Class volume outliers [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

View Full Version : Class volume outliers

Aule

06-21-2010, 06:02 PM

<table cellspacing="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup><tbody></tbody></table><table cellspacing="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup> <tbody><tr><td width="86" height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> </td><td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="95" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="95" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080"> 1507</td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080">Guardian</td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080"> 2049</td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080">Berserker</td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080"> 3556</td> <td bgcolor="#FF8080">Warrior</td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">1582</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Monk</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">1507</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Bruiser</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">3089</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Brawler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">12649</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Fighter</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">2238</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Paladin</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">3766</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Shadowknight</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF8080">6004</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF8080">Crusader</td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">1717</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Ranger</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">1739</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Assassin</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">3456</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Predator</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">1682</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Swashbuckler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">1521</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Brigand</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">3203</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Rogue</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">11942</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Scout</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">3171</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Dirge</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">2112</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Troubador</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#E6E64C">5283</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#E6E64C">Bard</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">2244</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Illusionist</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">2407</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Coercer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">4651</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Enchanter</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">1872</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Conjuror</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">1997</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Necromancer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">3869</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Summoner</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">12927</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Mage</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">2600</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Wizard</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">1807</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Warlock</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF">4407</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83CAFF">Sorcerer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">2276</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Templar</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">1700</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Inquisitor</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">3976</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Cleric</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">1770</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Mystic</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">1707</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Defiler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">3477</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Shaman</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">12436</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Priest</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">2211</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Fury</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">2772</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Warden</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94BD5E">4983</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94BD5E">Druid</td> <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></td></tr></tbody></table>These are the counts of level 90 chars of the respective classes across all servers.It seems to me that SOE just has to have this data available, considering it took all of 30 seconds to obtain from eq2players. So why is it acceptable that there are around 50% more sk's than pallies, dirges than troubs, wizards than warlocks; ~30% more berserkers than guardians, templars than inquisitors, warden than furies? A real quick glance indicates 6 class pairs where there is a very heavy skewing towards one side of the equation.The breakdown by class is a bit skewed too, with crusaders at 47% of fighters and bards 44% of scouts.So out of 24 sub-classes, 6 of them are significantly under-represented compared to their counterparts.What's interesting is that the spread by archetype is really quite even, it's where things really should be (in my opinion). The least represented archetype is 23.9% of the volume, and the highest is 25.9%. This really does reinforce though, that the raid structure format and encounter design really doesn't match up with what the playerbase is playing. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the bard population is too high for two reasons: Hydra buff bots and players who'd rather be playing some other class, but are playing a bard in order to secure a raid position.

Beef_Supre

06-21-2010, 06:32 PM

You're undoubtedly about to get bombarded by people who disagree with how you got your information, what it can be interpreted as, and what motive you had for doing it.But..Before those posts all drop like cartoon anvils from the sky, let me say thank you. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />I enjoyed looking this over tremendously, and it backs up a few trends I thought were there as well. I always really enjoys these kinds of posts, and seeing where my own Main falls in the most/least played class listings.And c'mon, one more person PLEASE play a Guardian.. I wanna be the least played class.

Aule

06-21-2010, 06:34 PM

Glad at least one person appreciated it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Wasuna

06-21-2010, 06:38 PM

Statstics are fun!According to the information presented, Guardians and Brusiers are tied for the lowest population at level 90 with monks right behind. Maybe these classes suck and need to be balanced?People claim Rangers are broken but their population is almost identical to Assassins. Maybe they are broken in terms of DPS/Utility but their play style is more fun as a balance.Shadowknights are BY FAR the highest played class. (Hence The Shadowknight Oddsey and Shadowknights Fate).Brawlers is the lowest population sub-class. Looks like SoE has failed them.

Wasuna

06-21-2010, 06:40 PM

<cite>Beef_Supreme wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're undoubtedly about to get bombarded by people who disagree with how you got your information, what it can be interpreted as, and what motive you had for doing it.But..Before those posts all drop like cartoon anvils from the sky, let me say thank you. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />I enjoyed looking this over tremendously, and it backs up a few trends I thought were there as well. I always really enjoys these kinds of posts, and seeing where my own Main falls in the most/least played class listings.And c'mon, one more person PLEASE play a Guardian.. I wanna be the least played class.</blockquote>I play a Guardian, and with the current state of the game I would predict that Guardians are destined to be the lowest single played class soon. Brawlers got a bit of love with itemization in SF. Itemization is a poor class fix but atleast you have some options now.

Malacha

06-21-2010, 06:58 PM

If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P

Gungo

06-21-2010, 07:10 PM

I am not entirely sure how accurate eq2 players is regardless there has been alot changes since 10 days ago when these numbers were posted. It looks like alot of bruisers got lvl 90. I think these numbers are heavily swayed at the moment by alot of alts. People playing what they like to play not what they want to play. Which is why all those enchanters/bards are so plentiful but none of them are around to do heroic instances after raids. They really need to homogenize the utility classes more so that a group only really needs 1 bard/enchanter instead of 1 of each. I honestly dont consider bruisers a broken class (like rangers) so basing population numbers on that fact is probably not quite accurate. 1. Shadowknight 3,636 2. Dirge 3,092 3. Warden 2,667 4. Wizard 2,517 5. Coercer 2,3556. Templar 2,226 7. Illusionist 2,191 8. Paladin 2,174 9. Fury 2,131 10. Troubador 2,049 11. Berserker 1,969 12. Necromancer 1.932 13. Conjuror 1,818 14. Warlock 1,738 15. Mystic 1,713 16. Assassin 1,682 17. Defiler 1,669 18. Ranger 1,667 19. Inquisitor 1,653 20. Swashbuckler 1,628 21. Monk 1,524 22. Brigand 1,474 23. Guardian 1,470 24. Bruiser 1,435

Siatfallen

06-21-2010, 07:21 PM

This is interesting information, thank you very much for posting it.It's not that it shows anything new that hasn't been complained about for months by now - but it gives data to support these claims - I could say shame on you for posting anything similar to evidence on these forums where it clearly does not belong and may interfere with baseless complaining... But I think we'll live. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Edit: Something's funky with these numbers... The amount of Shadowknights dropped by more than 100 between the two readings and paladins by around 50? People are deleting their crusader toons at 90?

EQ_Irving

06-21-2010, 07:45 PM

Two quick responses:(1) Thank you for posting this. I always enjoy seeing these stats.(2) I think the primary question you ask is fatally flawed. The way I look at it, the original developers provided us with 4 archetypes and 24 classes to play with. A true gamer will find numerous classes she enjoys playing throughout a long playing career in a game. He might focus on one or two characters he really likes. But the important part is she has choices - 24 of them!Take what we've been given, don't worry about parses, comparative damage, min/max'ing, and other inaneness, and just focus on enjoying the classes you choose to play. That's what the game was designed to be - fun for the masses, not super perfect balanced for the top end raider who cares about .05% more damage in a dataset of 1 million parses

Phelon_Skellhound

06-21-2010, 07:55 PM

This does not say anything about raid format, or instance format or anything of the like. This isnt the first time someone has used statistics like these tho.'What it does prove tho is that the flavor of the day class for the xpansion gets more play time. These numbers matched almost exactly back then except that the fighters were reversed somewhat. From top to bottem it was Guardian, Zerker Bruiser Monk Pally Sk...

Aule

06-21-2010, 08:00 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Edit: Something's funky with these numbers... The amount of Shadowknights dropped by more than 100 between the two readings and paladins by around 50? People are deleting their crusader toons at 90?</blockquote>Gungo's numbers are 10d old, mine were from today. So apparently there were 100 sk's who dinged 90 in the past 10d.

Sydares

06-21-2010, 08:37 PM

Interesting stats. Should be interesting to compare the rate of class growth later down the line.

Upir

06-21-2010, 08:37 PM

<cite>Irving@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Take what we've been given, don't worry about parses, comparative damage, min/max'ing, and other inaneness...</blockquote>no, I won't....<cite>Irving@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's what the game was designed to be - fun for the masses, not super perfect balanced for the top end raider who cares about .05% more damage in a dataset of 1 million parses</blockquote>Sunshine, if the rangers (I) were only .05% behind the assassins, wizs, and warlocks, you'd have my vote, but that's just not reality....

kartikeya

06-21-2010, 09:33 PM

<cite>Upirus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Irving@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Take what we've been given, don't worry about parses, comparative damage, min/max'ing, and other inaneness...</blockquote>no, I won't....<cite>Irving@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's what the game was designed to be - fun for the masses, not super perfect balanced for the top end raider who cares about .05% more damage in a dataset of 1 million parses</blockquote>Sunshine, if the rangers (I) were only .05% behind the assassins, wizs, and warlocks, you'd have my vote, but that's just not reality....</blockquote>Sadly, reality is more like a 30%-50% DPS difference, depending on raid makeup and gear. The more geared/AA'd the T1 players, the further and further behind rangers fall. Which leads to rangers being put in suboptimal groups, which results in an even greater DPS disparity...Like it or not, class balance does have a significant bearing on the 'fun' of a class for a great many people. The fact that assassins are only slightly ahead of T9 rangers in sheer numbers at the moment only tells us that the archetype is divided roughly in half in numbers of characters at that level. It does not tell us how often they are played, whether they are primarily played in groups, raids, or solo, or what the rate of attrition for T9 rangers to assassins or vice versa is. Ranger is a class that always tends to have a significant population in any game despite any balance concerns because a lot of people generally enjoy the idea of the class (me being one of them). EQ1, back during the invention of all the ranger down jokes, when rangers desperately needed fixing, had a HUGE ranger population. There were tons of rangers, with a very active site. That doesn't mean they didn't need fixing, they did. A big ranger population now doesn't mean the class doesn't need help either.I know everyone claims SKs are zomg flavor of the month, but I played a SK long before fixes came in. I liked the flavor of the class and enjoyed playing it, but that doesn't mean SKs didn't need some serious help. Aggro control when tanking was really really painful, for one. Ditto coercers, prior to their revamp. I enjoyed the idea of the class, which is why I played one despite all the issues it had. And I danced when the issues were addressed.Rangers are badly badly badly hurting. I would argue hurting more than SK or coercer ever were, but I am biased as the ranger is my main and the SK and coercer are alts. They are hurting enough that flavor and 'fun factor' are entirely overshadowed by the issues, for me, because I'm a T9 ranger who raids and wants to be able to contribute to my raidforce. When bards start chasing a supposedly T1 DPS class on the parse, it's time to make some changes.I encourage anyone who thinks that these issues are exaggerated to do a bit of research and do a straight comparison between ranger and assassin combat arts, mythical effects, and general game mechanics. Keep in mind that it has now been proven many times over since SF beta (see the ranger forum for details) that ranged autoattack DPS is lower than melee autoattack DPS, BEFORE you factor in flurry and AE autoattack, so rangers don't even have any advantage there, and haven't for quite a while, despite popular belief. I then challenge a person who has done this research to come back and say that things are not ridiculously lopsided in favor of the assassin. (who is not overpowered, I note, in what I've been seeing from our raid parses.)

Obadiah

06-21-2010, 10:46 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Too right. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />The big surprises for me were that Necros edge out Conjurors, that Rangers are nearly even with Assassins, and that Illys and Conjys are so close. Hopefully this is not intended to identify those classes in need of improvements. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />Somewhat less surprising, but still unexpected by me, Wizards being that far ahead of Warlocks, and Guardian/Berserkers being as close as they are. I honestly didn't expect Crusaders to represent close to half of the Fighter population either, with SKs almost 1/3, but it's not a shock.

Pervis

06-21-2010, 11:03 PM

There are a few interesting things in those numbers.Rangers vs assassins is actually fairly even, with only 22 difference in them. Since rangers are, imo, the only actual broken class in PvE atm, it leads me to believe that these numbers are the result of several different forces, not just what class is OP.A lot of people roll a character based on an ideal they wish to portray, or in order to mimic a fictional (or non-fictional) character. This is the reason that, even in T5 when wizards were underpowered (in a simlar manner to rangers now) there were STILL more of them than there were warlocks. This is why wardens are popular, and is the only reason I can deduce for ranger numbers being as high as they are.What this doesn't explain is why there are so many Shadowknights, bards and enchanters, or why there are so few brawlers. To me, class balance is the reason for these anomolies.SKs were underpowered for a while, and as such never had particularly high volume. Unlike other OP classes at the time (such as wizards, mentioned above), the class was not used to mimic a character of any type. It really does leave the only logical reason for their numbers now being that they are overpowered.The population of bards and enchanters, as already said, is due to the fact they are so desired (both in groups and raids). I would have to assume the low number of brawlers is due to the fact that they are undesired in groups and raids, even though they are not necessarily a broken class.The other thing that is interesting about this is the shift in numbers. There was one of these posted early RoK, and guardians were the most popular fighter (though not by the same measure as SKs now). It seems that they are now tied for the lowest played fighter. Wizards were also considerably higher population than other mages, moreso than they are now, so overall their population has gone down.To me, the numbers in the OP say mainly that SKs are overpowered, guardians are underpowered, brawlers are useless, bards and enchanters are too useful, and raids need to cater to 6 of each archtype a little better than they are now.

Erriondrivan

06-22-2010, 10:43 AM

In my experience... the reason that bard number is so high is not because alot of people are playing them, it's because alot of people powerlevel a bard alt, to fill in raids. Sometimes just to 2box. Half of the members in my last raid guild had a 90 bard alt as a "just in case".Same with Shadowknight, almost everyone rolled a SK alt to see how OP they really became, and with it being so easy to max a toon it's not unheard of to have it to 90 in a week.

Raahl

06-22-2010, 11:02 AM

Thanks for posting this. Some interesting numbers here.

Laenai

06-22-2010, 11:04 AM

<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are a few interesting things in those numbers.Rangers vs assassins is actually fairly even, with only 22 difference in them. Since rangers are, imo, the only actual broken class in PvE atm, it leads me to believe that these numbers are the result of several different forces, not just what class is OP.</blockquote>Its because we ranger players switched classes- not necessarily betrayed. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I'm willing to bet that most of those ranger players got their toon to 90 for the 10% XP bonus, then turned around and either rolled a new toon, or went back to whatever toon they were already playing. If its just info from EQ2players, many, many, many of these players also have a level 90 alt or multiple level 90 alts and you can't really distinguish a difference in these numbers.When it only takes a week or 10 days to get a toon from 1 to 90...*shrug*

Pervis

06-22-2010, 11:46 AM

<cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its because we ranger players switched classes- not necessarily betrayed. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> I'm willing to bet that most of those ranger players got their toon to 90 for the 10% XP bonus, then turned around and either rolled a new toon, or went back to whatever toon they were already playing.</blockquote>Leveling a toon to 90 to get the 10% xp bonus for the character you are playing is kind of worthless... why not just level the character you are playing?Those people, whether they know it or not, were leveling their rangers up because that is the class they want to play, not for some minor XP boost, nor because of how powerful it(n't) is at the moment.Or, in other words, they probably fit in to this...<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote>A lot of people roll a character based on an ideal they wish to portray, or in order to mimic a fictional (or non-fictional) character.</blockquote>I'd wager a good many people do, even people that don't realise it. My monk alt was a result of watching a live performance of Oliver, and being impressed with the on stage acrobatics from the actor playing the artful dodger... but I didn't realise it for years until I had to rename him, and Artful was the first thing that came to mind (it was taken, btw, by another monk).The power of imagination, the desire to portray someone we admire, even if just in game, is a far more persuasive carrot to dangle in front of a person than a class that is overpowered. Its hard to point that out though, because different people admire different characters, for different reasons. With OP classes though, there is usually only one.

Banditman

06-22-2010, 12:01 PM

All these numbers are completely meaningless until there is some way to actually attach "playtime" to those numbers.So, yes, it looks like Rangers and Assassins are equal . . . but are these all getting played? Same question for numerous classes really. We have no way to know.I know I have had 5 characters at L90 for some time now, but my play time on my Fury and SK are very, very low. Almost non-existant. I have a L80 Dirge that needs some attention, but I just haven't got to him yet.

Striikor

06-22-2010, 12:04 PM

It is interesting information. However it actually says nothing about what is played. It only indicates what is leveled.I personally know a lot of people who run ranger's for instance. They BG the ranger but they do not group or raid with the ranger. They run their bards or healers or tanks for grouping and raiding.IMO BG has created and inordinate amount of level 90 rangers. As a ranger is my main, it is a class I pay a lot of attention to. Many were drawn by posts indicating the Ranger was OP, when they found they were not they switched to fighter or simply stayed with their main toon. BG is no longer overrun by aspiring Rangers as it was for a period. I am sure this is true of other classes also, but BG is clearly the best place for a ranger balance wise right now, though kills and damage is dominated by fighters.This is not an opinion simply look at the stats at the end of a BG. 90% of the time it fighter at the top. More so in SD and Gears and less so in Ganak for some reason.

circusgirl

06-22-2010, 12:10 PM

My perception right now of overpowered verses underpowered is as follows:Overpowered: Shadowknights, Paladins (to a much lesser extent than SKs), Swashbucklers (though my sample size is low here--we might just have an obscenely talented swashy).Overneeded: Shamans, bards, enchanters. I don't think the classes are obscenely out of wack or overpowered persay, but a raid could easily have 4 of each of them and still be a totally solid force, which I think is seriously out of balance.Underpowered: Ranger. They have less utility than an assassin and less dps. How does that make sense?Underneeded: Brawlers, Summoners, Druids. Again, its not so much that these classes are super far behind others, its that they just aren't as needed as other classes are. A bit more utility could probably turn this around for brawlers, since we currently have less in the way of buffs than warriors and crusaders, while a bit more dps for summoners and more survivability (not to be confused with Heals per second) for druids in the form of HP buffs would fix them.Brigs are about where they should be if you ask me, though they look far behind in comparison to swashies. Every raidforce wants exactly one brig, which is the way things should be.

Pervis

06-22-2010, 12:16 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Underpowered: Ranger. They have less utility than an assassin and less dps. How does that make sense?</blockquote>I would add guardian to this. IMO they are as underpowered a class as rangers, but because its not parsed as easily, its hard to put numbers to.

Jeepned2

06-22-2010, 12:27 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Don't know about troubs, dirges or illys, but for this ccercer it's mostly because I don't group with people I don't know. Most have no clue or have forgotten how to act around a mezzer. Most go full on DPS for all occasions and have forgotten the art of finesse.

Laenai

06-22-2010, 12:37 PM

<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its because we ranger players switched classes- not necessarily betrayed. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> I'm willing to bet that most of those ranger players got their toon to 90 for the 10% XP bonus, then turned around and either rolled a new toon, or went back to whatever toon they were already playing.</blockquote>Leveling a toon to 90 to get the 10% xp bonus for the character you are playing is kind of worthless... why not just level the character you are playing?Those people, whether they know it or not, were leveling their rangers up because that is the class they want to play, not for some minor XP boost, nor because of how powerful it(n't) is at the moment.Or, in other words, they probably fit in to this...<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote>A lot of people roll a character based on an ideal they wish to portray, or in order to mimic a fictional (or non-fictional) character.</blockquote>I'd wager a good many people do, even people that don't realise it. My monk alt was a result of watching a live performance of Oliver, and being impressed with the on stage acrobatics from the actor playing the artful dodger... but I didn't realise it for years until I had to rename him, and Artful was the first thing that came to mind (it was taken, btw, by another monk).The power of imagination, the desire to portray someone we admire, even if just in game, is a far more persuasive carrot to dangle in front of a person than a class that is overpowered. Its hard to point that out though, because different people admire different characters, for different reasons. With OP classes though, there is usually only one.</blockquote>Oh, I absolutely love to play my ranger. I love her RP, I love her personality, I love HOW to play a ranger.I hate that my class is so broken that the ranger I've loved and played for years is now on a shelf because she's freakin useless to my raid alliance. Did I make the switch? Heck yeah I did. Now my ranger is a 10% XP bonus bot for my defiler with a bastardized version of the same name (Kaindah instead of Kainda) who's RP and personality I can't get wrapped around the class and therefore has gone into the toilet.Makes me a little sad, really.

MurFalad

06-22-2010, 01:48 PM

Thanks, great post and some fascinating statistics that show where the population is going/has gone.The first surprise there though is that the archetypes are roughly even, maybe we should include monks/bruisers in as as DPS class, but even then there are too many tank/healer classes for a normal group on average. I'm really not sure how many monks/bruisers though these days play only as tanks?The other one is the flavour of the past 2 years with shadowknights, by far the most popular class, probably for a reason... That's not healthy for the game in my opinion, if one class is by far and away much more popular then others it could be because they are much easier to play, or are more powerful. So if the choice for players is to either play overpowered class A or quit its a bad thing for keeping players, I know for me the variety of classes was a big draw for EQ2, whenever any of those classes are effectively useless we lose players, not everyone just plays something because its effective, that's FPS thinking. While that might motivate the top 10% of raiders it doesn't motivate most RPG players, so I'd rather see the choice as play class A or class B or class C etc.I did do some research myself which I believe dates back from mid 2006 (could be 2007...) on the class numbers before I started EQ2 since I was trying to figure out what to go for (a useful but rare class was appealing, in the end though I just went for a class that I liked the sound of!), they were not recorded as exactly (I just counted the number of pages of max levels back then so its +/- 50) which was----------------------- Warriors, total = 13450, 23%Guardian 3000Beserker 2000Monk 2250Bruiser 2000Shadow Knight 2000Paladin 2200----------------------- Scouts, total = 12600, 22%Assassin 2000Ranger 2500Swashbuckler 2100Brigand 2000Troubadour 1750Dirge 2250----------------------- Mages, total = 16000, 28%Illusionist 2000Coercer 1500Conjurer 3000Necromancer 3500Wizard 4000Warlock 2000----------------------- Clerics, total = 15750, 27%Mystic 2000Defiler 2000Warden 3000Fury 4000Templar 3000Inquisitor 1750----------------------- Total for all 57800 (apples to oranges here as this was made just before RoK I think hence late in the expansion cycle if my dates are correct).So back then the archetypes were very even, although mages were the most popular. Furies, Wizards and Necromancers were the most popular classes, although in no way the scale that Shadowknights are today. Here Necromancers especially seem to have had the worst time, maybe back then they were popular to either solo or just plain overpowered, today not too bad, but out of favour with players.Rangers used to be more popular but have died down somewhat, yet bards are much more popular, I guess they became a lot more useful since mid 2006 (possibly as late as 2007, this page didn't have any year date on it).EDIT : One last observation on tank numbers, while currently SK's are massively over represented that I believe is due to the class probably being somewhat overpowered its also interesting to see the shift from single target specialist tanks (Warrior/Brawler) to AOE specialist tanks (Crusader). Back in RoK it was 67% Warrior/Brawler, now its 53% Warrior/Brawler as Paladins are much more popular then other classes too (although nowhere on the scale of SK's). I believe this could be due to there being more AOE content favouring an AOE tank then in the past, something that I would prefer to see fixed without just making all the classes more powerful (or homogenising them all into AOE tanks).

Wasuna

06-22-2010, 02:03 PM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>All these numbers are completely meaningless until there is some way to actually attach "playtime" to those numbers.So, yes, it looks like Rangers and Assassins are equal . . . but are these all getting played? Same question for numerous classes really. We have no way to know.I know I have had 5 characters at L90 for some time now, but my play time on my Fury and SK are very, very low. Almost non-existant. I have a L80 Dirge that needs some attention, but I just haven't got to him yet.</blockquote>Your argument isn't correct. You choose what classes to play and what classes to level to 90. Also, the law of averages would say that for ever Bruiser main that doesn't play their level 90 SK there is also a SK main that doesn't play their 90 Brusier. Every time statistics are used somebody will always claim there should be an exception. Preference, desire, need, easy of play, fun.. etc. All ofthose are factored nto why you choose the classes you did.The facts are that there is no other information available than what was presented. If taken properly in a qualitative manner, you can make very solid theories. If you try and take them in aquantitative manner you will be incorrect most times. Basically, there is a good reason why Rangers and Assassins have basically equal populations while Rangers underperform with DPS/Utility. Trying to figure out why there is a 22 count split will just get you wrong answers.

Chock

06-22-2010, 02:08 PM

<cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Don't know about troubs, dirges or illys, but for this ccercer it's mostly because I don't group with people I don't know. Most have no clue or have forgotten how to act around a mezzer. Most go full on DPS for all occasions and have forgotten the art of finesse.</blockquote>The statistics are fairly flawed. People will level their alts to 90 and let them sit (like I do). Just because there are a lot of level 90 Enchanters doesn't people actually want to play them. A better statistic would be the percentage of each of these classes played within the last month.

snowli

06-22-2010, 02:08 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Because I think those figures only represent characters who played to 90, not really who's playing which alt when - one of the most common backups for raiders is a chanter or bard because no1 can easily recruit and maintain the 8 needed per raid all the time.

Hene

06-22-2010, 03:44 PM

Why is the shaman pop. so low compared to other healers? :/Inquisies are lower yeah, but why are shamans in general so low

Obadiah

06-22-2010, 04:18 PM

<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=359945" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=359945</a>Interesting to compare the difference.SK's more than DOUBLED in percentage of the max-level player base (3.61% to 7.53)Bottom 5 then = Brigand, Defiler, Illy, Coercer, Troub ... Bottom 5 now = Swash, Monk, Brig, Guard, BruiserBottom feeder Troubs were barely over 2%, bottom feeders now (Bruiser) are over 3%.Summoners were very FOTM in the KoS days of OP Scout pets ... oops. Barely over 1/3 of their previous percentage.Guards % cut in half.Shamans were low then and are low now. No matter how you slice it, it sucks to solo a shaman. I would guess most people don't roll them as "fun" alts, that most don't have shaman alts at all unless they're needed for raiding. I certainly won't even play mine anymore. Having half my DPS taken away last GU was enough for me.

Banditman

06-22-2010, 04:25 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>All these numbers are completely meaningless until there is some way to actually attach "playtime" to those numbers.So, yes, it looks like Rangers and Assassins are equal . . . but are these all getting played? Same question for numerous classes really. We have no way to know.I know I have had 5 characters at L90 for some time now, but my play time on my Fury and SK are very, very low. Almost non-existant. I have a L80 Dirge that needs some attention, but I just haven't got to him yet.</blockquote>Your argument isn't correct. You choose what classes to play and what classes to level to 90. Also, the law of averages would say that for ever Bruiser main that doesn't play their level 90 SK there is also a SK main that doesn't play their 90 Brusier. Every time statistics are used somebody will always claim there should be an exception. Preference, desire, need, easy of play, fun.. etc. All ofthose are factored nto why you choose the classes you did.The facts are that there is no other information available than what was presented. If taken properly in a qualitative manner, you can make very solid theories. If you try and take them in aquantitative manner you will be incorrect most times. Basically, there is a good reason why Rangers and Assassins have basically equal populations while Rangers underperform with DPS/Utility. Trying to figure out why there is a 22 count split will just get you wrong answers.</blockquote>The fact that no other information is available does not in any way validate that information. In 1500, the available information indicated that the world was flat. It was the only information available.Every Bard and Chanter in my guild, myself included, have multiple alts that they are as likely, or more likely, to be playing than their "main". What does that tell you? Is that information valuable? It's the only information I have available. Does that make it valid? Correct?As I said initially, you have nothing until you have actual played time data. Without it, all you know is that someone decided to level a character to 90, the task of perhaps 7 days.Had these numbers been available immediately and consistently since the release of Sentinel's Fate, you could have drawn some data by issuing crafted queries each day, or more often, to chart the growth of each sub-class over time. That would be "somewhat" more valuable.

Priddles

06-22-2010, 04:38 PM

SoE just needs to figure out what the hell they want brawlers to be.Want us to be a tank? Ok, then give us mitigation equal to plate, not below chainmail at our highest. No one in their right mind would have a brawler tank when there are plate tanks avilable.Want us to be DPS? Then make us viable as a DPS, not low tier at our best.Want us to be utility? Then give us a raidbuff that doesn't suck, or give us an improved Shrug Off, or SOMETHING.It's unfortunate, because brawlers are fun to play, but SOE has gimped them by being unable to decide what we are.

Draylore

06-22-2010, 04:50 PM

THe only interesting thing I found in those numbers is the pretty even breakdown of archetypes. Interesting because it goes against what the game actually supports. Having as many fighters as healers as scouts as mages doesnt play out very well in formation of groups or raids.If you break down each of those archetypes into roles the numbers look even worse. In a group you have as many people competing for single slot as you do for the other four slots.

PlaneCrazy

06-22-2010, 04:55 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><table cellspacing="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup><tbody></tbody></table><table cellspacing="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><colgroup><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="95"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup> <tbody><tr><td width="86" height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"> </td><td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="95" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="95" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td width="86" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080"> 1507</td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080">Guardian</td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080"> 2049</td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080">Berserker</td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080"> 3556</td> <td bgcolor="#ff8080">Warrior</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">1582</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Monk</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">1507</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Bruiser</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">3089</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Brawler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">12649</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Fighter</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">2238</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Paladin</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">3766</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Shadowknight</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ff8080">6004</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ff8080">Crusader</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">1717</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Ranger</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">1739</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Assassin</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">3456</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Predator</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">1682</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Swashbuckler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">1521</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Brigand</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">3203</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Rogue</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">11942</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Scout</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">3171</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Dirge</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">2112</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Troubador</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#e6e64c">5283</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#e6e64c">Bard</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">2244</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Illusionist</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">2407</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Coercer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">4651</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Enchanter</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">1872</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Conjuror</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">1997</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Necromancer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">3869</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Summoner</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">12927</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Mage</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">2600</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Wizard</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">1807</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Warlock</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83caff">4407</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#83caff">Sorcerer</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">2276</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Templar</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">1700</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Inquisitor</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">3976</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Cleric</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">1770</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Mystic</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">1707</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Defiler</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">3477</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Shaman</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">12436</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Priest</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">2211</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Fury</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">2772</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Warden</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#94bd5e">4983</td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#94bd5e">Druid</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr> <tr><td height="17" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#ffffff"></td></tr></tbody></table>These are the counts of level 90 chars of the respective classes across all servers.It seems to me that SOE just has to have this data available, considering it took all of 30 seconds to obtain from eq2players. So why is it acceptable that there are around 50% more sk's than pallies, dirges than troubs, wizards than warlocks; ~30% more berserkers than guardians, templars than inquisitors, warden than furies? A real quick glance indicates 6 class pairs where there is a very heavy skewing towards one side of the equation.The breakdown by class is a bit skewed too, with crusaders at 47% of fighters and bards 44% of scouts.So out of 24 sub-classes, 6 of them are significantly under-represented compared to their counterparts.What's interesting is that the spread by archetype is really quite even, it's where things really should be (in my opinion). The least represented archetype is 23.9% of the volume, and the highest is 25.9%. This really does reinforce though, that the raid structure format and encounter design really doesn't match up with what the playerbase is playing. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the bard population is too high for two reasons: Hydra buff bots and players who'd rather be playing some other class, but are playing a bard in order to secure a raid position.</blockquote>If you trusted data from EQ2players, then you need help... serious help.I once check one of my alts on there and it showed 5 people on the same server as me with the same name... no "X" 's , no numbers.. identical names. The EQ2players database is so corrupted, it's not even worth complaining about anymore.

Aule

06-22-2010, 05:08 PM

<cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you trusted data from EQ2players, then you need help... serious help.I once check one of my alts on there and it showed 5 people on the same server as me with the same name... no "X" 's , no numbers.. identical names. The EQ2players database is so corrupted, it's not even worth complaining about anymore.</blockquote>EQ2players database keeps a record of all alts that have ever been attached to that account. All your statement indicates is that you and 4 other people all chose the same name, and the other 4 of them deleted the character before you reused the name.

Boldac

06-22-2010, 05:22 PM

<cite>Hene wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why is the shaman pop. so low compared to other healers? :/Inquisies are lower yeah, but why are shamans in general so low</blockquote>In part because SOE has taken the shaman class defining ability, the ward, and given to everyone. It started with templars, and now darn near everyone can get a ward via spell or proc in some shape or form. I find it funny that shaman can't get reactives or HoT's (not that we'd want them).My mystic is a beast of a healer, but thanks to SOE flipping out that a few of the best of the best shaman were able to solo certain zones they have slapped us with the nerf bat. I find it funny that the same hasn't happened to other classes that could do the same thing and more.The problem SOE has is, instead of fixing whats broke, they tend to go off the deep end (i.e. SK's). When dps is a tanks best form of aggro generation, there's a problem. But because the players would rather have easy mode, they scrapped any form of aggro changes. Equally geared and equally played, rangers/assassins/wizards/warlocks should always top the dps parse. Then you should see your rogues, summoners, fighters in full offensive gear/stances. The third tier should be your bards, enchanters, dps spec'd healers and your main tank. The benefit should be, your lower tier dps should have huge utility (like your enchanters, healers and bards do).I've always thought that the perfect raid for eq2 should be 24 seperate classes. But then, I just might be insane.

PlaneCrazy

06-22-2010, 05:22 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you trusted data from EQ2players, then you need help... serious help.I once check one of my alts on there and it showed 5 people on the same server as me with the same name... no "X" 's , no numbers.. identical names. The EQ2players database is so corrupted, it's not even worth complaining about anymore.</blockquote>EQ2players database keeps a record of all alts that have ever been attached to that account. All your statement indicates is that you and 4 other people all chose the same name, and the other 4 of them deleted the character before you reused the name.</blockquote>Not quite true. EQ2players also has many instances where server merges caused duplicates of characters. As well, the example I gave was for a toon that was created on the day the server went live, so there should never have been another toon with the same name ever on that same server.My point is... the DB in EQ2players is so corrupted that they can't do anything reliably with it. I've been dealing with this issue since they created the "players.com" type websites on three of their games now. Just try and open up a thread on problems with this... and listen to the silence. They practically have to hand code every piece of data on that site nowadays... why do you think it took them 3 months to add all the disco's from the SF launch? And they actually make a bit of an effort with the EQ2 site... you should see the Vanguard one. It's totally [Removed for Content].Any data farmed from EQ2players also includes inactive accounts and toons. There's no way to parse the results with regard to the last time that character logged on or based on them being active or not. So you guys are talking about data that includes every alt and hiccup created since the game launched almost 6 years ago. Not a very accurate way to discuss the "current" trends in classes today, 56 Game Updates later... LOL

Sapphy

06-22-2010, 05:31 PM

Woot! neat stats! I absolutely love stat stuff too. I just recently posted about this too in zones and populations but it kinda got ignored lol. Anyways, here's what I found as of 6/15 (although your layout is soo much prettier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> ). I used the eq2players database too, and even with issues, I really do think it is a fair representation of the specifics you are looking at. Anyways thanx for posting this!Class Rank (All servers), lvl 90 (bc lvl 90 is a better indication of active players and server raiding/gear potential than using all levels)1. Shadowknight 3,636 2. Dirge 3,092 3. Warden 2,667 4. Wizard 2,517 5. Coercer 2,3556. Templar 2,226 7. Illusionist 2,191 8. Paladin 2,174 9. Fury 2,131 10. Troubador 2,049 11. Berserker 1,969 12. Necromancer 1.932 13. Conjuror 1,818 14. Warlock 1,738 15. Mystic 1,713 16. Assassin 1,682 17. Defiler 1,669 18. Ranger 1,667 19. Inquisitor 1,653 20. Swashbuckler 1,628 21. Monk 1,524 22. Brigand 1,474 23. Guardian 1,470 24. Bruiser 1,435 Class GroupsMage 12,551Tank 12,208Healer 12,059Scout 11,592Server Rank, lvl 901. Antonia Bayle 3,7772. Nagafen 3,3753. Crushbone 2,9744. Najena 2,4195. Sebilis 2,3546. Splitpaw 2,3327. Guk 2,2618. Blackburrow 2,0669. Unrest 2,03610. Permafrost 1,96211. Butcherblock 1,86612. Runnyeye 1,85313. Everfrost 1,83114. Kithicor 1,80515. Befallen 1,79715. Nektulos 1,79717. Oasis 1,77218. Lucan DLere 1,74419. Mistmoore 1,73420. Valor 1,67821. Storms 1,49322. Innovation 1,49023. The Bazaar 1,25424. Vox 740Average 2,017EDITRace Stats (lvl 90) Added!1. Dark Elf 6,2972. High Elf 4,4383. Human 4.0354. Wood Elf 4,0115. Half Elf 3,8886. Ratonga 3,0817. Kerra 3,0448. Barbarian 2,7759. Erudite 2,47910. Arasai 2,41611. Gnome 2,41412. Fae 2,282 13. Iksar 1,64514. Ogre 1,25215. Dwarf 1,14816. Halfling 94117. Froglok 82918. Sarnak 82419. Troll 611

Geothe

06-22-2010, 05:31 PM

<cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not quite true. EQ2players also has many instances where server merges caused duplicates of characters. As well, the example I gave was for a toon that was created on the day the server went live, so there should never have been another toon with the same name ever on that same server.My point is... the DB in EQ2players is so corrupted that they can't do anything reliably with it. I've been dealing with this issue since they created the "players.com" type websites on three of their games now. Just try and open up a thread on problems with this... and listen to the silence. They practically have to hand code every piece of data on that site nowadays... why do you think it took them 3 months to add all the disco's from the SF launch? And they actually make a bit of an effort with the EQ2 site... you should see the Vanguard one. It's totally [Removed for Content].Any data farmed from EQ2players also includes inactive accounts and toons. There's no way to parse the results with regard to the last time that character logged on or based on them being active or not. So you guys are talking about data that includes every alt and hiccup created since the game launched almost 6 years ago. Not a very accurate way to discuss the "current" trends in classes today, 56 Game Updates later... LOL</blockquote>Server merger duplications and what not have ZERO impact on this data set, as it is merely looking at all characters that are lvl 90. ie, characters that have been ACTIVELY played in the past 4 months. So using eq2 players for that data collection is definitely perfectly viable. Now if the question was total class representation across all level ranges, then yes, that data would be crap.

PlaneCrazy

06-22-2010, 05:42 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not quite true. EQ2players also has many instances where server merges caused duplicates of characters. As well, the example I gave was for a toon that was created on the day the server went live, so there should never have been another toon with the same name ever on that same server.My point is... the DB in EQ2players is so corrupted that they can't do anything reliably with it. I've been dealing with this issue since they created the "players.com" type websites on three of their games now. Just try and open up a thread on problems with this... and listen to the silence. They practically have to hand code every piece of data on that site nowadays... why do you think it took them 3 months to add all the disco's from the SF launch? And they actually make a bit of an effort with the EQ2 site... you should see the Vanguard one. It's totally [Removed for Content].Any data farmed from EQ2players also includes inactive accounts and toons. There's no way to parse the results with regard to the last time that character logged on or based on them being active or not. So you guys are talking about data that includes every alt and hiccup created since the game launched almost 6 years ago. Not a very accurate way to discuss the "current" trends in classes today, 56 Game Updates later... LOL</blockquote>Server merger duplications and what not have ZERO impact on this data set, as it is merely looking at all characters that are lvl 90. ie, characters that have been ACTIVELY played in the past 4 months. So using eq2 players for that data collection is definitely perfectly viable. Now if the question was total class representation across all level ranges, then yes, that data would be crap.</blockquote>Again... you are making the assumption that the data in the Player's DB is accurate and up to date. It's been proven over and over and over again that there are MANY errors in it. That's all I am saying.I'm sure it's fine for broad generalizations. But that's it. For anything more accurate, it's a flawed tool.Also, how accurate is examining just level 90's? I've barely played my SK since he hit 90. But I play 3 other sub-50 alts quite a lot recently. Do you think that only level 90's play this game or that only the people that raid are the active ones? I see hundreds of alts on every day and many of them don't play their main toons anymore. EQ2 is full of altoholics, as i can personally attest too <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I think a more important indicator would be the number of people who hit level cap and still play those toons. or stats showing the total number of hours played each day per class and level. I'm sure SOE has datamining tools to get all those numbers for their own use. Just don't trust EQ2players for it <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

MurFalad

06-22-2010, 08:31 PM

<cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Any data farmed from EQ2players also includes inactive accounts and toons. There's no way to parse the results with regard to the last time that character logged on or based on them being active or not. So you guys are talking about data that includes every alt and hiccup created since the game launched almost 6 years ago. Not a very accurate way to discuss the "current" trends in classes today, 56 Game Updates later... LOL</blockquote>The OP's list, my list and the other list posted here were all for max level characters at the time, whether they were inactive or not is then irrelevant since its likely that this would effect classes equally. Its the same with any database errors, there is no reason that errors would effect just one class, and with so many samples the error is likely to be pretty even across all the data.

Purr

06-22-2010, 08:57 PM

In order to make these lists a good tool the first thing we'd need is a subscriber number for EQ2. Without even the slightest idea in that regard, and also no idea about the split between so called mains and so called alts these numbers are of very limited use.Still interesting material, so thanks to the people who did the work!Purr~

Yimway

06-22-2010, 09:36 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>90's I have:GuardCoercerIllusionistTroubDirgeWardenInquis itorDefilerClasses I pug with:InquisitorOnly one of those classes I actually consider fun to play, the rest are just to make things work for guild groups/raids as needed, but will likely never be pugged.I imagine I'm no where near alone in having utility alts that I don't pug with.

Pervis

06-22-2010, 09:42 PM

<cite>Sapphyra wrote:</cite><blockquote>Race Stats (lvl 90) Added!1. Dark Elf 6,297...19. Troll 611</blockquote>Interesting...But then, we all knew Dark Elves were OP.

Carthr

06-22-2010, 09:59 PM

<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sapphyra wrote:</cite><blockquote>Race Stats (lvl 90) Added!1. Dark Elf 6,297...19. Troll 611</blockquote>Interesting...But then, we all knew Dark Elves were OP.</blockquote>Cuz it has nothing to do with trolls being fugly

Pervis

06-22-2010, 10:09 PM

/shrug, as I said earlier, people make characters to mimic a fictional or non-fictional character more than they roll one to be OP.Obviously, there is no reason to think that would be limited to classes and not races.

yzyh

06-22-2010, 11:22 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Almost everyone play a bard cuz they want a raid spot rather then enjoying the class. And illy + coercerer are to ubber at soloing to group.Actualy I bet you that many bards play an SK whent hey are not raiding.

erin

06-23-2010, 12:06 AM

<cite>Chock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there are so many 90 troubs and dirges, and illys and coercers, why is it so flipping hard to find one for an instance group? =P</blockquote>Don't know about troubs, dirges or illys, but for this ccercer it's mostly because I don't group with people I don't know. Most have no clue or have forgotten how to act around a mezzer. Most go full on DPS for all occasions and have forgotten the art of finesse.</blockquote>The statistics are fairly flawed. People will level their alts to 90 and let them sit (like I do). Just because there are a lot of level 90 Enchanters doesn't people actually want to play them. A better statistic would be the percentage of each of these classes played within the last month.</blockquote>Lot of truth to this I think. The second my illy hit 90, I parked her again and went to play something I was having more fun with. So yeah, I count in the level 90 population but its not real, because she doesn't get played hardly at all. I think a lot of folks are doing that, especially with Halas, a lot of people went and made new alts. You'd have to include time played statistics to make this very meaningful.Still interesting though <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

urgthock

06-25-2010, 04:21 PM

I have 7 characters I play. All are at level 89 with 99.9 percent exp into the level. I am holding off dinging them to level 90 to get the vitality bonus to AA. I have seen quite a few people mention that they are doing the same. Just something to think about.

Hene

06-25-2010, 04:58 PM

<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have 7 characters I play. All are at level 89 with 99.9 percent exp into the level. I am holding off dinging them to level 90 to get the vitality bonus to AA.</blockquote>Lol that is /failGuess you didn't realize that vitality can only build up as much as XP you have left until the cap. i.e., at 89 with 0% xp you can build up the equivalent of 1 'level' of vitality, while at lv 89 with 99.9% xp you can only build up 1/1000th of that amount, or 0.01% of a 'level' equivalent of vitality...Basically, your "vitality marker" (the arrow that points to where your vitality will effectively run out) will never go past lv 90 exactly (you should notice that after getting 100% vitality and killing like 2 mobs that you have 0% vitality for 10 minutes or so until your vitality ticks back up to 100% for another 2 mobs)

-=Hoss=-

06-25-2010, 07:04 PM

<cite>Hene wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have 7 characters I play. All are at level 89 with 99.9 percent exp into the level. I am holding off dinging them to level 90 to get the vitality bonus to AA.</blockquote>Lol that is /failGuess you didn't realize that vitality can only build up as much as XP you have left until the cap. i.e., at 89 with 0% xp you can build up the equivalent of 1 'level' of vitality, while at lv 89 with 99.9% xp you can only build up 1/1000th of that amount, or 0.01% of a 'level' equivalent of vitality...Basically, your "vitality marker" (the arrow that points to where your vitality will effectively run out) will never go past lv 90 exactly (you should notice that after getting 100% vitality and killing like 2 mobs that you have 0% vitality for 10 minutes or so until your vitality ticks back up to 100% for another 2 mobs)</blockquote>I did the same thing but did not notice that. What I noticed was that my vitality never got below about 80% and it would keep refilling to 100%. I locked at 90% though, perhaps thats a difference. I finally had to hit the last level because it was time to raid. I guess on the next alt I will lock at 89 and maybe 50% and see if it acts different.

-=Hoss=-

06-25-2010, 07:11 PM

<cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is interesting information. However it actually says nothing about what is played. It only indicates what is leveled.I personally know a lot of people who run ranger's for instance. They BG the ranger but they do not group or raid with the ranger. They run their bards or healers or tanks for grouping and raiding.</blockquote>I am shocked at how the rangers have come out in a panic over these stats. They back up what I've been saying that a lot of people play rangers, therefore they are not as broken as some like to claim. Dude, the people who leveled these rangers clearly played them. How can you say its not an indication of playing? Do you think everyone took thier ranger alts and spent 100,000 plat on shinies to level them to 90? If we were into the next expansion, I could see your point that some classes might have been switched out, or leveled very very slowly when bored, but we're just barely into the time frame where thats a legitimate an issue. The only way to get more meaningful numbers would be if we could see the same stats for every month since the expansion, to see who leveled first.

BMonkeeus

06-25-2010, 07:45 PM

OMGLOLZ!