Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Every item gives stats, how do you mean to get more defensive stats other than with another shield?
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Every item gives stats, how do you mean to get more defensive stats other than with another shield?
Armor. Buffs.
But even if you are just using a shield as another stat stick and completely ignoring the actual block mechanic, you are still in that position where no one will attack you, because why would they?
Even Steven said it's not dumb, chess not checkers
Reason he is open to all of these ideas is that the game is not in public alpha/beta yet. So he doesn't want to hurt people like you that have such hopes for the game to not turn around and stop waiting for Ashes. However from all actual information about the game it seems the game would go against itself if such ideas were implemented
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Every item gives stats, how do you mean to get more defensive stats other than with another shield?
Armor. Buffs.
But even if you are just using a shield as another stat stick and completely ignoring the actual block mechanic, you are still in that position where no one will attack you, because why would they?
Even Steven said it's not dumb, chess not checkers
Reason he is open to all of these ideas is that the game is not in public alpha/beta yet. So he doesn't want to hurt people like you that have such hopes for the game to not turn around and stop waiting for Ashes. However from all actual information about the game it seems the game would go against itself if such ideas were implemented
That may be the case, but still he can change his mind, and we are doing all we can so it can happen. Stay positive
I'd say calling people's ideas stupid is also a personal attack, just as calling people thicc headed, so how about we all just calm down a little bit? No need for that kind of toxicity.
Weapon swapping will be a thing, and when sieging a caste/node/whatever, you have to break through the front lines first before a sword can even be useful. The best scenario for dual wielding shields I can think of is when the tank(s) are at the front lines, trying to push through. If holding two shields adds more block than any shield+weapon combo (and it should), I think that choice should be left up to the tanks.
When the siege has broken through the walls and pushed through the front ranks of the enemies, it makes sense to then switch to a weapon for more damage.
And for the paraphrased argument, "You're dual wielding shields, you can't deal me dmg, I'm going somewhere else"... I would think that would be an argument in the attackers favor. The person dual wielding shields, in the attackers eyes, is making themselves ineffectual in PvP combat. Wouldn't that be a free kill then? Why not let the person hamstring themselves?
And yes, dual wielding shields could very well begin to look .... silly to say the least, and break immersion. That's a valid point, indeed. Just because it could be done doesn't mean it should.
Dual wielding shields might be, at best, a very niche part of the game. If there was any class that could do it, it would be a guardian (Tank/Tank).
Now I do think that a person dual wielding shields should be the absolute lowest DPS in the game. There should be no attack damage inherently associated with a shield, so any spells that rely on the weapons attack damage would be basically useless. And even basic attacks... I'm not sure a shield should be allowed to have a regular basic attack, either. That would require extra coding for only a very small subset of players who might actually use a shield to attack with.
Personally, I like the idea of dual shields, if it's done right. At the moment, though, I just don't think it's right for the game. If the abilities on the wiki for tanks is any indication, tanks are going to be expected to wield, at most, one shield. And that might be for the best.
Well more shields more defense, we will survive longer, meaning more cc, we can w8 our cd to come back up, again u get cc-ed
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Every item gives stats, how do you mean to get more defensive stats other than with another shield?
Armor. Buffs.
But even if you are just using a shield as another stat stick and completely ignoring the actual block mechanic, you are still in that position where no one will attack you, because why would they?
Sounds good to me, cuz I'll attack you
good, the only thing I will fear from you is being stunned (dont know if diminishing returns are going to be a thing for cc) and to have partially blocked vision from your ingame character
That may be the case, but still he can change his mind, and we are doing all we can so it can happen. Stay positive
If this is what your goal is, then you need to actually address basic questions like - why would a player swap out their weapon for a second shield?
You also need to address things like ranged classes - since the ranged slot is it's own thing, a player could use a bow and two shields as standard.
Then you have mages. If tanks can cast CC with two shields, mages should have no casting restrictions either. It should go without saying that a caster with two shields and the ability to still cast would be somewhat overpowered.
I'd say calling people's ideas stupid is also a personal attack
It is an attack on an idea, not on a person. That is a major difference.
Attacks on ideas are what we call "debate", and calling an idea stupid may not be eloquent, but it is debate - calling someones idea stupid is an invitation to the person that had the idea to change the mind of the person calling said idea stupid.
So far, no one has even attempted to do that in any real way.
I understand, but just go look on the wiki on the weapon concept art. All the weapons seem to keep realistic medieval proportions and even the big twohanders keep its thickness to a minimum to mimic realistic weight for practical use (even for amped up adventurers).
From all these official resources on weapons it seems really far fetched for shield dual wielding be a combat possibility. However I would not be against to have the possibility to equip two shields for showing off the looks to others. However with no loophole for it to be combat effective
That may be the case, but still he can change his mind, and we are doing all we can so it can happen. Stay positive
If this is what your goal is, then you need to actually address basic questions like - why would a player swap out their weapon for a second shield?
You also need to address things like ranged classes - since the ranged slot is it's own thing, a player could use a bow and two shields as standard.
Then you have mages. If tanks can cast CC with two shields, mages should have no casting restrictions either. It should go without saying that a caster with two shields and the ability to still cast would be somewhat overpowered.
Didnt they say that we wont be able to swap weapons during pvp, so there is that
I know it's fantasy and all but for those arguing for it and countering the opposition by essentially saying, "It's fantasy, magic, other stuff doesn't make sense, no point in arguing realism."
Sometimes you shouldn't boil everything down to principle and extrapolate from there.
Conversely, there are times where you have to look at things/ideas simply for what they are: two gah dam shields.
Btw calling ideas stupid is the only way to progress or finish some debates. Calling flatearth belief stupid is objectively from any point of view correct move. People should not be married to ideas, because no idea is ever perfect and people should evolve so calling ideas stupid is totally appropriate.
This doesn't mean that this should be dominant interaction, but calling ideas stupid has its rightful place.
It is an attack on an idea, not on a person. That is a major difference.
Attacks on ideas are what we call "debate", and calling an idea stupid may not be eloquent, but it is debate - calling someones idea stupid is an invitation to the person that had the idea to change the mind of the person calling said idea stupid.
So far, no one has even attempted to do that in any real way.
Calling someones idea stupid is not an invitation to debate, it's an invitation to heated arguments where neither side tries to actually debate the topic at hand, and instead devolves into name calling. Just use your arguments for/against the ideas, and leave that kind of language out of it. I truly believe you're better than that.
And if you truly believe that no one has even attempted to try and change your mind in any real way, then I would have to believe you really aren't reading the actual debate going on here. If you've made up your mind and can't be swayed, then that's fine. Really, that's fine! But calling ideas stupid isn't helpful in a debate.
@Shaladoor
Btw calling ideas stupid is the only way to progress or finish some debates. Calling flatearth belief stupid is objectively from any point of view correct move. People should not be married to ideas, because no idea is ever perfect and people should evolve so calling ideas stupid is totally appropriate.
This doesn't mean that this should be dominant interaction, but calling ideas stupid has its rightful place.
Flatearth arguments are considered stupid in modern times because its an argument about SCIENCE and FACTS. This thread isn't about science or facts, but about personal preferences and the idea of dual wielding shields in an online game. It's not an objective topic, but a subjective one, and both sides of the argument are allowed to have their views on the topic and both sides are correct in having those views and arguments. In the end, the argument is whether or not you find these ideas fun in a video game. You may believe differently from other people, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to say their ideas are stupid.
I don't believe calling the other side "stupid" in a debate is ever helpful. It never progresses the debate and will never help change someones mind. It may end the debate, but only after things devolve into name calling and everyone just shuts down and moves on, disgusted by the toxicity of everyone involved.
Calling someones idea stupid is not an invitation to debate, it's an invitation to heated arguments where neither side tries to actually debate the topic at hand, and instead devolves into name calling. Just use your arguments for/against the ideas, and leave that kind of language out of it. I truly believe you're better than that.
And if you truly believe that no one has even attempted to try and change your mind in any real way, then I would have to believe you really aren't reading the actual debate going on here. If you've made up your mind and can't be swayed, then that's fine. Really, that's fine! But calling ideas stupid isn't helpful in an honest debate.
Take a little bit of context with your obnoxiousness please.
You may well note that the post you are citing here was the first reply in this thread. The OP of the thread did not propose any suggestion, they merely said that others had talked about it.
As such, I didn't have anyone here to form a debate with, all that was present was the idea of duel wielding shields, which is a stupid idea.
Since at the time of that post there was no one advocating this stance posting in this thread, there was literally no one that I could have been attacking. There was literally nothing other than an idea, which I was clearly attacking.
Now, if you read the rest of the thread (and the other thread that - for no apparant reason hasn't been merged in to this one yet) after others posted their thoughts, you would see that discussion is indeed what followed.
You really shouldn't be so quick to jump to a holier than thou posture.
I mean, feel free to appologize if you want, but maybe just pay more attention next time.
Edit - and as to whether I came in to this discussion with an opinion already formed - of course I did. This is not the first time this discussion has been had in relation to this game. Intrepid made comments on duel wielding shields three years ago.
So yes, I have had this discussion, I have formed an opinion on it, and I will enter this topid with that opinion already formed. However, if someone is able to provide something compelling enough, of course I would reconsider my opinion on the matter - that is exactly how opinions should be.
I can't find anything in the wiki saying there will be class restrictions on what types of weapons can be wielded. I think they want that kind of free choice to exist in the game. With that in mind, if one class can dual wield shields, then all classes would be able to. And a mage dual wielding shields and freecasting just seems... odd, to say the least. Too gimmicky.
My ideas on dual-wielding shields is that it could be good in the right place, but that place isn't AoC. And in the wiki, it specifically says no to dual wielding shields.
But this topic isn't about dual wielding shields, but rather having a 2-h shield.
Nah. Pass. I just don't think that fits, either.
Using 2 hands to hold a shield makes sense if you're a tank using a specific shield ability to block huge attacks, and then only if it's for a short period of time.
But running around with a giant 2-h shield, and only a 2-h shield? Hard pass.
@Shaladoor
I agree that starting the debate with calling something stupid is not the correct move, however after the presentation of reasons, implications and consequences it is totally ok and natural to call some parts stupid. That doesn't mean that the person that came up with it is stupid. It just means that the idea is not thought out to the necessary extent and in the sight of more information.
This is what I found in an online dictionary for the word "stupid" and its meaning when talking about objects (an idea is an object not a person)
tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless:
a stupid party.
annoying or irritating; troublesome:
Turn off that stupid radio.
An idea can be objectively stupid when it is in relation to something else. Doesn't mean that the idea is stupid in relation to other things.
This is what debates are about, to present ideas and through debate about its relations to other ideas in the debate area/theme to find out if they are stupid or not. If you cannot call ideas stupid then there cannot be any evolution of thought and ideas, because ideas are abandoned or changed only if its context picture is deemed stupid.
If you change your mind on something, you automatically declare your previous idea stupid, because you abandoned it due to the lack of sense for the context you were using it.
Why not just some big rock or log like its a makeshift weapon but it’s just a weak ass 2 handed it acts as a double shield instead of holding 2 shields and dancing around
Comments
But that additional defense will only allow you to live longer if someone is attacking you.
You will get the exact same benefit from simply leaving your main hand empty - people will just ignore you, meaning you will survive longer.
Lmfao did that hurt feelings?
hahah you are funny
If you have two tower shields next to each other than you have literally the same protection as with one tower shield, because tower shield is designed to cover your whole body. If you can cover your body against someone twice makes no difference if you can cover it once.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
You could literally use the same argument for wanting two engines in a regular car so you could drive better and further.
― Plato
Im not talking about logic in irl, im talking about it in game
Doesn't matter if it did or not, personal attacks are not ok.
Even using game logic it doesn't make sense.
The game has active blocking - at least in part. You can only actively block one thing at a time.
Every item gives stats, how do you mean to get more defensive stats other than with another shield?
Even Steven said it's not dumb, chess not checkers
Armor. Buffs.
But even if you are just using a shield as another stat stick and completely ignoring the actual block mechanic, you are still in that position where no one will attack you, because why would they?
Reason he is open to all of these ideas is that the game is not in public alpha/beta yet. So he doesn't want to hurt people like you that have such hopes for the game to not turn around and stop waiting for Ashes. However from all actual information about the game it seems the game would go against itself if such ideas were implemented
― Plato
Sounds good to me, cuz I'll attack you
That may be the case, but still he can change his mind, and we are doing all we can so it can happen. Stay positive
I'd say calling people's ideas stupid is also a personal attack, just as calling people thicc headed, so how about we all just calm down a little bit? No need for that kind of toxicity.
Weapon swapping will be a thing, and when sieging a caste/node/whatever, you have to break through the front lines first before a sword can even be useful. The best scenario for dual wielding shields I can think of is when the tank(s) are at the front lines, trying to push through. If holding two shields adds more block than any shield+weapon combo (and it should), I think that choice should be left up to the tanks.
When the siege has broken through the walls and pushed through the front ranks of the enemies, it makes sense to then switch to a weapon for more damage.
And for the paraphrased argument, "You're dual wielding shields, you can't deal me dmg, I'm going somewhere else"... I would think that would be an argument in the attackers favor. The person dual wielding shields, in the attackers eyes, is making themselves ineffectual in PvP combat. Wouldn't that be a free kill then? Why not let the person hamstring themselves?
And yes, dual wielding shields could very well begin to look .... silly to say the least, and break immersion. That's a valid point, indeed. Just because it could be done doesn't mean it should.
Dual wielding shields might be, at best, a very niche part of the game. If there was any class that could do it, it would be a guardian (Tank/Tank).
Now I do think that a person dual wielding shields should be the absolute lowest DPS in the game. There should be no attack damage inherently associated with a shield, so any spells that rely on the weapons attack damage would be basically useless. And even basic attacks... I'm not sure a shield should be allowed to have a regular basic attack, either. That would require extra coding for only a very small subset of players who might actually use a shield to attack with.
Personally, I like the idea of dual shields, if it's done right. At the moment, though, I just don't think it's right for the game. If the abilities on the wiki for tanks is any indication, tanks are going to be expected to wield, at most, one shield. And that might be for the best.
good, the only thing I will fear from you is being stunned (dont know if diminishing returns are going to be a thing for cc) and to have partially blocked vision from your ingame character
― Plato
If this is what your goal is, then you need to actually address basic questions like - why would a player swap out their weapon for a second shield?
You also need to address things like ranged classes - since the ranged slot is it's own thing, a player could use a bow and two shields as standard.
Then you have mages. If tanks can cast CC with two shields, mages should have no casting restrictions either. It should go without saying that a caster with two shields and the ability to still cast would be somewhat overpowered.
Attacks on ideas are what we call "debate", and calling an idea stupid may not be eloquent, but it is debate - calling someones idea stupid is an invitation to the person that had the idea to change the mind of the person calling said idea stupid.
So far, no one has even attempted to do that in any real way.
From all these official resources on weapons it seems really far fetched for shield dual wielding be a combat possibility. However I would not be against to have the possibility to equip two shields for showing off the looks to others. However with no loophole for it to be combat effective
― Plato
Didnt they say that we wont be able to swap weapons during pvp, so there is that
Sometimes you shouldn't boil everything down to principle and extrapolate from there.
Conversely, there are times where you have to look at things/ideas simply for what they are: two gah dam shields.
Seems like a ridiculous idea to me.
Btw calling ideas stupid is the only way to progress or finish some debates. Calling flatearth belief stupid is objectively from any point of view correct move. People should not be married to ideas, because no idea is ever perfect and people should evolve so calling ideas stupid is totally appropriate.
This doesn't mean that this should be dominant interaction, but calling ideas stupid has its rightful place.
― Plato
Calling someones idea stupid is not an invitation to debate, it's an invitation to heated arguments where neither side tries to actually debate the topic at hand, and instead devolves into name calling. Just use your arguments for/against the ideas, and leave that kind of language out of it. I truly believe you're better than that.
And if you truly believe that no one has even attempted to try and change your mind in any real way, then I would have to believe you really aren't reading the actual debate going on here. If you've made up your mind and can't be swayed, then that's fine. Really, that's fine! But calling ideas stupid isn't helpful in a debate.
Flatearth arguments are considered stupid in modern times because its an argument about SCIENCE and FACTS. This thread isn't about science or facts, but about personal preferences and the idea of dual wielding shields in an online game. It's not an objective topic, but a subjective one, and both sides of the argument are allowed to have their views on the topic and both sides are correct in having those views and arguments. In the end, the argument is whether or not you find these ideas fun in a video game. You may believe differently from other people, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to say their ideas are stupid.
I don't believe calling the other side "stupid" in a debate is ever helpful. It never progresses the debate and will never help change someones mind. It may end the debate, but only after things devolve into name calling and everyone just shuts down and moves on, disgusted by the toxicity of everyone involved.
Let's not be that kind of toxic community.
You may well note that the post you are citing here was the first reply in this thread. The OP of the thread did not propose any suggestion, they merely said that others had talked about it.
As such, I didn't have anyone here to form a debate with, all that was present was the idea of duel wielding shields, which is a stupid idea.
Since at the time of that post there was no one advocating this stance posting in this thread, there was literally no one that I could have been attacking. There was literally nothing other than an idea, which I was clearly attacking.
Now, if you read the rest of the thread (and the other thread that - for no apparant reason hasn't been merged in to this one yet) after others posted their thoughts, you would see that discussion is indeed what followed.
You really shouldn't be so quick to jump to a holier than thou posture.
I mean, feel free to appologize if you want, but maybe just pay more attention next time.
Edit - and as to whether I came in to this discussion with an opinion already formed - of course I did. This is not the first time this discussion has been had in relation to this game. Intrepid made comments on duel wielding shields three years ago.
So yes, I have had this discussion, I have formed an opinion on it, and I will enter this topid with that opinion already formed. However, if someone is able to provide something compelling enough, of course I would reconsider my opinion on the matter - that is exactly how opinions should be.
My ideas on dual-wielding shields is that it could be good in the right place, but that place isn't AoC. And in the wiki, it specifically says no to dual wielding shields.
But this topic isn't about dual wielding shields, but rather having a 2-h shield.
Nah. Pass. I just don't think that fits, either.
Using 2 hands to hold a shield makes sense if you're a tank using a specific shield ability to block huge attacks, and then only if it's for a short period of time.
But running around with a giant 2-h shield, and only a 2-h shield? Hard pass.
I agree that starting the debate with calling something stupid is not the correct move, however after the presentation of reasons, implications and consequences it is totally ok and natural to call some parts stupid. That doesn't mean that the person that came up with it is stupid. It just means that the idea is not thought out to the necessary extent and in the sight of more information.
This is what I found in an online dictionary for the word "stupid" and its meaning when talking about objects (an idea is an object not a person)
An idea can be objectively stupid when it is in relation to something else. Doesn't mean that the idea is stupid in relation to other things.
This is what debates are about, to present ideas and through debate about its relations to other ideas in the debate area/theme to find out if they are stupid or not. If you cannot call ideas stupid then there cannot be any evolution of thought and ideas, because ideas are abandoned or changed only if its context picture is deemed stupid.
If you change your mind on something, you automatically declare your previous idea stupid, because you abandoned it due to the lack of sense for the context you were using it.
― Plato