Dual Wielding Speed

[fisban0]

There is a perk for the One-Handed skill that allows the player to attack faster; there are two ranks for the perk. That, and the obvious fact that you can attack with both weapons individually or simultaneously. So, naturally, you're attacking TWICE as fast as just wielding one weapon.

 

Edit: Also, not being able to block while dual-wielding weapons is NOT from a limitation of the controller. At all. Bethesda has said that it was done so that the different options are balanced, so that Two-Handed is just as viable as One-Handed, which would be just as viable as a weapon-shield or two spells or whatever.

Ok, so what your saying is that attacking while dual wielding is twice as fast as attacking with only one 1H? Or is it a perk that only makes the character attack faster while dual wielding? Or does it increase attack speed for 1H regaurdless of dual wielding.

 

Just think a sneak attack with two swords. That's x12 damage. So if your swords do 10 damage each (maybe two of the same type) then you do 10x6 + 10x6 = 120 damage. Or else insta-kill!! That's the only reason I'll dual wield. Or maybe in combination with some paralyzing spell / shout. I too think it's for balancing reasons that you can't block. If they wanted they would have found a way to do it. Add blocking to dual wield. Remove simultaneous attack with both swords and add block when you press both buttons at once.

I was under the impression that we would not be able to power attack and sneak attack at the same time. Are you sure we will be able to do that? According to the people on the other forums, you can only attack with both weapons at once if your doing a flourish (ie double power attack). If you can it would be crazy strong to double sneak attack with daggers and the 15x perk.

15(d+D)+P=T where d is dagger one base damage, D is dagger two base damage, P is power attack bonus, and T is total damage. Assuming power attacks add bonus damage after. So if each dagger only has 4 base damage and the power attack damage is like lets say 5....

The total damage would be 125 for one attack. That seems... pretty high.

However, if the power attack is counted as a base damage multiplier you'd get

15(Pd+PD)=T which would be a crazy attack. 600 damage.

Edited November 5, 2011 by fisban0

[Bukee]

This "no block = Mindless hack and slash" argument is really stupid.

 

There are other ways than block, in fact, blocking is a really poor form of defense.

You still get hit, you still lose health (less, but you still do) and you can get easily staggered. This is especially true if you do it without a shield, untrained.

Not to mention, you cannot block spells, so spellcasting is also just as mindless?

 

There's a really good way to defend yourself without resorting to blocking, I did it all the time in Oblivion even with slow characters with low acrobatics and speed, so it must work in Skyrim:

You see enemy raising weapon -> you step away. Easy.

 

Also, you can interrupt the enemy by staggering them if you hit them during an attack (if it is like in Oblivion) and there are many ways just to throw off your enemy from your feet.

 

 

So no, blocking wouldn't fix dual wielding, it would make it more boring.

[Scarsunseen]

I think we have no choice but to leave up the balancing to Bethesda at this point. And for console players, they have no choice. But I already know I'll be putting in some combat mods, I know the combat will be too similar to Oblivion due to having read a lot of previews and seen the videos. Bethesda, like all developers, don't admit their faults about a game when it's just coming out...if ever about some things. I don't think they ever admit that Oblivion's combat was rather inane. So, I am open to the chance that it's not a balance issue, it's because of the stupid consoles. It's an irritating thought that so many things are held back or cut because of it, too. But, at this moment I can't think of ways to make the sword and shield, magic, and two-hander or bow more powerful to catch up to dual wielding if one could block. Unless the damage was just ramped up, or the dual-wielding option was a weak on.

 

Also, though I don't know all the details of what's for sure on this, but I thought we can dodge without a shield. Also, previews have mentioned that melee combat in Skyrim requires a lot more timing instead of the dull whacking style of TES4.

 

 

Okay, I think I get what you're saying now. Much less trusting "the developer knows what's best" and more fatalistic "well what can you do?" And I would agree that blocking that is as effective as a shield in dual wielding would be unbalanced. I think that the key (when it comes to modding it) would be to stick with the theme. Dual wielding is obviously designed to be a much more active style of fighting than sword and board. The timed parries I mentioned earlier would fit in with that theme, as you would have to be able to know exactly what moment to switch from offense to defense or else you take damage and interrupt your flow of attack.

 

Honestly, I would like to see something similar for two-handed weapons, as turtleing without a shield just doesn't make any sense to me. Two-handers would be the strategic style where you pick the best time to attack and inflict massive damage while trying to keep them outside of their range with your larger weapon. Sword and board would be a more defensive style that has the benefit of letting you calmly take on multiple opponents at varying ranges. Dual-wielding would be the frenetic up close combat where you're constantly pressing buttons to attack, dodge and parry your way to victory. Instead of simply looking for the most powerful combination you would just pick the style that you found most fun. Which is kind of the whole point.

[Drugey]

This "no block = Mindless hack and slash" argument is really stupid.

 

There are other ways than block, in fact, blocking is a really poor form of defense.

You still get hit, you still lose health (less, but you still do) and you can get easily staggered. This is especially true if you do it without a shield, untrained.

Not to mention, you cannot block spells, so spellcasting is also just as mindless?

 

There's a really good way to defend yourself without resorting to blocking, I did it all the time in Oblivion even with slow characters with low acrobatics and speed, so it must work in Skyrim:

You see enemy raising weapon -> you step away. Easy.

 

Also, you can interrupt the enemy by staggering them if you hit them during an attack (if it is like in Oblivion) and there are many ways just to throw off your enemy from your feet.

 

 

So no, blocking wouldn't fix dual wielding, it would make it more boring.

 

 

Exactly, its not realistic i mean how often would a person block an attack with a sword instead of just stepping back or to the side

all im gonna do is strafe, and for all you haters of dual wielding just use a shield... i mean it sounds like you guys are gonna be on the defence side more then actually attacking back.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Drugey

[natelovesyou]

There is a perk for the One-Handed skill that allows the player to attack faster; there are two ranks for the perk. That, and the obvious fact that you can attack with both weapons individually or simultaneously. So, naturally, you're attacking TWICE as fast as just wielding one weapon.

 

Edit: Also, not being able to block while dual-wielding weapons is NOT from a limitation of the controller. At all. Bethesda has said that it was done so that the different options are balanced, so that Two-Handed is just as viable as One-Handed, which would be just as viable as a weapon-shield or two spells or whatever.

Ok, so what your saying is that attacking while dual wielding is twice as fast as attacking with only one 1H? Or is it a perk that only makes the character attack faster while dual wielding? Or does it increase attack speed for 1H regaurdless of dual wielding.

I wish I could tell you with a certainty, sorry. But when I see the videos and think about it, it makes sense. Let's say you attack at a speed of 1.0 with a steel sword without a shield. Your attack speed with that steel sword doesn't slow down just because you have a shield or another sword. So two steel swords, one in each hand, attacking at a speed of 1.0; you click the right button to attack with the right hand and you click the left button to attack with the left hand, which can be done independently of each other, so then I would think that therefore you'd be able to dish out damage twice as fast as with just one sword. Anyone is free to point out the flaws in my logic...but that's just the logic my tired brain has made at the moment. :P It makes sense to me at least.

Edited November 5, 2011 by natelovesyou

[fisban0]

There is a perk for the One-Handed skill that allows the player to attack faster; there are two ranks for the perk. That, and the obvious fact that you can attack with both weapons individually or simultaneously. So, naturally, you're attacking TWICE as fast as just wielding one weapon.

 

Edit: Also, not being able to block while dual-wielding weapons is NOT from a limitation of the controller. At all. Bethesda has said that it was done so that the different options are balanced, so that Two-Handed is just as viable as One-Handed, which would be just as viable as a weapon-shield or two spells or whatever.

Ok, so what your saying is that attacking while dual wielding is twice as fast as attacking with only one 1H? Or is it a perk that only makes the character attack faster while dual wielding? Or does it increase attack speed for 1H regaurdless of dual wielding.

I wish I could tell you with a certainty, sorry. But when I see the videos and think about it, it makes sense. Let's say you attack at a speed of 1.0 with a steel sword without a shield. Your attack speed with that steel sword doesn't slow down just because you have a shield or another sword. So two steel swords, one in each hand, attacking at a speed of 1.0; you click the right button to attack with the right hand and you click the left button to attack with the left hand, which can be done independently of each other, so then I would think that therefore you'd be able to dish out damage twice as fast as with just one sword. Anyone is free to point out the flaws in my logic...but that's just the logic my tired brain has made at the moment. :P It makes sense to me at least.

What I'm saying is the other people are essentially arguing that the two weapons do not actually swing independantly of each other. So if it takes you 1 second to swing a sword while holding 1h + shield, it takes 2 seconds to swing both swords while dual wielding. They are saying that you cannot swing one sword while the other is already being swung, unless its a two handed power attack. I just wanted to know if anyone knows anything about this.

Edited November 5, 2011 by fisban0

[justwannaddl]

One quick question. Does the lack of blocking apply to having a spell/staff in one hand and weapon in the other? I always assumed so myself but I keep finding contradictory answers to that. My google-fu is lacking. Edited November 5, 2011 by justwannaddl

[natelovesyou]

There is a perk for the One-Handed skill that allows the player to attack faster; there are two ranks for the perk. That, and the obvious fact that you can attack with both weapons individually or simultaneously. So, naturally, you're attacking TWICE as fast as just wielding one weapon.

 

Edit: Also, not being able to block while dual-wielding weapons is NOT from a limitation of the controller. At all. Bethesda has said that it was done so that the different options are balanced, so that Two-Handed is just as viable as One-Handed, which would be just as viable as a weapon-shield or two spells or whatever.

Ok, so what your saying is that attacking while dual wielding is twice as fast as attacking with only one 1H? Or is it a perk that only makes the character attack faster while dual wielding? Or does it increase attack speed for 1H regaurdless of dual wielding.

I wish I could tell you with a certainty, sorry. But when I see the videos and think about it, it makes sense. Let's say you attack at a speed of 1.0 with a steel sword without a shield. Your attack speed with that steel sword doesn't slow down just because you have a shield or another sword. So two steel swords, one in each hand, attacking at a speed of 1.0; you click the right button to attack with the right hand and you click the left button to attack with the left hand, which can be done independently of each other, so then I would think that therefore you'd be able to dish out damage twice as fast as with just one sword. Anyone is free to point out the flaws in my logic...but that's just the logic my tired brain has made at the moment. :P It makes sense to me at least.

What I'm saying is the other people are essentially arguing that the two weapons do not actually swing independantly of each other. So if it takes you 1 second to swing a sword while holding 1h + shield, it takes 2 seconds to swing both swords while dual wielding. They are saying that you cannot swing one sword while the other is already being swung. I just wanted to know if anyone knows anything about this.

I'll leave the actual confirming to someone that's played since I unfortunately never got to play, but I don't see why they'd assign the left trigger/mouse button to the left hand and the right to the right hand if you just attack at the same time anyway when dual-wielding. I'm pretty much 100% positive that it's independent attacks. What if you have a sword with an enchantment on it and want to not use it as often but still want to hold it? I haven't read or seen anything that says that attacks don't attack independently. But yes, if what you heard is true, then a full rotation of both swords would be twice as long...but like I said, it's independent. You can attack all you want with the sword in your right hand and not use the left sword at all if you wanted.

Edited November 5, 2011 by natelovesyou

[Scarsunseen]

 

 

Exactly, its not realistic i mean how often would a person block an attack with a sword instead of just stepping back or to the side

all im gonna do is strafe, and for all you haters of dual wielding just use a shield... i mean it sounds like you guys are gonna be on the defence side more then actually attacking back.

 

Um... most of the time? If you want to bring up realism, then if you try to just dodge around you are going to tire yourself out and get killed. You do whatever defeats the attack and either a) uses as little energy as possible, or b) sets you up for the greatest opportunity. If your opponent is unskilled, then sure, they may not react and you could have an opening, but if you can step, so can your opponent. The surest way to not get hit is to make certain that there is something between their weapon and you.

 

But enough of realism. This is a game.

[fisban0]

There is a perk for the One-Handed skill that allows the player to attack faster; there are two ranks for the perk. That, and the obvious fact that you can attack with both weapons individually or simultaneously. So, naturally, you're attacking TWICE as fast as just wielding one weapon.

 

Edit: Also, not being able to block while dual-wielding weapons is NOT from a limitation of the controller. At all. Bethesda has said that it was done so that the different options are balanced, so that Two-Handed is just as viable as One-Handed, which would be just as viable as a weapon-shield or two spells or whatever.

Ok, so what your saying is that attacking while dual wielding is twice as fast as attacking with only one 1H? Or is it a perk that only makes the character attack faster while dual wielding? Or does it increase attack speed for 1H regaurdless of dual wielding.

I wish I could tell you with a certainty, sorry. But when I see the videos and think about it, it makes sense. Let's say you attack at a speed of 1.0 with a steel sword without a shield. Your attack speed with that steel sword doesn't slow down just because you have a shield or another sword. So two steel swords, one in each hand, attacking at a speed of 1.0; you click the right button to attack with the right hand and you click the left button to attack with the left hand, which can be done independently of each other, so then I would think that therefore you'd be able to dish out damage twice as fast as with just one sword. Anyone is free to point out the flaws in my logic...but that's just the logic my tired brain has made at the moment. :P It makes sense to me at least.

What I'm saying is the other people are essentially arguing that the two weapons do not actually swing independantly of each other. So if it takes you 1 second to swing a sword while holding 1h + shield, it takes 2 seconds to swing both swords while dual wielding. They are saying that you cannot swing one sword while the other is already being swung. I just wanted to know if anyone knows anything about this.

I'll leave the actual confirming to someone that's played since I unfortunately never got to play, but I don't see why they'd assign the left trigger/mouse button to the left hand and the right to the right hand if you just attack at the same time anyway when dual-wielding. I'm pretty much 100% positive that it's independent attacks. What if you have a sword with an enchantment on it and want to not use it as often but still want to hold it? I haven't read or seen anything that says that attacks don't attack independently. But yes, if what you heard is true, then a full rotation of both swords would be twice as long...but like I said, it's independent. You can attack all you want with the sword in your right hand and not use the left sword at all if you wanted.

Awesome, thats all I wanted confirmed. I thought what those people were saying didn't sound right, but I guess we will have to see in 7 days. :thumbsup: