ok, well that's my opinion. What's yours?
Skill: Dual Wield
Allows the equipping of 2 one-handed weapons. This would yield a 50% PTH bonus for each weapon. No additional dex penalty.
Restriction: Cannot equip a tattoo on the minion with the dual wield skill. So, this negates the possibility of adding a ToA to that minion.
Result: Now we have a non-ToA tank with dual wield and boosted PTH that can dole out some serious damage, and take on those ToA tanks.
What do you all think of this newest idea from the Barron :)
September 4 2005 12:32 PM EDT
Already covered in FAQs->FORS->#9.
September 4 2005 12:32 PM EDT
Im going to say this first before this thread disappears in flame, WE ALL KNOW THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE AND IS ALSO COVERED IN THE FORS.
I knew we'd have some bozos talk about FORS. That is sooo outdated that some of the new changes in this game make the FORS list really stupid.
FORS is for idiots who like to abide by all the rules. Yes, everyone, think outside that little box you call your brains.
September 4 2005 12:38 PM EDT
Indeed, I agree. I was just saying that I could have bet $100 on the fact that someone (other than me) was going to mention it ;P
September 4 2005 12:47 PM EDT
Please enlighten me, exactly which points (if any) in FAQs->FORS are "sooo outdated"?
bartjan, I figure you to be more intelligent than that. The FORS list is based on a set of factors that are extremely outdated. For instance, there was not the extreme contrast between one and two handed weapons as there is at the moment, especially with the new changes. ToAs weren't even in existence when the idea of dual wield was first discussed. This is a dynamic game--hello?! Ideas that may have been discussed and cast away may be very viable today. I think the FORS list may have some usefullness, but it should by no means be a biblical list of ideas discounted for all eternity. Is that enough enlightenment?
September 4 2005 1:00 PM EDT
I think his point is suppose to be different in that his idea says your can't dual wield while wearing a tattoo.
However, Jon's intention was to have a simple trade-off. Offense over defense. The non-ToA tanks can have much more AC, plus they are able to get blanket protection from ToE. This makes them more ideal for using BL and for trying to make it into melee rounds. The ToA tank on the other hand was suppose to be the offensive Tank and in my opinion is still more ideal for going for the quick kill with Archery.
Your idea is meant to bring the non-ToA tank up to doing as much damage as a ToA tank with no sacrifice in protection. The next thing you'll say of course is to disallow a shield as well, but that's just you trying to make a middle of the road minion where none is needed.
But this is not a debate about FORS. What should be discussed are the merits or non-merits of the idea above. Not whether it's listed in FORS therefore it must be disqualified.
September 4 2005 1:02 PM EDT
Barron you must be misreading the changelog. One and two handed weapons have never been so different.
Vestax, my point is that they are NOW, and that's why it's reasonable to revisit ideas that were not well received at some time in the past.
Yes, it would make sense to not allow a shield on a dual-wielding minion.
I don't think it would be middle-of the road. After all, you could put a ToA on a different minion. Or, add a ToE. Whatever. It certainly would add another element to think about in choozing weapons, tattoos, etc.
Thanks for your comments, Vestax
September 4 2005 1:17 PM EDT
A weapon in each hand is actually more of a defensive strategy - one weapon is used to block while the other strikes. The opportunity and opening to strike with both wouldn't happen very often, especially if your opponent is doing the same or is using a shield, and to be realistic a double strike would have to be generated randomly.
Where it would be effective offensively would be against an opponent wielding a 2 handed weapon, but it would still be pretty much the same as if you were using a shield, so only a slightly less random double strike.
If you were constantly trying to strike with both weapons, you'd leave yourself open to be hit constantly, so dual wield would simply become what bloodlust was before - extra damage wielded and received...
Is that outside the box enough, 'cause it hurts my little brain to think much more :)
Realism and real world limitations really cannot be applied very well, Monkey. I mean 2-handed weapons now get triple hits with enough dex and a ToA. So, is that realistic? Probably not. I certainly wouldn't expect a dual-wielding tank to double hit every time, but with essentially a 100% + to PTH he'll get more hits--maybe 4 or 5--compared to a 2-handed ToA tank that may be a big +. Also, there would be a significantly less dex penalty.
Even after the ToA nerf folks are still looking to beat a ToA tank with a non-ToA tank....WHY?
September 4 2005 1:39 PM EDT
"But this is not a debate about FORS. What should be discussed are the merits or non-merits of the idea above. Not whether it's listed in FORS therefore it must be disqualified."
Exactly. So many people are so eager to jump up and scream, "FORS!" before they're willing to look at an idea.
I like the idea, Barron, but it may be a bit unbalanced seeing as how a dual-VB user could dish out insane damage. Other than that, I think with tweaking of numbers, it looks good.
September 4 2005 1:47 PM EDT
Actually, Brandon's point is what I was getting at - without some "realistic" limitations, a dual yield could be the most overpowered option yet, resulting in countless "Is dual yield overpowered" threads :)
I like the idea, but with limitations, is my actual point.
Bart, Mage Staves for instance. Other than the fact Jon just doesn't like them, there is *no* difference between a mage weapon and a CoI.
Brandon, it's a nice idea, but the skill would be better if it gave a dex based pth penalty. Make it -50%, so using two weapons gives you the same base a using a two handed weapon, and implement the third dex based attack for 1 handed weapons, which dual weilding would negate. Also throw in a slight damage penalty as well just to even things out.
Why dual wield instead of using a 2 handed weapon?
1) Potential to do twice as many hits as a 2 handed wepaon, with a lot of cash investment.
1) will do less average damage per blow than a two handed weapon. Multiple hits make up for this, but leave dual weilding more vulnerable to reduction from Endurance.
Why use a 1 handed weapon?
1) Would have the greatest chance to hit from dex. Would not hit as many times as dual weilding, but would hit for more than DW does. Hit's more times than 2H, but deas less damage from the hits.
2) Allows the use of a Shield.
1) When used with a 1H weapn only, shields get an Evasion like item based pth reduction.
September 4 2005 1:58 PM EDT
two single handed weapons at each half the NW of one two handed weapon gives so much more damage than that single two handed weapon, that such a change would greatly reduce choice in this game. And this game is all about making choices.
That's why it is in FORS, and that reason is still valid.
September 4 2005 2:02 PM EDT
Each additional x on a weapon doesn't add damage in a linear fashion.
Bart, I'm sure that's wrong!
Weapons gain more damage non linearly as thier "x" is increased. Plus 2H weapons have a higher base, and I proposed the DW skill to give a damage penalty to even this out.
Besides, having a DW skill would leave the now obligatory BL skill unavailable.
More choice, losing an automatic x2 damage for an expensive potential to land more blows (would be good for two VA weapons!) give more choice.
Having BL the way it is now lessens choice....
If this idea comes why not shooting 3 arrows at the same time. LoL.
September 4 2005 2:28 PM EDT
You can already shoot three arrows at one time. And if your really good you can do 4 or 5.
so Thief class with extreme high dex and dual wield can do 3 times 2 = 6 hits in 1 melee round. That would be nice. Let's also add 2 Fireball in every rounds (1 Fireball in each hand).
Btw, all these are supposed to be stupid ideas.
September 4 2005 2:39 PM EDT
Well, the limitation of multiple hits is that they are still all restricted to a single target per round. This often results in overkill.
Now stop going to every post you see and saying people's ideas are stupid and put your money where you mouth is. Tell us why or stop posting please.
>_< I take it you didn't read my suggestion?
"so Thief class with extreme high dex and dual wield can do 3 times 2 = 6 hits in 1 melee round."
a potential of two dex based hits with each weapon, plus any pth on either. Both weapons suffer the 2H base dex penalty. All 6 hits if they land will do less damage than a normal 1H hit, would would hopefully be boosted to a natural 3 dex based hits.
Plus Shields should get a boost...
What is the imballance with my idea? Please point that out and I'll comment on it.
September 4 2005 2:44 PM EDT
I've done some quick unscientific testing with my Homer Simpson char (CB1, but damage hasn't changed afaik) and a rented 8M BoTh x85+22, a 14.7M Morg x80+80 and a named 31M Loch x100+100. Average damage for the BoTh and Morg are very similar (BoTh slightly higher) and the Loch doing roughly 50% more damage. Based on these numbers, I believe that 2 x80+80 BoThs, total 29.4M NW will easily do more damage per combined hit than 1 single 31.6M x100+100 NW Loch (or BoNe). The difference in NW is even large enough to afford the purchase price for that second BoTh.
So the damage per hit is higher. Being single handed weapons, they also have (since this month) also the advantage on the to-hit department.
Did I mention that the BoTh also came with free VA?
:) So the damage penalty should be around 25%+
Pluss the loch is +100 so is guranteed an extra hit per round, those BTh s are +22.
Let the 25% damage reduction also apply to the weapons pth.
September 4 2005 3:05 PM EDT
Bloodlust's 100% damage bonus is equivilant to the effect of getting twice the hits, except that it's not as vulnerable to ToE reduction.
Oh, except that you don't have to pay to upgrade 2 weapons and you can wear a tattoo.
In other words, this comes under the "We already have a better skill" department.
Of course, my puny mind, like bartjan's, is thinking inside the box.
September 4 2005 3:05 PM EDT
The idea of wielding two weapons is a good idea but there just needs to be someway of curbing it so it doesn't get too powerful.
In addition to Barron's ideas, I would suggest making a two handed fighting a skill. In doing so, it makes the player sacrifice XP to train the skill which would reduce his/her ST/DX training. ... and since it is a skill, that means the player wouldn't be able to train archery on that tank.
Another possibility is to make it so the player can't wield two of the same weapon so you won't have a character with two overpowering BTHs.
Personally, I think Jonathan simply doesn't have the skills to program such a feature and that's the reason why it's in FORS (blatant use of reverse psychology).
Grant has provided the best answer. BL is like dual weilding 2 MH s or BoNE s.
So, it's really not a good idea at all! ;)
September 4 2005 3:27 PM EDT
A good way to fudge this all together would be if different wielding fighters were better/worse at fighting others.
A 2 handed fighter with no shield (2H) would be better against a dual-wielding fighter (DW), but would get his ass handed to him by a 1 handed with shield (1H) guy...
A DW fighter would beat a 1H [The two weapons overcome the shield], but not the 2H...
A 1H fighter etc. etc.
If all fighters were equally capable against mages/enchanters then in a roundabout way it would be balanced out quite well. The true question is, does this game need more diversity?
September 4 2005 3:46 PM EDT
GL: I'm comparing +80 1H with +100 2H. Dunno how much that "1 sept" to-hit chance works out, so maybe those +80 is even more effective than the Loch's (Bone's) +100.
September 4 2005 3:47 PM EDT
The issue of 2 handed vs 1 handed should be this: Why don't we just make it so 2 handed weapons deal lots of dmg but cannot wear shields and 1 handed weapons can be worn with shields and are able to BLOCK dmg, as in entire thing blocked if successful.
GL, your reply to bart wasn't very well thought out.
If you read his post again he said the BoTH's would be x80+80 which is what the morg was at and since all 4 top weapons have the same upgrade curve they NW would be the same meaning 2 x80+80 BoTH's would be a mill less NW than a x100+100 Loch/BoNE and still do more damage which is exactly why it went into FoRS and without some very hard work from Jon tweaking number after number after number, it will continue to stay there.
Sorry for not paragraphing, this was a quick reply vefore going to bed.
September 4 2005 4:15 PM EDT
Skipped half the thread:
What if you only had the chance for ONE extra hit with the off hand weapon?
Doh! Sorry Bart! ;)
Undertow, BL is just like DW anyway (two times the damage, just not two times the hits...). I can't now think of any good reason to have a DW skill if BL stays the way it is.
GL, I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I don't think 2 times the damage from bloodlust is equivalent to 2 times the hits, from DW for instance. Don't you have to take into consideration other factors like dex, endurance, protection and of course AC? Plus, if the opponent has evasion skill or DBs that is also going to factor into this. So, I don't think DW is the same result as BL.
So then, say goodbye to MH and ToA, whoopdee doo!!
What would be the purpose of ToA if this happened? Absolutely nothing, because everyone would get a tank with DW and take over ToA's, then they'd be even more pointless than they already are now....=(
not so fast smallpau1. There is something to be said about a tattoo that gives all that dex and strength. And not only that, but you could have a ToA tank AND a DW tank all on the same character. How about that for diversity?
NW heaven there tho...=/
Plus, it still is a pointless ToA IMO, if another DW char can beat it easily.
depending on how its set up nobody knows whether a DW tank can go toe to toe with a 2-handed ToA tank. It would be fun to find out though, wouldn't it?
September 4 2005 8:23 PM EDT
Maybe my brain is too far from the box; something doesn't add up for me. There seems no real way to balance this idea.
Scenario 1: Dual Wield does more damage than normal. Everybody uses DW.
Scenario 2: Dual Wield does less damage than normal. Nobody uses DW.
Scenario 3: Dual Wield does the same damage as normal. Some people use DW until they realise that all DW does is give them more chances to miss while accumulating the same damage (this is actually a variant of Scenario 2).
September 4 2005 9:01 PM EDT
Right hand: VB
Left hand: BTH
Then every hit will do massive damage (from the BL,) cut through AC/ Endurance/Protection (from the VB,) give me health back (from the BTH) and I have a better chance of those hits landing (from the extra chance to hit oyu proposed).....sounds like good balance to me.
September 4 2005 9:08 PM EDT
He said DW as a skill, meaning no BL.
How about 2H weapons attack every other round for a lot of damage, dual 1H weapons alternate attacks each round, and 1H + Shield attacks for a round and then defends greatly for the next, and so on.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001VBf">FORS 9</a>