templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

No I don't, which proves the point that if its mechanically the same there is no point in adding them. You'd have them bring in artists, designers, coders, and the like just to fresh code in a wand that is mechanically a dagger, create the different motif versions, bend the lore moreso than they already have, and then release it to the public because it'd be "funny"?

• If its not doing anything different it isnt worth it, in any sense of the word "worth" to do it.
• If it IS going to be doing something different like adding a new skill line, or use a preexisting one, it's going to disrupt the already chaotic balancing issues we already have. Maybe balance the skills we have first before adding more to the pile.
• If it's significantly weaker, and all it's providing is the set bonus, why wouldnt you just keep the sword and shield or dual wield swords? that circles back to it being pointless.
• If it causes more problems than it solves, which a wand solves no problems, it is again not worth it to add.

At best you could get a crown store costume for your weapon that disguises it as a wand but I doubt ZOS would even do that, as we cant even dye our weapons, let alone hide them.

Its not mechanically the same, say I'm a stam NB and I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with surprise attack, I'm hitting say a 5k heavy attack and 6k surprise attack(random numbers) now swap over to magicka, I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with concealed weapon, but only hit a 2k heavy attack and 6k concealed. Wands will allow for up close DPs (dks, templars, NBS) to maximize their DPs with light/heavy attacks. I honestly could care less about another skill line, if they make DW HA or LA scale off stam or magicka I'd be happy.

If its random numbers how do you use that as a basis? But this also brings us back to balancing. By choosing to be a mageblade, and dual wielding, you are losing out on LA/HA damage but you make up for that with set bonues, empowerment bonuses via mages guild, most of the class skills in the Nightblade skill line are magicka based(like the every popular mass hysteria), and, this is the part you really need the real math for, I regularly out DPS stam users when all I have is 3k spell damage while they sit at upwards of 5k. I find it hard to believe the ONLY difference in damage between the Surprise attack and concealed would be just the 3k damage from the LA that proceeded it.

What you're asking for is just to get a 1 handed weapon that scales off max magicka and deal magic damage. (or at the very least the option was available) ignoring the loophole its trying to avoid, why would wands need to be added to fix that? that sounds like a passive could be added or even a toggle effect if they really needed it. But as it stands now, each weapon having trade offs is good and what promotes diversity. once one of them becomes so obvious superior we'd have a bad power creep on our hands with whole skill lines going unused in both PVE and PVP.

So your basis for being against it, is that its promotes diversity? Because the way I see it people who already dual wield as magicka will become the ones who switch to wands, If anything it will provide MORE diversity as you could have even sorcs playing an up close playstyle

Volkodav wrote: »

jaburns wrote: »

Forget wands. Call them "sceptres" and make them the magical equivalent to a sword, mace, axe, or dagger.

A sceptre is to staff as sword is to 2H.

This would really improve upon Magicka Tanks (they could wield a sceptre and shield) and you'd finally be able to dual wield sceptres instead of swords.

Donzie bo bunzie.

Wands are wands.Short Staffs.Sceptres arent wood.They are usually made of metal and jewels.
Wands are wood of one kind or another.
It would be cool if we could craft them from the different woods available ingame.
People need to understand that wands were waaay before Harry Potter.So the stigma isnt really there,but for the newer generation.

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

No I don't, which proves the point that if its mechanically the same there is no point in adding them. You'd have them bring in artists, designers, coders, and the like just to fresh code in a wand that is mechanically a dagger, create the different motif versions, bend the lore moreso than they already have, and then release it to the public because it'd be "funny"?

• If its not doing anything different it isnt worth it, in any sense of the word "worth" to do it.
• If it IS going to be doing something different like adding a new skill line, or use a preexisting one, it's going to disrupt the already chaotic balancing issues we already have. Maybe balance the skills we have first before adding more to the pile.
• If it's significantly weaker, and all it's providing is the set bonus, why wouldnt you just keep the sword and shield or dual wield swords? that circles back to it being pointless.
• If it causes more problems than it solves, which a wand solves no problems, it is again not worth it to add.

At best you could get a crown store costume for your weapon that disguises it as a wand but I doubt ZOS would even do that, as we cant even dye our weapons, let alone hide them.

Its not mechanically the same, say I'm a stam NB and I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with surprise attack, I'm hitting say a 5k heavy attack and 6k surprise attack(random numbers) now swap over to magicka, I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with concealed weapon, but only hit a 2k heavy attack and 6k concealed. Wands will allow for up close DPs (dks, templars, NBS) to maximize their DPs with light/heavy attacks. I honestly could care less about another skill line, if they make DW HA or LA scale off stam or magicka I'd be happy.

If its random numbers how do you use that as a basis? But this also brings us back to balancing. By choosing to be a mageblade, and dual wielding, you are losing out on LA/HA damage but you make up for that with set bonues, empowerment bonuses via mages guild, most of the class skills in the Nightblade skill line are magicka based(like the every popular mass hysteria), and, this is the part you really need the real math for, I regularly out DPS stam users when all I have is 3k spell damage while they sit at upwards of 5k. I find it hard to believe the ONLY difference in damage between the Surprise attack and concealed would be just the 3k damage from the LA that proceeded it.

What you're asking for is just to get a 1 handed weapon that scales off max magicka and deal magic damage. (or at the very least the option was available) ignoring the loophole its trying to avoid, why would wands need to be added to fix that? that sounds like a passive could be added or even a toggle effect if they really needed it. But as it stands now, each weapon having trade offs is good and what promotes diversity. once one of them becomes so obvious superior we'd have a bad power creep on our hands with whole skill lines going unused in both PVE and PVP.

So your basis for being against it, is that its promotes diversity? Because the way I see it people who already dual wield as magicka will become the ones who switch to wands, If anything it will provide MORE diversity as you could have even sorcs playing an up close playstyle

Firstly, my point was that it doesnt promote diversity by creating such an obviously superior option. Secondly, you're going to question my basis when your own was based in made up math? o.0
I could just as easily say the missing 3k in LA damage could have been made up with a restoration staff using its light attack in place of melee daggers if we're just going to make things up.

The option of dual wielding on any magicka build means giving up something, typically LA damage, range, or weaving, in exchange you get more spell damage from dual wielding, and additional set bonus (which most likely means even more damage, or resource management, or an added effect like the vicious death set) That is the trade off and the balance. To add in magic damage melee weapons that scale with max magicka and spell damage means getting all the benefits with no drawbacks. Or rather, the only drawback being range... which is easily made up for by having a staff be your secondary weapon. SO nearly all magicka based players all running around with dual wield and staff combos, and THAT is supposed to promote diversity? You get ALL the benefits from dual wield, extra set piece more damage on your spells, you can weave your attacks, you lose no damage at all, and if someone trys to escape, gap close orswap to your staff and light attack away. we could all run elemental drain so as we deal these massive amounts of damage we get our major resource back as well. Why would anyone main a 2h weapon or really any other weapon?

You can call them whatever you like, Wands, scepters, rods, canes, chimes, rune sticks, it doesnt matter at the end of the day they're all just names to the idea that what you want, would break diversity, and give huge unfair advantages in magicka over stamina, contributes to the already overpopular burst damage meta of 1 shot builds....

Counter point; hows about this then, what if the wands, or scepters or whatever you want to call them were ONLY unique items. They could not be crafted, and they offer no set bonus. So the trade off then becomes you lose 1 piece of a set, even when dual wielding (unless it's with a shield I suppose as the shield provides its own set bonus) however your melee ranged light and heavy attacks are magic damage and scale to magicka. This would at least mean the trade off between the 2 different styles of dual wield, would be trading your set bonus for light/heavy attack damage, but your spells and such would still be getting the boost of spell power from dual wielding.

Your logic is flawed, you say that the missing damage can be made up with a 5pc, but it is negated by the 5pc that stam gets as well, "you get all the bonuses from dual wield, extra set piece, you can weave your spells" you understand Stam has that right now correct, so you are a hypocrite for saying we can't have it. "The drawback being range, which can easily be made up for by having a resto staff as your back bar" LOL stam classes can run bow back bar, your logic makes no sense whatsoever your basically saying "because Stam has it, magicka can't have it"

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

No I don't, which proves the point that if its mechanically the same there is no point in adding them. You'd have them bring in artists, designers, coders, and the like just to fresh code in a wand that is mechanically a dagger, create the different motif versions, bend the lore moreso than they already have, and then release it to the public because it'd be "funny"?

• If its not doing anything different it isnt worth it, in any sense of the word "worth" to do it.
• If it IS going to be doing something different like adding a new skill line, or use a preexisting one, it's going to disrupt the already chaotic balancing issues we already have. Maybe balance the skills we have first before adding more to the pile.
• If it's significantly weaker, and all it's providing is the set bonus, why wouldnt you just keep the sword and shield or dual wield swords? that circles back to it being pointless.
• If it causes more problems than it solves, which a wand solves no problems, it is again not worth it to add.

At best you could get a crown store costume for your weapon that disguises it as a wand but I doubt ZOS would even do that, as we cant even dye our weapons, let alone hide them.

Its not mechanically the same, say I'm a stam NB and I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with surprise attack, I'm hitting say a 5k heavy attack and 6k surprise attack(random numbers) now swap over to magicka, I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with concealed weapon, but only hit a 2k heavy attack and 6k concealed. Wands will allow for up close DPs (dks, templars, NBS) to maximize their DPs with light/heavy attacks. I honestly could care less about another skill line, if they make DW HA or LA scale off stam or magicka I'd be happy.

If its random numbers how do you use that as a basis? But this also brings us back to balancing. By choosing to be a mageblade, and dual wielding, you are losing out on LA/HA damage but you make up for that with set bonues, empowerment bonuses via mages guild, most of the class skills in the Nightblade skill line are magicka based(like the every popular mass hysteria), and, this is the part you really need the real math for, I regularly out DPS stam users when all I have is 3k spell damage while they sit at upwards of 5k. I find it hard to believe the ONLY difference in damage between the Surprise attack and concealed would be just the 3k damage from the LA that proceeded it.

What you're asking for is just to get a 1 handed weapon that scales off max magicka and deal magic damage. (or at the very least the option was available) ignoring the loophole its trying to avoid, why would wands need to be added to fix that? that sounds like a passive could be added or even a toggle effect if they really needed it. But as it stands now, each weapon having trade offs is good and what promotes diversity. once one of them becomes so obvious superior we'd have a bad power creep on our hands with whole skill lines going unused in both PVE and PVP.

So your basis for being against it, is that its promotes diversity? Because the way I see it people who already dual wield as magicka will become the ones who switch to wands, If anything it will provide MORE diversity as you could have even sorcs playing an up close playstyle

Firstly, my point was that it doesnt promote diversity by creating such an obviously superior option. Secondly, you're going to question my basis when your own was based in made up math? o.0
I could just as easily say the missing 3k in LA damage could have been made up with a restoration staff using its light attack in place of melee daggers if we're just going to make things up.

The option of dual wielding on any magicka build means giving up something, typically LA damage, range, or weaving, in exchange you get more spell damage from dual wielding, and additional set bonus (which most likely means even more damage, or resource management, or an added effect like the vicious death set) That is the trade off and the balance. To add in magic damage melee weapons that scale with max magicka and spell damage means getting all the benefits with no drawbacks. Or rather, the only drawback being range... which is easily made up for by having a staff be your secondary weapon. SO nearly all magicka based players all running around with dual wield and staff combos, and THAT is supposed to promote diversity? You get ALL the benefits from dual wield, extra set piece more damage on your spells, you can weave your attacks, you lose no damage at all, and if someone trys to escape, gap close orswap to your staff and light attack away. we could all run elemental drain so as we deal these massive amounts of damage we get our major resource back as well. Why would anyone main a 2h weapon or really any other weapon?

You can call them whatever you like, Wands, scepters, rods, canes, chimes, rune sticks, it doesnt matter at the end of the day they're all just names to the idea that what you want, would break diversity, and give huge unfair advantages in magicka over stamina, contributes to the already overpopular burst damage meta of 1 shot builds....

Counter point; hows about this then, what if the wands, or scepters or whatever you want to call them were ONLY unique items. They could not be crafted, and they offer no set bonus. So the trade off then becomes you lose 1 piece of a set, even when dual wielding (unless it's with a shield I suppose as the shield provides its own set bonus) however your melee ranged light and heavy attacks are magic damage and scale to magicka. This would at least mean the trade off between the 2 different styles of dual wield, would be trading your set bonus for light/heavy attack damage, but your spells and such would still be getting the boost of spell power from dual wielding.

Your logic is flawed, you say that the missing damage can be made up with a 5pc, but it is negated by the 5pc that stam gets as well, "you get all the bonuses from dual wield, extra set piece, you can weave your spells" you understand Stam has that right now correct, so you are a hypocrite for saying we can't have it. "The drawback being range, which can easily be made up for by having a resto staff as your back bar" LOL stam classes can run bow back bar, your logic makes no sense whatsoever your basically saying "because Stam has it, magicka can't have it"

My logic is flawed and yet you then proceed to have a vast misunderstanding of what I said.... Do you want to try and re-read what I wrote? No here, I'll explain again using smaller words, to better assist you. Your made up math of a stamina and a magicka user was missing 3k in LA damage. I was mocking your numbers because they were literally made up, by saying I too could make things up by suggesting you use a resto staff. If that doesnt makes sense to you on how it makes up the 3k damage, thats because there was no math involved, just like with your original example. If that seems stupid to you, it's because it is, why would you ever make up math to get a point across?

You understand that just because a Stam user has access to certain skills doesnt make them equal right? Is your goal really to have us all doing the exact same thing? That's not how video games and especially MMOs view balance my ignorant friend. What your propose is no matter what weapon someone uses they'll always have the exact same damage values. Perhaps if you dropped the "LOL"s and personal attacks and maybe used your head you might be able to make a valid point. Stam users have their own balancing issues which we aren't even discussing here as the main topic.

A Magicka user doesn't have the same issues as a Stam user, so the solution for 1 isnt going to work for the other. Yes A Stam user can use both Dual Wield and 2h, but they lose out on range and mobility, not to mention their builds aren't like most magicka users who can plow everything into magicka, with either little to no investment in the other 2 stats. So yeah they can run a bow, have you used a bow? they're next to worthless except in a couple of very specific situations. Defending a keep in PVP or getting the major expedition after a dodge roll, that is it. Care to do a search on the forums right now for "bows" and see all the vast number of topics involving the bow not being a viable tool? Do you just not know how balance works? Maybe if we start there this can be a better conversation... At no point do I say or suggest that just because stamina has something we can't, what I said was they're 2 very different beasts, and your wish fulfillment of being "numbah 1 NB unkillable, highest burst on the server" doesn't take balance into account AT ALL and is the exact attitude that has the community up in arms calling for more NB nerfs. Cuz all you see and want is more damage, and you dont want to sacrifice anything for it. You want all benefits at all times. That's a great way to get people to ignore your opinions and ideas. I at least attempted a middle ground with suggesting the item be non-set piece because unlike you, I realize that adding a brand new weapon of any kind is going to need to do its own thing but also not overshadow any of the others. So for example, a new option of dual wielding can't be 100% better than the dual wield we already have. Why? because if they were just going to add something in that made the current system worthless it would have been easier and cheaper to just change the current system. My suggestion at least would force a player to decide " how important is light attacks to me? is it worth losing a set bonus over?" instead of just throwing out the option that would make people go "why would anyone NOT pick this?"

Said it before I'll say it again, stam has the option of having light attacks and the set bonuses but more importantly the extra weapon damage dual wield offers vs a ranged weapon , magicka should as well. I'm not even a Nb im a templar, and is it so much to ask to be able to weave light attacks that do more then just scratch the person? I've said it before I'll say it again, I could care less about another skill line put scale DW off magicka or stamina and I'd be happy.

EstelioVeleth wrote: »

Yeah we only have staves...it sucks... I know for example in ff14 they have a magic book and also a wand for a conjurer, but we dont even have conjurers in game.. wow we are so limited...

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

No I don't, which proves the point that if its mechanically the same there is no point in adding them. You'd have them bring in artists, designers, coders, and the like just to fresh code in a wand that is mechanically a dagger, create the different motif versions, bend the lore moreso than they already have, and then release it to the public because it'd be "funny"?

• If its not doing anything different it isnt worth it, in any sense of the word "worth" to do it.
• If it IS going to be doing something different like adding a new skill line, or use a preexisting one, it's going to disrupt the already chaotic balancing issues we already have. Maybe balance the skills we have first before adding more to the pile.
• If it's significantly weaker, and all it's providing is the set bonus, why wouldnt you just keep the sword and shield or dual wield swords? that circles back to it being pointless.
• If it causes more problems than it solves, which a wand solves no problems, it is again not worth it to add.

At best you could get a crown store costume for your weapon that disguises it as a wand but I doubt ZOS would even do that, as we cant even dye our weapons, let alone hide them.

Its not mechanically the same, say I'm a stam NB and I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with surprise attack, I'm hitting say a 5k heavy attack and 6k surprise attack(random numbers) now swap over to magicka, I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with concealed weapon, but only hit a 2k heavy attack and 6k concealed. Wands will allow for up close DPs (dks, templars, NBS) to maximize their DPs with light/heavy attacks. I honestly could care less about another skill line, if they make DW HA or LA scale off stam or magicka I'd be happy.

If its random numbers how do you use that as a basis? But this also brings us back to balancing. By choosing to be a mageblade, and dual wielding, you are losing out on LA/HA damage but you make up for that with set bonues, empowerment bonuses via mages guild, most of the class skills in the Nightblade skill line are magicka based(like the every popular mass hysteria), and, this is the part you really need the real math for, I regularly out DPS stam users when all I have is 3k spell damage while they sit at upwards of 5k. I find it hard to believe the ONLY difference in damage between the Surprise attack and concealed would be just the 3k damage from the LA that proceeded it.

What you're asking for is just to get a 1 handed weapon that scales off max magicka and deal magic damage. (or at the very least the option was available) ignoring the loophole its trying to avoid, why would wands need to be added to fix that? that sounds like a passive could be added or even a toggle effect if they really needed it. But as it stands now, each weapon having trade offs is good and what promotes diversity. once one of them becomes so obvious superior we'd have a bad power creep on our hands with whole skill lines going unused in both PVE and PVP.

So your basis for being against it, is that its promotes diversity? Because the way I see it people who already dual wield as magicka will become the ones who switch to wands, If anything it will provide MORE diversity as you could have even sorcs playing an up close playstyle

Firstly, my point was that it doesnt promote diversity by creating such an obviously superior option. Secondly, you're going to question my basis when your own was based in made up math? o.0
I could just as easily say the missing 3k in LA damage could have been made up with a restoration staff using its light attack in place of melee daggers if we're just going to make things up.

The option of dual wielding on any magicka build means giving up something, typically LA damage, range, or weaving, in exchange you get more spell damage from dual wielding, and additional set bonus (which most likely means even more damage, or resource management, or an added effect like the vicious death set) That is the trade off and the balance. To add in magic damage melee weapons that scale with max magicka and spell damage means getting all the benefits with no drawbacks. Or rather, the only drawback being range... which is easily made up for by having a staff be your secondary weapon. SO nearly all magicka based players all running around with dual wield and staff combos, and THAT is supposed to promote diversity? You get ALL the benefits from dual wield, extra set piece more damage on your spells, you can weave your attacks, you lose no damage at all, and if someone trys to escape, gap close orswap to your staff and light attack away. we could all run elemental drain so as we deal these massive amounts of damage we get our major resource back as well. Why would anyone main a 2h weapon or really any other weapon?

You can call them whatever you like, Wands, scepters, rods, canes, chimes, rune sticks, it doesnt matter at the end of the day they're all just names to the idea that what you want, would break diversity, and give huge unfair advantages in magicka over stamina, contributes to the already overpopular burst damage meta of 1 shot builds....

Counter point; hows about this then, what if the wands, or scepters or whatever you want to call them were ONLY unique items. They could not be crafted, and they offer no set bonus. So the trade off then becomes you lose 1 piece of a set, even when dual wielding (unless it's with a shield I suppose as the shield provides its own set bonus) however your melee ranged light and heavy attacks are magic damage and scale to magicka. This would at least mean the trade off between the 2 different styles of dual wield, would be trading your set bonus for light/heavy attack damage, but your spells and such would still be getting the boost of spell power from dual wielding.

Your logic is flawed, you say that the missing damage can be made up with a 5pc, but it is negated by the 5pc that stam gets as well, "you get all the bonuses from dual wield, extra set piece, you can weave your spells" you understand Stam has that right now correct, so you are a hypocrite for saying we can't have it. "The drawback being range, which can easily be made up for by having a resto staff as your back bar" LOL stam classes can run bow back bar, your logic makes no sense whatsoever your basically saying "because Stam has it, magicka can't have it"

My logic is flawed and yet you then proceed to have a vast misunderstanding of what I said.... Do you want to try and re-read what I wrote? No here, I'll explain again using smaller words, to better assist you. Your made up math of a stamina and a magicka user was missing 3k in LA damage. I was mocking your numbers because they were literally made up, by saying I too could make things up by suggesting you use a resto staff. If that doesnt makes sense to you on how it makes up the 3k damage, thats because there was no math involved, just like with your original example. If that seems stupid to you, it's because it is, why would you ever make up math to get a point across?

You understand that just because a Stam user has access to certain skills doesnt make them equal right? Is your goal really to have us all doing the exact same thing? That's not how video games and especially MMOs view balance my ignorant friend. What your propose is no matter what weapon someone uses they'll always have the exact same damage values. Perhaps if you dropped the "LOL"s and personal attacks and maybe used your head you might be able to make a valid point. Stam users have their own balancing issues which we aren't even discussing here as the main topic.

A Magicka user doesn't have the same issues as a Stam user, so the solution for 1 isnt going to work for the other. Yes A Stam user can use both Dual Wield and 2h, but they lose out on range and mobility, not to mention their builds aren't like most magicka users who can plow everything into magicka, with either little to no investment in the other 2 stats. So yeah they can run a bow, have you used a bow? they're next to worthless except in a couple of very specific situations. Defending a keep in PVP or getting the major expedition after a dodge roll, that is it. Care to do a search on the forums right now for "bows" and see all the vast number of topics involving the bow not being a viable tool? Do you just not know how balance works? Maybe if we start there this can be a better conversation... At no point do I say or suggest that just because stamina has something we can't, what I said was they're 2 very different beasts, and your wish fulfillment of being "numbah 1 NB unkillable, highest burst on the server" doesn't take balance into account AT ALL and is the exact attitude that has the community up in arms calling for more NB nerfs. Cuz all you see and want is more damage, and you dont want to sacrifice anything for it. You want all benefits at all times. That's a great way to get people to ignore your opinions and ideas. I at least attempted a middle ground with suggesting the item be non-set piece because unlike you, I realize that adding a brand new weapon of any kind is going to need to do its own thing but also not overshadow any of the others. So for example, a new option of dual wielding can't be 100% better than the dual wield we already have. Why? because if they were just going to add something in that made the current system worthless it would have been easier and cheaper to just change the current system. My suggestion at least would force a player to decide " how important is light attacks to me? is it worth losing a set bonus over?" instead of just throwing out the option that would make people go "why would anyone NOT pick this?"

Said it before I'll say it again, stam has the option of having light attacks and the set bonuses but more importantly the extra weapon damage dual wield offers vs a ranged weapon , magicka should as well. I'm not even a Nb im a templar, and is it so much to ask to be able to weave light attacks that do more then just scratch the person? I've said it before I'll say it again, I could care less about another skill line put scale DW off magicka or stamina and I'd be happy.

templesus wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Harry Potter?

Think of a better alternative