DW vs Two Handed

[thargnar]

<DIV>Curious as to opinions from guards on this, with the changes to dw somewhat recently are we better going dw now than a slow delay two hander? I pretty much only play my guard when needed by guild lately and because of inactivity have gotten to be lower level than the other tanks hence im not MT so often anymore. To put out max dps (snicker, I said dps)  as an offtank using crafted imbued weapons I was wondering which route the more active guards recommend.</DIV>

[salle]

I'd say Dual Wields.an imbued weapons dps is calculated pretty easily.d = Your Minimum DamageD = Your Maximum Damagep = Your Minimum Proc damageP = Your Maximum Proc damageDe = delay[((p + P)*0.05 + d + D)/2]/De you take the avarage of your normal damage and your proc damage and devide it over the delay to get the avarage damage done in 1 second. (if the proc is something other than a 5% chance. Then change the 0.05 acoringly.)for a dual wield weapon you will add the dps of the two weapons together. have both weapons equipped to get the right damage rating as your damage might go up by the extra 4 strenght you get from using dual wields instead of a two hander.For me a pristine imbued cobalt executioners axe is 86.5 dps. But two imbued cobalt leafblades give me 110.6 dps.(If procs stack (ie my right hand weapon can do any proc from any other weapon equipped) then 3 imbued weapons is better than just 2 (this is when you're using a T6 imbued bow aswell) and if this is so, my equation is wrong.)I still prefer dual wields with long delay times though as casting combat arts halts more auto attack dps the lower your delay is.

[thargnar]

i havent seen that info anywhere else, and that formula is worth a sticky, you Da Man.

[Zhonata]

<DIV>A specific proc can only be triggered once per proc cycle thus having more thatn one weapon with a proc is pointless. So having 2 duel weapons with gleaming strike  and a bow does not mean 3X the chance to proc. You have same chance as 1 2hnd with no bow. As for a Duel weapons chance to proc to and 2hnd per cycle they suposidly did something to this and i dont know what it is.</DIV>

[JeffBship]

<P>DW gives me slightly more dps, even though more chances of auto melee are missed in a long fight I cycle through all my CA's and then have about 10-15 seconds where all CA timers are greyed out.  During this period the DW do more damage and catch up to the 2H dps.  </P> <P>However....as a poster above pointed out, the difference is maybe going from 85ish to 110ish dps.  While this may look like a 20% increase, when you compare it to the overall groups dps with mages and scouts doing 2500-3000 dps (each!) then the extra 20dps doesn't really matter much....  so really you can choose whatever weapon you think looks best for you character <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>There is also an issue of riposte damage...fewer attacks with a slow weapon means fewer ripostes.  Also...look at the weapons you have available and the stats provided on them.  You're high dps 2H may not benefit you as much as your sword/shield combo in str, sta, etc...depending on what equipment you have.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Kynlo]

<DIV>  I was a strictly DW guardian up until DoF.  Now I use a 2H, mostly because I found an ironwood for an Ironwood Pike, before I found 2 cobalts for something I could dual wield.  I solo a lot.  Though if compare the damage rating between the 2H and 2 DW, the 2H will come up just a bit short, the difference is hardly noticeable.  It seems  the 2H procs more than the DW's I was using previously, which lends support to what was posted above about that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Whichever you go with, I don't think it's going to make a glaring difference.</DIV>

[Mentin]

<P>The formula is wrong for the proc dps.</P> <P>Sony posted somewhere(might have been on betaboards) that the procrate is adjusted for the weapon speed. 5% procrate means a weapon with speed 3(?) secs would proc 5%, faster and slower weapons get the procrate adjusted accordingly.</P> <P> </P>