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.