No off-hands?

[SunRay.5874]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> I think the most compelling reason to support the idea from a player perspective is animations.

>

> It's a subjective reason but if done well, having a set where you're using one sword occasionally swapping from swinging with a single hand to using both hands for really powerful blows is very aesthetically pleasing or a pistol animation where you steady your aim for a convincing well aimed burst or use the other hand for a quick mag change or loading a special round. Or what about an animation for dagger that shows a compelling hand swap for a martial combo using a feinted and stab to an unprotected area.

>

> The thing is, a lot of the current animations could be better. Many look recycled or like limp wristed flailing and it kind of had to be when a player can have any combo of offhand weapons that would affect the main.

>

> Having a sole one handed weapon could possibly utilize more stylized animations than dual weapons.

 

You sir, just perfectly explained where my suggestion is coming from

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > Can anyone give an example of another game in which you don't put yourself at a disadvantage by using a 1-handed weapon with no off-hand? I can't think of an RPG I've played where that's true - so I'd be interested to know if there is one. (I'm guessing there must be a game where using shield reduces your speed, or something.)

>

> Some DnD rule sets make it difficult to dual wield (Baldurs Gate for example, which uses advanced 2nd edition rules). You're not strictly a disadvantage but you do need to build your character for it - you have to put points into the dual wield skill line which then can't be used for other things, and you do slightly reduced damage with both weapons, especially the off-hand, due to it being difficult to use two weapons effectively at the same time. Shields are a bit more practical but weight is a factor in that game, so carrying a shield (particularly a large one like a tower shield) will restrict how much you can carry and how fast and quietly you can move.

>

> In some games it's simple impossible - for example I think Skyrim was the first Elder Scrolls game to allow you to use any off-hands except a shield (and that required building up the relevant skill to be useful). That seems to be more common in older games. I guess as time went on developers realised people really liked the idea of dual wielding in fantasy games and since they don't need to be all that realistic there was no reason to prevent it. Plus it allows weapon systems like GW2 has where it's easier to balance stats and upgrades when you can assume everyone will be using 2 1-handed weapons or 1 2-handed weapon.

 

Interesting, thanks! I hadn't thought about needing to invest stat points for certain off-hands, and now that you mention it, I can think of a few examples where that's needed, at least to gain the full benefit (e.g. GW1).

 

> @"Biff.5312" said:

> I mean I could imagine in the next expansion they could come out with something like a single-handed proficiency that would be represented by an item that fills that slot and can take infusions etc., but doesn't appear as a weapon of any kind - it would be a weapon type in itself and I could see that for a particular elite trait line or something for each profession. I don't think it would happen, but it's conceivable.

 

If I recall correctly, that sounds similar to the Demon Hunter in Diablo 3. They use one-handed crossbows, and can either dual wield or wield one with a quiver in the off-hand slot. You're not at a disadvantage using the quiver since it gives you stats and bonuses, and the quiver is not literally held on the off-hand so you have one-handed animations. But part of the reason this works is down to how weapons work in Diablo 3: unlike in GW2 they don't have skills tied to them - they're just items that give you stats and bonuses that aren't even unique to the item type. (In fact, in many cases your character literally puts their weapon(s) away to attack - it looks terrible!)

 

> @"SunRay.5874" said:

> The amount of considerate comments bringing up the workload that Anet would have to face, should this mechanic be implemented, is quite... beguiling? I've never seen a community that concerns itself this much with the potential troubles that their game creators might go through by complying with player demands. Over half of the replies here are something like "Yeah I guess it would be nice, but Anet would have a hard time trying to figure it out". Or "Anet is busy with other stuff". Very interesting.

 

My experience of this forum is that this would have happened almost regardless of what you suggested.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"SunRay.5874" said:

> The amount of considerate comments bringing up the workload that Anet would have to face, should this mechanic be implemented, is quite... beguiling? I've never seen a community that concerns itself this much with the potential troubles that their game creators might go through by complying with player demands. Over half of the replies here are something like "Yeah I guess it would be nice, but Anet would have a hard time trying to figure it out". Or "Anet is busy with other stuff". Very interesting.

 

The response to practically every suggestion thread here.

 

It's a source of never-ending frustration everytime I decide to pop back on these forums every few days or so.