Spiral Knights - Should their be benefits of not equipping a shield? ( while using a sword )

Should their be benefits of not equipping a shield? ( while using a sword )

56 replies [Last post]

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 06:40

#51

Dibsville

---

"But to be honest is it impossible to make your ASI higher?"

Are you asking if it's possible to go above the 'High' ASI that Swiftstrike Buckler gives? Because we have Vog Cub for sword ASI, as well as Justifier, Deadshot, Nameless, and Seerus Masks for gun ASI. We also have two Kat Cowls for swords and guns.

Let's not forget we also have ASI trinkets and Sprite Perks, and you can get ASI as a Unique Variant. And one not-so-very-known one is the Fallen set, which gives a universal ASI bonus.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 09:49

#52

Atlas-Snowcap

Hmm, it would be interesting to see the option of not equipping a shield having some sort of benefit, it'd add another layer to playstyles.

Obviously losing the ability to block would result in a higher focus on actually avoiding enemy attacks, and so I'd suggest the benefits (+) and downsides (-) would be these:

+ Dashing now allows you to cancel anything, including charged attacks.
+ You are now invincible for the start and middle of the duration of a dash (still vulnerable at the tail end of it)
- You cannot block
- You cannot shield bash

These changes would allow for a player to be far more mobile but with the sacrifice of any defensive capabilities. Any thoughts?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 09:53

#53

Sandwich-Potato

No.

No shield in Tier 3 is ridiculous. If you can't shield-cancel, the ASI is less than the attack speed of a pro shield-canceler. Not many people would give up their precious Swiftstrike Bucklers.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:12

#54

Atlas-Snowcap

@Sandwich-Potato

I didn't say it would make for a completely equal side option, it'd just add a bit more of a varied playstyle if someone wanted to challenge themselves, rather than it being a complete downside.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 13:50

#55

Dark-Flame-Slayer

Hi.

I'm getting mixed up here. Are the people against no-shield-bonuses arguing because they think having a shield is more effective, or because it would actually hurt the game? If it's the former, doesn't that come down to personal preference?

The only major issue I can think of is that having a shield vs not having a shield would have to be balanced.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 14:33

#56

Sandwich-Potato

Why did you necro this? WHY?

The reason against dual wielding is that it would be overpowered with current weapons. Dual wield a Brandish, charge, profit. On the other hand, making new dual wield only weapons would have to be tweaked and all that, and there's a high possibility of unbalance on either side. Plus, in tier 3, it's nearly impossible to survive without a shield.

Search

Should their be benefits of not equipping a shield? ( while using a sword )