Talk:Warrior

• Added Profession Combinations section. --User: Queen of Spades 128.252.210.145 07:49, 18 October 2005 (EST)

Overrated

Might get bashed for that, but I think warriors are highly overrated. Not saying they are bad and that i never enjoyed using mine, but IMO it is far from best

Warriors have the highest DPS in the entire game, and that's mathematically proven fact. That doesn't make them the best, sure, but few other classes can empirically claim such an advantage. They are overrated in that you get a lot of unskilled players thinking they're totally 1337 invincible (Wammo Syndrome), I guess...as well as having a lot of misconceptions about them, like "Warriors are meant to be tanks" or whatever. They are definitely one of the most popular classes, always. (T/C) 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In most high-end PvP, warriors are the main killers. Yes they are used instead of your precious sins and dervishs. --Blue.rellik 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you have the lovely cookie-cutter mentality to thank for that fact. I play Ranger, not near as bad off as Dervish and Assassin, but I'm not part of the "Nuker, healbot, tank trinity" so I can't get in high-end PUGs. (give me one good reason to even want to be in a PUG) Luckily I have an open-minded guild, and 90% of the time I play my Ranger.

Dervs give the most DPS in the game, then sins.. Warriors in general are weak, though.. -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I play a W/R, and juggle adren, i find that I'm still attacking when dervs and sins have stopped, and I last longer. my warrior goes on and on and on with skills, while sins are out of the fray, and the dervish have put on his balthazar halloween costume to keep going. i have nothing against the two, derv's high output AOE damge can mop up mobs like chuck norris on crack and sins spike bosses to next tuesday, but warriors are a much more effective meat shield than a minion or pet, they're not overrated, but they're needed at least. Peace.

Warriors. Own. End of. 88.105.129.244 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

@warwick. "Warriors are weak in genral, though." Ok, that means that Derv are hopeslessly pathetic due to lower armour and sins are hopelessly pathetic for the same reason, that there is no point having a melee char cause the best one that lasts the longest, has the highest armour and has some of the most versitile move in the game? Grow up, create a War char, play it for 5 days and come back here and say that. - Kevant

DPS has nothing to do with the amount of armour you have. Also, Warriors are everything but versatile, sure you can use different types of weapons, but it still remains the same thing... attacking in melee Silver Sunlight 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, of course DPS has nothing to do with armor, where did you get that impression? And versitillity (sp?) is using wild blow, sprint etc. with prof. who need it. - Kevant

I quote : "has the highest armour". Versatility would be run something other than a melee build, not having a speed increasing stance or a different type of attack. Silver Sunlight 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, hang on, you got the wrong end of the stick, Let's say that u have a aeromancer elementalist primary, it's pvp and you need to get to another fight asap to spike, or whatever, and u need a speed buff, but u dont want to blow 10 energy on ranger buffs, and the other team will have a field day if u have a dervish enchantment on u, so u use sprint, which is cheap, and u can pump out more damage with tiger stance, or frenzy for example. I might be completely wrong, havent played for a year of so. If i'm wrong i'll accept that, but i dont think warriors are over rated. - kevant

Or you could just use Windborne Speed, Storm Djinn's Haste or whatever ;) I think this topic was more about W/X than X/W characters. Yes, there are a few skills, like Frenzied Defense, that are used by other professions, but a primary warrior has limited uses. Either way...in my opinion Warriors aren't over rated, but can be replaced by another character that can also achieve that amount of damage, yet have more versatility. Silver Sunlight 16:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give u that. Kevant 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No... im sorry warriors are far from having the most DPS... idk who educated you... but you might want to rethink what you are saying. Warriors deal damage that are not armor ignoring.... true some attacks have some armor penetration.... but so do other professions. An elementalist can easily pump out more DPS, because of aoe. A necromancer can easily pump out more DPS with a minion army or hexes (SS or SV), a SMITE monk can easily pump out more armor-ignoring holy damage in aoe or single target form. A Dervish can attack multiple targets and EASILY outdo a warrior with DPS x the number of adjacent enemies. An assassin can single-handedly spike down one target before a heal can be administered, maybe not more dps in the long run but much more efficient to spike than to slowly attack. I'm tired of going on.... in most high end PVP there are no/few warriors used at all. Idk when the last time you spectated anything ig, but if you ask me warrior is the most useless profession. Elementalists, monks, and ANY class as an ursan, can tank better than a warrior can, and almost every class can deal more damage than a warrior can. Nobody looks for warriors for runs, because they are sub par to sin, ele, derv, monk, or ranger runners. This class is obsolete and it also comes with the most ignorant players. Warriors are at MOST second best, tanks, runners, and damage dealers. most useless class imo 98.193.121.227 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"in most high end PVP there are no/few warriors used at all" ... and there goes your credibility. --Macros 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

oh, im sorry.... in Hero's ascent when was the last time a team purposely brought along a warrior and took halls. In random arenas.... if you play against a team of all warriors you laugh. you play a team of elementalists, necros, mesmers, monks, rits sins... the list goes on ur in trouble. The only PVP where warriors are still of some use is GVG.... and most of the top guilds dont run 2 warrior teams like ranks 20-200s. so "there goes your credibility" is a real smart comment, why dont you try to defend this useless profession instead of trying to pick at the way i presented how it absolutely sucks. 98.193.121.227 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a flaw in your presentation. Your claim was that Warriors do not have the highest DPS, but your supporting evidence seemed to be focused on "AoE" and spike damage, how very few ppl uses Warrior at high-end PvP, and then a bunch of PvE stuff. Even if your claim is true that Warriors don't have highest DPS (and I'm not saying if it's true or false), most of your paragraph focused on how Warriors sucks, which is not directly related to DPS. A class can have the highest DPS but phail at so many other things that nobody wants to use it. So you might want to focus on the "damage per second" aspect of things. Something that can be useful is establish the average size of minion armies and average number of targets in an Elementalist nuke at high end PvP. Not being familiar with the PvP game itself, I find it naturally easy to assume a large minion army is relatively hard to build and keep, while AoE spells (that are damage-focused) don't hit too many targets and have long recharge (which drastically kills their DPS). My assumptions can be completely wrong, but it would help your presentation to point establish some of these basis of your arguments. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the conversation, I realize *I* might be vague at a few places. There used to be a statement about "Warriors have the highest DPS in PvP, and thus they are the best class to apply pressure." In PvE, yes there's no argument that minion armies and Elementalist AoE skills have significantly higher DPS. I was critiquing that your presentation didn't do much to support that Warriors don't have highest DPS in PvP, except you might have been commenting on the overall game instead of focused on PvP. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to shit on the argument that warrior don't see use in high end pvp; but dR ran 3 warriors and gold caped last month. Sup run 2 warrriors. DF ran 2 warriors. Rawr run 2 warriors and have 4 mAT wins. Lord of all tyria 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You speak of high end PvP, and then you mention Hero's Ascent and Random Arena.
I just took 30 seconds to sign on GW and look at observer mode. Be Team [be] (rank 18) vs. Revive Teammates [rezz] (rank 25). And look at this... both teams have three warriors. --Macros 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Idk if you have trouble counting but both teams were running 2 warriors... I observe quite often actually and did so before i posted this. Warriors are run because they use adrenaline not energy and most high-end gvgs last a long time. They keep a certain pressure on the other team and when they expect to be in for a long fight, they bring them as opposed to other classes, because they can constantly pressure one target. one pd mesmer can completely shut down two monks, but will eventually run out of energy over a long period of time... so u look at it this way.... finish your opponent quickly and get it over with or play with two warriors and battle for over an hour. 98.193.121.227 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could think of it another way...which class never gets any nerfs from Izzy? (T/C) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Too "Bulky"

Is it just me or are the warriors too bulky. I mean they look obese, I would totally make a warrior if I didnt look like a cow. Some of the NPC warrior's look good because they ARENT bulky. 98.203.1.218 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the male warriors can look a bit thick lol.... but i guess its because of all the armor and physical strength. it would be kind of pointless if you were a midget warrior Silver Sunlight 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Chunky knees.

I'd rather look like a male warrior then a male mesmer. 222.153.235.129 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

or a male monk, those guys are fat as hell --Xilarth The Wise 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See if that male monk heals you next time... I don't think my monk looks too portly.68.54.151.121 05:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But they aren't too muscular for warriors, are they? I mean come on... I'd figure the Dervish and the Warrior are equally strong. But the Warrior is a better tank IMO. Okay Dervish has Earth Prayers. But the Warrior has some annoying skills like... oh say... this?--Alcedo Storysparrow 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Annoying, sure, but I'm happy if an enemy warrior wastes his elite on that. Trying to tank is neutering yourself. Tain 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Useless?

Perhaps I have been playing my sin for much too long that, which, yes, I love my warrior, I feel so frustrated with how... slow it kills things. Dragonspam in PvE is not the equivalent to Deathblossomspam and even on the armor department my Sentinel-armored warrior no longer feels any more durable than my CritAgl sin. No one tanks anymore and when you really do need to tank there are some better professions -- Derv Terratank, or, say, the newly buffed sin PermaSF engine [not to mention PermaSF makes the sin one of what I'd say is the ultimate farming machine]. Granted it still has a few uses like in the Deep and some missions such as Abaddon's Mouth [Ether Seals] make the adren specialty of the warrior a good thing, but nowadays, not being able to kill fast enough usually determines the team's welfare -- the mobs don't go for the warriors usually and so if the warrior's neither able to suck up the damage nor is able to pump out very good chunk of DPS, then isn't that what's called a 'dead weight?' I still love my warrior lots but she just doesn't see much action at all other than to help guildies in low-level areas. :( 67.234.7.172 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanking was never really necessary except maybe in the early days of GW. The point of tanking is to make grouping easier for nukes. With elementalist or barrage AoE being the dish of the day on the PvE menu, tanking is very effective in speeding kills. All about team strategy, my friend. — Powersurge360Violencia 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

While Warriors can't do as well as specialized builds for any one thing, they do provide a good mix of moderate damage, good durability, and potential conditions or Knockdown.Entrea [Talk] 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought of warriors as though they were a practice profession. A class sturdy enough to survive the stupidity/inexperience of the player, yet have a high enough base damage that it can still be somewhat useful. Deviant Priest 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Popularity of the Warrior

This is a purely subjective view but it’s something that occurs to me and I thought I’d share with you all in wiki-land. From my experience, the warrior is by far and away the most popular profession in the game, specifically, the male warrior. I’d be curious to know if Anet can back my observations with some stats but warriors really do dominate outposts and cities. It all got me thinking, why the prevalence. And I think, it’s classic ‘projection’. The majority of us who play, and I include myself in this, are somewhat nerdy males partially ostracized by conventional society. We use games such as Guild Wars as an escape from the norm and when we are presented with an option to represent ourselves in this escape we project our desires to be powerful, impressive and, above all, noticeable. So we choose the mighty warrior. Towering over others, broad in chest and noble in deed; a true and classic representation of the hero. This is who most of us want to be. Except for the other majority of males who, deep down, wish they were petite female monks. But regardless, the warrior is the quintessential champion. This is a little something I like to call, the Paladin Syndrome. Because, let’s be honest, we all want to be champions. - Anon

Depends... Most PvE Warriors are indeed male, commonly /Mo (that's the True Paladin Syndrome), take little damage and use Tactics. Most PvP Warriors have Elite Charr Hide top, Elite Glads arms / Chaos gloves, Vabbian Legs, boots vary and are Female. --- -- (s)talkpage 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Imo the male Warriors are all too fat, so perhaps that also 'projects' something... :) (T/C) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'd think that a lot more GW players are puny and pale like a mesmer, instead of being all bulky like a warrior. 222.153.245.112 08:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

where wars are useful

personally i think wars are useful in areas where either energy or enchantments are a problem from either e-denial or things like shatter enchants. then all the other tanking can't be used.

but i would agree that in any area that doesn't have these problems, other classes do better.

~Zex~

1) You don't need tanks in any PvE area except DoA, Urgoz, or the Deep or you are quite bad. 2)warrior "tanks" usually rely on energy and adrenaline so e-denial would rape them anyways. 3) People don't understand that warriors can do sooooooo much more then just tanking. Have a nice day. 75.92.46.118 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SF Tank can tank nigh anything. The only weakness is Signet of Disenchantment. Bonds take care of damage. Wars are good for damage. Not soaking. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Warriors are the main damage dealers in high-end, non-gimmick pvp. In pve, they're worse than useless. They are actually a liability. --Macros 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...You're bad :P --- -- (contribs) (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Warriors are awesome in PvE. Adrenaline is fairly easy to come by in PvE, so they can lay down fat stacks of conditions and damage in a matter of seconds (especially with Flail active). Plus they have awesome armor straight off the bat, which is further improved with shields and such meaning they can take that first hit where the entire aggro attacks at once. Plus they aren't enchant-based so can remain useful absolutely everywhere. — Powersurge360 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)