Why nerf dual wielding? Whats the point of it now?

I will just play a duel wield elemental build.

Hum, even after I read everything on this topic, I still can't decide wether my next character will be dual wielding or 2H. Hum hum hum....

"

Krayken wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Krayken wrote:

they took 1/6 of our damage.

Now it's my turn; please show me the math on that.

Are you serious?

If you really are then here it is LOL :

before, a hit of 100 damage would do 120 damage

Now it does 100 damage

They took 20 damage out of 120 damage

20/120 = 1/6

So I see what you mean, but there's a different way to look at it. I was given a 20%, or 1/5th, buff to my damage. Now I don't have that buff, so I just lost an extra 1/5th of my damage.

Yes 120 to 100 is 1/6th, but I could have gotten 100 to 120, which is 1/5th. The INCREASE in my damage was taken away, therefore 20% of my damage way taken away.

Unless I've gone insane?

"

Bleu42 wrote:

So I see what you mean, but there's a different way to look at it. I was given a 20%, or 1/5th, buff to my damage. Now I don't have that buff, so I just lost an extra 1/5th of my damage.

Yes 120 to 100 is 1/6th, but I could have gotten 100 to 120, which is 1/5th. The INCREASE in my damage was taken away, therefore 20% of my damage way taken away.

Unless I've gone insane?

You lost a 20% of your reduced damage number, which is only losing 16.7% You did have a 20% increase taken away, but taking away a 20% increase =/= a 20% decrease, because the amount taken away is lesser relative to the increased number.

"

Krayken wrote:

"

frostzor27 wrote:

DW has many advantages over 2h: block, status, speed, etc.

20% damage reduction is barely a nerf.

1. The block isn't an advantage when compared to staves (18% implicit).

2. The block is clearly inferior to a shield, which can give a bunch of life and other defensive mechanics on top of that.

3. All that for a 10% more attack speed. And thats assuming 2 identical weapons (if you want the equivalent of a 600pdps 2 hander youll need like 2x 550 pdps foils). Basically a 30c two-hander will do as much damage as 2 * 50 ex foils.

There is no point in dual wielding anymore except for attack speed. But how much flat damage youll need on gear to compensate for the much lower damage compared to a 2 hander?

Is this a joke? Then why is DW so dominant if you can easily get a 20c 600pdps 2h?

You seem rather confused regarding the changes.

Dual wield has always been FAR above the power level of 2h or 1h/shield. 2h was no contest, while 1h/shield at least had a defensive advantage, but at an even greater offensive cost.

Dual wield allows you to gain the advantage of not just speed (movement skills are much faster, making dodging much easier and mapping smoother in general) but also the ability to use the modifiers and unique mechanics of two 1h weapons at the same time.

Nowadays, a lot of skills count both weapons when applying their damage, which means that DW always had a 20% more physical damage above 2h, that they really didn't need or deserve anymore. (it once did, way far back in the past)

This change was long overdue and simply brings it back in line, DW is not dead, it might even still be better than all other options.

"

Bleu42 wrote:

So I see what you mean, but there's a different way to look at it. I was given a 20%, or 1/5th, buff to my damage. Now I don't have that buff, so I just lost an extra 1/5th of my damage.

Yes 120 to 100 is 1/6th, but I could have gotten 100 to 120, which is 1/5th. The INCREASE in my damage was taken away, therefore 20% of my damage way taken away.

Unless I've gone insane?

Yep that's the other way to see it.

Your way is to say "I lost a 20% more multiplier"

My way is "i lost 16.66% of my damage"

But in the end its the exact same thing.


I worded it that way cause your original quote used the keyword "took away"

"You keep calling it a 20% damage nerf, as if they took away 1/5 of your damage. Take it easy, they didn't."

So the amount of damage they took away is 16.66%

"

deepinggiap wrote:

"

Krayken wrote:

"

frostzor27 wrote:

DW has many advantages over 2h: block, status, speed, etc.

20% damage reduction is barely a nerf.

1. The block isn't an advantage when compared to staves (18% implicit).

2. The block is clearly inferior to a shield, which can give a bunch of life and other defensive mechanics on top of that.

3. All that for a 10% more attack speed. And thats assuming 2 identical weapons (if you want the equivalent of a 600pdps 2 hander youll need like 2x 550 pdps foils). Basically a 30c two-hander will do as much damage as 2 * 50 ex foils.

There is no point in dual wielding anymore except for attack speed. But how much flat damage youll need on gear to compensate for the much lower damage compared to a 2 hander?

Is this a joke? Then why is DW so dominant if you can easily get a 20c 600pdps 2h?

Let's see if it is that dominant without the 20% damage buff and the change to herald of purity.

"

Krayken wrote:

"

Bleu42 wrote:

So I see what you mean, but there's a different way to look at it. I was given a 20%, or 1/5th, buff to my damage. Now I don't have that buff, so I just lost an extra 1/5th of my damage.

Yes 120 to 100 is 1/6th, but I could have gotten 100 to 120, which is 1/5th. The INCREASE in my damage was taken away, therefore 20% of my damage way taken away.

Unless I've gone insane?

Yep that's the other way to see it.

Your way is to say "I lost a 20% more multiplier"

My way is "i lost 16.66% of my damage"

But in the end its the exact same thing.


I worded it that way cause your original quote used the keyword "took away"

"You keep calling it a 20% damage nerf, as if they took away 1/5 of your damage. Take it easy, they didn't."

So the amount of damage they took away is 16.66%

Gotcha makes sense, but I'm pretty sure that quote wasn't me.

"

Bleu42 wrote:

"

Krayken wrote:

"

Bleu42 wrote:

So I see what you mean, but there's a different way to look at it. I was given a 20%, or 1/5th, buff to my damage. Now I don't have that buff, so I just lost an extra 1/5th of my damage.

Yes 120 to 100 is 1/6th, but I could have gotten 100 to 120, which is 1/5th. The INCREASE in my damage was taken away, therefore 20% of my damage way taken away.

Unless I've gone insane?

Yep that's the other way to see it.

Your way is to say "I lost a 20% more multiplier"

My way is "i lost 16.66% of my damage"

But in the end its the exact same thing.


I worded it that way cause your original quote used the keyword "took away"

"You keep calling it a 20% damage nerf, as if they took away 1/5 of your damage. Take it easy, they didn't."

So the amount of damage they took away is 16.66%

Gotcha makes sense, but I'm pretty sure that quote wasn't me.

Yeah my bad, i might have lost myself in the quote chains.