The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 22:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 22, 4:00AM EDT (08:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 24, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 24, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 22, 4:00AM EDT (08:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 24, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 24, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Easy Set Weapon Balance Fix - 2-handed weapons count as 2 set items
-
tnanever✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?
What you posted is completely on point. I've posted that exact point multiple times throughout this thread, but apparently my posts were drowned out by spam from bowmanz and stevil. This point is so obvious and basic. People who can't accept this are really grasping at straws.Edited by tnanever on November 3, 2016 10:23PM0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
No. You're still wrong, and I still disagree. Let's sum up your posts (you're Person 2):
Person 1 - "Wouldn't it be cool if ____ was changed/added?"
Person 2 - "I disagree because of my gameplay balance opinions."
Person 1 - "Ok, but what if you're wrong and it wouldn't be unbalanced? Or what if you're right, and it was unbalanced, but the devs made it balanced? Either way, your balance concerns don't matter."
Person 2 - "After reading that, I literally have no argument left but I'll still complain about possible balance issues, and now only argue that you can't ignore balance issues...even after pointing out exactly why balance issues aren't a concern. More spam. Noise. Etc."
Well can go back and forth on it all day. We can agree to disagree. However, I would point you to comment 132 for my thoughts in what to do. Which is directly related to what you are trying to accomplish in this thread. I think it is a good compromise.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
Just not sure how long you want to keep your little posturing thing here going.
You know i questioned the statements relevence to the quote you included with it and nothing about passives was in that.
This little juxtaposition switcheroo game of yours is just... very illustrative of the dismissal nature shown on this thread.
stevil - stop derailing this thread. Your argument is invalid. You're implying that the devs are so inept that they can't possibly balance 2-handed weapons utilizing both equipment slots like two 1-handed weapons. This is on top of the baseless assumption that somehow this would overpower 2-handed weapons in the first place, while somehow it's fine for 1-handed weapons to have this set bonus. Everything you said is wrong.
I never once said or implied the devs cannot balance things. Why do you find the need to just make uo things and ascribe them to other people.
As you know, i have said repeatedly that this change should not be done "simply"
i have said repeatedly it should not be done "first" and then "balanced" later.
The desire and fervor of some of the "supporters" here to dismiss/exclude any discussion of balance, dismiss/exclude any discussion that points out there ARE inherent bonuses to 2H now (contraqry to repeated posts claiming there are none) that serve to offset the set bonus etc is amazing, especially wqhen they then orwell their way into describing the others as "narrow" in what they will discuss.
When claims are made about not being inherent advanatges, not being imbalanced if, etc etc etc throwing tantrums when someone disagrees on those points is just plain, well, normal for some on the internet I guess.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
Doomslinger781✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?
What you posted is completely on point. I've posted that exact point multiple times throughout this thread, but apparently my posts were drowned out by spam from bowmanz and stevil. This point is so obvious and basic. People who can't accept this are really grasping at straws.
OK, great. So this obvious factor does make sense. I was starting to feel like I was on crazy pills.
So with this in mind, it kinda seems like the developers just didn't even think about the issue. 5/5/2 builds really became more prolific with 1T and all the new drop sets and set scaling, and I think a lot of us are starting to realize now that 2H melee is simply outclassed. Then you've got bows and staves, which feel like they're relegated to a lower echelon of build variety.Templar: Duncan Castlehoff (main)
Sorc: Sabine Lumoria
DK: Auderlant
NB: Yggmeena
Templar: Mukambei
DK: Stegmon
Sorc: Gruze Von Kruger
NB: Gnarl Ballin1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.
Oh, dont take it personally. Discussing how to implement, what could be changed etc etc are good for discussion. i just feels its totally pointless discussing how could this change affect balance, if we lack any data about how actually is game balanced about not having this. Because if 2H is strong already, or at least same as DW, while lacking possibility to make 3sets builds, it speaks more about 2H/DW skillset/damage and not about this change.Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
I know I should but I always get interested what he will think about next
There are people talking about why this change should be done, people talking about why this change shouldnt be done and then is he, talking about something.
TBH this whole discussion got so polluted by all posts from STEVIL and all reactions at them (including mine). That it distracts from the main point.
Agreed. I stopped responding to him when he called my statements unhinged and exasperated. He's been derailing the conversation with argumentative, contrarian statements for the last 6 pages. This is an important topic for me and a lot of folks; let's stay focused and keep it respectful.
Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?
The answer is easy but its long.
The answer to "how could they" is called playtest.
the answer to how could they" is ongoing adjustments to balance over two years.
truth be told the vast amount of the actual balance is determined not before play begins in back room meetings with booze and cigars and formulas but in PLAY,, OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS OF REULTS and ADJUSTMENT.
In most cases, you define the core elements, assign guess values in design phase then test test test tweak tweak tweak and that process continues forever.
As i have pointed out many times, the balance has changed drastically since whetver was released on day one.
the balance has wholesale changed several times after play started, so the fevered obsession with "did the devs in their dark room apply the correct adjustments for 552 vs 551 or 543" is angels on head of pin semantics.
That "did they then" discussion focus ignores that ever since then the changes have been most significantly based on play and the evolving game.
HINT: One thing that hasn't evolved is the set count thing, so its not "why things are off now" if one believes its off now.
The answer is that the biggest driving force for "balance change" in this game is the numbers presented into the database by two+ years of play and what the devs wrote down about "offsets for set count bonus" back in the day is just more semantics semantics than substance.
And as long as balance keeps getting divorced from a discussion that alters balance at its core, this will lack the significance to warrant much in the way of serious consideration,
But really, if folks think its a magic formula the devs create day one that drives things two years later after the combat and balance has been radically overhauled several times since... they are wrong.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
WuffyCerulei✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Why does 2 handed need a buff?! In pvp this is the meta.
You do realize that 2-handed weapons are not just the melee weapons, but also bows and staves. Having a weapon count as 2 pieces of a set would be amazing, especially for magicka builds that rely on staves.For the love of Kyne, buff sorc. PC NACP 2100+Star-Sïnger - Khajiit Magicka Sorc - EP Grand Overlord - Flawless Conqueror vMA/vBRP/vDSA no death/vHel Ra HM/vAA HM/vSO HM/vMoL HM/vHoF HM/vAS +2/vCR+3/vSS HMs/vKA HMs/vVH/vRG Oax HM/vDSR1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
No. You're still wrong, and I still disagree. Let's sum up your posts (you're Person 2):
Person 1 - "Wouldn't it be cool if ____ was changed/added?"
Person 2 - "I disagree because of my gameplay balance opinions."
Person 1 - "Ok, but what if you're wrong and it wouldn't be unbalanced? Or what if you're right, and it was unbalanced, but the devs made it balanced? Either way, your balance concerns don't matter."
Person 2 - "After reading that, I literally have no argument left but I'll still complain about possible balance issues, and now only argue that you can't ignore balance issues...even after pointing out exactly why balance issues aren't a concern. More spam. Noise. Etc."
Thats a fair and balanced representation if ever i saw one.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
Wreuntzylla✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
No. You're still wrong, and I still disagree. Let's sum up your posts (you're Person 2):
Person 1 - "Wouldn't it be cool if ____ was changed/added?"
Person 2 - "I disagree because of my gameplay balance opinions."
Person 1 - "Ok, but what if you're wrong and it wouldn't be unbalanced? Or what if you're right, and it was unbalanced, but the devs made it balanced? Either way, your balance concerns don't matter."
Person 2 - "After reading that, I literally have no argument left but I'll still complain about possible balance issues, and now only argue that you can't ignore balance issues...even after pointing out exactly why balance issues aren't a concern. More spam. Noise. Etc."
Thats a fair and balanced representation if ever i saw one.
The whole premise of ignoring a significant factor is moronic.
"Hey J, let's go rob a store!"
"But it's illegal."
"But maybe they will make it legal in the future!"
"We might get arrested or even shot. It's a serious issue."
"I just told you it might be legal in the future. Stop arguing that point. And since you have no other argument, cmon, let's go rob the store!"0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Wreuntzylla wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
No. You're still wrong, and I still disagree. Let's sum up your posts (you're Person 2):
Person 1 - "Wouldn't it be cool if ____ was changed/added?"
Person 2 - "I disagree because of my gameplay balance opinions."
Person 1 - "Ok, but what if you're wrong and it wouldn't be unbalanced? Or what if you're right, and it was unbalanced, but the devs made it balanced? Either way, your balance concerns don't matter."
Person 2 - "After reading that, I literally have no argument left but I'll still complain about possible balance issues, and now only argue that you can't ignore balance issues...even after pointing out exactly why balance issues aren't a concern. More spam. Noise. Etc."
Thats a fair and balanced representation if ever i saw one.
The whole premise of ignoring a significant factor is moronic.
"Hey J, let's go rob a store!"
"But it's illegal."
"But maybe they will make it legal in the future!"
"We might get arrested or even shot. It's a serious issue."
"I just told you it might be legal in the future. Stop arguing that point. And since you have no other argument, cmon, let's go rob the store!"
@Wreuntzylla
Don't waste your time with trying to have a discussion here. @STEVIL polices this thread until the he OP returns and tells him he's wrong.
It appears that unless you ageee with Steil he will do his best to belittle your replies and tell you your wrong, especially when your right.
Just read through the thread and you'll see others say similar.0 -
Doomslinger781✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.
Oh, dont take it personally. Discussing how to implement, what could be changed etc etc are good for discussion. i just feels its totally pointless discussing how could this change affect balance, if we lack any data about how actually is game balanced about not having this. Because if 2H is strong already, or at least same as DW, while lacking possibility to make 3sets builds, it speaks more about 2H/DW skillset/damage and not about this change.Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
I know I should but I always get interested what he will think about next There are people talking about why this change should be done, people talking about why this change shouldnt be done and then is he, talking about something.
TBH this whole discussion got so polluted by all posts from STEVIL and all reactions at them (including mine). That it distracts from the main point.
Agreed. I stopped responding to him when he called my statements unhinged and exasperated. He's been derailing the conversation with argumentative, contrarian statements for the last 6 pages. This is an important topic for me and a lot of folks; let's stay focused and keep it respectful.
Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?
The answer is easy but its long.
The answer to "how could they" is called playtest.
the answer to how could they" is ongoing adjustments to balance over two years.
truth be told the vast amount of the actual balance is determined not before play begins in back room meetings with booze and cigars and formulas but in PLAY,, OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS OF REULTS and ADJUSTMENT.
In most cases, you define the core elements, assign guess values in design phase then test test test tweak tweak tweak and that process continues forever.
As i have pointed out many times, the balance has changed drastically since whetver was released on day one.
the balance has wholesale changed several times after play started, so the fevered obsession with "did the devs in their dark room apply the correct adjustments for 552 vs 551 or 543" is angels on head of pin semantics.
That "did they then" discussion focus ignores that ever since then the changes have been most significantly based on play and the evolving game.
HINT: One thing that hasn't evolved is the set count thing, so its not "why things are off now" if one believes its off now.
The answer is that the biggest driving force for "balance change" in this game is the numbers presented into the database by two+ years of play and what the devs wrote down about "offsets for set count bonus" back in the day is just more semantics semantics than substance.
And as long as balance keeps getting divorced from a discussion that alters balance at its core, this will lack the significance to warrant much in the way of serious consideration,
But really, if folks think its a magic formula the devs create day one that drives things two years later after the combat and balance has been radically overhauled several times since... they are wrong.
You're right; there is no magic formula that could possibly compensate for the lack of 5/5/2 build access concerning 2H weapons, which is why we're making the case for 2H receiving two set bonuses - with other counter-balancing adjustments as necessary. If some attempt at a magic formula was applied (obviously in the form of a buff, or part of some larger buff), that additional formulaic application should be reverted in lieu of receiving said two-piece set bonus access. This is the only thing that can bring an level foundation for balance concerning 2H and the 5/5/2 standard.
I kindly disagree with the premise that my questions and observations are merely semantics, and would add that my efforts are to cut right down to the root of the problem, and achieve the best overall balance possible. Furthermore, yes: the lack of 2H 5/5/2 build access has been a problem since the beginning, but it's becoming more and more pronounced as they release additional sets, and really only serves to exclude 2H from the power, synergy, and fun of 5/5/2 builds.
And finally, for all the folks that say "BattleAxes/Staves/Bows are a single weapon, it doesn't make sense to give them a two-piece set bonus", I would counter with the fact that bows have quivers, staves have very distinct hafts with orbs or other affects fastened to their heads, and something like a battleaxe certainly has two distinct pieces - and in actuality, several pieces, as do all weapons. Now THIS is getting into semantics, but at some point, we've all gotta suspend our disbelief if we want to achieve better balance concerning set bonuses.
edited for spelling
Edited by Doomslinger781 on November 4, 2016 4:24PMTemplar: Duncan Castlehoff (main)
Sorc: Sabine Lumoria
DK: Auderlant
NB: Yggmeena
Templar: Mukambei
DK: Stegmon
Sorc: Gruze Von Kruger
NB: Gnarl Ballin1 -
LegacyDM✭✭✭✭✭
✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.Legacy of Kain
Vicious Carnage
¥ampire Lord of the South0 -
LegacyDM✭✭✭✭✭
✭WuffyCerulei wrote: »
Reread my previous post. I've outlined why bows, staves, and two handers provide advantages dual wield sword and board do not have. Set bonus on dual wield makes up the difference. Thus the weapon types are balanced already. Asking for two handed weapons to get a set bonus would push them over the top over dual weld becoming op.Legacy of Kain
Vicious Carnage
¥ampire Lord of the South0 -
Seido_Tensei_✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.
As someone who uses 2h / Bow I really wanted to agree with OP, but reading this comment gave me pause. Recently tried a DW / Bow configuration for PVP and decided rally really was good enough for me to lose the second 5 pc on my main bar.
I agree the 5 / 5 / 2 meta is difficult to pass up, but if anything is worth it, rally is. I guess bows and staff suffer the most from this imbalance, but 2H still seems strong. And people giving up poison injectrion for rally seems like a fair trade in my opinion.
It feels like it is just magicka getting the short end.....unless they keep eye of the storm as it is, in which case I have no sympathy.1 -
Doomslinger781✭✭✭Rally is a great skill, for sure. Eye of the Storm is strong too. I'm unsure that either are strong enough to warrant their weapons being excluded from all secondary 5-piece bonuses, but it's cool that you're making 2H work for you, regardless.
I would say, however, that even if Rally and Eye of the Storm, or the combination of all of a 2H weapon's skills, make up for the loss:
1) You still have much less build variety with their respective weapons (by a count of literally every 5-piece set available)
2) As new set pieces arrive and are adjusted, it may take corresponding adjustments with each update to keep these weapons balanced
Personally, I'd rather see a couple of skills readjusted to justify including their weapons in the 5/5/2 meta.Templar: Duncan Castlehoff (main)
Sorc: Sabine Lumoria
DK: Auderlant
NB: Yggmeena
Templar: Mukambei
DK: Stegmon
Sorc: Gruze Von Kruger
NB: Gnarl Ballin0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »Doomslinger781 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.
Oh, dont take it personally. Discussing how to implement, what could be changed etc etc are good for discussion. i just feels its totally pointless discussing how could this change affect balance, if we lack any data about how actually is game balanced about not having this. Because if 2H is strong already, or at least same as DW, while lacking possibility to make 3sets builds, it speaks more about 2H/DW skillset/damage and not about this change.Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »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.
Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
...
Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it
...
This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
I know I should but I always get interested what he will think about next There are people talking about why this change should be done, people talking about why this change shouldnt be done and then is he, talking about something.
TBH this whole discussion got so polluted by all posts from STEVIL and all reactions at them (including mine). That it distracts from the main point.
Agreed. I stopped responding to him when he called my statements unhinged and exasperated. He's been derailing the conversation with argumentative, contrarian statements for the last 6 pages. This is an important topic for me and a lot of folks; let's stay focused and keep it respectful.
Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?
The answer is easy but its long.
The answer to "how could they" is called playtest.
the answer to how could they" is ongoing adjustments to balance over two years.
truth be told the vast amount of the actual balance is determined not before play begins in back room meetings with booze and cigars and formulas but in PLAY,, OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS OF REULTS and ADJUSTMENT.
In most cases, you define the core elements, assign guess values in design phase then test test test tweak tweak tweak and that process continues forever.
As i have pointed out many times, the balance has changed drastically since whetver was released on day one.
the balance has wholesale changed several times after play started, so the fevered obsession with "did the devs in their dark room apply the correct adjustments for 552 vs 551 or 543" is angels on head of pin semantics.
That "did they then" discussion focus ignores that ever since then the changes have been most significantly based on play and the evolving game.
HINT: One thing that hasn't evolved is the set count thing, so its not "why things are off now" if one believes its off now.
The answer is that the biggest driving force for "balance change" in this game is the numbers presented into the database by two+ years of play and what the devs wrote down about "offsets for set count bonus" back in the day is just more semantics semantics than substance.
And as long as balance keeps getting divorced from a discussion that alters balance at its core, this will lack the significance to warrant much in the way of serious consideration,
But really, if folks think its a magic formula the devs create day one that drives things two years later after the combat and balance has been radically overhauled several times since... they are wrong.
You're right; there is no magic formula that could possibly compensate for the lack of 5/5/2 build access concerning 2H weapons, which is why we're making the case for 2H receiving two set bonuses - with other counter-balancing adjustments as necessary. If some attempt at a magic formula was applied (obviously in the form of a buff, or part of some larger buff), that additional formulaic application should be reverted in lieu of receiving said two-piece set bonus access. This is the only thing that can bring an level foundation for balance concerning 2H and the 5/5/2 standard.
I kindly disagree with the premise that my questions and observations are merely semantics, and would add that my efforts are to cut right down to the root of the problem, and achieve the best overall balance possible. Furthermore, yes: the lack of 2H 5/5/2 build access has been a problem since the beginning, but it's becoming more and more pronounced as they release additional sets, and really only serves to exclude 2H from the power, synergy, and fun of 5/5/2 builds.
And finally, for all the folks that say "BattleAxes/Staves/Bows are a single weapon, it doesn't make sense to give them a two-piece set bonus", I would counter with the fact that bows have quivers, staves have very distinct hafts with orbs or other affects fastened to their heads, and something like a battleaxe certainly has two distinct pieces - and in actuality, several pieces, as do all weapons. Now THIS is getting into semantics, but at some point, we've all gotta suspend our disbelief if we want to achieve better balance concerning set bonuses.
edited for spelling
Just as a follow-up does your great axes two piece also apply to regular axes of same construction only smaller?
IF this justifies great axe double dip why not double regular axe?
Fwiw I will say that the only time I refer to the one piece logic is when asked to provide an in game world reason.
The REALLY reason the difference exists is the devs decided to make two hand weapons have a number of distinct differences plus and min us to one handers. Many games before have done similarly differentiating btwn as far back as dnd before it was dnd but rather D&D aND maybe chain mail.
We have seen a number of these diff plus and minus listed here only to have them dismissed.
BUT hey that's how some want this to go.
Again, if this change occurs I feel it should be done RIGHT not "simply" and not just add it in then see about balance and that ALL the advantages be revisited including very importantly the crafting and grinding aspects.
As for your no formula comment you dodged the point. NOT having a formula now isn't due to or complicated by the set bonus. Balance is adjusted based on play and wI'll forever be changing.
THE current imbalances of the month did not spring from set bonus of the third set... and won't be solved by them.
A much more focused set of changes will be needed.
AS noted on this very thread some think bows/staves are at serious disaster but 2h may be ok or not as bad, so applying an across the board one size fits all set count change is imo a bad plan, esp with a balance it later disclaimer.
But my bet is you know that.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Seido_Tensei_ wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.
As someone who uses 2h / Bow I really wanted to agree with OP, but reading this comment gave me pause. Recently tried a DW / Bow configuration for PVP and decided rally really was good enough for me to lose the second 5 pc on my main bar.
I agree the 5 / 5 / 2 meta is difficult to pass up, but if anything is worth it, rally is. I guess bows and staff suffer the most from this imbalance, but 2H still seems strong. And people giving up poison injectrion for rally seems like a fair trade in my opinion.
It feels like it is just magicka getting the short end.....unless they keep eye of the storm as it is, in which case I have no sympathy.
I agree completely.
That's why I think a lot of folks are trying to get rally moved to guild so they can take dw plus rally or bow plus rally.
My khaki it has dw bow and 2h each for their own strengths and dials up the two best for challenge. MOST of the time I sit on dw/2h so they can rally charge swap for dw then maybe swap back for exe.
Bow comes in when needed or for variety.
If we toss extra bonus on 2H and leave it twice as easy to get/upgrade... things will shift.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.
So if they offer superior capabilities, why are they underused in PvE? Maybe because they offer capabilities which are designed more towards PVP, while DW/shields are more for pve?
Also, argument (which I see pretty often here): A has this, B doesnt, but B has this, that makes them balanced, is the most laughtable thing ever. If these things arent comparable, you cant compare their value. 3rd set bonus isnt same as PVP oriented skills, or bonus dmg, or range, therefore you can say jack *** having one of them makes them balanced.Edited by SodanTok on November 4, 2016 10:31PM0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.
So if they offer superior capabilities, why are they underused in PvE? Maybe because they offer capabilities which are designed more towards PVP, while DW/shields are more for pve?
Also, argument (which I see pretty often here): A has this, B doesnt, but B has this, that makes them balanced, is the most laughtable thing ever. If these things arent comparable, you cant compare their value. 3rd set bonus isnt same as PVP oriented skills, or bonus dmg, or range, therefore you can say jack *** having one of them makes them balanced.
First, where is your proof that 2h weapons are underused in pve? Are you talking all pve or only group or only trials? ARe you talking at all levels or only end game? ARe you talking only when elite trial gear, undaunted gear, pvp gear sets etc are included or when sets available thru overland play and crafted are the mainstays?
Secong, the bolded part, just because you say things arent comparable doesnt make it so. The main way that two disparate things are compared is by observation of results. Matter of fact, in complex interrelated systems, comparison of results is oftn more useful as analysis than isolated comparison of selected elements.
Even two identical things can produce different results depending on environment. INc crit chance has greater impact in pve than in pvp cuz pvp tends to see more impen.
But the way you actually compare set bonus to other combat type bonuses is to see the results in play. see how a small test group sees it play out against a selected variety of challenges representative of content in the game. THen compare those results against the results of other runs with different stuff.
Then tweak repeat.
Release to a larger beta group. Collect both results and feedback.
Then tweak and repeat.
Release to full play group. COllect data and feedback.
Then tweak and repeat.
You dont need sameness or homogenization of the elements to compare elements, as much as you need adequate test scenarios.
And yes, its entirely possible some things can be deemed balanced even if one is better against content group A and the other is better against content group B. For example, aoe attacks are usually inferior to single target attacks against single boss encounters but are better agsinst swarm encounters. That makes looking at smalker and smaller groups of content less and less reliable to have say individual mostly anecdotal often disputed judgements as opposed to the collect data feedback tweak across the board methodology.
But the easy fallback dismissal of just refusing to believe you can even compare the impact of things that are different is just an easy oversimplistic maneuver to evade relevant points.
BTW as an aside a very large number of things in the universe were and still are being discovered and analyzed by not direct observation but by spotting and examining their impact, their results their influence on other known products in "play" or in live action so to speak.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.
1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.
Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.
People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.
Guess this went over your head. "Mate". The point was to show that two handed weapons provide superior capabilities that dual wield and sword & board do not. Sword and board and dual wield get set bonuses to make up the difference. Hence they are balanced already.
So if they offer superior capabilities, why are they underused in PvE? Maybe because they offer capabilities which are designed more towards PVP, while DW/shields are more for pve?
Also, argument (which I see pretty often here): A has this, B doesnt, but B has this, that makes them balanced, is the most laughtable thing ever. If these things arent comparable, you cant compare their value. 3rd set bonus isnt same as PVP oriented skills, or bonus dmg, or range, therefore you can say jack *** having one of them makes them balanced.
First, where is your proof that 2h weapons are underused in pve? Are you talking all pve or only group or only trials? ARe you talking at all levels or only end game? ARe you talking only when elite trial gear, undaunted gear, pvp gear sets etc are included or when sets available thru overland play and crafted are the mainstays?
Secong, the bolded part, just because you say things arent comparable doesnt make it so. The main way that two disparate things are compared is by observation of results. Matter of fact, in complex interrelated systems, comparison of results is oftn more useful as analysis than isolated comparison of selected elements.
Even two identical things can produce different results depending on environment. INc crit chance has greater impact in pve than in pvp cuz pvp tends to see more impen.
But the way you actually compare set bonus to other combat type bonuses is to see the results in play. see how a small test group sees it play out against a selected variety of challenges representative of content in the game. THen compare those results against the results of other runs with different stuff.
Then tweak repeat.
Release to a larger beta group. Collect both results and feedback.
Then tweak and repeat.
Release to full play group. COllect data and feedback.
Then tweak and repeat.
You dont need sameness or homogenization of the elements to compare elements, as much as you need adequate test scenarios.
And yes, its entirely possible some things can be deemed balanced even if one is better against content group A and the other is better against content group B. For example, aoe attacks are usually inferior to single target attacks against single boss encounters but are better agsinst swarm encounters. That makes looking at smalker and smaller groups of content less and less reliable to have say individual mostly anecdotal often disputed judgements as opposed to the collect data feedback tweak across the board methodology.
But the easy fallback dismissal of just refusing to believe you can even compare the impact of things that are different is just an easy oversimplistic maneuver to evade relevant points.
BTW as an aside a very large number of things in the universe were and still are being discovered and analyzed by not direct observation but by spotting and examining their impact, their results their influence on other known products in "play" or in live action so to speak.
I dont want to directly answer you, since you talk a lot about nothing, but I want to keep this thread going so by this post, consider being informed you, again, that you talk about how universe is created when we discuss how to make bread more tasty
"First, where is your proof that 2h weapons are underused in pve?"
Normally, I would agree I carry the burden of proof, but this time proof is all around us. By not agreeing to this statement you are either overly pedantic (yes, staffs are used and bows on off bar too) or just overly ignorant. Take your pick.
Anyway, I hope you will try your best, to answer to these few lines with as much as post limits allow you.Edited by SodanTok on November 5, 2016 11:01AM1 -
Birdovic✭✭✭✭✭"First, where is your proof that 2h weapons are underused in pve?"
Normally, I would agree I carry the burden of proof, but this time proof is all around us. By not agreeing to this statement you are either overly pedantic (yes, staffs are used and bows on off bar too) or just overly ignorant. Take your pick.
Anyway, I hope you will try your best, to answer to these few lines with as much as post limits allow you.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I've given up discussing with him, im tired of exactly that (the universe and bread comparison you made). Too many attempts to sound smart, too few related information in too much text. Nope, not doing that again. I mean look at it, this guy posted 2x as much as me since he joined in march, im here since almost 3 years. And it was all Universe talk. But enough ranting.
_____________________________________________________
To contribute to this discussion again a little, I see it like this:
When trying to compare 2 weapons, there are lots of things you can look at, naming
some like:
- Ability Trees (what do they offer/not offer)
- Build Possibilities
- Which kind of gameplay do these weapons excel at?
- Base Damage?
- How many glyphs can you use and which type(armor/weapon)?
- How does the Weapon work on its own?
So currently, I think 2handed weapons are definetly good as they are now, Dualwield and Sword and Board are not.
Why are they not? Lets take a look at "Build Possibilites" and it becomes obvious: Due to having the possibility of going 5/5/2 with DW or S/B, some ridiculously strong set combos emerged, which are not possible on 2h. The needed slot is missing.
This doesnt make 2h bad, its still good, the thing is, the others are overperforming. That said, I dont think 2h needs an additional slot or anything, proc sets aswell as a few dominating heavy Armor Sets need to be looked at and everything is a little more balanced, like prior to T1 (I said a little). If 2handed were given a 2pc bonus, it would be the same as with DW or S/B, that is what I think.
Weapons that I believe deserve to count as 2 pieces though, are the Bow, Destro and Resto Staves.
Now, why should they receive this buff and 2h not?
Lets look at the "Base Damage" and the "Ability trees".
Base Damage
2handed: A CP160 Legendary reaches 1571. If its a sword, it is complimented by a 2h passive, increasing overall Damage done by another 5%.
Bow: A CP160 Legendary reaches 1335.If the enemy is at long range, he receives 12% more Damage from your Bow Abilities, until he gapclosed on you ( a short time).
Destro Staff: A CP160 Legendary reaches 1335. Passives dont increase the damage, but offer a 10% Spell Resistance ignore, if attacking with Destro Skills. Works the same way like the 2h passive "Heavy Weapons)" with an equipped Mace; but this one ignores 20%, and isnt limited to 2h Weapon Skills.
Ability Trees
What do each of them offer? Lets look at some areas:
Healing:
2handed: Has a really great Heal over time, Burst Heal and Weapon Damage buff as 1 single Skill.
Bow: Has a very situational and therefore unreliable Heal. Has no Weapon Damage Buff (Some class abilities offer it).
Destro Staff: Has no heal at all. Has no Spell Damage buff at all
(luckily dmg buff is no problem, atleast Mages Guild offers it).
Burst Potential:
2handed: Great Burst trough empowering or knocking down, which is very hard to avoid (especially when knockd down)
Bow: Has a strong long ranged Attack which can be considered burst, if the target isn paying attention, also has a minimum range. Afflicts target with a useful Debuff. It is not strong enough on its own and must be combined with something else to be effective burst, too many "its good if...".
Destro Staff: Has a reliable spammable Attack, but is very easy to avoid with reflects, LOS and not strong enough on its own. Combining this with the Ultimate can yield high Burst Potential, but is risky to use, since you have to go into melee range, usually a group for it to be effective.
Executing:
2handed: Has a really strong Execute, which - when morphed - can do execute damage to close enemies, based on targets missing health, basically a multitarget Execute.
Bow: Has a "pseudo Execute" over time, which deals more damage, the less health the single target has (Poison Injection)."Pseudo" because its not spammable.
Destro Staff: Has no execute at all. Now if we consider the expensive Ultimate however - if used correctly - it atleast has great Burst Potential for a short time, being the closest to an "Execute" this tree offers.
Now to "How does the Weapon work on its own"?
2handed:
Having looked at these, we can all agree that 2handed is a very well done Ability Tree, offering something from everything. It is doing great on its own due to reliable heals, burst potential, great executes and has enough options to be combined with different playstyles, including a "Buff bar", or simply different weapons like the Bow for starting a fight or adding some ranged attacks, dualwielding, or Sword and Board to be a little more tanky and whatnot.
Bow:
Just with the prior info I gave you, can this weapon be used in a reliable way, without using a 2handed Weapon for instance?
My opinion? I'd say no. If you are trying to play "Bow as main weapon", you will have issues to do so, since you rely on overall lower "Base Damage" which you cant even buff, have no real healing possibility, the only burst potential comes from Ults, maybe Class Abilities and Snipes (which can easily be spotted/heard and avoided) and to efficiently use the "Pseudo execute" (you cant spam it), you most likely lack enough burst to begin with.
Destro Staff:
Now the Destro Staff. While the basedamage is lower and the passive counterparts from 2handed (more penetration for instance) are better, this Weapon has a good spammable ranged Attack and does well until the gap is closed, from here on it usually depends on your class abilities used, except you use Destructive Clench to keep distance. Even if its lacking any healing possibilities or spelldamage buffs, it has an interesting timed, risky burst potential. But in the end, same as with the Bow its just lacking too many essentials, and needs to be accompanied by a resto staff or s/b for instance, whereas 2handed can vary in playstyle alot, thanks to its well rounded Ability Tree.
Having said that (And in case you read it all, lol):
I didnt include the Resto staff here, because its very obviously a supportive Weapon, and should still be handled that way. Counting as 2 set pieces? Sure, it helps with being supportive, in a manner of proccing sets or using healing/buffing-related 5pc bonuses, when you couldnt normally utilize them.
Now, why would it help to give Bow, Destro and Resto a 2pc bonus, if its a single weapon?
Simple: You can do and try different things.
For instance, you could make up a new Build for Bows, which includes 5/5/2 pieces, that deserves to be called "bow Build", which, thanks to the new build options finally becomes a valid main weapon, even if it may still be behind 2handed, due to the combination of availaible Abilities (as i said 2handed is a very well rounded ability tree), but its atleast closer.
Another example for the destro Staff:
With the new build options, you could possible include a 5pc spelldamage buff or healing, without the need of an actual resto staff (finally) or Class Abilities. Again, this will not put it on par with 2handed, but it can make up for something that is missing, even if its just to make up for the lower "Base Damage". Be creative.
Edited by Birdovic on November 5, 2016 1:57PMAttempt and Thoughts to Overhaul Scaling, Attribute System and Enchantments
Improving the Sorcerer class: Ideas
"We want firing off Dark Exchange in the middle of Combat to feel awesome"1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
I've given up discussing with him, im tired of exactly that (the universe and bread comparison you made). Too many attempts to sound smart, too few related information in too much text. Nope, not doing that again. I mean look at it, this guy posted 2x as much as me since he joined in march, im here since almost 3 years. And it was all Universe talk. But enough ranting.
_____________________________________________________
ALways interesting to see who goes for the person vs the topic... and the fact free or partisl fact nature.
When you decided it was relevant to look up my post over time vs yours and then declare so suredly about the nature of the content, did you miss or just choose to leave out that in that ssmr time i garnered more insightfuls, more agrees and more awesomes?
One would think since it was you who thought it appropriate for you to bring post count and implications of what "all" of its contents was into this discussion you might want to do more or even some research on the subject.
Me, i find it odd that the folks most often calling for others to stop posting on this thread or trying tonvut out directly related topics or that sort of things call the ones they are trying to stifle "forum police."
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
tnanever✭✭✭...
They are saying there are obvious, numerable and significant inherent advantages and disadvantages to the 2h and dw lines that provide each with positives and negative compared to each other and that taking one of those "set bonus" and "simply" declaring all the others irrelevent for discussion is a bad approach.
...
Yes, weapons have different advantages and disadvantages. That has nothing to do with set bonuses. Your assumption that the devs specifically accounted for all possible combinations of set bonuses for 1-hand vs 2-handed weapons is simply preposterous.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭...
The desire and fervor of some of the "supporters" here to dismiss/exclude any discussion of balance, dismiss/exclude any discussion that points out there ARE inherent bonuses to 2H now
Absolutely not. This baseless assumption is your only argument why all flavors of weapons aren't treated equally for set-completion ability. After all this noise by you and the other anti-equality people, no one has put forth any evidence that the devs specifically gave some bonuses to 2-handed weapons due to their weakness in set-completion. On top of that, as others have pointed out, 1-handed weapons/shields have several advantages over 2-handed weapons, so even your claim of "inherent bonuses" in the first place is doubtful.Edited by tnanever on November 5, 2016 5:30PM0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭...
The desire and fervor of some of the "supporters" here to dismiss/exclude any discussion of balance, dismiss/exclude any discussion that points out there ARE inherent bonuses to 2H now
Absolutely not. This baseless assumption is your only argument why all flavors of weapons aren't treated equally for set-completion ability. After all this noise by you and the other anti-equality people, no one has put forth any evidence that the devs specifically gave some bonuses to 2-handed weapons due to their weakness in set-completion. On top of that, as others have pointed out, 1-handed weapons/shields have several advantages over 2-handed weapons, so even your claim of "inherent bonuses" in the first place is doubtful.
First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way. Additionally, update after update and patch after patch and forum thread after forum thread we still have no change to this. After2 and half years nothing. Again, evidence that that points to the inequalities and balance issues associated with a change like this. If it is inherently unequal as you suggest, we would have seen a change awhile ago. No you won't find direct evidence. They did not state it. It is called circumstantial evidence.
Three, one hand in shield is prevalent these days because of proc sets. This goes for mag too. Nothing to do with weapon itself.
Baseless assumptions? Many if us have made logical conclusions. You just yell blah blah blah irrelevant and I'm right. Heck, if we are making baseless assumptions then so are you.
Additionally, it is obvious you don't even want to have a real discussion on the issue. Let's putalk this particular argument aside. Others, including myself, have provided feedback, discussion points, and suggestions to your issue outside the conte,t of these balance issues. Yet, your only reapones are yelling at people talking about balance. You have not engaged with those comments that discuss other points. Or those that make counter suggestions to generate a discussion that may meet some where in the middle. They go completely ignored because your so into yelling at people. In all honesty I'm suprised thread has mad it this from because of that.
It is a simple agree to disagree at this point and move on. I don't want thread to get shutdown cause I am genuinely interested in a solution I just don't like counting 1 item as two in the end. Again look at comment 132. Thoughts? Again, I think it is easy balance fix that doesn't require resources to and work to change how the system currently work. Just skills and passives.maybe not even do the bow suggestion in that comment, but maybe mess with a couple unused skills in the line.1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »...
The desire and fervor of some of the "supporters" here to dismiss/exclude any discussion of balance, dismiss/exclude any discussion that points out there ARE inherent bonuses to 2H now
Absolutely not. This baseless assumption is your only argument why all flavors of weapons aren't treated equally for set-completion ability. After all this noise by you and the other anti-equality people, no one has put forth any evidence that the devs specifically gave some bonuses to 2-handed weapons due to their weakness in set-completion. On top of that, as others have pointed out, 1-handed weapons/shields have several advantages over 2-handed weapons, so even your claim of "inherent bonuses" in the first place is doubtful.
First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way. Additionally, update after update and patch after patch and forum thread after forum thread we still have no change to this. After2 and half years nothing. Again, evidence that that points to the inequalities and balance issues associated with a change like this. If it is inherently unequal as you suggest, we would have seen a change awhile ago. No you won't find direct evidence. They did not state it. It is called circumstantial evidence.
Three, one hand in shield is prevalent these days because of proc sets. This goes for mag too. Nothing to do with weapon itself.
Baseless assumptions? Many if us have made logical conclusions. You just yell blah blah blah irrelevant and I'm right. Heck, if we are making baseless assumptions then so are you.
Additionally, it is obvious you don't even want to have a real discussion on the issue. Let's putalk this particular argument aside. Others, including myself, have provided feedback, discussion points, and suggestions to your issue outside the conte,t of these balance issues. Yet, your only reapones are yelling at people talking about balance. You have not engaged with those comments that discuss other points. Or those that make counter suggestions to generate a discussion that may meet some where in the middle. They go completely ignored because your so into yelling at people. In all honesty I'm suprised thread has mad it this from because of that.
It is a simple agree to disagree at this point and move on. I don't want thread to get shutdown cause I am genuinely interested in a solution I just don't like counting 1 item as two in the end. Again look at comment 132. Thoughts? Again, I think it is easy balance fix that doesn't require resources to and work to change how the system currently work. Just skills and passives.maybe not even do the bow suggestion in that comment, but maybe mess with a couple unused skills in the line.
Well said.
I agree with most of it.
For the bold, i think i am less against than you. I dont like its move towards more sameness but if it hapoens it eont bother me much at all ***as long as*** while it is being considered (not after it is implrmented) ALL the inherebt advantages built in for one and the other are also reviewed and many of them adjusted.That seems to be a serious bones of contention for some in the "simply" crowd.
See, i have seen many threads complaining about the cost to upgrade quality to gold but to some in the crowd here the double cost diff between a greatsword and a pair of swords is so trivial they insist its laughable and a distraction.
See, i see threads ***right now*** about how the current model makes weapon, specifically weapons vs other gear, grind such a major time sink but to some here the grind time diff to acquire a single sharpened greatsword vs two sharpened swords is again so trivial they insist its laughable or a distraction, turning to mockery of those making the posts.
Maybe, its because they are so far divorced from the realities of play the others see they really dont recognize those as significant, especially in 1T. If thats the case, it doesnt lend much credence to their "conclusions."
But, also possibly, its because they do absolutely recognize those as quite significant and know what would happen if those were ignored when changes are made, especially in the light of 1T recent launch and the very profound difference it put on needing tonfind/grind one weapon ot two.
Now of course there is a third possibility. THey looked at them and realized both quality cost and grind were significant but the set bonus still needs to happen based on reasoned analysis, but then they would not be so fervent in declaring these as trivial, distractions, derailings etc etc etc.
But hey, whatever happens, based on all history, zos is moved more by arguments based on data and analysis and focused on the full complexities than ones that try and isolate single aspects and dismiss all other directly linked elements.
Zos it seems likely understands "simply" and "easy" are not really rational approaches when talking about changing what has bern a core difference that hss influenced every byte of data/results they have collected over two years.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
tnanever✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
What are you even talking about? I want all weapons to be equal in set-completion ability. You don't. You are antiequality for set items. That is a simple fact.bowmanz607 wrote: »Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way.
...
So what if they created it that way? They've made thousands of changes since release. Many changes were made due to the ERRORS in their design or implementation. Set-item weakness for 2-handed weapons is just another design error, because there is no reason to believe otherwise.
For the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. Let's say the devs purposefully looked at the thousands of combinations of sets and balanced them specifically for 1-handed vs 2-handed setups (completely laughable, intractable task, but for the sake of argument...). Then you're also saying that they purposefully made 2-handed weapons less powerful than 1-handed weapons because it takes less materials to upgrade them, and less time to acquire them (finding 2-handed weapon vs two 1-handed weapons/shields). That doesn't make sense in any way, and contradicts yours and others' statements about how 2-handed weapons are supposedly overpowered, and have "inherent bonuses" that somehow go above and beyond what 1-handed weapons have. Your argument is ridiculous on all fronts. I flatly reject your invalid concerns about my suggestion. We can't agree to disagree - you're simply wrong and I'm calling you out for it.0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »...
The desire and fervor of some of the "supporters" here to dismiss/exclude any discussion of balance, dismiss/exclude any discussion that points out there ARE inherent bonuses to 2H now
Absolutely not. This baseless assumption is your only argument why all flavors of weapons aren't treated equally for set-completion ability. After all this noise by you and the other anti-equality people, no one has put forth any evidence that the devs specifically gave some bonuses to 2-handed weapons due to their weakness in set-completion. On top of that, as others have pointed out, 1-handed weapons/shields have several advantages over 2-handed weapons, so even your claim of "inherent bonuses" in the first place is doubtful.
First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way. Additionally, update after update and patch after patch and forum thread after forum thread we still have no change to this. After2 and half years nothing. Again, evidence that that points to the inequalities and balance issues associated with a change like this. If it is inherently unequal as you suggest, we would have seen a change awhile ago. No you won't find direct evidence. They did not state it. It is called circumstantial evidence.
Three, one hand in shield is prevalent these days because of proc sets. This goes for mag too. Nothing to do with weapon itself.
Baseless assumptions? Many if us have made logical conclusions. You just yell blah blah blah irrelevant and I'm right. Heck, if we are making baseless assumptions then so are you.
Additionally, it is obvious you don't even want to have a real discussion on the issue. Let's putalk this particular argument aside. Others, including myself, have provided feedback, discussion points, and suggestions to your issue outside the conte,t of these balance issues. Yet, your only reapones are yelling at people talking about balance. You have not engaged with those comments that discuss other points. Or those that make counter suggestions to generate a discussion that may meet some where in the middle. They go completely ignored because your so into yelling at people. In all honesty I'm suprised thread has mad it this from because of that.
It is a simple agree to disagree at this point and move on. I don't want thread to get shutdown cause I am genuinely interested in a solution I just don't like counting 1 item as two in the end. Again look at comment 132. Thoughts? Again, I think it is easy balance fix that doesn't require resources to and work to change how the system currently work. Just skills and passives.maybe not even do the bow suggestion in that comment, but maybe mess with a couple unused skills in the line.
Well said.
I agree with most of it.
For the bold, i think i am less against than you. I dont like its move towards more sameness but if it hapoens it eont bother me much at all ***as long as*** while it is being considered (not after it is implrmented) ALL the inherebt advantages built in for one and the other are also reviewed and many of them adjusted.That seems to be a serious bones of contention for some in the "simply" crowd.
See, i have seen many threads complaining about the cost to upgrade quality to gold but to some in the crowd here the double cost diff between a greatsword and a pair of swords is so trivial they insist its laughable and a distraction.
See, i see threads ***right now*** about how the current model makes weapon, specifically weapons vs other gear, grind such a major time sink but to some here the grind time diff to acquire a single sharpened greatsword vs two sharpened swords is again so trivial they insist its laughable or a distraction, turning to mockery of those making the posts.
Maybe, its because they are so far divorced from the realities of play the others see they really dont recognize those as significant, especially in 1T. If thats the case, it doesnt lend much credence to their "conclusions."
But, also possibly, its because they do absolutely recognize those as quite significant and know what would happen if those were ignored when changes are made, especially in the light of 1T recent launch and the very profound difference it put on needing tonfind/grind one weapon ot two.
Now of course there is a third possibility. THey looked at them and realized both quality cost and grind were significant but the set bonus still needs to happen based on reasoned analysis, but then they would not be so fervent in declaring these as trivial, distractions, derailings etc etc etc.
But hey, whatever happens, based on all history, zos is moved more by arguments based on data and analysis and focused on the full complexities than ones that try and isolate single aspects and dismiss all other directly linked elements.
Zos it seems likely understands "simply" and "easy" are not really rational approaches when talking about changing what has bern a core difference that hss influenced every byte of data/results they have collected over two years.
To the bold: Exactly! Shame you couldnt understand that at the start, there would be less spam. As I told many times, we have no data, therefore talking balance is pointless and the only way to advocate this change is by "simply" telling devs to find way to implement it and let them with their data deal with how.
0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
What are you even talking about? I want all weapons to be equal in set-completion ability. You don't. You are antiequality for set items. That is a simple fact.bowmanz607 wrote: »Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way.
...
So what if they created it that way? They've made thousands of changes since release. Many changes were made due to the ERRORS in their design or implementation. Set-item weakness for 2-handed weapons is just another design error, because there is no reason to believe otherwise.
For the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. Let's say the devs purposefully looked at the thousands of combinations of sets and balanced them specifically for 1-handed vs 2-handed setups (completely laughable, intractable task, but for the sake of argument...). Then you're also saying that they purposefully made 2-handed weapons less powerful than 1-handed weapons because it takes less materials to upgrade them, and less time to acquire them (finding 2-handed weapon vs two 1-handed weapons/shields). That doesn't make sense in any way, and contradicts yours and others' statements about how 2-handed weapons are supposedly overpowered, and have "inherent bonuses" that somehow go above and beyond what 1-handed weapons have. Your argument is ridiculous on all fronts. I flatly reject your invalid concerns about my suggestion. We can't agree to disagree - you're simply wrong and I'm calling you out for it.
first bold
False logic.
lack of evidence to counter is not proof of an assertion. I cannot disprove you are not the Pope, but that doesnt mean a claim that you are is true
The devs intentionslly built into different weapon types a lot of differences. Many of these differences if looked at individuslly (as in saying "set item weakness" or "short range weakness" or "grind time weakness") could be erroneously described as design error if one ignores all the others.
Looking at one single element in isolation to evsluate balance or design error is perfevpctly reasonable if and only if the elements are acquired individually and in isolation.
When elements are acquired as packages with differing elements, looking at one ekement in isolation is more misleading.
The reason to believe "set item weakness" is not a design error is that there are plenty of ups and down differences between the varioys weapon packages. Each of them if looked at in isolation would also apoear as design error if one limited ones view.
.second bold
No. Thats not what was said.
First, nobody is sayingvthe devs have bern perfect with balance. I have stated plenty of times balance hss changed a lot back and forth thru the two year period in which a lot of changes were made but the set count remained static. Let me repeat that:
Over two years in which combat in the game, resources in the game and all sorts of thing which affect desirability and effectiveness have changed we have sern balance ebb and flow betwern magica ans stamina, betwern two-handers to dusl wield, between light/mefium vs heavy and so on all thevwhile the set count remained static and unchanged.
That leads me to conclude that significant shifts back and forth in percieved or actual balance in spite of not because of the set count.
I dont believe st any point the imbalance were intentional.
However, i do believe that at most evety time the devs slwsys kept in mind and dedigned towards what in chemistry is cslled equilibrium, not so much equality.
In equilibrium, you have two different things behaving differently but achieving equal effectiveness.
In equality, they judt do the ssme thing the same way.
For example, med armor stamina skills etc might get more ways to up weapon damage or weapon critical but light arm magica lines might get to higher max magica.
So, i and others, see evidence that the dedigners do take into acvount give and take up and down differences when makingv design decisions because we see them all thru the system.
We dont need a written doc signed in blood under a full moon to acknowlege whats in frontbof our eyes every time we look atva skill line.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭bowmanz607 wrote: »First, antiequality people? Wow so people disagree with you so we automatically don't think we are trying to be equal. You realize from the other perspective your not be equal. But no your right, your views are all that matter.
What are you even talking about? I want all weapons to be equal in set-completion ability. You don't. You are antiequality for set items. That is a simple fact.bowmanz607 wrote: »Two, the evidence is in the game. For one, the game was designed with items to count as one set pc not two. They created the damn game that way.
...
So what if they created it that way? They've made thousands of changes since release. Many changes were made due to the ERRORS in their design or implementation. Set-item weakness for 2-handed weapons is just another design error, because there is no reason to believe otherwise.
For the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. Let's say the devs purposefully looked at the thousands of combinations of sets and balanced them specifically for 1-handed vs 2-handed setups (completely laughable, intractable task, but for the sake of argument...). Then you're also saying that they purposefully made 2-handed weapons less powerful than 1-handed weapons because it takes less materials to upgrade them, and less time to acquire them (finding 2-handed weapon vs two 1-handed weapons/shields). That doesn't make sense in any way, and contradicts yours and others' statements about how 2-handed weapons are supposedly overpowered, and have "inherent bonuses" that somehow go above and beyond what 1-handed weapons have. Your argument is ridiculous on all fronts. I flatly reject your invalid concerns about my suggestion. We can't agree to disagree - you're simply wrong and I'm calling you out for it.
You have stated you want set changes or compensation to 2h handed weapons to compensate. I offered a change to the latter for the most part. Directly on point to your duscussion. In your blindness to yell at people and say your right you forgot your own point.
Your exactly right there have been thousands of changes. Before, a lack of set bonuses was compensated. However, all the changes resulted in less compentatonic mainly for staves. I propose revisiting such skill lines to adjust to the changes.
What you propose with counting as 2 pcs is the classic example of change first balance later. That has been the model for eso and it has not worked thus far. Those suggestions are backward thinking suggestions imo
Also, there is no way to know ever possible thing that will result in trying to balance a game. There are always unintended consequences in doing so. Including in your suggestion.
You claim your suggestion is equality. However equality does not mean make everything the same. For instance making everything count as 2 pc. Equality is balance. Balance is not achieved by applying common traits to items that operate fundamental differnt.
That all aside I said we can agree to disagree on that point but you keep going.
My ultimate point of discussion for you was my suggestion which went to your second point in your opening thread regarding compensation for 2h weapons. But you dis regard it in your blindness to yell. This goes to show that you are not open to discussion and this will invetibally result in thread being shut down and topic forgotten. I would rather proceed in a more productive manner.0
This discussion has been closed.