Subject: "Re" Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #17084
Show all folders

DwoggurdFri 16-Mar-07 05:34 AM
Member since 20th Jan 2004
668 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list
#17106, "Re"


          

>>To have both hands independant.
>>wield right sword
>>wield left sword
>>
>>or just
>>right sword
>>left sword
>
>wield sword
>dualwield sword

I don't know how it works today as I'm not playing currently.
So I rather describe what I would like to see, not the changes to the current system (it may already work as I like and that's good)

>>For urgent moments when most people can't think it is
>possible
>>to have 3rd command:
>>
>>"grasp" (or whatever) sword
>>which tries to wield it into your right hand and remove
>>offhand if necessary.
>
>Personally, I think this makes it overly complicated.

I can live without 3rd option as well, but I see (dumb) people vote for it.
If they want, give them.
I just don't want to lose first two options as I prefer the effect of the wield command to be strictly deterministic. For example, I don't want my offhand to be removed if I try to wield my primary weapon.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

HOT TopicHow do you want wield to react? [View all] , Zulghinlour, Wed 14-Mar-07 10:41 PM
Reply Dual wield helpfile looks outdated, DurNominator, 21-Mar-07 06:46 AM, #31
Reply Has this gone live?, Tac, 20-Mar-07 08:13 AM, #24
Reply No, it has not., Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 10:39 AM, #25
     Reply FNCR, Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #26
          Reply Cool thanks! nt, Tac, 20-Mar-07 09:01 PM, #27
          Reply RE: FNCR, Isildur, 20-Mar-07 11:52 PM, #29
Reply Wield command ANSI standard, Dwoggurd, 17-Mar-07 02:59 PM, #11
Reply RE: Wield command ANSI standard, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 10:13 AM, #12
Reply Heh, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 12:15 PM, #13
     Reply RE: Heh, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 12:20 PM, #14
     Reply Problem is, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:30 PM, #17
          Reply RE: Problem is, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #19
               Reply You may notice, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 03:35 AM, #22
     Reply RE: Heh, Valguarnera, 19-Mar-07 01:07 PM, #15
          Reply Actually, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:21 PM, #16
          Reply Some implementaion notes, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:39 PM, #18
Reply Nice idea, however it needs one more additional command..., DurNominator, 20-Mar-07 01:31 AM, #20
Reply Answers, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 03:33 AM, #21
Reply Clarification, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 04:26 AM, #23
     Reply RE: Clarification, Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 09:35 PM, #28
          Reply Re, Dwoggurd, 21-Mar-07 05:05 AM, #30
Reply I would prefer, Dwoggurd, 15-Mar-07 11:30 AM, #3
Reply RE: I would prefer, Zulghinlour, 15-Mar-07 05:08 PM, #4
     Reply Re, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 05:34 AM #5
          Reply While a stochastic dual wield function would be fun,, Marcus_, 16-Mar-07 07:19 AM, #6
          Reply RE: Re, Isildur, 16-Mar-07 10:34 AM, #7
               Reply Say no to AI, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 11:51 AM, #8
                    Reply RE: Say no to AI, Isildur, 16-Mar-07 01:17 PM, #9
                         Reply yes, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 01:42 PM, #10
Reply RE: How do you want wield to react?, Isildur, 14-Mar-07 11:56 PM, #1
     Reply I don't care either way, Zulghinlour, 15-Mar-07 10:27 AM, #2
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #17084 Previous topic | Next topic