Considering Dual Wielding

I love the object manipulation stuff Kevin, rarely gets mentioned in other games. Plus, finally a great use for insect arms.

Hmm, that could work, but then you lose the passive value against ranged attacks that my shields do. ;A;[/quote]
There’s nothing stopping us from re-adding that kind of ability :)[/quote]

Well it seems to me, that if you ARE dual wielding you are doing it more for a roleplaying purpose than increased combat effectiveness.
You would need very high stats to dual wield with any real bonus.

And thats the point, any drawbacks from using two pistols, or using two swords, would make sense. As a recreational shooter, i can tell you it is impossible very difficult to use two guns, for any real purpose. BUT when you have 18 dexterity, and maybe a gun designed with dual-wielding in mind? Dual wielding could be a very badass way to take down the hulk that just spawned in your pantry.

On top of that, two guns CAN be used, with alternating fire. It has been used in real life tactical situations, by trained operatives. And considering the technological state of New England in this game, making weapon modifications to help with dual wielding seems like something that Rivtech (or a very fabrication minded survivor) might do.

My understanding is that there are two situations where dual-wielding pistols could be beneficial. Both assume you’re not going to need to reload, if you do you’re pretty much hosed due to having to juggle two weapons plus magazines for them.

  1. High volume of suppressing fire, where you get just a few more rounds downrange, but don’t really care if they hit anything. You could do this in-game, but unless we have a system for suppressing fire and tactical advances or retreats, this is fairly pointless. Also it simply isn’t going to work on zombies since they aren’t going to take cover.
  2. Target is close/large/plentiful enough that you are guaranteed to hit every time regardless of recoil, i.e. near point-blank range and very good skills or a gigantic horde.
    The system I have in mind would allow both of these to work, with the caveats about suppressing fire. I’m mostly trying to manage people’s expectations about dual-wielding being added in the normal gamey sense of two weapons being strictly better than one, in any case where you’re spending any time at all aiming, two pistols would be strictly worse than one. Two shotguns or rifles is simply not worth considering.

Though being able to parry with one weapon and stab with a second, might be just about the only reason to dual-wield melee weapons. Otherwise you’re better off with a shield.

I personally play more hit and run, than stand up next to them and tank any hits.

For me dual wielding would be more about increased damage, than to help with blocking.

That said, if shields are PR’ed i would totally get some plate armor and run a “sword and board” knight of the apocalypse.

For now you’ll have to settle for the hacky armor shields on the mod’s full version. ;w;

Dual-wielding melee weapons is not going to increase DPS, you’re either going to be swinging the same sized weapons, but slower and with a damage penalty, or you’re going to be swinging smaller (and therefore lower damage) weapons at the same speed. The only way it would increase damage output is if you were swinging a massless weapon that damages on contact (and no, we’re not adding lightsabers :wink:

If I recall, Lindybeige made the exact same point in a video ( ).

Also recall the same point that I made being mentioned, best use is wielding a dagger or similar weapon in the off-hand for defensive purposes.

Kite shield? Most games incorrectly show how the kite shield is used, Dark Souls actually does it right, it was along the arm to deflect the blows away or do less vital spots/armor.

Now this is Cataclysm: DDA. The average survivor is going to be using a trash can lid as their ‘shield’ It won’t last long and will crumple fast, but that’s why we’ll re-inforce the middle with cut down 2x4’s and wrap the outside in superglued on kelvar scraps. Perfect complement to your nailbat.

Quite on point, with good visuals to go along with it.

And specifically for dueling, where you have constraints on gear due to concealability and etiquette. If you have no such constraints, a shield is going to be strictly better.

I get the feeling the authors of Dark Souls nerd out about medieval gear as much as the ‘worst’ of us :slight_smile:

Lots of old school wood shields were simply planks fastened together, with relatively thin strips of metal around the edges to make it harder to get a blade in to chip away at the shield or split the boards, against zombies though, something similar would be very functional. Big stuff like hulks should still have a decent chance of smashing a wood shield though.

Agreed, I’d rather have a shield. Unless we had fencer zombies.

On the subject of realistic “dual wielding”, it’d be interesting if keeping your offhand empty would give you the ability to use martial arts with your empty hand.

Also Kevin, consider shields that have no metal lining on the edge. While the shield would get severely damaged after a couple fights/battles, there’s the added benefit that unwieldy/short weapons lacking leverage would get reliably lodged into the shield allowing for easy enemy disarming.
Of course, the majority of hostiles in CataDDA don’t carry around unwieldy blade weapons that can get stuck in a shield.

Is this due to how the game is coded? Because if not, I would ask that you at least reconsider this a bit.

While expecting dual wielding melee weapons to double your dps is absurd, certain melee weapons could confer some increase in dps. This increase would come from the ability to parry-and-attack that dual wielding certain weapons could give (e.g.: a pair of tonfas or batons). Also AFAIK, certain types of shields could be used to assist in melee (e.g.:

The idea here is that dual-wielding certain melee weapons (i.e.: something relatively light), would offer an opportunistic advantage in combat over wielding a single one-handed weapon and having your other hand do jack all. I mean, boxers and other martial artists gain an offensive advantage when they can use both their hands, right?

Here are some general examples/ideas I have:

  1. Two light, one-handed weapons (tonfas, batons, etc.): Parrying certain enemies in hand to hand combat would allow for the character to do a follow up attack, this would result in a slight increase in dps. Would be useless against stronger/bigger enemies (or enemies who are themselves dual-wielding?).

  2. A one-handed weapon and a light shield: A lighter shield would have a greater ability to parry and less defense, a heavier shield will have less/no ability to parry and higher defense (maybe have some type of shield bash to push mobs away w/ low damage?).

  3. Really heavy shields: Something like a Ballistic shield ( would only confer defense at a heavy penalty for the player, but would allow for the ability to approach gun wielding targets far more safely.

Maybe have some traits confer bonuses (e.g.: Ambidextrous) and penalties (e.g.: Left-handed) to aspects of dual wielding too?

I haven’t been playing Cataclysm that long at all but these were just some ideas I had, no clue if any of it is useful for you guys. Also, hello!

Plenty of weapons and martial arts IG already abstract away the ‘parry and attack’ line of thought through various counters. And you may or may not believe this but someone with a single, reasonably sized sword is BETTER equipped to turn a parry into an attack than a dood with two daggers/tonfa etc.

The crux of the problem being that, as SIMULTANEOUS attacks (I.E. attack with both weapons at once) are rubbish a dual wielder is essentially just going left/right/left/right. Each attack needing the requisite posture and footwork. You’d attack faster by only using the weapon in your main hand, no matter what it is or how you’ve been trained, than you would by switching things up like that.

So dual wielding shouldn’t out DPS gripping a bigger weapon in both hands.

Its benefits are more in line with the ability to say, have a knife and a pistol readied at once, or walking around with a shield. Though I wouldn’t call a shield dual wielding so much as I’d say it’s being smart.

Of course not, but it should be better than using only a single one-handed weapon (well, sometimes at least. 2 pistols/etc. is pretty foolish imo).

I haven’t really done too much with that in game. But consider that integrating relevant martial arts/melee abilities into the dual wielding system might be a good idea anyway.

I certainly do believe you. I just don’t see why it has to be a binary choice between dual-wielded weapons and two-handed weapons.

It should be something like this: a single one-handed weapon < dual wielded one-handers < two-handed weapons = sword and board(?)

Obviously not all one-handed weapons would be suited for dual-wielding, and dual wielding would be a situational choice with trade offs.

EDIT: I should be more clear here, I don’t think things like rapiers or broadswords would be helpful at all if dual wielded. Picture more shorter, lighter weapons like batons, claw hammers, tonfa. Weapons that aren’t too much of a burden to keep in both hands, but still give an advantage in reach and hitting power over having nothing.

No, this is the way it will be coded, we haven’t added the ability to dual-wield the game, but I’m letting people know how it’s going to work when we do add it, since the majority of requests for this feature imply that it should be some kind of fantasy/action movie/videogame thing where two weapons are absurdly better than one for no good reason.

I think we’re actually on the same page here. When I say DPS isn’t going up, I mean the peak damage output of pure consecutive attacks isn’t going to go up. If for some reason we add an enemy that itself has some kind of parry or block to the game, and your character has the ability to parry to make an opening then attack instead of attacking continuously with many attacks getting blocked, then yes it could indeed increase effective DPS. The vast majority of enemies in the game are not like that, your best option for dealing damage is going to be to hit as hard as possible as many times as possible.
Also logrin has a good point, especially if you know what you’re doing, you can go from parry to attack incredibly quickly with a single weapon, and you can maneuver one weapon with two hands much faster than you can maneuver two weapons in one hand each.

No, it’s a combination of having tactical options and being able to defend and attack simultaneously. As above, when dueling it makes a difference, combat in DDA is not dueling, it’s combat. Most of the time it’s butchery, so it comes down to raw speed and strength.

I think those points cover

I was actually about to add a bit more but I think Kevin sums it up nicely.

People generally didn't do it because it wasn't tremendously advantageous and there were other things you could be doing with your free hand.

That other arm acts as a counterweight and aids balance, as well as doing all the little things one can’t reasonably expect the game to describe on a hit by hit basis.

Alrighty then.

Though I will say that holding a weapon with both hands isn’t always necessarily better if it’s a short weapon (less than 2ft.), like I was talking about…

I just hope we won’t be able to so something ridiculous like gain a benefit from running around with a shield in each hand.

You could trip in snow and go on an impromptu sled ride?