GvG

[Lurker Wyrm]

This is exactly what I knew was going to happen as soon as you posted in this thread. You talk about me not accepting anything you post, but look at what you do. You are so unwilling to accept the fact that you don't know anything about PvP that you're grabbing things out of context and throwing disproven arguments at me.

How many GvG matches have you been in? For that matter, how many have you even watched? What form of PvP have you gone into that isn't Random Arenas? You've said it yourself that you have no real interest in PvP so now you're getting pissed off because stuff you're posting has already been disproven by the top guilds in the game?

Have you even tried those builds from Wiki or did you just browse through their lackluster list searching for high strength builds? For that matter, did you even notice that your "Unstoppable Hammer" build uses a superior rune, which is something you're arguing against; or that it contradicts itself (has a superior strength listed and then says to only use minors)? If the person can't even keep things straight in their article do you really think they've thought the build through completely?

And what about the "Linebacker" build that chose to max out weapon mastery instead of strength (which, according to you, is backwards) -- and the reason it has "not a drop in Tactics" is because the build doesn't have any tactics based skills? It still isn't a strength based warrior besides so you're not proving anything by referencing it. The build wasn't even posted by any member of the Savants, who were the ones who came up with and used it.

In that same match where iQ used the constant KD war, they also used an elementalist that used Glyph of Sacrifice and Meteor Shower to eliminate base NPCs who were bottlenecked at VoD, but if the only thing you saw was the build you wouldn't know that.

I'm so tired of your sniping. Your proclamations that things flat out don't work when others have already proven that they do is of no use to anybody.

And I'm sick and tired of you acting like you know what you're talking about when you don't have a clue. Congratulations, I hope you're proud of yourself for closing off real experience from people who know what they're talking about:
link - GvG forum hosted by the Idiot Savants (you know, the people who came in second at the World Championships).
link - The most common GvG builds (the same thread can be found on other strategy forums, but this one is more readily accessible).
link - One of the many weapon mastery vs. strength debates that are around (the first one I found doing a quick search). Here's a quote from Charles Ensign (if you don't know who he is then you've obviously never done research on GW numbers/statistics) from that thread:

Maybe you want a Strength helm if you're running for the extra second on Sprint. Meh. Basically weapon attribute helms are the only way to go if you're actually trying to kill things.

So let's see... should I listen to the Guild Wiki community that will let anyone post comments and builds even if they don't own the game or should I listen to the people from the team-iq forums, which are run by some of the best PvP players in the game (not just people from iQ) that have proven themselves time and again?

[Hawkmoon]

Eeeeeek! *gets out firehose*

Wyrm and WB, please take a deep breath and relax! I feel rather badly that I inadvertently sparked this conflagration by asking about builds. I really, really appreciate that both of you are trying to help. *hugs Wyrm and WB*

I don't think it helps too much to argue like this, though. The ideal thing would be to TRY OUT a bunch of builds and see what actually works for us and what doesn't. The best, most well-thought-out build in the world may fall flat when driven by an inept PvPer (read: me). Maybe we can get WB to join in the GvG mayhem just so he can try out his strategems? And for now, can we relax a bit on the current disagreement?

I read through the GuildWiki builds, and I will take a look at the IQ forum links that Wyrm provided. Again, thanks to both of you for taking the time to look that stuff up. I'm looking forward to more GvG on Wednesday.

[WarBlade]

For that matter, did you even notice that your "Unstoppable Hammer" build uses a superior rune, which is something you're arguing against

Yes I did notice and I'm not arguing against it. Please read my posts carefully before twisting my statements.

or that it contradicts itself (has a superior strength listed and then says to only use minors)?

Or that it offers a suggestion in minor which puts confusing data into the page. Sure. The person who wrote it perhaps should have said "Use a Superior Rune to optimize damage at the expense of 75 Health, or use a Minor Rune for less optimal damage and maintain optimized Health."

Meh. I'm pointing out that max Strength is an option. Nitpick that page all you like, but regardless of an erroneous bit of data maxed or high Strength investments are viable options.

And what about the "Linebacker" build that chose to max out weapon mastery instead of strength (which, according to you, is backwards)

Again, something I did not say.

-- and the reason it has "not a drop in Tactics" is because the build doesn't have any tactics based skills? It still isn't a strength based warrior besides so you're not proving anything by referencing it.

Prove? I am merely pointing out another option which I have done so on the back of reading your recommendation that, "You should keep enough in tactics to keep Heal Sig usable." Personally, I like taking a modest Tactics investment to run Heal Sig myself, but at the same time I'm forced to concede I shouldn't really need it and quite often I don't need it, so there are times where it might be better to let a Monk do their thing and just worry about damage output myself.


Ugh!

This is tiresome.

[Lurker Wyrm]

I feel rather badly that I inadvertently sparked this conflagration by asking about builds.

I think it's kinda funny that we're always fighting over who can impress you more. You're the Lady of the RB Court ™.

The ideal thing would be to TRY OUT a bunch of builds and see what actually works for us and what doesn't.

Ok, so here's the thing. I have no problem whatsoever with trying out experimental builds. The problem with that though is we don't have enough experience to do so. We're not working as a team and most people don't know how to properly engage in GvG combat, i.e. the finer points of controlling the flag stand, when to push forward or reatreat, etc. That's why I want us to use the premade characters (albeit with a few minor changes) -- use the stuff that's tried and true before moving on to something else. When we were just using whatever people felt comfortable with or what worked for them we were getting pounced on left and right. When we started using a team build we were able to turn it around and get wins.

The best, most well-thought-out build in the world may fall flat when driven by an inept PvPer (read: me).

I'm really going to get pissed off at you if you keep short-changing yourself. That goes for everyone in the guild as well. I am so sick and tired of hearing people talk negatively about their own abilities. If you were as inept as you keep proclaiming yourself to be I wouldn't bother bringing you along. So what if you don't have 1,000+ matches under your belt? You're willing to learn and get that experience.

Maybe we can get WB to join in the GvG mayhem just so he can try out his strategems?

Read what I said near the beginning of the post. If he's willing to swallow his pride and use one of the builds for the team then I don't mind; however, if he's going to continue on that he knows better than we do and that he doesn't have to follow calls when they don't suit him then we're better off with a hench.

I'm pointing out that max Strength is an option.

If you're running a 2 attribute build then by all means, go ahead and max both of them. Unfortunately, the number of times that's going to happen are very few and you're going to need to run 3 attributes. At that point, keeping strength over 10 (9 +minor) is pointless because the attribute doesn't add much in the way of usefulness. All it gives you is an extra second or so of Sprint which won't make a difference and 1% per level armor penetration when you use skills. In GvG, the vast majority of the time you won't be spamming skills away, I would guess that out of every attack swing in an entire match only about 25% of them are going to be attack skills. Sacrificing your weapon attribute or any other attribute for that small of an increase isn't worth it. Meanwhile, the difference between a 13 in weapon mastery and a 16 is about 2 damage per swing and a 3% chance of landing a critical hit, not to mention the rather large increases your attack skills will be getting (Eviscerate deals +36 damage at 13 axe and +42 at 16 -- that extra 6, which ignores armor, is a lot more of a damage difference than you would get with a few extra points in strength). Over the course of a match, that damage will add up to quite a lot.

Running 13 strength just to use the 100al armor is pointless because you can just as easily use the 90al armor that doesn't have a requirement and sacrifice... what, 10al vs. elemental? Not really all the big of a difference. Besides, I'd rather have the mod on the armor that says "+xx armor vs. physical" because, as it turns out, those are applied after armor penetration, meaning if you've got 80+20 armor and someone uses an attack with 20% penetration you wind up with 64 +20, or 84 armor meaning you'll take less damage than with the 100al armor which would be reduced down to 80.

I am merely pointing out another option which I have done so on the back of reading your recommendation that, "You should keep enough in tactics to keep Heal Sig usable."

I still stand by that. No, Heal Sig won't save you in a situation where you're taking a lot of damage. Using it while under damage pressure is a bad idea and, as someone said but I can't remember who, "you might as well turn Frenzy on and save your monk from having to heal your stupid ass." What it does do, is help mitigate damage you've already taken through degen or when the other team has decided they won't be able to take you down and moved on so your monk doesn't have to work as hard. It's also good to use to top off your health when you're only missing ~50. That way you'll be maxed out in case you come under heavy pressure and you save your monks from having to waste the time to top you off (which most won't even bother to do anyways).

---

Just a note to everyone about tonight. Hureg can't make it so we'll need someone else to join in. I'll be playing the Charge war and doing target calling (might as well get used to it I suppose) so we're going to need someone else to cripshot. Although, a lot does still depend on how many TNE people we can drag in with us (and whether we'll even have 4 people from our end, allowing us to actually GvG).

Also, Hureg has informed me that he might not be able to keep going with the team at all times, aka dropping out. If that happens then I think it would be best to move this to Monday night since that's a better night for most people. It's nothing immediate, I just want to put it out there.

[WarBlade]

Read what I said near the beginning of the post. If he's willing to swallow his pride and use one of the builds for the team then I don't mind; however, if he's going to continue on that he knows better than we do and that he doesn't have to follow calls when they don't suit him then we're better off with a hench.

When it suits me? Try, "when it suits the team effort."

There are target calls that are just plain pointless for a hammer warrior to follow:
- Mist Form pops up on the target.
- Target backs past a ranger who's been quietly hunched over the ground for the past minute.
- Target does a runner while I get water snared and the party Monkage is too busy to fix.

Irrespective of what individual reasons might be, no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. I'll adapt to changing circumstances.

If you're running a 2 attribute build then by all means, go ahead and max both of them. Unfortunately, the number of times that's going to happen are very few and you're going to need to run 3 attributes. At that point, keeping strength over 10 (9 +minor) is pointless because the attribute doesn't add much in the way of usefulness. All it gives you is an extra second or so of Sprint which won't make a difference and 1% per level armor penetration when you use skills.

Only Sprint and armour penetration? That looks like a pre-Factions assessment.

In GvG, the vast majority of the time you won't be spamming skills away, I would guess that out of every attack swing in an entire match only about 25% of them are going to be attack skills. Sacrificing your weapon attribute or any other attribute for that small of an increase isn't worth it.

Agreed. So that's not why I make the sacrifice.

Meanwhile, the difference between a 13 in weapon mastery and a 16 is about 2 damage per swing and a 3% chance of landing a critical hit, not to mention the rather large increases your attack skills will be getting (Eviscerate deals +36 damage at 13 axe and +42 at 16 -- that extra 6, which ignores armor, is a lot more of a damage difference than you would get with a few extra points in strength). Over the course of a match, that damage will add up to quite a lot.

You are comparing individual hits as influenced by the attributes.

Running 13 strength just to use the 100al armor

"Just"?

This is where where your entire viewpoint gets unhinged from mine and consistently falls apart in my eyes. I make maxed Strength builds for the whole package. It has never been about this number directly compared with that number. It's about trying a mastery-based setup with appropriate skills, then trying a strength setup and then confronting the realisation that the Strength mix somehow actually performed about the same, and in some intances marginally better.

[Lurker Wyrm]

There are target calls that are just plain pointless for a hammer warrior to follow:

Targets are called when the person leading the group wants someone pressured or spiked. If it's to pressure then they usually don't want you to use any attack skills, just attack the person to make them get out of position and run around. This is usually done to mesmers, rangers, elementalists, smite monks, etc. that are midline fighters.

Since you don't seem to understand what an adrenal spike is exactly, let me explain. Everyone attacks someone different, usually warriors attack other warriors (you're not using Frenzy at this point unless you're sure you won't be attacked), rangers and mesmers switch around targets to spread conditions and hexes and whatnot. When the warriors are fully charged on adrenaline they call it over TS to let the target caller know they're ready to spike. The target caller then picks a target and the warriors run to it, turn on Frenzy, and unload their attack skills while the rest of the team waits for the warriors to get there before attacking. If all goes right then the target is dead before the monks can react and save them. If you're not doing an adrenal spike, then obviously you don't need to wait for adrenaline to charge and you just start taking people out. Warrior spike, however, has the highest damage output in the game which is why it's so popular. Others, such as ranger spike or air spike, are slightly weaker and require a lot more co-ordination and almost perfect timing to pull off.

During a spike, by not following the call, you're weakening it. You need to deal at least 500 damage to a target in about 3 seconds for a spike to work. As a warrior, you're contributing anywhere from 100-200 of that damage (depending on target armor and criticals). If you decide not to attack the called target during a spike, they aren't going to go down and neither is your other target. The spike won't deal enough damage to cause a kill and before the attack skills are ready again the monks on the opposing team will have the person healed back to full again. Your other target probably won't even go below half health. I've seen people live through spikes before because 1 attack skill from 1 person wasn't used at the right time.

Is a full party spike going to kill someone 100% of the time? No. Will a team ever be able to kill someone if all the members don't spike the same person at the same time? Not unless it gets lucky or the opposing monks are asleep on the job. If you're running a split build then you're trying to wear down the monk's energy and apply heavy pressure so you can take people down, just like in TA. When that happens it's a battle to see 2 things: which team has the higher damage output and whose monk has better energy management.

- Mist Form pops up on the target.

No moron would bother bringing that into a GvG. For that matter, most eles don't even bring an elite from their attacking attribute. It's usually either Ether Prodigy (E/Mo runner using Heal Party or a Hybrid build) or Elemental Attunement (to keep spamming attack spells).

And just so you can't say I'm ignoring your point... If someone puts up enough defense or turns on an evasion stance so that a spike can't kill them, then the target caller is going to notice that and call off the spike or target someone else.

- Target backs past a ranger who's been quietly hunched over the ground for the past minute.

Wow. That's a good one. Oh wait, players can run around traps. Besides, trappers are going to trap areas that they want protected. You know, like the flag stand, the gates to their base, or around their NPCs. They aren't going to waste time putting traps up across the entire map just on the off chance that someone might step into one because they aren't paying attention.

I get water snared and the party Monkage is too busy to fix.

Water snares don't last forever. A spike can be delayed if need be. Remember, GvG matches can last 30 minutes or longer. A 10 second difference in killing someone isn't going to amount to much, with the exception of killing a flag runner before they can make it to the stand, but it's usually more important just to snare them and make them take forever to get to the stand. Killing the flag runner is nice, but not always necessary.

Only Sprint and armour penetration? That looks like a pre-Factions assessment.

Oh wait, let me guess. You want to waste a skill slot to bring along Signet of Strength. Seriously... As a warrior, your skill bar usually has 4 slots reserved: Sprint/Rush, Frenzy, Heal Sig, Res Sig. That leaves you 4 slots for attack skills, 3 if you're bringing Endure Pain. As a hammer war, the most damaging combination for attacks comes in the form of Devastating -> Crushing -> Fierce. So if you're leaving Endure at the Guild Hall you get 1 more skill on your bar, which is usually occupied by another KD skill. What're you gonig to bring from the Strength line that's so important it needs 13 strength? Bull's Strike is good, but an extra few points in strength isn't going to do anything.

You are comparing individual hits as influenced by the attributes.

Um... what should I be comparing? Wait, so when I'm talking about the amount of damage a war deals I should be talking about their armor at the exact same time?

"Just"?

This is where where your entire viewpoint gets unhinged from mine and consistently falls apart in my eyes. I make maxed Strength builds for the whole package.

Good grief... Do you even bother to read what I post? I said "just" there because, unless you don't remember, I've already shown why running strength at 13 for other reasons is a bad idea. For the whole package?

Fine we'll look at everything 13+ strength offers at once. You get: a slightly higher % of armor penetration with your attack skills, access to 100al armor, a 1s boost on your running stance, and a few extra points of damage on a skill. Huzzah. What do you want to give up in order to achieve that? Weapon mastery? I don't think it's even worth emphasizing how important your weapon mastery is anymore because if you don't get it by now then there's probably no hope of the light switch coming on. Tactics? That'll weaken your heal sig which, in the long run, is going to put more pressure on your monks.

I'm not arguing that ignoring strength all together is what you should be doing. If you think that then you haven't been paying attention. What I am arguing is that the sacrifice you'll have to make to your other attributes in order to get it that high is not worth it.

[WarBlade]

And just so you can't say I'm ignoring your point...

The point:
- When it suits me? Try, "when it suits the team effort."

- Irrespective of what individual reasons might be, no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. I'll adapt to changing circumstances.

So yes. I can say you ignored the point. Completely.

Oh wait, let me guess. You want to waste a skill slot to bring along Signet of Strength. Seriously... As a warrior, your skill bar usually has 4 slots reserved: Sprint/Rush, Frenzy, Heal Sig, Res Sig. That leaves you 4 slots for attack skills, 3 if you're bringing Endure Pain. As a hammer war, the most damaging combination for attacks comes in the form of Devastating -> Crushing -> Fierce.

For a maxed Hammer Mastery setup, yes. For a maxed Strength setup where raw damage is wanted more than Irresistible Blow I use

Strength Sig + (Devastating > Crushing > Fierce> Power Attack)

Um... what should I be comparing? Wait, so when I'm talking about the amount of damage a war deals I should be talking about their armor at the exact same time?

No. Compare how it plays as a whole. How it behaves in dishing out and shrugging off damage with concideration of the equipment and if possible any variances in individual play style.

Good grief... Do you even bother to read what I post?

Refer to missing missing the point above.

Fine we'll look at everything 13+ strength offers at once. You get: a slightly higher % of armor penetration with your attack skills, access to 100al armor, a 1s boost on your running stance, and a few extra points of damage on a skill. Huzzah.

I think you're finally starting to get the hang of it! 8)

What do you want to give up in order to achieve that? Weapon mastery? I don't think it's even worth emphasizing how important your weapon mastery is anymore because if you don't get it by now then there's probably no hope of the light switch coming on. Tactics? That'll weaken your heal sig which, in the long run, is going to put more pressure on your monks.

I'm not arguing that ignoring strength all together is what you should be doing. If you think that then you haven't been paying attention. What I am arguing is that the sacrifice you'll have to make to your other attributes in order to get it that high is not worth it.

And I'm not arguing against Hammer Mastery investments either. What I keep saying, and you keep attacking me for, is that I have found maxed Strength attribute investments to be a viable alternative.

[Swiss Mercenary]

To adress the topmost point in your post, Warblade...

No plan survives contact with the enemy. That is correct. However, it is the target caller/team leader's job to adapt that plan on the fly. I do happen to have a few hundred matches under my belt, and I will say that when people on the team aren't doing what the leader expects them to do...

Things fall apart.

The team leader can make a mistake. That's fine. If you think its a bad call, you are expected to follow through anyways, and then bring your differing opinion up after the match. Mid-battle is not the time to argue, or for people to try to re-invent the wheel on their own.

In battle, the team leader doesn't have time to explain why he's making his decisions. He may have taken the fact that the target uses defensive skills into account. He may already know that you are snared, and thinks that your contribution to the spike is still necessary. At most, you should share your opinion. However, the final decision should be his, and you should be following it.

If the target activates a defensive stance, announce it over Teamspeak! Tell the target caller that your contribution will be of little help! He should then call some other target. If your spike skill isn't ready, say it! If you can't get to the target, say it! If you are snared, say it!

If the target caller takes that into account, and changes the battle plan, then the team benefits, by still having you on board. You may miss 3/4 of your hits, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people survive spikes with 30 life, because not everyone was on board (Warriors not ready, casters not wanding...)

If he doesn't, and the result is negative, then talk about it after the game, and explain why not changing his original plan was a bad idea.

And if nothing works, then maybe a new team leader should be selected.

[WarBlade]

That's more like it. A constructive post.

[Lurker Wyrm]

That's more like it. A constructive post.

Now you're just being obtuse.

- Irrespective of what individual reasons might be, no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. I'll adapt to changing circumstances.

Here's the issue I have with you making that statement: You have never done GvG. What do you know about battle plans or strategy? Half the stuff you're arguing can be disproven in 1 match. You just can't see the forest for the trees right now because you're so caught up in the "I've done PvE so I know what I'm talking about" argument.

For a maxed Strength setup where raw damage is wanted

Talk about ignoring the point all together... Geez.

You know what... I've had it. I'm done trying to have any type of conversation with you. If you ever manage to get any actual GvG experience come back and share it. Until then it's just not worth it.