New Class census, levels 50-80

[Ocello]

I just ran this from EQ2players.com at about 1pm est, these are all players levels 50-80 across all EQ2 servers.1.    Wizard               29,7482.    Necromancer     22,3753.    Fury                   21,5174.    Guardian            16,4415.    Conjurer             16,6046.    Zerker (!!!)         15,1947.    Warden              14,2568.    Templar              13,5679.    Paladin               13,51510.  Warlock              13,19811.   Monk                 13,18012.   Ranger              12,58213.   Shadowknight   12,19314.   Assassin            10,48415.   Bruiser               10,00916.   Dirge                   9,08617.   Swashbuckler      8,90318.   Mystic                  8,28519.   Inquisitor             8,12720.   Illusionist             8,04921.   Brigand (!!!)         8,03522.   Defiler                  7,21423.   Troubador            6,61624.   Coercer                5,647 I not-so-subtly hinted (!!!) at the biggest surprises.  Berzerkers at a pretty solid #6 and Brigands at #21 are baffling.  Judging by the zerker community (and playing one myself) you would think they are awful and no one would want to play them.  And yes, I am aware that a LOT of people roll a Berzerker with the intention of betraying it later to a Guardian because Zerkers are better solo classes.  Still weird they are that high.  And Brigands are one of the better overall classes in EQ2, soloing/grouping/raiding wise, and they are one of the forgotten classes.  Also, when I ran my lvl80 census not too long ago, Dirges were around number 7; but from 50-80, they are no.16.  Very odd, I guess they all get powerlevelled for raiding purposes.Breaking it down by archetypes gives us:65,239 Fighters55,706 Scouts51,449 Priests95,621 MagesYes, there are more people that play Wizards + Necros than Priests altogether.  Pretty lame, especially considering a Priest (Fury) is a solid #3 in class ranks.And yes, it was me complaining about the lack of Tanks while levelling.  Altho that could be explained away by the fact that a lot of brawlers refuse to tank, so you can scratch a healthy portion of that 23189 brawler community from the Tank ranks.  That is more like it./discuss

[evilgamer]

<p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80</p></blockquote>Truth. The numbers of level 50 characters may show how popular various classes are to play, for a while, but they don't indicate which classes are still popular at the end game.

[DerFunkBlaster]

too bad it counts inactive accounts. Would be nice to see how many active players there are of the same sample. I would narrow it to 70-80 however.

[simpwrx02]

<p>yeah actually going to have to agree with evil lvl 50 means nothign as that was the level cap on game release and as far as I know all of those players are still counted or are fogotten alts.  A better range if you want to do one is lvl 71-80 as it will show active players with in the last expansions time frame.  I mean one of those furys is my alt that I havent played in over a year.</p>

[Ocello]

Well a census is, after all, a popularity contest.  No way to exclude inactive accounts tho, unfortunately.  There are a lot of posts on here as to what gets played the most, and no matter how you spin it, these are the most popular classes.  I figured once you play a character to 50, the chance of you deleting it are slim to none.I will agree that it would have been more prudent to run one from 51-80 though, as that would keep it from counting a lot of toons that have been inactive since before DoF launched.I will run a new census from 71-80 today some time and post the results.P.S.  The post was not for you to flame my methods, but for you to discuss the findings.  Just so you know /shrugg <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Bayne]

I think this information is interesting, I look foward to seeing the 71-80 census

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Kamaala@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well a census is, after all, a popularity contest. No way to exclude inactive accounts tho, unfortunately. </blockquote>Sure there is ... it just takes some code and time.

[Ocello]

"Sure there is ... it just takes some code and time."No access to the code, just the search button and drop-down menus.  Sorry.

[simpwrx02]

<cite>Kamaala@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well a census is, after all, a popularity contest.  No way to exclude inactive accounts tho, unfortunately.  There are a lot of posts on here as to what gets played the most, and no matter how you spin it, these are the most popular classes.  I figured once you play a character to 50, the chance of you deleting it are slim to none.I will agree that it would have been more prudent to run one from 51-80 though, as that would keep it from counting a lot of toons that have been inactive since before DoF launched.I will run a new census from 71-80 today some time and post the results.P.S.  The post was not for you to flame my methods, but for you to discuss the findings.  Just so you know /shrugg <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I dont think you were really flamed over your methods, people were just stating that it didnt give a true representation of the rest of your original post.  Personally I wasn't sure if you were aware that it took inot account inactive accounts.  But all the calss desireability is all based on raiding , mainly from the top min/max guilds and guilds that try to follow in thier footsteps, but still suck and just repeat what oters have said.  When in all reality you can succesffuly raid with any class in a raid no issues, it just may take an extra 5 seconds to kill a mob.

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Kamaala@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Sure there is ... it just takes some code and time."No access to the code, just the search button and drop-down menus. Sorry.</blockquote>You can write a screen scraper for webpages...  Thorw in some automation logic and a database backend and it just takes time to run after that you can get whatever data you happen to setup the script to gather .... some co-workers and I were actually talking about after reading your original post <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Not sure SoE would like it, but it is possible.

[Ocello]

<cite>Jesdyr@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kamaala@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Sure there is ... it just takes some code and time."No access to the code, just the search button and drop-down menus. Sorry.</blockquote>You can write a screen scraper for webpages...  Thorw in some automation logic and a database backend and it just takes time to run after that you can get whatever data you happen to setup the script to gather .... some co-workers and I were actually talking about after reading your original post <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Not sure SoE would like it, but it is possible. </blockquote>Haha if I were in a business I'd ask if you wanted a job or something....just a nub here trying to help other nubs.

[Geothe]

<p>Lvl 75-80s</p><p>Fury -- 5440Wizard -- 5427Necro -- 5280Warden -- 4526Guard -- 4369Conj -- 4265Templar -- 3678Monk -- 3415Ranger -- 3394Dirge -- 3229Pally -- 3228Beserker -- 3170SK -- 2976Brigand -- 2966Assassin -- 2926Warlock -- 2884Bruiser -- 2824Swash -- 2819Illus -- 2793Mystic -- 2530Defiler -- 2386Inquis -- 2285Troub -- 2100Coercer -- 1996 </p><p>Counterpart Comparison Ratios:</p><p>Healers Fury/Warden -- 1.20Templar/Inquis -- 1.61Mystic/Defiler -- 1.06Fighters -- Guard/Zerk -- 1.38Pally/SK -- 1.08Monk/Bruiser -- 1.21Mages -- Wiz/Warlock -- 1.88Necro/Conj -- 1.24Illus/Coercer -- 1.40Scouts -- Brig/Swash -- 1.05Ranger/Assasin -- 1.16Dirge/Troub -- 1.54</p><p>Archae Type Distributions</p><p>Healers -- Total -- DistributionDruids -- 9966 -- 47.8%Shamans -- 4916 -- 23.6%Clerics -- 5963 -- 28.6%Fighters -- -- Warriors -- 7539 -- 37.7%Crusaders -- 6204 -- 31.0%Brawlers -- 6239 -- 31.2%Mages -- -- Sorcerers -- 8311 -- 36.7%Summoners -- 9545 -- 42.2%Chanters -- 4789 -- 21.1%Scouts -- -- Rogues -- 5785 -- 33.2%Preds -- 6320 -- 36.3%Bards -- 5329 -- 30.6%</p>

[Mr. Dawki]

<cite>DerFunkBlaster wrote:</cite><blockquote>too bad it counts inactive accounts. Would be nice to see how many active players there are of the same sample. I would narrow it to 70-80 however.</blockquote>If you really wanted to you can check each one individualy and see the last time played date. Anything over a week does not count.

[DwarvesR]

<cite>Mr. Dawkins wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DerFunkBlaster wrote:</cite><blockquote>too bad it counts inactive accounts. Would be nice to see how many active players there are of the same sample. I would narrow it to 70-80 however.</blockquote>If you really wanted to you can check each one individualy and see the last time played date. Anything over a week does not count.</blockquote><p>I completely disagree.  I have 12 toons.  I consider *all* of them to be "active."  But this doesn't change the fact that becuz I have so many that yeah, I tend to focus only on 2-3 at a time, then when I get bored of them I switch focus.</p><p>Then there's the whole "I wanna play this toon, but my guild needs me to play THIS one instead" thing -- my warlock was my main for nearly a year pre-DoF, but in DoF and then KoS my inquisitor was "main" becuz that's what my guild needed me to play in our groups and raids, so I never had time to play the warlock.</p><p>But my warlock was my 1st to 80 after that guild got more healers so I didn't "have to" always play mine.  So, even though I didn't play the warlock for nearly 2 years, I still felt it was "active."</p><p>That said, for the purposes of this "census" I can see why you might not count toons not played in over a month -- but a week's too short.  People have vacations, unexpected emergencies, heavy work/school schedules, etc that take a week or longer all the time.</p>

[Besual]

<cite>Mr. Dawkins wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DerFunkBlaster wrote:</cite><blockquote>too bad it counts inactive accounts. Would be nice to see how many active players there are of the same sample. I would narrow it to 70-80 however.</blockquote>If you really wanted to you can check each one individualy and see the last time played date. Anything over a week does not count.</blockquote>It's summer, it's holyday time. Because I go on vacation for 2 weeks my toons shall not count?Sometimes I don't want to play a healer ot a tank then I switch to my brig or coercer for a week or two. Now my Defiler and my bersi are no longer active?Sure, some people might have quite EQ2 in the last few month. But I think the number is low enough not to screw a census over the last 6 month or even level 71-80.

[Nayawk]

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p></blockquote><p>Surprise, someone who thinks their play style is the only valid play style.  I took well over a year to level to 80 on my swashie, and am now leveling up a zerker, which I also expect to take a year.  </p><p>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count?  There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid.  </p><p>Also your second paragraph is just confusing.... surely a person who gets to 50 has done over half the games content already.</p>

[Terron]

<cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p></blockquote><p>Surprise, someone who thinks their play style is the only valid play style. I took well over a year to level to 80 on my swashie, and am now leveling up a zerker, which I also expect to take a year. </p><p>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count? There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid. </p><p>Also your second paragraph is just confusing.... surely a person who gets to 50 has done over half the games content already.</p></blockquote>Why are you in such a rush to get to 80? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />I got to 80 last weekend on my guard who had been level capped before RoK came out.One level per alt per month is my normal target, though I sometimes beat that.I play most days.Terron Guard 80 Jeweler 80Tallia Swashy 77 Woodworker 67Tresgar Illusionist 70 Tailor 69Tovorrilleee Fury 66 Alchemist 75Tuknuk SK 59 Carpenter 57Tylena Dirge 56 Provisioner 42Teazle Conjie 49Tsuney Defiler 19

[Faelgalad]

<p>The first Census is with an bad statistical approach. </p><p>In the Level 50-70 you have a lot of char corpses. Only 71-80 can be counted for active in th last 10 months!</p><p>So either count 51-60, 61-70, 71-80, in Level Cap increases or 51-70 for bigger margin and 71-80. </p><p>For pure activity in the high level area 75-80 is also good. like Goethe did it and better then 80 only. As it delivery higher numbers and higher probant numbers are better in statistics. </p>

[liveja]

<cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p></blockquote><p>Surprise, someone who thinks their play style is the only valid play style. </p></blockquote><p>Evilgamer's comments have nothing at all to do with play style, but with whether or not various classes are seen as "viable" at 80th level.</p><p>Swashbucklers have no such questions; we are somewhat overpowered & are thus totally awesome at all play styles. It would be nice if all classes were equally totally awesome. Whether they actually are, or not, or whether their not being so awesome is simply a matter of player perception, is an entirely different story.</p><p>The fact is that above 70th level, certain classes become less & less common, but it's very difficult to see why, at 50th level. That's the point.</p>

[Noaani]

<p>Interesting numbers, but as others have said, totally missleading.</p><p>First of all, you need to almost totally discount any character at level 50 as being played, as about95% of level 50 charaters are no longer active (same can be said for level 60). Once you remove these characters from the picture, you may have a totally different picture.</p><p>Also, I would wager that the numbers at level 70 are somewhat different than the numbers you have there.</p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count?  There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid.  </blockquote><p>Every playstyle is valid, of course. Trying to suggest otherwise is foolish.</p><p>However, your playstyle is by far a minority, and a cencus is 100% about numbers and statistics, which never favours minorities.</p>

[evilgamer]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Interesting numbers, but as others have said, totally missleading.</p><p>First of all, you need to almost totally discount any character at level 50 as being played, as about95% of level 50 charaters are no longer active (same can be said for level 60). Once you remove these characters from the picture, you may have a totally different picture.</p><p>Also, I would wager that the numbers at level 70 are somewhat different than the numbers you have there.</p></blockquote><p>Agreed, i remeber when I was leveling my bruiser I would periodically see how he was on the leader boards at various levels.</p><p>I remember when I checked his hitpoints on the leaderboard on my server at level 50, there was a ton of old toons sitting around at that level in pre-DOF raid gear that hadnt been played since like 2005, lol.</p>

[evilgamer]

<cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p></blockquote><p>Surprise, someone who thinks their play style is the only valid play style.  I took well over a year to level to 80 on my swashie, and am now leveling up a zerker, which I also expect to take a year.  </p><p>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count?  There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid.  </p><p>Also your second paragraph is just confusing.... surely a person who gets to 50 has done over half the games content already.</p></blockquote><p>It has nothing to do with a person playstyle and everything to do with that classes viability in the end game.</p><p>Sorry but at level 40, all classes are viable for the content at those levels.</p><p>It really doesnt matter what your class make up is for DFC.</p><p>Seems like everyone in my guild has a SK alt between levels 20-50, very very few actual SK's past level 70 though.</p>

[Ocello]

The numbers are going to misleading no matter what level range i choose.  I know 3 of my friends who are inactive with lvl 80 toons.  Sure, the numbers are skewed a bit more, but who knows by how much?I did the census this way simply because I like to level up new toons, and lately it has been hard to find groups because of a lack of necessary tanks or healers.  I wanted to try and see where the numbers stood.  And while from the data I collected it looks like there is no problem (except an overabundance of wiz/necro), I'm sure that a good portion of those tanks are inactive, just like other classes are inactive.  So yes, duh, I know the data isn't 100% accurate, thanks.  Good catch.  Not all of us only play characters in RoK and mind-numbingly do the same instances over and over.  We like to revisit Fallen Gate, Mines of Meldrath, and Permafrost.  Maybe pick off a contested lvl 20 drake (Anguis), or that lvl 40 spider in Nek Forest.  The only way I would consider a toon "inactive" is if their account was not active.  Wish I could see those numbers. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Noaani]

<cite>Kamaala@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>The numbers are going to misleading no matter what level range i choose.  I know 3 of my friends who are inactive with lvl 80 toons.  Sure, the numbers are skewed a bit more, but who knows by how much?</blockquote><p>Take all level 49 characters, all level 51 characters, find the average of these 2 levels, and assume that is the number of active level 50 characters. You will be very supprised at how many characters you see drop off that list when you do this for levels 50, 60 and 70.</p><p>Its not perfect, but it is the most accurate way you can use that does not involve an unreasonable amount of time, and limits itself to using the tools avalible.</p>

[Gilasil]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80</p></blockquote>Truth. The numbers of level 50 characters may show how popular various classes are to play, for a while, but they don't indicate which classes are still popular at the end game.</blockquote><p>I STRONGLY disagree.  Many people take their time leveling.  Many people, once they hit 80, stop playing that character.  Many people NEVER hit 80.  I think the most important numbers are the ones which apply to the most players.  As an example I'll pick Wizard since it's near the top of both the 50-80 and the only 80 lists.  There are 29748 wizards listed 50-80 but only 3810 at 80.  I.e. for every level 80 wizard there are almost 7 which are below 80.   Seems to me that if any list were unimportant it would be the only 80 list.  This general trend is across all classes.</p><p>The end game is not the most important part of the game unless most players reach it and spend most of their time playing there.  If level 80 were the most important, then I'd expect to see more people playing it then 1-79.  Not even close.</p><p>If someone were just "trying out" a class they wouldn't have gotten to 50.</p>

[Geothe]

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80</p></blockquote>Truth. The numbers of level 50 characters may show how popular various classes are to play, for a while, but they don't indicate which classes are still popular at the end game.</blockquote><p>I STRONGLY disagree.  Many people take their time leveling.  Many people, once they hit 80, stop playing that character.  Many people NEVER hit 80.  I think the most important numbers are the ones which apply to the most players.  As an example I'll pick Wizard since it's near the top of both the 50-80 and the only 80 lists.  There are 29748 wizards listed 50-80 but only 3810 at 80.  I.e. for every level 80 wizard there are almost 7 which are below 80.   Seems to me that if any list were unimportant it would be the only 80 list.  This general trend is across all classes.</p><p>The end game is not the most important part of the game unless most players reach it and spend most of their time playing there.  If level 80 were the most important, then I'd expect to see more people playing it then 1-79.  Not even close.</p><p>If someone were just "trying out" a class they wouldn't have gotten to 50.</p></blockquote>If the game were only a few months old, and not 4 years then maybe you would be correct.However, there will be massive inflation of counts because of "dead" characters found at lvls 50, 60, 70.  Because those were end points of level progress for various expansions... and the many people that have since quit playing years ago will still have their characters showing up there.

[Nayawk]

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Honestly who cares about level 50 toons?</p><p>To me the only numbers that matter are the ones at 80, <b>as that shows you what classes are desirable and worth leveling for most of the games content.</b></p><p>Figure you take about 4 months to hit 80 and then stay there for a year.</p></blockquote><p>Surprise, someone who thinks their play style is the only valid play style.  I took well over a year to level to 80 on my swashie, and am now leveling up a zerker, which I also expect to take a year.  </p><p>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count?  There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid.  </p><p>Also your second paragraph is just confusing.... surely a person who gets to 50 has done over half the games content already.</p></blockquote><p>It has nothing to do with a person playstyle and everything to do with that classes viability in the end game.</p><p>Sorry but at level 40, all classes are viable for the content at those levels.</p><p>It really doesnt matter what your class make up is for DFC.</p><p>Seems like everyone in my guild has a SK alt between levels 20-50, very very few actual SK's past level 70 though.</p></blockquote>Viability for END game may be true, but END game isn't what your bolded statement is implying.  Most of the games content is not end game.

[Armawk]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nayawk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I play everyday but I don't rush to cap so I don't count?  There are a hundred ways to play this game, all of which are valid.  </blockquote><p>Every playstyle is valid, of course. Trying to suggest otherwise is foolish.</p><p>However, your playstyle is by far a minority, and a cencus is 100% about numbers and statistics, which never favours minorities.</p></blockquote><p>Hardly. Those who play almost exclusively at cap are always going to be in a minority in this game. Think about what cap playing means.. it means the very limited number of group zones, and raiding. Thats it really. Thats a big it, but its a very small it compared to the whole rest of the game. Its certainly less than 15% of the games content in fact. Raiding is a playstyle that is only viable for a (significant mind you) minority of people at all for purely practical reasons, and end zone grouping more than a handful of times through the same few zones isnt much sport for anyone other than raiders filling in time, or farmers. New top level zones get added in GUs precisely to stop it getting boring because there isnt enough content to make a capped character fun for a whole year. Theres enough whole game content to  keep a person busy effectively forever, and lots of people exploit and enjoy that.</p><p>This census is wholly flawed as an idea, because it doesnt give any useful indication (nor can it) of peoples motivations or what they are doing with characters. Someone who levels one character to cap then makes an alt and does it again while playing the capped character occasionally may be a dissapointed wanabee raider, but its just as (more perhaps) likely that they are someone who chose to do that for the enjoyment inherent in the game.</p><p>Dont think Im one of those who thinks raiding is insignificant and should be ignored.. it isnt, it shouldnt, its a critical and major part of the game structure, I am glad huge effort goes into developing it and support raiders getting the uber gear and classes being properly balanced for raiding, but what it isnt is the main thing towards which other parts of the game aim, and the rest of the game is not a minority, precisely the opposite in fact.</p><p>Shaun</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>If level 80 were the most important</blockquote><p>It's not, & that wasn't my point. My point was about perceived viability at 80, nothing else.</p>