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?
Sure, different games have different ways of balancing, but none of them require players to do this in order to facilitate developers in that balancing.
Also, you can't just swap.
I didn't say they prevented you from using "daggers", I said that they are preventing you from using that dagger.
Keep in mind, we are talking about characters that have invested points in a dual wield skill tree, if they equip a dagger that isn't combined in this manner, that isn't dual wielding, and so the player does not have access to that skill tree.
Having gone over this thread, and also having tried to think of any other reasons myself, the only reasonI have come up with for this to be a thing developers would ask of players is as per my post near the top of this page.
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?
Sure, different games have different ways of balancing, but none of them require players to do this in order to facilitate developers in that balancing.
Also, you can't just swap.
I didn't say they prevented you from using "daggers", I said that they are preventing you from using that dagger.
Keep in mind, we are talking about characters that have invested points in a dual wield skill tree, if they equip a dagger that isn't combined in this manner, that isn't dual wielding, and so the player does not have access to that skill tree.
Having gone over this thread, and also having tried to think of any other reasons myself, the only reasonI have come up with for this to be a thing developers would ask of players is as per my post near the top of this page.
see I was waiting for your reply but you mentioned it first. skill points. the weapons are in the service of the player, not the other way around. weapons help the archetype skills
ok first, I know these are just examples (fire, poison, physical) and I doubt we gonna have weapons with element like that (we will have enchants that can be changed tho) but we might and they are as good as anything else for the purpose of this explanation.
if you have a fire weapon, and you invest into the weapon skill tree to help with fire damage and procs, and also fire augmented skills, don't you think that if you change weapons to a poison one, you will need to change the skill tree and possibly your skills as well? you arent going with the fire build to the volcano, you will swap to a water build.
even if the weapon skills don't add elemental damage (but you still get it from ehcnats or different weapons of the same type), they are just adding procs for your archetype skills. so if this Is true, then you can simply make a dual fire dagger, dual poison dagger and dual physical dagger and swap (your weapon passives wont change), the same way you would swap if you had 1 handed daggers or swords.
no one was crying about dual wielding before. treat dual weapons as you would treat any 2 handed weapons. instead of crafting a sword and a shield, you craft a 2 handed sword (possibly need more mats) or 2 one handed swords and combine them. these are just the mats. complaining that you cant use the one handed swords is the same as complaining that you cant use the iron you used to craft the swords for something else. for all intents and purposes, dual weapons are just 2 handed weapons that look different. period. you want different elements? carry multiple as you would with any other weapon.
maybe the devs don't want you combining the stats of 2 swords, that's why they are convert them to a new item. balance reasons. maybe they don't want you to attack with different elements...or have 2 weapon skills trees, or the same one duplicated. who knows? plenty of reasons. beside, they could potentially make trees for different weapon combinations in the future, If they wish so. 2 swords, 2 maces, 2 daggers, 1 sword 1 mace, 1 sword 1 dagger, 1 mace 1 dagger.
if you have a fire weapon, and you invest into the weapon skill tree to help with fire damage and procs, and also fire augmented skills, don't you think that if you change weapons to a poison one, you will need to change the skill tree and possibly your skills as well? you arent going with the fire build to the volcano, you will swap to a water build.
No, I don't think that.
I think that if I am using a dagger that deals some fire damage when I hit someone with it, I am still using a dagger.
even if the weapon skills don't add elemental damage (but you still get it from ehcnats or different weapons of the same type), they are just adding procs for your archetype skills. so if this Is true, then you can simply make a dual fire dagger, dual poison dagger and dual physical dagger and swap (your weapon passives wont change), the same way you would swap if you had 1 handed daggers or swords.
Yes you can, but that involves getting 6 items instead of 3.
no one was crying about dual wielding before. treat dual weapons as you would treat any 2 handed weapons.
No, because if I am out in the world and an item drops (there will be some drops in the game), if it is a two handed sword then it is good to use on the next encounter. If it is a one handed weapon for someone with a shield, it is good to go on the next encounter. If it is a one handed weapon for someone that dual wields, it is not good to go for the next encounter.
maybe the devs don't want you combining the stats of 2 swords, that's why they are convert them to a new item. balance reasons. maybe they don't want you to attack with different elements...or have 2 weapon skills trees, or the same one duplicated.
The notion of there being an issue with attacking with different elements is not viable in a game like Ashes. There are reasons for this that aren't worth going in to in this thread - other than to say the class system is incompatible with a developer wanting to restrict players attacking with multiple elements.
Skill trees is the issue I talked about above that is a viable reason for them to need to do this (something like this is a need, not a want - they would only implement something like this if there was no other viable option).
The reason they would be doing it (at least in my opinion) is becuase the weapon skill tree you are using will be based on the item in your main hand, thus requiring a main hand item that has dual wield as it's weapon type. As I said in the post on the previous page where I mentioned this, if this is the reason, and if the combination process is simple, and if there is an equally simple process to un-combine weapons, then this is fine.
Ok so it's a bit like crafting a 2H weapon with a few extra steps, but hopefully also more customization in the process in terms of looks and possibly stats.
Depending on the implementation, I don't hate it. It's just different. If we get to keep the weapon looks and weapon effects, like that glowy 1H sword we saw in a dev stream a while ago, I am ok with something like the old L2 system. Again, it's just like making a 2H weapon really, except instead of having to craft a new weapon from scratch, you can use existing 1H weapons and combine them.
I would seriously like to hear the developers' reasoning for this. Like, just add a section or a tab in the item's tooltip that separately displays its dual-wield stats that's it. In what world it makes sense that I suddenly can't use them separately unless I again use some weird mechanic to remove the glue?
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.
There are unique items in the game:
Certain legendary items may be limited to one per server at any given time.[7][8]
And others can be rare enough that for practical purpose you can wait quite some time until you get/buy the desired other weapon you want to pair with.
But we also know that
Crafted gear is considered best-in-slot in Ashes of Creation.[4]
So I assume the weapons which can be combined to be dual wielded can also be crafted.
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
The blacksmith who crafts the weapon might have a choice to make it eligible for dual-wielding or not.
If he makes a dual-wielding weapon, he may have a larger customer base.
If he makes a non-dual-wielding weapon, he might ask for a higher price. In that case, I would assume that also the attributes of these weapons are somewhat higher.
If any dual-wielding weapon can be transformed into a non-dual-wielding weapon through a "finishing touch" then customers may come to apply this last stage anyway, for both cases.
If I am wrong and blacksmiths do not have complete freedom but specific components must drop from mobs, then IS can balance those as desired, to not discourage dual wielders by putting twice the effort on them, compared to other weapon types. In this case too I assume that these weapons will be less desirable by shield + weapon users.
I know we’re clarifying some basics as mentioned by Steven, but I’m still hung up on the ‘why.’
Today’s basic approach to dual-wield from other games is:
- some classes can equip 1-H (or 2H) weapons in each hand
- the damage for each weapon is adjusted to balance dual-wield v single weapons
- Spec trees provide enhancement to damage, attack speed, or other direct / indirect attributes
- There’s no impact to the weapon itself - so it can be used in a different fighting style when the player changes spec (think Fury changing to Arms)
So… what’s the benefit to the player for now changing the item instead of using the more intuitive practice above?
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
But they can't.
Weapons that can be combined to make a dual wield set are one handed weapons - the same weapons someone with a sword and shield uses. Builds using sword and shield (or any other one handed weapon with any other non-weapon offhand) don't need to combine their items in to one.
This completely excludes any notion of balancing the crafting cost of these weapons to take account of the fact that two need to be combined - there is no way to balance this when this is a factor of the user and how they wish to use it, rather than something that will always happen with the weapon.
I know we’re clarifying some basics as mentioned by Steven, but I’m still hung up on the ‘why.’
Today’s basic approach to dual-wield from other games is:
- some classes can equip 1-H (or 2H) weapons in each hand
- the damage for each weapon is adjusted to balance dual-wield v single weapons
- Spec trees provide enhancement to damage, attack speed, or other direct / indirect attributes
- There’s no impact to the weapon itself - so it can be used in a different fighting style when the player changes spec (think Fury changing to Arms)
So… what’s the benefit to the player for now changing the item instead of using the more intuitive practice above?
This was my thought process as well. They would need a reason specific to Ashes for doing it this way.
The only real reason I can come up with that does make some sense is in relation to weapon skill trees. If they want to have a skill tree for swords, one for daggers and one for dual wielding but only want characters to have access to one skill tree at a time, then the easiest way to make that happen is to make it so a skill tree only has an effect on the appropriate weapon type.
Thus, you can't have daggers being the weapon type you have equipped while dual wielding - you need to have dual wield type weapons.
Assuming this is accurate, it then puts Intrepid in a position where they either need to create specific dual wield weapons, or require players to combine existing weapons in to a dual wield set. Requireing players to create weapon sets would be less work for the developers, but also more freedom for players - and so would be a no-brainer from that specific perspective.
That said, it only creates more freedom for players if there is an easy way to reverse the process. If they make this an irreversable process, then my theory above wouldn't be true and Intrepid would then seemingly be doing it as a "fuck you" to dual wield players.
I really hope we get more details on whether the dual wield process is reversible and, if it is, what it does when you combine tradable and non-tradable weapons. It seems to me like what the devs are doing is shifting the complexity from the skill trees into inventory management and trade, and I don't know if that's the tradeoff they actually want to be making.
Grilled cheese always tastes better when you eat it together!
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
But they can't.
Weapons that can be combined to make a dual wield set are one handed weapons - the same weapons someone with a sword and shield uses. Builds using sword and shield (or any other one handed weapon with any other non-weapon offhand) don't need to combine their items in to one.
This completely excludes any notion of balancing the crafting cost of these weapons to take account of the fact that two need to be combined - there is no way to balance this when this is a factor of the user and how they wish to use it, rather than something that will always happen with the weapon.
Why would you choose to create/buy a dual-wielding weapon if you have some advantage in using a non dual-wielding one?
That's the assumption I made, that the weapons which can be combined are somewhat weaker than the other ones.
I know we’re clarifying some basics as mentioned by Steven, but I’m still hung up on the ‘why.’
Today’s basic approach to dual-wield from other games is:
- some classes can equip 1-H (or 2H) weapons in each hand
- the damage for each weapon is adjusted to balance dual-wield v single weapons
- Spec trees provide enhancement to damage, attack speed, or other direct / indirect attributes
- There’s no impact to the weapon itself - so it can be used in a different fighting style when the player changes spec (think Fury changing to Arms)
So… what’s the benefit to the player for now changing the item instead of using the more intuitive practice above?
This was my thought process as well. They would need a reason specific to Ashes for doing it this way.
The only real reason I can come up with that does make some sense is in relation to weapon skill trees. If they want to have a skill tree for swords, one for daggers and one for dual wielding but only want characters to have access to one skill tree at a time, then the easiest way to make that happen is to make it so a skill tree only has an effect on the appropriate weapon type.
Thus, you can't have daggers being the weapon type you have equipped while dual wielding - you need to have dual wield type weapons.
Assuming this is accurate, it then puts Intrepid in a position where they either need to create specific dual wield weapons, or require players to combine existing weapons in to a dual wield set. Requireing players to create weapon sets would be less work for the developers, but also more freedom for players - and so would be a no-brainer from that specific perspective.
That said, it only creates more freedom for players if there is an easy way to reverse the process. If they make this an irreversable process, then my theory above wouldn't be true and Intrepid would then seemingly be doing it as a "fuck you" to dual wield players.
I don't understand.
If it is only about skill trees, then why would you have to involve of a blacksmith too?
Weapon skills could be activated the moment you place the dual wielding weapons, one in each hand.
If you would replace one with a shield then the game would activate the other skill trees.
I would say it is more about the weapons being paired together acting as a completed weapon.
Separating them would be subject to the same mechanic which allows breaking down a two handed sword into it's components and gain recipes.
Breaking down a completed dual wielding set would give a dual wielding recipe weapon.
Breaking down a single weapon would give the recipe of a single wielding weapon.
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
But they can't.
Weapons that can be combined to make a dual wield set are one handed weapons - the same weapons someone with a sword and shield uses. Builds using sword and shield (or any other one handed weapon with any other non-weapon offhand) don't need to combine their items in to one.
This completely excludes any notion of balancing the crafting cost of these weapons to take account of the fact that two need to be combined - there is no way to balance this when this is a factor of the user and how they wish to use it, rather than something that will always happen with the weapon.
Why would you choose to create/buy a dual-wielding weapon if you have some advantage in using a non dual-wielding one?
That's the assumption I made, that the weapons which can be combined are somewhat weaker than the other ones.
Because it isn't a "dual wielding" weapon, it is a one handed weapon.
Sure, they are designating some of them as being suitable for dual wielding and some not, but that is likely to be more a restriction on weapon type - swords able to be combined in to a dual wielding set, but spears not being able to, for example.
If Intrepid were to just designate weapons as being fit for dual wielding and they DIDN'T expect players to use them in one hand, then there would be no reason for all of this.
If it is only about skill trees, then why would you have to involve of a blacksmith too?
To my knowledge, there is no mention of including a blacksmith.
Your idea of the dual wield weapon tree being activated when you equip a weapon in each hand would work, but would be unintuitave to many players - they have access to one weapon skill tree, then lose access to without removing that item.
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
But they can't.
Weapons that can be combined to make a dual wield set are one handed weapons - the same weapons someone with a sword and shield uses. Builds using sword and shield (or any other one handed weapon with any other non-weapon offhand) don't need to combine their items in to one.
This completely excludes any notion of balancing the crafting cost of these weapons to take account of the fact that two need to be combined - there is no way to balance this when this is a factor of the user and how they wish to use it, rather than something that will always happen with the weapon.
Why would you choose to create/buy a dual-wielding weapon if you have some advantage in using a non dual-wielding one?
That's the assumption I made, that the weapons which can be combined are somewhat weaker than the other ones.
Because it isn't a "dual wielding" weapon, it is a one handed weapon.
Sure, they are designating some of them as being suitable for dual wielding and some not, but that is likely to be more a restriction on weapon type - swords able to be combined in to a dual wielding set, but maces not being able to, for example.
If Intrepid were to just designate weapons as being fit for dual wielding and they DIDN'T expect players to use them in one hand, then there would be no reason for all of this.
If it is only about skill trees, then why would you have to involve of a blacksmith too?
To my knowledge, there is no mention of including a blacksmith.
Your idea of the dual wield weapon tree being activated when you equip a weapon in each hand would work, but would be unintuitave to many players - they have access to one weapon skill tree, then lose access to without removing that item.
Your example with the mace was given by Steven too but the other way around.
He also mentioned a "specific recipe" to transform them into a set. That recipe will most likely be used at a crafting station.
I know you said you can not watch the AMA. Here is the link (1 minute at that moment) https://youtu.be/vygDXte1AX8?t=3641
and the transcript
Q: how would dual wielding work and so can we infer that are dagger going to be the only dual wielding weapon or a one handed sword one handed mace?
A: You'll be able to do yes you'll be able to do one-handed maces one-handed swords two one-handed swords there's a number of different mixes and matches they will all use the same dual weapon progression tree so that's an important distinction.
However the way we're servicing dual dual weapons is that they will occupy your main hand offhand and you will have a specific recipe which includes the previously completed one-handed weapons that are intending to be dualed.
Q: will shields have their own weapon tree?
A: Shields do not have weapon tree because they're an offand.
Shields do not have a weapon tree, they're an offhand, there will be passives within archetype, trees that that grant to shield usage so some archetypes will have passives that benefit that. In addition there will be a universal skill progression the universal skill progression tree will have Shield progression within it for the Block action so there are two places where specking in skill points will give you more beneficial use of shields
I hope they dont need to be modified first before dual wielding. I like it if i can find a 1h weapon and equip it in that moment and replace one of my current 1-hands. But im up for testing in A2 and see how it feels like
Your example with the mace was given by Steven too but the other way around.
Yeah, after typing that out I recalled someone saying that (not sure if it was here or not though), so I edited it to spears while you were typing your post. Transcribing Steven takes a while, so it's understandable that it took you a while to write that post...
The point I was making stands though, there are one handed weapons flagged as also being suitable to dual wielding. These are still one handed weapons though, and people will use them as such in builds that are not dual wielding.
Since in that transcript above he mentions weapon skill trees twice, I am even more convinced that what I have said above is the reason for this being how they are going about it.
It is also worth pointing out that there is no mention of a crafting station either. While it may be the case that it is needed, it also may not. Arcehage had a number of crafting situations that didn't need a crafting station, so there is reason to believe this could be the case in Ashes.
Again my assumption and point are that it is a system to make weapon skill trees function better, and if the combination and de-combination of one handed weapons in to dual wield sets is easy, the whole thing is fine.
Your example with the mace was given by Steven too but the other way around.
Yeah, after typing that out I recalled someone saying that (not sure if it was here or not though), so I edited it to spears while you were typing your post. Transcribing Steven takes a while, so it's understandable that it took you a while to write that post...
I should have refreshed the page after I posted but I had to shut down.
Sorry about that.
Indeed the example with the spear is better. Dual wielding spears would be almost as funny as dual wielding shields. At least in AoC where we cannot throw weapons away.
The point I was making stands though, there are one handed weapons flagged as also being suitable to dual wielding. These are still one handed weapons though, and people will use them as such in builds that are not dual wielding.
It can indeed be that weapon types are flagged as being suitable to dual wielding, like swords or maces in general and others like spears to not fit this combination.
Even though if you can hold a shield with spear, replacing the shield with a dagger should be possible...
I think I will wait to get more details. Soon we will know.
Since in that transcript above he mentions weapon skill trees twice, I am even more convinced that what I have said above is the reason for this being how they are going about it.
This can indeed be a reason but I hope there are more.
It is also worth pointing out that there is no mention of a crafting station either. While it may be the case that it is needed, it also may not. Arcehage had a number of crafting situations that didn't need a crafting station, so there is reason to believe this could be the case in Ashes.
Again my assumption and point are that it is a system to make weapon skill trees function better, and if the combination and de-combination of one handed weapons in to dual wield sets is easy, the whole thing is fine.
Maybe Archage influence will win in the end.
But knowing that
Players gain craftable items and recipes from deconstructing (salvaging) completed items.[1]
don't you think those recipes which allow combining the weapons into a dual wielding set would come from deconstructing lower tier sets?
If recipes and access to high level crafting benches are needed to make all other weapons, I see it fair to be the same for dual wielded sets too. A player could buy single handed weapons from different places but to combine them should go to metropolis or a level 5 node which has a weapon crafting bench and talk with a blacksmith.
If recipes and access to high level crafting benches are needed to make all other weapons, I see it fair to be the same for dual wielded sets too. A player could buy single handed weapons from different places but to combine them should go to metropolis or a level 5 node which has a weapon crafting bench and talk with a blacksmith.
Why?
If a player using a sword and shield buys a sword and shield from different places, they don't need to go to a level 5 node and talk to a blacksmith - why they would someone that buys 2 swords need to do this?
The requirement for high level crafters and benches and such comes in to play in making the weapons to start with, why force dual wielding players - and ONLY dual wielding players - to need to do this twice?
I know we’re clarifying some basics as mentioned by Steven, but I’m still hung up on the ‘why.’
Today’s basic approach to dual-wield from other games is:
- some classes can equip 1-H (or 2H) weapons in each hand
- the damage for each weapon is adjusted to balance dual-wield v single weapons
- Spec trees provide enhancement to damage, attack speed, or other direct / indirect attributes
- There’s no impact to the weapon itself - so it can be used in a different fighting style when the player changes spec (think Fury changing to Arms)
So… what’s the benefit to the player for now changing the item instead of using the more intuitive practice above?
This was my thought process as well. They would need a reason specific to Ashes for doing it this way.
The only real reason I can come up with that does make some sense is in relation to weapon skill trees. If they want to have a skill tree for swords, one for daggers and one for dual wielding but only want characters to have access to one skill tree at a time, then the easiest way to make that happen is to make it so a skill tree only has an effect on the appropriate weapon type.
Thus, you can't have daggers being the weapon type you have equipped while dual wielding - you need to have dual wield type weapons.
Assuming this is accurate, it then puts Intrepid in a position where they either need to create specific dual wield weapons, or require players to combine existing weapons in to a dual wield set. Requireing players to create weapon sets would be less work for the developers, but also more freedom for players - and so would be a no-brainer from that specific perspective.
That said, it only creates more freedom for players if there is an easy way to reverse the process. If they make this an irreversable process, then my theory above wouldn't be true and Intrepid would then seemingly be doing it as a "fuck you" to dual wield players.
IMO the reason is RL. At least that's what I hope it's about. People rarely DW two weapons of the same weight. Your off hand was normally a weapon smaller then your main hand. The DW we see in games today are just for show, something Hollywood raised us on. Same with bracers, very few wore them. Bracer were for select battle classes.
I really hope we get more details on whether the dual wield process is reversible and, if it is, what it does when you combine tradable and non-tradable weapons. It seems to me like what the devs are doing is shifting the complexity from the skill trees into inventory management and trade, and I don't know if that's the tradeoff they actually want to be making.
Yes, and here are some other concerns along the trading / crafting line of thought.
How is durability treated for the weapon set? If the weapons were made from different material, how is maintenance handle?
Weapon tree concerns. When a character is dual-wielding, does it still get xp for skill points in the individual weapons tree or it goes all into the dual-wield tree? Meaning, no progress in single handed use while dual-wielding. Who's going to use only a single dagger to fight? Dagger + shield? Dagger + other doodad in the off-hand?
If recipes and access to high level crafting benches are needed to make all other weapons, I see it fair to be the same for dual wielded sets too. A player could buy single handed weapons from different places but to combine them should go to metropolis or a level 5 node which has a weapon crafting bench and talk with a blacksmith.
Why?
If a player using a sword and shield buys a sword and shield from different places, they don't need to go to a level 5 node and talk to a blacksmith - why they would someone that buys 2 swords need to do this?
The requirement for high level crafters and benches and such comes in to play in making the weapons to start with, why force dual wielding players - and ONLY dual wielding players - to need to do this twice?
The player with shield and sword is not subject to this "combined into one item" concept.
I am just making assumptions and guesses. It is like a reductio ad absurdum where in the start I assume this concept has some good reason behind it. But if I cannot find enough consistent arguments I have to accept that is not a good one. So we either get more info or wait for launch and find out.
Until then, this feels like yet another artificial constraint AoC throws at us.
I really hope we get more details on whether the dual wield process is reversible and, if it is, what it does when you combine tradable and non-tradable weapons. It seems to me like what the devs are doing is shifting the complexity from the skill trees into inventory management and trade, and I don't know if that's the tradeoff they actually want to be making.
Yes, and here are some other concerns along the trading / crafting line of thought.
How is durability treated for the weapon set? If the weapons were made from different material, how is maintenance handle?
Weapon tree concerns. When a character is dual-wielding, does it still get xp for skill points in the individual weapons tree or it goes all into the dual-wield tree? Meaning, no progress in single handed use while dual-wielding. Who's going to use only a single dagger to fight? Dagger + shield? Dagger + other doodad in the off-hand?
Durability and maintenance are both interesting questions.
As for experience - if the weapon you have equipped is dual wield, your experience will go to dual wield - much as how using a single sword won't progress your dual wield experience at all.
I can see some assassin type builds using only a single dagger, perhaps with a bonus to sneak attack damage if the off hand is empty.
It is like a reductio ad absurdum where in the start I assume this concept has some good reason behind it.
Same, which is what led me to assume it was about weapon skill trees.
That actually is a good reason. I have no specific reason to think it is the case other than the fact that I can't come up with any better reason.
Your assumptions are based on facts and words Steven used.
I feel there must be something more to this decision.
Maybe there is some nostalgia involved into this.
I'd say it is not a step forward which other mmos will now follow unless AoC will make MMOs great again
Comments
Sure, different games have different ways of balancing, but none of them require players to do this in order to facilitate developers in that balancing.
Also, you can't just swap.
I didn't say they prevented you from using "daggers", I said that they are preventing you from using that dagger.
Keep in mind, we are talking about characters that have invested points in a dual wield skill tree, if they equip a dagger that isn't combined in this manner, that isn't dual wielding, and so the player does not have access to that skill tree.
Having gone over this thread, and also having tried to think of any other reasons myself, the only reasonI have come up with for this to be a thing developers would ask of players is as per my post near the top of this page.
see I was waiting for your reply but you mentioned it first. skill points. the weapons are in the service of the player, not the other way around. weapons help the archetype skills
ok first, I know these are just examples (fire, poison, physical) and I doubt we gonna have weapons with element like that (we will have enchants that can be changed tho) but we might and they are as good as anything else for the purpose of this explanation.
if you have a fire weapon, and you invest into the weapon skill tree to help with fire damage and procs, and also fire augmented skills, don't you think that if you change weapons to a poison one, you will need to change the skill tree and possibly your skills as well? you arent going with the fire build to the volcano, you will swap to a water build.
even if the weapon skills don't add elemental damage (but you still get it from ehcnats or different weapons of the same type), they are just adding procs for your archetype skills. so if this Is true, then you can simply make a dual fire dagger, dual poison dagger and dual physical dagger and swap (your weapon passives wont change), the same way you would swap if you had 1 handed daggers or swords.
no one was crying about dual wielding before. treat dual weapons as you would treat any 2 handed weapons. instead of crafting a sword and a shield, you craft a 2 handed sword (possibly need more mats) or 2 one handed swords and combine them. these are just the mats. complaining that you cant use the one handed swords is the same as complaining that you cant use the iron you used to craft the swords for something else. for all intents and purposes, dual weapons are just 2 handed weapons that look different. period. you want different elements? carry multiple as you would with any other weapon.
maybe the devs don't want you combining the stats of 2 swords, that's why they are convert them to a new item. balance reasons. maybe they don't want you to attack with different elements...or have 2 weapon skills trees, or the same one duplicated. who knows? plenty of reasons. beside, they could potentially make trees for different weapon combinations in the future, If they wish so. 2 swords, 2 maces, 2 daggers, 1 sword 1 mace, 1 sword 1 dagger, 1 mace 1 dagger.
I think that if I am using a dagger that deals some fire damage when I hit someone with it, I am still using a dagger. Yes you can, but that involves getting 6 items instead of 3. No, because if I am out in the world and an item drops (there will be some drops in the game), if it is a two handed sword then it is good to use on the next encounter. If it is a one handed weapon for someone with a shield, it is good to go on the next encounter. If it is a one handed weapon for someone that dual wields, it is not good to go for the next encounter.
The notion of there being an issue with attacking with different elements is not viable in a game like Ashes. There are reasons for this that aren't worth going in to in this thread - other than to say the class system is incompatible with a developer wanting to restrict players attacking with multiple elements.
Skill trees is the issue I talked about above that is a viable reason for them to need to do this (something like this is a need, not a want - they would only implement something like this if there was no other viable option).
The reason they would be doing it (at least in my opinion) is becuase the weapon skill tree you are using will be based on the item in your main hand, thus requiring a main hand item that has dual wield as it's weapon type. As I said in the post on the previous page where I mentioned this, if this is the reason, and if the combination process is simple, and if there is an equally simple process to un-combine weapons, then this is fine.
Depending on the implementation, I don't hate it. It's just different. If we get to keep the weapon looks and weapon effects, like that glowy 1H sword we saw in a dev stream a while ago, I am ok with something like the old L2 system. Again, it's just like making a 2H weapon really, except instead of having to craft a new weapon from scratch, you can use existing 1H weapons and combine them.
In L2 you used two lower grade swords and combined they gave you a high grade pair of duals.
Simple as that.
Well shit, if L2 did it, it must be good design.
Oh wait, the game was shit in every aspect other than its PvP.
Perhaps if you stopped assuming that everything from L2 gets a free pass in Ashes...
Simple as that.
I think it keeps happening. Get used to playing it in the future.
Certain legendary items may be limited to one per server at any given time.[7][8]
And others can be rare enough that for practical purpose you can wait quite some time until you get/buy the desired other weapon you want to pair with.
But we also know that
Crafted gear is considered best-in-slot in Ashes of Creation.[4]
So I assume the weapons which can be combined to be dual wielded can also be crafted.
Then the balancing regarding time to gather resources or make money can be balanced relative to the other weapons.
The blacksmith who crafts the weapon might have a choice to make it eligible for dual-wielding or not.
If he makes a dual-wielding weapon, he may have a larger customer base.
If he makes a non-dual-wielding weapon, he might ask for a higher price. In that case, I would assume that also the attributes of these weapons are somewhat higher.
If any dual-wielding weapon can be transformed into a non-dual-wielding weapon through a "finishing touch" then customers may come to apply this last stage anyway, for both cases.
If I am wrong and blacksmiths do not have complete freedom but specific components must drop from mobs, then IS can balance those as desired, to not discourage dual wielders by putting twice the effort on them, compared to other weapon types. In this case too I assume that these weapons will be less desirable by shield + weapon users.
Today’s basic approach to dual-wield from other games is:
- some classes can equip 1-H (or 2H) weapons in each hand
- the damage for each weapon is adjusted to balance dual-wield v single weapons
- Spec trees provide enhancement to damage, attack speed, or other direct / indirect attributes
- There’s no impact to the weapon itself - so it can be used in a different fighting style when the player changes spec (think Fury changing to Arms)
So… what’s the benefit to the player for now changing the item instead of using the more intuitive practice above?
Weapons that can be combined to make a dual wield set are one handed weapons - the same weapons someone with a sword and shield uses. Builds using sword and shield (or any other one handed weapon with any other non-weapon offhand) don't need to combine their items in to one.
This completely excludes any notion of balancing the crafting cost of these weapons to take account of the fact that two need to be combined - there is no way to balance this when this is a factor of the user and how they wish to use it, rather than something that will always happen with the weapon.
This was my thought process as well. They would need a reason specific to Ashes for doing it this way.
The only real reason I can come up with that does make some sense is in relation to weapon skill trees. If they want to have a skill tree for swords, one for daggers and one for dual wielding but only want characters to have access to one skill tree at a time, then the easiest way to make that happen is to make it so a skill tree only has an effect on the appropriate weapon type.
Thus, you can't have daggers being the weapon type you have equipped while dual wielding - you need to have dual wield type weapons.
Assuming this is accurate, it then puts Intrepid in a position where they either need to create specific dual wield weapons, or require players to combine existing weapons in to a dual wield set. Requireing players to create weapon sets would be less work for the developers, but also more freedom for players - and so would be a no-brainer from that specific perspective.
That said, it only creates more freedom for players if there is an easy way to reverse the process. If they make this an irreversable process, then my theory above wouldn't be true and Intrepid would then seemingly be doing it as a "fuck you" to dual wield players.
Why would you choose to create/buy a dual-wielding weapon if you have some advantage in using a non dual-wielding one?
That's the assumption I made, that the weapons which can be combined are somewhat weaker than the other ones.
I don't understand.
If it is only about skill trees, then why would you have to involve of a blacksmith too?
Weapon skills could be activated the moment you place the dual wielding weapons, one in each hand.
If you would replace one with a shield then the game would activate the other skill trees.
I would say it is more about the weapons being paired together acting as a completed weapon.
Separating them would be subject to the same mechanic which allows breaking down a two handed sword into it's components and gain recipes.
Breaking down a completed dual wielding set would give a dual wielding recipe weapon.
Breaking down a single weapon would give the recipe of a single wielding weapon.
Because it isn't a "dual wielding" weapon, it is a one handed weapon.
Sure, they are designating some of them as being suitable for dual wielding and some not, but that is likely to be more a restriction on weapon type - swords able to be combined in to a dual wielding set, but spears not being able to, for example.
If Intrepid were to just designate weapons as being fit for dual wielding and they DIDN'T expect players to use them in one hand, then there would be no reason for all of this.
To my knowledge, there is no mention of including a blacksmith.
Your idea of the dual wield weapon tree being activated when you equip a weapon in each hand would work, but would be unintuitave to many players - they have access to one weapon skill tree, then lose access to without removing that item.
Your example with the mace was given by Steven too but the other way around.
He also mentioned a "specific recipe" to transform them into a set. That recipe will most likely be used at a crafting station.
I know you said you can not watch the AMA. Here is the link (1 minute at that moment)
https://youtu.be/vygDXte1AX8?t=3641
and the transcript
Q: how would dual wielding work and so can we infer that are dagger going to be the only dual wielding weapon or a one handed sword one handed mace?
A: You'll be able to do yes you'll be able to do one-handed maces one-handed swords two one-handed swords there's a number of different mixes and matches they will all use the same dual weapon progression tree so that's an important distinction.
However the way we're servicing dual dual weapons is that they will occupy your main hand offhand and you will have a specific recipe which includes the previously completed one-handed weapons that are intending to be dualed.
Q: will shields have their own weapon tree?
A: Shields do not have weapon tree because they're an offand.
Shields do not have a weapon tree, they're an offhand, there will be passives within archetype, trees that that grant to shield usage so some archetypes will have passives that benefit that. In addition there will be a universal skill progression the universal skill progression tree will have Shield progression within it for the Block action so there are two places where specking in skill points will give you more beneficial use of shields
The point I was making stands though, there are one handed weapons flagged as also being suitable to dual wielding. These are still one handed weapons though, and people will use them as such in builds that are not dual wielding.
Since in that transcript above he mentions weapon skill trees twice, I am even more convinced that what I have said above is the reason for this being how they are going about it.
It is also worth pointing out that there is no mention of a crafting station either. While it may be the case that it is needed, it also may not. Arcehage had a number of crafting situations that didn't need a crafting station, so there is reason to believe this could be the case in Ashes.
Again my assumption and point are that it is a system to make weapon skill trees function better, and if the combination and de-combination of one handed weapons in to dual wield sets is easy, the whole thing is fine.
Sorry about that.
Indeed the example with the spear is better. Dual wielding spears would be almost as funny as dual wielding shields. At least in AoC where we cannot throw weapons away.
It can indeed be that weapon types are flagged as being suitable to dual wielding, like swords or maces in general and others like spears to not fit this combination.
Even though if you can hold a shield with spear, replacing the shield with a dagger should be possible...
I think I will wait to get more details. Soon we will know.
This can indeed be a reason but I hope there are more.
Maybe Archage influence will win in the end.
But knowing that
Players gain craftable items and recipes from deconstructing (salvaging) completed items.[1]
don't you think those recipes which allow combining the weapons into a dual wielding set would come from deconstructing lower tier sets?
If recipes and access to high level crafting benches are needed to make all other weapons, I see it fair to be the same for dual wielded sets too. A player could buy single handed weapons from different places but to combine them should go to metropolis or a level 5 node which has a weapon crafting bench and talk with a blacksmith.
Why?
If a player using a sword and shield buys a sword and shield from different places, they don't need to go to a level 5 node and talk to a blacksmith - why they would someone that buys 2 swords need to do this?
The requirement for high level crafters and benches and such comes in to play in making the weapons to start with, why force dual wielding players - and ONLY dual wielding players - to need to do this twice?
IMO the reason is RL. At least that's what I hope it's about. People rarely DW two weapons of the same weight. Your off hand was normally a weapon smaller then your main hand. The DW we see in games today are just for show, something Hollywood raised us on. Same with bracers, very few wore them. Bracer were for select battle classes.
Yes, and here are some other concerns along the trading / crafting line of thought.
How is durability treated for the weapon set? If the weapons were made from different material, how is maintenance handle?
Weapon tree concerns. When a character is dual-wielding, does it still get xp for skill points in the individual weapons tree or it goes all into the dual-wield tree? Meaning, no progress in single handed use while dual-wielding. Who's going to use only a single dagger to fight? Dagger + shield? Dagger + other doodad in the off-hand?
The player with shield and sword is not subject to this "combined into one item" concept.
I am just making assumptions and guesses. It is like a reductio ad absurdum where in the start I assume this concept has some good reason behind it. But if I cannot find enough consistent arguments I have to accept that is not a good one. So we either get more info or wait for launch and find out.
Until then, this feels like yet another artificial constraint AoC throws at us.
Same, which is what led me to assume it was about weapon skill trees.
That actually is a good reason. I have no specific reason to think it is the case other than the fact that I can't come up with any better reason.
Durability and maintenance are both interesting questions.
As for experience - if the weapon you have equipped is dual wield, your experience will go to dual wield - much as how using a single sword won't progress your dual wield experience at all.
I can see some assassin type builds using only a single dagger, perhaps with a bonus to sneak attack damage if the off hand is empty.
Your assumptions are based on facts and words Steven used.
I feel there must be something more to this decision.
Maybe there is some nostalgia involved into this.
I'd say it is not a step forward which other mmos will now follow unless AoC will make MMOs great again