Idea - Reworking the 2H class to be more viable in PvE, and more balanced in PvP

Avran_Sylt

Here are my suggestions:

Remove: Critical Charge (since all Classes have their own gap closer, also remove shield charge), to be replaced with a different skill

---

Rework Berserker Strike Morph 1: Onslaught
Rename to Savage Strike
No longer refunds Ultimate cost when used to kill an enemy
Now stuns enemy and knocks them back.

---

Rework: Uppercut
Is now called: Riposte (Intended Spammable)
Deals a High Damage downward swing, followed by a quick Moderate damage upward swing, now a 0.6 second channel

Morph 1 : Telling Strike:
Grants Empower

Morph 2: Guarding Riposte
Grants Minor Protection for 2 seconds after use

---

Rework: Cleave
Remove the Bleed Effect
Increase the Base damage

Change its second morph
Morph 2: Brawler -> Harvest (Intended AoE Spammable)
Deals increased Damage to enemies above 50% health, a maximum of 75%

---

Add:
Piercing Strike
Jab at an enemy, dealing moderate damage, and moderate damage over time

Morph 1: Gore
Increase the Damage over Time

Morph 2: Piercing Thrust
Increase the Initial Damage




Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

BRogueNZ

Like your ideas. Don't see it happening. Too many tears.

DocFrost72

Dunno if I support the brawler change. Otherwise knock yourself out.

SnubbS

I really like the idea of reworking 2h—but never remove crit charge. It's a great skill, it isn't OP or anything—but it's an amazing skill, and probably the best(most consistent, least buggy) gapcloser in eso.

As far as uppercut, I would support a rework of it that basically turns it into a Surprise Attack. Every class should have access to an instacast spammable—uppercut as it is right now is a solid skill for PvP, but it becomes a lot less consistent when the game begins to lag more. If it were instacast with the same damage scaling as SA—it would solve that issue.

Avran_Sylt

@SnubbS

The reason behind removing Crit Charge is actually because of what you describe above. You put a great gap Closer into a weapon skill line that is focused on burst damage. You also place a high damage execute into the same skill line. You also place an easily spammable hard CC that deals high damage as well into that skill line. You also place a morph of an ability that removes and grants breif immunity to CC effects while also healing you. You as well place an easily spammable ability that grants a small shield. This is all absolutely fantastic for PvP.

It's great for PvP because if someone tries to run away, you crit charge them. Snares you? Use Foreward Momentum. deals low damage? Hah, use Brawler in your rotation. Deals high damage? CC them with Dizzying Swing. Deals any damage? Heal yourself a bit with Momentum. They got low health? Well, the 2H has the best execute in the game the lower the persons health is, and if you heavy attack after a stun with dizzy, you can empower that attack even more.

And because of this, it's nerfed into the ground for PvE to compensate for its versatility.

This is why I changed the skills as described above:

Dual Wield is all about small damage, and damage over time. The ulti is a DoT, the spammable is a channeled DoT, it has a standard damage over time ability, has an AoE DoT. The uniqueness stems for the amount of procs that it can set off of various other sets and bonuses and as having the largest AoE spammable.

2 Handed, on the other hand, currently has uniqueness in the amount of Debuff control it has. which is a godsend to be sure for any PvP player. unfortunately, this debuff control is also paired with high single target damage. Meaning it will be the go to for any PvP melee build. resulting in heavy damage constraints so that it isn't too op in PvP, hurting it in PvE.

I personally think that debuff control should be the relm of the sword and board, deal low damage, but keep survivability and control.

My proposed changes limit 2H debuff control such that you mostly control debuffs on you(Foreward Momentum), and can control debuffs on other players sparingly (moving stun to ult). With the Cleave morph change, it would also make it more effective at killing high health targets, while requiring the survivability to come from momentum, rather than from two skills at once.

The end goal of these changes is to make the 2H class a different beast from the dual wield counterparts in how it deals damage. While the Dual weild skill line is all about quick attacks, and DoTs galore, I think that the 2H skill line should be about methodical skill chains with High Direct Damage hits, few DoTs. This is accomplished by making the empower the only go to damage morph. You use the empower attack, and instead of wasting it on a light attack like you would normally do with weaving, you instead follow through with another ability, then light attack and repeat.

Part of the reason that this isn't already the case with current PvE, is that flurry deals more damage than the 1 sec channel uppercut because it can also slide in an extra light attack, procing lord knows what as well. And Nightblades already have an easily spammable ability that hits about as hard while templars have a flurry version that also heals them and DKs have their lava whip. If Uppercut damage was increased to put it on par with these other abilities while it still had the CC, there'd be riots in PvP. screaming about how unfair it is that 2H gets a high damage spammable, that is also hard CC.

So my choice was to remove the CC aspect of it, and reduce the cast time. I split it into two damaging portions just because it'd make it visually more interesting. But removing the CC entirely from the 2H skill line would, be kinda stupid. So i Put it into the Ultimate so it can't be spammed, but is still there.

My decision behind removing charge was that all classes had their own unique way of gap closing. As it stood, a gap closer that was single target, and also always dealt critical damage is too many positives for a damage dealing skill line. Instead replacing it with a High damage strike that also applies a DoT to encourage it's use in empower rotations.

As to cleave changes, one of the reasons that 2H is so lackluster in PvE is a lack of a good AoE spammable. Destro has it's wall of elements, and dual wield has its whirlwind. but a giant fkin sword does paltry initial damage, and some bleed in a small cone. In all actuality, I'm surprised the Dual wield whirlwind which shows an animation of daggers being thrown doesn't apply a bleed. So, in order to make cleave more viable, but also different, It will now no longer deal a bleed (which I think should be transferred to the Dual wield whirlwind), but instead deals higher base damage, and even higher damage to full health targets (whereas Dual wield deals more to low hp targets, and Wall of elements does static damage).

Sorry bout the wall of text.

Duiwel

Ok op so as a stamina DK or stamina templar removing crit charge would mean I just used aproximately 50% of my magicka at the start of the fight...

As someone who plays with 2h I would not want to knock back my enemies just because it's annoying AF!!!!


I think 2h is fine as it is tbh.

Rather add a Spear weapon skill line and implement some of these with that

Avran_Sylt

@ Duiwel

Hmm. True, it would shoehorn magicka being the only resource that allows you to speed across the battleground (the part of me that loves themes loves that part though). However, hybrid builds would have no problem with that, and once you arrive pure stamina builds have access to the lovely stam resource pool for a good heal and the ability to CC break/ roll dodge more.

Do you mean you don't use Dizzying swing often as it knocks your opponents away?

Yeah, a spear would be interesting. Might Make a thread that uses some of the information from this one:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/327675/a-proposal-for-spears-halberds-in-elder-scrolls-online

TheStealthDude

I really want 2H to be more competitive for PvE but I disagree with some of your changes. I think Critical Strike is fine and provides a unique ability that other gap closers dont. Also fits the "burst damage" identity of the line. Leave as is.

Cleave is very underrated in its current state. Its the cheapest stamina weapon AoE ability. Removing the bleed nerfs it, IMO, as it's the only DoT in the class line. Although I like your idea about increasing damage above 50% hp. The only problem is I also like the morph that grants heroism (plays into the "burst" identity of the class by giving faster ultimates) and the morph that gives damage shields provides some needed defensive ability to the skill line. Not sure where your change would fit in.

I think uppercut needs to be flat out removed. And replaced with a spammable ability. Obviously will have to be lower damage. I'm on the fence about whether it should have empower, as we have a damage increasing passive based on heavy attacks. One or the other should probably go if this ability is changed.

Edit: And keep Onslaught unchanged. We don't need another knock back when there is Dizzying swing. Onslaught is another unique (and IMO needed) skill. We don't need to kill diversity here.

Avran_Sylt

@TheStealthDude
I do agree that Crit Charge is nice for the "burst damage" identity. What I do not like about it is that it adds the addendum - " from 22m away"

For cleave, I've done some thinking, and decided instead to have the Harvest one replace the Minor Heroism Morph (since One hand and shield can carry that with low slash's morph) such that you could choose from a damage shield (defensive) or increased damage done to high health targets (Offensive)

I think the 2H spammable should have empower, since it would make it more beneficial for that weapon class to no longer light attack weave after every single ability, but make it be different in having short chains of abilities. and the Heavy attack minor empower passive , I'm on the fence about.

TheStealthDude

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

@TheStealthDude
I do agree that Crit Charge is nice for the "burst damage" identity. What I do not like about it is that it adds the addendum - " from 22m away"

For cleave, I've done some thinking, and decided instead to have the Harvest one replace the Minor Heroism Morph (since One hand and shield can carry that with low slash's morph) such that you could choose from a damage shield (defensive) or increased damage done to high health targets (Offensive)

I think the 2H spammable should have empower, since it would make it more beneficial for that weapon class to no longer light attack weave after every single ability, but make it be different in having short chains of abilities. and the Heavy attack minor empower passive , I'm on the fence about.

My only worry about empower was that a spammable skill with that would be OP. I would be much more open to buffing the passive to give the full Empower buff instead.

I will also point out that you can spec 2H for AoE pretty well between cleave,Reverse Slice (morph of Reverse Slash), and the Forcefull passive. I like that reverse slash has a single target vs AoE decision. 2H is definitely not hurting for AoE as a weapon. It really just needs a better spammable attack, with some rework to passives perhaps.

I did see someone else post an idea to change the heavy weapons passive to provide different bonuses to weapon types. I like the idea of making it different from DW.

Lynx7386

I don't like these changes at all, and I'm a 2h fanatic. In my opinion, you're overdoing it with massive changes to too many abilities.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Uppercut and morphs made instant. Slight damage reduction to keep them balanced. Dizzying swing should apply minor fracture to give it alternative utility compared to wrecking blows empower.

Brawler is fine as-is, it's useful as a survivability tool. Carve should be reworked to apply a much higher damage over time bleed to all targets around you instead of just a frontal cone.

Forward momentum should provide an increasing damage buff over the duration: applies,majority brutality on activation and then increases your weapon damage by 2% each second over the 20 second duration. Reactivating the ability would reset it to the start. This would make it a preferred alternative for damage dealers at endgame that don't need as much focus on self healing.

If critical charge is going to be changed at all, I'd like to see it work more like the charge that npcs use; you charge forward 20 Meters knocking down anyone in your path. Having it add a large aoe bleed dot for one of the morphs would pair really well with the change to carve and the newish reverse slice as methods of aoe damage.

Avran_Sylt

@TheStealthDude
The thought about the Empower spam is certainly of a concern. the reason I wanted to add it in was to promote more skill chaining. but having a 0.6 second channel may indeed be too short and cause it to become more overpowered. It'd needs some testing and refining for sure.

Yeah, the AoE potential isn't bad on the 2H, if there are only three enemies in front of you. issue being in PvE where there can be seven or more.

Would you be able to link the idea to change heavy weapons passive change?

TheStealthDude

Lynx7386 wrote: »

I don't like these changes at all, and I'm a 2h fanatic. In my opinion, you're overdoing it with massive changes to too many abilities.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Uppercut and morphs made instant. Slight damage reduction to keep them balanced. Dizzying swing should apply minor fracture to give it alternative utility compared to wrecking blows empower.

Brawler is fine as-is, it's useful as a survivability tool. Carve should be reworked to apply a much higher damage over time bleed to all targets around you instead of just a frontal cone.

Forward momentum should provide an increasing damage buff over the duration: applies,majority brutality on activation and then increases your weapon damage by 2% each second over the 20 second duration. Reactivating the ability would reset it to the start. This would make it a preferred alternative for damage dealers at endgame that don't need as much focus on self healing.

If critical charge is going to be changed at all, I'd like to see it work more like the charge that npcs use; you charge forward 20 Meters knocking down anyone in your path. Having it add a large aoe bleed dot for one of the morphs would pair really well with the change to carve and the newish reverse slice as methods of aoe damage.

I've been a bit of a 2H fanatic recently, as well, and I mostly would agree with your changes. I do disagree with your carve change, though, as I think its fine as is. The heroism is a great buff to have, that makes this class more diverse. Carve is currently my preferred morph.

This weapon isn't that many changes away from being competitive. Uppercut is really the only problem, though it is a big problem.

Edit: I think the cone AOE of cleave would work even better with your crit charge change, thus not needed a full 360 damage.

Everstorm

Remove: Critical Charge (since all Classes have their own gap closer, also remove shield charge), to be replaced with a different skill

Sorcerer doesn't have a gap closer and only Nightblades have a stamina morph.

AhPook_Is_Here

DKs don't have gap closers, they have an ultimate that can be dodged if used from too far away making it impossible to snare, and then chains that doesn't work if the target is cc immune, and gives them immunity so it can't be spammed either.

Riposte doesn't mean what you think it means, it's a follow up attack after parrying an opponents attack. There is no parrying in this game, and so there can't be a riposte. Riposte has no defensive implications in fencing, it's a reply to a defended offensive strike.

I'm indifferent to the cleave idea. You have whirlwind in the dw tree so not sure what the value of brawler was beyond solo farming and the damage shield.

I like the 2h tree the way it is, 2h is good for PVP; DW is mostly good for PVE.

If you are sta you should have plenty of skill points to unlock 3 weapons and all the other stuff you could need in the game including crafting.

STEVIL

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

i think its a bad idea.

I dont think its based on a solid premise - that these weapons not have significant differences in what their strengths are.

right now as you point out due to burst and gap close 2H is good in PVP while for sustain dps group/trial play DW wins out in that narrow slice of PVE.

i think we can both agree that for muc of the other content, each is viable.

So, we have DW being preferred for a small slice of PVE and 2h being preferred for PVP each often in tandem with bows.

nothing is best everywhere and each is best somewhere.

That sounds like balanced.

if you succeed in getting it so that the choice between 2H and DW is not going to affect performance results in either of those two slices of content then the choice will really not matter. Either choice, result the same.

So why in that case would someone choose to spend twice the tempers and more gold to run dw if they can use half the tempers and get as good results everywhere with 2H? Or wat would be the advantage in learning both skill lines - spending the extra 20ish skills to make your character able to perform well if either DW/bow and 2H/bow builds are needed?

IMO the more significant the difference between "choice a" and "choice b" and the more that choice impacts the play in certain niches or narrow slices of the content that is available - the better. It means you make meaningful choices instead of just getting cosmetics animation differences disguised as "choices".

heck, i would love it if there was more reworking to make "the right tool for this content" being far more the norm than it being a "just run this one or two meta builds" is.

if it were up to me, the build you would want for optimal play vs City of Ash would be vastly different from that you want for optimal play vs Fungal Grotto or Selene's Web.

Some people may see "but in this narrow slice of content, this choice is not as good as others" as a flaw needing to be corrected but i see it as a good design choice.

Avran_Sylt

@ Everstorm
Bolt Escape can be used as both as an escape tool and a gap closer.

gonna wait a bit and then respond to most peoples suggestions/comments so I don't lag behind.

OrphanHelgen

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Remove: Critical Charge (since all Classes have their own gap closer, also remove shield charge), to be replaced with a different skill

I don't pvp much, but the few problems I saw when I did, was that the shield charge and chains, made enemy CC immune, which was bad since I wanted to use other abilities for CC.
Also, chains cost magicka was not good, and it also bugs out with terrain.
Crit charge are a nice gapcloser, if its OP or not I dont know, but as a stamina DK, we don't have much other options.

TheStealthDude

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

@TheStealthDude
The thought about the Empower spam is certainly of a concern. the reason I wanted to add it in was to promote more skill chaining. but having a 0.6 second channel may indeed be too short and cause it to become more overpowered. It'd needs some testing and refining for sure.

Yeah, the AoE potential isn't bad on the 2H, if there are only three enemies in front of you. issue being in PvE where there can be seven or more.

Would you be able to link the idea to change heavy weapons passive change?

The AoE passive is only a small part of the equation, though, and most of your aoe damage can come from Cleave + reverse slice. The passive simply buffs up damage with proper weaving.

Don't forget, though, that you likely have a second weapon. That other weapon can make up for deficiencies here.

I will try to find the thread over lunch here in about an hour and link it. I saw it a week ago or so.

TheStealthDude

STEVIL wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

i think its a bad idea.

I dont think its based on a solid premise - that these weapons not have significant differences in what their strengths are.

right now as you point out due to burst and gap close 2H is good in PVP while for sustain dps group/trial play DW wins out in that narrow slice of PVE.

i think we can both agree that for muc of the other content, each is viable.

So, we have DW being preferred for a small slice of PVE and 2h being preferred for PVP each often in tandem with bows.

nothing is best everywhere and each is best somewhere.

That sounds like balanced.

if you succeed in getting it so that the choice between 2H and DW is not going to affect performance results in either of those two slices of content then the choice will really not matter. Either choice, result the same.

So why in that case would someone choose to spend twice the tempers and more gold to run dw if they can use half the tempers and get as good results everywhere with 2H? Or wat would be the advantage in learning both skill lines - spending the extra 20ish skills to make your character able to perform well if either DW/bow and 2H/bow builds are needed?

IMO the more significant the difference between "choice a" and "choice b" and the more that choice impacts the play in certain niches or narrow slices of the content that is available - the better. It means you make meaningful choices instead of just getting cosmetics animation differences disguised as "choices".

heck, i would love it if there was more reworking to make "the right tool for this content" being far more the norm than it being a "just run this one or two meta builds" is.

if it were up to me, the build you would want for optimal play vs City of Ash would be vastly different from that you want for optimal play vs Fungal Grotto or Selene's Web.

Some people may see "but in this narrow slice of content, this choice is not as good as others" as a flaw needing to be corrected but i see it as a good design choice.

I don't see "one being good for PvP and one being good for PvE" as a good design choice at all. That simply just limits what is competitive in each of those areas and therefore limits choices to be competitive.

I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE, I simply want it to not be a as huge of a drop off as it is now, with some advantages over DW for certain situations (and vice versa).

Lynx7386

Here's an idea, just going off what was said about riposte:

Counterattack:
Instant
Strike an enemy for X physical damage. This ability does 100% more damage against enemies that have hit you with a melee attack in the past 5 seconds.

Morph: riposte
New effect: blocking an attack increases the damage bonus to 200%.

Morph: retaliate
New effect: deals area damage around you, dealing 50% more damage to each enemy if they have hit you with a melee attack in the past 5 seconds.


That could be an interesting ability, though I'd put it in the 1h/shield skill tree personally

TheStealthDude

Lynx7386 wrote: »

Here's an idea, just going off what was said about riposte:

Counterattack:
Instant
Strike an enemy for X physical damage. This ability does 100% more damage against enemies that have hit you with a melee attack in the past 5 seconds.

Morph: riposte
New effect: blocking an attack increases the damage bonus to 200%.

Morph: retaliate
New effect: deals area damage around you, dealing 50% more damage to each enemy if they have hit you with a melee attack in the past 5 seconds.


That could be an interesting ability, though I'd put it in the 1h/shield skill tree personally

Interesting idea. I think the blocking morph would not fit in and would be better for 1h and shield. What if the skill was just a single target spammable with no other ability pre-morph and make one morph the 100% damage against enemies who hit you in the past 2-3 seconds (5 seems way to long). Maybe make the other morph just a flat increase in damage (but less than the riposte morph when procced). The other morph should definutely be something other than AoE, since we already have a single target vs AoE morph choice on the skill tree, IMO.

I think this riposte idea could work, especially if it replaced Uppercut.

Lynx7386

The blocking thing is because "blocking" with a 2h weapon in this game is basically parrying.
Personally I'd like to see 1h/shield get more damage options. Soloing as a tank is a major pain at times, and it would make a lot of sense for the shield line to get an ability that deals more damage as you get attacked.
They tried to go that way with power slam but it really didn't work out.

TheStealthDude

Lynx7386 wrote: »

The blocking thing is because "blocking" with a 2h weapon in this game is basically parrying.
Personally I'd like to see 1h/shield get more damage options. Soloing as a tank is a major pain at times, and it would make a lot of sense for the shield line to get an ability that deals more damage as you get attacked.
They tried to go that way with power slam but it really didn't work out.

I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't think an ability based on blocking fits in with the 2h skill tree, which is essentially a very offensive line. I do like your idea about getting hit increasing damage on another attack. I think that definitely fits in with the berserker mentality of this weapon.

Definitely agree that 1h/shield needs better damage options (that's probably for another thread though).

STEVIL

TheStealthDude wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

i think its a bad idea.

I dont think its based on a solid premise - that these weapons not have significant differences in what their strengths are.

right now as you point out due to burst and gap close 2H is good in PVP while for sustain dps group/trial play DW wins out in that narrow slice of PVE.

i think we can both agree that for much of the other content, each is viable.

So, we have DW being preferred for a small slice of PVE and 2h being preferred for PVP each often in tandem with bows.

nothing is best everywhere and each is best somewhere.

That sounds like balanced.

if you succeed in getting it so that the choice between 2H and DW is not going to affect performance results in either of those two slices of content then the choice will really not matter. Either choice, result the same.

So why in that case would someone choose to spend twice the tempers and more gold to run dw if they can use half the tempers and get as good results everywhere with 2H? Or wat would be the advantage in learning both skill lines - spending the extra 20ish skills to make your character able to perform well if either DW/bow and 2H/bow builds are needed?

IMO the more significant the difference between "choice a" and "choice b" and the more that choice impacts the play in certain niches or narrow slices of the content that is available - the better. It means you make meaningful choices instead of just getting cosmetics animation differences disguised as "choices".

heck, i would love it if there was more reworking to make "the right tool for this content" being far more the norm than it being a "just run this one or two meta builds" is.

if it were up to me, the build you would want for optimal play vs City of Ash would be vastly different from that you want for optimal play vs Fungal Grotto or Selene's Web.

Some people may see "but in this narrow slice of content, this choice is not as good as others" as a flaw needing to be corrected but i see it as a good design choice.

I don't see "one being good for PvP and one being good for PvE" as a good design choice at all. That simply just limits what is competitive in each of those areas and therefore limits choices to be competitive.

I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE, I simply want it to not be a as huge of a drop off as it is now, with some advantages over DW for certain situations (and vice versa).

First, the misdirection of "one being good for PvP and one being good for PvE" - cant let that go unchallenged. For tons and tons of the PVE content in this game 2h is a good choice. You can complete successfully just fine the vast majority of the PVE content. The narrow slice of content where DW has a significant edge i preference based on performance is group/trial endgame PVE for DPS - thats it. You are talking about a rather narrow slice of pve content and pvp content (which seems to be a narrow slice of the overall play in its own right.)

So what we are talking about is that there is some bit of content where DW is better for certain roles and some bit of content where 2H is better for some content - not the whole of PVE DW is king and 2h is absent.

then we get to what i always love - the two-step double shuffle dodge...

"I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE, I simply want it to not be a as huge of a drop off as it is now, with some advantages over DW for certain situations (and vice versa)."

What do you want to do then?

The choices for DW over 2H in the narrow slice that is group/trial endgame pve is based off performance, based off results, driven by the take what gives you the better outcomes decision-making. these are also typically leaderboard things with rewards based on performance.

if you look at discussions on these, you will find crunching down to fractions of percentage points in DPS and even a couple percentage points in DPS net will make a great deal of difference in the preferred outcomes.

So when pushed the knee jerk is always the "dont want them to be as good" followed by some vague and unspecified non-goalpost. often its "good enough" but as we see here it can also be something even more nebulous in "not as huge of a drop off."

Your goal is so vague it can literally be achieved by adding one single point of damage every 30s to 2h weapons.

But obviously thats not your intent. You want more than that.

of course, also equally nebulous is "I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE" cuz that could be reached by making 2H produce the same results as DW except for losing 1 point of damage done every 30s.

you have firmly set your escape clause between tyhe bounds of nebulous and ill-defined.

How close to DW in sustained DPS for PVE group/trial endgame content do you want to get 2H to be?
How close to 2H's burst DPS (and the other more relevant for pvp factors and solo pve content) do you want DW to be?

Is 99% good enough?
is 95% good enough?
is 90% good enough?

I think frankly that for those making performance based decisions for leaderboard style content at that end with rewards hinging on results - even a gap of 1% maybe 2% is enough that you wont see the "diversity" suddenly flying out the buttocks of rainbow unicorns.

i think a change which leaves 2H "not as good as" DW for that PVE slice and which raises DW up for PVP but still leaves it "not as good as 2H" is not gonna convince folks to start changing around their gear and golding up new stuff to be "not as good as i am."

more to the point, i think whatever place you decide to stake your "not as good as" to be it wont put DW far enough from 2H to outweigh the "i already know DW (or 2h) and do it well so why swap to something i know less." skill and experience based impacts.

But really, where in between nebulous and ill-defined do you set you goals?

What is the magical percentage or shortfall of "not as good" that you feel will change people\s kinds as to what they choose to or prefer to run but wont be so close as to make the differences pointless in results?

99%, 95%, 90%, 75%... pick a number thats the magic bullet for diversity where "not as good" meets "good enough"?

Avran_Sylt

@STEVIL

I want 2H to be just as good as Dual wield when choosing the high dps combo rotations. I want Dual Wield to focus on fast lower damage attacks, light attack weaving, sets, enchantments, bleeds, and Large radial AoE, while dealing higher damage to weaker targets. A weapon class that utilizes more tools.

I want 2H high DPS combo rotations to focus on slow, High Direct Damage attacks, Combo Chaining, and smaller AoEs, while dealing more damage to high health targets. A weapon class that utilizes raw power.

I want them to be equal in terms of dps output, but different in how they apply that dps.

Since 2H currently has a focus on Buff/Debuff management, it makes it too much of a beast in PvP to allow high damage rotations in PvE that focus on using the abilities in the weapon skill tree.

dday3six

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I want 2H to be just as good as Dual wield when choosing the high dps combo rotations. I want Dual Wield to focus on fast lower damage attacks, light attack weaving, sets, enchantments, bleeds, and Large radial AoE, while dealing higher damage to weaker targets. A weapon class that utilizes more tools.

I want 2H high DPS combo rotations to focus on slow, High Direct Damage attacks, Combo Chaining, and smaller AoEs, while dealing more damage to high health targets. A weapon class that utilizes raw power.

I want them to be equal in terms of dps output, but different in how they apply that dps.

Since 2H currently has a focus on Buff/Debuff management, it makes it too much of a beast in PvP to allow high damage rotations in PvE that focus on using the abilities in the weapon skill tree.

Then frankly you're not referring to ESO. There are no combos to chain. Attack weaving, whether light, heavy or in between generates ultimate which is a large part of DPS output. There's no noticeable attack speed gradation, so there is no fast or slow attacks, as channeling and cast times are not a proper stand ins for that, and at the end of the day, ESO is a global cooldown based game.The reason DW is on top for endgame DPS is because of Maelstrom weapons buffing DoTs (which have a massive impact on DPS output), then damage boosting interactions between both skill line and CP passives. None of your suggestions actually address that, or even exhibit awareness of that.

Honestly the fact that in your intial statements you suggest removing the 2H gap closer displays a woeful lack in understanding of class interaction. PVE and PVP exist on the same coin, and you cannot massively disrupt one and ignore the ripples that alteration will have on the other.

TheStealthDude

STEVIL wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

i think its a bad idea.

I dont think its based on a solid premise - that these weapons not have significant differences in what their strengths are.

right now as you point out due to burst and gap close 2H is good in PVP while for sustain dps group/trial play DW wins out in that narrow slice of PVE.

i think we can both agree that for much of the other content, each is viable.

So, we have DW being preferred for a small slice of PVE and 2h being preferred for PVP each often in tandem with bows.

nothing is best everywhere and each is best somewhere.

That sounds like balanced.

if you succeed in getting it so that the choice between 2H and DW is not going to affect performance results in either of those two slices of content then the choice will really not matter. Either choice, result the same.

So why in that case would someone choose to spend twice the tempers and more gold to run dw if they can use half the tempers and get as good results everywhere with 2H? Or wat would be the advantage in learning both skill lines - spending the extra 20ish skills to make your character able to perform well if either DW/bow and 2H/bow builds are needed?

IMO the more significant the difference between "choice a" and "choice b" and the more that choice impacts the play in certain niches or narrow slices of the content that is available - the better. It means you make meaningful choices instead of just getting cosmetics animation differences disguised as "choices".

heck, i would love it if there was more reworking to make "the right tool for this content" being far more the norm than it being a "just run this one or two meta builds" is.

if it were up to me, the build you would want for optimal play vs City of Ash would be vastly different from that you want for optimal play vs Fungal Grotto or Selene's Web.

Some people may see "but in this narrow slice of content, this choice is not as good as others" as a flaw needing to be corrected but i see it as a good design choice.

I don't see "one being good for PvP and one being good for PvE" as a good design choice at all. That simply just limits what is competitive in each of those areas and therefore limits choices to be competitive.

I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE, I simply want it to not be a as huge of a drop off as it is now, with some advantages over DW for certain situations (and vice versa).

First, the misdirection of "one being good for PvP and one being good for PvE" - cant let that go unchallenged. For tons and tons of the PVE content in this game 2h is a good choice. You can complete successfully just fine the vast majority of the PVE content. The narrow slice of content where DW has a significant edge i preference based on performance is group/trial endgame PVE for DPS - thats it. You are talking about a rather narrow slice of pve content and pvp content (which seems to be a narrow slice of the overall play in its own right.)

So what we are talking about is that there is some bit of content where DW is better for certain roles and some bit of content where 2H is better for some content - not the whole of PVE DW is king and 2h is absent.

then we get to what i always love - the two-step double shuffle dodge...

"I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE, I simply want it to not be a as huge of a drop off as it is now, with some advantages over DW for certain situations (and vice versa)."

What do you want to do then?

The choices for DW over 2H in the narrow slice that is group/trial endgame pve is based off performance, based off results, driven by the take what gives you the better outcomes decision-making. these are also typically leaderboard things with rewards based on performance.

if you look at discussions on these, you will find crunching down to fractions of percentage points in DPS and even a couple percentage points in DPS net will make a great deal of difference in the preferred outcomes.

So when pushed the knee jerk is always the "dont want them to be as good" followed by some vague and unspecified non-goalpost. often its "good enough" but as we see here it can also be something even more nebulous in "not as huge of a drop off."

Your goal is so vague it can literally be achieved by adding one single point of damage every 30s to 2h weapons.

But obviously thats not your intent. You want more than that.

of course, also equally nebulous is "I don't want 2H to be just as good as DW for PvE" cuz that could be reached by making 2H produce the same results as DW except for losing 1 point of damage done every 30s.

you have firmly set your escape clause between tyhe bounds of nebulous and ill-defined.

How close to DW in sustained DPS for PVE group/trial endgame content do you want to get 2H to be?
How close to 2H's burst DPS (and the other more relevant for pvp factors and solo pve content) do you want DW to be?

Is 99% good enough?
is 95% good enough?
is 90% good enough?

I think frankly that for those making performance based decisions for leaderboard style content at that end with rewards hinging on results - even a gap of 1% maybe 2% is enough that you wont see the "diversity" suddenly flying out the buttocks of rainbow unicorns.

i think a change which leaves 2H "not as good as" DW for that PVE slice and which raises DW up for PVP but still leaves it "not as good as 2H" is not gonna convince folks to start changing around their gear and golding up new stuff to be "not as good as i am."

more to the point, i think whatever place you decide to stake your "not as good as" to be it wont put DW far enough from 2H to outweigh the "i already know DW (or 2h) and do it well so why swap to something i know less." skill and experience based impacts.

But really, where in between nebulous and ill-defined do you set you goals?

What is the magical percentage or shortfall of "not as good" that you feel will change people\s kinds as to what they choose to or prefer to run but wont be so close as to make the differences pointless in results?

99%, 95%, 90%, 75%... pick a number thats the magic bullet for diversity where "not as good" meets "good enough"?

I apologize, I was vague in the name of brevity.

As for my previous comment, let me clarify. I don't believe it is good design Balance for one weapon type to be CLEARLY superior in the entirety of a type of content over another (content being defined by me as either PvE or PvP in this case).

What I want is for there to be different situations within a content type, pve for example, where one weapon may provide advantages that validate it being chosen over the other. Right now that doesn't seem to exist. It seems that, again in PvE for example, DW is superior to 2H in the entirety of the content. There are not enough situations that validate 2H being chosen. Now, this is as much a problem with the content as it is the weapon. But I think it's easier to fix the weapon, so I focus my efforts there.

That is what I consider a poor design, and what, I presumed from your post, you support, which is why I disagreed with you.

Putting a number in this is completely too simplified, which is why I haven't. I could say that I would be happy if 2h is 90% as effective, but what does that really mean and how would it be measured?

Should we measure it from trial leaderboard runs? That wouldn't make much sense since people are going to choose the best setup within fractions of a %. By population currently using 2h? I would venture to say that most of the population is not getting the most out of their weapons of choice, so that doesn't seem like a good choice.

So with this, of course I was being nebulous, as you said, since there really isn't a way with the information we have to be precise. All I can go off is my experience (which, btw is actually more with 2H than DW), which shows that I get significant and noticeable increases in performance with DW over 2H. This whole conversation is going to be subjective and vague because we simply don't have the information needed to be very precise.

Xvorg

I saw you suggested a removal of crit charge, but you never addressed Maelstrom 2H enchant...

edit: the reason why DW seems stronger than 2H is because DW allows you to un 5-5-2 sets AND use 2 MS weapons to increase the effect. Besides that, 2H and DW are quite similar dmg wise

Avran_Sylt

@dday3six
Combos to chain? You're right, there are none currently.
Changing the 2H spammable to one that grants empower (with shorter channel time to compare with other spammables) would emphasis reduction of light attack weaving immediately after using the spammable, to be replaced with an empowered other skill (followed by a light attack).

Hell, if you want to be more technical on the interactions of end game sets such as the vMA enchants, I can go into that as well. I know that the Cruel Flurry enchant is a major reason that stam can become viable in the endgame (but why it's trapped behind a grind like vMA whereas many mag classes can gain access to BiS gear with little effort (BSW,Skoria (magDK), Willpower from Daily Dungeons). I also know that vMA enchantments don't work with Torug's Pact 5th set bonus.

If you want vMA enchants to make a difference in this suggestion, what I'd do is just change it so that vMA enchant makes the spammable also increases the damage of your next attack by 10% or something. (would obviously need testing to find a good balanced value).

Removing the stam gapcloser? yeah. each class selected at the start of the game gives you a gapcloser in some form or another, hell, even the fighters guild leash morph does as well. I think that the cost of upfront burst form melee should be a lack of mobility. and that magic skills should supplement this lacking a gapcloser, but not stamina skills that also deal damage.

TheStealthDude

@STEVIL

I will also point out that I have mentioned earlier in this thread that I believe 2H is not far from being competitive in PvE. I've asked for essentially 1 ability to be reworked. I don't think they need to rework the whole tree or do any other dramatic changes like "making 2h weapons count as 2 set pieces".