Why to hell i cant play with Staff and able to wear 2 5piece sets and a complete monsterset?!

Skander

I would disagree, if 2H weapons held their bonus on the weapon trait. But since it's going to be nerfed soon, the 2 bonus for 1 item set should be viable.

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

People are seriously using the "build diversity" argument against the OP? Ridiculous!

You know what would improve the diversity of MY builds? Being able to mix Monster sets with ALL combinations of 5 piece sets!

Well, while i cannot say a thing about YOUR builds, it wont increase the build diversity in terms of sets played oerall but rather reduce it.

you see, right now the 12v11 thing drives some to run different sets on their 12pc builds than one their 11pc builds because the 11pc builds are not as good at the 5pc "constant bonus" types of sets. So, the limitation drives folks towards different sets. the difference drives diversity.

Make them more the same, make them all 12 pc builds, and that entirely vanishes.

All of this of course pre-Mael or master weapons. when used they change the dynamic entirely voiding the whole set count 552 thing for a more 5-2-3-MW

More sameness does not promote diversity, it promotes more sameness.

you are conflating "sets i can wear" with "sets i will wear" when you imagine that removing differences somehow means more sets will be worn. Diversity is not about "sets i can wear" but more "sets i will wear".

Tell ya what, give us an example of a gear set up that is currently used with 2 handers as they are now that would suddenly become obsolete or not worth using if 2 handers counted as 2 items or 2 slots. Let's discuss that so we can really see what you are trying to get at here. I think many of these same sets would still be used, but the rotation and mechanics would be less clunky and less meticulous since you wouldn't have to bar swap to make it all work. People would still use many of these same setups, just easier to use, like the 5-5-2 crowd kinda easier. I think what you are saying is that people would not use these sets anymore if 2 handers allowed 5-5-2 bonuses. In actuality I don't think this is the case, but if you have a good example I would be interested to see it and why you think it would no longer be used.

Fettkeewl

We need 1h wand and special gauntlets or orbs on offhand as a new weapon skill line, would solve alot

STEVIL

Ranger209 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

People are seriously using the "build diversity" argument against the OP? Ridiculous!

You know what would improve the diversity of MY builds? Being able to mix Monster sets with ALL combinations of 5 piece sets!

Well, while i cannot say a thing about YOUR builds, it wont increase the build diversity in terms of sets played oerall but rather reduce it.

you see, right now the 12v11 thing drives some to run different sets on their 12pc builds than one their 11pc builds because the 11pc builds are not as good at the 5pc "constant bonus" types of sets. So, the limitation drives folks towards different sets. the difference drives diversity.

Make them more the same, make them all 12 pc builds, and that entirely vanishes.

All of this of course pre-Mael or master weapons. when used they change the dynamic entirely voiding the whole set count 552 thing for a more 5-2-3-MW

More sameness does not promote diversity, it promotes more sameness.

you are conflating "sets i can wear" with "sets i will wear" when you imagine that removing differences somehow means more sets will be worn. Diversity is not about "sets i can wear" but more "sets i will wear".

Tell ya what, give us an example of a gear set up that is currently used with 2 handers as they are now that would suddenly become obsolete or not worth using if 2 handers counted as 2 items or 2 slots. Let's discuss that so we can really see what you are trying to get at here. I think many of these same sets would still be used, but the rotation and mechanics would be less clunky and less meticulous since you wouldn't have to bar swap to make it all work. People would still use many of these same setups, just easier to use, like the 5-5-2 crowd kinda easier. I think what you are saying is that people would not use these sets anymore if 2 handers allowed 5-5-2 bonuses. In actuality I don't think this is the case, but if you have a good example I would be interested to see it and why you think it would no longer be used.

most likely one of the sets that would see less use, i never said no longer be used BTW, is clever alchemist. While it is good as a burst set for 15s increments with a longer cooldown, it would see less use in PVE sustain DPS when it could be replaced with julianos. julianos tends to give more overall DPS though less burst.

But, are you actually questioning whether folks would stop using sets they use now and switch to sets they cannot use now if the 11v12 things was changed? Please read many of the posts on this thread. the "i want to use the other sets" mantra is everywhere over and over among many of the proponents.

i take them at their word when they say they want to use the 12pc sets they currently cannot and believe they would switch to them.

Do you not? Do you think they are being deceptive when they say they want to run the 12pc sets with staves and bows and greatswords like they do with dw?

Grimhallow

DeHei wrote: »

For me rebalance dual wield and staffs. For me its ok to reduce the skill efectivness of 2H weapons, when they are to strong. Its just a poor thing not to be possible, wear the best combination of 5 5 2 with the weapons you want. They should make a plan, when they change things.
For example: They changed froststaff to tanky, but you see most tanks in trial just tank again with 1H+shield. This is only because the froststaff just can give 1 slot for a set. They idea behind was great, spotting over HA, but in trials nearly impossible.
This kind of tanking is good for experienced guys in common vet dungeons, but nothing more.

I dont will change your mind, but you should be more sensible to our opinion, that there is a disbalance. Nobody want to be OP, but all want same possibilities for builds. If things become to strong, they need a nerf. If they are to weak, then buff them.
But at all listen to your community. Many guys here play MMORPGs or other games more then 10 years and have experience from other games. This games sometimes show us whats wrong and whats right. If people are screaming, then *** take a look why they do and think about, if you need to handle there.
Biggest mistake and that you can see here, is to reward different playstyles not in same way. If you create a good balance, you should hold it. Nobody will unlike it.

One last thing i need to speak about: Actually this game changed nearly complete in 2 patches (Morrowind and next one). *** never change a running system!

I understand what you are saying, but I believe that in reality, the two are quite balanced. One performs better in PvE, and one Performs better in PvP. Because of this we also get immense build diversity, where people coming from PvE have to rethink their build patterns to adapt, or they have to find a different way to get major brutality.

There are things to be improved, and I think we should always strive towards that. But frankly, I also believe very strongly that giving 2h weapons a 2-pc set bonus would massively unbalance both pvp and pve, making pve boring by taking away all incentive to run dual wield (unless you are running a melee bleed build- which are already uncommon enough as it is), and making 2h weapons in PvP way overpowered. I like where you are coming from, but I think your suggestions create far more balance issues than they solve. Especially since 2h build patterns are not in shortage in either pvp or pve. I just don't see why they need such a massive buff.

DeHei

Grimick wrote: »

DeHei wrote: »

For me rebalance dual wield and staffs. For me its ok to reduce the skill efectivness of 2H weapons, when they are to strong. Its just a poor thing not to be possible, wear the best combination of 5 5 2 with the weapons you want. They should make a plan, when they change things.
For example: They changed froststaff to tanky, but you see most tanks in trial just tank again with 1H+shield. This is only because the froststaff just can give 1 slot for a set. They idea behind was great, spotting over HA, but in trials nearly impossible.
This kind of tanking is good for experienced guys in common vet dungeons, but nothing more.

I dont will change your mind, but you should be more sensible to our opinion, that there is a disbalance. Nobody want to be OP, but all want same possibilities for builds. If things become to strong, they need a nerf. If they are to weak, then buff them.
But at all listen to your community. Many guys here play MMORPGs or other games more then 10 years and have experience from other games. This games sometimes show us whats wrong and whats right. If people are screaming, then *** take a look why they do and think about, if you need to handle there.
Biggest mistake and that you can see here, is to reward different playstyles not in same way. If you create a good balance, you should hold it. Nobody will unlike it.

One last thing i need to speak about: Actually this game changed nearly complete in 2 patches (Morrowind and next one). *** never change a running system!

I understand what you are saying, but I believe that in reality, the two are quite balanced. One performs better in PvE, and one Performs better in PvP. Because of this we also get immense build diversity, where people coming from PvE have to rethink their build patterns to adapt, or they have to find a different way to get major brutality.

There are things to be improved, and I think we should always strive towards that. But frankly, I also believe very strongly that giving 2h weapons a 2-pc set bonus would massively unbalance both pvp and pve, making pve boring by taking away all incentive to run dual wield (unless you are running a melee bleed build- which are already uncommon enough as it is), and making 2h weapons in PvP way overpowered. I like where you are coming from, but I think your suggestions create far more balance issues than they solve. Especially since 2h build patterns are not in shortage in either pvp or pve. I just don't see why they need such a massive buff.

The ground idea is the diversity we actually dont have. With tricks you can activate sets like Lich ob the backbar or you need to use weapons, which dont support your playstyle... i see the miss here...
When we had another option like a dual wield for magicka, nobody would scream for it. For some reasons i would prefer 2 setslots for 2H weapons, that you able to build all combinations with all weapons. But for sure, i just would allready be happy, if we had just an option for magickaplaystyle..
Maybe there are problems with balance, when 2H weapons could count as 2 setslots, they will need to rebalance them will all there experience they have. I really think they just should test it before they put a "Stemple" on it, were is written "impossible idea"..

Andele

Because the game wasnt originally designed with full sets setup in mind and devs overlooked that 1 slot is worth 1 set bonus (kinda how original dota wasnt balanced with the idea that 6 item slots is a actual limitation for a metric fuckton of versions and patches). As such it should be fixed.

DeHei

Andele wrote: »

Because the game wasnt originally designed with full sets setup in mind and devs overlooked that 1 slot is worth 1 set bonus (kinda how original dota wasnt balanced with the idea that 6 item slots is a actual limitation for a metric fuckton of versions and patches). As such it should be fixed.

That would solve much problems.. I had many more ideas how it could work.. but i dont want waste more of your time.. ZOS has to work now.

DeHei

Andele wrote: »

Because the game wasnt originally designed with full sets setup in mind and devs overlooked that 1 slot is worth 1 set bonus (kinda how original dota wasnt balanced with the idea that 6 item slots is a actual limitation for a metric fuckton of versions and patches). As such it should be fixed.

That would solve much problems.. I had many more ideas how it could work.. but i dont want waste more of your time.. ZOS has to work now.

Oreyn_Bearclaw

STEVIL wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

overclocker303b14_ESO wrote: »

Because you get one set bonus for one item. A staff is one item, so you get...wait for it...one set bonus for it. Again, that's one bonus, for one set item.

Now that the math behind it has been explained, I would also like to point out that being able to wear a monster set and use two five piece sets on the front bar is really the only benefit you get for being a melee based dps. Meanwhile, if you are ranged magicka you get more dps, and the benefit of not having to stand next to bosses and deal with additional mechanics. I honestly think this setup is fine the way it is and if you are really that unhappy about it and decide to leave please let me know if I can have your stuff.

You do not get more DPS at range. Stam melee builds are in first place for DPS. Let's be clear about that.

Are non-maelstrom non-master stamina builds tops in DPS?

Since this discussion hinges on set counts and maelstrom/masters wrteck that difference, it seems the dps supporting argument should be without M or M.

is that sustained DPS when supported by a healer and tank in trials or solo dps against enemies where you have to do your own defense and heal? is it PVP for or what?

@STEVIL
Its all of those. Best Pareses on a solo dummy? Stam accross the board. Best Parses on trial bosses, again, stam is winning now. Best sustain? Not even close. Stam is so much better with sustain. Is it harder to play? Sure, but that's no the issue. They should get more DPS BECAUSE it's harder to play.

As for VMA weapons, yes they increase DPS on both, but they are back bar weapons. BIS front bar weapons come from Trials, BIS backbar weapons come from VMA. VMA DW weapons are garbage this patch. I will concede that a back bar VMA bow is a slightly bigger DPS increase than a back bar VMA staff.

If you take VMA and trial weapons out of the equation, my money is still on stam for raw DPS.

STEVIL

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

overclocker303b14_ESO wrote: »

Because you get one set bonus for one item. A staff is one item, so you get...wait for it...one set bonus for it. Again, that's one bonus, for one set item.

Now that the math behind it has been explained, I would also like to point out that being able to wear a monster set and use two five piece sets on the front bar is really the only benefit you get for being a melee based dps. Meanwhile, if you are ranged magicka you get more dps, and the benefit of not having to stand next to bosses and deal with additional mechanics. I honestly think this setup is fine the way it is and if you are really that unhappy about it and decide to leave please let me know if I can have your stuff.

You do not get more DPS at range. Stam melee builds are in first place for DPS. Let's be clear about that.

Are non-maelstrom non-master stamina builds tops in DPS?

Since this discussion hinges on set counts and maelstrom/masters wrteck that difference, it seems the dps supporting argument should be without M or M.

is that sustained DPS when supported by a healer and tank in trials or solo dps against enemies where you have to do your own defense and heal? is it PVP for or what?

@STEVIL
Its all of those. Best Pareses on a solo dummy? Stam accross the board. Best Parses on trial bosses, again, stam is winning now. Best sustain? Not even close. Stam is so much better with sustain. Is it harder to play? Sure, but that's no the issue. They should get more DPS BECAUSE it's harder to play.

As for VMA weapons, yes they increase DPS on both, but they are back bar weapons. BIS front bar weapons come from Trials, BIS backbar weapons come from VMA. VMA DW weapons are garbage this patch. I will concede that a back bar VMA bow is a slightly bigger DPS increase than a back bar VMA staff.

If you take VMA and trial weapons out of the equation, my money is still on stam for raw DPS.

Thanks.. i know a while back the dw daggers from ma were a substabtial part of their dps edge over others, but guess a lot has changed.

We see so many threads about how imbalanced things are in favor of magica glad to see in the broader game picture things have balanced out.

will bookmark this for good reference for later.

thanks again.

Code2501

I personally hate having a stick stuck to my back and I'd burn my staves as firewood in an instant if they gave me 1h magicka weapons.

Shadowshire

@DeHei

On the face of it, ZOS made a mistake by including weapons as pieces of an armor set -- shields are reasonably included, but never a weapon of any kind. Another dubious idea was to make necklaces and rings qualify as pieces for most of the non-crafted sets. (Characters can still equip a 5-piece crafted armor set, but the items for a second 5-piece set must be armor and jewelry for a non-crafted set.)

The RPG design tradition is that at a character must equip at least five pieces to complete a "set" (i.e., 5 pieces which are identified individually as parts of a set). Originally, there were no benefits for equipping only 2, 3, or 4 pieces of the set, but respective benefits for those numbers of pieces became common subsequently. So, a character could benefit from 5 pieces of one set, 2 pieces of another set, and 3 pieces of an accessory set (e.g., jewelry). However, in ESO, a character can have two 5-piece sets comprised of seven pieces of armor and three pieces of jewelry. Or have two 5-piece sets comprised of eight pieces of armor (including a Shield), and two pieces of jewelry.

For better or for worse, the "monster" sets are only 2 pieces of armor without any accessory pieces. Substitute 2 weapons or a weapon and a shield, which are parts of a set that includes the three accessories, and the character has not only the "monster set" and its benefits, but two 5-piece sets with their corresponding benefits.

However, as you have described, the Sorcerer or other Magicka user who equips a staff ("two-handed") cannot have the benefits of such a combination. Then again, neither can a Dragonknight or other Stamina user armed with a 2-Handed weapon have the benefits of such a combination. That said, for the healing role, a Sorcerer has no other choice but to equip a Restoration Staff with at least one of the two Ability bars. A Templar healer does not need Restoration Staff abilities to be an effective healer, but some Resto Staff abilities are better than some of the Templar's Restoring Light abilities. So most Templar healers equip a Resto Staff for one of their two Ability Bars.

In combat animations, a character armed with a 2-handed weapon that is not a staff does use both hands to wield it. However, a character armed with a "2-handed" staff actually uses only one hand to attack with it -- unless the character is executing a Block or Bash with the staff, or interrupting the casting or channeling of a Spell.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @Wrobel

Personally, I've always thought that ZOS should introduce a one-handed Magic Wand into the Skills line, and add an accessory which the wand-wielder can hold in their "off" hand to buff their abilities, or choose to use a Shield instead. Like other one-handed weapons and shields, wands and their accessories could be parts of designated sets. Equipped with a Shield, a character can Block and Bash. Equipped with a Wand and Accessory, either (1) the character cannot Block an attack or Bash a foe, but can use "bash" to Interrupt the casting or channeling of a spell; or, (2) the accessory per se can be used to "block" incoming damage, but the character can use "bash" only to Interrupt the casting or channeling of a spell.

Then again, perhaps I should not offer such a suggestion, since the game has plenty of flawed designs and bugs in it already. Not that I would expect any developer to design and implement the feature as I have described it, regardless. .......

kijima

Well for me, reading this thread has made one thing very clear.

There is certain type of person that want's their staff in one hand, and balls in another...

GeorgeBlack

So... if there was no DW and SnB would you ask for a double bonus for your One Weapon?
And if 2h get double bonus can I have a gap closer and Rally and a 300% Execution for my DW?
Ty

DeHei

GeorgeBlack wrote: »

So... if there was no DW and SnB would you ask for a double bonus for your One Weapon?
And if 2h get double bonus can I have a gap closer and Rally and a 300% Execution for my DW?
Ty

Only DKs and Warden dont have a gab closer, but the Templar and Sorc version works better for magicka player.
There were other guys with the idea, that 2H skills should be a part of Warriors guild for example. For me all active weaponskills could be choosen over a randomskillline, but that another story...

Oreyn_Bearclaw

STEVIL wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

overclocker303b14_ESO wrote: »

Because you get one set bonus for one item. A staff is one item, so you get...wait for it...one set bonus for it. Again, that's one bonus, for one set item.

Now that the math behind it has been explained, I would also like to point out that being able to wear a monster set and use two five piece sets on the front bar is really the only benefit you get for being a melee based dps. Meanwhile, if you are ranged magicka you get more dps, and the benefit of not having to stand next to bosses and deal with additional mechanics. I honestly think this setup is fine the way it is and if you are really that unhappy about it and decide to leave please let me know if I can have your stuff.

You do not get more DPS at range. Stam melee builds are in first place for DPS. Let's be clear about that.

Are non-maelstrom non-master stamina builds tops in DPS?

Since this discussion hinges on set counts and maelstrom/masters wrteck that difference, it seems the dps supporting argument should be without M or M.

is that sustained DPS when supported by a healer and tank in trials or solo dps against enemies where you have to do your own defense and heal? is it PVP for or what?

@STEVIL
Its all of those. Best Pareses on a solo dummy? Stam accross the board. Best Parses on trial bosses, again, stam is winning now. Best sustain? Not even close. Stam is so much better with sustain. Is it harder to play? Sure, but that's no the issue. They should get more DPS BECAUSE it's harder to play.

As for VMA weapons, yes they increase DPS on both, but they are back bar weapons. BIS front bar weapons come from Trials, BIS backbar weapons come from VMA. VMA DW weapons are garbage this patch. I will concede that a back bar VMA bow is a slightly bigger DPS increase than a back bar VMA staff.

If you take VMA and trial weapons out of the equation, my money is still on stam for raw DPS.

Thanks.. i know a while back the dw daggers from ma were a substabtial part of their dps edge over others, but guess a lot has changed.

We see so many threads about how imbalanced things are in favor of magica glad to see in the broader game picture things have balanced out.

will bookmark this for good reference for later.

thanks again.

@STEVIL

Essentially what happened is that no one can sustain the old Rapid Strikes rotation that was required to make use of the VMA DW daggers. People have gone back to a light weave between dots, and then mixing 1-2 heavy attacks in per rotation. sDK is essentially doing a HA before every dot. They run the molten armaments for the HA buff (yes its the magic morph). The nice thing about DW HAs is that they are very fast so they dont feel as clunky or slow as staff HAs do. Pretty much every stam class can pull 40k on a solo dummy with just about infinite sustain.

Stam is still much harder to play effectively, especially in the new trial. That said, those that can pull it off are leading the DPS race. Once thing that has helped immensely is that the new High Health tank meta means that they can give their group about 10k shields with igneous.

I actually think DPS is much more balanced than it has been in a while. Sorcs are no longer wildly out in front. I think they are the easiest to play, but they are very much middle of the pack. Stam has a nice risk reward to it. All classes are still going to do best with trial/vma weapons, and stam admittedly has a bit of a tougher grind for that. Most classes are going 5 TFS/5 VO or War Machine/2monster set. Since you want TFS on all bars, your ideal weapons become a sharp VMA bow and VO or WM DW weapons. I am not sold on what is best, but I think its something like Sharp dagger and Infused axe. I have been running trials for a long time, and I dont have either. Haha

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

most likely one of the sets that would see less use, i never said no longer be used BTW, is clever alchemist. While it is good as a burst set for 15s increments with a longer cooldown, it would see less use in PVE sustain DPS when it could be replaced with julianos. julianos tends to give more overall DPS though less burst.

But, are you actually questioning whether folks would stop using sets they use now and switch to sets they cannot use now if the 11v12 things was changed? Please read many of the posts on this thread. the "i want to use the other sets" mantra is everywhere over and over among many of the proponents.

i take them at their word when they say they want to use the 12pc sets they currently cannot and believe they would switch to them.

Do you not? Do you think they are being deceptive when they say they want to run the 12pc sets with staves and bows and greatswords like they do with dw?

I don't think they are being deceptive, but I don't think the main issue is that they want to change armor to a different set. We want to get the 5 piece/5 slot bonus from a 2 hander and have a true 5-5-2 bonus set-up like you can get from dual wielding or sword/boarding without being limited to only a handful of sets that will work in conjunction with most of the others. Not being able to do this limits sets that can be used or causes less than optimal work-arounds.

There are sets that you can use and get 5-5-2 full time, no bar swapping required.
There are sets that you can use and get 5-5-2 by bar swapping.
And then there are sets that you just can't use together and get 5-5-2 unless you dual wield and or sword/board both bars. You just can't use a 2 hander of any sort and get a 5-5-2 with certain set combinations and a 2 hander.

If I want to run 2 sets and get the 5 piece bonus from both I will. It will not stop me from doing so, but I will be unable to use a 2 hander. If I really want to use those sets though that is not going to stop me. I won't be able to use destro abilities, but it's not going to force me to use something else for armor. This has become more problematic with the emphasis on sustain and the fact that no one hand weapon returns magicka for a heavy attack. It really does have a bigger impact on magicka users and anyone that wants to run a healer.

So now, ok, if I want to utilize heavy attacks for magicka sustain I have to use a 2 hander. This limits my options. I can now go the back bar swapping route which many magicka sustain sets allow, but I may choose those same sets anyway to create the sustain I need to compete in the current meta. The difference here is now I have to micromanage my bar swapping to get these benefits that those using pure 1 handers don't have to worry about. It is more cumbersome and clunky to do so with 2 handers and bar swapping than it is in a pure 5-5-2 where it all just happens seamlessly regardless of what bar you are on.

To me, I think there are better ways to create set diversity in the field than by limiting set options based on weapon types, especially when weapon types benefit stamina classes differently than magicka classes via heavy attack stat replenishment. The only thing you create with the current system is frustration at the road blocks set wise when wanting to use 2 handers. Hand-cuffing people in this manner is not productive.

Ghost-Shot

overclocker303b14_ESO wrote: »

Because you get one set bonus for one item. A staff is one item, so you get...wait for it...one set bonus for it. Again, that's one bonus, for one set item.

Now that the math behind it has been explained, I would also like to point out that being able to wear a monster set and use two five piece sets on the front bar is really the only benefit you get for being a melee based dps. Meanwhile, if you are ranged magicka you get more dps, and the benefit of not having to stand next to bosses and deal with additional mechanics. I honestly think this setup is fine the way it is and if you are really that unhappy about it and decide to leave please let me know if I can have your stuff.

DK's are mele dps that need to use staves, why should we not get that benefit? There are also a lot of mechanics that target the farthest player from the boss, so your logic behind mele having a harder time doesn't really work.

DeHei

I ask a simply question to all:
How would you think, when magicka builds would be supported from DW and 1H+S and these weapontypes just calculated with max magicka and spelldamage (heavy attacks would bring back magicka) like they actually do with staminabuilds. Now you need to look on our side, what would you do?

I am really interested in all answers!

STEVIL

Ranger209 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

most likely one of the sets that would see less use, i never said no longer be used BTW, is clever alchemist. While it is good as a burst set for 15s increments with a longer cooldown, it would see less use in PVE sustain DPS when it could be replaced with julianos. julianos tends to give more overall DPS though less burst.

But, are you actually questioning whether folks would stop using sets they use now and switch to sets they cannot use now if the 11v12 things was changed? Please read many of the posts on this thread. the "i want to use the other sets" mantra is everywhere over and over among many of the proponents.

i take them at their word when they say they want to use the 12pc sets they currently cannot and believe they would switch to them.

Do you not? Do you think they are being deceptive when they say they want to run the 12pc sets with staves and bows and greatswords like they do with dw?

I don't think they are being deceptive, but I don't think the main issue is that they want to change armor to a different set. We want to get the 5 piece/5 slot bonus from a 2 hander and have a true 5-5-2 bonus set-up like you can get from dual wielding or sword/boarding without being limited to only a handful of sets that will work in conjunction with most of the others. Not being able to do this limits sets that can be used or causes less than optimal work-arounds.

There are sets that you can use and get 5-5-2 full time, no bar swapping required.
There are sets that you can use and get 5-5-2 by bar swapping.
And then there are sets that you just can't use together and get 5-5-2 unless you dual wield and or sword/board both bars. You just can't use a 2 hander of any sort and get a 5-5-2 with certain set combinations and a 2 hander.

If I want to run 2 sets and get the 5 piece bonus from both I will. It will not stop me from doing so, but I will be unable to use a 2 hander. If I really want to use those sets though that is not going to stop me. I won't be able to use destro abilities, but it's not going to force me to use something else for armor. This has become more problematic with the emphasis on sustain and the fact that no one hand weapon returns magicka for a heavy attack. It really does have a bigger impact on magicka users and anyone that wants to run a healer.

So now, ok, if I want to utilize heavy attacks for magicka sustain I have to use a 2 hander. This limits my options. I can now go the back bar swapping route which many magicka sustain sets allow, but I may choose those same sets anyway to create the sustain I need to compete in the current meta. The difference here is now I have to micromanage my bar swapping to get these benefits that those using pure 1 handers don't have to worry about. It is more cumbersome and clunky to do so with 2 handers and bar swapping than it is in a pure 5-5-2 where it all just happens seamlessly regardless of what bar you are on.

To me, I think there are better ways to create set diversity in the field than by limiting set options based on weapon types, especially when weapon types benefit stamina classes differently than magicka classes via heavy attack stat replenishment. The only thing you create with the current system is frustration at the road blocks set wise when wanting to use 2 handers. Hand-cuffing people in this manner is not productive.

Maybe for you the sets outweigh the weapons and the utility of the weapons but for me in some cases and for others in some cases the weapon outweighs the sets.

To me, the bigger hindrance as a magica character is not getting the weave and sustain from the weapons, plus they have quite useful skills and passives to boot. Honestly i cannot thin of a single set combo i would rather run using 5-5-2 as a mag-whatsis so much over a 442-1/1 that i would give up the staff passives, weave and sustain gains. That math doesn't add up for me especially since bar-swapping to me in not cumbersome but a regular part of my gameplay and rotation.

But we each have or own choices to make.

But here is my question back to you - should ALL sets be altered to have magica and stamina equally reflected in their composition so that if i am a magplar and i want to run viper it spawns fire damage not poison? Shoucld thunderbug have a setting where it procs disease if my stamina is higher than my magica?

if not, why is it that my CHOICE to max stamina or magica and assign CP in various ways should limit my effectiveness when wearing certain sets if something as significant as my weapon choice should not impact it?

We will not agree obviously but i like that weapon choice plays a very significant role and that some sets are better with some weapons choices than others and that not every choices leaves the exact same options open to ou no matter what you choose.

Big choices should matter and if you get everything you want regardless of choices, they dont.

Bobby_V_Rockit

I just wish 2h was as good as DW for DPS. Seems silly to have a whole skill line effectively be redundant

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

Maybe for you the sets outweigh the weapons and the utility of the weapons but for me in some cases and for others in some cases the weapon outweighs the sets.

To me, the bigger hindrance as a magica character is not getting the weave and sustain from the weapons, plus they have quite useful skills and passives to boot. Honestly i cannot thin of a single set combo i would rather run using 5-5-2 as a mag-whatsis so much over a 442-1/1 that i would give up the staff passives, weave and sustain gains. That math doesn't add up for me especially since bar-swapping to me in not cumbersome but a regular part of my gameplay and rotation.

But we each have or own choices to make.

But here is my question back to you - should ALL sets be altered to have magica and stamina equally reflected in their composition so that if i am a magplar and i want to run viper it spawns fire damage not poison? Shoucld thunderbug have a setting where it procs disease if my stamina is higher than my magica?

if not, why is it that my CHOICE to max stamina or magica and assign CP in various ways should limit my effectiveness when wearing certain sets if something as significant as my weapon choice should not impact it?

We will not agree obviously but i like that weapon choice plays a very significant role and that some sets are better with some weapons choices than others and that not every choices leaves the exact same options open to ou no matter what you choose.

Big choices should matter and if you get everything you want regardless of choices, they dont.

The set doesn't necessarily outweigh the weapon nor the other way around, it could go either way. Normally it is dependent more on the weapon than the set, but there are sets that can get me to go the other way. The real difference, again especially for magicka builds, are the classes and class abilities themselves.

You no doubt realize you can use the same sets that you use if 2 handers were worth 2 hits in a 5 piece set bonus. I also stated that I didn't think I would necessarily change sets in some cases either so here we are in agreement.

Bar swapping itself is not cumbersome. Having to watch for certain thresholds, or wait for certain things to proc on a backbar before returning to the front bar make activating 5 pc bonuses more cumbersome than how they just happen when they happen on a dual wield weapon wearer. You don't have to pay attention to that and plan bar swaps or add bar swaps to a rotation around procing a bonus to dual wield/ s&b builds since the 5pc bonus is always on. I generally am watching opponents, my health, my dots, my buffs, and now also another thing onto that when swapping to back bar to buff or whatever I need to go back there for.

Viper is poison, thunderbug is lightning, and a 2 hand staff should have more spell damage than a pair of mauls. These are just common sense issues here although one of them in this game is not true. Your weapon choice should impact it through the weapon skill lines not because it does or does not complete a 5 pc bonus.

The problem is not everyone has to make big choices. The dual wield and s&b stamina classes have easier choices than the others. As an alternative I will offer making the 5 pc bonus into a 7 pc bonus so that no one could obtain 2 of them and a 2 piece monster bonus in the same build. That would be just as well.

Ranger209

Here's a blunt point. The people who benefit the most from the way the 5 piece bonus system works now are the people who run trials and have vMA or Master weapons. It benefits them most because they don't run 552 setups anyway since their 541 setups are better than any 552 you can get. It is another place where newer players are at a disadvantage compared to veteran players and the power gap widens between new and vet.

Since no one will give specific examples I would predict that allowing 2 handers to be worth 2 slots would increase dps by 3 to 10% over what is currently obtainable based on some of the most potent 5 piece bonus sets out there, things like necropotence, bone pirate's, viper's, etc. The ability to have these up 100% of the time with 2 handers instead of 50% of the time would bump dps somewhere in that range.

DeHei

Ranger209 wrote: »

Here's a blunt point. The people who benefit the most from the way the 5 piece bonus system works now are the people who run trials and have vMA or Master weapons. It benefits them most because they don't run 552 setups anyway since their 541 setups are better than any 552 you can get. It is another place where newer players are at a disadvantage compared to veteran players and the power gap widens between new and vet.

Since no one will give specific examples I would predict that allowing 2 handers to be worth 2 slots would increase dps by 3 to 10% over what is currently obtainable based on some of the most potent 5 piece bonus sets out there, things like necropotence, bone pirate's, viper's, etc. The ability to have these up 100% of the time with 2 handers instead of 50% of the time would bump dps somewhere in that range.

vMSA weapon- and masterweaponuser often go 5 3 2 1 pieces. 5 4 1 would really be senseless, because you waste a 5 piece and a full monstersetbonus. 5 5 1 like many healer do makes sense, but why they need too... just because they dont have another option..

When you say a 2th 5 piece bonus make 10% more damage, then you say indirectly, that staminauser have this bonus and you dont want that for magickauser?!
You really cant know how much is the difference.

I know nearly 20% of my DPS come from my light and heavyattacks from Staffs. 20% from 33k DPS (sometimes i make more, but this i can hold constant) are 6,6k DPS, when i would use a 2th 5 piece bonus over dual wield, i would miss a bit damage from weaponattacks and it would be more difficult to sustain, but i would get more skilldamage... In total with DW i would lose damage i think. This damage lose would surely be higher then a new option would give. 2H weapons would give 2slots/2 setpieces means for example i get another 5piece-300 spelldamagebonus allways active, i get a 4piecebonus and lose my vMSA-Weaponbonus.

I think the difference cant be much higher then 5%, but i dont really know. nobody know.

Rebalancing would be the keyword... 2H weapons would need a skilldamagereduction. Destroult is to strong for example and need a bigger reduction as Healingstaffskills (only the ult need a reduction i think).

Ranger209

DeHei wrote: »

When you say a 2th 5 piece bonus make 10% more damage, then you say indirectly, that staminauser have this bonus and you dont want that for magickauser?!
You really cant know how much is the difference.

I know nearly 20% of my DPS come from my light and heavyattacks from Staffs. 20% from 33k DPS (sometimes i make more, but this i can hold constant) are 6,6k DPS, when i would use a 2th 5 piece bonus over dual wield, i would miss a bit damage from weaponattacks and it would be more difficult to sustain, but i would get more skilldamage... In total with DW i would lose damage i think. This damage lose would surely be higher then a new option would give. 2H weapons would give 2slots/2 setpieces means for example i get another 5piece-300 spelldamagebonus allways active, i get a 4piecebonus and lose my vMSA-Weaponbonus.

I think the difference cant be much higher then 5%, but i dont really know. nobody know.

Rebalancing would be the keyword... 2H weapons would need a skilldamagereduction. Destroult is to strong for example and need a bigger reduction as Healingstaffskills (only the ult need a reduction i think).

I do want the bonus for magicka users and have been arguing that all along through both of your posts.
I also want them to be able to get heavy attack sustain from staffs with 2 5 piece bonuses always running without having to monitor them and bar swap to make them happen.

We really don't know how much higher dps would be which is why I am asking for specific examples so we can look at them case by case. I too believe it would be around 5 % which is why I stated 3% to 10%, somewhere in that range. This would only be in the worst case scenarios and only directly for that set combination. There may already be a set combination that works under the current mechanics that is still higher than a specific case by case example and thus still hasn't created a new top end build. The only thing I am arguing against you on is that I don't think this is significant enough to have to rebalance anything. If they were to implement this change and suddenly someone says now I can get 40k dps and I used to only get 38k dps well that is a 5% increase and if someone in another build is pulling 42k dps then it still hasn't moved the bar. Hence allowing 2 handers to count as 2 slots for the bonus hasn't overpowered anything. If it does move the bar then they need to look at rebalancing, but I don't think it will and we can't know until people try it.

DeHei

Ranger209 wrote: »

DeHei wrote: »

When you say a 2th 5 piece bonus make 10% more damage, then you say indirectly, that staminauser have this bonus and you dont want that for magickauser?!
You really cant know how much is the difference.

I know nearly 20% of my DPS come from my light and heavyattacks from Staffs. 20% from 33k DPS (sometimes i make more, but this i can hold constant) are 6,6k DPS, when i would use a 2th 5 piece bonus over dual wield, i would miss a bit damage from weaponattacks and it would be more difficult to sustain, but i would get more skilldamage... In total with DW i would lose damage i think. This damage lose would surely be higher then a new option would give. 2H weapons would give 2slots/2 setpieces means for example i get another 5piece-300 spelldamagebonus allways active, i get a 4piecebonus and lose my vMSA-Weaponbonus.

I think the difference cant be much higher then 5%, but i dont really know. nobody know.

Rebalancing would be the keyword... 2H weapons would need a skilldamagereduction. Destroult is to strong for example and need a bigger reduction as Healingstaffskills (only the ult need a reduction i think).

I do want the bonus for magicka users and have been arguing that all along through both of your posts.
I also want them to be able to get heavy attack sustain from staffs with 2 5 piece bonuses always running without having to monitor them and bar swap to make them happen.

We really don't know how much higher dps would be which is why I am asking for specific examples so we can look at them case by case. I too believe it would be around 5 % which is why I stated 3% to 10%, somewhere in that range. This would only be in the worst case scenarios and only directly for that set combination. There may already be a set combination that works under the current mechanics that is still higher than a specific case by case example and thus still hasn't created a new top end build. The only thing I am arguing against you on is that I don't think this is significant enough to have to rebalance anything. If they were to implement this change and suddenly someone says now I can get 40k dps and I used to only get 38k dps well that is a 5% increase and if someone in another build is pulling 42k dps then it still hasn't moved the bar. Hence allowing 2 handers to count as 2 slots for the bonus hasn't overpowered anything. If it does move the bar then they need to look at rebalancing, but I don't think it will and we can't know until people try it.

I totally agree. I understood you wrong.

I think nobody want, that this would bring many more then 1-2k DPS over diversity for allready experienced trial DDs. For me it would be ok, not to do more damage then before.
The bigger changes would be better sustaining, more diversity, froststafftanking in trials, healer are able to wear 5 5 2 and more theorycrafting like @Blobsky (is that he?) do.

I hope many more understand now and maybe agree it.
Notice i dont liked many changes, which allready done, here in game, but i understood later that some was needful.
I hope that ZOS will sometimes understand, that we want to speak with them over forum, youtube, ect.. We want to make changes too, when we really think, that they are needful! They should really be interested for some of our ideas, because we are the player, who want to play there game! Our Opinions should have a bit influence to the evolution of the game.

deepseamk20b14_ESO

This has been talked about for three years. Post after post. I don't think it will be changed anytime soon. I wouldn't mind if it was changed but I'm also fine with it as is.

Xvorg

Jitterbug wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

destrostaff (apart from frost) is perfectly good for dmg already, if they did this id hope it would just be for melee 2h and possibly bow.

Its not about being good it's about opening up the build system. Its like a bunch of people in this thread dont WANT to understand the OP.

Jitter, the problem goes beyond understanding what he means. It has to do with the implications of that decision. Currently the possibility of wearin 12 pcs is a stam based decision (magicka can too, but it's subpar). Staves counting as 2 pcs implies no reason to go stam.

I would like that change to happen because it will benefit me a lot, but I would be a liar if I say that the change is not going to affect the game, for the sole reason it will.

DeHei

Xvorg wrote: »

Jitterbug wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

destrostaff (apart from frost) is perfectly good for dmg already, if they did this id hope it would just be for melee 2h and possibly bow.

Its not about being good it's about opening up the build system. Its like a bunch of people in this thread dont WANT to understand the OP.

Jitter, the problem goes beyond understanding what he means. It has to do with the implications of that decision. Currently the possibility of wearin 12 pcs is a stam based decision (magicka can too, but it's subpar). Staves counting as 2 pcs implies no reason to go stam.

I would like that change to happen because it will benefit me a lot, but I would be a liar if I say that the change is not going to affect the game, for the sole reason it will.

Stam- and Magickaplaystyle are much different to each other. Some really love Magicka and some really love Staminaplaystyle. I dont think anybody would switch after this would be changed. When i use Magicka, i think in about playing a kind of Gandalf, Merlin or guys like that. When i play a Staminachar i think to play an Aragon, Lancelott or the good oldschool blackknight from Monty Pytons "knights of the coconut"

I think you understand, this will not change what anybody want to be