Dual wielding from a different perspective

I know you’ll be thinking ‘not another -Yoink!- dual wielding post’, but this one is from an angle that I personally have not seen discussed in the forums. This isn’t another Halo 2 nostalgia trip, but just something that is silly within halo’s kind of lore. So, master chief is a spartan II, the best of the best, the strongest breed of spartan to date, best trained as well, so he can hold 2 guns with ease, cool; we get that. Go to Halo Reach, ok, so the Spartans can’t carry two smgs or plasma rifles etc; they’re weaker, cheaper, less trained, so I can accept that. But then, halo 4 comes, no dual wielding. That puzzled me, because A) in the story you are master chief so did you get weaker or something? why take it out? and B) from what i gather (correct me if i’m wrong) but the Spartan IV’s have the same cheap and quick learning curve of spartan III’s, with the strength and size (not quite but almost) of the spartan II’s, meaning surely they could dual wield. I could accept that MAYBE the infinity, your only real source of weapons, did not have them on board, but what about other dual wieldable weapons? i believe this was not implemented due to the time constraints that 343 had (due to the 2 year dev cycle rather than the usual 3). So, I can see why, however strange, that halo 4 had no dual wielding. So, my main point is this: Halo 5 SHOULD have dual wielding. You have master chief, you have (This is a guess, but im sure that more resources like smgs will be available due to people like agent locke not being trapped on requiem with no weapons like that available) a way that smgs could make a return, you have the strong spartans. If any one from 343 sees this, i hope they take this into strong consideration. On a side note, i mention smgs alot,and i know they are not the only dual wieldable weapons but they were and are quintessential to it for the human faction

Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.

Makes things soooo hard to balance.

> Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
>
> Makes things soooo hard to balance.

Yeah, but who wants balanced gameplay? Dual-wielding is way more awesome.

> > Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
> >
> > Makes things soooo hard to balance.
>
> Yeah, but who wants balanced gameplay?

Balance gameplay? = too mainstream

:stuck_out_tongue:

> Dual-wielding is way more awesome.

Personally, I find the cons of it to outweigh the pros. I’ll take a unique, useful, and diverse sandbox over being able to hold two weapons in a heartbeat.

I don’t understand how people think that the characters are not able to pick up another weapon just because dual wielding was removed from the gameplay.

> Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
>
> Makes things soooo hard to balance.

Sooooo… Are you confirming that they are removing sprint?

> Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
>
> Makes things soooo hard to balance.

How so?

Well i thought sand box meant you had a lot of fun tools to play with and a large roster of things to do, so surely removing some of those options (dual wielding and dual wieldable weapons) lessens the ‘sandboxyness’, cause it’s putting more limitations rather than freedom. And i’m sure dual wielding was damn hard to balance but great games are made by hard work, not leaving something out cause its too hard to program, i mean it’s been done before so i’m sure it could be done again

I don’t think the removal of dual wielding has anything to do with the lore, but for the sake of multiplayer balance.
Still it would’ve been cool if MC could’ve done it in the campaign, since it obtains not the same balancing rules as multiplayer.

I still don’t see why Duel Weilding can’t be in the Campaign, Spartan Ops, Firefight or as a Custom games option.

If it’s a feature that fans want in those modea, Then we should have it in those modes.

Just disable it for multiplayer.

I really don’t see the big deal about it.

Canonically, Chief is perfectly capable of holding two weapons at once. You can’t do it in-game for balance purposes. As other people have pointed out, it wrecks the sandbox, because dual-wielded weapons have to be either useless on their own or ridiculously overpowered together. Plus, at the end of the day, what does it really add that you couldn’t achieve more effectively by just including a new weapon?

> > Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
> >
> > Makes things soooo hard to balance.
>
> Sooooo… Are you confirming that they are removing sprint?

No, just informing OP.

> > Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
> >
> > Makes things soooo hard to balance.
>
> How so?

Weapons need to be balanced so they don’t kill too fast/slow when only wielding one, and so they don’t kill too fast/slow when dual wielding.

Lets say an SMG can kill in 15 shots normally and when dual wielded, you’re essentially firing that gun twice as fast. How do you balance that so the gun isn’t super powerful and only kills in seven-eight shots from each gun?

Do you nerf the original damage, do you nerf the damage both guns do together?

Dual Wielding is a pain when it comes to Halo and hasn’t been featured in many titles since because of it.

> > Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
> >
> > Makes things soooo hard to balance.
>
> How so?

Guns are either too powerful together (Halo 2 Needlers, noob combo, etc.) or too weak apart (Halo 3 in general).

Just compare the Halo 4 magnum to Halo 3’s, or CE’s plasma rifle to Halo 2’s.

> Well i thought sand box meant you had a lot of fun tools to play with and a large roster of things to do, so surely removing some of those options (dual wielding and dual wieldable weapons) lessens the ‘sandboxyness’, cause it’s putting more limitations rather than freedom. And i’m sure dual wielding was damn hard to balance but great games are made by hard work, not leaving something out cause its too hard to program, i mean it’s been done before so i’m sure it could be done again

Halo isn’t a sandbox game (yet), and it hasn’t been successfully done in Halo.

Well, you OP, things that disappear from gameplay shouldn’t be considered canon. (Now calm down Vektor, I know I played the other side of this argument on another thread against you, but that had a… larger impact, shall we say?)
Plus, Palmer could duel wield… right? Chief had cryo burn in his left arm? Budget cuts? It was a gameplay factor, not a major storyline one.

> > Dual-wielding was removed because it negatively impacts gameplay and the weapon sandbox, plain and simple.
> >
> > Makes things soooo hard to balance.
>
> Sooooo… Are you confirming that they are removing sprint?

Dude. Please. Do not bring up this discussion again on another thread. It gets nasty.

I want to see Dual Wielding in Halo 5, I believe it can be tampered with in a way that will fit the majorities desire.

> Weapons need to be balanced so they don’t kill too fast/slow when only wielding one, and so they don’t kill too fast/slow when dual wielding.
>
> Lets say an SMG can kill in 15 shots normally and when dual wielded, you’re essentially firing that gun twice as fast. How do you balance that so the gun isn’t super powerful and only kills in seven-eight shots from each gun?
>
> Do you nerf the original damage, do you nerf the damage both guns do together?
>
> Dual Wielding is a pain when it comes to Halo and hasn’t been featured in many titles since because of it.

Easy. When dual wielding you maintain the current damage output (ie. 15 shot kill) or slightly lower it (18 shot). To balance this you provide restrictions to the player (less accuracy, slower reloads, more bloom/recoil, no grenades, no melee, must drop one weapon, can’t sprint, can’t perform armor/spartan abilities, etc). This way dual wielding is treated as a semi-power weapon (like the turret) that is effective in some situations but not others and balances it’s easy attainment with restrictions to the player. This allows players to develop a playing style that is unique to dual wielding.

Dual wielding also expands the weapon sandbox and allows the player more creativity in play. Weapons from Halo 3 like the Plasma pistol, Plasma Rifle, Mauler were all effective solo do to their quick shield stripping abilities. Weapons like the Magnum and SMG could be more viable by providing scopes while solo but not when dual wield. The Spiker could alternatively have higher melee damage due to the blades. Note:Needler should NOT be dual wieldable.

Just because it may be hard to balance doesn’t mean that it should restrict players from a major gameplay element. I have played with many players that loved to be able to dual wield and were disappointed in its removal from the series. If we were to sacrifice gameplay elements for the sake of balancing, the sandbox would be nothing but frag grenades and BRs. If worst comes to worst, and 343i botches dual wielding, then the function could simply be toggled off for all game types(or alternatively remove dual wieldable weapons from map) and remain in custom games and campaign.

OP genuinely wasn’t aware that there was such a negative view of dual wielding, i thought it was a fan favourite. i just never noticed any balancing issues whilst playing, i always found dual wielding to be fairly balanced. especially as thy were kind of power weapons, you never spawned with 2 smgs. you could argue that all power weapons are op cause the whole point is they give you an advantage, like any other power weapon you find lying around. and they were never used enough to be too over powered in multiplayer (halo 3 of course, we won’t talk about the halo 2 dual needlers…)

Deleted