Noooo mooore bash??

toxikh.earth89neb18_ESO

So i've logged in after a year and had this unpleasing surprise that bash does 5 less damage in pvp (glyphs with bash damage no longer have effects). I was nr 1 in 1vs1 no matter the class i was fighting against. I am a lvl 6 veteran and tryed to fight a level 43 in cyrodill and with 3 bashes to him i barely take 10% of his HP. This is depressing coz i only see mages in pvp making damage from a safty distance not fighting like a pro player where u have to dodge, stealth, roll, shield, bash. U couldnt even see who hit u, and not bcoz it was nerphed but bcoz i knew how to change my controls + that i have a gaming keypad and mouse. Now its its all about pressing 1 2 3 4 5 from 30m away making all that flashing and sparkling stuff that makes the server lagg. Im gonna say something stupid but i think i made the bash be nerphed coz i was a nightblade. And remember this: im gonna switch to Bow wich is not a nerphed weapon, after i hit level 14vet, like after 3 months you will see some crying on forum this weapon had beed nerphed.

Sharee

Bash is for interrupting the enemy, not for DPS.

toxikh.earth89neb18_ESO

making damage with a 1h mace doesnt seem to be better

Kronosphere

maybe stop trying to use the defensive skill line for dps would be an excellent start..

RedFoxFour

Why would spell effects rendered on your screen make the server lag?

Cody

shield bashing for DPS is illogical. Shields are meant for defense, not offense.

use them as so.

Observant

Leovolao wrote: »

I swear to god it's like people have a bet on who can make the most idiotic thread.

I've got 10k that says you won't make a thread about how OP trees are in Cyrodiil, and that we should all be focusing fire on those sap wielding, oxygen producing, perma-CC exploiters.

driosketch

You've been gone too long. They nerfed that a long time ago, percisely because people were cheesing the bash mechanic for insane DPS.

PKMN12

yeah, sorry, but WHY in the world would you use a shield at all when you are trying to DPS? In no multiplayer RPG (actually, RPGs in general except for some TES games cause of the skill system being broken) where you have a choice of different weapons is Shield and sword at all good for DPS, especially compared to Two-handed and Duel-wield.

wraith808

driosketch wrote: »

You've been gone too long. They nerfed that a long time ago, percisely because people were cheesing the bash mechanic for insane DPS.

This. And the glyphs that made it so were nerfed also.

But in all reality, I'm in awe that anyone was able to read that. I only got what it was about after someone else posted...

toxikh.earth89neb18_ESO

true true, but why didnt they fixed it in the open beta, i spent so much time in pvp upgreading my rank, they should at least put more physical damage in weapons

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

toxikh.earth89neb18_ESO wrote: »

I was nr 1 in 1vs1 no matter the class i was fighting against.

Given the absence of leaderboards or indeed any in-game support for 1 v 1 your assertion of your leetness will sadly go unproven.

RedFoxFour

PKMN12 wrote: »

yeah, sorry, but WHY in the world would you use a shield at all when you are trying to DPS? In no multiplayer RPG (actually, RPGs in general except for some TES games cause of the skill system being broken) where you have a choice of different weapons is Shield and sword at all good for DPS, especially compared to Two-handed and Duel-wield.

I seem to remember there was a game that gave you really good DPS with sword and board... I keep trying to remember which, but just can't remember it. I have this feeling it was in Age of Conan, but not sure.

That said, I never quite understood why sword and shield should do less damage than for instance dual wielding. If anything the shield would offer you better chance to block or deflect blows, while dual wield would increase the chance of hitting. In effect, shield vs dual wield would negate eachother in a sense and give both players equal chance of hitting eachother / taking hits.

As for two hander, sure it hits harder, but if you ever tried to wield a two-handed sword (I have) then you realize just how slow and cumbersome they are compared to a one handed blade, and thus should have reduced chance of blocking and parrying while at same time having higher damage if they hit.

Anyways, I am derailing the thread (although that might be a good thing).

Lithium Flower

RedFoxFour wrote: »

PKMN12 wrote: »

That said, I never quite understood why sword and shield should do less damage than for instance dual wielding. If anything the shield would offer you better chance to block or deflect blows, while dual wield would increase the chance of hitting. In effect, shield vs dual wield would negate eachother in a sense and give both players equal chance of hitting eachother / taking hits.

As for two hander, sure it hits harder, but if you ever tried to wield a two-handed sword (I have) then you realize just how slow and cumbersome they are compared to a one handed blade, and thus should have reduced chance of blocking and parrying while at same time having higher damage if they hit.

Anyways, I am derailing the thread (although that might be a good thing).

But this is exactly how it works in game right now. The shield increases your block mitigation and ability to deflect arrows and dual wield has passives to increase damage, add bleeding and other effects. Why should these cancel out - they are completely different and unrelated. Sword and shield does less damage because you forego a second nimble weapon in favour of a large, heavy, cumbersome shield for more protection; ergo dual wield = more critical strike chance, more damage and shield = more protection.

2H is the slowest weapon to wield but hits hard and the block mitigation is less compared to sword and shield.

RedFoxFour

Why would dual wield do more damage?

A sword is still a sword.

Dual wielding two regular swords is actually very difficult. Most dual wielders use light weapons (batons, daggers, etc). I have a collection of swords at home and swinging two, such as the Type XII blades, is very exhaustive and slow. I've also tried 11th century norse (viking) swords and they are little better.

To use two weapons it is much easier, quicker and more energy conserving to use a small weapon in left hand, such as daggers, and the heavier weapon in your right hand (like a blade, axe or similar). Obviously opposite if you are a leftie.

If you stab or cut someone at the same time with both weapons then sure it does more damage. But in order to even do that you would have to reach forward with both arms, meaning your entire upper body, which is a very exposed and vulnerable stance. Not a move you'd want to do frequently when fighting. So realistically you would be strike with either the weapon in your left, or the one in the right hand... and those would do same damage as being struck by the single blade from someone who also carries a shield.

Only difference is a more aggressive fighting style where you 'rain blows' on the opponent and can strike from both left and right (higher chance to hit) than someone who carries a shield and thus only has reach with one swordarm.

Anyways... I guess it is what it is in the game. I just don't agree with the standardization MMO's have gone for where sword + shield = doing less damage than someone using two blades.

tonyglissonb14_ESO

Cody wrote: »

shield bashing for DPS is illogical. Shields are meant for defense, not offense.

use them as so.

Some of us like to use our shields offensively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQpjToEgxk