PlagueSD wrote: »

for the 1.5 x 10^45 time, NO.

google calculator turns this into vocabulary. What in the hell kind of witchcraft is that?

Why making 2H count as 2 items but not making 1H weapons count as half item?

As they did it (technically) for Master and Maelstrom weapons.

I'd rather magicka users not be limited to staff only, like another skill line for dual wielding. Wands? Sword and Rune? Double casting with hands? The 2 handed staves get boring. It'd be cool to run two one-handed magic weapons front bar with staff backbar or something.

To all those saying No, in a way they have already kind of done so in a bit of an half-assed, bandaid kind of way by making Master/Maelstrom/CWC weapons 1 piece sets for 2H weapons.

They really should just go all the way and roll this out to all sets and let players get their 5 piece bonuses when wearing 4 pieces that include a 2H weapon.

So you all know Rich Lambert said in todays live stream it has been something they have thrown around but nothing as if it is coming or not.

And I say no cause it would create an imbalance unless they brought its natural damage down to 1 handed weapons and gave it a 6% increase from a passive to make it equal to dual wield other wise it would become super op.

Nolic1 wrote: »

So you all know Rich Lambert said in todays live stream it has been something they have thrown around but nothing as if it is coming or not.

And I say no cause it would create an imbalance unless they brought its natural damage down to 1 handed weapons and gave it a 6% increase from a passive to make it equal to dual wield other wise it would become super op.

They nerfed 2 handed a long time ago. Damage and passives wise 2 handed is EXACTLY the same as DW but only slower. Same DPS but more damage per hit, BUT SLOWER.

If they gave it 2 handed another set bonus it would make them equal.... like they should be.

Yes, but it needs to actually be an item that goes into the equipment slot.

SirAndy wrote: »

pauli133 wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.

could you explain your reasoning? the idea of having set balance be independent of weapon class seems reasonable (regardless of whether that's 11 or 12 pieces for everyone to work with), and I don't see how it negatively impacts customization.

Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
By taking away uniqueness and making everything the same (all weapons count as two pieces) you are *reducing* build diversity.

People want 2H to count as two so they can get the positive from dual wield (2 full sets + monster) without having to actually chose dual wield, thus avoiding the negatives.

They aren't asking this to "balance" the game, they are asking this because they want the benefits from a different play-style without the consequences of actually choosing that play-style.

The actual consequence would be a vast increase in the amount of competitve options for any build running at least one two handed weapon, including setups currently only possible on builds running a mix of only dualwield/one hand and shield.
So how exactly would this reduce build diversity? You would somehow have to show how it would turn a large amount of options uncompetitive.

SirAndy wrote: »

pauli133 wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.

could you explain your reasoning? the idea of having set balance be independent of weapon class seems reasonable (regardless of whether that's 11 or 12 pieces for everyone to work with), and I don't see how it negatively impacts customization.

@pauli133

Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
By taking away uniqueness and making everything the same (all weapons count as two pieces) you are *reducing* build diversity.

People want 2H to count as two so they can get the positive from dual wield (2 full sets + monster) without having to actually chose dual wield, thus avoiding the negatives.

They aren't asking this to "balance" the game, they are asking this because they want the benefits from a different play-style without the consequences of actually choosing that play-style.

LOL, your argument is so weak and easily picked apart. Sure, DW has some negatives, as do 2H, Destro, Bow...etc. ALL weapon lines have drawbacks due to the uniqueness of their abilities and passives, just as they have strengths. It is expected that these drawbacks tend to cancel each other out.

BUT... the two handed weapons have a whole different disadvantage compared to DW and S&B, a difference that has absolutely NOTHING to do with abilities or passives! The ability to wear two 5 piece sets and a 2 piece monster set at the same time is denied to wielders of two handed weapons. This particular drawback has NO equivalent counterpart for DW or S&B wielders. How can anyone claim this is fair?

Furthermore, your assertion that making the proposed change would reduce build diversity is a FLAT OUT LIE. As a destro magicka Sorc, I'm pigeon holed into builds that have a "front bar/back bar" dynamic if I want to run a monster set, such as Spinner + Lich. Wouldn't it be great if I could pair Spinner with Seducer and still wear a monster set? Sadly that's not an real option as long as two handed weapons only count for one gear set bonus. My build diversity is crippled by the two handed weapon I'm forced to carry.

Nobody who cared about fairness in the game would make the arguments you are making. Why do I suspect you are a sword and board DK or a dual wield Templar or Nightblade, or even a stamina Sorc? These are all classes that can get away with DW weapons, of course...hmm...

SirAndy wrote: »

Furcula wrote: »

Thoughts on this topic?

327 thoughts on the topic, which is coincidentally also the number of threads on the subject that already exist on the forum and no, most people still don't like the idea, no matter how many times the same question is repeated by the same 5 players over and over again.

Your comment is totally false. If you look at the poll at the top of THIS VERY THREAD, you will find that roughly 2/3 of 150 people voted YES to making this change.