Class Rankings

So a conversation with Twinblades, combined with boredom, brought about my desire to make a chart of what is solely my opinion of how I feel classes rank in two different categories: Survivability, Viability (in PK), and Equipment Reliance. These numbers represent how I feel about current classes based on encounters in PK with multiple other classes.

Here we go:

Scale 1 (worst) <------ 5 (average) -----> 10 (best)*

_______________[U]Survivability_____Viability[/U]_____[u]EQ Reliance[/u]
Warrior 4 7 1
Berserker 2 6 2
Monk 4 8 4
Blademaster 6 9 4
Ranger 8 8 6
Thief 7 6 5
Ninja 7 7 5
Cleric (evil) 8 6 8
Cleric (good) 10 5 7
Healer 10 4 7
Shaman 8 8 10
Invoker 5 9 8 (not including staff)
Battlemage 6 8 6
Necromancer** 5 7 4
Dark-Knight 3 7 4
Paladin 7 6 5
Bard 5 5 4

*For reference, equipment reliance works on a reverse scale - therefore, the worst class (1) would be the class that is most reliant on equipment, and the best class (10) would be the one that is least reliant on equipment.

**Zombies are accounted for in reliance on equipment.

Interesting scale, what does viability mean though? o_O

I loathe you.

Viability I gather is ease at which pks are acquired.

Seeing blademasters and invokers have the highest marks on viability, I must say the the chart is a bit biased. I agree about the blademasters (especially certain race/cabal combos) but on invokers note enterily. I think their viabilty rank should be dropped down atleast with 2

Also, thief viability should be upped, at least with two, if not even three.

But overall, the chart is quite accurate.

Just my opinion.

The reason blademasters and invokers are so high are because they are capable of fighting most (if not all) other classes with a relatively high rate of success.

The reason thief viability may seem a little low is because after the initial shock of a rogue at pinn, people tend to become more cautious in their dealings both in and around town, and therefore, the element of surprise is rather thoroughly lost, and without that element of surprise, most thieves will find it difficult to be successful.

yo usohuld add another category...

Learning Curve..

because some of your most viable classes require a bit of skill to unlock their potential, and until that potential is realized they suck raw eggs.

I would say that 90% of classes, with rare exception in rare instances, have the same learning curve overall as FL. Once you learn how to play the game, the learning curve for most classes is not very steep.

Yeah, the chart is lacking necros too

Yeah' date=' the chart is lacking necros too [/quote']

It most certainly is not.

I would say that 90% of classes' date=' with rare exception in rare instances, have the same learning curve overall as FL. Once you learn how to play the game, the learning curve for most classes is not very steep.[/quote']

bologna..

invokers rely heavily on consumables, without them you tend to die by attrition VERY easily.

Shamans, clerics, paladins, rely very little on said things.

Either that or invokers eq reliance needs to be toned way down. I would say more of an average. Blademasters as well, knowing what stance to be in and what spells to spellkill and what not can be live or die.

Necromancers do not rely on eq very much at all...and less on consumables than many others, I wouldnt score them so low. Unless you consider ozmbies EQ, then they should be a 1 in eq.

you sohuld also categorize them yb the amont of training required....blademasters and monks require HOURS upon HOURS upon HOURS of training to reach their full potential.

Pallies have arguably the best survivability in the game next to healers.

Invokers require alot more prep, and ability than I think you are giving credit for.

Blms have a wicked steep learning curve. You cannot just spam trip to win, you have a very hard time versus races your not an expert/master of, and the constant upkeep and eq selection is enough to stave off many many

new players

You have thieves, ninjas, and pallies at the same scale for survivable. NEGATIVE. Pallies can make it through ALMOST any situation unscathed

barring player error.

I also feel invokers are a VERY survivable class, but you must know how to play. Trading damage to see who pulls out the last hit is not how you should do an invoker MOST of the time. Sometimes it happens that way, but most of the time you are not just waiting to see if critical strike, or call lightning goes through first.

bologna..

invokers rely heavily on consumables, without them you tend to die by attrition VERY easily.

Shamans, clerics, paladins, rely very little on said things.

Most classes rely heavily on consumables, be they sources for protection, sanctuary, flight, healing, etc.

I equate this with being a part of the learning curve of the game. If your first character is one with identify (like it should be), then you will quickly become accustomed to discovering new consumables, and therefore be able to find everything you need in your preliminary exploration of the lands.

Most classes rely heavily on consumables, be they sources for protection, sanctuary, flight, healing, etc.

I equate this with being a part of the learning curve of the game. If your first character is one with identify (like it should be), then you will quickly become accustomed to discovering new consumables, and therefore be able to find everything you need in your preliminary exploration of the lands.

unless your attributing this to survivability, since communers are way easier to learn than melee's for example.

There are other factors that go into survivability:

1. Lag protection

2. Personal use of "flee" spells versus need for consumables

3. Ability to hide in some way

Granted, paladins have the ability to heal and, given proper preparation, can run all over God's creation with a very low likelihood of running out of moves. However, they do not have access to significant lag protection, and they do not have any spells such as teleport or word of recall at their disposal. Therefore they are heavily reliant on consumables for those needs, thus lowering their survivability.

And in regards to blademasters, I would totally disagree with the statement that you have a hard time with any race you're not an expert/master of. I think that's totally inaccurate.

And in regards to blademasters' date=' I would totally disagree with the statement that you have a hard time with any race you're not an expert/master of. I think that's totally inaccurate.[/quote']\

In your pk log vs inzlez, your critical strike ARE why you beat him. My support for this is you did not have those crit strikes vs Pildo, and you lost to him because you where not able to cause the same effects that you could cause on inzlez.

I disagree. Invokers play hard and fast, and blademasters can either do the same or play with attrition.

In our fights I chose hard and fast, you won out the time that our fight ended in a death. However, you will recall that approximately 70% of our fights were when Perival was an inductee in Warmaster.

so, 1 is worst, and 10 is best. in survivability, you have nothing rated at 1, but you have berserker rated at 2. if berserker is the lowest rated survivor, shouldn't it be 1, if 1 is equal to worst? likewise, if blademaster and invoker are the most viable, wouldn't they be rated 10, not 9, since 10 is equal to best? hell, viability doesn't have anything rated at 1 either, so shouldn't your scale for viability be 2...9, with 2 being the worst and 9 being the best? arbitrary numbers are fun.

your ranking the classes from the viewpoint of somsone who already knows 99% of the game in and out.

knows all the other classes weaknesses and capabilites

and has played many of them multiple times.

and i still disagree, learning the game from the perspective of one class does not teach you the in's and out's for all classes. Different classes have different learning curves within their own skills and limitations.

Hence why I said that this chart was made from my opinion alone, and that the numbers are based on my experience.

And inscribed, I disagree that the lack of a 1 or a 10 in some cases makes the scale less valuable. There are 10s where I felt that 10s were deserved, but just because I didn't feel that some numbers were merited by any given class, doesn't mean the scale is worthless - let's just pretend that the missing numbers are in place for race/class combos.

and i still disagree' date=' learning the game from the perspective of one class does not teach you the in's and out's for all classes. Different classes have different learning curves within their own skills and limitations.[/quote']

That is not what I said. However, I did say that I equate the learning curve of certain classes and certain other aspects with the learning curve of the game in general. And I stand by that statement.