Curse

ginetti · May 19, 2005, 05:22 AM // 05:22

I'm wondering on why most people choose W/N over N/W, is it lack of research?

Sure, i'll admit early in the game, it's easier with more armor. And the spells you cast, well, 20 energy is more than enough.

But at end game, i've looked at warrior and necro sets, the difference in armor is perhaps, 10, 15 or 20 points per piece.

But the major difference is the Energy and Energy Regen rating.

The necro profession gets more powerful spells as the game progresses.

And he'll be able to utilize his much larger energy pool AND his +4 energy regen (vs. warriors +2) to cast more spells during combat.

Thus he heals more, deals dmage more and can swing a weapon just as well as the next warrior, baring any warrior runes in place, warrior specific attribute or skill enhancing armor.

So, have a good look at later down the line, as opposed to now.

Early on, W/N is more lets say, suited, or "hardcore" even to the game surroundings.

Later on, when you start collecting the later game skills, armor and elite abilities, the N/W will prove more deadly (imo).

Feel free to discuss or counter, but if you counter, please give a reason.

Cheers.

xakia · May 19, 2005, 05:57 AM // 05:57

You're correct. I find it quite disturbing that Necros can get that close to our armor rating.

ginetti · May 19, 2005, 06:22 AM // 06:22

i mean sure you get armor pen through str (1% per str), but in the end of the day, necro spells that deal damage do not take armor into account. And if i can cast more necro damage dealing spells than my warrior friend, while still hiting for almost the same damage, then i don't see where the viability of warrior/necro has over necro/warrior

taion · May 19, 2005, 07:40 AM // 07:40

Armour values don't scale linearly. Try wading into the thick of a melee with your necromancer some time and compare how long you survive with how long a warrior survives.

Stephen Hawking · May 19, 2005, 09:12 AM // 09:12

Also warriors get absorbtion runes on top of whatever.

kalaris · May 19, 2005, 02:52 PM // 14:52

LOL! we meet again Ginetti! -- We both seem to be on an eternal mission to make the N + W / W+ N = Combo work in some way.

I would say that both builds have their place, but we are using a class combination here that either side has 2 of the weakest primary attributes (for PvP)

Strength is ... okay... its not the end all be all of coolness, since it only seems to work on skills not basic attacks.

Soul Reaping... terrible for PvP not enough people die, not enough corpses around for death magic either =P

The Warrior has a few advantages... 1, Strength, while it is not an awesome attribute, it does have a use (barely) and it also is part of the reqs for some shelds, and there are several decent skills tied to it... also Absorbtion runes, and 20 more armor don't hurt.

The Necro has to use tactics to use a shield, tactics is generally a defensive trait, so you're not getting the extra offence strength would give, but to get a compirable defense, you need to put points into tactics.

The Necro does however have alot more mana and double the mana regeneration, which allows him to toss out more stuff.

I think they both have their place, N/W and W/N one being more support, and one being more cruel tank.

I definetly think that for PvE {With Henchmen}the N/W trumps the W/N though.

Epinephrine · May 19, 2005, 03:42 PM // 15:42

A difference of 20 AL at ANY level of armour is 29% less damage for the higher set. In addition, Warriors can use a Superior Rune of Absorption or whatever it's called, to knock a linear 3 damage off every attack on them, the equivalent of another 5 AL or so.

The best of the necro armours you are looking at are the 70 AL endgame armours, right? First, they are weak vs holy damage, and there are a lot of folks running Judge's insight.
Compare to either the 80+20 or 85+10 armour types for a warrior. We won't bother with shields as they can both use them. I am not sure when absorption takes effect, if it is before or after the armour calculation, so I'll label them both as BC and AC for before calculation and after calculation.

So lets say the different armours are hit for a 20 damage swing, a 40 damage swing and a 60 damage swing, physical damage.

Necro is 70 AL, so 2^((60-70)/40)=.8409, so 17, 34 and 50 damage for the three hits
Warrior at 80+20 = 100 AL = 2^((60-100)/40=.5, so BC is 9, 19 and 29, AC is 7, 17 and 27 damage.
Warrior at 85+10 = 95 AL = 2((60-95)/40)=.5453, so BC is 9, 20 and 31, AC is 8, 19 and 30 damage.

It isn't quite as flattering vs non-physical, but it is still present. a 15 AL difference means that the warrior takes 23% less damage overall, not counting absorption.

ginetti · May 20, 2005, 12:50 AM // 00:50

There are many situations in where damage taken is not based on armor at all.

Life leaching abilities or bleeding, poison.
Certain skills such as vampiric embrace, vampiric gaze and more.

So while that percentage you have calculated may exist, it is not always in effect, the ability for amror to absorb damage is dependant on what sort of damage you're actualy taking.

Yes, there's no denying a W/N makes a better tank, but i wonder who's the deadliest in combat.

Sure a W/N can soak more overall, but a necro can dish it out more, and in dishing it out, often means (through the necro line of abilities) also involves replenishing their own health!

W/N's can take more, but can't deal as much necrotic type damage (less of an energy pool and regen to make use of)

N/W's can dish it out through melee just as hard, baring attacks which get a bonus through str.

One can kill faster, the other can take damage more.
Again, what if a N/W can through that vital "Vampric Touch, or Well of blood" though having enough energy reserves, vs. a warrior being drained of energy much sooner.

How it balances out, i'm still at a quandrary.

I do believe however, it is closer than most people are led to believe.

What do you all think?

Epinephrine · May 20, 2005, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginetti

There are many situations in where damage taken is not based on armor at all.

....

I do believe however, it is closer than most people are led to believe.

What do you all think?

I think that the title of the thread was about armour and the lack of a difference, and you are turning it into whether N/W is more effective than W/N, which is a completely different question.

ginetti · May 20, 2005, 01:15 AM // 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I think that the title of the thread was about armour and the lack of a difference, and you are turning it into whether N/W is more effective than W/N, which is a completely different question.

True enough and point well taken.

I do however feel that aside from the OP and its title heading, the information is relevent to the n/w and w/n discussion which i feel this is all connected to.

Zeru · May 20, 2005, 04:13 AM // 04:13

Well it really depends on pve vs pvp.

Pve a n/w tank could do pretty well, better than w/n, as the energy difference is very noticeable and generally worth it especially with SR being actually useful.

iirc best necro armor is 70+10 physical with holy weakness (very glaring vs pvp war monk). Best warrior is what, 80+20? A 20 armor difference is pretty significant though.

n/w in organized pvp really is not that good of a deal. a smiting war monk deals far more damage and being able to tank is not that great considering warriors are not targeted anyway in most cases and if you are targeted its the monks job to keep you alive.

necro in pvp seems to be more limited to a secondary with a few select curses like enfeebling blood and shadow of fear and rend enchantments.