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

Iselin

Interesting idea... I like it.

SodanTok

STEVIL wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

Also dont forget the only "raw" advantage of 2H is increased damage for melee 2H. And range for ranged 2H (they have same dmg as 1h)

Have no idea what you intend "raw" to convey in this context so i have to ignore that division in my response and just refer to advantages.

Long wall of text.

What if I tell you using lot of big words that say nothing about problem at hand isnt considered worthy argument to discussion.

So i will address only those two paragraphs that had some meaning in them. First "raw" is the only measurable difference between 2H and 1H. Skills are skills and there is no source that Wrobel were balancing skills around missing second 5th item slot bonus. The only existing obvious differences between 2H melee/2H ranged and 1H are damage/range.

For your second point, allow me to laught for few minutes at your argument with tempers and mats. For one, nobody with 2H even cares about those. Cost of making and upgrading 2H items happen only once in lifespan of weapon. For all I care make it 10 times more expensive.

If you wanna argument about 5th slot in 2H bring some relevant points, not something that isnt important at all and that could be changed in 5m if ZoS decides to make balance changes.

Rest is rubbish. This is mechanic change that would make all 2H weapons better, therefore every change that would make them worse could be offered as a trade. And it was offered many times here. My offered trade was nerf nothing, because I believe change as this wouldn't affect the balance of weapons in both modes. It would bring them closer together and allowed for more precise changes, if needed, by devs. If you disagree, offer better trade offs.

//EDIT:
Forgot tl;dr because nobody reads long texts, but basically Doomslinger below me said it best.

First, there are many obvious differences, you ate seeming to just want to ignore them.

Second, givennfrequency of threads about cost of mats/tempers etc i think you may be in a very small minority if you dont think doubling the tempers needed etc or even the 10x is so laughable.

Your devotion to dismissing so over the top issues you dont want to deal with reduces your argument's strength.

Your devotion to bringing up irrelevant arguments reduces your chance anyone will be willing to waste time discussing with you. Discussion about mats and "imbalance" in having to use less for 2H vs more for 1H/1H is completly unrelated to anything. The price is one time deal, the usage of weapon is forever.
Anyone who spent time in this game and achieved over 160cp has enough mats to craft what he needs and if not, he can easily farm it.

Mordenkainen

I think this thread has massively derailed due to misunderstanding what the OP actually meant. As he said a handful of times already, he isn't demanding or wanting two-handed weapons to be buffed.

He wants the set-item count equalized between two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.


He also wasn't saying two-handed weapons should have two traits/enchantments.


Plain and simple; As example if you were running 5 Hundings - 3 armor pieces and 2 one-handed weapons - you reach the 5-piece bonus.

His suggestion merely means that 3 armor pieces and a two-handed weapon would make you reach the 5-piece bonus as well - making the two-handed weapon simply count as two pieces for the related set it was crafted as part of, in that sense equalizing the available equipment slots for everyone no matter what weapon you choose.

This would make two-handers more viable without actually making them overpowered, as it would be the same as if you were dual-wielding two one-handed weapons.

Looking at the weapon skill lines even, dual wield would still be superior anyway so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If anything it allows people who like two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons to play what they like without sucking in comparison to the end-game meta. At least not as much I suppose.

Lucious90

is there a way to fit /5/2 with a 2h and bow? looking to do spriggan and red mountain on a stam sorc and how it is now, I have a wasted armor slot

SodanTok

Lucious90 wrote: »

is there a way to fit /5/2 with a 2h and bow? looking to do spriggan and red mountain on a stam sorc and how it is now, I have a wasted armor slot

You can always do 5/2/3 + maelstorm or 5/2/4. You can have weapons, jewelry and armor in set you need.

STEVIL

Mordenkainen wrote: »

I think this thread has massively derailed due to misunderstanding what the OP actually meant. As he said a handful of times already, he isn't demanding or wanting two-handed weapons to be buffed.

He wants the set-item count equalized between two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.


He also wasn't saying two-handed weapons should have two traits/enchantments.


Plain and simple; As example if you were running 5 Hundings - 3 armor pieces and 2 one-handed weapons - you reach the 5-piece bonus.

His suggestion merely means that 3 armor pieces and a two-handed weapon would make you reach the 5-piece bonus as well - making the two-handed weapon simply count as two pieces for the related set it was crafted as part of, in that sense equalizing the available equipment slots for everyone no matter what weapon you choose.

This would make two-handers more viable without actually making them overpowered, as it would be the same as if you were dual-wielding two one-handed weapons.

Looking at the weapon skill lines even, dual wield would still be superior anyway so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If anything it allows people who like two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons to play what they like without sucking in comparison to the end-game meta. At least not as much I suppose.

First bold
"Simply" adding a second set piece slot count for 2h weapons is a buff. if you look in this very thread you may see its proponents arguing such an improvement is needed to increase the use of 2H weapons. In the original post the Op added "If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus." So even in that very first post they acknowledge there is a buff involved.

We may disagree on whether or not the addition of a set piece bonus is a warranted buff or not or whether it would increase the power level too much, but please, we cannot be arguing whether or not it is a buff, can we?

Second bold
i sure hope not. Currently traits on 2h weapons have twice the yield as traits on a single one handed weapon for the exact same investment. Asking to double that by allowing two traits, that would be insane.

Third bold
You left out in your plain and simple example "for less investment than you would if you were doing the same with two one handed weapons."

Fourth bold
it also merely means that you can farm for that "4 pc version of a 5pc set" in less time than you can for the real 5pc version of the 5pc set, right? Farming for set pieces is a new things and weapons are not normally available in overland except from chests so that means dungeons and more specifically it means final dungeon bosses (mixed with jewelry) or chests.

maybe you haven't noticed but weapons for the drop sets are fairly precious commodities, as are maelstrom weapons.

So getting one two-hand weapon is a lucky jackpot of a payday if they also count as two for the 5pc set gathering.

Would you agree that if they start counting as two, making a 4pc version of a complete 5pc set possible, then the drop rate for two-handed weapons including greatsword, greataxe, maul, bows and all staves should be cut in half in all cases compared to one-handed weapons?

or is it the goal of the proposer, its proponents or you to make completing 5pc sets easier with two-handed weapons than it is with one-handed weapons?

Talyena

AlnilamE wrote: »

I'm personally fine with the way things are. And I say that as someone whose characters mainly use 2H weapons.

However, the only way I can see this working without breaking the game would be by removing all the 2-piece set bonuses and making sets start at 3.

If not, please excuse my while I go craft a dozen staves of Torug's Pact...

So you think people would prefer a second item bonus over a fifth item bonus?

STEVIL

@Mordenkainen wrote
"Looking at the weapon skill lines even, dual wield would still be superior anyway so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. "

I dont believe that most people would conclude that "just looking at skill lines" DW so far exceeds in skill line alone the 2H skill line as to make adding the extra set bonus not even bringing 2H up to equality.

What i think is being missed here is: if you look at threads in various topics here, you will find quite a few about how dominant 2H is over the others. You will see threads bemoaning how one is forced to use 2H to keep up.

Now the current sets of meta/BiS/FOTM have been shifting depending on content towards sword-and-board and DW in some cases. But they have not been the top-dogs cream of the crop only one way to go constantly and continually ever since launch, right?

The 1 slot vs 2 slot for sets - that HAS BEEN THERE ever since launch.

But the meta/BiS/top-elite-gear hasn't been always DW and S-n-B with greatswords and their ilk distant second fiddle ever since launch, right?

So, if there is currently a "power gap" or "popularity gap" between greatsword and dual swords or sword and shield, it hasn't occured because of the 1-2set piece difference but because of other changes.

trying to fix this alleged "power gap" or "popularity gap" by changing the set piece bonus count is like trying to put a tourniquet on your arm to stop bleeding in your leg. Its missing the mark.

Just like deciding to double the set bonus count for 2h weapons and pushing for it right after 1T puts set weapons under fairly restricted big boss drops and ignoring the costs of crafting quality etc etc etc and then trying to say that the cost is irrelevant is also missing the common sense mark.

IF two handed weapons of any type get the bonus set pieces of two one handed weapons or weapon and shield then their drop rates should be cut in half so it takes just as much effort to get a 5pc set bonus with them as it does using one handed weapons or weapon and shield.

That includes cutting maelstrom etc in half so the drop rates of a dagger is twice the drop rate of a maul or a inferno staff.

AlnilamE

Talyena wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

I'm personally fine with the way things are. And I say that as someone whose characters mainly use 2H weapons.

However, the only way I can see this working without breaking the game would be by removing all the 2-piece set bonuses and making sets start at 3.

If not, please excuse my while I go craft a dozen staves of Torug's Pact...

So you think people would prefer a second item bonus over a fifth item bonus?

There are a number of builds that use 1 5-piece and then combinations of other sets. Even for the Monster sets, people will use mismatched head and shoulder if they have a stat they want to stack.

Like, my Nightblade has 5 Julianos, 3 Willpower, 2 Torug's (one of which is staves) and 1 Kena.

I've seen tank builds with 5x Ebon and then several partial sets that stack Health.

One could also do 5-piece set, 2-piece Monster, 3-piece partial and a Maelstrom/Master weapon. The possibilities are almost endless with the new sets.

Minnesinger

There are multiple issues in this game andit isn´t the set bonus from 2 handers. Hell they should do RE-BALANCE of many things. I would put this problem very last in the list of urgent matters.

Talyena

AlnilamE wrote: »

Talyena wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

I'm personally fine with the way things are. And I say that as someone whose characters mainly use 2H weapons.

However, the only way I can see this working without breaking the game would be by removing all the 2-piece set bonuses and making sets start at 3.

If not, please excuse my while I go craft a dozen staves of Torug's Pact...

So you think people would prefer a second item bonus over a fifth item bonus?

There are a number of builds that use 1 5-piece and then combinations of other sets. Even for the Monster sets, people will use mismatched head and shoulder if they have a stat they want to stack.

Like, my Nightblade has 5 Julianos, 3 Willpower, 2 Torug's (one of which is staves) and 1 Kena.

I've seen tank builds with 5x Ebon and then several partial sets that stack Health.

One could also do 5-piece set, 2-piece Monster, 3-piece partial and a Maelstrom/Master weapon. The possibilities are almost endless with the new sets.

You suggested making Torug's staves. As of right now, I could get that same two piece bonus using two Torug's swords plus spell damage from the dual wield passive. So making a staff two items out of a set would only bring it halfway to where swords already are. And I can't be the only one who thinks getting far more spell damage out of two swords than you get out of a two handed staff is kinda silly.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with this idea if the Two Handed weapon line wasn't so powerful in PvP. But even without this change it is still the best burst damage. So maybe it's time to take a look at that line and stop holding back the other three two handed weapons because one of the four lines is so powerful. I'd suggest more damage over time and more sustain but less burst. Gankers might hate it, but it really needs to happen even if the set change doesn't.

AlnilamE

Talyena wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

Talyena wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

I'm personally fine with the way things are. And I say that as someone whose characters mainly use 2H weapons.

However, the only way I can see this working without breaking the game would be by removing all the 2-piece set bonuses and making sets start at 3.

If not, please excuse my while I go craft a dozen staves of Torug's Pact...

So you think people would prefer a second item bonus over a fifth item bonus?

There are a number of builds that use 1 5-piece and then combinations of other sets. Even for the Monster sets, people will use mismatched head and shoulder if they have a stat they want to stack.

Like, my Nightblade has 5 Julianos, 3 Willpower, 2 Torug's (one of which is staves) and 1 Kena.

I've seen tank builds with 5x Ebon and then several partial sets that stack Health.

One could also do 5-piece set, 2-piece Monster, 3-piece partial and a Maelstrom/Master weapon. The possibilities are almost endless with the new sets.

You suggested making Torug's staves. As of right now, I could get that same two piece bonus using two Torug's swords plus spell damage from the dual wield passive. So making a staff two items out of a set would only bring it halfway to where swords already are. And I can't be the only one who thinks getting far more spell damage out of two swords than you get out of a two handed staff is kinda silly.

Oh, I totally agree. The spell damage bonus for swords shouldn't be there. Period.

However, if I have swords equipped (which I don't on my magicka characters), I can't use staff skills or use heavy attacks to return magicka (and the magicka absorb enchant would only work in melee range), as well, I'd lose the ulti build up from weaving attacks (again unless I'm in Melee range).

I think they should probably buff staves a bit, particularly destro staves. I remember early in the game where resto staves were super powerful and had awesome magicka return and then they were nerfed. But I don't think making 1 weapon count for 2 set pieces is the solution.

SodanTok

STEVIL wrote: »

Mordenkainen wrote: »

I think this thread has massively derailed due to misunderstanding what the OP actually meant. As he said a handful of times already, he isn't demanding or wanting two-handed weapons to be buffed.

He wants the set-item count equalized between two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.


He also wasn't saying two-handed weapons should have two traits/enchantments.


Plain and simple; As example if you were running 5 Hundings - 3 armor pieces and 2 one-handed weapons - you reach the 5-piece bonus.

His suggestion merely means that 3 armor pieces and a two-handed weapon would make you reach the 5-piece bonus as well - making the two-handed weapon simply count as two pieces for the related set it was crafted as part of, in that sense equalizing the available equipment slots for everyone no matter what weapon you choose.

This would make two-handers more viable without actually making them overpowered, as it would be the same as if you were dual-wielding two one-handed weapons.

Looking at the weapon skill lines even, dual wield would still be superior anyway so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If anything it allows people who like two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons to play what they like without sucking in comparison to the end-game meta. At least not as much I suppose.

First bold
"Simply" adding a second set piece slot count for 2h weapons is a buff. if you look in this very thread you may see its proponents arguing such an improvement is needed to increase the use of 2H weapons. In the original post the Op added "If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus." So even in that very first post they acknowledge there is a buff involved.

We may disagree on whether or not the addition of a set piece bonus is a warranted buff or not or whether it would increase the power level too much, but please, we cannot be arguing whether or not it is a buff, can we?

Second bold
i sure hope not. Currently traits on 2h weapons have twice the yield as traits on a single one handed weapon for the exact same investment. Asking to double that by allowing two traits, that would be insane.

Third bold
You left out in your plain and simple example "for less investment than you would if you were doing the same with two one handed weapons."

Fourth bold
it also merely means that you can farm for that "4 pc version of a 5pc set" in less time than you can for the real 5pc version of the 5pc set, right? Farming for set pieces is a new things and weapons are not normally available in overland except from chests so that means dungeons and more specifically it means final dungeon bosses (mixed with jewelry) or chests.

maybe you haven't noticed but weapons for the drop sets are fairly precious commodities, as are maelstrom weapons.

So getting one two-hand weapon is a lucky jackpot of a payday if they also count as two for the 5pc set gathering.

Would you agree that if they start counting as two, making a 4pc version of a complete 5pc set possible, then the drop rate for two-handed weapons including greatsword, greataxe, maul, bows and all staves should be cut in half in all cases compared to one-handed weapons?

or is it the goal of the proposer, its proponents or you to make completing 5pc sets easier with two-handed weapons than it is with one-handed weapons?

What are you, again, talking about. People wont finish their sets with 2H so they can avoid having to farm for the second weapon to 1H pack The more you talk, the more you look like some newbie who just happened to come to this game and found out he has to farm long to get his weapons and then spend too much getting them gold.

Again. Availability of 2H weapons and their cost to upgrade them are the literally the least important things to discuss in this matter. This is discussion about mechanic change and its balance in combat. You arent farming or upgrading weapons during battle. Therefore this argument is irrelevant and you can keep it in your head for when (if) this change happens, as a suggestion.

Skills and achiavable damage are 99.9% of decision making what weapon you will use. The rest is about farming or mats cost.

STEVIL

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Mordenkainen wrote: »

I think this thread has massively derailed due to misunderstanding what the OP actually meant. As he said a handful of times already, he isn't demanding or wanting two-handed weapons to be buffed.

He wants the set-item count equalized between two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.


He also wasn't saying two-handed weapons should have two traits/enchantments.


Plain and simple; As example if you were running 5 Hundings - 3 armor pieces and 2 one-handed weapons - you reach the 5-piece bonus.

His suggestion merely means that 3 armor pieces and a two-handed weapon would make you reach the 5-piece bonus as well - making the two-handed weapon simply count as two pieces for the related set it was crafted as part of, in that sense equalizing the available equipment slots for everyone no matter what weapon you choose.

This would make two-handers more viable without actually making them overpowered, as it would be the same as if you were dual-wielding two one-handed weapons.

Looking at the weapon skill lines even, dual wield would still be superior anyway so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If anything it allows people who like two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons to play what they like without sucking in comparison to the end-game meta. At least not as much I suppose.

First bold
"Simply" adding a second set piece slot count for 2h weapons is a buff. if you look in this very thread you may see its proponents arguing such an improvement is needed to increase the use of 2H weapons. In the original post the Op added "If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus." So even in that very first post they acknowledge there is a buff involved.

We may disagree on whether or not the addition of a set piece bonus is a warranted buff or not or whether it would increase the power level too much, but please, we cannot be arguing whether or not it is a buff, can we?

Second bold
i sure hope not. Currently traits on 2h weapons have twice the yield as traits on a single one handed weapon for the exact same investment. Asking to double that by allowing two traits, that would be insane.

Third bold
You left out in your plain and simple example "for less investment than you would if you were doing the same with two one handed weapons."

Fourth bold
it also merely means that you can farm for that "4 pc version of a 5pc set" in less time than you can for the real 5pc version of the 5pc set, right? Farming for set pieces is a new things and weapons are not normally available in overland except from chests so that means dungeons and more specifically it means final dungeon bosses (mixed with jewelry) or chests.

maybe you haven't noticed but weapons for the drop sets are fairly precious commodities, as are maelstrom weapons.

So getting one two-hand weapon is a lucky jackpot of a payday if they also count as two for the 5pc set gathering.

Would you agree that if they start counting as two, making a 4pc version of a complete 5pc set possible, then the drop rate for two-handed weapons including greatsword, greataxe, maul, bows and all staves should be cut in half in all cases compared to one-handed weapons?

or is it the goal of the proposer, its proponents or you to make completing 5pc sets easier with two-handed weapons than it is with one-handed weapons?

What are you, again, talking about. People wont finish their sets with 2H so they can avoid having to farm for the second weapon to 1H pack The more you talk, the more you look like some newbie who just happened to come to this game and found out he has to farm long to get his weapons and then spend too much getting them gold.

Again. Availability of 2H weapons and their cost to upgrade them are the literally the least important things to discuss in this matter. This is discussion about mechanic change and its balance in combat. You arent farming or upgrading weapons during battle. Therefore this argument is irrelevant and you can keep it in your head for when (if) this change happens, as a suggestion.

Skills and achiavable damage are 99.9% of decision making what weapon you will use. The rest is about farming or mats cost.

what weapon skilks people will choose to develop and thus end up crafting, farming/harvesting/researching etc are choices made based on the sum total of what they value.

Maybe you think mats, quality spends and farm time to get "good" traits etc are the lesst important things because you missed thread after thread on the expense and rarities of kuta, gold tempers and mats that stsy almost constantly active on these forums. Maybe you also missed the voluminous outcry whenever new patches "force" folks to change their top of yesterday's line to top of today's line and how expensive that is.

OTherwise, i cant see any rational utter dismissal of that facet as worth considering.

Maybe you think farming time including maelstrom for wespons is the least important thing becausevyou missed all those threads constantly active on these forums about the maelstrom rng, loot tables etc.

OTherwise, i cant see any rational utter dismissal of that facet as worth considering.

Simply put those topics get brought up for discussion more than the two-handed set bonus does, by more people it seems, so maybe you should consider the possibility that you might be too dismisdive of that issue in your zeal to convince others you have thought this through even a little bit beyond the " i want it for me" stage.

Wait no, you didn't say "i want it for me" quite like that... how did you put it earlier?

"In the end, we all look after your own interests. The only reason I am here is my interest in making bows better main weapons, one step at the time."

Got it.

One of many differences between us is i wouldn't try to boost bows by saying lets boost a bunch of weapons including bows but by focusing on bows themselves. The broader the scope of a change the more likely it is to have unintended consequences.

STEVIL

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

Skills and achiavable damage are 99.9% of decision making what weapon you will use. The rest is about farming or mats cost.

Separating this out to attempt to show its narrow myopic assessment.

Since, as you point out, this thread is about set bonuses and you don't mention sets bonuses there in "weapon choice" thingy... consider this:

one of the most popular sets is Black Rose even with its rather limited availability.

Black Rose isn't a massive damage bonus set. matter of fact, its 5pc bonus does have a half-pint damage boost easily doubled by say hundings.

Yet it is popular and effective.

So maybe your assessment that damage and skills are 99.95 of the decision making for weapon choice isn't quite true for those folks using Black Rose equip, jewels and weapons.

Thats just one example of how flawed it is narrowly defining the concept of what people take into reasonable consideration when choosing what skills to develop and what weapons therefore to use down to just a couple of the elements involved in success in the game.

2h does well in PVP - just dismiss that.
Numerous resource differences favor two-handeds - just dismiss that.

"Just keep dismissing until you get the result you want" isn't a winning strategy any more than "i got 4k weapon damage" is a winning strategy for successful combat in this game.

Silver_Strider

Just add new items for 2 handed weapons to get their extra slot

Add Sheaths for 2h weapons, Arrows for Bows and some mystic item for Staves (Focus Stones, wards, etc.) that can be equipped in the off-hand slot of 2handers so as to get their extra set piece.

From there, it's more a matter of the Devs getting the numbers just right so that the buff for 2h is at a minimal outside of getting a set bonus, which might be hard, unless the extra set piece is an armor slot item, like a shield, in which case people get a small resistance buff and some increase to their resource pools thru enchantments (would be best to make it a small enchantment instead of a large one so as to minimize the boost of the new item)

The biggest downside to this, is that it would introduce 3 new items into the Loot tables as well as 3 more items to research for crafters (3 more months of research. Such joy )

mr_wazzabi

Silver_Strider wrote: »

Just add new items for 2 handed weapons to get their extra slot

Add Sheaths for 2h weapons, Arrows for Bows and some mystic item for Staves (Focus Stones, wards, etc.) that can be equipped in the off-hand slot of 2handers so as to get their extra set piece.

From there, it's more a matter of the Devs getting the numbers just right so that the buff for 2h is at a minimal outside of getting a set bonus, which might be hard, unless the extra set piece is an armor slot item, like a shield, in which case people get a small resistance buff and some increase to their resource pools thru enchantments (would be best to make it a small enchantment instead of a large one so as to minimize the boost of the new item)

The biggest downside to this, is that it would introduce 3 new items into the Loot tables as well as 3 more items to research for crafters (3 more months of research. Such joy )

It would be easier to go with the original request then. Make all non-1h weapons count as 2 item slots. To balance it, make them actually count as 2 items instead of 1. The only downside is the grind for dw and snb will still take twice as long as they're 2 different items.

I don't think it will make it op. Most proc set abusers are using tremorscale anyway. What's worse, a 2h 5viper/5 hundings/2 velidreth or a dw 5viper/5 hundings/2 veli. They're the same in my books. The WORST is actually snb 5 viper/5 black rose/2 tremorscale

Pirhana7_ESO

This has always been an unfair problem. DW and sword/shield get 1 more set bonus slot and there is no reason it should be that way. It was just bad design, it has nothing to do with balance.

My problem has always been this. I use a set bonus in every slot. I use bow as my primary weapon. When I switch to my second bar i use sword and shield. This allows me to get 2 more set bonuses so i can have the 5th bonus of Nights silence so I can sneak around fast. I dont actually use sword/shield i just need 2 available sets bonuses. I would much rather use 2hand weapon BUT it will ONLY give me 1 set bonus and thus not allowing me to get the 5th bonuses of the set.

So why should it work like this? why can i get the bonus with DW and not 2hand???? Its bad design.
It also shouldnt matter if the 2hand weapon comes with the first set bonus. it is no different from getting the bonuses from DW 2 weapons.

tnanever

STEVIL wrote: »

@tnanever says
"This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.

This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.

Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues."


Bold for emphasis mine.

Ok here you go...

Logically a single large weapon should behave differently than a pair of smaller weapons.
there you go.

Now, if you have a logical reason why that should not be the case, please proceed to provide it but remember you just said balance is not a valid issue to bring up.

You just said "This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes."

So what non-balance logical reason is it that one large weapon and two small weapons should be treated the same for set bonus reasons?

It cant be size since a dagger and a sword and an axe and a mace and a shield all have the same one set bonus even though their sizes differ greatly.

So far your non-balance argument seems to be " I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard." but thats a conclusion, not a rationale.

please show us your inescapable logic.

This is ridiculous reasoning. Let's approach this from two angles:

1) Lore - Elder Scrolls is a world of magic and practically arbitrary powers. There is no inherent reason why these magical pieces of equipment that provide magical bonuses when combined (AKA set items), should not provide more magical power through a larger item (say, a greatsword), compared to two smaller items (like two 1-handed swords). Why would a mystical blacksmith waste his time creating set items that included 2-handed weapons that, for no reason at all, don't count the same as holding two of the 1-handed weapons/shields that he creates? Wouldn't the blacksmith create all sets specifically for the purpose of completing the sets? To think otherwise is just being purposefully obtuse.

2) Gameplay/Design - There has never been any communication regarding why 2-handed weapons are less capable at completing sets. Nobody from Beth/Zen ever said that 2-handed weapons were designed to be more powerful than 1-handed options by default, to make up for the fact that they're inferior when it comes to completing set bonuses. I'd love to see someone show me otherwise. As I've said before, it appears there is only evidence supporting my position - from wrobel himself.

tnanever

Nolic1 wrote: »

I see where the op is coming from and where many others are saying it makes the item OP. See when you equip the 2-handed it auto gets the buff from the set setting it apart from any other weapons that require another item in the off hand which makes it OP. But I see where the op is coming from cause it makes no sense that the item is of a set and dual wield gets the set bonus plus the the option to have to 5 piece and one 2 piece set. While 2-handed does not get this option.

This is where the problem is not anything else.

What you say is basically true, but let's not forget the fact that you can simply equip two 1-handed weapons (or shield) and have the set bonus too. It would be no different from a 2-handed weapon having a set bonus by itself - it's literally for taking up two equipment slots (both hands), just like two 1-handed weapons.

tnanever

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

.
.
.

//EDIT:
Another little point to all balance geeks there. Isnt balancing around everyone having access to 5/5/2 easier than balancing around half the weapon skill lines not having access?

Yes. Exactly. I've said this point a couple times already, but the people against this great idea don't like to pay attention to points that don't fit their agenda. They refuse to use the concept of Occam's razor, and keep shouting about how the "balance" might be hurt. Right, as if it would be easier to balance all the set combinations/classes for all 5/4/2 combinations, and all 5/5/2 combinations. What a joke.

ShadowscaleSithis

If this isn't a cry baby pvp thread I don't know what is. Can you hold a 2H weapon and a bow at the same time or any combination of 2h and anything -- NO.

You also can't wield just a dagger and hope to get the bonus off of a second weapon or shield either.

Why does everything have to be equal to the entitled mindset? It is about choices not about what a few people want so they can get dual wield bonuses for only 1 weapon!

tnanever

STEVIL wrote: »

"Simply" adding a second set piece slot count for 2h weapons is a buff. ...
...In the original post the Op added "If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus." So even in that very first post they acknowledge there is a buff involved.

Nope. To assume that a weapon that takes up two slots would be "buffed" by having a set bonus that requires two slots, is assuming that two-handed weapons are overpowered to begin with to compensate for taking up two equipment slots (thus hurting set-completion ability). There is no reason to believe this. If two-handed weapons are overpowered, then that's an irrelevant balance issue that the devs need to fix REGARDLESS of whether or not this idea is implemented.

When I say that 2-handed weapons should have an inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus - that does not imply that 2-handed weapons should be more powerful than 1-handed weapons. If you think it implies that, it means you think 2-handed weapons were purposefully made stronger than 1-handed weapons specifically for the lack of set bonuses. Again, I disagree. Regardless, if 2-handed weapons are overpowered, again, that's an irrelevant separate issue.

On top of this, 2-handed weapons are already used as 5-piece sets - so apparently that's not your concern. We can conclude that your real concern is 2-handed weapons, as part of 5-piece sets, used with other 5-piece sets (instead of 4-piece sets, while assuming a 2-piece monster set is in play in either scenario).

As I've noted before, we can simply use Occam's razor. You have two options for balance:

-Make all weapons equal at completing sets, so that the devs can simply balance the sets.
Or... -The devs must balance every possible set combination, 5/5/2, 5/4/2, (not even counting maelstrom...) against both 1-handed and 2-handed weapons.

Let's use a little common sense here.

Derra

acw37162 wrote: »

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?

Does 2h need a nerf?

Let´s play around with the hypothetical idea rally gets moved to the fighters guild skillline to replace expert hunter. Does 2h still look like a skillline worth slotting the weapon for?

Sure atm you see people using executioner/reverse slice/dizzing swing a lot - but would they if they could access rally without 2h? I honestly think apart from rally 2h is the worst stamina weapon skilline in the game. By a wide gap.

SodanTok

Derra wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

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?

Does 2h need a nerf?

Let´s play around with the hypothetical idea rally gets moved to the fighters guild skillline to replace expert hunter. Does 2h still look like a skillline worth slotting the weapon for?

Sure atm you see people using executioner/reverse slice/dizzing swing a lot - but would they if they could access rally without 2h? I honestly think apart from rally 2h is the worst stamina weapon skilline in the game. By a wide gap.

This actully sums it pretty well. Not that 2H skills are bad, but I bet without rally people wouldnt be so inclined to use it.
IMO Rally doesnt need nerf, neither 2H does.
But adding way to build 2H 5/5/2 would actually make it MORE clear what 2H weapons need...

EvilCroc

I know only one thing: mages with two swords should not be meta. Weapon for mages is staff. It is stylish, awesome and cool. Mage with two swords is not cool at all. If we need 2 set item count on staff - I want it.
Or disable set options on all weapons. Only armor and jewerly should be set items. Make more unique weapons istead, like maelstrom. I will like both solutions.

STEVIL

tnanever wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@tnanever says
"This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.

This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.

Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues."


Bold for emphasis mine.

Ok here you go...

Logically a single large weapon should behave differently than a pair of smaller weapons.
there you go.

Now, if you have a logical reason why that should not be the case, please proceed to provide it but remember you just said balance is not a valid issue to bring up.

You just said "This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes."

So what non-balance logical reason is it that one large weapon and two small weapons should be treated the same for set bonus reasons?

It cant be size since a dagger and a sword and an axe and a mace and a shield all have the same one set bonus even though their sizes differ greatly.

So far your non-balance argument seems to be " I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard." but thats a conclusion, not a rationale.

please show us your inescapable logic.

This is ridiculous reasoning. Let's approach this from two angles:

1) Lore - Elder Scrolls is a world of magic and practically arbitrary powers. There is no inherent reason why these magical pieces of equipment that provide magical bonuses when combined (AKA set items), should not provide more magical power through a larger item (say, a greatsword), compared to two smaller items (like two 1-handed swords). Why would a mystical blacksmith waste his time creating set items that included 2-handed weapons that, for no reason at all, don't count the same as holding two of the 1-handed weapons/shields that he creates? Wouldn't the blacksmith create all sets specifically for the purpose of completing the sets? To think otherwise is just being purposefully obtuse.

2) Gameplay/Design - There has never been any communication regarding why 2-handed weapons are less capable at completing sets. Nobody from Beth/Zen ever said that 2-handed weapons were designed to be more powerful than 1-handed options by default, to make up for the fact that they're inferior when it comes to completing set bonuses. I'd love to see someone show me otherwise. As I've said before, it appears there is only evidence supporting my position - from wrobel himself.

In both 1 and 2 you keep coming back to lack of evidence as proof. For Lore there is no evidence that says bigger isnt more and for 2 nobody said that balance did include lack of set bonus.

Here is the first logic problem:lack of evidence to the contrary does not equate to proof of the affirmative.

Second a dagger is at least as much size diff between it and sword as sword is to greatsword but you are ok saying the GS gets double the magic as the sword because of size and the dagger is the same as sword because there size doesn't matter?

So, even your imagined meta-magic system is flawed and inconsistent in its own internal structure.

Third, are you aware that play has been done in this game for a couple years now, even longer if you include beta?
Are you aware that in that time the set bonus count thing has been in effect?
Are you aware that in that time the skills, skill lines, balance etc has undergone a lot of changes and ups and downs, each with playtest, each with after playtest tweaks and adjustments?

If you were aware of those you would be faced with the inescapable conclusion that a lot of balance tweaks and adjustments and even overhauls have been made that included the set bonus difference in their net results.

Now, sure, maybe you did not get stone tablets etched to your satisfaction from your favorite developer that said "uhh, yes, when we designed, built, playtested, analyzed results, changed over and over the combat system and skills and figures we did realize the set bonus diff thing was an element factoring into the balance" but that doesn't mean one can reasonably conclude that the lack of evidence in the form of a specific statement means it wasn't the case.

Birdovic

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.


And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

STEVIL

tnanever wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

"Simply" adding a second set piece slot count for 2h weapons is a buff. ...
...In the original post the Op added "If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus." So even in that very first post they acknowledge there is a buff involved.

Nope. To assume that a weapon that takes up two slots would be "buffed" by having a set bonus that requires two slots, is assuming that two-handed weapons are overpowered to begin with to compensate for taking up two equipment slots (thus hurting set-completion ability). There is no reason to believe this. If two-handed weapons are overpowered, then that's an irrelevant balance issue that the devs need to fix REGARDLESS of whether or not this idea is implemented.

When I say that 2-handed weapons should have an inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus - that does not imply that 2-handed weapons should be more powerful than 1-handed weapons. If you think it implies that, it means you think 2-handed weapons were purposefully made stronger than 1-handed weapons specifically for the lack of set bonuses. Again, I disagree. Regardless, if 2-handed weapons are overpowered, again, that's an irrelevant separate issue.

On top of this, 2-handed weapons are already used as 5-piece sets - so apparently that's not your concern. We can conclude that your real concern is 2-handed weapons, as part of 5-piece sets, used with other 5-piece sets (instead of 4-piece sets, while assuming a 2-piece monster set is in play in either scenario).

As I've noted before, we can simply use Occam's razor. You have two options for balance:

-Make all weapons equal at completing sets, so that the devs can simply balance the sets.
Or... -The devs must balance every possible set combination, 5/5/2, 5/4/2, (not even counting maelstrom...) against both 1-handed and 2-handed weapons.

Let's use a little common sense here.

This is practically incomprehensible but let me try to respond.

Buff in this context means an improvement. period. If a weak element is buffed it may be just right and enough to become on par with others. If a currently potent item is buffed it may become OP.

Whether or not taking @h weapons and turning them from "counts as one set piece for sets" to "counts as two set pieces for set bonuses" is OP may be an issue up for debate and analysis but whether or not its a BUFF or not is not a question.

Additionally i dont get what you mean or how you infer this weapon set bonus counts and what you think i mean?

Right now you can have two 5pc sets full whether you have 2h or 1h weapon sets.
Right now, you can have two 5pc sets full and a 1pc set maelstrom whether you have @h or 1H equipped.
Right now, the only difference in terms of set usage is whether or not you can have two 5pc set bonuses full AND a 2pc set bonus - whether from monster sets or from just a typical 2pc bonus.

So, in spite of all your back and forth over 5pc this and that, the real difference is only 2pc.bonuses.

Finally, i am afraid occams does not mean what you think it means. Occams does not mean "do things simply" or "the simplest way is the best."

the simplest way to balance all weapons is to remove all differences between weapons. Make the player choice of weapons irrelevant and just a cosmetic flavor thing. A great many fantasy/scifi genre pretty much do just that. Just look at how effective the typical blaster stolen from a storm trooper seemed to be in han Solo hands as opposed to how effective it was for the storm trooper.

But neither occams nor han solo have a thing to do with set bonus counting which has been baked into the balance since day one in this game whether or not the devs told you that personally or not.

But let me be very clear here:
i really dont care whether or not this change happens in general.
I dont like removing player choices and consequences but this is not that big a deal so... meh.
I am VERY concerned with the idea being put forth here that it can be done as "simply" as just adding the bonus based on nothing more than current meta-play popularity.
I am VERY concerned about the refusal to acknowledge in some cases (and dismissal of in other cases) the many different ways even now there are inherent significant favors heaped onto 2h weapons made even more critical in the current farming weapons grind world structure where a single 2H weapon is easier to get than two one hand weapons.

let me ask you this and its quite simple: IF you get a two-set-count added to 2H weapons are you Ok with at the same time cutting the drop rate for all those 2H weapons to half the rate of 1h weapons so that you can get one maelstrom destro staff or one greatsword of viper sting in the same amount of grind as you can get two maelstrom dagger or dagger of viper sting?

Andohir

Derra wrote: »

I honestly think apart from rally 2h is the worst stamina weapon skilline in the game. By a wide gap.

I used 2h with my Sorc only because of charge, to have a bit more mobility available in the early levels. Charge added a more dynamic element to fights. Once I got Surge, DW, besides its higher bonus to spell damage and its additional set slot, also became superior to 2h regarding self heal, because of twice as much crit possibilities in melee. With the 2h I had to use health pots pretty frequently, when I started DW I nearly never needed a pot anymore.