Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Which lightsaber style do you prefer?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > STAR WARS Discussion
Which lightsaber style do you prefer?

smartalectwo's Avatar


smartalectwo
12.18.2011 , 05:51 AM | #11
Soresu gets my vote; it's not just a practical style, it's a close fit to the Jedi philosophy as a whole. Knowledge and Defence, yo.
There is no try.

GigglesXRevenge's Avatar


GigglesXRevenge
12.18.2011 , 10:09 AM | #12
blaster style
Pinkie Pie
Flannery
Winnar

Kodokai's Avatar


Kodokai
12.18.2011 , 10:33 AM | #13
One without server queues

Scarecrow
Basilisk Droid

ToEasy's Avatar


ToEasy
12.18.2011 , 10:34 AM | #14
I am a fan of juyo. or Vaapad
"Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. We fight for justice because justice is the fundamental bedrock of civilization: an unjust civilization is built upon sand. It does not long survive a storm." - Mace Windu

BrandonSM's Avatar


BrandonSM
12.18.2011 , 12:21 PM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by JackEpical View Post
Vaapad. Although it was created far after the time of TOR, I like how Windu fights.
Would be useless in real life, since it relies on the opponents inner dark side of the force.
Hapan: "This creature has information that could lead us to a woman who has been kidnapped. We will get that information."
Luke: "This woman is a citizen of the New Republic, and if you do not take your hands off her, I will take your hands off you."

Bele's Avatar


Bele
12.18.2011 , 12:28 PM | #16
i choose...

DEATHSTAR!
In the dawn a jedi was teaching, surrounded by an aura of light. But in the shadow something was watching- and with patience awaiting the night

HexCaliber's Avatar


HexCaliber
12.18.2011 , 12:51 PM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by Disastersaurus View Post
Well, here's the thing.

In real life, dual-wielding is an impractical method of combat because of three factors: weight, defensive weakness, and inflexibility. Against someone with a shield, you had pretty much a huge disadvantage, and you couldn't put enough weight behind your swings to break their guard because you'd need to two-hand swing for that.

For this reason, in real life and in most medieval-based games, I don't like the dual-wielding aesthetic.

Lightsabers, however, very much circumvent these flaws. Due to their weight being in the hilt and the gyroscopic effect, it's easy to maintain their momentum. Their ability to deflect blaster fire and how easily they can be whirled gives them great defense. The applications of the forms and Trakata [turning the blade on/off mid-combat] offers flexibility.

As a result, I love the idea of a defensive-oriented dual wielding style, Soresu/Makashi blend, alternating between forward and reverse grips to strengthen the one-handed defense.
Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.
*** are you smoking that makes you that stupid.
HexCaliber.

CallMeNigel's Avatar


CallMeNigel
12.18.2011 , 01:04 PM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by HexCaliber View Post
Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.
No, unless you learnt fencing from "Gladiators - Gods of the arena".

Dual wield can be faster of both 1h&shield and 2h, but lacks the defensive options of the first and the offensive option of the latter (reach and momentum).
In fight without armors i will put my chances on dual wield, in almost any other situations the other two options complements themselves (and surclass any dw user).
It sorrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together.

Disastersaurus's Avatar


Disastersaurus
12.18.2011 , 07:48 PM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by HexCaliber View Post
Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.

The problem is everything you just said only applies to one-on-one combat, such as duels. Which I never contested dual-wielding's effectiveness of.

Dual-wielding is perfectly good for a one on one fight, such as between gladiators.

But that's not what real combat is.

The problem is that it's no good on a battlefield, where you have well-armed enemies with shields everywhere. It lacks defense and will get you killed in warfare.

Also, 'effective against heavily armored opponents'. This is not true at all, and you have no idea how armor works. You can't put enough power behind a one-handed blow to pierce plate armor unless you use a mace, and maces are horribly balanced for dual-wielding.

Furthermore, you ever faced someone with a shield? Those ain't just for blocking, bro. If you go in with two short-swords [because you can't dual wield longblades, try it] he will smash the hell out of you with that bad boy and then gut you.

But hey, you wanna disagree? Good luck with that.

Disastersaurus's Avatar


Disastersaurus
12.18.2011 , 08:10 PM | #20
Oh, also, because I'm sick of weeaboo jerks bringing him up:


Miyamoto Musashi only ever used dual-wielding in one recorded duel, after he killed the leader of the Yoshioka school and a dozen supporters, mostly armed with sticks or NOT AT ALL, attacked him. He was forced to use two blades just to keep himself from getting surrounded.

After that, he felt inspired to create his niten'ichi style, which there is NO RECORD of him ever using in a duel afterwards. He used freaking bokken [wooden swords] more than anything from then on. If someone's good enough to kill you with bokken, it doesn't matter what he uses. Musashi was an incredible swordsman, but that says nothing about dual-wielding.

There's no practicality to dual-wielding, and the only reason it saw use at -all- in Japan is because THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROPER METAL AND WOOD TO MAKE SHIELDS WITH. And even then it was only used in close quarters.