Sandman929 wrote: »I'm sure it's been asked before @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_ANYONE_ELSE, but is there a reason 2H weapons can't count for 2 pieces of a set? If this has been answered elsewhere, could someone please direct me to the explanation?
Having 11 "pieces" with a 2H weapon while Dual Wielding provides 12 seems unnecessarily limiting in build options.
DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not sure how that is relevant. By that logic I have to use 2 hands, count them 2 hands to hold a 2H weapon. A set for each hand.
DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not sure how that is relevant. By that logic I have to use 2 hands, count them 2 hands to hold a 2H weapon. A set for each hand.
Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Wasn't there a class in Diablo (barbarian?) that after unlocking a skill, you could carry a 2h weapon in one hand? Is that something that could be incorporated into a passive class skill? Then maybe that class can carry a shield or 1h weapon on the second hand. It might make that class OP, but it's worth a look.
Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Wasn't there a class in Diablo (barbarian?) that after unlocking a skill, you could carry a 2h weapon in one hand? Is that something that could be incorporated into a passive class skill? Then maybe that class can carry a shield or 1h weapon on the second hand. It might make that class OP, but it's worth a look.
Good to see a post not drifting off topic....
Anyway, if someone at ZOS could explain why 2H must necessarily be penalized at slot for set pieces, I'd love to hear it.
Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Wasn't there a class in Diablo (barbarian?) that after unlocking a skill, you could carry a 2h weapon in one hand? Is that something that could be incorporated into a passive class skill? Then maybe that class can carry a shield or 1h weapon on the second hand. It might make that class OP, but it's worth a look.
Good to see a post not drifting off topic....
Anyway, if someone at ZOS could explain why 2H must necessarily be penalized at slot for set pieces, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not sure how my post drifted off topic. I was actually suggesting a scenario that would allow someone carrying a 2h weapon to carry a 2nd weapon and qualify for the 12th slot. I do expect Zos to do something eventually with this, as it does seem to crimp the 2h weapon user.
DannyLV702 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not sure how that is relevant. By that logic I have to use 2 hands, count them 2 hands to hold a 2H weapon. A set for each hand.
It's the weapon giving you the set bonus, though, not the use of a second hand. I've heard someone else say the same as you but it's not the same.
DannyLV702 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not sure how that is relevant. By that logic I have to use 2 hands, count them 2 hands to hold a 2H weapon. A set for each hand.
It's the weapon giving you the set bonus, though, not the use of a second hand. I've heard someone else say the same as you but it's not the same.
First off its not the weapon or the hands its the code of the game, which can be changed.
Secondly i can be argued its not the weapon itself it but me holding it, in my hands. Evidenced since I don't get the set bonuses from items in my inventory.
Obviously, it is by design that if you go with a 2H, Bow, or Staff, you cannot do 2 + 5 + 5 for sets. Unless, of course, you use sets like Clever Alchemist, Lich, etc. which can be activated on your back bar effectively. It is all about forcing choices.
Are you a magicka build? Go with duel wield if you want to use 2 + 5 + 5 but you won't be able to weave. Want to be able to weave with a destro? You won't be able to go 2 + 5 + 5 (again, there are sets that get around this).
Are you a stamina build? Want to use the most well-rounded weapon in terms of abilities (with Rally, a gap closer, a good execute a heavy hitting spamable, and great passives - see, Battle Rush) ? Then you can't use 2 + 5 + 5. Want to go 2 + 5 + 5? Then you will have to go with a weapon line that doesn't have gap closer, burst heal, or major brutality (duel wield) or with a weapon line that is much more defensive rather than offensive (sword and board).
In short, it creates more meaningful choices and forces people to make concessions for certain benefits. Is it more important to get that extra set bonus or use a weapon which is a bit bet suited for your needs?
Avran_Sylt wrote: »Though, why are 2Hs dominant in PvP? would letting people use a 2H and 2 sets rather than one make it even more OP?
DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
It's quite simple: Build diversity.Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Wasn't there a class in Diablo (barbarian?) that after unlocking a skill, you could carry a 2h weapon in one hand? Is that something that could be incorporated into a passive class skill? Then maybe that class can carry a shield or 1h weapon on the second hand. It might make that class OP, but it's worth a look.
Good to see a post not drifting off topic....
Anyway, if someone at ZOS could explain why 2H must necessarily be penalized at slot for set pieces, I'd love to hear it.
Strider_Roshin wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
This is true however, if we wanted to bring logic into this argument the amount of force applied is dependant on the weight, and acceleration of that object. Meaning it's safe to say that a 2H weapon weighs a lot more than a 1H weapon of the same kind. Now that we have that covered let's address acceleration. If I have two hands on my weapon rather than one I'm going to be able to swing that weapon with two hands much faster than I could with one.
So yes, a greatsword is only one item. However if we're wanting to bring logic in this argument I should be able to hit significantly harder with that greatsword than I would DW.
Sandman929 wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
Not that I don't appreciate a thorough explanation of the differences between 1 thing and 2 things, because I do, but this particular game mechanic is unnecessarily limiting when it comes to build diversity. Couldn't these singular 2H weapons somehow contain through some magical means the properties of 2 weapons forged into one? Thus fulfilling the 2 piece requirement while still only being a single piece?
Strider_Roshin wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
This is true however, if we wanted to bring logic into this argument the amount of force applied is dependant on the weight, and acceleration of that object. Meaning it's safe to say that a 2H weapon weighs a lot more than a 1H weapon of the same kind. Now that we have that covered let's address acceleration. If I have two hands on my weapon rather than one I'm going to be able to swing that weapon with two hands much faster than I could with one.
So yes, a greatsword is only one item. However if we're wanting to bring logic in this argument I should be able to hit significantly harder with that greatsword than I would DW.
The majority of 2h weapons in ESO made into a real world equivalent would be too heavy to swing properly 2 hands or not. So the point is moot. However your also forgetting more mass means more energy spent on acceleration. Specifically you mentioned faster (quicker acceleration) when I'm rather sure you actually mean harder (greater momentum).
Edit - Anyhow to address the OP. ZOS is unlikely to respond without being tagged. However it has been mentioned previously that because 2H weapons have greater utility in their lines the count as one for set bonuses.
Strider_Roshin wrote: »Strider_Roshin wrote: »DannyLV702 wrote: »It comes down to simple math. A 2h is one, count it, one weapon.
Dual wield requires two, count it, two weapons.
And therefore 2h counts as one weapon because it is one weapon, and dual wield counts as two weapons, because they are two weapons.
This is true however, if we wanted to bring logic into this argument the amount of force applied is dependant on the weight, and acceleration of that object. Meaning it's safe to say that a 2H weapon weighs a lot more than a 1H weapon of the same kind. Now that we have that covered let's address acceleration. If I have two hands on my weapon rather than one I'm going to be able to swing that weapon with two hands much faster than I could with one.
So yes, a greatsword is only one item. However if we're wanting to bring logic in this argument I should be able to hit significantly harder with that greatsword than I would DW.
The majority of 2h weapons in ESO made into a real world equivalent would be too heavy to swing properly 2 hands or not. So the point is moot. However your also forgetting more mass means more energy spent on acceleration. Specifically you mentioned faster (quicker acceleration) when I'm rather sure you actually mean harder (greater momentum).
Edit - Anyhow to address the OP. ZOS is unlikely to respond without being tagged. However it has been mentioned previously that because 2H weapons have greater utility in their lines the count as one for set bonuses.
Nope, I meant acceleration since I'm dealing with force. Also have you looked up the weight of historical greatswords such as claymores? They're not as heavy as you think.
This is true in PvE, but in PvP, they are a force to be reckoned with. A HoT is much more useful in PvP, since you might not have a healer with you. Critical Charge->Wrecking Blow/Dizzying Swing will do a massive amount of damage to a target in a very short amount of time, and it even gives you your choice of Empower or a very powerful stun. Then you get an ultimate that can split tanks in two, and an execute that's simply icing on the cake.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »What two hander needs is better skills. The ones that are there are not conducive to PvE dps. A cast time spammable, a very weak AOE that is also the weapons DoT, a gap closer that is wholy unnecessary for PvE, and execute that ties you to the aforementioned skills and lastly a HoT that is mostly unnecessary and gives a buff that most get from pots. Oh and an ulti that ignores armor rating, something that is almost already done with the penetration meta going on right now.
This is the real problem with two-handed weapons.