So no attempts in making the 2H competitive in PvE?

Avran_Sylt

An ideal scenario would be having:

Melee have the 2H AoE and DW ST With Swords increasing range/general damage, Axes Adding Dots/Higher AoE damage, Maces holding CC/Armor Pen
Ranged Physical: Longbow ST, Shortbow AoE With Broadhead as general, Crescent adds DoTs, Bodkin against armor
Magic: Lightning AoE, Flame ST, Ice CC With Lightning dealing more damage against armor and lots of Direct damage AoE effects, Flame against no armor and specializing in DoTs, and Ice as against movement specializing in resource sapping.

Other magic schools offering unique CC and environmental effects.

Giving each style: Melee, Ranged, Magic their own abilities so that they can each hold their own without needing one or the other. Thus allowing players to mix and match or stay with a particular thing.

Zardayne

leepalmer95 wrote: »

2h is for pvp
Dw is for pve.

Damn I hate seeing that..feels like pigeon holing at it's finest which is not what Elder Scrolls should be IMO

TheStealthDude

I would be happy of 2H was within a fee % points of DW, but would be ecstatic if the stigma against 2H builds was eradicated.

If you build it right, there should be no problem with 2H builds in the community. Unfortunately, so much of the player base seems to think that 2H can not even do half the damage of DW, when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Andele

One thing that looks weird is Test server added 1 more target to forceful while doubling its damage (which is weird, they could have gone either +2 targets while keeping it 25% so that its the "bigger cleave" physical version of lightning staff or just do the damage doubling), BUT also change Follow up to not be "weaker empower" and/or make Battle Rush actually useful mid boss combat.

Xvorg

My mDK uses 2H. It's ok for PvP.

Please, don't ask for a buff that will mean a completely overnerf later...

Lokryn

Alcast did a test on DW vs 2h Templar and it showed an improvement on dps for 2handers. Still slightly less dps than DW but better at least.

https://youtu.be/8zRFf0gmz-I

Avran_Sylt

I really just wish that 2H was sub-par against DW in terms of Single target damage, but 2H was boss against DW in terms of AoE damage. Similar to how they're treating Fire and Lightning Destro staves.

Strider_Roshin

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I really just wish that 2H was sub-par against DW in terms of Single target damage, but 2H was boss against DW in terms of AoE damage. Similar to how they're treating Fire and Lightning Destro staves.

I think they might have achieved that actually with the current changes. Haven't tested it though.

STEVIL

Zardayne wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

2h is for pvp
Dw is for pve.

Damn I hate seeing that..feels like pigeon holing at it's finest which is not what Elder Scrolls should be IMO

Well you know choices need to have meaning, not be cosmetic.

choosing 2h is choosing one set of abilities with certain strengths and weaknesses.
choosing dw is choosing a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

In PVP where higher emphasis by its nature is placed on self-reliance and burst damage, the strengths of 2h play a bigger role so it is more preferred there than dw. this can also be a factor in PVE solo play.

in PVE (specifically only group/trial sustain dps with dedicated support staff assumed) sustained DPS is a higher priority or more preferred (burst is basically irrelevant) and so the strangths of dw are favored.

In the vast majority of PVE content outside of the leaderboard hard mode top-score chasers, either can be successful at the content just fine.

So, it is much much less pigeon-holing than simply choosing the right tool for the right job and having choices make a difference.

of course, we could make it so that dw and 2h were equally preferred across the content by just giving them the same skills with different animations. But then the choice between them would be meaningless. Or we could give them different skills with different animations but make sure the differences did not matter in terms of burst or sustain or self-reliance vs supported play... but again that is pretty much the same thing as "just different animations."

Choices should matter, because the choices are where you the player fit in.

now, the best approach to diversifying this play lies at the content level itself. if more g/t pve top-end leader chaser content demanded burst than sustain dps, then you would see some 2h being used where dw is now. If more cases in this content relied on heal-thru not dps-heal then again something like a rally would make 2h more appealing.


Similarly if repeated heals were extra penalized in PVP so that sustain dps wear-them-down did not suffer as much vs burst-n-dead, then maybe DW could be a stronger contender.

but again, that pve dps with support hard mode leader chasers is a small closet of the total play... one a player self-pigeon-holes - not unlike pvp is.

Andele

STEVIL wrote: »

Well you know choices need to have meaning, not be cosmetic.

choosing 2h is choosing one set of abilities with certain strengths and weaknesses.
choosing dw is choosing a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

Choices should matter, because the choices are where you the player fit in.

OR, the 2 weapon sets with the same core role (melee damage) have different specializations while dealing similar/same damage in a net neutral situation while excelling in their specialization? Hell just changing Battle Rush to have a in combat effect tied to either damage or stamina instead of after already winning (or trash fights) or making one of the Slash morphs just scale like whirlwind from 100% every 1% instead from 50% down (or even just the base morph) would likely make it competitive.