My taking on dual wielding : V - Skyrim

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:16 pm

well I think he probably suffered a lot of akimbo 1887 and akimbo G18 lol

No military force in the world would let you dual wield pistols, shotguns, or smgs because they know that it is completely inefficient and or [censored]. Dual wielding is made for 12 year olds who have a completely unrealistic idea about how cool war is and how easy it is to focus simultaniously on having a weapon in each hand. Dual wielding is overkill and it is fail.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:04 pm

I like it. But I'm a bit worried about the animations, hopefully it will be a fluid and graceful stance.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:20 am

I tried hard to make an assassin in Oblivion and it just didn't feel complete without the duel-wielding. I'm hoping to equip two-daggers, maybe apply poison to the daggers (if possible)

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:15 pm

I like it. But I'm a bit worried about the animations, hopefully it will be a fluid and graceful stance.

Have you ever seen an Elderscrolls game where the characters moved gracefully? I wouldn't count on it.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:23 am

My biggest issue is that the casting system used in Oblivion that was so lauded for its usability (you can cast any time, with any weapon), seems to be gone. Now you will be forced to have one hand free to use magic. I suppose its a way to balance out battle mages.

Hopefully cast-on-use is back. I really, really hated staffs as they were in Oblivion. Was a stupid thing to do with them.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:17 am

How do you think?

Sounds pretty balanced. I can see the melee portion of duel wield working very similarly to what you described.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:32 am

Meh, whatever. I did that in Morrowind and Oblivion both. Spell with both lightning and frost damage = using lightning and frost together at once. :shrug:

I did it with levitation and hand to hand.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:18 am

No military force in the world would let you dual wield pistols, shotguns, or smgs because they know that it is completely inefficient and or [censored]. Dual wielding is made for 12 year olds who have a completely unrealistic idea about how cool war is and how easy it is to focus simultaniously on having a weapon in each hand. Dual wielding is overkill and it is fail.

this is true with guns, but not with melee weapons.
in ancient china dual wielding of melee weapons is used a lot during skirmishes.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:14 am

I think dual wielding sounds like crap, I hate how everyone thinks people need to dual wield something, whether its handguns or swords I still hate it.

I would not say this on a Fast-Travel thread, but this is different...

Don't like it? Don't use it.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:31 am

I like what OP said except that 4 buttons is only unrealisc on PC, x box and playstation both have buttons above the triggers (well xbox does and I'm 99% sure about PS but correct me if Im wrong) on the pc you could have the left mouse button control the left hand and the right mouse control the right hand and hold down some key/s to switch to block

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:24 pm

Now, when you hold two weapons, theoretically you should be able to: attack with both hands; attack with one hand and block with the other; block with both. To implement this you'll need 4 buttons which is not realistic, so there needs some limitations and balancing.

I think this is what they should do:
Left mouse button controls the left hand, right mouse button the right hand. Hold down either button longer to change attack and movement direction indicates type of attack like Oblivion but now spacebar (while a mouse button is held) should cause that hand to block.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:24 pm

no one likes my idea :'(

The downfall of forums. Instead of being a place to create and grow ideas for the sake of the community, its a place for fighting over who's right and who's wrong.
Its like life, there are people, therefore there is bound to be war...

I think that your idea sounds like it can be easily exploited. Blocking and attacking at the same time?

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:07 am

I think it is a bold attempt for Bethesda to include dual wielding feature in this game. If you really dig deep into dual wielding techniques, there are a lot of possibilities. And here I'm not talking about the fancy ninja moves.

There are several configurations of dual wielding:
1. matched dual wields. Both hands are holding the same type of weapon, I mean same length and weight. For example, two short swords or two long swords, or two maces.
2. mismatched dual wields. One hand is holding a long weapon and the other hand a short weapon.
3. Weapon+shield (you'll see why I counted this as dual wielding later)

Now, when you hold two weapons, theoretically you should be able to: attack with both hands; attack with one hand and block with the other; block with both. To implement this you'll need 4 buttons which is not realistic, so there needs some limitations and balancing. Following is my design of dual wielding:

With option 1, you are able to block with two weapons, giving you a better protection than blocking with one hand/weapon. However you are not allowed to block with one hand and attack with the other (just for balancing purpose). Also you are able to attack with both weapons at the same time, giving you double damage.

With option 2, you are able to block with one weapon (the short one, like in some fencing practice) and while you are blocking you can attack at the same time with the other, giving you high damage since the enemy exposed his vulnerability while attacking you. However, you cannot attack with both weapons since they are not the same length. The short weapon used for blocking will not give you a lot of protection either.

With option 3, you are able to block with the shield, but you can't attack while blocking (because the shield is in the way). However the shield gives you the highest protection, and you might be able to shield bash.

That being said, a good addition would be the requirement of timing while blocking with your weapon. This makes sense, because the shield gives you a large area of protection while you have to watch the direction of enemy attack when you block with a sword. The advantage of blocking with a shorter weapon in option 2 is that shorter the weapon, easier it is to time the block, because it takes a shorter time to place a lighter weapon in a certain position. Dual blocking in option 1, on the other hand, is slower and harder to time the block. When you are wielding two heavy long weapons, you might as well give up weapon blocking since it takes way too long.

How do you think?

Your idea is cool, but I don't think you should be able to attack while blocking in ANY configuration.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:07 pm

I think dual wielding sounds like crap, I hate how everyone thinks people need to dual wield something, whether its handguns or swords I still hate it.

It's a fantasy game? What'd you expect? You don't have to use it anyway.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:38 am

Pffffffffff :meh:

Who needs duel wielding when you have triple wielding?
:evil:

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:17 am

I'm worried dual spells might diminish spell making for single spells.

Anyone else concerned?

As long as you can make your own spells, everything should be fine.
Besides, now you can switch between two spells easily, defensive and offensive spells.
Maybe now I can realistically make a shield spell, 100 magnitude, 3 seconds or something like that.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:54 am

I can see why you might be concerned given the lack of info about spellmaking at this point, but I can't think of any good reason why dual wielding spells and making your own spells would be mutually exclusive. I can't think of any restriction other than your ability to cast the spells wrt your magicka. Using both hands doesn't mean there won't be spellmaking, I honestly think you're being over-pessimistic in an "if they've added something they must have taken something away" manner, if that makes any sense.

I was worried because I heard you can combine spell effects with each spell form each hand.

Maybe I just read to much into it. I thought they would worry to much about hw two seperate spells react with each other than to worry about single spell effects.

But I like being pessimistic, makes it easier to take dissapointment and being overjoyed with something that I like. (well at least with upcoming games)

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:43 am

I'm worried dual spells might diminish spell making for single spells.

Anyone else concerned?

I'm not really concerned about this, because logically you can have each hand satisfy a different magic purpose. Like you have heal and absorb magic assigned to one hand and an offensive spell/combination spell assigned to the other. Plus if you want to make a highly multi-purpose spell that does everything you need in one hand, then you could just plop a sword or shield in the other. I think the dual wielding is going to be great.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:58 am

No military force in the world would let you dual wield pistols, shotguns, or smgs because they know that it is completely inefficient and or [censored]. Dual wielding is made for 12 year olds who have a completely unrealistic idea about how cool war is and how easy it is to focus simultaniously on having a weapon in each hand. Dual wielding is overkill and it is fail.

lol your the only one who sounds like a 12 year old :touched: . all im hearing is "i dont wanna have something new because i think its dumb and if you like it thin your stupid"
yes you are correct with any type of fire arm. Hollywood has made it a type of fashion statement that if your going to wield a gun then you have two wield 2 of them. and yes you are correct that trying to fire 2 guns of any kind is highly inefficient and inaccurate. with some dumb punk trying to be cool and firring 2 9mm at me i can take that one gun take 1.5 seconds and cap him in the head at 100ft.

but with melee there is definite skill in duel wielding. it wasnt very common though because it was hard to train people to do it. it was much easier to hand them a shield and sword and tell them that if the enemy swings at them to hold the shield up and then swing their sword at them when they had an opening. that was mass scale training back then. elite groups or people with with money though could be trained to use dual weapons. for instance the Chinese hook sword would often times be dual wielded because one hand could use the hook end of the sword to bypass a shield, get around it and maneuver it out of the way, leaving the enemy opened for an atack with the free hand.

look it up it did exist before Hollywood by 100's possibly 1000's of years. Hollywood just figured they could make money by making it look cool and it payed off. now there are people like you who say its dumb because they took something that has been around for eons and made a fashion statement about it. if you dont like it then dont use it but dont [censored] like a little brat thats not getting there way. :mohawk:

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:53 am

I think that the bumper buttons will be used and since you are "equipping" spells the trigger button attacks for whichever hand the spell is in. If you had the weapon or spell not active at the time the buttons could be used for grabbing objects, seeming as you couldn't really pick up anything with two hands already occupied.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:03 am

lol your the only one who sounds like a 12 year old :touched: . all im hearing is "i dont wanna have something new because i think its dumb and if you like it thin your stupid"
yes you are correct with any type of fire arm. Hollywood has made it a type of fashion statement that if your going to wield a gun then you have two wield 2 of them. and yes you are correct that trying to fire 2 guns of any kind is highly inefficient and inaccurate. with some dumb punk trying to be cool and firring 2 9mm at me i can take that one gun take 1.5 seconds and cap him in the head at 100ft.

but with melee there is definite skill in duel wielding. it wasnt very common though because it was hard to train people to do it. it was much easier to hand them a shield and sword and tell them that if the enemy swings at them to hold the shield up and then swing their sword at them when they had an opening. that was mass scale training back then. elite groups or people with with money though could be trained to use dual weapons. for instance the Chinese hook sword would often times be dual wielded because one hand could use the hook end of the sword to bypass a shield, get around it and maneuver it out of the way, leaving the enemy opened for an atack with the free hand.

look it up it did exist before Hollywood by 100's possibly 1000's of years. Hollywood just figured they could make money by making it look cool and it payed off. now there are people like you who say its dumb because they took something that has been around for eons and made a fashion statement about it. if you dont like it then dont use it but dont [censored] like a little brat thats not getting there way. :mohawk:

I would be more insulted if you could spell or use proper grammar.

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:38 am

Dual wielding is stupid and inefficient. Thats why I hate it.

what about bioshock? that had an awesome combat system and was like the Duel wielding in Skyrim because there would be a spell/plasma in one hand and a weapon in another

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:14 am

Dual wielding is stupid and inefficient. Thats why I hate it.

what the hell are you talking about?
a few of my friends and I practice martial arts and we often do some sparring for fun.(with foam weapons. yeah, it's "silly", but that way you can train at full speed without risking too much injury)
One of them uses two short swords and believe me, I've never seen anyone get rid of his oponent's defense so fast.
It's not gay, it's not childish, it's really efficient, and it takes a good brain to use it right too. you can't just strike blindly as you can seriously open yourself with a missed move
The only other drawback is that it really takes dedication when training it, since getting the moves right with the off-hand is much tougher than getting them right with your dominant hand.

I actually also think this is fair compared to a sword/shield combo. it's just that it's faster and more difficult to block, although being easier to open and somewhat the blows are slightly weaker, but barely

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:06 am

I would be more insulted if you could spell or use proper grammar.

he properly refuted your entire argument and thats all you could add?

» Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:26 am

he properly refuted your entire argument and thats all you could add?

I'll prepare a medal ceremony right away.