Return of Reckoning

A big ass Zweihander to chop horses' heads off \m/ \m/

spikespiegel84 wrote:

th3gatekeeper wrote: IRL DW actually doesnt give you better chance to parry. 2H weapons specifically are used for parrying attacks and excel at that.

With this, I see that you have absolutely no knowledge of fencing or swordsmanship.
Do yourself a favour, keep real life issue out of a game where I can mutate my arm in a lobster claw.

Ill quote myself from over a year ago:

th3gatekeeper wrote:
Ok, so I read through the entire thread, as well as did some google search regarding other games and how they treat DW vs 2h AS WELL AS some light reading on how these two styles were ACTUALLY used in real life, and I dont have a concrete suggestion but maybe will help move this topic along....


This is according to wikipedia and a good summary of the concept of 2H fighting:
"The greater length of the weapon would also help when fighting more heavily armed opponents, since an attack can be executed with considerably more force due to the length of the weapon."

the two-handed sword was an ideal weapon for protecting the standard bearer or a breach since a Doppelsöldner armed with one could fend off many attackers by using moulinets. ( A moulinet is often composed of a parry, usually prime or seconde, moving thence into a circular cut.)

Now, DW. According again to the InterWebz:
"The use of two weapons simultaneously confers no notable advantage to the user as compared to more conventional means such as using a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and a shield. "

It ALSO states: "The main advantage of using two weapons is the user can use one as a holding weapon after contact is made and use the other to attack the open area of the opponent. "

Another place "we can assume that those who have one handed training with short swords and daggers may have more skill (and flexibility). Because dual wielding will always lack the inherit strength of a large one handed weapon, dual wielders need to be much faster instead. "


As for a DW VERSUS 2H discussion:
"Consensus generally favours the single larger sword, though there are dissenting opinions (armour levels make a difference too)."

Point being, giving 10% parry to DW is just stupid... it doesnt aid in your ability to parry, in fact it reduces your ability to parry against heavier blows (no leverage) and the ONLY advantage was in the area of "counter attacking" - meaning an OFFENSIVE benefit, which is why I proposed looking at some type of added crit damage, or possibly they get 10% block strikethrough or even parry strikethough! then the 2H (imo) SHOULD have the 10% increased parry for "protecting" via "moulinets(parry)" it also fits well, because 2H tanks need a better ability to protect against guard damage, so this gives some of that built in when using 2H.



I am not trying to go "hyper-realistic" here... but I think a LITTLE bit of logic can give direction...

In my opinion if dual wield have +10% parry then great weapon should have -10 % to being parried and blocked.

Kali14 wrote:In my opinion if dual wield have +10% parry then great weapon should have -10 % to being parried and blocked.

Thats 1 option. That would make super punt more reliable.

I still am more in favor of "encouraging" Guard though for the 2H to be seen as the protectors having an inherent 10% parry built in would mean 2H tanks take a little less damage from guarding which might encourage more of them to do it.

Then adjusting DW benefits to be offensive instead..... I mean DW (imo) shouldnt even have ANY inherent bonus as it already has a "damage bonus" over 2H weapons anyways (due to procs)

Why would anyone go snb then if they could go 2h and mitigate more dmg?

Because Peter... Because

procs on block, htl

peterthepan3 wrote:Why would anyone go snb then if they could go 2h and mitigate more dmg?

Because you lose tons of defensive stats for not using a shield? no hold the line, no block, less armor, less defensive stats and also no abilities that require a shield (which means again less defensive stats). That would make 2h as i wrote in another post some kind of bruiser class. A tanky dps that goes in, softens the target without having the damage to finish them off, leaving the target exposed for the full dps classes.

At the moment 2h tanks classes deal less damage compared to a full dps and are almost as squishy as them, without giving any real advantage over a dps oriented SnB build as they can do almost the same damage without losing all the defensive skills and utility they bring.

Giving 10% increased parry and the punts too would make 2h tanks have their own role, without damaging the role and the kit of the SnB tanks and Mdps classes. Of course that would require testing since it's a major change and could have some side effects for the game

peterthepan3 wrote:Why would anyone go snb then if they could go 2h and mitigate more dmg?

Serious?

You cant mitigate more damage with a 2H..... Block gives you the equiv of ALL stats: Parry/dodge/disrupt.
The only think my suggestion would do, is slightly help the 2H tank in the Parry area.

So to compare at RR40:

SNB:
Defender IV: 10% block (which I will "translate" into 10% parry/dodge/disrupt for the sake of this comparison).
Deft Defender III: 12% dodge/disrupt
Reflexes III: 12% parry.
PLUS: Inherent "shield" block chance of ~5% with a decent Shield.... (not to mention things like +2% block +2% parry shield...)

TOTAL EQUIVALENT Parry/dodge/disrupt: 27% parry 27% dodge 27% disrupt.

2H:
Reflexes IV: 18% Parry
Deft Defender IV: 18% dodge/disrupt.
ZERO "build in" % from weapon....

So 27% on SNB for everything VERSUS..... 18% on everything for 2H.

What makes it even worse, is you get more renown (say RR50 or RR6060) and 2H CANT increase their rates anymore.... So say you get RR50... you could boost Parry EVEN MORE to have:

SNB: 33% Parry, 27% Dodge, 27% disrupt..... with a SNB and now are FAR superior....


Adding 10% parry to 2H, would give 2H more "parry equiv" (from 18-> 28%) but still 9% lower dodge/disrupt. So the "net gain" is 2H gets 1%.... ONE PERCENT.... more "guard mitigation" than SNB... but loses 9% dodge/disrupt WITHOUT the ability to boost it higher via renown where as SNB CAN!

Not to mention.... I would rather have 2 "rolls" at mitigating damage rather than 1 roll.

So if 2H was at 28% via renown. Where as SNB was at 15% Block and 12% parry... Point being, I dont think its "BETTER" by any means.....


So this actually largely accomplishes what I said... 2H vs SNB should be more about "what abilities/skills you get" rather than just 1 is superior to the other (which I STILL think giving 2H free 10% parry would still make them inferior to SNB).

I mean to really "drive this home" if I lost you in the math above...

You could give 2H 9% free parry/dodge/disrupt and it would be "on par" with SNB... So

TLDR: Giving 2H Tanks 10% free parry makes them in no way shape or form, better than SNB tanks for mitigation.

tazdingo wrote:procs on block, htl

See, I actually advocate for HTL being non "shield" rqeuired. So it would really be... Block has higher mitigation and higher potential mitigation as well as block procs or things that require block/shield.... (dirty tricks, mixed defenses, none shall pass, spiteful slam, Can't Hit me, etc etc.... you get the point) where as 2H has ITS own "2H only" abilities..... (Rending Blade, Wall of Darting Steel, blah blah).

Great post but tank with great weapon have better dps than tank with shield so must loose on defeance.

I think my idea (-10% to be parried/blocked) is better. Especially for WL because his AOE really suck.