Guild Wars 2

sorrow.2364:

Iscariot.4876:

1. Are you kidding? I’ve been consistently using real data from the tournaments to counter the horrid arguments of people like you that try to introduce misinformation into balance arguments.

2-3 You tried making an argument that being common or popular in low levels of play means something is broken. Fact is Humans are the most commonly played class in GW2 by a large margin. This directly leads to show that your argument and logic is completely flawed. Learn to keep up with the flow of argument.

4. 6 of 40 is a huge number? Are you being intentionally misleading? 5 of 40 is exactly ideal representation of 12.5%. 6/40 is one extra at 15%. At that same tournament engineers were 5/20, necro 5/20, thief 5/20, ranger 9/20, guardian 8/20… So a 20% increase over thief/necro but still a 25% and 33% decrease compared to guardian and ranger. Sorry but warriors seem to be pretty much in-line. And that was only the very first time they had those numbers. Necros and thieves used to be up there with guard and ranger with everyone else in the dumper. As teams get used to warrior, there is no telling what will happen. Warriors may go up, may even out, may drop down.

1. You said that high competitive teams don’t pick Warriors. That is a blatantly false statement which you even contraddicted a couple of sentences after.

2-3. Human is not the most played class in GW2 in PvP. You got it? You took PvE data and used that as a counter example in a PvP argument. In PvE it is all a matter of personal preference, in PvP there is no personal preference at all. Is that too hard to understand for you?

4. Did you even read what I’ve wrote, or you are just pushing blindly your clueless argument? Do you realize that Guardians and Rangers are a requirement for a team due to being mid point and close point bunkers or not? If Warrior were able to fit the close point bunker role, I’m pretty sure you’ll see way more Warriors than Rangers, but that’s not the case.

You are ridiculously bad at following conversation. I am going to baby step this for you.

1. Here is your blatantly false quote. “Every competitive team have one warrior in their team comp.” THE TRUTH- that less than 50% of the teams making it to the highest levels of the last 3 tournaments included warriors. Less than 12.5% of players in those teams chose warrior. My counter that teams are not choosing warriors and players are not choosing warriors despite your claims was accurate. It was never intended to say that warriors were 100% absent.

If warriors were in line they would be on 62.5% of teams and make up 12.5% of players.

2-3 You tried to make popularity equate to strength. You can’t, end of story. Now you are trying to make a distinction between PvE and PvP. I would counter that low level competition, which is what you must be crying about most, is a lot closer to PvE; and peoples choices there revolve more around preference than it does in high level competition.

4. What are you arguing? You are blatantly accepting that two other professions should be unbalanced while trying to complain about a prof that is in-line or below performance? I’ll just say it again, no-one cares to respond to your suggestions because you insist on making baseless claims and living in a skewed reality. A profession that is 9/80 top team slots in the last 3 tournaments IS NOT performing above expectation. Period.

sorrow.2364:

Iscariot.4876:

1. Subjective commentary, not shared by all and not demonstrated in matches either by direct observation or by the simple and obvious evidence that top Pvpers don’t choose to play warrior or add warriors to their team comp.

2-3 Not evidence. Warrior is a flagship class of any fantasy MMO. They are always over represented by gross numbers. You might as well say that Humans are broken in GW2 because you see so many being played.

4. Bald faced lie. Completely false. 3 of the 40 players making up the teams of the finals and semi-finals of PAX and ESL were warriors. 6 of 40 in the latest MLG. I think you are talking about Guardians and Rangers who made up 8 and 9 players respectively.

The actual trend in high level play is encouraging that warriors are finding a place. Quit spreading poorly thought out misinformation please.

1. When was the last time you watched a competitive PvP match exactly? That is just a false statement.

2-3. In fact, human is not the most popular race in Guild Wars 2 competitive scene, but Asuras are, which are, in fact, broken for multiple reasons. I think you aren’t that much into competitive PvP. When you are talking about competion, there isn’t any preference. People just pick the best profession/race possible and it isn’t a case that FotM professions are usually the overpowered ones.

4. Warriors become FotM only for the PAX finals and, in fact, CC changed their team comp to add a warrior in it for finals, despite the fact that they never ran one since that point. Also, in the latest MLG tournament, 6 of the 40 players are warrior is an huge numer. That means that 8 teams out of 6 ran warrior. It’s a pretty high percentage considering that a Warrior does not fit any core role.
Guardian and Rangers, on the other hand, are mid point and close point bunkers, who are mandatory roles for every competitive team. Because of how conquest is designed and how those professions are designed, they are a requirement. Warrior, on the other hand, does not fit any of those roles, means that the only variety comes from the other 3 free spots and most of them are occupied by Warriors, which says much.

1. Are you kidding? I’ve been consistently using real data from the tournaments to counter the horrid arguments of people like you that try to introduce misinformation into balance arguments.

2-3 You tried making an argument that being common or popular in low levels of play means something is broken. Fact is Humans are the most commonly played class in GW2 by a large margin. This directly leads to show that your argument and logic is completely flawed. Learn to keep up with the flow of argument.

4. 6 of 40 is a huge number? Are you being intentionally misleading? 5 of 40 is exactly ideal representation of 12.5%. 6/40 is one extra at 15%. At that same tournament engineers were 5/20, necro 5/20, thief 5/20, ranger 9/20, guardian 8/20… So a 20% increase over thief/necro but still a 25% and 33% decrease compared to guardian and ranger. Sorry but warriors seem to be pretty much in-line. And that was only the very first time they had those numbers. Necros and thieves used to be up there with guard and ranger with everyone else in the dumper. As teams get used to warrior, there is no telling what will happen. Warriors may go up, may even out, may drop down.

sorrow.2364:

High level PvPers have said that Warriors are broken.

SoloQ is overcrowded by warriors.

Numbers of warriors are out of proportion (as pointed out multiple times).

Every competitive team have one warrior in their team comp.

1. Subjective commentary, not shared by all and not demonstrated in matches either by direct observation or by the simple and obvious evidence that top Pvpers don’t choose to play warrior or add warriors to their team comp.

2-3 Not evidence. Warrior is a flagship class of any fantasy MMO. They are always over represented by gross numbers. You might as well say that Humans are broken in GW2 because you see so many being played.

4. Bald faced lie. Completely false. 3 of the 40 players making up the teams of the finals and semi-finals of PAX and ESL were warriors. 6 of 40 in the latest MLG. I think you are talking about Guardians and Rangers who made up 8 and 9 players respectively.

The actual trend in high level play is encouraging that warriors are finding a place. Quit spreading poorly thought out misinformation please.

sorrow.2364:

BurrTheKing.8571:

You really should post the build you’re using. I get the feeling that you’re trying to be funny but this comes off more like a troll. I know this means little coming from me but you always present your points in such a…annoying fashion.

That being said some people think that I’m highly biased and ignore any counter arguments. I don’t feel this is true, sure of course I’m biased as a Warrior main but I still have yet to see any reasonable suggestions on how to balance Warriors. Most “suggestions” would send the class back to the stone age after a year-long journey to get where they are.

The only point I will concede that Skull Crack could use a better animation, but we better get a kitten cool looking animation. Maybe have a giant orange-red colored ether hand…thing.

I’ve posted a list of possible fixes to Warriors right now and they were far from unreasonable and warrior-destroying.

It has been ignored by pretty much everyone and the “warrior is not OP” show has gone on.

Because people don’t want their profession to be reasonably good, they just want their profession not to be nerfed.

People aren’t dealing with your proposed nerfs because there is no evidence showing that anything is broken. Nothing beyond your own insistence, and that makes your “fixes” really just ways to make things easier on yourself.

Current tournament match make ups and review of current tournament matches doesn’t show warriors over performing. In fact the newest tournament is the first time they are in-line. Your personal desire to make them weaker could damage that balance and send them back to the bottom.

If you want to help balance, get off the warrior forums and go to the Elementalists and Mesmers forums to get them a boost. I would suggest finding a way to have them compete for guardian and ranger team spots. The only 4 professions currently showing out of balance performance.

sorrow.2364:

Daecollo.9578:

Unviable Yep.

Here is a picture of me vs Three Warriors.

Completely outplayed me with there awesome god-like-ness.

Daecollo, you have posted an heavily cut, uncensored edited image in which you can’t even distinquish the warriors and probably shot in hotjoins.

How can that picture mean something?

Other than the sarcastic photo-shop it has plenty of meaning. He brought this from another thread where he is countering anecdotal complaints with his own anecdotal results. No, it isn’t proof and it isn’t the best form of evidence. But, it does equally counter the nerf warrior qq which is entirely anecdotal.

Even if this is hot-join, it is better than most of the solo-roaming wubwub crying. At least he is definitely fighting warriors with equal gear levels. That’s way better than the wubwub fairy tales you find filling the qq lines.

mrook.4163:

I won’t comment whether or not I think warriors should be nerfed, but I do want to point out that there was not only one build used in MLG. Despite my issues on home point, our warrior, Olrun the Blade (Sense of Tumor), did an excellent job as a mid bunker. Warrior has a lot more build options than Hammer/Longbow, and a few of them are seeing use by good teams.

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t watch those matches fully before posting and the wiki didn’t have updated builds until a day or two ago. I did go find the matches on youtube and watch them after seeing your post.

Out of respect for a good player I’m not going to try and armchair critique the match. I’ll just say I think he did a heroic job. I would advise anyone curious to watch the matches themselves if they are interested in running a warrior mid bunker.

Ryan.8367:

“No one cares about the qq of duel heroes.”

Then why are all the warriors defending it then? When you go to a duel arena, there’s 60% warriors 50% of them running mace/shield stun spec, coincidentally, the same warriors on here defending it hence why I said it’s not a tpvp weapon anyway, you know, if you read my previous post you’d realize that. Like I said before, the warriors defending it are duel arena dwellers who want to continue to have their 100blades handed to them on a silver platter. It’s ok, they can have their crutches, not my fault they need to stun someone for 4 seconds every 7 seconds to land hits on them and I don’t really care either way. You have a fundamental issue though here, mace is a 1on1 weapon like you said, then why are all of the warriors defending it so hard. Hammer isn’t under attack which is used more in tPvP.

Well I “personally” don’t care about MS/GS. But I do care about Sigil of paralyzation since it has affect on the only viable tPvp build warriors have. If dealing with mace stuns tips Hammer out of competition, I think that would be a huge mistake. I am really glad that Anet promised to watch closely the effect the Sigil change has on warriors.

I love defending the flights of stairs just past water gate in Garrison. When I see a zerg stacking on the upper landing, I can’t stop myself from slotting Death from Above, Stomp, and Fear Me. Jump from the wall and watch the kittenroaches scatter.

Oh, I also love reading really bad balance arguments on the warrior forums.

Zacchary.6183:

Quakeman.9378:

a t s e.9614:

oZii.2864:

Did he say S/D is the only Viable Thief spec? Do these people actually go read the forums of the classes they play or just go to other classes they don’t and comment?

Yes S/D is the only good spec, theres P/D condi but its way too complicated on a thief, roll warr or necro for this.

That’s a load of bull dude. D/P is also extremely viable, and d/d isn’t completely non-viable.

D/D is the bread and butter of the thief build and its still meh. D/P Is nice but unless you trait for initiative regen the high cost just to stealth can be better replaced with x/d.

I’m not trying to argue or make any statements on Thieves (I think thieves are walking the same razor edge of balance that warr are on), but just pointing out that GSL finals had 2 D/P thieves with SB as secondary. They were very powerful and had a lot of impact with their mobility and burst.

FirstBlood.7359:

Lina.9640:

This is why the Guardian is so powerful. The Guardian has an excellent base and its traits were decently designed. On top of that, nearly all of its weapons are useful in some form or another. It’s pretty much the only class that can go Damage, Support, and Defense, though obviously it’s better at tanking and support than DPS, but Anet seems to be willing to change that. It really is the gold standard class and Anet continues to dote on them while ignoring or gutting other professions, which is bound to create some resentment.

Would you call greatsword useful except for its aesthetic value? Would you call torch useful? Would you call sword useful?

Conquest with all its mechanics makes the Guardian so popular. The Guardian lacks mobility, but compensates with support and bunkering abilities. With this unique mix the Guardian fits into the role of the point defender that teams need on every map. In contrast to the old elementalist – great support, high mobility and insane sustain – the guardian has clear weaknesses such as the lack of mobility. That’s why the old bunkering elementalist was OP, while the guardian has always been balanced.

Back to the warrior: Currently, the warrior is out of balance for the same reason. Even bad players can bring the warrior with its low skillcap to great effect. The warrior offers too much for too little effort and does not have a clear weak spot.

You cannot argue that a class that is grossly over-represented is balanced while a class that is sitting in-line with representation is out of balance. The actual evidence completely negates your anecdotal statements. And Guardian’s “lack of mobility” is actually identical mobility to almost every class except a Thief bringing a sb. No other prof can bring a high mobility spec to tPvp anyway.

To your statement that warriors are too low skill-cap, so what? Even if it were true that warriors were lower skill-cap than other professions, the total package isn’t so powerful that it over competes at top levels. You can’t balance the game around the worst players, you have to balance it around the best.

And anyway. EVERY single class is low skill-cap, that is part of the balancing. It is just false and misdirecting to use “skill-cap” as an argument. An individual ability might not seem unbalanced but if it allows some much greater ease of use, it pushes balance. Ease of use and power go hand in hand.

The sPvP boards are lighting up about pets and AI control. Rangers Spirits aren’t that much different than banners for warriors. But they come with AI and mobility making them less clunky a mechanic. Most current meta classes use ranged AoE, why? Because it is so much easier to use than anything else. You can spend almost 100% of your time actively avoiding damage without sacrificing your ability to do damage. How much nicer is it to have short cast abilities with no animation differences over having slow unique animations?

Excalibur.9748:

Warriors never went on other forums and QQed and asked for nerfs to other classes, WE wanted improvements to ours.

No it’s just mostly warriors complaining about thieves and vice versa. We practically hate each other.

If I could have 1 cent for everytime a warrior claiming how imba backstab is for hitting X damage on their oh so high armor then I’d be rich.

I agree with that warr and thieves spend too much time arguing. I don’t think it’s beneficial to the game as a whole. I have 80s of both, my first two classes.

The biggest reason I think they are natural enemies is that they compete for similar spots in groups and teams. Notice PAX/ESL; 6 Thief, 3 Warr. Now in MLG 6 Warr, 5 Thief. The two just naturally compete for high damage, high mobility spots.

I feel if the numbers stay in the 5-6 representatives per top 40 each, they both look pretty close. Just hold off until other classes start reaching the same numbers. Nerf QQ on both sides should just be put on simmer instead of broil.

0 warriors on Top Teams run your OP Mace/HB specs. No one cares about the qq of duel heroes. There is no balance issue there.

9 Rangers are in the top teams of GSL, 8 Spirit, I think 1 beast. Most Shortbow but some dual melee. 2 different teams ran dual ranger. This IS a balance issue that needs addressed.

Full stop.

Fasyx.9347:

Iscariot.4876:

Out of 8 teams-
9 Rangers
8 Guardians
6 Warriors
5Thieves
5 Necros
5 Engineers
2 Mesmers

I want to point out, that EVERY class is used besides the elementalist. Just wanted to post it here, maybe a dev or one of the “Balance-guys” will come across it. Dont tell me I should post this on the elementalists forum, you ll NEVER see a ANet guy there – they just like to ignore all the QQ on the eleforum.

But hey, we are fine ANet.

Hey I’m with ya. Would be nice to see Ele and Mesmer competing for some of those Guard and Ranger spots. Mesmer might keep bumping up if Warrior stays around, so they may get some… But I’m kinda scared they are gonna get the thief spots because it seems so hard to compete with Rang/Guard group strengths.

If they adjust Ele just a tad, I could see them having the group synergy with Warr for combo fields etc to maybe compete.

Anyway, no class should be left out in the cold.

Lina.9640:

FirstBlood.7359:

By your logic – by pure numbers – the Guardian must be the most overpowered profession. In reality however, the Guardian is the most balanced profession. You have to evaluate the professions in the context of the team composition.

See, I think there’s a misconception here.

Everyone seems to think that the Guardian is either balanced, unbalanced (not OP or UP, just unbalanced) or just OP.

It’s really weird. I’m wondering if the Guardian really is balanced but can’t be seen for it because no other class is. Or, maybe, it really is OP because it’s balanced and no other class is.

Still, regardless, Guardians do their job exceptionally well, more so than any other profession. Which really is a shame, if you think about it.

This is one reason you have to look at the entire system when trying to gauge. You are completely correct, Guardians may or may not actually be OP. It may actually be that just the system as a whole is slightly out of whack. Its one reason that Anet devs need to make minor, slow changes and gather good data in between.

It’s naive NOT to use hard numbers like this for balance. You cannot deal with any one variable in a vacuum when dealing with this complex of a system. Post after post after post about comparing this ability in class A to an ability in class B. Can’t be done. You have to take the total package and see how it performs.

Example:
Mole says to Eagle “Your vision is totally OP. Why do you get to see me from 100yds in the air? Why do you get claws that grab? Why do you get wings?”

Mole is blind, mole is earthbound, mole has no defensive weapons. But reality is that mole is far more successful at survival than Eagle. The numbers of moles is greater, they are adapted to success with tools perfectly made for their situation. Taking the big picture is the only way to actually gauge.

And yes Guardian is possibly one of the most unbalanced professions in tPvp. Possibly out done by Ranger, but it’s close. No team played without a guardian, some teams played with 2 rangers. That isn’t balanced at all. Someone should compete with that spot, someone should be able to fill those roles equally well so teams have variation.

Does that mean you weaken ranger and guardian? Maybe tweak, I dunno. I’m sure they are on a razor’s edge the same as warrior. Shave anything and they might tip to uselessness. Maybe you strengthen a competing profession? Make someone else able to do the job, or neutralize those classes. Regardless. Yes, they currently bring too much to the table.

A new tournament just finished and we have REAL information about warrior balance instead of biased, anecdotal, and “Give me back my I win button” posts.

What are REAL top level teams using? Is there a screaming horde of Warriors ruining tPvp? Let’s look at REAL information.

Out of 8 teams-
9 Rangers
8 Guardians
6 Warriors
5Thieves
5 Necros
5 Engineers
2 Mesmers

Whaaaat? No 300 “For Sparta!!”? Warriors are performing on par with expectation of 5 spots per 40!! For the first time!! I actually did a breakdown of the PAX/ESL top 8 teams in another thread and they were still much lower, so this is the first time they actually take equal footing!

Let’s talk about some result tidbits.

Guardians, Rangers, Thieves, and Engineers all showed up with varied specs. Warriors had 1 spec, so right now warrior only has 1 viable top end tPvp spec. Hammer/longbow.

Guard/Ranger? These guys are too strong. Maybe not their single abilities or stats. But something about the way they add to groups, ease of play, crazy utilities, something is making them way overbalanced. I don’t have a solution, but the reality is there.

Engineers!! Engineers making a comeback! Low low numbers in PAX/ESL, but not today? Why? Well maybe because warriors are showing up so Necro isn’t always the best condi-spam class anymore? And did you see that Rifle/Power Engi eating warriors?? “Come here little engie, hammer smas…holywhatdafuuuuq abort abort!”

Necros! Necros go from grossly over represented PAX/ESL to right in line with others. Common theme of team fights, warrior joins fight, sees necro, omgcomehuggleswitme!! If warrior isn’t in fight, necro lays waste everywhere almost without restriction.

Mesmer! Still low, but their ability to counter warriors was nutz. Shatter build? What dat? And they had some great all around sneakiness with portals. Watching a ranger solo capping only to see a warrior and guardian pop out of a portal on top of him… Priceless. Winning team had a mesmer, why doesn’t yours?

Warriors do not need shaved, they do not need nerfed. They are just now making an impact and ADDING game balance by opening room for new classes. Quit demanding nerfs so you can feel like a hot join/soloq/dueling/roaming hero. Thats the kind of thing that RUINS competitive game and destroys professions. Example, Elementalists. Oh, where for art though sparky/flamey/watery/muddy ones? Nerfed into oblivion because people asked for too much too fast and didn’t realize the impact.

Warriors are in a dangerous position. Sigil of Para changes may ruin the one tPvp spec they have. If that necro isn’t locked down, why bring a warrior at all? Might need to add something to keep them in the place they are now. I don’t mind trying it, but Anet needs to watch it close close.

Lose warrior, lose Engie, lose Mesm.

Warrior doesn’t need any “shaving”. The class is still under represented in finalists teams of major tournaments. It still isn’t apparent if Warrior is even capable of competing for top team spots yet. Changing any current features could tip them right back in the dumpster.

People keep running around screaming that the sky is falling, but their only real purpose is changing the game in their own favor. Reality is that current data still shows Warriors lagging behind. It’s going to take more major tournaments to show where they really stand. Today is a new invitational, more hard numbers.

Even after the balance patch; Rang, Nec, Guard, and to a lesser extent Thief have been over represented. The other 4 profs, including Warr, are heavily under. Let’s see what happens at MLG.

jportell.2197:

No mesmer? lol and people are still calling for nerfs on us.

Totally my fault, I missed the notes I made on them, I’ll edit and add them.

Reasons for my listing is pure representation based. No theory crafting or views on individual abilities, just a real world litmus test of what classes a team will bring when a real consequence to losing exists.

The data I am using comes from the PAX invitational, both the final and the Open qualifier finals for NA and EU, and the ESL Open Finals and Grand Finals. That is a total of 8 teams, each reaching the highest levels of success.

S:
=Ranger
9/8 On the 8 teams being most successful in these tournaments there were 9 Rangers. One team was willing to bring 2 rangers over any other class.

A:
+Guardian
8/8 Every single one of the 8 teams had 1 Guardian. May be closer to S class.

+Necromancer
8/8 with one Necromancer per team. May be closer to S class.

-Thief
6/8 Six of the 8 teams gave a team spot to a thief. With 8 professions and only 5 spots on a team, no profession should expect 100% representation. With 40 total spots over 8 teams, each profession should have 5. The thief may be the only true “A” but I will assign it a – and give the other two A class professions a + to denote the difference.

B:

=Warrior
3/8 Warriors were found on only 3 of the 8 teams. Two of the teams were finalists so Warrior may deserve a +, only more tournaments will show that. Regardless warriors are under-representing since each profession should achieve 5 spots out of 40 or 12.5% representation in top teams.

=Engineer
3/8 Three of the 8 teams had an engineer spot. One of the engineer spots was a finalist team. Engineer may be a – when compared directly in this category with warrior. Finalist spot is a very close distinction, and both are equally under-represented, so both are simply listed as =.

-Mesmer
2/8 Only 2 teams gave spots to a Mesmer, but both those teams were finalists. Mesmers may have a hidden strength, but they still are less represented than Warrior and Engineer in B class. Listing them with a – to show this.

C:
Elementalist
1/8 Only one elementalist found a spot in the top 8. Help these guys. The most under-represented profession at this time.

Warr doesn’t even counter the meta. Watch the tournaments and you will see that condi meta is still king. Just a single warrior spec can now compete for tournament spots. Longbow/hammer is the spec all the warriors in any finals matches ran, it isn’t even the stun cc spec.

For some reason certain player don’t want to see warriors in tournament teams.

In fact the game is probably in a really close state, the only class that wasn’t represented at all in any of the finals matches was Ele. Rather than shaving, they should just massage Eles and leave everyone else alone till we see all classes finding representation.

You never change multiple variables when you experiment, why should you do it while balancing?

sorrow.2364:

Want some high tier opinion?

Symbolic, from Team Curse (ex Team Paradigm):
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/warrior/Warrior-Discussion/page/3#post2783991
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/warrior/Warrior-Discussion/page/3#post2784880

Fuzion, from team USA and top 10 before inactivity
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/warrior/Warrior-Discussion/page/3#post2783943

Also, have you watched the ESL opening cup? You can count on the fingers of one hand the teams which didn’t ran any warrior.

You have no arguments. Both your quotes were debunked with one being a random nonsensical comment and the other being a theory-crafting discussion that the player admits may be wrong and his opinion may change.

And counting warriors is an argument?? Seriously? Did you count teams with necro,thief,guardian,ranger?? How many teams were missing one of those classes in “the opener”.

Now tell me how many warriors were in the “FINAL”. Right… 1.

How about the Grand Final? 2… each team brought a warr.

What about PAX? Oh yeah …1.

How can you not be happy that warriors are now good enough to get a team spot on tournament teams? The only thing you can do is wait to see what happens, and maybe want Engies and Eles to get a little boost since they seemed underrepresented.

With the new patch Engies new group utility may bump them enough that they are a playstyle decision with other group fight classes.

Excalibur.9748:

Daecollo.9578:

Excalibur.9748:

Daecollo.9578:

Excalibur.9748:

Daecollo.9578:

Excalibur.9748:

Very little of these type of topics actually started on the warrior forums. Most of them are actually started on the ‘Structural PvP’ forum to have a non-biased viewpoint, but then Daecollo gets them moved over to warrior forum and here we are.

They are warrior topics?

Yes but this forum is biased. There is a reason these topics are made in sPvP or WvW and not here.

Well of course its biased?

So why move them here if you know it’s going to be biased?

Because I don’t want the SPVP forums filled with topics that are about Warrior, 1v1, GvG, WvWvW?

That hardly matters when sPvP is the one that decides the fate of all those above.

So why don’t we talk about warriors impact on sPvP and stop derailing the balance discussion with 1v1 and WubWub examples and conversations.

And if you want to talk balance you should only be talking about high tier play. Since there is no real data for this outside 1 major tournament with 1 warrior who wasn’t even the stun warrior spec… Why are we having these screaming matches again????

Tournaments need to play for a few months to see what balances are needed, IF any.

buppor.4827:

50% more of crit, you arrive with fury to 100% crit, can make 20k easy to no tank class with 100b, is pure skill.

O.o
What?
This ability is necessary or PVT warriors would just die slower while being 0 threat. It’s an awesome trait that allows for build diversity.

It’s funny you are complaining about this when most pvp hero classes have the VTCondi, and Shaman’s gear tanks with massive EHP and single stat (condi) damage source…

They don’t even have to set up their damage with a condition state, but I guess throwing up aoe condi circles just takes more skill. /sarcasm

Lord Titan.3791:

And just to note, Mace/Shield-GS is not just countering conditions. It provides a difficult time for almost every build currently if played correctly. In the right hands it is only threatened by about 20-30% of the current builds.

That sounds pretty balanced. In the wrong hands, the build can be beaten by general builds. In the right hands you have to build specifically against it to give yourself an edge. 20-30% of builds can force this build into a loss or at least a stalemate… That sounds like the EXACT definition of balanced.

Everyone crying nerf seems to want every build to have a 100% chance of beating every Warrior build. It doesn’t work that way… 20-30% of builds are good at pressuring M/S-GS, only they are vulnerable to a different 20-30% of builds that M/S has advantages over.

It’s called rock- paper- scissors and it is balanced.

Unless warriors dominate all Pvp venues to the point where no-one chooses to use other classes, quit calling for nerfs. Strong builds should be left alone and general class improvements should be made to other builds until there are many viable options.

Wuflric Glacius.2078:

Death shroud still lasts longer than our stuns combined and is available no matter what build, all thief weapons have a stealth attack and to make it crit is always a bonus. There is no boon or skill that can remove those abilities. A thief is in stealth it won’t lose it easily, necro can’t lose it until they decide to end it. Stuns don’t work with stability or if you have a stun breaker their effectiveness is seriously dropped. This trait has been here since the start so I can’t see how all of a sudden it’s OP when for the past year almost it was fine.

+1 Wulfric
The arguments made so far are just an obvious attempt to sabotage a particular build. The comparisons made with necro and thief abilities attempt to add a weak veneer of logic to it, but they are so flawed it hurts to read.

The warrior ability is obviously the weakest of the three. Multiple reasons have been presented. The fact that the warrior trait is dependent on weapon set, not so with thief or necro. The ability to negate its effect by the target, Wulfric pointed out how only the warrior has to worry about this. And a last point that I would like to make, only the warrior is limited on what target choice they get to use the bonus crit to. Necros can simply blanket crits on any target they choose, and thief can invis and get a guaranteed crit on any target in range. Warr are limited in using their bonus crit on the single target suffering from the cc, no flexibility and very predictable.