Curse

William of Orange · Apr 20, 2005, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mango Midget

I dont like this idea.Warriors I think are already overpowered and doubling the damage would make it even worse.I think that dual weilding is stupid

I believe that Slade asked people to be polite and to add constructive criticism; you ignored the former, and did not do the latter.

First off, Warriors are only overpowered if you let them be overpowered; if you play your profession right, you could easily find ways to negate the Warrior's raw power and even deal some damage back. Secondly, although I don't necessarily agree with the idea of duel wielding as something to add to the game, Slade has made a good arguement and provided some insight into this thought process, which has been sound thus far. If a way can be found to correctly balance the Dual Wield, then more power to you. I would add any suggestions/criticism if I had a strong opinion one way or the other, but I don't. So keep the ideas coming, and we'll see how things turn out.

Oh, and I would think that an idea such as this would best be held off for a couple of expansions down the road to let people who did not participate in the BWE get a chance to become accustomed with the game before we change the mechanics of the game on them. That's my two cents.

Raumoheru · Apr 20, 2005, 10:33 PM // 22:33

Quote:

I propose Dual Wielding as the new primary attribute for Warriors

uh i would have to majorly disagree with this. strength is far greater to warriors then dual weilding

dual weilding IMO is more of a dexterity type thing and should be a skill for the ranger's expertise, much like charm animal for beast mastery

you can always do it so long as you keep the skill on your skill bar

Slade xTekno · Apr 21, 2005, 12:24 AM // 00:24

perendeque: I tried to create the DWing attribute so it would not be overpowered in respect to a Warrior's current set. I'll cover the the reason why I proposed it for the Warrior below.
Epinephrine: I apologize for that. As you saw, I read your first response, opened a new window for my reply, and posted for every one of yours. At the very end, when I saw that your problem was actually difficulty of targeting with a ranged weapon out instead of creating a whole new set of weapons for non-warriors, I just left everything I typed up because I really didn't want to delete all that due to the effort involved. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding and hope the animosity it created doesn't last long.
I will cover why I proposed DWing for Warriors below.
Mango Midget: The cool thing about Guild Wars is that every class has methods of countering others.
If you actually read my posts, you would realize that all of my proposals increase total DPS by 50% at the most.
Gerbill: The one problem with implementing the same system in Guild Wars is the issue of adrenaline. Even if you did less damage with your off-hand, attacking almost twice as often will give you much more adrenaline than a single weapon. The only way such a system could be balanced is if the other off-hand items got a might buff.
William of Orange: Thank you. Although I would like to see DW implemented soon, if at all, I do realize that it would be better to get an opinion from an audience larger than simply the beta testers.
Raumoheru: If you took the time to read my opening introduction carefully, you would know that I proposed DWing as an additional primary attribute, not a replacement. I tried to take this back in my second post, but I looked back only to see a rather ugly typo. It's been fixed now. Sorry if it confused you.

I proposed DWing specifically for Warriors. At first, I considered proposing it for a new character class, but after looking at the options, it made sense. The classes I was considering it for was for a Duelist or Assassin-type character. However, the Warrior already possesses skills for a Duelist, like the two Ripostes, Hamstring, and Final Thrust. An Assassin class character should rely on stealth, guile, and maybe poison to get his job done, not the DPS of DWing.

However, if a Rogue/Assassin/Thief class if ever made, I think that Suggestion 4] from my second post would be a great suggestion. The off-hand weapon should be given small damage when compared to a normal one-handed weapon [probably around 20%-40%]. However, the skills linked to it should provide it the utility of a Swiss Army Knife, just what a character like that would need.

Please continue with comments and criticism.

Sin · Apr 21, 2005, 01:38 AM // 01:38

I am just curious what the other alternate primary attribute is that you are proposing for the other professions?

Under the heading of balance such would appear to be necessary or are we to give the warriors all the options?

I tend to agree with another poster that warriors have enough power and skills in their profession. There was a thread where someone had a warrior/monk build that can be used on that riverside mission I believe, the one with the mantle towers, well they had images of the warrior taking on 15 white mantle at once and beating them all. I've seen similar in videos by others using a warrior/monk.

Sure you might be thinking in the PVP mind in bringing this idea to be posted, however there is a rather apparent skill flexibility warriors have already that leaves the other professions behind. So it would appear that to add to the warrior profession some new options may not require additions to the other professions as a matter of consistency, however I care to think it would be necessary to assure the warrior profession isn't even further out classing the others in build flexibility. Maybe there are inherent limits to the flexibility of the other professions which is fine, yet I would hope those limits aren't exacerbated by adding another element of flexibility to warriors alone as that would appear to be an unreasonable and thus balance breaking exploitation.

Stated as thought so hope it helps in the bouncing this around.

MoldyRiceFrenzy · Apr 21, 2005, 04:46 AM // 04:46

duel wielding would be nice, it might upset the special balance of the warrior.. but i really want duel weilding, maybe even if they make a new char it would go perfectly.but duel wielding anyway would be great!

Chewbacca The Hutt · Apr 21, 2005, 05:20 AM // 05:20

duel weilding should use the Tactics skill like shields do, or rename it Off-hand or something like that.
my $.02

Epinephrine · Apr 22, 2005, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Well, thanks for the apology, I think that smoothes it out for me

As for dual wielding, I am not sure that I see it as a warrior function. That's obviously simply opinion; I don't feel it fits the character is all. As for implementation, it definitely should be linked to something, but I can't see starting a new attribute if you were to give it to a warrior, and skills linking to it should thus make use of the attribute. An easy way around it is to simply make the off hand weapon worth a damage bonus to the main weapon. It would need animation changes, but could then be added across the board, with, as mentioned, links to Tactics. Consider this - Shields are a "warrior's" toold, in that they link to warrior attributes, but you can wear the low value ones as any class - likewise, have a few types of off hand weapon (Maingauche, sword breaker, dagger and so on) and they have varying abilities - none add armour, that's a shiled's job, but they are for example +1-4 damage and +5% blocking for a low level no requirement maingauche, while a higher level item might be either more substantial in one or the other of these abilities, or maybe both. The blocking rate for it could be multiplicative (so that when you have a 25% block rate from a maingauche and activate a sell like Aegis it gives a 62.5%; blocking 25% of the remaining 50%) and the damage simply tacked onto the attack with a new animation, in that manner it doesn't unbalance the adrenaline gain or subject itself to an additional subtraction from a shielding hands or the like - instead it simply ups the DPS at a cost of armour and/or energy.

I don't think the off hand weapon should come anywhere near doubling the damage rate, it in fact here would simply be adding some small amount of damage and a blocking rate, instead of a shield which provides no damage and a guaranteed reduction in damage. It's a gamble - it makes for higher damage and more variable protection. One could even imagine that a high damage off hand weapon with a good block rate might have an armour penalty with it, as you leave yourself a bit more open than you might otherwise, scoring more hits but risking taking more damage when you don't manage to parry it.

Sgt Allen · Apr 22, 2005, 09:58 PM // 21:58

okay, ill admit i stopped reading most of the way thru this thread, heres what i suggest, for dual wielding...there SHOULD be an atribute needed to do it, 1 point to dual wield, and -70% dmg for the off hand instead of a chance to miss, each increasing point adds 5% to this, therefore 1 point=-70%, 2 points=-65%, etc etc, there would also be a form of sword defense, starts at 5%, increases by 5% for each additional point... this would allow rangers to be effective like they would vs someone without a shield, but would also help vs other melee because of the block, also the weapons should have a str req, because swinging a weapon with your off hand, isnt nearly as effective as your dominant hand, unless u practice... this is just my 2 cents, forgive me if i repeated anything already mentioned, as said above i did not read all of the thread

bjornmmcc · May 21, 2005, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Aah, of course I want Dual Wielding. Not only because it looks cool, but because I've been playing the same Dual-Wielding character (in various incarnations) in PC and Pen & Paper games for almost 20 years. (Yes...before Salvatore.) So I would like to keep my character as close as possible to the image in my head.

I am wondering if the expansion will include other races besides humans, and what kind of attributes or skills would be applied to that. Perhaps DW could be a function of race. Just brainstorming here.

(BTW The DW threads are the only ones I've read so far. I'm sure there are some great threads on race that I have yet to get to. Suggestions?)

SOT · May 21, 2005, 02:44 AM // 02:44

I think this is the best Idea so far. It would make everything so much more bloody fun to kill

Zorax · May 21, 2005, 03:37 AM // 03:37

I just wanted to add something about the realism discussion. I try not to use the term "realistic" for a fantasy setting/game. But is it "feasible" within the boundaries of the current setting/rules? I think dual wielding definately is, in one way or another.

Is it feasible to use magic in GW? Yes, it is. Is it realistic that you can use magic? Not as far as I know.

MasterDinadan · May 21, 2005, 05:30 AM // 05:30

I think it would be a nice change just to create a "Dagger" type item that is only used on the off-hand.
The Dagger doesn't actually have it's own damage, but it has modifiers that make your attacks stronger... it's attack is sort of "combined" with the main weapon in your attack animations, but the damage is still just figured in as a single attack with the main weapon. Much how the sword animation often involves swinging many times at the enemy and only dealing damage once, the dual wield animation will have an animation of swinging both weapons but only deal damage with the main hand.
By adding a damage modifier to the dagger weapon, it makes it an offensive alternative to a shield. By giving up the defense given by a shield, the warrior gains an offensive advantage.

The problem I see is this could only be done by sword and axe warriors... and as it stands hammers aren't good enough. If any of the weapons need to be improved, it should be hammers.

Eos · May 21, 2005, 05:35 AM // 05:35

The first time I saw the character creation screen I wondered why there is only one melee class, one ranger, and 4 casters. It seems like something is missing, and it might be why there are so many warrior primaries in game. I realize there are many ways to build a warrior, but in future expansions, I hope for a rogue (thief, assasin) class which focuses on quick melee, fast weapons like, katanas, daggers, maybe even throwing knives. Rogues would always be able to equip 2 weapons, but would have a large penalty in the offhand. For instance:

Rogue class attributes:
Speed (primary): Increases melee (and ranged?) attack speed, linked with skills that increase attack speed and make quick, precise one target attacks.
Off-Hand: Decreases off-hand penalty, linked with skills that require 2 weapons to be equipped.
Stealth: No inherent effect, linked with skills that allow a rogue to move quickly and/or unnoticed.
Dexterity: Increases chances to land all melee and ranged attacks and increases chances of evading attacks. Linked with powerful melee skills that would usually have a high chance of missing.

Madjik · May 21, 2005, 06:58 AM // 06:58

Heh, revived from the bottom depths of the forum. bjornmmcc you Necromancer you LOL.

J/k

Anywho im an avid supporter of duelweilding of SOME kind being put in the game. I always play a duel weilding char when the choice is availiable. It usually isnt anything special but it looks dern cool, and is just fun to watch in general.

bjornmmcc · May 21, 2005, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Haha. Funny link.

So is there a good thread on Race I can bring back from the land of the dead?

'Cause I'm not really finding a good discussion about that.

Tomo · May 21, 2005, 08:34 AM // 08:34

It wont replace strength- think of all those skills related to strength. Anet arent just going to delete them (what will warriors do when we run ? (sprint) )
I think the best idea on this thread is dual wielding as a primary attribute, and the miss factor etc.
This dual wield is,in my sight, needed. But, it should come with a new class, like another said, assasin type. I have also been thinking of dual wielding simular to you, but think of this.
What other attributes will the new class include ?

BahamutKaiser · May 21, 2005, 08:49 AM // 08:49

Warrior is the melee class, but also the defense class, he is the only one with shield capabilities, and shields are linked to tactics. Making Warrior a "DW" job kind of averts his ability to do well with a shield.

I made an entire forum on a class called Shinobi, which includes a Dual Wielding attribute, Wing Chung, which is basicly an art of close quarter combat with a vast arsinal of weapons, complimenting defensive moves with 2 weapons and fully useable with 2 of any single handed weapons. I personally think this is a better idea then averting the Warriors natural abilities (Shielding) to suit dual wielding.

The fact that the Warrior does better damage with a Sword or Axe along with a shield rather then having a 2 handed hammer with no shield pretty much speaks for itself, the Warrior shouldn't be using 2 swords or axes without special additions from another class, it would be too powerful. Just like having Necromancer and Mesmer together helps them stack curses with hexes, Warrior should have to rely on something from another class to attain Dual Wielding, because no matter how you "forsee" dual wielding, your basicly asking for them to do more damage, otherwise it wouldn't be justafiable to sacrifice your shield to use a second weapon. This prevents W/Mo from having Dual Wielding, or anything else except the particular other class that provides Dual Weilding.

If anything, I think that Tactics should provide abilities that allow Warriors to use special stunning or attack moves with thier shield. Warriors already have a poor selection for secondary classes because 4 of the other classes are casters, and many Ranger skills are Energy focused. New melee classes should be developed to give the Warrior Adrenaline skill to select from his secondary class, I think Shinobi is the Perfect class to add to cover an alternative melee combatant, as well as a path to attain dual wielding, as well as other skills which make using melee attacks more useful for even mage jobs (I.E. barehanded attacks and special hit and run attacks).

Dual Wielding would be great, I think it is unfair to put it on the Warrior though.

akapana21 · May 21, 2005, 03:12 PM // 15:12

i think rangers should dual weild usally rangers are th ones that dual wield

Madjik · May 21, 2005, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by akapana21

i think rangers should dual weild usally rangers are th ones that dual wield

That depends on the game actually, it varies widely.

Dubby · May 21, 2005, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Personally? I think dual wielding for warriors is a bad idea. It unbalances an already existing area of the game, which can be worse then adding a new class. http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=9843 That is my concept of dual wielding (Scroll down and check Marauder). Warriors are fine as is, dual wielding for warriors could easily be overkill.