U5 combat feedback THF exclusively

[Aaxeyu]

Ok, fair point.

On that point, the current TWF nerf numbers (80% offhand with GTWF) still has the average TWF significantly higher single target dps then THF.
How do you propose THF single target gets buffed? or should TWF be nerfed back to the original numbers? (55% offhand)

Boosting THF could be done by giving 2X damage bonus from more things than just PA and strength (1.5X).

I don't know how much ahead TWF is, so I dunno if that would be enough or even too much.

[Monkey_Archer]

Boosting THF could be done by giving 2X damage bonus from more things than just PA and strength (1.5X).

I don't know how much ahead TWF is, so I dunno if that would be enough or even too much.

Im guessing that would work for the average THF (high strength barbs would likely gain too much)... problem is that would be a huge boost to THFs using eSOS... and i dont think they really need a boost.

IMO, the style advantages should remain roughly how they are now. TWF should do more single target dps, THF should be more (or equal) while moving (aka dont nerf glancing blows)

[Scraap]

Ok, fair point.

On that point, the current TWF nerf numbers (80% offhand with GTWF) still has the average TWF significantly higher single target dps then THF.
How do you propose THF single target gets buffed? or should TWF be nerfed back to the original numbers? (55% offhand)

Could see the notion of upping the proc-rate for double-strikes per each feat in the THF line fit the notion, if the core idea is smacking someone with the big stick hard enough to catch others in the way.

[Gercho]

I think that before discussing how things should be changed, we need to agree what should be the goals for twf and thf...

As i see it, twf needs more investment than thf so it should have some advantages, they cant be totally balanced.

So, what i think:

-Twf should be higher single target dps (no matter if moving or standing)
-Thf should be higher against multiple targets
-Twitching against single stationary target shouldnt increase DPS, but moving for strategic combat shouldnt be penalized

If we can agree on those 3 points, we need to agree on how much better twf should be against single target, and then we can start discussing which changes (if any) need to be implemented...

[Consumer]

I think that before discussing how things should be changed, we need to agree what should be the goals for twf and thf...

As i see it, twf needs more investment than thf so it should have some advantages, they cant be totally balanced.

So, what i think:

-Twf should be higher single target dps (no matter if moving or standing)
-Thf should be higher against multiple targets
-Twitching against single stationary target shouldnt increase DPS, but moving for strategic combat shouldnt be penalized

If we can agree on those 3 points, we need to agree on how much better twf should be against single target, and then we can start discussing which changes (if any) need to be implemented...

I can't agree on the last one but I can on the other 2.

TWF would be better if weapons equivilent to the Epic SoS were made, otherwise its the weapon thats the problem not the DPS style.

People will scream no more OP weapons and yet they want balance and this is the easiest way to provide it (not the best).

[SquelchHU]

If the original post is to be believed, then the simple act of determining if a weapon actually "touched" the target is causing lag. Checking every 0.15 seconds in the case of a "stationary" TWF.

Not every 0.15 seconds. Mainhand, then offhand 0.15 seconds later. There's a difference. Checking every 0.15 seconds would mean you'd swing 400 times per minute. No one attacks that quickly.

And yes, that is a lot of calculations. Though I think you're onto something with the THF thing (or they just want you to stand still and auto attack).

[Aesop]

Personally...

and I'm a little behind the times on twitching I must admitt... but based no the numbers I've seen twitching does do ... a lot... maybe too much infact.


Its not that I don't appreciate that twitching is an "art" and that it is difficult at first to master (I'm sure it is), but I'm also fairly sure that the difference between Twitch and non twitch shouldn't be so much that balancing the style becomes difficult.


Personally instead of the current proposed suggestion I'd perfer to have the second attack in the chain slowed down slightly and have the third and fourth attack sped up... Now of course I'm not sure that's possible... It just seems the way to go to me. I mean a 10% bump for twitch skills would be kinda cool option... but it looks closer to 20-25% and that's too much.



Also since they are talking about Glancing Blows moving to a system similar to the proposed TWF system... then maybe they should expand the idea out a little


Make movement part of the equation. They already do it with Attack rolls why not piggy back that with Proc Chance as well.


So say a Two Handed Weapon with no Feats has a Glancing Blow Proc chance of

No Feat: 20%
THF: 40%
ITHF: 60%
GTHF: 80%

FB1: +10%
FB2: +10%
FB3: DS +10%

Ken1: +10%
Ken2: +10%
Ken3: DS +10%

Barb Cap: +5%
Ftr Cap: +5%

WF Great Weapon1: +5%
WF Great Weapon2: +5%
WF Great Weapon3: +5%

Moving: -20%


addtionally you could have attack chain itself affect the Proc rate (similar could be done with TWF as well)

where the attack sequence is something like

0/0/5/10 (well I think it used to be that way anyway)... or is it 0/5/10/10... maybe that one


so lets say 0/5/10/10

make the Proc rate move along those that

-10%/0/+10%/+20%...

or for less benefit

-10/-5/0/+5 or some such



so a Pure WF Barb with maxed lines would have (assuming the first)

%110/120/130/140

meaning they'd have a glancing blow on every hit

while moving they'd have

90/100

Meaning they'd possibly lose a Glancing Blow on the first swing but get one on the other...


Meanwhile

a something like a Human Defender with the full THF line would have

70/80/90/100

though while moving they'donly have
50/60

they'd still get some Glancing blows (over half their attacks) but it is reduced from somone that has dedicated effort to it.


Does that seem reasonable?


you could also have Spring Attack reduce movement penalties for GB and OH attacks perhaps


Aesop

[Ethias]

1) How big a difference are we talking, optimally, between THF and TWF? 5%? 10%? Should this depend on STWF? This is a hard thing to quantify.
2) Adding more doublestrikes to THF sounds like an awesome idea, and would be nice compensation if the glancing blow nerf sticks with it.
3) Should balance considerations really consider the current state of ESoS?

[rjedi]

Sorry, but I have not read Everything with u5 but while complaining abput nerfs might get us somewhere, probably no where...
with the nerfs, what will be the top dps for u5?

Will the ranger18/monk2 using longswords in wind stance be fastest?

[Aesop]

1) How big a difference are we talking, optimally, between THF and TWF? 5%? 10%? Should this depend on STWF? This is a hard thing to quantify.
2) Adding more doublestrikes to THF sounds like an awesome idea, and would be nice compensation if the glancing blow nerf sticks with it.
3) Should balance considerations really consider the current state of ESoS?

Adding More DS to THF would be a mistake imo.

honestly DS is an opportunity to make Single Weapon combat viable. A Duelist with nothing in the off hand would have a chance if they added in a DS benefit line for Single Weapon ...

A_D mentions a feat Einhander

that could be expanded out to

Einhander 20% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand
Improved Einhander 30% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand
Greater Einhander 40% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand

suddenly you'd have a possible reason to actually not fight with Two Weapons or a THW

give Weapon Finesse a +10% bonus with Light Weapons and you've got a style option similar to a Swashbuckler



Also STWF should not be. At all. Its like being paid with our own coin and would cause more problems than it would solve. Add in a Movmenet Penalty for TWF (which SPring Attack reduces) and add in Modifiers based on Sequence like in a previous post I made.

Aesop

[Cetus]

1) How big a difference are we talking, optimally, between THF and TWF? 5%? 10%? Should this depend on STWF? This is a hard thing to quantify.
2) Adding more doublestrikes to THF sounds like an awesome idea, and would be nice compensation if the glancing blow nerf sticks with it.
3) Should balance considerations really consider the current state of ESoS?

I am a strong proponent of leaving the Epic SoS out of the discussion. The weapon is not overpowered, its as powerful as an EPIC weapon is supposed to be. Minimal DR bypassing capabilities and increasing uselessness with the fortification of your target. The weapon is fine the way it is.

I also strongly disagree that TWF should deal more dps to a raid boss than a THF. You are standing there with a huge AXE or SWORD hacking away at your target, how can two khopeshes deal more damage than getting dented in by a mean double bladed AXE the size of your body, if you wanna talk how things should be realistically.

For the higher demand of TWF, I believe TWF'ers should instead be granted extra weapon effect procs such as damage guards, vorpal, disruptor, burst and blast damage..etc.

But front number damage output should not be ruled by TWF, this multiple target argument for THF is not sufficient to make them a dps build if they lose it against a raid boss- If you are surrounded by a buncha orthons and devils, your 40ish glancing blows arent justifying your need to turn and individually take care of em.

Understand also, the feats are analogous to each other in importance, your glancing blows proc on your selected target, thats the extra dps that the feats hand you for a THF- much equal to how the TWF feats grant a couple extra attacks, they are EQUALLY important to each fighting style. The only other requirement TWF'ers have is the dex requirement really that they are at a loss at. But ideally speaking, if you are a 36 point build with a +4 dex tome, you can essentially only realocate 1 build point to satisfy the 17 dex, euqalling you out in terms of str and con to any other THF (assuming you are even).

Also, the extra weapon slot is not something a THF is using for something else, thats a dumb argument. A THF has 1 slot for a weapon, A TWF has 2 slots for 2 weapons, it sounds like a THF has 1 slot for a weapon and 1 more free slot for w/e else from what I'm reading.

Only valid argument is that they need to grind extra ingredients to create a second weapon, that I agree. But If you give the bonus to damage procs such as lightning and burst damage, It's sufficient to balance the classes, but making them deal more front number damage than a THF is rediculous.

[Monkey_Archer]

I am a strong proponent of leaving the Epic SoS out of the discussion.

I disagree. Using the eSOS accentuates the argument.

Just run the numbers THF using eSOS vs TWF using dual eSOS equivalents (+10 2d8, 15-20x4)

The TWF does so much higher dps then THF (twitch or not) that its not even close to being funny. Well it kinda is

[Aesop]

Also, the extra weapon slot is not something a THF is using for something else, thats a dumb argument. A THF has 1 slot for a weapon, A TWF has 2 slots for 2 weapons, it sounds like a THF has 1 slot for a weapon and 1 more free slot for w/e else from what I'm reading.
.

I've always thought that Bucklers should be able to be equiped by a THF and impliment the feat Improved Buckler Defense

give THF back their slot

Aesop

[Ethias]

Adding More DS to THF would be a mistake imo.

honestly DS is an opportunity to make Single Weapon combat viable. A Duelist with nothing in the off hand would have a chance if they added in a DS benefit line for Single Weapon ...

A_D mentions a feat Einhander

that could be expanded out to

Einhander 20% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand
Improved Einhander 30% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand
Greater Einhander 40% DS for fighting Single Weapon nothing off hand

suddenly you'd have a possible reason to actually not fight with Two Weapons or a THW

give Weapon Finesse a +10% bonus with Light Weapons and you've got a style option similar to a Swashbuckler



Also STWF should not be. At all. Its like being paid with our own coin and would cause more problems than it would solve. Add in a Movmenet Penalty for TWF (which SPring Attack reduces) and add in Modifiers based on Sequence like in a previous post I made.

Aesop

I do not think giving some amount of double strike chance to 2hers would make it impossible for a duelist/swashbuckler character type at all.

[Winteris]

I think that before discussing how things should be changed, we need to agree what should be the goals for twf and thf...

As i see it, twf needs more investment than thf so it should have some advantages, they cant be totally balanced.

that "investments" give u much more than ability to get all twf feats:
- more weapons means more effects, anyone can show me a TH weapon with trip and stun bonuses ?
- 17 dex base is good even for chars w/o evasion, many spells have half damage on save
- higher dex means better to-hit with bows, half of population have rgr lvl 6 or more, its really viable option to manyshoot sometimes

pls, that argument with investments is stupid, stop using it

As i suggested in one and only thread that we can have for feedback, the solution is pump-up AC of mobs, that will penalize twitching and nerf twf somehow, if done correctly it would mean 10 percent nerf for twf and 20% for twitched THF (at least on barbs, fighters probably can take spring attack chain somehow), it would also reduce needed calculations, but it seems that it is too simple...

[Cetus]

There is no Epic SoS equivalent for TWF'ers. Game balance.

[Gercho]

I also strongly disagree that TWF should deal more dps to a raid boss than a THF. You are standing there with a huge AXE or SWORD hacking away at your target, how can two khopeshes deal more damage than getting dented in by a mean double bladed AXE the size of your body, if you wanna talk how things should be realistically.

Somehow you have to give some benefit for extra grinding and higher stat requirement otherwise why would someone go twf?

For the higher demand of TWF, I believe TWF'ers should instead be granted extra weapon effect procs such as damage guards, vorpal, disruptor, burst and blast damage..etc.

That wont be enough for people to go twf if they do less or equal damage than THF, i guarantee that.

The only other requirement TWF'ers have is the dex requirement really that they are at a loss at. But ideally speaking, if you are a 36 point build with a +4 dex tome, you can essentially only realocate 1 build point to satisfy the 17 dex, euqalling you out in terms of str and con to any other THF (assuming you are even).

Lol, you mean for the 0.0001% of chars that are 36 point builds and have +4 dex tomes? even in that case, a thf can start with dex 8 so its 5 more points needed for twf... for 99% of the chars, its more, and for paladins that need high cha aswell is a lot of sacrifice that makes them start with con 12 most of the time...

Also, the extra weapon slot is not something a THF is using for something else, thats a dumb argument. A THF has 1 slot for a weapon, A TWF has 2 slots for 2 weapons, it sounds like a THF has 1 slot for a weapon and 1 more free slot for w/e else from what I'm reading.

Only valid argument is that they need to grind extra ingredients to create a second weapon, that I agree. But If you give the bonus to damage procs such as lightning and burst damage, It's sufficient to balance the classes, but making them deal more front number damage than a THF is rediculous.

Its the grinding not the slot wich matters, they need to grind extra ingredients, and epic grinding can be much worse, depending on the module, for example, epic SOS is relatively easier to get than just one epic chaos blade, and you would need 2 for twf...

If you give more damage against a raid boss to THF no dps char will play twf, the high procs wont justify it, no matter what...

[Consumer]

I disagree. Using the eSOS accentuates the argument.

Just run the numbers THF using eSOS vs TWF using dual eSOS equivalents (+10 2d8, 15-20x4)

The TWF does so much higher dps then THF (twitch or not) that its not even close to being funny. Well it kinda is

I did just that for the giggles, the numbers are after the update 5 changes.

Epic Sos pure Fighter - 677.84 DPS
TWF equivalent - 734.09 DPS

[Gercho]

that "investments" give u much more than ability to get all twf feats:
- more weapons means more effects, anyone can show me a TH weapon with trip and stun bonuses ?
- 17 dex base is good even for chars w/o evasion, many spells have half damage on save
- higher dex means better to-hit with bows, half of population have rgr lvl 6 or more, its really viable option to manyshoot sometimes

Lol, this is funny, the fact is, you can get high dex with a thf if you want, but you cant dump dex with a twf if you think the benefits are not enough for the investment of dex, and saying that half the population has 6 lvls of ranger it disqualifies any other argument you can make...

pls, that argument with investments is stupid, stop using it

no more comments needed

As i suggested in one and only thread that we can have for feedback, the solution is pump-up AC of mobs, that will penalize twitching and nerf twf somehow, if done correctly it would mean 10 percent nerf for twf and 20% for twitched THF (at least on barbs, fighters probably can take spring attack chain somehow), it would also reduce needed calculations, but it seems that it is too simple...

That will favor barbarians (extremely high str) and fighters (a lot of ways to increase their to hit) even more and penalize rangers, rogues, monks, paladins and any other odd melee build like arcane melee battle clerics or the like.

[Cetus]

I did just that for the giggles, the numbers are after the update 5 changes.

Epic Sos pure Fighter - 677.84 DPS
TWF equivalent - 734.09 DPS

So...63 more damage per second with TWO epic SoS equivalents, that is funny =]

Im probably not laughing at the same thing you guys are however