Curse

Tru Rider · Jun 17, 2005, 09:28 AM // 09:28

yep you read the header correct DUAL SWORDS. it would be easy to implement, you would just have to make it where you could put swords in the shield spots, or make a new box for the secondary sword and once you put a sword in your secondary it disables ur shield box, but you would give up defense for damage. shed some light on this and give me ur opinions.

RTSFirebat · Jun 17, 2005, 09:47 AM // 09:47

The idea seems ok to me, however the 2nd sword would have to do much less damage then the other sword, and also result in a speed reduction... nice it would be overkill if a Warrior could attack twice their current rate of attack.

Sure they lose the AL of the shield they'd normally have, but its not that great a loss anyhow.

Judas Hawksriff · Jun 17, 2005, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tru Rider

it would be easy to implement

.... no it wouldn't

Apart from the fact that this has already been mentioned countless times across the forum (most interest note being that the character in the intro FMV dual weilds!) your talking a complete overhaul of the combat system.

To mention but a few points, all the combat calculations would have to be re-done and re-balanced so that all the characters can still combat equally - so if your a elementalist taking on a warrior with two weapons you can still give as good as you get - All the art assets that would need to be done for all the animations and states the characters can be in - this also in turn would also mean new AI states that take advantage for the fact that they can dual wield - plus you'll probably want some nice skills to take advantage of the fact you have two weapons too won't you

and then there's the months of testing yadda yadda....

.... it's never as simple as you think it's going to be ~ I personally don't think this is anything we're ever going to see (nice as it may be)

The Red Knight · Jun 17, 2005, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Yeah double axe crits would be a tad much =/

Flame · Jun 17, 2005, 10:36 AM // 10:36

In addition to the other thoughts, implementing dual-weilding the way you recommended would unbalance swords, which the majority of people already use. It's a lot of work for next to no real benefit, or else it would require all the classes to be changed.

Makarei · Jun 17, 2005, 11:59 AM // 11:59

It would be a nice idea for a new character class.. yes having a speed reduction (based on equiped weapon type) and damage reduction on any equiped type of weapon. Even have that characters clothing reduced due to the ability to duel weild two weapons. Character need some kind of flexiablity to move both arms efficently.

I thought of 2 skills that popped into my head just then lol:

"scissor frenzy" You gain +# damgage while attacking targeted foe for # seconds. but you take double damage.

"Revenge" Activated on party members death or dead party members near by: You attack twice as fast then normal, to all adjacent foes to you. You cause bleeding wounds on targets for # seconds. But you armour is decreased by -#. Could be elite skill.

Yorrix · Jun 17, 2005, 01:33 PM // 13:33

An interesting idea, and one that has been implemented in other games. For example the Barb in D2, and in D&D characters are quite free to pack double weapons (any character).

I choose not to comment on how easy/hard this would be, as this is not for me to say. The only people that know that are ArenaNet. It could be as easy as tweaking a script, but it could need a complete game overhaul. I do doubt the former, however. It is possibly more likely in a future expansion, but I have my doubts as to whether we would ever see it.

Here is a novel idea I thought of though, if introducing slightly more complications for 'those who want to go double'. The first thing you have to follow is that sheilds are used as weapons and swords are used as protection. No debate, this is true; it's documented countless times in history. People didn't fix spikes to their shields for no reason, nor did they fit pomels to swords.

So, with that premise out of the way here is the idea. Everyone can take double whatevers. That means a character could take double swords; it also means they could take double shields. Double swords are obviously a lot more offensive, whereas double shields are very defense. But how the hell are you going to fight with double shields?? Please bear with me.

First off, other than 'handedness', normal 'sword-shield' (or whatever you use) fighting stays the same. However, in doubling combat it changes slightly. Using double swords you would not completely loose you a defense advantage, if nothing else you obsesive offense will protect you some, but you won't get full offense either (due to needing to protect yourself, offhand, etc.). So, based on the weapons stats, you will loose a nominal amount off offense and gain a nominal amount of defense, but still remain a highly offensive character. Similarly using two shields would result in a similar effect, though the other way round.

As I said, fighting normally would result in no change, so you wouldn't suddenly be able to fight with your shield as well as your sword. This would require more model animations however, as shield fighting doesn't work the same way as sword fighting from a human mechanics point of view. This does allow for far more flexability in styles of play though.

Similarly (as mentioned elsewhere) this could open the way to new skills, but there are a vast array of possibilities. For example you could gain more powerful spells by doubling, and these could also be dependant as to your style of play. Imagine, for example, a spell that allows a monk to deal a lot of health to the entire party, but requires him to be defensive. Or a violent firestorm brought on by an elementalist with dual wands.

There is an issue of balance amoungst classes. If a warrior suffered more damage through magical attack due to the reduction in AC it would work, but I don't think AC maters when magic is concerned (correct me if I am wrong).

Furthermore this idea is kind of complex, but the beauty of it is you can play normally without it being complex. If people want to take on the added complexity which fighting with more speciality brings (true also in the real world), then they deal with it. Furthermore it presents it for all character builds, and allows more flexibiliy and further play options.

Just a thought. I don't know what you think, but I thought it seemed an interesting idea.

Captain Marvel · Jun 17, 2005, 02:04 PM // 14:04

If melee can duel, then I want to wield to 2 wands, be the fastest Cane in Kyrta!

POW! SHCEW! BOOM! BANG! BANG!

CM

Caco-Cola · Jun 17, 2005, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Yorix you can't compare DnD to this.

In DnD the characters recieved large penalties for wielding dual wielded weapons (-10 on off hand and -6 on regular hand, with Two-Weapon fighting feat it was reduced to -6 and -4 and with Improved two-weapon fighting it went as low as -2 and -2 but you didn't get Improved until MUCH later in the game.)

Personally I'm against dual wielding and wish teh concept had never been invented.

Too many kiddies going 'OMG DUAL WIELDING !! I WANT TO BE LIKE NEO AND DUAL WIELD OMG!!!"

Or at least that's the impression that I get.

Yorrix · Jun 17, 2005, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caco-Cola

Yorix you can't compare DnD to this.

I wasn't making a comparison, I was making an observation. I'm well aware how two-weapon fighting works, I wanted to take it for a fighter I was making.

In the end I opted for weapon specialisation feats and a falchion giving me a 25% crit range! }8D Lol. Not that I ever get 25% out of it. :P

Furthermore in 3.5 ed I think you get -4 each hand or something, it's not as harsh as 3rd Ed was (where you needed two feats to even it out). However I think in 3rd Ed it went to -2 each hand if you got the right feats. Part of the reason for bringing those up is to give a rounded view, something I had to learn at uni. In fact you've done the right thing with that and mentioned that, though it exists, you have a penalty associated with that. (I hope that makes sense.)

Back on topic, that was part of the reason for my suggestion (and someone else's regarding speed as well as damage). The player in question wouldn't get all the damage for both weapons, it would drop due to taking two.

As for kids running round screaming 'OMG, 2 sword rulz,' they'll shut up when they keep dying. Fighting with two swords is not impressive, it's merely a different way of playing. I mean that two ways, because you have to learn to fight responsably with two weapons too. Play wrong and your lack of AC will kill you. That raises an interesting point; should a warrior using two weapons recieve a penalty to his whole armour? Would a defensive player recieve a buff? I think the latter may (technically) introduce a inbalence, but the first might work.

Just more ideas.

Kuku Monk · Jun 17, 2005, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

If melee can duel, then I want to wield to 2 wands, be the fastest Cane in Kyrta!

hahaha i agree... what about 2 staffs for me!

Yorrix · Jun 17, 2005, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuku Monk

hahaha i agree... what about 2 staffs for me!

Lol. A staff is a dual handed weapon. Expect muchos drop in attack for that. :P

Lief · Jun 17, 2005, 04:08 PM // 16:08

I would of liked rangers to have the option between bows / dual wield (marksmanship / dual wield attributes).

Would of been hard to work, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see BM go in favour of something like this ^^

Epinephrine · Jun 17, 2005, 04:09 PM // 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tru Rider

yep you read the header correct DUAL SWORDS. it would be easy to implement, you would just have to make it where you could put swords in the shield spots, or make a new box for the secondary sword and once you put a sword in your secondary it disables ur shield box, but you would give up defense for damage. shed some light on this and give me ur opinions.

No, it is hard to implement. It requires rebalancing everything, requires new animations for comabt and I don't think should be introduced short of a new profession, unless done incredibly carefully. Two weapon fighting is a rarity historically, and when done is usually accomplished with a small weapon in the off hand, typically a main-gauche, sword breaker or dagger, though other devices have been used. Implementing this within the current game would be time consuming - save it for an expansion.

Makarei · Jun 17, 2005, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Id just prefer a new character who can duel wield two weapons. and who can not use shields.. Put it this way you either have alittle extra damage or alittle extra armor.

Madjik · Jun 17, 2005, 06:01 PM // 18:01

This has been posted before.

I support duel wielding of some kind but many people are right about it not being a warrior skill. Should be part of some new melee class.

Phaedrus · Jun 17, 2005, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Why do I disagree with this idea?

Sundering Longsword of Defense x2.

Who needs a shield? You just got back all your defense. You just boosed your armor penetration on your quick attacks. You just showed up all the other warriors on the block who think having an eternal shield is leet.

The game isn't balanced for it. I don't want to see the anime character with two fellblades screaming about his earth-sundering ultimate technique.

[ ]

Makarei · Jun 17, 2005, 06:14 PM // 18:14

why dont someone make a thread about all the topics that has been mentioned before. it would saves hours of reading..

Slade xTekno · Jun 17, 2005, 06:23 PM // 18:23

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...=dual+wielding

My suggestion on dual-wealiding. Trust me, it will not be easy to implement.

Madjik · Jun 17, 2005, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makarei

why dont someone make a thread about all the topics that has been mentioned before. it would saves hours of reading..

Well, you have a search button for that.