He's gone even more than admitting it, he's saying that it's massively overpowered and needs to be nerfed because a +10 DPS aug with full burns going is doing double S&B with an agro aug without burns.
The difference between S&B with and aggro auged aggro weapon and 2-1H DMG augged weapons is so slight I frankly did not see an advantage in S&B's favor. Kindly remember before SS it was for all practical purposes DW 24/7. After SS, which was needed to provide Warriors with shield appropriate weapons, I tanked current content using S&B like a tank should. I broke out 2 DMG augged 1H damage weapons when we were instructed to burn, I wasn't the next tank in line, and when the burn was long enough that doing a full burn was indicated. Not a usual circumstance at all. Tanking - S&B with defensive discs, DPSing - either slacking and using S&B more concerned about needing to grab aggro if the tank dies or DWing and using offensive discs. When exactly would I have noted a 5-10% discrepancy? Keep in mind the point wasn't raised until 2 years after SS went into effect. They didn't notice (or noticed and didn't care) too. And kindly remember even when I was posting that Shields need to be made more practical for Warriors I was concerned that 2H DPS be greater than S&B DPS - it was an article of faith on my part that it was 2H that was seriously behind the curve not DW. Parses say my tanking setup is "too good" compared to my DW DPS? I'm more concerned about the 10DMG aug with a damage weapon used with S&B - it's a bigger anomaly. And besides, my suggestion (devs may well have something entirely different in mind) deals with both - it puts DW and 2H ahead of S&B regardless of the weapon and aug used from the same tier used with a shield while preserving Warrior appropriate DPS in our usual role (tanking) geared appropriately to perform that role (like a tank). My suggestion may not be a workable solution but nevertheless, my desire is: <11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps which can not be truthfully said of some other posters in this thread. Heck, one need look no further than the thread's title Sword and Board DPS > Dual Wield to spot their bias. 2H isn't mentioned at all.
Did you even read the original post? A guy was ASKING A QUESTION about the game. You came in here with your glorious stench and turned it into another debate thread. DOES ANYTHING IN HERE EVEN REMOTELY LOOK LIKE HE'S SAYING S&B >>>>>>>>> DW DPS? No, it's a question, and a question most of us answered truthfully and without bias, until you came in here spouting your typically garbage. Then you have the gall to sit there and say how this thread was ABOUT this? Are you seriously mentally challenged or something? Do you have a reading deficiency? are you delusional? Or are you just plain stupid? Christ, I'm done with you. The warrior community at large seems done with you. Even the knights know that you're nothing more than a pestilence to our community. You live in your own little fantasy world of things that make no sense to anyone but yourself. You continue to post the same cut and paste dribble while not even responding to what people post. You're not interested in helping the community, I can't even tell what you want to do anymore. All I can plainly see is that you're a bane to the entire warrior community.
Do you have a reading deficiency? <11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps Can you explain you posting SS should be removed? Didn't think so. Those Warriors who are determined to restore DW tp it's 24/7 status by posting such things, posting is tanking with twin lightsabers still useful/if not I'm canceling my alts in the new player forum, and multiple does S&B out damage DW threads are a bane on the Warrior community and have deflected our attention to a subject an SOE developer spoke on MONTHS AGO. https://forums.station.sony.com/eq/index.php?threads/war-pal-irc-chats-10-12.2222/ ^ Is this not a dev IRC chat transcript? Ya, that is a dev IRC chat transcript. "<11@Elidroth> though I don't think it should be lower dps" ^ is this not a dev statement? Ya, that is a dev statement. "<11@Elidroth>what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking. DW and 2H are dps" For someone arguing that SS should be removed from the game I don't see you as standing on good for the game or the class ground sir. The "Since no one's done it yet" raise of hands effort on that other website 22/13. I think you over estimate the importance of your preference and are incorrect about it being universal.
"<11@Elidroth> though I don't think it should be lower dps" What is this supposed to do, strengthen your argument?
Ah, but UbahCastah I posted that I believed that 2H should out DPS S&B (and implied that DW should too) on that Shields should be more practical for Warriors thread two years ago. I'm entirely behind "<11@Elidroth>what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking. DW and 2H are dps" with one possible difference of opinion. Warriors did not get shield appropriate weapons we got 1Handers designed to be used two at a time. The 30% DPS loss was excessive and Shield Specialist was intended to correct this - it needed correction. Yes sir, my embracing S&B for all tanks when tanking non-trivial content and 2H and DW for DPS does in fact strengthen my argument. As does citing that IRC chat transcript. Even beyond "1h/shield is for tanking. DW and 2H are dps" being right, it's good for the class, and I think other than a few diehards who will claim its wrong or ambiguous most warriors will accept it. It's essentially the same for the other two classes that tank.
Aside from the fact that you just did "Bother with me", the default setting should be to question everything quoted (especially from you) without it being backed up with actual references. I *never, ever, ever* believe a word you say, because you're dishonest and have been caught lying time after time after time, however if you provide proof, then I can be convinced, that's how it works. So, having said that, you are treating his quote as though it's a declarative universal statement, covering all times where the warrior is the focus of damage. This is silly, where does it stop? Can a warrior not offtank while dual wielding? Can a warrior not tank yard trash while dual wielding? Should a monk or ranger be able to tank group level content, which is 90% of the content most warriors will see, while dual wielding but not warriors? Should warriors not be better than any class in the game at tanking with similar weapon setups? Does the quoted chat session cover those larger questions? Of course they don't, this was a chat with 2 classes with dozens of people spamming questions to him, while he was clicking between windows to woot.com and even typing back in his secondary window. If you are suggesting we had his full attention, or that anything he was talking about was comprehensive, then you're dead wrong. Even you keep using the term "challenging content" (although you define challenging content as "anything that causes a healer to spend mana faster than they regenerate it"), as you know full well that almost every warrior in this game has no problem getting behind a shield to tank a threatening NPC. I define "challenging content" as "Anything that absolutely requires a tank class to tank in order to survive the encounter". Anything else should be considered trivial What's more, he stated pretty clearly that he doesn't know how to accomplish what he wants to accomplish in that same line of thought.
A flat out misstatement. See above. "It's essentially the same for the other two classes that tank." Do they on occasion do content that's trivial enough that they opt to use their two handers instead of sword and board? Of course they do. Is there content where they use a shield? Yep. Their displayed AC, effective return on AC, and HP propping while different from ours is not extraordinarily different. If they want to use their 2Hdr they go to content where they can or do it when someone else is tanking. Rome wasn't built in a day. Until it is we can tank using S&B and get the benefits of shield use and do (hopefully) Warrior appropriate DPS in one of the setups we are likely to have. I am prepared for an unlikely instantaneous change to DW and 2H is for DPS - I always am - I don't just mouth the words. Unfortunately non-raid Warriors who are more likely to use S&B in a wider assortment of the group content we all spend time doing might not be as prepared for a change. But then their usual role is tanking ain't it and we can reasonably expect that they are geared to tank. You're a reasonably bright fellow. You ought to read your post and realize just how hollow it sounds. I'll admit I prefer that tone to a level 83 returned after two years posting he'll straighten out SOE and do it on his terms, but it ought to give you pause to consider what it is that you are arguing. "<11@Elidroth>what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking. DW and 2H are dps" is both sensible and reasonable. It's the same deal the the other tanks operate under (minus the extra DPS setup). Oh, you needn't compose a lengthy counter argument - I really am done with you. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I just don't care what you think.
You notice that every single poster in every single thread related to this topic has been you alone saying everything is fine, and everyone else saying we want DW/2H back as viable options? Sounds like there are more than "a few die-hards" Second, your black and white view of the the state of things is blind to the fact that NO ONE HERE HAS SUGGESTED WE WANT DW 24/7!!! We agree, shield for challenging content, DW/2H for trivial content / non-tanking roles. Cuz shield is for tanking, not for DPS. And if you checked my posts, you'll notice I suggested either SS be removed, or SS's damage bonus be applied to DW and 2H, giving them the same damage boost. This brings DW and 2H back to being higher DPS than S&B naturally. Then nothing needs to be changed! And hey, when tanking, your DPS is 100% irrelevant. Our job is "to get hit and take it" (quoted from Elidroth). Our only two concerns are agro generation and mitigation. We have more than enough agro generation tools, so its not like we NEED the damage agro granted by SS. If the AA was changed to provide a 65% boost to swing agro, I'd be all for it. However, it grants DPS. As you keep saying, Shield is for tanking. DW/2H are for DPS. Good,I think everyone who has posted in these threads is long since done with you too. I guess this means you're going to stop posting now? Didn't think so.
Didn't some one make a comment about how ignore was a bad idea and you might miss something? Guess like everything else in the world, rules and opinions only count when they come from one person.
Here's the catch, we parsed Shield Specialist to be 5% DPS boost per rank, and there are 13 ranks of it, for a 65% boost. You right there say we should be about a 30% not the 65% it is now. If we remove the 35% extra that brings DW and 2Hander both over S&B DPS, and would eliminate the S&B DPS set. Remeber SS adds more damage not the agro portion of damage though, so it would not impact our swing agro. Would you define what you mean by "Non-Trivial content"? I'm pretty sure multiple people have asked now and you keep referenceing other people but never defining it. The other two classes that tank don't have a third option so we are a bit more complex an issue to fix especially if all 3 weapon styles are going to remain viable. BTW thanks for linking that chatlog, I haven't finished reading it yet but it looks interesting so far.
I don't care if you quote this ten thousand times a day, it contributes precisely zero value to any conversation. Our stance as a class is that Elidroth's opinion on this matter is overruled by the community's overwhelming views to the contrary. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to accomplish at all anymore because you knowingly and continuously undermine your own agendas.
OK I redid the Baseline parses on "S&B DPS" and found some interesting things, With Poker of Calming 4595 DPS Damoncord -vs- Combat Dummy Fana: -- DMG: 8279684 -- DPS: 4595 -- Scaled: 4595 -- Pierce: 8279684 -- Non-crit rate: 65.3% -- crit rate: 34.7% -- Attempts: 4511 -- Hits: 3402 -- Missed: 1109 -- Accuracy: 75.4% -- Avg Hit: 2433 -- Max hit: 6683 -- DMG to PC: 0 With Katana Of Pain 4819 DPS Damoncord -vs- Combat Dummy Fana: -- DMG: 7946807 -- DPS: 4819 -- Scaled: 4819 -- Slash: 7833349 -- DirDmg: 113458 -- Non-crit rate: 62.8% -- crit rate: 37.2% -- Attempts: 3638 -- Hits: 2813 -- Missed: 825 -- Accuracy: 77.3% -- Avg Hit: 2825 -- Max hit: 7845 -- DMG to PC: 0 And for comparison the earlier parses With 2Hander Frosthewn Greathammer /tell Damoncord Damoncord -vs- Combat Dummy Fana: -- DMG: 17844658 -- DPS: 4886 -- Scaled: 4886 -- Crush: 17464966 -- DirDmg: 379692 -- Non-crit rate: 67.3% -- crit rate: 32.7% -- Attempts: 7030 -- Hits: 5430 -- Missed: 1600 -- Accuracy: 77.2% -- Avg Hit: 3286 -- Max hit: 9512 -- DMG to PC: 0 With DW Poker of Calming Mainhand, Katana of Pain Offhand Damoncord -vs- Combat Dummy Fana: -- DMG: 14985074 -- DPS: 4159 -- Scaled: 4159 -- Pierce: 9000944 -- Slash: 5868492 -- DirDmg: 115638 -- Non-crit rate: 66.1% -- crit rate: 33.9% -- Attempts: 15108 -- Hits: 11477 -- Missed: 3631 -- Accuracy: 76% -- Avg Hit: 1305 -- Max hit: 3964 -- DMG to PC: 0 With S&B Tanking Midasa's Dragon Slayer Damoncord -vs- Combat Dummy Fana: -- DMG: 17361817 -- DPS: 4677 -- Scaled: 4677 -- Pierce: 17010091 -- DirDmg: 351726 -- Non-crit rate: 68% -- crit rate: 32% -- Attempts: 8545 -- Hits: 6659 -- Missed: 1886 -- Accuracy: 77.9% -- Avg Hit: 2607 -- Max hit: 8121 -- DMG to PC: 0 It appears that our DPS would rank as 2Hander, S&B DPS(if the weapon has a DD proc), S&B tanking then DW DPS.
I think it's a little early to declare 2H as winner. With DW/1h we can control data with similar weapon ratios. Even so, buffs can thwart this when pri vs sec swingrates vary. 2h is an entirely different beast with unique swingrates and damage bonuses. More data is needed.
I don't write for your benefit, or to convince you of anything, I write to you for the most part to refute what you have to say for the benefit of others, since you have a bad habit of lying about history, about the game, and about pretty much anything you feel that you have to to get your way, but doing so in a slippery, and almost comically political way. Tuning a video game that's out of balance isn't quite the feat that the building of Rome was, however I can certainly understand the desire of a modern design team to avoid delving into deeply buried code, and the reality is that's how the game works today. It's definitely in need of a fix, and frankly, there's some need for a general philosophy change regarding warriors in today's game. Their current view, based on that chat is really antiquated and does not reflect many realities that changes over the last few years have wrought upon the game and the class.
The two hander has a 600 DD, while the 1 hnder has a 420 DD. You need to take off the DD to make a valid comparison as any bonus (e.g Shaman Epic, flurry modifers, Quick time, Mighty) will only amplify the weapon damage and not the proc's. The 2hnder is 4780 DPS and the 1 hnder/S&B is 4750 DPS. I don't think 30DPS difference would be statistically significant. One further thing to note is the Damage Augs. I'm pretty sure these parses are done with no damage augs. A +10 damage aug to the Katana boosts it's DPS by 7.7%. Whereas the +16 damage to the Frosthewn only provides a 5.925% boost. This would push the Katana S&B higher than the 2hnder. Assuming that the parses you did were unaugged, which they do look like.
