So...in corruption, if you dropped one weapon would you drop both in dual wielding or would you drop the main hand weapon each time? Seems like a high chore for dual wield. We'll see how effective dual wield will be.
Right? Idk - sounds like if they are linked you would either 1) drop both, or 2) drop one and the other cannot be wielded?
It's an awkward idea, and I'm quite confused as to the upside.
But where did L2 got this concept from?
My guess is that the game had a dedicated weapon slot and a shield slot.
And this binding was a programing trick to make the 2nd single handed weapon look as if is being placed into the shield slot. But actually was like a 2 handed weapon.
Dunno where it came from originally, but yeah, it was a "one handed + shield slots" (or just two-handed weapon), so duals would take up both hands.
Feels like Steven just went with the same design, rather than trying to build the entire game's combat around the ability to have 2 completely separate weapons with separate effects and with separate passives for said weapons.
Also being implemented this way, shield dual wielding is automatically excluded because there is no 2 handed shield in the game.
Not quite sure why 2-handed shields matter here. Theoretically Intrepid could still let us combine 2 shields as a duals.
1) initially games go with the simple basic approach of 1 weapon in right hand slot and 1 shield in left hand slot.
2) then they say some weapons are so big that you cannot hold a shield.
3) In L2 it seems it was more convenient to transform the two 1-handed weapons into one 2-handed weapon but still present them as a dual wield. Maybe a programmer suggested this solution.
In L2, to get two shields, one in each hand, it would have been necessary to exist the concept of a big heavy shield which must be held with 2 hands.
That's my guess.
While is not realistic, from game mechanic perspective, I find it interesting to face the player with the decision of giving away 2 x 1h weapons to merge them into a new 1 x 2h combined weapon.
So if Steven likes the concept, he goes with it even though theoretically could be different.
1
Options
ApokMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
could this also a way of keeping people from dual wielding certain unique one handed weapons, kind of like limiting dual wielding to crafted or common items and completely disclude uniques outside of ones we might find in the wild
could this also a way of keeping people from dual wielding certain unique one handed weapons, kind of like limiting dual wielding to crafted or common items and completely disclude uniques outside of ones we might find in the wild
I'd expect those uniques to simply combine with other weapons to create a dual weapon. The duals would still be considered unique, cause they have a unique item in them, so you're not losing anything on that front. But the question of "do special effects of single weapons go away when you make a duals" still stands.
So...in corruption, if you dropped one weapon would you drop both in dual wielding or would you drop the main hand weapon each time? Seems like a high chore for dual wield. We'll see how effective dual wield will be.
u should drop the whole thing. the dual wielded weapon is just basically a 2 handed weapon but it looks like you are wielding something in each hand
After having watched the AMA, my best guess, and it is only a guess, I still think the main purpose is to simplify the proc component of having two weapons. Dual wielding has its own weapon tree to spec into, all the basic attacks perks while dual wielding will come from that tree, regardless of how the individual weapon are spec'ed in their own respective tree.
Not sure what's the need for the extra step of "permanently" joining the weapons though.
Shields have no weapon tree of their own, they're part of the universal stamina base abilities (dodge, block, sprint, ...) that was also announce during the AMA. And no proc, so no need for them to be linked with a weapon. That's what leading me to think it's all about the proc.
After having watched the AMA, my best guess, and it is only a guess, I still think the main purpose is to simplify the proc component of having two weapons. Dual wielding has its own weapon tree to spec into, all the basic attacks perks while dual wielding will come from that tree, regardless of how the individual weapon are spec'ed in their own respective tree.
Not sure what's the need for the extra step of "permanently" joining the weapons though.
Shields have no weapon tree of their own, they're part of the universal stamina base abilities (dodge, block, sprint, ...) that was also announce during the AMA. And no proc, so no need for them to be linked with a weapon. That's what leading me to think it's all about the proc.
That is a stupid reason.
I guess that makes sense though, a stupid decision needs a stupid reason.
edit; as a question - purely because I've not watched the AMA and likely won't ever have the time to do so - was it explicitly stated that if you are duel weilding you get the duel weild tree AND access to the weapon tree for the weapons you are using?
If it wasn't stated to be the case, I can see how this step could have been necessary in order for the game to swap you from the tree for the weapon you have in your main hand over to the duel wielding tree. If this is the case, and if the recipies are fairly basic, and if you are able to uncombine the weapons, then this is perhaps less of a bad decision.
edit; as a question - purely because I've not watched the AMA and likely won't ever have the time to do so - was it explicitly stated that if you are duel weilding you get the duel weild tree AND access to the weapon tree for the weapons you are using?
If it wasn't stated to be the case, I can see how this step could have been necessary in order for the game to swap you from the tree for the weapon you have in your main hand over to the duel wielding tree. If this is the case, and if the recipies are fairly basic, and if you are able to uncombine the weapons, then this is perhaps less of a bad decision.
It was said dual wield has its own tree, like one handed sword has one, two handed swords has one, etc. So, everyone has access to it, and just like any weapon tree it must be used to be levelled and spec in its perks. There was no mention if the weapon trees from the combined weapons played any role in the dual wield ones. No mention how the weapon set plays out as far as damage, stats and proc.
Ideally, everyone should have the recipe for combining and separating dual weapons sets. Just an action being done out of combat, but nothing was said about that in the AMA. It could be part of the basic crafting skills everyone has access to as it could require something more demanding. Still unknown.
The anger and panic is hilarious.
I wonder how many actually play with dual wielding characters/playstyles and how many just like the extra stats from an extra weapon in the off-hand (be it defensive or offensive).
In many games, not just mmos it is fairly common to see two swords or axe and sword as a single item, which serves the sole purpose of providing dual wield enjoyers true a true skill set, with unique moves utilizing strikes of both weapons together, not just the benefits of the main hand for X scenario and the benefits of the off hand for the Y scenario.
As a true dual wield player I prefer this direction. I know that all the mages and all the bards and all the summoners will get mad because they wont be able to equip on their off hand a dagger or a sword that gives them "extra speed" or "reduced cooldowns", but I dont care for such disrespectful uses for dual wielding or the needs and wants of such non fighter players.
Another thing I notice in the replies to these thread is the mentality of entitlement and the constant attitude of refusing to take a no for an answer, even from the creators of the game.
It seems many people are so used to the complete freedom of mix and matching (which always leads to narrow metas) that many got angry that they wont be able to swap with ease on their off hand the fire sword when it suits them for the ice sword because dual wield will be locked as one item. Too bad for you.
Here is another example of a game (which I love) that failed to deliver solid dual wielding in favour of cattering to non respectful dual wielders.
Elder ring went back to free dual wielding as opposed to single items as in DS3.
This led to spears on the main hand for range and dagger on the off hand for roll catching, leaving true dual wielding far back in the meta, with the only viable pvp build the Endurance/rapiers for those who know.
Not true dual wielding.
All that remains to be seen is if IS adjusts animations for dual wielding or if such aninations will be locked for rogues and for normal hits with DW.
But nobody cared to think about that, which is actual, visual, gameplay identity, not just some stat modifiers and procs.
Also whoever threw in shields to this topic is someone worth of ignoring in the future.
The anger and panic is hilarious.
I wonder how many actually play with dual wielding characters/playstyles and how many just like the extra stats from an extra weapon in the off-hand (be it defensive or offensive).
In many games, not just mmos it is fairly common to see two swords or axe and sword as a single item, which serves the sole purpose of providing dual wield enjoyers true a true skill set, with unique moves utilizing strikes of both weapons together, not just the benefits of the main hand for X scenario and the benefits of the off hand for the Y scenario.
As a true dual wield player I prefer this direction. I know that all the mages and all the bards and all the summoners will get mad because they wont be able to equip on their off hand a dagger or a sword that gives them "extra speed" or "reduced cooldowns", but I dont care for such disrespectful uses for dual wielding or the needs and wants of such non fighter players.
Another thing I notice in the replies to these thread is the mentality of entitlement and the constant attitude of refusing to take a no for an answer, even from the creators of the game.
It seems many people are so used to the complete freedom of mix and matching (which always leads to narrow metas) that many got angry that they wont be able to swap with ease on their off hand the fire sword when it suits them for the ice sword because dual wield will be locked as one item. Too bad for you.
Here is another example of a game (which I love) that failed to deliver solid dual wielding in favour of cattering to non respectful dual wielders.
Elder ring went back to free dual wielding as opposed to single items as in DS3.
This led to spears on the main hand for range and dagger on the off hand for roll catching, leaving true dual wielding far back in the meta, with the only viable pvp build the Endurance/rapiers for those who know.
Not true dual wielding.
All that remains to be seen is if IS adjusts animations for dual wielding or if such aninations will be locked for rogues and for normal hits with DW.
But nobody cared to think about that, which is actual, visual, gameplay identity, not just some stat modifiers and procs.
Also whoever threw in shields to this topic is someone worth of ignoring in the future.
yeah they could just make another 1 handed item and keep It in their inventory lmao idk what all the fuss is about T_T
edit; as a question - purely because I've not watched the AMA and likely won't ever have the time to do so - was it explicitly stated that if you are duel weilding you get the duel weild tree AND access to the weapon tree for the weapons you are using?
If it wasn't stated to be the case, I can see how this step could have been necessary in order for the game to swap you from the tree for the weapon you have in your main hand over to the duel wielding tree. If this is the case, and if the recipies are fairly basic, and if you are able to uncombine the weapons, then this is perhaps less of a bad decision.
It was said dual wield has its own tree, like one handed sword has one, two handed swords has one, etc. So, everyone has access to it, and just like any weapon tree it must be used to be levelled and spec in its perks. There was no mention if the weapon trees from the combined weapons played any role in the dual wield ones. No mention how the weapon set plays out as far as damage, stats and proc.
Ideally, everyone should have the recipe for combining and separating dual weapons sets. Just an action being done out of combat, but nothing was said about that in the AMA. It could be part of the basic crafting skills everyone has access to as it could require something more demanding. Still unknown.
Ok, so, my assumption (keeping in mind my above statement that I haven't seen the AMA) is that the game is looking at the weapon type in your main hand to determine which tree you have access to, and thus the existance of a duel wield tree requires the existence of a duel wield weapon type.
This would then leave Intrepid in the position of either needing to design and implement items specific for duel wielding, or needing to hand players a means to turn two one handed weapons in to a set of duel wielding weapons.
The choice they went for gives players more options.
Edit to add; this being how it works behind the scenes would also explain why there is no tree for shields, and means there won't be one for tomes, sigils or other spell focus type items.
The anger and panic is hilarious.
I wonder how many actually play with dual wielding characters/playstyles and how many just like the extra stats from an extra weapon in the off-hand (be it defensive or offensive).
In many games, not just mmos it is fairly common to see two swords or axe and sword as a single item, which serves the sole purpose of providing dual wield enjoyers true a true skill set, with unique moves utilizing strikes of both weapons together, not just the benefits of the main hand for X scenario and the benefits of the off hand for the Y scenario.
As a true dual wield player I prefer this direction. I know that all the mages and all the bards and all the summoners will get mad because they wont be able to equip on their off hand a dagger or a sword that gives them "extra speed" or "reduced cooldowns", but I dont care for such disrespectful uses for dual wielding or the needs and wants of such non fighter players.
Another thing I notice in the replies to these thread is the mentality of entitlement and the constant attitude of refusing to take a no for an answer, even from the creators of the game.
It seems many people are so used to the complete freedom of mix and matching (which always leads to narrow metas) that many got angry that they wont be able to swap with ease on their off hand the fire sword when it suits them for the ice sword because dual wield will be locked as one item. Too bad for you.
Here is another example of a game (which I love) that failed to deliver solid dual wielding in favour of cattering to non respectful dual wielders.
Elder ring went back to free dual wielding as opposed to single items as in DS3.
This led to spears on the main hand for range and dagger on the off hand for roll catching, leaving true dual wielding far back in the meta, with the only viable pvp build the Endurance/rapiers for those who know.
Not true dual wielding.
All that remains to be seen is if IS adjusts animations for dual wielding or if such aninations will be locked for rogues and for normal hits with DW.
But nobody cared to think about that, which is actual, visual, gameplay identity, not just some stat modifiers and procs.
Also whoever threw in shields to this topic is someone worth of ignoring in the future.
Even with you being notorious for bad takes on almost everything here, this is still a monumentously uncharastically bad take.
You really have outdone yourself with this one.
Sure, some games that are shit have to design dual wield weapons specifically. Better games though, they add in one handed weapons and allow people to (shock) hold a one handed weapon in each one of their hands.
The fact that you bought up animation several times is worse than the mention of shields in this thread. Animations have no place in this discussion, where as at least the mention of shields has some value as shields are one of the other items people may equip in a second hand, and so their mention meant we could rule out one possible reason for Intrepid wanting to implement this.
Your argument about "not true dual wieling" is equally misplaced - Ashes is not a combat simulator, the idea is that you play the games systems, not attempt to replication "true dual wielding".
Man, if in a village of madmen I am considered as being wrong I am doing something right.
Yes, animations that suit dual wield strikes and for that matter, spears, one handed, two handed or whatever weapon tied to proper skills are much more important for the delivery of fun gameplay (attached to every type of weapon enjoyers) than if DW is two swords as two inventory items or two swords being combined in one inventory item (imagine having difficulty understanding such a crafting design...), if the combat animations dont match the equiped item.
It seems you wont get to treat DW as a stat boost rather than active gameplay.
What remains to be seen is if weapons will get lost in the archetype animations, in which case we may all equip two-handed so that our chars dont look awkward, or whatever weapon provides the most competitive skills and try to have fun with the lack of active weapon gameplay.
You can keep freaking out about not being able to get offhand boosts, even if you dont actually play dual wield.
Feels like Steven just went with the same design, rather than trying to build the entire game's combat around the ability to have 2 completely separate weapons with separate effects and with separate passives for said weapons.
To be fair, mismatching and mixing 1h sword passives with for instance 1h axe passives being overly complicated or creating too much synergy and being an absolute balance nightmare is probably the reason for this. I'm fine with a separate dual wield skill tree, but I think naming it as a "recipe" is weird. I think what he means is like how WoW does their weapon skills. Like you don't understand dual wield fighting until you learn from the warrior trainer in the capital and you pick it up as a "recipe" to start being able to dual wield.
We might just be reading too far into it as being crafting @Nerror
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Like you don't understand dual wield fighting until you learn from the warrior trainer in the capital and you pick it up as a "recipe" to start being able to dual wield.
For me Occam's Razor here is L2 system that I explained before, because you needed a recipe-type thing to make duals there
Yes, animations that suit dual wield strikes and for that matter, spears, one handed, two handed or whatever weapon tied to proper skills are much more important for the delivery of fun gameplay (attached to every type of weapon enjoyers) than if DW is two swords as two inventory items or two swords being combined in one inventory item (imagine having difficulty understanding such a crafting design...), if the combat animations dont match the equiped item.
Yeah, but I never said animation does't matter - I said it isn't a factor at all in this discussion.
Duel wielding animations can simply be activated if you have a weapon in each hand - there is no reason at all for the player to need to implement that by crafting two items in to one item.
No reason at all. The notion of animation does not belong in this discussion at all.
You can keep freaking out about not being able to get offhand boosts, even if you dont actually play dual wield.
Yes, animations that suit dual wield strikes and for that matter, spears, one handed, two handed or whatever weapon tied to proper skills are much more important for the delivery of fun gameplay (attached to every type of weapon enjoyers) than if DW is two swords as two inventory items or two swords being combined in one inventory item (imagine having difficulty understanding such a crafting design...), if the combat animations dont match the equiped item.
Yeah, but I never said animation does't matter - I said it isn't a factor at all in this discussion.
Duel wielding animations can simply be activated if you have a weapon in each hand - there is no reason at all for the player to need to implement that by crafting two items in to one item.
No reason at all. The notion of animation does not belong in this discussion at all.
You can keep freaking out about not being able to get offhand boosts, even if you dont actually play dual wield.
This is just another bad take.
This whole discussion is pointless; it shouldnt be too hard to understand that dual wielding is a playstyle concept, not about people wanting to equip stat boosts in their offhand any time they fancy.
Why didnt anyone freak out about two-handed weapons ever and the fact that they as well lock out the offhand.
Why didnt anyone ever complain about two-handed costing more mats than 1h weapons AND prevent them for using the offhand? "seEms unFaiR. CosTs moRE shoulD give MOre" kinda logic?
It is what it is.
There are balance reasons and playstyles identity to protect. Again I will bring Elden Ring and it's DW. With DW you can spam more skills, yet nobody uses DW for it's playstyle.
Yall just freaked out for no reason.
Instead of demanding that you have access to anything that can benefit you have you ever stopped to think about what would the fighter look like with a spear?
What would the fighter look like with 1h/shield?
Have you asked for a side by side comparison of the same archetype equipping different weapons and what would that LOOK LIKE?
Are you not interested in if a two-handed fighter would just proc more rage that a 2 dagger fighter procing more crit % than a two sword fighter procing more bleed or whatever slight difference weapon trees will end up giving to the archetype skill animations that seem to be set in stone (and you can use them with any weapon)?
How can you miss the forest in the tree and worry about needing a "recipe" to play with swords equipped in both hands when there are other issues...
"Oh no.. my swords cannot be separated".
Well maybe DW wasnt meant for you. It was mean for people that want to DW.
This whole discussion is pointless; it shouldnt be too hard to understand that dual wielding is a playstyle concept, not about people wanting to equip stat boosts in their offhand any time they fancy.
It shouldn't be hard to understand that this isn't the issue people have with it.
This is just some random thing that you percieve to be an issue in some other game that you have bought here and assumed is what people are complaining about.
Instead of demanding that you have access to anything that can benefit you have you ever stopped to think about what would the fighter look like with a spear?
What would the fighter look like with 1h/shield?
No, because none of that matters in this discussion.
This is not a discussion on aesthetics, it is a discussion on mechanics.
This discussion is an exercise in futility, like so many others; overlooking things that actually need attention.
Hf
Animations need attention, sure.
However, they have no direct relation at all to this being the way dual weapons are handled. Start a thread about animations if you feel it so desperately needs attention.
This thread is instead about why Intrepid are requiring players combine two items in to one in order to use them in this manner - thus reducing their options.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
That is the issue.
Intrepid need to have a *very* good reason to make it so players can't use the items they have acquired in the manner in which they should be able to use them.
That *very* good reason, by the way, may well be the one I mentioned above. That is an actual good reason for requiring this.
The issue is that you treat DW as some kind of consumable for your poison dmg need in a given moment.
It's not meant to be used like that. It's a playstyle. You strike with both weapons.
Why dont you make this argument for bows and two handed? Because it's stupid to think of the offhand as stats.
DW is a gameplay. There used to be classes based around them before yall decided to "play as you want".
"Cant use it" ?
You used it. To play as a dual wielder. If you arent, dont fvcking dual wield.
This discussion is an exercise in futility, like so many others; overlooking things that actually need attention.
Hf
Animations need attention, sure.
However, they have no direct relation at all to this being the way dual weapons are handled. Start a thread about animations if you feel it so desperately needs attention.
This thread is instead about why Intrepid are requiring players combine two items in to one in order to use them in this manner - thus reducing their options.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
That is the issue.
Intrepid need to have a *very* good reason to make it so players can't use the items they have acquired in the manner in which they should be able to use them.
That *very* good reason, by the way, may well be the one I mentioned above. That is an actual good reason for requiring this.
They want to prevent this flexibility.
And also helping alts by moving the weapon between them.
Once you take a choice, you might get better at something and weaker at something else.
Is like asking why we do not have enough points to maximize all branches on skill trees and some games make it hard to reset the points and assign them differently.
If you fight often against somebody, that other player might know how to fight against you when you have a certain configuration and would avoid you with some other configuration.
Can be that one configuration is better for PvP and the other for PvE.
But they aren't preventing it, they are just making it take longer - making a properly geared dual wielding character take longer to gear than other charcters.
Anything they do want to restrict can be accomplished via the restriction they have on which items are elegable to be turned in to dual wield items - as not all one handed weapons are.
As a reason for this decision (it isn't a change, as it has been known about for years), restricting players simply doesn't hold up.
This discussion is an exercise in futility, like so many others; overlooking things that actually need attention.
Hf
Animations need attention, sure.
However, they have no direct relation at all to this being the way dual weapons are handled. Start a thread about animations if you feel it so desperately needs attention.
This thread is instead about why Intrepid are requiring players combine two items in to one in order to use them in this manner - thus reducing their options.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
That is the issue.
Intrepid need to have a *very* good reason to make it so players can't use the items they have acquired in the manner in which they should be able to use them.
That *very* good reason, by the way, may well be the one I mentioned above. That is an actual good reason for requiring this.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
balance. they probs don't want that.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
who says you cant? they arent preventing you from using them. you are talking as if the only way to use such daggers would be to make them into a dual dagger.
The issue is that you treat DW as some kind of consumable for your poison dmg need in a given moment.
It's not meant to be used like that. It's a playstyle. You strike with both weapons.
Yes, and if I have a dagger that deals a lot of physical damage, another that deals a lot of poison damage and a third that deals a lot of fire damage and I come up against an encounter or player that is highly resistant against poison, I will hit them with the dagger dealing a lot of physical, and the dagger dealing a lot of poison.
The idea there is to be striking with both weapons - I have literally no idea where your idea here that this wouldn't be the case has come from.
No idea at all.
Why dont you make this argument for bows and two handed? Because it's stupid to think of the offhand as stats.
Make what arguments?
If someone has a bow, then they need to just find a bow and they can use a bow. That is easy.
If they find a different bow, they can use it.
Same with two handed weapons.
On the other hand, if you are a dual wielder and you are out and find a new weapon you want to dual wield with, you can't. You don't get that option. You need to pair it with another dual wield weapon before you can use it.
We don't know what that involves, it may be nothing, but it also may require you to head back to town. We also don't know if this is a permanant bond or not.
Regardless of if it is a simple process or not, the reason behind it needs to be understood. Why place this limitation on dual wield players and no one else?
Balance on dual wield weapons has been resolved for years. This isn't an argument for restricting players in this way.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
who says you cant? they arent preventing you from using them. you are talking as if the only way to use such daggers would be to make them into a dual dagger.
As far as I am aware, combining them is the only way to use two at the same time.
Balance on dual wield weapons has been resolved for years. This isn't an argument for restricting players in this way.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
who says you cant? they arent preventing you from using them. you are talking as if the only way to use such daggers would be to make them into a dual dagger.
As far as I am aware, combining them is the only way to use two at the same time.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
balance in other games btw...different games different numbers / designs.
also...
bruh you can just swap...
you said they prevent you form using the daggers. you can simply not dual weild. you could also make physical, poison, or fire dual daggers...and just swap. or use single handed daggers and swap. you still have to carry them don't u?
Comments
Right? Idk - sounds like if they are linked you would either 1) drop both, or 2) drop one and the other cannot be wielded?
It's an awkward idea, and I'm quite confused as to the upside.
Agreed. Just silly...
1) initially games go with the simple basic approach of 1 weapon in right hand slot and 1 shield in left hand slot.
2) then they say some weapons are so big that you cannot hold a shield.
3) In L2 it seems it was more convenient to transform the two 1-handed weapons into one 2-handed weapon but still present them as a dual wield. Maybe a programmer suggested this solution.
In L2, to get two shields, one in each hand, it would have been necessary to exist the concept of a big heavy shield which must be held with 2 hands.
That's my guess.
While is not realistic, from game mechanic perspective, I find it interesting to face the player with the decision of giving away 2 x 1h weapons to merge them into a new 1 x 2h combined weapon.
So if Steven likes the concept, he goes with it even though theoretically could be different.
u should drop the whole thing. the dual wielded weapon is just basically a 2 handed weapon but it looks like you are wielding something in each hand
After having watched the AMA, my best guess, and it is only a guess, I still think the main purpose is to simplify the proc component of having two weapons. Dual wielding has its own weapon tree to spec into, all the basic attacks perks while dual wielding will come from that tree, regardless of how the individual weapon are spec'ed in their own respective tree.
Not sure what's the need for the extra step of "permanently" joining the weapons though.
Shields have no weapon tree of their own, they're part of the universal stamina base abilities (dodge, block, sprint, ...) that was also announce during the AMA. And no proc, so no need for them to be linked with a weapon. That's what leading me to think it's all about the proc.
That is a stupid reason.
I guess that makes sense though, a stupid decision needs a stupid reason.
edit; as a question - purely because I've not watched the AMA and likely won't ever have the time to do so - was it explicitly stated that if you are duel weilding you get the duel weild tree AND access to the weapon tree for the weapons you are using?
If it wasn't stated to be the case, I can see how this step could have been necessary in order for the game to swap you from the tree for the weapon you have in your main hand over to the duel wielding tree. If this is the case, and if the recipies are fairly basic, and if you are able to uncombine the weapons, then this is perhaps less of a bad decision.
It was said dual wield has its own tree, like one handed sword has one, two handed swords has one, etc. So, everyone has access to it, and just like any weapon tree it must be used to be levelled and spec in its perks. There was no mention if the weapon trees from the combined weapons played any role in the dual wield ones. No mention how the weapon set plays out as far as damage, stats and proc.
Ideally, everyone should have the recipe for combining and separating dual weapons sets. Just an action being done out of combat, but nothing was said about that in the AMA. It could be part of the basic crafting skills everyone has access to as it could require something more demanding. Still unknown.
I wonder how many actually play with dual wielding characters/playstyles and how many just like the extra stats from an extra weapon in the off-hand (be it defensive or offensive).
In many games, not just mmos it is fairly common to see two swords or axe and sword as a single item, which serves the sole purpose of providing dual wield enjoyers true a true skill set, with unique moves utilizing strikes of both weapons together, not just the benefits of the main hand for X scenario and the benefits of the off hand for the Y scenario.
As a true dual wield player I prefer this direction. I know that all the mages and all the bards and all the summoners will get mad because they wont be able to equip on their off hand a dagger or a sword that gives them "extra speed" or "reduced cooldowns", but I dont care for such disrespectful uses for dual wielding or the needs and wants of such non fighter players.
Another thing I notice in the replies to these thread is the mentality of entitlement and the constant attitude of refusing to take a no for an answer, even from the creators of the game.
It seems many people are so used to the complete freedom of mix and matching (which always leads to narrow metas) that many got angry that they wont be able to swap with ease on their off hand the fire sword when it suits them for the ice sword because dual wield will be locked as one item. Too bad for you.
Here is another example of a game (which I love) that failed to deliver solid dual wielding in favour of cattering to non respectful dual wielders.
Elder ring went back to free dual wielding as opposed to single items as in DS3.
This led to spears on the main hand for range and dagger on the off hand for roll catching, leaving true dual wielding far back in the meta, with the only viable pvp build the Endurance/rapiers for those who know.
Not true dual wielding.
All that remains to be seen is if IS adjusts animations for dual wielding or if such aninations will be locked for rogues and for normal hits with DW.
But nobody cared to think about that, which is actual, visual, gameplay identity, not just some stat modifiers and procs.
Also whoever threw in shields to this topic is someone worth of ignoring in the future.
yeah they could just make another 1 handed item and keep It in their inventory lmao idk what all the fuss is about T_T
Ok, so, my assumption (keeping in mind my above statement that I haven't seen the AMA) is that the game is looking at the weapon type in your main hand to determine which tree you have access to, and thus the existance of a duel wield tree requires the existence of a duel wield weapon type.
This would then leave Intrepid in the position of either needing to design and implement items specific for duel wielding, or needing to hand players a means to turn two one handed weapons in to a set of duel wielding weapons.
The choice they went for gives players more options.
Edit to add; this being how it works behind the scenes would also explain why there is no tree for shields, and means there won't be one for tomes, sigils or other spell focus type items.
Even with you being notorious for bad takes on almost everything here, this is still a monumentously uncharastically bad take.
You really have outdone yourself with this one.
Sure, some games that are shit have to design dual wield weapons specifically. Better games though, they add in one handed weapons and allow people to (shock) hold a one handed weapon in each one of their hands.
The fact that you bought up animation several times is worse than the mention of shields in this thread. Animations have no place in this discussion, where as at least the mention of shields has some value as shields are one of the other items people may equip in a second hand, and so their mention meant we could rule out one possible reason for Intrepid wanting to implement this.
Your argument about "not true dual wieling" is equally misplaced - Ashes is not a combat simulator, the idea is that you play the games systems, not attempt to replication "true dual wielding".
Yes, animations that suit dual wield strikes and for that matter, spears, one handed, two handed or whatever weapon tied to proper skills are much more important for the delivery of fun gameplay (attached to every type of weapon enjoyers) than if DW is two swords as two inventory items or two swords being combined in one inventory item (imagine having difficulty understanding such a crafting design...), if the combat animations dont match the equiped item.
It seems you wont get to treat DW as a stat boost rather than active gameplay.
What remains to be seen is if weapons will get lost in the archetype animations, in which case we may all equip two-handed so that our chars dont look awkward, or whatever weapon provides the most competitive skills and try to have fun with the lack of active weapon gameplay.
You can keep freaking out about not being able to get offhand boosts, even if you dont actually play dual wield.
To be fair, mismatching and mixing 1h sword passives with for instance 1h axe passives being overly complicated or creating too much synergy and being an absolute balance nightmare is probably the reason for this. I'm fine with a separate dual wield skill tree, but I think naming it as a "recipe" is weird. I think what he means is like how WoW does their weapon skills. Like you don't understand dual wield fighting until you learn from the warrior trainer in the capital and you pick it up as a "recipe" to start being able to dual wield.
We might just be reading too far into it as being crafting @Nerror
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Yeah, but I never said animation does't matter - I said it isn't a factor at all in this discussion.
Duel wielding animations can simply be activated if you have a weapon in each hand - there is no reason at all for the player to need to implement that by crafting two items in to one item.
No reason at all. The notion of animation does not belong in this discussion at all.
This is just another bad take.
This whole discussion is pointless; it shouldnt be too hard to understand that dual wielding is a playstyle concept, not about people wanting to equip stat boosts in their offhand any time they fancy.
Why didnt anyone freak out about two-handed weapons ever and the fact that they as well lock out the offhand.
Why didnt anyone ever complain about two-handed costing more mats than 1h weapons AND prevent them for using the offhand? "seEms unFaiR. CosTs moRE shoulD give MOre" kinda logic?
It is what it is.
There are balance reasons and playstyles identity to protect. Again I will bring Elden Ring and it's DW. With DW you can spam more skills, yet nobody uses DW for it's playstyle.
Yall just freaked out for no reason.
Instead of demanding that you have access to anything that can benefit you have you ever stopped to think about what would the fighter look like with a spear?
What would the fighter look like with 1h/shield?
Have you asked for a side by side comparison of the same archetype equipping different weapons and what would that LOOK LIKE?
Are you not interested in if a two-handed fighter would just proc more rage that a 2 dagger fighter procing more crit % than a two sword fighter procing more bleed or whatever slight difference weapon trees will end up giving to the archetype skill animations that seem to be set in stone (and you can use them with any weapon)?
How can you miss the forest in the tree and worry about needing a "recipe" to play with swords equipped in both hands when there are other issues...
"Oh no.. my swords cannot be separated".
Well maybe DW wasnt meant for you. It was mean for people that want to DW.
Now, is it going to look any good?
This is just some random thing that you percieve to be an issue in some other game that you have bought here and assumed is what people are complaining about. No, because none of that matters in this discussion.
This is not a discussion on aesthetics, it is a discussion on mechanics.
Hf
Animations need attention, sure.
However, they have no direct relation at all to this being the way dual weapons are handled. Start a thread about animations if you feel it so desperately needs attention.
This thread is instead about why Intrepid are requiring players combine two items in to one in order to use them in this manner - thus reducing their options.
If I have a dagger that does a lot of physical damage, one that does a lot of poison damage and one that does a lot of fire damage, I want to be able to use which ever combination of those three daggers I feel is best for me to use at any given time.
That is the issue.
Intrepid need to have a *very* good reason to make it so players can't use the items they have acquired in the manner in which they should be able to use them.
That *very* good reason, by the way, may well be the one I mentioned above. That is an actual good reason for requiring this.
It's not meant to be used like that. It's a playstyle. You strike with both weapons.
Why dont you make this argument for bows and two handed? Because it's stupid to think of the offhand as stats.
DW is a gameplay. There used to be classes based around them before yall decided to "play as you want".
"Cant use it" ?
You used it. To play as a dual wielder. If you arent, dont fvcking dual wield.
They want to prevent this flexibility.
And also helping alts by moving the weapon between them.
Once you take a choice, you might get better at something and weaker at something else.
Is like asking why we do not have enough points to maximize all branches on skill trees and some games make it hard to reset the points and assign them differently.
If you fight often against somebody, that other player might know how to fight against you when you have a certain configuration and would avoid you with some other configuration.
Can be that one configuration is better for PvP and the other for PvE.
Anything they do want to restrict can be accomplished via the restriction they have on which items are elegable to be turned in to dual wield items - as not all one handed weapons are.
As a reason for this decision (it isn't a change, as it has been known about for years), restricting players simply doesn't hold up.
balance. they probs don't want that.
who says you cant? they arent preventing you from using them. you are talking as if the only way to use such daggers would be to make them into a dual dagger.
The idea there is to be striking with both weapons - I have literally no idea where your idea here that this wouldn't be the case has come from.
No idea at all. Make what arguments?
If someone has a bow, then they need to just find a bow and they can use a bow. That is easy.
If they find a different bow, they can use it.
Same with two handed weapons.
On the other hand, if you are a dual wielder and you are out and find a new weapon you want to dual wield with, you can't. You don't get that option. You need to pair it with another dual wield weapon before you can use it.
We don't know what that involves, it may be nothing, but it also may require you to head back to town. We also don't know if this is a permanant bond or not.
Regardless of if it is a simple process or not, the reason behind it needs to be understood. Why place this limitation on dual wield players and no one else?
As far as I am aware, combining them is the only way to use two at the same time.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
balance in other games btw...different games different numbers / designs.
also...
bruh you can just swap...
you said they prevent you form using the daggers. you can simply not dual weild. you could also make physical, poison, or fire dual daggers...and just swap. or use single handed daggers and swap. you still have to carry them don't u?