Xallo

Make Dual Wield Viable (Simplified Suggestion)

Recommended Posts

For the ones arguing about the wrong "type" of sickle to be a weapon...

Spoiler


page17-776px-Paulus_Hector_Mair_French_t

page18-776px-Paulus_Hector_Mair_French_t

 

There you go, illustrations of the European "tool" sickle (just like the one in Wurm), from a Renaissance combat manual primarily focused on a study of fencing, an entire chapter was devoted to the use of the sickle as a weapon by one of the major martial artists of the time, it also included a chapter on the use of a scythe as a weapon (along with chapters on longsword, backsword, pike, halberd, rapier, dagger, .joust, rules of tournaments and their history, and more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think off hand hit damage should equal the same damage as main hand but should definitely be faster than it is currently, + 1 for your option B 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump, came up in conversation in CA help today and i went looking for an existing suggestion about it. It's just kinda sad that we have a feature like this that does exist but currently functions in a way where it's literally never a good idea to do it over using a 2h weapon or a shield instead. Should be a reasonable option and force people to make a decision of what they want to use out of those three setups.

 

Could have weaponskill affect it heavily, with 100 skill bringing offhand up to something like 60-70% of main hand. Or just one of Xallo's original suggestions ofc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the topic has come up again I would like to bring up the fact that the combat manual doesn't prove that a sickle is a viable weapon. If fighting a person who is not wearing armour then any object is going to be an advantage over nothing. The point is not that a sickle has never been used. The point is that it is not a weapon of war. If the only factor was an object's ability to cause damage then we should be able to pick up rock and just drop them on each other or swing felled trees. No army has ever armed their soldiers with sickles. It is what is known as an expedient weapon meaning it is an object that is able to do damage. Sadly all historical accounts of it also show that it is used against unarmoured opponents. If an object is only good at being lethal in very specific cases it is not a recommended choice when better options are available. In no way is a sickle ever going to be the preferred weapon over something that is specifically designed for war. It is a tool of limited reach with the blade placed on the wrong edge to be able to slash and is poorly suited to penetrate any amount of armour because of its weight and length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, armyskin said:

Since the topic has come up again I would like to bring up the fact that the combat manual doesn't prove that a sickle is a viable weapon. If fighting a person who is not wearing armour then any object is going to be an advantage over nothing. The point is not that a sickle has never been used. The point is that it is not a weapon of war. If the only factor was an object's ability to cause damage then we should be able to pick up rock and just drop them on each other or swing felled trees. No army has ever armed their soldiers with sickles. It is what is known as an expedient weapon meaning it is an object that is able to do damage. Sadly all historical accounts of it also show that it is used against unarmoured opponents. If an object is only good at being lethal in very specific cases it is not a recommended choice when better options are available. In no way is a sickle ever going to be the preferred weapon over something that is specifically designed for war. It is a tool of limited reach with the blade placed on the wrong edge to be able to slash and is poorly suited to penetrate any amount of armour because of its weight and length.

 

Dude i totally agree that sickles shouldn't be such effective weapons but....it's hardly relevant to a discussion about fixing dual wielding o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to become the New Nosyt and dual wield small mauls.

 

I am just thinking though, that my small maul has a 3 second swing timer, so the off hand would have 6? I guess that seems fair. People with good shield skill and weapon skill will still likely parry many of the hits, dual wielding is just a great example of "risky high aggro" fight style we usually get from 2h weps in pvp.

 

In pve situations, its a +1 no brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the swing timer is about 7 x slower on the offhand. That's 21 seconds for a small maul.. completely pointless to even bother with it.

 

IMO, a bonus to either parrying rate, or swing timer should be applied when using two weapons of the same kind. They're not two individual weapons you're just randomly swinging around, but you use them together. Either to parry hits by crossing them, or doing some fancy moves to hit your opponent on both sides of the heads at once in a single swing.. either way, it needs a buff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now