If you're dual-wielding X and enter "wield X", should automatically move from the dual-wield slot to the wield slot, displacing whatever was there.

Good idea? Bad idea?

wielded: Barney's Axe of Destruction
dual wielded: Ultralight Sword of Ultimate Doom +5

Inventory:
Mace of Macing Things
Sword of Arial Slaying


I see an enemy arial coming. I want to get two swords up for flurry....so:

"Wield Sword"

Current wield code result:
wielded: Sword of Arial Slaying
dual wielded: Ultralight Sword of Ultimate Doom +5

Proposed wield code result:
wielded: Ultralight Sword of Ultimate Doom +5
dual wielded: (empty)

In other words, I'm not sure it's a good change due to item keywords confusion.

Maybe there's room for a "wield swap" command that switches main and dual wield weapons (assuming weight restrictions are met). But using existing "wield" command doesn't seem like a good plan.

My problem was like this:

Main: nightmare blade
Dual: flawless saber

i.e. I'm in "iron mode".

Now I want to switch to wrath mode, which looks like:

Main: flawless saber
Dual: gleaming silver sword

I have to "rem saber;wield saber;dualw gleaming". If I just do "wield saber" I get the "you don't have that" echo since it's not in my inventory.

I'm proposing that "wield saber" try to move the saber into the main hand, and move whatever was in the main hand to the off-hand if possible. If not possible, then the former main-hand item goes to the inventory.

That behavior would allow me to go from the first configuration to the second with the commands "wield saber;dualw gleaming". Gets rid of the "remove/wield" thing, whose only purpose is to switch the weapon from off-hand to main-hand.

(Edit: just realized I could do "dualw gleaming;wield saber". Still, that depends on the gleaming sword being dual-wieldable with the nightmare blade. In this case it is, but that may not be true in the general case.)

I don't think it's a bad idea, just tricky to get right. The reason wield was changed to wield/dualwield (I thought) was to make wielding/dualwielding less guesswork and more exact. Your proposed change pushes us back into the guesswork area, unless you are proposing a new wield command such as swapwield or something similar.

rem saber;wield saber;dualw gleaming

versus

swapwield;dualw gleaming

swapwield command would try to move dualwield to mainhand and mainhand to offhand, if possible. If not possible, mainhand goes to inventory. But again, that has to be an entirely new command or we go backwards with "wield".

All that to keep from entering one command, though?

You are just not using the right commands to accomplish what you want.

True. But it doesn't seem reasonable to expect players to "optimize" their wield commands in the middle of a fight. Would be nice if you could just say "here's what I want in my main hand, now here's what I want in my off hand" and have it "happen", as long as those two weapons are in your *possession* (though not necessarily in your inventory, for instance if you're already wielding one of them).

It doesn't seem reasonable for the code to try and guess what you are trying to accomplish either? I have you two commands to accomplish what you wanted to do in two commands anyway. Far easier for you to optimize your commands than for the code to try and guess for you as (see above) other people have different ideas on what it should and shouldn't do and what should take precedence. Not trying to be a #### (exactly) but it's two commands like you wanted, and the fact that it's a different two commands than you wanted shouldn't really be a problem for a thinking breathing human.

It's deciding "well, do I need to replace my dual wield first, or my primary?" in the middle of battle that's the problem. Far easier to say, "okay, this is what I want in my main hand and this is what I want in my off hand. Go."

So "wield foo" would be interpreted by the system as, "put foo in my main hand by whatever means necessary". "Dualw foo" would be "put foo in my off hand by whatever means necessary".

*shrug*

>So "wield foo" would be interpreted by the system as, "put foo
>in my main hand by whatever means necessary". "Dualw foo"
>would be "put foo in my off hand by whatever means
>necessary".
>

The problem is similar to what muddled the original wield code (to me, anyway). What happens if I want my inventory "foo" in my mainhand, and I already have a different "foo" in my offhand. When I "wield foo", does the dual wield have preference over inventory? It would have to, to do what you want. So then I have to "wield foo;wield foo;dualw foo" to get the inventory foo in my mainhand and get offhand foo back in my offhand. And, I'd have to have a different wield order if I don't have a foo in my inventory already (one less "wield foo"). That, as compared to the "remove foo;wield foo" suggestion that someone else had, which works all the time.

I definitely see what you're getting at, and I see instances where it would be beneficial. But I think the "unintended consequences" quotient is a little high.

Yeah. I guess this is mitigated because I always use aliases to do this, so I'm always referring to my weapons by their exact names. "dualw 'black sword'", "dualw 'gleaming silver sword'", etc.

And "iron mode" so you can switch between them using the rem foo;wield foo2 syntax without having to clutter your mind.

I generally keep the same weapon sets for long periods of time, meaning I will momorize the weight order of the weapons. Once you get used to dual wielding the lightest weapon first its never a problem. Essentially you just need to keep order of your weapons in your head, and dual or wield first depending on the weight. Also get used to the more specific item tags that a weapon has. Dont do dual sword;wield sword, do dual saber;wield flaming for example. That way you avoid confusion when you wield/dual the wrong sword.

From what I know of coding, this many checks for various things would be a pain to code.

You dont always have to swap the main hand weapon first.