Curse

Neo-LD · Jul 27, 2005, 01:59 AM // 01:59

I have tried explaining this many times. Some people get it, some people simply refuse to listen, no matter how plainly I put it into words. Before now Ive only mentioned it in other threads, trying to point out to specific people that R/Ws are really bad for PvP. This is my final attempt to explain it; putting everything in a nice and cohesive order with logic that a 5-year-old should be able to follow...

What a W/** can do better than a R/W

He can use Warrior runes. That lets him get a 16 point weapon attribute. R/Ws cant. This lets him deal more damage per attack tha a R/W.

He has strength. This gives more damage per attack, for free. This gives him EVEN more damage per attack than a R/W.

He has a secondary to tap into. Conjure Flame or Judges Insight plz. This allows him to get EVEN more damage per attack than a R/W.

What they do the same

They have similar targeting priority. Both of them can do basically whatever they want and not need to worry about taking much damage.

They attack at the same rate. Frenzy and Tigers Fury. TF is admittedly better, but Frenzy is only worse if you are being pounded, which is extremely rare. If they are pounding you, simply dont hit frenzy and it will be their loss since they cant deal squat damage to a warrior anyways.

What a R/W Can do better

They can spam energy intensive moves more than a warrior since they have one more pip of regen and extertise.

Due to their great armor and certain expertise moves, they can actually stay alive longer than a warrior in most situations.

A R/W can win a 1v1 fight with a warrior.

Why none of the R/Ws advantages actually matter

They can spam all those... 5 and 0 energy... moves. Great. Warriors dont have a problem with that anyways. Congrtualations. R/W, on providing a solution where there was no problem in the first place.

Their better survivablility doesnt matter for the same reason that warrior's survivability doesnt: You wont be targeted until after your team is dead.

1v1 does not matter. You may be able to hand a warrior his ass, but in a real fight he will simply ignore the R/W and go for a monk. The R/W can pound away all he likes, but all his damage can be undone by about one heal spell every 10 seconds.

Now please no one say "but R/Ws can spam energy attacks more" or the like. I KNOW. I even said so myself, and if you were paying the slightest bit of attection you would have also read how that fact is irrelevent. If you can honestly point out something that I missed (e.g. is NOT mentioned in the above), feel free. But you have a rather large mountain of evidence to overcome before you can even say that a R/W is equal with a W/**, much less preferable.

Pippy Bloodstocking · Jul 27, 2005, 02:21 AM // 02:21

There are the various spirits that the Ranger/Warrior can tap into, though admittedly, they have a nearly global effect. Not to mention, Spirits are more killable than the Ranger himself. A Ranger can blind opponents, as well, which opens up the opportunity to lay one or two traps, if his Expertise is high enough. The Ranger isn't as versatile as the Warrior, though, because a Ranger/Warrior will have difficulty with the Warrior's armor. Casters and other Rangers are more doable.

Creed · Jul 27, 2005, 02:30 AM // 02:30

I beleive any class / subclass can be used effectivly in PvP. So i wont directly comment on this thread.

I will ask a question: Has anyone else noticed a sudden rise in R/W's?

I've been bewildered by the sheer amount of them.

Zeru · Jul 27, 2005, 04:01 AM // 04:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creed

I beleive any class / subclass can be used effectivly in PvP. So i wont directly comment on this thread.

You can use any class well but certain setups like this one are just dumb and inefficient unless you are using a very odd team build.

I wouldn't be surprised if melee r/w's are really popular; newbs tend to flock to what they think works no matter if it's good or bad.

Sunrazor · Jul 27, 2005, 04:07 AM // 04:07

I'm noticing a lot of r/w's in Arena, not so many in Tombs.

I like the ones in Arena. My w/* owns them.

ICURADik · Jul 27, 2005, 04:22 AM // 04:22

Instead of bringing a warrior and a beast mastery sprit spammer you can bring both in one.

I assume you don't run or rarely run into Quickening Zephyr with your build. R/W is much more sucessful than W/.. with that up. Good players will spike Wars when they use frenzy.

Edit: With axe, I agree. W is better in general because of mostly adrenal skills. But with hammer's R/W is simply much more flexible.

Vermilion Okeanos · Jul 27, 2005, 04:48 AM // 04:48

I think the only reason to go R/W is for tactic line.

Balance stance
desperation blow
thrill of victory
quickening zeph

it is pratically spamming excutioner strike + 4 different kind of conditions at the same time.

Putting W/** and R/W in one category really aren't that right... maybe if you compare W/R and R/W, but W/** can be anything.

wolfy3455 · Jul 27, 2005, 04:53 AM // 04:53

The only reason I go r/w is for frenzy so I don't have to put any stats in BM in order to be effective (qs ranger). R/ws can be effective but let the mellee class do their job.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Jul 27, 2005, 05:06 AM // 05:06

Hmm whether you're wrong or right about R/W not being as effective as W/R, I don't see what the point of this thread was. If people want to play their R/W, then let them. It's quite strange to see idiots in-game yelling at people playing certain builds....even if those people are good players.

If you don't like certain class combos, don't team with them. I don't see why it should bother people what others are playing. Maybe I'll play a bow warrior just to piss off the uptight elitist players even though I know it's a horrible build.

wolfy3455 · Jul 27, 2005, 05:27 AM // 05:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eet GnomeSmasher

Hmm whether you're wrong or right about R/W not being as effective as W/R, I don't see what the point of this thread was. If people want to play their R/W, then let them. It's quite strange to see idiots in-game yelling at people playing certain builds....even if those people are good players.

If you don't like certain class combos, don't team with them. I don't see why it should bother people what others are playing. Maybe I'll play a bow warrior just to piss off the uptight elitist players even though I know it's a horrible build.

Or maybe instead of just refusing to group with them so that they make threads about class decrimination we should post threads explaining how their build is less efficient so that they can become better?

Rey Lentless · Jul 27, 2005, 05:40 AM // 05:40

Eh.. this needed to be a thread.

I see a plethora of people who think r/w melee is better than w/r.. even in my own guild.

It was summed up pretty well by him as well. The added defense (the positive) doesn't mean crap because the warriors and rangers aren't targetted until last anyway. The energy spamming (positive) doesn't mean crap either. If a warrior really wants to do that, he still can (warrior's end, ViM.. and I guess flourish) and end up doing more damage than the r/w with those skills, even though he's using an elite for it. Not having strength and a 16 attribute is just lowering your damage too much, and it won't be made up by 1 pip up energy, or by higher elemental armor. And the #1 worst thing about using a r/w is..... *drum roll*....

is the use of a shield. A warrior can pump str and not spread out his points into tactics.. a r/w has to. Lowering his damage even farther.

It doesn't mean that r/w's are bad if they aren't doing melee though.

The only reason I can see for using a r/w in melee is in a greater conflag build where you want 115 AL instead of 85. But honestly, I'd still rather do the 85 and have higher damage.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Jul 27, 2005, 06:22 AM // 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfy3455

Or maybe instead of just refusing to group with them so that they make threads about class decrimination we should post threads explaining how their build is less efficient so that they can become better?

Good point. But again, that's the fault of the stuck up people. I've seen too many people in-game doing stuff like this: "OMG a melee ranger! wot a fu*** noob! LMAO!"

It's just the attitude that you have to play a certain way or be ridiculed and scorned that gets me.

Arri · Jul 27, 2005, 06:43 AM // 06:43

did you forget ranger primary gets expertise and that lowers cost even more? so it wouldn't even be 5 energy, it would be 2-1 with 10-12 expertise, that and rangers start with more energy, more energy regen. IMO YOU are the "n00b that flocks to the W/R because it has more armor, regardless of the energy or energy regen, if the armor is high, who cares about energy?!?!" I love seeing a W/* in arena, I usually do 80+ damage + health degen and other nasty effects, lets see a warrior do this: 80+ damage + Posion + possable traps + blind the opponent, a W/R CAN do that, but again youd probably just reply like "a W/R CAN do that, WITH BETTER ARMOR!!!" Does a warrior get + elemental defenses?

Rey Lentless · Jul 27, 2005, 06:47 AM // 06:47

The warrior does much more damage. End of story.

Zeru · Jul 27, 2005, 07:03 AM // 07:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arri

did you forget ranger primary gets expertise and that lowers cost even more? so it wouldn't even be 5 energy, it would be 2-1 with 10-12 expertise, that and rangers start with more energy, more energy regen. IMO YOU are the "n00b that flocks to the W/R because it has more armor, regardless of the energy or energy regen, if the armor is high, who cares about energy?!?!" I love seeing a W/* in arena, I usually do 80+ damage + health degen and other nasty effects, lets see a warrior do this: 80+ damage + Posion + possable traps + blind the opponent, a W/R CAN do that, but again youd probably just reply like "a W/R CAN do that, WITH BETTER ARMOR!!!" Does a warrior get + elemental defenses?

You could actually know what you're talking about before the post.

A 5 energy skill is reduced to 2 energy at 13 expertise. It is never reduced to 1 energy within the current attribute maxes at 16.

What I find absolutely hilarious is that he said this in his post:

Quote:

Now please no one say "but R/Ws can spam energy attacks more" or the like. I KNOW. I even said so myself, and if you were paying the slightest bit of attection you would have also read how that fact is irrelevent. If you can honestly point out something that I missed (e.g. is NOT mentioned in the above), feel free. But you have a rather large mountain of evidence to overcome before you can even say that a R/W is equal with a W/**, much less preferable.

Seriously, learn the game before you start spewing absolute rubbish, especially when you completely ignore half the OP's post.

If you want to compare damages your R/W is laughably left behind in the dust. I challenge you to find a melee ranger/warrior build that does more consistent dps than this setup:

War/Mo

12+1+3 Axe
8+1 Strength
10 Smiting

Frenzy
Sprint
Penetrating Blow
Executioners Strike
Strength of Honor
Judges Insight
Axe Rake
Eviscerate {E}

Zealous/+5 armor mods

To put it simply, you aren't going to beat a War/Mo or War/Ele dps setup with R/W.

If I was supporting a melee R/W I'd make an argument for a trapper who helps to either spike or kd a caster when he isn't laying traps. Arguing that melee R/Ws are good as W/*s for damage or disruption is pure stupidity.

manga · Jul 27, 2005, 08:42 AM // 08:42

ok, this post is IMO stupid. run a W/Mo or W/E and set it up for DPS if you want to, HAVE FUN.... I on the other hand will stick to my R/W and bring stuff like frozen, QZ, EW, fertile, and symbiosis. The advantage of a R/W is that you need a grand total of 10 levels and 3-5 skills to make it effective, EVERYTHING else can be whatever you team wants you to bring spirit wise. In a smite team QZ is crack. Run 2 R/Ws 3 E/Mos and some monks.

Tellani Artini · Jul 27, 2005, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Can a W/* stay on increased attack speed constantly without sacrificing damage output or taking double damage?

Chaynsaw · Jul 27, 2005, 11:32 AM // 11:32

^- Concisely stated.

Kiiron · Jul 27, 2005, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rey Lentless

...The added defense (the positive) doesn't mean crap because the warriors and rangers aren't targetted until last anyway....

Quote:

...And the #1 worst thing about using a r/w is..... *drum roll*....

is the use of a shield. A warrior can pump str and not spread out his points into tactics.. a r/w has to. Lowering his damage even farther.

I just want to note that I have no opinion whatsoever on whether a W/* and a R/W can be effective, but that this seems kind of contradictory. If the extra defense of a ranger doesn't mean anything because they don't get targeted, does the extra AR from a shield contribute significantly? I suppose a R/W could just use a hammer instead, or even a focus.

Saerden · Jul 27, 2005, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

He has strength. This gives more damage per attack, for free. This gives him EVEN more damage per attack than a R/W.

Um, per attack skill used, no?