Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Citizen.3869

Citizen.3869

I’ve been looking at a Valk armour with Zerk weapon / trinkets build, and comparing it to the traditional full-zerker Necro.

Looking at stats, we get:

1) Valk/Zerk w/ Rune of Wurm

Power: 2603
Vitality: 24112
Crit : 35.95
Crit damage: 232.33%

2) Full Zerk w/ Rune of Strength

Power: 2758
Vitality: 19212
Crit : 50.95
Crit damage: 218.73%

Valk/Zerk build: http://en.gw2skills.net/editor/?vRAQNBIhZakjG6txWawmG4wxBuQNH7moKonRb8swrOAaBA-T1hFABA8EAMS5Xhq/cm+gEOFA5s/QVKBDAgAsz6sO3ZghO0hO0hO0uuOH6OH6OLFQEjBA-w

Full Zerk build:http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vRAQNBIhZakjG6txWawmG4wxBuQNH7moKonRb8swrOAaBA-T1hFABA8EAMS53I7Pcm+gEOFADq+TVKBDAgAsz6sO3ZghO0hO0hO0uuOH6OH6OLFQEjBA-w

Adding the 50% in shroud for crit, wouldn’t 1) be both tankier AND more damaging? Thoughts?

Edit: For Necro, not Reaper.

(edited by Citizen.3869)

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Sigmoid.7082

Sigmoid.7082

For PvE and DPS the zerk build will do more damage over time.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: PlatinumMember.5274

PlatinumMember.5274

For PvE and DPS the zerk build will do more damage over time.

However, wouldn’t build 1 (wurm) benefit from longer reaper shroud?

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Sigmoid.7082

Sigmoid.7082

For PvE and DPS the zerk build will do more damage over time.

However, wouldn’t build 1 (wurm) benefit from longer reaper shroud?

The builds posted by OP dont use elite specs and Dagger auto > LB spam. Though i doubt these builds are used for pve. Also dont think OP linked the correct builds since they both use wurm runes.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Tommyknocker.6089

Tommyknocker.6089

Build 1 is close to what I will be running for equipment on my reaper. Never underestimate the benefit of a high crit damage. You can even push the envelope further by using furious sharpening stones and roasted cactus (241 crit damage % apx).

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: PlatinumMember.5274

PlatinumMember.5274

For PvE and DPS the zerk build will do more damage over time.

However, wouldn’t build 1 (wurm) benefit from longer reaper shroud?

The builds posted by OP dont use elite specs and Dagger auto > LB spam. Though i doubt these builds are used for pve.

Well that is what I get for assuming everybody and everything is reaper.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Warscythes.9307

Warscythes.9307

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Sigmoid.7082

Sigmoid.7082

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Tommyknocker.6089

Tommyknocker.6089

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Sigmoid.7082

Sigmoid.7082

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

Valkyrie and Reaper are a better idea but Valkyrie and Base necro not so much. Both OP Builds are base necro only. For pure dps because LifeBlast is much weaker dps wise than dagger auto and the second you lose shroud your dps will plummet. PvP is a different matter.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Captain Unusual.9163

Captain Unusual.9163

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

How quickly we begin to assume that every necromancer becomes a Reaper.

For a Reaper, yeah, Valk with Wurm runes is better. But for a base necromancer, zerker will do more damage, because it doesn’t have decimate defenses.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Tommyknocker.6089

Tommyknocker.6089

Having assumed he was talking reaper here, I though that maybe he made an error in the links as to the build and was only highlighting equipment used. As base necro has already been discussed to death. It was my error.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Citizen.3869

Citizen.3869

Also dont think OP linked the correct builds since they both use wurm runes.

Woops, updated. Admittedly, they were just quick builds that I whipped up for stat comparison. Didn’t think too much into traits or utilities.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Citizen.3869

Citizen.3869

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

How quickly we begin to assume that every necromancer becomes a Reaper.

For a Reaper, yeah, Valk with Wurm runes is better. But for a base necromancer, zerker will do more damage, because it doesn’t have decimate defenses.

Yup, you and Sigmoid was right, I was referring to Necro.

But it is interesting that it’s pointed out how this build is both more tanky and damaging for Reaper. I also think I could make valk / wurm work for regular Necro in WvW zergs, since most of Necro usefulness in zergs comes from dropping wells > going into DS for that 100% crit. Risky relying on DS while roaming though.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Captain Unusual.9163

Captain Unusual.9163

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

How quickly we begin to assume that every necromancer becomes a Reaper.

For a Reaper, yeah, Valk with Wurm runes is better. But for a base necromancer, zerker will do more damage, because it doesn’t have decimate defenses.

Yup, you and Sigmoid was right, I was referring to Necro.

But it is interesting that it’s pointed out how this build is both more tanky and damaging for Reaper. I also think I could make valk / wurm work for regular Necro in WvW zergs, since most of Necro usefulness in zergs comes from dropping wells > going into DS for that 100% crit. Risky relying on DS while roaming though.

Though, interestingly enough, the build/playstyle you just described is absolute crap for Reapers.

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: Citizen.3869

Citizen.3869

I mean it basically comes down to whether or not the extra crit damage is better than the loss in power since both build should be in 100% crit due to fury.

Too lazy to do the math but gut reaction is that power is stronger, not sure how much though.

Napkin maths shows zerk build will do more damage if you do nothing but spam LB. As soon as you cant use shroud and must sue dagger auto for dps zerk wins.

I got the same results, but I am still going with valkyrie and wurm because the difference is relatively minor and being able to camp RS when needed makes up for the loss IMO. YMMV, but either way you will hit hard enough that any trash will melt.

How quickly we begin to assume that every necromancer becomes a Reaper.

For a Reaper, yeah, Valk with Wurm runes is better. But for a base necromancer, zerker will do more damage, because it doesn’t have decimate defenses.

Yup, you and Sigmoid was right, I was referring to Necro.

But it is interesting that it’s pointed out how this build is both more tanky and damaging for Reaper. I also think I could make valk / wurm work for regular Necro in WvW zergs, since most of Necro usefulness in zergs comes from dropping wells > going into DS for that 100% crit. Risky relying on DS while roaming though.

Though, interestingly enough, the build/playstyle you just described is absolute crap for Reapers.

Then it’s a good thing I said “regular Necro” and not Reaper :^)

Valk/Zerk & Rune of Wurm Vs. Full Zerk

in Necromancer

Posted by: tuman.6593

tuman.6593

If you focusing on DS Life Blast it would be better to take Death Magic instead Blood Magic that gives you additional 480 toughness and gain power based on your toughness(14% in DS).

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vRAQNBIhZakjG6txWawmG4wxBuQJ7huOspnRb8swrOAaBA-T1hFABA8EAMS5Xhq/cm+gEOFA5s/QVKBDAgAsz6sO3ZghO0hO0hO0uuOH6OH6OLFQEjBA-w