I don't really like these things. But I'd add that Rangers should be much more survivable on your rating system, being able to be giant sized or magic resist, camo, heal hp and the main spells that would usually keep them out of hiding. I'd up thieves higher on the viability scale. They are one of the strongest classes in the game with strong tactics that can put up a good fight against any other class out there. Bards should also be put up higher on the survivability scale for obvious reasons. Just because mostly rp players play them don't mean the class has a lower pk success rating.
Class Rankings
And inscribed' date=' 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.[/quote']
you say you didn't feel that any class in particular merited a 10, but in your own words, you say 10 is equal to 'the best', and the proceed to say which class you think is 'the best', but you only rate it a 9.
you set the rules man, i'm just playin by them.
I don't really like these things. But I'd add that Rangers should be much more survivable on your rating system' date=' being able to be giant sized or magic resist, camo, heal hp and the main spells that would usually keep them out of hiding. I'd up thieves higher on the viability scale. They are one of the strongest classes in the game with strong tactics that can put up a good fight against any other class out there. Bards should also be put up higher on the survivability scale for obvious reasons. Just because mostly rp players play them don't mean the class has a lower pk success rating.[/quote']
yeah, i think thieves should be way less reliable on EQ. To a good thief, your eq is theres, more and more the longer you fight them.
Heck with Silithis I could dress myself in my oponnents gear from being completly naked to decked without even killing them.
another valid category would be how easy or difficult it is to equip a certian class.
Monks, blademasters (unlaggable in certain stances) and bards (hide) are more survivable than you described them, imo. More survivable than warriors, for instance. I would say that DKs are the least survivable class (due to charmie turning on master) followed by berserkers (unable to flee while raged, in the most common path at least) and then maybe necros. Rangers are also more survivable than thieves and ninjas I think.
I don't know about viability, as I find all classes viable, but on different aspects of PK.
I went ahead and changed some numbers around based on people's suggestions and things I hadn't thought of.
But please remember that this really is just my opinion.
I agree with with the scale for the most part. However! Berserkers have the same eq problem, if not worse, than warriors and less PK viability. Because they both have to be decked to be good but a decked warrior will have a much easier time against any class (except maybe cleric if the correct paths were chosen) than a berserker.
In fact. If I count class selections, Warrior will definitely come on top. Because a Zerk anger will do good against a cleric, a Warrior whip lock will do better.
yeah' date=' i think thieves should be way less reliable on EQ. To a good thief, your eq is theres, more and more the longer you fight them.
Heck with Silithis I could dress myself in my oponnents gear from being completly naked to decked without even killing them.
another valid category would be how easy or difficult it is to equip a certian class.
While I agree, I think this counts more towards PK viability than eq dependence.
EDIT: Also, a Goodie Cleric is easier to kill with than a Berserker. So is a Bard. No way in hell do I think a berserker and evil cleric are equal on the PK scene. 
I would like to add that monks aren't as reliant on equipment as you believe.
I agree with with the scale for the most part. However! Berserkers have the same eq problem, if not worse, than warriors and less PK viability. Because they both have to be decked to be good but a decked warrior will have a much easier time against any class (except maybe cleric if the correct paths were chosen) than a berserker.
In fact. If I count class selections, Warrior will definitely come on top. Because a Zerk anger will do good against a cleric, a Warrior whip lock will do better.
While I agree, I think this counts more towards PK viability than eq dependence.
EDIT: Also, a Goodie Cleric is easier to kill with than a Berserker. So is a Bard. No way in hell do I think a berserker and evil cleric are equal on the PK scene.
I agree that a whip mastery warrior may perform better overall against tough classes, in the sense that they will consistently make them flee more. But I think that a berzerker has the undefinable variables that can lead to more kills. This is especially true against classes that are essentially un-laggable.
Against clerics/healers or other unlaggable types, a whip mastery warrior may ruin them, and force them to recall or flee a lot. And on the same note, a berzerker might have to run from them more often than not. But a zerk has the potential to throw out cleaves, headbutts, haymakers or whatever that can suddenly turn the fight around.
Pretty biased/opinion based. Interested shaman less eq based than invoker. Also interesting that zerk is 1 point below warrior and so on.
Personally, I don't think tables like this mean anything - take me for example: I can play a dark knight well but my warriors are weaker than my berserkers. I can do clerics and shaman but have never got an invoker to 50.
Certain classes work better for certain people. Its as simple as that.
L-A
I think berserker eq reliance should be upped to at least 5, rage compensates for needed hit/dam.
And no qclasses?
didnt evangelion already say that this was done in his opinion and nothing else? of course it will be opinionated. all its meant to be is a way to kinda give a basic idea of how classes play out for newbies to the mud.
yes certain people are better with certain classes. what this table does is shows basics of a class to somebody who has never played the mud before. it gives them an idea of what to expect. i think its common sense that it wont give you the exact experience of playing a class just by reading it.but if i was brand new to the mud and read it, i definately would not have picked the class i did to start. having classes explained to you, (for instance: people talking to you, or reading the help files), while helpful in its own way, is different than having a statistical breakdown and comparison between classes.
personally, i think that we should have more tables like this from other experienced players either created or linked here. that might provide a little more clarity as to which classes are generally easier to pick up on.
thank you, evangelion, for posting this. its inspired me to do a little experimenting.
While I love (To hate) Evangelion, I think he failed to recall that here at FL, your opinion can be wrong.
But less mean, I think it's at least just a fun something to ponder if nothing else.
I agree that a whip mastery warrior may perform better overall against tough classes' date=' in the sense that they will consistently make them flee more.[/color'] But I think that a berzerker has the undefinable variables that can lead to more kills. This is especially true against classes that are essentially un-laggable.
Against clerics/healers or other unlaggable types, a whip mastery warrior may ruin them, and force them to recall or flee a lot. And on the same note, a berzerker might have to run from them more often than not. But a zerk has the potential to throw out cleaves, headbutts, haymakers or whatever that can suddenly turn the fight around.
So what you just said was, Warriors can and will consistently own. However Berserkers can turn a fight around that they were previously losing.
Forcing your enemies to flee is the key to victory. From there you have to chase. Simple as that. A warrior is far stronger than a berserker in terms of PK ability and powerspike. Especially when all classes are taken into consideration. My warrior would 2 round clerics. Who even needs bash at that point?
i am resisting the urge to derail this to another zerker thread.
i am resisting the urge to derail this to another zerker thread.
Crap your right. Okay. I'll stop. Lol.
I misspoke, I didn't mean a berserker used those skills to turn around a fight they were losing. I meant that a warrior might force a cleric/shaman/healer to flee and recall a bunch of times, but not actually kill them. Where a berserker might be able to land a surprise cleave, headbutt or haymaker, and couple with sudden rage damage, could seal the kill where they would previously have just worded away.
Here is a link to something similiar to this:
http://forum.theforsakenlands.org/showthread.php?t=9894
One it doesn't look as clean, two this may be outdated, and three I don't think my numbers were the best, but Celerity did a revision later in the post. Might be worth a look.
My warrior would 2 round clerics.
I think that is an exaggeration.
I have seen warriors pack clerics to their pit in 4 round, but not 2.
Clerics have a min of 650 HP's you need to eat through.
My old class chart is outdated and I wouldn't call it applicable for today's FL. 
My warrior would 2 round clerics. Who even needs bash at that point?
I HIGHLY doubt this. HIGHLY Even a naked drow cleric, your not tossing out 350 damage a round through sanc.