Ideas for new Weapons.....

[DevilsSnare]

I think they should take suggestions from people about new weapons. Tell they about you new weapons you have made up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i only have 1 and i did not make it up. i got it from another game tho. :oops:

 

 

 

The Flail:

 

 

 

Consist of:

 

 

 

1 stick (basically)

 

 

 

A chain

 

 

 

a [bleep]ed ball

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the stick with the chain attached then the [bleep]ed ball attached to the chain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Props for the Idea is from Diablo 2

[mageoftheage2]

ever heared of verac's flai :lol:

[Soulfire21]

Yeah, the flail exists already. Perhaps something a little more original?

[mr_o_crocodile]

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

[Arcturus]

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A proper ballista is a siege weapon lol...I'd like to see you try and hold one of those with one hand. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lances could be interesting...As well as better claws as to introduce a martial arts aspect to the game.

[Zonorhc]

The handle for a flail is called a shaft, not a stick. There's a lot more involved in flail construction than a shaft, chain and ball. You can't use a chain that's too long, otherwise it'd take too long to get any momentum into the thing, and if it's too short, it's useless. It needs to be long enough to add momentum, but short enough to be able to deal damage from a direct swing. Whirling the thing around your head is going to be more dangerous to you than it is to the enemy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternatively, flails can be made of two rods with a hinge in the middle, or with the shaft attached by the chain to another reinforced rod.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and then there's Verac's Flail or whatever it's called.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes. Let's forget that you'd need a horse to drag the thing around and the fact that a human would take at least twelve seconds to reload the bloody thing, and he'd need the help of a huge winch to do it. And that the bolts weigh at least a pound each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's only for the smallest types of ballista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lances... meh. Same thing as a spear, only you use them from horseback. Unless we're talking about jousting lances, in which case you HAVE to use them from horseback, and they're designed to shatter on impact.

[Trigger3333]

swordchucks anyone? jk, but a lance would be a cool weapon.

[xXAbyssalXx]

Jagex said that they wouldn't add any martial art type things to the game...I think but some katanas (sp?) would be nice :P

[Raiden2k2]

Good lord.. My topic on new weapons a long time ago was full of ideas.

 

 

 

I've always wanted a Rapier or Sabre into the game. The shortsword is basicly useless, so I'd be glad, really, if either of these replaced it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dragon Rapier special- Your character lunges forward up to three squares away, with a chance of hitting through any armor with a powerful stab attack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=213 ... escape+com

 

 

 

There's my old topic. I'd give it a read.

[mr_o_crocodile]

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes. Let's forget that you'd need a horse to drag the thing around and the fact that a human would take at least twelve seconds to reload the bloody thing, and he'd need the help of a huge winch to do it. And that the bolts weigh at least a pound each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's only for the smallest types of ballista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lances... meh. Same thing as a spear, only you use them from horseback. Unless we're talking about jousting lances, in which case you HAVE to use them from horseback, and they're designed to shatter on impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look, everything is possible in Runescape. A small dagger takes as much one space as a large Full Plate. Make Ballista like Cannon-like then, if that suits you.

[Arcturus]

 

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes. Let's forget that you'd need a horse to drag the thing around and the fact that a human would take at least twelve seconds to reload the bloody thing, and he'd need the help of a huge winch to do it. And that the bolts weigh at least a pound each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's only for the smallest types of ballista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lances... meh. Same thing as a spear, only you use them from horseback. Unless we're talking about jousting lances, in which case you HAVE to use them from horseback, and they're designed to shatter on impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look, everything is possible in Runescape. A small dagger takes as much one space as a large Full Plate. Make Ballista like Cannon-like then, if that suits you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about a Ballista? The Crossbow needs to beat its String Bow counterparts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ballista:

 

 

 

basically you hold it with one hand (and shield with another), fires with bolts, but is about the power of a Magic Bow (thinks of it as Melee vs Magic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a fun thought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes. Let's forget that you'd need a horse to drag the thing around and the fact that a human would take at least twelve seconds to reload the bloody thing, and he'd need the help of a huge winch to do it. And that the bolts weigh at least a pound each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's only for the smallest types of ballista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lances... meh. Same thing as a spear, only you use them from horseback. Unless we're talking about jousting lances, in which case you HAVE to use them from horseback, and they're designed to shatter on impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lance as in they type of pikes used by the Macedonian phalanx; those don't need to be be used on horseback. A lance/pike like that would be an interesting alternative to halberd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We already have a Cannon, do we really need a Ballista thats almost the same as a Cannon? It would be quite redundant.

[xXAbyssalXx]

wow you do have a point about the ballista thing. Since cannons can do the same. Anyone on that other topic the author of this thread made. I don't like your ideas for range weapons. I swear two of em are guns

[Raiden2k2]

wow you do have a point about the ballista thing. Since cannons can do the same. Anyone on that other topic the author of this thread made. I don't like your ideas for range weapons. I swear two of em are guns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me? I suggested a Matchlock and a Chu-Ko-Nu. Two entirely different things.

[Hunter360x]

How about an ice-cream stick that breaks upon impact but has huge prayer/mage bonus or a barbed shield with a special attack that smashes the opponent with the shield or I think they are called ninja stars or how about twin blades like 2 daggers: no shield, fast, low damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like da dragon rapier idea

[Barihawk]

 

wow you do have a point about the ballista thing. Since cannons can do the same. Anyone on that other topic the author of this thread made. I don't like your ideas for range weapons. I swear two of em are guns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me? I suggested a Matchlock and a Chu-Ko-Nu. Two entirely different things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggested those months ago. The reaction from players was nice, but Jagex just gave me a "that sounds ok, we shall forward it to suggestions and development" response.

[gordawg93]

A LIGHTSABRE THAT CHOPS PEOPLES HEADS OFF THEN YOU KEEP THE HEAD AS A SOUVENIER AND THE HEADLESS PERSON CAN NEVER PLAY RUNESCAPE AGAIN WITH THAT ACCOUNT MWUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! :twisted:

[Corvu16]

this is an idea i have been thinking up for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dual weilding (long)swords. it wouldn't be totally different weopons, just the capability to dual wield them. You would of course have to have two hands so no shield. I think the attack speed would have to be the same as one sword, but wielding them together would give a bigger attack bonus. Like for example, wielding on d long gives 69 slash bonus, but dual weilding d longs would give a 85 slash bonus or something. Probably some agility requirements would be needed, and maybe strength too. What do you guys think of that?

[Zonorhc]

Maybe a longsword/shortsword or longsword/dagger combination, but not longsword/longsword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swinging two 48", 4lb. slabs of sharp metal is going to be a lot more dangerous to you than it is to your opponent.

[tintmangbpack]

Maybe a longsword/shortsword or longsword/dagger combination, but not longsword/longsword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swinging two 48", 4lb. slabs of sharp metal is going to be a lot more dangerous to you than it is to your opponent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

only if you are two weak to do this, in order for dual wielding there would have to be a strength requirement, like 20 for 2 daggers and hatchets, 30 for shortswords, 40 for maces, 50 for long swords and scimitars, 60 for axes, and if you use two their would a 1.5 times increase in the weapons attack, but you cant use spears, 2hs, or halberds, because they are already 2 handed.

[Zonorhc]

 

Maybe a longsword/shortsword or longsword/dagger combination, but not longsword/longsword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swinging two 48", 4lb. slabs of sharp metal is going to be a lot more dangerous to you than it is to your opponent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

only if you are two weak to do this, in order for dual wielding there would have to be a strength requirement, like 20 for 2 daggers and hatchets, 30 for shortswords, 40 for maces, 50 for long swords and scimitars, 60 for axes, and if you use two their would a 1.5 times increase in the weapons attack, but you cant use spears, 2hs, or halberds, because they are already 2 handed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not a question of strength. You can be extremely strong but it would still affect your balance. With two longswords, you've got to keep track of footwork and arm balance for both, without even getting to the part where you swing them. It's harder to work two large weapons in tandem than it is to use two smaller weapons or a large weapon and a small weapon. Also, even the strongest people tire out. Swinging a weapon at any enemy for any length of time (say three minutes) is going to tire you out a lot. Swinging two HEAVY weapons is going to fatigue you even faster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Runescapians seem to be right-handed. Not too sure on that, since people hold their bows in their right hands as well and draw with their left (JAGeX mistake, I'd say). However, the fact stands that whenever you equip a weapon, it is held in a right-handed fashion. Two-handed swords seem to be swung left-handed as well as right-handed, but I'll chalk that up to poor JAGeX design as well. Dominant hand affects your ability to use anything in your "weak" hand, like weapons and pens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of rapier/main-gauche combat in the renaissance period. There is a reason why they didn't use two rapiers instead, and those things are slightly lighter and shorter than longswords. The dagger in the left hand is used mainly for defence and surprise attacks, so that the rapier can focus on offense. Fighting with two weapons is almost exactly like fighting with a weapon and a shield, but you have a slightly worse option of defense as well as attack. However, it is a lot better than using only one weapon, if you do it right.

[tintmangbpack]

 

 

Maybe a longsword/shortsword or longsword/dagger combination, but not longsword/longsword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swinging two 48", 4lb. slabs of sharp metal is going to be a lot more dangerous to you than it is to your opponent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

only if you are two weak to do this, in order for dual wielding there would have to be a strength requirement, like 20 for 2 daggers and hatchets, 30 for shortswords, 40 for maces, 50 for long swords and scimitars, 60 for axes, and if you use two their would a 1.5 times increase in the weapons attack, but you cant use spears, 2hs, or halberds, because they are already 2 handed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not a question of strength. You can be extremely strong but it would still affect your balance. With two longswords, you've got to keep track of footwork and arm balance for both, without even getting to the part where you swing them. It's harder to work two large weapons in tandem than it is to use two smaller weapons or a large weapon and a small weapon. Also, even the strongest people tire out. Swinging a weapon at any enemy for any length of time (say three minutes) is going to tire you out a lot. Swinging two HEAVY weapons is going to fatigue you even faster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Runescapians seem to be right-handed. Not too sure on that, since people hold their bows in their right hands as well and draw with their left (JAGeX mistake, I'd say). However, the fact stands that whenever you equip a weapon, it is held in a right-handed fashion. Two-handed swords seem to be swung left-handed as well as right-handed, but I'll chalk that up to poor JAGeX design as well. Dominant hand affects your ability to use anything in your "weak" hand, like weapons and pens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of rapier/main-gauche combat in the renaissance period. There is a reason why they didn't use two rapiers instead, and those things are slightly lighter and shorter than longswords. The dagger in the left hand is used mainly for defence and surprise attacks, so that the rapier can focus on offense. Fighting with two weapons is almost exactly like fighting with a weapon and a shield, but you have a slightly worse option of defense as well as attack. However, it is a lot better than using only one weapon, if you do it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then you could add in a requirment of agility so you agility would have to be the same as the required strencth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using two weapons is always an advantage fighting hand to hand because you can block just as much with a sword then you could a shield and having a sword blocking instead of a large shield leaves a larger window of oppurtunity.

 

 

 

That being said i dont think Jagex will ever implement this because the balance would be all out of whack.

[zerat234]

i like the duel weps or having your shield as a semi wep that can only be used as a special that takes the hole bar and does good damage

 

 

 

^^^^^^

 

 

 

(special shields not normal ones :arrow: )<----------->

 

 

 

<--------->

 

 

 

<------->

 

 

 

<----->

 

 

 

<--->

 

 

 

<-->

[Zonorhc]

Using two weapons is always an advantage fighting hand to hand because you can block just as much with a sword then you could a shield and having a sword blocking instead of a large shield leaves a larger window of oppurtunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, no. A sword could theoretically block more than a small shield, but you're forgetting that it's a fairly narrow piece of metal. There is a lot of co-ordination involved in actually parrying something and not having your weapon slammed into you by the force of the attack. There are also feints and disengages to worry about, as your sword can only defend so much of your actual body. With your off-hand sword, you're not likely to deal much damage as that arm will not be as strong as your dominant, so you're going to relegate the off-hand weapon to defensive work anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A shield, on the other hand, prevents your opponent from striking by virtue of physically covering far more area than a blade, and you can easily block cuts as well as thrusts without much variation in arm position. A lot of sword/shield tactics are based around the fact that your enemy can only attack what he can see, and you can block whatever attack it is with your shield without worrying too much about fine co-ordination, because of the large area of protection. Swords require a lot of concentration to work properly. Also, while you are on the attack, you can use the shield to obstruct your opponent's field of vision, so they don't know where the attack is going to come from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zones of protection while wielding two swords vary a lot, and are vastly inferior to a fighter with a sword and a shield. A sword (at best) can cover about a third of your body with its arc of movement. A quarter in most circumstances, if you actually want to attack with it as well. With two swords, this obviously translates into half to two-thirds of your body covered by your weapons. However, with the point of a dominant hand, your off-hand weapon is going to be able to cover less and dividing your concentration between two weapons will hamper your main hand as well, so you're looking at about a third to half your body protected. Your opponent here has a number of options. Firstly, he can rely on raw speed to rip through your defenses. Secondly, he could disarm your off-hand (fairly easy) and then fight you on his terms. Thirdly, he could just go on the offensive and wait for you to make a blunder and either hurt yourself or leave a huge opening for him to stick a piece of sharp metal in your side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With a decent-sized shield, you're looking at about two-thirds of your body guaranteed to be protected in the worst circumstances. Three-quarters in most cases. If you're fighting with your shield off to the side so you can bring your weapon into play easier (ie, an offensive action), then your weapon adds its own arc of movement, and you cover your entire body with that defensive field. What your opponent wants to do in this case is either to go defensive and try to disarm you when you attack, or attempt to disable your shield by breaking your arm with a nice strong attack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The (theoretical) offensive capability of two weapons is far outstripped by the sheer defensive ability of a single weapon used with a shield.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(PS: I do like these combat discussions a lot)

[tintmangbpack]

 

Using two weapons is always an advantage fighting hand to hand because you can block just as much with a sword then you could a shield and having a sword blocking instead of a large shield leaves a larger window of oppurtunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, no. A sword could theoretically block more than a small shield, but you're forgetting that it's a fairly narrow piece of metal. There is a lot of co-ordination involved in actually parrying something and not having your weapon slammed into you by the force of the attack. There are also feints and disengages to worry about, as your sword can only defend so much of your actual body. With your off-hand sword, you're not likely to deal much damage as that arm will not be as strong as your dominant, so you're going to relegate the off-hand weapon to defensive work anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A shield, on the other hand, prevents your opponent from striking by virtue of physically covering far more area than a blade, and you can easily block cuts as well as thrusts without much variation in arm position. A lot of sword/shield tactics are based around the fact that your enemy can only attack what he can see, and you can block whatever attack it is with your shield without worrying too much about fine co-ordination, because of the large area of protection. Swords require a lot of concentration to work properly. Also, while you are on the attack, you can use the shield to obstruct your opponent's field of vision, so they don't know where the attack is going to come from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zones of protection while wielding two swords vary a lot, and are vastly inferior to a fighter with a sword and a shield. A sword (at best) can cover about a third of your body with its arc of movement. A quarter in most circumstances, if you actually want to attack with it as well. With two swords, this obviously translates into half to two-thirds of your body covered by your weapons. However, with the point of a dominant hand, your off-hand weapon is going to be able to cover less and dividing your concentration between two weapons will hamper your main hand as well, so you're looking at about a third to half your body protected. Your opponent here has a number of options. Firstly, he can rely on raw speed to rip through your defenses. Secondly, he could disarm your off-hand (fairly easy) and then fight you on his terms. Thirdly, he could just go on the offensive and wait for you to make a blunder and either hurt yourself or leave a huge opening for him to stick a piece of sharp metal in your side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With a decent-sized shield, you're looking at about two-thirds of your body guaranteed to be protected in the worst circumstances. Three-quarters in most cases. If you're fighting with your shield off to the side so you can bring your weapon into play easier (ie, an offensive action), then your weapon adds its own arc of movement, and you cover your entire body with that defensive field. What your opponent wants to do in this case is either to go defensive and try to disarm you when you attack, or attempt to disable your shield by breaking your arm with a nice strong attack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The (theoretical) offensive capability of two weapons is far outstripped by the sheer defensive ability of a single weapon used with a shield.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(PS: I do like these combat discussions a lot)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your right that a shield could block more. But compare carrying a 10 to 15 pound sword to a 30 to 40 pound shield, it makes you quicker, so if you are using lighter more agile weapons you would have an advantage over some one who is lugging aroung twice the weight. With 2 swords you would have the advantage, if you went to slash or thrust with one sword he would be forced to make a defensive move to that attack leaving more open to a quick rally of another attack. There is no way that the guy with a shield and a sword has a speed advantage.

 

 

 

Secondly there is a lot more going into this. If you are wearing full plate armor i think having two swords would be a disadvantage because with full plate armor your mobility is limited and your defense is much more increased making two weapons almost pointless, the only way two weapons would work would be lighter armor, not leather, because that is two weak you would need some sort of chain. That way you would still fairly good mobility and you wouldnt be overencumbered with extra weight. It aslo depends on what you are wielding, two axes is absurd and would never work, the only feasible thing would either be two swords but they couldnt be two big you have to maintain a light and agile position. The obvious thing is a sword and dagger, that way you would block with your sword and bring in the dagger to finsish them off. BUt i still think with two swords you would be able to increase your attack. I dont believe that you wouldnt be able to use the weaker arm and not just the dominant one. If you work equally hard at both they would both devolp and both be equally powerfull, sort of a pseudo, amphidextrious (is that how it is spelled?). I know this because i play basketball a lot and am almost equally skilled with both arms. If you practiced everyday you could use either arm equally well. What the dual wielder would do would be attack quickly and try to catch the other moving slowly with all the wieght and then move in. The key are quick strikes and moving quickly in order not to give the opponent a chance to retaliate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS i have really enjoyed this discussion.

[Miselius]

What about two swords... They could be shortswords and are as strong as them but twice faster. Perfect for training.