Sword Could Use a Small Buff (Twin Blade and Blunt)

Masel

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

Masel92 wrote: »

Just wanted to correct a couple of numbers here.

I made an excel sheet of these weapons that I actually verified with ingame testing on a dummy.

It is right that swords are definetely behind the other weapons in terms of damage, but keep in mind that their increase also applies to proc sets and monster sets, which critical chance from daggers does not. This is obviously not enough to close the gap.

Your calculation of penetration is definitely off, the maximum amount you'll get is 3.8%, with only the Base amount of 100 physical penetration. Your own penetration doesn't change the benefit, only debuffs will.

@masel92 You make a good point about swords and proc sets, daggers do nothing for damage that cannot crit. I would say that proc sets are a pretty small amount of damage for most end-game builds, maybe around 0 to 8% of DPS.

Thanks for the spreadsheet, that is certainly a useful tool.

As for Maces, against a target with 18200 armor and no debuffs, one mace reduces armor by 1820 to 16380. Considering the 100 base pen, the target initially has 18100/500 = 36.2% mitigation or 63.8% of your damage is dealt. With a mace this changes to 16280/500 = 32.56% mitigation or 67.44% of your damage is dealtt. 67.44% / 63.8% = 1.057 so the mace is a 5.7% damage increase best case.

This is much higher than your 3.8%. It is also much higher than anything a sword can offer, best case 2.5% without any CPs or buffs.

Edit: Just noticed where the difference in our values for mace DPS increase are coming from. Your spreadsheet is calculating for PVP, with mitigation % being Resistance/660. For PVE mitigation % is Resistance/500 (since enemies are considered level 50). Changing the "66" in column K of your spreadsheet to "50" should make our calculations agree. When I make that change your spreadsheet tells me 5.7% per mace.

Yeah you're right about that mace thing, brainfart on my side with that 66 thing, I know that PvE mobs are level 50, no idea why it didn't make it into the calculation. Anyway, I support your argument and hence, swords need a buff. But it's very unlikely that they're gonna notice this thread... Most of the calculations I did for the game I encountered no feedback from ZoS, so I started to not invest that much effort anymore

NiclasFridholm

Masel92 wrote: »

Just wanted to correct a couple of numbers here.

I made an excel sheet of these weapons that I actually verified with ingame testing on a dummy.

It is right that swords are definetely behind the other weapons in terms of damage, but keep in mind that their increase also applies to proc sets and monster sets, which critical chance from daggers does not. This is obviously not enough to close the gap.

Your calculation of penetration is definitely off, the maximum amount you'll get is 3.8%, with only the Base amount of 100 physical penetration. Your own penetration doesn't change the benefit, only debuffs will.

You can find the sheet to experiment here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uHlnv045iejo5WeYf0dYOXWnEEjUa0VE/view?usp=drivesdk

I'll just list likely scenarios here to show what the actual numbers are:

Awesome testing, ty!

Solariken

IMO swords can have a buff when all 2h weapons count as 2 item set pieces.

kaithuzar

Solariken wrote: »

IMO swords can have a buff when all 2h weapons count as 2 item set pieces.

Lol, I agree with a lot of your post dude but that's such a troll & unnecessary demand.
Even magic users would be rocking 2 staves & then where would we be?

Solariken

kaithuzar wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

IMO swords can have a buff when all 2h weapons count as 2 item set pieces.

Lol, I agree with a lot of your post dude but that's such a troll & unnecessary demand.
Even magic users would be rocking 2 staves & then where would we be?

Lol no @kaithuzar I meant that 2h/staff/bow should count as 2 items in a 5 piece set (because they already take up 2 slots), not that you should be able to equip 2 of those type of weapons

kaithuzar

Oh I get what you meant, but I just meant that staves would be even more powerful than they already are & no one would use anything else.

The entire post is trying to claim duel swords are the under dog/least used so give them a slight buff to even out the viability of options/playstyles

Solariken

kaithuzar wrote: »

Oh I get what you meant, but I just meant that staves would be even more powerful than they already are & no one would use anything else.

The entire post is trying to claim duel swords are the under dog/least used so give them a slight buff to even out the viability of options/playstyles

Dual swords still give a greater raw damage increase than staves. Buffing swords is fine to bring them in line with other DW types but IMO we need 2h weapons to allow for 5-5-2 front bar setups to bring them closer in line with DW. It's one of the several reasons bow suffers so terribly.

JobooAGS

Bump

Lynx7386

What if swords were changed (for both dw and 2h) to instead increase critical damage?

Qbiken

WTB Weapon-passives in werewolf form

Bladerunner1

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

For a more extreme, but still reasonable, worst case, look at a stam warden with 3 animal skills (3x2%=6%), Minor Slayer 5%, and Major Slayer 15% from War Machine. Now the sword increases damage from 166% to 168.5%, which is only a 1.5% increase.

Here's another worst case, Nightblade with the 6 second soul harvest buff, getting the major slayer buff at the same time. And yeah it's only 6 seconds and 10 seconds each but it's where they fire off as much DPS as possible.

A sword would lift damage from 180% to 182.5% for less than a 1.4% buff.