Discussion on PvP changes

Im hoping that the arena in the DLC has options of the duels. Duels separated by class or a mixup if you wanted something random.

mattyice47 wrote:another thing i thi nk should be added is a cool down period for sorcery and pyromancy, not too large, even like a few seconds, bc i cannot tell you how many times ive been going toe to toe with someone and they are one hit away from dying and just spam some sort of ice beam or the one where pillars of flame come out of the ground randomly.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no. I must disagree. Make a mage. I believe you'll change your opinion after playing a proper caster. Sorcery and pyromancy generally require a good deal of skill to use effectively. A cooldown would ruin their viability.



Also, haven't we been over the dual weilding thing rail? Or was that someone else? Point being, it works fine, imo anyways. From is much closer than anyone I've seen try has been.

well how do you counter AoE spells like Chaos Storm and fire tempest? They spam these attacks until you die, ninja flipping out of range whenever you get too close

Backstab them, or dodge untill they run themselves out of casts. with the Fire tempest type spells I seriously doubt its being spammed. 1 cast spawns numerous pillars and lasts a short while.

Dont try to block it, it will eat you.

they can have up to 20 casts and increases damage with humanity

1 "cast" actually takes 17 uses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxrgEo0Niy8

Is a video featuring pyromancy in pvp. Hope it gives you a better idea how it works.

Dual wielding is possible to use, maybe not the same exact weapon in both hands though. But say, longsword in main hand spear in the offhand. Or dagger/rapier in the offhand, totally possible. Even a katana, especially the washing pole can do well in the offhand. Most things that can parry and hit fast are the best, or the long poke of a spear. The thing is in real life you wouldn't want to dual wield really. It is removing control and defense from your combat. Yes you can block with a weapon in real life, but it is not as effective of course as a shield. As well you wouldn't be able to swing the weapon to its full extent. Frankly, I'm perfectly fine with how dual wielding is in game.

i agree. i think dual wielding is fine. maybe add in extra animations like the ones they have in skyrim. Maybe extra bonuses for weapons that are supposed to be "paired" like the parrying dagger and rapier.

On the other hand i have seen people be successful dual weilding a spear in one hand and a black knight halbred in the other. the damage is devastating but a very steep drop off in defensive potential. it takes a lot of practice and skill

I ran into this guy in the 0poise area that was actually being very effective with the lucerne in offhand and great scythe in main. Yea that most likely wouldnt work against an enemy with poise, but they still used it effectively.

Guys...Guys! thanks for your input, and i love that we have changed the subject matter in anther thread HAHA! but to be nice to the OP im going to just give a quick response, and then later on in the weak i will post a enlightened thread on the subject matter. (with bullet points)

what you all have described as dual weilding is not dual wielding, but just holding two weapons. which turns into gimmicky utility combat.

I am talking about A Combo-ing, wailing bombardment of attacks to combo your enemy to death.

but if we are going to talk about realism (from a S.C.A, Sword & Board stand point) even though this is a fantasy setting. Two handed weapons are even more less realistic, since there are no horses, and no mounted units to kill; Great swords, and alike are not needed. in fact worthless.

in fact halberds were the closest thing to "two handing". And even then was considered "utility". an amazing utility (im very sad how weak and under powered they are in Dark souls.)

in a 1v1 dueling scene its done trust me, but requires a lot from the dual wielder. (and very developed shoulder muscles) and thus is rarely scene. But agian to keep this from going to far off topic i will leave off with...

Stay tuned for a enlightening Dual wielding thread in the very Near future hopefully Sunday.

So we have been over this. This is the first conversation.

https://soulswiki.forumotion.com/t8335-weapons-not-doing-their-proper-dmg-wtf#175164

As a respone to your other point, 2 handed weapons weren't only used for/against mounted opponents. The uchigatana was use in both hands quite a bit. The claymore was also used for general combat.

As 2 examples.

Forum Pirate wrote:So we have been over this. This is the first conversation.

https://soulswiki.forumotion.com/t8335-weapons-not-doing-their-proper-dmg-wtf#175164

As a respone to your other point, 2 handed weapons weren't only used for/against mounted opponents. The uchigatana was use in both hands quite a bit. The claymore was also used for general combat.

As 2 examples.

The katana was shorter then a broad sword, and was used with two hands for stability, and precision, and was/is not labeled as Greatsword combat. (so i don't understand how this can even be used as a example).

the claymore is alot bigger ( also 3 times heavier then katanas average weight from 2.2 - 2.5 pounds to 6-8 pounds) then it looks in darksouls, and was the most common for anti mounted combat. movies, and stories portraying claymores as anything other then a glorified Basterd sword/ hand and a half are false.

Also the "Basterd sword" was often mistaken for a claymore alot... so i can understand the misconception here.( i had to learn the hard way.)

also i will be answering many of Blains (as well as many other players) misconceptions in my thread.

mattyice47 wrote:i agree. i think dual wielding is fine. maybe add in extra animations like the ones they have in skyrim. Maybe extra bonuses for weapons that are supposed to be "paired" like the parrying dagger and rapier.

I agree wholeheartedly. Like say for using two daggers/bandit knives, you get like an additional 10% increase in critical damage, with the animations using both weapons to backstab/riposte.

I wasn't saying the two handed combat was completely realistic in game either, to be fair we have something called the Demon Great Machete, that I'm pretty sure no human could ever effectively use in combat.

I was merely pointing out that there is a point, historically, to two handing a weapon outside of mounted combat.

I'm aware that the claymore is really a very large and fairly heavy weapon, but it was used in both hands and not just against/from horseback.

I wasn't disputing that two handing, like dual weilding, was a niche area unless horses are involved, but pointing out that 2 handing weapons is historically viable and present even in the absence of horses.

Two handing was often just a lot more situational, and better suited as counters to certain things. It was viable of course, and two handed weapons were used. There were just times where it probably was better to use a one handed weapon, you just didn't have to. Although describing weapons as being two handed is a bit odd, because for longswords you could technically use it one handed, but switch to using it two handed if the need came.

I suppose, but some weapons are undeniably 2 handed weapons. Going back to the claymore, its size would severely hamper even large men attempting to use it in primarily 1 hand.

I'd describe a weapon a two handed, irl, when pairing it with a shield in the off hand becomes impractical for normally sized men.

Yeah that's true, many polearms come to mind in that regards.

Tolvo wrote:Two handing was often just a lot more situational, and better suited as counters to certain things. It was viable of course, and two handed weapons were used. There were just times where it probably was better to use a one handed weapon, you just didn't have to. Although describing weapons as being two handed is a bit odd, because for longswords you could technically use it one handed, but switch to using it two handed if the need came.

Guys clearly i must not be getting the point out correctly, but to put simply i want "Comboing attacks", this is not in darkSouls, and don't insult my intelligence by saying there is cause there isnt. otherwise there would not be countless threads online about "how dual wielding doesn't work."

And on the matter of realism i was merely commenting on the paradox of pointing out realism in a fantasy based game.

So you think dual wielding is fine as is? cool.. i dont. i am an aggressive style gamer. i like dual wielding weapons, and being the berserker in most games. You don't you are contempt with holding two weapons and then state "I'am dual-wielding"... that is cool. but its fact that dark souls does not have a "fantasy based dual weilding experience." which i have come up with easy ways of implementing, and balancing them in game. You dont like the idea? then dont read it.

again all wll be explained in the future thread.

I should be able to use swords in the left hand the same way I do in the right.

swordiris wrote:I should be able to use swords in the left hand the same way I do in the right.

^ thank you..

There is comboing, it's just not viable for most weapons. For some there are reasonable ones such as with the greatsythe, but for most you'll lose out on damage dealt as well as making it easier for yourself to be parried. I do dual wield on certain toons and I sometimes enjoy playing the berzerker as well, I tend to be very aggressive in game as well. We just have slightly different views is all, it's not that I think the idea is bad. It's just that I don't believe I would enjoy the version you would want in Dark Souls. I do read your posts though because it would be a bit unfair of me to not give the courtesy to read another's post while just spouting my own ideas.

Tolvo wrote:There is comboing, it's just not viable for most weapons. For some there are reasonable ones such as with the greatsythe, but for most you'll lose out on damage dealt as well as making it easier for yourself to be parried. I do dual wield on certain toons and I sometimes enjoy playing the berzerker as well, I tend to be very aggressive in game as well. We just have slightly different views is all, it's not that I think the idea is bad. It's just that I don't believe I would enjoy the version you would want in Dark Souls. I do read your posts though because it would be a bit unfair of me to not give the courtesy to read another's post while just spouting my own ideas.

thank you for your time in reading tolvo(as well as others).

and i believe swordiris has put it in the purest most simplest way i could possibly hope for. but add on the fact that the off hand should not be restricted by the main hand.

That's something I will agree with, becomes sometimes I wish I could have a rapier in my right hand and parry with it, because I just don't care for the R2 attack of that weapon as is. As well I do wish I could block properly with a shield in my right hand.

I must also point out that Blaine first brought realism into our continuing weapons conversation, and its been you who continually argues that your proposed changes are realistic, only to be shot down.


As is, you're in the wrong genre for the dual weilding you describe. From has weighty, tuned, precise combat. Hacking like that would more than likely unbalance the entire flow of combat thats been established by rewarding recklessness.

If you're going to argue that it shouldn't reward recklessness, but require skill and planning, I refer you to the dual weilding system already in place.

As far as main/off hand differences go, the characters stand with their left side forward, this would disallow a proper swing from a weapon in the left hand unless the stance was switched, through an attack or simple shuffle, but if the animation for a left handed swing (not thrust) is to look plausible and retain a workable swing speed, a stance system would have to be implemented, and thats adding a core mechanic to a game, complete with balance issues and glitches associated. Doesn't seem like a good idea at this point.