Warrior AA Dual-Wielding Proficiency Bugged?

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by Mayfaire, Jul 28, 2015.

  1. Mayfaire Augur

    Hey all,

    I can cast both defensive and 2-handed proficiency's with no problem, but not Dual-Wielding. Seems bugged?

    I had 2 one handers equipped as required, 1. Leatum and 2. Synostis, Martel of Ruination. I removed all buffs down to skin, symbol and brells. Still cannot use this aa. :confused:

    I looked to see if there is a thread on this, but I don't see anything...
  2. Dre. Altoholic

    Code:
    [Tue Jul 28 22:33:22 2015] You begin casting Dual-Wielding Proficiency.
    [Tue Jul 28 22:33:22 2015] You appear more balanced.
    
    /shrug
  3. Mayfaire Augur

    SO weird. :/

    I now have zero buffs. Still holding the same 2 weapons. I try to click Dual-Wielding and all I get is "Your spell is interrupted".

    Thanks for checking Dre!
  4. Mayfaire Augur

    Ok, I just switched out weapons to see if it is one of the them. The problem seems to be the Leatum. I can't use Dual-Wield when holding it. It is not the aug in the weapon or the ornament either - I removed both.

    I wonder why the Leatum blocks Dual-Wield Proficiency? o_O
  5. Koryu Professional Roadkill

    I recall being unable to cast the Dual Wield stance a while back depending on what weapon was equipped. It refused to cast when I had Midasa's Dragon Slayer in Primary, so maybe it has to do with using 1H Piercers since Leatum is on of those as well. Try different weapon arrangements by damage type.
  6. Mayfaire Augur

    Hey Koryn, ty for your suggestion :)

    I tried 3 1HP (the only three I have) and all three times I cannot hit dual-wield, so I guess that's the answer. At least the mystery is solved, ty!
  7. Dzarn Developer

    A very specific bug in the data; if you have a 1HP in your primary and a 1HP in your offhand then Dual-Wielding Proficiency will fail to cast.

    Of the 9 permutations of 1HS, 1HB and 1HP the 9th requirement pair, which should be Primary: 1HP + Secondary: 1HB, is errantly a duplicate of 1HB + 1HB.

    I'll fix the data for the next full patch.
    Crystilla, Battleaxe, Iila and 4 others like this.
  8. Mayfaire Augur

    Dzarn, you absolutely rock. So nice seeing you post again. TYTYTY! :D
  9. Koryu Professional Roadkill

    Should I include the list of other bugs/issues/interactions regarding Proficiencies here?
  10. Dzarn Developer

    I've honestly been thinking it would be a better solution to do away with them and modify itemization to support stronger weapon differentiation then modify other abilities to make up for the power difference that was previously provided by the proficiencies...

    So, maybe later? :)
    Battleaxe, Iila, Brohg and 1 other person like this.
  11. Dre. Altoholic

    This can become a mess when it impacts other classes. I would prefer itemization to be fairly generic.
    Really, this disaster all came about due to Shield Specialist getting too many ranks in UF, so that's where we should start.
    Obviously you would find a lot of support among the Warrior community for eliminating the drawbacks and dispensing with the annoying "buff/stance" implementation by making the benefits passive. Consider:
    • Ranks 6+ of Shield Specialist replaced with a '1H proficiency' line, which also boosts off-hand attacks
    • 2H proficiency rolled into Merciless Blade
    • Something in place of Shield Specialist for modifying skill attacks such as Heroic Blade and Calculated Strike.
    • Resurgence of the 'Phalanx of One' AA line in place of Defensive Proficiency.
    • Possible block recourse added to Strike of Ire
    In the end, this would be a huge convenience for the class, and power gains are avoided if mods are being replaced rather than actually increased.

    But let's be honest, just shuffling things around doesn't address the... tragedy of being ~#14 on the DPS charts despite being the "masters of armed combat" and further despite the cornucopia of poorly stacking damage mods, many with drawbacks, that we have to maintain just to do pathetic DPS. There's one major thing that Warriors lack, possessed by all other other pure melee classes, that could help bridge the massive gap:
    • Hundred Hands proc - This is the perfect solution; Increase in sustained, but not burns where HHE is already present, and allowing proc in offhand would help DW moreso than the other two configs.
  12. Xanathol Augur

    Agree with Dre - correcting this via itemization would be a nightmare and nigh impossible. For one, time would have to be spent going back through a number of items, not just forward to new items. Two, Warrior usable weapons have a number of subsets, from Warrior only, to tank, to melee, to tank + melee, etc, etc, where the same ratio creates very different results between the usable classes. And if you go the class specific route, we'll have issues with rot loot revisited. Passive abilities are a lot simpler, cleaner and more elegant solution.
    Dre. likes this.
  13. Koryu Professional Roadkill

    Dzarn does good work. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and test his changes when they are ready. If they are not good, then the feedback will be appropriate.
    Battleaxe likes this.
  14. Endiment Scale Tailed

    Fixing it via itemization doesn't need to mess with the stats of a bunch of weapons, it could be done via WAR only augments. The shield aug could be type 3 and the weapon augs would have to be type 4/8.
  15. Battleaxe Augur

    When the proficiencies first appeared I complained that they were overly complicated and that the weapons and configurations they were used in (2H, DW, S&B) should deliver reasonable outcomes without proficiencies. Further I noted that Warriors, when performing their usual role (tanking) and geared properly to perform that role (S&B), were not producing "warriorly" DPS - one of the two reasons Shield Specialist was required in the first place (the other reason being aggro - improved since by other means).

    Surely when a Warrior is not tanking and is acting as a substitute melee DPSer the two DPS setups, DW and 2H, combined with offensive disciplines should produce more DPS than S&B used with defensive disciplines. But opportunistic DPS as a result of ripostes and damage shields available only when tanking should narrow the not tanking (DW and 2H) vs. tanking (S&B) gap.

    Others posted their hope that Warriors, unlike the other two classes that tank, would routinely use DW when tanking and if not originally praising proficiencies at least approving of them with by stating that something had to be done.

    I'm gratified that Dzarn is contemplating making itemization changes in the future have a greater role in this with an eye to dropping proficiencies. (Beefier 1Handers, weaker offhanders, perhaps nice shortish duration Damage Shield buff procs linked to Bash and appearing on shields ???) Looking at itemization is IMO a lot closer to the something that needed to be done than proficiencies have been.
  16. Triconix Augur

    There, I fixed it for you. Your vision of SB damage would revert us right back to having the setup do just as much, if not more, damage than our "DPS" set ups.

    "Warriorly" dps should be garbage while tanking with a shield. Our main concern is to take damage, not dps. If we were using DW while tanking, I would say our dps should be pretty decent, but not with a big lumbering shield. If I could, I'd tank with two shields on raids at this point. Warriorly dps whiling dpsing should be somewhat decent (like 50% of actual dps classes) and well beyond that of SB/tanking. Currently, we're lucky to hit 25-30% of the totals of an actual dps class.
    Dzarn likes this.
  17. Battleaxe Augur

    "Surely when a Warrior is not tanking and is acting as a substitute melee DPSer the two DPS setups, DW and 2H, combined with offensive disciplines should produce more DPS than S&B used with defensive disciplines. But opportunistic DPS as a result of ripostes and damage shields available only when tanking should narrow the not tanking (DW and 2H) vs. tanking (S&B) gap."

    If we are not tanking then there is no reason to be in S&B. "Opportunistic DPS as a result of ripostes and damage shields" aren't available when not tanking and the two DPS setups, DW and 2H, combined with offensive disciplines should produce more DPS than S&B used with defensive (or offensive disciplines).

    Non-raiding Warriors seldom fill a non-tanking not very good DPSer role and raid Warriors fill that role perhaps 50% of the time.

    So basically your vision is either for Warriors not to have shield appropriate weapons unlike 2 of the 3 classes that tank and be the 14th of 16 classes in our usual role geared properly to perform that role (EQ prior to fixing the long standing oversight of not providing Warriors with shield appropriate mainhanders at launch)

    or
    Unlike Spartans, Roman Legionnaires, and heavily armored medieval center group fighters (see Arming Sword) not being highly effective meat grinders while fighting with a shield. Translation - ignore gear, how its used, and the known result of using that way.

    I use S&B when tanking current content. I use 2H when poorly filling a melee DPSer role (raid only. Non-raid Warriors don't see that role nearly as often).

    I'll welcome changes that do away with the overly complicated proficiency system (Sometimes dev err. Sometimes they admit error.). However, providing Warriors with shield appropriate weapons (through Shield Specialist) was not a mistake. It was a concession that not providing Warriors with shield appropriate weapons from the beginning was an error.
  18. Damoncord Augur

    Honestly I'd rather see the changes made with passive AAs, possibly AAs that are auto-granted rather than by itemization.
  19. Triconix Augur

    Please point out where I said warriors shouldn't have shield appropriate weapons? Rather, I said SB dps should come nowhere close to a dps setup as you seemingly claim with the statement of:
    Opportunistic hits, although possibly deadly, shouldn't even measure up to a fraction of normal dpsing stances/situations. I do not expect to deal damage while tanking with a shield, nor should I. I'm holding a big shield, getting my face punched in and I should be doing dps that's narrowly gapped from my all out dps setup through "opportunistic" attacks? No, just no. If I'm tanking with a "dps" setup, yes, I should expect to see decent-good dps. Not with a shield.

    What I corrected from you is that I want even stronger offhand weapons when dual wielding. If you want that as strictly a dps set up, then I better be seeing huge boosts of dps. How do I expect to see dps boosts if my secondary weapon is weak?

    You're ignoring the usage of a phalanx. We are by ourselves. The comparison is apples to oranges. Or do you not know how a phalanx works? Shields were used to not just protect yourself, but to protect the people next to you and around you, especially when they were retaliating with strikes of their own. But, I guess I can bring up front lines that equiped themselves with only long spears and allowed enemies to charge into them mindlessly. Those two handed weapons I guess made good defensive tactics too. Should we just run around with a giant spear now trying to tank?

    By yourself - on the offensive, with a big, heavy, slow shield - would leave the person VERY vulnerable rather than safe. This is where your fault lies. You expect to be offensively minded with a shield, giving examples of armies who used a phalanx (requires multiple people to create), but forget that a person by himself is most vulnerable if not careful. You know, the whole concept of divide and conquer? Gosh, I hope you're not a general any time soon. Your army would be doomed.

    Proficiencies may not have been perfect, but at least they had the correct thought/strategy behind them. You on the other hand, not so much.
  20. Battleaxe Augur

    Honestly, I'd rather see changes made by having classes that perform the same primary role adhere to a common archetype - shared AA archetype abilities, skills, and itemization. Parent class specialization (where devs make good on them) and outside of a classes primary archetype abilities should be accomplished by class specific AA abilities, disciplines/spells, and skills.

    Warriors, Paladins, and SK's share a common archetype -
    Tanks - check
    Heavy armor - check (note that shield AC isn't subject to the softcap, Shield Block, etc are common to all three classes. <- An archetype trait.)

    I agree that passive Archetype abilities > activated and/class specific abilities. A fireman ought not need to engage fireman stance to do his job provided he is dressed appropriately to perform it. However I believe not providing Warriors with shield appropriate main handers at initial release was the thing that caused Warriors to concede the advantages to S&B to knights when tanking. A situation that did not change until the loss of ~30% of our DPS and aggro was addressed.

    The DPS loss all tanks experience when tanking affects them, but DPS is a larger portion of Warrior total class power than it is for spellbook weilding outside the tank archetype ability delivering knights. A fact recognized when 2H damage bonus calculation was changed.

    Besides the mitigation superstar isn't shield use in the first place. For Warriors it's Fortitude/Final Stand. Engage those instead of offensive disciplines and our DPS is cut in half. We pay pretty heavily when we are tanking for reals.

    Warriors should lose 1/3rd of their terrible DPS when using a shield? Sure - if shields provided 1/3rd of our mitigation. They don't. And they surely don't cost spellbook using knights 1/3rd of their total class power. And yes heavily armored not phalanx employing medieval troops eventually moved to 2 Handers - in the late medieval period when halberds and were employed aginst heavily armored troops, and firearms started appearing. When the age of magic was over and, to borrow a phrase from Tolkein, the age of industry had begun.

    I'll be happy if devs clean up things and make Warriors more elegantly designed even if DBG continues jumping the shark with class design and itemization. After all a simpler Lada is still better than a rat's nest Lada.
    .