Talk:Destroyer

Armor, creature type, resistances and vulneribilities
sf eles be warned, EotN is not the place for you. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * not just SF. ANY fire nuker is basically screwed. there resistant to fire, and they dont burn. id suggest a lightning build (i wish i could bet my diablo 2 orbsorc into gw... :P. -TehBuG-
 * Ya, it's kinda crappy, considering my entire build is Fire magic.-- §  Eloc   §  04:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i just tested with a hero ranger carring winter. a fire spell does the same damage weather on not its fire damage. turns out fire eles are just as screwed as any ele. looks like glyph of ele power and Intensity are a required part of EOTN for eles.... also, carry echos and E-blast. -TehBuG-
 * Tested it minutes ago on the first Destroyer in "A time for heros". Cast Rodgort's Invocation and Fireball on him, then placed Winter and cast these two firemagic skills again. With Winter up the Destroyer took exactly double the damage. --Elhuhn 12:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these guys weak to water magic spells?
 * no, they just have huge armor vs all elements from the looks of it. -TehBuG-
 * Destroyers have high resistance to everything, but they are slightly weaker to cold damage than other damage types.
 * In general, elementalists can be very powerful in GW:EN, so long as they are willing to change between different elements depending on what they're fighting. The Far Shiverpeaks and the dungeons found there have many creature types which are weak to fire damage, while destroyers and many of the creatures found in the fire dungeons are weak to cold damage.
 * Andrew McLeod (Freyas) - ArenaNet creature designer 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you kill them beneath Lion's Arch?-- §  Eloc   §  04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * um, you dont. you run away from them. -TehBuG-
 * Well I know that. I was just curious if there was a way you could kill them or are they to strong for anyone to kill?-- §  Eloc   §  16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody test if they count as demons for the purpose of Demonslaying or +Armor vs. Demons mods yet? Skuldnoshinpu 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ogden sais in the hall of monuments that they are "fiendish" creatures. -TehBuG-
 * Destroyers are not demons, so they will not be affected by these modifiers. They have their own unique army and family.
 * Andrew McLeod (Freyas) - ArenaNet creature designer 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

personnaly i'm a bit dissappointed in this. The whole dwarven passive is dedicated to the title, and there's almost no destroyers in the game, if you don't count missions and quests then they're only in one dungeon and a challenge missions. I think its kinda lame to level a title to level 8, then only to wonder where all the destroyers are. skills like alcars alchemical acid work better on destroyers, as long as you are able to find destroyers of course. Rhydeble 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * deldrimor title and skills are for the quests after the three-pathed part of GW:EN's storyline. after gaining all those allies, you only fight against destroyers, nothing else. they don't appear in normal explorables, so they're harder to get. that's why deldrimor skills are overall better. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt_sig.jpg|16px|Have a look at my page]] 17:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * errm, harder to get? the only really hard ones are several from the norn (beating up a lvl 28 spirit spam boss and winning the tournament). the dwarven ones are plain easy except for attack on jalis camp, which can easily be solved by just standing at the upper stairs and fight only one wave. also once you completed the final missions you'll probably be around rank 3 or lower, thus it is very unnecessary that you rank your title up. also dwarven rank is the easyest to rank Rhydeble 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You need R5 for the Dwarven armor.-- §  Eloc   §  19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Armor tables
I tested the four elemental damage types against the destroyers and found that they have a 50% malice to cold and a 40% resistance to fire. Earth and lighting are the same. I used ancester's rage for lighting so armor penetration would not mess up the numbers.- Lucci Slevin
 * I just did some testing against a level 28 Destroyer of Lives in A Time for Heroes.


 * A level 28 caster monster has an expected armour rating of 84. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done some testing and calculations:

I'm working on two more tables: one for difference from expected AR (in other words, the typical armour rating for a monster of the same level and profession) and one for difference from estimated base armour. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I miscalculated some of the armour rating values. The table's been updated. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Including +16 from a shield.


 * 1) Including +16 from a shield as part of base armour.

Destroyers tend to have approximately 20 more base armour than typical monsters of the same level, -20 armour against cold damage and +20 armour against fire damage. Destroyer warriors lack the standard warrior bonus to physical armour rating. Destroyers of Earth seem to have typical base armour for their level, but are vulnerable to cold damage and have unusually high armour against fire damage. Destroyers of Flesh and Sinew have approximately 16 more armour than Destroyers of Bones, presumedly due to shields. Destroyer rangers have the expected +30 armour vs. elemental damage, level 28 Destroyer rangers are vulnerable to Lightning Damage, but level 24 rangers are not. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ritualist, dervish and low-level destroyers are still missing.

Here's a simplified table. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Standard base armor is level*3 for casters, level*3 + 10 for rangers, assassins and dervishes and level * 3 + 20 for warriors and paragons
 * 2) Excluding the expected +20 physical armor bonus for warriors.
 * 3) Excluding the expected +30 elemental armor bonus for rangers.
 * 4) Cumulative with bonuses and penalties of specific Destroyer types.
 * 5) Consistant with a shield.
 * This table indicates a significant vulnerability vs. lightning damage for Destroyers of Hordes, which is not included in other articles. Are these results out-dated or otherwise incorrect or do the articles require updates? --Hatch 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why/how Gordon found such numbers, but I was never able to replicate it. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyranids?
You know. This hive mind, this Monsters-highly-resistant-but-dealing-huge-damage-to-even-the-thickest-armor and having a very powerful ability to multiply themselves makes them even related isn't it?
 * Live for the Swarm! Paddymew 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * StarCraft was heavily inspired by Warhammer 40,000 (which was heavily inspired by earlier science fiction and fantasy works). -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there also are no Zergling-type destroyers which overrun you with sheer numbers. But Tyranids have the same "lower" ranks of units. And if we look at the art for the Tannek, it looks more like a mutant elephant than an alien insect. Paddymew 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the Destroyers of Flesh/Sinew remind me a bit of Aliens (from the film of the same name).User:Elvynd Doomscythe 12:58, 1 December 2009
 * And the dwarves remind me of Space Marines! --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 14:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)