Why does enchanting two handed weapons cost more resources?

[KDubya]

Why all the hate for the two handed weapons?

 

It gives the same benefit, its not as if it is a stronger enchant or anything, it just takes twice as much. The same with Durgan Steel.

 

If I use Durgan Steel on Tall Grass pike it uses two ingots, if I use Durgan steel on We Toki axe it uses one. Both get the same enchantment. I can even spend another Durgan steel on my shield and get another speed boost for my attacks, as well as the defensive boost from the enhanced shield as well.

 

The rare resource needed for Superb enchants work the same way.

 

I could maybe see the reasoning to charge double for ranged weapons, which are also two handed, but even then their damage per second is less than melee weapons to start with so I don't think that even ranged weapons should be hit up with double cost enchanting.

 

With at best ten available ingots the double cost is quite large, even worse with the really limited number of Sky Dragon eyes. I think there are only like three of them so you can do one two handed weapon or three one handed weapons.

 

Exceptional materials are all vender sold so you can use them anywhere. The limitations on Superb enchantments and on double charging for two handed weapons just seem like part of the general piling on that non-casters have to endure.

 

For Durgan steel a caster needs just one to speed up his recovery time on his armor or robe. He doesn't use weapons since he casts spells. A cipher or ranger, even a chanter will be using Stormcaller which can't be enhanced further. Melee would like to also enhance their armor as well as their weapon and/or shield which ends up costing three Durgan steel per melee.

 

So again casters get better treatment

[pi2repsion]

My best guess is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with casters vs. non-casters, because the obvious first question when you look at enchanting weapons costs isn't the cost of armour vs weapon, but weapons vs weapons.

 

Presumably it costs two because the designers wanted to be consistent and make the cost of enchanting items taking up both hand slots cost the same, regardless of whether you used two one handed melee weapon, a one handed melee weapon and a shield, a two handed melee weapon, or a ranged weapon.

 

Which makes a lot of sense - want superb or durgan steel equipment in both your hands? The cost is constant, regardless of which equipment you use.

 

-----

 

For Durgan steel a caster needs just one to speed up his recovery time on his armor or robe. He doesn't use weapons since he casts spells. A cipher or ranger, even a chanter will be using Stormcaller which can't be enhanced further. Melee would like to also enhance their armor as well as their weapon and/or shield which ends up costing three Durgan steel per melee.

 

So again casters get better treatment

May I note in passing that I just love how you attempt to turn the current state of affairs:

 

"There is a limited supply of Durgan Steel. Everybody benefits greatly from using Durgan steel on their armour, non-casters benefit greatly from Durgan steel on their weapons, casters don't use their weapons, they use spells, so don't benefit from Durgan steel on their weapons as it doesn't affect their spells.

 

Thus, if a non-caster and a caster want to benefit the same, it costs them 1 Durgan steel for armour.

 

However, if the non-caster wants to benefit even more in everything he does than is available to the caster, he can do that be spending an additional 1-2 Durgan steel on weapons/shield"

 

into:

 

"Again casters get better treatment!"

 

That's some seriously flawed logic at work.

Edited September 28, 2015 by pi2repsion

[KDubya]

My best guess is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with casters vs. non-casters, because the obvious first question when you look at enchanting weapons costs isn't the cost of armour vs weapon, but weapons vs weapons.

 

Presumably it costs two because the designers wanted to be consistent and make the cost of enchanting items taking up both hand slots cost the same, regardless of whether you used two one handed melee weapon, a one handed melee weapon and a shield, a two handed melee weapon, or a ranged weapon.

 

Which makes a lot of sense - want superb or durgan steel equipment in both your hands? The cost is constant, regardless of which equipment you use.

 

 

-----

 

For Durgan steel a caster needs just one to speed up his recovery time on his armor or robe. He doesn't use weapons since he casts spells. A cipher or ranger, even a chanter will be using Stormcaller which can't be enhanced further. Melee would like to also enhance their armor as well as their weapon and/or shield which ends up costing three Durgan steel per melee.

 

So again casters get better treatment

May I note in passing that I just love how you attempt to turn the current state of affairs:

 

"There is a limited supply of Durgan Steel. Everybody benefits greatly from using Durgan steel on their armour, non-casters benefit greatly from Durgan steel on their weapons, casters don't use their weapons, they use spells, so don't benefit from Durgan steel on their weapons as it doesn't affect their spells.

 

Thus, if a non-caster and a caster want to benefit the same, it costs them 1 Durgan steel for armour.

 

However, if the non-caster wants to benefit even more in everything he does than is available to the caster, he can do that be spending an additional 1-2 Durgan steel on weapons/shield"

 

into:

 

"Again casters get better treatment!"

 

That's some seriously flawed logic at work.

 

The cost is the same but the benefit is not. Two handed weapons get +15% attack speed, +0.3 to crit miltiplier and 20% hit>crit for the cost of two units. A weapon and shield user, using the same two units of material gets +30% attack speed, +0.3 crit multiplier, 20% hit>crit, 10% ranged reflection and 15% of incoming hits>grazes.

 

It would not have to be double or anything but better it should be. Instead of +15% speed make it +20% or +25%.

 

 

Melee is always gear dependent, casters are not, especially Wizards. A naked Wizard is not very much weaker than a fully equipped one, that comparison with melee classes is laughable. Even a Monk relies on his armor to keep him alive in combat.

 

Just imagine the whining here if Durgan Steel was only able to enhance steel weapons and armor, you know since it is Durgan Steel and not Durgan threads, or Durgan leather or even Durgan wood. If it only worked on scale, mail, breastplates, brigndine or plate there'd be ten threads a day asking about why the mage hate.

 

A caster heavy party of four with two tank types can all get Durgan enhanced armor for six units and the two tanks can get two more each for either a two handed, two single weapons or a weapon and shield.

 

A melee heavy party of four with two caster types can also choose to enhance everyone's armor but is then left with leaving two of the four unenhanced.

 

I don't mind having to make the above difficult decision as to where to spend limited resources but a caster heavy party does not have to make any limiting resource decision at all.

[sapientNode]

I would of just left the overdone and overused caster argument out of this...

 

The point about enchant costs as well as materials needed for them is well taken.

 

I have absolutely no idea why the cost is just double for 2 handed.  Its not 1/3 more or 50% more it is just double.  It seems ridiculously arbitrary.

I honestly do not get the cost ration on enchants anyway since the amount of materials (excluding some high end stuff) ends up being absurdly out of proportion.

And even though money is not ultra scarce it is not so abundant that it even closely resembles the mat drops.

It seems in order to not waste and have a proper plan for enchants you have to have played the game and know where the drops are and then go to those spots asap and then enchant only that gear. With the costs as they are there is no room for experimentation.  Not to mention you cant overwrite chants.

[FlintlockJazz]

I have to agree, if they take up the same cost as two weapons or weapon and shield they should provide equivalent benefits.  I never got the urge designers seem to have to penalise two-handers with speed or whatever penalties in order to make them 'equal' to a one handed weapon when a two-hander is already being penalised for having to use two hands on one weapon.  A two-hander SHOULD be better than a equivalent one-hander because you are giving up a shield or second weapon!

[pi2repsion]

The cost is the same but the benefit is not. Two handed weapons get +15% attack speed, +0.3 to crit miltiplier and 20% hit>crit for the cost of two units. A weapon and shield user, using the same two units of material gets +30% attack speed, +0.3 crit multiplier, 20% hit>crit, 10% ranged reflection and 15% of incoming hits>grazes.

Consider the following.

 

Spending 2 Durgan steel on:

2H gets +15% attack speed on 2H recovery, +0.3 to crit multiplier, and 20% hit>crit, all affecting the ability to deal damage using the weapon's base characteristics.

 

DW gets +15% attack speed on each weapon's individual recovery, +0.3 to crit multiplier on each individual weapon, and 20% hit>crit on each individual weapon, all affecting the ability to deal damage using the weapons' individual base characteristics.

 

The purpose of both 2H and DW is damagedealing, and as seen above the damage per second as well as damage per ability use of 2H and DW benefit the same from spending 2 Durgan Steel ingots. Thus the question of "which is better for a given situation" is unaffected by the existence of Durgan steel as you pay the same for the same effect. If it was cheaper to enchant 2H than DW, then the balance of 2H vs DW would be moved towards 2H.

 

 

1H+nothing has the purpose of damagedealing with high accuracy; It gains the same benefit for the hand using a weapon for 1 Durgan Steel as 2H does for both hands and DW does for one of its two hands (but doesn't benefit from the higher base damage of 2H or from the faster attacks when dualwielding), and is unable to spend a second ingot to improve the aspect it gives up using something in the second hand for (accuracy). (Which means that while it does have the same benefit/ingot ratio for the weapon, this does slightly move the balance of 1h+nothing vs 2H towards 2H and 1h+nothing vs DW towards DW.)

 

 

Finally,

 

1H+S gets +15% attack speed on 1H recovery, +0.3 to crit multiplier on the weapon, 20% hit>crit on the weapon, all affecting the ability to deal damage using the weapon's base characteristics, as well as -15% to single-weapon speed penalty, 10% ranged reflection and 15% of incoming hits>grazes.

 

Now, the first part is the established value of 1 Durgan Steel for 1H, matching the cost for 1h+nothing and DW, so the question is whether -15% to single-weapon speed penalty (i.e. affecting the attack speed of the weapon used with the shield, when the shield used does not have Bash), 10% ranged reflection and 15% of incoming hits>grazes is worth more or less than 1 Durgan Steel ingot.

 

I consider that a fair price; The shield enchant certainly isn't worth 2 Durgan Steel ingots on its own.

 

 

So, YES, unless you want to argue that the price of the shield enchant is too low, the benefit is the same.

Edited September 28, 2015 by pi2repsion

[dukefx]

It's all perfectly fair and balanced except for 1h weapon + shield. That combo seems to benefit more as both bonuses apply at the same time, as opposed to dual wielding where stats don't stack, they just apply alternately.

[pi2repsion]

It's all perfectly fair and balanced except for 1h weapon + shield. That combo seems to benefit more as both bonuses apply at the same time, as opposed to dual wielding where stats don't stack, they just apply alternately.

But the purpose of 1H+S is damagedealing with protection, not damagedealing with alternating weapons enjoying a huge inherent speed bonus over other combinations, which is DW's niche.

 

Thus, spending 2 DSI on enchanting both weapons in a DW setup benefits 100% of the game mechanics of DW all the time and spending 2 DSI on enchanting 1H+S benefits 100% of the game mechanics of 1H+S all the time. If you only enchant the weapon in a 1H+S combo, that combo benefits considerably less as a percentage increase to its purpose/mechanics supporting it when compared to the increase when you enchant both for 2 DSI.

[gkathellar]

My feeling is that the intent is that a 2Handed weapon should be equal in both power and cost to a 1H weapon + shield or two 1H weapons. This raises some questions when it comes to single 1Handed fighters, but it does make a kind of sense in general. I'm not fond of it, but ... eh.

[dukefx]

 

It's all perfectly fair and balanced except for 1h weapon + shield. That combo seems to benefit more as both bonuses apply at the same time, as opposed to dual wielding where stats don't stack, they just apply alternately.

But the purpose of 1H+S is damagedealing with protection, not damagedealing with alternating weapons enjoying a huge inherent speed bonus over other combinations, which is DW's niche.

 

Thus, spending 2 DSI on enchanting both weapons in a DW setup benefits 100% of the game mechanics of DW all the time and spending 2 DSI on enchanting 1H+S benefits 100% of the game mechanics of 1H+S all the time. If you only enchant the weapon in a 1H+S combo, that combo benefits considerably less as a percentage increase to its purpose/mechanics supporting it when compared to the increase when you enchant both for 2 DSI.

 

Not sure what you are talking about. Let me demonstrate it with X being the effectiveness factor

 

2 handed / ranged: X - nothing to talk about

 

1h weapon with nothing else: X - ditto

 

dual wieldiong: X, then the other X, then the first X again, etc... it's never 2X, i.e. nothing ever stacks, that includes attack speed if the weapon is the source of it. (gauntlets of swift action and such will affect both)

 

1h weapon and shield: 2X, both weapon and shield stats apply at the same time (15% attack speed and the -15% recovery penalty) <- this is the only case where you get more bang for the buck.

Edited September 28, 2015 by dukefx

[pi2repsion]

Not sure what you are talking about. Let me demonstrate it with X being the effectiveness factor

I'm talking about looking at the effectiveness of the roles of 2H, DW, 1H+nothing, and 1H+S rather than making the mistake of only looking at the damagedealing, when, from a game balance perspective, what matters is how much better things are at their roles.

 

 

Now, how can I put it in different terms than I've done before. Let me try.

 

If you are using a 2-hander, say "ABRACADABRA" and then do twice the damage over any given interval of time, then it is twice as good at its role, because damage is its role.. (Actually, given DR, it is more than twice as good, but I'll ignore DR arguments in the following to keep this simple)

 

If you are using a Dualwield, say "ABRACADABRA" and then do twice the damage over any given interval of time, then it is twice as good its role, because damage is its role.

 

If you are using a 1H+Shield, say "ABRACADABRA" and it then does twice damage and has twice the protection over any given interval of time, then it is twice as good at its role, because damage and protection is its role.

 

But if you are using 1H+Shield, say "ABRACA" and it then does twice damage and has normal protection over any given interval of time, it is NOT twice as good at its role. It is only twice as good at part of its role.

Likewise, if you are using 1H+Shield, say "DABRA" and it then does normal damage and has twice the protection over any given interval of time, it is NOT twice as good at its role. It is only twice as good at part of its role.

 

And the role is what we use to decide which combination we want to use.

 

 

Your X vs 2X analogy is analogous to taking two blocks of wood of the same size, painting the first red, cutting the second in half, painting one half red and the other yellow, and then claiming that 5% of the first block is less wood than 5% of each of the second block's two halves, because 5% + 5% = 10%.

[dukefx]

We are talking about enchantment costs here and how much they affect each type compared to the cost of enchanting. That is the X in question. You lost me at the ABRACA and wood blocks parts, but I can clearly see that you are talking about basic game mechanics. Apples and oranges.

[KDubya]

You guys lost me with the X math and the Abracadabra

 

Y'all have convinced me that the Durgan Steel is not shafting two handed weapons, or at least no more than dual wield Vs Two hander goes which is pretty well balanced considering DR.

 

But it still is not good for two handers when it comes to the three Sky Dragon eyes you can get which let you upgrade one two hander or three one handers. Considering that some of the really good one handers are already Superb, it is harder on the two hander especially ranged.