34 replies to this topic

[Gloom]

While speaking with Burn E and I do truly regret dragging him into the middle of this right up until I remember hes Canadian  I realized talking with PVT wvwers is like this.
https://www.youtube....h?v=yUpbOliTHJY

[Slein Jinn]

Gloom, on 17 May 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

There is no point other than mobility to running a greatsword on a warrior in pvp unless running a skullcrack build which only excels in 1v1.

The Greatsword is there in those builds for Forceful Greatsword, which synergies with the Strength Runes and Phalanx Strength to allow a warrior to keep 20-25 Might stacks up on a party indefinitely.  

Quote

Again you fail to understand where the damage is in the specs I posted

I understand where you get your damage in your specs perfectly well.  The thing is, your build increases one person's damage.  A better build increases five peoples' damage.  

Quote

and failed to mention anything about some duels.  You have stated your piece and I have stated mine.  All that is left is trial by combat.

This wanting to 1v1 someone to validate an argument about a zerg spec is just childish nonsense.  What would that prove?  Not only is comparing a 1v1 to a 20+ v 20+ just apples to oranges, but personal skill is irrelevant to a build discussion anyway.  You may well be a more talented player than I am; plenty of people are.  My strength as a gamer has always been an understanding of the governing mechanics and the relevant maths and such, not reflexes and reaction speed and such.  On the flip side, I've often found a lot of the more talented players run builds that range from less than optimal to straight up bad, because their talent is sufficient to let them beat inferior players in spite of their builds rather than because of them, so they don't feel the same pressure to optimise.  When a top-notch theorycrafter and a top talented player come together, though, the results are devastating; a great player running a mediocre build may be stronger than a mediocre player running a great build, but a great player running a great build is unstoppable.  

Quote

Also stomp is a near worthless move considering other options.  The CD is too long and even a second stability would be much more beneficial for the stun break then wasting it on the pitiful damage stomp does.

Stomp isn't there for the damage.  It's a Stunbreak with just enough Stability to get out of a tight spot, but more than that, it's there as a CC.  Disrupting the enemy stack allows your team to burn down individuals.  Dealing more damage isn't necessarily always better if that damage gets diluted among 15 tightly stacked targets, though; sometimes it's better to sacrifice some damage for CC's that allow you to concentrate that damage more effectively.  That said, Stomp is in no way central to the build I posted; you could run just about anything in that slot.  Shake It Off, a Stance, even a Banner could be taken for the third utility; what's most important is that you have a source of Stability/Stunbreak and the massive group support from For Great Justice and Battle Standard.

[Silvernis]

Slein Jinn, on 17 May 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

What hostile posts?  My posts were purely constructive; there's infinitely more hostility in your little rant there than there is in anything I've posted here.  If you're so violently uninterested in any kind of feedback, why even post your build in a public forum?  "Debate" is kinda right there in the definition of "forum".

I mean no offense, truly, but your build/strategy posts do tend to come across as more than a little dogmatic. I wouldn't consider them hostile, but I can see how they might be construed as such.

[matthen]

Slein Jinn, on 16 May 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

The sheer awesomeness of a traited Warrior Warhorn just can't be understated, and it's so depressing that most of the time, when I'm running with a 30-man zerg (whether it's my tag or someone else's), I'll look at every single player there, and we'll usually have several Warriors, but I'm lucky if I can find a single Warrior running a Warhorn at all, let alone with Quick Breathing.  

There is a lot of truth to this statement... and since the April 15th patch, all you need is bag space and some extra gear to be able to swap into a more zerg friendly build.

I think that there are some old [DIE] warrior builds still posted on this thread. Including a lighter, more damage-oriented "off tank" build. It's out of date, but the concept is still sound. I basically went this direction when we were fighting against T2-3 opponents... and I think that these types of builds would very well in our current fights.

I could post my current "light zerg" build, if anyone cares. It's actually quite similar to some of Slein's builds, but with more damage-oriented gear (knights/zerker), restoration sigils, etc. I get a good amount of crits, decent cleaving power, and very strong support via shouts and warhorn... It can't face tank full focused zerg, but when I run it, I'm still usually one of the last people standing when we wipe. Best part: it only takes up 8-9 bag slots when I'm roaming because I re-use my zerker trinkets.

Anyway, I guess my one of my points is that you don't have to take Slein's advice exactly to benefit from it.

[Slein Jinn]

Silvernis, on 18 May 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I mean no offense, truly, but your build/strategy posts do tend to come across as more than a little dogmatic. I wouldn't consider them hostile, but I can see how they might be construed as such.

"Dogma" implies belief regardless of evidence, though.  My GW2 build posts are quite the opposite; they're products of countless hours of maths, controlled experimentation with mechanics, practical testing in actual gameplay, and spirited discussion with other players.  If anything, it's dogmatism that I'm most keen to combat; many people are quite dogmatic about their GW2 builds, but any build I advocate is backed by plenty of empirical evidence and is always open to revision in the face of any new or previously unconsidered evidence you can present.  

The thing about GW2 is that the mechanics are quite transparent and the maths is pretty straightforward, so it's readily possible to more or less "solve" the game in terms of build theory.  It's not about preaching "meta builds" found in a Google search, but when you really analyse the numbers and the mechanics, you're pretty inexorably lead in one of a relatively few directions.  Those "meta builds" generally don't achieve that status by accident, and it's often not that difficult to arrive at them independently even if you've never seen them mentioned.  That doesn't mean everyone should run identical cookie-cutter builds, but for each profession, there will be roughly one to three frameworks for builds that can be considered optimal for a given type of gameplay.  There is then some further room for customisation within those frameworks, such as what to do with the last four points in an X/X/X/6/4 Staff Elementalist build.  That leaves plenty of room for people to individualise their builds while still conforming to the basic concepts of the build.

[Gloom]

I like how you criticize the use of the word dogmatic citing your empirical evidence but still refuse to showcase the build against me.  You also cite meta builds suggesting that I am running some sort of gimmick build which is not the case.  My build is a variation after much time was spent productively theorycrafting with one of the top rated warriors (instead of a non rated tier 8 commander whining he doesn't have the groups he wants for example.)  I simply posted a build to be an alternative to the "hammer meta" that can easily destroy one of the most common warrior builds out there.

[Slein Jinn]

Me: You're bringing a 1v1 build to a zerg fight; here's a better build to use when running in a group.
You: I'll prove you wrong by killing your build in a 1v1.
Me:
You:

[Rimmy1a]

[Silvernis]

So what's the deal with hammers, anyhow? It seems like every warrior trying to redecorate my outsides with my insides uses one (well, that or GS). Are they really that spiffy? I've tried using them, and they just don't feel right for some reason.

[Rimmy1a]

Silvernis, on 20 May 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

So what's the deal with hammers, anyhow? It seems like every warrior trying to redecorate my outsides with my insides uses one (well, that or GS). Are they really that spiffy? I've tried using them, and they just don't feel right for some reason.

Control effects. Even worse if you have more than one warrior doing it to you, and they are doing it in sequence.

[Slein Jinn]

Silvernis, on 20 May 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

So what's the deal with hammers, anyhow? It seems like every warrior trying to redecorate my outsides with my insides uses one (well, that or GS). Are they really that spiffy? I've tried using them, and they just don't feel right for some reason.

They have more CC than basically anything ever.  And most of that CC is AoE.  And they still hit quite hard in the process.  I wouldn't really call them ideal for 1v1, but for team fights of almost any size, the Warrior's Hammer is a beast of a weapon.

[Silvernis]

Hmm. Guess I'll have to give the hammer another try. I suspect part of my current dissatisfaction with it is that I tend to play more midline than frontline, so I typically go for ranged weapons first.

[Gloom]

Hammer is a fantastic weapon for control but the damage is heavily mitigated by stability.  That ultimately made me switch to ax where you can regularly crit for 14K and one shot thieves and elementalists.  I have adopted a well used hit and move tactic where I can snipe subjects easily inside enemy raids.  I have used it with great sucess in zerg busting runs where I can solo soft targets that are hurting our zerg.  If you prefer to just AOE the hammer specs are fantastic for it and can chain 6-8k damage runs together with no damage taken.

[Sanji]

Well I run almost the same build for my warrior in wvw and dungeons...am tanky so am lasting support or try to be...I know Burney and me take on 3-6 people at times in camps and all over with brother Biff Beer also. Always have the revival banner nowadays when 2 or more...(hate when Burney drops about to place banner on him and dork mist moves out of banner range... ... Hammer and Sword/Axe ... when solo roaming GS for marathon speed and revival banner changed for elite signet of rage for more speed boost, stability helps even agains vets and camp lords knockdowns (take it from someone that got chased many times this week in SF EBG side and survived 15+ min in that area (2-3 times ard their keep) chased by 10-15 Sfers...sonic fuzzers.

I always have signet of dolyak stability never know when I feel like just plowing threw a full 50 SF zerg not to get pinned before I can make a mess in the middle of them.

I think like others in a big grp its as you please people will drop, lower levels ard, etc.
2-5 or guild grp than i guess support stuff those help but then again...just being a slaughter machine and keeping the ennemy off your ranger friends works...am i saying anything constructive?... not sure:)

P.S.: crit 14K on eles? nowadays their just unkillable the good ones at least in wvw...when low they have really gd running evade...just saying Ele specked with new no crit. dmg received wont help you get 14k on them mate:)

[Liric]

I felt like there were two kinds of warriors to be...a soldier in a group, or a duelist running solo. They don't cross over very well, though. Of course, now as I understand it, swapping between the two is easy. A rather remarkable change! Took them long enough.

I always preferred a solo condition build, myself. Nigh impossible to kill and you can take down groups of people on your own if you play it right. I haven't really played the game for going on a year now, but I check in from time to time and am sure I still have the muscle memory! ;]

If anyone would like any info, I still check this place and my in-game mail from time to time. I mained warrior from beta.