Should 2h weapons count as 2 items for set bonus?
-
Apache_Kid✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭NoEmma_Overload wrote: »Apache_Kid wrote: »Every single person that voted yes on this has a child-like level of understanding on how balance in this game actually works in this game.
If staves counted as a two slots towards set bonus there would be no reason to ever play a build that didn't use staves. It would make them the most powerful option for weapons in the game by a substantial margin. If you can't see that I seriously question your intelligence and common sense.
LOL, calm your t*ts... all the horrifically overpowered Stamblades and Stam Wardens are doing just fine without staves.
I'm talking about PvE content. But if you think StamDens are OP now just wait and see what MagDens would be like with 5-5-2 with staves.
You and all these other people have no idea what you're talking about. My brain is in knots trying to figure out how you people cannont comprehend this. It's absolutely mind-blowing. Just think about it for even a second.
Edit: LOL at Stamblades being overpowered. WhatEdited by Apache_Kid on January 7, 2018 5:50PM0 -
ssewallb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Apache_Kid wrote: »Emma_Overload wrote: »Apache_Kid wrote: »Every single person that voted yes on this has a child-like level of understanding on how balance in this game actually works in this game.
If staves counted as a two slots towards set bonus there would be no reason to ever play a build that didn't use staves. It would make them the most powerful option for weapons in the game by a substantial margin. If you can't see that I seriously question your intelligence and common sense.
LOL, calm your t*ts... all the horrifically overpowered Stamblades and Stam Wardens are doing just fine without staves.
I'm talking about PvE content. But if you think StamDens are OP now just wait and see what MagDens would be like with 5-5-2 with staves.
You and all these other people have no idea what you're talking about. My brain is in knots trying to figure out how you people cannont comprehend this. It's absolutely mind-blowing. Just think about it for even a second.
Stamdens would still be preferred due to better mobility and higher, more reliable burst.0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesEvery thread like this instantly turns in to war about staves dps in pve or 2H power in PVP and between them sits bow and waits for some recognition of importance of having 5/5/2 setup for better palace. If stam builds in PVE are balanced around DW and all the advantages they have (where having 5/5/2 is just one of many), every stam build (bow, 2H) without them just simply has no chance without some stupid blanket buffs just to increase the numbers.
Guess I need 'Give quiver' thread.0 -
Nelson_Rebel✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesApache_Kid wrote: »Emma_Overload wrote: »Apache_Kid wrote: »Every single person that voted yes on this has a child-like level of understanding on how balance in this game actually works in this game.
If staves counted as a two slots towards set bonus there would be no reason to ever play a build that didn't use staves. It would make them the most powerful option for weapons in the game by a substantial margin. If you can't see that I seriously question your intelligence and common sense.
LOL, calm your t*ts... all the horrifically overpowered Stamblades and Stam Wardens are doing just fine without staves.
I'm talking about PvE content. But if you think StamDens are OP now just wait and see what MagDens would be like with 5-5-2 with staves.
You and all these other people have no idea what you're talking about. My brain is in knots trying to figure out how you people cannont comprehend this. It's absolutely mind-blowing. Just think about it for even a second.
Edit: LOL at Stamblades being overpowered. What
Staves don’t need to be a 2h piece counting to a 5 setup
But magicka DOES need a weapon type that allows us to have a 5/5/2 setup that only stamina has acces to for pvp and pve.
Using duel swords for competitive PvP or PvE is not viable anymore since the change to passive requirements for damage and also the change that stamina weapons ONLY return stamina and ONLY have specific damage increases to
physical in the passives.
As of right now, stamina has better burst, mobility, and access to setup flexibility while still having range, gap closers, immunity to snaress and immobilizations all with stamina specific skills and weapons. There are even stamina shields now.
Magic has stayed stagnant and reduced reliability, burst, and sets that are actually viable because of our set restrictions and reduced damage and burst because of it.1 -
Apache_Kid✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭NoEmma_Overload wrote: »Apache_Kid wrote: »Every single person that voted yes on this has a child-like level of understanding on how balance in this game actually works in this game.
If staves counted as a two slots towards set bonus there would be no reason to ever play a build that didn't use staves. It would make them the most powerful option for weapons in the game by a substantial margin. If you can't see that I seriously question your intelligence and common sense.
LOL, calm your t*ts... all the horrifically overpowered Stamblades and Stam Wardens are doing just fine without staves.
I don't understand, what's even remotely strong about destruction staves. Pitiful passives and noodle wipping abilities.
I believe, these people are saying this, because they get owned by 10 stacked elemental storms. Which is bad game design, not directly a staff problem. 1 elemental storm is not even strong, not after all these nerfs.
Destruction staff has a greatly underpowered dot (destructive touch) probably the weakest spammable aoe (impulse) and a ground aoe, that can't even be used reliably in pvp. The only good thing in this line is elemental drain, which is just a joke compared to what it used to be. Then we have force pulse, which is only a desperate filler for classes who have no spammable spell (Sorcerers) If there wasn't the Asylum staff, then force pulse would still be uninteresting and well, only the perfected version is strong and who has that anyway ?
If anything, then staves need buffs. If none directly, then by making them count as 2 pieces.
Staves allow you to stay at range while being way more powerful than a bow. What don't you get about that? Also staves are extremely powerful in PvE. You don't even mention applying off balance via a lightning staff and wall of elements. This plus ele drain means the staff gives great group benefits as well and what other weapon line can say that other than S&B? You want this for purely selfish reasons so you can make an OP build with no regard for the health of the game.0 -
Asgari✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭NoAdding another bonus to 2h only makes them more bis. They currently have the best Passives and the most damage (excluding dw for pve) .. 2h gives the most stamina back applies the most burst and increases regen by a lot from kills.
Would be broken if they get another bonus.Formerly @Persian_Princess .. Now @Asgari
Princess Asgari | Sorc
Asgari | NB
-Asgari | Stamplar
Ariana Kishi | DK | True Liberator of Haderus
Banner Down!
No Mercy
Youtube: Asgari0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoLiquidPony wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
2H is tuned for PvP. Gap closer, strong HoT, snareLiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
That's because it's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained.
In fact, "blatantly obvious" is an understatement. It's self-evident.
Do you really need someone to give you "examples" of how massively buffing all 2H builds affects the balance of the game?
But, there's no reason it can't happen. We'd just need ZOS to rebalance pretty much every single buff, bonus, passive, and skill in the game. No big deal.
Not at all. Currently, people mostly deal with the slot limitations on 2 handed weapons by running front/back bar sets and/or using single pieces worth several bonuses like Master weapons or Domihaus. Master weapons would de facto be turned into 2 piece sets anyway and sets applying their full bonus from having them on one bar only, like Lich, aren't less powerful than other sets. It's just more limiting having to rely on them.
Many magicka DPS PvE builds use a 4-piece front bar (e.g., 5 x Julianos body, 4 x Aether/Moondancer/MA jewelry/frontbar, 2 x Skoria/Ilambris).
If you just broadly make all 2H weapons count as 2 pieces, now all of those builds can use a 5-piece front bar. So now all of those magicka builds get a massive front bar boost. In the simplest case like just adding a 5th piece of Moondancer, all those magsorcs and magblades out there suddenly gain +448 magicka recovery or +448 spell damage. Absolutely massive buff to already strong builds.
I don't have any problem with the idea in principle but it's totally ridiculous to claim that doing this doesn't throw a huge wrench in balance. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Pretty clear that what you're saying is purely from a PvP perspective with no thought to how it changes balance in PvE.
I am aware, and the post I was replying to claimed "all 2H builds" would be massively buffed, which is not the case. Furthermore, in your example we are using Julianos over Moondancer, which means either the setup is idiotic or the difference is, in fact, less than 300 base spell dmg in practice.
Wait, wait ...
Are you saying that the standard 5 Julianos/4 Minor Slayer setup is "idiotic?"
I hope not.
The difference would be something like +225 spell damage and +235 magicka regen, on average, with the added 5th piece of Moondancer with normal PvE buffs (assuming 80% uptime, which is what it was back in the DW Templar days, and 50/50 procs with Major/Minor Sorcery/Intellect). Could be that something like 5 Julianos + 5 BSW (front bar) + Monster set would be even stronger. Which is really cool to theorycraft and opens up all sorts of new possibilities ... and obviously is a huge buff.
If it weren't a buff to 2H builds, people wouldn't be asking for it.
I am saying the fact that Julianos is being used over Moondancer is proof that either it has a better 5 pc bonus, which means Moondancer 5 pc bonus is worth less than 300 base sp dmg, or the setup is bad. The only difference outside of the 5 pc bonuses would be whether you keep a sp dmg or sp crit bonus active on back bar, which is negligable and probably has sp dmg winning out anyway.
Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
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.Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.
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.
No see there are years of evidence to counter this imagined "vast increase".
At any point in time, there are some small set of "competitive builds" and a much much larger set of "non-competitive builds" and if adding more options for builds ever made a major siwth=ch in those numbers it would have shown a lot over the last several years where we have had time and time again new options added over and over... and yet each time more or less what happened was all that changed was what specific "builds went into that smaller set while the larger set got bigger.
As for how it could affect build diversity in a nagative way - right now there are sets and builds which cater more to "11 pc builds" and swapping after a long running or long cooldown power is triggered. On the other hand, there are builds which are built around 12pc setups which have all the bonuses up at all times. There are also of course ones built on master-maelstrom-asylum type weapons which bypass this concern entirely. Depending on your preference you can choose competitive options for each of those type.
But, if the 11pc all turned into 12 pc, a number of those would simply switch to the other existing 12 pc builds already being used. There would be no need to work an 11pc swap build in for staff users and they could just rely on the 12pc always up builds. So, a shift away from the 11pc to the 12pc already being used would be obvious - though not universal.
To try and establish an actual gain in competitive builds in use (much less a VAST gain) you would need to show that there are 12pc builds nobody currently uses that folks would migrate to that are both not in current use and not supeprior to the 11pc builds that folks are using (because if the 11s dropped and went to this better 12, that old 11 moves out of the competitive box.)
i cant imagine such a sweeping broad impact so many things all at once change would even be seriously explored given how much it would throw out most of the prior balance assumptions. i would not expect it in anything short of a chapter level change.
Any serious theorycrafter would be aware that there are many setups not in use because they would require 12 pieces on a two handed weapon. Likewise, such setups for dualwield or one hand/shield are meant for these weapon types and not optimized for two handed weapons, so people won't just use the same stuff on different weapon types.
As for an example, how about using 5 Necro + 5Winterborn + 2 Bloodspawn on Warden. Currently you could already go 5 Necro + 5 Winterborn + Master Ice Staff.
Or another example, my old Sorc sustain setup of 5 Bloodthorn + 5 Lich + 2 Pirate Skeleton. If I didn't have to split the sets in front and back bar, I could run Amberplasm instead of one of the 5 piece sets. Or Shacklebreaker. Or Seducer. Or Alteration. Or Willow's Path. Or Torug's Pact...
Any serious theorycrafter would realize that there are already far more combos than there are those that make it into the competitive build bucket.
Any serious theorycrafter would point out that for every one of your cases where someone switches to a new build, they are dropping one they are using now thus shifting one from the "used here" bracket into the "not used here bracket" and vice versa and the same math of selection would push us to the exact same basic percentage more or less.
let me put it more simply: Any increase the the types of sets ALLOWED has traditionally increased the number of sets in the unused pool by a great deal and as far as the number of sets in the "competitive sets used" pile it has resulted in just swapping some in and others out.
there is nothing at all inherent in a blunt force change like "all 2h weapons count as 2 items for counts" that says it wont just swap around which builds are competitive and which are not. There is nothing inherent in broad sweeping changes that suddenly makes for more balanced options enough that it promotes a bigger pool of actually used "competitive options" as opposed to just changing around which ones fall into that bucket as opposed to the ones that drop in the other bucket.
But hey it is so unlikely this big a sweeping blunt force change will be made, by all means, keep up the faith!
If I don't use something that doesn't mean it's not competitive. My own gear setups haven't been meta for years, practically no one using the same stuff, but they've always been competitive. And I am telling you, there would be a lot more competitive options with two handed weapons counting as two set pieces.
And i am telling you that addition after addition after addition have still left after each one a basically similar number of builds in use and a larger growing number of builds not used much at all ot at all.
Now, maybe you want to try and parse out competitive to equal "what i play" but that in no way supports or proves your claim about how increases in "options" equate to increases in used options for builds chosen for "competitive" reasons.
the times where changes have been made that had a even noticable increase in numbers of different sets chosen for competitive purposes was when they made targeted specific changes to specific mechanics to create more balance, toning down specific sets, raising other, and got it close to right. An across the board count change for half the available weapon types is not such a targeted well planned well executed thing.
But hey, you have belief in your massive increase and maybe one day we will see it actually done and see who is right.
But so far "i can tell you that..." is just not a very compelling argument when compared to how the sets in play have moved back and forth over the years of adding more and new set combos to the game so far.
But hey, good luck with that.
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✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoNelson_Rebel wrote: »Nelson_Rebel wrote: »
@pauli133
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.Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.
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 balance is an issue because duel wield is a stamina weapon, and only returns stamina back
There are no magicka duel weapons to give magicka users a 5/5/2 setup. We are gimped in comparison to stamina. This is one of the reasons why stamina has the highest damage in the game.
And please don’t give me that “long range” crap. Most gap closers are just as long range as every distance skill in the game. On top of that, stamina has access to root and snare immunities for both stamina weapons skills (2h sword backbar), and armor (shuffle).
And don’t even get me started on how sub par melee magic is
RE the bold - which is why IMO the better, more focused solution is to push for a magica two weapon option not a broad sweeping blunt force change that affects so many other elements.
As i have stated, arguing for a melee-based two weapon magica weapon type is something i would greatly support.
Yes
I don’t necessarily want 2h weapons to count as a 2 piece set.
However making it so ONLY stamina can have a 5/5/2 setup for both pvp and pve as their actual weapons for stamina is just utter bull. It makes no sense to punish ALL magicka with such a serious gimp as to not allow an entire 5th piece bonus.
Why do you think stamina is once again king of both PvE damage and PvP viability (open world and small scale) Stamina simply performs better
like i said... adding a two weapon option for magica is something that makes a lot of sense to me and is very targeted and easy to finesse in design where a broader sweeping change to weapon counts is much more like a machete being used for brain surgery.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 -
ascan7✭✭✭YesI voted yes to increase build diversity, but of course dual wield and s&b should be buffed to compensate itEdited by ascan7 on January 7, 2018 6:57PM0
-
ToRelax✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesLiquidPony wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
2H is tuned for PvP. Gap closer, strong HoT, snareLiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
That's because it's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained.
In fact, "blatantly obvious" is an understatement. It's self-evident.
Do you really need someone to give you "examples" of how massively buffing all 2H builds affects the balance of the game?
But, there's no reason it can't happen. We'd just need ZOS to rebalance pretty much every single buff, bonus, passive, and skill in the game. No big deal.
Not at all. Currently, people mostly deal with the slot limitations on 2 handed weapons by running front/back bar sets and/or using single pieces worth several bonuses like Master weapons or Domihaus. Master weapons would de facto be turned into 2 piece sets anyway and sets applying their full bonus from having them on one bar only, like Lich, aren't less powerful than other sets. It's just more limiting having to rely on them.
Many magicka DPS PvE builds use a 4-piece front bar (e.g., 5 x Julianos body, 4 x Aether/Moondancer/MA jewelry/frontbar, 2 x Skoria/Ilambris).
If you just broadly make all 2H weapons count as 2 pieces, now all of those builds can use a 5-piece front bar. So now all of those magicka builds get a massive front bar boost. In the simplest case like just adding a 5th piece of Moondancer, all those magsorcs and magblades out there suddenly gain +448 magicka recovery or +448 spell damage. Absolutely massive buff to already strong builds.
I don't have any problem with the idea in principle but it's totally ridiculous to claim that doing this doesn't throw a huge wrench in balance. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Pretty clear that what you're saying is purely from a PvP perspective with no thought to how it changes balance in PvE.
I am aware, and the post I was replying to claimed "all 2H builds" would be massively buffed, which is not the case. Furthermore, in your example we are using Julianos over Moondancer, which means either the setup is idiotic or the difference is, in fact, less than 300 base spell dmg in practice.
Wait, wait ...
Are you saying that the standard 5 Julianos/4 Minor Slayer setup is "idiotic?"
I hope not.
The difference would be something like +225 spell damage and +235 magicka regen, on average, with the added 5th piece of Moondancer with normal PvE buffs (assuming 80% uptime, which is what it was back in the DW Templar days, and 50/50 procs with Major/Minor Sorcery/Intellect). Could be that something like 5 Julianos + 5 BSW (front bar) + Monster set would be even stronger. Which is really cool to theorycraft and opens up all sorts of new possibilities ... and obviously is a huge buff.
If it weren't a buff to 2H builds, people wouldn't be asking for it.
I am saying the fact that Julianos is being used over Moondancer is proof that either it has a better 5 pc bonus, which means Moondancer 5 pc bonus is worth less than 300 base sp dmg, or the setup is bad. The only difference outside of the 5 pc bonuses would be whether you keep a sp dmg or sp crit bonus active on back bar, which is negligable and probably has sp dmg winning out anyway.
Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
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.Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.
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.
No see there are years of evidence to counter this imagined "vast increase".
At any point in time, there are some small set of "competitive builds" and a much much larger set of "non-competitive builds" and if adding more options for builds ever made a major siwth=ch in those numbers it would have shown a lot over the last several years where we have had time and time again new options added over and over... and yet each time more or less what happened was all that changed was what specific "builds went into that smaller set while the larger set got bigger.
As for how it could affect build diversity in a nagative way - right now there are sets and builds which cater more to "11 pc builds" and swapping after a long running or long cooldown power is triggered. On the other hand, there are builds which are built around 12pc setups which have all the bonuses up at all times. There are also of course ones built on master-maelstrom-asylum type weapons which bypass this concern entirely. Depending on your preference you can choose competitive options for each of those type.
But, if the 11pc all turned into 12 pc, a number of those would simply switch to the other existing 12 pc builds already being used. There would be no need to work an 11pc swap build in for staff users and they could just rely on the 12pc always up builds. So, a shift away from the 11pc to the 12pc already being used would be obvious - though not universal.
To try and establish an actual gain in competitive builds in use (much less a VAST gain) you would need to show that there are 12pc builds nobody currently uses that folks would migrate to that are both not in current use and not supeprior to the 11pc builds that folks are using (because if the 11s dropped and went to this better 12, that old 11 moves out of the competitive box.)
i cant imagine such a sweeping broad impact so many things all at once change would even be seriously explored given how much it would throw out most of the prior balance assumptions. i would not expect it in anything short of a chapter level change.
Any serious theorycrafter would be aware that there are many setups not in use because they would require 12 pieces on a two handed weapon. Likewise, such setups for dualwield or one hand/shield are meant for these weapon types and not optimized for two handed weapons, so people won't just use the same stuff on different weapon types.
As for an example, how about using 5 Necro + 5Winterborn + 2 Bloodspawn on Warden. Currently you could already go 5 Necro + 5 Winterborn + Master Ice Staff.
Or another example, my old Sorc sustain setup of 5 Bloodthorn + 5 Lich + 2 Pirate Skeleton. If I didn't have to split the sets in front and back bar, I could run Amberplasm instead of one of the 5 piece sets. Or Shacklebreaker. Or Seducer. Or Alteration. Or Willow's Path. Or Torug's Pact...
Any serious theorycrafter would realize that there are already far more combos than there are those that make it into the competitive build bucket.
Any serious theorycrafter would point out that for every one of your cases where someone switches to a new build, they are dropping one they are using now thus shifting one from the "used here" bracket into the "not used here bracket" and vice versa and the same math of selection would push us to the exact same basic percentage more or less.
let me put it more simply: Any increase the the types of sets ALLOWED has traditionally increased the number of sets in the unused pool by a great deal and as far as the number of sets in the "competitive sets used" pile it has resulted in just swapping some in and others out.
there is nothing at all inherent in a blunt force change like "all 2h weapons count as 2 items for counts" that says it wont just swap around which builds are competitive and which are not. There is nothing inherent in broad sweeping changes that suddenly makes for more balanced options enough that it promotes a bigger pool of actually used "competitive options" as opposed to just changing around which ones fall into that bucket as opposed to the ones that drop in the other bucket.
But hey it is so unlikely this big a sweeping blunt force change will be made, by all means, keep up the faith!
If I don't use something that doesn't mean it's not competitive. My own gear setups haven't been meta for years, practically no one using the same stuff, but they've always been competitive. And I am telling you, there would be a lot more competitive options with two handed weapons counting as two set pieces.
And i am telling you that addition after addition after addition have still left after each one a basically similar number of builds in use and a larger growing number of builds not used much at all ot at all.
Now, maybe you want to try and parse out competitive to equal "what i play" but that in no way supports or proves your claim about how increases in "options" equate to increases in used options for builds chosen for "competitive" reasons.
the times where changes have been made that had a even noticable increase in numbers of different sets chosen for competitive purposes was when they made targeted specific changes to specific mechanics to create more balance, toning down specific sets, raising other, and got it close to right. An across the board count change for half the available weapon types is not such a targeted well planned well executed thing.
But hey, you have belief in your massive increase and maybe one day we will see it actually done and see who is right.
But so far "i can tell you that..." is just not a very compelling argument when compared to how the sets in play have moved back and forth over the years of adding more and new set combos to the game so far.
But hey, good luck with that.
I already gave you examples. There have always been competitive set options that almost no one used. Build diversity doesn't mean there are a lot of different meta builds, it means there are options. If you don't want to believe me, there's no way to show you.DAGON - ALTADOON - CHIM - GHARTOK
The Covenant is broken. The Enemy has won...
Elo'dryel - Sorc - AR 50 - Hopesfire - EP EU0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoLiquidPony wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
2H is tuned for PvP. Gap closer, strong HoT, snareLiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
That's because it's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained.
In fact, "blatantly obvious" is an understatement. It's self-evident.
Do you really need someone to give you "examples" of how massively buffing all 2H builds affects the balance of the game?
But, there's no reason it can't happen. We'd just need ZOS to rebalance pretty much every single buff, bonus, passive, and skill in the game. No big deal.
Not at all. Currently, people mostly deal with the slot limitations on 2 handed weapons by running front/back bar sets and/or using single pieces worth several bonuses like Master weapons or Domihaus. Master weapons would de facto be turned into 2 piece sets anyway and sets applying their full bonus from having them on one bar only, like Lich, aren't less powerful than other sets. It's just more limiting having to rely on them.
Many magicka DPS PvE builds use a 4-piece front bar (e.g., 5 x Julianos body, 4 x Aether/Moondancer/MA jewelry/frontbar, 2 x Skoria/Ilambris).
If you just broadly make all 2H weapons count as 2 pieces, now all of those builds can use a 5-piece front bar. So now all of those magicka builds get a massive front bar boost. In the simplest case like just adding a 5th piece of Moondancer, all those magsorcs and magblades out there suddenly gain +448 magicka recovery or +448 spell damage. Absolutely massive buff to already strong builds.
I don't have any problem with the idea in principle but it's totally ridiculous to claim that doing this doesn't throw a huge wrench in balance. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Pretty clear that what you're saying is purely from a PvP perspective with no thought to how it changes balance in PvE.
I am aware, and the post I was replying to claimed "all 2H builds" would be massively buffed, which is not the case. Furthermore, in your example we are using Julianos over Moondancer, which means either the setup is idiotic or the difference is, in fact, less than 300 base spell dmg in practice.
Wait, wait ...
Are you saying that the standard 5 Julianos/4 Minor Slayer setup is "idiotic?"
I hope not.
The difference would be something like +225 spell damage and +235 magicka regen, on average, with the added 5th piece of Moondancer with normal PvE buffs (assuming 80% uptime, which is what it was back in the DW Templar days, and 50/50 procs with Major/Minor Sorcery/Intellect). Could be that something like 5 Julianos + 5 BSW (front bar) + Monster set would be even stronger. Which is really cool to theorycraft and opens up all sorts of new possibilities ... and obviously is a huge buff.
If it weren't a buff to 2H builds, people wouldn't be asking for it.
I am saying the fact that Julianos is being used over Moondancer is proof that either it has a better 5 pc bonus, which means Moondancer 5 pc bonus is worth less than 300 base sp dmg, or the setup is bad. The only difference outside of the 5 pc bonuses would be whether you keep a sp dmg or sp crit bonus active on back bar, which is negligable and probably has sp dmg winning out anyway.
Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
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.Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.
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.
No see there are years of evidence to counter this imagined "vast increase".
At any point in time, there are some small set of "competitive builds" and a much much larger set of "non-competitive builds" and if adding more options for builds ever made a major siwth=ch in those numbers it would have shown a lot over the last several years where we have had time and time again new options added over and over... and yet each time more or less what happened was all that changed was what specific "builds went into that smaller set while the larger set got bigger.
As for how it could affect build diversity in a nagative way - right now there are sets and builds which cater more to "11 pc builds" and swapping after a long running or long cooldown power is triggered. On the other hand, there are builds which are built around 12pc setups which have all the bonuses up at all times. There are also of course ones built on master-maelstrom-asylum type weapons which bypass this concern entirely. Depending on your preference you can choose competitive options for each of those type.
But, if the 11pc all turned into 12 pc, a number of those would simply switch to the other existing 12 pc builds already being used. There would be no need to work an 11pc swap build in for staff users and they could just rely on the 12pc always up builds. So, a shift away from the 11pc to the 12pc already being used would be obvious - though not universal.
To try and establish an actual gain in competitive builds in use (much less a VAST gain) you would need to show that there are 12pc builds nobody currently uses that folks would migrate to that are both not in current use and not supeprior to the 11pc builds that folks are using (because if the 11s dropped and went to this better 12, that old 11 moves out of the competitive box.)
i cant imagine such a sweeping broad impact so many things all at once change would even be seriously explored given how much it would throw out most of the prior balance assumptions. i would not expect it in anything short of a chapter level change.
Any serious theorycrafter would be aware that there are many setups not in use because they would require 12 pieces on a two handed weapon. Likewise, such setups for dualwield or one hand/shield are meant for these weapon types and not optimized for two handed weapons, so people won't just use the same stuff on different weapon types.
As for an example, how about using 5 Necro + 5Winterborn + 2 Bloodspawn on Warden. Currently you could already go 5 Necro + 5 Winterborn + Master Ice Staff.
Or another example, my old Sorc sustain setup of 5 Bloodthorn + 5 Lich + 2 Pirate Skeleton. If I didn't have to split the sets in front and back bar, I could run Amberplasm instead of one of the 5 piece sets. Or Shacklebreaker. Or Seducer. Or Alteration. Or Willow's Path. Or Torug's Pact...
Any serious theorycrafter would realize that there are already far more combos than there are those that make it into the competitive build bucket.
Any serious theorycrafter would point out that for every one of your cases where someone switches to a new build, they are dropping one they are using now thus shifting one from the "used here" bracket into the "not used here bracket" and vice versa and the same math of selection would push us to the exact same basic percentage more or less.
let me put it more simply: Any increase the the types of sets ALLOWED has traditionally increased the number of sets in the unused pool by a great deal and as far as the number of sets in the "competitive sets used" pile it has resulted in just swapping some in and others out.
there is nothing at all inherent in a blunt force change like "all 2h weapons count as 2 items for counts" that says it wont just swap around which builds are competitive and which are not. There is nothing inherent in broad sweeping changes that suddenly makes for more balanced options enough that it promotes a bigger pool of actually used "competitive options" as opposed to just changing around which ones fall into that bucket as opposed to the ones that drop in the other bucket.
But hey it is so unlikely this big a sweeping blunt force change will be made, by all means, keep up the faith!
If I don't use something that doesn't mean it's not competitive. My own gear setups haven't been meta for years, practically no one using the same stuff, but they've always been competitive. And I am telling you, there would be a lot more competitive options with two handed weapons counting as two set pieces.
And i am telling you that addition after addition after addition have still left after each one a basically similar number of builds in use and a larger growing number of builds not used much at all ot at all.
Now, maybe you want to try and parse out competitive to equal "what i play" but that in no way supports or proves your claim about how increases in "options" equate to increases in used options for builds chosen for "competitive" reasons.
the times where changes have been made that had a even noticable increase in numbers of different sets chosen for competitive purposes was when they made targeted specific changes to specific mechanics to create more balance, toning down specific sets, raising other, and got it close to right. An across the board count change for half the available weapon types is not such a targeted well planned well executed thing.
But hey, you have belief in your massive increase and maybe one day we will see it actually done and see who is right.
But so far "i can tell you that..." is just not a very compelling argument when compared to how the sets in play have moved back and forth over the years of adding more and new set combos to the game so far.
But hey, good luck with that.
I already gave you examples. There have always been competitive set options that almost no one used. Build diversity doesn't mean there are a lot of different meta builds, it means there are options. If you don't want to believe me, there's no way to show you.
Sorry but I (and i think quite a few others) judge build diversity by not what is theoretically possible but by what the actual in play results are.
"almost no one used" is not a sign of diversity or competitiveness but of niche or preference.
So if you goal with this major sweeping machete of a chnage is to create a lot more sets that "almost no one uses" then i say its not worth the risk, not at all.
better to go for a change that would actually be a lot more focused, a lot of finessable and a lot more manageable and that would create more builds that "quite a few folks would actually use"
like oh say adding a new two-weapon magica weapon option.
All IMO but hey... keep up the faith with all the passionate intensity you want.
We will see ehow it turns out for you.
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 -
LiquidPony✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoEmma_Overload wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
That's because it's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained.
In fact, "blatantly obvious" is an understatement. It's self-evident.
Do you really need someone to give you "examples" of how massively buffing all 2H builds affects the balance of the game?
But, there's no reason it can't happen. We'd just need ZOS to rebalance pretty much every single buff, bonus, passive, and skill in the game. No big deal.
We're not asking for a "massive buff", we're asking for equality. So the scummy Stamblade who attacks me gets to wear 5 pc Hunding's, 5 pc Shieldbreaker and 2 pc Selene, but I don't get to wear 5c Necro, 5 pc Riposte and 2 pc Infernal Guardian? Because the dual wielding Stamblade has Surprise Attack as a spammable, but I'm forced to use Destro for Crushing Shock?
THAT'S B*LLSH*T. If you had any idea what a disadvantage it is to not be able to wear 5/5/2 sets, you would not be spouting this utter nonsense!
You're not asking for "equality," though. That's a bunch of hogwash. You want the nice things someone else has but you're not giving up anything in return. And your entire premise is false to begin with. You already can run 5/5/2 on your magsorc. Just use DW or S&B on one bar. Problem solved.
When people complain that ZOS "doesn't listen" ... well, this comment shows why that's a good thing. Childish nonsense from people who are butthurt when they get foiled by some other build.
So many people are stuck on one build and one bit of content and aren't interested in the rest of the game or how the changes they want might affect everyone else.
And FYI, I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours running my magsorc and magblade and magplar in every bit of content in the game. The set piece limitation of dual staff builds isn't a problem in and of itself. This game has been called "Elder Staves Online" for a huge chunk of its existence due to the dominance of magicka builds, which completely disproves the notion that magicka builds being unable to run dual staff 5/5/2 is a problem in and of itself.Edited by LiquidPony on January 7, 2018 7:44PM1 -
DarkAedin✭✭✭✭✭YesDw outperforms in pve and pvp. Even my magplar, magden, magsorc, mag nb, mag dk easily use dw or snb frontbar and sustain with heavy attack resto backbackbar (sheet thats every fcken class isnt it?)
Guess things are ballanced now right?
How far ahead is dw then 2h stam dmg in pve now?:
5-10k dps easy cuz of better dots, faster heavy weave, and dmg mitigation thats also tied to a decent dot
Using different weapon types should be a players choice based on preference of personal combat style. Have choice is good.
- as a stam player: im forced to dw if i want to be viable in pve end game content regardless of my personal preference of using a big @$s two hander. The damage difference is too large, a player with less skill would be able to pull the same or higher #s, and (rightly) earn that raid spot b4 the 2h player (if u care about hardcore progression, which I do)
- in pvp the same applies. Any class with a class spammable will achieve higher dmg with dw due to more dmg, 2 enchants, 5/5/2 setup. Even magica builds.
In fact its an actual dmg loss for every one of my magicka builds to swap from 5/5/2 dw swords then working in a destro staff setup. Not counting the 2 piece monster set or the weapon enchants. In pve this isnt happened ONLY bc its practically unsustainable/ and bc u have to give the melee slots to stam builds.
Wouldnt it be nice to have viable magica melee AND stam ranged builds as well? Yanno. Make all the personified archetypes in this game actually viable?
And u have the blind audacity to claim that this is ballanced. Suuuuuuurrrreeeee buddy.
5/5/2 should be a thing for all the weapons. If some abilities need to be altered along with the change, then that should be looked at too.
And u realize that my personal gripes dont even directly talk about the dual enchant from dw and snb. Just playstyle preference and wanting to have on par dmg with it.
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_JessicaFolsom
Pwetty pwease!!!0 -
ToRelax✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesLiquidPony wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
2H is tuned for PvP. Gap closer, strong HoT, snareLiquidPony wrote: »All I see 'no' people saying is 'because balance', but nobody actually gives credible example one about just what 'balance' is being preserved here.
I'd like some actual examples to consider, because otherwise, I don't believe you and I'm not taking your word for it.
That's because it's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained.
In fact, "blatantly obvious" is an understatement. It's self-evident.
Do you really need someone to give you "examples" of how massively buffing all 2H builds affects the balance of the game?
But, there's no reason it can't happen. We'd just need ZOS to rebalance pretty much every single buff, bonus, passive, and skill in the game. No big deal.
Not at all. Currently, people mostly deal with the slot limitations on 2 handed weapons by running front/back bar sets and/or using single pieces worth several bonuses like Master weapons or Domihaus. Master weapons would de facto be turned into 2 piece sets anyway and sets applying their full bonus from having them on one bar only, like Lich, aren't less powerful than other sets. It's just more limiting having to rely on them.
Many magicka DPS PvE builds use a 4-piece front bar (e.g., 5 x Julianos body, 4 x Aether/Moondancer/MA jewelry/frontbar, 2 x Skoria/Ilambris).
If you just broadly make all 2H weapons count as 2 pieces, now all of those builds can use a 5-piece front bar. So now all of those magicka builds get a massive front bar boost. In the simplest case like just adding a 5th piece of Moondancer, all those magsorcs and magblades out there suddenly gain +448 magicka recovery or +448 spell damage. Absolutely massive buff to already strong builds.
I don't have any problem with the idea in principle but it's totally ridiculous to claim that doing this doesn't throw a huge wrench in balance. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Pretty clear that what you're saying is purely from a PvP perspective with no thought to how it changes balance in PvE.
I am aware, and the post I was replying to claimed "all 2H builds" would be massively buffed, which is not the case. Furthermore, in your example we are using Julianos over Moondancer, which means either the setup is idiotic or the difference is, in fact, less than 300 base spell dmg in practice.
Wait, wait ...
Are you saying that the standard 5 Julianos/4 Minor Slayer setup is "idiotic?"
I hope not.
The difference would be something like +225 spell damage and +235 magicka regen, on average, with the added 5th piece of Moondancer with normal PvE buffs (assuming 80% uptime, which is what it was back in the DW Templar days, and 50/50 procs with Major/Minor Sorcery/Intellect). Could be that something like 5 Julianos + 5 BSW (front bar) + Monster set would be even stronger. Which is really cool to theorycraft and opens up all sorts of new possibilities ... and obviously is a huge buff.
If it weren't a buff to 2H builds, people wouldn't be asking for it.
I am saying the fact that Julianos is being used over Moondancer is proof that either it has a better 5 pc bonus, which means Moondancer 5 pc bonus is worth less than 300 base sp dmg, or the setup is bad. The only difference outside of the 5 pc bonuses would be whether you keep a sp dmg or sp crit bonus active on back bar, which is negligable and probably has sp dmg winning out anyway.
Dual wield has unique consequences (both negative and positive).
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.Seriously, this whole idea never had any traction. Might as well throw out any sort of character customization and go back to Quake 3.
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.
No see there are years of evidence to counter this imagined "vast increase".
At any point in time, there are some small set of "competitive builds" and a much much larger set of "non-competitive builds" and if adding more options for builds ever made a major siwth=ch in those numbers it would have shown a lot over the last several years where we have had time and time again new options added over and over... and yet each time more or less what happened was all that changed was what specific "builds went into that smaller set while the larger set got bigger.
As for how it could affect build diversity in a nagative way - right now there are sets and builds which cater more to "11 pc builds" and swapping after a long running or long cooldown power is triggered. On the other hand, there are builds which are built around 12pc setups which have all the bonuses up at all times. There are also of course ones built on master-maelstrom-asylum type weapons which bypass this concern entirely. Depending on your preference you can choose competitive options for each of those type.
But, if the 11pc all turned into 12 pc, a number of those would simply switch to the other existing 12 pc builds already being used. There would be no need to work an 11pc swap build in for staff users and they could just rely on the 12pc always up builds. So, a shift away from the 11pc to the 12pc already being used would be obvious - though not universal.
To try and establish an actual gain in competitive builds in use (much less a VAST gain) you would need to show that there are 12pc builds nobody currently uses that folks would migrate to that are both not in current use and not supeprior to the 11pc builds that folks are using (because if the 11s dropped and went to this better 12, that old 11 moves out of the competitive box.)
i cant imagine such a sweeping broad impact so many things all at once change would even be seriously explored given how much it would throw out most of the prior balance assumptions. i would not expect it in anything short of a chapter level change.
Any serious theorycrafter would be aware that there are many setups not in use because they would require 12 pieces on a two handed weapon. Likewise, such setups for dualwield or one hand/shield are meant for these weapon types and not optimized for two handed weapons, so people won't just use the same stuff on different weapon types.
As for an example, how about using 5 Necro + 5Winterborn + 2 Bloodspawn on Warden. Currently you could already go 5 Necro + 5 Winterborn + Master Ice Staff.
Or another example, my old Sorc sustain setup of 5 Bloodthorn + 5 Lich + 2 Pirate Skeleton. If I didn't have to split the sets in front and back bar, I could run Amberplasm instead of one of the 5 piece sets. Or Shacklebreaker. Or Seducer. Or Alteration. Or Willow's Path. Or Torug's Pact...
Any serious theorycrafter would realize that there are already far more combos than there are those that make it into the competitive build bucket.
Any serious theorycrafter would point out that for every one of your cases where someone switches to a new build, they are dropping one they are using now thus shifting one from the "used here" bracket into the "not used here bracket" and vice versa and the same math of selection would push us to the exact same basic percentage more or less.
let me put it more simply: Any increase the the types of sets ALLOWED has traditionally increased the number of sets in the unused pool by a great deal and as far as the number of sets in the "competitive sets used" pile it has resulted in just swapping some in and others out.
there is nothing at all inherent in a blunt force change like "all 2h weapons count as 2 items for counts" that says it wont just swap around which builds are competitive and which are not. There is nothing inherent in broad sweeping changes that suddenly makes for more balanced options enough that it promotes a bigger pool of actually used "competitive options" as opposed to just changing around which ones fall into that bucket as opposed to the ones that drop in the other bucket.
But hey it is so unlikely this big a sweeping blunt force change will be made, by all means, keep up the faith!
If I don't use something that doesn't mean it's not competitive. My own gear setups haven't been meta for years, practically no one using the same stuff, but they've always been competitive. And I am telling you, there would be a lot more competitive options with two handed weapons counting as two set pieces.
And i am telling you that addition after addition after addition have still left after each one a basically similar number of builds in use and a larger growing number of builds not used much at all ot at all.
Now, maybe you want to try and parse out competitive to equal "what i play" but that in no way supports or proves your claim about how increases in "options" equate to increases in used options for builds chosen for "competitive" reasons.
the times where changes have been made that had a even noticable increase in numbers of different sets chosen for competitive purposes was when they made targeted specific changes to specific mechanics to create more balance, toning down specific sets, raising other, and got it close to right. An across the board count change for half the available weapon types is not such a targeted well planned well executed thing.
But hey, you have belief in your massive increase and maybe one day we will see it actually done and see who is right.
But so far "i can tell you that..." is just not a very compelling argument when compared to how the sets in play have moved back and forth over the years of adding more and new set combos to the game so far.
But hey, good luck with that.
I already gave you examples. There have always been competitive set options that almost no one used. Build diversity doesn't mean there are a lot of different meta builds, it means there are options. If you don't want to believe me, there's no way to show you.
Sorry but I (and i think quite a few others) judge build diversity by not what is theoretically possible but by what the actual in play results are.
"almost no one used" is not a sign of diversity or competitiveness but of niche or preference.
So if you goal with this major sweeping machete of a chnage is to create a lot more sets that "almost no one uses" then i say its not worth the risk, not at all.
better to go for a change that would actually be a lot more focused, a lot of finessable and a lot more manageable and that would create more builds that "quite a few folks would actually use"
like oh say adding a new two-weapon magica weapon option.
All IMO but hey... keep up the faith with all the passionate intensity you want.
We will see ehow it turns out for you.
Most players don't run quite similar setups because they're so much better than the rest but because it's what they see other people using. You can't change that. So don't use it as an argument to limit the players who actually do create their own competitive builds.DAGON - ALTADOON - CHIM - GHARTOK
The Covenant is broken. The Enemy has won...
Elo'dryel - Sorc - AR 50 - Hopesfire - EP EU0 -
WrathOfInnos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YesFrom a PVE perspective this makes a lot of sense. Currently bow-bow, 2h-bow, and staff-staff are all 15-25% behind dw-bow for DPS. Allowing 5-5-2 of any of these weapon types would be a 5-6% gain for most builds, slightly closing the gap without becoming OP. This would be a balance improvement.
For PVE tanking, this change is necessary if frost staff is ever to compete with sword and shield.
I do understand that in PVP, 2h, bow, and staff are already as good or better than dual wield. The buff to count as 2 set pieces would have to be accompanied by slight skill nerfs to balance weapon types in PVP. Crit Rush is about to get a large damage reduction, which is probably enough to balance the gain from 5-5-2 (and really only affects PVP), so mission accomplished there. For bow, a 5-10% reduction in snipe damage would be fine if 5-5-2 became possible. Not sure how to handle staves, since most skills used in PVP are also used PVE (including clench and reach since the master Destro buff). Maybe another slight nerf to eye of the storm to balance the additional set piece? Crushing shock is also getting nerfed next patch since you won't be able to interrupt multiple times.
Seems like there is a solution here that can work for everyone.3 -
Nyladreas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭YesCome people, be fair, what's your real reasoning behind saying no? Other than the ability to "have a bigger epeen"?1 -
wolfie1.0.✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Yesyes as long as everything is balanced out. this means either buffing S/B and DW or nerfing the 2handed weapons to compensate for the benefit of getting an extra set peice0 -
kyle.wilson✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesThis question is asked almost on a weekly basis.
Yet, wouldn't be surprised if anyone from ZOS has ever seen one of them.
@ZOS_GinaBruno0 -
Aisle9✭✭✭✭✭
✭NoStamina:
- DW has no single target execution, no burst heal or snare removal, no CC and no gap closer. Heavy attacking with DW is faster. DW allows for two 5 pieces sets + monster set. In PvE you don't need a burst heal or snare removal, you don't need CC, you don't need gap closers, but you can take advantage of the extra set. Heavy attacks with DW restore less stamina.
- 2H has a stun, a burst heal that doesn't require you to actively hit your enemy, a gap closer and a single target executioner. Heavy attacks with 2H restore more stamina. 2H doesn't allow you to use two 5 pieces sets + a monster set. In PvP is very advantageous to have a gap closer, a single target executioner, a burst heal or a snare removal, and more stamina restored from heavy attacking. Heavy attacks with 2H are slower.
Magicka:
- DW builds (Vicious Death, Elegance) have more damage potential, but you have to choose between a restoration staff for reliable healing or a destruction staff for utility and ranged damage/CC. In PvE magicka builds can dps from range with a very high dps output, despite not having access to the 2nd 5 piece bonus or the 2 piece monster set bonus, which means in case of such a change a series of rebalancing of sets and skills would be needed to avoid a serious power creep. In PvP it would mean the ability to keep always active sets like Wizard's Riposte, and your 5 pieces offensive set, thus removing an important part of the process (i.e. choosing between defensive gameplay and offensive gameplay), thus dumbing down the experience.
I'd rather see a new magicka based weapon skill that uses the 2 slots, and have the slightly faster heavy attack speed that made 2H relevant in PvE as well, than have 2H counting as 2 pieces.
Diversity is good.
Edited by Aisle9 on January 8, 2018 1:13PMArtemis Absinthe - DC magicka nightblade (PC - EU)
Gruzosh Barrelsmasher - DC stamina sorcerer (PC - EU)
Kew'bacca - AD stamina nightblade (PC - EU)
Jebediah Orbrynn - DC magicka templar (PC - EU)
Hold-Many-Bags - Mule DK, Promoted to main tank, occasionally stamDD
Olaf Proudstache - Mule - No longer with us Now a Stamwarden healer
Aglieglie Brazorf - AD magicka sorcerer (PC - EU)
Rodolfo Lavandino - DC stamina, greatsword wielding, Jesus beam spamming, Redguard hybrid templar just a stamplar again (PC - EU)
Lemmy Raise Master - EP stamina necromancer (PC - EU)
Scions of Dawn recruitment ad - PC EU multifaction PvE endgame raiding guild
LUI user - I can see you when you fap loot.
#SpellswordArmy
#MakeSpellswordsGreatAgain
In the Game of PuGs you win or you ragequit
"Dip dip potato chip, dip dip potato chip"0 -
Mangybeard✭✭✭YesI think it would be better to have 2H enchantments and traits about 50% stronger than 1h, that would make sense.
For set bonuses I think they should just add more stats, not count as 2.
So yes for a slight buff but no for actually making them count as 2 items, that doesn't really make sense because it's still just one weapon, but a stronger one.0 -
Tommy_The_Gun✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes
Hmm...Sheezabeast wrote: »No, and this topic is soooo old and silly. If you want 2, use Dw or SnB. Choosing a 2h has its benefits and downsides, as it should.
Yes - 63 votes
No - 36 votes
Be careful... it may backfire...
0 -
GreenhaloX✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesThere could be an (non-usable) off weapon slot where you can slot a dagger in place or something. You won't be able to use the dagger; it would just be more of a ornament type thing, but 2H would then be counted as a 2 sets bonus. Yeah, maybe.. can I get a hell yeah?!! I love these reoccurring threads to push for 2H to be a 2 sets bonus. Keep bringing it until Zen/ZOS/Bethesda, or whoever the power that may be, relents.Edited by GreenhaloX on January 8, 2018 1:49PM1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoMost players don't run quite similar setups because they're so much better than the rest but because it's what they see other people using. You can't change that. So don't use it as an argument to limit the players who actually do create their own competitive builds.
Uhhh... and why do they see so many other people using them? because they are competitive or "top competitive" etc.
No desire to limit you and your amazing unique builds that almost nobody else uses at all.
only thing i argue for you is to add a new weapon type - melee magica two weapon - so you have a whole slew of new 12pc build options - not for diversity of set use but for adding a new tactical option that is missing. it should produce a small increase in sets in use diversity but add a brand mew tactical setup and give the magica crowd a 12pc option.
i am arguing against the attempt at brain surgery with a machete that the full swing set count changes would be, esp when it is described as such a tremendous increase in how many sets will be seen in the small bubble of "competitive" cuz that so far has not been shown to be anything other than puffery.
maybe add 12pc to everybody will make stamina based healers also top competitve and magica ice staff tanks competitive too.
Not really any evidence to that but hey, one can imagine it and state it without one shred of evidence to support it.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 -
Aisle9✭✭✭✭✭
✭No1H & Rune, yes please, can we haz that ?
Artemis Absinthe - DC magicka nightblade (PC - EU)
Gruzosh Barrelsmasher - DC stamina sorcerer (PC - EU)
Kew'bacca - AD stamina nightblade (PC - EU)
Jebediah Orbrynn - DC magicka templar (PC - EU)
Hold-Many-Bags - Mule DK, Promoted to main tank, occasionally stamDD
Olaf Proudstache - Mule - No longer with us Now a Stamwarden healer
Aglieglie Brazorf - AD magicka sorcerer (PC - EU)
Rodolfo Lavandino - DC stamina, greatsword wielding, Jesus beam spamming, Redguard hybrid templar just a stamplar again (PC - EU)
Lemmy Raise Master - EP stamina necromancer (PC - EU)
Scions of Dawn recruitment ad - PC EU multifaction PvE endgame raiding guild
LUI user - I can see you when you fap loot.
#SpellswordArmy
#MakeSpellswordsGreatAgain
In the Game of PuGs you win or you ragequit
"Dip dip potato chip, dip dip potato chip"1 -
wolf486✭✭✭✭NoMy Nord is so big I'm sure he could dual-wield 2h weapons tbh
PC/NAMoved onto BDO and GW2 Skyrim, ATS/ETS2, ACNH and the overall goodness of single player games
RIP to the following:
(DC) Tharbûrz gro-Glumgrog - Orsimer -Stamden (lvl 50)
(AD) Vukz - Bosmer - Stamblade (lvl 50)0 -
jaye63✭✭✭✭*snip* I had a long rant for both side of the argument and it boils down to this...
When you buy a single game, you play it with the mechanics it came with. You build one of each class and play til you beat the game with each and of course, you end up with a favorite. Why should an MMO be any different? Speed up the animation maybe, but the rest of this discussion is a bunch of whining.
0 -
iiYuki✭✭✭✭✭NoWhy would it, its 1 item so it counts as 1 for the set bonus."Play how you want... unless its not how we intended you to play in which case we'll nerf it".
- ZO$
- The ZO$ Theme Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmUJWP_ebsQ1
