So this question might not be able to be asked, or might not be able to be answered and if that is in fact the case, feel free to delete this thread with no harm no foul thought from me.
But this is always something I wondered, and I don't know if it's something the staff will feel can be answered.
That being said he have Help Class Competencies which tells us that certain are combat based and certain are merchantile and some are survival etc.
And I think it's common knowledge that a Stalker starts out weaker than a Raider in put combat skills.
However, I always wondered, if given enough days played with realistic play and skill gain, is it possible for a non combat heavy class to reach anywhere NEAR the potential of a combat heavy class?
So combat is super convoluted as it's not just weapons skills, shield skills etc, it's also the invisible offense/defense, hell it even seems like there is a difference in what type of critter your fighting from years of playing hunters, sometimes I'll kick the shit outta all things bug but get demolished by a lizard.
But anyways, not to get too far off the question.
Say a Raider can reach 100% combat efficiency with offense/defense etc etc is that to say that a Stalker would only ever reach 80%? Or is just the level they begin play at? So a dedicated Stalker could beat a Raiders ass in the long game potentially if the RNG goes his way?
The reason I ask is one of planning for longer term characters if you want to play a bit of a combat reliant guy or someone who can take down "big game" reliably without magick/poison twinkery.
Would it be better for the long term to do a Raider for their top tier combat skills, with a subguild that gives some of the utility they lose from not being Stalker like say Apothecary so they can get the brew/bandage stuff? Then they are sorta premium stalker sans poison with higher hurt capacity?
Or are the differences more in just starting skills and less in end game capabilities?
Edit: To make a raider a super powered stalker the only choice I can see from subguilds is Outdoorsman or you lose the ability to skin.
99% sure that classes with lower combat competency cap out lower not just on combat skills, but also on the hidden off/def skills. So, you'll never be quite as good as that raider who is maxxed on everything, but you can definitely get good enough to wipe the floor with newer ones.
Yeah from what I know, a maxed out survival character, will never be as a good as any half decent heavy fighter, and they will never be able to stand toe to toe. They are not designed for it, and have other skills they need to rely on to survive the encounter. A maxed stalker will never even compete with a maxed raider in melee combat.
Pretty sure you can find all this information in past posts on weapon skill learning, new classes, etc., with the possible exception of the last point (which seems to be what this is really about, since quite obviously the Stalker can't match the combat potential of a Raider on their visible skills):
So if you take a Raider vs a Stalker:
- Certain combat skills like parry and shield use obviously cap lower.
- Certain combat skills like bash the Stalker does not get.
- Certain weapon skills the Stalker does not get.
- Stalker starts with lower Offense/Defense.
- Stalker learns Offense, Defense, certain combat skills and weapon skills more slowly.
- Offense and Defense potential on the high end is the same between the two.
I'm fairly sure that last point is somewhere on here too. I've always been under the impression we can all, each class, reach the maximum off and def afforded to players. It's just effectively impossible as an artisan for example. And also really, really, really extra super hard to hit it as anything but heavy combat. For those it's just really, really extra hard.
The parry skill in particular has a big influence on general combat prowess. I think this, more than anything else, determines how good each class can be.