Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

TheKnox

Member Since 11 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Sep 26 2013 08:45 PM

#1688828 yes, your guardian is one of the strongest offensive professions

Posted Soryuju on 07 August 2012 - 03:31 AM

So, should we maybe clear up the issue of semantics that's become apparent in the past few pages?

At this point in the discussion, most of us who are discussing offensive Guardians are referring to balanced offensive builds, not glass cannons.  A glass cannon Guardian spec may be possible to make, and may be able to accomplish its job successfully, but I don't think that the majority of the people arguing in favor of the offensive Guardian are expecting to see the glass cannon build become meta.  It's certainly capable of doing good damage, and it does have durability beyond what a normal glass cannon might, but I still think Warriors and Thieves will be the preference for burst damage.

The offensive Guardian that most of us are concerned with at this point has 18k+ HP, high toughness, strong control options, and good condition removal, while still being able to launch ZD's that hit for 4-6k.  It serves a very similar role in games to the defensive Guardian,   but provides different advantages and should (most likely) be used in different team compositions to reflect this.  Let me break down some of the advantages I see to each:

As stated in my previous post, I'd rather have an offensive Guardian to attack a point defended by a solo player (or defend one attacked by a solo player, for that matter), since the offensive Guardian will be able to dispatch said player more quickly and easily than the defensive counterpart, which means that my team can claim the point and reap the benefits far more quickly than they could with the defensive Guardian.  The offensive Guardian also has better means of responding to ranged harassers while trying to take a point, since it still possesses a variety of blocks, blinds, and other defensive skills, but unlike its defensive cousin, it has high enough damage output to pose a threat to the harasser (most likely with Scepter attacks, though Spirit Weapons can assist here too) and possibly force them to retreat, all while staying on-point.  

On the other hand, I'd probably prefer to handle a 2v1 on a point with a defensive Guardian, since it's built strictly for survival, and can probably stall the attackers until help arrives.  Again, that's not to say that I don't think a well-played offensive Guardian is capable of winning a 2v1, but there is more risk in engaging multiple attackers with the offensive build than with a defensive build centered on survival and control, and the fewer unnecessary risks you have to take in a match, the better it is for your team's success.  If you do manage to kill both opponents with an offensive build, you win double, but in the time it takes you to do so, the defensive Guardian may have already received the reinforcements necessary for a cleaner set of kills.

To continue, the offensive Guardian is preferable if your map strategy doesn't involve camping mid, while the defensive Guardian is better if it does.  Defensive might be the way to go if the rest of your team is geared primarily for dealing damage, but if you have a mix of damage and control/support-oriented builds, the offensive Guardian may be the perfect complement.  The map you're on might also have some influence - I'd personally prefer to have an offensive Guardian for helping to speed up Svanir/Chieftain kills, for instance, but a defensive Guardian may be more useful for tying up opponents on Kyhlo so as to circumvent attacks on your trebuchet.

The point being, there's no way anyone can just say that one build is flat-out superior to the other.  Each serves a similar role, that being point defense, but as illustrated above, there are nuances to that role which the builds excel differently at, and these nuances are of comparable importance (for instance, 1v1 and 2v1 capability).  Which you should choose, is, again, dependent upon your team composition, and trying to fit one build into a composition that it's redundant in will yield sub-optimal results.  I seriously doubt that all competitive team comps are going to favor one style of Guardian, so why try to write either one off at this stage?  If anything, we miss out on a lot of valuable theorycrafting by doing so, and that could limit our understanding of both the Guardian profession and of PvP as a whole.


#1686433 Tournament sPVP - Strategy - Tactics - and Guardians

Posted jmilktoast on 06 August 2012 - 05:17 PM

View PostAnirien1, on 06 August 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

If you are fighting a 1v2+ however you are still getting DPS’d down by the allies while you are wasting your DPS on a kiting or defensive foe.  As a result focusing on damage in that situation doesn’t get you very far and you will die quicker because you are not focusing on defending yourself.

Your build and play-style impacts your overall effectiveness in a tournament match.

If you have a better defensive build with greater synergy and can defend a node more successfully through defensive play then you will help your team more than dying faster with an offensive build.

If you have a better support build with greater synergy and can support your allies with boons, heals, CC, Area Control, Condition Removals, all while providing some damage, etc…  more successfully through supportive play then you will help your team more than providing a bit more damage with an offensive build.

If you are trying to justify an offensive build for a guardian with a limited team size of 5 then you are losing your effectiveness in support and defensive strategies and tactics.  Since a guardian can be more useful to your team in a support / defensive role it is better to re-trait or to simply find another “stronger offensive profession” to take your slot on the team.  ;)

these are all perfect world arguments trying to support your pseudo trinity. the fact is that the guardian can stay relatively supportive and defensive because of the way their skills were created. a lot of the skills in the game has multiple dimensions to them, and enough applications depending on the situation to be control/support/offensive.

hova has already shown he can be all of those with a more offensive oriented build because it fits "his" play style and "his" team's make up.

everything you have posted is highly subjective and borderline trolling. all of this could've been avoided if you just accept the fact that he is successful with a different build than yours, neither one is better than the other. instead you post fallacy after fallacy and parade them as facts, while providing no actual proof, just more theoretical situations and semantics.


#1674159 yes, your guardian is one of the strongest offensive professions

Posted Tumri on 03 August 2012 - 08:50 PM

View PostAnirien1, on 03 August 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

The evidence ultimately is found in the meta that has already developed and is unlikey to change.

The question (below) that has been around for a number of pages now on this thread also reveals the meta and the proponents of an offensive guardian haven't been able to address the answer it reveals.

If this is what you really believe then it's obvious you have absolutely no experience or knowledge about PvP in any MOBA, RTS, or MMO. It's pretty clear that some of the people arguing on this thread have a very casual gaming experience and don't have knowledge about how things work on the competitive side of games. Metas always change. Most builds, specs, classes, etc. that are thought to be crap have at least one point where they're viable or even dominant.

In the original Guild Wars ANet developed a system where the meta would change month to month with minimal buffs/nerfs because new builds would pop up as players theorycrafed their brains out trying to gain a competitive edge. I played a support/defensive guardian for a bit to get a feel for the game and then theorycrafted a tanky DPS support build that could provide a lot of support while doing DPS that would classify it as an offensive build. Eventually I'll find a more optimal setup and move on to that. Builds will grow more and more optimized until players settle onto a clearly dominant and versatile build that will be popular for an extended period. After a time either nerfs/buffs or innovation of other builds to counteract the dominant build will force yet another round of increasingly optimal builds.

The system is set up in a way that no one build will have everything. Builds sacrifice in one area to gain in another. If conditions are rampant than players will find that the most optimized setup will be heavy condition removal at the expense of other utilties, traits, or weapon skills. Once players find that condition removal is rampant they will shift to more direct damage and the heavy condition removal trend will be less prevalent. Once direct damage is rampant players will focus on defensive boons, toughness, blocks, and other ways to avoid direct damage.

In GW1 a "Balanced" setup eventually developed where people built a front, mid, and backline that wasn't amazing at any one particular thing but was moderately good at dealing with everything. Eventually more and more slight variations of this "balanced" setup developed but the general idea stayed prevalent. This still didn't stop quirky spike or pressure builds from developing. People found that a Hexway, or a heavy hex pressure setup, was effective at overpowering the balanced build unless they were significantly outplayed. Eventually the balanced builds started swaying more toward hex removal to counteract this. The meta still developed.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the meta will change without a doubt. Nearly every weird and quirky setup you can think of will be made viable by innovative theorycrafters at some point. I cannot stress this enough. For example Rangers were thought of as interrupters, pressurers, and anti-gank mid liners in GvG for years. After years of people pidgeonholing the class to these roles intelligent players developed a spike build that emphasized the ranger's ability to quickly deliver multiple small packets of damage. To this day this uniquely functioning spike remains a part of the meta game. If everyone refused to theorycraft and instead chose to worship the word of the most visible teams and players(*Cough* Random YouTubers *Cough*) like you're doing right now then Guild Wars 1 PvP wouldn't have been as enjoyable and innovative to so many players for so many years.

View PostAnirien1, on 03 August 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Nice Evidence :P

Evidence is found in the teams we faced, the guilds forums we can visit, the you-tube videos we can watch, etc..

Are you going to tell us that you see this abundant "evidence"  of successful offensive guardians roamers in in tournament teams?

He's being sarcastic. I'm guessing he's not willing to waste his time because you're using arguments that make no sense and supporting said arguments with either completely false statments or your own previous unsubstantiated arguments. Let me give you an example of what you're basically doing...

A and B are in a dark room. They hear a noise and wonder what it is. They ask "Who's there". They hear a voice that says "I'm a Dragon." B is content with the answer and accepts it as fact. A decided to investigate and turns on a light. The "Dragon" turns out to be a hippo. B refuses to believe that it's a hippo despite the evidence he's been given by A. B argues that the voice in the dark claimed that it was a dragon, so it must be a dragon. A argues that the hippo saying it's a dragon isn't sufficient evidence to suggest it's a dragon since new evidence has strongly supported the idea that it's a hippo. B circles back and demands that A prove that it's a hippo and not a dragon. A says that the hippo is right in front of their eyes. B again circles back and claims that because the voice in the dark said it was a dragon then it must be a dragon. A gets frustrated and B remains blissfully ignorant.

You're acting like B.

---

Here's another example in picture format.

http://i.imgur.com/OOVPq.jpg


#1584716 Retaliation, a mature discussion of benefits, impact and pros and cons, Leadi...

Posted ZCKS on 09 July 2012 - 11:40 AM

View Postjmilktoast, on 08 July 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

i worry about team balance, granted it could be hard countered or straight up stripped, the fact that you can keep it up majority of the time, would create severe gimmick builds. such a reiteration would have to have changes not just across skills, but traits as well.

That can easily be fixed by adjusting the cool downs of abilities that provide it and/or the durations of the retaliation applied.

View PostTheKnox, on 08 July 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Unless they make it hit for more than the incoming damage, it will virtually always be to your advantage to avoid getting hit. Retaliation will trade a 1000 damage hit for (let's be generous and assume they buff it to 50%) 500 damage. This is a losing position in nearly every scenario.

You would basically always be better off dodging the attack instead.

What it is good for is narrowing the gap between you and your enemy whenever you get hit. The 1000 HP net advantage becomes 500, or whatever the number ends up being. It basically is the offensive version of protection.


This ^.

Also realistically if it were changed to a % based reflection I'm betting they would also put some sort of cap on how much damage it can do so it would prevent it from becoming OP.
Something like

Retaliation: Reflects 10% (could possibly be allowed to do more if it's duration per application was shortened) of all damage taken back at your attacker, damage reflected per attack cannot exceed 10% of your maximum health.

So assuming you have 20k health & you get hit for 5k, the most that will be reflected is 500.


This formula is more balanced than what it is now because it scales to fit whataver is attacking you & doesn't punish any one style of attackers more than any other.