Easy Set Weapon Balance Fix - 2-handed weapons count as 2 set items

tnanever

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

bowmanz607

Staves and bow are Ranged so benefit of not being melee. That leaves 2h. She is the do it all skill line so there is your benefit.

LegacyDM

Why does 2 handed need a buff?! In pvp this is the meta.

tnanever

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

tnanever

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

I'm glad you recognize this problem too.

Most people see one or two "trigger words" and get all worked up over something that literally never even happened. It's these people that make logical discussions almost impossible on this board.

SJD_Phoenix

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

So a leki 2h would passively give you 126 weapon dmg? 2 handed weapons have their advantages so do not need any more buffing.

As far as logic goes, you can use a 3pc jewellery set, 5 piece armour set, 2 piece undaunted set and a master or maelstrom weapon. Fits perfectly. If you chose to take a 5 piece, undaunted set and don't want to use a 3 piece jewellery or maelstrom/master weapon AND you're using a 2H then deal with the fact you won't have a 2nd 5 piece.

Also how would that work on maelstrom and master weapons anyway?

tnanever

SJD_Phoenix wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

So a leki 2h would passively give you 126 weapon dmg? 2 handed weapons have their advantages so do not need any more buffing.

As far as logic goes, you can use a 3pc jewellery set, 5 piece armour set, 2 piece undaunted set and a master or maelstrom weapon. Fits perfectly. If you chose to take a 5 piece, undaunted set and don't want to use a 3 piece jewellery or maelstrom/master weapon AND you're using a 2H then deal with the fact you won't have a 2nd 5 piece.

Also how would that work on maelstrom and master weapons anyway?

Please pay attention. Nobody said that 2-handed weapons should be overpowered. This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with how powerful weapons are.

SirAndy

tnanever wrote: »

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

No. It's ONE item you need to hold with two of your hands. That's why it's called "two handed".
And last i checked we're not applying traits and enchants to our hands.

If you want two items, use the ones provided by the game. It's called a "choice". Deal with it.

tnanever

SirAndy wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

No. It's ONE item you need to hold with two of your hands. That's why it's called "two handed".
And last i checked we're not applying traits and enchants to our hands.

If you want two items, use the ones provided by the game. It's called a "choice". Deal with it.

It's called "bad design". The number of items required for set bonuses are completely arbitrary. If you're not pro-balance, then you're part of the problem.

bowmanz607

tnanever wrote: »

SJD_Phoenix wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

So a leki 2h would passively give you 126 weapon dmg? 2 handed weapons have their advantages so do not need any more buffing.

As far as logic goes, you can use a 3pc jewellery set, 5 piece armour set, 2 piece undaunted set and a master or maelstrom weapon. Fits perfectly. If you chose to take a 5 piece, undaunted set and don't want to use a 3 piece jewellery or maelstrom/master weapon AND you're using a 2H then deal with the fact you won't have a 2nd 5 piece.

Also how would that work on maelstrom and master weapons anyway?

Please pay attention. Nobody said that 2-handed weapons should be overpowered. This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with how powerful weapons are.

The point is he thread suggests an idea that seemingly does not consider all of the consequences. One of the biggest would be an indirect buff to 2h which is too much.

Again the balance comes in the form of melee required and options for range.

GeneralPardon

tnanever wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

No. It's ONE item you need to hold with two of your hands. That's why it's called "two handed".
And last i checked we're not applying traits and enchants to our hands.

If you want two items, use the ones provided by the game. It's called a "choice". Deal with it.

It's called "bad design". The number of items required for set bonuses are completely arbitrary. If you're not pro-balance, then you're part of the problem.

Its not bad design because you don't like it.

SirAndy

tnanever wrote: »

It's called "bad design". The number of items required for set bonuses are completely arbitrary. If you're not pro-balance, then you're part of the problem.

No, it's not bad design. And there is no problem.

Just because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work doesn't mean it's broken.
It just means you are failing ...

jrgray93

I don't like the idea of them granting a two-piece bonus by themselves so I'd suggest finding a way to get around that. Otherwise, they'll be almost as good as maelstrom weapons. Perhaps they only count as one until you have another piece equipped? I'm not sure how they'd do that.

tnanever

SirAndy wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

It's called "bad design". The number of items required for set bonuses are completely arbitrary. If you're not pro-balance, then you're part of the problem.

No, it's not bad design. And there is no problem.

Just because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work doesn't mean it's broken.
It just means you are failing ...

"...because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work..."

You still have no idea what this thread is even about. Wow. Re-read this thread a few times.

tnanever

jrgray93 wrote: »

I don't like the idea of them granting a two-piece bonus by themselves so I'd suggest finding a way to get around that. Otherwise, they'll be almost as good as maelstrom weapons. Perhaps they only count as one until you have another piece equipped? I'm not sure how they'd do that.

How is that any different from dual wield or sword/shield granting a set bonus, from weapon slots alone?

I'd like to hear this logic.

STEVIL

tnanever wrote: »

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

@Doomslinger781 later said
"Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!"

See, here is the problem making your exasperation seem unhinged.

The OP started with "simply" make them count as two or "if not" give them a bonus.

This isnt like your "rebalance them, whatever" cuz it serms to be cslling for improvement to their power and it lesves ouy their current advantages.

So how about the following for a comprehensive position to stsrt with:

1. BOTH 2h weapons and dw weapons will count as 2 slots for set bonus.
2. 2h weapons will cost the same mats, same style, same trait and same tempers as two one handed weapons. SO that 16 gold tempers.
3. 2 h weapons will take 2 enchants which proc like dw do.
4. 2h weapons will do the same light and heavy attack damage and inc "spell damage" same way dw do.
5. Ranged 2h weapons will have appropriate loss of damage to offset rsnge.
6. Current skills listed for 2h weapons will be rebalanced to take into account the gain in set bonus.

See if at the outset the Op had acknowledged all the differences which already favor the two handed weapons and agreed to normalize them at the same time they asked to "simple" normalize the set bonuses, folks would be more able to get your position of it not being a call for a buff.

But when you start out with simply add the set bonus or give new benefit, it sure sounds like a call for a buff.

So to you and the OP would a package deal like this be Ok for you?

SirAndy

tnanever wrote: »

"...because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work..."
You still have no idea what this thread is even about. Wow. Re-read this thread a few times.

I know exactly what this thread is about, i disagree with its premise and i think you are wrong.

Erynyes

no

Doomslinger781

Only undue whatever was specifically done to 2H weapons to offset their lack of a 2-piece bonus, not any other justifiable compensations when compared to other weapons and their strengths. Now this begs the question:

Were 2H weapons given some additional amount of strength solely to compensate for their lack of a 2-piece set bonus?

If so, undo that and give them a 2-piece set bonus.

If not, just give them a 2-piece set bonus.

And if the lack of a 2-piece set bonus was offset by a mix of porkbarrell adjustments to compensate for their differences with other weapons entirely, then yeah... it's time to rebalance them completely TO FEATURE A 2-PIECE SET BONUS.

SodanTok

Problem with suggestions like these are people who either see it like buff (even ignoring potential nerfs to make it more mechanic change less buff), people who dont want it because they already dual wield their whole life and people who simply dont want changes.

This mechanic change would (without any rebalancing) buffed 2H in PVE, where they arent used at all (except offbar) or in PVP, where they are used by everyone anyway. With it, the balancing of weapons could be (possibly) easier for ZoS.

br0steen

Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.

In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.

It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".

mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.

GreenSoup2HoT

LMAO NOOOOOOO! As if theres another one of these threads.

SolarCat02

Adding a magicka version of dual wielding something could also be a solution.

Doomslinger781

br0steen wrote: »

Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.

In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.

It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".

mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.

"Look man, little Johnny's been dual wielding his whole life... because it's inherently stronger than 2H given the 5/5/2 paradigm, even AFTER 2H was 'offset' in strength. You put 2H on par with dual wielding via rebalancing and an added 2-piece set bonus and he's got no edge. Plus, change is scary. Let him cry wolf over a misinterpreted buff - it's obvious to most that there is an imbalance, but this kid worked so hard on his current setup, given that imbalance."

#compounded problem


"Ok guys, we've got the metrics and all the empirical data, but... a bunch of kids online yelled 'NO' because they were scared or didn't understand, so... this was actually all by design. Deal with it."

#working as intended

acw37162

Ok, while I actually like this idea for build diversity and equality among using words 5 piece sets and monster helms, explain to me how your going to nerf 2 H to account for the buff?

acw37162

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

acw37162

br0steen wrote: »

Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.

In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.

It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".

mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.

Mark my words, if they do this, and I am ok if they do because I like combining sets and build craft there will be nerfs all around in and or of the large variety to a pretty much all weapon sets except maybe bow.

mr_wazzabi

LegacyDM wrote: »

Why does 2 handed need a buff?! In pvp this is the meta.

Isn't the meta sword and board with black rose and tremorscale?

bowmanz607

mr_wazzabi wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

Why does 2 handed need a buff?! In pvp this is the meta.

Isn't the meta sword and board with black rose and tremorscale?

Meta is stam proc sets. That is just one example.

Doomslinger781

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.