Curse

EFGJack · May 06, 2011, 07:46 PM // 19:46

I did minor alterations and completed Duncan HM with this setup. Namely Swap on the warrior and Kaolai instead of rift to cope with Duncan's Defenses. It went smooth but I reckon the common advanced user will have a harder time. I also reckon soil & eoe can be fit on the mesmers instead of sigs of rejuvenation for Slaver's.

Emoface · May 06, 2011, 10:06 PM // 22:06

As one of the Belgian guildmates described by EFGJack in the OT, I decided to post my 2cents on the build and everything around it.
Disclaimer: I have little experience in playing a warrior in PvE so I won’t be talking about the warrior build that is being used, but from what I’m being told it’s pretty much the best a warrior has to offer in the current state of the game.

I have played on several occasions with Jack, and I can’t recall any moment where we actually failed to do what we came to do. Every time the only thing I had to was cast EBSoH and EBSoW and if I was lucky I could throw a LOrb at the remainder of the enemies. (excluding Bosses or other forms of “elite” enemies)
He has made it very clear that this build is only at its prime when played by people who actually know what they’re supposed to do and are actually capable of the little micro this build needs. I had the utopian vision of current players that they were all using the hero flags to its full use but upon reading various posts in this thread I had to rethink my viewpoint on this matter.

This build is very capable of destroying, and I mean literally wrecking everything that comes in its way when played right. (Completing 9 HM missions in Elona in about 100 minutes says hi! Said missions were: Docks, Fennur’s Horde, Gate of Desolation, Gate of Madness, Gate of Pain, Abbadon’s Gate, Ruins of Morah, Grand Court and Dzagonur… Kudos to Kossy for boosting me through these ;])

The argument of it not bringing enough healing is actually rather pointless when a mob is dead before they can kill you or any of your heroes. Of course something can go wrong and then it’s possible that someone on your team dies but Death Pact Signet resurrects rather fast so they’re up again in no time.

The point I think EFGJack is trying to make with this topic is that there are 7H teams out there that can be as fast or even better than the cookie cutter builds known by the majority of the players. The objective of this thread can be seen as providing an alternative to what is out there and not trying convert of all the non believers into using this and nothing else.

mage767 · May 07, 2011, 04:12 AM // 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wenspire

If not on Duncan himself, maybe do testing on the pre-bosses if you have not completed those yet. duncan himself is more of a special situation that, usually, will require most team builds to utilize at least Swap and in some cases the Sig of Sorrow trick. Getting to him is a good test though.

Duncan HM is easy with a balanced team focused around melee-primary (Sin/War/Derv), because body-blocking is the best trick for aggro-control. Use FS, swap the Duncan spirits and kill him with nec hero (signet) or just plain damage.

LexTalionis · May 07, 2011, 05:35 AM // 05:35

@Emoface

But was there ever any doubt that "cookie-cutter" builds aren't necessarily at peak efficiency for anything? Discord doesn't kill particularly quickly, it's just an incredibly defensive build with a spammable single target attack spell. Spirits take awhile to set up on heroes and have no AoE to speak of. I have no doubts that EFGJack posted a build that has impressive non-scattering AoE damage and therefore, if you can AoE, it will give formidable results.

The issue here is that using speed as the only qualification for how good a build is can be a flawed concept as there are other benchmarks people use to define a term as arbitrary and subjective as the horrible word "good" (good at what?). You could just say "It's a build that's kinda easy to play which is built for killing clumped things extremely quickly!" and maybe people wouldn't get so irate over the use of that nasty word.

Wenspire · May 07, 2011, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by mage767

Duncan HM is easy with a balanced team focused around melee-primary (Sin/War/Derv), because body-blocking is the best trick for aggro-control. Use FS, swap the Duncan spirits and kill him with nec hero (signet) or just plain damage.

I agree Duncan HM is easy if played with tactics. Just going in and rushing it probably won't work too well.

Daesu · May 07, 2011, 06:39 AM // 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirl E Vic

Clearly the most appropriate test would be to see if the build can kill in:

Talus Chute
Verdant Cascades
and possibly
The Falls

I would say to try this in HM Dalada Uplands just outside Doomlore Shrine. Try it against the insects, Horai Wingshielder, and his mob. The degen would make this more interesting.

It is possible for this build to work well, but not if you have exposed your backline. Against certain mobs it can kill very fast.

LexTalionis · May 07, 2011, 06:51 AM // 06:51

I don't think he ever said his build was a solution to everything in the game. Part of being good at Guild Wars requires the ability to metagame effectively against what your party might encounter. I'm sure his build has the flexibility to overcome small hassles.

Your case is that his build is bad at playing in defensive situations, which might be a valid point, so why not test it out against general defensive situations instead of specific silver bullets to his build? Like hmm, Glint's Challenge, Amatz Basin, Dragon's Throat, and Zos Shivros.

paK0 · May 07, 2011, 11:43 AM // 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

The issue here is that using speed as the only qualification for how good a build is can be a flawed concept as there are other benchmarks people use to define a term as arbitrary and subjective as the horrible word "good" (good at what?). You could just say "It's a build that's kinda easy to play which is built for killing clumped things extremely quickly!" and maybe people wouldn't get so irate over the use of that nasty word.

Well, the only thing to measure "good" is in fact results, and the results in GW can pretty much only be measured with speed.

If you would try to explain to your boss that you are better then the other employees because you only use half the effort and are still 80% as fast you would prolly have a hard time keeping your job =).

Granted, GW is a game and in the end everyone should only run the stuff they want, but "being too lazy to play properly" can hardly be counted as an argument against a build.

Wenspire · May 07, 2011, 12:12 PM // 12:12

I'd like to think it's better to compare it as....

[100% speed with 75% reliability] vs. [75% speed and 100% reliablility]

The question is "which would a person rather choose?".

LexTalionis · May 07, 2011, 12:33 PM // 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by paK0

Well, the only thing to measure "good" is in fact results, and the results in GW can pretty much only be measured with speed.

If you would try to explain to your boss that you are better then the other employees because you only use half the effort and are still 80% as fast you would prolly have a hard time keeping your job =).

Granted, GW is a game and in the end everyone should only run the stuff they want, but "being too lazy to play properly" can hardly be counted as an argument against a build.

That's a terrible allegory! Effort is even less measurable than "goodness". The problem is you're trying to quantify an unmeasurable with a measurable that's related to, but neither equivalent to, nor representative of it.

To use an example, if the room is very cold, it supports the theory that your air conditioning system is powerful, but you can't link the two with equivalence, because it could easily be the middle of winter and you might have the windows open. Or you could be living in Alaska.

Trying to defend unmeasurables is like defending your choice in ice cream flavour - if you want to do such a thing, the usual method is to use statistics (which are evil, but that's a case for another time). You can't say "Vanilla is tastier than Chocolate!", but you can say "60% more people find the taste of Vanilla ice cream to be more pleasurable than Chocolate ice cream".

All you prove when you use speed (slightly measurable but this is ALSO a factor of player skill, latency and luck) as the only benchmark for goodness is that a build is fast. Which is not the same as "good". This is part of why "good" is a filthy word! The modern definition of "good" is self-defining. If I like it - it is good, and something is good because I like it. It's extremely meretricious.

mugen · May 07, 2011, 12:38 PM // 12:38

good damage but for example i hardly survive doa with this build
heroes keeps dying - rt run out of mana etc.

HigherMinion · May 07, 2011, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

That's a terrible allegory! Effort is even less measurable than "goodness". The problem is you're trying to quantify an unmeasurable with a measurable that's related to, but neither equivalent to, nor representative of it.

To use an example, if the room is very cold, it supports the theory that your air conditioning system is powerful, but you can't link the two with equivalence, because it could easily be the middle of winter and you might have the windows open. Or you could be living in Alaska.

Trying to defend unmeasurables is like defending your choice in ice cream flavour - if you want to do such a thing, the usual method is to use statistics (which are evil, but that's a case for another time). You can't say "Vanilla is tastier than Chocolate!", but you can say "60% more people find the taste of Vanilla ice cream to be more pleasurable than Chocolate ice cream".

All you prove when you use speed (slightly measurable but this is ALSO a factor of player skill, latency and luck) as the only benchmark for goodness is that a build is fast. Which is not the same as "good". This is part of why "good" is a filthy word! The modern definition of "good" is self-defining. If I like it - it is good, and something is good because I like it. It's extremely meretricious.

I'm sure you meant "Analogy"? Well, what pak0 says seems to make sense, and I don't understand why "effort" is harder to compare than "good". Good is subjective and effort is how much, well, effort you have to put into the utilisation of the build for it to function, i.e. flagging, micro managing skills, etc.

You could just say effort isn't good, but if it yields better results, you can't ignore it's potential.

EFGJack · May 07, 2011, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugen

good damage but for example i hardly survive doa with this build
heroes keeps dying - rt run out of mana etc.

It's not a build for DoA, though. As I've pointed out in the original post. PVX has a ton of builds for DoA, check 'em.

LexTalionis · May 07, 2011, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by HigherMinion

I'm sure you meant "Analogy"? Well, what pak0 says seems to make sense, and I don't understand why "effort" is harder to compare than "good". Good is subjective and effort is how much, well, effort you have to put into the utilisation of the build for it to function, i.e. flagging, micro managing skills, etc.

You could just say effort isn't good, but if it yields better results, you can't ignore it's potential.

Nah, I meant allegory in the illustrative sense of using speed builds (or something widely accepted such as Discordway) to personify the concept of "goodness" as relates to Guild wars builds (to establish the concept of a subjective value like 'goodness', you require an appropriate allegory). But the boss thing would be a terrible analogy.

I've already explained that effort is an ever poorer concept than "goodness" because it simply isn't measurable. How would you go around measuring effort objectively? Use blood pressure and heartbeat readings?

edit: After thinking further about your post, I think you do have a point - I believe Starcraft 2 measures an "actions per minute" metric, which could be taken as a literal and objective measurement of physical effort required to play a build. Therefore, I retract my statement about effort being more difficult to measure than goodness.

paK0 · May 07, 2011, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

All you prove when you use speed (slightly measurable but this is ALSO a factor of player skill, latency and luck) as the only benchmark for goodness is that a build is fast. Which is not the same as "good". This is part of why "good" is a filthy word! The modern definition of "good" is self-defining. If I like it - it is good, and something is good because I like it. It's extremely meretricious.

One company males 5000$ a month. Another company in the same place, with the same number of employees, whichs products cost the same to produce, makes 10000$ a month.

Which one is better? You could argue company A is better, since the "5" looks more pretty than the "10" but aside from that, if you only compare the two it is pretty easy to say which is the good one and which is the bad one.

I thing good is more an expression of efficiency then fun, so you can in fact define it if you only look at the measurable values leading to the outcome.

LexTalionis · May 07, 2011, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by paK0

One company males 5000$ a month. Another company in the same place, with the same number of employees, whichs products cost the same to produce, makes 10000$ a month.

Which one is better? You could argue company A is better, since the "5" looks more pretty than the "10" but aside from that, if you only compare the two it is pretty easy to say which is the good one and which is the bad one.

I thing good is more an expression of efficiency then fun, so you can in fact define it if you only look at the measurable values leading to the outcome.

Your perspective is too narrow. If the two companies are using identical procedures, identical marketing and identical everything, why aren't they making identical profits? I can't accept your modus ponens because we can't agree on logical terms, therefore we cannot debate this until we establish a set of common standards.

Let me use rhetoric to illustrate my point: Is the only varying factor the profit? If this is true, why are the profits different? Does Company #1 use unethical procedures to make a larger profit than Company #2? Does this make them better since they're to be judged completely by profit? Does company #2 only make a smaller profit because it's a non-profit or civic organisation? Did company #2's profits get slashed because their production facilities got hit by a tsunami? If so, does this make company #2 worse?

maxxfury · May 07, 2011, 04:00 PM // 16:00

I think the company that made the profit was probably cos they were not sat on their asses drinking coffee cruising thru chatting away, and were actively making more effort and stepping out of the mainstream taking a chance...and been rewarded for this

Making a little more effort for better results doesnt mean they are working sub optimally does it? cos the outcome is more "profit" for a little more work..

Or to apply it to the thread more directly:
the company that only made 5k is the bdsm users who sit drinking coffee cruising thru with no micro or real effort saying 'making the effort is sub optimal', and the company that made the 10k is EFGjack/player who runs a tailored more focused build running micro and agro control and putting some effort in, gettin the area's cleared faster..

Agro control and flaggin IS only a little work aswell. does it take much work to click the flag button (or macro'd key hopefully) and plant them as you run forward, then kill, and potentially unflag if needed? .. If your agro control is bad then stick to making 5k or work on it!

Tho if your not interested in doin the most stuff in the time available or if you want to just chat with mates while stuff is happening around you?.. GG! run the less "work intensive" stuff! i often do

but when i really want to bring it, i micro, agro and generally play with some effort!

*note: not an EFGjack fanboy, never spoken to the guy in game or in forum.. His build is interchangeable with any GOOD zone/mission/area tailored build that you could dev and run.. that will be faster with more effort used..

paK0 · May 07, 2011, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Maybe company 2's employees are better, or their machines are working faster. Then its something they could change, but are unwilling/unable to do, which makes them worse indeed.

And now lets put that in Guild Wars terminology:
The machines are the build, the employees are the player and the product is the time/run the whole thing produces.Yes, luck will affect it, but only a little bit, on average the main thing that sets the outcome is the combination of the player skill and the build used. Other factors might change this a little but overall not so much that it should in fact matter (I'm not one to say a build is strictly worse because is was 5 seconds slower than another one).

If you have some suggetions for standards to define a good build be my guest to share them, but for now speed is the one that determines it for me.

Also keep in mind that we discuss only the build here, so you have to assume the ones that use it are actually capable of using it. If one is too lazy to use micro, that that changes the build for that one individual, but it is something that should not be taken into account when looking for the build that can pull of the best results.

Haggis of Doom · May 07, 2011, 04:29 PM // 16:29

^You are forgetting the fact that company 2's machinery is fragile (on top of requiring a master degree in astrophysics to run, so I doubt you're paying equal wages ^^). One slip on the part of the worker, and the whole thing explodes. Company 1's machinery can function at around 80% speed of company 2's, except with no requirement on the workers and with no risk of agonizing death either.

If you were looking to invest in one of these companies, which one would you choose?

(BTW, before someone points it out, this comparison is different from the "other builds" vs BDSM one, since the "other builds" are just as safe as BDSM)

maxxfury · May 07, 2011, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Reminds me of the old ak47 vs ar15 "argument" !

rugged, reliable and you can cake it in mud! vs better accuracy, better terminal ballistics and the need to clean it more!... NEVER be a winner, people will always have their preference and will always be debated!