Warriors vs assassin vs ranger vs....everything.

[Doublepalli]

Are warriors better at fighting, simply because of the sheer number of skills for combat, or are they passively codedly better too?

[Drayab]

Sorry, but it's against the rules to discuss code specifics beyond the helpfiles. This is one of those things you have to deduce from personal experience.

[Doublepalli]

Oh, well nevermind then!

[IssacF]

Strange because I've seen other similar topics and they discussed it without no problem at all.

[hyzhenhok]

The answer to OP is yes.

[Molten Heart]

Warriors, they are just that good.

[LauraMars]

Warriors are the best straight up, face to face, "sword and board" type fighters - it says so right in their help file.  But that doesn't mean they win every fight.  Rangers and assassins are excellent at killing in their own ways. And skill level plays a huge role in things as well - obviously an experienced assassin or ranger will wipe the floor with a 0 hours played warrior.  It's really not a black and white answer - it becomes even less so when race is thrown in! Human warrior vs half-giant anything? My money's on the half giant. Elven warrior vs dwarven assassin? that would be a very interesting fight. Anyway, hope that helps!

[Fredd]

Warriors are the best straight up, face to face, "sword and board" type fighters - it says so right in their help file.  But that doesn't mean they win every fight.  Rangers and assassins are excellent at killing in their own ways. And skill level plays a huge role in things as well - obviously an experienced assassin or ranger will wipe the floor with a 0 hours played warrior.  It's really not a black and white answer - it becomes even less so when race is thrown in! Human warrior vs half-giant anything? My money's on the half giant. Elven warrior vs dwarven assassin? that would be a very interesting fight. Anyway, hope that helps!

This. It's how you play, not what you play.

[IssacF]

I'm a bit confused as to how a Ranger with long range capability can beat a Warrio who has also long range capability given they can learn how to use archery as well. Is it because Ranger's archery will always be better than a Warrior's archery even if both were max?

[Marauder Moe]

Indeed, the ranger is by no means guaranteed to win an archery duel.

Armageddon classes are not "balanced for pvp", as it might be said in other games.

[lordcooper]

I'm a bit confused as to how a Ranger with long range capability can beat a Warrio who has also long range capability given they can learn how to use archery as well. Is it because Ranger's archery will always be better than a Warrior's archery even if both were max?

A good ranger uses more than just combat skills to do battle.  A great ranger won't even be seen while in their element.

[hyzhenhok]

Also Guilds may have the same skill, but guilds always have some skills capped such that they will never become a master, or perhaps never even become advanced, etc.

If you want details, the only option is to try playing both a warrior and a ranger, and having both of them live long enough so that you can get a real feel for what they can become.

Also note that subguilds (and especially extended subguilds) muddy the water and can allow certain guilds to do a very good job imitating other guilds.

[Fnord]

Pretty common sense. All skill levels being equal, each class will dominate in its designated environment. Unless XD is playing it. Then you're just fucked.

[Desertman]

It's kind of situational.

Suffice to say each "class" has a host of main skills and secondary skills that do aide them in specific scenarios.

Most of them are common sense.

A ranger in the wilderness at range is likely going to be better than a warrior in the wilderness at range. Not 100% of time, based on who is playing them, but, you can pretty easily assume that a ranger is going to have a higher natural ability in that scenario.

On the arena floor or the battlefield in melee face to face, a warrior is going to naturally typically have the same sort of advantages.

In a back alley in the shadows of the underworld an assassin may not always win, but, the chances of them winning are increased based on their natural abilities.

Nothing is every 100% in Armageddon. But, there are some things that are set in stone that naturally aide you in getting to that 100%.

[Gunnerblaster]

It's kind of situational.

Suffice to say each "class" has a host of main skills and secondary skills that do aide them in specific scenarios.

Most of them are common sense.

A ranger in the wilderness at range is likely going to be better than a warrior in the wilderness at range. Not 100% of time, based on who is playing them, but, you can pretty easily assume that a ranger is going to have a higher natural ability in that scenario.

On the arena floor or the battlefield in melee face to face, a warrior is going to naturally typically have the same sort of advantages.

In a back alley in the shadows of the underworld an assassin may not always win, but, the chances of them winning are increased based on their natural abilities.

Nothing is every 100% in Armageddon. But, there are some things that are set in stone that naturally aide you in getting to that 100%.

And that's before stats are even really considered.

[Harmless]

A very important consideration is experience, as warriors are capable of a good fight "out of the box" and see significant improvement after the commonly cited "5-day warrior" mark, assuming good training, whereas rangers and assassins develop well rounded combat prowess much later.

Certainly, if your goal is to beat a warrior at their own game of direct combat, you will need to have a fairly long-lived non-warrior.

[Desertman]

A very important consideration is experience, as warriors are capable of a good fight "out of the box" and see significant improvement after the commonly cited "5-day warrior" mark, assuming good training, whereas rangers and assassins develop well rounded combat prowess much later.

Certainly, if your goal is to beat a warrior at their own game of direct combat, you will need to have a fairly long-lived extremely long-lived non-warrior.

[IssacF]

I assume Arm does not have what makes Warriors terribly scary: enchanted equips. Such as magical swords and armor. That balances things out IMHO.

[lordcooper]

Find out IC.

[Qzzrbl]

I assume Arm does not have what makes Warriors terribly scary: enchanted equips. Such as magical swords and armor. That balances things out IMHO.

Just keep in mind that in an up-front one-on-one same-armor same-weapon same-time-played confrontation, a warrior will pretty much wipe the floor with any other class. Warriors don't -need- magical equipment or buffs, or anything of that sort to achieve this. Their skill set and configuration are centered around beating the snot out of stuff.

They're terribly scary as-is.

I know it can be hard to wrap your head around it, especially as a new player used to other fantasy environments-- but stick around an play awhile. You'll eventually get an idea as to what to expect from different classes.

[Harmless]

Desertman makes an apt correction.

The trick, if you're playing a ranger or assassin, is to get really good at using the flee command/skill.

If you're pissing off your warrior enemies to all hell while engaging them, be it by using range or stealth or poison or all of the above, then you're doing it right. If you're just autoattacking and that was your plan, you're already dead, unless you are EXTREMELY long lived.

Rangers and assassins don't get to be lazy when it comes to pvp. They have to work harder. Really, warriors are for people who want easy confidence in a fight. They aren't for people who want to have lots of skills and other uses, because they generally lack any kind of useful support skills that are noncombative.

Unless you apped an extended subguild, then all bets are off. Not gonna gripe here about that though. I guess it is what it is.

[X-D]

The Q man is correct. In a straight up fight, warriors are the shit, they need nothing special.

I have had past warriors survive some truly amazing things.

Some people here know that I generally have high end combat PCs, be they warriors, ranger or assassins...Being that I would have no fear at all putting some of my best up against any other PC in the game...BUT, My rangers are not going face to face with warriors, my assassins will use every dirty trick they have...etc etc. Each of the top 3 combat classes are the best at what they do, trick is learning that and using it.

No joke though, most of the best known PCs ever in the game were warriors...there is a reason for that.

[Dalmeth]

Let me simplify this whole thread : no one stands against warriors.  They run with their tails between their legs.

That said, other classes are perfectly capable of killing warriors.

[IssacF]

I assume Arm does not have what makes Warriors terribly scary: enchanted equips. Such as magical swords and armor. That balances things out IMHO.

Just keep in mind that in an up-front one-on-one same-armor same-weapon same-time-played confrontation, a warrior will pretty much wipe the floor with any other class. Warriors don't -need- magical equipment or buffs, or anything of that sort to achieve this. Their skill set and configuration are centered around beating the snot out of stuff.

They're terribly scary as-is.

I know it can be hard to wrap your head around it, especially as a new player used to other fantasy environments-- but stick around an play awhile. You'll eventually get an idea as to what to expect from different classes.

Oh I already am finding them very scary (and Im one) after getting bashed-kicked and disarmed...

[Lutagar]

Warrior/slipknife >>>>>>>>>>> everything else