Build variations in WvW and sPVP?
They are roamers, meaning they go around the map camping points and helping defend when called out for. They need a high burst to help take down bunkers asap.
Since this game’s pvp is highly dependent on bunkers, GC professions are also needed.
I personally prefer to play a balance thief although I’m less useful for my team I’m still very effective.
They run GC because they think you have to be full glass to deal damage. Like Volrath said, they can help take down bunkers in tPvP. Though, they would surely die if not positioned correctly in a team fight due to AoE.
When you say you watch high tier PvP, what do you mean and who?
If you want a build with great damage and survivability to take down bunkers:
I’ve mainly been watching Caed’s stream and past broadcasts, where he runs a glass cannon d/p and sb build. So judging by the answers, GCs are so popular because of the high paced playstyle of tournaments and a need to end fights quickly so people can take points faster? Are thieves supposed to function like hit or miss in pvp where you can either obliterate the enemy or get killed instantly with one mistake?
Glass builds are not optimal at all, in any gameplay style, except for going against newbies.
They are weak, and adding an extra, say, 5 damage to a hit that does 5K damage doesn’t mean as much as adding that same amount of damage to an attack that does 1K damage, but glass cannons act like that isn’t the case. GC builds are an arrogant way of saying that everybody is too weak to counter you, which is true in lower levels, but eventually people learn your tricks and will just stun break→evade→heal and then proceed to absolutely annihilate you, because you chose to add 5 more damage to 5K damage over adding 5 more armor to 2K armor.
Thieves are not supposed to be a “hit or miss” kind of thing- not if you really want to be good, anyways. It works in lower tiers, but these aren’t tricks that can work forever. If you make your build focus around the first five seconds of combat, eventually people will learn to counter you and run you over.
Possibly a bad reference, but I’m a chess player. Still not rated very high, probably around 1450 in the USCF. That’s partially because I haven’t played enough tournaments to reach what I would call my “real rating”; I’m guessing that, on a good day, I could easily play around 1600 or more. I don’t know, but that’s not the point. When I began my chess career, I played extremely aggressively, and, for a while, it worked. I would play very aggressive Gambit openings, openings that sacrifice a pawn for, typically, an advantage like a very strong attack, space, etc.
What turned me away from this aggression was the realization that you always have to give something up when you want to be extremely aggressive. In gambits, you typically sacrificed a pawn (or, in some very nasty and dangerous ones, you could sacrifice two pawns) for some advantage. What I found was that, as long as the enemy could hold onto that pawn and effectively neutralize your attack, you were done. Over. Finished. It’s really not any different here. Bursters and GCs like to be aggressive, and aggressive is good. But if you decide to be too aggressive, you have to give something up- some small advantage for your opponent. You can become mighty ferocious, and make a real display of fighting strength for your opponent, but opponents learn, after a while, how to counter these attacks, and once that happens, you just give your opponent a small advantage at the beginning of the game for nothing in return. A good opponent turns a small advantage into a large one.
My point is that GCs want to play like Gambiters. Good for them. However, realize that eventually opponents will learn how to turn a small advantage that you give up (you lack any defense, practically the equivalent of leaving your king wide open for enemy attack in chess) into a very large one, and you’ll lose more often than not. That’s why I don’t believe in GC builds, at all.
They run GC because they think you have to be full glass to deal damage.
^ this, essentially.