Class selection guide draft

[webrunner5]

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

Depends on what your playstyle is.

I like to be able to travel all over, buff and heal, and also be able to solo like a monster and quad kite. I also think its tons of fun to go help some newbie out and make his day. I think the druid fits that ticket perfectly and I'm very happy with the class.

Its all about having fun, you can be the best raid char on the server but if you're not enjoying the character then why bother.

Not counting making a shit pot full of plat porting. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Plus I would have to put a Druid a lot higher than 4 for groups? I think more like a 5 or even 6 would be more better lol.

[Splorf22]

How do you justify that a Paladin with 4 in raid effectiveness requires the same skill as SKs who have 8?

Because there are 5 columns for effectiveness, and only one is raiding? Paladins are a group class. But hey I have not played an SK or every class in the game <shrug>

Also Necros as gear dependant as wizards? Eh? You need a huge mana pool to quad kite while necro can solo naked...

Sure you can fear kite without much mana, but by that logic wizards can group/kill single targets without much gear too. I have played a necro charm soloing HS, and I wanted all the HP I could get.

Ultimately the guide is my guide with my opinions. If you don't like it, write your own.

[Furme]

I can tell these numbers are REALLY biased, not to mention a bit vague..

First off.. solo exp.. as a mage? 9? Not since the pet damage exp nerf went in.. A lot of mages tell me it's ridiculously time/mana intensive to chain cast pets to try to keep their exp..

Enchanter? may be good.. but i'm going to say there should be a gap between bard and everyone else of at least 2-3 points.. just by the sheer scale of exp a solo bard can get vs everyone else.. That being said, bards are only good at solo exp till around 53ish maybe 55 if you stretch it.. Past that.. solo exp is pretty much garbage.. duo exp is where it's at..

Solo pp is highly subjective.. Sure, an enchanter can possibly solo some of the more high dollar item camps.. at 60, but at the same time.. it's entirely luck based.. (theoretically someone could camp sarnak courier in loio and get 10 GG rings in an hour for 100k) If you're talking about a pure plat camp like hill giants or seafuries then a necro could probably solo more plat there than an enchanter could ever dream about in an equal time.. If you're talking about gear farming that entirely depends on selling to players and how much they'll pay for it..

Duo/trio.. uh.. just fyi as just about any character save a pure caster.. I'd probably never duo with an enchanter.. I mean, I can make up ways to duo with any class, but like.. I don't really see Wizard / Enchanter duo happening.. or like.. bard enchanter duo.. I mean, if you're counting charm as an enchanter's *ONLY* asset for a duo and saying "Well hell, a charmed pet can duo with anything! derp derp" then I can see them getting a 10.. but in that case, a bard should rank up there with enchanters.. so should druids and necros.. Similarly, have you ever seen 2 bards duo? If you had, I'm SURE the scale would be rate differently.. But of course, that's an outlier..

Group effectiveness.. A bard post 55 can regen more raw mana per tick than a chanter could ever hope to.. They can also mez 2 mobs without a second thought.. they can also push haste to the entire group and slow to boot.. But, lets say you get 2 or 3 bards in a group.. it wouldn't be quite as grand because their songs don't really play well together.. I mean.. I don't know how a group would work with say.. 6 enchanters.. Maybe all of them charm something and throw them all at the same target? I mean.. I guess again like the above items it's all subjective based on the group's needs..

I mean, I could go on but over all.. it's incredibly subjective and debatable..
In the end.. Just play whatever the hell you want.. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses.. And some strengths are weaknesses for some people and some weaknesses are strengths for others..

[Tecmos Deception]

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

I can tell these numbers are REALLY biased, not to mention a bit vague..

First off.. solo exp.. as a mage? 9? Not since the pet damage exp nerf went in.. A lot of mages tell me it's ridiculously time/mana intensive to chain cast pets to try to keep their exp..

Enchanter? may be good.. but i'm going to say there should be a gap between bard and everyone else of at least 2-3 points.. just by the sheer scale of exp a solo bard can get vs everyone else.. That being said, bards are only good at solo exp till around 53ish maybe 55 if you stretch it.. Past that.. solo exp is pretty much garbage.. duo exp is where it's at..

Solo pp is highly subjective.. Sure, an enchanter can possibly solo some of the more high dollar item camps.. at 60, but at the same time.. it's entirely luck based.. (theoretically someone could camp sarnak courier in loio and get 10 GG rings in an hour for 100k) If you're talking about a pure plat camp like hill giants or seafuries then a necro could probably solo more plat there than an enchanter could ever dream about in an equal time.. If you're talking about gear farming that entirely depends on selling to players and how much they'll pay for it..

Duo/trio.. uh.. just fyi as just about any character save a pure caster.. I'd probably never duo with an enchanter.. I mean, I can make up ways to duo with any class, but like.. I don't really see Wizard / Enchanter duo happening.. or like.. bard enchanter duo.. I mean, if you're counting charm as an enchanter's *ONLY* asset for a duo and saying "Well hell, a charmed pet can duo with anything! derp derp" then I can see them getting a 10.. but in that case, a bard should rank up there with enchanters.. so should druids and necros.. Similarly, have you ever seen 2 bards duo? If you had, I'm SURE the scale would be rate differently.. But of course, that's an outlier..

Group effectiveness.. A bard post 55 can regen more raw mana per tick than a chanter could ever hope to.. They can also mez 2 mobs without a second thought.. they can also push haste to the entire group and slow to boot.. But, lets say you get 2 or 3 bards in a group.. it wouldn't be quite as grand because their songs don't really play well together.. I mean.. I don't know how a group would work with say.. 6 enchanters.. Maybe all of them charm something and throw them all at the same target? I mean.. I guess again like the above items it's all subjective based on the group's needs..

I mean, I could go on but over all.. it's incredibly subjective and debatable..
In the end.. Just play whatever the hell you want.. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses.. And some strengths are weaknesses for some people and some weaknesses are strengths for others..

Lol.

Like, part of me wants to debate almost everything you say. But all of me is too busy loling to do so.


Like other people said. Splorf's guide is great for what it is. It's not a definitive, authoritative, exhaustive explanation of everything possible in the game of everquest. It sounds like you could write one of those though. You should. It would be fun... for me.

[Splorf22]

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

I can tell these numbers are REALLY biased, not to mention a bit vague..

First off.. solo exp.. as a mage? 9? Not since the pet damage exp nerf went in.. A lot of mages tell me it's ridiculously time/mana intensive to chain cast pets to try to keep their exp..

this is a pretty good point actually. I docked mages from 9 to 7 and necros from 9 to 8.

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

Looking at this list while throwing my current eq knowledge out the window.. I'm going to have to choose an enchanter because obviously 9 solo 10 duo 10 group and 10 solo plat.. every other class doesn't even begin to compare.. not to mention at 25 i'll have a little bit of difficulty in the power.. but as soon as i hit 50 I'll be Teh moast powerfulll class in EQ!!! and 60 I'll maintain that!

And its basically the case here tbh. If you look at the solo artist challenge, the only solo masters and grandmasters are enchanters, shamans, and Ploktor.

edit: thinking some more about this i docked enchanters a few points here and there. You should all go play shadowknights!

[Slave]

I would label the row Magician, as Mage is the shortened, familiar version of this name and not officially used.

[Zalora]

Enchanter is better at solo'ing than Druid?


That's the first time I've heard this.

[August]

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

Enchanter is better at solo'ing than Druid?


That's the first time I've heard this.

Depends on what you mean by 'better'. Druid is good at soloing outdoors / quad kiting.

A good enchanter can solo anything he or she likes. Charm DPS outclasses any other DPS in game and serves as killing two birds w/ one stone. I solo'ed bloodgills (8 spawns) by charming one and killing the other, breaking mez, nuking the running mob, rinse and repeat. Not bad for ~400 mana.

[Itap]

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

Enchanter is better at solo'ing than Druid?


That's the first time I've heard this.

Chanters are the ultimate soloers, please refer to the solo artist challenge thread [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Splorf22]

Well I gave Druids a 7 for solo xp and 6 for solo pp (powerleveling basically) so it isn't like they are bad. And Kindadar and Ploktor have shown you can do some pretty awesome stuff with Druids, especially with that VP robe. And Druids have a lot of useful toys.

The problem is their raid role is minimal (aside from porting people), and in full groups their versatility doesn't really come into play, and in small groups they suffer from lack of slow.