This has bugged me for awhile.
My perceived? Common knowledge states that pierce damage is the best for opening up tin cans, followed by blunt damage. My understanding was that pierce gets more damage, and blunt gets knockdown to compensate for less damage.
But is that right?
When I look at the cRPG calculator it seems like blunt consistently stays even or out-performs pierce damage, especially the higher the enemy armor goes.
Example:Average damage per strike of 6 PS 18 Strength 100 wpf against 0/30/60/80 armor
30 blunt damage: 38/ 31 /18/11.5
30 pierce damage: 38/29.5/15/9
Interestingly enough the lower the strength and PS is for the player, the more quickly blunt damage outpaces pierce as armor increases.
For example I compare the 33 pierce damage steel pick with the 31 blunt damage warhammer.
With 21 STR, 7 PS, and 100 WPF the pick will average 21.5 dmg vs 60 armor, and 13 dmg vs 80 armor.
The warhammer (w/ same stats) will instead average 20.5 dmg vs 60 armor, and 14 dmg vs 80 armor.
You see the warhammer stays close to, and even outperforms the pick as armor increases, even with 2 less base damage. But the weaker the player the earlier this occurs.
With 15 STR (min for hammer), 5 PS, and 100 WPF the pick will average 16 dmg vs 60 armor, and 9.5 vs 80 armor.
The warhammer (w/same stats) will quite clearly outperform quicker w/ 16.5 dmg vs 60 armor, 11 vs 80 armor.
Blunt weapons have the benefits of knockdown and in some cases crush-through. Blunt weapons are generally heavier and therefore have a higher chance of stunning light weapons. Assuming the calculator is about right it seems like blunt weapons are also better at damaging heavy armor. True I guess blunt weapons are also more likely to be unbalanced but... that's a minor inconvenience for some blunt weapons when compared to all these perks.
Shouldn't this be reversed: blunt has perks but pierce is tin can killing king? Am I missing something in the calculator? Is the calculator even accurate? Am I crazy? Thoughts?