Two-handed should give 2 set bonuses

SodanTok · July 2017

Arthg wrote: »

So you'd only use 8 tempering alloys to get the benefit of 2 items.
Unfair for 2W or sword and board.

And if you say, 'let's make it 16 to gold up a two-hander"', what about all the gold two-handers out there already exisiting - they were golded out for 8 tempering alloys...?

DUAL WIELD ARE NO PEOPLE ffs. Always someone comes with something unfair to DW. It is not human being that has feelings that we should care about.

They wont go cry to corner because this big 2H sword is gold for less

WikileaksEU · July 2017

SirAndy wrote: »

WikileaksEU wrote: »

Two-handed should give 2 set bonuses

No ...

Why should a dual wield and one-hand and shield build get access to more than a two-handed, bow and staff build

Ladislao wrote: »

It seems necessary to explain one point clearly

Each weapon has advantages and disadvantages. The fact that any two-handed weapon covers one part of sets is disadvantage. This creates a balance that still exists.

You probably play a dual wield stamina sorcerer and kill everything in duels. You're afraid to get competition and get your ass beaten by a two-hander.

Chufu · July 2017

WikileaksEU wrote: »

Dual wield is a standard set in stone. Everyone uses it because it is superior.. and it's mostly because you can equip 2 full sets + 1 monster set. Change so that two-handed weapons gives 2 set bonuses and not 1 to even it out between builds. Where is the common sense that this game should have?

Absolutely agree with you.

Remember that this discussion pop up in 2015 where ZOS told us that the reason behind the decision that staves, bow and 2hand weapons don't be able to get 2 sets + monster-set is the higher damageoutput.

But I'm thinking since 2014: Why don't get the dmg lower, but you are able to wear 2 Sets + 1 monster-set?

klowdy1 · July 2017

Arthg wrote: »

So you'd only use 8 tempering alloys to get the benefit of 2 items.
Unfair for 2W or sword and board.

And if you say, 'let's make it 16 to gold up a two-hander"', what about all the gold two-handers out there already exisiting - they were golded out for 8 tempering alloys...?

Or double the amount it costs to upgrade them. I have yet to see an arguement against the OP that has any real value. If one thing can be changed (2h=2slots) then other things can be changed to balance. Everyone needs to think their negativity through, make sure it's an air tight argument. Adjustments can be made, it just puts all gearing at the same level.

WikileaksEU · July 2017

Chufu wrote: »

WikileaksEU wrote: »

Dual wield is a standard set in stone. Everyone uses it because it is superior.. and it's mostly because you can equip 2 full sets + 1 monster set. Change so that two-handed weapons gives 2 set bonuses and not 1 to even it out between builds. Where is the common sense that this game should have?

Absolutely agree with you.

Remember that this discussion pop up in 2015 where ZOS told us that the reason behind the decision that staves, bow and 2hand weapons don't be able to get 2 sets + monster-set is the higher damageoutput.

But I'm thinking since 2014: Why don't get the dmg lower, but you are able to wear 2 Sets + 1 monster-set?

Dual Wield has superior selfhealing and also with an extra set, you do a minimum of 10k extra damage every 2-4 seconds. Two-handed healing is not that good as it is every 2 seconds (max 800) and you have to w8 a long time to get that big heal, while dual wield can heal for a minimum of 2k every 1 second. Class skills also plays a big role into the factors.

Dual wield + red mountain + viper + selene + bloodthirst. Lacerate is an AoE skill and has a crazy heal + damage. Two-handed has no chance. Bow is *** as you only use 1-2 skills for your rotation, on your backbar.

The problem we have now is the morphs of class skills. Make more morphs into stamina/magicka. When a class skill can be morped it should either be choosed to be magicka or stamina.

DeHei · July 2017

GeorgeBlack wrote: »

It would ruin the balance between weapons and their functions.

And 2h weapons are one piece of gear. Not two. You can have everything just because.

That will ruin nothing! Its a fact that many magickaplayer need to use dual wield (a staminabased weapon with low damage for magickaplayer) only to get the 2th 5piecebonus and hold a monsterset together. Wtf is that? They need to do THIS or give us a magickabased dual wield option like a short staff and a orb, a book, a scull or some other ***!

WikileaksEU · July 2017

Dual wield + red mountain + viper + selene + bloodthirst. 8000 + 6000 + 12 000 + 10 000 = 34 000 damage minimum in a matter of seconds plus the heal from Bloodthirst and also if you use two-handed on your backbar you have another safeheal to backup, and a weapon skill that ignores all resistance and hits like a truck single target and then lacerate which can outheal everything in an AoE fight. Two-handed is just a backbar weapon like bow. dual wield wins.

STEVIL · July 2017

WikileaksEU wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

WikileaksEU wrote: »

Two-handed should give 2 set bonuses

No ...

Why should a dual wield and one-hand and shield build get access to more than a two-handed, bow and staff build

First "why should x get y" is a bsseless question.
Why should dw not have gap closer or execute?
Why should magica staves get ranged aoe bkasts and dots?

The only real answer is that early in design a choice was made to not let everything be the same, worj the samecway and to generakly divide strengths and weaknesses between and within the different "packages" one can build with such as classes, guilds, weapons, etc. Of these packages, class, level and race were the mostly mandatory trio of packages.

After that decision to divide advantages and disadvantages, the decision was made to include set count as a difference - advantage to some and disad to others. Some things, like number of active skills and ultimates, were decided to NOT be within the differences.

There is no universsl, cosmic set by burning bush reason why SHOULD be a difference and the other SHOULD be a constant. No talking snake brought fruit salad and said it should thus be.

But since that decision, years of live play, playtest and many overhauls have all been done with these core "difference orr constant" design choices remaining intact and balance while shifting has been done with those cores intact.

You might as well be asking "why shouldnt dw and 1hs have an extra active skill."

But the game was not built with that core in mind, has not run thru years of balance and rebalance with that constant between packages and those differences between packages and as there is strong disagreement about how dominant stamiba dw is or isnt across the game over magica staff builds, there is no clear evidence that this chanfe to a core design decision would be some miraculous silver bullet that fixes so much stuff that it warrants throwing out the years of play data with it.

Can you say adding set bonuses to staves and bows and mauls would produce better balance thsn say adding a sixth active skill to those skill lines OR allowing characters with those equipped to have a six active skills and an ulti on those bars?

To me its obvious, with most of my characters running 11pc builds, a few running 12pc builds and maybe two running mixed 11/12pc builds, there are lotsa of better more focused ways to adjust blkances without needing to throw out core "difference or constant" design elements.

I am encouraged to build differently by this design element. If it were changed to a core constant, all builds 12, i would almost certainly see less diversity in my builds.

The road to more diversity does not begin with googling how to get more sameness.

Chadak · July 2017

I am so utterly, unbelievably glad that just about all of you on this thread aren't responsible for designing anything relevant to this, or any, game system.

Destyran · July 2017

No it should not because its 1 set peice

TheHsN · July 2017

when u use 2 pieces they have same damages or options same as 2 handed and they have plus 5Th bonus advantage

so that is unfair

STEVIL · July 2017

TheHsN wrote: »

when u use 2 pieces they have same damages or options same as 2 handed and they have plus 5Th bonus advantage

so that is unfair

Nope

SodanTok · July 2017

Chufu wrote: »

WikileaksEU wrote: »

Dual wield is a standard set in stone. Everyone uses it because it is superior.. and it's mostly because you can equip 2 full sets + 1 monster set. Change so that two-handed weapons gives 2 set bonuses and not 1 to even it out between builds. Where is the common sense that this game should have?

Absolutely agree with you.

Remember that this discussion pop up in 2015 where ZOS told us that the reason behind the decision that staves, bow and 2hand weapons don't be able to get 2 sets + monster-set is the higher damageoutput.

But I'm thinking since 2014: Why don't get the dmg lower, but you are able to wear 2 Sets + 1 monster-set?

Well bows dont have high damage output. Staves literally had to get +% to damage few patches ago, so they obviously werent strong enough for ZoS.
So only 2H remains and even that weapon had to get several pve related buffs in past year and fell hugely out of favor in PVP from main weapon to backbar (not saying it isn't still the most popular weapon there)...

So balance wise some two handed weapons need this change to get better and other can get it while some recent buffs to them are adjusted.
Thankfully this is all on ZoS. So some thread about this each month could get them to do something about it in few years and voices of "its 1 piece uaaaaaa" actually do not matter