Hmm....completely agreed now that I think about it.

As long as a perk that augmented or allowed DW is balanced and plays well, I'm all for it.

Between perks and traits, I think it would need to be a trait. Perks come with no downsides and a trait would make more sense.

Needing a trait to hold and shoot two guns at once is like needing a perk to be gay or lisbian. Its completely nonsensical.

Being able to hold and fire two guns at once is not some special, biological, "thing" only some people have, just like being gay isn't a magic ability.

It shouldn't be either a perk or trait, just something you DO.

Dual wielding is disgusting.

Yeah and perks should be able to make it a viable and interesting playstyle.

I think the sixuality stuff would have been better served as traits over perks, but probably weren't because there wouldn't be a downside and they were designed to mirror Black Widow and Lady Killer (which you'd think would have to have some kind of Charisma check, or maybe a Luck check if you want a pun). Not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the two perks from Fallout 3 kind of limited it. I think all four of them would have been better off as traits that only opened up new dialogues, rather than giving damage bonuses.

I think ideally dual wielding would be like in Skyrim: Just there, and you can use it if you want without needing perks or traits to unlock it. I just hope that it'd actually get a more robust perk set than what Skyrim gave. The trait idea was just to give humorous flavor text and put out some numbers to try and balance it.

I like the concept of duelwielding but it could also lead to unbalanced gameplay by being able to do double damage. Since I don't trust Beth with balance, I have to say no for now.

That is beyond acceptable. I'm sure you enjoy inciting things, and it's a wonder you've not been penalised for the things you say yet, because you dress it up as "logical".

You could've phrased that multiple ways, but you went with inflammatory.

It's a video game, people are looking for plausible implementation of a new mechanic to the franchise, suggested via a perk.

What you said isn't "directly offensive" but you sure like to walk the line a lot.

Drawing parallels between a feature in a video game and a notoriously contentious social issue is a straw man at best, and wholly inappropriate. Be a bit more respectful in the future and watch what you say.

I think you might be jumping the gun, mate. Pretty sure they're referring to two perks from New Vegas: Confirmed Bachelor and Cherchez La Femme.

Ftr, I think lots of stuff others enjoy is disgusting (sushi) but I dont try to stop them doing it. If dual wielding is in the game I wont care, and I definitely wont use it. Whatever floats your boat tho.

And yes, I realize quoting oneself makes you a loser. Ah well.

Yes, but dual wielding shouldn't be a perk/trait itself.

I would personally prefer they be something you DO, but actually have to stick to once you start doing it. Like, it becomes common knowledge you are, and so you basically are forced to live with it the entire game. Not all negative OFC.

I agree with the more perks thing. Though dual wielding melee weapons doesn't offer as many options as dual wielding guns, so I can understand it being limited in Skyrim. I mean, with a melee weapon you can learn to swing harder, and learn to swing faster, but beyond that there's not much to do with dual welding. Any sort of special power attacks, or special weapon powers, were already covered in the weapon specific perk, and power attack perk, branches in the one handed skill tree.

Guns you can do slightly more, but it still mostly boils down to

-Aim better

-Shooter faster

With weapon specific bonuses being taken care of by separate weapon specific perks.

What REL_Dovahkin said.

There's far more things you can do with dual-wielding melee weapons, though they didn't really delve into it in Skyrim. Dual-wielding Melee is all about sticking to pure offense, like Guns, but it also has a defensive maneuver in offense: Parrying. Parrying allows the user to slip past the other user's defenses or offensive swings before punishing them quickly for using said move, crippling or killing them. Another ability Dual Wielding can do is stumble enemies with an onslaught of hits, not allowing them to strike back until the wielder is finally exhausted from hits or steps back to breathe. Basically it's like suppression, though it can actually kill the enemy or cripple them severely from attacks instead of forcing them to hide.

Uh, suppression can kill/cripple too, since you know, its gunfire. Firing to suppress does not make you less lethal.


Also, the idea that dual wielding any weapon is a realistic approach is laughable. But realism is not important here, I think its not a relevant point. Thats not addressed at anyone in particular.

Nobody is saying realism, and what relevant point?

The idea of suppression is to force enemies down into one spot, unable to fire back. yes, it can kill, just like overwhelming someone with beatings can kill, but as I stated before it's like Suppression though the desires are extremely different: Usually suppressing isn't about killing someone, It's to force the enemy into a specific spot you want without firing back and allowing others to have an easier time killing them.

Dual wielding any weapon is laughable? I can understand Guns, Melee being laughable, but Unarmed? You're joking right?

Yes, which was why I said that wasnt addressed to anyone in particular.

Also, your idea of what suppression is, is wrong. Suppression IS about killing, the goal is to kill enough of the enemy that he is forced to withdraw. The desire is the same, the death of the enemy. Suppression is a tactic designed to make that easier sure, but its not as if your trying to avoid killing the enemy when you "suppress" the threat of being hit is what scares people into dissadvantageous cover. Im not entirely sure what your point is. If your saying suppression is meant to be non lethal, thats obviously wrong.

As for dual wielding unarmed, what? How do you dual wield unarmed? Since you are UN armed, and therefor weaponless?

Are you...serious? You're gonna take the "Literal" path and look like a jerk when we're obviously talking about the Unarmed Skill in Fallout's series? Are you really serious? Talking about Power Fists, Gauntlets, etc. Just...wow.

Your using your fists. How is that dual wielding? You dont dual wield your hands.

You're obviously using a Weapon that increases the threshold of Damage you commit, through a series of punching motions, your hands are merely the trigger for said weapon, being a Power Fist. You know what other contraptions that let your hands be the trigger to set it off and do serious damage? A GUN!

Now technically, you're not using your fists, you're using a piston/Deathclaw's claws, Mantis Claws to kill the target. These weapons, through out the series, have never been dual-wielded. Ever. They're always on the right side of your hand, and never covering your left in the same protective/deadly gear and allowing you to kill your targets faster. Why? How come we can't dual wield Unarmed Weapon types at that tier? Is it because of the Pipboy? Is it because they never once thought it through, or what?

But you can wear two ballistic fists instead of one and punching only with your right hand like a weirdo.

Man, I was messing with you on that unarmed point. When I said dual wielding is unrealistic I hadnt considered fist weapons, I should have been clearer, since you had me there.(I thought I would concede that point to you with a joke)

Anyway, like I said, if dual wielding is an option that would be fine, I wouldnt mind, I would just ignore the feature.

oh, YOU JERK >:I Goddamnit, Yeah I apologize, this is what happens when you play Dawn of War vs. 7 people and everything gets tense in 5 minutes and then ya come back to the forums steamy. My apologies and I agree, I don't mind if it's there or not, but if it DOES get added, Unarmed should totally be looked at.

Not with guns.

Yes.. I would like dual wielding and I'd like it in a versatile offhand manner. imagine being able to carry a reinforced trash can lid shield in one hand while you shoot with another.. or imagine having a melee weapon in one hand so if while shooting, an enemy melee guy gets close to you you turn your attention to them and fend them off.

I don't know why so many people are saying it's unrealistic to dual wield pistols when ... yes it is.. and who cares because there has yet to be a video game that has ever represented shooting or being shot accurately. People complain about realism with guns but don't seem to get too bent out of shape about how many hits it takes with a gun to take down a person.. One. One shot is all takes.

I enjoyed dual-wielding in Skyrim, though I wish parrying was involved, thus yes to melee weapons at least. As for guns/energy weapon pistols, I wouldn't mind it as long there is a penalty. Last I check people can shoot pistols in each hand. As for assault rifles, there will be need of greater penalties of accuracy (and perhaps strength check) as the kickback on them is tremendous.

So yes, I am for dual-yielding as long it is believable.

That really sounds like fun.