Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dual wielding

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lykatos
    replied
    Pft...
    Whips + clubs
    Ankle trap... yank... knockaside... neck trap... knockaside... hop bash... throttle... throttle... knockaside... celebrate.

    The only way to make it even remotely balanced is to reduce the ability of the offhand weapon. A slight defensive penalty for not having a shield isn't a big deal, because with certain combinations you have a better defense than with a shield and others you don't need a shield because you could zerk and the other person has no option but to go wary.

    The idea sounds like fun, but there are too many issues unless you decide to limit people to easy or "simple" attacks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    Originally posted by Rupert View Post
    I guess I don't see more combat dynamics and character arch types as being a bad thing. Isn't that argument just as valid against any possible combat addition in the future?
    New moves, skillsets and strategies is all good, fun and balanced. What we're trying to get away from (as we just did with swords), is the ability for characters to cherry-pick the best skills from multiple skillsets and string them together into something very overpowered. So no, I don't think dual wielding different weapons will ever happen. The same weapon? Maybe.

    But something like...

    ankletrap (pin them)
    yank (yank them down)
    flick (just cause you'd have enough time)
    ankletrap (pin them to the ground with one hand)
    knockaside (stun them)
    hopbash face (while they're stunned)
    repeat knockaside + hop bash until KO

    ...is what could easily be abused. Or even a knockaside + doublecut neck combo. Or anything else someone could think of. The pros greatly outweigh the cons. I don't see enough defensive drawbacks to warrant the huge offensive gain.

    Leave a comment:


  • glenh
    replied
    Originally posted by Tale View Post
    Fishing Pole + Ladle

    'Nuff said.
    I raise you with a sewing needle and a lockpick. Ranks in basic skills increase their 'attack' chance and damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    Originally posted by lykatos View Post
    Dragonus echos what I said, you've just replaced the sword styles with "weapon styles".
    Yes, but it took me longer to type so I only saw your post afterwards. =p

    But yes, we're saying the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tale
    replied
    Fishing Pole + Ladle

    'Nuff said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rupert
    replied
    Originally posted by lykatos View Post
    Actually, sword + cestus or cestus + knives would give you the best defense... Clubs + whips and Clubs + knives would have the best offense.
    If cestus blocks can be used with one cestus, that would make for an interesting setup. OR you could just assure all cestus blocks are two handed, making that combination impossible.

    Dragonus echos what I said, you've just replaced the sword styles with "weapon styles".
    I guess I don't see more combat dynamics and character arch types as being a bad thing. Isn't that argument just as valid against any possible combat addition in the future?

    I could understand this way of thinking if balance wasn't something painstaking pursued in TEC.. but it is. To the point where players pursue deeper knowledge of mechanics through personal testing for YEARS to better make their cases on combat additions and balancing what we have. In what way could any combat addition ever be made that didn't possibly give someone an edge?

    I'd love to see this idea, but the likelihood is it probably won't happen. That won't stop me from proposing innovative, simple solutions with butt-loads of pay off though. I would hope it's the same for everyone. Even if someone someday might abuse something somewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • lykatos
    replied
    Actually, sword + cestus or cestus + knives would give you the best defense... Clubs + whips and Clubs + knives would have the best offense.

    Dragonus echos what I said, you've just replaced the sword styles with "weapon styles".

    Leave a comment:


  • Rupert
    replied
    Originally posted by Dragonus View Post
    Yes, but training a shield take more SP (new skillslot, new skills, etc.) If I only have gladius blocks and I wield a second gladius, I essentially have a 100/83 defense only knowing 2 skillsets (assuming most people have CMs as their first layer).

    Or as you mentioned, the first layer is the one with the highest RB. So if my first layer happened to be sword blocks, I'd have a 133/50 defensive layer with 2 skillsets?
    Correct, you would have 100/50/33 like any third layer. I'm not sure where the 100/83 is coming from, though. And the person would still have to learn 180 ranks in the two CM's to use the full 100% offense of a second weapon, and the maximum of 33% of the defense. This is just about half the ranks a serious combatant would invest into shields. If they want to use a different secondary weapon they're still required to learn the CM's to use it, and an entire different weapon skill set.

    So if someone had all the requirements to use two gladii, they would have comparable defense to a gladi/CM/shield, but they are completely giving up the ability to use Avros, Nelsor and Pardelian. They are restricted to what's available in one handed swords.

    Every other weapon has a defensive hole. Even if you apply the blocks a second time at 33%, the hole is still there to be taken advantage of.

    This idea is an effort to avoid calling on the creation of a bunch of new skills, or skill sets, or lore sets. It's core is proposing dozens and dozens of new character builds by giving one handed weapons JUST the ability to function like a shield. I'd love to see what you're suggesting Armataan, as much as I'd like to see all the weapons get their own styles. But the answer to either of those things happening is likely the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Armataan
    replied
    I'd be fine with it under the following CHANGES to your suggestion.

    New skills:

    Offhand Swording
    OHS | impossible | passive
    RB as an AVERAGE move.
    Used as the basis for offhand 'basics' for all maneuvers used in off hand. Blocks are never treated as higher t han your offhand swording rank is, either. So if you are 800 basic swords, 200 simple block, 100 offhand swording, then you are treated as 100/100 in simple block when using offhand swording. And your basics rb added is going to be lower, since the offhand rb is average instead of easy.

    Additional considerations:

    Offhand jab
    offhand chop
    offhand slash
    etc.

    Same rules as above, but all maneuvers hit slightly lighter than they would mainhand. They all clearly state 'with his offhand weapon' in their descriptor line though.
    (these would be a 'for funsies', and therefore should not be considered on balance perspective.)

    Considerations:
    Obviously, knives are up for consideration too. And 1hax actually make GREAT sense in this capacity. To the point where they should actually get BONUSES to their to hits when used in this way. Nets are another big one, as are capes. Perhaps 'offhand swording' can count asbasics for all possible considerations (except where your mainhand attacks and defenses draw their bonuses), alowing for sword mainhand/axe offhand, or axe mainhand/knife offhand (Hey Hawkeye, I'm looking at you.)

    Alternatively, 'offhand combat' could just be a lore set, with basic and subskills that have different weapons you could offhand wield, each getting penalties to some maneuvers, bonuses to others, and access to certain unique ones. MOS (even with a retalq) slash that is hard to hit with, but works great against stunned opponents? Sounds like a knife move. Extremely easy to land hook, that is also pretty easy to get out of if you are fast enough, but can lead to a sudden disarm if they time it well? Screams hatchet. Feint that conceals your vision, thus putting you inside round time to get it out of your face? Capes! etc. This could be set

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    Originally posted by Rupert View Post
    Your first layer is always the one you have more RB in. If that were CM's, then it would act as first layer, yes. the 33% is re-added in (If the person is wielding two gladii) for a third layer. Regardless of which skillset you have more RB in, the alternative weapon blocks are always used in third layer.

    Yes, a gladius would have comparable defense to a shield layer, except a gladius requires 6 skills to accomplish what a shield does in 4. The gladius wielder would also be giving up the offensive perks of Avros, Nelsor, and Pardelian in exchange for whatever is available in OHS. In this scenario, you end up with the strongest defense possible with two weapons, with what might be the weakest offense.
    Yes, but training a shield take more SP (new skillslot, new skills, etc.) If I only have gladius blocks and I wield a second gladius, I essentially have a 100/83 defense only knowing 2 skillsets (assuming most people have CMs as their first layer).

    Or as you mentioned, the first layer is the one with the highest RB. So if my first layer happened to be sword blocks, I'd have a 133/50 defensive layer with 2 skillsets?

    Having a first layer count for 133% of the RB invested into it is worthwhile enough. Let alone any perks from dual wielding (such as not having a shield to break/repair/etc.)

    I like the concept of dual wielding, but it has a high potential for abuse and overpowered characters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rupert
    replied
    Originally posted by Dragonus View Post
    I'm not sure if I'm 100% understanding your proposition.

    So before I touch on the other points, I just want to clear something up.



    If I have 2 gladii wielded, would it not be 100% CM dodges and 50% gladius blocks? Where does the 33% come in? Are you saying it should be 100/33? Or are you saying the gladius blocks should count twice, as in 100/50/33? You do mention it as a third layer.

    But seeing as that (for the most part) gladius blocks > shield blocks, replacing your shield blocks with another layer of gladius blocks would be even more defensive than having a shield wielded.
    Your first layer is always the one you have more RB in. If that were CM's, then it would act as first layer, yes. the 33% is re-added in (If the person is wielding two gladii) for a third layer. Regardless of which skillset you have more RB in, the alternative weapon blocks are always used in third layer.

    Yes, a gladius would have comparable defense to a shield layer, except a gladius requires 6 skills to accomplish what a shield does in 4. The gladius wielder would also be giving up the offensive perks of Avros, Nelsor, and Pardelian in exchange for whatever is available in OHS. In this scenario, you end up with the strongest defense possible with two weapons, with what might be the weakest offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    I'm not sure if I'm 100% understanding your proposition.

    So before I touch on the other points, I just want to clear something up.

    Originally posted by Rupert View Post
    The gladius wielder has a few options here under what's proposed. he can pick up the two CM's and have his gladius blocks count for 33% in the third layer, or he can learn a completely different weapon in place of his shield layer. If a gladius wielder goes with the second gladius, he has the most powerful defense available to this system, and a frightening arsenal comprised of Jab, stab, and sap. This looks like it balances itself out in this case.
    If I have 2 gladii wielded, would it not be 100% CM dodges and 50% gladius blocks? Where does the 33% come in? Are you saying it should be 100/33? Or are you saying the gladius blocks should count twice, as in 100/50/33? You do mention it as a third layer.

    But seeing as that (for the most part) gladius blocks > shield blocks, replacing your shield blocks with another layer of gladius blocks would be even more defensive than having a shield wielded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rupert
    replied
    Originally posted by Dragonus View Post
    I think, for this to be balanced, there would need to be a significant penalty to one-handed weapon defense. I don't like the multi-hitter idea, too over powered. But I don't see any other option for it to be viable. Making each hit harder wouldn't really make sense if you have 2 weapons wielded.

    One problem with balance would be trying to explain why a weapon like say a cestus wouldn't have all multi-hitters when they are essentially already dual wielded.

    Also, for say a weapon like swords that can give up a shield and still have 2 full layers of defense. Then pick up another weapon and have access to even more multi-hitters.

    Additionally, this would be another strategic advantage for one-handed weapons while two-handed weapons are once again limited.

    Furthermore, we just got rid of this ability with swords. This would basically allow people to cherry-pick the best moves from 2 different skillsets if they do decide to pick up a different weapon.
    And gladius would be the only weapon available that could have two complete layers of defense available to it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other weapon offers a complete layer through blocks.

    The gladius wielder has a few options here under what's proposed. he can pick up the two CM's and have his gladius blocks count for 33% in the third layer, or he can learn a completely different weapon in place of his shield layer. If a gladius wielder goes with the second gladius, he has the most powerful defense available to this system, and a frightening arsenal comprised of Jab, stab, and sap. This looks like it balances itself out in this case.

    What about a knivesman/whipper? This will more than likely be the most devastating combination you can make offensively. But in exchange for the whips offenses, he receives no third layer.

    If he does decide to learn a completely seperate weapon, he still will never have the defense someone who took a shield would have, and he would have no offensive bonus outside of twice the arsenal at his disposal.

    There will more than likely be a superior combination, as well as more than likely be bugs with putting a system like this in. I bet it won't be easy to find though, and it will always be a toss up between having better defense or better offense. The only things we can say for sure is that defensively they'll be at a disadvantage over traditonal 1hw/cm/shield builds, and they will have very few offensive bonuses to counter it. No matter what, giving up that shield layer provides holes on all one handed weapons to take advantage of.

    So, you can learn an easy third layer comprised of 4 shield blocks... Or you can learn two Combat maneuvers necessary, and an entire other weapon to take advantage of its attacks/blocks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    Originally posted by Rupert View Post
    Styles have their own requirements, lets just throw out styles completely. That should fix all of those problems.
    The requirement for styles was put in place specifically to avoid this 'feature' with swords. Allowing you to dual wield would essentially expand the issue that was just 'fixed' with swords to all one-handed skillsets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragonus
    replied
    I think, for this to be balanced, there would need to be a significant penalty to one-handed weapon defense. I don't like the multi-hitter idea, too over powered. But I don't see any other option for it to be viable. Making each hit harder wouldn't really make sense if you have 2 weapons wielded.

    One problem with balance would be trying to explain why a weapon like say a cestus wouldn't have all multi-hitters when they are essentially already dual wielded.

    Also, for say a weapon like swords that can give up a shield and still have 2 full layers of defense. Then pick up another weapon and have access to even more multi-hitters.

    Additionally, this would be another strategic advantage for one-handed weapons while two-handed weapons are once again limited.

    Furthermore, we just got rid of this ability with swords. This would basically allow people to cherry-pick the best moves from 2 different skillsets if they do decide to pick up a different weapon.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X