124 réponses à ce sujet

[SheffSteel]

A lot of the arguments about dual-wield seem to be assuming that the two weapons are the same length. I think that the only times you'll use two identical weapons is at the start of the game (when you only have access to daggers) and towards the end (when you've spent a lot of talents) - for most of your playthrough you'll be using a longsword (or perhaps a mace) in the right hand and a dagger in the left.

I don't have crazy martial arts experience but I have spent some time swinging a broadsword, and (assuming you're strong enough not to have to use both hands to wield the sword) I do think it makes sense to hold a dagger in the off-hand.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 17 novembre 2009 - 10:23 .

[Shadow_Viper]

IFSW

[Jerhicco]

Considering the game doesnt take place in our universe, its not so farfetched to believe the universe the game takes place in has its own physics, in which case could make dual wielding not only easy and effective, but also the easiest and most effective.



simply put...its a fantasy in a fantasy land with fantastic fantasy features that flutter fully throughout fine demensions of finesse.



F word FTW?

[vhatever]

The best combination for melee combat, assuming decently armored opponents, is a shield and axe, especially a throwing axe(and a backup or two to replace it after you throw it).This is REAL combat, not that garbage asiaphile ninja fanatasy crap some dumb kids actually believe in.



Swords were mostly useless against medium and heavier armored opponents. They may have worked well in places where the armor sucked , but they were more ceremonial in places like europe where the armor/shields were much better. Maces, too, were more ceremonial than anything.



Dual wielding was mostly used with a shart, light offhand weapon that was used to either block/deflect or shank someone if you managed to get close and your other weapon hand was occupied in some capacity.



Two handed weapons, other than spears/polearms, were mostly useless in war. They are just too slow and the momentum after swinging it too difficult to manage. Maces and swords were more ceremonial than anything. Dual wielding was nearly non-exitant. You are far better off with a buckler or shield in your offhand than another bladed weapon in 99.999% of situations.



TLDR

Swords being effective in armord combat is a myth.

Dual wielding being effective is also myth.

[Tilron]

It is effective in our world to duel wield. People use two weapons. Its not easy but with practice it can be done. Two large weapons would be a problem but two daggers would be easy, try it at home with kitchen knifes. Its not that hard.



Second, You people that have a problem with "realism" in a video game need to get a life. ITS A VIDEO GAME. IT IS NOT REAL.

[Periodiko]

Tilron wrote...

Second, You people that have a problem with "realism" in a video game need to get a life. ITS A VIDEO GAME. IT IS NOT REAL.

That's a stupid thing to say, realism as a stylistic feature is as relevant as anything else.

I don't think people would appreciate it if you could throw fireballs in Call of Duty.

And anyway, I think the point that hasn't been stressed enough is that single-wielding (this doesn't even have a name does it?) looks cool as well. It's an even more iconic style than dual-wielding - I guarantee if you looked at depictions of heroic art, even including fantasy art, you'll find more guys wielding a single weapon than dual-wielding. That's what I find annoying - you can't make a sneaky bastard thief who shanks people, you have to make a dual-weapon berserker, you can't make a musketeer style duelist.

If single-weapon style did something, it should probably do things like allow greater mobility (reduce the chance of being flanked) allow you to switch between offensive and defensive styles, and be better for backstabbing than dual-wielding. A single weapon guy should be slightly better offensively than a sword/shield guy, but significantly weaker at defense, slightly better than a guy wielding a two-handed, and have more useful "dirty tricks" sort of abilities. Say, something like "disarm".

But hey we've got a toolset so we can do stuff like this right?

Modifié par Periodiko, 17 novembre 2009 - 11:06 .

[Tilron]

Call of Duty has no "realism" considering you can take more then a few bullets and live. Come on video games are not ment to have realism, they are ment to be enternment. Something to escape the day to day grind of RL.



Realism has no business in my video games.

[Periodiko]

Realism isn't the same thing as simulation. If you don't think "realism" isn't a selling point of the Call of Duty series, I don't know what to say. Hell, the health system in CoD (health regeneration) was created specifically because it led to a more natural flow of battle than back-tracking for medkits like in Doom or whatever.

[Darpaek]

Periodiko wrote...

Seriously? What could you possibly do with two knives that you couldn't with one? With a weapon as short as a knife, wouldn't you be far better off just using your other hand to grapple?

You could... NOT lose the fingers on your left hand?

I take it you've never been in a fist fight that didn't devolve into two adolescent boys rolling around on the ground?  Here's the scenario:  There's a guy across the room that is going to punch you.  You want to punch him first.  If you walk up to him and take a swing with one hand - and he's expecting it - you're not actually going to hit him with any efficacy.

You might as well ask, "Why don't boxers only use their right hand?"

Pro-tip:  Real life isn't a video game.  If the opportunity present itself to use your left hand to grapple, you don't have to pause and go into the inventory screen to disarm your off-hand.  You just have to drop the knife.

And you renfair dudes - don't you think there's a possibility that the sterile environment of simulated/play sword-fighting and everything that entails might favor gimmicky weapon styles over an actual battlefield or brawl?

And for that matter, don't you think "getting knocked on your ass" is sort of a secondary consideration when people are trying to use giant pointed pieces of metal to penetrate your organs?

Pro-tip:  It's easier to stick someone with a pointy piece of metal when they're lying on their back.

http://www.pennsicwar.org/penn39/

As per the "sterile-simulated renfair sword-fighting", I've seen battles lines involving hundreds of dudes in 80 lbs of steel plates.  I've seen a piece of rattan break bones through 10-gauge steel armor.  At the very least, your sterile, simulated bruises are more than sufficient incentive to fight as realistically as possible.

From my experience, given the option, I would actually almost always choose a spear if involved in open-terrain hand-to-hand armored combat.  Fantasy RPGs have never replicated this well.  Alexander conquered the world with long, pointy sticks.

[Darpaek]

Periodiko wrote...

That's what I find annoying - you can't make a sneaky bastard thief who shanks people, you have to make a dual-weapon berserker, you can't make a musketeer style duelist.

Interesting...

Did you know that one piece of standard-issued equipment for 18th century musketeers was a dagger called a "gauche."

Do you know what "gauche" means in french? =P

[seb__]

Realism has no business in my video games.

Agreed!
"You're going to backstim him? With a ballista? A ****in' siege weapon?"

[macayle]

Beertastic wrote...

to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).

not true unless you are talking about the typical fantasy version of two  broad swords.  Yes that would be non-practical.  However it was not that unusual during the middle ages for  someone to have an sword in their main hand and a small axe in their offhand  which was used to hook theri opponents shield with.  During the Renaissace the use of a main gauche was almost a prerequisite to survival. Additionaly, there are some illustated frighting manuals from that time period that demonstate the use of two foils at once

[Malcroix]

I'm quite p*ssed ATM (as in drunk) so will keep things short & simple.

Periodiko wrote...

Darpaek wrote...

Yeah right.

Some guy IRL comes at me with a knife and there's two knives sitting on the table next to me - I'm NOT going to pick up both of them?

Seriously? What could you possibly do with two knives that you couldn't with one? With a weapon as short as a knife, wouldn't you be far better off just using your other hand to grapple?

Dude! Why grapple when you can kill the SOB with the other knife??!

I mean come on!

And you renfair dudes

Not me, nope. Don't even have the concept of renfair in my country. Srsly.

don't you think there's a possibility that the sterile environment of simulated/play sword-fighting and everything that entails might favor gimmicky weapon styles over an actual battlefield or brawl?

LOL.

As in. LOL.

You've never actually seen a melee of two martial swordsmanship clubs? Steel weapons. Steel armor. NO SIMULATION. You go down when you feel that you can't take it anymore. Usually after a few blows to the head with a 3 kg steel longsword. Its about as close to actual battlefield as possible without actually killing people.

And for that matter, don't you think "getting knocked on your ass" is sort of a secondary consideration when people are trying to use giant pointed pieces of metal to penetrate your organs?

Yep, exactly what happens in a melee.

You know, we were never favourful of sabatons in our club.

But when ppl start to beat your feet with spear butts or tower shields, you're forced to use sabatons.

And getting knocked on ass generally means death. Because next step is longsword through the eyeslit.

Historically, peasant armies used halberds with hooks (flemish godendags etc.) to draw knights from horses. Or beat knights from horses. Once knight was lying on ground, peasants just killed him with knives.

[Malcroix]

macayle wrote...

Beertastic wrote...

to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).

not true unless you are talking about the typical fantasy version of two  broad swords.  Yes that would be non-practical. 

Not fantasy. Real life. U're talking to a practitioner here. Also, videos available on Inet.

[Malcroix]

Darpaek wrote...

Periodiko wrote...

That's what I find annoying - you can't make a sneaky bastard thief who shanks people, you have to make a dual-weapon berserker, you can't make a musketeer style duelist.

Interesting...

Did you know that one piece of standard-issued equipment for 18th century musketeers was a dagger called a "gauche."

Do you know what "gauche" means in french? =P

*rolleyes* it means "left".  I doubt anyone does not know that.

As to musketeer style duelist. Dudes. This game has a middle ages setting. No firearms. Ergo, no musketeers. Ergo, no duelists. Except the specialisation, which is actually pretty fine.

[Malcroix]

vhatever wrote...
TLDR
Swords being effective in armord combat is a myth.
Dual wielding being effective is also myth.

Utter crap.

Swords were extensively used all through middle ages and Renaissance.They are actually very effective against armor. Roman longsword is designed both to pierce armor and slash it at the joints.

Dual wielding is effective and is not a myth.

Grow up and do some actual stuff before acting all opinionated about things you never experienced and/or know nothing about.

[macayle]

Malcroix wrote...

macayle wrote...

Beertastic wrote...

to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).

not true unless you are talking about the typical fantasy version of two  broad swords.  Yes that would be non-practical. 

Not fantasy. Real life. U're talking to a practitioner here. Also, videos available on Inet.

Well my expericnace comes both from  studying medeval history, the practice and trainign in medeval weapons plus beloning to a fencing club when i lived in Germany  offhand was always a smaller lighter weapon for a reason.  I am sure their are rare instances of someone able to wield two broadswords with some ability.  However, it was and is not an effective form of fighting.  Alot of what you see now is a sword  in the offhand that is much lighter than the type used historical  though the use of lighter metals and constuction.

[Andyparky12]

I wouldnt mind seeing a 'single sword' tree for the warrior and rogue, something to do with having a perfectly balanced single sword that sits somewhere between the duel wielding and two handed trees.



Of course i understand this a completely pointless and useless suggestion, i just thought it would be nice thats all.

[Darpaek]

Malcroix wrote...

*rolleyes* it means "left".  I doubt anyone does not know that.

Hey buttmunch!  I'm on your side in this little Inet pissing contest!  My sarcasm was directed at our enemies - not at you! (You are soooo not invited to my next battle-line! LOL)

[vhatever]

Malcroix wrote...

vhatever wrote...
TLDR
Swords being effective in armord combat is a myth.
Dual wielding being effective is also myth.

Utter crap.

Swords were extensively used all through middle ages and Renaissance.They are actually very effective against armor. Roman longsword is designed both to pierce armor and slash it at the joints.

Dual wielding is effective and is not a myth.

Grow up and do some actual stuff before acting all opinionated about things you never experienced and/or know nothing about.

Swords suck against armored enemies, full stop. The end. The sword is a joke compared to an axe, particualrly an axe that can also be effectively thrown. The comic books you read do not qualify as medieval history, I'm affraid. Nor do your fantasy about Drizzit having Bruce lee's love child. An axe can easily shred heavy armor, a sword cannot, an axe can easily sweep the legs off horses, a sword cannot, an axe if properly made can, with some skill, be just as deadly as a bow and arrow up to about 25-30 yards away.  An axe can easily shatter shields and break shield arms, a sword cannot.

I'm not even going to get into dual wield, as anyone who knows anything knows that is complete fantasy. 

[mysticforce42]

If realism was a huge factor, the fights in game would very rarely come down to melee, considering that a decently made crossbow will punch through shield and breastplate without too much trouble from 50 yards away (most crossbows are lethal at 100+ yards).



One volley or two would basically reduce any enemy in the open to whimpering messes on the ground, unless 1) they out number your crossbowmen or 2) your crossbowmen aim very poorly.



But I digress...



Melee combat armaments depends on the period and region. Dual Wielding would be silly if used in the ancient Hellenic world where the phalanx ruled. In fact, it would not really work vs any heavily armored enemies en mass, especially if said enemy is wielding 20 foot spears in giant formations.



Dual Wielding is primarily a dueling discipline where participants are not wearing heavy armor in pretty much every culture from which it developed. The European example is perhaps the most familiar - there were vast differences in armament and battlefield effectiveness between an armored soldier using spear, bow or sword/board and a rapier-wielding duelist. 1 vs 1 comes down to individual skill... but if it's 1000 vs 1000 I think its a safe to say that everyone would bet on the soldiers.



Ancient Chinese foot soldiers wore light armor compared to their European counterparts. This is partly because of the aforementioned crossbow and its use since the 6 century BC, and partly because given the number of men fielded, full armor would have been prohibitively expensive. Hence, while a dual wield tradition developed in China among those who practically dedicated their lives to martial arts, the style still wasn't really used much on the battlefield between disciplined armies. Crossbows, bows, basic spear or sword/board infantry, cavalry and horse archers ruled there.



The Japanese also had a dual wielding culture, but then early Japanese warfare was basically a series of duels. It is not until the Mongol invasion in the 1300s that Japan finally experienced warfare as in other parts of the world. It is also worth mentioning that since iron is scarce in Japan, armor were especially light compared to the other parts of the world. I think it is safe to say that offense counted a lot more in a fight than defense on the ancient battlefields of Japan, and that would attribute to the relative popularity of dual wielding. I'd also like to point out that samurais were trained with the spear and bow in addition to the sword, and the katana was considered more of a last resort or dueling weapon until the 1700s.

[Orogun01]

mysticforce42 wrote...

The Japanese also had a dual wielding culture, but then early Japanese warfare was basically a series of duels. It is not until the Mongol invasion in the 1300s that Japan finally experienced warfare as in other parts of the world. It is also worth mentioning that since iron is scarce in Japan, armor were especially light compared to the other parts of the world. I think it is safe to say that offense counted a lot more in a fight than defense on the ancient battlefields of Japan, and that would attribute to the relative popularity of dual wielding. I'd also like to point out that samurais were trained with the spear and bow in addition to the sword, and the katana was considered more of a last resort or dueling weapon until the 1700s.

Are you saying that Musashi (greatest dueler ever) was wrong? Plus, dual wielding is about parrying your enemy main weapon, creating an opening. How is this not offensive method?

[RougeElf420]

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...

uly wrote...

No, not really.  Just that... am I the only one who thinks that there are too many dual wielders in DAO?

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient, and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master.  Of course, there are schools that specialise in dual weapon fighting, but even then the actual dual weapon fighting part are often reserved for advanced practitioners.

actually, when used properly, duel weapons or dual hand use or use of weapon and sheild are ALL counter intuitive, for that matter so is basic sword or movement with any weapon-

thats why its the only form of martial arts that doing kata/flurr\\\\ies is not inherently inefficient. but i digress.

use of "dual" weapon is common depending on the period and culture in question, use of a rapier and buckler, rapiear and dagger or rapier and cloack are all dual weilded-

early sword manuals such as the I:33 show use of the single handed longsword and buclker and the two are used and attack as one-

how a shield is meant to be used to complement and cover strikes- not a static guard as fantasy fiction movies typically depict. 

even george silver in his "paradoxes of defence" and "brief instructions on paradoxes of defence" recomends off hand weapon length.

NO QUESTION- people are overzealous about dual weilding in this game- quite honestly, they have to be, the game forces you to be- the rouge's only combat option aside from a mish mash collection of "dirty tricks" is in fact dual weilding or bow- so you have no other options to be a melee oriented rouge.

warrior characters who chose dual weild in dao ore more likely to be a fan of the fantasy use.

and given its popularity, thats the reason for it-

personally, i DON'T like it. i don't see why the benefits or something cant be built around sword and buckler as well or include spears or some other such in the game.

the main reason for the off hand in reailty is not the difficulty and use of it, there is much difficulty in two handed longsword grip as well since the pressure and winden (the bind) becomes even more important and is a whole different aspect that opens up deeper options, none of them really "natural" feeling and all learned.

- the thing is, that to carry around two swords, is not going to be as effective, as a sword and shield, or not deliver the natural power, range and leverage of a two handed longsword or greatsword (forget true zweihanders thats a totally different use entirely that has an even further distinction).

the problme here is that people just prefer this as a fantasy fiction favorite since it translates easily to game terms-

as far as two handed, they naturally focus on the laymen's idea of 2h = more power, thats generally true, but not for the reason a tyipical game developer would understand, its not an "i smash you more now", its an "i have more control to manipulate the leverage of a larger bigger ranged weapon"

- i think i went off on at least 5 tangents here- but basically whats real is not going to be whats in this game, otherwise we would see MUCH more detailed combat to the point of it ibeing as detail oriented as fight night 4, which would lose the attention of the vast majority of fandom out there who have no interest in the difference between pfluge, vom tag, ochs or alber guards. (as i'm sure your head is spinning now).

but just that dual weapon is a popular style among fans- personally i wish the rouge had more options, just like the warrior, so what if they are similar, maybe just cut out one line or make them less efficient (they are pretty close) in combat or make certain techniques in weapon and shield for example, relate to a buckler but deal damage with increased defence but still based on a main hand weapon attack-

i don't know- its just that what they did is very basic, and IMO it kind of has to be: dual weild = finesse, weapon and shield = defence, two handed = more damage- works for game terms, as much as i hate the oversimplification- it works.

WOW! Did anybody else notice that this guy just typed a short story for a forum reposne LAWL!

[1Parmenides]

I can see duel wielding with light weapons as being effective against exposed skin. Two light weapons can split skin nicely. Duel wielding is probably best used with a small dagger in the off hand. Anything longer would have to be light as well.

But I don't see how duel wielding can be very effective with two heavier weapons. The advantage with one weapon is that you can use focus the momentum of your whole body to bring extra force and speed to each swing. A heavier weapon will give better penetration.  And when I speak of "heaver weapons" I'm not just talking about greatswords, but also a normal one handed long sword or arming sword.
I'll just say this. If my foe was wearing medium/heavy armor, I'd pick the single heavier weapon to try to penetrate/bash him. You certainly are going to be hard pressed to sever limbs with duel wielding.

And if we ever had Ninjas severing limbs through armor, they would have done it with two hands on one hilt. More realistically, ninjas are assassins. They catch open skin by surprise and guise. A "duel wielding ninja army" would get hosed in the open battles, especially against armored troops with archers behind them.

Duel wielding is for the informal fights when your oponent has exposed skin.  I will say that a dagger off hand won't ruin much for the body's economy of motion and momentum. 

Modifié par 1Parmenides, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:48 .