PDA

View Full Version : Can crusaders please learn to duel wield


madha
04-22-2009, 11:30 AM
<p>Not sure how long its been since this was last asked for, but come on. I havent used a 2hander to dps in years.  Any way we can learn to duel wield, i mean i know pallies have never duel wield yada yada, we never used bows before either.</p><p>Hell ill take a pentalty with it -20% hit rate i dont care, just give me options to dps.  I havent seen a 2 hander even drop in tso, besides the avatar drops.</p>

Getsum12
04-22-2009, 07:26 PM
<p>This is certainly a valid point seeing as Paladins are overlooked to tank because of SK's. where is the trade of? does every Paladin have to exile and become SK's?</p><p>If i am incorrect here i would certainly like to know how i can compete with an SK in tanking. I can tank, but not as good as an SK</p><p>thoughts??</p>

Stonestrong
04-22-2009, 07:38 PM
<p>Our Mythicals (SK also) have a 6 second delay, much higher top end damage, and you can spec to have it deal 25% more damage with Knight's Stance AA in the Crusader line of The Shadows AA Tree. Brawlers/Warriors can dual wield but our weapons own their's in respect to the damage they can put out.</p><p>My guess would be this AA abillity along with the other things I listed, is why they haven't allowed us to dual wield....</p>

Boethius_Permafrost
04-23-2009, 02:18 AM
<p>Itemization is the answer, not a class redesign.  If not 2h weapon in the game is even remotely useful for damage, that's an itemization concern.  Or you can use a dps shield -- oh wait, they're all bucklers designed for dps warrior abilities.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Stonestrong
04-23-2009, 02:31 AM
<p>Actually there are a couple shields with nice dps stats on them. The 2 that come to mind are Deepwater barrier and The</p><p>Ethernaught's Roundshield of Knowledge.</p><p>I wouldn't be against some awesome 2 Handers, but it seems like they are getting away from those in TSO......</p>

Troubor
04-23-2009, 10:55 PM
<p>I'd not be against it, if they gave us dual wield great.  But for some reason, the image of a knight duel wielding always seemed silly to me somehow.  But that's just personal preference, I'd not complain if they did it.</p><p>Having said that, having some strong two handers out there at tier 8 wouldn't hurt either.</p>

Steve11418
04-24-2009, 01:07 AM
<p>I have my SK and Pally mithical... its only right that I should be able to dule weild them.</p><p>rrraaaawwwwww</p>

Maamadex
04-24-2009, 03:40 PM
<p>I don't much fancy the idea of dual wielding. They just need to fix 2handers to be in line everything else. I'm happy with things as they are tho, my myth is pretty much all the dps I need.</p>

Lionnhart
05-05-2009, 01:03 PM
<p>Dual wield doesnt really fit the paladin motif.....  </p><p>2hs seems to be a thing of the past. </p><p>imho, sword and board is the way to go.</p><p>what they could implement to really help the paladin is possibly give them aa which rewards the use of a shield....  i.e wisdom line revamp.  or a new shield CA  line helping dps.</p>

Wyvernblade
05-08-2009, 11:31 AM
<p>With Mythicals in general, there is no reason to itemize weapons for Main Hand / 2 hander.  Our Mythical was better than any 2 hander in game from RoK except the Avatar Axe probably.  Now with the TSO Knight's Stance, there is definitely no reason not to use the Mythical.  </p><p>Now, if you don't have the Mythical I have seen 2 handers that drop in instances.  I am not sure how good they are but even the Fabled with Knight's Stance is probably better than most of the 2 handers in game anyways that are none raid.</p><p>The probably isn't so much as itemization, but the fact that Epics took away the ability to itemize for primary weapon slots.  They are so good that any item they create that isn't amazingly overpowered will not replace the Epic. The only way you will see new 1 handers or 2 handers are if they remove the ability to use the Epics either by finding away to make them worthless in a new expansion or putting out amazing weapons that compare/better.</p><p> Honestly, even if they raised the level cap.  Our Mythical will be hard pressed to replace.  The damage on it will probably still be better than a t9 weapon and the damage reduction/heals on it would make up for any DPS lost.</p>

Kahling
05-08-2009, 03:36 PM
<p>Rough numbers here but a warrior duel weilding nets them about 40% more auto attack damage.  They have to do this in an offensive way as they loose the ability to block, so if they want to tank something they have to swap to a shield.</p><p>Knights stance nets us 25% more auto attack damage when using a shield.  It can be used for DPSing and for tanking.</p><p>Personally I don't think we can ask for duel weilding as we got knights stance instead and tbh as a Paladin that tanks or DPS's Id rather have that.  What we should concentrate on really is making sure they never nerf Knights stance, the single worst change of the tank changes that were on beta was the nerf to knights stance from 25% to 15%.</p><p>Kahling.</p>

Transen
05-08-2009, 03:51 PM
<p><cite>Wyvernblade wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>With Mythicals in general, there is no reason to itemize weapons for Main Hand / 2 hander.  Our Mythical was better than any 2 hander in game from RoK except the Avatar Axe probably.</strong>  Now with the TSO Knight's Stance, there is definitely no reason not to use the Mythical.  </p><p>Now, if you don't have the Mythical I have seen 2 handers that drop in instances.  I am not sure how good they are but even the Fabled with Knight's Stance is probably better than most of the 2 handers in game anyways that are none raid.</p><p>The probably isn't so much as itemization, but the fact that Epics took away the ability to itemize for primary weapon slots.  They are so good that any item they create that isn't amazingly overpowered will not replace the Epic. The only way you will see new 1 handers or 2 handers are if they remove the ability to use the Epics either by finding away to make them worthless in a new expansion or putting out amazing weapons that compare/better.</p><p> Honestly, even if they raised the level cap.  Our Mythical will be hard pressed to replace.  The damage on it will probably still be better than a t9 weapon and the damage reduction/heals on it would make up for any DPS lost.</p></blockquote><p>Ahem... <a href="http://www.lootdb.com/eq2/item/-1205933509" target="_blank">Spear of the Eyegouger</a>.</p>

Beghauns
06-11-2009, 03:30 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rough numbers here but a warrior duel weilding nets them about 40% more auto attack damage.  They have to do this in an offensive way as they loose the ability to block, <span style="color: #ff0000;">so if they want to tank something they have to swap to a shield.</span></p><p>Knights stance nets us 25% more auto attack damage when using a shield.  It can be used for DPSing and for tanking.</p><p>Personally I don't think we can ask for duel weilding as we got knights stance instead and tbh as a Paladin that tanks or DPS's Id rather have that.  What we should concentrate on really is making sure they never nerf Knights stance, the single worst change of the tank changes that were on beta was the nerf to knights stance from 25% to 15%.</p><p>Kahling.</p></blockquote><p>Just a correction to this, if you want to keep aggro you stay offensive and dual wield. Working on grinding my pally up should be intresting.</p>

Kaita
07-16-2009, 12:21 AM
<p>I think the simplest thing would be to have two stances. One is normal like now with 1hd and shield. The other would be to turn your 1hd weapon into a 2hd that increases dmg, although nothing could be equiped in the secondary slot. This way you don't have to equip two weapons to keep crusaders like they should be. But gives us the options in weapon choice.</p>

Zergosch
07-16-2009, 05:35 AM
<p>Well as i don´t see mater of dmg to dual with my dwarf paly, i would go for it as a matter of styling ^^</p><p>Normaly as MT at raid, i parse around 3-5k which is enough to keep agro anyhow.</p><p>It would be enough for me, if i can equip a second weapon at the viewslot, just for styling.</p><p>I love to see those high numbers flying above the mob saying "Hit 6.800 " and so on <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

VALKOR
07-16-2009, 12:50 PM
<p>I'm going to chime in old-fashion and note that I didn't like the addition of bows and certainly do not want to see dual wield for paladins.  There needs to be some sort of flavor to a class, or we end up all being carbon copies.</p><p>If there are issues that dual-wielding are meant to address in the posters mind, I would rather see those fixed by gear, AA options when shield is equipped, seriously improved shield bash, etc.</p>

Valphine
07-21-2009, 08:13 AM
<p>No. Be glad that we can stay with shield and still do great dps. Our AA let us, we are build for it, stay with 1h and shield.</p><p>Second, I can see a zerk "zerks" around with 2 weap, but doh, a pally? no thanks, shield & sword it is!</p>

Xentin
07-23-2009, 10:38 PM
<p>There was nothing wrong with giving us bows, I dont know but EQ2 was the first RPG I had seen that restricted crusaders from bows. As for the duel weild thats just not right. A warrior is a master of arms not a crusader. The reason we havnt been using 2handers in well forever is because the devs kind of took, no offense, but lazy route to itemization since RoK. It was said at fanfaire that 2handers will be coming back to the game and be useful again for us. Porbably wont start seeing ones better than our epics till Sentinels Fate.</p>

Maamadex
07-24-2009, 09:56 AM
<p>Improving shield bash etc would make sense, historically shields were used as a weapon more often than not. Giving crusaders dual wielding however strikes me as sort of terrible. And yeah, I like bows, i saw no problem with that. For a couple years there I was wondering why we couldn't use them. Really didn't make sense imo.</p>

thial
07-24-2009, 12:41 PM
<p>No, Crusadors can all ready do the same if not more dps than a DW wariror while still using sword and board...If crusadors where to get DW (I have yet to see a game where crusadors DW)  than the dps out put of a board and sword on a crusador would have to be on par with a  board and sword on warrior...pally = guard and zerk = sk.... But that  will not happen It doesnt fit the class and neither do bows but crusadors got them, crossbows on the other hand do but that would have involved soe making an all together new item... I never saw the need for crusadors to have bows outside of stats which can be easily replaced with a decent symbol. Crusadors have how many ranged attacks compared to warriors 0?...but thats in the past.....</p>

Bruener
07-24-2009, 01:32 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No, Crusadors can all ready do the same if not more dps than a DW wariror while still using sword and board...If crusadors where to get DW (I have yet to see a game where crusadors DW)  than the dps out put of a board and sword on a crusador would have to be on par with a  board and sword on warrior...pally = guard and zerk = sk.... But that  will not happen It doesnt fit the class and neither do bows but crusadors got them, crossbows on the other hand do but that would have involved soe making an all together new item... I never saw the need for crusadors to have bows outside of stats which can be easily replaced with a decent symbol. Crusadors have how many ranged attacks compared to warriors 0?...but thats in the past.....</p></blockquote><p>The fact Crusaders couldn't use bows was the dumbest thing SOE launched the game with, and took them way too long to fix it.  And not just because Bows always were better stat-wise all around.  I made a SK at launch with the expectation that I was going to be able to use Bows just like in EQ1.  It was one of the most disappointing factors at the beginning of the game to find out that Crusaders were stuck with only symbols...that were all around junk compared to the nice Bows that just seemed to get better and better.  Even now, Crusaders have the option to use Symbols but hardly do because Bows fit better all around and the +DPS adornment is a lot better than any symbol adornment.</p><p>As for DW'ing.  I would much rather just see SOE make 2h weapons a lot better.  The only way I would like to see DW'ing is if SOE will not itemize 2h weapons properly, and DW'ing just keeps gettng leap years ahead of any DPS 2h weapons can put out.  The TSO 1h Crusader line right now helps close the gap...but Mythicals are not going to be top end in T9, and using 1 of those weapons even with the Knights Stance is not going to be anywhere close to using 2 of the new T9 weapons.  It would be like somebody being able to DW 2 Mythicals right now versus the 1h with Knights Stance.</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-28-2009, 03:24 PM
<p>I agree with bruener mostly, and to a lesser degree with Jdark.  If SOE follows thru with the promise of vastly improving crusader 2 hander damage and a comparable tier 9 fabled is competive to fabled dw setup of the other 4 fighter classes.  As for the bow arguement, warriors usually conventiely forget that all their attacks are classified as combat arts and are not move prohibitive and they are not interupted when using their bows.  In the old design if a crusader wanted to pull from long range they had to use a spell that made them interupt if they moved and could not cast on the move like a bow.  Plus if the crusader was out of power they had no dps on ranged fights unlike a bow using warrior.  The fact that brawlers had range also in the form of thrown weapons made it even more crazy why it took so long. </p><p>As far as the dual wield arguement goes, i am strictly against crusaders dual weilding, with current AA's and equipment we would be nerfed shortly after gaining this and crusaders survivaliness would plummet.  The gains do not outweigh the losses and if a player really wants to dual weild, roll a warrior/brawler or scout and leave the crusaders alone.  This request to dual wield is about as old as people asking for blasted [email protected]<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  JUST SAY NO....</p>

thial
07-28-2009, 04:50 PM
<p></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">Prior to pallys getting bows they had two long range attacks that where not interrupted while running one was a single target the other was an encounter aoe (these where also the times when the ward could be cast on the run and added hate)   maybe it was a patch before the bows where implemented to the pallys when both where made interruptible than after some forum complaints the encounter one was made so that a pally could run with it and still can to this day but not sure about sk’s as I would never role one.... There where some decent crafted symbols with mitigation hp str sta on them that I favored over a bow in t5-t6 days still my pally runs with a symbol but its for dps. I’m sure if I took him to raids I would want a resonating wire.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #ffffff;">So after two hander’s are made useful again you would expect that a two handed crusader would be doing around the same dps as a dw warrior, right? The issue is that a sword and board crusader does about the same damage as a dw warrior and a sword and board warrior does less dps than a sword and board crusader. So when going dw vrs two hander it’s about balanced but when they go with the shield the warrior looses that off hand for added defense but gains no offense and the crusader gains the defense of the shield but does not loose as much damage as the warrior did due to knights stance and most likely will be around the same dps output of the two hander. So giving the option of having good two hander’s would crusaders accept a nerf to knight’s stance? Probably not.....but who knows what else is planned for fighters that could balance things out...but regardless NO to dw crusaders it's just not crusader like but YES to bringing back two hander’s and balancing out sword and board for the two..</span></p> <p><span style="color: #ffffff;"> </span></p>

Bruener
07-28-2009, 05:33 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">Prior to pallys getting bows they had two long range attacks that where not interrupted while running one was a single target the other was an encounter aoe (these where also the times when the ward could be cast on the run and added hate)   maybe it was a patch before the bows where implemented to the pallys when both where made interruptible than after some forum complaints the encounter one was made so that a pally could run with it and still can to this day but not sure about sk’s as I would never role one.... There where some decent crafted symbols with mitigation hp str sta on them that I favored over a bow in t5-t6 days still my pally runs with a symbol but its for dps. I’m sure if I took him to raids I would want a resonating wire.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">So after two hander’s are made useful again you would expect that a two handed crusader would be doing around the same dps as a dw warrior, right? The issue is that a sword and board crusader does about the same damage as a dw warrior and a sword and board warrior does less dps than a sword and board crusader. So when going dw vrs two hander it’s about balanced but when they go with the shield the warrior looses that off hand for added defense but gains no offense and the crusader gains the defense of the shield but does not loose as much damage as the warrior did due to knights stance and most likely will be around the same dps output of the two hander. So giving the option of having good two hander’s would crusaders accept a nerf to knight’s stance? Probably not.....but who knows what else is planned for fighters that could balance things out...but regardless NO to dw crusaders it's just not crusader like but YES to bringing back two hander’s and balancing out sword and board for the two..</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;"> </span></p></blockquote><p>I want to see tanking 2'hers tbh.  I think I mentioned it earlier but something that falls in between the DPS of DW'ing and 1h+board.  And also falls in between them for survivability.  Adding shield effectiveness on 2h weapons would go a long ways.  I mean if a 2h weapon provided something like 800 shield effectiveness people would tank with them more often if it had more DPS than 1h + board, but less than DW'ing.</p>

thial
07-28-2009, 06:51 PM
<p></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">I do to would be nice...I see where you going with that. I remember a few two handers and a bunch had defensive stats like parry and defense so shield affective would work or if soe is feeling ballsy add in a new skill called sword block. affective would be easier to implement though </span></p>

OrcSlayer96
07-28-2009, 07:03 PM
<p>I decided to snoop around the game update history to see when we recieved various changes in the game, this is a brief timeline on things:November 6, 2004 EQ2 goes live and the system is anything but stable.Septemeber 13th, 2005 GU 13(Desert of Flames) hits and all things EQ2 were changed, CA's, Spells stats and mititgation/resists, the days of a tank soloing masses of heriocs were gone...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />November 9th, 2005 GU 16 hits and as a 1 year anniversary, they give mages, priests, and crusaders the chance to equip symbols in the ranged slotsFebruary 21st, 2006 GU 20(Kingdom of the Sky) hits and ranged spells including crusaders become interruptable along with dealing with the ever annoying FIZZLES.November 14th, 2006 GU 29(Echoes of Feydwer) hits and Fizzles are removed, Bows are slowly added to crusaders as it takes months for the devs to realize after the update that crusaders can use the bows previously labeled guardian/berserker only.So, from the beginning of the game, it took 1 year to gain a symbol in the ranged slot, then in 3 months later they removed mitigation from all non armor slots and made our spells interruptable on movement and damage taken, wards on the run was removed at GU 13 with DOF witht he combat revamp which was roughly 10 months after game was originnally released.  Roughly 2 years from the original game we finally had the use of bows and for the last 3 years almost have been using them.I am still in the mindset that mages/priests should have slings that have low damage range output ammo with a 20 meter or so max range to make things fair for when you are out of power.On the 2 hander status, if they improve the 2 hander to be more powerful, with it and a 2 hander aa option on crusaders, it should trump a warrior dual wielding.  A warrior dual wielding will take 2.5 secs to unequip their 2nd weapon for a shield while a crusader would take 5 secs on a two hander(2.5 secs to use a shield and 2.5 secs more for the 1 hander weapon).  If they make it where no 2 hander AA is available for crusaders then it still applies that all fighters should do more damage with a 2 hander than dual wield if they still require 2.5 secs per slot like it is now on switching.</p>

thial
07-28-2009, 08:22 PM
<p><cite>OrcSlayer96 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>On the 2 hander status, if they improve the 2 hander to be more powerful, with it and a 2 hander aa option on crusaders, it should trump a warrior dual wielding.  A warrior dual wielding will take 2.5 secs to unequip their 2nd weapon for a shield while a crusader would take 5 secs on a two hander(2.5 secs to use a shield and 2.5 secs more for the 1 hander weapon).  If they make it where no 2 hander AA is available for crusaders then it still applies that all fighters should do more damage with a 2 hander than dual wield if they still require 2.5 secs per slot like it is now on switching.</p></blockquote><p>ok so you want crusadors to still be more op than warriors and here I thought some wanted balance silly me....two handers and dw should be balanced in dps output (unless they go the route that bru has detailed) ...if crusaders get AA for 2 handers than warriors should get one that is equal but for dw there should be no trumping involved as there is now with crusadors 1 hand vrs warrios dw.... I'm droping the bow discusion nothing can be done about it its old news.....</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 12:30 PM
<p>Unless they add shield protection or some new uncontested parry on the new improved 2 handers the clear advantage goes to warriors and dual wield in your vision.  For you guys it takes 2.5 secs(tower of stone can absorb that time) to switch the 2nd hand weapon to a shield and greatly boost your survival skills.  In the hands of a crusader we take 2.5 secs to switch to shield off hand, then another 2.5 secs to gain our primary hand weapon.  our only protection for those 5 secs is a 1 hit stonesking that costs 184 AA's on a 1.5 min recast or a 10 sec stoneskin on a 5 min counter that only blocks half our max health on hits.  If they give crusaders a AA they adds shield protection or uncontested parry then the damage out put should be the same as warriors dual wielding.  If the item gains some survival skills then extra damage or longer reach needs to apply to the crusader to compensate the longer downtime on switching 2 slots versus the warrior 1 slot.  Warriors keep forgeting the 5 sec downtime on 2 handers as they never consider using them to the option of dual wielding...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

thial
07-29-2009, 12:42 PM
<p>still dont see the valid point in making the two hander do more damage or giving an AA to trump a warrior in duel wield...come up with something else..if you think that is such a big deal instead of asking to be more OP why don't you go after the problem itself and bug soe to remove the pointless timer on swaping gear itself...and btw tos is a 2 second cast time and also requires a shield <span ><span>unlike your stoneskin that I don't belive does</span></span>....also the initial switch of an item is instant so you can switch your two ahdnder for a shield on the fly and it would only take you 2 more seconds to put the main hand on but you would still be able to put ur shield on instantly at least thats how it is when I swap to a  shield</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 12:53 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>still dont see the valid point in making the two hander do more damage or giving an AA to trump a warrior in duel wield...come up with something else..if you think that is such a big deal instead of asking to be more OP why don't you go after the problem itself and bug soe to remove the pointless timer on swaping gear itself...and btw tos is a 2 second cast time</p></blockquote><p>My point is you disregard the additional time it takes to go from 2 hander versus dual wield to gain a sword and board and treat it as trivial issue, and still deman the dps is the same.  I seriously doubt they will remove the 2.5 sec timer on switching slots as then they have a much larger mess dealing with the min/maxxers that were abusing the pre timer system to begin with.  If they say they want 2 handers to be useful again and have no plans to modify the timers, then i say they are wasting their time if they don't make it appealing to crusaders to use as warriors are already fine with dual wielding.  You want the dps to be the same i am okay with that, as long as the crusaders gain a shield protection or uncontested parry/reposte bonus or increased melee range or something similar to compensate us on the timers.  Expecting the devs to drop the timer switching on weapon slots is about as likely as giving guardians healing spells...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />(your after combat mend doesnt count heheh)....</p>

thial
07-29-2009, 12:58 PM
<p><cite>OrcSlayer96 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>still dont see the valid point in making the two hander do more damage or giving an AA to trump a warrior in duel wield...come up with something else..if you think that is such a big deal instead of asking to be more OP why don't you go after the problem itself and bug soe to remove the pointless timer on swaping gear itself...and btw tos is a 2 second cast time</p></blockquote><p>My point is you disregard the additional time it takes to go from 2 hander versus dual wield to gain a sword and board and treat it as trivial issue, and still deman the dps is the same.  I seriously doubt they will remove the 2.5 sec timer on switching slots as then they have a much larger mess dealing with the min/maxxers that were abusing the pre timer system to begin with.  If they say they want 2 handers to be useful again and have no plans to modify the timers, then i say they are wasting their time if they don't make it appealing to crusaders to use as warriors are already fine with dual wielding.  You want the dps to be the same i am okay with that, as long as the crusaders gain a shield protection or uncontested parry/reposte bonus or increased melee range or something similar to compensate us on the timers.  Expecting the devs to drop the timer switching on weapon slots is about as likely as giving guardians healing spells...<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />(your after combat mend doesnt count heheh)....</p></blockquote><p>had to edit my post but you quoted before i did so here is what I said after</p><p><span>and btw tos is a 2 second cast time and also requires a shield unlike your stoneskin that I don't belive does....also the initial switch of an item is instant so you can switch your two hadnder for a shield on the fly and it would only take you 2 more seconds to put the main hand on but you would still be able to put ur shield on instantly at least thats how it is when I swap to a  shield</span></p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 01:23 PM
<p>I have been posting at work, so i think you are right on the first switch is instant witha 2.5 sec cooldown before you can switch another item.  The best thing i can do with the 2 hander setup is instantly switch to the shield(lose all combat arts as i have nothing equiped in the main hand for for 2.5 secs) hope my 1.5 min recast single stonekin is castable(it requires a shield like yours) cast it with the quick cast time(with AA specs i believe i can get it to .25 of a sec) and hope the single stoneskin proc absorbs a large hit and not a 70 point damage shield.  It also has a 2.5 sec cool down after it procs to where i can do nothing till it is done.  To me the advatage is even more to the warrior with instant switch to shield as you would not care about instant switching back to dual wield.  Crusader would still need some compensation to make the two hander a competitior to a warrior dual wielding.  It is either that or keep knight's stance as is and treat 2 handers and transmute fodder as we do now...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

thial
07-29-2009, 02:18 PM
<p><cite>OrcSlayer96 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have been posting at work, so i think you are right on the first switch is instant witha 2.5 sec cooldown before you can switch another item.  The best thing i can do with the 2 hander setup is instantly switch to the shield(lose all combat arts as i have nothing equiped in the main hand for for 2.5 secs) hope my 1.5 min recast single stonekin is castable(it requires a shield like yours) cast it with the quick cast time(with AA specs i believe i can get it to .25 of a sec) and hope the single stoneskin proc absorbs a large hit and not a 70 point damage shield.  It also has a 2.5 sec cool down after it procs to where i can do nothing till it is done.  To me the advatage is even more to the warrior with instant switch to shield as you would not care about instant switching back to dual wield.  Crusader would still need some compensation to make the two hander a competitior to a warrior dual wielding.  It is either that or keep knight's stance as is and treat 2 handers and transmute fodder as we do now...<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>nope still not convinced, what about the other 90% of the time when u don't need the shield why should you be able to out put more dps or have more defense than a duel wield warrior. i'm sure though that soe will give crusadors some kind of added block or w/e it may be when using a two hander it does fit the class but warriors will need some added parry when duel wield a 2.5 second delay in swaping out gear doesn't need any compensation considering these are o snap situations and not constant game play situations... I'm at work also but I'm tempted to take my lunch and run home and try something out but that's a waist so I'll get back to you later with a scenario <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 02:36 PM
<p>The thing is it won't be more defense than a dual wield warrior if they treat it right, currently a dual wield warrior can get the 3% uncontested reposte on both their primary and secondary weapons, leaving the two hander at only 3% reposte, normal delay on dual wielding is usualy 4 seconds non hated while on two hander you are looking at usually 6 seconds or more.  If you want to compare survival, dual wield trumps everytime to existing two hander so they have to bump up 2 hander survival to be the same as dual wield along with dps or why would a crusader ever choose it?  If you add increased auto attack range it might help but unless they make a 6% uncontested reposte for 2 hander only, the 2 hander is nerfed before you even use it.  Personally i would rather have the 6% uncontested reposte adornment for 2 hander only and two handers having a some form of block like abilities on them.  Otherwise as a paladin i stick with my sword and board with knight's stance...</p>

thial
07-29-2009, 03:00 PM
<p>now that's something I can agree with...deffintelty make a two hander adorn to match the two you can get while dw but at the cost of two manas <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.. longer delays = bigger hits (most of the time) still we have yet to see any form of two handers so we don't know what soe has up there sleeves we will just have to wait and see and hope beta works out better than TsO beta did...</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 04:21 PM
<p>Iwon't mind the cost of 2 manas if they improve the rng on mana vials to infusions on fabled items, i swear mine is 8 infusions to 1 manavial lately with occasional 1 in 4 luck.  With longer delay weapons, tho a miss on a orange mob is going to hurt much more on a two hander than a person dual wielding, i can only hope they toss in some good + slashing/crushing/piercing to make it a little more accurate while they are doing the 2 hander revamp.  I still think they should increase the melee range of autoattacks on 2 handers for any that can use them as it makes sense that a 2 handed sword has a longer reach than the butterknife type dagger that some classes seem to use...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

RafaelSmith
07-29-2009, 05:06 PM
<p>Crusaders already do more DMG with 1h/Shield than I do with DW which also lowers my surviveability.....now you want more?</p><p>Good grief.</p>

thial
07-29-2009, 05:09 PM
<p>you telling me your guild bank doesnt have stacks of manas available to the guild?? <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> the auto attack range does sounds right I also think that two handers or biger swords compared to shorter sword should hit more than one mob but I guess thats something I liked about AoC and I don't think could be implimented in this game with out stiring up balance issues</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 05:36 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Crusaders already do more DMG with 1h/Shield than I do with DW which also lowers my surviveability.....now you want more?</p><p>Good grief.</p></blockquote><p>I assume that i am talking about tier 9/expansion when our mythicals will start to deterioriate and we are looking to other weapons to use.  In the current tier/game mechanics, you couldn't pay me enough to use a 2 hander, just like i am sure you would much prefer dual wielding to a 2 hander also.  If your viewpoint is for current tier only then you need not respond...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>On the further reach of 2 handers, i think that and a shield protection/block would be the most we could ask for besides same damage output of 2 fabled dual wields.  Adding a aoe on melee like ability on 2 handers would be a little hard to balance but if they were up to the challenge would make it even more desireable than the POS 2 handers out there now. </p><p>This should not be a us versus them arguement, but a exchange of ideas between fellow fighters to where 2 handers can be equaly used versus dual wielding in the future tier 9 environment.  If done right this benefits more than just a few classes but all that have the ability to swing a 2 hander...<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

RafaelSmith
07-29-2009, 05:44 PM
<p><cite>OrcSlayer96 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Crusaders already do more DMG with 1h/Shield than I do with DW which also lowers my surviveability.....now you want more?</p><p>Good grief.</p></blockquote><p>I assume that i am talking about tier 9/expansion when our mythicals will start to deterioriate and we are looking to other weapons to use. In the current tier/game mechanics, you couldn't pay me enough to use a 2 hander, just like i am sure you would much prefer dual wielding to a 2 hander also. If your viewpoint is for current tier only then you need not respond...<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>On the further reach of 2 handers, i think that and a shield protection/block would be the most we could ask for besides same damage output of 2 fabled dual wields. Adding a aoe on melee like ability on 2 handers would be a little hard to balance but if they were up to the challenge would make it even more desireable than the POS 2 handers out there now.</p><p>This should not be a us versus them arguement, but a exchange of ideas between fellow fighters to where 2 handers can be equaly used versus dual wielding in the future tier 9 environment. If done right this benefits more than just a few classes but all that have the ability to swing a 2 hander...<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Ah now I understand.</p><p>I for one wish that using a 2hander was a viable option for my Guard.</p><p>But what does that have to do with Crusaders being able to duel wield?........something I am totally against.</p>

thial
07-29-2009, 05:46 PM
<p>I know I would use a two hander if it was worth it..A big double sided axe to be exact....</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 05:56 PM
<p>As far dual wields go, the posts i have made have been a alaternative to asking for dual wielding on a crusader, i agree with many fighters out there that for crusaders, dual wield is not a option that we should have.  But on the other hand as crusaders we should have a alternative to enhance dps more than just sword and board.  I am still on the path that if you want to get the most out of 2 handed use then play a crusader in tier 9, but that does not have to mean most dps, but something more like enhanced avoidance or longer reach(something a little more but not class overbalancing) so that crusaders have more of a "feel" than they do now currently in the game.  One of my favorire looking axes back in the day was the axe that dropped in unrest with the blood dripping from it.  If they made a design like that in the future with the right numbers/abilities applied to it, i would hit whatever zone it was in till i had that as a weapon in tier 9.  A wicked Polearm type would be cool too along the same vein as wurmslayer design...</p>

RafaelSmith
07-29-2009, 06:02 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I know I would use a two hander if it was worth it..A big double sided axe to be exact....</p></blockquote><p>For me it would be a nice big shiny broadsword. </p><p>I always liked the look of the master crafted COBALT ones.</p><p>I really wished the game had not gone down the path it did where we all pretty much use the same style of weapons and same shields.</p><p>I always thought Guards should be limited to 1h/shield or 2h.....duel wield should have been the domain of Zerkers.</p><p>Crusaders 1h/kite or 2h.</p><p>But hey thats just my crazy thoughts of how I look at the classes.</p>

OrcSlayer96
07-29-2009, 07:53 PM
<p>I had a few mins to think on favorite 2 handed weapons in the past and by far the one i had for the longest time was the Prides Edge one from DOF days.  I loved the look on that thing and the proc was nice also.  When i first came to the game back in decemeber of 09, one of the oddest things i thought was that berserkers wore plate in this game.  In most single player games a berserker was a fighter that was like a barbarian that dual wielded wicked axes or similar items and at most wore chain/leather as they tore thru enemies like a dervish of destruction.  I thought in this game they would  make berserkers the most offensive damage of the non leather fighters and the restriction was they could not go past chain and be the only fighter of the 4 non leather that could dual wield.  Of course when the game started i wondered why paladins couldnt use tower shields or axes or spears or bow either, so perspectives are different for everybody i guess...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Jaale
07-30-2009, 04:37 PM
I always liked the look of the Qeyons Clamore. That was a meaty two hander!