Buff Arming Sword

[Phew]

The Arming Sword is priced comparably to the Nordic War and Italian Swords, yet its stats are clearly inferior to both. In fact, it's the most expensive 1h weapon that doesn't have a clear "niche"-i.e. something it does better than all other weapons.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Just looking at the models, the Nordic War is clearly the "slashing" weapon, and the Italian is clearly the "thrusting" weapon. The Arming Sword looks like it should be a compromise between the two, but its cut damage is worse than either. The problem is, there's only 1 cut damage difference between the Italian and Nordic War, so there's no room between them for the Arming. So here's my proposition:

                           Nordic    Arming     Italian
Cut Damage:      32            31           30       
Thrust Damage:  21           23            25     

-Nordic War Sword gains 1 cut but loses 1 pierce
-Arming gains 2 cut but loses 2 pierce
-Italian-no change (most people consider Italian to be perfectly balanced as is)

Speed remains the same for all. Weight of arming sword should probably be bumped up to 1.5 kg like the other two. Balance cost however you like, no one really cares about cost for 1h weapons anyway. Make it so all 1h swords get the same heirloom bonus (+3c/+2p), and adjust Side Sword as suggested on other threads. This cuts down on the proliferation of 1h stabbiness all over the battlefield, and increases 1h sword variety overall.

Historically, the "Arming Sword"-type weapon was one of the most commonly used types of swords, but you almost never see it in cRPG. Buff it and let's bring more variety to the battlefield!

[Working_Class]

It also makes sense because it was like the most used sword way back when

[Phew]

Or just nerf the side sword.....Arming sword still has crappy stats compared to even the nerfed side sword though.

[Jarold]

Why even use the sword though when there are so many other good ones. But I guess that is your arguments point.

[Tydeus]

Think of some changes you'd do, then scan the whole list of 1h weapons(80+) and make sure that it doesn't break balance/replicate another weapon somewhere else. It's 3K gold cheaper than the side sword, that's what you get for going with a significantly cheaper weapon.

[Phew]

Why even use the sword though when there are so many other good ones. But I guess that is your arguments point.

I think the model is sweet and would consider using one if it had decent stats. I like my +3 Arabian Guard sword, but sometimes long for something a bit shorter/faster/better stab. But I don't like the look of the Nordic War, Italian Sword, or Side Sword.

[Phew]

Think of some changes you'd do, then scan the whole list of 1h weapons(80+) and make sure that it doesn't break balance/replicate another weapon somewhere else. It's 3K gold cheaper than the side sword, that's what you get for going with a significantly cheaper weapon.

I think that there should be 3 categories of weapons within in each type, with each category balanced against other weapons in their category:
-Peasant weapons. Should be cheap, fast, low requirement, but limited damage. These could have reduced slot requirements, but not necessarily.
-Reduced-slot weapons. 0-slot 1-handers, 1-slot pole and 2h weapons. These should be just slightly worse than top-tier weapons, and generally shorter. But still "good".
-Top-tier (everything else)

Within top-tier, cost should simply buy you "features", but not necessarily efficacy. For instance, the weapons with secondary modes, knockdown, crusthrough, shield breaking, etc should have a price premium. Expensive weapons shouldn't be just flat better at everything than cheaper weapons. Otherwise, no one will use weapons like the Arming Sword.

Just food for thought Tydeus. I'm sure increased diversity is probably a goal of yours with weapon stat balance, and I think the above is the best way to get there.

[Tydeus]

Don't mean to sound like an ass hole or anything, as I'm glad you care. But this doesn't actually help at all. The problem is that unless you're breaking costs up and deciding before stats, what weapons go to what section/tier, you've only introduced one more variable to think about when balancing. In this situation it doesn't really make anything more difficult, as it's already clear where each weapon belongs (at least to me), but it certainly doesn't make things easier. There are a lot of variables to think about when balancing and comparing weapons and weapon type vs weapon type has to be included in that.

[Phew]

It seems like there is already a conscious effort to break weapons into the 3 tiers I mentioned, but you are making it harder (not easier) on yourselves by making price part of the item balance equation. I think the average player has a pretty good idea of the relative merits of 1 thrust damage vs. 1 cut dmg vs. shield breaking vs. knockdown vs 1 speed pt, etc. But anyone that has played long enough to sell a loom point doesn't really pinch pennies when it comes to item cost, especially not within cost differences of 1-2k.

Specifically, if the Arming Sword was buffed by 1 cut and 1 pierce, it would slot exactly within the relative balance of the Nordic War, Italian, and Side Sword (all very popular swords), without making it clearly more powerful than any of them. It's almost the same price as the Nordic War Sword, so why can't it be as good? In fact, it's more expensive that the Liuyedao, Iron War Axe, and Iberian Mace which are three of the most devastating 1h. And the same price of the Military Cleaver, which is the most damaging 1h sword.

[Gurnisson]

+1 pierce and +1 cut would make it too good compared to NWS. Giving it 1 cut on the swings though will make Arming Sword and NWS have the same trade-off between them as KAS and NCS. Could work.

[Phew]

+1 pierce and +1 cut would make it too good compared to NWS. Giving it 1 cut on the swings though will make Arming Sword and NWS have the same trade-off between them as KAS and NCS. Could work.

If it only got +1 cut, it would just be a shorter Italian Sword.

That's the problem with integer-only damage values; it limits the potential for differentiation between similar weapons.

[Phew]

Original post heavily modified to reflect my current thoughts on the subject. Tydeus, please consider.

[Corsair831]

tydeus, you can't really use cost as a balancing factor, at this point everyone's rolling insane amounts of gold; it doesn't really matter that the arming sword is ~~ 3k cheaper than the side sword when the side sword is clearly a direct upgrade (same speed, length, cut, but 4 more pierce damage)

[Phew]

tydeus, you can't really use cost as a balancing factor, at this point everyone's rolling insane amounts of gold; it doesn't really matter that the arming sword is ~~ 3k cheaper than the side sword when the side sword is clearly a direct upgrade (same speed, length, cut, but 4 more pierce damage)

To put it in perspective, the thrust on the Side Sword does about 25% more damage against your "average" target than the Arming Sword. For a typical loadout (~30k in gear), the "upgrade" to the Side Sword will cost about 8% more upkeep. 25% more damage on one of your main attacks for only 8% more upkeep? No player would turn that down, and they don't (which is why you don't see the Arming Sword used very often). If you are somehow gold strapped (which few people are now), you would just wear lighter boots or something so you could afford the better sword.

Everything above the peasant weapons should have some niche where that weapon is the best option. Arming Sword is the most expensive 1h weapon without a "niche".

[Falka]

I liek it!