Curse

LightningHell · Dec 07, 2007, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

-snip-

Methinks the issue lies in the time gap in between.

Assuming that generally the average of player skill moves up as a game ages, esp. a one with a well-established PvP base like GW (and it certainly has been true for GW), then it is reasonable to assume that the average player skill in using melee has risen.

People now are more able to use melee, more likely to exploit melee's strengths, etc. Not to mention, the lessening of mes effects by the introduction of Nightfall helped a lot in entrenching the role of melee in the game (not that it wasn't anyway).

Now, consider that the Warrior is in general more flexible than its other consistent melee counterpart, the Dervish, in terms of being able to exploit windows of opportunities and such.

It would make sense that a skilled melee player would opt to use a Warrior over a Dervish for its increased utility.

Or maybe I'm just retarded or something.

Div · Dec 07, 2007, 06:20 PM // 18:20

This thread is so full of fail, I feel sorry for lightninghell to keep posting in it. A warrior is only useless when a bad player plays it. Otherwise, it can create massive pressure as well as raw damage output. You simply can't name another class that's the same pressure and damage machine as the warrior with that much utility.

LockerLoad · Dec 07, 2007, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aris the Accurate

which forced people to l2p better.

I fail to see how a dervish or sin can match a shock evis in terms of utlity, and if you want another example look at the recent usage of shields up chains in gvg.

and btw their is nothing wrong with cripslash, it is easliy one of the best snares a sword warrior can get and it frees up a skill slot by allowing you to remove SA.

Warriors skills havnt become much stronger but their play style has grown more powerful.

Calling people kid shows nothing other then the fact that you wish to pick a fight which is in itself a juvenile act. All this will do is force this thread to be closed..which is were I think its going anyways =/

Aris did you even read my post (#97). If so why are you comparing evisc/shock wars to sin/dervish?

BTW I agree using denigrating terms like "kid" is insulting and provocative. Lets put that comment in context then shall we? I was responding in kind to make a point, hence the emphasis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

watch gvg/ha if you want to look for yourself kid.

So get your facts straight before you sound off.

Magikarp · Dec 07, 2007, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

OK now, let's review.

The OP felt his warrior seemed weaker now than before. I agreed with his perception and supported it with logical argument.

In summary I claimed that the addition of new and buffs to existing block skills left warriors missing in melee while the Assasin and Dervish classes overlap the warrior reducing it's utility.

sigh, and again, the buffs to static and passive blocking were only made BECAUSE of the massive meta shift warriors created. even after the buff, warriors simply get it all, due to target switching/consistant pressure. you block a sin, his chain is done till recharge, kdone, you block weary with SB, or set up your static wall of defense, and a dervs AoM will run out way before their energy does. a warrior simply builds up, and waits. planned, called spikes, make little time of any class when the warrior steps up and unleashes, which may i add, is far more often, more consistant, and more reliable than any other melee class. if you havent understood this yet, you clearly have never pvped outside of RA/AB.

Quote:

Yum Magikarp and Alex totally ignore the issue in contention and tell me warriors are consistantly the most effective damage dealing class and better than Derv, as if either was ever a point of contention.

An equivalent statement would be that monks are the best healing class. True but irrelevant to the matter at hand.

ok so.... like.. just a second ago.. you actually tried to compare the warrior class, a game staple, backbone to GWs, to dervs and sins, saying they were "overlapped" by the 2 newer classes.

Quote:

left warriors missing in melee while the Assasin and Dervish classes overlap the warrior reducing it's utility.

this is almost hilarious, seeing as niether sins nor dervs offer almost any utility, outside of a few snares, and maybe EDA, if you really want to waste time with that. the best part about it all, is warriors offer THE MOST utility, and active disrupts, knockdowns, pressure, consistant dps, and spike capabilities, than any other class in the game (minus mesmer in interupts, and build dependant.). warriors are nothing BUT utility tools paired with deadly spikes/pressure.

Quote:

Please stop attributing claims to me which I never made. It's juvenile and blatantly insincere.

Don't harp on about how the nerfs are necesary to balance the metagame as that isn't the point of the discussion either.

So, What makes warriors stronger now compared to when the OP stopped playing?

Surely it's not the nerf to armor absorption, or shield absorption. Perhaps the nerf to Executioners chop?

Try to stop being Warrior fanboys for just a moment and actually think about the question in a rational manner. Then if it's not too much trouble, respond in the same way if you can.

we've all pointed out great, valid points, except for you. you deny our contribution, simply saying we dont answer your totally redundant, elementary questions, and are simply wasting our time, and moreso, now becoming a troll.

the answers are all there, you choose to live outside of reality. and btw, i know im a warrior "fanboy", got a problem with it?

yum · Dec 07, 2007, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

Aris did you even read my post (#97). If so why are you comparing evisc/shock wars to sin/dervish?

When pvpers want run warriors (or something else), they want to run the most optimal bar outhere, unlike you who like pull out some random builds from trashcans then declare that the class is "gimped."

LockerLoad · Dec 07, 2007, 11:48 PM // 23:48

1. Compare warriors now to warriors previously... Duh!

2. I haven't pulled out any builds random or contrived. Where do you come up with these inane ideas?

3. I play quite well tyvm. If the best you can do is personal attacks then I don't think your post is appropriate or usefull here.

LockerLoad · Dec 07, 2007, 11:59 PM // 23:59

In an attempt to get this discussion back on topic, heres the opening post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infernii

Hail...
First of, I am a 37 year old player, autistic, and on GW now 2 years.
I took a wee break from the game, and when I came back, the oddest thing happened: I saw my Warrior being punked as he never had been punked before...
Maybe a bad day... happens.
I did not worry.

Now, weeks have passed, and behold, I do see the damage has been turned down, the Hammer-, the Axe- and Sword master now do same damage, tho, the Hammermaster is significantly slower.
On top of this, the Warrior seems to be utterly vulnerable to spell casting.

Even taking a lvl 23 NPC on one on one, is impossible, nearly.

This was all PVE, so I went to AB, PVP, GvG... and wow....
I mean... wow....
The Warrior can't take any profession down, unless he has a GOOD healer, and the other not.
I have seen tanking spellcasters, damage dealing Rangers, you name it.

I mean: dying vs Spellcasters when having 590 health, while they keep a half lifebar?
And yes, I do get close enough to pummel them, not that that is any good really... lol

Nowadays, I noticed looking other battles, the Warrior made place for other classes, now, I do understand, there can be other classes similar to the Warrior (IE. Tanking, Damage Dealing, ..., simply: for what the Warrior was made for), but that the warrior outclassed is... that is sad.

I do hope the Warrior will get a review compared to (balanced out to) other classes, so that the Warrior will get a small chance of being equal to the rest?

Well, I am hoping...

I agree that warriors are less effective now than they used to be(armor bonus nerfs, shield nerfs, absorption nerfs, etc. ad nauseum).

If you have some actual examples of how I'm wrong I'd be interested in hearing about it. If you just want to lash out because you're inner warrior feels less manly then move along please.

Chronos the Defiler · Dec 08, 2007, 12:08 AM // 00:08

I would like to think i can play the warrior just fine, and for the most part don't have much trouble taking targets down using my hammer war.

Alot of things come into play, most people thing playing a warrior is C + Space attack attack attack. But if you want to play it proficiently then you need to get out of that habit. Prioritize targets, setup spikes, and find an opening to do the most damage.

Savio · Dec 08, 2007, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

In summary I claimed that the addition of new and buffs to existing block skills left warriors missing in melee while the Assasin and Dervish classes overlap the warrior reducing it's utility.

That new block skills or buffs to block skills reduced warrior effectiveness is a rather large assumption.

Quote:

Perhaps the nerf to Executioners chop?

Executioner's Strike was buffed (7 adren instead of 8 adren), and Eviscerate's nerf was a joke (-9 damage from a DW attack). Not sure what the hell you mean by an Executioner's Chop nerf.

Quote:

I agree that warriors are less effective now than they used to be(armor bonus nerfs, shield nerfs, absorption nerfs, etc. ad nauseum).

Armor/absorption nerfs don't reduce warrior effectiveness as warriors already have the highest inherent armor plus shields, plus warriors are for dealing damage. The absorption was a minor bonus, and good warriors didn't use armor stacking anyway.

Also, the OP never said when he left, so making any comparison of then and now is a bit hard to do.

LightningHell · Dec 08, 2007, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

1. Compare warriors now to warriors previously... Duh!

I'll cover my last post again, since it appears you didn't read it or something.

The melee has always been the damage dealers of Guild Wars - in exchange for being the absolute best (group of) profession(s) at damage dealing, they also require the most skill and are the easiest to negate.

Before Nightfall, "mes effects" (disruption, etc) were proportionally more powerful than after Nightfall - of course, the actual skills didn't get nerfed, but merely that damage and healing options became more varied and powerful - so disruption apart from a good raw offense was a must in winning games.

However, after Nightfall, such "mes effects" decreased in functionality due to the lack of need to use such disruption where brute force could win a game for you (aka "power creep"). As such, the primary raw offense now has a larger role in achieving kills and overall in the game than before Nightfall. This can also be attributed to the improvement of players in the game over time - coupled with the power creep, some of the main offense could disrupt and create enough windows of opportunities. I'll refer to my previous post in terms of improvement of players.

Since melee are generally better than their counterparts at doing damage, it is reasonable to assume that now melee have a more prominent role in the game than before, where characters based around "mes effects" played a larger role. Now, there are 3 professions in the "melee" category - the Warrior, the Assassin, and the Dervish.

The Assassin is almost automatically excluded from this debate due to the Assassin's entirely different use. So it boils down to Warrior against Dervish.

The Warrior is capable of strong raw pressure in damage as well as being a large threat in the battlefield vicinity. It is also able to provide disruption and is able to make plays (refer to Shock Axe). Conversely, the Dervish is much less of a threat in the battlefield, if only because of their armor level - and even when they are "in form" (the only mentionable form here is Avatar of Melandru) they still cannot fully provide the disruption that the Warrior provides, although having a somewhat larger presence than the Dervish not in form.

Some of the skills you provide are not valid.

For example, Warrior's Cunning - is genuinely crap. However, just like in Magic: the Gathering, crap cards don't make a crap color (i.e. Scornful Egotist being in Blue doesn't mean that Blue is a bad color). Even in Guild Wars every profession has its weak skills - for example, Mending and Orison of Healing in the Monk line, Power Shot in Ranger, Illusionary Weaponry in the Mesmer line, Flare and its equivalents in the Elementalist, Draw Spirit in Ritualist, Wastrel's Collapse in Assassin, Guiding Hands in Dervish. I could name many more, but I think one for each profession is more than enough to illustrate my point.

"Watch Yourself!" and "Shields Up!" and other armor nerfs were nerfs to other classes - in particular, the nerfs to shouts were in response to Paragons abusing such skills. Warriors generally don't use armor buffs.

The other Warrior nerfs are also inconsequential. Compared to the previous Gale Axe bar, subbing Shock for Gale, Warriors actually have it better nowadays due to the implementation and wide usage of such skills such as Agonizing Chop and previously Critical Chop.

The block meta previously had is in response to the increased power, one could say, of physical damage.

Quote:

If you have some actual examples of how I'm wrong I'd be interested in hearing about it. If you just want to lash out because you're inner warrior feels less manly then move along please.

I'm primarily Monk, just to tell you.

EDIT: By the way, I think your concept of "utility" is wrong, but I'll leave that to someday else.

The Meth · Dec 08, 2007, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Warriors are completely useless, the 1 to 3 warriors I see in the majority of top level PvP matches are being used by noob teams.

Next Up: Monks are useless because Daze, knockdown, interrupts and energy denial can all stop them, and even bringing two monks they still can't always do the job of making sure no-one dies

Crom The Pale · Dec 08, 2007, 03:15 AM // 03:15

One comment on wars in PvE.

The apperance of there weakness now over before say Factions and Nightfall were interoduced is mostly due to the change in mobs we face.

It was rare in Prophicies that you would find a mob that used blocking or blind. Basically you had the Skeletons that blinded, the Enchanted Bows in the desert and Whiptails that blocked. Other than that everything was fodder for the wars to wail upon and destroy.

Now enter Factions where you face more foes, like sins, that use blocking and monks casting reversal as well as rangers blinding.

Then we get Nightfall were large groups of rangers you face all use Whirling Defence and new skills to block or blind you are used, Well of Darkness for example. And add to this monks casting Aegis!

This is what has lead to the perception that wars are less effective, because wars have to think about counters in thier builds far more than they ever had to in Prophicies.

Enter GW:EN and you get another increase in Blind/Blocking/Hexes and it really does start to look like wars are less and less effective, simply because its no longer a simple C+Space = Adren spike.

People never used to expect much from wars before other than tanking or damage, now they need to be intelligent, counter blocks/blinds/hexes and use party buffs like Save Yourselves and Watch Yourselves. Playing a war is more challenging and more difficult than ever, but there effectiveness has never decreased. They still can deal out massive damage and absorb massive damage, making them the largest threat on any map.

As for PvP, if a team is building a melee spike party, they will use at least one war, there is no other real option. If they are building a caster spike or degen then maybe they will go with a sin or dervish.

The only class that comes even close the equalling the war in versitilty is the Paragon, for obvious reasons.

LockerLoad · Dec 08, 2007, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

One comment on wars in PvE.

The apperance of there weakness now over before say Factions and Nightfall were interoduced is mostly due to the change in mobs we face.

It was rare in Prophicies that you would find a mob that used blocking or blind. Basically you had the Skeletons that blinded, the Enchanted Bows in the desert and Whiptails that blocked. Other than that everything was fodder for the wars to wail upon and destroy.

Now enter Factions where you face more foes, like sins, that use blocking and monks casting reversal as well as rangers blinding.

Then we get Nightfall were large groups of rangers you face all use Whirling Defence and new skills to block or blind you are used, Well of Darkness for example. And add to this monks casting Aegis!

This is what has lead to the perception that wars are less effective, because wars have to think about counters in thier builds far more than they ever had to in Prophicies.

Enter GW:EN and you get another increase in Blind/Blocking/Hexes and it really does start to look like wars are less and less effective, simply because its no longer a simple C+Space = Adren spike.

People never used to expect much from wars before other than tanking or damage, now they need to be intelligent, counter blocks/blinds/hexes and use party buffs like Save Yourselves and Watch Yourselves. Playing a war is more challenging and more difficult than ever, but there effectiveness has never decreased. They still can deal out massive damage and absorb massive damage, making them the largest threat on any map.

As for PvP, if a team is building a melee spike party, they will use at least one war, there is no other real option. If they are building a caster spike or degen then maybe they will go with a sin or dervish.

The only class that comes even close the equalling the war in versitilty is the Paragon, for obvious reasons.

Thankyou for the the measured, rational post. I'd hoped there'd be discussion of such changes and there impacts. At least one warrior remains objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

jingle jingle...

aren't there mods here? :P Locker needs Locked

The inner party call for censorship is a sure sign of tyranny. Magikarp do you work for DHS?

Magikarp · Dec 08, 2007, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

Thankyou for the the measured, rational post. I'd hoped there'd be discussion of such changes and there impacts. At least one warrior remains objective.

in your attempt to sound cool again, let me bring you to the reality of what that huge quote really said......

since prophecies pve....

the game got better

in other words, instead of blowing through the mobs with a warrior in 1 second...

it now takes about 2 seconds.

your "valid disscussion" has been pointed out on, debated, and lost in your case, and this thread is over. you simply troll it trying to get it locked. stay in your own forum if you dont know how to play a warrior, which is blatently obvious.

some of the best warrior players in GWs posted in this thread, and yet you denied everyone, saying your "logic" was more advanced and correct. thats called arrogance and ingnorance. l2p gwz plx. /ignorarogance

IlikeGW · Dec 08, 2007, 07:57 PM // 19:57

LoL @ one of the holy trinity being useless... I think not. Wars are of course situationally effective or not effective. Often stacking them is less effective, since the game has more anti-melee defense than you can shake a stick at. They still have plenty of uses though. It's up to the build to not be crap for the situation that's all.

LockerLoad · Dec 09, 2007, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Hey Magikrap I'm don't have to try to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

attempt to sound cool

I guess it just comes naturally.

It seems you've changed your tune slightly although you're still out of key.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

in other words, instead of blowing through the mobs with a warrior in 1 second...

it now takes about 2 seconds.

So you agree warriors are less effective now!

Chronos the Defiler · Dec 09, 2007, 01:18 AM // 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

So you agree warriors are less effective now!

This has become tiresome, so far the majority of "debaters" have already forgotten what the original debate was...

This thread is titled: The Warrior....useless????

that is the argument, and has been proven false, end of story, thread closed.

They HAVE become less effective over time because of many skills and balances, that shouldn't even be debatable, it is a given fact.

1.) Warriors are not useless

2.) Warriors are slightly less effective in given situations

That's it, that is all the thread is about. Now let it end.

LightningHell · Dec 09, 2007, 04:46 AM // 04:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The only class that comes even close the equalling the war in versitilty is the Paragon, for obvious reasons.

The Paragon is not very "versatile", per se. Just a note.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

So you agree warriors are less effective now!

Depends on how you see it.

It may take the Warrior longer time to "blow through the mob" - however, it would also take more time for any other profession to "blow through the mob", so to speak. Proportionally, no, they haven't gotten weaker - if anything, in PvE, they have gotten stronger via the introduction of Dragon Slash in Factions, Flail and Enraging Charge in Nightfall, and stuff like Save Yourselves! in EotN.

Quote:

They HAVE become less effective over time because of many skills and balances, that shouldn't even be debatable, it is a given fact.

Wrong.

Avarre · Dec 09, 2007, 04:56 AM // 04:56

If LightningHell was trying to construct knowledge itself in this thread, he would look like this:

Time to close, gentlemen.

Savio · Dec 09, 2007, 05:19 AM // 05:19

The thread should have been pruned or closed 3 pages ago when it was apparent that nothing intelligent would come about.

*grumbles about lack of bannage*