck of hybrids go away, and it won't make some of the classes more sought after for grouping or endgame either...

sure it's always, play what you want, but if what you want, ends up making you quit because you can't find a group or don't feel useful, then it won't matter in the end does it?

I'd say, find a class that you enjoy, and you know you can keep playing even when the going get tough... sure if you are the kind that know you can stick through a sub par class, by all means, go for it...

i just like all the truths to be up front and don't tell them, "you are fine jim" stuff

There's one.

Pscottdai

02-26-2013, 06:47 AM

I personnaly love wizards, which is why my main on live is still active to this day and max level.

That said, and as noted above, many people playing them dump mana way to fast then afk forever since wizzies truely are a very one dimesional class. No mana for a wiz means you are useless in the era the server is in. Many also tend to over agro and get owned meaning even more down time while tehy med up from a rezz.

Other classes get to keep pumping out dps when out of mana, or in the case of rougues regardless of rezz effects, while a wiz is stuck sitting.

Wizzies can be alot of fun to play but also very frustrating if you enjoy groouping because without a regular group of friends, it is really hit or miss if you get into a group as many will choose other dps classes ahead of you.

Duckforceone

02-26-2013, 07:12 AM

you are hillarious kagatob... almost like a young bill clinton trying to deny everything.. :D

i'm not trying to get people down, i happen to love most of the gimp classes... but that does not mean i cannot tell the truth about them..

if you can stand them, go for them... but i like to let people know about the problems before they sink in alot of time and then quit because of the elephant under the rug in the living room... :D

fugazi

02-26-2013, 07:18 AM

The most important thing to do when playing a class that's 'challenged' in any way: find an active guild! Getting invited to groups, having people vouch for you and having a tag of a respected guild are things that help. A lot.

If you check the threads about rangers, you'll find the same advice over and over again. Be the one that gets groups going so that people automatically look for you when they pop online. Be socially active while playing, get a guild, etc etc. As long as you're a mediocre+ player you should be just fine.

Captain Faceplant

02-26-2013, 07:24 AM

Wizards are great, but more importantly, they are what you make them. *This is my 5th wizard (1 on live, 2 on live progression, 1 on EQ Mac, 1 here), so I may be biased.

First, what wizards are bad at. Wizards are bad at safe grinding groups with nonstop pulls-- OT, DL, or any other simple and straightforward grind. In those kinds of groups, where it's all about damage over 5+ hours and there's no danger or thinking involved, wizards fall behind. Our damage over time doesn't hold up. We can't compete with a mage, a rogue, or a monk. These are the situations that people are thinking of when they tell you that wizards suck.

Now, what wizards are good at.

1) Raiding. There is no raiding guild that doesn't want more 60 wizards. Once you've taken care of tanks, buffs, and heals, you might as well make the rest of the raid wizards. Unlike a lot of classes, there is no cap on our usefulness in a raid. It would be a waste to bring 20 enchanters, or warriors, or shamen... or necros, or paladins, or SKs, or druids... But it's never a waste to bring 20 wizards, if you can find them.

2) Dungeon groups. Ignoring evacs, which are obviously a great "oh shit" button, wizards are great in dungeons because wizards are built for emergencies. A wizard is EQ's 911. Your puller brings too many mobs, the wizard burns the first few down and turns the situation into something manageable. You take adds into the corner and root them. You stun casters. (For some reason, no one seems to know that wizards have a collection of both 5 and 8 second stuns-- both with damage attached. On my max level wizards, I've used them to solo summoning mobs. They're that powerful.)

You've got snare; I shouldn't have to say what a dead critical spell that is. You've got a selection of roots, and when things go to shit, you should be on your feet using them, parking mobs off in the corner while the rest of the group gets things in control. You've got the biggest knockback spell in the game, should you ever need it.

Using all of that correctly is on you. If you sit on your ass and do nothing but nuke then you're useless. They should fire you and get a monk. To be a good wizard takes a good player, and if you are, your groups will recognize that and ask you back.

*I'm really drunk

Pscottdai

02-26-2013, 08:00 AM

Could not agree wiht you more Capt' !

Invurnus

02-26-2013, 09:15 AM

I'm not as knowledgeable as the other folks on this thread, but I did play a Ranger to 60 on live and have a 36 wiz on p1999, so here's my 2 cp...

- The hybrid XP penalty seems extremely punishing to me. I agree with Duckforceone that it should be a real consideration before anyone rolls a hybrid. I had a lot more time on my hands when I played the Ranger, and so I might have rolled one back then even if I knew about the penalty. But today...well, EQ is enough of a grind as it is...

- Rangers are still very fun. I love the look (especially dual-wielding), and you get track, snare, root, SoW, buffs, healing, even a fear spell come Velious. If you have extra time to level your toon, you could consider being one of those rare Rangers out there.

- I absolutely love the wizard class. Leveling is slow until quad kiting becomes viable, then it's like the only way to fly. :) Some people say the class is boring, and I get that...but self ports is a game-changing power, and you can easily make up for any one-dimensional aspects of the class by leveling in different areas.

- Lorean put together a very handy matrix that might influence your decision further. I think the comments and rankings here seem very spot on, based on what I've read in the forums: http://wiki.project1999.org/Loraen%27s_Class_Selection_Guide

Ultimately I agree with the folks that say you should play what you want to play, but I do think the XP penalty should be a real consideration as well. I think you need to factor in how much time you want to put into the game and how much you enjoy the grind. I think for the right player Rangers, Paladins, etc. are a fine choice.

Seredoc

02-26-2013, 05:28 PM

...- Lorean put together a very handy matrix that might influence your decision further. I think the comments and rankings here seem very spot on, based on what I've read in the forums: http://wiki.project1999.org/Loraen%27s_Class_Selection_Guide
...

So I am just trying to understand something from that matrix. Druids are pretty much across the board the worst pure class except for solo xp/pp and < level 50. Hard epic, only good for duo's at low levels, less desired in a raid than rangers(wtf) and the weakest class at lvl 60.

So I am taking from this that essentially, everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again, if once they started quad/charm kiting they even bothered, is that about right?

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list, stuns + root and deep health pool and ability to heal oneself, you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what? Is it just the long cast times or something? I must not be understanding something about wizards.

I only have some previous experience, played on Xegony for a while and only did a few raids(max lvl before I got burned out was 55), but I did them on a druid and I'm wondering one last question: is the raiding scene here so messed up that unless I min/max with a cookie cutter race/class combo I can never hope to get in on one? It really seems, for lack of a better word (and only according to forum drama so I am fairly certain I am jumping to atleast a few conclusions xD), tyrannical.

Sithel1988

02-26-2013, 05:34 PM

theres always groups no matter what class you are. if there are no groups then you are dumb

cs616

02-26-2013, 05:55 PM

Bards are really common at the lower to mid levels but it seems a lot of people lose interest in them after the easy exp ride is over in the 50s. If you want to play a class to 60 that should be in pretty high demand a bard would not be a bad option. I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer than 20 active level 60 bards on the server right now.

Ephirith

02-26-2013, 06:06 PM

So I am taking from this that essentially, everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again, if once they started quad/charm kiting they even bothered, is that about right?

You'll still find druids in groups. There's always something you'd want instead of a druid, but you can't always find what you need, and not everyone is so discriminating. (Consequently, you may find yourself in a group with 2 bards, a druid, a ranger, and 2 paladins. It has happened to me in Karnors).

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list, stuns + root and deep health pool and ability to heal oneself, you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

It's hard to be part of an effective duo when you do almost no dps. Something like a shaman makes up for this with mind-bogglingly powerful slows in addition to buffs, heals, and mana recovery. I'd say they can duo adequately with some classes, that is, win against mobs, but overall you can get the same survivability out of a monk or warrior with the added benefit of dps.

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what? Is it just the long cast times or something? I must not be understanding something about wizards.

Wizards bring fairly low sustained dps to experience groups. They can't use their nukes frequently enough to contribute the dps other classes can. They have some usefulness burning mobs in clutch situations, CCing with root, or stunning casters, but for many those aren't very compelling reasons to want a wizard over something else.

is the raiding scene here so messed up that unless I min/max with a cookie cutter race/class combo I can never hope to get in on one? It really seems, for lack of a better word (and only according to forum drama so I am fairly certain I am jumping to atleast a few conclusions xD), tyrannical.

I raided with my ranger and enjoyed it. Got groups on my ranger adequately. Play what you enjoy. If you enjoy being desirable, or powerful, or leveling fast, take that into account. The paladin botb winner was an erudite. The sk botb winner was iksar (can't wear a lot of kunark gear). The shaman botb winner was a troll (arguably worse choice of race than ogre).

Danth

02-26-2013, 07:27 PM

...everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again,

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list...you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what?

As a rule, P1999 has a much higher proportion of power-gamers and min-maxers than Live had during the classic era. Such folks tend to think in absolutes and typically fall into the trap of thinking if you aren't the best at something, then you can't do it at all. Druids and Wizards have a hard time finding groups because most groups prefer to take Mages or Rogues or such. Paladins are rated as a terrible duo class because a Monk, Warrior, or even a Shadow Knight can do the same job but with better damage output. All of the hybrids--even Bards--have a somewhat tough time finding groups because many players can't accept the thought of possibly lowering their exp/hour by a few percent.

This server replicates classic Everquest, but it can't replicate the classic community. Essentially the various strengths and weaknesses of the different races and classes are magnified here in the eyes of the players.

Danth

webrunner5

02-26-2013, 10:05 PM

Yeah but in almost every group you NEED DPS. Lots of it. And a Wizard or a Pally, or a Necro sure as heck doesn't fit that mold sad to say. Even a Ranger can do some pretty good DPS. People want a Monk, Rogue, SK, Warrior, Mage for DPS. You need a healer and a Enchanter and you are set.

kenzar

02-26-2013, 10:33 PM

This server needs more beastlords and berserkers. I honestly never see those classes. they were the best classic dps, way better than rogues and monks.

Anderdale

02-26-2013, 11:29 PM

This server needs more beastlords and berserkers. I honestly never see those classes. they were the best classic dps, way better than rogues and monks.

beastlords were $$

Splorf22

02-26-2013, 11:35 PM

So I did explain this in the guide, but maybe not well enough. Lets hop on over to the wiki and pull out some numbers:

http://wiki.project1999.org/Ambassador_DVinn L20 / 600 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/A_ghoul_executioner L35/1575 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/A_ghoul_sage L37/1740 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Kobold_priest L40/2000 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/The_ghoul_lord L47/6500 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Froglok_ostiary L50/8750 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Froglok_chef L52/10500 hp

So if you look at this something should immediately jump out at you: The Ghoul Lord has only 7 levels on the Kobold Priest, but he has over three times as many hitpoints! In fact from L42 or so mobs gain about 1000HP per level. Basically in classic with player levels going up to 50, any mob around that level was considered a boss mob and got a corresponding hitpoint boost. What this means is that dps becomes more important, especially sustained melee dps. This is why when you ask people for their ideal group they will usually say something like War/Mnk/Rog/Rog/Cle/Enc where you have 4 pure melee and a charmed pet and you should hit 300+ dps on the parser.

The other problem druids have is that slow and complete heal both become ridiculous. At L40 when you get CH, your tank has 3k hp with buffs. At L60 it'll be 5k. So suddenly clerics are getting 8-10:1 heals while druids have 2.5:1 SH. Shamans get torpor (like a 6:1 heal) as well as slow which effectively makes their heals 4x better as the tank takes less damage. Druids get group regen, which isn't bad but isn't enough. The game would be much, much more balanced if Druids had Torpor instead of shamans imo.

Now, all that being said: you can play whatever class you want and be useful. There are plenty of horrible enchanters/monks/shamans and other "power classes" that aren't nearly as good as a good druid or ranger. The most important rule to "succeed" at 1999 is "be nice" (a rule I don't always manage to follow lol) and #2 is "play a lot".

Zapatos

02-26-2013, 11:48 PM

Druids fall far behind in healing power until luclin when they get their mini CH. The velious heal, costing 400mana for only close to 1k hp is still that awful ratio. Consider melee classes in velious start getting well over 3k hp without buffs, there's just no way to keep up on damage in ntov/ww fights even on just a couple group members.

Danth

02-27-2013, 12:12 AM

"At L40 when you get CH, your tank has 3k hp with buffs."

Tanks will have closer to 2000 HP at 40, and CH is barely efficient at that level. Tanks start to flirt with 3000 at about 50. At 60 a tank will usually have in the 4100 to 4500 range, until top-end gear where they get a little past 5000.

Those modest corrections notwithstanding, I agree that Druids are clearly third place as far as healing goes. They can serve adequately in that role with the right group makeup, but work better as a bankup healer and general support class--doing whatever job the group happens to be weak at. their damage output tends to be a bit better than they parse owing to their castable damage shields.

Danth

Seredoc

02-27-2013, 02:07 AM

...I agree that Druids are clearly third place as far as healing goes. They can serve adequately in that role with the right group makeup, but work better as a bankup healer and general support class--doing whatever job the group happens to be weak at. their damage output tends to be a bit better than they parse owing to their castable damage shields....

Yeah, when I got into the few raids back on live that I did I pretty much was support and anti add. Basically snared what could be snared, healed if cleric called oom, and rooted adds. Pretty much just CC and backup heals, but I still enjoyed it.

My questions have been answered pretty well here, now we should work on bringing that classic mindset back to this game to go with this classic gameplay

VincentVolaju

02-27-2013, 02:15 AM

So after reading through a lot of whats been said on this thread, I think I am going to go with Rogue. Id probably prefer Warrior more, but it sounds like Warrior is just an uphill battle the entire time youre playing it. Even after getting decent proc weapons, if you dont get a lucky proc, or a group member nukes too hard, the mob will just run over the group until you finally get a proc and grab aggro back, if you had it at all. Warrior would be a fun class I think if it was a little better at managing aggro in groups I think, but I am sure half the people I grouped with would be super twinked DPS classes that would just go balls to the walls, making my life miserable and making me feel like a POS tank lol. So in regards to that, Ill prob end up going Rogue.

Kagatob

02-27-2013, 02:43 AM

Seems like everyone forgets that druids get evac too...

Duckforceone

02-27-2013, 05:54 AM

well there are other tanks besides warriors that have good aggro.

I was running my dwarf pally through Crushbone at lvl 8, and i could not get aggro, even though i had a really good 2 hander with high dps. Was a druid there, with a fast 1 hander, and a haste belt, and he was doing more damage than me just meeleing... :D

then i got lvl 9 and my first spells. Blindness. He could not grab aggro from me again. It was sooo sweet..

so if aggro is your worry, roll a pally or sk.... even ranger can snap aggro like a charm after lvl 9..

VincentVolaju

02-27-2013, 06:07 AM

Yeah thats what I meant about the whole aggro thing. I had an SK and it was alright but, I think I would of enjoyed Warrior as a tank better then a hybrid. But when it comes to group tanking, it just seems like Warrior is cant hold anything to disease cloud and blindness. The snap aggro spells are just too amazing when leveling.

I wonder though, do any groups grab Warriors for just straight DPS, rather then tanking? I was thinking earlier that maybe Id try a warrior and just throw 2 high dps weapons on him, and just join groups as dmg...but then I thought maybe thats a douche thing to do, considering the group would probably expect a Warrior to tank and not dps. Lose/Lose =*(.