What's with the dual wield hate?

[Dooz]

So we can interpret anything we want in any way we want to justify it, just not two weapons in two hands. Can we just admit it's a personal preference issue at this point and nothing to do with accuracy or realism?

[Bobthehero]

Although then the ironflesh skill should probalby not be active when getting hit from behind.

 

Make it happen?

And buff swashbucklers

Edit: has to do with realism.

[Paul]

Afaik the main reason why we don't have dual wield is engine limitations that can't (or only with a lot of trouble) be overcome even with WSE. But even if we could pull it off, I doubt there would be a consensus in the dev team to add it in. The historical evidence is thin. Off-hand weapons only seemed to reach a certain popularity in a time period that doesn't really fit to cRPG. Even then it would only be the off-hand daggers. So no dual swords, dual axes, dual pikes for you, Dragonborn.

[Dooz]

Bah, it was never meant for me anyway. Consider me the dual wielding devil's advocate.

Regarding shield skill and ironflesh, you being able to move yourself and move your shield independently would seem to cover whether or not you can move to absorb hits, since speed bonuses exist. So you can already move away from an incoming strike to minimize damage, both to yourself and to the shield without the need for inventing invisible actions. You can argue one way or the other with things like this till the cows come home, then argue some more with the cows. And if you were so inclined, you'd do the same for dual wielding, which is where personal preference comes in at the end of the day.

To sum up, I'm not convinced it totally isn't historically accurate, definitely no reason to think it's impossible within the realm of physics and human ingenuity (both real life and coding-wise), and we sure have a lot more history professors and time travelers in the community than I would have imagined. 

[Angantyr]

Don't bother. It's no use arguing with know-it-alls.

we sure have a lot more history professors and time travelers in the community than I would have imagined. 

It is ironic that it is you who are making things up and us who are only asking for sources who are the 'know-it-alls', 'history professors' and 'time travellers'.

But it is very simple, please just present some sources and we'll talk about them, there isn't much point in discussing that which until then only exist in your head.

[XyNox]

Time to be a smart ass:

There are always reasons something happens or does not happen.

There is no way to doupt that 2h ,1h+shield and polearms had large popularity in the window of time crpg takes place. There IS however not much proof that dual wielding weapons in that same era gained a lot of popularity. Since these people back then fought wars to the death and did not play games, (although im not a time traveler) Im pretty sure they used those weapons that prooved to be the most effective ones and not these that would give the most fun to carry into battle. In conclusion Id say that dual wielding simply was not as effective as other weapons we already have in the game.

BUT: Looking at the 1h weapons equipment page or any other, I see tons of weapons that are not used other than for teh lulz. Simply because they are not as effective as other ones. "Its not historicly accurate" sounds like implying that people back then didnt "unlock" the ability yet to be able to think about puting one weapon in each hand.

That said: If dual wielding is simply not vastly effective, as plenty of other things in the game right now are not as well, just add it but balance it in a way that it is simply not vastly effective. I really dont see the point here to not implement it just because there are no big battles in history that show its existence. In real life i might paint the fletching of my arrows light red to be able to see them flying at greater distances better. In real life, if Id carry a bow in a castle, knowing there could be an enemy around the next corner, Id definitly hold the arrow already nocked, saving me much time that could be the difference between life and death, instead of starting to pull it out of my quiver just when someone jumps around the corner 2m infront of me. Its not like god comes down from the heavens and sais "Mortal, you shall not do this, as it is not written down in the history books".

Personaly I dont care as Im not a melee. But why not give melees a new toy if its not gamebreaking ?

[Kafein]

Meaning even if dual wielding was ever used, it wasn't during the "time period" of crpg? I'dunno, that seems like a pretty weak reason not to. How much stock can you really put into what time period all these random chaotic battles with all sorts of mishmashed troops are taking place in, and what does or doesn't belong, at least loosely? I think it's a lot easier to say guns don't belong for example, than using the weapons that already exist in a certain way. Doesn't seem like an irrefutable position.

That's not what I meant. The dagger/sword fighting style fits in the late period of this mod.

The true problem is implementing dual wielding. And making it different than a shield, but not preventing blocks either.

[Gravoth_iii]

Id say this would be pretty cool, with or without blocking, you could use 1 weapon for blunt/pierce damage or for knockdown, and one for longer reach. Who cares about realism or that it isnt practical, it'd still be a cool addition imo, adds some more variation.

[Dooz]

It is ironic that it is you who are making things up and us who are only asking for sources who are the 'know-it-alls', 'history professors' and 'time travellers'.

But it is very simple, please just present some sources and we'll talk about them, there isn't much point in discussing that which until then only exist in your head.

Sorry for being a prick, in general. Character flaw. And thanks to those who responded reasonably.

But what exactly are you referring to when you say I'm discussing things that only exist in my head (putting aside the possibility that everything only exists in one's head)? What am I making up? I'm not the one pretending to know what went on centuries ago and denying all possibility of something that frankly doesn't seem impossible. I don't assert dual wielding was a popular style anywhere in my posts, and did provide a couple links that seem to suggest it at least existed.

Also, quoting another user's post and referring to it as if it's mine seems weird. 

I think XyNox did a better job of explaining my position without coming off like a cunt. Listen to XyNox.

[Bobthehero]

BUT: Looking at the 1h weapons equipment page or any other, I see tons of weapons that are not used other than for teh lulz. Simply because they are not as effective as other ones. "Its not historicly accurate" sounds like implying that people back then didnt "unlock" the ability yet to be able to think about puting one weapon in each hand.

They had the ability to use dual wielding, but it was not only fairly ineffective, was a sure sure way to get you killed. Their 2nd second so to speak was the shield, which they used in a number of offensive and defensive way.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

lock this useless thread.

[Dooz]

They had the ability to use dual wielding, but it was not only fairly ineffective, was a sure sure way to get you killed. Their 2nd second so to speak was the shield, which they used in a number of offensive and defensive way.

That's still missing the point of it being possible, and allowing for the option of using an ineffective method if you should so choose.

Also, when was the last time black guys were on a medieval battlefield in shining armor? If we're only sticking to what happened on battlefields, and even then only what was most prominent and not just possible, then we should get rid of the darker skin tones. But that'd be silly. Almost as silly as disallowing dual wielding. 

[Bobthehero]

We're not sticking to Europe...

Darker skin tone warrior from other countries looting Euro gear, plausible and make sense, dual wielding, nope.

[Dooz]

Japanese samurais used dual sword techniques, could teach it to the rest of us, just as plausible.

[Bobthehero]

Erm, you sure about that? They we're horse archer before anything.