Will we all become Warrior Clones ?

We have all discussed numerous builds for Warriors, and with our knowledgeable contributors at the site discussing/advising on optimum performance for sword, axe and hammer warriors. With such a focus the tunnel gets narrower and narrower, we are more and more coming to the same conclusions.

We have all agreed on the basics for the Warrior: Induce conditions, snare and kill. We have 3 lines of weapon use: the axe, sword and hammer. Most PvP build also focuses on taking out casters, primarily Monks which are the lifeline of a team. We focus a lot on speed, with Frenzy and Flurry. For Warrior/E the focus is to conjure him with somthing and inducing even more conditions. Burning seems to be the favourite, along with skills like Immolate.

So with these guidelines it seems the Sword warrior is coming out on top, closely followed by the Axe Warrior. It is all personal preference though.

In my experiences in the Tombs as a Monk I usually encounter Warriors – yes they seem to love Monks. I would say ¾ of them are making me bleed, then follow up with a Deep Wound.

When, I see them coming I usually don’t run, because I know I probably will usually suffer two conditions (Conditions doesn't stack) and I am right pretty much always. They both usually carry a sword and both of them are using the same skills. The exceptions are the upper level teams with a strategy. I get very leery when I see a Ranger/Warrior and a Mesmer/Warrior coming sprinting up though – it is usually bad news, but to my surprise many of those guys also just make me bleed and induce a condition or two. So, I have been thinking that they must be using the same skills too.

The more I think about it, when we all discuss the optimum builds - the more obvious it seems that it is all preference and opinion. There are optimum builds out there, and with that I mean builds that yield high DPS and induce conditions.

But, how effective is this then if we all come up with the same conclusions and roughly the same builds? Again, excluding the upper level guilds like The Fianna. Most of the players in the forums are here to get questions answered and me, included not experienced team builders. We can only ask the same questions: How can I optimze my build in regard to DPS. How can I stay alive ? As examples.

I am tempted to rebuild my W/Mo - who is an "optimum" build for a sword warrior -with max conditions, healing, etc to something more odd. I think I would be better off designing my W/Mo based on what I think the other Warriors are going to bring, assuming they induce conditions and are putting something on fire...which seems to be what all want to do for DPS.

What is the point of 3 x W/?? with all identical skills in PvP. All 3 of us trying to cripple or deep wound the sucker or stack 3 x bleeding on him- he he not very efficient.

In PvP I would say 80% use swords, whereas 25% a dragon sword with a fiery hilt. Different polls shows otherwise in forums - but they include PvE.

We are all starting to look the same. I don't have the time to raise a W/Me or W/E before release, but I see that it is safe to assume that in a random PvP group I would be better of by designing a warrior with the assumption that they are going to suffer from conditions regardless- so I then can drop all of my condition induced skills and focus on amplifying theirs.

I bet you a pile of dirt, that if you end up in a group of 3 Warriors, at least 2 of them are going to carry the same basic skills.

What I am saying is the more I study the game and it’s mechanics, the more convinced I become that steering away from the “optimum” Warrior builds could gain your group extra punch and better results in PvP. The other professions seems to encourage more diversity. I think that for the next rounds in the Tombs I will build a group trying not to replicate a Warrior times 3.

Maybe I will get some nasty surprises in the Tombs and not just an "Attack of the Clones"

My 0.02$


Ratatass

dont forget that these builds are from early in the game and there may be surprises out there that will alter things as counters to todays popular build are developed

i see a constant shifting of skills and builds coming along with someone cooking up a real sneaky build that works and clones of that etc

It's the W/Mo premade... My build smokes it though.

If this is the case, so everyone will be using Melandru's Resilience.

Melandru's Resilience ELITE (Stance) For 8..18 seconds, you gain +2 Health regeneration and +1 Energy regeneration for each Condition and Hex you are suffering.

I expect to see patterns happen often in PvP combat. Expect one thing to become a norm for a while, until people either get tired of it, or a counter becomes more common for it. I typically try to go against the grain a little though.

Best thing I can think of is to try and anticipate what you will see the most. Thats exactly why I'm trying a monk/ranger with melandru's resilience. Because the first thing they do when they target the monk is hex/condition em to weaken. Oh and it works great with draw conditions too

My readings by the 'experts' here all seem to focus on the only aspect of the game they feel is important, optimum builds. Why is this so critical to success in GW? Why do any of us have to follow a path that leads us to be just one more lemming in a giant herd of lemmings? If the game is designed to solely result in optimum builds for optimum competition against optimum guilds, how long before 7/8 of the players become discouraged? If everything comes down to pre-concieved yet evolving character niches, then everyone will know what they are facing before they face it.

I'm sure we'll be told that 'better things await us'. But we've been told that by so many game designers my basement is running out of storage space. Why isn't free form and discovery encouraged? Why is a singular path being chosen for us when players preferences in build options should be taken into account? And why does it seem from my reading that we're going to be steered into the same 'canned' builds that made some other popular games so boring so quickly?

Choice and decision should be left to the players, not the designers. If the end result here is a path we can not choose for ourselves, but has been typecast for us, the enjoyment will dissapate quickly. Eventually, it becomes only a game of guild vs. guild, in spite of the fact that half of the players would prefer PvE over PvP. Those players must be accommodated. For them it is a matter of survival not in filling a niche in a team.

By focusing too much on a singular speciality the casual player (and there will be hundreds of thousands of them) will not be able to cover all eventualities that may come upon them either by soloing or through pick up games in random parties. These players are the basis for much of the long term success in on line games. And they should be considered.

This is a concern that must be addressed.

There will always be "flavor of the month" type builds because there are at least a thousand idiots who have no minds of their own and can't make their own build so they go by what either the majority is using or what they heard is good. This sucks because all the really awesome and original builds are kept to the creators mind alone. There is never a "best" build because there is always a way to counter it. Popular builds? Sure... Who cares?

Did we? I just thought that Victory is Mine! Warriors were the flavor of the week.

Personally I think that Warriors in that mold are wasting their time trying to be cute, time that would be better spent beating down and providing disruption.


That's because Sever Artery / Gash is the core combo of the Warrior/Monk premade, AKA "the good one". Those two skills are starting skills for Warriors now. Basically if you've put zero thought into your build, you're using Sever / Gash.


No need to start pulling punches now, eh?

It all looks like personal preference because most people involved in these discussions have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

There are changes to builds that will make them better, there are 'optimal' sets of builds that will win more than the rest. Don't think for a second that your choices won't impact your winning percentage. Just because someone suggests a change to a build doesn't mean that it's a good change - it could very well make your character worse.

Solid knowledge of the game coupled with vigorous playtesting is the only way to differentiate the two.


Then everyone who uses these similar builds is on a roughly level playing field and the best players win. Players who refuse to play a similar build will find themselves in the loser's bracket more often than they should otherwise.


You never want to design individual characters in a vacuum - you need to design them in the context of a team, and how they contribute to it.

Assuming that the condition Warrior is optimal (which it isn't), then it would make sense to play non-condition Warriors on a team with its share of condition Warriors. On a team without condition Warriors, you should be playing a condition Warrior. If some other build appears to be optimal given your team, you should be running that.


If you're all Sever/Gash Warriors? Not a whole lot. That's bad team design. 3x Pure/Galrath's/Final Thrust Warriors? That's just liquid joy.

Some character types are relatively exclusive - like Death Necromancers. You never want more than one Death Necromancer on your team, period, they just step on each other's toes. Others work better when in a team of similar builds - Elementalists synching up their attack spells is a good example.

Making sweeping generalizations about common builds is as foolish as running 3 Sever/Gash Warriors at a single target.


Because your 'lemmings' like winning, and the path to winning follows the path of optimization. You, of course, have the choice to not follow this path, but the choice to not optimize is a choice to not win.


The game isn't designed for that - it is simply a result of competitive gaming. The best players consistently make the best moves, and look similar as a result. If 7/8 of players are discouraged by this, it is because 7/8 of players are not interested in competitive gaming. If one is not interested in competitive gaming, why would one become discouraged by losing to competitive players?


What makes you think it isn't?


Choice and decision are left to the players. It is the nature of competitive games that better strategies are discovered and propogate amongst players who are looking to win.


I don't see any requirement that those players devote their time to PvP. People can and do run perfectly viable PvE guilds in Guild Wars.

Are you complaining that competitive play is PvP? Does that even make any sense?


Specialized characters being unable to do everything is somehow a bad thing? No character is going to be the best any everything - hence builds strive to be the best at particular aspects of the game where they can excel. No one designs one size fits all builds because that's a ridiculous proposition.

As best as I can determine you're asking for a game where all choices are arbitrary. If that is not what you're asking for, please clarify.

Peace,
-CxE

I think people are forgetting that being OPTIMAL player means just that. In most cases you will survive. That's the idea of the game, unfortunately there are a lot of followers that just follow what is posted to sited and what other's tell them are good. This means they are just as bad as any other boss/difficult enemy in the game.

You have to use tactics. Change up your playing, find the chink's in the armour, i.e. THINK FOR YOURSELF. There are ways around anything and one someone comes up with a way to counter these Optimal builds things will change and a new optimal build will come out and once again we will see an influx of that type while playing.

And besides after the next add-on things may change by design.

"people can and do run perfectly viable PvE guilds in Guild wars"


that may come upon them....... "either by soloing or through pick up games in random parties"

I think they were more trying to understnad why somebody would automatically assume they are always going to be running in a known group of variables. The solo or adhoc isn't going to play that way..They need to "optimize"( to their terms) as a bit more varied in their abilities..not so much diluting them by diversifying them to survive more in their preferred gaming mode of random party encounters. "you want to rely on everybody else to do their part but nobody always knows everyone's part in the random pickups", and you can't forsee all eventualities if you stick with your chosen "favorite" character.

There are just as many advantages as disadvantages to any build. The question becomes how many weaknesses are you going to accept to get that ultimate strenth in a particular niche. (not the team player,..the solo random one). In order to survie they will be forced to be adaptable to multi-tasking conditions. You have to rely more on yourself than on others. Not everyone runs the same rulebook, and what one person would think is weak will actually be quite strong to another..not because the synergies work well..because they find the way to make them work for them..

That solo-random player might be better served "diluting" from 2-3 to 3-5 attributes instead to be able to survive a higher percentage of random encounters that the adhoc teammates or lack there of could not address FOR them.

So it all comes back to personal play style and whether your like random paty or solo...or you go with set teams guilds.

You assume that all players will play as much as you do, and understand the game as you do. What you forget is that the majority's only experience comes from a beta weekend (and limited play at that understanding that life goes on during these events) and many will play for the first time when the game releases. I think assuming for the majority what is best in their style of play is a decision best left to them. If you think that winning for the sake of winning is what gamming is all about, then strategy is left in the box.

Is it their fault, or are the articles and information posted here lacking clarity? Do not fault those who don't have the key to the door you have been given.

Speaking as one with entry level experience in multiplayer tactics, I tend to think in terms of Tank, Ranged Attacker, and Healer. Everything Ratatass lined out is like college level (and specific to GW) compared with my freshman high school knowledge.

The way I see it (and be my guest to correct me if I'm wrong), the Tank has lots of armor and hit points, and his/her job is to hold the enemy still (or at least focus the enemy's attention) so the Ranger Attacker(s) can do thier stuff from a safe distance. The Healer keeps everyone alive, resurrecting if need be. Obviously, there can be a wide variety of variants on this system; one might have several Tanks beating the snot out of the enemy, or have someone who speciallizes in Ranged Defence spells, A team might have one Healer, one Tank, and four Range Attackers, what ever.

Naturally, problems occur when the simple act of healing aggro's the bad guys. This is why big teams are better than small teams. But, in the games I've played, this system does work, and everyone benefits one way or another, even if it's just XP.

Is this over simplified, or have I missed a piece of information anywhere? I read somewhere on this forum that different missions might require different tactics altogether...

Dave III

Ok, well that all depends on what your focus is.. PvE is a completely different world from PvP. I'm relieved to know that there probably won't be much in the way of "cookie cutter" builds in GW. There are just too many variables and counters.

Possible team configurations that seem to be popular..

2 healers 1 support 1 anti-caster 3 tank 1 nuker
2 healers 1 protection monk 2 debuff/anti caster 3 nukers..
4 tanks 1 healer 1 protection 2 support

actually... come to think of it, I could do this for about three pages. You never know what you will be coming up against. And trust me, no matter how good your build is, there is going to be someone out there set up to counter it.

Flavor of the month is something that can't be avoided. But if it becomes so popular that you know that it will be encountered often, people come up with a build that will kill it. (enter the next flavor)

Keeps things lively at least.

Oh yeah, and to actually touch on and respond to your post Dave.. yes, different mission require different tactics. A good well-rounded team will be able to make it through most without excessive preparation though.

Because most people are illogical?

Actually, it's my understanding that the match-up system tries to match opponents of similar skill, no? If so, then there's really not much to complain about in any case. Those of us who prefer more off-beat builds that probably aren't optimal are going to tend to be matched against similar opponents, so we'll end up competing against challenging but not overwhelming opponents most of the time in any case. We'll also see greater variety than those who are playing in the rarified upper ranks where only the optimal builds survive. Frankly, it sounds like a lot more fun to me.

It's not like those of us who play this way are going to be depressed that we aren't in the ladder top 10. If my guild makes that top 20% I'll be absolutely amazed and ecstatic! We're in it for fun, and doing what it takes to be #1 sounds too much like real work.

Viva la Slack!

ive seen a lot of warrior using the bleeding/gash combo, but yet still there are differnt ppl, i myself hve one warrior and it is a hammer warrior cause i go knokdown crazy with the guy. then u got the mesmer/warrios who r becoming so popular that like 25% of ppl are planning on trying or using one during release. with that i see a few more necros and mesmers taking enchantment removals with them. guildwars is an everchanging envirement once enchantment removals are taken the mesmer/warriors become useless and another killer buildw ill have to be made, yet soon countered. its just a cycle og buidls in guidlwars, i myself was going to make a mesmer/warrior before they became incredibly popular, but now i know someone will begin to take enchantment removals and make me useless and pityful, so i went to mesmer/ranger for a condition spreader soemthin at this time is pretty hard to counter and not as popular as mesmer/warrios. so if everyone becomes warrior clones, soon someone will find away to counter them and a new build will have to be made.

Ah, ok... So:

Have as dynamic a party as is reasonably possible,
Never have an offensive Weapon/Tactic/Strategy you can't defend against,
Pay attention to current "fashion" but don't be a slave to it,
And above all else:
Have fun.

Is that about it? ^_~

Oh, and I'm a little confused about the term "Build" in this context: I'm used to it refering to the latest programmer's patches to the client, as in Build V1.63 replacing V1.59, etc. Y'all appear to be using it in some other way, something in the way one character type gets favored over another, either by the client or the player. What am I missing?

Dave III

/signed

Although it's true that most competitive players will adopt the best warrior standard (with recurring patterns based on metagame), most players will be making illogical choices.

If you want to be in the GW top10, you'll be forced to adopt the standards or to use metagame builds to disrupt expected strategies. If you just want to play PvP at a decent level, you can expect your share of 'illogical' wins with a rogue build.

The thing that causes clones is the fact that some skills are just better than others. There's no such thing as true "balance" in a video game. It's impossible to achieve. In a skill based game with so many skills, some skills are just going to be much better than others and people are going to use those skills.

When I was pouring over the skill lists trying to design a character that would do good damage and not die all the time, I came across "Victory Is Mine!" and I thought it had great potential, so I designed a build around it. I had no idea it was the Flavor of the Month. It wasn't until after I had designed my build that I saw the dozens of builds utilizing swords or axes in conjunction with "Victory Is Mine!". Now, part of me thought that I don't want to play the same thing as everyone else, but the other part said that if so many people are using the build, then it must be pretty damn effective. So, unless they nerf "Victory Is Mine!", I'm sticking with it. The fact is that this is a game and games are supposed to be fun. I have fun kicking ass. I don't have fun dying all the time and being dead weight on a team.

I'd also noticed the power of combining Conjure <element> with skills like Hundred Blades. Not because I read it on a forum, but because it's just so obvious. I'm sure anyone designing a Ranger has thought to himself "Hmmmm. If I combine Conjure Flame and Barrage, that could kick some serious butt.", so you end up with a bunch of R/E's with Conjure Flame and Barrage. Not because one person posted his build and everyone else copied him, but because they all simply looked at the skill lists and came to the same conclusion.

The designers decided to have 75 skills per class. They came up with a few really good skills for each class to use and the rest are just filler. How many skills in each skill list are completly worthless? 50%? 75%? It's just a fact of life that some skills are going to be much better than others and that some skills are going to combine very well with certain other skills. It's just the nature of the beast. My build is almost completly identical to many other builds of seen. I didn't do it on purpose. I just picked a skill I saw great potential in and then picked a bunch of skills to utilize that potential. And a lot of other people did the exact same thing. Now, the rebel in me doesn't want to be just like everyone else, but the loser in me wants to win.

Character build (or character template) is your planned maximum level character on paper. In Guild Wars currently it may include primary/secondary class, skills, attributes, runes, and type of weapon(s). Probably later people will write a type of armor and desired weapon stats/modifiers.

Starcraft is balanced. Most likely it's the only balanced competitive computer game with a lot of options/strategies etc.

Making skills NOT worthless should be the goal of the designers.
I believe we will see skills added in expansions that will revive some of the passed over skills.
Every time you look at a skill and think, "This would be great if there was just a way to take advantage of ...", a potential new skill may be added.

I do?


This isn't clear. People can clearly play whatever characters, and use whatever skills they want. There's no reason to think otherwise. If someone wants to play an Echo/Unnatural Signet build, hey, that's their business.

The only subset of players that I'm talking to are those who want to be effective. There is no 'choice' in what the most effective builds in a given style are - those are determined by the parameters of the game. Build design and development is a process of figuring out what those maximally effective builds are. Choices merely guide the process.


Until you're actually concerned about winning, strategy doesn't even come into the picture. What are you strategizing if you aren't seeking victory? Dye-mixing strategies?


I'm not trying to attribute fault - I'm merely making an observation about the state of game knowledge in the community. Why the community is in that state is a book that I have neither the ability nor desire to write.

Peace,
-CxE

Hehehe it's quite simple. There are alphas and then people like me who are beta junkies. Most of my knowledge comes from the betas and some of it comes from these articles. Once the game releases, it probably won't take much time until the majority of the players will accumulate sufficient knowledge to be competitive.

As for the case of everyone bringing along the same skills, that's simply because your guild isn't trying to be as competitive as possible. Talk a bit with your guildies and you can easily achieve powerful damage that can result in 2 warriors using skills from many lines. How dependant one character is from another is another topic your guild must look into. Some like ultra-specific/dependant teams while other like a more loose approach. It's just a matter of strategy.

So what if you wish to copy someone else's idea ? If you like it, it suits your play style and is effective then copying it isn't a big deal.

I don't wanna act like I'm defending Ensign, because he IS a jerk by nature and is not worthy of defense... but in his defense (lol), if you are suggesting that he has the "key to the door" as in the Alpha Test, you are mistaken. He's a lowly Beta Junky like like the rest of us. He gets to play 1 weekend a month, as we do. Nothing more.

Different viewpoints on various subjects are always going to cause a certain degree of dissagreement. I know that Lunarhound and I don't often see things the same way and have had a couple issues that neither of us will budge on.

If a person who intends to play the game at a highly competitive level comments on something... it will often clash with the viewpoint of someone who enjoys making random and outrageous builds for fun in PvE.

(Dave III, we use the term "Build" to describe the make-up of a character. If you look under the "Buids Directory" on the Main Page, you will be taken to a list of various character "Builds". A Warrior/Monk using <insert skills and attributes here> is a build.)


EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks that it's weird that Odd Sock and I both use the term Beta Junky in our replies... with neither of us reading them beforehand...?

It's either that or be left wondering what all the fuss is about. When Hammerdins suddenly became quite popular in D2, did I run out and make one? Damn right I did, and it was fun for a while too. Got bored with it a lot sooner that a lot of other people apparently did, but it was an interesting build and fun to play for a while.

I probably won't be doing stuff like that in GW, simply because the four character limit makes that kind of fun experimentation impossible while maintaining a reasonable variety of serious characters to play...

Well, we are talking about emotions here, and emotions aren't logical things. But just dismissing it as illogical really doesn't accomplish anything.

What we have to do is acknowledge that people want to accomplish several different goals with a game, and that those goals are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive. I'd guess that most people enjoy the creative process that goes into figuring out and analyzing their build, that people use the game as a social medium to play with their friends, and as a competitive medium, be it PvE or PvP. All of these put constraints on the others, but people don't want those constraints - they want to push everything to their individual limits.

What usually gives first, at least for a more casual player, is the competitive part. It isn't that players don't want to be competitive and successful, but that they're putting things like individual expression and socializing over success in game, and they get smashed by people without those constraints.

So, yeah, the problem is that people want the impossible and get upset when they can't get it. The trick is that it doesn't seem like it should be impossible, at least at a glance. Hence the problem.


In GvG, yeah. Well, not similar skill, but similar ratings - so some combination of strategic and tactical strength combined with player skill. Once the system is seeded and running it should end up kicking you into a string of 50% matchups in any case.


It's a matter of where your preferences lie. A player who values creativity and individuality would certainly enjoy hanging around the middle with similarly creative players, and would find losing to the pwnage build for the twentieth time incredibly boring. A more competitive player would work on refining their pwnage build, and would feel that smashing your creative build is a waste of their time. Different players find different things fun - hopefully the ladder will make it easier to match up players of similar interests so that everyone enjoys the game more.


Training to fight for the top isn't real work. It's one of the most enjoyable activities in the world. Failure, now that's work.

Different players, different goals.


Illogical from the perspective of 'winning'. Perfectly logical from the perspective of a player who finds other things fun. I may write strategy articles and crunch numbers but I still understand that 90% of the players out there are more interested in having a unique character than an ultimate badass.


For varying definitions of 'decent level', sure. Teams should be able to find their level and get their share of wins in whatever way they happen to enjoy once they're there.


Peace,
-CxE

"No man is a failure who is enjoying life." (William Feather)

The key to success is finding out what truly makes you happy. This is as true in any game as it is in real life. Letting other people dictate to you the object of the game is the first step towards failure.

Indeed. Thus, I feel confident the game is not going to degenerate into a bunch of clones. Too many people with different ideas of success for the game to so homogenize...

So we should therefore consider those talking from one's posterior orifice not so much a skill but rather as a magic trick?

On a global scale, that's certainly true. I'm guessing that you'll see recurring themes amongst the 'best' in particular areas of the game - not carbon copy characters, but a set of 'popular' strategies for the Tombs, or Arena, or even PvE. But even then not everyone wants to be the best, there's a layer of tinkerers right below them who understand things but refuse to play with a known quantity. Then there's a whole bunch of randomness right below that.

So I'd go one further and say that even competitive players are going to arrive at different builds, just because different maps call for different strategies. A good Tombs character is radically different from a good Arena character, and those players who really try to rip up PvE will have builds that wouldn't make a lick of sense in PvP - like the Death Necro.

Clearly there will be copying in all aspects of the game - either through independent invention or just the trade and assimilation of information over time - but, yeah, I'm not too worried about character diversity. Characters will be as diverse as the people who play the game. =)

Peace,
-CxE

Well, I don't believe I have seen uber build(s) in the game so far. Some builds are better than others, but there are always counters to these builds. So what if people like to use the build flavor of the month. If you don't like to follow the trend nobody is forcing you to do that.

This topic reminds me of the one where people are whining to get the pre-mades removed from the game...

hehe do you think someone who could play this game and obvipusly likes it ALOT would spend ANY time in fourums? Thats why we see absolutely no alpha testers in here. Thats better than any NDA, they wont want to get off the game to complain

I don't want to sound to much of an Ensign fan, but I enjoy his writing immensely! We are 3 days and 6 hours away from the fun is about to begin. Thank you all for keeping my head over the water by contributing such insightful and enjoyable writing.

I am not trying to get whine or get rid of the premade (as if I could) by the discussion in this thread.

Ensign actually answered my question, when he pointed out the W/Mo premade skills. A lot of players use premades, and as a monk I usually encounter those premade W/Mo.

My observations were correct! I was attacked by clones!

The other part of the question regarding we all coming up with the same warriors - seems still to be a little controversial. "Flavor of the Week" probably enforced that perception.

Anyway! 3 days to go!

I would post another thread like Nash did in TGH, where he formed up a Guild Hall All Stars team, but I won't be able to manage the team - a little off and on during the Beta, plus I lack the skills to put together a group. Great Idea though!

Why doesn't Guru, form an Allstar team too ? If we could get Ensign, Spooky, THX and Saus to formulate a strategy and be team leaders - would be fun! decide on a district and I will show!

Ratatass

From my experience, clones and Flavor of the Month builds really aren't that great. If there's a lot of people playing W/Mo's using Victory is Mine!, it's generally just a matter of putting in 1-2 skills in an entire team to completely neuter all those people running that build.... mend condition/ailment comes to mind here- without conditions, VIM is useless... and both of those condition-removal skills are spammable. It's quite easy to neuter warriors with a few skills, when used correctly- just as it is pretty easy to neutralize any character, if you're ready for it.

High-end teams will end up bringing a variety of disruption/shutdown combined with damage-dealing and healing- they'll try to shut down the enemy's damage dealers while staying alive and dealing damage themselves. However, there's dozens of different, effective ways to do shutdown, damage, and healing so that people won't end up running the same cloned builds, at least if they intend to be competitive.

As for useless/filler skills, that's something that ArenaNet is working on in the alpha test- if a skill is more powerful than others, it gets nerfed, and if ones are underpowered, they get buffed. As it is currently, I can think of good uses for most every skill in the game- with a few notable exceptions which are being looked at- such as Unnatural Signet. If anyone comes up with skills that they find severely underpowered, let me know, and give me some good reasoning behind your thoughts- if you can convince me, I'll definately give a shout out to the developers about the skill(if it hasn't already been changed in-game, of course). The same goes for overpowered skills.

Most of my builds undergo fairly constant changes in-game. I find I'm not using one skill too much, and replace it with another skill, or I find a weakness with my build which I fix by changing out one or more skills to compensate. The environment in which you're playing also makes a difference. In PvE, I'll use different skills in different areas. Likewise, in PvP, my skill setup is different between Tombs, GvG, and Arena battles- some skills are better in different situations. For example, I'll pretty much never take Spellbreaker into Tombs matches, but I find it's one of the most powerful skills to take on a healer into 4vs4 arena battles. Smite/banish/holy strike are excellent in Kryta where you're fighting undead, but they're so-so when you're fighting in ascalon or the jungle.

As for the question in the thread title, "Will we all become warrior clones?", I'd definately have to say "No!". GW is a game of counters, and if warriors start to become overly common, you'll find an upsurge in people bringing skills like Shield of Deflection, Soothing Images, Ward Against Melee, Ineptitude, etc. If interrupt-using Mesmers start to become popular, you'll see an influx of warriors and rangers....

WOW

One thing is clear, there is enough to this "game" to satisfy, consume, piss off, unite, confuse and just plain excite hundreds of thousands of people all at the same time. Weather they are Uber PvPers or PvE weekend warriors they will all have the same oportunity to build the same, similar or completely off the wall different characters.

So IS one build REALLY better than another?

SURE it is, as long as you believe it is then it is.

Is that the realality of the "game", hmm don't know but then again it is JUST a fantasy....