Curse

Mr. Undisclosed · Sep 11, 2009, 06:30 AM // 06:30

I have a fairly new warrior thats running an ES build. I've got my Stonefist, +1 hammer, +1 strength, and +50 health/vitae but I'm completely stuck on what to put for insignia. Every other profession survivor in the general consensus but on warrior I've also heard sentinels, brawlers, and knights are also often ran. Looking for opinions on what I should use and with which build.

Tenebrae · Sep 11, 2009, 06:35 AM // 06:35

Well if you are reaching 14 str , sentinel is great ( that is +20 vs ele right ? ) but if not , dreadnought can provide good armor against ele shots. The thing is you dont have shield and u should make a little for it , 13 str will leave you with -20 armor if you get weakened . Check what conditions are in the zone/mission you are playing and its done.

**Marty Silverblade** · Sep 11, 2009, 08:24 AM // 08:24

It's no different to other builds. Survivor/Brawlers/Sentinel (and yes, thats +20AL vs. elemental with req 13 str), and possibly Dreadnoughts, but I'm not a fan as Brawlers gives +10AL to both physical and elemental, and the while attacking condition shouldn't be a problem.

PS: Running Knights on a War is stupid.

Fabez · Sep 11, 2009, 09:05 AM // 09:05

If you're using 14 Strength/13 Hammer Mastery, I reckon that Sentinel's Insignia's are the best you're going to get.

(with 14 Strength, you still meet the requirement for the extra armor if someone puts the Weakness condition on you)

If not, Brawler or Survivor insignia's will probably be best for you (it depends on personal preference which you're going to be using, both have up- and downsides)

qvtkc · Sep 11, 2009, 09:14 AM // 09:14

Weakness isn't a big deal as it can/should be quickly removed. On the other hand, if you get both weakness and cracked armor on you, you'll have 60 AL vs. elemental. Anyway what I mean is, even if you have 13 strength, sentinel's is a good choice. I prefer survivor but whatever.

Gift3d · Sep 11, 2009, 09:37 AM // 09:37

wars inherently have additional armor vs physical on their armor. so be strong and run 14 hammer 14 strength and use sentinels on chest and legs. you'll have 100 armor vs. physical and elemental damage.

Captain Bulldozer · Sep 11, 2009, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Sentinel's is nice, but so are survivor insignias. Remember, most attacks hit your chest and your legs (5 out of every 8 hit one of these two), so may as well put a sentinel on chest and or legs and survivor on everything else.

As for runes, may as well go with vitaes, but if you're really worried about your healers not removing conditions fast enough, bring along a rune to decrease blind/weakness/cripple/whatever.

maxxfury · Sep 11, 2009, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Generally survivors is the "one size fits all" universal sig but isnt usually the best option.

But the class specific +armour is better if slightly less 'universal' and has a slight downside for the increased protection.

If you can hit a high strength sentinels is nice

**Marty Silverblade** · Sep 11, 2009, 10:34 PM // 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bulldozer

Remember, most attacks hit your chest and your legs (5 out of every 8 hit one of these two), so may as well put a sentinel on chest and or legs and survivor on everything else.

This is a useless argument. You are correct in that you get hit 3x as much in the chest and 2x as much in the legs as you do in the head/hands/feet, and this is why you get a bigger health boost. It's all fits into the ratio. There is no benefit to doing as you mention.

Winterclaw · Sep 11, 2009, 11:54 PM // 23:54

I'm trying to remember this right but I seem to remember reading somewhere certain spells generally hit the chest. If you could prove that, then the cumulative savings of damage reduction might outweigh the benefits of the extra health. However until then, I'd take the extra health.

Owik Gall · Sep 12, 2009, 12:07 AM // 00:07

I'd go with survivor in all. Some skills can bypass armor rating and will take a chunk of your small health compared to survivor armor. My method is always to endure longer instead of patch in as much natural protection as you can.

Dusk_ · Sep 12, 2009, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Owik Gall

I'd go with survivor in all. Some skills can bypass armor rating and will take a chunk of your small health compared to survivor armor. My method is always to endure longer instead of patch in as much natural protection as you can.

Armour ignoring damage appears much, much less than non-armour ignoring damage, so higher armour, especially something like +20 from Sentinels, will let you "endure" much, much longer than Survivors will.

Just like having more energy isn't energy management, having more health isn't health management.

Chthon · Sep 12, 2009, 02:06 AM // 02:06

If your build has 100% stance uptime, Sentry's.
Otherwise, Knights. (If you're interested in learning why, search waaay back to a post I did in early Factions that crunches the numbers.)
Survivor is a distant third.
Sentinel's isn't even worth considering. Keep in mind that just because damage is not "not physical" that doesn't necessarily make it elemental.

deluxe · Sep 12, 2009, 02:06 AM // 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I'm trying to remember this right but I seem to remember reading somewhere certain spells generally hit the chest. If you could prove that, then the cumulative savings of damage reduction might outweigh the benefits of the extra health. However until then, I'd take the extra health.

37.5% of all hits are on the 3 parts people put health on.
If you're going to run armor, run full armor.
If you're going to run health, run full health.

Putting other insignias on the head, boots and hands is just a bad habit from the prophecies days.

Tenebrae · Sep 12, 2009, 09:54 AM // 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

If your build has 100% stance uptime, Sentry's.
Otherwise, Knights. (If you're interested in learning why, search waaay back to a post I did in early Factions that crunches the numbers.)
Survivor is a distant third.
Sentinel's isn't even worth considering. Keep in mind that just because damage is not "not physical" that doesn't necessarily make it elemental.

Sentinel not even considering ? you just showed us u dont have any idea of playing a Hammer W , not even on PvE.
Other non-physical damage are 90% armor ignoring , NOT bonuses and NEVER reduced by general armor ( like Sentry's ) but ALL the elemental damage comes from VERY POWERFUL nukes and some AoE that do lots of dmg on HM.
Those 20 armor vs elemental damage reduce ALOT the damage from that source because of W higher lvls of armor.

Sentinel>Dreadnought>Survivor>Sentry .

PS: For god sake, Knight insignia ? yeah , because W dont have good armor against phys damage and need some phys reduction /irony.

House Silvermoon · Sep 12, 2009, 10:55 AM // 10:55

sentinel's is the best and obvious choice. armor wins in this game, sad that there are still people that cant understand this.

Captain Bulldozer · Sep 12, 2009, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Silverblade

This is a useless argument. You are correct in that you get hit 3x as much in the chest and 2x as much in the legs as you do in the head/hands/feet, and this is why you get a bigger health boost. It's all fits into the ratio. There is no benefit to doing as you mention.

Not sure I entirely agree with you Marty. When selecting your runes/insignias there are many different options available to you. Some may prefer to go all with survivors other may prefer all extra armor, etc. But the AI does prioritize certain targets first, such as those with low health/armor, as I'm sure you know. Warriors feel elemental damage sources higher, so there is incentive to try and reduce it. However, if a players health is much lower than the other party members, the AI will lock in on you. Having higher armor isn't always going to save you in cases like that. In other words, an optimum strategy is often not to choose all extra armor or all extra health, but a balance of the two. The extra armor on the most frequently hit places optimizes the armor increase while extra health can come from runes rather insignia.

Anyway, to the OP, getting your health up to around 600 (especially for HM), and doing so for as many of your party-members as possible is usually a good way of insuring success. Warriors have plenty of options to get high health as well as a few other measures of protection without having to sacrifice other more important concerns. Good hunting.

Chthon · Sep 13, 2009, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenebrae

Sentinel not even considering ? you just showed us u dont have any idea of playing a Hammer W , not even on PvE.
Other non-physical damage are 90% armor ignoring , NOT bonuses and NEVER reduced by general armor ( like Sentry's ) but ALL the elemental damage comes from VERY POWERFUL nukes and some AoE that do lots of dmg on HM.
Those 20 armor vs elemental damage reduce ALOT the damage from that source because of W higher lvls of armor.

Sentinel>Dreadnought>Survivor>Sentry .

PS: For god sake, Knight insignia ? yeah , because W dont have good armor against phys damage and need some phys reduction /irony.

Your perception seems to be suffering from a Von Restorff effect. Because elemental AoE's have long, noticeable casts and cause dramatic changes to the life bars in the party menu, you are paying disproportionate attention to them and paying too little attention to the more numerous smaller non-elemental hits you take. The fact of the matter is that damage is generally fungible. Stopping 3 damage off 10 small hits is worth more than stopping 25 damage off 1 large hit. (There is an exception for damage that puts you in such immediate danger of dying that it forces your monk to do something inefficient to save you. Such damage is not fungible. However, that should never be happening to a warrior via armor-sensitive damage anyway.) Sentry's and Knights may not be as "sexy" as Sentinel's since their effects aren't as dramatic and noticeable; they are nonetheless mathematically superior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bulldozer

Not sure I entirely agree with you Marty. When selecting your runes/insignias there are many different options available to you. Some may prefer to go all with survivors other may prefer all extra armor, etc. But the AI does prioritize certain targets first, such as those with low health/armor, as I'm sure you know. Warriors feel elemental damage sources higher, so there is incentive to try and reduce it. However, if a players health is much lower than the other party members, the AI will lock in on you. Having higher armor isn't always going to save you in cases like that. In other words, an optimum strategy is often not to choose all extra armor or all extra health, but a balance of the two. The extra armor on the most frequently hit places optimizes the armor increase while extra health can come from runes rather insignia.

The AI more-or-less assigns the "right" weights to health and armor when deciding whom to attack. You cannot game the AI by tacking on extra HP instead of extra armor or vice versa. Assuming you are not facing heavy armor-ignoring damage, you should do whatever most increases the before-armor raw damage required to take you from full health to dead.

Also, as far as I know, the spells-always-hit-the-chestpiece "bug" has been long since corrected. The variable health bonuses you get from Survivors should now be in the same proportions as the odds of that body part being hit. Therefore there is no advantage to mixing insignias in the way you describe.

Also, using high health(/armor) to avoid aggro isn't really a worthwhile thing to do in the first place. As has been said before, it's not like the monsters are going to look at your party, see everyone over 600 hp, and say "f*ck it, let's go home." Someone's going to get attacked. Playing the I-have-high-hp(/armor)-so-I-don't-get-aggro game is just playing "beggar thy neighbor" against your own teammates. While it may be worthwhile for the entire team to have certain key members (ie the monks) avoid aggro, having everyone building to shake aggro onto someone else is pointless. The point of higher health/armor is so that you can take hits and survive, not so that you can avoid taking hits at your teammates' expense.

**Marty Silverblade** · Sep 13, 2009, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bulldozer

Not sure I entirely agree with you Marty. When selecting your runes/insignias there are many different options available to you. Some may prefer to go all with survivors other may prefer all extra armor, etc. But the AI does prioritize certain targets first, such as those with low health/armor, as I'm sure you know. Warriors feel elemental damage sources higher, so there is incentive to try and reduce it. However, if a players health is much lower than the other party members, the AI will lock in on you. Having higher armor isn't always going to save you in cases like that. In other words, an optimum strategy is often not to choose all extra armor or all extra health, but a balance of the two. The extra armor on the most frequently hit places optimizes the armor increase while extra health can come from runes rather insignia.

You missed what I meant.

You said to put armor on the chest + legs because it gets more often than the rest, where you should put health.

This reasoning is wrong.

Look at it this way: You get hit 3x as much in the chest as you do on the head/hands/feet, so you get 3x as much out of the +armor. This is also why you get 3x as much health for survivor on the chest piece as you do in the other areas. So Sentinel on chest and legs would be equivalent to 5/8 chance to have a +armor peice hit, and you'd get +15 health from survivor on 3 pieces. If you put Sentinel on the head, hands, feet, and legs, you'd still have a 5/8 chance to get hit in a +armor place, and get +15 health from Survivor on the chest. Thus, your argument of '+armor on chest and legs and +health everywhere else' is wrong. The ratio of hit chance:health is balanced.

If Survivor gave a set amount of +health regardless of where it was, your reasoning would be correct.

Winterclaw · Sep 13, 2009, 04:10 AM // 04:10

Running the numbers you would get 25 health vs +20 al against elemental. That +20 al is 12.5% damage reduction. In order to break even you'd need to take 200 damage to the chest and legs areas before sent's kicks in. 5/8th is about a 62% chance so you'd need to take ~320 non armor piercing non armor ignoring elemental damage for your break even point.

Of course you'd also have things like shields, shouts, monks, imbagons, etc to help reduce the damage before you take it so statically speaking you are probably better off with health. The only reason you should consider sents or dreads is if you think you are going to be taking an awful lot of elemental damage in a short time.

But then again this is PvE so if you are getting killed a lot you'd probably best be looking at other ways to not die. For the op, I really wouldn't worry about insignias until you start getting into HM/elite areas/PvP. Get survivors if you must get anything.