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

STEVIL · November 2016

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Not every opponent in this game has a gap closer, especially in PVE.
This change is NOT being suggested for PVP only... so...

SodanTok · November 2016

EvilCroc wrote: »

I know only one thing: mages with two swords should not be meta. Weapon for mages is staff. It is stylish, awesome and cool. Mage with two swords is not cool at all. If we need 2 set item count on staff - I want it.
Or disable set options on all weapons. Only armor and jewelry should be set items. Make more unique weapons instead, like maelstrom. I will like both solutions.

Too late for that now (should have been design choice from the start) but i rly like the idea of armor+jewelry only, allowing for both 5/5 combos and 5/2/3 combos while weapons are maelstrom, master or some new.

lardvader · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

tnanever wrote: »

It's called "bad design". The number of items required for set bonuses are completely arbitrary. If you're not pro-balance, then you're part of the problem.

No, it's not bad design. And there is no problem.

Just because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work doesn't mean it's broken.
It just means you are failing ...

"...because you can't figure out how to make a 2H build work..."

You still have no idea what this thread is even about. Wow. Re-read this thread a few times.

I think most of us get it. The reason it might be to powerful if you can get that 5th set bonus with only 4 pcs equiped. Don't get me wrong there are times I wanted them to count as 2 weapons. I use staffs on most of my mag builds and then you either have to go 5+4+2 / 5+5+1 or 5+3+2+1. If you want monster sets you have to drop a 5 pcs bonus on one set.

If 2h should count as 2 pcs there will be some nerfing and in the end this might be worse than what we already have.

STEVIL · November 2016

EvilCroc wrote: »

I know only one thing: mages with two swords should not be meta. Weapon for mages is staff. It is stylish, awesome and cool. Mage with two swords is not cool at all. If we need 2 set item count on staff - I want it.
Or disable set options on all weapons. Only armor and jewerly should be set items. Make more unique weapons istead, like maelstrom. I will like both solutions.

Isnt ESO lore full of sorcs with non-staff weapons?

Did i log into the DnD forums?

Also, while some builds gain from the sword spell damage thing, the typical damage outputs for destro-staff sorcs vs sword sorcs (magica) is usually falling on the side of the staff.

Now, right now, due to some sets SnB and hvy armor has seen a rise for some types of content to be sure, but i haven't seen dw magics sorcs as the universal meta so far.

STEVIL · November 2016

Andohir wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

I honestly think apart from rally 2h is the worst stamina weapon skilline in the game. By a wide gap.

I used 2h with my Sorc only because of charge, to have a bit more mobility available in the early levels. Charge added a more dynamic element to fights. Once I got Surge, DW, besides its higher bonus to spell damage and its additional set slot, also became superior to 2h regarding self heal, because of twice as much crit possibilities in melee. With the 2h I had to use health pots pretty frequently, when I started DW I nearly never needed a pot anymore.

my current stamsorc has DW on one bar and 2h on the other. both used in most every combat.

i agree with you that crit charge adds a lot esp with surge imo. step back charge trigger surge. Roll back charge trigger surge.
between rally, surge-crit, bloodthirst (add in crits from hurricane of course) the battle-restore does really well.
Stamina gain on kills helps plus the dmg after hvy attacks helps.

bowmanz607 · November 2016

Derra wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

Ok, while I actually like this idea for build diversity and equality among using words 5 piece sets and monster helms, explain to me how your going to nerf 2 H to account for the buff?

Does 2h need a nerf?

Let´s play around with the hypothetical idea rally gets moved to the fighters guild skillline to replace expert hunter. Does 2h still look like a skillline worth slotting the weapon for?

Sure atm you see people using executioner/reverse slice/dizzing swing a lot - but would they if they could access rally without 2h? I honestly think apart from rally 2h is the worst stamina weapon skilline in the game. By a wide gap.

Umm Let's See. Gap closer. That hits pretty hard and can proc maelstrom 2h. Reverse slice is hard hitting single target execute with great aoe potential. How about the stam regen bonus you get from killing. Rally is just part of the reason to run 2h. Yes, it still is worth slotting.

Strider_Roshin · November 2016

The issue with the current weapon balance is the fact that DW absolutely dominates 2H in every aspect in PvE. Single target Flurry is far superior to Uppercut. AoE Steel Tornado has forever been the AoE king; Cleave has a nice defensive morph, but the damage doesn't even compare. DW gives you more raw damage so even if you do use moves such as Biting Jabs or Surprise Attack, you're still gimping yourself by using a 2H over DW. DW also allows you to run 5 piece TBS with 5 piece Leviathan while sill being able to use an undaunted set. So not only does the 2H get outclassed by abilities, it also gets outclassed by its weapon damage, and by its gear.

ZOS needs to make the 2H grant you more weapon damage than DW. By doing this, it will find a place among builds that don't need flurry or uppercut as a single target DPS. Because right now the only reason to use the 2H is because you don't have another means of acquiring major brutality.

bowmanz607 · November 2016

EvilCroc wrote: »

I know only one thing: mages with two swords should not be meta. Weapon for mages is staff. It is stylish, awesome and cool. Mage with two swords is not cool at all. If we need 2 set item count on staff - I want it.
Or disable set options on all weapons. Only armor and jewerly should be set items. Make more unique weapons istead, like maelstrom. I will like both solutions.

Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.

bowmanz607 · November 2016

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

I think work needs to be done to staves, but not include extra set bonus. I think bow should count as 2 because it has a quiver and bow.

Strider_Roshin · November 2016

I also think Carve (the morph of Cleave) need a 25% damage buff for its initial hit; while at the same time ignoring your opponent's armor. This will make it out-damage Steel Tornado (which it should since ST is a giant AoE, and Carve is a cone).

bowmanz607 · November 2016

How about this, dw and 1h/s light and heavy attacks simply scale to higher damage between spell and weapon damage that way mag builds can get the set bonuses they covet without having to lose burst damage.

This allows for 4 staves options and dw and 1h/s. It also makes mag build melee play more desirable which has been a concern with people. Ofcourse then mag have more weapon options then stam bit then again I always though it was stupid that desto line was technically considered 3 lines.

Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it

Change bow to 2 pc because it is a quiver and bow so is logically two pc. Can't use the bow without the quiver or the quiver without the bow.

Rework the staves skill lines because they need love.

And maybe, just sure on this one yet, make some lesser used morphs in 1h and dw to morph mag. Maybe even just one in each line.

tnanever · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

.
.
.

let me ask you this and its quite simple: IF you get a two-set-count added to 2H weapons are you Ok with at the same time cutting the drop rate for all those 2H weapons to half the rate of 1h weapons so that you can get one maelstrom destro staff or one greatsword of viper sting in the same amount of grind as you can get two maelstrom dagger or dagger of viper sting?

Sure I'd be fine with that, but that really has nothing to do with this thread, so I don't know why you're wasting space here. You can make that argument right now, regardless of set bonuses.

STEVIL · November 2016

Strider_Roshin wrote: »

The issue with the current weapon balance is the fact that DW absolutely dominates 2H in every aspect in PvE. Single target Flurry is far superior to Uppercut. AoE Steel Tornado has forever been the AoE king; Cleave has a nice defensive morph, but the damage doesn't even compare. DW gives you more raw damage so even if you do use moves such as Biting Jabs or Surprise Attack, you're still gimping yourself by using a 2H over DW. DW also allows you to run 5 piece TBS with 5 piece Leviathan while sill being able to use an undaunted set. So not only does the 2H get outclassed by abilities, it also gets outclassed by its weapon damage, and by its gear.

ZOS needs to make the 2H grant you more weapon damage than DW. By doing this, it will find a place among builds that don't need flurry or uppercut as a single target DPS. Because right now the only reason to use the 2H is because you don't have another means of acquiring major brutality.

Absolutely cuz you know nobody ever needs to trigger a HOT and then stealth like you could do with rally or gap close auto-crit.

tnanever · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

In both 1 and 2 you keep coming back to lack of evidence as proof. For Lore there is no evidence that says bigger isnt more and for 2 nobody said that balance did include lack of set bonus.

Here is the first logic problem:lack of evidence to the contrary does not equate to proof of the affirmative.
.
.
.

That's exactly what I'm claiming is the problem with you people who are against the idea. You keep on bringing up irrelevant garbage about 2-handed weapons being inherently overpowered, and this weird assumption that making them count equally as two 1-handed weapons, for the purposes of set bonuses, would automatically make them overpowered.

You people are the ones making the claim. I also stated why there is no evidence for that claim, and showed why there is no lore or gameplay reason why my idea is wrong. Even in the event that they would be overpowered due to the set-item change, (as I've said a dozen times already) they can simply be balanced as necessary.

tnanever · November 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

EvilCroc wrote: »

I know only one thing: mages with two swords should not be meta. Weapon for mages is staff. It is stylish, awesome and cool. Mage with two swords is not cool at all. If we need 2 set item count on staff - I want it.
Or disable set options on all weapons. Only armor and jewerly should be set items. Make more unique weapons istead, like maelstrom. I will like both solutions.

Sure you get more raw power from dw as mag build. But you lose the burst potential from a staff. Also, using magic with two swords is nothing new. Mag and swords have gone hand in hand through gaming. Heck, I find it weird mages even need to slot a staff. Just some hands should do it.

Utterly irrelevant. Whatever balance problems exist is a separate topic. Stop spamming this thread, bowmanz (and everyone else talking about builds/power/etc).

Solus · November 2016

I like the idea of 2h/bows/staves, because of the fact that one weapon takes up two slots, it should be the same as equipping two daggers of the same set to have a 5/5/2 scenario. Literally my stats are the same with my DW and greatsword, weapon damage wise, and my greatsword sharpened gives me almost 5k physical pen, DW is the same for each weapon. i have 3003 weapon damage DW and 3003 WD greatsword. The only downside, is the greatsword is the same set as my DW weapons, the greatsword takes up two slots but doesn't complete my set.

Any 2 slot weapon in a set should come with a built in passive that allows it to count as two pieces in a set.

Strider_Roshin · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

Strider_Roshin wrote: »

The issue with the current weapon balance is the fact that DW absolutely dominates 2H in every aspect in PvE. Single target Flurry is far superior to Uppercut. AoE Steel Tornado has forever been the AoE king; Cleave has a nice defensive morph, but the damage doesn't even compare. DW gives you more raw damage so even if you do use moves such as Biting Jabs or Surprise Attack, you're still gimping yourself by using a 2H over DW. DW also allows you to run 5 piece TBS with 5 piece Leviathan while sill being able to use an undaunted set. So not only does the 2H get outclassed by abilities, it also gets outclassed by its weapon damage, and by its gear.

ZOS needs to make the 2H grant you more weapon damage than DW. By doing this, it will find a place among builds that don't need flurry or uppercut as a single target DPS. Because right now the only reason to use the 2H is because you don't have another means of acquiring major brutality.

Absolutely cuz you know nobody ever needs to trigger a HOT and then stealth like you could do with rally or gap close auto-crit.

Oh indeed sir, you just pointed out the greatest combo to use in PvE. You must be the greatest asset in your end-game trials guild.

STEVIL · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

.
.
.

let me ask you this and its quite simple: IF you get a two-set-count added to 2H weapons are you Ok with at the same time cutting the drop rate for all those 2H weapons to half the rate of 1h weapons so that you can get one maelstrom destro staff or one greatsword of viper sting in the same amount of grind as you can get two maelstrom dagger or dagger of viper sting?

Sure I'd be fine with that, but that really has nothing to do with this thread, so I don't know why you're wasting space here. You can make that argument right now, regardless of set bonuses.

Ok let me try and explain it to you and show you why i bring it up.

Right now there are a LOT of hard coded differences between a pair of swords and a greatsword not including the skill line differences.

One of them is the set bonus count. Two swords get two and greatsword gets one.
Others include lowered costs to get quality, farm/grind for one item vs two, mats used, the way enchants/traits work, light hvy dmg.Almost all of these favor greatsword over two swords.

You "simply" want to ger rid of that one major case where 2h gets the short end of the stick and want to it serms dismiss all the baked in ways 2h is favored.

Others, like me, see all of these as not coincidental andd unrelated differences. WE see them as parts of a whole and give and take so when i see someone saying lets "simply" get rid of the give but keep all the take or dismisding the takes as irrelevant we see a not well considered move.

But a key point remains,even if we ignore the disagreement over ehether 2h is viable acrosd content, it has not always been that 2h was as bad as you portray it as even though your pet peeve set coount has been there all along.

The current state of 2h v dw or 2h v snb has evolved in no small part due to skill lines changes and specific set pieces that have been implemented in the last 6 months or so.

Using the results of those changes to justify changing the set piece bonus is inaccurate.

Wreuntzylla · November 2016

Sure, make it count as two pieces. But put two enchantment slots in the 2h and make it so one of the slots is an armor slot. You know, like you have to live with as a 1h/shield user. Or alternatively, cap the damage of all 2h abilities at flurry level damage.

Do people even think through their ideas once before posting? Or are they completely ignorant of mechanics and the give-and-take of this game?

Wreuntzylla · November 2016

double post

idk · November 2016

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

tnanever · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

...
Right now there are a LOT of hard coded differences between a pair of swords and a greatsword not including the skill line differences.

One of them is the set bonus count. Two swords get two and greatsword gets one.
Others include lowered costs to get quality, farm/grind for one item vs two, mats used, the way enchants/traits work, light hvy dmg.Almost all of these favor greatsword over two swords.

Ok? Everything you mentioned can be changed in minutes with some database value edits. Still irrelevant. The devs will balance the game as they see fit. The devs will continue to rebalance, redesign, and add features as they have since beta.

STEVIL wrote: »

You "simply" want to ger rid of that one major case where 2h gets the short end of the stick and want to it serms dismiss all the baked in ways 2h is favored.

Um no. I simply want all flavors of weapons to have the same set-completion capability. I've said that multiple times now. Stop fighting against imagined points I haven't said.

STEVIL · November 2016

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

SodanTok · November 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

...

Keep 2h the same. Because regardless of what many seem to be thinking, this will put 2h over the top. Heck imagine running around with black rose, vel, viper with a 2h. This goes forany set combinations with it

...

This here is exactly the problem. Fear that people will combine [snip] sets to create slightly more [snip] combo than is available now (same combo with DW). But this is completely wrong. We cannot claim 2H will be overpowered because they will use overpowered sets to achieve bigger "overpowerness". That is different issue that needs solving (urgently), but should NOT affect this. Once we get (again) some sort of magicka meta utilizing for example some broken combo of maul and sword DW, we will still have bad 2H design from fear in past meta?

[Edit to remove offensive remarks.]

tnanever · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

Nope. You and you other anti-equality people are implying that 2-handed weapons would somehow automatically become overpowered if they had equivalent set-completion capability. I disagree. My viewpoint is from the assumption that there is no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability. Nobody has put forth reasons why that assumption is untrue. As stated before, the only thing from the devs (from wrobel himself) is that 2-handed weapons probably should be changed to count as 2-items from a set.

SodanTok · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

Nope. You and you other anti-equality people are implying that 2-handed weapons would somehow automatically become overpowered if they had equivalent set-completion capability. I disagree. My viewpoint is from the assumption that there is no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability. Nobody has put forth reasons why that assumption is untrue. As stated before, the only thing from the devs (from wrobel himself) is that 2-handed weapons probably should be changed to count as 2-items from a set.

Give up arguing with STEVIL, re-read everything he said in this thread and you will see why its pointless. Soon he will again claim that need for half the tempers to make full 5golden set with this change is what would make 2H OP.

idk · November 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

@STEVIL

And all weapon lines have passives. That's kind apart of the point of them.

STEVIL · November 2016

tnanever wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

Nope. You and you other anti-equality people are implying that 2-handed weapons would somehow automatically become overpowered if they had equivalent set-completion capability. I disagree. My viewpoint is from the assumption that there is no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability. Nobody has put forth reasons why that assumption is untrue. As stated before, the only thing from the devs (from wrobel himself) is that 2-handed weapons probably should be changed to count as 2-items from a set.

Actually to be maybe attempting to be a little truthy, in fact, folks hsve presented reasons by citing inherent advantages and you just dismiss them.

You choosing not to accept reasons and nobody providing any reasons are vastly different things.

I have now no illusions thst anything ptesented could get thru to you.

For me, like i said, I can abide with normalizing the set bonus count isdue but IF that hapoens then all the existingbinherent bonuses need to be normalized as well which will make it as hard to grind/farm/craft/improve/enchant a single 2h vs a pair of swords. Then the skillblines need revisiting as well. THen the whole relessed as a change.

Now, i am not one who likes samifying things which clearly should behave differently. I am very much a "make choices matter" fellow so I dont like taking an obvious difference that makes sense to me and removing one more element of diversity from the game.

But hey i am Ok if it happens and just want to make sure it isn't done "simply" (code word for ignore all the current counter-advantages nudge nudge wink wink) and that it gets done right.

STEVIL · November 2016

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

I think we've lost sight of what @tnanever really wants.

He didn't create this thread to bring balance between magika and stamina. He really isn't even looking at the big picture.

All he wants is another set bonus slot for the sake of having it. We are over thinking this and should have just moved on from this thread

Birdovic wrote: »

I already suggested that for Staves only here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/298251/a-new-day-a-new-suggestion-to-improve-staves#latest

The reason I only suggested it for staves, was to allow more build variety and options.
Like, think about it. As a Stamina player, you simply have more options.
Not just because you can have 2x 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set active at once, you can also have higher damage stats (and effectively use the abilities in conjunction with 2 Weapons compared to dualwielding magicka users) or mitigation(Sword/Board) etc at the same time.

Two-Handed should not get this "count as 2 set pieces" bonus, it has overall stronger Base Damage already and I doubt it needs much of a buff.

For Bow, I may have not mentioned that in my thread, but this could deserve the "2 set pieces bonus", too. Even if a stamina weapon, it suffers from the same, lower Base Damage stat like Staves, and overall is still mainly used as a secondary weapon for buffs or for initiating a battle. Having more build options, could make Bows as Main Weapons more viable, too.

And please, dont say "ranged is a huge advantage" or something like that, its not true. 1 Gap closer and that "advantage" is gone anyway.

Saying gap closer puts melee on par with ranged is a fallacy.

First, melee takes more risks which is the main point. Second, spotting a gap closer requires removing something else. I have yet to see a good melee PvE build that includes a gap closer.

Additionally, the differnce, if another set bonus slot was added to 2H weapons, would be small. No one has offered anything that would actually close the gap between stam and magika. More goes into balance that a mere set bonus slot.

But heck, if it makes you feel better having the same number of set bonus slots yet still have lower damage than stamina then it's all good.

Yes, I know OP is just saying he/she wants another set bonus slot.

Please reread the original post.
Please pay attention to the part about or getting some other bonus to compensate.

If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.

Now the op keeps dismissing all the current inherent bonuses as irrelevant.

Pretty obvious this is actually seeking an upgrade, whether it comes from set count or other.

@STEVIL

And all weapon lines have passives. That's kind apart of the point of them.

I honestly have no idea how what you said applies to my statement about the OP comments etc.

LegacyDM · November 2016

This post just won't die will it. Giving two handers a set bonus buffs it above what dual wield provides.

1. Two handers hit harder than dual wield.
2. Two handers have a gap closer dual wield does not.
3. Two handers have rally which complements vigor. Dual wield has no such complimentary skills.
4. Staves have 10% spell pen, eye of storms, and hard hitting reduced cost ranged damage skills and ground target aoes. Duel wield has no such skill or advantage. Except maybe hidden dagger or whirlwind. Which don't compare in cost or performance in today's meta.
5. Bows hit just as hard as two handers and from range and stealth. Bows also get expedition. Dual wield has no similar advantage.
6. Sword and board gets a gap closer and added defense. However, Offers little in providing increased damage in the current burst damage meta.

Let dual wield have its set piece. In today's meta, bows, staves, and two handers are superior in raw damage and utility. Giving two handed weapons set pieces too would be a major buff over dual wield and sword and board. The current system in regards to set pieces is balanced.

People need to accept that they have to make choices in favor of getting something while sacrificing something else. You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to use two handers? You get increased damage and a gap closer at the expense of a set piece. If you want to argue that's not a fair trade off, let's have that discussion.