2H Light Attack Nerf?

Tempestwrath

olsborg wrote: »

With the exact same setup and dw and 2h passives unlocked, LA from 2h did 3130 dmg vs LA from dw did 3148 dmg. So in this patch dw actually passes 2h in regards to light attacks, and dw was already better at a pve perspective already. Doesnt make too much sense to me, but oh well.

Whats really concerning tho is the fact that staff light attacks deal the most dmg, more then both dw and 2h. This specially does not make any kinds of sense to me. Ranged vs melee :?: (havent tested that personally, but I have it from reliable sources)

That's along the lines of what I've seen myself and heard, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The additional attack damage for 2H is supposed to compensate for only having one single enchantment on the gear when compared to dual wielding. If we don't have that, then what's the point? Even with the higher damage on Live, 2H parses can get nowhere near DW ones. An extra set piece isn't going to fix this alone.

In increasing DW attack damage and decreasing 2H damage, adding a second set slot for two-handed weapons is like gaining back the use of one previously disabled foot and then promptly shooting the other. The gap between the two skill lines is going to grow from where it is now. That's really disappointing, since I really want to see a more viable weapon choices in PVE situations. There's absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be the case, and no reason why it has been the case for so long.

Leemado

I made a post on this with numbers comparing Light attacks to DW.. the nerf is massive, please come and see

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/408462/2h-big-nerf

ArcVelarian

Yamenstein wrote: »

Kanar wrote: »

The *** at zos have no understanding about 2hander unless their only goal is o make it be a PvP weapon only. The light attack buff (attrib scaling) was the only thing that had a chance of getting 2hander up there with DW and they decided to nerf 2h. *** nerf 2h because it's OP in PvE?

Or maybe it was nerfed because of previous scaling?

Now that 2h is considered 2 slots as well you'll see I'll see boost in damage from the fact that you can use more full sets..l

Well in that case Staves should be nerfed as well.

Derra

Daus wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

Im fine with 2h and dw being on relatively equal footing as far as light attacks go, you both need to be in melee.
Im not however, cool with staff and other ranged light attacks dealing equal or more dmg then melee weapons.

Yeah that makes no sense. Melee should always out DPS range on a stand still target. The advantage of range is the ability to contently deal damage, and be out of harms way.

The advantage of melee is not being reflectable + not having additional block bonuses + no additional traveltime (increased dodge window) working against you.

I agree that 2h should not deal less dmg than other lightattacks. They´re all weaved - they should all have the same dmg calculations. I disagree with the notion that melee should deal more dmg - melee isn´t that big of a disadvantage as people make it out to be.

Edit: I wasn´t able to confirm 2h dealing less/more dmg than staff given equal stats testing myself apart from a minimal advantage for 2h due to higher weapondmg.
Other DMG difference result most likely from different racial/class/weapon passives (ie 8% singletarget vs 5% all dmg sword etc pp).

Joy_Division

Derra wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

Im fine with 2h and dw being on relatively equal footing as far as light attacks go, you both need to be in melee.
Im not however, cool with staff and other ranged light attacks dealing equal or more dmg then melee weapons.

Yeah that makes no sense. Melee should always out DPS range on a stand still target. The advantage of range is the ability to contently deal damage, and be out of harms way.

The advantage of melee is not being reflectable + not having additional block bonuses + no additional traveltime (increased dodge window) working against you.

I agree that 2h should not deal less dmg than other lightattacks. They´re all weaved - they should all have the same dmg calculations. I disagree with the notion that melee should deal more dmg - melee isn´t that big of a disadvantage as people make it out to be.

People do like to justify why they should have more power/do more damage/should not be nerfed/need to be buffed etc.

I especially love the whole melee *needs* to do more damage line. Then they show up in another thread and complain that Templar Sweps or DKS whips are doing too much damage.

Strider__Roshin

@Derra @Joy_Division

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

And Joy, you believe that Jabs a move that is a single target, an AoE and due to that undodgeable should deal equal DPS to Surprise Attack? A single target, dodgeable attack with 2 meters less range?

In real life only a stupid nation would limit its strength to that of its opponents, but in a game balance should always be strived for, and games that do it well are more enjoyable than games that are poor at it. Hence why Chess has existed for so long as a board game.

There needs to be give and take in this game which is what typically morph choices are better damage and utility. Wanting equal damage with the advantage of range and survivability is not balanced nor enjoyable.

reprosal

Started to move in the direction WoW went for Lich King. All hunters/mages/ele shamans, because melee DD was too risky and had literally no benefit over ranged.

There should always be a trade off for being melee up close and personal vs. ranged. At least they fixed some of it with cataclysm.

Joy_Division

Daus wrote: »

@Derra @Joy_Division

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

And Joy, you believe that Jabs a move that is a single target, an AoE and due to that undodgeable should deal equal DPS to Surprise Attack? A single target, dodgeable attack with 2 meters less range?

In real life only a stupid nation would limit its strength to that of its opponents, but in a game balance should always be strived for, and games that do it well are more enjoyable than games that are poor at it. Hence why Chess has existed for so long as a board game.

There needs to be give and take in this game which is what typically morph choices are better damage and utility. Wanting equal damage with the advantage of range and survivability is not balanced nor enjoyable.

I don't like going by silly formulas like melee=moar DPS! because it creates situations which like we have now, where stam NBs and stam warden can completely obliterate their targets. 5 meter range restrictions? No. Gap closers are 20 meters and NB cloak/teleport make that characterization nonsensical.

Jabs sucks. Ask any templar, stam or magicka. It can't hit a moving target (i.e melee stamina builds who play correctly). What you're telling me is SOME melee builds deserve to have moar damage, but those other melee builds using skills that sound really awesome but you are mischaracterizing don't. Can we get any more arbitrary?

And then we have the idiocy that in PvE, mag templars and mag DKs can't DPS and are noncompetitive because of said arbitrariness.

These forums are not about give and take. It's all about give my spec buffs and take away from the specs I don't play. When NBs can't just vanish at the press of the button and a stam warden can;t spam Crit rush on me, then let's have a conversation about how tough stam melee has it, because those two specs are really struggling out there in cyrodiil and BGs.

Gilvoth

Finally an awesome move.
i not only agree with this but i hope they decide to lower that 2 Hander mace and sword even more allowing for people to actually be able to fight and not DIE in 2 seconds like we have been now for YEARS.

now we can actually have real PvP fights instead of instant deaths.

and no im not trolling
and no im not joking.

thank you zenimax for fixing it.

people dying in 2 seconds is seriously getting really really Old.
i hope this fixes the problem.

mr_wazzabi

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

Finally an awesome move.
i not only agree with this but i hope they decide to lower that 2 Hander mace and sword even more allowing for people to actually be able to fight and not DIE in 2 seconds like we have been now for YEARS.

now we can actually have real PvP fights instead of instant deaths.

and no im not trolling
and no im not joking.

thank you zenimax for fixing it.

people dying in 2 seconds is seriously getting really really Old.
i hope this fixes the problem.

How does nerfing light attacks change getting ganked by a stam nb? Light attacks barely register on your death log.

Gilvoth

i was reffering to Heavy attack coupled with other skills

enmass and in under 2 seconds.

TheYKcid

The combo you describe is literally impossible to land in under 2 seconds, since a 2H heavy attack already takes longer than that to charge.

If your health was in burst range, and you neglected to heal/mitigate/counterpressure/cloak during the ten million years it took your opponent to wind-up their 2H heavy attack...

then a nerf to weave damage isn't going to help you, bud.

Derra

Daus wrote: »

@Derra

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

For PvP I believe that the advantage of range in eso is not existent to the point where it would warrant lightattacks for melee weapons to deal more damage than range attacks.
I believe the toolkits of range vs melee in total also do not justify a disparity in light or heavyattack dmg for melee/range for most cases.
Range advantage over melee is virtually nonexistant in eso for pvp apart from huge zerg fights - but balance is generally less important in those scenarios (and on top of that i´ve not played a game that managed to overcome melee vs range disparity in this scenario).
As a result when looking at melee vs range i look at small encounters and duels.
Having played both there - no i do not think melee is disadvantaged here and thus does not need higher hitting lightattacks for arbitrairy unbalanceable zerg reasons.

For PvE I believe melee overall dps should be higher because it´s harder to execute usually. This is generally the case currently in the game.

Ragnaroek93

This nerf is unnecessary. Magicka gets buffed pretty much (while they don't need since they can already cheese everything down easily with Defile builds), why do they need to nerf stam at the same time on top of that? If anything, dual wield should get buffed to be able to match 2h light attacks, not the other way around.

Magicka should get a magicka based meele skill line to have viable options for meele.

Derra

Ragnaroek93 wrote: »

instead of giving staffs the highest light attack damage, this makes no sense since meele light attacks can get denied by ground AoE effects, roots etc most of the time.

dmg difference is nonexistent between 2h + staff for me outside of passives - combined with only looking at one side of the coin comfortably not mentioning that my lightattacks don´t get denied by: absorb, reflect, traveltimedodge and deal more dmg vs the most popular defensive weaponset.

Bodycounter

In my opinion Zenimax was cautious with 2H because they count as two parts of a set now. It‘s hard to tell how much of an impact this has especially in PvP. These numbers can be adjusted pretty easily afterwards. Im not really sure how hard people can hit with a destruction staff now.

Ragnaroek93

Derra wrote: »

Ragnaroek93 wrote: »

instead of giving staffs the highest light attack damage, this makes no sense since meele light attacks can get denied by ground AoE effects, roots etc most of the time.

dmg difference is nonexistent between 2h + staff for me outside of passives - combined with only looking at one side of the coin comfortably not mentioning that my lightattacks don´t get denied by: absorb, reflect, traveltimedodge and deal more dmg vs the most popular defensive weaponset.

Tested on PTS, something is wrong with light attacks in general. Not sure what is wrong, but the damage on the same toon with the same gear seems to change on a PTS dummy.

Joy_Division

Daus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

@Derra @Joy_Division

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

And Joy, you believe that Jabs a move that is a single target, an AoE and due to that undodgeable should deal equal DPS to Surprise Attack? A single target, dodgeable attack with 2 meters less range?

In real life only a stupid nation would limit its strength to that of its opponents, but in a game balance should always be strived for, and games that do it well are more enjoyable than games that are poor at it. Hence why Chess has existed for so long as a board game.

There needs to be give and take in this game which is what typically morph choices are better damage and utility. Wanting equal damage with the advantage of range and survivability is not balanced nor enjoyable.

I don't like going by silly formulas like melee=moar DPS! because it creates situations which like we have now, where stam NBs and stam warden can completely obliterate their targets. 5 meter range restrictions? No. Gap closers are 20 meters and NB cloak/teleport make that characterization nonsensical.

Jabs sucks. Ask any templar, stam or magicka. It can't hit a moving target (i.e melee stamina builds who play correctly). What you're telling me is SOME melee builds deserve to have moar damage, but those other melee builds using skills that sound really awesome but you are mischaracterizing don't. Can we get any more arbitrary?

And then we have the idiocy that in PvE, mag templars and mag DKs can't DPS and are noncompetitive because of said arbitrariness.

These forums are not about give and take. It's all about give my spec buffs and take away from the specs I don't play. When NBs can't just vanish at the press of the button and a stam warden can;t spam Crit rush on me, then let's have a conversation about how tough stam melee has it, because those two specs are really struggling out there in cyrodiil and BGs.

You just sound bitter honestly. Maybe you should take a break from the game. Normally I would offer you help about how to combat certain play styles but the Templar is the only class I don't enjoy playing so I'm afraid I can't help you there. Invisibility is pretty easy to deal with; especially with a Templar. Whenever I did play with my stamplar back in the day Nightblades could not successfully cloak due to how aggressive I was with jabs, and if I'm looking for one that's currently invisible then a detection pot completely deletes their means of survivability. Other than a Stam sorc I would say Templars make great counters to Nightblades.

But yeah I doubt you wanted my feedback, but I gave it in case you find it helpful.

I may be bitter, but at least I have the courtesy of actually addressing your arguments.

Tell me, how does a detect pot "completely delete" teleport, Rally, dodge roll, shuffle, and Vigor, let alone the offensive burst a NB has?

Teleport strike does a great job closing gaps, but snares (which maplars have plenty of) will cause them to have to repeatedly spam it in order to close distance. Teleport strike neither hits hard nor is inexpensive. If they have to use this strategy you'll win easily. Rally is only a burst heal once every 15 seconds unlike BoL so that's an easy one to plan your burst around. Dodge rolling is easily combatted by CC+Burst. Honestly these are the easiest stamblades to deal with unless you're 1vXing. Shuffle is stupid expensive so just reapply snares every 4 seconds and you'll be good. Vigor is a strong HoT, but as a magplar you can easily destroy it with a Dark Flare following a CC. Or back bar a charged resto with a disease glyph. A Nightblades burst is dependent on incap like a crutch. If you can survive the initial burst the rest is smooth sailing.

So, it doesn't. At least this time you didn;t just resort to ad hominem tactics by making unnecessary snide remarks about my state of mind that have nothing to do with the argument. But what you typed has nothing to do with it being ok that melee magicka Dks and magplars as noncompetitive in PvE or how preventing say a stam Warden from gap-closing over 5 meters away.

Strider__Roshin

Derra wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

@Derra

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

For PvP I believe that the advantage of range in eso is not existent to the point where it would warrant lightattacks for melee weapons to deal more damage than range attacks.
I believe the toolkits of range vs melee in total also do not justify a disparity in light or heavyattack dmg for melee/range for most cases.
Range advantage over melee is virtually nonexistant in eso for pvp apart from huge zerg fights - but balance is generally less important in those scenarios (and on top of that i´ve not played a game that managed to overcome melee vs range disparity in this scenario).
As a result when looking at melee vs range i look at small encounters and duels.
Having played both there - no i do not think melee is disadvantaged here and thus does not need higher hitting lightattacks for arbitrairy unbalanceable zerg reasons.

For PvE I believe melee overall dps should be higher because it´s harder to execute usually. This is generally the case currently in the game.

Regardless of the context, it will always be easier to kite and consistently damage when playing with a range build. Gap closers give melee a fighting chance otherwise it would be pointless to bring anything other than a range build in PvP. So yes, melee should always have higher damage capabilities. To what degree is the question.

PhoenixGrey

Daus wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

Im fine with 2h and dw being on relatively equal footing as far as light attacks go, you both need to be in melee.
Im not however, cool with staff and other ranged light attacks dealing equal or more dmg then melee weapons.

Yeah that makes no sense. Melee should always out DPS range on a stand still target. The advantage of range is the ability to contently deal damage, and be out of harms way.

This is bad reasoning. Most ranged projectiles can be dodged, reflected or absorbed as long as you keep your defences up. I feel it should be the other way around.

Mystrius_Archaion

This discussion of ranged versus melee is pointless in this game.

1) We have action assisted targeting but it's still not like a first person shooter or a true tab-target game.

2) Enemies and players have been given several ways to catch up to their targets. "Kiting" is useless and actually detrimental to group play as it pulls enemies out of the ground area of effect abilities.

3) everybody can be as defensive as everybody else even if they are ranged or melee by design of this game allowing all armor types to work and damage shield abilities on top.


This game would need a complete redesign to balance with melee being stronger for increased risk, but right now melee is just expected to roll dodge or back away when needed and go back in after.
A good example of this design where both are meant to be similar capabilities is the Thrall Cove world boss in Hew's Bane where there is a safe circle within the big hurricane the boss summons periodically. It keeps melee safe. The boss uses a fear to make you run out to start, but if you break it and go back quick you will be safe to dps more.

Derra

Daus wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

@Derra

So you two believe that a play style that has 28 meter range, out of harms way of the majority of attacks, and can continue DPSing a moving target should deal equal DPS with a play style that is restricted to 5 meters, more vulnerable to damage, and has to chase fleeing opponents?

For PvP I believe that the advantage of range in eso is not existent to the point where it would warrant lightattacks for melee weapons to deal more damage than range attacks.
I believe the toolkits of range vs melee in total also do not justify a disparity in light or heavyattack dmg for melee/range for most cases.
Range advantage over melee is virtually nonexistant in eso for pvp apart from huge zerg fights - but balance is generally less important in those scenarios (and on top of that i´ve not played a game that managed to overcome melee vs range disparity in this scenario).
As a result when looking at melee vs range i look at small encounters and duels.
Having played both there - no i do not think melee is disadvantaged here and thus does not need higher hitting lightattacks for arbitrairy unbalanceable zerg reasons.

For PvE I believe melee overall dps should be higher because it´s harder to execute usually. This is generally the case currently in the game.

Regardless of the context, it will always be easier to kite and consistently damage when playing with a range build. Gap closers give melee a fighting chance otherwise it would be pointless to bring anything other than a range build in PvP. So yes, melee should always have higher damage capabilities. To what degree is the question.

Yet the argument is that it´s also easier to defend against this constant range dmg.
Apart from that only sorc has the possibility to reliably get out of melee range at all.

It all depends on numbers involved as those tend to favor range over melee at a certain point - otherwise i don´t agree with your reasoning due to how gapclosers in eso work and how melee trains generally offer better survivability due to the targetting system.

mr_wazzabi

Guys, we're getting slightly off topic here in the ranged vs melee debate.

I think almost everyone can agree that 2H having the weakest light attack in the game is unjustified as it kills viability in pve and has a minimal outcome in balancing pvp

Tempestwrath

mr_wazzabi wrote: »

Guys, we're getting slightly off topic here in the ranged vs melee debate.

I think almost everyone can agree that 2H having the weakest light attack in the game is unjustified as it kills viability in pve and has a minimal outcome in balancing pvp

I can agree with that 100%. Not only is it unjustified and trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it's kind of silly that the biggest weapons in the game swing for the least amount of damage of all weapons in the game.

Leemado

Tempestwrath wrote: »

mr_wazzabi wrote: »

Guys, we're getting slightly off topic here in the ranged vs melee debate.

I think almost everyone can agree that 2H having the weakest light attack in the game is unjustified as it kills viability in pve and has a minimal outcome in balancing pvp

I can agree with that 100%. Not only is it unjustified and trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it's kind of silly that the biggest weapons in the game swing for the least amount of damage of all weapons in the game.

This.
Let's no go out off topic or it will hurt OP's point.
as of now on PTS 2H is not only the weapon that does the less LA damage but also the slowest one, resulting in a massive DPS loss as if it weren't already underperforming. Please can we get a response by ZOS on this? @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Wrobel

Bladerunner1

I compared a sharpened maul with a berserker enchant on live and on PTS without the brutality buffs active. The PTS light attacks were 2% stronger. It would have been less with major brutality active, but it's probably a small drop or it depends a lot on how much weapon damage is stacked on live.

Dual wield buffed light attacks on the other hand were averaging 30% stronger on PTS, just enough to offset whatever was gained on the 2H build running with 5/5/2/1. 2H DPS parses are up a lot because of bow light attacks and bloodthirsty, but the PVE gap between DW and 2H is still about the same.

ZOS_Mika

We have recently removed several insulting and non-constructive posts from this thread. Please ensure that this discussion remains civil and constructive. Thank you for your understanding.

mr_wazzabi

ZOS_MikaS wrote: »

We have recently removed several insulting and non-constructive posts from this thread. Please ensure that this discussion remains civil and constructive. Thank you for your understanding.

@zos_mikas can you tell us if the devs are considering our request and would they be willing to explain their reasoning for the nerf?

It's completely unjustified.

DuskMarine

mr_wazzabi wrote: »

ZOS_MikaS wrote: »

We have recently removed several insulting and non-constructive posts from this thread. Please ensure that this discussion remains civil and constructive. Thank you for your understanding.

@zos_mikas can you tell us if the devs are considering our request and would they be willing to explain their reasoning for the nerf?

It's completely unjustified.

basically zos did it cause they felt like it we have to deal with it

lucky_Sage

Daus wrote: »

NyassaV wrote: »

Stam is sorta over preforming in PvP I guess this is one way they wanted to nerf it? It's sorta fair but at the same time not totally needed?

I don't see how Stam is over performing honestly. When it comes to dueling, on the PTS magDKs are dominating. When it comes to group PvP once again magDKs are the damage king, and right up there with it you have magplars keeping the team alive. The whole stamina is OP thing is something I only see on the forums, but not in the game itself. People also say that 40% of BGs are Nightblades yet you're lucky to see more than 2 in a match out of all 3 teams.

what changed to help magdk I n group pvp nothing there sustain buff doesn't change group worth now there dmg got a little better. roots arnt going to be stronger unless everyone goes magicka again but I don't see that. dueling shouldn't matter in balance its dumb when people change cp and poisons to what there fighting.