Dual Wielding Speed

[Lowk]

1-Hander + Shield is going to be the most defensive style with reaction and utility.

 

2-Hander will be offensive but still have the ability to block and crowd control (cleave).

 

Dual-Wield will be the most aggressive style with the highest damage output but no active defenses.

 

 

Sounds more like variety then imbalance...

^This. Another interpretation:

 

Sword/Shield: High Defense, Low Attack. Medium Swing Speed.

2-Hand: Medium Defense, Medium Attack. Slow Swing Speed.

Dual Wielding: Low Defense, High Attack. Fast Swing Speed

 

I see 2-Handers as being a middle-of -the-road option that can do more damage than sword/shield, but not as much as dual wielding; and, it does blocking unlike dual wielding, but it doesn't do it as well as sword/shield. Balanced in theory, but there's no way to tell until we play.

 

I do believe that, regardless of how "realistic" it may be to let dual-wielders block, it sort of makes 2-handers pointless in the process. Balance in a single player game is about making every option viable, so that one doesn't stand out as the obvious best choice, and none of them stand out as inferior. Communism at work, really. :tongue:

 

One last thing to cheer up dual-wielders: you can stagger with power attacks! It functions like a parry in that you can interrupt their swing at the cost of stamina. Then you feed them their own entrails while they recover. Hooray! :thumbsup:

 

If all else fails, you've got three words for them.

[Master Marksman]

On-topic - you already have an effective 200% attack speed and you think they are going to give you more? Realistically, fighting with 2 weapons is actually extremely difficult - getting your body in balance and striking with enough force is difficult. Game-wise it should be viable but practical, i.e. being able to block but being slower than 200%.

 

Off-topic - I think you should be able to block, but it would be unbalanced. Blocking 1 handed weapons is fine, but blocking a 2 handed weapon? No, simply due to momentum. I agree with Nate, that blocking should be the price you pay to hold two swords in tandem. You have the ability to attack at 200%, stagger your attacks, increase your DPS through perks, and enchant EACH of them, and they do not even have to be the same enchantment or weapon. Two weapons gives you the greatest versatility, and the game should balance the other options. I dont care whether you want fair gameplay - you are given a great damage advantage, so live with it.

[babis8142]

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.

 

 

Well we don't even know if you can power attack with both weapons at once let alone get sneak attack with both weapons at once. But if so then I thought it would be more like (15d + 15D) + P = T. That is if power attack bonus is added. If multiplied then it would be

(15d + 15D)P = T which would be overpowered. Anyway there's no way to tell. At this point we're all guessing.

Edited November 5, 2011 by babis8142

[modder3434]

Then don't dual wield. It's really easy. Or, complain...also an option. Or mod it out and become OP...it's a single player game, what do I care?

 

If you don't care go elsewhere? Why are you even posting in this thread.

Because just like you, I have an opinion and have the right to say it. Why are you even posting in this thread if you'll just complain? It's the complaining about the "balancing" that I mind, but if you mod the game and make dual wielding super strong...then have it your way, it's not my game...so I don't care about that. Have at it.

 

Im posting here because I care about dual wielding and I feel as though defenseless fighting makes for boring gameplay. You are here to voice your opinion and have done nothing but disagree with people and give no valid reasons for your stance.

 

If you were to disagree and provide constructive arguments that is all well and good but from what I have seen so far your stance is "Nah you're wrong, but im not going to argue because i dont care." Makes me wonder why you are here that is all.

you haven't backed your your statements either with facts, just saying its stupid isn't a good reason.

 

as for creditability natelovesyou is a far more credible source then you are. he's been here longer and always has something to say that is relevant.

 

what nate is really saying is that you have your own opinion, stop complaining and do whatever you want in your copy of skyrim.

 

as for why he's posting here, its the same as me we both love skyrim, and video games ,and enjoy gaming forums such as this.

 

what i want to know is why YOU are here your a newb, and the majority of your posts are complaints about duel-weilding or arguing with a senior member on the forum.

so STFU!!

[falloutreign]

Then don't dual wield. It's really easy. Or, complain...also an option. Or mod it out and become OP...it's a single player game, what do I care?

 

If you don't care go elsewhere? Why are you even posting in this thread.

Because just like you, I have an opinion and have the right to say it. Why are you even posting in this thread if you'll just complain? It's the complaining about the "balancing" that I mind, but if you mod the game and make dual wielding super strong...then have it your way, it's not my game...so I don't care about that. Have at it.

 

Im posting here because I care about dual wielding and I feel as though defenseless fighting makes for boring gameplay. You are here to voice your opinion and have done nothing but disagree with people and give no valid reasons for your stance.

 

If you were to disagree and provide constructive arguments that is all well and good but from what I have seen so far your stance is "Nah you're wrong, but im not going to argue because i dont care." Makes me wonder why you are here that is all.

you haven't backed your your statements either with facts, just saying its stupid isn't a good reason.

 

as for creditability natelovesyou is a far more credible source then you are. he's been here longer and always has something to say that is relevant.

 

what nate is really saying is that you have your own opinion, stop complaining and do whatever you want in your copy of skyrim.

 

as for why he's posting here, its the same as me we both love skyrim, and video games ,and enjoy gaming forums such as this.

 

what i want to know is why YOU are here your a newb, and the majority of your posts are complaints about duel-weilding or arguing with a senior member on the forum.

so STFU!!

 

Oh? I said it was stupid and gave quite valid reasons why it is stupid. I will go through them for you.

 

1) Gameplay. Designing every fight around pure damage with little in the way of defensive abilities and decision making makes for boring fights. Let me elaborate, if every fight is only winnable through overwhelming your enemy through brute force or not giving them the chance to attack back this is not what I call fun, however you may disagree you are entitled to your opinion. Also, bethesda may surprise me and make the power attacks with dual wielding a feature that requires some degree of finesse. But their previous titles leave me doubtful in this regard.

 

2) Roleplaying: I can't imagine playing a stealthy finesse melee based character without parrying or at the very least some form of dodge.

 

3) Balance: I don't see how implementing timed parrying would ruin balance in this game. It obviously wouldn't be as good as using a shield but with a few number tweaks on damage and/or a steep perk requirement I fail to see how balance is an issue.

 

On Nate, I am sure he has been here longer than me and i'm sure he has been a valuable asset in the past but how is this constructive:

"Then don't dual wield. It's really easy. Or, complain...also an option. Or mod it out and become OP...it's a single player game, what do I care? "

 

I admit to falsely interpreting the "what do I care" part and I apologise for that, but being told not to do something because I don't like it rather than discussing it is rather poor form.

 

And guess what, forums are used for discussion about something and often discussion involves complaints, shocker really.

 

I may be a noob on this forum but that doesn't make my points any less relevant. Also, with Nate being an elder on the forum and all I doubt he needs you riding him in order to defend himself. He's a big boy.

 

edit: I don't see you discussing anything either, did your post have a point other than to tell me not to complain about something im concerned about and not to argue with nate?

Edited November 5, 2011 by falloutreign

[natelovesyou]

On Nate, I am sure he has been here longer than me and i'm sure he has been a valuable asset in the past but how is this constructive:

"Then don't dual wield. It's really easy. Or, complain...also an option. Or mod it out and become OP...it's a single player game, what do I care? "

 

I admit to falsely interpreting the "what do I care" part and I apologise for that, but being told not to do something because I don't like it rather than discussing it is rather poor form.

Your criticizing someone's criticisms is just as off-topic and non-constructive to the thread, and it just goes in a circle. Soon enough half the posts are just about two or more people telling the other that their post isn't useful, but, ironically those saying such a thing are guilty of it.

 

You've had some very valid points, I do not completely disagree with you. But take my reply that you put in quotes into context, you said "This, bethesda is bullshitting when they said they did it for balance reasons. If they wanted to balance it they could simply make it you needed to have steep perk requirements or dual wielding did less damage. They only possible logical reason I can see that dual wield woudn't have block is console limitations. edit: For the post above me, not being able to parry when dual wielding in a single player rpg IS stupid." Some potential validity in the first part of your post, but, it was superfluous. Not to mention the lack of reasoning behind your edit.

 

I suggest that if you have not yet, read the rest of the comments that others have provided when it comes to balance. Consider someone else's point of view, it only stings a little bit. ;)

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.

 

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.

 

 

Well we don't even know if you can power attack with both weapons at once let alone get sneak attack with both weapons at once. But if so then I thought it would be more like (15d + 15D) + P = T. That is if power attack bonus is added. If multiplied then it would be

(15d + 15D)P = T which would be overpowered. Anyway there's no way to tell. At this point we're all guessing.

Well it looks like we came up with the same formula.

15(d+D)+P=T is the same as (15d+15D)+P=T, we can use the distributive property of multiplication to distribute the variable. Using the same property we can see that 15(Pd+PD)=(15d+15D)P.

Algebra is fun. :thumbsup:

Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure Todd confirmed that you can power attack with two weapons while dual wielding. I don't feel like looking for the link atm.

Edited November 5, 2011 by fisban0

[stormguy85]

There are two main forms of using two melee weapons at once -- historically speaking.

 

One is the "Berserker" concept. Was popular with most of the Germanic races. There were stories and drawings of the Norse using small axes and hammers in each hand. Our general understanding of this style is that they used the ability to deliver rapid and crushing blows to put their opponent on the defense and overpower them with brute force and rage -- look up "Berserker" on google and you'll probably find stories as such.

 

The second is the concept of a "Parrying Dagger". This was used by europeans (especially the French and Spanish) during the Renaissance era. It was also popular further into the Age of Sail as it was a versatile way of fighting while on ship: as the closeness of your opponents made it favorable.

 

 

While Skyrim is purely fictional, it is obvious that the developers chose the first option when creating their dual-wield system. You could argue that they could add "Parrying Daggers" that would act much like a shield. However, that is just another of hundreds of potentially "cool" features that there just isn't the time or demand to add to a game: this is where mods and expansions come in.

 

The "Berserker" style of dual-wielding fits very well in with the Nordic theme of the game and makes sense from a contextual standpoint. Where as the only race that would fit (again, purely fictional world so I'm making some artistic assumptions) in with the whole "Parrying Dagger" thing would be the Redgaurds.

 

Anyways... you can google or wikipedia up some of that and get more info. Someone else might even suggest some historical sword-fighting texts you could mull over. But in the end, the developers wanted to give a nod to the norse style of dual-wielding and ignored the other.

 

If you want to complain that they didn't add Parrying daggers, you really should be complaining that we don't have Spears, Polearms, Halberds, or numerous other far-more-popular weapons.

 

Edit: I should mention there are Asian styles that use two swords, but that is way outside the scope of what would make sense in Skyrim.

Edited November 5, 2011 by stormguy85

[Deleted472477User]

I never quite understand why all the flaffing over dual wield to begin with. Admittedly, it looks cool. Drizzt Do'Urden wouldn't have as many fanboys if it didn't. My warriors in WoW dual-wield once they can do it, because you tend to take flak if you're DPS and wielding one bad-ass two-hander as opposed to two smaller weapons. But overall, I don't get it. I'm guessing it's the speed allows more damage to be done more quickly, or is it more the "it looks cool' factor?

[fisban0]

I never quite understand why all the flaffing over dual wield to begin with. Admittedly, it looks cool. Drizzt Do'Urden wouldn't have as many fanboys if it didn't. My warriors in WoW dual-wield once they can do it, because you tend to take flak if you're DPS and wielding one bad-ass two-hander as opposed to two smaller weapons. But overall, I don't get it. I'm guessing it's the speed allows more damage to be done more quickly, or is it more the "it looks cool' factor?

Personally I actually think that the big two handers look cooler for warriors. However, I want to try out (and had a question about) dual wielding because it's a feature I haven't gotten to see in elderscrolls before. Granted dual wielding does looks cool also lol.

I actually already listed the benifits of dual wielding, but in most games it comes down to a few things. Specifically, being able to attack faster with two enchants is the main benifit. Also, in a lot of games perks, talents, or skills have bonuses for Crit% chance and Crit Damage. If you increase the speed of you attacks (with dual wielding) it gives these a massive synergistic effect. Instead of attacking 2 times per second with increased crit% I attack twice per second with increase crit%. It leads to massive dps overall because you attack much more frequently with a higher Crit chance.

Edited November 5, 2011 by fisban0