At this point, it's not even clear the changes are going to happen. Is it really worth making a new thread that's essentially to request DW getting a bigger buff than 2H? Additionally, your "solution" doesn't solve the problem you point out. You said: The current proposal of "between 2H and shield" doesn't give DW any clear advantage. Your proposal merely makes 2H the 'muddy middle' (therefore useless) stance instead of DW. The more logical solution to me, is to make DW and 2H roughly the same DPS, and have both be XX% more DPS than S&B. I also think your defense proposal is antithetical to the past 5 years of development around shields. It's clear the devs want certain benefits tied to shields, and Elidroth wishes to continue and expand that. The warrior community also says (supposedly at least, I don't actually believe this) want to change weapons according to the situation, and that S&B 24/7 is a problem. If DW is the highest DPS and has shield-like mitigation, ie what you want, it will shift us from being S&B 24/7 to DW 24/7. Granted, I think that's your goal. I find these debates over stances to be incredibly superficial. "The problem" with the warrior class is we tank worse than knights w/o last stand and we only do 20% the DPS of zerkers. Yet probably 1/2 of warrior related posts are more about people being nostalgic for 2002-style duel wield 24/7 and looking cool swinging 2 swords than actually fixing the class. I really think some of you would rather do 20% the DPS of a zerker swinging 2 swords than 40% of their DPS swinging 1.
It depends on how the DPS is applied. If DW gains that damage through damage procs for example, DW can be ahead of 2H when defensive discs are being used and 2H comes ahead when offensive discs are used. 2H with multitarget/AE abilities further differentiates it over Dual Wield (best single target DPS) 3 clear "bests" instead of a x>y>z model I feel it is. 2H is not as high a priority for Warriors. The vast majority of reasoned feedback I've seen on the issue suggests Warriors would prefer to see DW become a popular stance again and I don't see that happening if it's the "muddy middle".
i dunno. ive played a warrior since 99 and i always prefered to use 2handers over dual wield when possible. the only reason i ever used dual wield was the superior agro procs, back when that mattered. once shield ac became a significant factor, it was dual wield with defensive to build agro, swap to sword n board. even before shield specialist. it used to be a matter of choice and having flexibility of not being pigeon holed intoa specific weapon setup. id like that back.
A lot of the suggestions for 2h/dw are dps increases. I feel that warriors are not able to do nearly the dps a pure melee class should be able to, but. I'm not sure developers agree, they could at any time for years now have done any number of things to increase warrior dps. DW/2h vs shield I can see an argument for which setup should be more dps, but if they aren't giving warriors more dps out of it, and shield is still better for tanking. then its just cosmetic.
Agree here, and the method in the first post is certainly one way of doing that. If shield is best for tanking and 2H is best DPS then DW use will be mostly cosmetic. Might as well just let epic ornaments fit in the shield. We can do better.
I have not seen anyone propose DW 24/7 as their goal although I have seen people post, as you have, proclaiming it to be the warrior communities goal. Weapon setup is not, but should be interchangeable depending on the situation. I will simplify it. Lets say you want to butter some bread. You can chose a 8" steak knife, 12" bread knife or a 6" butter knife. This situation calls for lesser measures so you should chose the more suitable butter knife. Lets say you have a mean steak to deal with. I would put my butter knife down and switch to my steak knife. That's all I have asked for. Is to just be able to butter my bread when I wish to. When I am confronted with the steak that obviously my butter knife cant handle then I will gladly switch. I'm hungry now.
I think we are stuck between a rock (survivability) and a hard place (DPS) with choice of weapons there are really only 2 major concerns and 3 weapon sets. Sword and board for max survivability and split DW and 2H for DPS. One for Max agro and one for diminished agro? Maybe tie a new aura into each weapon stance? SandB ac aura, DW attack debuff aura, 2H self/group crit aura?
Precisely the issue with the Defense > balanced > DPS approach Our agro is mostly activated, so this isn't a relevant distinction. Ways of differentiating DW vs 2H: Single target vs multiple mobs Sustained DPS vs burn DPS ???? <- what else could go here?
I think this falls back under the same two categories - DPS or Defense. Molo implies a mob weak enough to DPS stance.
I'm a bit leary of your 2H = ripo mod and AE attacks idea. If it's significantly powerful it would be seen as a swarming tool and be nerfed eventually. If it's not powerful, I wouldn't see much of incentive to use 2H over S&B when multitanking. - From my parsing of S&B vs 2H, 2H seems to be very strong in non-disced DPS. In fact, it's not that far away from S&B if you're not discing, but the gap is significant with discs. Only did limited testing with DW, but it doesn't seem as strong in sustained DPS compared to 2H. - Elidroth wants to give DW a minor defensive boost and have it be in the middle DPS wise. Obviously that will likely leave it useless, however, I don't think the idea of a "tanking DPS stance" is without merit. Perhaps an innate defensive proc (or defensively procced buff) could accomplish this. I wouldn't like there to be a major different between 2H and DW in DPS, but if there is, one area of differentiation I'd like to see is in group setup. Specifically, have one proc aDPS buffs (eg crit mod) that make it superior if you don't have an aDPS group, and have the other be superior if you can get that mod from your group. I suggest this because the vast majority of raiding warriors don't get in aDPS groups, and any form of self aDPS would be great for DPSing from tank groups.
Just curious if you ever try and molo db and white content. I do as an sk and even try yellow content to give myself a challenge, haven't found much red other than named. One reason to do this is because some really nice items drop now in WK etc. That is a place that even most group wars might want a middle stance (DW) because they may not need S&B except for named, but might not want to give up all the defensive that would come with equipping a 2h. I know usually either equip S&B and dps spells or 2h if i cant get rounded or am worried about 2 consecutive bad rounds and dps/taps. one thing I can and have dome is to do 2h with Steadfast Stance and challenge to give myself that little bit extra to survive medium mobs.
maybe im lookin at it backwards compared to the rest of ya, but why not make 2h the psuedo tank/dps stance. add a riposte mod with a 2hander to fire off more often and for more damage, maybe a crit bonus/multiplier, with a 2hander equipped, and make dual wield the pure dps "stance." because we have so many options, i dont think everyone is ever going to agree on which setup for what situation. still fun to discuss~ i personally have a preference for 2handed weapons over dual wield.
I also prefer 2h over dw for the warrior class because I personally like seeing the big hits in the game. (warrior created before berserker class existed) As far as dps goes I just want 2h = dw in damage and mitigation wise so I always have that choice. I don't want to make things more confusing by making one type of weapon greater than the other, just so one type of weapon never gets used. I actually find myself needing to use my shield for the additional mitigation, perhaps that's is just where the game is heading.
I personally prefer 2hander for DPS for one simple reason: It's easier to get one badass 2hander than it is to get 2 equivalently badass 1 handers. Other than that, this is a game, it's all arbitrary anyhow. You can make arguments for either or both 2H and DW for both DPS and light tanking. I say, let's see what the devs come up with first, and then we can see if there's anything to complain about (which my cynical nature tells me is highly likely, given recent history for the class).
No, because that's all arbitrary as well. All you would be doing is saying you have to do twice as much to reach the same goal. If 2H is the pure DPS stance, then I need to get 1 weapon to get the job done. If DW is the DPS stance, then I need 2 equivalent weapons to get the job done - and there's much more competition for 1handers. 2hander DPS, we compete with zerkers only, pretty much, maybe monks for the 2hb. Knights have their own class specific ones. 1handers, we compete with rangers, bards, rogues, monks, bsts. Much bigger list, much more common classes. There are only so many raid weapons dropping. I'd rather not make shopping for DPS weapons any more painful than it already is. I do remember the days when warriors needed 2 tanking weapons and 2 DPS weapons, and frankly given the choice I'll pass on going back to that, thanks. 1 tank weapon, shield and 2hander would suit me fine as the basics, with other weapons picked up as they become available.
Not exactly. Rather, if you DO twice the work you should see rewards for it. For example: DW T3/T4 < T4 2H < DW T4
I personally think they should be about equal. The single target "dps from behind" capability of DW should probably be ever so slightly higher as the 2hander will benefit from increased riposte damage (single vs multiple targets) will have it edge out when used while tanking. Both setups should be stronger defensively than they are now, yet still weaker by a good margin compared to shield use.
I'd envisioned that all three stances should be fairly close, but not so close that a 1-2 tier gap in weaponry can upset stance balance. My opinion is to let shield AC/block remain the difference defensively. If any other mitigation boosts are relevant, they can be applied independently of stance.
