[quote=Kadajko][quote=MadDemiurg]
Anyway, after some thinking, I'm inclined than the best approach would be to reduce 2h damage across the board to 1.3-1.5 1h damage and likewise nerf offhand damage to the same 30%-50%, while leaving skill AP costs as is. This would be easier from balancing standpoint.
No, as I said, this would make 2h and dualwield useless. Because right now, 2h/dual = 2 attacks of 1h.
Yeah, they would be bad for basic attacks, but good for skills. A fair tradeoff imo.
Crippling strike is AoE + AoE debuff, at 3 AP it would still be very beneficial to use if you can hit more than 1 target (which should be the case with most AoE skills, they should not be good for single target damage). Maybe it can have bit higher damage modifier than battering ram cause no mobility and not as good at CC.
High damage skills should be the ones that have little utility, and AoE skills should not outdamage single target ones (like it happens with crippling strike compared to many other skills).
Here's my opinion - there should be single-target skills and AoE skills, and obviously single target should deal more damage, however I believe that ALL skills should always be better than a simple auto attack in EVERY way. Skills require memory and have a CD you use them only once in a few turns and some also require more AP, so it's justified.
Fair enough - that's one way to balance it. Still, the aforementioned skills are disproportionately good compared to many others, so some adjustments are imo needed either way.
I'm generally not a fan of broad nerfs. It would probably serve better if they figured a way of making 1 hand, and 1 hand + shield more attractive with a specialty or mechanic unique to them that dual wield and 2 hand lacks so that it can serve a niche or other desirable function outside just dealing damage.
Right now, they are all essentially competing for the same job at the moment, with nothing to differentiate besides damage output and ap cost.
Personally, I hope that if they do a nerf to dual wield/two hand it is not too severe. I have played way too many games where those two styles are incredibly lackluster or not worth using over sword and board.
Well, in terms of role, 1h shield is more tanky, however the damage advantage of 2h/dw is too big compared to what a shield offers. If AP costs are adjusted 1h would also have more utility with cheaper skills so more CC/mobility.
As for the nerfs - current 2h makes the game ridiculously easy, so imo nerfs are what needs to happen. If the game was too hard for 1h I'd argue for 1h buffs, but it's not. D:OS has potential for tactical depth with a lot of various statuses and combos but it's not going to happen if you can simply hulk smash through everything.
All styles should be equally useful without being powerful enough to trivialise the game. Current 2h power level calls for pretty serious nerfs.
