Curse

Mashu · Sep 19, 2005, 06:23 PM // 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

Ringmail makes your character bow-legged

Ugh, I agree. This game has a real problem with that. I wondered when someone would mention it ;-).

Age · Sep 19, 2005, 08:14 PM // 20:14

I like ringmail on females it looks nice like Knights and Gladiators.

What would this do to my amrmor now from what you found out.This includes both PVE and PVP

PVE hamet galdiators-minor rune tactics,top knights-major rune of absortion,bottoms knights-major rune of vigor,guantlets galdiators-minor in sword and boots gladiators-minor in strengh

PVP hamet knights-minor rune tactics,top knights-major rune of absortion,bottom gladiators-minor in vigor,guanlets galdiators-minor in sword and boots gladiators-minor in strengh.

How does this sound?

BigTru · Sep 25, 2005, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Well... I suppose we will soon see most players using full Knight's/Ascalon sets, seeing as how it is better against Rangers/Warriors (when working correctly...) and seeing as they are both quite popular now...

Alone) · Sep 25, 2005, 03:31 AM // 03:31

Wether all of you disagree or agree, I don't care. As Seissor said above me, each armor class DOES have it's own use. Glad I feel is best for farming, Plate for going around PvE, Knights I am currently using for farming myself, etc.

As for the universal effect of knights armor? I strongly feel that it is strictly locational. I've tested it myself by rearranging and replacing armor with knights,and just having boots alone has not given me the full effect of the absorption.

Now, if it was universal, couldn't you survive with one piece of armor?

I feel kind of hurt when you say knight's is inferior to glad's, because it sounds like you're speaking for everyone.

BigTru · Sep 25, 2005, 03:47 AM // 03:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alone)

Now, if it was universal, couldn't you survive with one piece of armor?

We aren't talking of the base armor properties, we are talking of the "Damage Reduction" tag, which IS universal.

LifeInfusion · Sep 25, 2005, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alone)

I feel kind of hurt when you say knight's is inferior to glad's, because it sounds like you're speaking for everyone.

I AM because everyone thinks that way (that has tested damage).
Knight's may be wayyyy better looking than gladiator's but statwise it sucks in comparison.

entropy · Sep 25, 2005, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Even if knights was ever made location based I would almost Never use it. I'd take the +10 vs physical anyday against -2.

BigTru · Sep 25, 2005, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by entropy

Even if knights was ever made location based I would almost Never use it. I'd take the +10 vs physical anyday against -2.

Did you read Ensign's post at all (He knows his stuff)? Knight's/Ascalon's armor would be better versus physical attacks than platemail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Assuming that Knight's actually worked the way it was supposed to, it would generally be better than Platemail on any build that used a shield, and worse on builds that did not use shields.

Which one is better depends on the average damage dealt with each armor-using hit. The larger the size of each hit, the better Platemail is. The break points where Platemail becomes better are at 35 damage elemental hits, 41 damage physical hits, 45 damage elemental hits when using a shield, and 54 damage physical hits while using a shield.

The more armor bonuses you stack, the better Knight's becomes.

In general Knights would perform better than Platemail against physical attackers, but worse against spellcasters. Again, assuming that the Knight's / Ascalon bonus was actually location specific.

Of course all of this is moot as long as Gladiator's Armor exists, as that set just steamrolls all of the other options. You could take off the +20 defense vs. Physical, and it'd still be the PvP armor of choice.

Peace,
-CxE

LifeInfusion · Oct 08, 2005, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Any updates from Anet?

BigTru · Oct 08, 2005, 08:22 PM // 20:22

None... I was kinda hoping they would change it in the update, but I guess they just forgot/don't care anymore =/

Seissor · Oct 09, 2005, 05:27 AM // 05:27

Meh, I dont care, 15k glad looks cute, so if its not that tiny itty bit better for the job, meh, just means I have to use more brains.

LifeInfusion · Oct 09, 2005, 01:11 PM // 13:11

8 energy and 10 more armor is a big thing not to have in exchange for -2 recieved on one piece (it is not locational).

entropy · Oct 09, 2005, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Sure against physical attackers but why would a warrior attack a warrior or a ranger go for a warrior? And like LifeInfusion said above that 8 energy is precious or even 5.

BigTru · Oct 09, 2005, 09:19 PM // 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by entropy

Sure against physical attackers but why would a warrior attack a warrior or a ranger go for a warrior? And like LifeInfusion said above that 8 energy is precious or even 5.

In an idea world, I'd never ever be hit as a Warrior. But that simply isn't the case. Forget about popular beliefs - Monks and Mesmers aren't always first and Warriors and Rangers aren't always last; You go for the biggest threat on the battlefield. If the Warrior is doing insane damage and is the biggest threat, he needs to be taken out quickly.

And how is the added energy "precious" if you are an axe warrior who uses little to no energy at all? That "+energy" is useless to a lot of warrior builds. So why have the +energy if you don't need it? That's why I'd get some armor with better defence, such as Platemail/Wyvern and (if it worked correctly) Knight's/Ascalon armor.

And to answer your question, "Why would a warrior or a ranger go for a warrior?". Because I wouldn't just ignore the warrior in the middle of a battle and act as though he does not exist? Why would I have the rest of my team go for the warrior, but not the ranger/warriors? Unless my whole team decides to show mercy and become friends with said opposing warrior...

entropy · Oct 10, 2005, 01:34 AM // 01:34

True I agree that you do get targeted but for the most part it isn't that often. Well your being situational in saying that what happens if the axe warrior uses little to no energy at all. Well then go ahead and use it. Even when I run axe the extra 5 energy helps me a lot. Swift chop, frenzy, sprint, eviscerate, executionrs, rez sig, a few skills from my secondary... I mean The skills from my secondary usually require energy which means i got at least 4 energy skills or 3 if just go all warrior with axe rake. Hammer is where I see the energy being put to best use. The zealous hammer haft doesn' have as much energy gain as an axe user would or sword. But the -2 dmg reduction is barely noticed. Sure it might at up in a big battle but the fact is if you are under heavy focused fire you might or might not die anyway depending on you monks and your team. So inevitably it comes down to that and the energy letting you spam your energy attacks more may or may not be the difference between taking down the enemy monk or not.

What I'd really like to know is how big the -2 dmg reduction really is? Will it really have a big effect or not? Is that effect worth it over the Glads? When I'm thinking about it right now I really don't think it would make much of a difference.

Seissor · Oct 10, 2005, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Glad armor is not useless for a warrior using an axe, depending on your secondary profession. a war/ele who uses an axe can appreciate the extra energy. But for a PURE axe warrior, unless you plan on tapping cyclone axe all the time, glad armor is not as good for you, as say platemail.

I run a sword war/mo with glad, works wonders, due to sword being energy sapper. (pure war)

and my other war/mo with glad who uses an axe, needs high energy amount, because they are a smite warrior, so i kick in balth aura, and then use adrenal skills for power hits.

Andurros · Oct 11, 2005, 03:26 PM // 15:26

I admit that I have not read every post in this topic but I will say according to guild wars (..... http://manual.guildwars.com/combat/w...armor-faq.html damage absorption does NOT stack. This info comes from arenanet the makers of the game. To argue with it is a prime example of nOObness!

Sarus · Oct 11, 2005, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

I admit that I have not read every post in this topic but I will say according to guild wars (..... http://manual.guildwars.com/combat/w...armor-faq.html damage absorption does NOT stack. This info comes from arenanet the makers of the game. To argue with it is a prime example of nOObness!

wow .... just wow. Next time read the posts so you don't make yourself look so foolish.

Specifically read this: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...9&postcount=79

*unless of course you're being sarcastic. That is a possibility. In that case I'd suggest adding a smiley face to your post. Perhaps ... this one

to make it more clear.

Andurros · Oct 11, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

I guess I should have kept on reading past post #75 on the subject..

LifeInfusion · Oct 11, 2005, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andurros

I guess I should have kept on reading past post #75 on the subject..

Why argue. It has been tested time and time again.