Perhaps, but it can’t hurt to ask. Also, never mind just using two maces. I want to see what people come up with by using a sword and wand, or a mace and a scepter.
There are lots of classes that do both melee/ spells and might want to dual wield scepters or one of each weapon type to benefit both types.
I just think it opens up more playstyles. And true, I don’t know how much work it would take, but asking for it isn’t the problem.
Right, and that is already in the game right now. I use a Wand and Sword on my void-mage VK. You don’t need a mace and scepter when you can have a mace and focus, or a scepter and focus … Again, this is already in the game. There are magic offhand weapons already, so you can pair your mace with a magic weapon right now.
Except that it’s only specific items that lets you do that. Again, why are people advocating for LESS choice?
Because scepters and wands are designed to work with shields & catalysts. There is more offensive power on the main-hand affixes. That’s why DW always comes with a damage taken counter to offset the extra offensive stats.
To dual-wield wands you’ld need to nerf wand spellpower affixes, because they are designed to have all the power in the main hand. If we open it up to dual-wield wands to everyone, why have catalysts at all?
Unique Swords are specifically designed so that you can wield them in off-hand. Unique maces are not. That’s why the Vengeance one has such massive amount of stats on it, because there is no way you can double up on it.
As for additional “playstyles”: Excluding uniques, how would you actually create new styles? Outside of Acolyte, all melee/spell hybrid can already run scepters with a sword over catalyst as off-hand. The sword is just a different, stronger stat-stick.
So, you’re not actually asking for more choice, you’re just asking for more power.
Why aren’t you calling out for every skill being usable by any mastery? After all, that is more choice.
Why aren’t you calling out for every piece of gear being able to hold any affix without restriction? After all, that is more choice.
More choice isn’t always good in itself. In this case, it can remove character identity. As is the case in PoE where there isn’t much difference between a Lightning Strike Slayer/Trickster/Warden except that some numbers move around and you have more/less defense/attack/speed.
I actually already did that in a different post, but that’s another topic.
Again, more choice is better. I don’t get people defending limitations. If you don’t like more choice, you can play with whatever specific items you want/ don’t want to use.
Is it, though? You can have more choice and end up with less diversity. For example, let’s get rid of the constraints where you have to have x points in the passive tree to unlock nodes. And they’re not dependent on previous nodes either.
Now you have a lot more choice, right? You immediately can choose any node you want.
And yet, this would lead to less build diversity, not more. Because you wouldn’t have to sacrifice anything, you would simply take the stronger nodes immediately in every single build.
Likewise for skills. If you have access to every single skill with all masteries, build diversity will drop. Because there will be a clear better choice for support skills. All builds would run shift+volatile reversal, for example, with the current state of the game.
Limitations are what make a game interesting. All games are about limitations imposed on you.
Without limitations, you could simply assign infinite passives at level 1, wear infinite amounts of stacking gear, have infinite mana to cast non-stop. Would that be a fun game to you?
That is a very dishonest argument that is often used to defend whatever stance you want.
As I said, limitations are what make a game interesting. Likewise, the lack of them can also kill a game.
For example, you could create an option to turn on god mode. You would be immortal and deal a gazillion damage with your base attack. You wouldn’t have to use it if you didn’t want to. And yet, it would effectively kill the game and everyone would leave.
And yet, it’s an options and “you don’t have to use it”.
Nobody here has defended limitations Rasalom, we (I) have been telling you that you already have the feature you’re asking for, essentially. People aren’t here to limit your choices, we’re trying to be helpful to you by providing info and advice.
The choices are already open to you but you don’t like them … I get that you want a mace or wand in your off-hand but there are reasons that you can’t do it… There is a trade-off between the weapon types and dual-wielding.
As others have commented, why have any limitations at all?
The answer is trade-offs. Without trade-offs nothing has any real value, because everything is interchangeable. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest flaws of POE2. I really don’t like that the metas are often off-brand class combinations. For example, playing a witchhunter (crossbow) as a mage because of culling… I don’t mind that classes can have many roles and playstyles, but I do mind that POE2 incentivizes you to cross class lines and all the classes lose their identities because of it. To me, it doesn’t feel like the classes mean anything because they can all do all of the things. Sometimes that works in other games, but for some reason it irks me in POE2. I think it bothers me, in part, because respeccing is so punishing that it may as well be impossible… I think respeccing needs to be very easily available when there are no real distinctions between classes, like in POE2, otherwise you get stuck while trying to experiment.
Tradeoffs add value to the available options. Maces are more valuable in your main hand than your off hand, and you’re incentivized (forced) to keep them in the main hand but find a complimentary offhand. You can use a sword, or axe, or dagger, or shield, or catalyst. That’s a lot of bases covered for the offhand.
In summary, I think a lot of the folks on this forum are interested in helping the community. I wouldn’t take it negatively that folks are not so receptive to some of your ideas. Because I believe the intent of most of these people responding is to help you get more comfortable with the game, even if that means telling you something you may not want to hear, like ‘that’s already in the game right now.’
Some are/have because they understand the necessity of limitations in allowing gameplay to occur, as DJ has said.
Fair point. Rather than edit my statement away I’ll leave it up and admit I was inaccurate with it. I guess it could be argued that I’m also defending limitations, but not for the sake of shutting down ideas, for the sake of reinforcing why things were built the way they were in the first place.