Update on "We're Looking into it" for 2H Weapons/Staves Counting for 2 Slots?

devilsTear

If a staff is a 2handed weapon why do I only use one hand to wield it?
Imo 2 handed should count as 2 pieces too, like bow gets a quiver, 2h gets a buckler and staves get a rune stone or something like that.

Strider__Roshin

Ranger209 wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

craftycarper73 wrote: »

CavalryPK wrote: »

Kanar wrote: »

PFft.. if 2 hand weapon is a single weapon then why do you need to hands to wield it. bwahahahaha

you actually use 1 hand to wield and fire a stave, check it out and be thankful you learned something.

That's a great point. Only 2H weapons and the bow should count as a 2 piece then. We'll keep the staff as a 1 piece

My Nord could wield (2x) 2 handers, game just won't let him. Puny milk drinkers...

W2B Twin Greatswords please.

https://youtu.be/zWlYm5nbMYE

Joy_Division

Vapirko wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Kanar wrote: »

Look, I use 2h/bow in both PvE and PvP and I feel the pain of sacrificing a monster 2pc bonus for 2 5pc set bonuses. But, stop asking for this; it's a bad idea. A 2h weapon is A SINGLE WEAPON. Not two items. If they give you this then they are going to nerf those weapon lines; or they are going to make 2 DW weapons count as a single set item, ala the dk stone fist "buff" where they nerfed petrify down to 8m.

If one of these weapon lines is underperforming in some area then it should be addressed specifically with ability buffs.

Yes, a 2h weapon is A SINGLE WEAPON, thank you for screaming at me.

Now, why does pair of swords or axes count for two items but not a pair of gloves or boots? I mean if we are so bent on counting the number of items, perhaps we ought to be consistent.

And I'm still not sure why exactly a belt should count as item but not underwear (must this item of clothing be seen?) or say suspenders (must this item of clothing be considered fashionable to be eligible as a set bonus?)

Why aren't quiver/arrows considered items? I mean, the Bow and Arrow are two items (see that, bow and arrow), but somehow it counts as one item set. What's that, it's part of a single weapon system? OK, fine, then why is a sword and shield count separately as it's also part of a single weapon system?

Trying to recognize logic or rationale in ZoS's system is futile because it's anything but. If people like the system, that's fine, but can they please come up with better rationale to defend it because what it usually boils down to is an arbitrary defense of the status quo simply because that's how it has been

Come on mate, you’re a talented player you should know that counting 2H wpns as two slots would make them OP and then dw wpns would need a buff and so on. 2H wpns do just fine as they are in both pve and pve. In fact the only wpn set that isn’t doing fine is dw in pvp where it’s only good under very specific circumstances unlike other weapons.

I don;t think it's that simple.

While I do think that specifically two-handed weapons (i.e. maul, battle-axe, and greatsword) are probably in a good place, bows are not, and neither is resto staff (the ultimate is OP, the weapon itself is terrible). Destro staff is also meh, only the ultimate and the VMA bonus for PVE are making it perform up to par.

And sword and board is over-performing partly because it does gain two slots whereas most DPS options are losing that one slot.

GrigorijMalahevich

Logic and common sense tells is that 2H items must be counted as two items from sets...

There are comments that mention that vMA and vDSA weapons will become worse - c'mon... vMA and vDSA weapons are mostly used on backbar anyway. vMA s&b is useless and dual wield (with s&b) are already a two item sets...

TheNuminous1

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

Fully support the idea of any 2 handed weapon counting as 2 set pieces. It fills 2 of you 12 gear slots on your character window.

With dual wield or sword and shield you can use any 2 5-piece sets, then choose either a monster set or a weapon set (Maelstrom, master, asylum). This works fine since a good weapon set is about as powerful as a good monster set.

With and 2 handed weapon this choice is taken away. No 1-piece monster helm is as effective as a 1-piece weapon set (Maelstrom, Master, Asylum). This is what reduces build diversity, and why monster sets are rarely used on staff, bow, healing, or greatsword builds.

this exactly how i see it. the only people that get to use 5 5 2 are sword and board and duelwield builds.
healers dont use em. all staff users are forgoing them over wearing just 1piece moster. bow builds twohander builds. nobody gets to take advantagevof all these awesome monstersets anymore. but if two handed weapons counted as two sets it would solve all of that.

STEVIL

danno8 wrote: »

Once again I will bring up the example of Guild Wars 2. 2-handed items at release only counted as one piece for sets, then a year later they switched it to 2 pieces.

The forums there were filled with the same arguments of "the game will break", "those weapons will become OP", "it will kill diversity", on and on.

None of it happened. It actually helped diversity since you had more possible combinations of gear, and the game balance didn't get destroyed.

If it means they have to nerf the 8% bonus damage on destro staves, and the final passive in 2H that mirrors the DW one to bring those down a touch, then that's fine with me.

no comment on guild wars but speaking from ESo perspective - " diversity since you had more possible combinations of gear, " has not generally proven true as an element in increasing actual "diversity in play" for ESO... new sets and thus new set combos get added zone after zone and so on but we still see the same basic number of combos being used - all that happens is when a new "top 20ish performing" come out of the math-furnace some of the old "top 20ish performing" get replaced. For those not caring about "top 20ish performing" there are already a gazillion combos but... we aint really seeing that as tons of diversity in actual play.

As each zone/patch adds "more possible combos" what we see is a significant increase in the "number of combos not played."

Also, if you look back at these threads, the more frequent "diversity" request is to be able to get the "same 552" builds as the others are wearing - most common was to get the bursty proc-proc-proc combo but some others as well out of the "top 20ish"

Out of my 14 characters, 10 use 11pc sets exclusively, 2 use 12pc exclusively and 2 are mixed (12pc bar swap to 11pc bar).

The 11pc chars are outfitted with different sets that serve 11pc swap-n-pop builds than the 12pc builds are. that is actual in play diversity.

Now, a proposal to add a 2pc magica weapon set with melee range is offered up to give magica a magica-return 12pc option and melee ranged DPS, i would not object to that.

Vizier

While I personally would like to be able to take advantage of this because I like the idea of running 5/5/2 with a two handed, I just don't see it being a good thing for PvP. Ranged already has an advantage with ease of applying pressure and the Two Handed Melee weapons do extreme burst damage compared to anything else in the game. Making them more effective seems a little overkill so I'm OK with the current design.

Maryal

Mr. Grumpy duckling, or dumpling, or whatever:

What you want is for your 3 proc sets to do your damage for you while you pew pew from a safe distance away .... pffft, what a sissy. Yes, you heard me right ... I said sissy!

Man-up! Loose those yellow-bellied chicken under-feathers! If you want to use 3 proc sets, go melee ... yes, melee. See your enemy face to face, stare him/her in the eyes. Learn to stand on your own two feet and enjoy the dance of the fight .

What YOU are asking ZOS to do is to give you a way to play this game that is very low risk to you, while at the same time netting you very high rewards. While that might sound like fun to you, it is NOT good for this game, not in the short run, not in the long run.

If you want high rewards, then engage in high risk combat ..... go DW MELEE / SnB MELEE

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

no comment on guild wars but speaking from ESo perspective - " diversity since you had more possible combinations of gear, " has not generally proven true as an element in increasing actual "diversity in play" for ESO... new sets and thus new set combos get added zone after zone and so on but we still see the same basic number of combos being used - all that happens is when a new "top 20ish performing" come out of the math-furnace some of the old "top 20ish performing" get replaced. For those not caring about "top 20ish performing" there are already a gazillion combos but... we aint really seeing that as tons of diversity in actual play.

As each zone/patch adds "more possible combos" what we see is a significant increase in the "number of combos not played."

Also, if you look back at these threads, the more frequent "diversity" request is to be able to get the "same 552" builds as the others are wearing - most common was to get the bursty proc-proc-proc combo but some others as well out of the "top 20ish"

Out of my 14 characters, 10 use 11pc sets exclusively, 2 use 12pc exclusively and 2 are mixed (12pc bar swap to 11pc bar).

The 11pc chars are outfitted with different sets that serve 11pc swap-n-pop builds than the 12pc builds are. that is actual in play diversity.

Now, a proposal to add a 2pc magica weapon set with melee range is offered up to give magica a magica-return 12pc option and melee ranged DPS, i would not object to that.

So just out of curiosity, if all 2 handers counted as 2 pieces toward a 5 piece bonus how would you do your 14 characters differently, and why? Also how many of those 14 characters use vMA or Master weapons? Again just curious more than anything.

STEVIL

Ranger209 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

no comment on guild wars but speaking from ESo perspective - " diversity since you had more possible combinations of gear, " has not generally proven true as an element in increasing actual "diversity in play" for ESO... new sets and thus new set combos get added zone after zone and so on but we still see the same basic number of combos being used - all that happens is when a new "top 20ish performing" come out of the math-furnace some of the old "top 20ish performing" get replaced. For those not caring about "top 20ish performing" there are already a gazillion combos but... we aint really seeing that as tons of diversity in actual play.

As each zone/patch adds "more possible combos" what we see is a significant increase in the "number of combos not played."

Also, if you look back at these threads, the more frequent "diversity" request is to be able to get the "same 552" builds as the others are wearing - most common was to get the bursty proc-proc-proc combo but some others as well out of the "top 20ish"

Out of my 14 characters, 10 use 11pc sets exclusively, 2 use 12pc exclusively and 2 are mixed (12pc bar swap to 11pc bar).

The 11pc chars are outfitted with different sets that serve 11pc swap-n-pop builds than the 12pc builds are. that is actual in play diversity.

Now, a proposal to add a 2pc magica weapon set with melee range is offered up to give magica a magica-return 12pc option and melee ranged DPS, i would not object to that.

So just out of curiosity, if all 2 handers counted as 2 pieces toward a 5 piece bonus how would you do your 14 characters differently, and why? Also how many of those 14 characters use vMA or Master weapons? Again just curious more than anything.

The whole 2pc vs one piece goes out the window with maelstrom, master etc for the most part since they would not be included in that transition.

As for the changes - its simple, i would be revisiting the builds across the board.

Right now, for 11pc builds i draw from combos emphasizing "cooldown" backbar sets and either triggered or constant front sets.

Example: Spinners or sorrow front bar with warlock/assassins/lich/acuity etc - basically any backbar set which runs for a time on a good fairly reliable trigger. the better options are ones with a cooldown that is similar to or can be similar to rebuff times. the shorter or less relaible the trigger the worse.

Example: Spriggans front bar with witchman backbar - among others.

i even had Morkuldin on some backbar iirc but thats not a char i have run in a while.

Clever alchemist is also good backbar.

Were i to get a free 12th piece for all, the focus would shift a bit more to the "constant" sets and doubling up on them.

So for sustain, instead of witchman or warlock or lich - look more towards the constant sustain sets like say seducer or magnus or . For damage look more towards doubling up on constant gains like say sorrow plus spinner or sorrow and julianos.

This of course does not even begin to look at the multi-proc combos mentioned above by others but i am not a fan of the triple proc sets myself however i am confident they are a desired goal for some of the ones pushing for this change based on observations i have made.

But the key is that you can do fairly easily now - work in 5-5-2-ish combos getting multiple 5 pc set bonuses but not ALL and not ALL-AT-ONCE.

But net result of the change **for me** would be more shift toward constant sets in combo and that is much more similar to the characters with 12pc builds that i run.

Right now, 11pc and 12pc have different requirements for builds because they are treated differently for counts - jusr one aspect - and removing that means... less reason to do things differently.

However, for everyone worried about how incredibly difficult it is to balance out 12 pc sets 5 pc bonus, how about this counter proposal:

Only allow primary hand pieces to count as "set bonus" so that all builds are 11pc builds.


Now the alleged horrific balance difficulty is removed and only two weapon lines need changing - not three.

Seems to resolve the issue with less work.

that good for everybody?

I mean, its not all about getting the already strong 2H PVP burst to combined with three proc sets, right?


NOTE: i would not like the alternative proposal for the exact same reasons i don't like setting all builds to 12.

I just find it amusing that all the 11v12 cannot balance crowd seems to always fall on the "so give 2h 12" side of the balance choice.

STEVIL

Vizier wrote: »

While I personally would like to be able to take advantage of this because I like the idea of running 5/5/2 with a two handed, I just don't see it being a good thing for PvP. Ranged already has an advantage with ease of applying pressure and the Two Handed Melee weapons do extreme burst damage compared to anything else in the game. Making them more effective seems a little overkill so I'm OK with the current design.

if they make the change in set counts, go for only counting one weapon for DW and SnB so that all sets go to 11pc.

then no uptick in power for already potent issues like you bring up.

Op issue solved.

You're Welcome.

or did none of the "set count balance" crowd ever think they might take away the 12th bonus for DW/SnB cuz you know they see how much ZoS prefers buffs to nerfs with major changes????

idk

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

How's the investigation going, ZOS? I would love to be able to use a bow and be able to play with this fun 5-5-2 build:

Maw of the Infernal (2)
Defiler (5)
Morkuldin (5)

Because Maw and Morkuldin require light/heavy attacks to proc, it means I have to get up close into melee range and whack away with melee weapons to activate Morkuldin (because I can only slot 4 pieces on my bow bar).

In a manner they have already made a change. Not weapons like vMA, Master and the new Asylum DW weapons require two to be equipped to gain the "set bonus".

Not sure if this is the end of their consideration.

GrumpyDuckling

Maryal wrote: »

Mr. Grumpy duckling, or dumpling, or whatever:

What you want is for your 3 proc sets to do your damage for you while you pew pew from a safe distance away .... pffft, what a sissy. Yes, you heard me right ... I said sissy!

Man-up! Loose those yellow-bellied chicken under-feathers! If you want to use 3 proc sets, go melee ... yes, melee. See your enemy face to face, stare him/her in the eyes. Learn to stand on your own two feet and enjoy the dance of the fight .

What YOU are asking ZOS to do is to give you a way to play this game that is very low risk to you, while at the same time netting you very high rewards. While that might sound like fun to you, it is NOT good for this game, not in the short run, not in the long run.

If you want high rewards, then engage in high risk combat ..... go DW MELEE / SnB MELEE

Haha worry not. My damage won't be very good on a bow/bow 3-pet set build, compared to my 5 Spriggan's, 3 Agility, 1 Kra'gh, 1 Velidreth, 2 Maelstrom Daggers, and 1 Maelstrom Bow build. I assure you of that.

But, it would be fun to have a bunch of minions running around for overworld questing. And maybe some rare PVP scenarios where I want to toy with an enemy without having enough firepower to kill them.

SugaComa

Precise on a one handed sword is half that if precise on a 2 handed so in essence they are already making it count as two

It wouldn't be hard to let it count as a two piece provided it was paired with minimum of one other item

So you wouldn't get the two piece bonus for just one two handed weapon but pair it with a second item you would get 2 and three piece.

SirMewser

Never going to happen, as if ZoS actually thinks this is something they are concerned about.
Not saying there is no problem, something needs to change, it's rather selfish to say that magic players don't deserve an option between a 2H and 1H weapon (which there isn't) with an argument about nerfs or balance, well, balance isn't ever going to happen so the only option is to leave it as nothing? No, that's nonsense.

Reading some of these comment, people talk like they don't know the development history of this game yet proceed to say irrational things that contradict with their argument. Stop being two dimensional, accept failure or devastation and just live on.

If you actually care about this game you would want both development and fixes/balance.

ZeroXFF

Ice staff tanks would actually become viable if this were to happen. It's literally the only thing holding me back from using an ice staff in the "serious" tanking setups on my templar. It would allow templar tanks to permablock the way DKs and wardens can. That would not only increase build diversity of individual characters, but also the diversity of group setups for the harder content.

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

The whole 2pc vs one piece goes out the window with maelstrom, master etc for the most part since they would not be included in that transition.

As for the changes - its simple, i would be revisiting the builds across the board.

Right now, for 11pc builds i draw from combos emphasizing "cooldown" backbar sets and either triggered or constant front sets.

Example: Spinners or sorrow front bar with warlock/assassins/lich/acuity etc - basically any backbar set which runs for a time on a good fairly reliable trigger. the better options are ones with a cooldown that is similar to or can be similar to rebuff times. the shorter or less relaible the trigger the worse.

Example: Spriggans front bar with witchman backbar - among others.

i even had Morkuldin on some backbar iirc but thats not a char i have run in a while.

Clever alchemist is also good backbar.

Were i to get a free 12th piece for all, the focus would shift a bit more to the "constant" sets and doubling up on them.

So for sustain, instead of witchman or warlock or lich - look more towards the constant sustain sets like say seducer or magnus or . For damage look more towards doubling up on constant gains like say sorrow plus spinner or sorrow and julianos.

This of course does not even begin to look at the multi-proc combos mentioned above by others but i am not a fan of the triple proc sets myself however i am confident they are a desired goal for some of the ones pushing for this change based on observations i have made.

But the key is that you can do fairly easily now - work in 5-5-2-ish combos getting multiple 5 pc set bonuses but not ALL and not ALL-AT-ONCE.

But net result of the change **for me** would be more shift toward constant sets in combo and that is much more similar to the characters with 12pc builds that i run.

Right now, 11pc and 12pc have different requirements for builds because they are treated differently for counts - jusr one aspect - and removing that means... less reason to do things differently.

In your example above I might keep the lich set except now I wouldn't have to go to the back bar to get it to proc. It now would organically happen as I am applying pressure on the front bar. I would still go to my back bar for certain other things,
buffs, heals, etc. but I wouldn't have to do it to proc the set, and maybe get stuck back there if it didn't proc in a timely manner, or have to abandon the proc and go swap to front bar if it was taking too long. I also might switch to another damage set instead like spinner's. I might even bounce back and forth between them depending on what I am doing at the time, and whether I feel sustain or damage or healing buffs are more important at the time. There are some nice 5 pc. healing sets as well.

See what we did here? We created diversity. Just because you think set x is the way to go doesn't mean that I don't think set y or set z is the way to go. Not everyone is going to answer that question the same as you. The meta is the meta and certain people follow that . Their window of differentiation is small and tight. It makes no difference from a diversity standpoint to them if a 2 hander counts as 1 or 2 pieces, or maybe it does, maybe the meta now becomes more broad as well. The point being though that there will not be much diversity in those who follow the meta. There are a whole lot of people that don't follow the meta or get knee deep into the math, they play by feel. Which sets make me feel more powerful? That can change from fight to fight depending on damage vs. sustain. More choice always = more diversity because we are human and we have opinions and they vary. By limiting choice or funneling choice diversity suffers.

As far as the 3 proc sets that can be attained, well, that's a different animal. I'd rather see them assign each proc set as a certain type. For instance Type 1.DD 2. DOT 3. Healing 4. Mitigation 5. Sustain, etc. and then make it so that you can only have 1 of a given type equipped. You know how when you put a shield in the off-hand slot over a 2 hander and it puts the 2 hander back in your inventory? They could do the same thing with proc types so that if you try to equip an additional proc set of the same type one of the other pieces from the first set goes back into your inventory. Proc sets are another whole ball of snakes. I know you are a champion for diversity in builds, and I don't think the proc set thing is your biggest concern, though valid, but don't let that situation sway your opinion on whether 2 handers should count as 2 slots in a 5 slot set. There are other ways to deal with that issue independently and irregardless of the outcome of this topic.

Izaki

I hope ZOS aren't wasting their time with this nonesense...

STEVIL

Ranger209 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

The whole 2pc vs one piece goes out the window with maelstrom, master etc for the most part since they would not be included in that transition.

As for the changes - its simple, i would be revisiting the builds across the board.

Right now, for 11pc builds i draw from combos emphasizing "cooldown" backbar sets and either triggered or constant front sets.

Example: Spinners or sorrow front bar with warlock/assassins/lich/acuity etc - basically any backbar set which runs for a time on a good fairly reliable trigger. the better options are ones with a cooldown that is similar to or can be similar to rebuff times. the shorter or less relaible the trigger the worse.

Example: Spriggans front bar with witchman backbar - among others.

i even had Morkuldin on some backbar iirc but thats not a char i have run in a while.

Clever alchemist is also good backbar.

Were i to get a free 12th piece for all, the focus would shift a bit more to the "constant" sets and doubling up on them.

So for sustain, instead of witchman or warlock or lich - look more towards the constant sustain sets like say seducer or magnus or . For damage look more towards doubling up on constant gains like say sorrow plus spinner or sorrow and julianos.

This of course does not even begin to look at the multi-proc combos mentioned above by others but i am not a fan of the triple proc sets myself however i am confident they are a desired goal for some of the ones pushing for this change based on observations i have made.

But the key is that you can do fairly easily now - work in 5-5-2-ish combos getting multiple 5 pc set bonuses but not ALL and not ALL-AT-ONCE.

But net result of the change **for me** would be more shift toward constant sets in combo and that is much more similar to the characters with 12pc builds that i run.

Right now, 11pc and 12pc have different requirements for builds because they are treated differently for counts - jusr one aspect - and removing that means... less reason to do things differently.

In your example above I might keep the lich set except now I wouldn't have to go to the back bar to get it to proc. It now would organically happen as I am applying pressure on the front bar. I would still go to my back bar for certain other things,
buffs, heals, etc. but I wouldn't have to do it to proc the set, and maybe get stuck back there if it didn't proc in a timely manner, or have to abandon the proc and go swap to front bar if it was taking too long. I also might switch to another damage set instead like spinner's. I might even bounce back and forth between them depending on what I am doing at the time, and whether I feel sustain or damage or healing buffs are more important at the time. There are some nice 5 pc. healing sets as well.

See what we did here? We created diversity. Just because you think set x is the way to go doesn't mean that I don't think set y or set z is the way to go. Not everyone is going to answer that question the same as you. The meta is the meta and certain people follow that . Their window of differentiation is small and tight. It makes no difference from a diversity standpoint to them if a 2 hander counts as 1 or 2 pieces, or maybe it does, maybe the meta now becomes more broad as well. The point being though that there will not be much diversity in those who follow the meta. There are a whole lot of people that don't follow the meta or get knee deep into the math, they play by feel. Which sets make me feel more powerful? That can change from fight to fight depending on damage vs. sustain. More choice always = more diversity because we are human and we have opinions and they vary. By limiting choice or funneling choice diversity suffers.

As far as the 3 proc sets that can be attained, well, that's a different animal. I'd rather see them assign each proc set as a certain type. For instance Type 1.DD 2. DOT 3. Healing 4. Mitigation 5. Sustain, etc. and then make it so that you can only have 1 of a given type equipped. You know how when you put a shield in the off-hand slot over a 2 hander and it puts the 2 hander back in your inventory? They could do the same thing with proc types so that if you try to equip an additional proc set of the same type one of the other pieces from the first set goes back into your inventory. Proc sets are another whole ball of snakes. I know you are a champion for diversity in builds, and I don't think the proc set thing is your biggest concern, though valid, but don't let that situation sway your opinion on whether 2 handers should count as 2 slots in a 5 slot set. There are other ways to deal with that issue independently and irregardless of the outcome of this topic.

the two bolds highlight the false diversity...

making a change that results in your example where one person "keeps" a set they are wearing but their gameplay gets easier while another person switches from that to a different setup they are already running on other characters... thats not more diversity.

You stayed with the same distribution of sets used after the change. i swapped one of my "different" sets for another already being used on other characters of mine. Net result no increase in different sets being played.

Changing set counts does not change set combo diversity... all it does is maneuver a few different combos into the top 20 or so only instead of having "top 20 for 12 pc builds" and "top 20 fpr 11 pc builds" we will have one top 20 list.

lets see if we can pull, this back further - if we pulled away all classes all weapons all guild skill list all "sets" and allowed every character to build every element from ground up that would produce many many many many fold more "combos possible" but it would not result in that gain in "combos" equating to similar gains or any gains in numbers of "characters played" cuz we would wind up settling down to a single top 20...

restrictions in choices and packages to choose from drive diversity not the freedom to slam together what you want.

more "optional combos" increases the number of "unused combos" after just a little bit... and we are well past that little bit.

The train to more diversity does not run thru more sameness station!!!

Especially after the rebalancing that weapons and sets would get to make it all fit the new "all builds are 12pc" "diversity".

BTW why not instead go with 11pc for everybody? Without the "diversity killing" 5-5-2 meta (get three "end set bonuses") options get a little less absolute "everything is 5-5-2".

.

Ranger209

STEVIL wrote: »

the two bolds highlight the false diversity...

making a change that results in your example where one person "keeps" a set they are wearing but their gameplay gets easier while another person switches from that to a different setup they are already running on other characters... thats not more diversity.

You stayed with the same distribution of sets used after the change. i swapped one of my "different" sets for another already being used on other characters of mine. Net result no increase in different sets being played.

Changing set counts does not change set combo diversity... all it does is maneuver a few different combos into the top 20 or so only instead of having "top 20 for 12 pc builds" and "top 20 fpr 11 pc builds" we will have one top 20 list.

lets see if we can pull, this back further - if we pulled away all classes all weapons all guild skill list all "sets" and allowed every character to build every element from ground up that would produce many many many many fold more "combos possible" but it would not result in that gain in "combos" equating to similar gains or any gains in numbers of "characters played" cuz we would wind up settling down to a single top 20...

restrictions in choices and packages to choose from drive diversity not the freedom to slam together what you want.

more "optional combos" increases the number of "unused combos" after just a little bit... and we are well past that little bit.

The train to more diversity does not run thru more sameness station!!!

Especially after the rebalancing that weapons and sets would get to make it all fit the new "all builds are 12pc" "diversity".

BTW why not instead go with 11pc for everybody? Without the "diversity killing" 5-5-2 meta (get three "end set bonuses") options get a little less absolute "everything is 5-5-2".

If all 20 of your 11 piece builds are legit then we would would have a top 40 list. If they are not then we really don't have 2 top 20 lists. We have a top 20 and a top 10, or a top 20 and a top 5, in which case we would now have a top 25 or top 30 list. If there is little drop off in the viability of the 11 piece builds then their viability would not lessen by making them work as 12 piece builds, and if they are not viable then no one is using them now anyway and they are just more of the unused combo pile already. They are braunschweiger and head cheese, although believe it or not some people actually do use that stuff.

I have no issue with them removing weapons from the 5 piece set bonus period, nor jewelry for that matter. The 5 piece could be strictly armor. What I do have issue with, and I am an altoholic with all 5 classes in mag and all 5 classes in stam, is that I feel some of my characters are shortchanged and others are given advantages based on the weapon type that they use. This should not be. I like the way they did the asylum weapons where 2 handers get a 1 piece bonus and the one handers and sword/board combos get a 2 piece bonus. This makes sense.

STEVIL

Ranger209 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

the two bolds highlight the false diversity...

making a change that results in your example where one person "keeps" a set they are wearing but their gameplay gets easier while another person switches from that to a different setup they are already running on other characters... thats not more diversity.

You stayed with the same distribution of sets used after the change. i swapped one of my "different" sets for another already being used on other characters of mine. Net result no increase in different sets being played.

Changing set counts does not change set combo diversity... all it does is maneuver a few different combos into the top 20 or so only instead of having "top 20 for 12 pc builds" and "top 20 fpr 11 pc builds" we will have one top 20 list.

lets see if we can pull, this back further - if we pulled away all classes all weapons all guild skill list all "sets" and allowed every character to build every element from ground up that would produce many many many many fold more "combos possible" but it would not result in that gain in "combos" equating to similar gains or any gains in numbers of "characters played" cuz we would wind up settling down to a single top 20...

restrictions in choices and packages to choose from drive diversity not the freedom to slam together what you want.

more "optional combos" increases the number of "unused combos" after just a little bit... and we are well past that little bit.

The train to more diversity does not run thru more sameness station!!!

Especially after the rebalancing that weapons and sets would get to make it all fit the new "all builds are 12pc" "diversity".

BTW why not instead go with 11pc for everybody? Without the "diversity killing" 5-5-2 meta (get three "end set bonuses") options get a little less absolute "everything is 5-5-2".

If all 20 of your 11 piece builds are legit then we would would have a top 40 list. If they are not then we really don't have 2 top 20 lists. We have a top 20 and a top 10, or a top 20 and a top 5, in which case we would now have a top 25 or top 30 list. If there is little drop off in the viability of the 11 piece builds then their viability would not lessen by making them work as 12 piece builds, and if they are not viable then no one is using them now anyway and they are just more of the unused combo pile already. They are braunschweiger and head cheese, although believe it or not some people actually do use that stuff.

I have no issue with them removing weapons from the 5 piece set bonus period, nor jewelry for that matter. The 5 piece could be strictly armor. What I do have issue with, and I am an altoholic with all 5 classes in mag and all 5 classes in stam, is that I feel some of my characters are shortchanged and others are given advantages based on the weapon type that they use. This should not be. I like the way they did the asylum weapons where 2 handers get a 1 piece bonus and the one handers and sword/board combos get a 2 piece bonus. This makes sense.

i feel with all classes represented and 8 mag and six stam and amix more heavily weighted towards 11pc than 12pc that each is different, with its own advantages and disadvantages. most folks here see that the result of all-12 would be reducing some of those weapon skill trees to avoid overpowering and i myself am happy with the idea of NOT doing that - not reducing weapon differences to empower sets even more by giving the 5-5-2 the sole custody of top flight builds.

but thats just me.

deepseamk20b14_ESO

They should make it so 2 hand weapons can’t have 2 enchants. You don’t get another set piece but having a second enchant would be helpful maybe?

DeHei

We had this discussion allready months ago...

Best solution were new weapons or items for specific sets, who can be slottes together with 2H weapons and just give another setpiecebuff on this way. All other things were *** and will not be helpful to get balance...

altemriel

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

How's the investigation going, ZOS? I would love to be able to use a bow and be able to play with this fun 5-5-2 build:

Maw of the Infernal (2)
Defiler (5)
Morkuldin (5)

Because Maw and Morkuldin require light/heavy attacks to proc, it means I have to get up close into melee range and whack away with melee weapons to activate Morkuldin (because I can only slot 4 pieces on my bow bar).

that would be nice!


@ZOS_GinaBruno

Jeremy

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

How's the investigation going, ZOS? I would love to be able to use a bow and be able to play with this fun 5-5-2 build:

Maw of the Infernal (2)
Defiler (5)
Morkuldin (5)

Because Maw and Morkuldin require light/heavy attacks to proc, it means I have to get up close into melee range and whack away with melee weapons to activate Morkuldin (because I can only slot 4 pieces on my bow bar).

I've been asking for this for years so it's good to know they are at least looking into it. Because there is really no good reason that I can see or have seen asto why only one-handed-builds get to use a 5-5-2 build. It makes playing two-handed builds less interesting and fun.

GrumpyDuckling

Any update, ZOS?

ak_pvp

Lost, same with out mystery boxes.

Irylia

MY magsorc would appreciate that indirect buff as we’ve gone 4 years without a class stun.
Just an idea that I was spitballing... but what if frag could stun? I know it sounds insane but just think about it.

ADarklore

It would be nice for an update on this... it sucks that DW, SS get an extra set bonus while 2H, Staff, Bow get the shaft.

Kanar

No thanks, two handed weapons don't need an extra slot and it doesn't make sense. If a buff is needed then buff the skill lines.