Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
In that case...do you also de-emphasize other well-known weaknesses of various characters? I mean things like Clerics and solo, hybrids and raiding, etc. I haven't read the entire thread, sort of jumped in and out, so I'm not arguing, just asking if you're consistent in your approach. If so then it's just a different type of prioritization rather than necessarily right/wrong. I get where you're coming from and for experienced players that type of ranking, ignoring what nobody's going to pick a character for, might even have more value. The overall ranking including known (to us) weaknesses would be more appropriate for newcomers to the game.
Danth
|
Yes. I also rank Warriors and Clerics more on their Group/Raid capabilities than solo. We aren't playing on a server where we don't know all the capabilities of the classes. Most people playing Clerics/Warriors/Rogues know that they are playing a group/raid class, so that should have a higher weight in my estimation.
The most recent census I saw:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=353063
EDIT: I did misread the census. Mages at 50 were being played more. This was during classic, which makes sense, as Mages are better in that era and Rogues are worse. But I am not looking at one specific era, as this would change the topic to "most underpowered in classic/Kunark/Velious only.