No, not really interested in Kenya. I'm told 3rd world countries have hygiene issues and there's a high likelihood I might contract hookworm or worse if I go barefoot.

I too thought it was trivial, but hey, I can still suggest it. That's why this thread is here.

By the way, who's the jigger?

Have to disagree here, The ability to block is more important than being able to choose when to use the other weapon. While it was useful/cool to do it just doesn't make up for the lack of blocking. It could also be kind of awkward trying to use both triggers to swing and just having to use one would eliminate that.

Well, you have to bear in mind that i don't think you SHOULD be able to block with a weapon. Blocking is one of the primary reasons to use a Shield, and is an active defensive ability that should be limited to Shields. If you choose not to have a defensive tool in your kit, you should have to resort to parrying.

You should be able to block with a weapon just not as effectively, and blocking/parrying should be on the same button just a matter of timing.

You could make it so you parry by attacking at the right time during an opponent's attack. IIRC, Dark Messiah did something like that. It also makes parrying a timed action, like timed blocking (another good feature to have), rather than just you being able to hold up your sword/mace while your opponent dumbly keeps hitting into it.

That sounds like a system that could be annoying. The best way is to make it so a weapons hold/block is a deflect and a well timed block triggers a parry and riposte. The Witcher did something similar where Geralt never hard blocked but would deflect away the attack. Unlike the Witcher however they should make the deflecting have a chance to fail and make you take partial to full damage unless timed right or properly perked.

A parry is a deflect. The difference is you don't just hold up your weapon while your opponents are magically compelled to attack it instead of you. You'd just have to execute your attack at the right time to parry their attack. Additionally, the other attack button could be used to execute a riposte. So for instance, a timed attack will activate a parry, and if you press your other attack within a short time frame you do a riposte/counter-attack. This would work regardless if you're dual-wielding or doing single-handed with your other arm free. Do a parry with your weapon, then quickly riposte by attacking with another weapon/fist.

It'd more so be a defensive block than a full parry, you deflect some of the damage but you don't create and opening for a counter attack. A well timed block will fully parry the attack and create an opening to get in a a successful counter attack.

This way you only have to worry about LT for Blocking and RT for attacking and don't have to worry about a bunch of accidental parrys from just spamming attack.

But the point of dual-wielding is that you're giving up that defense for more offense. Being that you have two separate offensive weapons, it would create a better opportunity for parrying and counter-attacking (unlike sword-and-board where your shield is less maneuverable and less damaging for executing counter-attacks, or two-handed where you only have one big weapon).

You'd only parry if there was an attack coming in. And when there's an attack coming in, for dual-wield combat your goal should be to dodge or parry, not keep attacking. So an "accidental parry" should be what you want as a dual-wielder (though ideally you'd reposte, parry with one hand and counter-attack with the other in well-timed moves).

Basically, dual wielding needs defensive capabilities. At least a dodge mechanic. I hated how what is supposed to be the swift and agile style of combat felt so static. I do like the idea of a timed parry/riposte mechanic. For the spellswords I'd really like quick, short ranged spells that don't necessarily do lots of damage, but throw the opponent off balance to allow for a similar counter. Or maybe to have the ward spell be a bit more useful by acting as a shield against physical attacks as well as magical. It would be a good way of tying the spellsword into the whole 'timed' idea as you wouldn't have the Magicka to hold a ward up constantly.

I'm not really onboard with the attack-to-parry idea. The way I would do it would be to have a simple, universal control scheme for all types of melee combat, assuming it's relatively similar to Skyrim's:

Left-click: a basic attack with your main weapon - a swing with a sword, a stab with a dagger, etc

Left-hold: a power attack with your main weapon, further modified by your movement - a forward power attack with a sword could be a thrust, with an axe an overhead chop.

Right-click: a defensive action - shields would have non-timing based blocking, while everything else would have a timing based parry (this would allow you to parry while dual-wielding or casting spells).

Right-hold-left-click: an alternate attack - a pommel strike with two-handed or single one-handed weapons, a bash with shields, casting a spell, or attacking with an off-hand weapon.

Do you mean that you'd only be able to cast a spell by holding both triggers/mouse buttons? What would this control scheme look like if you had a bow/unarmed/throwing knives/pure Mage?

This was just melee combat, I assumed you would wield either a two-handed or a one-handed weapon in your main hand, though unarmed could have the same scheme. Pure magic and archery would function like Skyrim. I didn't consider throwing weapons, but one idea could be that they'd be used for either throwing or parrying when in the off-hand, and when in the main-hand a power attack would throw them.

I hope BGS does a bit more of a thorough job on their next TES iteration. It seems they still don't have the concept of closing loose ends or that extra polish on their games. Such as http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1596336-most-recent-things-you-have-discovered-10/?p=25141624 Other examples would be ones I mentioned in my last post in this thread (not being able to actually witness the Moot after the CW in Skyrim).

I'm the total opposite. Having one standard control and playstyle is what made Morrowinds different weapons and configurations so superficial, and it's not something I'd like to repeat. In fact, it's one of the biggest flaws with RPGs in general, limiting behaviour to one of 3 overly simplistic models; Melee, Bows, Magic.


The choices you make in equipment should have a noticeable impact on your play style, more than just scaling a few numbers. It's more than just attack speed, damage output or flashy animations, its about changing your behaviour as a player, to suit the skills and decisions of the character. The differences should be practical, rather than simply visual or superficial.


The attack-parry mechanic (also known as Weapon Clashing) is something that has been in games for at least 16 years. Off the top of my head, it's been used in Thief, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, Halo 2 and onwards, and even Minecraft. It's a mechanic we know works, in a functioning sense, and it's just a matter of tuning it's timing to the flow of combat in TES.


Utilizing it allows you to maintain a strictly martial defensive option (though Dodging should also be an option, linked to Athletics) while making it distinct from functioning like a slightly less effective Sword-and-board variant.


Even games like Dark Souls don't cause you to change your behaviour between different weapons, they just change your timing and number output. The reliance on a One-Size-Fits-All combat dynamic in RPGs is one of the genres biggest missed opportunities, and something that seems to go unnoticed in the press for ever more complex social mechanics and world building.

Yeah, not a fan of attack to parry either. Just causes problems with the AI attacking non-stop either, and it's harder to bring into the Block skill in a capacity where you can see your characters improvement.


Dual wielding should have a form of damage mitigation, but I'd argue that going all in for a offensive burst is exactly it. If the AI has any shred of self preservation, they should try to defend themselves from the lunatic swinging swords around every which way, and the enemy should actually react to when they get hit. It's all about going all in on a assault and trying to shut your opponent out of being able to attack. Dual wield builds are more like glass cannons, if anything.

I might be misunderstanding you, but the way I'm imagining it it would be pretty much the same, except that instead of attacking to parry there would be dedicated parry-button? I don't really see the big difference, though I've found I prefer it to attack-to-parry in the games I've played as it has tended to promote a slightly more tempo or rythm-based flow to combat as you and your opponent are both trying to gauge whether to attack or parry or feint (which eg could be done by quickly right-clicking to interrupt your attack then attack again).

Quick edit:

Makes playing the suave duelist difficult to do don't you think?


One way or another, the AI needs a rather serious overhaul. Fallout 4 made some improvements, but the AI in Bethesda games remains a generation behind the time. Even then, you don't build a system around an outdated AI, you design your AI responses based off the system of interactions.


So the AI shouldn't really be an issue. We've seen behaviour sets in games that are more than able to handle this kind of interaction.




I think we may be on a similar page, but admittedly it's difficult to fully gauge since this is part of a much larger vision... Better control of attach types, more interactions, a wider variety if variables etc...


Parrying is only one part of it. I prefer the more manual Attack-Parry because it requires you to makde a decision. Games with a Parry-Button tend to allow you to diflect attacks without sacrificing offensive capabilities (like in Assassin's Creed and the Arkham games) and games that just use Weapon Blocking simply duplicate an inferior version of Shield Blocking (while having you hold up your weapon like a protester with a sign, as if the enemy isn't going to attack you anywhere else).


By linking as an interaction associated with an Attack Action, you have to sacrifice a moment's damage potential in exchange for some defense. It's a conciouz decision that you, the player, have to make, and a reaction that you have to adjust for if the enemy parries you. You have to gauge your options on the fly, and react to changing combat dynamics without simply relying on a single button stroke for all your defense needs.


Particularly when combined with different damage types and modifiers, and a bettter attack speed system (not based on weapon types, but based more on weight) and you have potential for a very strategic combat system.


Manage it with some Class-Driven AI packages and you could even revolutionize RPG combat...

Yeah, I think we have similar thoughts. I am absolutely not advocating for Assassin's Creed-style parries - it'd be like a of type attack that prevents opponents' hits to connect rather than damaging them.

The Block skill is, suffice to say, the art of defense, regardless as to what means your character chooses to use. That fundamental skill is going to be present regardless as to what weapon your character is using, if any at all. They'll see an enemy attack, and said enemy isn't something they haven't seen before, will know how to defend themselves appropriately. What facet of the Block skill you choose to use, either outright tanking enemy attacks, bashing in order to apply more damage or stagger the opponent, or completely avoiding damage through a parry and giving yourself a chance to strike back...well, that's what skill trees are for.


Also, it is basically an all out assault type style, as far as gameplay goes. Two handed weapons are more of a compromise, maxing out single/multiple target damage output while still having some room defend yourself. Speaking from experience here, dual wielded fighters in SkyRe are a nightmare to face because of how relentless their attacks are. Even if you defend yourself, they'll apply damage so quickly that it's basically moot, and their power attacks will break your guard and kill you if you don't get out of the way. Getting into close melee range of them is suicidal, because they can shut your attacks down just by attacking. We the player really can't do the same, because NPCs don't have the same desire to not die. That's the only thing keeping dual wielding from being a viable means of combat.


^Personally, I've always seen dualists as using one singular weapon and using parrries to defeat single targets as a critical hit class, then running around with two short swords ala Dragon Age.

The Block skill is the art of defense in previous games, true, but I propose that it should be reinterpreted as the Shield skill. Fighting with a shield is quite different to fighting with just a weapon. I'd relegate parrying to the weapon skills, as being able to use a weapon both offensively and defensively is an inherent part of being skilled with them.

Furthermore, while SkyRe's dual wielders are indeed terrifying, Skyrim's implementation of dual wielding is horrible, does not reflect how you'd probably fight with two weapons, and is IMHO in need of a serious reevaluation.

Edit:

One more thing - I too imagine duelists wielding a single weapon, but I'd also argue that the rapier and dagger suits them equally, and that is definitely not what I imagine to be a glass cannon style.

Too niche. A proper block skill can encompass all the uses of a shield and more, and fits with the ethos of all the other Skill trees that can actively change how and what your characters prioritize in applying the Skill. Regulating parrying to weapon skills runs into two problems where you become a fumbling moron who can't magically defend themselves without a shield, and worse, either making parries a static mechanic we can't influence, dependent on a Skill level that we might not use for that specific mechanic ever, or worse, split the parry based perks in multiple weapon skills.


It's just not worth it, especially when there's already a dedicated skill to the art of defense that consolidates all of those things into one skill, and allows for specialization in how that skill is applied. The only thing weapon skills that should bounce off of that are situation specific damage buffs like doing extra damage after a successful parry if there's nothing in your off hand.

I'm not sure I understand the fumbling moron thing, parries would scale with the skill (probably mostly getting faster), and given that I'd rather not have perks gated by skill levels at all I can't say I agree with your arguments.

Edit: Taking a second look at what you said, I do get the ethos argument, though then I'd also say that it would be more fitting to have a Melee Attack skill or One Handed and Two Handed, but as far as I know you have argued for Sword, Axe, etc in the past, which is what I think I've been convinced of as well, and then I believe Shield fits better.

Oh, I agree. Dual Weilding in video games is generally poorly represented. From a practical sense, one weapon is almost exclusively defensive, and only tends to be opportunisticaly used offensively, but driving a dynamic where you CAN'T use it offensively, or CAN'T defend with it, is limiting for no real reason.


Your classic 'Raider' archetype, for instance, is often armed with a sword and an Axe. Never mind that this pairing would be exceptionally rare (at the same time, anyway... Many warriors would have had both on their person, but only used one at a time) the system should be able to account for the approach wothout resorting to a total removel of the individuals ability to act defensively.


Parrying, as a timed, active mitigation, falls in a respectable middle ground. Mechanically, we know it's doable, because it already exists in other games. Functionally, it could offer a distinctly different mitigation and value. And, linking it to an Interaction, rather than being an Action in its own right, allows you ensure a greater impact on behaviour without creating unique control schemes for each weapon/combination or limiting other Actions by taking up a command option.




I agree. Linking Parrying to Weapon skills, and broadening the abilities of Shields, also opens up more opportunities. Linking damage mitigation from a parry to your skill (Whereas a Shield would be based on its Armour value) better management of specialised attacks and repostes, as well as expanding The actions and interactions of Shields into almost a full fledged weapon type.

The big problem then is the complete lack of control over whether or not you want your character to be good at parrying. You run into the problem of becoming a master of defense without actually investing into anything. Your character is deprived of their shied? No worry, your parries will work completely fine as if nothing has changed, because of that mechanic being rolled into the weapon you are using. What if I want to block with a weapon? There's no benefits to doing that anymore, because the leveling for it is axed, and the Block skill doesn't have any perks to supplement it.


Keeping the defensive actions in Block makes reconciling all these mechanics into one group, allows for concise specialization, and actually gives us a means to make that skill a primary means for fighting, as opposed to being a mere add on for absorbing damage. There's no point in having a shield skill when a dedicated branch in the Block skill can do all of that, and more.