Running and sprinting with a torch+2H weapon (say a pole-axe) isn't realistic. A 7 foot pole weapon cannot just be balanced easily with one hand, especially if you're having to manage a torch in the other. Your argument would need to be universal and it isn't.
I will reiterate the lacrosse metaphor. A defenders stick (outdoor) is roughly 6.5 feet long, and weighs next to nothing (under 3 lbs). It literally can be managed with 3 fingers. But if you want to run around a tight area with debris and darkness (yes even with a torch it's still dark, especially when you're moving quickly). Your going to have to manage the lacrosse stick a lot, and probably still get it caught on things periodically like doorways and desks and tables and chairs.
If you want to be able to wield a torch and 2h weapon, then realistically you're stuck to walking, and that is going to be much more frustrating than whatever it is you're doing now.
Madoc said he didn't want separate rules for just a couple of 2h weapons. Sorry your 2h sword gets thrown in with the rest. So without including an automatic effect to drop a torch, you're going to have to do it manually. I'm going to have to file this suggestion/complain in with sheaths for swords, as in it does it's job now, anything else would be time spent to change something that works and isn't NEEDED.
You option B is the better one. All of those things are true.
And your option A isn't completely accurate, in that "logical/realistic" would require the fire from the torch to have it's properties, and things like falling including and landing on your weapon or the torch. or dropping the torch or weapon sometimes instead of falling. Weapons aren't equal, and shouldn't have equal viability, your argument would have the broom be as good as the 2h sword (peoples skill is equal and therefore not a factor). A man using a broom fighting a man with a 2h sword doesn't win unless he's simply a much better fighter.
As I said. You're not really wrong, you're just not right enough.
But we never asked for exceptions, you're putting words in my mouth again. I stated facts about two-handed swords simply because I knew more about them than I did about the various polearms in the game. In my opinion both should be allowed to use torches because both are very well handled in the game.
Now I'll admit right right now that I know nothing about lacrosse, but I think I have a good knowledge on the applications of medieval weaponry and therefore believe the examples I've given to be more valid, since the discussion is about medieval weaponry. In these pictures I'm including you can see how the character handles using both a polearm and a two-handed sword.
If you notice, despite the polearm being a longer weapon, both of the weapons held in a way that they have similar lengths above the character's head. This is true to how soldiers in the past actually handled their weapons when not in active combat, so that the weapon wouldn't smack into people or objects at its leisure. And if a weapon was still proving hard to handle carrying in one hand a soldier would just hold it closer to the head of the weapon. I.e. this is how soldiers easily balanced up to and including 7 foot poles while walking and running. You said that when moving around in the darkness one would still have to manuever their lacrosse stick (or polearm/sword in this case) around a lot. I don't really see what this would have to do with anything, because whether you're holding these two-handers with one or two hands while running it could still hit stuff (less likely if you do the stuff mentioned above...). Which I've said previously and will elaborate on further later, on why I think its good that these weapons are somewhat unwieldy. So to sum this paragraph up no, I would not realistically have to walk just to hold these two things.
Now, Tyon made the point that he wouldn't want to run around in the dark and poke himself with his weapon. I agree on the basis that if I was in the dark I probably wouldn't run at all. However I believe I've already shown that it's next to impossible to stab oneself with one of these weapons, but hey I'll clarify. The only way someone can get stabbed with anything is if the point was already facing them. At no point in any of the animations for any two-handed weapons are they ever facing the character. It's impossible for you to actually stab yourself in the game (and irl, unless you again go
full retard) unless the physics or the animations screw up and your characters hand go backwards. You also cannot argue the point (heh) that you could cut yourself on the edges of the weapons either. Medieval weapons were not sharp to the degree that just touching them would neccessarily cut you. It would take considerable force (even more than just tripping) for one of these weapons to actually cut you.
You and others have made the point that you think two-handed weapons are OP, but I think this is a flawed opinion because there isn't much to base it on. In regards to just fighting zombies, yeah two-handed weapons are better because they tend to do more damage and the zombies barely block, but it's not as if one-handed weapons are denied this either. I've been experimenting a lot with different weapons in exanima (two-handed and one-handed alike) to try and find what many people are saying is unbalanced about the two. And I honestly couldn't find anything wrong with the way the weapons are balanced, just the way that they are implemented. One-handed weapons despite their lower damage and range, will still have the advantage in versatility even if two-handers can use a torch while exploring (I went over the finer points of this in an earlier post). I don't think you've thought through the advantages of actually having a smaller range, albeit it situational.
I'll try to put it in really simple terms, and then elaborate on them. Long Range beats Short Range when they are at a range, I think we can all logically agree on this. The same argument also works in vice versa, Short Range beats Long Range when they are close. The statement I've given is historically accurate as this is the entire reasons polearms existed. They were kings at a distance, but once someone got past the head of the weapon, all they could do was smack the person with the pole of the weapon. This also applies to swords. In the game its very easy to say that when you're in an open room at a distance that two-handers are better. But its also easy to close that distance with a one-handed weapon, and strike them at their bad range. With longer weapons, both irl and in the game its very important that you complete a full swing of the weapon. If you don't the relative power of the strike decreases very much, and your swing could easily be swatted away. One-handed weapons are still very viable in exploration and combat, with shields making it especially easy (here's hoping for some good shield skills) to close that distance.
As for two-handed weapons they don't really have an advantage past their range and power. They are somewhat cumbersome to use in tight corridors and can get caught on furniture in the environment (in reference purely to combat, as it's very easy to mitigate it hitting objects while running around), which I think is a good thing. Quite honestly its very logical and practical to have two-handed weapons be slightly more clumsy and hard to manage in battle due to their greater length. The reason these weapons exist is because of advances in armor. Weapons got longer (this is true for one-handed weapons as well) as armor got tougher, two-handed weapons were made to counter the very tough plate armor. But this is not to say that one-handed weapons weren't useful either, in fact they recieved new applications. The most common way for someone using a two-handed weapon to die in medieval warfare was for someone with a one-handed weapons (and usually a shield) to close the distance and you through the visor (ouch).
But I also want to elaborate some more on the disadvantages of these longer weapons. To start with the weapons getting caught during combat is a great disadvantage for them to have. Two-handed weapons are also notably worse at blocking then a shield is (for obvious reasons). Finally, their range is both their greatest strength and weakness. As already went over at a close range you can basically just swat their (now) weaker swings away while flailing you're two handed weapons around. It's a lot more noticeable in arena mode where some of the combatants will close in on you and crush your armor with a mace, or hit your exposed weaknesses. I think the reasons many have said that the two-handers are OP is because with the way the map is currently arranged (and the relative intelligence of zombies) we haven't had many chances to see these weaknesses. It becomes more apparent if you are in some of the smaller areas crammed with tables while getting zerg rushed by zombies. When you get farther into exanima and fight more than just the usual zombies, its actually quite jarring how much less effective your two-hander is when the enemey can actually, you know block attacks.
If this didn't convince convince anyone that two-handers have their own weaknesses, then I'm willing to agree to disagree in the hopes of finding an agreeable way to "nerf" them for the enjoyment of the player base. However I don't believe the concept of "light management" is the basis from which we should nerf the weapons. It's flawed for several reasons myself and some others have already gone into, and just serves to make one-handed weapons the only viable choice for exploration atm (as said by konggary, you can't really expect people to find the helm). If we had to go over this more than I would say someone make a seperate thread on how to "balance" the weapons more. Off the top of my head I would suggest that using two-handed weapons adds to your encumberance meter in a way that can't be mitigated by skills, and maybe that while swinging its easier to be "carried" by the weapon and get jostled around. But again I don't think that restricting the use of a droppable torch is either realistic or fair as already gone over.
You've said that I'm not wrong, but not right enough but I'm having doubts as to whether or not you apply that to your own arguments. I'll apoligize now for my walls of text, as its not really my style to split my points up too widely over a thread. But so far I've provided both examples, facts, and evidence as to the nature and use of these weapons. All I've seen so far from you is to the effect of "no that's wrong" but not actually providing evidence to back up your claims, other than statements about lacrosse sticks (which while I can't tell you if you're wrong or not, I still don't see how they would have more to do with a discussion about medieval weapons than actually having facts about medieval weapons). I'm not saying you have to take what I'm saying as unadulterated fact because its on topic, you are free to be skeptical, I just hope that you take it for what it is, observations from someone who has extensively researched the subject. And as for your broom argument, congrats on making a straw man argument I suppose. But I think most of us are smart enough to know that sword > broom, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
You and others mentioned Occam's Razor earlier, and I have to say I really agree with konggary (the original poster) about it. The simplest solution is the best, correct? So then tell me whats more simple; Carrying a torch in one hand and using the other to rest your long weapon on a shoulder, or having us jump in and out of an inventory bubble just to see in the dark?
