People are always trying to find out which pvper is the "best". Yet there isn't always a simple answer without going through a lot of detail. I'm relatively clueless or I'd do this myself but I think you guys can see the potential.

The idea is to create 1-3 tiers in terms of pvp capability.
1st tier would be the strongest in the area, not the best one class but definitely known to be one of the best. Second mediocre, Third just sucking at it.

Example:

L2 Version:1.08 chronicle 2
Siege PVP
1st Tier:
1.Phantom Ranger
2.Hawkeye
3.Knight/dagger etc

Olympiad PVP
1st Tier: 2nd Tier: 3rd Tier:
1.Bladedancer (guessing they would suck at 1v1 pvp)

Knight tend to lose to archers in olympiad (rock paper scissor info)

Anyway its just an idea itself. Although I'm sure it would be worthy of being a stickied post once someone makes it!

L2 Version:1.08 chronicle 2

what?

Well it was an example of how you should write the Lineage version. A lot of guides I find are usually outdated. So L2 Version: (Whatever version of L2 it is)

what server do you play on

Bartz

I play Ryuu a DE

I got this pvp chart idea cause a lot of these american forums seem kind of vague on whats good pvp or not. You see many "any class is good with skills" etc kind of posts. However although a skilled x can almost always kill a newbie y, some classes are just plain better against others.

My Korean sucks but my father is quite proficient and back when he played L2 he would read up on forums and they had more direct answers. Such as "Silver Ranger is the best pvp" "I agree" "no brainer" etc. It seemed like they factored everyone to have skill and for x class to beat y automatically. If x happened to not be able to kill y I guess you just sucked.

I got to wonder though...why did you want to know my server? Makes me wonder if your gonna come kill me cause you didn't like my post :p