When you equip a two-handed sword and no other weapon/shield you use it with both hands and in return do more damage. -> realistic
when you equip another weapon or a shield next to that two-handed weapon you start using it with one hand and in return do less damage. -> realistic
This isn't an issue of realism, it is more an issue of game-balance. If a barb did not get a damage penalty when wielding a 2-handed weapon with 1 hand, none of them would ever use 1-handed weapons. The only way to make this feasible is to nerf the damage of 2-handed weapons to make them comparable to 1-handed weapons when wielded as such, so that you would ultimately be indifferent between the 2.
If anything, I would argue that perhaps when using a 2-handed weapon in 1-hand, the damage should remains the same, but you receive an attack penalty instead. This could make for an even more interesting tradeoff.
If you want to talk about realism, there is the whole joke about studded leather armour (I think that punching nails into armour would actually make it weaker, not stronger) or chain-mail (since mail just means chain, so you are really just saying chain-chain).
Likewise, characters can apparently run around with 5 sets of fullplate armour in their inventory without being encumbered despite not having enough strength to wear any one. 6 chipped gems take up as much space as 1 suit of armour.
If anything in D2 resembles or happens to mimic real-life physics, I personally believe it is more coincidence than anything else. I don't think anything is going to care if the trajectory of your projectiles is a little (or a lot) way off, nor may they even be in a position to spot the discrepancies anyways. So what really matters is what looks visually appealing or does not take away from a player's enjoyment of the game (would you find it fun if you had to wait 8 hours for a vendor to "replenish" his gold?). The rest can take a back seat.|||I know it's part of game balancing but it's also realistic to do less damage if you're only using one hand instead of two.
As for the realism part, thanks for answering besides my point, next time I'll make sure to put the word LOOKS in bold with fancy colours so even you can see it.|||What's the issue? It certainly does not look realistic to me at all that 6 diamonds are taking up 6 squares, the same space as a suit of armour. ???
Quote:
I know it's part of game balancing but it's also realistic to do less damage if you're only using one hand instead of two.
My point was more that the reduced damage was a deliberate effort on part of the designers to balance weapons. That it conforms to real-life realism (presumably) is purely coincidental (meaning that they did not set out to model real life physics to begin with).
So I am not sure if there is even a point to arguing whether a particular feature is "realistic" or not in the sense of the word. I mean - we already have spellcasters tossing around balls of fire and calling down flaming rocks from the sky.
If dual-wielding two 2-handed weapons is not possible in D3, I daresay that it will be left out for purely mechanical reasons. I am sure there are a fair number of people who believe that it is cool to run around with 2 oversized steak-knives, easily as many as those who feel this is a retarded concept. So Blizzard has to take into account their preferences as much as yours or mine.|||Quote:
If you want to talk about realism, there is the whole joke about studded leather armour (I think that punching nails into armour would actually make it weaker, not stronger) or chain-mail (since mail just means chain, so you are really just saying chain-chain).
If I remember correctly, "studded leather" is really overlapping plates or leaves held together with metal studs. Hardened leather armor (boiled in wax) doesn't flex, so "leaves" of hard leather were layered together to give a somewhat better range of motion. The overlapping leaves actually gave pretty good protection. Hardened leather is quite cut-resistant, and the layering system gives some defense against dull blows like maces or fists.|||I think it would look pretty cool, if anything. The barbarian is huge. He's supposed to be physically intimidating. That's what I would call physically intimidating.
It isn't like someone's asking for an amazon class that can dual wield bows.|||I prefer to dual wield staves|||I think it would be pretty awesome. If it's an option, I'd definitely be running around with dual Ogre Mauls smashing things to pieces.
It makes sense within the context of the game world. I mean, just look at the Barbarian in D2. He's like twice the size of every other character because his pure physical power is his greatest asset. He can heft weapons in one hand that other warriors would struggle to lift off the ground and swing them with great speed and power. He's supposed to be much bigger and stronger than everyone else.|||Quote:
yea thats a hell gud idea!! pally 4 daiblo 3 lolxxxorz do it blizzy or u r ghey
that�s mah maaaen!
|||I'd just like to point out that realism in a fantasy game can be strived for, but does not need to be, and in order to indulge in the "damn, that's one BAMF" side in a lot of us, I just think adding this bit of unrealistic play to the table would appease a lot more people than it would dissatisfy A potential solution to a problem I keep seeing recur in this thread:
As was pointed out, mauls and axes (and all weapons except blades/swords, for that matter) rely on a concentrated mass on an end. So while it made sense for a sword's damage when dual-wielded in D2 to go down linearly to the amount of strength used in an attack (1 arm versus 2), this shouldn't hold true for other traditional 2h weapons.
Instead, the dual-wielded maul (for example) should have 1/2 of the attack speed than if it were equipped as a two hander. This way, it would properly reflect the fact that swinging a weapon of this off-kilter weight is a hard thing to do, so it would go slower, but would ultimately reach a similar impact velocity as with a two handed version, and so would still reach the appropriate damage as if it were 2 handed. This way, it looks more realistic in manner, but still ends up having a very similar "dps" when compared to it's swordy predecessor
Also, the barb should get a bonus +10 fury for being such a BAMF if he dual-wields mauls, end of story : )|||I think dual-wielding 2H Axes or Maces/Mauls would look daft. Dual wielding the single handed axes is perfectly fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment