Curse

Zuranthium · Aug 18, 2007, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

I think you need to broaden your spectrum of vision beyond GvG to fully assess sword vs. axe, although I do agree axe is better.

For HA Axe, for any other realm of the game, who cares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

50% for Evisc, 50% for agonizing = 25%

Yes, if it's 1v1. Which doesn't count because a Ranger should be able to kill, or at least not die, against ANY Warrior. But in a Warrior + Ranger vs. Warrior + Ranger kind of situation where more damage is being heaped on and he needs to heal quicker, the Warrior should be applying Deep Wound outside of Stride and the other Ranger is there to try and get MT. Or if the Warrior can get MT that's just as good as getting Troll. More commonly, though, is when a Ranger is back harassing your flagger and you actually want to kill him. A standard Axe Bar is going to be better than a Cripslash because you at least have a chance of mitigating some of the Ranger's healing. Against a Sword the Ranger just uses MT in response to Crip and laughs.

~Z

Ensign · Aug 18, 2007, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Every Warrior I know takes Executioner's over Agonizing. Agonizing is a luxury skill taken if no other utility is needed in that slot.

Farin · Aug 18, 2007, 09:25 PM // 21:25

Agonizing over Executioner's? One of the few times where you can reliably interrupt with Agonizing is when your target is standing up (and is likely to cast something). This thread is a joke., that's all I can say.

Zuranthium · Aug 18, 2007, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Every Warrior I know takes Executioner's over Agonizing. Agonizing is a luxury skill taken if no other utility is needed in that slot.

I believe people are confused because there has never before been a damaging, cost-free 1/2 attack available. I submit that Agonizing would be slightly better than Executioner's, even without the interrupt component:

#1 - If you're trying to insta-spike someone, the quick attack of Agonizing means far less reaction time to save the spike. This is usually going to be better than the extra damage of Executioner's because the spike should not need that 20 or so extra damage to bring a soft target down from max.

#2 - Because the quick attack of Agonizing means you get to your next attack faster, it's slightly better as pressure (a whole extra attack is generally going to do more damage than the bonus damage difference between Executioner's and Agonizing) and at least as good, on average, for a normal spike (because it's more damage, rather than less, in comparison to Executioner's if you go just a couple tenths of a second beyond the time that it takes to perform Evis + Exec, which is often still enough time to get the kill before proper reaction can take place).

Further examination may prove wrong, but, I believe anyone who says Executioner's is better than (I would perhaps accept "equal to") Agonizing on overall damage alone is simply saying so because the +20 or so extra damage makes them feel more powerful in the heat of battle and so it seems better.

BEYOND this one I skill, there are good reasons to discuss the subject of Sword vs. Axe anyway. Is it right that Axes are 5x more played than Sword? Does it matter? Do we NEED variety for the game to remain playable for years to come. I would say yes, but then it seems as if people really don't care about the future anyway.

~Z

Son Of The Axe · Aug 18, 2007, 09:44 PM // 21:44

stop while you are only 6 feet under?

lacasner · Aug 18, 2007, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

Does it matter? Do we NEED variety for the game to remain playable for years to come. I would say yes, but then it seems as if people really don't care about the future anyway.

This is actually the best thing you've posted so far. I think you're taking this "game" a bit too seriously imo.

Zuranthium · Aug 18, 2007, 10:07 PM // 22:07

I just like to discuss.

~Z

Dzan · Aug 18, 2007, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

Because the quick attack of Agonizing means you get to your next attack faster, it's slightly better as pressure (a whole extra attack is generally going to do more damage than the bonus damage difference between Executioner's and Agonizing) and at least as good, on average, for a normal spike (because it's more damage, rather than less, in comparison to Executioner's if you go just a couple tenths of a second beyond the time that it takes to perform Evis + Exec, which is often still enough time to get the kill before proper reaction can take place).

The 1/2 second difference in swing time between Executioners and Agonizing is largely irrelevant, especially in a pure pressure build. A pressure build wins when the enemy monks run out of energy and can't out heal your team's damage output, not when they fail to catch an adrenal spike due to an extra 1/2 second faster adrenal spike.

Ensign · Aug 18, 2007, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

I believe people are confused because there has never before been a damaging, cost-free 1/2 attack available.

I believe people know exactly what they are doing and value the extra 20 damage over the slightly faster swing time.

Riotgear · Aug 19, 2007, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Axe has almost always been synonymous with "Eviscerate" because unconditional "hit you really hard and DW you" is practically unbeatable. Hammer is about half as good without Devastating Hammer or Earth Shaker. Swords have been able to deliver a pretty strong spike with Sever-Gash-(Final/S&M), making it good for running utility elites.

Cripslash is the first thing that's really been in the same tier as the three aforementioned elites, offering something that's actually unique.

What sword needs are some better utility skills, which Disarm may finally provide, and Savage Slash's buff may encourage, too many sword skills are weak +damage skills with useless conditionality attached.

Oh yeah, and buff Hundred Blades plz.

Neo-LD · Aug 19, 2007, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Tell that to the people I watched die because their skills were interrupted. And one such match was the #3 ranked guild vs. the #15 ranked guild, so there's really no argument of "oh boo you, only sucky players can let it happen, blah blah blah".

There is one and only one time to use use Agonizing - right after Evi/Exe. therefore it is almost impossible to use it as a reactive interrupt - so any skill it interrupts will happen purely by coincidence. As just about everyone is saying, Agonizing's value is the fast swing.

Quote:

Have fun convincing everyone of that. 0 of the 15 Axe builds I observed used Dchop.

Agonizing is new, so people try it out. Its also very much easier to use, so it appeals to poor players. And then you have the massive tipping point effect where everyone copies eachother from observer, thinking that since everyone else is using it, it must be good/better. The fact is that if I can DChop LoD even once during a match, it served me better than Agonizing ever could.

Appeal to reason. Not to authority.

Quote:

Exactly what I've already said. Do you have problems reading?

I dont think so. As far as I can tell, you've been ranting about Agonizing Chop this entire time, and havent said anything about required attack skill slots. Regardless, if you agree with me, then great, you agree that the problem is partly to do with sword's 3 required attack skills, and has nothing to do with Agonizing Chop.

Also, I notice that you deliberately ignored the section of my post where I pointed out the biggest part of Sword's problems (its strengths being nullified by other common skills). I take this to mean that you agree with it, or else are at a loss for an argument against it. In either case, I dont see how you can continue to defend your lost position that Agonizing Chop has pushed Sword warriors out of the metagame.

Shmanka · Aug 19, 2007, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Cripling Slash fuels Mending Touch on split, and doesn't do a good enough job on stand. Which is why I'm not the biggest fan of it atm.

I have played warrior extensively and it just seems that the sword is more of an RA weapon, or a bad bow in GvG. I understand alot of uses where a sword can really shine, but with so many options in the game atm sword is a rusty mug. I was truly hoping for more skills in GWEN to fix this, didn't exactly get it.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son Of The Axe

stop while you are only 6 feet under?

Give it another 10 feet, something will happen by then.

Yue · Aug 19, 2007, 04:51 AM // 04:51

I believe Zuranthium doesn't play warrior.

Ensign · Aug 19, 2007, 06:02 AM // 06:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

the biggest part of Sword's problems (its strengths being nullified by other common skills).

That's basically all there is to it. The current metagame contains a lot of shutdown and defense, and a higher premium is put upon strong spikes during the opportunities that you do have. Axe is a much better weapon than sword given the circumstances. If the metagame shifts and block or miss chance becomes less prevalent, sword will become a more attractive option again.

Signet Of Hell · Aug 19, 2007, 06:28 AM // 06:28

Have you been killing monks in RA or GvG? Any decent monk could avoid your awesome agonizing spikezorz by, um.. what do they call it? Ohyeah, being a prot monk? Big woop, you interrupted a skill costing 5 energy, the opposition might as well just resign while they're still ahead? Ehm no. You're saying Evis/Agon is better then Evis/Exe? Where do you play warrior, AB?

Zuranthium · Aug 19, 2007, 07:06 AM // 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

There is one and only one time to use use Agonizing - right after Evi/Exe. therefore it is almost impossible to use it as a reactive interrupt - so any skill it interrupts will happen purely by coincidence. As just about everyone is saying, Agonizing's value is the fast swing.

There are times when you can let the Deep Wound linger and save the skill as an interrupt. And while the 123 approach of the skill limits the interrupt potential it still does happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Agonizing is new, so people try it out. Its also very much easier to use, so it appeals to poor players. And then you have the massive tipping point effect where everyone copies eachother from observer, thinking that since everyone else is using it, it must be good/better. The fact is that if I can DChop LoD even once during a match, it served me better than Agonizing ever could.

I dunno...Agonizing has been this way for 2 months now. It's really not new anymore. DChop can be inconsistent. The slow swing means you'll never hit LoD on reaction. You have to just try and time it and hope it goes. Now compare that to Agonizing, which is very powerful to spike with, and can double as utility in some situations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I dont think so. As far as I can tell, you've been ranting about Agonizing Chop this entire time, and havent said anything about required attack skill slots.

In my original post when talking about the weapons, I stated how Axe's strength is the unconditional Deep Wound and that Swords should be making up for it with more efficient skills (such as...Sever Artery deals more damage over time than Executioner's on paper), but don't really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Regardless, if you agree with me, then great, you agree that the problem is partly to do with sword's 3 required attack skills, and has nothing to do with Agonizing Chop.

While I do think sword skills by themselves are the start of the problem, Agonizing Chop has widened the gap. You talked about how Swords can have a bit of value for using variety Elites like "Charge!" but I fail to see why you wouldn't just want an Axe "Charge!" Warrior now. Dismember + Agonizing + Executioners is better than Sever + Gash + Final (or Sun and Moon). Agonizing actually becomes even stronger on a bar with Dismember because the Deep Wound skill is more available and so you can more readily interrupt those 2+ second activation skills. Swords have been pushed even further into the fringes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Also, I notice that you deliberately ignored the section of my post where I pointed out the biggest part of Sword's problems (its strengths being nullified by other common skills). I take this to mean that you agree with it, or else are at a loss for an argument against it.

I don't entirely agree with what you said, which is why I simply responded with "blocking abilities are always going to be used in the game." Hammers rely on two skills both hitting for their Deep Wound to work, just as Swords do, but they still see a healthy amount of play. There was no lower amount of block/miss skills out there when Cripslash was at the height of it's popularity than there are now...might have been even MORE then (SoD wasn't as popular but hexes WERE and just about everyone ran an Aegis chain). I still believe it's the overall strength of the weapon abilities in comparison to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yue

I believe Zuranthium doesn't play warrior.

I play everything fairly equally with just Monking standing out as being a bit more frequent than other roles on average, simply because that's mostly all I did in GvG for a period of time. Least experience would be on Paragon but it didn't seem to require too much of a learning curve, personally...

~Z

Riotgear · Aug 19, 2007, 07:50 AM // 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

I stated how Axe's strength is the unconditional Deep Wound and that Swords should be making up for it with more efficient skills (such as...Sever Artery deals more damage over time than Executioner's on paper), but don't really.

Sword doesn't need efficiency, it needs an elite that can compare to Eviscerate.

Quote:

I don't entirely agree with what you said, which is why I simply responded with "blocking abilities are always going to be used in the game." Hammers rely on two skills both hitting for their Deep Wound to work, just as Swords do, but they still see a healthy amount of play.

That's because the skills that precede Crushing Blow are slightly more useful than Sever Artery.

Dzan · Aug 19, 2007, 07:56 AM // 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

While I do think sword skills by themselves are the start of the problem, Agonizing Chop has widened the gap.

Thank you for conceding your original thesis. Let the back-pedaling begin.
'
Agonizing Chop hasn't changed anything... assume for a second that agonizing chop didnt exist. Would the ratio of axe/hammer/sword wars that you quoted earlier be very much changed? I don't think so. All thats changed in the meta is that 3 months ago people forgot how good shock/axe was for the novelty of a shitty crip slash build. As soon as the novelty wore off they went right back to Melandrus Devish and Shock/axe because they actually wanted to kill shit.

acidic · Aug 19, 2007, 11:55 AM // 11:55

Why do you even post????

.defekt · Aug 19, 2007, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

More commonly, though, is when a Ranger is back harassing your flagger and you actually want to kill him. A standard Axe Bar is going to be better than a Cripslash because you at least have a chance of mitigating some of the Ranger's healing. Against a Sword the Ranger just uses MT in response to Crip and laughs.

~Z

Are you serious?

Unless the runner that the Ranger is harassing has snares, why do you think the Ranger would even be NEAR the Warrior, let alone allow him to hit on him?

And in regards to pinning the blame entirely on Agonizing Chop;

you fail.