I believe it was in the soe live video .. and we put ac hp augs in our weapons to pad magelo don't kid yourself. Merc AA's and gear, possible rewards from the heroic missions, a bunch more hero forge armor sets, more class AA's. Supposedly there's stuff in there that increase warrior offhand parrying and damage for dual wield as well as damage for 2handers (If you're a warrior, IMO that alone is motivation enough). Not to mention new content, the start of a new story arc, new raids. Not sure if any of these are motivation for you, but you can pick and choose any that do appeal to you. I'm sure there are a few I'm forgetting. https://forums.station.sony.com/eq/index.php?threads/pre-ordering-call-of-the-forsaken.202166/ it was actually listed on the call of forsaken preorder page.
I believe it was a shoot from the hip answer intended to be agreeable at FanFair and that sober assessment leads back to "<11@Elidroth> I've said many times that I want dual wield to be viable again, but not for tanking" and "<11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps" with abilities like No Time to Bleed making more content trivial enough to tank without a shield. And with Elidroth definitely motivating people to use a shield on a large population of not trivial mobs. What's a shield for? Tanking. Yep, tanking. If players are going to insist more or larger swords should do more DPS (and they do insist it should be that way) they have to concede Shields provide protection a 1 1/2 inch wide sword blade can not provide. It's their function. Where tanks need to use shields to survive tanks prosper. Where they don't mercs, pets, and warders prosper. I've been saying the same things for several years now with DW fans consistently saying tanking most of the time while DWing is just around teh corner. To which I've replied such and such expansion is coming out in a month - let's see if you're right. Given that TSW poll there's 0 reason for Elidroth to do the logically and bad for the game option and every reason to do what's logical and sensible. Shields are for tanking.
Personally, I think we should stick with the model that all other classes follow (when given options) DW > 2H > 1H However, I agree there needs to be a DPS role for 2H. See below. These are a wash, further distinction is needed. IMO: 2H gets significant, pure ratio advantages over DW/1H, along with AE advantages or procs that are tailored to multi-target engagement. Some of those might include defensive DPS procs, PBAE attacks, 'wild rampage' buff procs and a large bonus to riposte chance. Weapon ratios must be improved, and any damage enhancements should be designed to "play nicely" with ADPS, making 2H the clear choice for discipline burns and extremely trivial enemies. DW gets substantial single-target advantages via procs. These should enable DW to exceed 1H/2H DPS vs a single target when ADPS is not available and burns are down, and are applied in such a way that they don't create powerful synergies with ADPS (HHE, pure DMG mod or DD procs would do the trick) This would enable DW to be the best DPS stance when using defensive disciplines. Keeping with this model, an ideal DW benefit vs semi-trivial enemies (DB-White trash mobs) could be a max-level-capped stun proc. These advantages would make DW best suited to trash clearing and experience grinds against relatively current content. Shields of course grant immense RAC for maximum defense, but should see additional defensive benefits, particularly vs spells. Damage from (AE) rampage or ranged attacks would be virtually eliminated with an anti-melee 'aegis' type proc. Additional ranks of Shield Block, or new AA's that grant 'staff block'-level avoidance to shield use could further bolster shields as the dominant defensive stance, and these 'block' chances should be applied directly as a chance to resist any detrimental spell. Shield usage becomes further reinforced as truly unmatched survivability in the most brutal of battles. So basically, 2H wins if you can use burn disciplines or have a bunch of support, otherwise DW comes ahead in DPS. DW gets a minor defensive bump against trash only. Shield defensive advantages become even more pronounced when facing named or 'yellow' content.
I honestly don't think magical or ability nudging except to straighten out mechanics where they are wrong is necessary. 2H - biggest sword. Clearly given it's DMG, DLY, and damage bonus you are naturally going to get big slow hits out of it. S&B - sword is arming sword. Used with a shield its a bigger and slower 1Hander than those used DWing. The shield appropriate 1Hander all tanks, not just knights should have gotten. DW - either fast lower damage "2 hatchets" compared to 2H's "1 Axe" or fast lower damage main hander -plus much lower damage/small defence boost parrying dagger/main gauche that's where mechanics sensibly leads us. Add in Elidroth's observations and offensive or defensive support class mitigation and or damage as they supply it and yer done. Any tank showing an AC aug in their mainhander would obviously use a shield vs. blue mobs and above. On such mobs if we're the one getting hit we're a tank and tanks use shields. If a mob is so trivial an enchanter can withstand it then sure, take off your shield or your BP or your Pants and have at it. Trivial = you don't care who it hits which is why putting EoA on tank shields and only tank shields is such a great idea. I mention this option since it takes care of those who refuse to accept DW is not for tanking, DW is for DPS and make every effort to consign the signature item for tanks back into the closet except vs named mobs. Elidroth can and probably should enforce his decisions especially when they are as obvious as DW is not for tanking. What were the numbers from that TSW poll again? They were too small for me to see them clearly. (Translation - both the representation that Warriors were inflamed about not DWing 24/7 and that BA/BB is alone in believing tanks should use shields when tanking were untrue. But it sounds good - keep saying it).
You haven't differentiated DW/2H at all, as the mechanics sensibly lead us to the same place. Whether fast or slow, DPS is DPS. Though 'slow' might be a bit more 'streaky', it evens out on a long enough timeframe. Both need unique, meaningful roles. I invite any ideas on what mechanics can be employed to that end. Trivial is open to interpretation. For example, trivial to a Warrior does not mean trivial to a Wizard, and mobs trivial to one Warrior may not be trivial to another. Quality of healing/support is often variable as well. Regardless, there is no need to deliberately sacrifice hate generation for DPS. This is why EoA on tank shields only is a terrible idea in every conceivable way, with the one exception being your message board crusade to nerf Warriors who don't want to S+B 24x7. For the good of the class, drop it. The idea AND the crusade.
How really are "2 hatchets" different from "1 axe"? They are both intended for DPS. There's no reason to expect any major differences than the one's Elidroth noted. DWing I'll likely look for the fastest high ratio 1Handers I can find with damage procs (giving up aggro), put 10 DMG augs on them (giving up aggro), using Spiders Bite (giving up aggro), and use Dragorn War Mask - bump Damage Bonus and since I'm swinging fast apply it as often as possible. <- DPSing and pretty much in tune with Elidroth's observations. Of course there is both a need and a desirability to reduce hate generation for setups intended to be used to DPS and not to tank. While it's not as big a problem anymore when melee DPS classes had access to and used weapons with a stun proc they could draw aggro. When DPSing and not tanking producing less aggro is an advantage sir, not a disadvantage. That's why EoA only on tank useable shields is an excellent idea in every conceivable way. S&B 24/7? Gee in my "crusade" to make shields more practical for Warriors (and give us the shield AC not subject to the softcap an Shield Block benefits knights more routinely got) I repeatedly said that while Warriors should not do terrible DPS in their usual role properly geared to perform that role when not tanking 2H and DW should do more damage than S&B used not tanking. For the good of the class, drop it. Accept that shields are for tanking and DW is for DPS.
LOL, there's some heavy insinuation here that weapon procs have a significant impact on hate generation (they don't, it's 95% disc/aa now). Any tank that is losing aggro to weapon procs should probably delete his character or at the very least ask for some kind of help, this scenario just doesn't happen anymore in EQ unless you're afk with no weapon on and/or dead IRL. You don't want aggro, you don't use your aggro discs. Not a hard concept to grasp. No need for this "EOA only on shields" - it's ridiculous and the thought process behind it is even worse.
Lol in my exanple above I cheerfully give up some aggro for DPS. DW is for DPS it's an advantage while DPSing to trade aggro for DPS and it is an advantage to lower one's aggro if one can. Since DW (and 2H) is for DPS there is no need, and it's contrary to DW is not for tanking, for EoA to be available. You want to tank, you equip a shield, you taunt, and you start using aggro abilities - not a hard concept to grasp. DW is not for tanking. DW is for DPS. It's not ridiculous and that's precisely why suggesting it makes wanting to tank while DWing players heads explode when its suggested. When suggesting schemes by which DW or 2H can intrude deeply into S&B's tanking role one might well be advised to remember they have no more right to do that then S&B has to be a not tanking DPS setup - an anomaly players have asked to be addressed (and one I agree should be addressed). Devs have the means at their disposal to make both sets of limitations effective.
It results in unnecessary itemization changes (something, it seems, they are VERY much against), however good it's intentions. Ridiculous was probably the wrong word, excessive fits better. Again, if you've read my posts - I am against DW 24/7 (I just don't care for it), I also do not think it should be a tanking option. I am not sure what part of the above means that I have to agree with EOA being restricted to the shield slot. As for the idea as a whole (DW/2h for "different" types of DPS and Shield for tanking), it seems like it would be a balancing nightmare - an issue they already have trouble with. This is likely why nothing has been done to this date and likely why nothing will ever be done. An outcome that I am fine with.
EoA has to go on something. They can do it next expansion or even in T1B on new shields (we get different shields than casters) and it will rather quickly percolate through the game. Let's not be too disingenuous, ne? And no. one need nver agree with me on anything and one can certainly pick and choose. However your beliefs, popular belief, ... don't affect my conclusions in the slightest - see your itemization assertion. I'm correct, you were incorrect, and I know it. Let's remember I was pretty much the only person posting on making shields more practical for Warriors. As for DW/2H - I agree it likely would never be formulaicly balanced. But as Rangers have experienced - it's 2H is better for a couple of expansions and DW is better for a few and everyone lives with that just fine.
That remains to be defined within the mechanics, which are the roots of my discussion - mechanics. Or I could simply not click my hate discs. I can see you like using my wording. Clever though it may be, plagiarizing it to support changes that are detrimental to the Warrior class isn't helping our case. But I'll help you out: Propose ideas that don't come with higher costs than the benefits they provide and you'll find better support within the community.
I have a suggestion for you. Don't spend so much time trying to subvert a needed change that benefited the Warrior community. Especially taking a position with as little support as that poll on TSW suggests. It'd be funny as heck if Tzvei turned out to be a Falos alt "I'll just leave this here."
You have an interesting concept of 'benefited' that ignores cost. Ubiquitous shield usage correlated with some of the darkest pages in Warrior history. Not that correlation implies causation, but to suggest that we went in the right direction? You're not being honest with yourself.
The only thing I'm "for" 24x7 is Warrior tanking, which is why you see my suggestions for DW and 2H came with suggestions to improve shield usage as well. Failure to move forward has a cost and we've paid it, time and time again. I definitely understand the challenges of the balancing act, but I'm not sure what the conceptual argument is against giving a Warrior in a tanking role the option of turning the DPS dial a little higher if his gear and the content allows it. There's certainly plenty of room to be gained before we encroach on true DPS classes.
Ah, but I'm excruciatingly honest. See above where Explicit suggests difficult to overcome itemization. You just don't like my honesty. The truth is even fairly uber Warriors were unconcerned that an early design error resulted in knights routinely having greater access to shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block. I could easily list another half dozen issues or suggestions they couldn't be bothered to note or comment on that resulted in changes that benefited Warriors. DW 24/7 was, next to the era where Warriors were reliant on broken taunt and random procs for aggro, about as dark an era imaginable. Lessee, did I say "Tanking = Aggro + Survivability" 1,000 times while others couldn't be bothered? Yes I did. BUT, it was obvious with knights having fast refreshing at range aggro spells our aggro situation could not stay as it was (despite the silence of many many Warriors). And it was obvious that shields were not simply decorative objects - shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block. Shields were for tanking. However there were in both cases traditionalists. Hey my aggro is fine or so I build aggro DWing and then equip a shield. Yeah, deny the evidence right in front of your eyes. WTG. Dye your armor cobalt blue, use a jagged blade of war ornament on your primary, use a shield when tanking and once Elidroth fixes things a 1Hdr in your secondary when DPSing. Get with 2013, still enjoy not being mistaken for a knight or a DWing Bard and stop obsessing about DW 24/7 Lost. It'll be back - DW is for DPS (and not tanking).
I think these are all excellent suggestions but I have very little faith in our dev overlords on this particular matter. Ignorance of player feedback on top of the almost-spiteful replies to certain suggestions has led me here. I am very fearful of the repercussions it's reintroduction might have and I believe I have every reason to feel this way given the history of this game. We might very well end up with the scenario of shield DPS being neutered to make way for dual-wield so they can say "hey guys, this is definitely the DPS option" when in reality we will of gained very little if anything at all.
There was a fairly obvious effort to have our DPS while tanking with a shield DPS neutered. I argue that our DPS in our usual role geared properly to perform that role should not result in our worst DPS. I have pretty good faith in the developers atm. They've said many times that DW is not for tanking. DW is for DPS. The major problem atm is players not listening coupled with devs not knowing how precisely they are going to implement and enforce what reasonable people would have to concede makes sense. OMGoodness. A spark of honesty - we must not let this die! Why yes, Warriors do tank a lot. (However in raids we do sometimes DPS do we not?) I guess that means we, like knights have for years, often use a shield. Whoa A -> B. Light blue swarming to the extent we can swarm and on ocassion up to two barely blue yardtrash mobs both assisted by a variety of ways to use No Time To Bleed. We've got the tools, we've got the content, there is no need, no excuse acceptable to leverage something like that to put tanking with S&B back into the closet except for yellow or red named mobs. And that sir is pretty much what you fans of DWing as close to 24/7 as possible have repeatedly suggested. OR Elidroth can (if he so decides) use the EoA on shields nuclear option and you can struggle with what is so wrong with DW is for DPSing and not tanking. S&B is for tanking - our DPS will be acceptable when tanking - if mobs are easy enough we'll use offensive disks rather than defensive while tanking in S&B.
Wait, some warriors still think dual wielding should result in great tanking? I only recall it being used to due to what you have described as the dark ages, when warrior agro was all about anger/stun procs. BA has actually made good arguments about this. And I recall how stupid warriors looked always tanking with 2 swords. Less material to cover you with = more owie spots, typically. However, if that doesn't convince you, just watch Boromir die in LoTR, it very clearly shows he forgot to equip his shield! Or Kirito the dual wielder in SAO, nearly dies dual wield DPSing the minotaur, gets his kicked by another warrior who used a shield, TWICE. Or take a look at the scotsman in Braveheart without a shield during the waves of arrows. Shields, they are good for tanking! 2her or 2 swords, good for DPSing!
Dreneth is struggling mightily with his deeply rooted belief that Warriors should be uniquely endowed in a way that lets them tank without resorting to the use of a shield and thus being able to produce DW DPS while tanking. He sees this as the defining characteristic of the class. Holding such a position demands that you ignore DW isn't a tanking setup for warrior derived classes like Rangers, requires you to deny what shields are for and what they do, you have to ignore the heavy plate armor role as it appears in our class description, etc. Once he said we tank a lot and essentially whats so wrong with using a setup that delivers more damage if we can tank in it (on the surface reasonable positions) the underlying less reasonable set of convictions became visible. Now he gets to make them rational. (The "at one time we were in paradise and things were that way but you got us kicked out BB" was an early attempt to do this). It's easier to lean back on dogma and that's what I'm expecting to happen.
If there's a solution that combines Shield Specialist "adjustments" with DPS enhancements that provides a net gain, I'd be cool with that. But only a fool would accept the former with a "future promise" for the latter, particularly while DW is still lacking a role. I can agree with this conceptually. I'm curious how you'd accomplish this without eliminating the viability of DW/2H. Depends on your definition of 'great'. If being able to handle single-pulled, blue-to-white trash mobs is "great" I'd say your bar is set a little low.
