Sensible Paired Weapons

So, in the current rules set, we don't allow for anyone to have more than one free weapon to start with.  I agree that with weapons that can be used alone, ie: swords, knives, etc..., we should not allow for them to start with multiple for the sake of "it's my fighting style."  however, some weapons just don't make sense when used alone, and in the Canon, it is shown that weapons can indeed be used as a set, ie: Morgiana's chains, Masrur's and Jafar's households, to name a few.  Some weapons just need a pair to make any sense.  do boxer's only wear one glove?  do you only wear one shoe?  So, i ask the community.  can we come to a consensus that some weapons just need a pair to be functional, or do we stick to the idea that all weapons should be purchased separately and cannot be used as a set?

Personally, i think they should. This does not apply to all weapons, but for some it only makes sense. This is especially true when you think about Metal Vessels or Households. Masrur for instance has his whole suit of armor as his household, not just his breastplate. And, Morgiana has both shackles on either leg, not just one.

I agree with this sentiment, and will be placing a vote for 'yes'. However, the real question would be; which weapons would be the exception?


Gauntlets
Boots

What else?

actually, i just had an idea. what if instead of posting the exceptions to the rule, why not alter the rule to allow the exceptions? what i mean is, why not allow players to register weapons as pairs? for instance, i register 2 short swords as a pair of weapons. what this means, is that i must use the swords as a pair, any enchantments affect both swords equally, and i cannot use only one sword. In Safiya's case (only using him because he is the most recent example) the gauntlets would be registered as a pair. he can only use the gauntlets together, and anything that affects one gauntlet affects the other equally. for instance, if Safiya were to gain a Djinn, the metal vessel would count as both gauntlets because they are a pair, not just one or the other. thoughts?

If this were to be implemented, I would think that there would be required a certain downside to it.

You see, the balancing idea behind this is that if a person has a 'pair' of swords as just 1 weapon, and they have it as A tier, that means they now have 2 A tier weapons that can each deal A tier damage by itself.

In order to make this work, there should be 2 things:
1) Paired weapons are half as effective as their rank. Ex.: A pair of A tier blades only deal B tier damage with their normal attacks individually. They share weapon hp together, as per your suggestion of counting as 1 weapon.
2) They will count as 2 weapons when regarding your limit to how many weapons you are allowed to have. This is because if you allowed pairs of weapons to only count as 1, you can have a character with 6 weapons, whereas a character who doesn't want an unorthodox style would have 3, or maybe 4.

The versatility of being able to strike a man with any of your 6 weapons (Gauntlets and boots and dual swords) would make it difficult if not impossible for another character to compete with. Imagine: You attack with your two swords, and he has a jutte and a wakizashi, and your two weapons clash. Well, his weapons are tied up, but since you're running unorthodox, you can still kick him for damage. And if he decides to try to block the kick, one of your other 4 weapons can take advantage of that and harm him.

Hence the need for reason #2 to exist.

Thoughts?

i agree with both of your points. Since they are effectively two-halves of a weapon they would each deal only 1/2 the damage on their own. it would take a strike with both weapons to deal full tier damage. I also agree that they should share weapon HP. and i was actually thinking about the weapon limit as you were posting and how it would affect it, and i agree that that would work. Since it has two bodies, it should count as two weapons, even though it is treated as one in all other senses. I like this idea, and i feel that it would allow for more player diversity and fighting styles without making it too limited. But i'd like to hear from other's as well for their input on these two ideas.

Why is it so unreasonable that someone purchase both weapons of a pair separately?

-Making them half damage just complicates things and it gives an inherent advantage at D-tier where damage can't be lowered any further.
-Making them share HP leads to retarded situations such as, "Oh no, my left gauntlet got hit and my right gauntlet didn't, but both shatter because reasons!"
-With the events we have, it is incredibly easy to get the money needed for a pair of starter weapons. So it isn't like not having "paired" weapons limits peoples creativity very much.

I vote no and think that things are just fine as they are now. If anyone sees this as a deal breaker when it comes to joining the site then so be it. That just shows how closed minded and incapable of adapting they are.

While at work, I went through this a bit more in my thoughts on how to stat it out. The thoughts that passed through my mind were the following:

What we could do is have it so that they only have the 1 'weapon', but they can register abilities as a dual weapon style. The visuals associated with their ability's actions will be with both weapons.

This also means that through normal damage they can actually only deal weapon damage from the 1 weapon, unless they purchase another.

Same idea with weapon hp; the two blades share the same weapon hp (since there is, mechanically, only 1 blade), so that when one is destroyed they both are.


Yakuroro brought up some concerns here:

Yakuroro wrote:
-Making them half damage just complicates things and it gives an inherent advantage at D-tier where damage can't be lowered any further.

Since D tier has almost no combat in it, and since there are plenty of events to bring your XP up to C-Tier (as you mention), this 'advantage' is actually negligible. Being able to deal an extra bruise to an opponent isn't enough of a justification in regards to balancing purposes in order to be a reason for this idea to not go through. However, just to humor you, my above idea makes it so that their normal attacks cannot make use of an extra weapon. This removes the halving of the damage. (Not like this actually really matters, because a player can make as many normal attacks in 1 post as they would like, doubling the redundancy of the negligibility of this argument)

Yakuroro wrote:
-Making them share HP leads to retarded situations such as, "Oh no, my left gauntlet got hit and my right gauntlet didn't, but both shatter because reasons!"

This is actually a really easy thing to address. If their weapon is going to break no matter what, then it should be up to the RPer in order to create a believable circumstance that explains it. One of the easiest ones is that 'I used both weapons in an attempt to block the attack, but the attack was powerful enough to destroy them both.' Any PVP that actually occurs in the forum which would make something like this relevant will be closely monitored by a staff member, so that any necessary judgements can be made.

Yakuroro wrote:
-With the events we have, it is incredibly easy to get the money needed for a pair of starter weapons. So it isn't like not having "paired" weapons limits peoples creativity very much.

This is quite possibly the strongest argument against allowing starter weapons. It is incredibly easy to get the Huang needed for a pair of starter weapons, without any need for entering combat. This eliminates the need of a beginner to register abilities, and eliminates the argument that running without abilities and weapons makes it dangerous for a starting player.

Yakuroro wrote:
I vote no and think that things are just fine as they are now. If anyone sees this as a deal breaker when it comes to joining the site then so be it. That just shows how closed minded and incapable of adapting they are.

Now I have little choice but to ask you; what kind of idealism is this forum founded on? Normally, an RP site is a place where a bunch of people come together and co-write stories that interweave with each other. Staff settles disputes and generates the setting in order to allow a player to help create the story for the world. One of the types of disputes that the staff settles are disputes about the rules. This ranges from disputes with how an ability or spell should work, all the way to what kind of things the setting contains.

I would think that if Staff refused to listen and at least attempt to come to an agreeable resolution on a subject that the writers of the story, our co-writers, would be interested in seeing... Well, I would think that this would only show that the Staff is close-minded and incapable of adapting.

While it isn't feasible to add everything a person suggests to the forum, if it shows enough interest it should at the very least be considered in a serious light. Dual weapons have come up on multiple occasions, which was enough for me to believe it warranted at least a consideration.

I'm a retard. I told a friend about this, and he said 'Why not just give them another crappy weapon to start with?" This pretty much blew my mind because of how fucking genius it is. Why not just let them start with 2 weapons?

Garret wrote:While at work, I went through this a bit more in my thoughts on how to stat it out. The thoughts that passed through my mind were the following:

What we could do is have it so that they only have the 1 'weapon', but they can register abilities as a dual weapon style. The visuals associated with their ability's actions will be with both weapons.

This also means that through normal damage they can actually only deal weapon damage from the 1 weapon, unless they purchase another.

Same idea with weapon hp; the two blades share the same weapon hp (since there is, mechanically, only 1 blade), so that when one is destroyed they both are.

People could already register "dual weapon" abilities if they possess more than one weapon and the way abilities works already limits the damage they can do making it a visual treat more so than any kind of advantage. So no changes required for that.

As for treating two weapons as a single weapon, that kind of steals from the latent advantage of a dual wield style. I will elaborate more below.

As for weapon hp, I'll address that later since it's also mentioned below.

Garret wrote:

Yakuroro wrote:
-Making them half damage just complicates things and it gives an inherent advantage at D-tier where damage can't be lowered any further.

Since D tier has almost no combat in it, and since there are plenty of events to bring your XP up to C-Tier (as you mention), this 'advantage' is actually negligible. Being able to deal an extra bruise to an opponent isn't enough of a justification in regards to balancing purposes in order to be a reason for this idea to not go through. However, just to humor you, my above idea makes it so that their normal attacks cannot make use of an extra weapon. This removes the halving of the damage. (Not like this actually really matters, because a player can make as many normal attacks in 1 post as they would like, doubling the redundancy of the negligibility of this argument)

I disagree that the point is negligible. That you paint it as such is belittling and rather rude. The reason why it's an advantage at D-tier is because for the "price" of one weapon they get two. While one can attack multiple times in a single post, one could attack much faster with two weapons in hand. In the case of two D-tier players fighting in a coliseum it would make a big difference.

Just because players CAN leave C-tier quickly, it doesn't mean they will. Nor does it mean they will spend their huang on upgrading their weapon.

As for your earlier suggestion, I'm personally against the idea of one of the weapons just being for show. It takes away from the spirit of dual wielding in my opinion which is supposed to offer an advantage. If anything, I'd suggest it be a skill earned as ones specialization ranked up due to how it is usually a more advantageous fighting style. But I still think each weapon used in dual wielding should be seen as its own separate item. Not everyone is going to want to dual wield a "pair" or a "set" and might not even choose to dual wield until they obtain a very different second weapon. (For example, shortsword in one hand, mace in the other.)

Garret wrote:

Yakuroro wrote:
-Making them share HP leads to retarded situations such as, "Oh no, my left gauntlet got hit and my right gauntlet didn't, but both shatter because reasons!"

This is actually a really easy thing to address. If their weapon is going to break no matter what, then it should be up to the RPer in order to create a believable circumstance that explains it. One of the easiest ones is that 'I used both weapons in an attempt to block the attack, but the attack was powerful enough to destroy them both.' Any PVP that actually occurs in the forum which would make something like this relevant will be closely monitored by a staff member, so that any necessary judgements can be made.

I don't feel like you addressed my concerns at all. First of all, a player isn't always going to be in a situation where it is reasonable to adjust their character to have blocked with both weapons. If one hand was blocking and the other was occupied fighting off another opponent or otherwise engaged, it simply wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to go out of their way to put that other weapon in harms way. Especially if it isn't even drawn at the moment. Your argument makes assumptions about the player that won't always be the case.

To say a player would be forced to have both weapons break at once is, to me, a stifling of a players freedom.

Garret wrote:

Yakuroro wrote:
-With the events we have, it is incredibly easy to get the money needed for a pair of starter weapons. So it isn't like not having "paired" weapons limits peoples creativity very much.

This is quite possibly the strongest argument against allowing starter weapons. It is incredibly easy to get the Huang needed for a pair of starter weapons, without any need for entering combat. This eliminates the need of a beginner to register abilities, and eliminates the argument that running without abilities and weapons makes it dangerous for a starting player.

Running around without abilities has rarely been expressed as dangerous to new players. The only exception would be players looking to enter dungeons or events where it would actually be somewhat dangerous. But as you've pointed out, most starting jobs don't have combat. I've encouraged new players to start working on jobs without having starter abilities many times. Having a second purchased weapon doesn't really change the situation one way or another though. I don't see how starting with dual weapons has an impact on the value of starting with/without abilities.

So I guess I missed what you were trying to get across here. I re-read this point a few times but still feel like I'm missing the crux of your argument.

Garret wrote:

Yakuroro wrote:
I vote no and think that things are just fine as they are now. If anyone sees this as a deal breaker when it comes to joining the site then so be it. That just shows how closed minded and incapable of adapting they are.

Now I have little choice but to ask you; what kind of idealism is this forum founded on? Normally, an RP site is a place where a bunch of people come together and co-write stories that interweave with each other. Staff settles disputes and generates the setting in order to allow a player to help create the story for the world. One of the types of disputes that the staff settles are disputes about the rules. This ranges from disputes with how an ability or spell should work, all the way to what kind of things the setting contains.

I would think that if Staff refused to listen and at least attempt to come to an agreeable resolution on a subject that the writers of the story, our co-writers, would be interested in seeing... Well, I would think that this would only show that the Staff is close-minded and incapable of adapting.

While it isn't feasible to add everything a person suggests to the forum, if it shows enough interest it should at the very least be considered in a serious light. Dual weapons have come up on multiple occasions, which was enough for me to believe it warranted at least a consideration.

This came across as blatant sophism and I am honestly surprised and somewhat insulted that you would use such a technique against me. Specifically I am referring to where you tried to use my own words against me. Or at least, it seemed like it was directed at me.

I never said that the idea shouldn't be considered or discussed. I am the one who told Altair to post a public discussion on the matter in the first place. That you would suggest I am unwilling to find a solution or talk about the issue is misleading to anyone reading this thread. It was a low blow and a shot at me that was uncalled for. Even if you didn't intend for it to come off in such a way, it stung as undeserved belittlement of my stance on the issue and was very unfair to me who was simply voting based on my personal opinion.

My comment was speaking about individuals who might throw a fit and simply leave because they couldn't have what they wanted. People who don't even try to discuss it. People who just bolt without even trying to understand why things are different from how they personally want them to be. It was not to suggest that this conversation should not be happening.

As for the founding ideals of the forum, you know I'm not one of the founding members, so I can't answer that question.

Garret wrote:I'm a retard. I told a friend about this, and he said 'Why not just give them another crappy weapon to start with?" This pretty much blew my mind because of how fucking genius it is. Why not just let them start with 2 weapons?

I don't see any reason to let people start with two weapons other than to try and find a compromise for the situation. I'd be far less willing to take a stance against such a change however as it would not include the silliness of two weapons being treated as a single weapon and all the problems I see with such a move.

Well, this was quite a discussion. At the ending points, there seems to be a middle ground that is much more workable. Starting with two weapons is a viable option for both strength and the upcoming stealth classes, whereas other classes would receive much less benefit. One that same note, Strength receives much fewer bonuses (weapon wise) later in the game. Whereas Dex can gain another bow and magical tools (multiple), Intelligence gains advanced staffs and Dom users have the option of a legendary beast, Strength simply always has a maximum of three weapons slots.

I would not be adverse to instituting the option for TWO starter weapons. However, it would need to be specified that Dom could not obtain two beasts to begin with and limit this strictly to starter WEAPONS, nothing more.

Issues 1-3: are not important any more since a friend's suggestion addressed all of those concerns, hence my face palm and self acclimation of intellectual lack.

Issue 4: was me conceding that you have a very valid argument. When I argue, I will only argue against illogical or un-thought statements in order to obtain a better understanding of the underlying thought process when the statement is made. This is the clearest-cut way to working something out. Your point here was valid, so I agreed with it.

Issue 2: it may be considered belittling and rude only because it is clear cut and dry. It was not meant to be belittling, it was just meant to get straight to the point; the only time D tier damage can 'kill' a person is if it's an NPC from a job or if its the 8th such attack from a PC. This could only occur in an EXTREMELY strange situation. From C tier on, being able to add another D tier attack to your attacks means very little considering players can at this point register B tier abilities (not to mention that all abilities out-power normal physical attacks). This does make it negligible. In the event that two people in a coliseum match were fighting, and one person used a D tier attack as an ability, but the other person used two sword strikes from normal attacks, I would rule that the D tier ability attack breaks through both sword strikes and deals full damage to the opponent. This offers no real advantage in a fight, only a perceived one.

Last issue: The reason why this seems like its targeted at you is because it kind of is. I'm fairly upset with how you posted why you didn't like it and then said that you wouldn't consider it in your post. You've done this before with the Armor idea as well that Diego had posted before; shot it down as soon as he posted it, telling him you wouldn't consider it no matter what, and no matter who else thought it would be interesting.

What makes matters worse is that you insinuated that everyone who doesn't like this idea (and by extension, doesn't agree with you) is close-minded and incapable of adapting. You've made a similar comment about my friend in a PM at one point in time when I asked you if he could RP as the beast and I would RP as the Dom user. To be honest, I wasn't even mad about that time, and I didn't have anything to say about it because that was just between you and me.

Yes, this most recent public posting pissed me off. I feel as if you are using an underhanded method to tell people that they are close-minded and un-adaptable if they are unable to follow your restrictions (which you didn't offer constructive criticism to, simply posting that you believe the current system is good enough. By itself, this wouldn't have been enough to set me off, but your last comment was what caused me to go as far as I did). Yes, I may have been out of line to not discuss this with you between the two of us.

Am I sorry? A little bit. I didn't expect you to be so offended by it, as it wasn't my intention to directly offend you with it. It was my intention to open your eyes as to what you sounded like when you posted that. Even if you say that you meant only the people who 'left because of it', that doesn't change the fact that those of us here who agree with the people who 'leave because of it' feel like we're being told we are close-minded and un-adaptable as well.

I do apologize that my actions were offensive enough to trouble you, but I also hope that you now realize the frustration people go through when you don't go down the road with them to see if the suggestion has a possibility.

I don't regret decisions I've made in the past as I made them with the best interests of the forum in mind and not merely for my own benefit, but you were wrong to drag them into this discussion as this case had nothing to do with them. I did not use my position as admin to push this subject. I cast a vote as a member and gave my opinion. I apologize that you took my words to mean that "everyone" against my opinion was being addressed, perhaps they could have been worded better. But as I already explained, I was specifically talking about people who aren't even interested in talking about what upset them. People who would rage quit at the first sign of hearing they could not get their way. We've had more than one almost join the site before which is why I made the comment in the first place.

I had assumed it was obvious that individuals willing to talk about the restrictions and why they are in place as we all are doing now were not included.

Your apology is accepted and you have one in kind for not choosing my words more carefully. There are no hard feelings. But at the same time, I ask that you refrain from carrying bias from a past issue into future threads. In this case it led to a great misunderstanding and unproductive confusion, but it could potentially lead to much worse outcomes such as pointless arguments that otherwise do not need to occur.

I agree with what you've said above. It was a wrong assumption on my part to believe that you were speaking as an administrator when making your post, and not realizing it for it's intended purpose; to generate a discussion that would lead to a resolution of the disagreement.

Of course your apology is accepted as well, and I hold no ill feelings about this discussion. May the next time we verbally duke it out be in private.

; )