Curse

Lishy · May 11, 2009, 01:35 AM // 01:35

I don't get it... Isn't having a permanent +12 armor penetration something supposed to be very good?
Can someone please educate me on why strength is looked down upon? From what I can see, personally, is that it has a bunch of very good skills like Warrior's Endurance and its effect isn't too bad.

Arkantos · May 11, 2009, 01:40 AM // 01:40

Who looks down upon it?

The inherit effect isn't the greatest in the game (not the worst, though), but it has some very good skills ([bulls strike][warriors endurance][flail][body blow][enraging charge] etc).

Seriously, if someone says strength is bad, they don't know much about warriors. A warrior without strength is a fail warrior.

Lishy · May 11, 2009, 01:44 AM // 01:44

In that case, why do people say its effect is bad?
How does the armor penetration work anyways?

I mean, it's safe to conclude skills like Warrior's Endurance, Flail, Enraging Charge, Body Blow, etc... are simply just amazing skills. But albeit, I still hear people talking negatively of Strength. So is there a key factor I'm missing?

samerkablamer · May 11, 2009, 01:55 AM // 01:55

people dont talk down on strength. i dunno where people come up with this. every singel viable warrior build has strength in it. the actual inherent effect isnt too good, but on a warrior you dont really need the inherent effect of strength as much as you need the skills from that attribute line

Arkantos · May 11, 2009, 01:56 AM // 01:56

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Armor_penetration

Quote:

For example, an Air Magic spell that grants 25% armor penetration would deal more damage to a target than a similar spell with the same numerical damage, but no penetration. If the targeted foe has 100 armor, when the spell strikes, it will treat the target as having 75 armor instead. This would cause approximately ~54% more damage to the target than otherwise.

With 14 axe mastery...

13 strength, 60AL target, critical hit = 67 damage
0 strength, 60AL target, critical hit = 59 damage

In other words, against a 60AL target, with 13 strength, it's like your target has about 52 armor. The more armor your target has, the bigger difference AP makes. It's not a huge difference, but it's a difference none the less.

Just because a few people say strength is bad doesn't make it bad. If anything, it makes the player look like pretty bad.

Skyy High · May 11, 2009, 01:58 AM // 01:58

^ That. Strength doesn't have much of an inherent effect, a few damage points really. When you look at it that way, it's one of the weaker primary attributes. On the other hand, it has some of the strongest skills among primary attributes. If you heard someone "looking down on" strength, either he was talking about the effect alone, or he's an idiot.

ajc2123 · May 11, 2009, 02:15 AM // 02:15

plus the armor penetration are only applied to attack skills (ones that dont already have armor penetration)

Sometimes a couple extra points is all you need honestly. I cant remember how many times i walked away with 1-10 health in RA and won. Funny stuff

Arkantos · May 11, 2009, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajc2123

plus the armor penetration are only applied to attack skills (ones that dont already have armor penetration)

Sometimes a couple extra points is all you need honestly. I cant remember how many times i walked away with 1-10 health in RA and won. Funny stuff

This. I really can't stress this enough.

Just looking at it, it doesn't seem like much, no. But really, 13% AP can be the difference between a win or a lose in annihilation, and it can be the difference between killing the enemy monk which can lead to a party wipe or not killing the enemy monk. When you factor in that stuff, it's far from bad.

Even in PvE, the extra AP against an enemy isn't much, but at the end of the zone, you'll have pumped out quite a bit more damage.

Axel Zinfandel · May 11, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajc2123

plus the armor penetration are only applied to attack skills (ones that dont already have armor penetration)

Sometimes a couple extra points is all you need honestly. I cant remember how many times i walked away with 1-10 health in RA and won. Funny stuff

I'd have to stress that point as well. I went through playing GW for a long time before I realized that the AP from Strength did not apply to auto-attacking, and only applied to attack skills.

Skyy High · May 11, 2009, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

This. I really can't stress this enough.

Just looking at it, it doesn't seem like much, no. But really, 13% AP can be the difference between a win or a lose in annihilation, and it can be the difference between killing the enemy monk which can lead to a party wipe or not killing the enemy monk. When you factor in that stuff, it's far from bad.

Even in PvE, the extra AP against an enemy isn't much, but at the end of the zone, you'll have pumped out quite a bit more damage.

I'm not saying it doesn't help, just that it's not as game-changing (or profession-defining) as Expertise, SR, Crit strikes, FC, ES, or Leadership.

Arkantos · May 11, 2009, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

I'm not saying it doesn't help, just that it's not as game-changing (or profession-defining) as Expertise, SR, Crit strikes, FC, ES, or Leadership.

Oh I know, it wasn't directed at you. I was just showing how even though it doesn't seem like much, it can make a big difference.

Winterclaw · May 11, 2009, 04:56 AM // 04:56

As Ark said effects of the strength attribute are moderate, but I think that its skills more than make up for any shortcomings. TBH, that's kind of good if you ask me as it isn't overpowered like some primaries and it isn't underpowered like others. Thinking about it like that, it's one of the more balanced primaries in the game.

Anyways compared to tactics, strength is good enough as it is.

faraaz · May 11, 2009, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Strength is fine by itself. Its only bad when comparing with better (arguably) alternatives for particular builds, the most famous of which is [warrior's endurance][aura of holy might] vs. [critical agility][aura of holy might][wounding strike]. In this particular case, because you get the full scythe damage on auto crit almost all the time, the Sin build is superior in terms of DPS, hence Strength is "bad".

But no, its fine on its own.

Lux Aeterna · May 11, 2009, 05:37 AM // 05:37

Strength isn't one of the best primary attributes, but it definitely adds 12 damage or so to your attack skills and warrior is already a powerful class esp in pvp.

Autoattack crits for 73, [hammer bash] crits for 84...

A good sin can out-dps a warrior, however a good warrior is FAR more useful to a team. And I out-damage many sins with a build that isn't specifically built for dps.

Icy The Mage · May 11, 2009, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Strength is good because a 111-dmg bull's strike, followed by a crushing blow and any other attack will rape anyone that isn't protted or red-barred instantly when KDed.

faraaz · May 11, 2009, 07:11 AM // 07:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyFiftyFive

Strength is good because a 111-dmg bull's strike, followed by a crushing blow and any other attack will rape anyone that isn't protted or red-barred instantly when KDed.

Necessary disclaimer: The above applies to pvp only.

**Marty Silverblade** · May 11, 2009, 07:20 AM // 07:20

Also, perhaps bad players don't think much of the inherent ability because it's not something that very noticable. If you're just randomly rolling through PvE you really wouldn't be able to tell how much Strength is actually helping, whereas in PvP it's easier to find a difference.

Improvavel · May 12, 2009, 12:02 AM // 00:02

Players think that strength is bad because they think warriors are meant to not die. So they want a character than don't die, not one that does damage...

Go figure.

DreamRunner · May 12, 2009, 12:15 AM // 00:15

The effect of strength isn't that good. Compare to the effects of other primary attributes, strength can be seen to not having much difference at all, therefore quite bad. The only thing that makes it really good is the large variety of skills and good skills which some other classes don't even get(see Ritualist)

Trader of Secrets · May 12, 2009, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Strength way better than tatics, ever since they nerfed all those stances. Not too much in there. All the builds I play with warrior dont req strength.