Easy Set Weapon Balance Fix - 2-handed weapons count as 2 set items

Talyena · November 2016

Browiseth wrote: »

Because two handed really needs a buff, right

Yep, I get ganked by restro and destro staves all the time in PvP (staves and bows are 2 handers too)

The_Protagonist · November 2016

In no way is it a bad design, but I like the OP's opinion about having a 2 piece bonus for 2 handed, Bow and Staves. Not realistic but still interesting.

LegacyDM · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

There is no way a person can logically disagree with having all weapon types have the same potential number of set bonuses.

There are plenty of logical reasons to have a diverse set of weapons with unique skills and bonuses.

This isn't Quake III Team Arena ...

Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.

Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.

I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.

"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."

Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:

1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).

2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.

Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.

I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.

Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.

@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607

Guys, really try to pay attention here.

"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."

This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.

This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.

Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.

Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.

Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.

I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.

"The fact remains..." - nope. Not at all. Re-read my post.

Sure, I've read it. Why don't you propose how it would work and how it wouldn't unbalance the system. Rather than just saying you want equality. Otherwise this post has no substance other than wrobel agrees with me.

I already explained why you're wrong and how balance has nothing to do with this thread. You just keep coming back to try to have the last word. This is my thread about a topic you're not discussing. Stop spamming already. Thanks.

What are the odds that I start the same thread to discuss giving 2 handers a set bonus while discussing balance and it gets closed by a mod because there is already a thread talking about it.

This thread is going to get closed anyways because you fail to have a constructive debate on the perceived issue.

Ok champ. Simple question. How do you propose making 2 hander equal as the title of this post suggests with a set bonus without discussing balance?

Browiseth · November 2016

Talyena wrote: »

Browiseth wrote: »

Because two handed really needs a buff, right

Yep, I get ganked by restro and destro staves all the time in PvP (staves and bows are 2 handers too)

Because mages and healers are stealthy bursting rogues and assassins, right.

also i don't think bow needs any help at all

STEVIL · November 2016

@tnanever says
"This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.

This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.

Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues."

Bold for emphasis mine.

Ok here you go...

Logically a single large weapon should behave differently than a pair of smaller weapons.
there you go.

Now, if you have a logical reason why that should not be the case, please proceed to provide it but remember you just said balance is not a valid issue to bring up.

You just said "This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes."

So what non-balance logical reason is it that one large weapon and two small weapons should be treated the same for set bonus reasons?

It cant be size since a dagger and a sword and an axe and a mace and a shield all have the same one set bonus even though their sizes differ greatly.

So far your non-balance argument seems to be " I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard." but thats a conclusion, not a rationale.

please show us your inescapable logic.

DBcom · November 2016

I really don't see the problem.
Debuff the 2H weapons by 129 WD at cp 160 and let them count as 2 pieces of a set.
The OP get his way and shut up.
This will guarantee we will always be wearing 5+5+2.
It WILL break many interesting metas. make the game a lot less interesting, severely limit the number of usable sets, make many new set irrelevant.
But hey! if people dont want to think, just whine - lets give them their way.
They wont get any more skilled than they are already.
They will get tired of the game and next quarter we can return to what we had - minus the whiners.

STEVIL · November 2016

DBcom wrote: »

I really don't see the problem.
Debuff the 2H weapons by 129 WD at cp 160 and let them count as 2 pieces of a set.
The OP get his way and shut up.
This will guarantee we will always be wearing 5+5+2.
It WILL break many interesting metas. make the game a lot less interesting, severely limit the number of usable sets, make many new set irrelevant.
But hey! if people dont want to think, just whine - lets give them their way.
They wont get any more skilled than they are already.
They will get tired of the game and next quarter we can return to what we had - minus the whiners.

You are forgetting Stevil's First Law of Dynamic Idiocy: Transitive Equilibrium
Outside of temporary ebbs and flows, the volume of whiners and whining in the universe remains a constant. Any "fixes" or other foolhardy attempts to reduce the volume of whining or whiners will simply dial the volume of one set down and dial the volume of other sets up - resulting in no net change overall.

rager82b14_ESO · November 2016

It makes sense, and just like most of the people who hate on logic. They have no reason for it not to do this.

STEVIL · November 2016

rager82b14_ESO wrote: »

It makes sense, and just like most of the people who hate on logic. They have no reason for it not to do this.

Logically a single large weapon should behave differently than a pair of smaller weapons.
There you go.

LaiTash · November 2016

DBcom wrote: »

I really don't see the problem.
Debuff the 2H weapons by 129 WD at cp 160 and let them count as 2 pieces of a set.
The OP get his way and shut up.
This will guarantee we will always be wearing 5+5+2.
It WILL break many interesting metas. make the game a lot less interesting, severely limit the number of usable sets, make many new set irrelevant.
But hey! if people dont want to think, just whine - lets give them their way.
They wont get any more skilled than they are already.
They will get tired of the game and next quarter we can return to what we had - minus the whiners.

I'd like to see a 2H pve meta. I'd actually like to see any stam dd that are not dw+bow.

DBcom · November 2016

Pre 1.6 patch the game forced you to make choices and live by them.
Players were thoughtful and creative using the limited sets to create interesting metas.
Then ZOS decided they needed more players and dumbed down the game.
And the game became a MinMaxers dream. Kids farming for the the next big build they saw on the net.
No real thought... just copycats hoping to repeat someones build.

Such s shame to see a beautiful chess game being turned into checkers ... and ultimately - tic-tac-toe.

Doctordarkspawn · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

@Doomslinger781 later said
"Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!"

See, here is the problem making your exasperation seem unhinged.

The OP started with "simply" make them count as two or "if not" give them a bonus.

This isnt like your "rebalance them, whatever" cuz it serms to be cslling for improvement to their power and it lesves ouy their current advantages.

So how about the following for a comprehensive position to stsrt with:
BOTH 2h weapons and dw weapons will count as 2 slots for set bonus.

2h weapons will cost the same mats, same style, same trait and same tempers as two one handed weapons. SO that 16 gold tempers.

2 h weapons will take 2 enchants which proc like dw do.

2h weapons will do the same light and heavy attack damage and inc "spell damage" same way dw do.

Ranged 2h weapons will have appropriate loss of damage to offset rsnge.

Current skills listed for 2h weapons will be rebalanced to take into account the gain in set bonus.

See if at the outset the Op had acknowledged all the differences which already favor the two handed weapons and agreed to normalize them at the same time they asked to "simple" normalize the set bonuses, folks would be more able to get your position of it not being a call for a buff.

But when you start out with simply add the set bonus or give new benefit, it sure sounds like a call for a buff.

So to you and the OP would a package deal like this be Ok for you?

I'd be fine with that package deal.

Asardes · November 2016

It already applies for traits, so why not set bonuses? I'm for it.

SodanTok · November 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

LegacyDM · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

Got it, check. You guys want change. So take the next step. Discuss how you would implement said change. Discuss the pros and cons. Provide some input. Instead of just saying we want change and then nothing more.

starting a post and then getting mad because people discuss how said change would affect balance is silly.

SodanTok · November 2016

LegacyDM wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

Got it, check. You guys want change. So take the next step. Discuss how you would implement said change. Discuss the pros and cons. Provide some input. Instead of just saying we want change and then nothing more.

starting a post and then getting mad because people discuss how said change would affect balance is silly.

Because cons are on such small scale it is not worth talking about them at all? It will make 2H better, but still underused in PVE and still used in same fashion in PVP. So we can completly disregard PVE discussion because there this change wont do any harm at all, so we can talk PVP...
... Where 2H are popular and will get better (so everyone else gets better). The only real con this will bring is second 5thslot proc set for every 2H user. That is problem on its own and should be adressed with balancing proc sets, not by limiting their usage. So what else do we have for con, I would like to hear.

You could bring disucssion how its make dual wielding even worse in PVP. Is that problem of 5th slot tho? If access to it didnt make 1H/1H more popular (except now, because of proc sets and heavy armors with shield), it wont make them less popular just because 2H gets access to it. Again this is completly unrelated. Both popularity of proc sets and unpopularity of 1h/1h have their own reason, maybe even deserving its own topic where you could talk how to change it.

//EDIT:
Another little point to all balance geeks there. Isnt balancing around everyone having access to 5/5/2 easier than balancing around half the weapon skill lines not having access?

Also dont forget the only "raw" advantage of 2H is increased damage for melee 2H. And range for ranged 2H (they have same dmg as 1h)

STEVIL · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

Also dont forget the only "raw" advantage of 2H is increased damage for melee 2H. And range for ranged 2H (they have same dmg as 1h)

Have no idea what you intend "raw" to convey in this context so i have to ignore that division in my response and just refer to advantages.

As i have identified in earlier posts there are plenty of advantages already built-in for two-handed weapons such as mats, tempers, traits cost to keep quality items up to snuff in comoarison to that og the same for two one-handed weapons. HEck, even inventory favors two-handed.

A comprehensive look at changing thenset count issue would require revisting those and other isdues or run the risk of just screwing things up.

When one proposes a change, the responsibility for "does this sctew things up" lirs with the changers, not those opposed.

So, everytime i see a proponent of change not willing to look at the net sum of the change, wanting to limit discussion to just one part of the whole, etc the less weight it carries.

Additionally

You dont encourage consideration of proposed changes by limiting the aspects to only a part of the difference, that tends to diminish the argument for change by making it look more like off the cuff preference than thought thru suggestion.

In the better back and forth discussions on these forums, when faced with challenges and such, the proponents of change took the specific issues raised, modified their proposals from a simple idea towards a more comprehensive package.

Dismissing other perspectives is not thevssme as addressing them.

SodanTok · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

Also dont forget the only "raw" advantage of 2H is increased damage for melee 2H. And range for ranged 2H (they have same dmg as 1h)

Have no idea what you intend "raw" to convey in this context so i have to ignore that division in my response and just refer to advantages.

Long wall of text.

What if I tell you using lot of big words that say nothing about problem at hand isnt considered worthy argument to discussion.

So i will address only those two paragraphs that had some meaning in them. First "raw" is the only measurable difference between 2H and 1H. Skills are skills and there is no source that Wrobel were balancing skills around missing second 5th item slot bonus. The only existing obvious differences between 2H melee/2H ranged and 1H are damage/range.

For your second point, allow me to laught for few minutes at your argument with tempers and mats. For one, nobody with 2H even cares about those. Cost of making and upgrading 2H items happen only once in lifespan of weapon. For all I care make it 10 times more expensive.

If you wanna argument about 5th slot in 2H bring some relevant points, not something that isnt important at all and that could be changed in 5m if ZoS decides to make balance changes.

Rest is rubbish. This is mechanic change that would make all 2H weapons better, therefore every change that would make them worse could be offered as a trade. And it was offered many times here. My offered trade was nerf nothing, because I believe change as this wouldn't affect the balance of weapons in both modes. It would bring them closer together and allowed for more precise changes, if needed, by devs. If you disagree, offer better trade offs.

//EDIT:
Forgot tl;dr because nobody reads long texts, but basically Doomslinger below me said it best.

Doomslinger781 · November 2016

The idea of balancing 2H around the lack of 100's of possible 5/5/2 set bonus combinations is much more error-prone than just giving them a 2-piece and re-adjusting those 'raw' stats / enchantments / economic costs, what-have-you.

Could they properly balanced 2H weapons around the idea that they lock said players out of every possible (2nd) five piece set-bonus? Perhaps they tried, but we all know every 5 piece bonus isn't the same. So concerning every 2nd 5-piece bonus 2H can't be part of - which lacking combination of sets did they compensate for?

idk · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

br0steen wrote: »

Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.

In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.

It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".

mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.

It's nice to see some verification from the staff. It's nice to see the devs using logic and common sense once in a while.

Good to see, but I still have not seen a good magika build that used DW on their main bar.

What are you guys pulling single target on vet trial bosses using DW as your main bar?

It's situational and I don't personally like it, but that's really irrelevant to this discussion. If they created dual wield ranged weapons, for example, the set-bonus issue still applies, and is the only issue this thread is even about.

@tnanever

It's really very relevant to the discussion. One cannot state someone is irrelevant just because it's inconvenient for you to address it.

You claim a disparity but you state nothing to suport such a claim. The lack of inenslot for a set bonus does not make a disparity. Much more goes into effectiveness.

bowmanz607 · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

As I previously mentioned, the balance that would be required to rebalance after the change is a waste of time and resources. I would rather see those resources go elsewhere in the game.

SodanTok · November 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

As I previously mentioned, the balance that would be required to rebalance after the change is a waste of time and resources. I would rather see those resources go elsewhere in the game.

Fair enough. If you believe there is big need of rebalance after this, then I can see why would you prefer they spend time and resources on something that concerns you. In the end, we all look after your own interests. The only reason I am here is my interest in making bows better main weapons, one step at the time.

What I disagree with is the "need" for rebalance. Given fact that if 2H were ever balanced about not having 2nd 5th slot, it was long before 90% of current popular sets existed. If there is some hidden balancing happening with release every set (super impractical, but I can imagine such situation), they actually spend and will spend much more time and resources dancing around it, than with this change.

Cinbri · November 2016

There is 1 thing for sure: with this change TBS through weapons will stop loosing 2nd boons when switching from main bar dual swords 5pc to off-bar destro/resto 4pc and back.

AlnilamE · November 2016

I'm personally fine with the way things are. And I say that as someone whose characters mainly use 2H weapons.

However, the only way I can see this working without breaking the game would be by removing all the 2-piece set bonuses and making sets start at 3.

If not, please excuse my while I go craft a dozen staves of Torug's Pact...

bowmanz607 · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

As I previously mentioned, the balance that would be required to rebalance after the change is a waste of time and resources. I would rather see those resources go elsewhere in the game.

Fair enough. If you believe there is big need of rebalance after this, then I can see why would you prefer they spend time and resources on something that concerns you. In the end, we all look after your own interests. The only reason I am here is my interest in making bows better main weapons, one step at the time.

What I disagree with is the "need" for rebalance. Given fact that if 2H were ever balanced about not having 2nd 5th slot, it was long before 90% of current popular sets existed. If there is some hidden balancing happening with release every set (super impractical, but I can imagine such situation), they actually spend and will spend much more time and resources dancing around it, than with this change.

See bow is the one where I think it is logical and balanced to have a 5th pc. For one it is technically 2 pc. Quiver and bow. Many games count these two as separate pcs. Heck, even TEs games allow equipping different arrows to same bow. A feature I have wanted to see for some time in eso. It would also be balanced because bow is underwhelming as a main weapon unless you are a full on ganker.

SodanTok · November 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

As I previously mentioned, the balance that would be required to rebalance after the change is a waste of time and resources. I would rather see those resources go elsewhere in the game.

Fair enough. If you believe there is big need of rebalance after this, then I can see why would you prefer they spend time and resources on something that concerns you. In the end, we all look after your own interests. The only reason I am here is my interest in making bows better main weapons, one step at the time.

What I disagree with is the "need" for rebalance. Given fact that if 2H were ever balanced about not having 2nd 5th slot, it was long before 90% of current popular sets existed. If there is some hidden balancing happening with release every set (super impractical, but I can imagine such situation), they actually spend and will spend much more time and resources dancing around it, than with this change.

See bow is the one where I think it is logical and balanced to have a 5th pc. For one it is technically 2 pc. Quiver and bow. Many games count these two as separate pcs. Heck, even TEs games allow equipping different arrows to same bow. A feature I have wanted to see for some time in eso. It would also be balanced because bow is underwhelming as a main weapon unless you are a full on ganker.

I think both staves and bow deserve some love for both modes, where 2H melee would benefit from love in PvE too. So the only issue with this change would affect 2H melee in PVP and that is worthy of try.

For bows I could definitely see bow and quiver setups and for staves changing them either to 1H or bring out some runes/gems/ministaves etc.

bowmanz607 · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Doomslinger781 wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.

Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!

A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?

Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.

So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.

Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.

So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.

Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.

It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.

So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.

And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?

The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.

What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.

What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.

So tl;dr "I believe its balanced, therefore don't change anything". Also "Ranged weapons have advantage of range, so I will use this as reason for anything concerning buffs".

What has been proposed is change. One change, that would affect underused weapons. And thats while we talk about only this change. Who said anything about not finding ways to "nerf 2H" while applying this change to achieve balance?

If anyone here thinkgs this would bring inbalance - offer *** ways to make it balanced. Stop complaining about proposed change just because it changes things (for the better to all 2H users)

As I previously mentioned, the balance that would be required to rebalance after the change is a waste of time and resources. I would rather see those resources go elsewhere in the game.

Fair enough. If you believe there is big need of rebalance after this, then I can see why would you prefer they spend time and resources on something that concerns you. In the end, we all look after your own interests. The only reason I am here is my interest in making bows better main weapons, one step at the time.

What I disagree with is the "need" for rebalance. Given fact that if 2H were ever balanced about not having 2nd 5th slot, it was long before 90% of current popular sets existed. If there is some hidden balancing happening with release every set (super impractical, but I can imagine such situation), they actually spend and will spend much more time and resources dancing around it, than with this change.

See bow is the one where I think it is logical and balanced to have a 5th pc. For one it is technically 2 pc. Quiver and bow. Many games count these two as separate pcs. Heck, even TEs games allow equipping different arrows to same bow. A feature I have wanted to see for some time in eso. It would also be balanced because bow is underwhelming as a main weapon unless you are a full on ganker.

I think both staves and bow deserve some love for both modes, where 2H melee would benefit from love in PvE too. So the only issue with this change would affect 2H melee in PVP and that is worthy of try.

For bows I could definitely see bow and quiver setups and for staves changing them either to 1H or bring out some runes/gems/ministaves etc.

See I think staves skill lines just need to be reworked.

Nolic1 · November 2016

I see where the op is coming from and where many others are saying it makes the item OP. See when you equip the 2-handed it auto gets the buff from the set setting it apart from any other weapons that require another item in the off hand which makes it OP. But I see where the op is coming from cause it makes no sense that the item is of a set and dual wield gets the set bonus plus the the option to have to 5 piece and one 2 piece set. While 2-handed does not get this option.

This is where the problem is not anything else.

RebornV3x · November 2016

I think destro and resto staves should count as a 2 set this would effectively buff magicka builds and lessen the stam Vs mag gap

STEVIL · November 2016

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »

Also dont forget the only "raw" advantage of 2H is increased damage for melee 2H. And range for ranged 2H (they have same dmg as 1h)

Have no idea what you intend "raw" to convey in this context so i have to ignore that division in my response and just refer to advantages.

Long wall of text.

What if I tell you using lot of big words that say nothing about problem at hand isnt considered worthy argument to discussion.

So i will address only those two paragraphs that had some meaning in them. First "raw" is the only measurable difference between 2H and 1H. Skills are skills and there is no source that Wrobel were balancing skills around missing second 5th item slot bonus. The only existing obvious differences between 2H melee/2H ranged and 1H are damage/range.

For your second point, allow me to laught for few minutes at your argument with tempers and mats. For one, nobody with 2H even cares about those. Cost of making and upgrading 2H items happen only once in lifespan of weapon. For all I care make it 10 times more expensive.

If you wanna argument about 5th slot in 2H bring some relevant points, not something that isnt important at all and that could be changed in 5m if ZoS decides to make balance changes.

Rest is rubbish. This is mechanic change that would make all 2H weapons better, therefore every change that would make them worse could be offered as a trade. And it was offered many times here. My offered trade was nerf nothing, because I believe change as this wouldn't affect the balance of weapons in both modes. It would bring them closer together and allowed for more precise changes, if needed, by devs. If you disagree, offer better trade offs.

//EDIT:
Forgot tl;dr because nobody reads long texts, but basically Doomslinger below me said it best.

First, there are many obvious differences, you ate seeming to just want to ignore them.

Second, givennfrequency of threads about cost of mats/tempers etc i think you may be in a very small minority if you dont think doubling the tempers needed etc or even the 10x is so laughable.

Your devotion to dismissing so over the top issues you dont want to deal with reduces your argument's strength.