Curse

Wasteland Squidget · Jul 31, 2006, 06:17 AM // 06:17

We in NUKE have been running Triple Smite for the last week or so, and in doing that we've made our recent push into the top 50. As expected, we've recieved tons of comments about what n00bs we are because of the build we run. No suprises there.

I'm curious though, whether people actually consider smite in general to be a 'gimmick' build. I've always considered gimmick builds as something where player skill doesn't matter and the other team wins or loses based on the skills they happened to bring. Smite has a couple counters (especially dom mesmers), but even without a specific counter it's not so powerful that it rolls right over a team. We've only lost to triple smite once when running balanced, without running any really specific smite counters - I think in one we had a ward and in the other we had a Dom mesmer and a rangeer with interrupts.

Likewise, playing triple smite our only losses have been against teams that really outplayed us with skill. We've rolled right over teams with dual dom mesmers or ritualists, but when we fought iQ they beat us with only one mesmer and no other smite counters through sheer player skill.

Basically, I see an AoE smiter as another character that can be plugged into a build, like a Dom mesmer or tainted necro. It applies a certain kind of pressure, but also requires a lot of skill to play effectively - watching the enemy warriors to know who to smite off of and when. Watching your own positioning relative to your frontline so you can try to remain in smite range without attracting too much damage.

I guess I'm just curious whether others consider the GvG smiter to be a gimmick that doesn't require player skill or a balanced character.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Jul 31, 2006, 06:26 AM // 06:26

Personally I like NUKE. In my guild we use your 1 sword 1 hammer 1 axe warrior combo to GvG.

A gimmick is basicly anything other than Balanced. People with balanced are upset when they lose to something other than balanced because they can blame it on their build, or the build of their opponent. And when the build is not the same and a "gimmick" they get mad and wouldn't like to put the blame on themselves.

I like smite though because it works, but D/mo's have me staying away from GvG durning this event. And I cannot wonder if I don't have a problem with "gimmicks" like smite then why do I have a problem with D/mo's. My answer though is No.

Despondency · Jul 31, 2006, 06:48 AM // 06:48

Quote:

A gimmick is basicly anything other than Balanced.

That is exactly what my definition of a gimmick build is too. Obviously triple smite takes less skill than balanced easily; but is not the most skillless gimmick build out there (Hello dervish spike).

Stealth Rider · Jul 31, 2006, 07:07 AM // 07:07

IMO Triple Smite *was* a gimmick, because it was that much harder to outlast. (ie, pets didnt get DP, you could maintain AoE and enchants easier as there was no minimum energy cost to AoE, etc.) Now i think it has found a place in the variety of builds GW has. Along with Rangerspike, Bloodspike, etc, it is a viable build that is not totally overpowering.

Wasteland Squidget · Jul 31, 2006, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Despondency

That is exactly what my definition of a gimmick build is too. Obviously triple smite takes less skill than balanced easily; but is not the most skillless gimmick build out there (Hello dervish spike).

My experience is that triple smite is only really skill-less in the low and mid levels of play (ie: < top 100.) The offense of the build alone is powerful enough to rip through most teams at that level, even without any real coordination. That's the definition of gimmick to me, something that kills based on the strength of the build rather than player skill and coordination.

In the higher levels this is less feasable because the teams you're facing have a strong enough offense to roll you before your uncoordinated offense rolls them. They'll force you to smite defensively and do less damage and then just overrun your energy or kill you with spikes. It's like IWAY in that respect, really - C + Space offense will only take you so far.

Where triple smite really shines is its ability to win matches quickly. The heavy pressure it offers ensures that bad teams quickly break and instead of spending 30 minutes you end up spending 5. Likewise, smite is one of the few things which can quickly break a Ritualist, so even if a Rit team is turtling you can still win a match before VoD.

The same could be said for certain balanced builds though. Something like KGYU's three-warrior two-ranger pressure, or the build MH was running last season with two blackouts and three gales, can steamroll unprepared teams just as quickly.

Patrograd · Jul 31, 2006, 07:18 AM // 07:18

I'm not sure its a gimmick build, as AoE isnt as abusable as it was IMO, but it certainly is what you might call a farming build, perhaps similar to ranger spike in that regard, which i also wouldnt consider a gimmick since the ability to abuse both orders was removed.

IMHO this is a fine build for a team to run once they know what they are doing, as I'm not sure that an inexperienced team is going to learn all that much from playing it. My opinion is that inexperienced team should run something that looks like balanced, and get used to solving issues strategically rather than through build, but once you;ve got that down I dont see any issues with running something like this to power your rank some.

Byron · Jul 31, 2006, 08:00 AM // 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

I'm curious though, whether people actually consider smite in general to be a 'gimmick' build.

A signet of humility for one smiter, enchant removal for another, and diversion for the third. Zomg, there's still room for expel hexes on my bar. (No, it's not overpowered nor gimmicky IMHO, just popular)

Guillaume De Sonoma · Jul 31, 2006, 08:04 AM // 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

A signet of humility for one smiter, enchant removal for another, and diversion for the third. Zomg, there's still room for expel hexes on my bar. (No, it's not overpowered nor gimmicky IMHO, just popular)

I <3 you Byron

A while ago when FC Air Spike and Smite where much more popular I considered running a mesmer with Shatter Storm to rip the attunes or zealots fires. I'm suprised, though, by how much anti-smiting skills are on a normal mesmers bars that aren't utilized as much.

On a sid note I want to start using Signet of Humility more.

yesitsrob · Jul 31, 2006, 11:16 AM // 11:16

Well squidget you could always try just running balanced if you think you have what it takes to prove people wrong. I personally think your build is a gimmick, I mean, it's 3 warrior and 3 smiters, how can it not be

. And I think anyone who draws you on your home map with it is going to have one hell of a hard time. To be honest though just ignore the noob comments, since very few people aren't running gimmicks nowadays.. and if you aren't aiming for tournament play or anything, then go for it.

From my past experience of playing against you, and maybe you've improved since then, I don't think of NUKE as a top 100, or didn't anyway.... but maybe you improved one hell of a lot and it isn't to do with the build? I haven't paid quite enough attention

Dragannia · Jul 31, 2006, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

A signet of humility for one smiter, enchant removal for another, and diversion for the third. Zomg, there's still room for expel hexes on my bar. (No, it's not overpowered nor gimmicky IMHO, just popular)

Diversion REALLY isn't that useful against smiters, since heaps of them use Hex Breaker, and usually Dom mesmers don't bring a cover hex (unless it's Mind Wrack, in which case you'll probably be using Surge as opposed to Expel. Right now, Wards are the best against tripple smite. I run two or three enchant removals usually, which can rip through one Monk or two, or if they don't use covers (which they should be), three.

Greedy Gus · Jul 31, 2006, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

We in NUKE have been running Triple Smite for the last week or so, and in doing that we've made our recent push into the top 50.

learn2play

Anyway, smite isn't a gimmick. Triple smite (the build) is a gimmick. You're packing a build to the eyes with damage and playing a "roll or be rolled" all-out gamble build with no balance whatsoever. Someone either has the tools to beat you, or they don't. You're weak on split, you can't counter anything the enemy is doing, you're just trying to pound them into the ground.

Clearly you can see a difference between bringing 3 thumpers, 3 smiters, a single healer, and a tainted necro or ele flagger, and bringing 2 warriors, a mesmer, a smiter, a cripshot, 2 monks, and an e/mo flagger. They both have smiters, only one is a gimmick build. The other is balanced.

Now I'm not the kind of person who thinks "balanced" only means 2 wars, 2 eles, 2 mesmers, 2 monks. That is what I call non-focused balanced. There are a whole lot of flavors of balanced builds that focus in particular areas.

lord of shadow · Jul 31, 2006, 12:48 PM // 12:48

With that said, smite now is definitely a less gimmicky build than it was (the smiters actually have to think about their energy) although the insane pressure with no flexibility concept is not one i particularly favour due to it's inablity to split effectively, or adapt to the opponent's build.

It definitely takes skill to run triplesmite effectively, and staying in the top 100 or top 50 with any build is a great achievement (except dervishway, that's just wrong) but personally putting all your eggs in one basket doesn't work for me

kryshnysh · Jul 31, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

From m-w.com:

Quote:

1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : GADGET
2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : CATCH b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick>

I interpret 2a and 2b to here mean an important feature or singular angle used in your build. To me a gimmick is trying to overload through one mechanism. Triple smite is then a gimmick in my eyes (smite on its own is not).

This definition has nothing to do with the skill level required, it just requires a build (and build use) decision to go for it all using one major strategy.

Neo-LD · Jul 31, 2006, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Anyway, smite isn't a gimmick. Triple smite (the build) is a gimmick.

/agree 100%.

Smiting in general is not a gimmick, its just popular and powerful. Single smite and Dual smite still leave plenty of room for normal balanced things (namely, a 2 monk backline and support casters). Triple smite, on the other hand, is different.

However, being a gimmick is a fine line. I think it is a huge mistake to label anything that is not balanced a gimmick. Doesnt everyone think that it is good to be able to make builds that are weighted offensively or defensively, not just 50/50 all the time? Go look at KGYU's usual build. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it a gimmick? Dont think so. So whats the difference between that and triple smite?

As GreedyGus said,

Quote:

You're packing a build to the eyes with damage and playing a "roll or be rolled" all-out gamble build with no balance whatsoever. Someone either has the tools to beat you, or they don't. You're weak on split, you can't counter anything the enemy is doing, you're just trying to pound them into the ground.

Greedy Gus · Jul 31, 2006, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Go look at KGYU's usual build. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it a gimmick? Dont think so. So whats the difference between that and triple smite?

I'd probably say interrupts, speed buffs, blackouts, distortions, spike damage, snares, and a 2 monk backline. Basically, options to crack the enemy's defenses in different ways depending on how they're setup, and different ways of shutting down their offense, even if they're both 'steamroll' type builds.

Neo-LD · Jul 31, 2006, 07:58 PM // 19:58

That was a rhetorical question that I (thought I ) answered by quoting you immedaetly after, Gus.

But yes, what you just posted is correct, and was what I was trying to get at as well.

Wasteland Squidget · Jul 31, 2006, 09:01 PM // 21:01

I think I'm being a bit misinterpreted here - I'm not coming to this forum trying to get reassurance that what NUKE is running is 'balanced.' We in NUKE have no ethical issues running a gimmick. Unless you're the sort of guild that can play all day, climbing with a steamrolling build and then holding with balanced is pretty much the only way to 'win' the ladder while still improving your game. When we started running triple smite, everyone in NUKE was 100% sure that it was a gimmick. Only after playing it for a few weeks have I become less sure of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreedyGus

Anyway, smite isn't a gimmick. Triple smite (the build) is a gimmick. You're packing a build to the eyes with damage and playing a "roll or be rolled" all-out gamble build with no balance whatsoever. Someone either has the tools to beat you, or they don't. You're weak on split, you can't counter anything the enemy is doing, you're just trying to pound them into the ground.

Emphasis mine, and it's this part that interests me.

If you're running ranger spike, the match is heavily influenced by build. If the non-spike team is running Shields Up and chained Aegis, they're pretty much guaranteed the win unless their entire team is AFK. If they're not running much disruption, blocks/evades, or other R-spike counters they're almost guaranteed the loss. They can try a split, but if nothing else they'll be playing at a massive disadvantage. Unless there's a really big difference in player skill, the outcome is pretty much decided before the gates open.

With triple smite, my experience has been very different. Our two losses this season were to iQ and KGYU - iQ ran a single dom mesmer and no other real smite counters, while KGYU was on their usual heavy pressure build. Both were excellent matches and they both beat us with player skill, despite having no real build counters.

Yet we've beaten other top 20 guilds who ran dual dom mesmers or wards or 6-2 gank teams on the Druid's Isle. Builds which I would have originally expected to counter triple smite handily and beat us into the floor.

It seems like this is the opposite of what should normally happen with a gimmick build. A gimmick build should be getting beaten by weaker teams that happen to be carrying the counters to the gimmick, and beat stronger teams which aren't carrying the counters. Given my initial assessment of triple smite as a pure gimmick this has been puzzling to me, hence my posting this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedygus

I'd probably say interrupts, speed buffs, blackouts, distortions, spike damage, snares, and a 2 monk backline. Basically, options to crack the enemy's defenses in different ways depending on how they're setup, and different ways of shutting down their offense, even if they're both 'steamroll' type builds.

Triple smite (at least the one we run) has most of these things. Two copies of Gale, distracting blow, various snares, ect. The only things on your list that we don't have are the blackouts and distortions and I guess the two-monk backline.

FYI, triple smite also splits pretty well 6-2. One warrior and one smiter are a powerful force that can deal with most gank squads. I guess you're referring to 4-4 splits - triple smite probably isn't good at those, but it doesn't matter because they can walk right over a solo monk and outgank a 4-man squad in pretty much every case.

Despondency · Jul 31, 2006, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

My experience is that triple smite is only really skill-less in the low and mid levels of play (ie: < top 100.) The offense of the build alone is powerful enough to rip through most teams at that level, even without any real coordination. That's the definition of gimmick to me, something that kills based on the strength of the build rather than player skill and coordination.

In the higher levels this is less feasable because the teams you're facing have a strong enough offense to roll you before your uncoordinated offense rolls them. They'll force you to smite defensively and do less damage and then just overrun your energy or kill you with spikes. It's like IWAY in that respect, really - C + Space offense will only take you so far.

Where triple smite really shines is its ability to win matches quickly. The heavy pressure it offers ensures that bad teams quickly break and instead of spending 30 minutes you end up spending 5. Likewise, smite is one of the few things which can quickly break a Ritualist, so even if a Rit team is turtling you can still win a match before VoD.

The same could be said for certain balanced builds though. Something like KGYU's three-warrior two-ranger pressure, or the build MH was running last season with two blackouts and three gales, can steamroll unprepared teams just as quickly.

1.Obvious, and completely agreed.

2.Very true.... But I was reffering to balanced builds in general, not just a few cookie cutter ones. I'll specify next time.

Neo-LD · Aug 01, 2006, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

If you're running ranger spike, the match is heavily influenced by build. If the non-spike team is running Shields Up and chained Aegis, they're pretty much guaranteed the win unless their entire team is AFK. If they're not running much disruption, blocks/evades, or other R-spike counters they're almost guaranteed the loss. They can try a split, but if nothing else they'll be playing at a massive disadvantage. Unless there's a really big difference in player skill, the outcome is pretty much decided before the gates open.

With triple smite, my experience has been very different. Our two losses this season were to iQ and KGYU - iQ ran a single dom mesmer and no other real smite counters, while KGYU was on their usual heavy pressure build. Both were excellent matches and they both beat us with player skill, despite having no real build counters.

Yet we've beaten other top 20 guilds who ran dual dom mesmers or wards or 6-2 gank teams on the Druid's Isle. Builds which I would have originally expected to counter triple smite handily and beat us into the floor.

It seems like this is the opposite of what should normally happen with a gimmick build. A gimmick build should be getting beaten by weaker teams that happen to be carrying the counters to the gimmick, and beat stronger teams which aren't carrying the counters. Given my initial assessment of triple smite as a pure gimmick this has been puzzling to me, hence my posting this thread.

So basically what youre saying is that T-smite's ability to beat teams with some counters to it makes it not a gimmick? I dont that quite works. Heres a parrallel example:

A caster spike is a gimmick that is often able to defeat builds that have some level of soft counter to them; such as a ranger and/or mesmer with interupts. This is similar to T-smite being able to defeat teams that have a soft counter like dom mesmers. However, a team that has a hard counter to a caster spike, like Fertile, Symbisosis, Shelter, etc, is likely to auto-win. This is similar to T-smite versus a hard NR/Tranq.

Of course, teams are less likely to carry hard counters than soft counters, because usually they are only effective against a narrow range of builds, which is why you are less likely to face them.

Therefore, we can conclude that the ability to beat teams with soft counters does not exempt T-smite from being a gimmick.

I have a 3-step checklist that I use to determine if something is a gimmick. Lets apply it to T-smite:

Are there 1 or more skills in GW that, if encountered, will totally destroy the build? Yes

Does the build rely (to some extent) on the element of surprise (the fact that their opponents will be unaware that they are about to fight this build) Yes

Is there a large discrepancy between the level of skill required to run the build and the level of skill required to counter the build? Yes

Its a gimmick in my book.

Vindexus · Aug 01, 2006, 01:06 AM // 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Anyway, smite isn't a gimmick. Triple smite (the build) is a gimmick. You're packing a build to the eyes with damage and playing a "roll or be rolled" all-out gamble build with no balance whatsoever. Someone either has the tools to beat you, or they don't. You're weak on split, you can't counter anything the enemy is doing, you're just trying to pound them into the ground.

Clearly you can see a difference between bringing 3 thumpers, 3 smiters, a single healer, and a tainted necro or ele flagger, and bringing 2 warriors, a mesmer, a smiter, a cripshot, 2 monks, and an e/mo flagger. They both have smiters, only one is a gimmick build. The other is balanced.

Now I'm not the kind of person who thinks "balanced" only means 2 wars, 2 eles, 2 mesmers, 2 monks. That is what I call non-focused balanced. There are a whole lot of flavors of balanced builds that focus in particular areas.

Gus is 100% right.