PAX East 2012 News, Infos, Videos, Screenshots...

[enemantik]

Dualwielding fist weapons, say brass knuckes.... dude attacking me with sword..... nope, cant find a way to parry with it.

There are situations where you can parry with your wedding ring, so...

[detama]

Also, I'm never really going to be able to combat an assumption that dual wielding 'has' to mean that you attack twice as fast. It's a game system/balance decision, and we went this way for lots of reasons - I guarantee we combed over everything in the combat model and rebuilt it, and it wasn't an errant decision not to make you do constant double-attacks with dual-wielding.

ok, i believe you Devs' "group discussion" should be better than player's own point of view, if dual wielding really do make a position in the hardest part of the game play, then i have nothing more to say but to agree with it. hope this mechanism do turn out as we liked to be.

[Hermokrates]

I like the way that weapons work according to Travis, Dual Wielding is an option. Not a better way, not a worse way. It has it's perks.
DW gives a moderate increase in overall damage because of Execute.
Sword n Board give a defensive bonus because of the slight increase to Block and Armor.
2 Handers give extra damage through splash, which means it does more overall damage, but less to a single target.

I think this is balanced, very balanced.

Chthon, Detama. For a balanced game, would you want small disparities between weapons or large ones? From what I see, large disparities completely wreck overall viability of weapon or skill choice. Secondly, I believe that while you can Micro the weapon switch key effectively. The true use of weapon switch is for a situation that you are not built for, to cover that weakness. My TL1 Destroyer had 2 sets of Weapons. 2 Very Fast leeching axes and Sword n Board. Versus the minions and some Champions, I would DW because the leech was greater than the dps I would take. I would also use it to heal when I didn't want to burn a spell.
SnB was the boss killer, High chance to block, higher damage, better resistances. Less chance for special effects to happen and was slower. Good tradeoffs if you ask me.

I would also love to see a video where one attacks with 2 weapons at the same time, consistently. Since alternating your strikes between hands isn't the right way to go about it.

[Chthon]

Also, I'm never really going to be able to combat an assumption that dual wielding 'has' to mean that you attack twice as fast. It's a game system/balance decision, and we went this way for lots of reasons - I guarantee we combed over everything in the combat model and rebuilt it, and it wasn't an errant decision not to make you do constant double-attacks with dual-wielding.

[edit: In the course of trying to convince you that your view is not correct, I've instead managed to convince myself that I lack some key data, and it's possible (depending on what that missing data looks like) that you could be right.

Having each weapon attack at full speed is required by realism, but this is a video game so we don't have to care about realism.

We do care about balance. At the end of the day, what's important is that all three options are equivalent in terms of overall effectiveness. (Oversimplifying a bit, effectiveness is a weighted composite of (actual) DPS and survivability; and that weighting makes it possible to convert between DPS and survivability.)

So: effectiveness(dual wield) = effectiveness(2H) = effectiveness(1H+shield)

Now, subtract the first 1H weapon from each expression (assuming the distributive property holds), and that leaves us with:

effectiveness(2nd 1H) = effectiveness(2H) - effectiveness(1st 1H) = effectiveness(shield)

So, I surprise myself with the conclusion that the second 1H does not necessarily need to add as much to your overall effectiveness as the first 1H. Instead, it only needs to add as much effectiveness as a shield adds or as much as the difference between a (first) 1H and a 2H. I haven't seen anything yet showing how useful a shield is, and no hard stats on a 2H weapon. So, I have to admit the possibility that maybe shields really suck, and maybe the (actual) DPS on 2H weapons is only marginally better than 1H. If those are both true in fact, then it would be OK for the second weapon in a dual wield setup to contribute very little.

Let me hedge that by saying that they would have to be really sucky for things to work out like that, since the benefits for dual wielding are sounding pretty miniscule right now (and even negative if you're not careful about avoiding a significant DPS difference between your weapons).

So, I'm going to reserve judgment on whether dual wielding is underpowered until after I've got an idea of how big the difference is between a 2H and the first 1H and how much benefit a shield gives.

(Yes, I do realize that I've been saying "why would I ever give up a shield if..." without ever realizing that I should have been comparing the 2nd weapon directly to a shield.)

]

[detama]

effectiveness(2nd 1H) = effectiveness(2H) - effectiveness(1st 1H) = effectiveness(shield)

totally agree, by the way, shield in TL1 is really the most important reason my ranger survived very hard + hardcore, i believe the effectiveness of a good shield in that situation is more important than any other equipment, so by my guess, TL2's shield do become a bit useless compare to TL1, and that's part of the reason you like dual wielding better over shield, am i right travisbaldree ?

[xani]

Having each weapon attack at full speed is required by realism, but this is a video game so we don't have to care about realism.

Realism, what realism ? In what army soldiers were dualwielding weapons ? I'm pretty sure there isn't much of them, just because in "real" combat having even small shield is more useful, and if someone is using off-hand weapon it's usually for parrying, and "opportunity attacks", not as just "can i haz more attacks?".

So "realism" way would actually be "add bonus chance to parry/block attack + chance to get extra attack (soo basically execute chance )" not "I'm Drizzt Do'Urden the meat grinder"

[Hue]

So, I surprise myself with the conclusion that the second 1H does not necessarily need to add as much to your overall effectiveness as the first 1H. Instead, it only needs to add as much effectiveness as a shield adds or as much as the difference between a (first) 1H and a 2H. I haven't seen anything yet showing how useful a shield is, and no hard stats on a 2H weapon. So, I have to admit the possibility that maybe shields really suck, and maybe the (actual) DPS on 2H weapons is only marginally better than 1H. If those are both true in fact, then it would be OK for the second weapon in a dual wield setup to contribute very little.

Let me hedge that by saying that they would have to be really sucky for things to work out like that, since the benefits for dual wielding are sounding pretty miniscule right now (and even negative if you're not careful about avoiding a significant DPS difference between your weapons).

That would only hold true, repeat only hold true, if you assume executes add virtually nothing to dual wielding. I don't know why you're assuming that either, as it's effectively a second chance to crit that can stack with your regular chance to crit. I trust you're smart enough to see what the damage difference between a two-hander that can crit and a two-hander that can't crit, so I don't see why you're still dismissing execute when dual wielding, and assuming it won't do any more damage than a regular two handed weapon.

And why is an average between the two one-handed weapons a penalty? Yes, if you have one particularly powerful weapon, it won't be doing as much damage, but the other, comparatively weaker weapon, will be more damage. That's the average.

[Zidders]

Having each weapon attack at full speed is required by realism, but this is a video game so we don't have to care about realism.

Realism, what realism ? In what army soldiers were dualwielding weapons ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_wield

Also, here's a great post from one of the folks over at myArmoury

"lthough Musashi's Hyoho Niten Ichiryu school teaches two-sword techniques, and some other koryu have two-sword curricula, these are all advanced techniques that are usually only taught once a practitioner has learned a great deal of standard swordsmanship. In Japan, everyone carried two blades; even before the uchigatana daisho (katana & wakizashi) was standardized in the late 16th / early 17th century, people usually wore a tachi and a tanto. That "dual wielding" never became especially popular in such a culture should tell you something. It's also a simplification to state that Musashi taught two-sword techniques as his key technique; in Go Rin No Sho (the Book of the Five Rings) he essentially states that "to die with any weapon undrawn" is dishonorable (not the same as "always take out both blades at once"). It is not even clear that Musashi himself regularly used two swords, or that he didn't only mean that one should have equal fluency with all types of weapons in either hand.

There are many reasons why wielding two swords at once is not automatically better. You give up leverage, acceleration, cutting & parrying power, and fine control when you remove your left hand from a long cutting sword. You split your attention between two blades, which requires some very rigorous training and quick thinking to make real use out of; as I said before, two-sword techniques are usually only taught as advanced training after competency with one blade is reached.

I'm not arguing the obvious superiority or inferiority of any given martial arts methods. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't a case of reductio ad arithmetic - just because one sword is good doesn't mean two is automatically twice as good. History bears this out, with some cultures and time periods finding a simultaneous left-handed weapon advantageous (main gauche anyone?), and other cultures and time periods not.

Personally, I'd prefer a shield, and I'm the nihontophile here."
" within my own experience studying (although not a good student I will admit) use of the Chinese Jian, I was surprised at the variety of cuts and slices that accompanied many of the moves. Almost every thrust and chop (I don't know the Chinese words for the move, but it's most close to a chopping move) is finished out with a slicing motion as the sword is withdrawn. Because of the reach involved, the empty hand is moved opposite the body to balance the move.
Were someone to try this with two swords against someone with a single jian, I see a high likelihood of them getting one of their wrists sliced.

To better describe the slice, it is a slice like carving a turkey or ham... designed to pull the blade across an arm or wrist and let the edge do its work.

It is hard enough for me to keep the one wrist with blade from getting whacked, let alone worry about a second blade and limb!"
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.11615.html
Also http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DualWielding

Basically, it's possible, but probably has never been done much compared with sword and board, or two handed/long range, etc. and is probably more suited to one on one or crowd melee.

[Vasshpit]

Nice read Zid.

[Zidders]

Here's a great solution. Sword, board AND long range.

Spoiler: show

[FalconHeart]

Here is my approach at dual-wielding:

A 2H weapon offers:
- high base damage
- usually lower attack speed
- no bonus stats from second item
- small/no chance to block

Dual-wielding offers:
- normal base damage
- normal attack speed
- bonus stats from second item
- small/no chance to block
- chance for extra damage from execute

A 1H weapon + shield offers:
- normal base damage
- normal attack speed
- bonus stats from second item
- good chance to block

So my conclusion is:
- 2H weapon kills the fastest, but offers no bonus stats. Enemies will deal extra damage to you.
- Dual-wielding kills slower, but offers bonus stats. Enemies will deal extra damage to you (although some of the bonus stats might be defensive).
- 1H weapon + shield kills the slowest, but offers bonus stats. Enemies will deal less damage to you.
If they can get the balance between these relationships right (which might be additionally complicated through certain weapon type properties like splash damage or longer reach), then all three variants should work fine and be viable. Assuming that there are well balanced skills (both active and passive) that will add to each of these variants or require one of them to be used, then this will further reinforce their eligibility.

[wolfmane]

Thanks for the information and replies Travis. I think you made some critical points that I was forgetting that now make me realize that you've put the time and consideration into the combat system that I was hoping you would for the second installment.

Maybe it's just me but I feel like I'm wading through a field of scarecrows when reading the last three pages of the thread regarding the dual wield theorycrafting. I'm also seeing many of the basis for arguments being formed from TL standards and perspective, especially TL's version of Defense rather than assuming that they've also modified how Defense works, let alone how much they've altered VH and game+ modes. There's the implied assumption being made that prior knowledge of the systems in TL are applicable in TL2. I don't think they are. There are two key phrases that Travis makes that are being glossed over:

Torchlight 2 has a much more complicated combat model than the first did ( under the hood ) and there's a lot more variety to how weapons work, and a lot more differentiating factors.

I guarantee we combed over everything in the combat model and rebuilt it

My translation on that is, "all bets are off, everything you know about TL has been modified for TL2".

From WoWwiki:

Theorycraft is only as useful as the number of people and concepts that can apply it. This requires that specific circumstances regarding the experiments and, hence, the overall theory be disclosed. Many of the spreadsheets that analyze rotations, for instance, do not advise the reader that the results may be contingent upon a particular UI placement, or that the players involved use hotkeys, rather than mouse-clicks, both of which can dramatically influence the numbers. The can create inflated views of importance on particular builds or practices, without the proper fundamental backing for which to properly interpret the results.

Theorycrafting Pitfalls
In immature theories, random factors may not be considered. This often results in overly naive models and inaccurate formulae and calculations.
If a given theory does not involve any idea of probability, then the model is unreliable due to its overly simplistic approach.
Overly linear theories are not often reflective of the published game mechanics. This can lead to poor understanding and false assumptions.

Relational Conflicts
Players, believing they have an equal (or better) understanding of the game and its mechanics, may argue that the authors do not know how what they are doing, or how they have built the game, affects the players.
Developers and Story-writers must constantly adjust their game to account for meta-gamers and exploiters. This is because the game shares a wider audience than the aforementioned group and their insights can create a negative experience for those who are not in the same realm.

Let me re-highlight two important parts I want to emphasis:

Theorycraft is only as useful as the number of people and concepts that can apply it.

Players, believing they have an equal (or better) understanding of the game and its mechanics, may argue that the authors do not know how what they are doing, or how they have built the game, affects the players.

I want dual wielding to be good as well but the argumentative theorycrafting isn't doing anyone any good.

One of my favorite stories involving Musashi is when he defeated Kojiro, a known master swordsman wielding a real blade, with a carved boat oar.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasaki_Kojir%C5%8D)

[hawkn]

Lol, but Musashi wasn't what I'd call a novice either. In fact, if I recall correctly, he fought relatively often with less than common weapons (instead of a katana).

[FalconHeart]

Players, believing they have an equal (or better) understanding of the game and its mechanics, may argue that the authors do not know how what they are doing, or how they have built the game, affects the players.

I want dual wielding to be good as well but the argumentative theorycrafting isn't doing anyone any good.

I for my part never believed that I had an equal (or better) understanding of the game mechanics than the developers. I'm working as a translator, author and editor and I know that no reader of a book will ever get as deep into the text as the author while he's planing, writing or editing it, although some of these readers always "know" what the author could have done better. So I have no illusions in this regard. But in my opinion it's totally ok. Why should I discourage readers from doing it, as long as it's inoffensive and such?

Although the developers are reading the posts in this forum, I guess them to be clever enough to acknowledge yet ignore the posts that won't help them with their work. They won't disallow us from making such posts or having such discussions, because nobody gets hurt by them.

And since many of the books that I am working on are gamebooks, all this talk about 2H weapons, dual-wielding and shields is quite interesting for me, even if it shouldn't apply to the actual mechanics we will see in Torchlight 2 once it is released.

So let us have our discussions cause it's a fun thing to do. (No offense meant.)

[Chthon]

@wolfmane

1. Please never, ever cite from wowwiki as if it were an authoritative source for anything other than wow.

2. Devs are mere mortals. They can be wrong sometimes. While it's true that they have better knowledge (especially in the case of an unreleased game), have probably spent more time thinking about the issues, and are generally rather more intelligent than the average forumgoer, sometimes, just sometimes, they have something to learn from their fans.

In this particular case, I've backed off my earlier position that the dual wield implementation is unequivocally incorrect, and instead reserve judgment while patiently bearing a very healthy skepticism that the benefits of a second 1H weapon will not prove anywhere near equal to the benefits of shield or the differential between a 1H and a 2H weapon. I hope that the lively discussion on the forums has lead the devs to take a second look at the issue, give it some thought, and make sure that they get it right. Even if they end up totally disagreeing with me, any refinements that second look might lead them to make can only make the game better.
(I speak only for myself here because I don't feel it's my place to speak for others, not because I think I'm the only person who sees problems with the dual wield implementation.)

3. If nothing else, the lively discussion prompted a very clear explanation of how the dual wield mechanic is currently implemented. I don't see how you can complaint about that.

[hawkn]

Oh, totally, because my ranged character who is only going to get hit if I suck, will benefit more from armor (a shield offhand), than a second stat stick, with the added bonus of occasional dual strikes.

The only person who's going to want a shield will be a tank.

[amb2010]

So where to begin..this entire thread reeks of high and mighty "I'm amazing"-ness.

@FalconHeart: For starters this is not even close to a lively discussion. It is completely and totally nothing more than senseless arguments by a party not only lacking experience what-so-ever with the subject matter but mostly doing nothing but being completely unable to accept another persons opinion and viewpoint. As such it should have ended a few pages back but here we are still at it. This is a thread about PAX East 2012, not a "I know more about TL2's combat systems than you Mr. Developers!" or "My theorycrafting based on nothing but assumptions is more correct than yours!" thread.

@Chthon: Wolfmane is 100% correct and I'm going to say that every bit of what he said applies to you, where he got the quotes from is irrelevant. Trying to sidestep the issue by nitpicking where it came from is just further demonstrating it. Developers can and often are wrong, you however to not declare they are wrong based on absolutely nothing but assumption or before any evidence of them being wrong is shown. Doing so is just silly.

Healthy discussion is all well and good and I'm all for going a bit off topic, when 90% of what people are saying over the entire span of 4 pages is the exact same stuff is when a problem starts. I'm all for having a theorycrafting thread on it's own as long as it's a healthy discussion about it where everyone can tolerate other people's opinions without having to act like they're too stupid to understand and not hijacking a thread with a totally different purpose. Lets not derail this thread anymore and get back to the subject of PAX East. Any issues with anyone directly, take it to PMs.

[adoomgod]

Guys... Come on... Please. We can act better...

Also, this is a PAX EAST thread.

[Zidders]

...Wasn't Pax east last week?

Really tho, make a dual weilding thread, this ones way off topic. Also, please be a bit more considerate towards each other, folks, and keep some perspective. Dual wielding is mostly an rpg thing, really. Few really do it well irl. There are just so many better ways of fighting. Forum fighting, however, is not one of them.

[Jerich]

Honestly I feel dual wielding is pretty good as is. The only thing I might change while doing it is to have the primary weapon do all the attacks and just add the secondary in executes. I would also give the secondary a chance to block based on the execute chance. I think that would simulate what really happens when people dual wield in real life most closely and also allow players to mainly rely on one weapon (good for itemization).

That being said, I think Runic's solution is fine. The differences between sword and board, dual wield and two handed weapons seems well thought out and rewarding.

P.S. Having both weapons attack at their speeds independently would be overpowered and unrealistic. That is not how you dual wield in real life.... Try hitting two baseballs at once with two small bats and see how far they go... Then just use one bat at a time.