Dual wielding

[J.G. Elmslie]

Anthony, you seem to be entirely missing the point that Don was making.

It has nothing to do with zombies, underworld etc.

The point that's been made about dual wielding is that its not very practical. In the same way that buckets with holes in them arent much use for carrying water, or swimming in a maille hauberk is a rather bad idea...

the game is physics-based. real physics determines how a lot of stuff works (like swords not being practical to draw off the back over the shoulder - the human arm's just not long enough, as we've discussed previously.) Dual Wielding, in that regard, is the same as Final Fantasy-esque giant choppers the size of a door. that sort of stuff just doesnt work.

We're all for having the ability to use two weapons, all we're trying to do is explain the constraints under which is should work.

--

Now, your previous post Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with.

Those of us intimate with the system know that this games will never have a flashy combat system, but we can have a realistic not necessarily historically accurate combat system(history is only a guide not a rule book that the devs must follow, magic defeats any argument)

I really disagree. I think we can have a spectacular combat system, later on, when animations are improved upon. And I think that the way to have it realistic, is to look at history.

Now, that does not mean we have to use Ringeck's Zwerchau and Vadi's Posta Del Donna, i.33's custodiae, or Marozzo's fourth guard, or anything remotely like that. But looking closely at real stuff for the animation, will allow it to look far more exciting than something made up out of the animator's head having watched "highlander" last week. And I strongly disagree that "Magic defeats any argument". that's incredibly lazy design. "Hey, its magic, fuckit!" simply doesn't fly.
Conversely, If this were something batshit crazy like "morrowind" with magic mushroom towers and armour made from giant insect shells, and all that? Hell yes! Then's the time to go mad and make stuff magic. A low-fantasy world that's very defined by the real laws of physics, and where a lot of the equipment is inspired by real world stuff, like SG however? No. this is not the place for the "hey, its magic" mentality.


I honestly feel that SG has the potential to do it better than I think you believe it can - but it'll take a good animator coming onboard for that.

-

now, the rest of your post, I generally agree with.

(I'll ignore the equipping/unequipping, simply because that's something for a different thread.)

You list

• Shields
• Dagger
• Hand-Axe
• Short sword

and the various values you gave. Generally, I like that as a system, though I'd do that a little differently.

I would, I think, try to assign a "defensive" set of value to weapons. that would consist of "Mass", "Mobility", and "offense", and I wouldnt simply restrict it to weapons - I would apply the system to all off-hand arms and items.

So, "mass" and "mobility" tend to be inversely proportional. A small buckler or a dagger have low mass, and high mobility. A large axe - or a great wooden tower pavise - have high mass, low mobility. And of course few items, like a cloak wrapped round the arm, might have low mass, but lower mobility. Together, those values roughly equate to your "parry speed" mechanic, but allowing a little bit of tweaking of some values.

Then, you have the offensive rating. You can slam a buckler into the other guy's face. Same with a dagger. But a bigger shield, or a large axe, it then becomes increasingly hard to use offensively - with its mass, its slower to strike with.

Conversely, a weapon with higher mass is better able to resist a powerful blow - so if you're being slammed with a big lucerne hammer, or a zombie with the sledgehammer, you're not going to easily block it with a small dagger... but a bigger, slower axe, or especially a large pavise, is able to resist that sort of blow. So mass there confers an advantage in defence.


So you get a series of options that, when you're able to dual-wield (and remember, its a skill you would pick), you would be able to pick your defensive capabilities - are you wanting that lighter defence that isnt infallible, but with which you can attack much easier with your 2nd hand, or do you want a slower defence that's not as effective in the attacking aspect? Likewise, you can pick an offhand weapon that's faster, or slower and heavier to suit play style.


With that sort of system, you could end up with values that allow off-hand weapons to be used defensively, and then used to make attacks - the sort of use of two weapons that is much more realistic feeling - not historically exact, but based on how real-world, real physics movements were done - and obviously, also lets you pick how much of an offensive aspect you have. A rondel dagger is far more lethal in a offhand strike, than a buckler that only does a small bit of bashing damage, for example.

And at the same time, the offhand weapon as a system also integrates in seamlessly with the basic operation of shields, so everything can be done under one set of mechanics, minimising the headaches of implementing it as a design.

 

[tiny lampe]

@J.G. Elmslie
As a community, I think we are very lucky to hav you on board. Some people can write educational posts on a topic because they have the knowledge, and other people can write calming posts (as opposed to inflamatory ones) because they have patience and team-player spirit. To have both talents though, that's much less common. Keep up the good work.

 

[Bobob]

I for one think dual wielding has no place here.

 

[Anthony Obilor]

Anthony, you seem to be entirely missing the point that Don was making.

It has nothing to do with zombies, underworld etc.

The point that's been made about dual wielding is that its not very practical. In the same way that buckets with holes in them arent much use for carrying water, or swimming in a maille hauberk is a rather bad idea...

the game is physics-based. real physics determines how a lot of stuff works (like swords not being practical to draw off the back over the shoulder - the human arm's just not long enough, as we've discussed previously.) Dual Wielding, in that regard, is the same as Final Fantasy-esque giant choppers the size of a door. that sort of stuff just doesnt work.

We're all for having the ability to use two weapons, all we're trying to do is explain the constraints under which is should work.

--

Now, your previous post Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with.



I really disagree. I think we can have a spectacular combat system, later on, when animations are improved upon. And I think that the way to have it realistic, is to look at history.

Now, that does not mean we have to use Ringeck's Zwerchau and Vadi's Posta Del Donna, i.33's custodiae, or Marozzo's fourth guard, or anything remotely like that. But looking closely at real stuff for the animation, will allow it to look far more exciting than something made up out of the animator's head having watched "highlander" last week. And I strongly disagree that "Magic defeats any argument". that's incredibly lazy design. "Hey, its magic, fuckit!" simply doesn't fly.
Conversely, If this were something batshit crazy like "morrowind" with magic mushroom towers and armour made from giant insect shells, and all that? Hell yes! Then's the time to go mad and make stuff magic. A low-fantasy world that's very defined by the real laws of physics, and where a lot of the equipment is inspired by real world stuff, like SG however? No. this is not the place for the "hey, its magic" mentality.


I honestly feel that SG has the potential to do it better than I think you believe it can - but it'll take a good animator coming onboard for that.

-

now, the rest of your post, I generally agree with.

(I'll ignore the equipping/unequipping, simply because that's something for a different thread.)

You list

• Shields
• Dagger
• Hand-Axe
• Short sword

and the various values you gave. Generally, I like that as a system, though I'd do that a little differently.

I would, I think, try to assign a "defensive" set of value to weapons. that would consist of "Mass", "Mobility", and "offense", and I wouldnt simply restrict it to weapons - I would apply the system to all off-hand arms and items.

So, "mass" and "mobility" tend to be inversely proportional. A small buckler or a dagger have low mass, and high mobility. A large axe - or a great wooden tower pavise - have high mass, low mobility. And of course few items, like a cloak wrapped round the arm, might have low mass, but lower mobility. Together, those values roughly equate to your "parry speed" mechanic, but allowing a little bit of tweaking of some values.

Then, you have the offensive rating. You can slam a buckler into the other guy's face. Same with a dagger. But a bigger shield, or a large axe, it then becomes increasingly hard to use offensively - with its mass, its slower to strike with.

Conversely, a weapon with higher mass is better able to resist a powerful blow - so if you're being slammed with a big lucerne hammer, or a zombie with the sledgehammer, you're not going to easily block it with a small dagger... but a bigger, slower axe, or especially a large pavise, is able to resist that sort of blow. So mass there confers an advantage in defence.


So you get a series of options that, when you're able to dual-wield (and remember, its a skill you would pick), you would be able to pick your defensive capabilities - are you wanting that lighter defence that isnt infallible, but with which you can attack much easier with your 2nd hand, or do you want a slower defence that's not as effective in the attacking aspect? Likewise, you can pick an offhand weapon that's faster, or slower and heavier to suit play style.


With that sort of system, you could end up with values that allow off-hand weapons to be used defensively, and then used to make attacks - the sort of use of two weapons that is much more realistic feeling - not historically exact, but based on how real-world, real physics movements were done - and obviously, also lets you pick how much of an offensive aspect you have. A rondel dagger is far more lethal in a offhand strike, than a buckler that only does a small bit of bashing damage, for example.

And at the same time, the offhand weapon as a system also integrates in seamlessly with the basic operation of shields, so everything can be done under one set of mechanics, minimising the headaches of implementing it as a design.

You just said exactly how I wrote it to work, shields are defensive but have the shield bash ability, obviously heavier stuff is less maneuverable. Also it seems many are getting my statements twisted, when I say we won't have flashy combat I mean we will not have Hollywood spinning maneuvers. It will be basic strikes with offhand having basic attacks that could work in tandem with the primary weapon, like maroc has already demoed. I also stated the offhand is mainly defensive and used to parry or block. I am simply discussing how it could work, which is what we should be discussing and not only why it can't work.

And I also totally disagree that the game features should be constrained by our own history. I am also arguing for physics realism not historic realism. History should not limit a game but inspire and guide. By our history and your statements dual wielding has been done, it is possible. Renaissance period, dagger on offhand. I am not arguing for flashy combat, I am saying it is already in the game engine how can we discuss a balanced system that works with how the game already is. Pls read all my words. Maybe I am not explaining myself well?

Edit:also my statement about magic is that if you try to constrain aspects of the game based on not fitting our historical accuracy, that point becomes mute because there are many things which already does not fit our history. This is why I say history is a guide not a constrain which forces the game to adhere to our history. First it is a game, second dual wielding is possible, it may have historic reasons why it was not favoured in certain situations, certain time lines, or by certain cultures, but no one can argue that in all time lines in some form, place, time, it was used, not as a mainstream fighting method but it is physically possible, you don't need orangutan arms like you seem to be implying.

 

[Boothie]

As far as I'm aware, Exanima is set in a medieval era, in which the battlefield was mostly governed by shields, polearms, projectile weapons, and heavy armor. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually it is not, to quote madoc "this game is NOT historical, I've said this many times now. It is not set in Europe nor is it set in the middle ages, it merely draws some inspiration from it.".

Personally im not terribly invested in wether or not dualwielding makes it into the game but if it can be made an interesting way to approach the game and the obstacles in it then i am all for it, im looking forward to try every permutation of fighting styles, weapons and equipment that makes it into the game.

 

[Cpt Dave]

Alright. Then I want to dual wield katanas. I can already see how undefeatable and cool I will be!!!!4!4

 

[Anthony Obilor]

Just because people want dual wield does not mean we should go overboard by dual wielding katanas or dual wielding 2 handers.

In that case I want to be able to have full invisibility with thurmaturgy, and I want a magic sword that shoots fire since magic is already in.

It can be realistic, it does not have to be flashy, it can work with the current system and probably does since Madoc already has it in. My problem is people are arguing against it based on historical popularity and use and probably imagining it as most games do it, please read mine and @J.G. Elmslie, you will see that both of us put forth ways that the system can work with realism and balance in mind. Dual wielding is possible, it just is not mainstream method of fighting.

 

[Anuri]

Alright. Then I want to dual wield katanas. I can already see how undefeatable and cool I will be!!!!4!4

katana is a 2h weapon, although there are tecniques to use it 1h and 1h + wakidzashi (short sword). Some Japanese swordsmanship schools taught that.

 

[crashingtingler]

"Dual wielding" is at best, clumsy and ridiculous. Real life examples are different, as the off hand is using a dagger as a DEFENSIVE instrument. slashing and stabbing with both hands is utterly stupid, i hope, (i really really hope) the SG rises above this stupid trend and either includes dual wielding in a semi-realistic way or cuts it entirely. id prefer the latter.

 

[-Tim-]

Following this discussion is quite educational and entertaining. I'm a pretty big fan of dual wielding (just because it looks awesome if done 'right'). I wonder... if the only weapons available to me are two swords, no shields around, would I be better off using only the one sword, or both?

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

I enjoy less restrictions. If you wanna dual wield, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.
After reading through this discussion I see that dual wielding is pretty much a big misconception so I have no problem with it simply being ineffective. If my understanding is correct, you would have to invest a skill point somewhere to dual wield. Dropping dual wield would then open up a skill, I wish I could speculate on what could take it's place but I don't really know what all combat skills to expect in the first place.

 

[Don Kanaille]

Following this discussion is quite educational and entertaining. I'm a pretty big fan of dual wielding (just because it looks awesome if done 'right'). I wonder... if the only weapons available to me are two swords, no shields around, would I be better off using only the one sword, or both?

Unless you specifically trained using two swords, you´d be better of with just one. Carrying the second sword will tire you out faster, you will hardly be able to do anything useful with it because you cannot really concentrate on both swords at once, it may disturb your balance, you are more likely to accidently expose your second arm or even injure it yourself while trying to use both blades. There is a reason you often see sword fighters keep one arm on their back or very close to their chest: so it does not get in the way. A free arm *may* also allow you to use grappling or leverage against your opponent when an opportunity arises or to catch yourself by holding onto something; granted the first two things are not overly likely unless you and your opponent are also well armored.

Just look at an average person trying to swing two sticks around, see how "elegant" that looks and how long it takes until they hit themself.




Regarding dual wielding in the game, I´ve said everything about that I could and if someone did not get my points till now I can´t help it.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

when I say we won't have flashy combat I mean we will not have Hollywood spinning maneuvers.

Sounds like we're actually aiming for pretty much the same thing, just slightly different terminologies causing a confusion there. Apologies if the disagreement sounded antagonistic.

Regarding history or accuracy, my point of view is that SG shouldn't copy history (Personally, I'd much rather see them create entirely original designs. Imagine a world where instead of european swords and armour, its khopeshes, and baleen whalebone armour, and all that sort of stuff. really original styles of kit, with unique design traits that arent copied form the real world at all?), but if they're going to make a renaissance-styled setting with European maces, swords etc, then they need to use that era's techniques as an informed source for how those weapons they're copying worked.

Its a bit like if you're making a physics-based racing game with pitstop strategies, you'd use F1 races not the "wacky races" cartoon. The character's human, and therefore limited by the same constraints of movement, coordination, etc, as any real person.

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

(Personally, I'd much rather see them create entirely original designs. Imagine a world where instead of european swords and armour, its khopeshes, and baleen whalebone armour, and all that sort of stuff. really original styles of kit, with unique design traits that arent copied form the real world at all?)

Yes! A thousand times, yes! It's an original world, why shouldn't it have some original designs as well?
If I remember correctly, the world was at one time more advanced. Could anything of that time remain in terms of aesthetic and design choice? Would love to be tricked only into thinking this was an accurate medieval world.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

Following this discussion is quite educational and entertaining. I'm a pretty big fan of dual wielding (just because it looks awesome if done 'right'). I wonder... if the only weapons available to me are two swords, no shields around, would I be better off using only the one sword, or both?

of course, the real answer is "it depends on the swords" - but that's not really the answer you wanted. So generally speaking, the answer is, you might well be able to hold two swords, but you're better off attacking with just one.

reason for that is simply that the vast majority of people dont have the hand-eye co-ordination to use two weapons simultaneously without taking their own knee off. You might well be better off holding two weapons, and using one defensively, to catch and snag the other guy's attack, but flat out attacking with both is almost certainly going to get you killed.

In practical terms, however, the most effective method would be that unless the weapon is very short-gripped (like a basket-hilted sword), its better to hold one weapon in both hands - even a fairly short-handled weapon like the viking sword can be gripped with the second hand supporting the pommel to some extent. That allows you greater control and force into the weapon, meaning you can move it faster, and twist it around the fulcrum point of your hands, to strike quicker - and since you're not left with the coordination problems of two weapons out, its far safer for the user.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

Yes! A thousand times, yes! It's an original world, why shouldn't it have some original designs as well?
If I remember correctly, the world was at one time more advanced. Could anything of that time remain in terms of aesthetic and design choice? Would love to be tricked only into thinking this was an accurate medieval world.

I would much prefer this as an approach, the problem is, it takes a lot more brain-power to come up with all the designs, and signifcantly more awareness of arms and armour in general to work out ways that those original designs would work.

The vast majority of original weapon designs come from artists who, lets be honest, have never had a fight in thier lives. So they end up without any practical elements at all. (Star Trek's klingon batleths, most swords in WOW, those horrible "fantasy" swords you get in fleamarket stalls.... )

 

[-Tim-]

In practical terms (...) its better to hold one weapon in both hands - even a fairly short-handled weapon like the viking sword can be gripped with the second hand supporting the pommel to some extent. That allows you greater control and force into the weapon, meaning you can move it faster, and twist it around the fulcrum point of your hands, to strike quicker - and since you're not left with the coordination problems of two weapons out, its far safer for the user.

I can't believe I didn't even consider that I see that using two hands to hold a onehanded weapon could be a very nice option to have in Exanima. That's for another topic, though.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

@-Tim- I've been thinking a *lot* about the two-handed weapons in SG recently, and how the style of the setting feels a lot more renaissance than medieval - and how it might be interesting to do something with the dedicated two-handed sword techniques like Figuredero's flourishes for the Montante, and something that's more suited to the smaller longsword, for smaller more medieval styled weapons.

something like this for the two-handed sword in confined areas, instead of the very crude flailing we have currently would be spectacular:

In many ways, I'm starting to think how the UI could be really heavily redesigned to make it much more intuitive, including the inventory system, and how you could place objects through drag'n'drop into things like slots for weapons, storage space, etc.

but I agree. Time for another topic on that.

 

[Gsprfdude]

I notice that a lot of the things said in here in regards to dual wielding are that it was possible, and if done right could have some good results. In cases where it was done correctly (namely the espada examples already listed) it was viewed as an advanced skill. One where the offhand was for parrying and very close combat, while the mainhand was the one used mainly (kek) for attacking. I agree with Anthony's post that history is more of a guidline than a rule book, and if such a style of combat is possible in terms of physics than it should be supported by us. We don't really know enough about how the skill points would work at this point. Ideally the skills would become more expensive as you get into some of the more advanced skills (this is where dual wielding comes in).

If you have the skill it should really be up to you what you decide to dual wield. Whether it is a rapier and dagger, or two behemoth axes (one of which can be seen as more reasonable). You could go with the axes and potentially deal excessive amounts of damage provided you run full tilt into an enemy. While it might look stupid to all onlookers you can pull off some pretty amazing manuevers in this game provided you can work well with the mechanics of it. Using the sledgehammer in the game isn't all that practical due to just how slow the weapon is but when you master the distance and can effectively lead enemies into it, it puts in some real work. The point of this paragraph is that while these examples weren't that practical for fighting, they worked and I don't think people should be denied of that.

Some perople argued that even if they are not being forced to use skill points on unlocking dual wielding, that other NPCs in the game could potentially have the skill instead. This is a valid concern, however if the skill is as I am hoping then only very skilled NPCs would be using such a skill. My hypothesis would be that only very certain skilled NPCs would use it anyway, such as swordmasters, royalty, or renowned bandits/mercenaries. If you were given a quest to kill one of these NPCs, then it really shouldn't matter just what type of skill they are using because YOU the player should be properly prepared to face a truly skilled opponent. And hey, if dual wielding is as clumsy as it seems than landing a hard shot with your two hander shouldn't be too much of a problem. This picture basically sums it all up:
If people can dual wield, then you should let them. I sincerely doubt that dual wielding will break the game, or be too overpowered so don't let preconceptions get in the way of enjoying the game. For now we can just patiently await more news about dual wielding from the developers.

 

[Guy]

Anthony, you seem to be entirely missing the point that Don was making.

It has nothing to do with zombies, underworld etc.

The point that's been made about dual wielding is that its not very practical. In the same way that buckets with holes in them arent much use for carrying water, or swimming in a maille hauberk is a rather bad idea...

the game is physics-based. real physics determines how a lot of stuff works (like swords not being practical to draw off the back over the shoulder - the human arm's just not long enough, as we've discussed previously.) Dual Wielding, in that regard, is the same as Final Fantasy-esque giant choppers the size of a door. that sort of stuff just doesnt work.

We're all for having the ability to use two weapons, all we're trying to do is explain the constraints under which is should work.

--

Now, your previous post Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with.



I really disagree. I think we can have a spectacular combat system, later on, when animations are improved upon. And I think that the way to have it realistic, is to look at history.

Now, that does not mean we have to use Ringeck's Zwerchau and Vadi's Posta Del Donna, i.33's custodiae, or Marozzo's fourth guard, or anything remotely like that. But looking closely at real stuff for the animation, will allow it to look far more exciting than something made up out of the animator's head having watched "highlander" last week. And I strongly disagree that "Magic defeats any argument". that's incredibly lazy design. "Hey, its magic, fuckit!" simply doesn't fly.
Conversely, If this were something batshit crazy like "morrowind" with magic mushroom towers and armour made from giant insect shells, and all that? Hell yes! Then's the time to go mad and make stuff magic. A low-fantasy world that's very defined by the real laws of physics, and where a lot of the equipment is inspired by real world stuff, like SG however? No. this is not the place for the "hey, its magic" mentality.


I honestly feel that SG has the potential to do it better than I think you believe it can - but it'll take a good animator coming onboard for that.

-

now, the rest of your post, I generally agree with.

(I'll ignore the equipping/unequipping, simply because that's something for a different thread.)

You list

• Shields
• Dagger
• Hand-Axe
• Short sword

and the various values you gave. Generally, I like that as a system, though I'd do that a little differently.

I would, I think, try to assign a "defensive" set of value to weapons. that would consist of "Mass", "Mobility", and "offense", and I wouldnt simply restrict it to weapons - I would apply the system to all off-hand arms and items.

So, "mass" and "mobility" tend to be inversely proportional. A small buckler or a dagger have low mass, and high mobility. A large axe - or a great wooden tower pavise - have high mass, low mobility. And of course few items, like a cloak wrapped round the arm, might have low mass, but lower mobility. Together, those values roughly equate to your "parry speed" mechanic, but allowing a little bit of tweaking of some values.

Then, you have the offensive rating. You can slam a buckler into the other guy's face. Same with a dagger. But a bigger shield, or a large axe, it then becomes increasingly hard to use offensively - with its mass, its slower to strike with.

Conversely, a weapon with higher mass is better able to resist a powerful blow - so if you're being slammed with a big lucerne hammer, or a zombie with the sledgehammer, you're not going to easily block it with a small dagger... but a bigger, slower axe, or especially a large pavise, is able to resist that sort of blow. So mass there confers an advantage in defence.


So you get a series of options that, when you're able to dual-wield (and remember, its a skill you would pick), you would be able to pick your defensive capabilities - are you wanting that lighter defence that isnt infallible, but with which you can attack much easier with your 2nd hand, or do you want a slower defence that's not as effective in the attacking aspect? Likewise, you can pick an offhand weapon that's faster, or slower and heavier to suit play style.


With that sort of system, you could end up with values that allow off-hand weapons to be used defensively, and then used to make attacks - the sort of use of two weapons that is much more realistic feeling - not historically exact, but based on how real-world, real physics movements were done - and obviously, also lets you pick how much of an offensive aspect you have. A rondel dagger is far more lethal in a offhand strike, than a buckler that only does a small bit of bashing damage, for example.

And at the same time, the offhand weapon as a system also integrates in seamlessly with the basic operation of shields, so everything can be done under one set of mechanics, minimising the headaches of implementing it as a design.

I'm sorry, I need to go back and re-read the last several posts agian, but I had to say this post is spot on the best dual weild system that would be realistic, defensive in nature, in accordance with "realistic fantasy" rules, where this game seems to fit. Completley optional as to personal taste, with both advantages and disadvantages to other defensive skill tree options such as sheild or plate mail or (the horror!) Giant Frog Shell.

If I have a vote this is it.