A-EftP - Dual Weilding

[Kendroxide]

As I have started playing through this remake of Avernum for the first time, I have come to realize that dual wielding is the most superior form of physical damage in the game. This has always bothered me, because in every Avernum game I have played, it always seems that DW outshines everything else. Is there a reason that Jeff does this? No offense, but you would think that through beta testing, someone would come to realize how strong DW is. Especially since this is the second remake, you would think that they would have learned enough to make the combat system more balanced. I'm not saying this is a terrible game (far from it), it just seems that DW always the most effective form of physical damage, while archery and pole is always the worst (though oddly enough, it seems that Avadon had a more balance combat system). Please take my criticisms with a grain of salt, as I don't want to offend anyone here.

[Kreador]

It has been noted that DW is by far the most powerful form of fighter. Lots of us would like to see more balance. For me, the one thing about DW that is strangest is that either both strikes hit or both strikes miss, whereas on would think they should be two separate rolls, so the possibility of no hits, one hit right, one hit left, or both hits.

 

However, historically speaking in individual close combat, two weapons was more effective than weapon and shield or pole weapon. The latter two were more useful in military maneuvers of large groups (phalanx), where the front line shields could be held close together to keep out the enemy while pole weapons reached from behind and short swords stabbed out up close. Break up the phalanx, however (as when the Roman legions headed into what is modern Scotland and found boulders and flaming logs rolling down the hills at them, followed by big, naked, blue-painted guys with swords bigger than your average centurion), and the advantages fade quickly.

[AaronC]

I always hated dual wielding in games. Don't know why. I think the most satisfying effect in any Spiderweb game was Assassinate in Exile 3. God I loved that.

 

Also, ^ that sounds like some serious pseudo-history.

[Prince of Kitties]

Have any of you guys played the old Exile games? Because those had dual-wielding, and it worked like that. Actually it was probably even more broken, if anything.

[Lilith]

In the Exile trilogy there was at least some kind of balancing factor to dual-wielding other than an ultimately inconsequential accuracy/damage penalty. On one hand, strength bonuses were added separately to each weapon, effectively giving you double the normal bonus; on the other hand, damage reduction from armour was subtracted from each hit as well. The end result was that dual-wielding was significantly better against lightly-armoured targets and significantly worse against very heavily-armoured ones -- especially Doomguards, who would split once for each of the two hits. In practice, dual-wielding still won out most of the time, but there were at least some situations where a polearm user was objectively better.

[Kinsume]

The fact of the matter is dual wielding is meant to outshine a 2h weapon in terms of damage per second. Granted the pole weapons should really get some kind of damage boost to them as they have pretty much the same damage range as swords right now, but other than that things are as they should be. I do agree that both swords should be rolled separated, while it would make them even stronger in a sense it would fix bugs like using a Flame weapon in your main hand and getting the bonus with your offhand.

[Aoslare]

Both swords are rolled separately. The only bugs with that in AEFTP are with bonus special damage vs demons or from the flaming sword.

[Kinsume]

If both swords were indeed rolled separately you would often times have one hitting and one missing. Instead if one misses they both miss.

[Aoslare]

The damage is definitely calculated separately. I thought to-hit was as well. Honestly, it's been a while since I've opened AEFTP. Can anyone else confirm either way?

[Randomizer]

I have yet to see a hit and a miss with dual wielding. Damage is calculated separately and if you hit a monster that has a special effect when you hit it like stun then it is calculated for each hit.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

The fact of the matter is dual wielding is meant to outshine a 2h weapon in terms of damage per second.

Why? From the standpoint of game balance they ought to be roughly equal, since they have basically the same advantages and disadvantages (higher damage, but lower defense). Ideally they should be equally good but in different ways. I think Jeff tried to do this with the cleave mechanic on pole weapons, but the cleave chances just aren't high enough to make a real difference.

Quote:

Also, ^ that sounds like some serious pseudo-history.

Seconding this. I'm not an expert on the history of weapons and war, but I've done some reading on the subject, and as far as I can tell there just isn't that much historical precedent for dual wielding, period. It crops up in some fencing styles, like rapier and dagger, but weapon/shield and single weapon (whether single or double handed) seem overwhelmingly more common. Realistically, learning to use two weapons well in tandem requires so much more skill than using one weapon (or even a weapon and shield) that only highly skilled practitioners of the martial arts would ever find it advantageous.

[Kinsume]

Originally Posted By: Illegal Furniture

Quote:

The fact of the matter is dual wielding is meant to outshine a 2h weapon in terms of damage per second.

Why? From the standpoint of game balance they ought to be roughly equal, since they have basically the same advantages and disadvantages (higher damage, but lower defense). Ideally they should be equally good but in different ways. I think Jeff tried to do this with the cleave mechanic on pole weapons, but the cleave chances just aren't high enough to make a real difference.

Normally yes when you put their damages side to side they would be similar. However when you implement the speed buffs that allow for multiple attacks in a single round, that is where the dual wielder will always pull ahead in terms of dps. For example say they get 4 attacks per round, the pole is only hitting 4 times at best while the dual wielder is hitting 8 times at best. Granted the swords are supposed to have lower damage output then poles, which is the problem here.

I believe cleave would do quite well on a Pole weapon coupled with maybe a 20% change (since broadswords get 10%). On top of a minor boost in damage and I believe you'll see poles start to be viable once more.

As for archers, they need some love as well but their issue isn't their damage it is the lack of good bows in the mid-late game.

[Aoslare]

How does haste change things? 2 hits versus 1 hit is not any different from 8 hits versus 4 hits.

 

Poles are so much worse than dual-wielding that a 10% increase in cleave chance plus a minor boost in damage would not even REMOTELY be enough to save them.

 

Right now dual-wielding defaults to doing 1.6 times the damage of single-wielding anything, and the factor actually increases as you accrue generic bonuses (e.g., to damage % up) during the game.

[Kinsume]

It just further increases the potential damage over time by that much more. I guess when you look at it the gains are pretty much flat whether they be hasted or not, but when looked at in terms of damage per turn a dual wielder has the potential to do double the damage. You know pole is too nerfed though when a sword+shield user can outshine them in dps.

 

As for the numbers, I was just tossing those out there. Balance would obviously require tweaking of them to find a nice setup, but some changes need to be done for sure. Also dual wielders should not be capable of using broadswords.

[Kendroxide]

I think what would really help out pole users is if the reach was increased to 2 squares. This, combined with a higher cleave chance would make poles a whole lot more viable. I also think that dual wielders should have certain weapon limits in their off hand.

[Aoslare]

Pole really was nerfed. That surprised me, as pole was already significantly weaker than dual-wielding in A6.

 

EDIT: Pole reaching 2 squares would be really interesting, and would definitely make pole weapons more useful. Neat idea. I think that plus restoring their damage level to be higher than swords would do the trick.

 

I actually hate the "cleave" ability on polearms because it makes no sense at all. Not that cleaving makes sense to begin with, but you can at least imagine a sword swinging through multiple enemies who surround you on different sides. How does a spear thrust do that?

[Kinsume]

Not all polearms have to automatically be spears. A bardiche for example is considered a polearm, yet it is infact an axe that you would swing. That is another thing, I'm quite disappointed with the lack of other weapon types. You get swords, spears, bows or throwing weapons. That's it. Seems a bit bland to me I'm not sure if that is just how Exile was (frankly I played it so long ago it is hard to remember), however some variety would be nice.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Kinsume: Exile didn't have as much variety in weapons as, say, D&D or the computer games based on it, but it had a bit more than recent Avernum/Geneforge/Avadon games. Maces, crossbows, a few others. I think Jeff's reasoning for taking them out was that the differences between them were mostly cosmetic, and thus not worth the extra programming time and effort. I kind of agree with that, all told; if weapons consumed different numbers of AP, or had different ranges (beyond the basic close/far distinction) it would make sense to make more weapons, but as it stands the only non-cosmetic differences between weapons of the same type are weight and damage, and the former doesn't even remotely balance the latter.

[Kinsume]

Well of course minor changes could be added to the various weapons. For example...

 

Polearms, as mentioned in another thread they could be given the option to pierce behind a target and damage both of them. On top of that they need a damage buff to actually put them back in the runnings for a dps route. You could even break it down into 2 different types of polearms, a piercing one like explained above or even a bardiche style one that would cleave the 3 blocks in front of it each attack.

 

Swords, since this game only uses one handed swords typically they are the quicker attacking weapons with lower damage. So maybe make them cost 1 less AP to use or something for a regular attack and tone down the damage a bit.

 

Maces, would essentially be what swords are now.

 

Bows, currently nothing wrong with them minus the lack of good higher leveled ones. Perhaps giving them a passive chance to ensnare their target when hit, which would be reflected by someone getting shot in the leg or something.

 

Throwing weapons, would need higher quantities of the top ones available to make this viable.

 

But yeah, implementing new weapon types is just the eye candy aspect of it all. Obviously it wouldn't be essential, just something nice to have a variety of. Since most of these remakes are redoing anesthetic parts of the games, figured there wouldn't be an issue with suggesting a larger variety of items for Pc's to use.

[Randomizer]

Exile had sword, crushing weapons (maces and hammer), pole arms, bows and crossbows, and thrown weapons so there were 5 weapon skills. You needed to get arrows to use bows so the difference between bows and thrown weapons were weight, damage, and AP to use.