Curse

Ryno_Noobslayer · Jan 13, 2011, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Hey, sorry couldn't find anything on search or in Marty's guide to warrior.

I'm about to get my warrior an Anti-Physical damage set of armor and I'm wondering which insignias to use. At first I thought Knight's but I wasn't sure if the -3 is greater than the +10 armor from Stalwart or Sentry's insignias.

Combined with a +10 armor shield mod (is this correct as well? Is there a better option? -2 while in stance maybe?) that would give me, ideally, +20 armor against X type of physical damage, and with multiple shield sets I could just prepare ahead of time.

So what say you?

Bad Company Sin · Jan 13, 2011, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Warrior already has alot of armor for physical damage, look more into elemental damage, or survivor setups, if u absolutely need more armor, then well, maybe brawlers insignias? idk.

Chrisworld · Jan 13, 2011, 06:44 PM // 18:44

I use the -3 one. Combines nicely with dmg reducing skills.

Haggis of Doom · Jan 13, 2011, 06:49 PM // 18:49

For general PvE - don't bother. Use Sentinel's.

For farming specific critters - what Chrisworld said.

Ryno_Noobslayer · Jan 13, 2011, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Well I already have an elemental set of armor. I was mostly just curious as to which insignia's give you more bang for your buck. Will the extra 10 armor reduce damage on you by more than 3? That sort of thing.

My guildies and I have been doing a lot of areas where they basically use me as a meat shield -_- while they do all the killing because I seem to be the only one who knows how to corner block lol. So I got to thinking about which insignias would better "protect" me from scores of physical damage.

**Marty Silverblade** · Jan 13, 2011, 09:01 PM // 21:01

Armor has diminishing returns. Going from 60 to 70AL prevents more damage than going from 70 to 80AL, which prevents more damage than going from 80 to 90AL, etc. Given that you'll have 116AL against physical damage without considering insignia or shield mods, I'd go for -damage rather than +AL. Knight's insignia and -2/stance imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryno_Noobslayer

My guildies and I have been doing a lot of areas where they basically use me as a meat shield -_- while they do all the killing because I seem to be the only one who knows how to corner block lol.

If you're not focusing on damage as a Warrior you're doing it wrong; especially so if you know how to aggro properly. You are capable of dealing massive amounts of damage with a corner block and you don't need to be running a non-damage build to do it. If your guildies tell you to run a tank build, tell your guildies to gtfo.

Ryno_Noobslayer · Jan 13, 2011, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Oh know trust me I don't tank. I usually run Hundred Blades when I'm doing that and love watching the numbers fly. I had to explain to my guildies the true role of a Warrior

.

Anywho you answered my question perfectly Marty. Thats what I was wondering is if the minor extra armor would do enough good to be worth it. Thanks for the responses guys.

LifeInfusion · Jan 13, 2011, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Use Sentinel's or dreadnought. You really don't need that much physical armor and "I am unstoppable!" is a good supplement along with a Superior absorption rune. (see FoWSC HM)

Knight's (-3) + superior absorption (-3) ..."Run for your Life!" (-2 stanced) also, is if you are farming physical stuff, I don't see any other reason to use both (-8 is overkill).

I get hit for 300-400 from warrior hammer bosses on my ele while wearing survivors and a +8 armor shield. 100 physical armor = half compared to 60Armor= 150-200, half again (16 shield+24 from "I am Unstoppable!") is 75-100. That's not including +5 armor from my axe and normal enemies won't hit nearly as hard.

With physicals blocking is better since block = 0 damage, 50% block = half, 75% = 25% damage, and breaks adrenaline gain. The only time blocking is unfavorable is when you are using Shield of Absorption and/or seed of life and need the hits to go through. At 115 armor you take 38.6% damage from listed. 140 armor is 25%, 22.93% at 145 armor.

(Every 40 armor is half damage.)
see http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Armor_rating

It's better to slap Prot spirit and SoA on the person using Save yourselves, or run 2 copies, than to run more armor to physical.

MisterB · Jan 13, 2011, 10:30 PM // 22:30

I like Sentry's more than Dreadnought, simply because it's +10 armor vs. everything 99% of the time, versus +10 fire, cold, lightning, or earth.

Bristlebane · Jan 14, 2011, 12:17 AM // 00:17

If talking PvE here, consider using Sneak Attack for easy blindness, taking care of melees. Then you can focus your armor more against elemental damage. Sure you might do a lil less damage using Sneak Attack but your team can go more offensive to compensate when they have to focus less energy on keeping you alive. Sneak Attack + Scythe (or epidemic on a hero) would do well.

EDIT: Sneak Attack is mostly good against high damage targets like Aatxes, negating almost all their damage, in other situations it might be better to just follow the suggestions above. While you might soak up their damage better, consider it's also a lifesaver when that Aatxe is going for your squishy friends, pounding for 300+.

Kunder · Jan 14, 2011, 01:08 AM // 01:08

10 armor decreases damage by 16%. If the average physical damage you take (before other -damage effects) is greater than 18, the armor is better.

The only time I would consider -3 damage to be better is in some specialized solo farming builds that center around reducing damage to 0 (and, depending on the skills used, 10 armor might still be better). In all general PvE usage 10 armor will be better because if enemy damage is less than 19 per hit then you shouldn't care what your armor does, any henchman monk or non-asshat healing player can easily keep you alive. On the other hand, for the rare times in which you run up against a lvl 30 warrior/dervish boss and don't have buffs/debuffs up, armor is whats actually going to keep you alive against 100+ damage hits while -damage essentially does jack squat.

Overall though, I recommend Sentinel/Sentry more. Enemy spell damage scales much more harshly than enemy physical damage at the high end and its what you are weakest to. Sentinel specifically takes away this weakness, while Sentry helps reduce both Physical/Elemental damage (and as a warrior, if you aren't using a stance then you are doing something wrong). Also, put 1 Stonefist insignia on hands/feet. Just in case you are using knockdowns.

**Marty Silverblade** · Jan 15, 2011, 11:46 PM // 23:46

EDIT: @OP, nevermind, the above post is correct. Don't bother reading this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunder

10 armor decreases damage by 16%. If the average physical damage you take (before other -damage effects) is greater than 18, the armor is better.

Your second statement is false. Maybe it's true for a 60AL character or something like that, but it's certainly not true for a 100+AL character. Time for some mathematics. Referring to this.

@OP: If mathematics scares you, ignore the next little bit and just read the tl;dr bit.

A Warrior with a shield and knights insignia will have 116AL vs. physical, -3.
A Warrior with a shield and any +10AL insignia will have 126AL vs. physical.

The defensive adjustment for the first warrior is 0.379.
The defensive adjustment for the second warrior is 0.319.

To find the point at which knights > +armor (x is some form of physical damage; we don't care about the specifics):

0.379*x - 3 < 0.319*x
0.06*x - 3 < 0
0.06*x < 3
x < 50

tl;dr: For a 116AL Warrior, Knights will be better as long as the physical damage packets you receive are less than 50, which is nearly always*. The same argument applies for the shield, except that the damage packets need to be less than 33 (which is a lot of the time anyway, especially with knights).

*If you're regularly taking 50+ damage packets, you need a prot anyway.

Also, +1 vote for Sentry/Sentinels. There really isn't much point focusing on reducing physical damage when you've got 20 less AL against elemental damage.

Kunder · Jan 15, 2011, 11:54 PM // 23:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Silverblade

Your second statement is false. Maybe it's true for a 60AL character or something like that, but it's certainly not true for a 100+AL character. Time for some mathematics. Referring to this.

@OP: If mathematics scares you, ignore the next little bit and just read the tl;dr bit.

A Warrior with a shield and knights insignia will have 116AL vs. physical, -3.
A Warrior with a shield and any +10AL insignia will have 126AL vs. physical.

The defensive adjustment for the first warrior is 0.379.
The defensive adjustment for the second warrior is 0.319.

To find the point at which knights > +armor (x is some form of physical damage; we don't care about the specifics):

0.379*x - 3 < 0.319*x
0.06*x - 3 < 0
0.06*x < 3
x < 50

tl;dr: For a 116AL Warrior, Knights will be better as long as the physical damage packets you receive are less than 50, which is nearly always*. The same argument applies for the shield, except that the damage packets need to be less than 33 (which is a lot of the time anyway, especially with knights).

*If you're regularly taking 50+ damage packets, you need a prot anyway.

Also, +1 vote for Sentry/Sentinels. There really isn't much point focusing on reducing physical damage when you've got 20 less AL against elemental damage.

Your mathematics is incorrect. In your formula you use 'x' to represent base damage before armor comes into effect. But since a warrior has base armor, they need to take significantly less than 50 damage from an attack for +10 armor to outweigh -3 damage. Notice that if you take (.379 * 50) to get the original damage dealt before either modifier comes into play, you get 18.75 damage as the cutoff beyond which +10 armor is better, which is the number I specified before (which is also calculable through 3 / .16 = 18.75, as I did). My calculation is much more simplistic because the base armor of the target factors out of the equation. Every time you add +10 armor to something the damage goes down by 16% (excluding rounding limitations). If you took more than 18 armor-affected damage per hit before you added the armor than armor is always the better choice

**Marty Silverblade** · Jan 16, 2011, 12:09 AM // 00:09

Ah, yes. Correct mathematics, incorrect interpretation. Oh well, I've learned something today.

Chthon · Jan 16, 2011, 01:16 AM // 01:16

I was going to pop my head in here and drop the appropriate calculations, but I have nothing to add. Good job guys.

Omar_Sharif · Jan 17, 2011, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Survivors insignia ^^

Chthon · Jan 18, 2011, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omar_Sharif

Survivors insignia ^^

Absolutely not.