Dual Wield and Greatweapon balance

[Bretin]

Despite many posters reporting that they believe this particular change would be good, it appears that once Bretin detailed (very diplomatically I might add - well done) in his first post that this was not good balance, Azarael posted immediately that the idea was shelved. (for clarification, these two events may be mutually exclusive, their timing merely coincidental.)

Since Azarael is the lead combat design developer, and since it appears he places a great deal of stock in Bretin's post (again could just be coincidental), perhaps we could get Bretin to propose a solution to the problem.

For reference: the problem is that DW is more advantageous than 2H because it has a passive defensive buff (+10% parry) while the 2H has a passive that is basically useless.

What could we give the 2H passive, that would make it more in-line with DW?

I think maybe addressing the problem with a solution instead of discussing the flaws of another proposed solution, would be advantageous.

Never thought about having a non-troll conversation with you but apparently it happens.

About the solution:
After calculating the AA difference i took a look into the ability damage formula to compare its outcome and the result was that ability damage is equal when using items on the same item lvl.

the formula seems to be as follows:

((str/5)*1,5+mhdps*1,5+ohdps*0,45*1,5)+btt

assuming our character has 1050 str, 2x 60 dps and 1x 87 dps weapons (those are the Lost Vale weapon stats) and an ability with an BTT of 200 you will have the following results:

Dual Wield:
((1050/5)*1,5+60*1,5+60*0,45*1,5)+250=695,5

2-Hand:
((1050/5)*1,5+87*1,5)+250=695,5

As you can see, the result of DW matches 1:1 with its 2-hand equivalent. That means by the original devs items with the same item level should have had 1:1 the same tooltip on both DW and 2h and that's why the weapon dps for weapons on the same lvl is always dw*1,45=2h dps (e.g. 60*1,45=87 or 47*1,45=68,2 for brigands to bring a live RoR example).

The difference from DW and 2h was meant to come from AA and the access to higher tooltip damage abilities such as Crimson Death, Deathblow, Etherdance and tactics which contribute 2h builds e.g. Power Through, Greataxe Mastery and so on.

i assume the original devs never had in mind to separate 2h from DW by more than its passive and the contributed combat type (sustain / burst) via white hits.

Now lets look at the passives and what i said in one of my prior posts in this thread where i said:

If you want to determine the balance of a class, you must consider the following attributes:
- How much offensive potential does the class have?
- How much defensive potential does the class have?
- In what way does the defense restrict the offensive and vice versa (if you’d have a number line, with the numbers 1-10 on the left and right side, which represent your defense resp. offensive, and in the middle a 0, how would it affect the ratio at one side if you’d manipulate the other side?)
Those are general things you have to define before you strive for further deliberations about the balance.

Based on a logical thought 2 hand should deal more damage than dual wield that's why it has an offensive proc while dw has a defensive one - disregarding that some ppl think -10% block seems to be bad -. The only thing which would benefit 2h in a other way than block strike through would be parry strike through. I think i explained quite well, why this isn't the solution for our problem. Giving it a passive proc would be against my logic about restrictions when choosing between offensive and defensive.

To adjust 2-Hand and favor its combat type, I’d PROBABLY suggest changing the ability damage formula for 2h weapons to this:

(((str/5)*1,5+mhdps*1,5+ohdps*0,45*1,5)+btt)*1,05

Basically that results in a 5% damage buff on all abilities if wearing a 2h and fits to what 2h is meant to be. Ofc this number can be adjusted but a change like this would require a PTS and a core of acknowledged people to test its impact in a balanced environment.

If implementing something like this we have to be 100% sure that this balance change is justified and we have to see its full impact on all classes, their abilities in combination with certain tactics. that again would require to have access to all abilities and tactics and a 40/80 char. I can only quote myself at this point and vote to shelve this for now:

First of all I would like to clarify what we are talking about.
A change that is favoring one realm more than the other can be considered a balance change.
Knowing that we have to make sure this change is necessary.
Which will be difficult since this patch buffs 2 archetypes at once. Therefore I would like to leave 2h tanks out for the moment. Whether they need a buff or not should be discussed separately.

What does this balance change really change?
Basically mdps burst receives a buff. The outcome is hard to know at the current lvl cap since choppa/slayer miss an essential tactic and therefore are forced to not take the middle (2h) tree.

Does burst dmg need a buff?
The ttk we have right now is rather short compared to live. We can only imagine what a 2h slayer/choppa is capabable of.

Why is 2h not way worse than dual wield?
Well it is about the difference of burst and sustain dmg. The last is doing more dmg in the long run but does that kill a healed guarded target? Slowly in the best case. ( anything else can only be described as a l2p issue sry)
2h needs! to do less dmg (over time) than dual wield because of its different approach.
High dmg in a short period of time is harder to outheal, riskier, enables plays (like guardkick) and should grant a higher reward (kill). High risk high reward.


Why 2h SEEMS way worse than dual wield?
Dual wield, as a source of sustain dmg, doesnt require as much coordination as 2h does. Also it is more defensive. Ideal for solo players. Since the majority here doesnt have a grp with 2 dps 2 tanks and 2 healers on a regular basis I highly doubt that the impact this change would have on the burst meta (that is to say a meleetrain with wl/sl) can be predicted correctly by them.

I am not saying that 2h has to necessarily stay as it is in the future.
I just want to have fully built 2h slayers and choppas before thinking about a 2h buff.

[Soulcheg]

Where did you get so much free time?


P.S. Nice work!

[Scrilian]

Where did you get so much free time?


P.S. Nice work!

Spoiler:

In the kitchen, obviously

Jokes aside, highly advise not to overbuff said 2h tanks, so they, like the proposed buffs to hybrid dps DoKs/WPs/AMs, begin to overshadow the advantages of pure dps classes.

[peppex91]

The +crit idea got slammed yet? I guess a defensive buff is better then nothing.

Don't confuse str tanks with 2h tanks, it's not the weapon type make them do almost pure-dps class damage but the heavy negletion of def stats to stack offensive ones.

[Bozzax]

73,16% more burst damage in the first gcd, 15,45% more damage after 5 seconds and still 3,85% more damage after 10 seconds

Only true if your AA is "ready to fire" at 0 GCD.

Basically that results in a 5% damage buff on all abilities if wearing a 2h and fits to what 2h is meant to be.

They changed all staffs to be 2h so this = 5% more damage for casters
Mirrors aren't equal regarding wielding (Dok, WP, Mara, WL)

So I don't think it is a good solution.

Note: Staves weren't a true 2h:er in WAR and never got the "Strikethrough". This is "visible" in animations where they are prodominatly held in one hand (exception RPs) but they still had 2h stats and tally restrictions.

[Azarael]

Jokes aside, highly advise not to overbuff said 2h tanks, so they, like the proposed buffs to hybrid dps DoKs/WPs/AMs, begin to overshadow the advantages of pure dps classes.

Nice opinion, but a properly designed hybrid class trades the freedom to spend all of its time performing one role for the ability to perform two roles at once, but limiters to how long it can perform either role for over time (or some other flexibility penalty.)

On topic: This topic has taught me not to post about any future problem until it actually becomes a demonstrable problem, which is something that I will bear firmly in mind.

[Genisaurus]

Basically that results in a 5% damage buff on all abilities if wearing a 2h and fits to what 2h is meant to be.

They changed all staffs to be 2h so this = 5% more damage for casters
Mirrors aren't equal regarding wielding (Dok, WP, Mara, WL)

So I don't think it is a good solution.

Note: Staves weren't a true 2h:er in WAR and never got the "Strikethrough". This is "visible" in animations where they are prodominatly held in one hand (exception RPs) but they still had 2h stats and tally restrictions.

1. Staves are not great weapons, so they will not be affected by any change.
2. Weapon DPS has never been factored into the damage equation for casting classes, and so Bretin's proposal would not factor in here either.

[Bozzax]

Wasn't obvious especially since you've changed staves to be 2h, my bad I guess

Still think it unbalances "mirrors" which is bad enough stuff like melee healing WPs and DoKs

[Scrilian]

Jokes aside, highly advise not to overbuff said 2h tanks, so they, like the proposed buffs to hybrid dps DoKs/WPs/AMs, begin to overshadow the advantages of pure dps classes.

Nice opinion, but a properly designed hybrid class trades the freedom to spend all of its time performing one role for the ability to perform two roles at once, but limiters to how long it can perform either role for over time (or some other flexibility penalty.)

Sorry to bother, but what is the measure of time, that a class can perform two roles well in RoR?
Original WAR was never a cooldown based MMO. So its kinda hard to imagine a form of downtime, aside from low rage choppa/low heat BW/no Feinted Positioning WH - let alone a hybrid that performs well two roles at once.

[Azarael]

Look at what the Archmage and WP mechanics were meant to be. One was a limiter that encouraged switching between attacking and healing spells (or was meant to, but failed) and the other was a limiter which blocked heals until you attacked to refill it.