most underpowered class in game?

[Toxigen]

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

Seems like some good advice. Next ToV I'll make it a point to get in a wizard/mage group, maybe that's the part of the formula I'm missing there; regular tash+box would let me keep sow up to help kite/train/goaltend, too. I'll see if I can get away with more hatchling charming; some of the guild is pretty convinced that pets aren't worth the train risk in most of ToV and I'm not sure whether they would welcome hatchlings at Vyemm.

We make those Fear/Kael/Trak charms; I'm largely happy with my enchanter there. My enchanter isn't my sleeper's keyed character, but the scale farm does sound like a nice benefit if I do key him. I did see one of our enchanters tag himself a pet for Prog once, but it seemed like a novelty.

Yeah ST is really just more about getting the golem slowed ASAP. After that the clerics should be mana neutral / positive.

I really only ever charmed hatchlings for Eashen and Vyemm...may have yolo'd one up to Koi and Lady M on a quake or two and about a dozen beers deep, but its not necessary on slowable mobs.

Eashen is a no brainer...they're often running around the raid anyway.

Healing is always tight on Vyemm since its remedy / natures touch spam. Unless your guild has 20+ Porlos wizards nuking their brains out from up top, your healers will thank you as they furiously chew through all the rods.

I never had an issue with pathing / trains when charm broke in Vyemm pit...and you have tons of time to react as it runs up the ramp back towards you.

[Zuranthium]

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

You are going back to the "most underpowered class in raiding" topic. If Mages were deleted, the game wouldn't be slower/harder for anybody but hardcore raiders, which is a minority on both servers.

It's ridiculous to act like raiders are some tiny minority of EQ and I'm not "going back" to that topic, it's just part of the entire discussion. Even outside of raids though, the game would indeed be slower for some people, because Mages are one of the best classes to have for leveling, whether in a group or solo. They are especially great when among people who find charming to be too difficult or annoying. Or even regardless for a new server, where charming isn't great anyway until you get to at least mid level, a group like 5 Mages and 1 Enchanter is probably the fastest way to level, and thus the best way to win the race to control the priority camps in the game.

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

Their power in groups was absolutely recognized in groups ... and not because of their charming (Enchanters mostly didn't charm in groups in classic; their job in that "trinity" you mentioned was to mez and give Clarity, not add DPS).

They were not at all recognized for their soloing. Here most would argue they are the #1 soloing class (maybe #2 after Shaman). In classic Necromancer, Druid, and Mage would have all been ranked higher.

Enchanters did add a lot of DPS to a group without Charm though - via Haste. Which people were widely realizing in 2000. Enchanters were always a fine solo class too, the animation pet was solid enough and could be given low delay weapons for huge DPS in 1999 (also could be used in group), and at higher levels people were using Charm to solo in 1999, most notably by camping town guards and throwing them into each other.

The Enchanter class was just severely underplayed at first, was the main thing. So even if you did start to understand how great they were, there often wouldn't be one around to play with. They quickly rose in popularity though.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It's ridiculous to act like raiders are some tiny minority of EQ and I'm not "going back" to that topic, it's just part of the entire discussion. Even outside of raids though, the game would indeed be slower for some people, because Mages are one of the best classes to have for leveling, whether in a group or solo. They are especially great when among people who find charming to be too difficult or annoying. Or even regardless for a new server, where charming isn't great anyway until you get to at least mid level, a group like 5 Mages and 1 Enchanter is probably the fastest way to level, and thus the best way to win the race to control the priority camps in the game.

Yes, you are overvaluing raiding in this discussion to make Mages better, which is why its exiting the topic. Most players statistically only casually raid, so it isn't a huge part of the "most underpowered overall" discussion. The only real exception to this is when looking at Warriors, because a large chunk of Warriors on the servers were created for raiding. The same can be said for Mages (CoTH Bots), but based on your arguments and the arguments of others, it is clear people place high value on soloing and grouping too, so the sliders change.

No, you don't see a 5 Mage 1 Ench leveling group that often, except for maybe when a new server spins up. The reason for this is because the group composition has one fatal flaw: Most of the group members are leveling Mages lol. XP groups are created by people who want to level the classes they want to play. They don't make Mages simply to maximize group DPS at the expense of not actually leveling the class they want to play. Just because that group composition may level fast on paper doesn't mean everybody wants to level a Mage.

Grouping would see no significant slowdown of XP if Mages were deleted.

[Zuranthium]

Obviously people don't want to only level Mages. But again, even a single Mage in a party is a significant boost to how quickly a typical group can kill. Deleting Mage from the game is inherently is going to slow down the grouping landscape a bit as compared to deleting Paladin. At least, assuming an even redistribution of classes in the "delete X class from the game" idea.

Paladin is worse at soloing than Mage, worse at duoing, worse for full groups the majority of the time, and generally less impactful for raids. They have a huge EXP penalty the first 22 months of the game. They do not have any unique ability that's especially impactful to the landscape of the game. By every metric they are the weaker class.

And seriously, you need to stop with these dumb "a lot of people don't play that way" arguments. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY DON'T. THEY ARE PLAYING AT A LOWER POWER LEVEL. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

[Jimjam]

Hmm good points… and paladins’ divine strength is only +125hp as in it’s absence you can get +75 from Strength of Nature …

[PatChapp]

I would rather a paladin in most XP groups honestly.
Pacify pulls, root for some cc, stuns for charm breaks and backup heals on top of solid tanking. Very useful class to have around.
Mage is straight dps with malo for charm pets as a perk. Mage/paladin/enchanter actually a solid XP trio though.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Obviously people don't want to only level Mages. But again, even a single Mage in a party is a significant boost to how quickly a typical group can kill. Deleting Mage from the game is inherently is going to slow down the grouping landscape a bit as compared to deleting Paladin. At least, assuming an even redistribution of classes in the "delete X class from the game" idea.

Paladin is worse at soloing than Mage, worse at duoing, worse for full groups the majority of the time, and generally less impactful for raids. They have a huge EXP penalty the first 22 months of the game. They do not have any unique ability that's especially impactful to the landscape of the game. By every metric they are the weaker class.

And seriously, you need to stop with these dumb "a lot of people don't play that way" arguments. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY DON'T. THEY ARE PLAYING AT A LOWER POWER LEVEL. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

I do understand. You are skewing the data by injecting your personal preference of how you play, rather than how the average player plays. When thinking about "most underpowered class", you have to use the averages, not your preferred data set. On P99 people generally play the game correctly. It isn't like we are dealing with a server where everybody is playing solo Warriors lol.

Again, this is why the conversation isn't going anywhere. You are off topic. Your topic is "most underpowered class assuming you are attempting to play at Zuranthium's definition of efficiency".

[Danth]

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

When thinking about "most underpowered class", you have to use the averages, not your preferred data set.

I think some folks want to reassure themselves they picked "right" and don't want to tell themselves they picked something "bad." So in this type of thread folks have a tendency to become what amounts to salesmen for their own favored characters, with similar levels of stretching the truth.

My own favored character (shadowknight) illustrates this: Overall its a weaker class than monk is. Does that mean I picked wrong in making it? Nope! The monk happens to do better in parts of the game I don't care about--raising its overall average--but they're pretty equal in the parts of the game I *do* care about, and I like being a plate tank type. Being worse in areas I ain't hanging out in anyway is irrelevant to me...but it might bother some folks intensely.

Danth

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I think some folks want to reassure themselves they picked "right" and don't want to tell themselves they picked something "bad." So in this type of thread folks have a tendency to become what amounts to salesmen for their own favored characters, with similar levels of stretching the truth.

My own favored character (shadowknight) illustrates this: Overall its a weaker class than monk is. Does that mean I picked wrong in making it? Nope! The monk happens to do better in parts of the game I don't care about--raising its overall average--but they're pretty equal in the parts of the game I *do* care about, and I like being a plate tank type. Being worse in areas I ain't hanging out in anyway is irrelevant to me...but it might bother some folks intensely.

Danth

Agreed, it is difficult to get bias out of the mix when doing these discussions. Z obviously loves Mages. As I have said many times, Underpowered does not mean bad in Everquest. No class is unplayable or broken.

[Toxigen]

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

I would rather a paladin in most XP groups honestly.
Pacify pulls, root for some cc, stuns for charm breaks and backup heals on top of solid tanking. Very useful class to have around.
Mage is straight dps with malo for charm pets as a perk. Mage/paladin/enchanter actually a solid XP trio though.

Just cut the mage out honestly. Paladin + enc is sleeper strong duo.