This is just a thought I had now:
I wonder, if we have two of the same weapon or two of the same weapon line (an example would be the Needlegun and Pepperbox) equipped at the same time, that perhaps we can dual-wield them, perhaps even with special charge attack combos?
The catch would be that while doing so, you can't shield. Furthermore, damage would be decreased in some manner (either overall or you get less attacks in a combo).
Discuss.
It could give some fun and wider game-play options. As far as balancing stands though, I say a big no to this idea for a long while still. Weapons, shields and armor balancing still needs tons of work. Adding the ability to dual wield would require another load of fine-tuned balancing which can't be done yet before the current equipment is properly balanced.
Exactly as Evolution has said. It would add some gameplay elements, but right now the game needs to be in a more balanced state before they add anything drastically new like dual wielding or really any other weapon choices.
If they really wanted to they could make a new weapon type for dual wielding (Like Dual Swords, to make a one star set you just combine two regular swords, or something like that), however it's still a long way out before I would think it would be even a remotely good idea to do it.
It's a nice idea. It probably shouldn't allow you to do more damage though, just deal more damage types / status effects (which is cool, I'd love to dual-wield bombs :P). As much as I like it, I don't see this implemented any time soon.
Dealing more damage wouldn't be a problem Agger, considering you won't wield a shield while dual wielding. (at least I hope that is the general idea to it?) Higher damage vs no ability to block, can work well if balanced correctly.
I'd say No as well.
It's something that never really balances well. You either have to nerf single-weapon users, or dual-wielders are overpowered. The cost of a shield doesn't honestly seem like much of a price at all right now. It's not something you can tack on later in the development, after you've balanced everything else, because it then requires you to rebalance everything.
The only time I've ever really seen it work is when "dual-wielding" is actually a single "pair of weapons" which basically functions as a two-handed weapon, rather than a mix&match system using single-hand weapons. That way, it's just another weapon-type which can be balanced independently of the other weapon-types.
The reason I say no is because shields offer active immunity to all incoming damage.
Weapons are already ridiculously unbalanced when coupled with a few damage bonuses, to balance out the loss of what is potentially, full immunity from damage would just take ridiculousness to a whole new level.
I'd much rather see Lances in the game than dual weapons.
Besides, do you really want to PvP with somebody that has two Sentenzas?
Depending on how this is implemented, dual-wielding two identical weapons might not give any advantages at all.
And full immunity my shiny little hiny... shields are so ineffective in this game.
Hmm, maybe.
I'd say for melee weapons the one in your main hand does full damage, and the one in your shield/off hand does half damage.
Bombs could be amusing.
Guns? Na-uh. You wouldn't be able to reload without four hands. And er, I don't see anybody about with four hands.
"The reason I say no is because shields offer active immunity to all incoming damage."
Shields prevent you attacking, and can "break" temporarily... that's the current balancing factor for their "total immunity". However, shields aren't exactly an "equal but opposite" of weapons either.
instead of dual-wielding equips, it's 2-handed instead? say, a 2hand broadsword? or a machine gun/chain gun which requires both hands to carry?
of course, this still means no shield..
ye so what youare saying is that shields become a weapon where u can have more than one equiped i suppose?
Hey that's an interesting weapon. A shield used to defend party members mostly. Could do well as a new weapon type (instead of just another sword/gun/bomb)
Shields prevent you attacking, and can "break" temporarily... that's the current balancing factor for their "total immunity". However, shields aren't exactly an "equal but opposite" of weapons either.
Shields are the balancing factor.
Attacking prevents you from blocking, it prevents you from moving (with most weapons) and above all, an attack can be interrupted.
Taking away a player's ability to block means you can and will be stunlocked by even the most mundane of enemies if you get careless.
Even with shields, against certain enemies it's still possible to be completely helpless against an enemy under the right circumstances.
Removing shields isn't feasible by any stretch.
Besides all of this, having a standardised equipment benchmark (everyone has a helmet, body, shield and one weapon, AT LEAST), allows them to create content that nobody will be excluded from and is balanced to everyone.
Tier benchmarks added another to this, allowing them to cater content to different gear qualities and assumed player skill levels at those particular depths.
Something which they are planning to do.
And while this theme park strategy to developing content doesn't innately appeal to me, it's a long term idea.
Someone said that they needed to balance current weapons. But if they added dual wielding they'd have to rebalance it all over.
Perhaps if they were to instead add "dual wield" weapons instead of allowing current weapons to be dual wielded?
That way you can make them equally balanced with perhaps some kind of higher damage/combo/charge to offset the lack of blocking attacks.
I always thought it was a little silly for someone who avoids damage (such as someone using guns) and is far from the battle to be stuck with a shield.
However adding it would also be bad since it would unlock the whole "why don't you add X" and "now you need to add Z" and such.
Why would you necro an 8 month old thread...
Not really, sadly. If you have 2 weapons, you can't protect yourself because you don't have a shield.
I really like it but not the idea of doing further more damage
What i like is dual wielding swords like levi and cold
sacrificing secondary weapons for mroe dmgs?
what if you have weapons slot and 4 blitz?
1 hit kill all bosses?
By the by you could easily set it up so this was just a temporary ability rather than permanent. I know id like to see two troikas or triglavs and warmasters rocket hammer. Destroy all the things.
its something to think about for sure, maybe if the armor gets buffed up or something, could even be a single ability with the new shield pet. Who knows.
Dont be so harsh guys.
The "best" solution is to create a new weapon that looks like 2 when equipped.
People only want to dual wield for the coolness factor anyways. It's not like they are demanding double damage.
If you'd like to see a pretty good discussion on the topic that's more recent, here's a link :) http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/48564
I would say yes cause it could be good for people who like offence more then defense.
I love the idea!
They could use a trinket to add the dual wielding into the game, the trinket would balance the game play by reducing damage from both weps by something like 50% just to give it a number!
Or they would put an odd item in game that replaced the shield and could be labeled Gun Placement.
Or the trinket would allow the charge to use both weps only! Who knows what the devs will do, but I'd love to dual-wield two small swords though, or hold a troika line weapon with both hands. therefore more damage and slower attack rate!
hello 2013 thread! how is it going?
It's really from back in 2011.
Thanks a lot, guy, for the bump.
Sounds really gimmicky.
I don't approve.