EQ2: Where have all the chanters gone?

Seriously!

Just playing with /who all classname right now, here are some counts.

Illusionist: 3 players
Coercer: 3 players
Templar: 34 players
Guardian: 36 players

Let's try that a tier lower

Enchanter 10 19: 43 players
Warrior 10 19: 100 players
Predator 10 19: 86 players
Bard 10 19: 27 players. Hmm..

Troubador yields 3, dirge yields 8. So it's iffy. Enchanters are at least one of the least popular classes in the game, though.. and afaik the singers are the only other ones with mez. I had one person tell me, when he was level 20, that grouping with me was the first time he'd ever worked with a 'chanter.

What's going on here? I just turned illusionist.. It certainly seems like the class rocks and is fun to play. People played EQ1 bards, so "they're too complicated" fails to explain it to my mind. Is the power not obvious enough? Is the wait for breeze too long? What am I missing? Is mez just not popular? Everyone seems ecstatic to have it, though, along with the other toys I bring to the table..

I'm afraid I missed the memo and I'm playing a gimp class.

Don''t know what to tell you about folks not playing em. Myself I love having a chanter in a group. A good chanter + a group that knows how to assist = we usually live ).

It seems like there is always a bias towards warrior type classes in MMORPGs in general. I''ve always played some sort of mage character and the population has always been lower than that of warrior types.

I play a Shaman in EQ2 and I have been a tad underwhelmed - he is ok, but the grind has set in and I kind of defected to WoW...

"SpyNavy" wrote:
I play a Shaman in EQ2 and I have been a tad underwhelmed - he is ok, but the grind has set in and I kind of defected to WoW...

What do you mean by grind? I''m only play a little over an hour a day and I''m already level 13 almost 14. I''m getting good exp. My only problem is that to go around and quest in some cooler dungeons, I need to be around 20.

Svald in Beta enchanter types got a bad rap.

Basically with the way encounters are tunned most people wanted more damage and 2 healers as opposed to an enchanter. Crowd Control was viewed as relatively worthless compared to the ability to just kill them all fast.

My usual group has me the paladin, templar, dirge, troubador, beserker, and the 6th slot sort of floats but looks like we may be getting a ranger now.

I had an enchanter in beta and really enjoyed him and I will make one again I think when I have time because I found them to be fun and effective at what they do.

I have a feeling that chanters and other cc will become more important in the higher game. Most group encounters sub 20 have involved fewer than 7 mobs (usually 5 an under) with adds a very rare occurance. Futhermore, once a mob group''s healer(s) goes down, other than named, they all drop like flies with high DPS. As the game progresses, i would imagine larger groups, more healers, or multipile named per encounter, and I imagine cc will be in high demand.

Hmm.. I''ve been playing my now-an-illusionist and nothing else. What con/number/difficulty (arrows, named) do people feel comfortable taking on in the absence of a ''chanter? I suspect that this relates, but I''m going to be cagey about what I feel comfortable with til I know whether I''ll be embarrassing myself as clueless

And, tactically, how do things work in a difficult fight in the absence of mez? Playing a ''chanter exclusively means I never see competent people working without it. I''ve never had a clued group ignore mez - either they''re clued and use it or they''re, um, er, they die a lot.

Really somewhat amazed that that''s the attitude. Watching the fights groups I join get into.. between breeze and mez, let alone the still-new-and-unappraised alacrity, there are a lot of fights I can sit back and say with perfect confidence that people would''ve died without me; the healers would''ve had to heal more with less mana, and they were low by the end of the fight as it was. I don''t get it. Is this just people being frickin'' insane and failing to understand the class? As a handy example of what I mean, The majority of all City of Heroes controllers are illusion/empathy. 100% of all the people who ever grouped with my gravity/kinetics controller for more than five minutes agree that illusion/empathy is simply useless. Thus, people are frickin'' insane. Are we looking at another situation like that?

Or are illusionists unnecessary? Should I relegate Bascan to crafter alt status? I played an animist in DAoC, I''m not really interested in playing the unloved obscure class again. I don''t feel the need to give up yet though; everyone''s happy to group me and everyone wishes I wouldn''t leave at bedtime..

With my group described above I am willing to take on ^^yellow group creatures without blinking an eye. Also have no trouble with say a yellow group of like 3 or 4 creatures generally.

With just me and a templar I am even willing to do ^^whites without second thought.

As for adds and the like it depends on what we are fighting but basically I not had much trouble tanking like say 2 seperate groups of 2 blue^ or say a white^^ and a blue^^.

The thing is with me and the templar in a group we can heal for a lot of damage. I for example can heal myself as a 25 paladin for about 3000 health if I use all of my power. The templar can heal for a lot more but bascially if we get in a fight and can run the target/targets out of power before we do we win. I know you are saying no doh but we win through atrition. If we had an illusionist with us now we would be able to do it better I am sure. Also I like to think of us as ratehr decent players and we are really careful about where and what we fight so to avoid adds and what not as much as possible.

Sometimes though we are just overrun and well we run or die and an illusionist would more than likely saved us. Last night for example in Stormhold 2 seperate groups of 2 white^ jumped us and since they also were casters we just could not keep up with the healing. An illusionist could have mezzed 2 or 3 of them and it would have been cake.

The thing to rember though is we are still relatively low level but without a doubt an illusionist just adds a bit of extra security for when things go bad.

Well, I have limited exp with V Snye and Stormhold, the 2 places sub 20 where I would think that cc would come in most handy. The stickiest encouters where cc would have definetly come in to play that I have be involved with are the named rooms in BB, more the back room (forget mobs name) than the Commanders room. With that being said, I have only died once in those rooms, and it was on at least 9+ pull even con encounter, and I managed to hold out long enough to enable the rest to run. CC would have definetly made the diff there.

I have found that as long as I hold hate (and I always do, I am amazed at the number of tanks who dont know how to hold hate) anything under that level of encounter is a breeze.

MT pulls, builds hate, others assist MT, take out casters, named anything else in that order, rinse repeat, works everytime on yellow and under, 7 mob and under encouters, little down time ( I hope all GWJers know that recovery is linked to quality of food, it is unbelivable the # of people who try and sit to recover, but have no food and drink).

So tactics wise, we either KNOW we can handle the ecounter or we dont do it, unless we are testing a named.

Again only a few in my guild are above 20 ( we have a mezzer coming along but she is still in her teens) So I cant really speek on group encounters above 20.

Oh I forgot about the big pulls in Blackburrow and had no problems there.

As main tank just like Badferret said I get all the hate and it is cake. Now the fights would be a lot easier still though with an illusionist. I mean instead of a couple healers in there tossing arroudn heals till they run out of power or are dead you can mez them.

I am a chanter and Sephirah, who is a cleric, and I were able to kill groups of mobs that we wouldn''t have been able to otherwise. However, it would have worked if I had been a warrior too. In the end I don''t really give a crap, if I don''t end up getting groups I''ll just quit, I''m not starting over again.

Interesting. I didn''t know paladins could self-heal that much. Remind me to make one one of these years.

Thanks for such a comprehensive report of your capabilities. From my experience, a group I''m in can generally handle one con higher than that, or a situation that''s several notches worse.

That clears things up very much for me; illusionists aren''t a group-building essential, like, say, a tank.. but they''re not just ""makes things easier and is useful in emergencies"" material either. Having one along means taking on additional and more difficult mobs; effectively, once you''ve got a tank, dps, and healing, the best thing you could probably add is an enchanter. Which explains observed reality fairly well from my end. Thanks!

Not just self heal but we can heal others too just so happens I main tank in the group so generally am self healing.

Yeah enchanter types are nice and I think they allow you to do some things that you could not normally do. On the flip side according to SOE they were trying to away from the holy trinity of fighter, cleric, and enchanter and that as long as you have 1 from each of the 4 arch-types in your group you should be ok for most encounters.

I seen this in practice with some professions like I think they did a good job of making fighters equal but different and the same with priest and others for the most part. Where it seems to break down though is with mages because nobody can do what an enchanter can do. I just do not see a Sorcerer or Summoner type bringing the same things to the table but since I had little expereince with having a mage in my group I can not say fur sure.

So of all the professions I really see enchanters having a very unique roll that can not be easily filled by another.

We had an encahnter grouping with us in beta and it was nice but in retail she went troubador.

If my lurking templar friend would chime in he could also give you his take on the situation.

When I played EQ2 I noticed a huge disparity between the class hallmark quests in both Freeport and Qeynos. It could be that is also the case with the subclass hallmark quests. Chanters are not able to get the help they need to complete the quests.

Also, I noticed that some classes have to wait a few levels to get the meaty new skills once they decide on shaman or predator or bard, etc. It could be that people get bored and start another character like a druid for instance that gets thorns right away at level 10. I know I was disappointed with my sorceror and bard, yet much happier with my druid at level 10.

Lastly, it does take a quick thinking mindset to play any mez class. The controller in CoH was probably the most simple to learn to play.

Based on EQ1 experience, the grouping with enchanter sentiment may change. Lots of higher level groups would readily group with an average chanter for the frustration they prevent. Good enchanters are golden, yet are frustrated with people pigeon holing them into a particular role.

If waiting for meaty skills is an issue, then yes, this is likely killing a lot of potential ''chanters. They get mez at level 10, and then the next real core enchanter ability, Breeze, waits until level 18.6 to show up. It''s very disappointing when leveling up - a number of the interim spells are simply garbage, too. There''s a while in there where I felt like a one-trick pony; mez was the only thing I brought to groups that they couldn''t do better by replacing me.

Reflecting on it, that wold explain the numbers I cited at the top of this thread; perhaps most would-be chanters give up in the low teens.

Regarding difficulty, yeah, it isn''t all that easy.. but EQ2 enchanters aren''t more difficult than most mezzers in other games, and are certainly less difficult than EQ1 bards. (Best. Class. Ever. Pity they were in a game I didn''t much like)

CoH doesn''t count for difficulty comparisons. The main problem with the game in my book is that it was too easy

I don''t know, chanters should be pigeonholed into a particular role. ""Uber support class"" is a role.

I played a bard up to about 18 in beta, and REALLY liked it. If I ever play EQ2 again (which is a distinct possibility once I get 6 or so months into WoW... my attention span is low) I would definitely play a Bard again. Though I would have a problem deciding between Dirge and Troubador.

As far as why people don''t like playing them, maybe it has something to do with feeling like a support class, and people not being okay with that. I was okay with it though.

I put out a chanter alt to play around with, but only level 11 currently. I''m still trying to settle on a class for myself.

I looked at the spell list the other day to check something and noticed a missing spell...charm. I''m wondering if THAT is keeping folks away.

I won''t debate whether it should be in game or not, but I believe alot of EQ 1 chanters played to sell crack or solo with charm; not to mez.

Last night was me and my templar friend grouped up both of us are 25. We got into a fight with a blue^^(level 24) griffon and a blue^^(level 24) centaur. While we did win it took all of our power and I don''t know like 5 minutes to kill both them.

Sort of funny really what we can take on with the 2 of us but the time it takes to kill makes it really not worth it but hey when you get adds is nice to know you can do it.

1 more add though of anything would have killed us and this is where enchanters really shine. I mean if we are talking straight up fights with a single ^^ creature more dps I think is better but as you start factoring in adds then you are going to want an enchanter.

If it makes you feel any better thats the way it was in EQ1 too. ''Chanters were the red headed stepchild that noone wanted to play with. Our pets weren''t as good as Necros, nor as Versatile as Mages, We couldn''t nuke like Wizzies, and we couldn''t do Melee damage for anything, lol and we couldn''t enchant things.
I have a feeling that as the peopel advance in levels and the game gets tweaked the fights will become more skill based and less straight brute force, and the enchanters will shine once again.
I found a good group of folks that played with my ''chanter even before Clarity was added to the first game, and they quickly came to realise the value of a skilled enchanter, and just what the subtle tweaks could do to the course of a battle.
I had one group where our main tank fled leaving the rest of us to fight 2 red goblins, I had to try to talk him into coming back while I worked my ass off keeping the fight running smoothly. He was amazed when he got back and we creamed both Goblins when before I had joined they had trouble with a single one, often leaving one of the party members dead. I also have the feeling that enchanters once again will play a role in magic item creation for at least some things so people will be playing them just for that ability.

Not sure about the magic item creation.

Right now as a crafter your items already get all kinds of stats depending on the quality of the item and the skill of the crafter.

Maybe that will change but as of right now crafting classes and adventuring classes are completely seperate.

I think the main reason there aren''t that many enchanters is simply that the character concept doesn''t appeal to most people. EQ1 in the early days Enchanters were almost unheard of. It wasn''t until the game developed more that people realized how valuable they were, and those few that had stuck the class out became highly demanded by groups.

EQ2 enchanters sound weaker than EQ1 enchanters on paper, and I think this has scared people away. From what I''ve heard, it simply isn''t the case. Enchanters have much more powerful damage spells than Summoners, plus have CC and some amazing buffs. Sure, Sorceror types nuke for more, but that''s all they do. Enchanters are a good mix of utility and power. I know from reading some enchanter accounts I wonder if I chose wrong in picking summoner, but I''m a conjurer now and not likely to start over.

I won''t debate whether it should be in game or not, but I believe alot of EQ 1 chanters played to sell crack or solo with charm; not to mez.
I ditched my 65 chanter in EQ1 after they nerfed both Mez and Charm. I got sick of turning into a bloody spot on the ground anytime mez got resisted so I concentrated on soloing - then they nerfed that. I''m so glad I quit that crappy game.

Maladen, just as a point regarding not needing an enchanter if all you''re doing is fights with individual large creatures.. An illusionist *is* more DPS. Just indirectly. I played with Alacrity a bit with a friend last night. My very rough guess is that it takes his attack delay down from 2.5sec to 1.3sec. Breeze is similar in scope of effect - with typical cast rates and mana costs, having Breeze running effectively doubles your mana pool. And I can do a fair bit of damage myself when I''m not busy doing CC.

And regarding a fight with two blue^^s.. heh. One of the reasons I asked about cons is that my worldview is distorted. Two yellow^^s aren''t anything to take all that seriously in my book, so long as I can make sure one of them stays a drooling statue. Of course, with the two of you doing enough damage to end that fight would be, um, nontrivial..

No I understand that but when dealing with a single creature I think almost any combination works, should clairfy here and say after you have a tank and healer. I grouped with a level 21 ranger other night and he would hit for high 200s and once broke 300. We killed so much faster with his insane damage that what we could handle went up a lot. So yes an enchanter adds more dps but what I was geting at that almost any profession fills that roll. Enchanters really shine in larger groups too because if you buff everybody there is a greater damage increase in a large group then in a small group. Where people with more direct damage like the ranger bring the 300+ hit no matter what the group size.

The 2 ^^blue is with me and a templar. If it was me and an illusionist I would be dead just as if it was a templar and an illusionist would die too. I 100% agree though an illusionist would have made it easy for us to take on 2 ^^ yellows because we can kill 1 ^^yellow with just the 2 of us at times tossing in an illusionist would certainly give us more room. At that point you are talking about groups of 3 as oppose to 2.

Could we do 2 ^^yellows with say summoner though? I doubt it and is what I was talking about how I do not see the balanced at arch-type level part of mages like I do with the other arch-types.

Now if there was say a 25 shaman or druid with us we would had the healing power to take 2 ^^yellows I am betting but that is a fair trade off.

So not sure this is coming accross the right way but I like enchanter types. I think they are great and they add a dimension to your group that no other mage class brings. At the same time I yet to be in a situation, other than got adds that for most part could have been avoided with some planning, where one was needed vs the ability to go at the problem in a different direction.

All this may change but all in all I think SOE so far has done a good job of making it so you do not need the holy trinity.

The ""this class is useful"" argument, like most others with class balance in relation to EQ2, should be thrown out the window.

They all do their duty.

Tanks get beat up so other people don''t have to. If the tank is getting beat up, the healers can heal, the nukers can nuke, and the ranger can... range.

Priests make tanks last longer, so they don''t die so that they can keep getting beat up...

Scouts make fights last shorter so the priests don''t have to make the tanks live as long so that they don''t run out of power

Mages are innaresting. They fall on both sides of the spectrum, but ultimately save the same purpose. Chanter for example has a little of column a and a little of column b. Sure they can nuke, provide attack increases, and in general promote good damage; but their mezzes really make a priests life much easier. Mezzing three of the four mobs so that only one can whip up on the tank means that the Priest and other less getting-beat-up friendly classes have to seat less, plus it seriously decreases the overall DPS of a multi-mob group encounter. But if I recall, chanter''s also get some nice stuns--chain stuns effectively provide the same result on a single group mob as mezzes do a a multi-mob group encounter.

EQ2 is a fun game. Plus, I''m a gnome pally so I get to ride around on my donkey all day.

Minor note, stuns can''t be chained - my two stuns thus far have 45 and 60 second recharge times and unreliable duration. I wish I knew what breaks stun, because it seems to happen very randomly.. and my understanding of ''stun'' is that it should be unbreakable.

''chanter stun is really more useful as a stopgap ""wow, that mob just took off 60% of the tank''s hp with a special move, it needs to contemplate its navel for a second"" action.

Enchanter Stuns have longer recharge timers but also have longer durations, most classes do however, get a stun attack and they can be coordinated to render a mob veggied for sixty to seventy percent of a fight with some coordination.

"Tel" wrote:
Enchanter Stuns have longer recharge timers but also have longer durations, most classes do however, get a stun attack and they can be coordinated to render a mob veggied for sixty to seventy percent of a fight with some coordination.

<G>
Ah no multi chanter Whirl till you hurl abusing the mobs?
<G> 2 chanter parties were insane for a while in EQ1, you could WTYH a mob into non action for an entire fight with a pair of enchanters, as long as noone else used a stun effect on the MoB

Should we have a sticky roll call thread like wow does?

hehe this is definitely dominated by the WoW fans right now.