Curse

ICURADik · Jul 28, 2005, 05:00 AM // 05:00

Those who have had actual experience with an KD/Aftershock warrior can attest that it's nothing special. If you can time another spike along with it then it's alright. It's hard as a warrior to get enough points into Earth to make it do scary damage, and you literally have to plan for the 10 energy to use it. That being said, it is probably one of the most effecient damage spells in the game. In the end I would rather have a R/W using Knockdowns and an Ele casting the aftershocks, than have two W/E with mediocre knockdowns and mediocre aftershock damage. Level 10(typical attribute level on W/E) does 120ish damage. Ele with 16 Earth does roughly 170 damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuramaroze

Warriors *dont* use sup runes anyways. Weapon atts barely add any bonus after 12, and the -75 health isnt worth it. Armor isn't the argument either, since R/W have MUCH better protection against magic, and are decent against melee. The problem is that R/W's don't get to take advantage of strength and their linked atts, nor their secondary classes. Sure a R/W using TF and FGJ can keep someone on the floor for a while, but a W/E using frenzy and aftershock can take down most casters without protective spirit on them in one chain of knockdowns and damage skills. Why waste more time keeping them down?

I really see no major advantages to being R/W..

I really see no reason why a warrior wouldn't be using a superior rune on their main weapon attribute. There are so may teams running Fertile Season you will hardly notice the difference. That is one of the few things Warrior primaries have over a R/W.

A KD/Aftershock warrior simply can't spam frenzy and irresistible blow as easily as a R/W can, and expect to have energy for Aftershocks. One hit with a hammer can be be well over 80 damage. It takes 1.5 seconds to cast aftershock. Your basically doing 40ish more damage once every 15 or so seconds. While the R/W can constantly spam TF and Irressitible Blow, probably netting more overall damage and more knockdowns.

furyhawk · Jul 28, 2005, 05:41 AM // 05:41

I ran 20 consecutive wins b4 with my R/W with my spider pet(10 Random 10 Team). On the 20th win, one of my teammate need to go.

Maybe those ppl underestimated the amount of damage my R/W can do. Just a matter of how you optimize your build of R/W or W/R. Any comparison is pointless. As far as I know, only pure Fire Ele sux in PvP.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Jul 28, 2005, 05:55 AM // 05:55

You're all wrong. My bow weilding W/R pwns all you melee R/W!! Noobs!

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 11:48 AM // 11:48

R/W cant be effective hammer wrs cs they cat have an ele (thrid class) for aftershock)

The fact that a couple of R/Ws have been part of some sucessful arena teams is nothing special. Stinky teams can win if the players are good. But good players do even better with actually decent chars. Ive gone 15 (10 rand, 5 team) consec with no monk and a pair of necros, myself (R/Me) AND A R/W. The R/W contributed the least to our team, as did the R/Ws in the other sucessful arena teams.

UltraPigface2002 · Jul 28, 2005, 12:21 PM // 12:21

r/w is actually better than the w/r in my opinion, ive tried both and expertise actually helps a lot, as the warrior dodge skills mainly come with slower movement or end when you use a skill and such, where as the ranger dodge skills actually benifit your attack, the only warrior dodge skill id bother to use is gladiators defense or maybe bonetties, but otherwise for pure dodge ranger is better. anyways i usually outlast the warriors on my team, but it also depends on the player i suppose

gfdmorph · Jul 28, 2005, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Don't forget that with Expertise, all SKILLS cost less energy, which includes those of the warrior class. So yea, I would think that a R/W might have a slight advantage in that sence. My 2 cents. -Out-

GranDeWun · Jul 28, 2005, 12:47 PM // 12:47

If you accept the premise that an energy using attack skill causes significantly more damage than a simple non-skill melee attack, then the basic issue in comparing R/W to W/* becomes: Does the energy advantage of the R/W translate into enough extra damage to offset the loss of runes + strength. Having played both types of characters, I'd argue that it more or less does. That doesn't make the R/W a better combo, but it makes it competitive.

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 02:23 PM // 14:23

No, it doesnt. Wars can easily afford 5 energy attacks, so the ranger's advantage there is hardly noticable. They can spam adren attacks equally well. btw, most energy attacks are in the strength attribute.

Some people dont think 16 attribute is good fro a war? Why the heck not? Its good extra damage, more useful than pointyou could spen elsewhere. 16 Weapon, 10 Smite/Element, 9 Strength is for the highest damage warrior possible.

ICURADik · Jul 28, 2005, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

No, it doesnt. Wars can easily afford 5 energy attacks, so the ranger's advantage there is hardly noticable. They can spam adren attacks equally well. btw, most energy attacks are in the strength attribute.

Some people dont think 16 attribute is good fro a war? Why the heck not? Its good extra damage, more useful than pointyou could spen elsewhere. 16 Weapon, 10 Smite/Element, 9 Strength is for the highest damage warrior possible.

So... let me get this straight. On your War, you constantly use Frenzy, Irresistible Blow, and Aftershock/Judge's Insight, as soon as their timers are up, correct? So every 10 seconds you spend 5 on frenzy, 2x5 on Irresistible Blow, and 10 on Aftershock, while keeping 5 energy in reserve for a sprint. I hate to be the one to tell you buddy, but your out of energy. And your most likely spiked and dead. I strongly recomend you actually try the R/W before you attempt to debate the issue anymore.

Third Quarter · Jul 28, 2005, 04:57 PM // 16:57

I have seen a pretty effective R/W interruptor using things like Savage Slash and Distracting Blow.

It wasn't built for damage. It was built to spam interrupts forever, even with Quickening Zephyr up.

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Hammer wars and Damage wars are 2 different builds. For a Hammer War, all energy must be saved for aftershock and irresistable. From there you rely on adren attacks to inflict more pain. Damage Wars can use energy for frenzy and conjure, tossing in energy attacks whenever they lack adrenaline, not whenever the timers are up. Gladiators Armor is helps in these situations. Energy management is not a hard skill to learn. You should have known this was what I would say, it seems fairly obvious if youve been playing GW for months. It feels like you just said what you said for the sake of argument.

The point is that warriors can survive without their energy attacks, they only need use a few, and only when none of their adren moves are charged. They do far and away more damage per strike than a R/W could ever dream of. The energy advantage of a R/W cannot shine because war builds dont need that much energy in the first place.

And for the last time, no one will know that you use frenzy unless they have a person selecting you the entire game( unlikely in the extreme) Also, there is no way to tell if an enemy war actually has it on or not. Them trying to spike you when you frenzy could easily backfire when you switch stances or it runs out. Frenzy doesnt even make a war as squishy as a monk. And monks have far better healing spells for healing others than healing themselves, so them targeting you is a good thing, regardless of frenzy.

Arri · Jul 28, 2005, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuramaroze

Although you'd have to be stupid to have 16 in a weapon attribute, I do say that W/X > R/W. Not much to argue, its simply better.

str > expertise too? Strength does NOT give AP to NORMAL ATTACKS, only SKILL attacks AKA sever gash final strike etc, expertise does what? Lowers energy costs, wow I can spam energy skills that a war would never even dream about spamming!

*lets the thread die*

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Wars use enough attack skills that they get plenty of benifit from strength. Its called adrenaline. A word of advice: if you want to argue in favor oof the R/W, primary attributes is not the place you want to try. It is the place where the warrior's superiority is the CLEAREST.

the thread lives

GranDeWun · Jul 28, 2005, 06:05 PM // 18:05

To address one point raised:
Raising an attribute to 16 has a very high opportunity cost...that is, you could get a second attribute to a very respectable level by not doing so.

And to address a second:
Of course warriors can attack without energy, but the question is whether they can generate as much DPS as a R/W with greater energy and energy regen. Like many things in GW, it depends on circumstances. And, as was alluded to above, a R/W can almost certainly spam interrupts more effectively.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Jul 28, 2005, 06:30 PM // 18:30

*sighs* This thread still continues on...

Bantering back and forth on strengths and weaknesses is fine. Discussing strategies and differences between W/R and R/W is great...but this thread wasnt even started to discuss anything. It was created by someone who clearly has some grudge against R/W and the people who play them. It's ridiculous.

So it's really pointless to discuss anything when there's this irrational bias going on...sometimes on both sides...but more on the OP's side. Saying things like "most R/W are arrogant" and creating a thread titled "disproving the R/W" just doesnt lend any credibility. How exactly do you disprove a class combo? It certainly exists... What's to disprove? And why? Who cares?

Just play what you want to play and mind your own business in what others want to play. Why does it bug you so much that people play R/W? Who the hell wants everyone to be the same cookie cutter builds?

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 07:55 PM // 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eet GnomeSmasher

*sighs* This thread still continues on...

Bantering back and forth on strengths and weaknesses is fine. Discussing strategies and differences between W/R and R/W is great...but this thread wasnt even started to discuss anything. It was created by someone who clearly has some grudge against R/W and the people who play them. It's ridiculous.

So it's really pointless to discuss anything when there's this irrational bias going on...sometimes on both sides...but more on the OP's side. Saying things like "most R/W are arrogant" and creating a thread titled "disproving the R/W" just doesnt lend any credibility. How exactly do you disprove a class combo? It certainly exists... What's to disprove? And why? Who cares?

Just play what you want to play and mind your own business in what others want to play. Why does it bug you so much that people play R/W? Who the hell wants everyone to be the same cookie cutter builds?

For being such a bad thread, it certainly has gotten a lot of discussion. This has only been up for like 1 and a half days and its already on page 4. I dont view it as pointless argument, but more as spirited deabate. Sure, people with already strong opinions (like me) probably wont have sudden changes of heart, but for newer players and fench-sitters which havent decided yet, this is the type of thread which can really give the all of the information they need to decide. All this "bantering about strengths and weaknesses" actually has a point omg!

For clarification, I do not hate R/Ws. I dislike R/Ws who think they are all that and complain loudly when they lose. R/Ws who try to challenge people 1v1 because its the only thing they are good at. R/Ws who suck but dont realize why.

carnivore · Jul 28, 2005, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

For being such a bad thread, it certainly has gotten a lot of discussion. This has only been up for like 1 and a half days and its already on page 4. I dont view it as pointless argument, but more as spirited deabate. Sure, people with already strong opinions (like me) probably wont have sudden changes of heart, but for newer players and fench-sitters which havent decided yet, this is the type of thread which can really give the all of the information they need to decide. All this "bantering about strengths and weaknesses" actually has a point omg!

For clarification, I do not hate R/Ws. I dislike R/Ws who think they are all that and complain loudly when they lose. R/Ws who try to challenge people 1v1 because its the only thing they are good at. R/Ws who suck but dont realize why.

spirited debate over what? this is no debate, this is infact you, tryin to prevent more r/ws from being created. and i am sorry that you have met those r/ws who are egomatic and arrogant but raving about it here does no one any justice.

and the reason why this has gotten so many posts, is that everyone argueing is stubborn.

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

Me arguing the suckiness of R/Ws, combined with other people defending them, = what? Surely not a debate! This is not me trying to eradicate the existence of the R/W. This is me trying to do the GW community a favor by writing on strategy and builds. Whether you decide to listen or not is not my problem, but if people would like to dispute my views, I would like to defend them. Unlike some people in this thread, back up what I say.

Arri · Jul 28, 2005, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Me arguing the suckiness of R/Ws, combined with other people defending them, = what? Surely not a debate! This is not me trying to eradicate the existence of the R/W. This is me trying to do the GW community a favor by writing on strategy and builds. Whether you decide to listen or not is not my problem, but if people would like to dispute my views, I would like to defend them. Unlike some people in this thread, back up what I say.

back up what you say by "W/R is better than R/W" you never tell us way, thats all you tell us

Neo-LD · Jul 28, 2005, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arri

back up what you say by "W/R is better than R/W" you never tell us way, thats all you tell us

EXCUSE ME? Read the first post, kid. I took the time to step-by-step expain EXACTLY why I think R/Ws are bad. You cannot get any more clear:

"What Wars do better"
"What They do the same"
"What R/Ws do better"
"Why none of the R/Ws advantages actually matter"

All backed up with facts and evidence. Of all the things you can criticze me for in this thread (bais, prejudice, beligerence) NO ONE can say that I dont provide TONS of evidence to back up what I say.