dual wield?

[dark thanatos]

would anyone else like to see this game have duel wielding in the future of updates? As a early access game i absolutely love this game the way it stands. but i would personally like to see dual wielding in the distant future im in no rush but what is your opinion about it?

[Holo]

No. I want this game to be at least somewhat grounded in reality, and dual wielding is not that. I get that its fantasy and all but dual wielding makes no sense in any context with any weapon ever. So, no.

[OriginOrange]

Id rather use the Parrying shields than another weapon. Stunning with a parry lets you do more damage then what a 2nd weapon would do

[Jamieson]

No, as someone who follows HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), dual wielding while popular in fantasy has no real basis in reality except in very specific circumstances. One of the only I can think of is using a dagger with a rapier and even then, you use the dagger primarily as a defensive weapon.

Simply put, you would be far, far better off using a shield than any other 1 handed weapon in conjunction with your primary sidearm. Viking didn't dual wield. They used spears and shields and things like axes and swords as sidearms.

[Atma]

Originally posted by Jamieson:

No, as someone who follows HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), dual wielding while popular in fantasy has no real basis in reality except in very specific circumstances. One of the only I can think of is using a dagger with a rapier and even then, you use the dagger primarily as a defensive weapon.

Simply put, you would be far, far better off using a shield than any other 1 handed weapon in conjunction with your primary sidearm. Viking didn't dual wield. They used spears and shields and things like axes and swords as sidearms.

There were not a lot of flaming swords or glowing bows shooting ice arrows historically, and yet here we are.

[Holo]

Originally posted by Atma:

Originally posted by Jamieson:

No, as someone who follows HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), dual wielding while popular in fantasy has no real basis in reality except in very specific circumstances. One of the only I can think of is using a dagger with a rapier and even then, you use the dagger primarily as a defensive weapon.

Simply put, you would be far, far better off using a shield than any other 1 handed weapon in conjunction with your primary sidearm. Viking didn't dual wield. They used spears and shields and things like axes and swords as sidearms.

There were not a lot of flaming swords or glowing bows shooting ice arrows historically, and yet here we are.

The point he's making is that dual wielding has 0 sense in any situation. It doesn't double your damage output, because you can't hit someone twice instantly. Using a shield is literally the most practical thing that a person before guns could do ion combat.

[acenathan]

Originally posted by Atma:

Originally posted by Jamieson:

No, as someone who follows HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), dual wielding while popular in fantasy has no real basis in reality except in very specific circumstances. One of the only I can think of is using a dagger with a rapier and even then, you use the dagger primarily as a defensive weapon.

Simply put, you would be far, far better off using a shield than any other 1 handed weapon in conjunction with your primary sidearm. Viking didn't dual wield. They used spears and shields and things like axes and swords as sidearms.

There were not a lot of flaming swords or glowing bows shooting ice arrows historically, and yet here we are.

i mean this is based on viking mythology. while spirit, flaming swords, and glowing bows didn't exist in the real world the case could still be made that those things were added because it follows the mythology. so dual wielding could still be declined on the basis of not being realistic. it really depends on if vikings actually dual wielded at times.

[Atma]

Originally posted by Habibi:

Originally posted by Atma:

There were not a lot of flaming swords or glowing bows shooting ice arrows historically, and yet here we are.

The point he's making is that dual wielding has 0 sense in any situation. It doesn't double your damage output, because you can't hit someone twice instantly. Using a shield is literally the most practical thing that a person before guns could do ion combat.

Yes, I understood his point.

But the existence of a flaming sword, massive 2-handed hammer, a pickaxe made from an antler, weapons made from pure silver (lol), etc certainly make it seem more like the devs are leaning into fantasy and not historical practicality.

You don't seem to take any issue w/ any of those things. This is a video game. Dual wielding looks and feels fun for many people, which is why the trope persists.

You dislike dual-wielding personally and that's fine, but let's stop trying to pretend that there is some reason that it can't exist in this fantasy-focused video game.

[Holo]

Originally posted by Atma:

Originally posted by Habibi:

The point he's making is that dual wielding has 0 sense in any situation. It doesn't double your damage output, because you can't hit someone twice instantly. Using a shield is literally the most practical thing that a person before guns could do ion combat.

Yes, I understood his point.

But the existence of a flaming sword, massive 2-handed hammer, a pickaxe made from an antler, weapons made from pure silver (lol), etc certainly make it seem more like the devs are leaning into fantasy and not historical practicality.

You don't seem to take any issue w/ any of those things. This is a video game. Dual wielding looks and feels fun for many people, which is why the trope persists.

You dislike dual-wielding personally and that's fine, but let's stop trying to pretend that there is some reason that it can't exist in this fantasy-focused video game.

There is. It's completely impractical. The existence of those other things makes some sense. For example, silver for slaying monsters (haha witcher reference fml), 2 handed hammers while unrealistic are somewhat based in reality, flaming swords... it's not even accessible so does it even count, pickaxe made from an antler... is that way because stronk antlers so why not use them as a pick, its certainly stronger than stone.

[Atma]

Originally posted by Habibi:

Originally posted by Atma:

Yes, I understood his point.

But the existence of a flaming sword, massive 2-handed hammer, a pickaxe made from an antler, weapons made from pure silver (lol), etc certainly make it seem more like the devs are leaning into fantasy and not historical practicality.

You don't seem to take any issue w/ any of those things. This is a video game. Dual wielding looks and feels fun for many people, which is why the trope persists.

You dislike dual-wielding personally and that's fine, but let's stop trying to pretend that there is some reason that it can't exist in this fantasy-focused video game.

There is. It's completely impractical. The existence of those other things makes some sense. For example, silver for slaying monsters (haha witcher reference fml), 2 handed hammers while unrealistic are somewhat based in reality, flaming swords... it's not even accessible so does it even count, pickaxe made from an antler... is that way because stronk antlers so why not use them as a pick, its certainly stronger than stone.

But somehow it's beyond all reason and comprehension that spirit vikings fighting demi-gods in the afterlife could possibly be good with both hands.

Gotcha.

[Holo]

Originally posted by Atma:

Originally posted by Habibi:

There is. It's completely impractical. The existence of those other things makes some sense. For example, silver for slaying monsters (haha witcher reference fml), 2 handed hammers while unrealistic are somewhat based in reality, flaming swords... it's not even accessible so does it even count, pickaxe made from an antler... is that way because stronk antlers so why not use them as a pick, its certainly stronger than stone.

But somehow it's beyond all reason and comprehension that spirit vikings fighting demi-gods in the afterlife could possibly be good with both hands.

Gotcha.

It doesn't matter how good someone with either of their hands or both of them. Dual wielding is simply impractical in all manner of ways. There's simply no reason to dual wield, and it would actually make a soldier much weaker than he could be with a shield or just single wielding.

[Wulf359]

No. Don't make this game stupid with silly tropes.

[Jamieson]

I'm actually glad the shield is so strong in this game. There is actually a real choice instead of being limited to 2 handers or dual wielding like most games...

Do you go 1h and shield so you can get those awesome parries and have much better surivability or do you go with a 2 hander for the AOE damage and knockback?

[Charcharodonto]

Originally posted by Atma:

Originally posted by Habibi:

There is. It's completely impractical. The existence of those other things makes some sense. For example, silver for slaying monsters (haha witcher reference fml), 2 handed hammers while unrealistic are somewhat based in reality, flaming swords... it's not even accessible so does it even count, pickaxe made from an antler... is that way because stronk antlers so why not use them as a pick, its certainly stronger than stone.

But somehow it's beyond all reason and comprehension that spirit vikings fighting demi-gods in the afterlife could possibly be good with both hands.

Gotcha.

No the issue is quite simple.

Even the giant 2 handed hammer is still somewhat grounded in reality, because our character doesn't swing it like a toothpick, he slams it into the ground. Which is actually about the only thing you can do with a hammer like that because there is no other way to stop the momentum yourself.

Dualwielding 2 similar sized weapons simply means you are either getting into the way of your own attacks, have to resort to circular attacks which are horrible in terms of defending yourself.
And you have no way of parrying effectively aside from a crossguard, which is actually a really bad position to be in.
Conversely, your attacks are easily parried and deflected as well.

Realism aside.

Dualwielding would require a combat overhaul to make it balanced with the other options, with it easily shifting into to strong or useless compared to the other options.

[Earl Arnold Silsov]

I'm not in favor of it. I assume it would take lots of work from the devs to make it possible, and I really can't imagine a point in development when I wouldn't prefer other things added (variations of building blocks, enemies and scattered buildings to mention a few). I agree with the realism arguments already stated. Sure, the game is based on mythology, but I want it to maintain a level of realism anyway.

[Altimely]

Originally posted by Habibi:

dual wielding makes no sense in any context with any weapon ever.

It's funny that you think that

Originally posted by Habibi:

I want this game to be at least somewhat grounded in reality

a weapon in each hand is too much, but forest spirits, trolls, aggressive skeletons, and the risen drowned is fine

Originally posted by Habibi:

and it would actually make a soldier much weaker

The player isn't a soldier nor are they grounded in reality in the first place. We can call upon fallen gods to aid us- surely there's some place in this fantasy world for wielding two axes or two daggers simultaneously. The "realism" argument doesn't have a place here. This isn't a historic recreation of a realistic time period, it's a survival game set in a fantasy genre.