Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
We are talking about Dual Wielding in a video game context.
Yeah, but there are differences here, because, you know, lightsabers.
Anyway, I'm not arguing about whether or not it could happen in real life; regardless of how dual wielding works in real life, it works in Star Wars, so the question of 'is it an unwieldy mess' is moot. I'm asking Alex his opinion on whether using two full-length lightsabers would require you to sacrifice defensive capabilities for offensive capabilities.
There's also the point that the guy is talking about The Old Republic, in which the things the guy is talking about actually happen; dual-wielding characters do move around a lot and are very squishy, but overwhelm opponents a lot quicker than most classes. So he does know what he's talking about.
As Malk said, this is a load of nonsense. A weapon or weapon configuration is only ever a modifier on core, universal technique, so implying that there'd be a significant biomechanical difference in execution is horrible. Because I've read the TOR forums and everyone speaks as though they're an expert on swordsmanship and oh god it makes me so mad ughsfhhghghghgh grrr.
The fact that we're talking about lightsabers changes nothing -- again, biomechanical considerations are universal. Two weapons of the same length will merely get in the way of one-another while providing no additional benefit unless they're both short weapons. It's really not a matter of weight -- swords are surprisingly light to most people, anyway -- but a matter of length and therefore geometry. When you have two long weapons using in a style that includes cuts, they'll have a lot of potential for conflict. If you remove all the cut combinations and techniques that generate that conflict, then there's an extremely limited set of moves left.
Basically, both lightsabers would have to be travelling along the same axis, be it in the same direction or in opposite directions with a little distance between them. This means that all cuts would follow the same rules as usual, except that executing them would be more tiring and complex, and the potential for self-harm is much greater. There's no benefit to be had compared to the control and speed of a regular lightsaber or a double-ended lightsaber (which is really a regular staff with lazors pew pew).
Perhaps the most sensible use of dual-wielding in Star Wars (and therefore the one that remains unused) would be a lightsaber in one hand and a blaster pistol on the other. Two different kinds of weapons for different roles that can also be used in synchronicity at close range. I know the Jedi dislike blasters for philosophical reasons, but we still don't see Sith doing any of that (which might actually be a cool way to distinguish them from Jedi).
Tch. I really should not ask about how these things fit in terms of a universe where the rules for this differ to Alex.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Jedi don't dual-wield lightsabers and blaster pistols because they don't need blaster pistols, at all. If they have need of a ranged weapon, the Force is very likely a better weapon for that. The enemies a Jedi commonly fights, which mostly consists of regular troopers and Sith, are better dealt with with lightsabers and the Force.
Anyway, please kick me next time I ask a question like this.
You know, normally I'd be inclined to agree with Alex, but do bear in mind that the Jedi use the force to guide them during combat. Thus, it's possible that a well-trained Jedi wouldn't actually be at risk of interfering with his or her own weapons while dual-wielding.
There are even more implications to consider than that, though.
I mean, what I was hoping to get to discuss with the implications of a very aggressive style of fighting on Jedi philosophy, which dictates not striking first and not being an aggressive little fuck, because striking first, and thus starting a fight, is not the actions of a pacifist person who does not want to kill people. Which would require talking about whether dual-wielding would necessitate a more aggressive form of combat or if dual lightsabers could, indeed, be used as an effective form of defence.
But, I mean, he didn't even talk about that. And now I have to go, and I'll likely not be on for like, ages. And I still don't have the 'net back on at home until next week some time, so... no discussion for me.
Fuck, I've been spending too long discussing social media marketing. I'm kinda brain-dead and not thinking right. Sorry.
The thing is that the Force is a guide, not an automatic tool. Wielding a single weapon or a long weapon and a short weapon in the off hand is insanely more efficient to such a degree that even the Force can't really make dual-wielding lightsabers viable.
I mean, even with all the excess and indulgence of the prequels, Anakin gets his arm cut off while dual-wielding and Grievous gets all four of his lightsabers stopped by a single displacement. Even during all that silliness, multiple lightsabers just don't work.
It's much less a practical thing than a philosophical thing. This becomes clear if you watch the originals; Jedi only engage in violence as a means of defending themselves or those who can't defend themselves. Likewise, the Force is not a tool that is meant to be used for the purposes of killing or severely injuring another being, which is why Darth Vader is characterised by choking people to death and Obi-Wan is characterised by turning the attention of Stormtroopers away. A lightsaber defends the area immediate to the Jedi themselves; a blaster kills at a distance.
All weapons combat is ultimately aggressive. The only caveat is that you might strike to injure rather than kill. Any defense will eventually become overwhelmed if it doesn't counter, but an attack defines the parameters of its response. One of the greatest techniques in any form of combat is using threat to defend yourself; basically making particular approaches to dangerous to be used against you. A common form of this is simply pointing your sword at an adversary, which makes an approach risky. By pointing your sword at an adversary, you can quickly and decisively punish an opening in their defense, which is why pointing guards are universal to all strong forms of swordsmanship.
You can't really use that as an excuse. If we're going to talk philosophy, then Jedi rarely ever use blaster pistols at all because they're weapons, with their only use being to kill people. Jedi use lightsabers because they're as much a tool for meditation as weapons, but they don't use weapons which explicitly exist to kill people.
Anyway, as I noted before, it's been firmly established in the EU, which is what we're discussing, or what I was discussing I guess, that dual wielding is indeed a viable method of fighting, regardless of its real-world basis. I wasn't asking you whether it is a viable method of fighting; I was asking you if you thought it would necessitate a more aggressive fighting style or if it had defensive applications too.
I'm not Alex, but I'd have to guess that it would be primarily defensive; it's easier to avoid interfering with your own weapons while blocking than while attacking.
Even with Spider-Sense you're still swinging around two long blades of the same length.
Or, really, it is whatever they say it is, regardless of logic.
Also, force power are kind of boring looking so lightsaber and blaster would be much cooler.
While it's generally practiced with sticks or knives these days, escrima started out as a fighting style with two machetes. There are still a lot of moves that make a lot more sense with relatively long blades instead of blunt weapons, too. (According to one of my teachers, it was switched to sticks so the tradition could be taught as a dance during Spanish rule.) Sometimes one is used to block while the other attacks, but there are a lot of forms that involve attacking with both weapons, too.
Again, in the original films, we can--
Oh.
The thing is that it pretty much has no application. A single lengthy weapon is superior both offensively and defensively than two lengthy weapons. If you absolutely had to use two lengthy weapons, then you'd probably use single-time techniques to attack and defend in the same motion (but again, this can be done with just one weapon).
Machetes aren't very long, though. I can see how you might get away with dual-wielding those, but I daresay you'd still be better off with a small shield in the off hand.
I do like how in the KOTOR games that some of the lightsabers you could use in the offhand did have a shorter blade length.
You know it kinda bothers me that the sword-in-one-hand-pistol-in-the-other combination is never used. Not even in westerns where such a thing would have been reasonable.
Man if you think using TK to hurl debris or shoot rage lightning looks boring than... you are an overstimulated gerbil person.
^^ Fun fact:
Military officers in the 19th century did just that. The general technique was to use the pistol in the off hand as a countering tool; you'd displace or parry with your sword to create an instant of safety from your adversary's sword or bayonet, leaving the pistol hand free to take a point-blank shot with.
Also, Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy use that combination a lot, but I know how you feel about those settings.
intense love
he just hasn't let warhammer love him back
I actually don't mind Fantasy at all. 40K's the one that makes me smolder with stereotypical Image comics rage.
If I were into war gaming, I'd probably play fantasy but I'm really not into army games.
The major difference between the two is that Fantasy is a vastly superior game unharmed by Game Workshop's attempts to appeal to a wider audience. That and advertising.
I mean, jus' saiyan.
Also, I guess Fantasy is implicitly racist. I only really thought about it recently, but here's some food for thought:
The human factions are all non-Scandinavian European of various stripes. You have Renaissance Germany, a mishmash of medieval England and France, Renaissance Spain and Italy and then you have a kind of Russian faction riding polar bears as representative of all Eastern Europe (as far as I can tell, this is entirely and irrefutably accurate. Can Milos or Gacek confirm?). Except when Eastern Europeans are vampires. But the Mongols? Ogres. Native South Americans? Lizardmen. Africans? Egyptian undead if you're lucky, Savage Orcs when you're not. Mind you, the human factions aren't exactly goody two-shoes (even if the Bretonnians try really hard), but still.
I still love the setting and everything, but damn.
Does he want to drive the tank closer so he can stab it with his sword?
I can't believe this is actually a thing.
It's worth noting that Warhammer Fantasy also includes a steampunk tank as part of the Empire faction. So you can in fact drive it closer to get a charge attack while a unit of knights hit a flank, although to be pedantic, they are better off using their lances while charging.
Also, I recommend Mordheim to anyone who would like to play Warhammer Fantasy but has no interest in splashing out the cash for a whole army, or anyone who doesn't like war games on a large scale. It takes about a dozen models per a side to play, based on skirmishes for rare resources in a once-great city struck by a magical/chaos-influence/warp-powered storm and rendered the fantasy equivalent of Chernobyl.
Oh hey, it's the two best idols... and Ritsuko.
You know about those Mitt Romney ads that are all over Youtube?
Okay, maybe you do if you live in a swing state. Like...say, Virginia.
I just said this out loud:
Also
> liking Miki
boooooooo
Hey I'd be pissed too if I got a faceful of principle-less Republican when I wanted my anime.
I mean say what you will of the tenets of moe-dom, but at least it's an ethos.
Miki is objectively the second-best idol because I said so. QED.
Also I tried to think of an actual reason why I liked Miki but as it turns out I don't know anything about iDOLM@STER at all.
The anime had nice art, I guess.
Also, I went to the MAL page for iDOLM@STER and saw a thread that made me think "This sounds like a thread GMH would make" and then it turned out that you actually did make it.
I actually copied that from a post in the iM@S thread on TV Tropes that I wrote.
Also, Miki is in fact really darn talented and charistmatic. I just don't really like her personality.
The uguude abides.