calling all Spellswords: 2-handed/DW weapons boost my spell power 16% past staves

angelyn

pppontus wrote: »

I would love if there was some sort of melee magicka weapon line. That'd be pretty frickin' awesome. Monk Gloves maybe

Hell yeah!..perhaps hit them with fists of lightning aka Overload style

Lussura

Melee weapons should offer NO spell power bonuses at all. ZoS you better freaking fix this. I call so much BS.

Alphashado

pppontus wrote: »

Oh, and also, thanks for testing. I am very interested in the results for sure!

Ok. I kept this as simple as possible. These numbers would vary greatly with modifiers etc.

I made two weapons of exact equal level and quality. No enchantments or any modifications. Just bare boned weapons. I tested on deer where I knew it would be a one shot kill. I wanted to keep it simple. One cast with sword, one cast with staff. I killed several deer with the same results.

The sword:


Stats with sword:



The staff:


Stats with staff:



Vampire's Bane one shot damage with sword:


Vampire's Bane one shot damage with staff:




The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

The simple undeniable fact is that any mage can pick up some rusty old sword from a mud puddle and all of a sudden his spells do more damage. People can debate schematics all day, but it's just silly.

pppontus

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Alphashado

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

If it goes live this way, every spell caster and their mother in Cyrodiil is going to be using a 2H weapon. Including healers. Which is just silly.

pppontus

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

If that is still the case in 1.6, then there shouldn't be much to worry about because the 2H user will still lose in all fights, not because of sustainability but because the staff user can do more attacks in the same amount of time (animation cancelling, weaving, whatever you wanna call it).

xMovingTarget

pppontus wrote: »

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

It still is like this on PTS. Still doesnt make it any sense. I am melee anyway. If wearing a staff or a 2H weapon. So why am i getting penalized! I am a melee caster FFS..

pppontus

xMovingTarget wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

It still is like this on PTS. Still doesnt make it any sense. I am melee anyway. If wearing a staff or a 2H weapon. So why am i getting penalized! I am a melee caster FFS..

Unless they add a melee magic-type weapon I don't see this changing much, then again I'm sure melee DKs have good enough DPS as it is. I don't really see an issue and you confirmed what I thought (about weaving) so I'll leave the thread to those who have an issue with it instead. As long as 2H casters don't do more DPS than staff casters on boss fights, it's fine by me.

angelyn

xMovingTarget wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

It still is like this on PTS. Still doesnt make it any sense. I am melee anyway. If wearing a staff or a 2H weapon. So why am i getting penalized! I am a melee caster FFS..

I agree and have posted feedback here

Pmarsico9

This is straight up lazy programming.

If you're going to relaunch scaling then you do it like this:

Morph 1: Puncturing Sweep: Costs magicka, scales off Spell Power and Magicka.

Morph 2: Biting Jabs: Costs Stamina, scales off Weapon Power and Stamina.

WHAT IS SO HARD HERE?

I swear, the amount of corners that are attempted to be cut in this game is seriously discouraging. How are we supposed to care and provide you with feedback if you don't take the time to do things logically and properly?????

I mean we're not talking anything that excessive, tops you have to do this with 60 abilities. But you don't. Because Rushed Ceremony doesn't need a stamina morph.............and there's a lot of abilities that won't need that morph.

Erock25

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

If it goes live this way, every spell caster and their mother in Cyrodiil is going to be using a 2H weapon. Including healers. Which is just silly.

If you think light attack weaving only applies to long sustained pve fights, you're gonna have a bad time.

manny254

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

If that is still the case in 1.6, then there shouldn't be much to worry about because the 2H user will still lose in all fights, not because of sustainability but because the staff user can do more attacks in the same amount of time (animation cancelling, weaving, whatever you wanna call it).

Weaving could be practical with overload.

Tamanous

xaade wrote: »

2hander can't generate magicka from charged attacks.

Seriously? You are defending this?


ô¿ô



Seriously?

If true I am sure it will be adjusted at some point. ZOS logic defies most of the time but they seem to clue in eventually. Will all passives though I can't see why one would not take a staff if they actually plan on using several of it's abilities.

This game's mechanics are messed up though on several levels.

Erock25

manny254 wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

As said, I don't really know the significance of weaving in 1.6, I just do it instinctively still. At least on Live you are losing more than 30% of your damage if you don't weave attacks, which would likely be a much larger loss than you could possibly gain from 200 extra spell power.

If that is still the case in 1.6, then there shouldn't be much to worry about because the 2H user will still lose in all fights, not because of sustainability but because the staff user can do more attacks in the same amount of time (animation cancelling, weaving, whatever you wanna call it).

Weaving could be practical with overload.

You can't weave with overload.

Tamanous wrote: »

xaade wrote: »

2hander can't generate magicka from charged attacks.

Seriously? You are defending this?


ô¿ô



Seriously?

While I don't agree that 2h should provide MORE spell dmg, it should provide the same as a staff. There is no reason to punish those who want to mix up melee with spells and having weaker light/heavy and no heavy attack magicka regen is actually punishment enough.

Alphashado

Erock25 wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

If it goes live this way, every spell caster and their mother in Cyrodiil is going to be using a 2H weapon. Including healers. Which is just silly.

If you think light attack weaving only applies to long sustained pve fights, you're gonna have a bad time.

I'm not talking about animation cancelling for dps. I'm talking about using heavy attacks for magicka repleneshment and weaving light attacks in only to save magicka.

I realize that sometimes fights in cyrodiil last long enough for this to be an issue, but if you think for one second that casters in PvP aren't going to be using a 2H for burst spell damage, you are in for a surprise.

It's ridiculous that SPELLS do more damage when you have a SWORD strapped to your back instead of a staff. Period.

Erock25

Alphashado wrote: »

Erock25 wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

The same spell on the same critter did roughly 100 more damage with the 2H sword equipped then it did with a destruction staff equipped. These numbers would be greatly modified with gear/food etc, but this is about as simple and basic of a comparison you can ask for and spells are clearly doing more damage while holding a sword.

This isn't taking into account light/heavy attack weaving or any other aspect of combat, but rather a straight up bare bones comparison between the two.

I absolutely get it, and sure it doesn't make sense, however in my opinion the second part is what is actually most important. Maybe that's just me, but the only thing that really interests me is how it works in actual gameplay i.e. what does more DPS in a fight.

Either way, one solution is to have a base value say 1000 damage on all weapons, then have an extra modifier where a 2H sword gives +300 to weapon damage and a staff gives +200 spell damage. Maybe?

I dunno. I just really want to know if it's actually better when playing the game, then I'd be worried.

Well, what you are wondering only applies if you are talking about long, sustained PvE fights where you are going to run out of resources and have to use light/heavy attacks to avoid running out. ie-sustained DPS.

However, that is not an issue in shorter fights, questing, zone bosses, map objectives, dolmen, and most importantly, PvP, where burst damage is king.

If it goes live this way, every spell caster and their mother in Cyrodiil is going to be using a 2H weapon. Including healers. Which is just silly.

If you think light attack weaving only applies to long sustained pve fights, you're gonna have a bad time.

I'm not talking about animation cancelling for dps. I'm talking about using heavy attacks for magicka repleneshment and weaving light attacks in only to save magicka.

I realize that sometimes fights in cyrodiil last long enough for this to be an issue, but if you think for one second that casters in PvP aren't going to be using a 2H for burst spell damage, you are in for a surprise.

All I'm saying is light attack weaving has nothing to do with saving magicka and everything to do with maximizing your DPS. Always light attack weave every global cool down unless you are in a situation where you need full time block (heavy PVE incoming dmg and lots of situations in PVP).

The people specifically getting up in arms over this in regards to PVP are forgetting that everyone and their mother was using 1h and shield in PVP prior to this, usually with a staff off hand for the heavy attack sustain. So what is the difference now?

1. You lose all ultimate generation by using a melee weapon at range.
2. You can choose better blocking with shield or better dmg with 2h.

Artemiisia

if I as a sorcerer yield more dps with a 2 hander in the upcoming update, I wont actually mind it, I would actually look forward to the change in both playing style and weapon of choice.

Equinox

Well if you look at it another way, wouldn't a ranged weapon gain ultimate earlier when engaging in fights? Even with the safety far behind of the front lines of the PvP zerg. You lose ulti gain unless you swap to another ranged weapon and then spammed your ranged class skills on your 2h... but if you mained 2h you'd have to go into the fray to get your first ulti proc.

angelyn

Equinox wrote: »

Well if you look at it another way, wouldn't a ranged weapon gain ultimate earlier when engaging in fights? Even with the safety far behind of the front lines of the PvP zerg. You lose ulti gain unless you swap to another ranged weapon and then spammed your ranged class skills on your 2h... but if you mained 2h you'd have to go into the fray to get your first ulti proc.

I get where you are coming from, but as long as staves have skills on them like Impulse, which only work in melee range, the staff can't be considered to be a ranged only weapon. Therefore, I don't think people should be penalised for equipping them and someone deciding that they are ranged. Weapons should be comparable unless they really split melee/ranged weapon or class skills down the line accurately.

That is why I posted the following in the feedback thread:

angelyn wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom‌ @ZOS_EricWrobel

Feedback on the loss of stats due to someone deciding that I am "ranged"(PVE).

There has been much talk of ranged players and melee players and how ZOS is possibly thinking it should affect your DPS/other stats (with ranged providing less of X than melee). I'm not sure if this is the approach you are going to take, however this is some feedback

The assumptions that I'm coming across is that people who use staves only play at range(and the inevitable assumption that they are probably magicka players). This isn't correct. There a skill on the Destruction staff which only works if you are in melee range-Ie Impulse.

If any magicka people use the impulse skill at all, then they will play both in melee range and at a longer range. So I don't think that a staff is strictly an "range" weapon, and surely if that's the things are going, then do bows have the same stats(ie DPS/spell power/weapon power?) as staves? ( I don't know if bows have a close range ability like impulse)

And that's assuming that magicka players use staves only..however magicka players could equip any weapon, which may require range(bow), melee(2 hand) or staff(both melee range and long range)

On a side note if I am a destruction staff user in light armor, I am doing well providing DPS and surviving at melee range. Therefore, I do not think that I should be penalised in DPS/protection etc because someone assumed that the weapon I equipped or the class that I am is ranged, and that because of that, I need to do less damage and die easier as I will never be in melee range,experiencing the same risk as someone who is "melee". Personally as a sorcerer using destro staff(both class and weapon assumed to be ranged) I spend a large (if not the majority)amount of time in melee range ie crit surge/impulse/thundering presence combination, since there are more AOE PVE than single target situations in the game (eg typical dungeon). In addition, there could be people using a ranged skill like a melee eg crit surge/lightning flood/thundering presence combination. So if you are going to base stats on dividing your players into ranged or melee, make sure that the division is accurate.(Although I don't see how that would be possible anyway)

SUMMARY
So as long as there is a skill on the weapon/class tree that requires you to be in melee range(example Impulse on Destruction staff, Thundering presence on sorc tree and any similar skills on Bow etc), I don't think it is fair that the weapon/class should be lesser in some way(IE less DPS etc) simply because it is assumed that it is a ranged only weapon/class.

With the way the weapons/classes are now, I think stats should be comparable. However if you are going down the route of"ranged players" have reductions in DPS/protection/stats etc due to the fact that they are assumed to be ranged(and have no risk), then any time they are within melee distance to an enemy they should be getting a bonus,since they are taking the same risks as someone else, and getting less stats as a reward.

And quoting from another thread -I'm still mega confused as to why a staff will provide less spell power than a sword..

Dracane

16 % !!! Holy father Auri-El in Aetherius O.o
This can't be true. I think, staves should give us the highest amount of spell damage. A sword does not increase your magical affinity. The oposite is the case: It handycaps you.

Erondil

glak wrote: »

My level vr14 green 2-handed weapons have 1220 power.
My level vr14 green destro and resto staves have 1037 power.
This power difference yields a 6% increase to healing output when using a 2-handed weapon.

Is this spell power difference intentional between these weapon types?

If so, is a Templar with 2-handed weapon the new healing-Templar paradigm after this effective 79% boost to Healing Ritual, 6% boost to Rushed Ceremony, and Templar nerf to Restoration Master?

EDIT: Live does not work this way. Damage stat of a weapon does not affect spell power in 1.5 but it does in 1.6!

My secret to get nice damages as melee magicka

Vordae

A lot of people are talking about how your light attack should do more damage with a staff over the 2h weapon cause your a Magicka build. I haven't had a chance to test it yet but the base damage on the 2h weapon is about 200+ damage higher then staffs. The impact of your Magicka on light and heavy attacks for staffs has to over come both the base damage difference on light and heavy attacks and the dps increase you get on all your skills using a 2h weapons or duel wield.

Khivas_Carrick

pppontus wrote: »

I've watched topic after topic after topic created about this but no one ever shows that they can actually get more damage using a 2H sword with magicka. It's all just tooltip numbers so far.

This is potentially an issue, but someone needs to prove it in a DPS test.

What this guy said. Based on emperical evidence this far, I have a theory in how said DPS test will turn out: Melee weapon mages will have much higher burst damage but will quickly fall off due to no sustainability. The Staff mage though will find that they possess vastly superior sustained and PvE DPS due to bring able to regenerate their resource.

From that base standpoint it seems rather balanced.

Alphashado

Khivas_Carrick wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

I've watched topic after topic after topic created about this but no one ever shows that they can actually get more damage using a 2H sword with magicka. It's all just tooltip numbers so far.

This is potentially an issue, but someone needs to prove it in a DPS test.

What this guy said. Based on emperical evidence this far, I have a theory in how said DPS test will turn out: Melee weapon mages will have much higher burst damage but will quickly fall off due to no sustainability. The Staff mage though will find that they possess vastly superior sustained and PvE DPS due to bring able to regenerate their resource.

From that base standpoint it seems rather balanced.

So a stamina build can regen stamina with a weapon that increases their damage while a magicka build is forced to switch to a weapon that decreases their damage in order to regen magikca.... and this is balanced?

Tamanous

It is hilarious reading people trying to rationalize this.

The system is broken. Nothing more to it.

olsborg

Kragorn wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

(battlemages is a different thing so dont bring that into this thread)

Ah, so you don't want someone raising the key argument against your stereotypical view of a 'mage'.

In other games, where classes are restricted to weapon and armour choice then, yes, mages use staves because the game developers DEMAND it due to skewed weapon choice and itemisation: WOW of course is the classic example but very far from being the only one, most do.

TES has NEVER asserted this stereotype since any class can wield any weapon, so a 2H SWORD MAGE is 100% 'lore abiding' .. it's your own myopic view of what a 'mage' is that's the problem here.

Im talking about a pure spellcaster here, not a battlemage, because they are just as much a warrior as a mage. If you think its reasonable to have more dmg for your spells while holding a sword over holding a staff, then so be it, I wont judge you and your perspective, but my perspective is exactly that, mine. And this is a forum where people make their own opinions known.

Khivas_Carrick

Alphashado wrote: »

Khivas_Carrick wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

I've watched topic after topic after topic created about this but no one ever shows that they can actually get more damage using a 2H sword with magicka. It's all just tooltip numbers so far.

This is potentially an issue, but someone needs to prove it in a DPS test.

What this guy said. Based on emperical evidence this far, I have a theory in how said DPS test will turn out: Melee weapon mages will have much higher burst damage but will quickly fall off due to no sustainability. The Staff mage though will find that they possess vastly superior sustained and PvE DPS due to bring able to regenerate their resource.

From that base standpoint it seems rather balanced.

So a stamina build can regen stamina with a weapon that increases their damage while a magicka build is forced to switch to a weapon that decreases their damage in order to regen magikca.... and this is balanced?

I did say from that base point. Add in other facets of information and everything changes, such as what you pointed out. Frankly they could just change it back and use some other incentive to balance out/keep alive hybrid builds.

Equinox

angelyn wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but as long as staves have skills on them like Impulse, which only work in melee range, the staff can't be considered to be a ranged only weapon. Therefore, I don't think people should be penalised for equipping them and someone deciding that they are ranged. Weapons should be comparable unless they really split melee/ranged weapon or class skills down the line accurately.

I feel the same way for melee weapons in live atm... especially in PvP. I started out with 2hand/ sword and board but gradually went over to shield/destro because why? Tagging. And trying out 1.6 in PvE, I have to tag a group from far away or even in PvP to get my ulti up if I wanna try taking out a harder group of mobs.

The game is just unbalanced where ever you look, esp with reflective nerf. Now it's either spam reflect and pull back to get ur mp back, or just die from ranged skills if you dont stack shields if you like playing front lines [unless someone else has found a way to tank lol].

Close-range skills should do more damage, while farther range should do less. Less threat to you = less damage you should do imo. But eh... we'll see how it works out. (Cast time should be also put into consideration... but with block canceling eh? idk)

Sorry if this post was confusing.

Domander

Equinox wrote: »

angelyn wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but as long as staves have skills on them like Impulse, which only work in melee range, the staff can't be considered to be a ranged only weapon. Therefore, I don't think people should be penalised for equipping them and someone deciding that they are ranged. Weapons should be comparable unless they really split melee/ranged weapon or class skills down the line accurately.

I feel the same way for melee weapons in live atm... especially in PvP. I started out with 2hand/ sword and board but gradually went over to shield/destro because why? Tagging. And trying out 1.6 in PvE, I have to tag a group from far away or even in PvP to get my ulti up if I wanna try taking out a harder group of mobs.

The game is just unbalanced where ever you look, esp with reflective nerf. Now it's either spam reflect and pull back to get ur mp back, or just die from ranged skills if you dont stack shields if you like playing front lines [unless someone else has found a way to tank lol].

Close-range skills should do more damage, while farther range should do less. Less threat to you = less damage you should do imo. But eh... we'll see how it works out. (Cast time should be also put into consideration... but with block canceling eh? idk)

Sorry if this post was confusing.

Sword and shield gives the least damage of all. As it is right now if you use sword and shield you are sacrificing damage for defense, even with spells.

The way I see it on pts, destruction/restoration/bow has a little less damage but greater range, sword and shield has even less damage but better defense.

If destruction staves get the same damage as a 2 hander then you might as well make sword and shield the same damage.

I say leave it as is.

Jimm_ay

Magick and Steel is working for me !