Adornments and Two-handed Weapon set bonuses

GriMTriAd

So as a thought - mostly as a compromise to fix most of the arguments for and against 2 handed weapons getting an extra set bonus - what about adornments?

For bows the adornment is obvious, as it's just a quiver. It is literally a stat stick but it lets players pick their bow style as well as their quiver style and just goes in the off hand slot when you have a bow equipped.

Maces, Axes, and Swords could have a tassel that hangs off the hilt. Just a little flowing ribbon that makes for a decorative touch.

This means it's not easier to gear than if you use two one handed weapons, and that you don't lose out on set bonuses because you went with a two hander either.


Just a thought;
_WAter_

Vizikul

GriMTriAd wrote: »

Maces, Axes, and Swords could have a tassel that hangs off the hilt. Just a little flowing ribbon that makes for a decorative touch.

little bit off-topic but a tassel's main purpose is to attract the foes attention. The opponent is more likely going to focus on the tassel instead of the blade. Its purpose is solely distraction, which is why they are usually red. Not much of a decorative touch there.

edit: I think only blue or green tassels would "work out" for those red rubedite weapons... if distraction actually were a thing in this game.

GriMTriAd

Even better if they actually have a purpose. Now you have a logical reason for a person to have one as well as a gameplay reason.

_WAter_

GriMTriAd

Oh, I should also add an option for staves. I like crystals but I don't think all of the designs are setup well for them, so a spell book that they hold or hangs off the built might be nice. A Fetish (little dolls) would also work, Honestly you can put a lot of things in a mages second hand or dangling from the belt that make sense so there are plenty of options there.

I did leave out the mage community on this unintentionally.

_WAter_

STEVIL

GriMTriAd wrote: »

So as a thought - mostly as a compromise to fix most of the arguments for and against 2 handed weapons getting an extra set bonus - what about adornments?

For bows the adornment is obvious, as it's just a quiver. It is literally a stat stick but it lets players pick their bow style as well as their quiver style and just goes in the off hand slot when you have a bow equipped.

Maces, Axes, and Swords could have a tassel that hangs off the hilt. Just a little flowing ribbon that makes for a decorative touch.

This means it's not easier to gear than if you use two one handed weapons, and that you don't lose out on set bonuses because you went with a two hander either.


Just a thought;
_WAter_

primary argument against 2h weapons getting extra bonus for sets is they dont need it as the game plays now currently.
secondary argument is it is diversity killing to add it, moving the 1h and 2h types to using the same sets.
tertiary is that it costs less to farm (outside v/hMA) and to craft one 2h type weapon than the combo of dw/snb types.
fourth is its one item.
Third and fourth are the only one addressed by this and not IMO the most critical..

Also, i recommend you try the search function for many threads in which this solution has been proposed for an idea of the back and forth.

GriMTriAd

STEVIL wrote: »

primary argument against 2h weapons getting extra bonus for sets is they dont need it as the game plays now currently.
secondary argument is it is diversity killing to add it, moving the 1h and 2h types to using the same sets.
tertiary is that it costs less to farm (outside v/hMA) and to craft one 2h type weapon than the combo of dw/snb types.
fourth is its one item.
Third and fourth are the only one addressed by this and not IMO the most critical..

Also, i recommend you try the search function for many threads in which this solution has been proposed for an idea of the back and forth.

1) Yes there is a need for it now, as indicated by the constant and numerous threads about how people would use armor set X but can't because they use a 2h weapon which usually ends up in the player ditching the 2h weapon because it makes their build worse. 2h weapons aren't balanced around having less set bonuses otherwise you would see more 2h weapon DPS builds in PvE. More so, the high end players will call you stupid for trying to run a 2h weapon main because it's so suboptimal, thus there is obviously room for improvement.

2) How do you kill diversity by giving people more options? What I read from that argument is that this game is horribly balanced and you think it would suck because then everyone would use the best sets period which makes people less diverse gear wise except that with this suggestion you might have great players running around with 2h weapons so there's more visible diversity... So please explain how giving people more options ruins diversity, I always love these responses.

3) Your argument is entirely based on they way you think this would be implemented and is just conjecture. In order to facilitate conversation I'm going to flatly state my expectations. I'm going to assume that all DPS stays on the 2 handed weapon and the adornment is merely a stat stick to provide a set bonus and maybe a primary stat. This is because having an attribute or enchantment would require significant additional changes to the game. I.E. this is the most trivial and quick implementation so the one ZOS is likely to use. Now, this has a couple of situations that are pertinent to your argument so I'll go over a couple of different ways this implementation plays out.

3a) In one implementation you can get an adornment that copies the level, set bonus, and quality from your weapon. It never needs replaced and thus makes the grind meaningless. This keeps the current 2 handed weapon feel of reduced grinding needed to support this playstyle. This implementation is unlikely as it too heavily promotes 2 handed weapons over dual wield.

3b) Another implementation is close to what you assumed: the adornment is another drop like any other or can be crafted like any other non-jewelry slot, and is required to run your 2 handed weapon. Crafting costs only matter to people obsessive about having everything at it's highest level as getting another set bonus is generally worth more than losing a couple of points on each set bonus stat for running a purple piece in the set. With no attribute on the item, you just have to get the item once, which is significantly easier than getting 2 sharpened set daggers and so this grind is still easier than a dw spec. However, I don't see this implementation happening as it makes 2 handed builds unplayable without additional intervention from ZOS (giving all players a free item when implemented so they can still play).

3c) The way I would implement this is the completely optional way. All 2 handed weapons work the way they currently do. You do not need to get an adornment but you have the option. Nothing changes for players happy with their current itemization as they will play identical to today but they will likely want to grind out an adornment if they have a partial set as it will be optimal for their preferred playstyle. Again the additional grind is only a small increase and still easier than dual wield but you loose some of the flexibility of going dagger/axe to get a bleed and crit bonus so there are still reasonable trade offs. This seems relatively light weight on current players, while providing PvE options for 2 handed in the end game. Not sure why you would argue against this, especially if you prefer diversity, but to each their own.

4) Your forth point is a statement of fact, so there is nothing to argue as a 2h weapon is one item so, yeah... I don't want to see an item you only have to grind for once count twice as much either as that's not fair for DW players.

5) I probably should have checked if anyone recently posted something similar but I'm lazy. Also, searching so I can Necro old threads that may be tangentially related to what I want to say seems sub optimal. So, yeah, it's probably not new, but we have a new expansion coming out, and they are looking at making sets work better for 2 handed weapon builds so it's pertinent. I wanted them to have a new thread with new discussion based on that.

_WAter_

STEVIL

GriMTriAd wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

primary argument against 2h weapons getting extra bonus for sets is they dont need it as the game plays now currently.
secondary argument is it is diversity killing to add it, moving the 1h and 2h types to using the same sets.
tertiary is that it costs less to farm (outside v/hMA) and to craft one 2h type weapon than the combo of dw/snb types.
fourth is its one item.
Third and fourth are the only one addressed by this and not IMO the most critical..

Also, i recommend you try the search function for many threads in which this solution has been proposed for an idea of the back and forth.

1) Yes there is a need for it now, as indicated by the constant and numerous threads about how people would use armor set X but can't because they use a 2h weapon which usually ends up in the player ditching the 2h weapon because it makes their build worse. 2h weapons aren't balanced around having less set bonuses otherwise you would see more 2h weapon DPS builds in PvE. More so, the high end players will call you stupid for trying to run a 2h weapon main because it's so suboptimal, thus there is obviously room for improvement.

2) How do you kill diversity by giving people more options? What I read from that argument is that this game is horribly balanced and you think it would suck because then everyone would use the best sets period which makes people less diverse gear wise except that with this suggestion you might have great players running around with 2h weapons so there's more visible diversity... So please explain how giving people more options ruins diversity, I always love these responses.

3) Your argument is entirely based on they way you think this would be implemented and is just conjecture. In order to facilitate conversation I'm going to flatly state my expectations. I'm going to assume that all DPS stays on the 2 handed weapon and the adornment is merely a stat stick to provide a set bonus and maybe a primary stat. This is because having an attribute or enchantment would require significant additional changes to the game. I.E. this is the most trivial and quick implementation so the one ZOS is likely to use. Now, this has a couple of situations that are pertinent to your argument so I'll go over a couple of different ways this implementation plays out.

3a) In one implementation you can get an adornment that copies the level, set bonus, and quality from your weapon. It never needs replaced and thus makes the grind meaningless. This keeps the current 2 handed weapon feel of reduced grinding needed to support this playstyle. This implementation is unlikely as it too heavily promotes 2 handed weapons over dual wield.

3b) Another implementation is close to what you assumed: the adornment is another drop like any other or can be crafted like any other non-jewelry slot, and is required to run your 2 handed weapon. Crafting costs only matter to people obsessive about having everything at it's highest level as getting another set bonus is generally worth more than losing a couple of points on each set bonus stat for running a purple piece in the set. With no attribute on the item, you just have to get the item once, which is significantly easier than getting 2 sharpened set daggers and so this grind is still easier than a dw spec. However, I don't see this implementation happening as it makes 2 handed builds unplayable without additional intervention from ZOS (giving all players a free item when implemented so they can still play).

3c) The way I would implement this is the completely optional way. All 2 handed weapons work the way they currently do. You do not need to get an adornment but you have the option. Nothing changes for players happy with their current itemization as they will play identical to today but they will likely want to grind out an adornment if they have a partial set as it will be optimal for their preferred playstyle. Again the additional grind is only a small increase and still easier than dual wield but you loose some of the flexibility of going dagger/axe to get a bleed and crit bonus so there are still reasonable trade offs. This seems relatively light weight on current players, while providing PvE options for 2 handed in the end game. Not sure why you would argue against this, especially if you prefer diversity, but to each their own.

4) Your forth point is a statement of fact, so there is nothing to argue as a 2h weapon is one item so, yeah... I don't want to see an item you only have to grind for once count twice as much either as that's not fair for DW players.

5) I probably should have checked if anyone recently posted something similar but I'm lazy. Also, searching so I can Necro old threads that may be tangentially related to what I want to say seems sub optimal. So, yeah, it's probably not new, but we have a new expansion coming out, and they are looking at making sets work better for 2 handed weapon builds so it's pertinent. I wanted them to have a new thread with new discussion based on that.

_WAter_

1 You conflate need for want. Classic error. You will find tons and tons of threads which can be summed up by "let me do this but take away the drawbacks". That doesn't mean the game would be better if player choices made less difference.

1 Also, you focus on a subset and expand to the whole. The end game over group/trial leaderboards dps play is focused on sustain dps only. Burst dps is irrelevant when your adversary has millions of hits. So, while 2h stamina can complete that content, its gonna be a sub-optimal choice cuz 2h-Stan is more about burst. You are choosing a pliars when a socket wrench is better. Move into the more burst focused PvP side and 2h-stam outshines.

1 Also note that while you talk about top players... at those levels you are talking typical maelstrom or master weapons, where set bonuses are already subsumed. Making non-maelstrom weapons count for 2 set pieces won't affect the 2h-vs-dwing dps for endgame trial/group one bit.

1 no rule change will control players calling others stupid.

2 You conflate "number of sets you can wear" with "number of sets that will be worn." Again, classic error. Let me show you with an example:
Tomorrow we add a set which adds 500 magical max and spell damage for bonuses 2-3-4 and 10000 of each for the 5pc bonus. Add another same for Stan and won dam. We have thus added more sets so you have more sets you can wear, if you believe more options means more variation in use. In fact, the reverse would be true. More folks would wear the new sets with a net reduction in sets played.

2 Sets like clever alchemist, loch, Warlock, witchman and others see play for staff users and bow users and greatsword users cuz their long cool down or build ups on 5pc bonus syncs well with non two weapon or won/shield builds. Sets like hundings for your backbar set are better for those 12 slot builds.

The different limitations push folks to use different sets. Yanking the line will lessen that push and result in more similar use.

3a huh? You said up front this was to counter arguments against the extra set bonus. If the arguments this adorn-a-crap are to counter aren't the golding and mats and drops, what arguments are you referring to.

3b huh? You talk about effectiveness and all that but then suddenly grinding or crafting for better stats is suddenly not that important? You see many two dagger builds who talk about not worrying about what the second dagger is, do yah? All the time cuz not that key?

3c Same as 3b...

And yeah.. Sure...but lazy is a choice not a justification.Those who do not know what happening t minutes ago are doomed to type away anyway and remove all doubt.

We all can be relieved you have ended the long drought of the bonus set threads for 2h... Some may have been holding their breath until a new one came out and been minutes away from discomfort.

GriMTriAd

You should go read about strawman arguments, you're really good at them. That's not a good thing, it means that your problematic for getting beneficial change into the system because you like to argue persuasively without understanding the argument. It's one of the ways we ended up with Trump as president.

Most of what you said is all strawman. If you remove the extra slot for set bonuses in the situations you presented then you'll find that for most of them the situation is the exact same. When I did this I was often trying to prove that very thing which you completely missed.

The best example is the burst vs. sustain DPS using different sets. 2 handed weapons have poor sustain but good burst. This is a product of high cost abilities and slow attacks. Notice that I didn't say it's a byproduct of set choices, that's because it's not. This is because two handed melee weapons attack slowly so their ability to keep buffs running is worse. This situation impacts set choices and will continue to impact set choices regardless of the number of sets they get full bonuses from because a two handed weapon player will continue to avoid sets that have short duration low chance to proc buffs. Getting two five piece set bonuses doesn't make a two handed weapon player favor short duration buffs. The only homogenization then occurs from overpowered generic set bonuses which is a matter of set balance. These sets are still in contention for both players anyway.

If you decide to press the homogenization argument then you really should know that this is like arguing that after the one 5 piece bonus and 2 piece monster set that each player generally wants the player can then choose between a 2 handed weapon and 50 piles of crap, or take dual wield and get a second glorious 5 piece bonus. If Two handed weapons were balanced for this, then that would be fine but they aren't and doing so would create more work for the dev's to keep it balanced so I'm not arguing for that.

Which brings me to my second point. What you are arguing keeps the status quo, which in my opinion is bad. This is one of the worst balanced games I have every played and it's largely due to set bonus distribution and need. The game is balanced around single significant set bonuses that most often occur from having five pieces.

One alternative fix for this balance is to move where the significant bonus occurs. This generally favors dual wield anyway as they still consistently have one more slot to fill out weapon sets and thus continue to get one more set bonus. Another way to balance this is for 2 handed weapons to have a bonus equivalent to a 5 piece set built into the weapon itself. As you've already shown distaste for a significantly easier grind for 2 handed weapon players, I can't imagine you liking those weapons getting this kind of a buff.

Which is weird because you also brought up the argument in favor of the easier grind of 2 handed weapons for players that choose to go that route. But, going 2 handed means you're heavily excluded from top end PvE. Which effectively means that players should be punished for their playstyle preference because they had to spend less time grinding their gear. That comes off as a bad way to retain players, and thus bad for the game as a whole.

Creating a new item for 2 handed weapons is a massive compromise. It allows ZOS to balance the game around 5 piece set bonuses at the cost of making it harder to gear a 2 handed player. It has the side effect of making items like VMA weapons easier to balance by forcing all players to get both items. With a common number of set pieces then it's just a matter of balancing damage against duration of attack and cost which is significantly easier.

To further balance this, and as further compromise to improve the horrendous grinding of twin sharpened weapons, make the second weapon a stat stick. You get your set bonus from your second weapon only so you can have whatever attribute you want on it. Now weapon choice is cosmetic in terms of gearing. This means players ACTUALLY have choice in how they want their character to look and play.

2 handed melee can still have burst but it maintains the downside of constantly overkilling enemies and wasting resources to do so. This is then balanced against smaller faster attacks that rarely waste resources but never get the OMG single hit numbers. Both have a good place in the game that allows players to choose their playstyle through all of the content in the game which just makes ESO a better game.

(Note: the shield refresh changes which make it cost more stamina against faster attacks make dual wield more viable in PvP so PvP being burst centric is not a great argument to use against anything I said above.)

_WAter_

Thannazzar

Easy solution. Just create a buckler item that sits in the off hand slot has no visual model and stats other than counting as a set piece.

Sensei_Brew

Lag.....

Fiskerton

Wait so you would have to farm a sharpened quiver and sharpened tassels? Mm I guess it makes as much sense as sharpened staves, but at least you can swing a sharpened staff.

I mean, honestly the easiest solution is to just let 2h items count as two pieces, but ZOS would like a grindy solution more.

smokey13a

I'm going to say this probably wouldn't work. 2 handed weapons don't get the second piece bonus because its only 1 piece which is why they have over 200 extra spell/weapon damage and traits like sharpened are twice as strong so the only way this would work would be if zos reduced the spell/weapon damage and trait potency for all 2 handed weapons so they were the same as a 1 handed weapon, in addition the second piece (quiver/tassels..ect) would have to count as an armour piece like one hand and shield and not a weapon piece like dual wield.

also giving an extra piece bonus to mag sorcs and DK's would increase their dps even more which would make the game even more un-balanced.

Wolfenbelle

STEVIL wrote: »

GriMTriAd wrote: »

So as a thought - mostly as a compromise to fix most of the arguments for and against 2 handed weapons getting an extra set bonus - what about adornments?

For bows the adornment is obvious, as it's just a quiver. It is literally a stat stick but it lets players pick their bow style as well as their quiver style and just goes in the off hand slot when you have a bow equipped.

Maces, Axes, and Swords could have a tassel that hangs off the hilt. Just a little flowing ribbon that makes for a decorative touch.

This means it's not easier to gear than if you use two one handed weapons, and that you don't lose out on set bonuses because you went with a two hander either.


Just a thought;
_WAter_

primary argument against 2h weapons getting extra bonus for sets is they dont need it as the game plays now currently.
secondary argument is it is diversity killing to add it, moving the 1h and 2h types to using the same sets.
tertiary is that it costs less to farm (outside v/hMA) and to craft one 2h type weapon than the combo of dw/snb types.
fourth is its one item.
Third and fourth are the only one addressed by this and not IMO the most critical..

Also, i recommend you try the search function for many threads in which this solution has been proposed for an idea of the back and forth.

There are six weapon types in the game, but only two of them can use the second equip slot. That's bizarre by any standard. Why have a second slot at all if two-thirds of weapons can't use it? Why have all sets give bonuses for 5 pieces, and create a design to enable 5-5-2 equipment if two-thirds of weapons can only use 11 of those 12 slots? If the idea is to encourage the much sought after "diversity, " then shouldn't every weapon be able to use two slots, thereby giving everyone access to the 5-5-2 setup of their choice? Restricting two-thirds of weapons to only one slot actually is less diverse because every player can't mix and match a variety of 5-piece bonuses.

Galwylin

Okay, maybe I'm misunderstanding something but aren't two handed weapons already a benefit just for using them? Not sure why give the same bonuses to weaker weapons to two handers. That makes the weaker ones even less attractive. Two handed sword/axe/maul and bow are on many people's bars. If not the front then the back so they seem to be doing fine. After all, you don't have to use two handed. You could have daggers on both. Sword and shield on both. So obviously there's a reason to want this. Two handed even get a heal which no other weapon has (I don't think). It will become a must have with this.

idk

Devs have stated they were looking at this issue with 2H weapons back when they started talking up Morrowind. I think it was Firor that was saying it.

However, it's seems they have decided not to make the change since the Morrowind expansion, with all that is changing now, would have been a logical point to make this move.

As for having an extra piece, not liking the idea. 9 more traits to research for several items.