Weapons Question (in General)

Why do the best weapons have to better at EVERYTHING? (No I didn't mean this to be a rhetorical question.)

Maybe not rhetorical, but certainly ambiguous.

Define "Everything"?

The ELB is pretty useless at magic, last time I checked

As in not only do they have the highest base damage, but they also have amazingly cheap upgrade costs for both damage and accuracy.

My thought would have been that weapons from big to small would work much like the difference between one-handed and two-handed weapons. Basically that you have a choice between hit a lot of a little or a little for a lot.

Could we maybe dumb down the cost of raising the + on the cheap weapons so people could stop complaining that they can't hit anything.

:) I mentioned this a while ago, while presenting things like Tulwars are being redundant.

If weapons were mage so that the lowers base had the best upgrade curve, it would give reason to use them.

Choose a lower base wepaon, but know you'll be able to upgrade it, or go for the higest base knowing you'll get more out of it before upgrading, even if that upgrade is expensive.

The reason this is so is because ofthe open-ended nature of the game. Since there is no cap on how much PR you can get, or how much NW you can invest in an item, the nice rare items would become worthless if you could upgrade a smaller one for a cheaper amount.

You can make an argument that this could be balanced with a lot of preplanning, but in reality, the only thing that can make it balanced is to keep the nice items cheaper to upgrade.

Best: The item which is most outstanding or excellent; something which tops all others.

--

That just about sums it up in my book...

Unlike GL, I think the damage upgrade curve on all the weapons is fine. I think the accuracy curve on all the best weapons is fine as well. I'm just talking about the accuracy upgrade curve on everything below the best. God forbid the Kat or the Loch somehow become the best anti-ToA weapons in the game.

Well, now that you mention it. The Short bow had the best PTH upgrades in CB1 for a long time, and it was not the most damaging ranged weapon.

Vestax, you have asked the exact question that defines my hatred of rares to a tee.

There is no "choice" when it comes to weapons. The best have it all, and anything else is an also-ran once you get to the higher levels. I have always thought it was silly, and have always been vocal about it. *smile*

Rares are almost as stupid as clans. *wink*

That is a good point, CupOfJoe, though the base damage on a short bow is so very tiny so as to not really be much of an option either. (that's just my opinion). I think Vestax's point is that, as far as serious bang for buck (especially in might of NW/PR linkage), rares are the only game in town, for virtually every reason.

Other games have offsets...exchange something heavy for something fast. Something accurate for something powerful. Rare weapons have no weaknesses, just a few differences among them to make it interesting. Rares drive camping and the economy, so that is a testament to the fact that they have no downside.

I think the rare weapons should be different though... They should represent what they are more. Take a BoNE for instance, its big, heavy and dangerous. So, the X cost curve should be low, whereas the accuracy cost should be slightly more expensive as its big and heavy. A MH should have a slightly higher X curve, where as it should have a slightly lower + curve, because its not that "huge". Stuff like that would vary the game out more. It would incorporate a bit more strategy into the game.

Exactly people. We're not saying that the dagger should become the ultimate weapon with enough NW put into it. Doesn't matter how easy we make the curve for it's accuracy it's still doing the damage of a dagger. Therefore any reasonable AC or ToE will block it completely. Damage will still be important, particularly if you use a ToA.

As for devaluing rares, isn't the Katana a so-called-rare item. Yet Katanas are useless. Now what's the point of having "useless rares". In my book, that's an oxymoron that needs to be rectified.

You tell a person who bought a BoNE that they will now have to pay Katana prices for + upgrades and see what happens.

Like I said, the + on the BoNE is currently fine. There has been no real talk of nerfing anything in the game. Just boosting the + on lower items. This means your BoNE is still worth it's weight in gold.

There is still a slight problem with this idea, Vestax, though at first it sounds reasonable. Decreasing the pth of smaller weapons is a great idea, until you realize what exactly that means. Since weapon pth values can be upgraded beyond 100%, very high NW items begin to start hitting multiple times per round even without Dexterity.

Now that seems like a great idea, but then you must realize that two hits from a less damaging weapon is almost always better than one hit from a more damaging weapon.

If that happens, the more damaging rare item is still going to be the bad choice.

Yes, but the bone, mh, els and bth have the same upgrade costs. shouldn't that be changed even for some variance between the weapons?

It is possible that they could be changed, but they already offer variety:

BoNE - Hit them hard. Best base damage.
Morg - Drain HP. Very nice indeed.
ELS - Most damaging 1H weapon.
BTh - 1H equivalent of Morg.

So depending on your strat, there is a weapon for you. Some strats work better than others with different weapons.

So, a change to the PTH/damage upgrade costs on rares like these would be okay, but not needed in my opinion.

if the "four big rares" got different upgrade curves solely for the purpose of being different, there would be less true choice than there is currently

think about it...

Im not the sharpest knife in the draw, i'll be the first to admit that one... but, I don't get it?

The ELS is currently not in heavy use, seems to be replaced by the vorpal.

If you want a cheap weapon to upgrade to hit a lot then upgrade the dagger lol.

One of the most evenly balanced and cheapest (with respect to its peers [Scythe etc.]) is the Lochaber Axe. Its pth upgrade curve is very similar to its damage. Maybe something to consider in the future...

In actual fact, it has an almost identical damage upgrade cost (to x17 at least) to the thf. And the thf has a base of x66 compared to the Loch's x48...

Vestax. Would you ever use a Tulwar?

Would you ever advise another player to use a Tulwar?

To spell out what Jon was writing about above:

If your current strategy needs a weapon that has massive PTH, you have four options to choose from. If the ELS or whatever had the best PTH upgrades, you'd only have one option.

This is just one example, but it does make sense if you think about it.