[Poll] Dual wielding in MW



  • Y/N

    Would you want it?

    Could it work?

    Who could receive it?

    Would it be balanced?

    However, no dual wielding zweihanders please. ;)



  • N

    Would I want it? No. It’s not historically accurate.

    Could it work. Yes. In terms of gameplay. It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights to a proper class.

    Who could receive it: Vanguards only if at all.

    Would it be balanced. No but then what in CMW is balanced anyway?



  • Oh hey, a post by trooper that isn’t completely full of shit.

    C:MW itself isn’t exactly the winner of historically accuracy, it borrows weapons and inventions from over a 500 year spanning period.

    Vanguards being able to dual wielding secondaries would be nice, would give them a reason at times to swap out at times.

    No but then what in CMW is balanced anyway?

    I’ll bite. What do you consider imbalanced in MW? Apart from anything that kills you I mean.



  • Yes and no. I can see potential in wielding a defensive dagger (maybe with a quick stab attack) but dual wielding weapons in general… rather not.

    It could work - as most people don’t grow a second brain it would come down to changed weapon timings (like faster combo times but slower windups) and differences in damage/stamina drain (you hold double the weight).

    Its nothing for Knights and Archers are a ranged class while dual wielding is some kind of melee speciality. Vanguard secondaries could work - but then they got that big primary. This leaves us with MaA - who could be allowed to use their secondary (most of them won’t use it anyways) along with their primary - at the cost of losing dodge while doing so (they are supposed to be ordinary soldiers and there is only that much coordination a man can handle). Alternative: Every melee class can “buy” in as special equipment replacing shields/throwables.

    I don’t see a problem with balance - if it can be implemented it can also be balanced given the right amount of patch cycles (aka “live testing”).



  • No thanks. Looks and plays bad in DW, definitely don’t want that garbage in MW.



  • At this point, any variety at the expense of “realism” would be nice. Would probably be best for vanguard, seeing as the vanguard is the most offense-oriented class, so he always either has 1 huge weapon, or 2 smaller weapons. I don’t see an issue with balance- longer windup, faster combos, but costs more stamina.



  • It would be great for man at arms to have the option to off hand the secondary weapons since it’s almost always useless for them to use secondary weapons but with dual wield there will actually be a use for them.

    Wouldn’t recommend it for any other class except for maybe archer and if done for archer so that it’s not as good as maa dual wield for balance reasons it should be restricted to where the off hand must be a dagger type while the main hand could be any archer secondary of your choice



  • @SOC:

    No thanks. Looks and plays bad in DW, definitely don’t want that garbage in MW.

    Yeah I agree that it’s implementation in DW is terrible and if that’s what it would look like in MW I would be against it.



  • @trooper:

    Could it work. Yes. In terms of gameplay. It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights to a proper class.

    Ok I thought you were joking in the other thread, I’m beginning to think you’re serious. Do you really believe that vanguards are inferior?



  • @trooper:

    It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights

    You’re so silly.



  • @Flippy:

    @trooper:

    It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights

    You’re so delusional.



  • @quigleyer:

    @trooper:

    Could it work. Yes. In terms of gameplay. It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights to a proper class.

    Ok I thought you were joking in the other thread, I’m beginning to think you’re serious. Do you really believe that vanguards are inferior?

    People always keep asking me why I believe vanguards are inferior to knights but the answer is right in front of your noses.

    What is the difference between vanguard and knight?

    In gangland warfare team modes, not much. You can swing to your heart’s delight and score dozens of kills. I’m not talking about the mode where attacking from behind is the best way to get kills. What kind of idiot judges a class by their ability to attack from behind (cough archer backstab cough).

    Anyway that’s not the point. The point is… CMW gangland warfare team modes are not the way to measure a class’ balance. They may say they don’t balance around duel mode and they would be right because of the state of 2 handed knights at the moment but before the recent ‘MAA’ revival and then the ‘2H knight’ revival, things were OK.

    Again, I have drifted from my point.

    A vanguard can fight decently well in duel mode/FFA duel and you may actually be moderately successful until you hit the elite of the elite but it is at the elite of the elite stage that vanguards fall to pieces.

    Since a few months ago, I have been plotting down my results from FFA duel, where I frequently encounter the best duelists on EU.

    My win ratio against archers: 97%. (rounded down from 97.1%)
    My win ratio against MAA: 91%.
    My win ratio against vanguard: 98%.
    My win ratio against 2 handed knight: 67%.
    My win ratio against shield knights: 83%.

    The point I am trying to prove is, vanguards are obsolete when you go against the best of the best opposition. What this says is… Don’t bother training as a vanguard when you can use similar weaponry and the same mechanics as a 2 handed knight AND be more successful.

    If you don’t believe me, log in to that FFA duel server at prime time when all the pros are there and count how many 2 handed knights you see. I counted 9 out of 12 total players the other day. 9 Out of 12 total players being 2 handed knights. The vanguard is used by a very slim minority and generally they get wasted.

    I don’t like naming names so work them out for yourself.

    Thanks for reading.



  • @trooper:

    My win ratio against archers: 97%. (rounded down from 97.1%)
    My win ratio against MAA: 91%.
    My win ratio against vanguard: 98%.
    My win ratio against 2 handed knight: 67%.
    My win ratio against shield knights: 83%.

    your percentages are not representative of an entire group. this is why scientists gather a wide berth of subjects when undertaking studies, polls require more than one person for the questionnaire, etc.



  • @trooper:

    best of the best opposition

    also, the best of the best players have all retired from the game.

    @trooper:

    If you don’t believe me, log in to that FFA duel server at prime time when all the pros are there and count how many 2 handed knights you see. I counted 9 out of 12 total players the other day. 9 Out of 12 total players being 2 handed knights

    subjective



  • @trooper:

    @quigleyer:

    @trooper:

    Could it work. Yes. In terms of gameplay. It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights to a proper class.

    Ok I thought you were joking in the other thread, I’m beginning to think you’re serious. Do you really believe that vanguards are inferior?

    People always keep asking me why I believe vanguards are inferior to knights but the answer is right in front of your noses.

    What is the difference between vanguard and knight?

    In gangland warfare team modes, not much. You can swing to your heart’s delight and score dozens of kills. I’m not talking about the mode where attacking from behind is the best way to get kills. What kind of idiot judges a class by their ability to attack from behind (cough archer backstab cough).

    Anyway that’s not the point. The point is… CMW gangland warfare team modes are not the way to measure a class’ balance. They may say they don’t balance around duel mode and they would be right because of the state of 2 handed knights at the moment but before the recent ‘MAA’ revival and then the ‘2H knight’ revival, things were OK.

    Again, I have drifted from my point.

    A vanguard can fight decently well in duel mode/FFA duel and you may actually be moderately successful until you hit the elite of the elite but it is at the elite of the elite stage that vanguards fall to pieces.

    Since a few months ago, I have been plotting down my results from FFA duel, where I frequently encounter the best duelists on EU.

    My win ratio against archers: 97%. (rounded down from 97.1%)
    My win ratio against MAA: 91%.
    My win ratio against vanguard: 98%.
    My win ratio against 2 handed knight: 67%.
    My win ratio against shield knights: 83%.

    The point I am trying to prove is, vanguards are obsolete when you go against the best of the best opposition. What this says is… Don’t bother training as a vanguard when you can use similar weaponry and the same mechanics as a 2 handed knight AND be more successful.

    If you don’t believe me, log in to that FFA duel server at prime time when all the pros are there and count how many 2 handed knights you see. I counted 9 out of 12 total players the other day. 9 Out of 12 total players being 2 handed knights. The vanguard is used by a very slim minority and generally they get wasted.

    I don’t like naming names so work them out for yourself.

    Thanks for reading.

    Your entire point around how you believe the game is balanced and people should play is all based on YOUR win/loss ratio in duels?

    Honestly man I think you’re just not as good against playing knight. Or maybe these players that are beating you were guys all sticking around since before knight’s got nerfed (and still are pretty nerfed, mind you), which would mean they have oodles of experience and skill. It’s incredibly arrogant of you to believe the game should be balanced around your win/loss ratio in duels, though.

    When I play most players are vanguards or MaA. Knight is the most under-played melee class right now, and even occasionally gets beat by how many archers are playing it IN DUELS.



  • I want to duel wield sabres.

    As an archer.



  • @trooper:

    @quigleyer:

    @trooper:

    Could it work. Yes. In terms of gameplay. It could rejuvenate vanguards from inferior knights to a proper class.

    Ok I thought you were joking in the other thread, I’m beginning to think you’re serious. Do you really believe that vanguards are inferior?

    People always keep asking me why I believe vanguards are inferior to knights but the answer is right in front of your noses.

    What is the difference between vanguard and knight?

    In gangland warfare team modes, not much. You can swing to your heart’s delight and score dozens of kills. I’m not talking about the mode where attacking from behind is the best way to get kills. What kind of idiot judges a class by their ability to attack from behind (cough archer backstab cough).

    Anyway that’s not the point. The point is… CMW gangland warfare team modes are not the way to measure a class’ balance. They may say they don’t balance around duel mode and they would be right because of the state of 2 handed knights at the moment but before the recent ‘MAA’ revival and then the ‘2H knight’ revival, things were OK.

    Again, I have drifted from my point.

    A vanguard can fight decently well in duel mode/FFA duel and you may actually be moderately successful until you hit the elite of the elite but it is at the elite of the elite stage that vanguards fall to pieces.

    Since a few months ago, I have been plotting down my results from FFA duel, where I frequently encounter the best duelists on EU.

    My win ratio against archers: 97%. (rounded down from 97.1%)
    My win ratio against MAA: 91%.
    My win ratio against vanguard: 98%.
    My win ratio against 2 handed knight: 67%.
    My win ratio against shield knights: 83%.

    The point I am trying to prove is, vanguards are obsolete when you go against the best of the best opposition. What this says is… Don’t bother training as a vanguard when you can use similar weaponry and the same mechanics as a 2 handed knight AND be more successful.

    If you don’t believe me, log in to that FFA duel server at prime time when all the pros are there and count how many 2 handed knights you see. I counted 9 out of 12 total players the other day. 9 Out of 12 total players being 2 handed knights. The vanguard is used by a very slim minority and generally they get wasted.

    I don’t like naming names so work them out for yourself.

    Thanks for reading.

    This post was so full of shit i had to get diapers just to continue reading halfway through.
    Try to find me 1 knight weapon that is on par with the BrandiStock.
    Every class excels in different situations.
    And a competitive team without a single vanguard in a scrim is pure shit.
    I would much rather have a team composition consisting of 1A,1V,1M and 2K than 1A,1M and 3K
    Have in mind that Trooper did not try any class except the knight and never played in an actual scrim.



  • This post was so full of shit i had to get diapers just to continue reading halfway through.
    Try to find me 1 knight weapon that is on par with the BrandiStock.
    Every class excels in different situations.
    And a competitive team without a single vanguard in a scrim is pure shit.
    I would much rather have a team composition consisting of 1A,1V,1M and 2K than 1A,1M and 3K
    Have in mind that Trooper did not try any class except the knight and never played in an actual scrim.

    You’re wrong. I can play MAA and my main warrior type is archer as a heavy crossbowman.
    As well as that, I have fought in a few scrims as a freelance as well as a while ago in a clan scrim.





  • so based on this, i can glean that trooper is the elite of the elite of the elite? that about right?


Log in to reply