The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Easy Set Weapon Balance Fix - 2-handed weapons count as 2 set items
-
tnanever✭✭✭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.
.
.
.
Wrong. Some people have opined/whined about why they think 2-handed weapons are already overpowered or on par. Others have disagreed. Irrelevant. Nobody has shown any evidence that it was purposeful game design to have 2-handed weapons be more powerful than 1-handed weapons to make up for set-completion weakness.
Also, can you put just a little more effort into your typing? Your posts are full of typos and are unnecessarily difficult to read.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO 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 threadI 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.
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
I would not need to do this if it weren't to the repeated claim by the simply" crowd even to this very page that "no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability" which is a claim that is demonstrably false.
But except for this thread and only for the "simply" crowd even here, it seems that mat costs for gear and tempers cost for gear and grind times for gear are issues many folks find important so i dont get the "simply" logic of just dismissing them if they get in your way.
let me put the temper argument another way - do you think you or anyone would dismiss "lets double the temper needed for all two handed weapons quality upgrade by 2x and we are cutting the drop rates in half for them as well" if that change were implemented without any other changes?
i think there would be an uproar over how unfair that was and how much it would impact decision making on which weapons to choose if they said that.
i am pretty darn sure that if we had a poll on the "naked" temper doubling and drop halving asking to asign it importance of "very significant, significant, somewhat important and trivial not worth mentioning we would not see a lot of the latter.
But when it is mentioned here as a current inherent bonus already in play for 2h vs two 1H, somehow the "simply" crowd says thats not even worth mentioning its so trivial.
Perseverance and zeal are not the same thing.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭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.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
the list goes on.
Actually, its pretty short list that doesnt go on and already stopped.Edited by SodanTok on November 3, 2016 6:03PM0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.
yes absolutely it does. it shows you apparently misquoted.
the post you quoted was not me talking about balancing weapon skill lines at all but rather was me pointing out the poster's comments to correct another misconception about what the poster was saying.
The some builds do this and some builds do that ESo-101 stuff you just threw in is not at all related to that post it was quoted responding to.
Thanks for clearing up the disconnect in your quote.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
tnanever✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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.
2H have burst damage with gap closer and bows also run fast, so they dont deserve to have 3rd set bonus as DW have? Nice logic mate. You need to create different thread. By your argument, its obvious 2H is OP and dual wield is completly useless.
I would recommend you checking all the DW skills, you will notice 2H doesnt have many of those either. What a surprise, weapons dont have same skills?
Exactly.
If weapons need to be balanced (as I've said probably 10+ times already), that's a separate issue. Completely irrelevant here.0 -
Strider_Roshin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The fact that a magicka user would even use DW over a staff should be a strong indicator that DW is outperforming all 2H weapons (e.g. Greatswords, Staves, Bows, etc.) All 2H weapons should have a damage increase that way people choose DW because of it's abilities; not because it is innately more powerful.
I think a 10% increase to the weapon's damage would be appropriate. For example, a 1571 GS would now be 1728. This would compensate for not only the damage you get for DW and the extra damage you can get by gaining an extra 2-piece item set.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
Irrelevant. You and others still have not offered any reason to believe that whatever differences you bring up were specifically designed to balance 2-handed weapons against the fact that they have lesser set-completion capability. NONE. Stop spamming my thread with this already. Either offer evidence of this design decision, or leave. It's that simple.I would not need to do this if it weren't to the repeated claim by the simply" crowd even to this very page that "no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability" which is a claim that is demonstrably false.
THEN DEMONSTRATE IT ALREADY. Wow.0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.1 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion1 -
Espica✭✭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.
Really?
It's because of class spammable abilities. 2H being the choice of stamina sorcs and DKs because it gives them CC too.
I'd like 2H to be balanced in PvE. They could make the weapon as a two part crafted/dropped pieces, maybe blade & hilt or sword/mace & scabbard.
But on the other hand it could be that the OP request is based on his desire to wear 3 proc sets like DW users.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
Well, i hope other do reread what i said and if so they will see that what i have been pointing out is that contrary to the "simply" crowds attempts to get folks to ignore everything but set counts (or a unnamed new bonus as seen in the original request) there are lots of baked in inherent favors given to two-handed weapons already.
yes tempers for quality improvement are one.
mats are another.
farm/grind is a third.
base weapon damage/range is a third.
Irrelevant. You and others still have not offered any reason to believe that whatever differences you bring up were specifically designed to balance 2-handed weapons against the fact that they have lesser set-completion capability. NONE. Stop spamming my thread with this already. Either offer evidence of this design decision, or leave. It's that simple.I would not need to do this if it weren't to the repeated claim by the simply" crowd even to this very page that "no inherent bonus to 2-handed weapons to make up for the lack of set-completion capability" which is a claim that is demonstrably false.
THEN DEMONSTRATE IT ALREADY. Wow.
Asked and answered multiple times already and just "simply" dismissed by someone who needs there to not be such a thing to get their agenda forwarded.
But again let me be clear, nobody i know of is saying they have some written document which says from a developer that the set bonus thing is to be offset by a-b-c-d.
Nor is it needed for anything except perhaps between your ears.
They are saying there are obvious, numerable and significant inherent advantages and disadvantages to the 2h and dw lines that provide each with positives and negative compared to each other and that taking one of those "set bonus" and "simply" declaring all the others irrelevent for discussion is a bad approach.
I am saying as well that most of the balance between DW and 2H and staves etc has changed a lot since inception and a lot of those changes were due to IN PLAY RESULTS which means the set bonus edge was factored into the changes.
Your tunnel vision "dont have it in writing" thing is silly.
of course a developer said they would consider or look at changing the set bonus thing when they look at balance changes. Thats because that is a PART OF the balance goulash. That doesn't mean they never realized before that it was there. Thjat doesn't mean that in all this time and all these changes the set count thing never influecned or guided the changes.
C'mon, i know you wont back step at all on this but... just continuing to dismiss everything except what you want as irrelevant isn't gonna get results.
I suggest you go read any number of playtest guidelines over on the PTS. They tend to look at two things:
One is "for this specific new change is it functioning" like "can you dye your armor" stuff.
But the majority are overall comprehensive how is the balance turning out etc - taken as a whole.
They want numbers from in play results, not from "if we ignore everything that goes against our agenda then we can show that..."
At this point i dont really think getting actual results is what your current path is leading towards.
Edited by STEVIL on November 3, 2016 6:54PMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
//EDIT:
In short, what I am advocating for is making this change no matter what, while achieving "balance" no matter what. And what I am advocating against, is dismissing this change due to balance reasons, because balance can be achieved even with this change.Edited by SodanTok on November 3, 2016 7:21PM0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
Edited by STEVIL on November 3, 2016 7:28PMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.
yes absolutely it does. it shows you apparently misquoted.
the post you quoted was not me talking about balancing weapon skill lines at all but rather was me pointing out the poster's comments to correct another misconception about what the poster was saying.
The some builds do this and some builds do that ESo-101 stuff you just threw in is not at all related to that post it was quoted responding to.
Thanks for clearing up the disconnect in your quote.
@STEVIL
Glad explaining things in heavy detail was sufficient for you to understand.
Maybe actual pay attention to what you read may help Thx.0 -
Vythri✭✭✭✭
Because mages and healers are stealthy bursting rogues and assassins, right.
also i don't think bow needs any help at all
You are out in left field on that last part.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.
yes absolutely it does. it shows you apparently misquoted.
the post you quoted was not me talking about balancing weapon skill lines at all but rather was me pointing out the poster's comments to correct another misconception about what the poster was saying.
The some builds do this and some builds do that ESo-101 stuff you just threw in is not at all related to that post it was quoted responding to.
Thanks for clearing up the disconnect in your quote.
@STEVIL
Glad explaining things in heavy detail was sufficient for you to understand.
Maybe actual pay attention to what you read may help Thx.
Well always glad to help out people confused by how to quote to understand how linking quote and response matters.
You're welcome.Edited by STEVIL on November 3, 2016 7:37PMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Edited by SodanTok on November 3, 2016 7:55PM0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.
yes absolutely it does. it shows you apparently misquoted.
the post you quoted was not me talking about balancing weapon skill lines at all but rather was me pointing out the poster's comments to correct another misconception about what the poster was saying.
The some builds do this and some builds do that ESo-101 stuff you just threw in is not at all related to that post it was quoted responding to.
Thanks for clearing up the disconnect in your quote.
@STEVIL
Glad explaining things in heavy detail was sufficient for you to understand.
Maybe actual pay attention to what you read may help Thx.
Well always glad to help out people confused by how to quote to understand how linking quote and response matters.
You're welcome.
Your still confused I see. Never saw someone challenged with understanding how weapon passives provide an inherent bonus to the weapon.
Glad I could help. Had thought it was common knowledge
0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Removed post. Not getting into childish arguments.Edited by idk on November 3, 2016 7:55PM0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO 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 threadI 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.
@STEVIL
And that would explain a lot.
Most solid magika builds use DW on the execute bar for the passive Twin Blade Blunt. The extra spell damage that comes with it and extra set bonus some are able to obtain pale in comparison.
That 5% added damage is huge. So when I say weapon lines have passives in response to you saying something about balancing the weapon lines. Yea, maybe this more detailed explanation will help.
yes absolutely it does. it shows you apparently misquoted.
the post you quoted was not me talking about balancing weapon skill lines at all but rather was me pointing out the poster's comments to correct another misconception about what the poster was saying.
The some builds do this and some builds do that ESo-101 stuff you just threw in is not at all related to that post it was quoted responding to.
Thanks for clearing up the disconnect in your quote.
@STEVIL
Glad explaining things in heavy detail was sufficient for you to understand.
Maybe actual pay attention to what you read may help Thx.
Well always glad to help out people confused by how to quote to understand how linking quote and response matters.
You're welcome.
Your still confused I see. Never saw someone challenged with understanding how weapon passives provide an inherent bonus to the weapon.
Glad I could help. Had thought it was common knowledge
Just not sure how long you want to keep your little posturing thing here going.
You know i questioned the statements relevence to the quote you included with it and nothing about passives was in that.
This little juxtaposition switcheroo game of yours is just... very illustrative of the dismissal nature shown on this thread.Edited by STEVIL on November 3, 2016 8:26PMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
I would think a better solution to this is to just remove all weapons from the current sets. Create new sets for weapons much like Mealstrom weapons, with DW's/S&S having a 1/2 bonus.Steam: Deanatioonables
[img]<img class="spotlight" alt="" aria-describedby="fbPhotosSnowliftCaption" aria-busy="false" src="https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14925574_1140500276030381_5332818937332738116_n.jpg?oh=7a0fb0f6d1097476d4ae723596da6be5&oe=588B458A">[/img]1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
Edited by idk on November 3, 2016 8:59PM2 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.
Oh, dont take it personally. Discussing how to implement, what could be changed etc etc are good for discussion. i just feels its totally pointless discussing how could this change affect balance, if we lack any data about how actually is game balanced about not having this. Because if 2H is strong already, or at least same as DW, while lacking possibility to make 3sets builds, it speaks more about 2H/DW skillset/damage and not about this change.Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
I know I should but I always get interested what he will think about next
There are people talking about why this change should be done, people talking about why this change shouldnt be done and then is he, talking about something.
TBH this whole discussion got so polluted by all posts from STEVIL and all reactions at them (including mine). That it distracts from the main point.Edited by SodanTok on November 3, 2016 9:26PM0 -
tnanever✭✭✭
Just not sure how long you want to keep your little posturing thing here going.
You know i questioned the statements relevence to the quote you included with it and nothing about passives was in that.
This little juxtaposition switcheroo game of yours is just... very illustrative of the dismissal nature shown on this thread.
stevil - stop derailing this thread. Your argument is invalid. You're implying that the devs are so inept that they can't possibly balance 2-handed weapons utilizing both equipment slots like two 1-handed weapons. This is on top of the baseless assumption that somehow this would overpower 2-handed weapons in the first place, while somehow it's fine for 1-handed weapons to have this set bonus. Everything you said is wrong.0 -
Doomslinger781✭✭✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
but i have contributed to the discussion. Outside of balance issues I have mentioned with the proposed changes, I suggested changes of my own in comment 132.
Oh, dont take it personally. Discussing how to implement, what could be changed etc etc are good for discussion. i just feels its totally pointless discussing how could this change affect balance, if we lack any data about how actually is game balanced about not having this. Because if 2H is strong already, or at least same as DW, while lacking possibility to make 3sets builds, it speaks more about 2H/DW skillset/damage and not about this change.Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussionsodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 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).
Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
You kinda can suggest combat/gear change and avoid talking balance (IN THIS CASE). First, balance is and always will be achievable after this change. Second, nobody has any idea how will this affect balance (which is, if needed, achievable after the change) since 90% of the game is favoring builds without 2H and the rest (except current meta cases of 1h and shield) was in favor of 2H always even with possibility of more slot bonuses while DW.
Its basically impossible to say much exactly this change makes 2H better, only that they will be better more than they are now and that they wont be better too much (because again, based by past data, 3rd set bonus isnt big reason to switch to DW in PVP). By that you can already predict very small increase of 2H usage in PVP, and AT WORST (craaazy prediction) big increase of 2H usage in PVE, almost on par with DW.
So in those worst scenarios, 2H will make good weapons in PVE, not better than DW and in PVP, already weak DW, will suffer slightly more. Which will be always the case, because of what DW does and if needed, should be concern of different discussion about DW vs 2H balance. Now with better options since people could actually compare the power of 2H with same gear to DW.bowmanz607 wrote: »sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »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 cancer sets to create slightly more cancerous 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?
Again not a different issue. You suggest a change that messes with balance. Therefore, balance is a necessary discussion
As answered above. Its actually impossible to talk balance until this change is implemented. There are only 2 ways you could discuss balance. DW vs 2H or what 3 sets are OP when used together. You CAN NOT talk balance if same 3sets do different things (read 1 things less) on 2H vs DW. Or how current 2H skillset is balanced because they lack one of the possible most OP 3set combos.
Another day in the "Simply" Dismissal Army for 2H Upgrades.
maybe i have this wrong but... hey folks... chime in and help me out... but.. i think that it is true that balance has been being discussed ever since being in beta, even before and all along for years now in actual play and that would seem to me to make any claims of " You CAN NOT talk balance if same" rather inaccurate (to put it politely) given all during that period where set bonus counts were just like they are now. Sure, MAelstroms got added, masters came in at some time, more sets here and there but folks were able to not only talk balance but see balance changed and adjusted and implemented several different ways.
I am really wanting to quote the prince bride line about how impossible doesn't mean what you think it means.
instead let me observe just another way to say "make our change first and then look at balance concerns." That is so much not gonna sway anyone to the cause, especially developers.
I made promise to myself I wont reply to your comments since they bring nothing to discussion, but I feel I need to clarify something here. All those balance talks here are useless. The only reason I am willing to answer balance concerns is only just another way to make my point more across, more seen, more prominent. Devs could care less what people with ZERO data in this forum think COULD happen if something not measurable changed.
If we here make good point why this change should be added, we get a chance they will actually add it and balance it in their own way.
So, after several days of keeping this thread alive I did my part. It maybe wasn't enough to advocate this change (more because not enough people chimed in), but I definitely know I at least greatly increased chance someone from devs read this and got interested in it.
Tl;dr:
Results of this change:
What I think? It wont make 2H op. What I know? Nothing.
What you and others think? It will make 2H OP. What you and others know? Nothing.
What I want? Make this change and let people who know things decide how to balance it.
What you and others want? Dont make this change or nerf 2H because you know nothing. But you think a lot.
Sorry, facts again. i know you dont like that but hey...
I have said frequently here on this thread if this change occurs it needs to be looked at BEFORE it is implemented and all the inherent boosts need to be considered, not dismissed.
basically "if you do it, do it right not simply"
I know that position is not as easy to dismiss as the ones you trump up but hey facts matter.
@sodantokb16_ESO
I'd suggest avoiding replying to Seargent @STEVIL
He tends to be a little snarky with his replies if your answer doesn't fit into his extreemly narrow idea of what this thread is about or it's not extremely obvious to him. He has become the forum police. Lol.
I know I should but I always get interested what he will think about next There are people talking about why this change should be done, people talking about why this change shouldnt be done and then is he, talking about something.
TBH this whole discussion got so polluted by all posts from STEVIL and all reactions at them (including mine). That it distracts from the main point.
Agreed. I stopped responding to him when he called my statements unhinged and exasperated. He's been derailing the conversation with argumentative, contrarian statements for the last 6 pages. This is an important topic for me and a lot of folks; let's stay focused and keep it respectful.
Back to the matter at hand: I'm still not sure the developers took extra, additional, or even separate steps to buff 2H weapons solely based on the fact that they're closed out from all 5/5/2 builds. I understand they had to increase their damage (and traits and glyphs) to compensate for two sources of damage (and traits and glyphs) coming from dual wielding, but how did they - and how could they - ever compensate for all the possible (2nd) 5-piece bonuses and the extra damage or utility those provide? It seems like a monumental task (which is also fluid in nature given additional set releases), to balance around the lack of all the possible combinations and synergies. Thoughts?Templar: Duncan Castlehoff (main)
Sorc: Sabine Lumoria
DK: Auderlant
NB: Yggmeena
Templar: Mukambei
DK: Stegmon
Sorc: Gruze Von Kruger
NB: Gnarl Ballin1 -
tnanever✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Your suggestion and balance are directly related to each other. They walk hand in hand. Your simply trying to handcuff the conversation to your views. I will not play ball.
You can't suggest a combat and gear change and not talk balance. Bottom line.
You can disagree with what I say, but you can't disagree that the 2 points run together.
No. You're still wrong, and I still disagree. Let's sum up your posts (you're Person 2):
Person 1 - "Wouldn't it be cool if ____ was changed/added?"
Person 2 - "I disagree because of my gameplay balance opinions."
Person 1 - "Ok, but what if you're wrong and it wouldn't be unbalanced? Or what if you're right, and it was unbalanced, but the devs made it balanced? Either way, your balance concerns don't matter."
Person 2 - "After reading that, I literally have no argument left but I'll still complain about possible balance issues, and now only argue that you can't ignore balance issues...even after pointing out exactly why balance issues aren't a concern. More spam. Noise. Etc."0
![https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14925574_1140500276030381_5332818937332738116_n.jpg?oh=7a0fb0f6d1097476d4ae723596da6be5&oe=588B458A">[/img]](https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14925574_1140500276030381_5332818937332738116_n.jpg?oh=7a0fb0f6d1097476d4ae723596da6be5&oe=588B458A">[/img]){kind=link}
This discussion has been closed.