Dual wield for knives, daggers, etc.

[MZ3K]

Assuming all the numbers could be balanced, dual wield characters might be an interesting addition.They would hit more frequently and so would make interesting anti-mage characters. If a dual wield skill were required to use two weapons effectively, it would pair well with poisoning, which could make for another viable character build and add some more variety.

 

[Deadpool]

Do you have a shitty suggestion quota to meet or something, @MZ3K?

 

[MZ3K]

Do you have a shitty suggestion quota to meet or something, @MZ3K?

I can't say that wasn't funny.

But what's shitty about dual wield?

 

[Deadpool]

I can't say that wasn't funny.

But what's shitty about dual wield?

Since you took what I said in stride, knowing I like to mess with people, I'll be nice!

I just don't really see the point. Knives and daggers don't really cause any damage. It doesn't really make sense to add to them. They're not really meant to be actual combat weapons. And to apply it to all weapons would make things become way too overpowered. Imagine duel poisoned war forks or something with deadly poison. Just would be too much.

 

[MZ3K]

to apply it to all weapons would make things become way too overpowered.

Yeah I agree.

Knives and daggers don't really cause any damage

The damage on those weapons could be boosted enough so that two of them would be viable, but one still wouldn't be.
Or
The damage on those weapons could be enhanced by a dual wield skill.

I just don't really see the point.

Realism, template variety, entertainment.

Realism: Fighting with two swords doesn't really work, but fighting with two daggers/knives does. Evidence: Fighting with two daggers was taught in medieval martial arts. Raphael uses two sais, and sais are pretty much daggers.

Template variety: If dual wield were a skill, it'd add at least one, and probably a few, more viable templates.

Entertainment: I just like the idea of coming at someone with two cleavers.

 

[halygon]

Yeah I agree.




The damage on those weapons could be boosted enough so that two of them would be viable, but one still wouldn't be.
Or
The damage on those weapons could be enhanced by a dual wield skill.



Realism, template variety, entertainment.

Realism: Fighting with two swords doesn't really work, but fighting with two daggers/knives does. Evidence: Fighting with two daggers was taught in medieval martial arts. Raphael uses two sais, and sais are pretty much daggers.

Template variety: If dual wield were a skill, it'd add at least one, and probably a few, more viable templates.

Entertainment: I just like the idea of coming at someone with two cleavers.

Isn't Raphael an artist? Or did you mean the ninja turtle?

I think that this would need to be flushed out quite a bit more by you and also show staff and other players how this would benefit the shard if implemented. Changes of this sort are usually frowned upon due to being completely out of sync with what is accepted in a pre-AOS UO shard like UOF.

 

[MZ3K]

Isn't Raphael an artist? Or did you mean the ninja turtle?

The ninja turtle.

I think that this would need to be flushed out quite a bit more by you and also show staff and other players how this would benefit the shard if implemented. Changes of this sort are usually frowned upon due to being completely out of sync with what is accepted in a pre-AOS UO shard like UOF.

Noted.

 

[Trojandrew]

what if it was limited to those small items (knives/daggers) but on you offhand dmg was reduced by like 50%, but at gm duelweilding. any poison you applied to duel had a % chance to activate all its dmg at once. the higher the poison the lower the chance to activate with damage being capped / not applicable to lethal poison

 

[Bromista]

Lol my inb4 comment got deleted.

I guess it would have been kosher if I pointed out the myriad of reasons why this is a bad idea.

That's some Samurai Empire shit and suffice it to say it does not belong on a UO:R based server.

 

[Trojandrew]

That's some Samurai Empire shit and suffice it to say it does not belong on a UO:R based server.

ya because you never see anyone in the renaissance duel wield anything

 

[Tantreghan]

what if it was limited to those small items (knives/daggers) but on you offhand dmg was reduced by like 50%, but at gm duelweilding. any poison you applied to duel had a % chance to activate all its dmg at once. the higher the poison the lower the chance to activate with damage being capped / not applicable to lethal poison

This is sort of what I was thinking. I think the op has a neat idea, but with reg weps like kryss, Kat etc to much power. Daggers etc never really get used so maybe being able to just equip them as dual would be ok. Maybe increase swing speed as dual wield skill gets better so it does as much or close to a reg wep, make chance to poison less so etc. fun idea to play around with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MZ3K]

@halygon

Proposal:

• Create a dual wield skill
• Any character whose melee skill is greater than x can equip a small weapon (knife, dagger, cleaver, etc.) in their LH.
• Whenever a player fights with a weapon in each hand the dual wield skill (DW) increases.
• The lower of the melee skill and DW determines the player's chance to hit with the LH weapon.
• The lower of the parry skill and DW determines the player's chance to parry with the LH weapon. (Optional)

If testing were to reveal that a regular weapon in the RH and a small weapon in the LH were over-powered, then

• appropriately reduce the damage done by weapons when both the RH and LH are equipped, or
• permit a small weapon in the LH only when a small weapon is also in the RH.

If testing were to reveal that a small weapon in each hand were under-powered, then

• appropriately increase the damage done by small weapons , or
• create a special move whose use would require that the player have two small weapons equipped.

Regarding templates:

Two free hands are needed to cast, one free hand is needed to use pots. This would preclude magery and alchemy from templates with dual wield. I've already stated that melee would be a prerequisite for dual wield. I think it's fair to assume that tactics, resist, and (to a lesser extent) anatomy, are must-haves for any melee fighter. As such, viable dual wield templates would include five skills:

• Tactics
• Melee weapon
• Dual wield
• Resist
• Anatomy

That leaves room for two more skills. There are three fighting skills that a player might want to add to that template:

• Healing
• Parrying
• Poisoning

Regarding poisoning:

Poisoning increases the chance to poison on a hit from 20% to 40%. On the face of it, the combination of dual wield and poisoning seems to have the greatest potential to result in an OP template. However, I don't think that the combination would be as OP as it might seem at first blush:

First, dual wielders wouId not hit twice as often: Given a fight between GM fighters, there is a 50% chance that any one swing will hit its target. Consequently, during the time it takes for a single wielder to swing once, the dual wielder would have a 25% chance of hitting his opponent twice and a 50% chance of hitting his opponent exactly once. Therefore, if there is a 40% chance to poison on a hit with GM poisoning, then the single wielder's chance to poison on one swing is 20%; whereas the dual wielder's chance to poison during the same amount of time would be 36%.

Moreover, if a player were to include poisoning in her template, she would have to forgo either healing or parrying (assuming that the ability to parry with the LH weapon were included in the implementation). Given that the dual wielder can't equip a shield, if she were to forgo parrying, she would sacrifice a great deal of defense. However, if she were to forgo healing instead, she would forgo all opportunities to regenerate that would not require her to de-equip and re-equip.




Extra historical stuff:

During the renaissance, dual wielding two daggers, or a dagger and a rapier, was a popular fighting style. Generally, the dagger was used to parry blows, but it also provided extra attack options.

 

[Bromista]

ya because you never see anyone in the renaissance duel wield anything

Props for the GITS avatar.

No props for feeling like real-life era accurate weapons mechanics should be inserted into UOF though. Don't be silly.

 

[Trojandrew]

@Bromista this is a Suggestions and Ideas thread. No need to bash an idea b/c you don't like it. and just because it wasn't in UO:R doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. many things were brought over from different times in UO history to make this shard unique.

if you aren't contributing a valid thought or idea whether helpful, constructive or critiquing then its just spam.

so point out your myriad of ideas of why it wouldn't work so the idea can be brought to fruition

Good day sir

 

[Bromista]

Well, to be frank all that needed to be said was said. But if you would like I can elaborate some more.

Does staff need more on their plate regarding PvP mechanics? Absolutely not, there are enough things that need tweaked and balanced as it is. Creating an entirely new skill that has never existed would be a mistake. If you'll take notice, everything that is custom to UOF is based on something that has already been present in the game. No need to deviate from this model.

It is true that stagnation is death and that goes especially for a free version of such an old game. But whipping things up that require rigorous testing (something that is especially taxing on an already shorthanded staff compared to the production version of this game) is not the way to go about it.

Suggestions like this are asking for trouble. The net result of this thread will be a clear indication of that. The path ahead is very clear, at least to me, but this isn't my first rodeo and I understand if some of the more fresh blood here may not see that with the same eyes that I do. This idea will not see fruition in any way, shape, or form.

I will say what I said in the last disaster thread the OP created. I admire the passion but please drop this before it gets drug out any further.

Will that suffice? Or should I just quote deadpool's first reply?

I guess he contributed more than me since he's not under attack for spamming or not being constructive enough.

e] shrugs

 

[MZ3K]

Well, to be frank all that needed to be said was said. But if you would like I can elaborate some more.

Does staff need more on their plate regarding PvP mechanics? Absolutely not, there are enough things that need tweaked and balanced as it is. Creating an entirely new skill that has never existed would be a mistake. If you'll take notice, everything that is custom to UOF is based on something that has already been present in the game. No need to deviate from this model.

It is true that stagnation is death and that goes especially for a free version of such an old game. But whipping things up that require rigorous testing (something that is especially taxing on an already shorthanded staff compared to the production version of this game) is not the way to go about it.

Suggestions like this are asking for trouble. The net result of this thread will be a clear indication of that. The path ahead is very clear, at least to me, but this isn't my first rodeo and I understand if some of the more fresh blood here may not see that with the same eyes that I do. This idea will not see fruition in any way, shape, or form.

I will say what I said in the last disaster thread the OP created. I admire the passion but please drop this before it gets drug out any further.

Will that suffice? Or should I just quote deadpool's first reply?

I guess he contributed more than me since he's not under attack for spamming or not being constructive enough.

e] shrugs

You didn't say anything other than

1. 'the staff can't handle the change',
2. 'this is asking for trouble', and
3. 'change is important, but this isn't the right one'.

The third point is any different than the second, and the second isn't any different than hissing at the idea.

The first point is something that the staff can decide for themselves.

 

[Bromista]

Said by Haly, not necessarily by myself but I pretty much covered it.

Look at the language in this link. It's atrocious.
http://www.uoguide.com/Dual_Wield

Note that we already have double strike here. We have enough of this kind of extra content.

Is this supposed to work in PvP as well as PvM?

Why?
Joined:
Nov 29, 2015

Why?

Why?

Priorities.

 

[MZ3K]

Look at the language in this link. It's atrocious.
http://www.uoguide.com/Dual_Wield

Do you read posts before you comment, or do you just read the titles?
I didn't suggest anything like what's written in that link.

Note that we already have double strike here.

If you are saying that dual wield and double strike are more or less the same, then the balancing that you fretted about in your previous post shouldn't be an issue. Moreover, if they are that similar, then dual weild would just be a mostly aesthetic enhancement to something that already exists, and if that's the case, then it wouldn't really require any effort to implement and would be an easy improvement that would add to the freedom that players enjoy.

I don't think what I've suggested is anything like double strike. The DW I proposed would require sacrificing a skill as well as the ability to use shields and potions.

Is this supposed to work in PvP as well as PvM?.

Yes.

Why?
Joined:
Nov 29, 2015

That's not really a question. I'm not sure why you included 'why' before my forum join date, so I'll ignore it and assume you're implying that I started playing UO:F three weeks ago, and that, consequently, I don't know enough to suggest anything.

Both parts of that are false: I began playing months before I joined the forum. Moreover, the mechanics of UO:F aren't so different from the mechanics I played with during 1998-2000. If they were that different, then that would severely weaken your appeal to the fidelity of the relation between UO:F and UO:R.

Why?

Why?

This reads like you're having a fit. Again, read what you're replying to; I already provided reasons for implementing dual wield.

Priorities.

I.e. 'we should focus on priorities and this shouldn't be one of them'?

I could just as well say that it should be. Include an argument for your claims.


In sum:

Read what you're replying to.
Include arguments for your reply.
Repetition isn't an argument.

 

[Bromista]

Sup

I would suggest first familiarizing yourself with this sever before making any further posts in the suggestions forums. Just a thought.

 

[wreckognize]

@Bromista this is a Suggestions and Ideas thread. No need to bash an idea b/c you don't like it. and just because it wasn't in UO:R doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. many things were brought over from different times in UO history to make this shard unique.

if you aren't contributing a valid thought or idea whether helpful, constructive or critiquing then its just spam.

so point out your myriad of ideas of why it wouldn't work so the idea can be brought to fruition

Good day sir

Bromista plays a tamer bard, he just doesn't want anything to kill him because he gets really angry any time he dies. How is he going to recall from PvP if people are distracting that quickly? He can't, not without wrestling which he dropped for musicianship. So he's literally trolling for his life.