Warriors get Dual Wield?!?!

Riventil · 08-24-2006, 02:33 AM

Looking at the new screenshots at FoH it seems warriors might have picked up the abilty to Dual Wield

Look at this shot: http://www.bradmcquaid.com/foh_b1.jpg

See in his open invintory he's got 2 spear looking things equiped? Notice the class icon for the warrior is now a pair of crossed swords rather then some helm like the old character creation screen shots had. http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...guardcc2k6.png

It's not a huge supprise since warriors in EQ1 could dual wield but back at the fanguard report we were told that, "Heavy fighters will not dual wield." http://vanguardfighters.com/phpnuke/...howpage&pid=25

Lightning · 08-24-2006, 02:48 AM

http://vanguardfighters.com/phpnuke/...ght=dual+wield

Dual wield does appear to be in place for warriors.

Xionus · 08-24-2006, 08:08 AM

Dual wielding has been something I always thought to be cool in other games but I always figured it might help you Parry more or something as well as hit more. Will dual wielding increase parry at all?

LadyNite · 08-24-2006, 02:31 PM

That would be great for dual wield warriors. Many of the games I currently play; do not have warriors with dual wield. It makes total sense for them to have this option. I mean if they are trained in the many ways of battle they should be able to pick up another wepon and dish out the damage.

Brennus · 08-24-2006, 04:17 PM

For MT'ing, I would say that a tank should not be able to dual wield. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, In everygame I have played, when dual wielding , a tank loses the ability to migitate damage as well, this is in direct contribution of not having a sheild equipped, as does it make since, Agro control also should not be controlled through damage alone, I have seen many dual wield tanks using just damage to control agro, instead of using skills like taunt or something. Secondly, when dual wielding the damage increase will go up reguardless of what stance the warrior is in. Now, if you were in offensive stance and another warrior was in defensive - your dps would be higher but at what degree would it i have no clue. I think that dual wield is a good thing for warriors to have , but I would like to see VG possibly constrict it to just warriors when they are in offensive stances. And require 1 handers/sheild or 2 hander combos for defensive fighting.

Riventil · 08-24-2006, 06:42 PM

Why would you think a 2 hander is more defensive then dual wield? Those big massive swords are slower and less wieldly. Dual wield should be more defensive in nature then a 2h. You have 2 quick blades to help parry and I would think that dodging would be easier with smaller blades that don't over extend your center of gravity. A shield should be more defensive then either of course.

Personally I think it would be cool if the warrior in defensive stance would use his dual wield defensively. Sacraficing opertunities to attack for chances to parry. Course you have to be carefull not to make him a superior tank to the others for balance reasons. If maybe his increased chance to parry equiled his chance to block with a shield then balance could be maintained. Warriors might not opt for the shield as often since it only gives them extra armor and potentially more stat bonuses then their off hand sword. Their dps improvment over the other tanks would be better in defensive stance which is fine by me.

Brennus · 08-24-2006, 07:23 PM

In a group setting, I can see your point, but in my post I am mainly focusing on a Raid setting, a 2 hander may be slower than 2 one handers, but with the slowness comes harder hits. If aggro is based on hate (most games I have played it is) then combined with skills such as taunt, and the hard hitting 2 hander would allow the MT to have a strong build on the hate list. I'm not completely sure how aggro is based in VG, im assuming its going to be hate based. If the chance to parry is increased with 2 one handers, my personal opinion is that more migitation and blocking would be more worth it to me than the increased parry , because whatever damage you do take would be increased due to less armor. Also, with a shield or 2 hander, you still can parry. The skill will just have a lower percentage.

Riventil · 08-25-2006, 12:26 AM

I can defently see using a shield. I just can't see any advantage to using a 2h over dual wield as far as tanking goes. More dmg can help to hold agro so in a situation where your having trouble holding agro I can see giving up the protection for the dmg. However, it's likely that dual wield would give more dps then a 2h since it's a privlage previously denied to the tanks. Even if the dps is rougly equil to that of the 2h sword in most games I've played I've found it easier to hold agro with faster hits over bigger slow hits. You just have too much time to lose agro between 2h hits especially if you miss.

There are tatical reasons to chose one big slow hit vs many smaller hits. For example, if the mob has a fire shield that hits you for X dmg every hit. Also if you have skills that give a damage modifier or are on a longer reuse timer. Faster hits are better if you have a flat % chance to proc or if every hit is increased by a flat value. Though many newer games have realized this and started making things scale to speed.

Xexer · 08-25-2006, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brennus

For MT'ing, I would say that a tank should not be able to dual wield. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, In everygame I have played, when dual wielding , a tank loses the ability to migitate damage as well, this is in direct contribution of not having a sheild equipped, as does it make since, Agro control also should not be controlled through damage alone, I have seen many dual wield tanks using just damage to control agro, instead of using skills like taunt or something. Secondly, when dual wielding the damage increase will go up reguardless of what stance the warrior is in. Now, if you were in offensive stance and another warrior was in defensive - your dps would be higher but at what degree would it i have no clue. I think that dual wield is a good thing for warriors to have , but I would like to see VG possibly constrict it to just warriors when they are in offensive stances. And require 1 handers/sheild or 2 hander combos for defensive fighting.

It used to be that damage was basically the only thing keeping the MT tanking, so dual wield/2h was pretty common. Mostly because you could add procs for hate or get a weapon with one already on it. When WoW came out, then Dual wield and 2h tanking kinda went away for the highest end of the game, but still people do it when the encounters are easy.

Honestly if "realism" is a factor, its possible that you could block better with 2 swords than 1 and a shield. However, a lot of raid targets are a lot larger than you, and swordplay alone wouldnt save you. Sometimes it would take that giant magical shield to deflect their blows.

Divona · 08-28-2006, 05:05 PM

I think this should always be an option. 2 handers are ok, but there's nothing like the faster attacks of 2 weapons to up your dps. No I'm not saying war's should be thinking of their dps while in a grp/raid. But to be able to trade out your sheild for solo'ing or the easier fights you know you can handle would be great.

Of course you will run into players who refuse to use a shield. If that happens time to find a new tank end of story. In EQ2 both zerkers and guardians could dual weild. Most would only do so if (a) they were solo'ing or (b) they were OT'ing. I do remember one time when on an alt, the healer asked the tank to put on his shield becasue he wasn't taking hits so well, and to my shock and horror he replyed with "I don't have a shield always seemed pointless to me" :shock:

Dual weild is a total + in my book, but ALWAYS make sure you have a good one hander and shild to switch to for grp'ing.