Dual Wielding Weapons

[Hysting]

Now, This idea has been suggested through the ass, But I think I could make it work. Everyone else thinks, "Lets make a stat decrease on the weapons!"

No, Let's not, But lets make it work differently.

 

What dual wielding would do is multiply your speed by 0.8, However, You wouldnt attack at once.

It would be like...

 

Hit 1 -

Left hand hits

Hit 2-

Right hand hits.

Hit 3-

Left hand hits

And the strength bonuses wouldnt stack. You'd have...

"Armor Strength Bonus"

"Weapon 1 strength bonus w\ armor"

"Weapon 2 strength bonus w\ armor."

 

I believe this would be better, and also, Make it so you have to go through a semi easy quest to learn how to dual wield, And make it so you need double your attack level to wield an item in your offhand that you would with your main hand,

So at 80 attack you could say dual wield a dds and rune scim, Lol. No real room for abuse there, just a bit faster, and you cant wield a shield while you have dual wielding enabled.

 

edit: Oh, and your offhand would of course be slightly less accurate.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Hysting

[Ambler]

Semi-support, but this would make hits from whips, dscims etc. stack, meaning if you got some lucky combo's in, then it would mean instant death- also think of double spec bar usage aswell, just to deter certain spec weps being overused.

[Hysting]

I didnt know you can get 120 attack or 140... :P No spec weapon can be wielded in offhand... It'd really only be for fun, and have a small bonus. Perhaps you could maybe dual wield dragon weapons at 99 but be unable to use either to special, or if you use one special it'd use double the spec bar for one hand, then double for the other. would only make ddsing a slight bit more OP.

[Loffelicious]

I find this interesting at least. I like the idea of double attack lvl req and all that. Means you can't wield whips, d weps etc in off hand no matter what. There would of course have to be some kind of penalty. But I'm not sure what..

 

Anyway - support

[Hysting]

offhand will be less accurate. Mainhand will actually go slower, I think

mainhand can be 1.2* it's normal speed, whereas offhand will be 0.8*. That way you could be crafty and use a rune battleaxe in the offhand, or longsword, and scim in the main hand.

But if its going to be at all useful, you should be able to do it on f2p xD

[1337_Byte]

I think this is a good idea. We should also have the option to wield shields in the right hand and main weapons in the left hand.

[M21112]

i support but i have an addtional idea is that when you dual weild the character must hold the swords in different way that fits for the way he will be fighting

a really nice idea and i support 1000%

[NightSky]

When you wield two weapons you don't really lose any strength, but you can very easily lose leverage. Making an attack with one hand can often put you off balance dramatically lowering the effectiveness of the second attack. I like this idea and would like to see it implemented. I do think though that certain combinations of weapons should be more effective than others. Such as a large weapon and a small weapon being better together than two large weapons. I don't really think a quest would be necessary though as people already know how to use their left hands

[Seabourch]

Support this all the way but the penalty should be a defense penalty since you can't wield a shield anymore. And the offhand should hit less accurately too since it is your "weaker" hand and maybe about 200 less than your normal hand.

[Blyaunte]

While I am entirely in favour of dual handed weaponry -- this idea needs to be a lot better thought out:

 

First of all, there's a limit as to what weapons, and in what combinations such weapons, can be dual wielded. A whip, for example, should be too difficult to "dual wield" – i.e. you cannot use two at a time, but it could work with a dagger. It'd likewise be too "unwiedly" to operate a whip with a longsword or scimitar.

 

Any dual wielding will, of course, reduce your accuracy slightly – but it should not reduce your strength on your "primary hand" and have only a slight reduction on your "secondary" hand. There should be less of a reduction when dual wielding "like" weapons – as they would allow for better balance. Wielding double-daggers, for example, would offer a higher accuracy and less strength deduction than, say a longsword and a dagger.

 

You would also lose certain defence bonuses that any dual wielded weapon is going to give.

 

Also - dual wielding is going to need an attack/strength/defence level requirement – you cannot dual wield until you reach, say, level 50 in all three stats. Sorry "Pures", but some noob with level 10 defence should never be allowed to dual wield a weapon.

 

The attack structure would follow more closely along these lines:

 

1. Prime hand attack, off-hand parry;

2. Prime hand attack, off-hand parry;

3. Attack with both hands.

 

Of course, if you're going to allow "dual handed" weapons and "dual handed fighting" then you ALSO need to incorporate the good old fashioned "Shield bash" – which allows you to assert a certain amount of "pound" damage on your target, depending on the level of the shield.

[IBeATank]

While I am entirely in favour of dual handed weaponry -- this idea needs to be a lot better thought out:

 

First of all, there's a limit as to what weapons, and in what combinations such weapons, can be dual wielded. A whip, for example, should be too difficult to "dual wield" i.e. you cannot use two at a time, but it could work with a dagger. It'd likewise be too "unwiedly" to operate a whip with a longsword or scimitar.

 

Any dual wielding will, of course, reduce your accuracy slightly but it should not reduce your strength on your "primary hand" and have only a slight reduction on your "secondary" hand. There should be less of a reduction when dual wielding "like" weapons as they would allow for better balance. Wielding double-daggers, for example, would offer a higher accuracy and less strength deduction than, say a longsword and a dagger.

 

You would also lose certain defence bonuses that any dual wielded weapon is going to give.

 

Also - dual wielding is going to need an attack/strength/defence level requirement you cannot dual wield until you reach, say, level 50 in all three stats. Sorry "Pures", but some noob with level 10 defence should never be allowed to dual wield a weapon.

 

The attack structure would follow more closely along these lines:

 

1. Prime hand attack, off-hand parry;

2. Prime hand attack, off-hand parry;

3. Attack with both hands.

 

Of course, if you're going to allow "dual handed" weapons and "dual handed fighting" then you ALSO need to incorporate the good old fashioned "Shield bash" which allows you to assert a certain amount of "pound" damage on your target, depending on the level of the shield.

100% agree. The idea has potential, but there are some drawbacks. What I'm really thinking is some sort of defence boost/accuracy penalty so that someone with a shield still has a chance of beating someone with dual weapons. As for the shield bash, I very much like that idea, although maybe a more powerful version for spikeshields and berserker shields.

[Hegelstad]

If you have played maplestory, you would have realised Dual Blades are far too overpowered, would never work out.

[Sir_Squab]

I always thought this was more-or-less what the defender was made for. And once the dragon defender comes out....

 

I could try to think of a few ways that *might* make this work, but really.... I don't support this.