What does /v/ think about dual welding?

>>254971685
I hate how you can't block with it in skyrim

>>254971746
>not using mods

Get a load of this guy.

DUAL WIELD

It's shit, looks dumb and it's generally retarded

Except with 2 guns, or a rapiere and a smaller dagger, now that's kinda cool

I can't really think of a game that does it justice. Skyrim dual wielding was a joke.
Dark Souls 2 comes close, but I still had problems with it.
2x Warped Swords was good though.

>>254971685
I like how I can fix metal work in half the time.

>>254971893
I actually just got it for pc, what's a good one?

Impractical in real life because we're not strong and precise enough with each individual arm, but if I were some demigod/superhuman it'd probably be useful. So I see nothing wrong with it being in games, since you can usually kill dragons with your bare hands and punch rocks.

a bit too over the top and edgy for my tastes

File: ja15.jpg (140KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 700x525px

>>254972001
Jedi Academy called

File: artemisvsdrizztforgottenrealms.jpg (47KB, 541x381px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 541x381px

>>254971961
>rapier and a small dagger

My most used build in fantasy games because of best forgotten realms character

File: 1265056148013.png (31KB, 445x640px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 445x640px

>>254971961
>2 swords is retarded
>2 guns is great!

>>254972082
>we're no strong and precise enough
>we're
You and I being weaklings doesn't make everyone a weakling, especially in a fantasy setting in which if you don't have the ability to use magic you have to be strong enough to survive crazy bullshit.

>>254972283
Did you tell them what Lucasarts becomes?

>>254972283
As far as I remember, it wasn't really its own fighting style so much as it was adding a couple of flourishes to the one handed animations.

File: image.jpg (10KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x168px

>>254972134
>JUST two swords is too over the top and edgy

How do you feel about this, princess?

YOU'RE A NOBODY

Dual Wield looks awkward most of the time.

Only a few games can pull that off, for example World of Warcraft ( on some races) or Prince of Persia: WW

TWO WET SOCKS INSTEAD OF ONE
YAY

Looks infantile and awkward.

Rarely works out, and when it does it's being presented as a novel or unconventional way of fighting, not as "cool" on its own merit.

File: 1394371096296.png (7KB, 614x620px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 614x620px

>>254972032
fuck you lazy REDDIT NIGGER WHO DOESN'T GOOGLE

Dual-wielding in BG2 was imba as fuck because there were barely any penalties, and shields weren't very useful.

>>254972543
You're completely wrong.

File: One_Piece_417_18_19.jpg (259KB, 1456x1068px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1456x1068px

>>254972551
That's awkward too.

Part of the reason why Zoro uses 1 or 2 swords so often

the only weapons it's okay to dual wield is handguns

File: 1384615770455.jpg (25KB, 277x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 277x400px

>>254972932
>imba
>imba
>imba
>imba

>>254972393
That's literally what he said. Do you just read the first parts of posts then reply from there?

>>254972393
Using two identical weapons is fundamentally stupid, though.
Different weapons can work out well, though.
Like sword n' board, axe and spear, rapier and main gauche...

>>254973057
What? People used to talk like this when I was playing Jedi Academy 11 years ago.

File: not-a-roman shield.jpg (41KB, 264x342px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 264x342px

Not a big fan. I like the utility of having a shield.

I've used it in pretty much every RPG that has ever featured it. Always liked the idea of sacrificing defense for GOES FAST.

Also, fuck the tryhards who whine about realism concerning dual wielding.

BRB, Monkey Grip.

I cant believe none of you faggots have posted it yet

http://youtu.be/_2e7bX2oVlQ

>>254973086
Nope, just misinterpreted I guess.
I meant in any fantasy setting, pretty much any average guy would be stronger than the average person in real life.
Because farming and chopping wood without tractors and chainsaws is hard work.

>>254972380
Guns are just point and click, no skill or finesse required. SO their fine to dual.

>>254971937
I can't kill you, you're part of me

>not dual wielding shields
Scrubs

>>254973578
And what happens when you have to reload?

>>254972001
Darksiders 2

>>254973693
Someone has never played Devil May Cry.

>>254973701
>Death dual-wielding two scythes Starkiller style

Yeah, no. I liked the game though.

>>254973521
"An error occurred during validation"
I've literally never seen that message on YouTube. Weird.

File: 1404359201386.jpg (40KB, 230x290px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 230x290px

Most RPGs slap huge penalties on dual wielders. Usually it is more practical just to use a shield or just go with a two handed weapon.

It's visually cool sometimes, dumb in others. The absolute best is whenever other characters call you out on your dualwielding bullshit, like in Tales of Symphonia.

>Lloyd, what inspired you to wield two longswords? It goes against almost all fundamental techniques and requires much more skill to handle properly.

>Well, I figured if one sword lets me deal 100 damage, two swords will let me do 200. That's how it works, right? Plus, they make me look really cool.

>Everyone in the party shakes their heads and walk away

>>254973653
I fucking hate this meme.

File: ScreenShot2343.jpg (641KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 800x600px

>>254971685
bretty cool

>>254973760
Doesn't count, Dante is hax.

>>254972551
What the fuck is he holding the frontmost sword with?

>>254972032
i also got it recently. get the nexus mod manager and get a few from there. immersion mods are pretty good i rekon

>>254973578
>I've never shot a gun before.
I thought the same until I went to the range. Couldn't be further from the truth.

>>254973887
Than do it like Nero

Or that guy from Equilibrium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZRL-UtBDvY

>>254973787
>Yeah, no.
Why didn't you like it?

>>254973521
see>>254971937

There's that one samurai dude that mastered dual wielding because he believed (rightly) that using both hands with a single katana is fucking retarded, but that was only the case because nobody used shields in japan
in any other case sword and board is better and i'd go so far as to say that is a form of dual wielding
so really, yes, two weapons are always better than one

>>254974090
That reverse grip shit is overused by now.
If you want to put that in your game you better make it optional and make a normal grip version too.

>>254974090
No, I wanted one big ass scythe, not that bullshit.

ITT: Armchair historians discuss proper weapon handling

>>254974019
takes too much time

>>254974313
As opposed to Indiana Jones historians?

File: ererere.jpg (32KB, 511x353px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 511x353px

>>254972289

>>254973251
>Using two identical weapons is fundamentally stupid, though.

For us.

If you had so much strength that holding a weapon with a single hand is barely any different from holding it with two hands , dual wielding would almost double your power.

Imagine this, you have a needle in your right hand and your job is to hit people with it. Do you need both hands for that needle? Wouldn't carrying two needles actually make your job of hitting people easier?

Same logic here, that's why most of the times dual wield happens with smaller/lighter weapons (daggers or rapiers), holding a rapier with both hands is pretty redundant.

>>254972001
>dark souls
>even remotely close to real dual wielding
Look at this babby who thinks rolling like a monkey in heavy armor and flinging your arms with 2 swords is realistic.

>>254974313
Nigger we're talking about what feels good to use in games for the most part.
Fuck out of here if you can't contribute a game with good dual wield melee.

>>254972380
Well, obviously depends on the gun (you are physically unable to dual wield muskets, for instance), but you do gain extra "DPS" (while, due to physical inability to put your body behind both of the blows, your offhand strikes are going to be incredibly weak - wielding two melee weapons is just for parrying, confusing the opponent or for show) which might compensate for worse aim. In practise people will just bring a bigger gun instead but it's not completely nonsensical.

Besides, cavalry quite often used several pistols once lances went out of favour. I don't think they fired them in the same time, though, instead having them for multiple shots before riding out of reach to reload (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole).

>>254971685
BUNZ

Unrealistic as a minor complaint, and it also looks really stupid in most games.

I'd rather have a two-handed weapon, or a weapon, and a shield.

File: IMG_0344.jpg (3MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x2304px

Dual wield chimney thread?

File: 1279363188606.png (149KB, 275x304px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 275x304px

>needing a bitch ass shield to hide behind when you can just max out dex and build towards dodging.

Sorry, can't fucking hear you over how cool I look.

>>254971685
Only way it can plausibly work is the whole sabre + dagger combo of the cossacks or maybe iaido where you block with the scabbard. Overused and retarded in all other games, single-handedly (ba dum tiss) ruined KOTOR's mechanics as it made a single lightsaber unbearably retarded to play with.

I know a guy who's majorly into medieval tournaments and he says he constantly gets fat neckbeards turning up in shitty EDGY armour dual-wielding wall hangers. He concussed one with a zweihander pommel.

File: General_Rufus_Putnam_House,_Main_Street,_Rutland_(Worcester_County,_Massachusetts).jpg (2MB, 3692x4385px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3692x4385px

>>254974684

>>254973889
You can see two other heads growing out the sides of his head. One of them is holding that sword.

File: a strange day.jpg (44KB, 640x348px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x348px

>>254972289
>tfw killing Drizzt in BG1 and 2

File: 2324404_orig.jpg (175KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 680x510px

>>254974810

>>254974464
>real dual wielding
>Implying real swordsmen ever dual wield

Monster Hunter has dual swords as the noob option.

File: Battersea_Power_Station,_1934_with_only_two_chimneys_(Our_Generation,_1938).jpg (670KB, 1449x1379px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1449x1379px

>>254974917

>>254974464
I used 2x Poison claws, caestus or some form of curved sword/dagger.
As far as gameplay wise it provides speed, additional strikes and additional animations at the cost of not being able to block. That's pretty good in my opinion.
And I wear Wanderer coat with Creighton's Mask, not heavy armor :(

File: Impressive-House-Design-with-White-Wall-which-is-Made-from-Wooden-Veneer-and-Two-Chimneys-Made-from-Red-Brickstones-906x603.jpg (162KB, 906x603px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 906x603px

>>254975018

File: archer530.png (153KB, 445x530px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 445x530px

All the cool kids do it.

Looks stupid, especially if there are no restrictions on what weapons you can dual wield.
I hate how Dark Souls 2 introduced dual wield mechanics, one of the major ways it's worse than the first one.

File: Image 1.jpg (35KB, 372x437px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 372x437px

Can we talk about how under used whips are in games?

Or how much of a pain in the ass it was to go through DS2 with dual whips

File: 413px-Musashi_ts_pic[1].jpg (74KB, 413x599px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 413x599px

>>254974925
Sup?

>>254974913
His items are pretty good, I'm thinking of rolling an evil Barbarian, and his armor will be very useful.

>>254974463
That's not how bodies work, though. The biggest problem with dual wielding is that attacking with both hands at the same time is an incredibly awkward thing to do that nets very little of an advantage, particularly when using one weapon with two hands nets a similar result with more force behind the attack. Two one-handed weapons can be better than a single one-handed weapons, but the issue is that the second one-handed weapon is competing with a shield and the option of just using a larger, heavier, longer weapon.

Having something in your other hand for blocking and deflecting actually opens up more offensive opportunities than a weapon, which is why the most historically viable offhanded "weapons" are things like parrying daggers, and why no-one would ever think about using shields. It's not just a matter of human strength and the problem remains consistent; if fantasy characters are stronger, that just means they'll use a heavier weapon and heavier shield or a longer parrying implemented. It doesn't lend them towards dual-wielding at all.

It might make more sense for something that isn't a human, that has more arms or has generally greater room to attack from different angles. But even for superhumans in fiction, dual-wielding rarely makes sense.

File: John_Hopwood_Mickey_house_from_NE.jpg (888KB, 1943x1360px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1943x1360px

>>254975116

Really cumbersome, and unpractical. Cringe worthy in most games.

File: Loyalgeorg.jpg (93KB, 500x349px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x349px

>>254975218

>>254975210
It's just so pleasant, being able to say "fuck you" to a forced cameo.
Those items are just a bonus.

>>254975178
Now consider the fact that Musashi existed in a period and place where shields were practically nonexistent. You can be quite assured that he mostly blocked with one weapon.

>>254975138
>Game: the sequel adds an optional feature
>Absolutely harm.jpeg
Must be bait.

File: 5562288825_e62c1d2c99.jpg (117KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 500x375px

>>254975316

File: 640px-Zweihander_IG.png (299KB, 640x331px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 640x331px

WHY would anyone wield two weapons when he could use both for big one?

>>254975454
>Clunky, slow, weapons

No thanks, I like being able to actually hit things.

>>254971746
Why would you ever need to block with dual wielding in skyrim, it's already the most powerful thing in the whole game.

>>254974463
>dual wielding would almost double your power.
Not really. An off hand weapon has less range and a lot less different angles of attack available to it compared to the one used in the main hand.
Compared to the benefits of having something else in your off hand, there's no point to it.

Slash 2 niggas at once
Dual longsword is radical

File: 100_3909.jpg (128KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x375px

>>254975429

>>254975178
>asia
>the land of shit armor, shit weapons, and no shields

File: 1274022192251.jpg (125KB, 499x360px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 499x360px

>>254975542
>Not slashing one nigga twice

File: P1163694.jpg (322KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1600x1200px

>>254975556

>>254975139
Upgrade the Old Whip + Knuckle Ring. Eventually get Flame Weapon or use resins.
Twas fucking great.

>>254975512
Stop believing that myth. If you're stronk you can easily land a good killing blow on somebody.

>>254975512
Dual-wielding is also clumsy and slow, though. Logically, if you're strong enough to wield a weapon in each hand, you can wield a single, larger weapon when using both with the same speed.

>>254975512
But I only need to hit once.

>>254975612
the cho ko nu say hi.

File: 41S3T358SfL._SY300_.jpg (13KB, 287x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 287x300px

>>254975662

>>254975512

>not gitting gud with Jupiter's Lightning Penetrator

i bet you kiss girls faglord

File: d5105ac197d0dbdab96dc54196f9d5de.jpg (11KB, 236x177px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x177px

>>254975754

sword/dagger style 4 life

will never be a thing outside the crpg genre, unfortunately

File: 1403852138000.gif (1MB, 400x332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x332px

>>254974751
I see what you did there

File: 9fdb01f9f2106f500f972380bddfd062.jpg (11KB, 236x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x194px

>>254975858

>>254975665
I run with dual whips. I grabbed the boss tongue that applies poison, then added poison element to it. Now that you cant heal in PVP, I am a god among men
>>254975668
Sure, if they allow you to.
>>254975710
Clumsy, maybe. Slow? Not at all. I get like four fucking attacks in one turn if I choose my feats right.
>>254975721
Only if you're using the biggest, slowest, piece of shit on the planet. In which case, you'll never hit anyone with a working brain.

>>254974463
You have zero clue how to swing a weapon properly.

Protip: you don't just use your arm, with your torso motionless.

>>254975217
>That's not how bodies work, though.
Elaborate?

>the biggest problem with dual wielding is that attacking with both hands at the same time is an incredibly awkward thing to do that nets very little of an advantage

I don't know what you're imagining but stabbing with both weapons at the same time IS awkward, however I don't see how two simultaneous slashes from top and below could hinder you too much. Besides, nobody is forcing you to hit at the same time with both weapons, consecutive slashes are just as good. There's a reason most dual wielding in video games ends up being like some sort of dance.

Again, you're thinking too small. Don't think of samurai fighting knight, think of superhuman fighting dragons and chimeras, think of superhumans fighting each other and destroying the entire land around them as they hits connect.

File: chimneys-06.jpg (53KB, 435x530px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 435x530px

>>254975949

File: BBCS_Noel_2C (1).png (19KB, 717x414px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 717x414px

Like the Police Chief in Hard Boiled once said, "Give a guy a gun, and he thinks he's superman, give him two, and he thinks he's god"

>>254973578
Top kek you funny guy

File: 1402970541508.jpg (15KB, 238x195px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 238x195px

>>254971685
>playing PoE
>dual wield
>atk spd nodes
>doublestrike
>multistrike
>0.09 second atk time
>theoretically 60 attacks per second

>>254975954
>Clumsy, maybe. Slow? Not at all. I get like four fucking attacks in one turn if I choose my feats right.

One turn? We're obviously not talking about it in logical terms here, but in gameplay terms, we're also not talking about Dark Souls like the screenshot. What ARE you talking about?

File: 1405516828931.jpg (39KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x667px

>>254971685
do fists count?

I mean, you ain't wielding anything.
but you are using hands and feet to fight.

now that I think of it, unarmed combat is like a quad wielding kinda thing.

File: 3-Greek-Spear.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

Don't mind me. Just posting the god tier weapon.

>>254976029
When you swing a weapon, you draw it back, turn your torso and put your entire upper body into it, sometimes your lower body too.

You have less directional control over your weapons, because the second hand is usually used for fine tuning a swing for it not to just be a shit swing.

If you're 'so strong' that you can swing two weapons, a single weapon twice as large would hit with more force, and if you're that strong, theres nothing anybody could do to stop that kind of blow.

Dual wielding is rule of cool, nothing more.

File: Image 1.jpg (41KB, 576x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 576x360px

>>254976081
Get on my level, scrub.

File: Hopkins Miller0001.jpg (859KB, 1600x1087px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1600x1087px

>>254976036
well that all i have right now, this pic is a quad wield chimney house. interesting stuff.

i gotta go, maybe someone else will continue in my stead.


also spear + dagger is the best combination

>>254976013
Yes,and dual wielding doubles the rate of attacking, as you take one sword back you can swing the other. It's the same principle behind some karate techniques. When brawling, you don't hit with just one arm, do you?

Looks coolest if:

>Shirtless with dual axes
>Dagger with another long weapon

>>254976286
>Use piercing weapons
>Argument invalid.

>>254974751
>ruined KOTOR's mechanics as it made a single lightsaber unbearably retarded to play with

It didn't ruin shit, having a single lightsaber allows you have armor bonus

you're just a whiny cunt

>>254975954
You dont want to get anywhere near a man wielding zweihander or even bastard sword with your dual wielding katanas :^)

>>254976415
You still do that with piercing weapons.

>>254975178
Miyamoto Musashi did it because he could, not because it's good.

Stand up and try to hit something with a lot of force: you'll notice that you'll put your entire body from feet up behind the blow. Now imagine you also hit the imaginary target with your other hand. It's going to hit like a wet noodle. You are physically unable to get more force out of two weapons, that's just how human body works.

There's three potential advantages from having a second weapon: different reach might be advantageous if the opponent happens to get past your point, you can use it to parry and you might distract the opponent. Having a long weapon isn't beneficial for any of those cases. More so than that, you can also use a buckler offensively too so it's not really lacking in the distraction department either. Indeed, parrying daggers (pretty much the only weapons that were dualwielded in serious not-show-off combat) are used like a buckler.

Oh, and occupying your offhand means you can't use two handed weapons like polearms either.

>>254976286
>If you're 'so strong' that you can swing two weapons, a single weapon twice as large would hit with more force,

Except that a single weapon twice as large would be clunkier to carry around in your adventures.

Gut's Dragonslayer or two normal weapons, which would be easier to carry around?

>>254973693
Play RoTT and find out.

>>254976610
>Gut's Dragonslayer
If you're going to talk about retarded weapons, I'm done talking you.

File: thosetwoswordswonthelpyouknowknave.jpg (59KB, 380x560px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 380x560px

Hi

>>254976474
It's totally useless though.
>Oh yeah, I've got a whooping +3 armor bonus, what did you dual-wield faggots get?
>Oh, just an extra attack plus all the bonuses from the crystals in the off-hand saber.

>>254976610
>not two-handing a longsword for more force

>>254976509
He's be easy to side step with the six years its going to take him to actually land a blow.
>>254976527
Negatory, the lethality of the blow comes from the blade itself rather than the might in which you swing it.

File: fba0a3361451f4110b6f6d903b7a90c7.jpg (40KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x800px

>>254971685
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw

>>254976569
>You are physically unable to get more force out of two weapons, that's just how human body works.

Good thing we were talking about super-human bodies and not normal ones? I've been pressing this aspect from the beginning because I knew it would cause confusion, but it seems that I wasn't pushing it hard enough.

>Stand up and try to hit something with a lot of force: you'll notice that you'll put your entire body from feet up behind the blow. Now imagine you also hit the imaginary target with your other hand. It's going to hit like a wet noodle.

Why does everyone assume that you're supposed to hit with both at the same time? Is there some dual wield edgy anime character that made this notion popular and now everyone thinks of it?

>>254975668
Greatswords (Zweihander in German) were used for breaking into pike formations and stuff, they're not personal combat weapons because they ARE cumbersome.

Slightly smaller swords are everything but, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc

>>254976610
the point is
it costs the same amount of strength to carry two swords weighing x, or one weighing 2x. its the same weight.

but a sword weighing 2x will do more damage.
(i mean i could hit you an infinite times with something weighing .00000001x, it would barely feel like anything)

>>254976029
>Elaborate?

It is very difficult for the human body to efficient attack with both hands because the body is generally turned to bring the sword arm closer to one's opponent. If you're trying to attack with two weapons at once, you can't do this, and you can easily fuck up if you're not facing them dead-on.

>I don't know what you're imagining but stabbing with both weapons at the same time IS awkward, however I don't see how two simultaneous slashes from top and below could hinder you too much. Besides, nobody is forcing you to hit at the same time with both weapons, consecutive slashes are just as good. There's a reason most dual wielding in video games ends up being like some sort of dance.

Simultaneous slashes from above or below prevent you from facing your body any way but dead ahead, leave you tremendously fucking open and leave you dead in the water if you're blocked. The fluidity of a consecutive slash motion is also fucked up by blocking and is not at all an efficient way to fight someone. You're looking to either find an opening or overpower them, neither one of which is well-accomplished by dual-wielding.

The thing is, a shield is a better thing to have in your offhand even for offensive purposes. Shields are good at creating openings, much better than a second weapon (unless highly specialized, like a parrying dagger) could ever hope to be. Dual-wielding is just a dumb option in exactly the same way that two shields is a dumb option. You don't need or even want two swords, two axes or two whatevers, in the same way that you don't want two shields, because having something different in the other hand is radically more useful.

It's just not a viable way to fight, at all, and not because of human limitations. It's a bad way to fight because it's a fundamentally silly thing to do unless the breakdown for your reasoning is as simplistic as "one thing in each hand = double the performance".

I dool weeld in most fantasy combat games I can. If I can put the swords/daggers/rapiers on my back it looks so much better.

>>254976823
'Piercing' weapons aka thrusting weapons require a full body turn. Its no quicker using two.

File: 1400958016081.jpg (64KB, 672x910px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 672x910px

>>254975512
PUSSY
U
S
S
Y

>>254976771
Shortsabers were awesome, so I didn't complain. Considering the difficulty of the game you could pretty much chose what looked best anyway.

>>254972380
>>254974638
>>254973578
I'm not saying that it's viable, it's just satisfying

>>254976695
See >>254976875
>I've been pressing this aspect from the beginning because I knew it would cause confusion, but it seems that I wasn't pushing it hard enough.

We were never talking about normal weapons and normal people. We were talking about superhumans who can kill manticores with their bare hands. Why does everyone get riled up when they see "two handed" and "works" in the same sentence? And why do they completely disregard everything else?

>>254976771
The extra attack has less chance to hit and armor bonus is huge you'd know that if you knew how d&d stats worked.

>>254976770
>charge these guys with the strange longsword and my horse
>one hit is enough to break through their shield and kill them

File: dual wield.png (32KB, 278x223px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 278x223px

>not quad-wielding

Look at the casuals, and laugh.

>>254973578
Well, since you have no experience with real guns, we're going to do a little practical demonstration. I want you to take your autographed parkourdude91 deagle brand deagle airsoft guns, one in each hand, then every time you try to pull the trigger on one, a nearby friend will hit you in the wrist with a hammer. See what you can hit then.

>>254976986
True, the game is so easy that you can run with whatever you want. But why would you use shortsabers? The slight penalty to to hit when using regular sabers is unnoticeable. Plus, short sabers don't even make sense for dual-wielding.

>>254973578
I just came back from the range to tell you that you are a massive retard.

>>254976875
>Good thing we were talking about super-human bodies and not normal ones? I've been pressing this aspect from the beginning because I knew it would cause confusion, but it seems that I wasn't pushing it hard enough.

But that's not related to how strong we are. If our hypotehtical fantasy man is stronger, he'll be even better using a single weapon. It's not about reaching some milestone of strength and speed where it becomes viable, it's just that it's not effective no matter how strong and fast someone is, because a single weapon will always outperform it.

>Why does everyone assume that you're supposed to hit with both at the same time? Is there some dual wield edgy anime character that made this notion popular and now everyone thinks of it?

If you're not planning to hit with both at the same time, why aren't you using a fucking shield? You know, the thing that designed from the ground up to be used in one's offhand, protect the user and increase the effectiveness of their weapon?

>>254976978
>this guy can't breathe underwater or fly
Wow, what a pussy, I bet you can't walk on the sun, either, loser.

>>254977114
Because when you talk about those people theres no point in having a discussion because its tantamount to "my dad can beat up your dad!!!!"

File: 1360216799699.jpg (63KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x480px

>>254975139
>running dual poison spotted whips with sanctum cuffs and a rat ring

SO TOXIC I MAKE THE ANTIDOTE SICK, NIGGA

>Runescape 3
>Dual wielding require you to buy an "off-hand" version of the weapon you're wielding in your main hand.
>For example, if you wanted to dual wield dragon scimitars, you'd need to buy a dragon scimitar as well as an off-hand dragon scimitar
>Sometimes said off hand version costs more because reasons

This doesn't make sense to me, why not just buy two of the same weapons and set one in my main-hand and one in my off-hand?

File: 1406292411044.jpg (320KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1920x1080px

>>254972032
Tesgeneral.com
Go to game play and have fun!

>>254976823
read >>254975668
With enough proper training, you could easily swing it just as fast as longsword. There was this german mercenary company who wielded zweihanders with great success and that pirate who could behead multiple enemies at once.

>>254976286
>you draw it back
you ded nigga, y u telegraphing all yo shit?

>>254976770
Hi Rhodok Crossbowman, meet Nord Huscarl. Nord Huscarl likes: murdering, raping, pillaging, burying axes in people's heads, burying axes in people's dicks, and burying axes in Rhodoks. His dislikes are: Rhodoks, archers, castles, not murdering Rhodoks, and Rhodoks.

You two will be the best of friends, I know it.

>>254977118
>-2 to his is a big problem when you have a 40+ to hit bonus
>+3 armor is important to guy with 30 armor
Have you even played the game?

>>254976916
>It's just not a viable way to fight, at all, and not because of human limitations.

And yet every single point you've made in your post is directly related with human limitations?

> You're looking to either find an opening or overpower them, neither one of which is well-accomplished by dual-wielding.
Do you even bother reading my posts? What openings do you need to look at when fighting giant lizards and the such?

>>254977347
pls read filename big strong northman

File: BosmerRanger.jpg (78KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 250x250px

>yfw there is no such thing as a one handed bow

>>254976569
>You are physically unable to get more force out of two weapons, that's just how human body works.
No, that's just you being an untrained piece of shit who only uses one hand for everything.

Learning to use your offhand ain't hard, it's all mental.

>>254977472
I know, I just really hate the Rhodoks, I make it my sole mission every playthrough to rape their lands first and take them for myself.

>>254977295
Ask yourself:
After 2006, has Jagex ever done something that made sense?

File: medium.jpg (65KB, 704x469px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 704x469px

>>254977512

>>254977514

I usually lead with my offhand.

>jabbing

Then follow up with a right cross.

>>254977220
>If you're not planning to hit with both at the same time, why aren't you using a fucking shield?

Because two consecutive hits means "two attacks" without the retarded "hitting at the same time"?

>But that's not related to how strong we are. If our hypotehtical fantasy man is stronger, he'll be even better using a single weapon

There's such thing as diminishing returns. Would you be better off wielding a rapier with both hands, rather than a single one?

File: 1406358944507.png (1MB, 800x3176px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x3176px

>>254977512
There are. They're called dartbows

>>254975401
Thing is, there are loads of enemies that dual wield, and when playing with other people I'll be forced to look at them dual wield.

Attacking simultaneously with two swords isn't viable if you're doing shit like crosses or X shapes. You do diagonal cuts, with one blade following the other, like a normal twohanded from-the-shoulder strike.

It brings all the motion into the blades and allows you to keep moving, unlike with a longsword.

>>254977415
>And yet every single point you've made in your post is directly related with human limitations?

It's not a human limitation of strength. It's a limitation of body shape and function. The argument changes if we have 3 limbs or radically differently shaped arms - perhaps long enough to efficiently attack from radically different angles - but, as long as we're talking about a human, dual-wielding is ineffective even if they have fantasy strength and speed.

>Do you even bother reading my posts? What openings do you need to look at when fighting giant lizards and the such?

If you're fighting giant fantasy creates, it still makes more sense to use a single larger weapon (which may weigh even less than the mainhand weapon and offhand weapon combined) swung with the force of both hands. Why the fuck would you ever want an offhand weapon against a giant lizard?

It's a question of what an offhand weapon offers. The answer is a very simple "not much", both in real and fictional settings.

File: 1384418158672.jpg (737KB, 755x1000px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 755x1000px

>>254977658
*click*
*woosh*
there goes your bolt

now reload with one hand you retard

also >implying a crossbow is a bow.
retake last semester, and apply yourself

File: 2532869-1463587_983100_capture05_6_super_super[1].jpg (35KB, 600x226px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x226px

Dual wielding is gay. What are some games where I can shield bash faggots into submission?

Fighter in Dragon's Dogma had some cool shield moves and Oblivion's Deadly Reflex Mod's shield bashes could even turn people into ragdolls if done right.

>>254977295
The real question is, can I dual wield abyssal whips now?

>>254977916
Make a smiter in Diablo 2.

>>254977295
For certain weapons, the handle would need to be custom made. Though that's mostly rapiers and basket hilts.

File: umbrella without canvas.png (80KB, 512x383px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 512x383px

>>254977512
Nigga you don't understand how fucking awful it is just use a hand cannon you double skoom

>>254977928
Nope, the closest thing to an off-hand abyssal whip is the enhanced Excalibur which you get after completing all the Seers' village hard tasks.

>>254977881

>It's a question of what an offhand weapon offers.

Against a non-human opponent? More damage.

>It's a limitation of body shape and function. The argument changes if we have 3 limbs or radically differently shaped arms - perhaps long enough to efficiently attack from radically different angles - but, as long as we're talking about a human, dual-wielding is ineffective even if they have fantasy strength and speed.

This point is moot because the best swordsman in Japan used two swords.
Yes, it only worked because the japs didn't use shields, but isn't that the kind of opponent we're talking about?

>>254977272
>not also wearing the moonlight butterfly suit for both the poison aura AND the menacing bunny hop

>>254977697
>Because two consecutive hits means "two attacks" without the retarded "hitting at the same time"?

And what do consecutive hits offer, exactly? Unless we're delving so far into fantasy that we're going to act like things have hitpoints, that's not really something that matters. You're going to hurt a big creature equally with a suitable weapon for two hands - if not more, thanks to a deeper wound - and against a human opponent, that's really not very useful.

>There's such thing as diminishing returns. Would you be better off wielding a rapier with both hands, rather than a single one?

Using a rapier in two-hands isn't a bad idea because it doesn't need strength, it's a bad idea because it impedes how a rapier is typically used. Have you ever watched people fight with rapiers and how they move their bodies?

File: claws.png (2MB, 1680x988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x988px

>>254972656
Wildstar does dualwielding pretty good, The stalker's animation are great

>>254978142
How is excalibur close to a whip?

>>254978528
They were too lazy to do animations for an offhand whip

>>254978259
>because it impedes how a rapier is typically used
The way to use a rapier was born from its lightness, compared to standard swords.

>And what do consecutive hits offer, exactly?
Exactly what I've mentioned in my post? Two hits in the place of one? Without the clumsy "hit at the same time" ?

>>254978189
>Against a non-human opponent? More damage.

Which you also gain by using a larger weapon of the same total weight as the two smaller weapons two-handed, if not more damage with a deeper wound. On top of that, you're not actually going to attack much faster alternating attacks between hands than you are successively attacking two-handed, especially if the weight of the weapon isn't greater than the combined weight of the two one-handed weapons.

>This point is moot because the best swordsman in Japan used two swords.
>Yes, it only worked because the japs didn't use shields, but isn't that the kind of opponent we're talking about?

Have you ever even looked at how they fight using the Niten Ichi-ry? school? The offhand sword, very typically of viable dual-wielding techniques, is used defensively, not offensively. Even then, it was the gimmick of an ancient celebrity that is the subject of legends and myths; it wasn't so terribly effective that it was widely adapted at all, and is mostly just used in ritualistic and traditional combat.

>>254976875
>Good thing we were talking about super-human bodies and not normal ones?
The same principle applies for anything with humanoid physique.
>Why does everyone assume that you're supposed to hit with both at the same time?
Because you can strike the opponent as you return to your guard position, too. You're not going to get any more "strong attacks" in during a period of time, regardless of if you use two weapons or one.

>>254976978
It was used by real-world Gregor Clegane (Pier Gerlofs Donia) and to my understanding is the biggest non-ceremonial sword (2.15 meters, 6.6 kilograms). Which brings up another point: long weapons have high "effective speed" because you can strike the opponent before they can reach you - you don't need to spend time moving to close the distance yourself. If you are extraordinarily strong and can wield a super-sized weapon without effort, you're better-off wielding one of those and cutting down opponents before they can even get close.

What I've noticed with two chinese sabers is that if you do a diagonal from above cut, like a Vom Tag or a over the shoulder judo throw, it's great for a forward momentum strike that bats aside a weapon with the first sword and scores a hit with the second. Works on spears, jian most of the time and dao swords most always. With a jian they might get luck and skewer you.

The motion is really strong, too. It's like one of the most used judo throws for a reason.

>>254978693
>The way to use a rapier was born from its lightness, compared to standard swords.
Rapiers aren't any lighter than other (one-handed) swords, they just put the same amount of metal to a longer blade.

>>254978693
>The way to use a rapier was born from its lightness, compared to standard swords.

Which does nothing to dismiss the point that a rapier's two-handed use being silly having nothing to do with its weight or "diminishing returns". The weapon is designed in such a way that it requires wielding with one hand to be used effectively, regardless of how much it weighs.

>Exactly what I've mentioned in my post? Two hits in the place of one? Without the clumsy "hit at the same time" ?

The suggestion that you can attack faster with a weapon in each hand is faulted. Recovering from an attack made by hand can very easily impede the attack with the other hand if the paths of the arms and slashes cross paths, and is not particularly more efficient than swinging with a single weapon repeatedly.

>>254978804
>Which you also gain by using a larger weapon of the same total weight as the two smaller weapons two-handed

The point is, this one hits slower and leaves you more time exposed to damage.If you're the agile kind of superhuman, dual wielding would be more viable for you, while if you're the fatter and stronger kind, a two-handed weapon would be better.

>>254979376
>The point is, this one hits slower and leaves you more time exposed to damage.If you're the agile kind of superhuman, dual wielding would be more viable for you, while if you're the fatter and stronger kind, a two-handed weapon would be better.

You know that agility is rooted in strength, right? "Agility" is composed of the co-ordination to move precisely and the strength to move quickly. They're not fucking distinct.

How quickly you could swing two swords is rooted in exactly the same kind of strength that determines how quickly you could swing a single weapon two-handed. They're not distinct fucking abilities.

>>254979260
>Recovering from an attack made by hand can very easily impede the attack with the other hand if the paths of the arms and slashes cross paths, and is not particularly more efficient than swinging with a single weapon repeatedly.

Put your hands together in front of you. Raise your hands. Let them down.(This is a slash). Raise your hands again. Let them down. Raise your hands again. Let them down.

Put your hands apart. Raise them. Let the right hand down. Raise the right hand up-In the same motion let your left hand down. Raise your left hand up-in the same motion let your right hand down. (Basically just imagine you're drumming)

Now imagine that this isn't happening with your weak hands, but with hands capable of easily ripping lion necks apart.

>>254977323
You're probably thinking of Pier Gerlofs Donia who was a giant. Something that was a "greatsword" (too cumbersome for typical fighting scenarios) for an ordinary person would have been just a longsword for him.

>>254976823
>Negatory, the lethality of the blow comes from the blade itself rather than the might in which you swing it.
Yeah, but the blade comes from the lunge. You can't really lunge in a balanced manner with both hands forward, can you? And sure, if you're stabbing without the lunge two holes is better than one but that extra hole comes at the price of not having a shield, and one hole is perfectly adequate. People would rather take the shield than the second hole.

>>254979838
>How quickly you could swing two swords is rooted in exactly the same kind of strength that determines how quickly you could swing a single weapon two-handed. They're not distinct fucking abilities.

Let me ask you this, are you from the city? Did you ever in your entire life even touch a shovel? Are you seriously telling me that swinging two knives, and swinging a shovel not only has the same momentum, but you also recover them just as fast?

Retarded and for the kind of faggots who enjoy "action" movies.

hurrdurr explosions

>>254977414
you fucking retarded cunt, like i would waste my time explaining to you how all these stats work

fuck off

>>254978528
It's similar stat-wise

>>254980302

>disliking action movies
>calling others faggots

>>254979948
First of all, you're assuming that this person has the luxury of sitting there, repeating these motions over and over again. That isn't how combat works, at all. You'd have to be fighting an unmoving lump for this to be relevant at all. It's a highly restricted mode of attack.

The other error you've made is that you assume that this would be just as quick as attacks with a single weapon in two hands. The humans in question may be very strong, but this just means using weapons of appropriate weight for their strength; whatever they're using could likely still be used with two hands and have swing and recovery speed significantly increased with greater force behind the attacks and, assuming that they're using a dedicated two-handed weapon, with greater range as well.

The case for dual-wielding just isn't very good at all. Some stupid and impractical things, like incredibly long and heavy Guts-style swords, are made practical given superhuman strength. Dual-wielding is not and is in no implementation more efficient than using a single two-handed weapon for offensive purposes. It's not even more agile, which is particularly concerning.

>>254976978
>Manly tears shows off his pen knife.jpg

>>254980193
>Are you seriously telling me that swinging two knives, and swinging a shovel not only has the same momentum, but you also recover them just as fast?
Are you seriously telling him that if you're fighting a giant lizard you don't want a massive fucking polearm so that you can put as much distance between yourself and its snapping jaws as possible while also concentrating the force in the smallest possible area, like a sharp hammer.

Pic related - THIS is what you fight large monsters with.

One of these with a long handle. Maybe a short, sharp blade on the end if they're not that thick-skinned. Not a god-damn sword and definitely not two. Probably a spike on the end with a crossguard, too, in case it charges you.

Melee combat is about getting as far away as you can from them while still being able to hit them. If you were some kind of super human that just means you can get further away and hit them harder.

>>254979948
>(Basically just imagine you're drumming)
When does swordfighting EVER resemble drumming?

Never.

An overhand attack is the stupidest form of attack - it leaves you so ridiculously open that any non-retard will have a blade in your kidneys when your left hand goes down while catching your right hand blow on their shield.

File: Ice_Axe[1].jpg (112KB, 733x582px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 733x582px

>>254980726
>mfw forgot picture
No, it's not an ironic meta-statement about fantasy arguments sadly.

>>254980656
> Dual-wielding is not and is in no implementation more efficient than using a single two-handed weapon for offensive purposes

The point is dual wielding offers you several more options. It can be used for off-handed parrying, it can be used for "increased DPS", the style can be changed depending on the situation.

And as I said , this is all assuming super-human strength is present. Check out Dante's moves with Agni and Rudra.

>>254980193
Have you ever tried to swing a shovel with one hand? Have you ever tried to swing a shovel with two? Can you tell me which one is much faster, more controlled and accurate?

The hypothetical fantasy men being very strong doesn't mean their weapons will be as light as feathers. It will mean that they'll use heavier, longer, sturdier weapons for greater impact. If a guy with lion-ripping hands is using two butterknives, he's only putting himself at a disadvantage by sticking with weapons that don't capitalize on that strength at all.

>>254981043
>It can be used for off-handed parrying,
Not better than a shield

>it can be used for "increased DPS"
ONLY if you're doing some retarded overhand windmilling. Not if you're slashing, because the recovery of one slash REQUIRES you to balance it out with your offhand. That's not a "human" thing, that's a *humanoid* thing. It doesn't matter if you're superhuman - that's how physics makes you behave.

>>254981090
>If a guy with lion-ripping hands is using two butterknives, he's only putting himself at a disadvantage by sticking with weapons that don't capitalize on that strength at all.

Why would he use two butter knives, instead of two mithril daggers which can pierce through dragon skin (something which your hands can not) ?

>>254971685
Faggot shit in RPGs, awesome in actual action games where you have to dodge and combo. Muh realism autists need not apply.

>>254981043
It's not really versatile, though. For all practical purposes, actually attacking with an offhanded weapon is a bad idea, no matter how strong a person is. Hell, a shield is actually more versatile than an off-handed weapon, because you can still bash with it.

Dual-wielding is just a silly thing, even with an assumption of superhuman strength, because that very assumption makes other weapon types much more viable.

>>254981242
>Why would he use two butter knives, instead of two mithril daggers which can pierce through dragon skin (something which your hands can not) ?
Because he can use one mithril spear and not need to get within biting range AND use it to dissuade said head from getting too close without needing to give it the opportunity to bite off his arm.

Though a sidearm would be useful in case it decides to bite the haft of the spear. Maybe spikes along the haft too?

>>254981234
> because the recovery of one slash REQUIRES you to balance it out with your offhand.

What ? I can recover one knife/stick/pencil just fine while pretend-hitting with the other at the same time.

I wouldn't be able to do it with swords since they'd be too heavy for me, but we are assuming superhuman strength is involved, so I don't see why it would be a problem.

File: file.png (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

if its done right its ok

>>254981043
It cannot be used for "increased DPS" with humanoid physique, superhuman strength or not. It can be used defensively, yes, but a shield or a buckler accomplishes pretty much the same thing. Parrying daggers were used pretty much the same way as a buckler would have been.

>>254981242
Why would you use knives to fight a dragon, instead of a big mithril cleaver that will cut one of its legs clean off? Seriously, who fights a dragon with KNIVES? That'd be dumb even if you had one of them.

>>254980113
Yeah, Donia. He was a giant, sure, but he had larger than regular zweihander. It was something like 2.2m long, I cant find picture right now.

It was a big fucking sword

>>254981373
>For all practical purposes, actually attacking with an offhanded weapon is a bad idea, no matter how strong a person is.

But the whole point of my entire argument is that it works IF a person is strong enough to attack with the same force using an offhand weapon. Which can easily happen in fiction.

Again ,do you just get blind with rage at the sight of "dual wield" and "works" in the same sentence and completely ignore everything else?

>>254981413
>What ? I can recover one knife/stick/pencil just fine while pretend-hitting with the other at the same time.
Yeah, that's the retarded windmilling I was talking about. Leaves you open to sudden-steel-to-the-kidney syndrome. They bash your off-balance square position with their shield and while you recover they gut you, because the only position you can windmill from is dead square and the only balanced dead square position is the sumo squat, which is shit for swordfighting for obvious reasons.

>>254981413
>What ? I can recover one knife/stick/pencil just fine while pretend-hitting with the other at the same time.

I'd bet good money that your pretend-hitting bears no resemblance to how weapons are typically used, both in technique and force used.

Also, it can't be stressed enough that people with superhuman strength wouldn't be using weapons that weigh nothing to them. They'd be using very heavy weapons. Weight doesn't stop being a thing.

>>254981691
>They bash your off-balance square position with their shield and while you recover they gut you, because the only position you can windmill from is dead square and the only balanced dead square position is the sumo squat, which is shit for swordfighting for obvious reasons.

I've said this argument endless times, why are you assuming that you're a normal human fighting another normal human?

>>254981783
>Weight doesn't stop being a thing.
No it doesn't. And a fictional superhuman wouldn't use sticks and pencils, weight doesn't just disappear from mithril swords and the such.

>>254981413
>What ? I can recover one knife/stick/pencil just fine while pretend-hitting with the other at the same time.
Yeah, that's the retarded windmilling I was talking about. Leaves you open to sudden-steel-to-the-kidney syndrome. They bash your off-balance square position with their shield and while you recover they gut you, because the only position you can windmill from is dead square and the only balanced dead square position is the sumo squat, which is shit for swordfighting for obvious reasons.

>>254981652
>it works IF a person is strong enough to attack with the same force using an offhand weapon.
It's not about strength its about physics. You cannot stand dead square and motionless in a swordfight no matter how strong you are, and that's the only way you can utilize your offhand sword.

Imagine you're standing ready to lunge. If you have to lunge to reach them with your forward sword, what exactly is your hind sword doing? It's parrying - so why not take a shield?

Imagine you're getting ready to slash. You draw back one shoulder for momentum and strike down - this forces your other shoulder back. Then either your slash connects and you win or it doesn't and you parry their counter. Again, that will be your offhand. So why not have a shield in it?

The only time you get both blades on target is the overhead chop.

>>254981816
I am assuming you are humanOID. Two arms, two legs, one torso, one head.

That's all that matters. So long as they are humanoid the laws of physics will always make dual wielding stupid.

>>254981652
>But the whole point of my entire argument is that it works IF a person is strong enough to attack with the same force using an offhand weapon. Which can easily happen in fiction.

But then they would still be so much more effective with two hands. That argument only holds if you're assuming that the person dual-wielding is the only one who can do that; yes, they'd be able to come to our world and kick Mr. Average Joe Swordsman's ass, but that doesn't make it viable compared to their other options given such superhuman strength in an environment where others are in the same position.

>Again ,do you just get blind with rage at the sight of "dual wield" and "works" in the same sentence and completely ignore everything else?

Where's this "blind with rage" suggestion coming from? I'm just telling you how it is; dual-wielding doesn't work, not because of strength limitations but because of how fundamentally flawed the concept of one weapon in each hand is.

>>254982141
>this forces your other shoulder back.
Should be forward*

It forces your shoulder forward.

>>254982119
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

>>254980632
get some taste you fucking degenerate, keep contributing to the downfall of society's intelligence

>>254973521
Never gets old. It's hilarious how many openings and unnecessary movements they make. Where's the music though?

>>254973521
I DON'T NEED ANY FRIENDS MOM
I'M PART OF THE DARKNESS
YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND

Entirely illogical save for small parrying daggers.

Dual Wielding is fucking retarded.

I highly doubt dual wielding as vidya and games show it was ever really used.
But I refuse to believe that flatout no one over the years hasn't grabbed something dangerous in their off hand and fucked some one up with it.

>>254982165
>not because of strength limitations but because of how fundamentally flawed the concept of one weapon in each hand is.

But you have yet to post ANY proof backing that statement. Vikings berserkers used two axes, the best swordsman in the entirety of Japan used two swords, medieval warriors used a dagger in the off-hand. It is difficult, but it is definitely not "fundamentally flawed" as you seem to claim.

At this point it honestly feels like you're downgrading the potential purely because of the stigma behind dual wielding thanks to autistic fat kids all over the world, but two weapons means more than just generic anime kiddie with two katanas.

>>254984698
They have. It's called a "shield". A guy with a shield and a weapon is more dangerous than a guy with two weapons.

The closest you'll get is some dude getting shivved by a parrying dagger, which has definitely happened many times. You'd also get a few showboaters in the past who used two weapons, but these people would be the equivalents of those who held a flag with a giant penis scrawled on it in one hand. It's showmanship.

>>254985003
Viking bezerkers, while capable of doing some serious damage, were essentially a fucking lunatic tripping out on shrooms, their life expectancy wasn't all that great and as such don't really speak volumes on the usefulness of dual wielding.

The dagger medieval warriors used was a utility weapon, not something they'd plan on using primarily. The most use it got, in general, was delivering the coup de grace to a wounded opponant

I can't speak for Japan because holy shit they are boring as fuck.

>tfw /v/ is too casual to dual wield shields
Ultimate defense

>>254985003
The difference between what happened and what you're claiming:

>historical fact
People had two weapons, one in each hand

>what you're claiming
It is preferable for a humanoid being to use two weapons offensively over one offensive weapon and one defensive tool/weapon/object.

Historically, people did not use two weapons offensively. They had a sword and a parrying dagger, or a sword and a handaxe. This is for a variety of reasons - a cavalryman who gets caught up in infantry would want a handaxe to start smashing the shit out of people with because the edge of his sword isn't going to bite through a helmet very well, or a fencer might want a parrying dagger because you're not allowed to bash the shit out of someone's face with a shield when you're fencing but you are allowed to do the le stabbe. Maybe you'd have a dagger on your belt if you were using a bastard sword so that if things got a bit too personal for you to have any kind of momentum behind a swing you could pluck it off your belt and go nuts. Whatever.

But humanoids would not ever wield two offensive weapons, one in each hand, if they had a choice or a brain. And that's your conception of dual wielding.

It's simply not physically possible to use two offensive weapons effectively because of the construction of the human body.

>>254985003
>Vikings berserkers used two axes

Let's see your most credible reference for that outside of pop culture and legends. The atypical thing about berserkers was their use of battleaxes as weapons, not dual-wielding.

>the best swordsman in the entirety of Japan used two swords

It was a style rather selectively used, and the offhand weapon was a shorter sword used for defense. They would have readily taken a half-decent shield over it.

>medieval warriors used a dagger in the off-hand

Parrying daggers are used to defend, not attack, and they were far from used by everyone.

Surely your post is bait.

>>254985782
To clarify, you mean two primary weapons whereas I mean a primary weapon a secondary weapon that is relegated to a support/utility role.

>>254971685
DOOL WEILD

>>254985782
gr8 b8 m8

File: 4502815_4427f3dea2c6ba880479abe5d36c9b4f_zps1ff041bd.jpg (111KB, 584x622px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 584x622px

>>254971685

>>254985782
>It's simply not physically possible to use two offensive weapons effectively because of the construction of the human body.

It's entirely possible, but effectively dual wielding is circumstantial as fuck.
I would say it works best in an ambush situation, but fucking everything works in an ambush even hurling shit could be labeled as effective if they didn't know where it was coming from

>>254986295
It's not even circumstantial. It just does what a shield does, but worse.

It's like people constantly forget that you can still hit a motherfucker with a shield if you're that hell-bent on hurting someone with your left hand.

>>254986295
>It's entirely possible, but effectively dual wielding is circumstantial as fuck.
Well I wouldn't call something that only works circumstantially effective but yes, I will concede that it can be done to good result in favourable situations.

But you want a weapon that *makes* favourable situations, not one that relies on them.

>tfw Killing Floor doesn't let me dual weld

File: GSy1jdq.gif (492KB, 400x370px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 400x370px

>>254971685
I think it's neat when done right, but I hate the fact that it has turned into this SHIELDS ARE FOR PUSSIES DOUBLE DAMAGE OUTPUT - I would rather see how defense would work with two weapons on each hand while still being effective in offense.

Dark Souls 2 tried a bit with their power stances, but it was barebones at best. And lets be honest- unless we figure out to work multiple modifiers to an input for each hand (and be ambidextrous), we'll never get it down.

>>254986498
epic

>>254971746
I can't imagine a situation in Skyrim that would require blocking. You can drop a dragon in less than a second with dual wielding and elemental fury.

>>254986405
It's nothing what a shield does, a shield CAN be used as a weapon yeah, but it's primary use is defense.
Plus a shield can't cut, can't shank and isn't anywhere near as invincable as you want to think.

>Hook rim of shield with axe head
>yank down
>opponent has to either release shield or be pulled off balance
>dun

on vidya, most of the time it doesn't provide more benefit than "attack faster". All the while crippling your defense. Shield+weapon is better

IRL, dualwielding is worse than just having one weapon and your other hand free for grabbing, and whatnot


tl;dr dualwielding is dumb

>>254985782
>It is preferable for a humanoid being to use two weapons offensively over one offensive weapon and one defensive tool/weapon/object.

No, that is not what I'm claiming. You're putting words in my mouth and strawmaning. You could backtrack this whole argument back to the first post and you'd notice it plain and simple that what I said is "dual wielding is *viable* under certain circumstances in a fictional setting"

For some reason you ignore every single thing I say and pretend that I'm claiming that dual katana > everything.

>It's simply not physically possible to use two offensive weapons effectively because of the construction of the human body.

This is so wrong I'm not even going to bother anymore. The fact that you pretend that it wouldn't be possible even in a fictional setting with a fictional super-human speaks volume of your actual knowledge on the subject at hand. Enlighten me, do you actually have swords or axes in your possession or is this whole thing nothing more than armchair expertise? Either way it doesn't matter since this has been going on for too long.

>>254986886
>It's nothing what a shield does, a shield CAN be used as a weapon yeah, but it's primary use is defense.
>Plus a shield can't cut, can't shank and isn't anywhere near as invincable as you want to think.

And yet it's still infinitely more versatile than a weapon in the offhand which, unless it's a defensively-orientated utility sidearm, will do fuckall for you.

Also, your greentext ignores the fact that the dude with the shield still has another weapon, and that the very action of attempting to hook the shield with the axe leaves the axe guy open, even if they have another weapon.

>>254982445
i think i just grew a fedora from reading this post


>"you are contributing to the downfall of society's intelligenge" said anon, as he spent yet another day complaining about shit on /v/ and fapping to animu

>>254986964
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but...

>This is so wrong I'm not even going to bother anymore. The fact that you pretend that it wouldn't be possible even in a fictional setting with a fictional super-human speaks volume of your actual knowledge on the subject at hand. Enlighten me, do you actually have swords or axes in your possession or is this whole thing nothing more than armchair expertise? Either way it doesn't matter since this has been going on for too long.

It has been stressed again and again that strength is not the problem. The problem is the shape of the human body and the motion with which weapons are used to attack. Using a weapon in one hand inherently makes any weapon in the other hand less effective.

If you wanted a hypothetical in which dual-wielding was viable, it'd be one where humans have more limb or different body shape, not one where they're super stronk. So long as we're talking about a human with two arms, two leads, a torso and a head in the shape we know, dual-wielding is bad.

>>254987729
>limb rather than limbs
>"leads"

I manged some great typos there.

>>254986964
>"dual wielding is *viable* under certain circumstances in a fictional setting"
And you define viable as "meets with the tiniest amount of success".

Sure, dual wielding might be adequate occasionally. But I wouldn't call that viable. You can if you want but it just means people will stop listening to you when you say something's "viable" because your definition of viable is worthless.

>I will concede that it can be done to good result in favourable situations.
>But you want a weapon that *makes* favourable situations, not one that relies on them.

>The fact that you pretend that it wouldn't be possible even in a fictional setting with a fictional super-human speaks volume of your actual knowledge on the subject at hand.
Because a super human still has a humanoid body and that means that when he attacks with one hand he will draw back his other. When you lunge you only get one sword in striking distinct. When you slash you only have one sword in striking distance. SO WHY CARRY ANOTHER? Not just swords, why carry another ANYTHING?

To DEFEND when you make that attack/are not attacking.

The ONLY situation another weapon is relevant is when your primary is indisposed, and if your primary is indisposed you're in a situation that needs a special tool, not another fucking primary.

So yeah, a rondel for stabbing through armour? Great. A parrying dagger for catching blows? Fantastic! A hand axe for when your horse gets caught up while the rest of the cavalry have managed to charge through and you need to buy time for them to wheel about and rescue you? BRILLIANT!

But *another* sword, or *another* axe? Why the fuck would it be useful. You have ONE attack that could utilise that second weapon - an overhead chop - and that's a full-retard attack to make.

And that's nothing to do with human conditioning and everything to do with the construction of the human form. If you resemble a human, dual wielding is. not. viable.

>>254987227
>And yet it's still infinitely more versatile than a weapon in the offhand
But that's completely wrong.
The effectively use a shield as a weapon you need to swing it around some, and a standard infantry shield is far from small, the mere act of attacking with your shield stops it from being used in a defensive manner, which defeats the purpose of having a shield in the first place.
Pushing and shoving with a shield is easy and doesn't require you to drop your guard, but it does prevent you from attacking in most cases as your weight is going towards ramming the poor fuck on the receiving end.
TL;DR? Using a shield for anything beyond defending or intercepting is stupid, especially when the thing is your main hand is a actual fucking killing tool

THE most versatile thing that could be in your off hand is a parrying dagger, thanks to it being a genuine hybrid offensive/defensive weapon.

>>254988365
Put shield against left shoulder. Ram. Stab with right hand shortsword.
A kind of "protected lunge" I guess.

Shield > dagger for the infantryman, but yeah a dagger is probably better for the duel.

>>254988365
A shield's blocking capability isn't just defensive, though. It's also offensive, as it can create an opportunity to attack that wouldn't exist without a shield. The easiest example is a guy with one weapon versus a guy with a weapon and a shield. The option to block than than having to parry with the weapon or move away gives the shield an offensive value. It's also worth noting that pushing someone with a shield can be of value in itself.

It also goes without saying that shields are of some use against projectiles and can be used as an integral element of various tactics. It's pretty versatile. A parrying dagger is good too, but it's good for different things. You wouldn't see an infantryman walking around with a parrying dagger in place of a shield, for example.

>Dual wielding in bigass war battle with line and formations?
Probably happened when shit hit the fan here and there, but no one actually went into battle with that as their armament.
>Dual wielding in Duels
Confirmed, also meant you thought you had a big dick and fucked bitches like bad ass mofo
>Dual wielding when a fight suddenly broke out
I don't know of any evidence but I don't find it hard to believe that some thug or peasant, without better know how, would pull two weapons instead of one.

Agreed?

>Probably happened when shit hit the fan here and there, but no one actually went into battle with that as their armament.

Unlikely, because anyone who knew their way around a battle would likely know that another weapon is a pretty bad thing to have in their offhand unless they were using it exclusively to block.

>Confirmed, also meant you thought you had a big dick and fucked bitches like bad ass mofo

Kinda-sorta. A parrying dagger is a totally different beast to using a typical weapon in the offhand. You don't really stab people will a parrying dagger, after all.

>I don't know of any evidence but I don't find it hard to believe that some thug or peasant, without better know how, would pull two weapons instead of one.

Yeah, some moron who doesn't know better has almost certainly done it. Of course, we're talking about a guy who doesn't actually know how to fight.