Shattered Kingdoms

The old weapon system was a joke. And yeah I will throw the reality parameter here even if I didn't like changes like the shovel. A short sword cannot be a better weapon than a kopis. Even if you can make it faster than a khopesh in sk. Google it and read how devastating swords they were. Why a balanced weapon system is a good system? Why a throwing dagger has to be equal in total to a straight dagger and, even worse, to a sword? You just like to reminisce the old gaming habits and the golden age or you are just too bored to learn new aspects of the game from the beginning. Aspects that have improved it.

PS: Half of the so called weak weapons activate vulnerabilities. So they may seem weak but they are deadly in certain situations. I have posted enough logs with longswords, slings, javelins, wakizashis, claws and other weapons that used to be considered complete crap from almost everyone, so I won't do it again.

It's not my fault you have absolutely zero understanding of game balance, however I'll try to enlighten you using your own misapplied real world analogy.

No, in real life a short sword was not as "deadly" as a khopesh. However, shortswords were much easier to make than a khopesh. Also, if you want to get technical with real world analogies, khopeshs were much more like axes than they were swords so maybe they shouldn't be swords at all.

Either way, what did short swords have as an advantage? They were much easier to make, and much more plentiful.

Since you don't seem to understand something as simple as that, it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand any portion of my post and are struggling to come up with a legitimate counterpoint to it aside from inventing what you think my post was about.

SK's weapon system is fundamentally broken because some weapons are inferior in every way to other weapons, those weapons in turn do not get made. Since they don't get made by builders, the only advantage a short sword realistically has is removed making it an inferior weapon type from the start. Every single class of weapon is filled with weapon types like this, absolutely filled. This isn't even touching on the fact that weapon speed is based on the same scale as acc/dam which further runs a broken system off the tracks.

This is what the old weapons system had as a advantage, every single weapon was built upon its own merit. You could describe it as a short sword, a khukri, a pike, it didn't matter as long as it fit what you wanted. Then you could set the damage to a dice roll that fit both the type of weapon and the power level of the weapon you were making.

As I listed before, the weapons system only brought a few improvements to the game all of which could easily be added to the old weapons system.

1. Flags to weapons to give them reach.
2. Flags to weapons to allow them to backstab.
3. Flags to weapons to allow them to cleave.
4. Flags to weapons to allow them to charge.
5. Specialization

You can reduce all of the first four points down to weapon flags, so wonderful. Everything catagorically good about the weapons system can be brought down to two simple changes.

This isn't any kind of golden age syndrome, in fact I would rather drive a hot poker through the lead builder's eye than save him from drowning. However even with my personal distaste for one of the builders, weapon balance is much better off in the hands of the builders as a whole. They usually have a better first-hand understanding of the game, they are much more in-touch with current player needs, and they are much quicker with balance tweaks.

On each tier of weapons, they all should be balanced for what they do and types, in terms of dmg per round.

two-handers > one-handers = two-handers w/reach > one hander w/reach

For instance (merc specced):

Greataxe > Kama (Sorry, I don't know the upper tier one-handers) = Landy > battle whip.

On any given tier of weapons, two handers when given to a specced merc should do the same dmg per round. Same with one handers, and ...

[edit] Any true difference should be the scripts that are added to those weapons.

I definitely do not agree with Muktar's ideas for how weapons should be.

True, and this makes it desirable for every mercenary to carry 3-5 weapons on him so he can deal with any given situation with the appropriate weapon, and all 'excellent' weapons will be gathering up on 1-3 characters instead of spreading around.

I liked the day where having one good weapon meant you could just hold it without worrying that it wasn't the hottest [REDACTED] ever made. I liked the day where you could hold a greataxe and fight with it to be true to your RP without worrying about losing speed from it. I liked the day when mercs would generally stay away from 1h swords and swashies wouldn't have to be so picky about what swords to hold in order to be efficient.

All this complexity just doesn't add anything in terms of game entertainment for me, and its why I've left the fighter classes mostly alone ever since the first weapon changes, whereas they were my favorite classes in the game before this.

For certain though, the game has advanced since then and overall, these weapon changes have made the overall system better and more balanced.
I'm not really sure how the weapon system can be tweaked to be less of a pain and more entertaining, but all this upside/downside to weapons is making it unappealing for me to test them out and find the answer to that.

Care to elaborate?

Here is the logic behind my thought. If you are giving up a shield to use a two-hander. You better damn well be doing more dmg/rnd. If you are using a reach weapon, you shouldn't be doing as much damage as someone on the front line. Unless a huge change happened to a greataxe's speed, greataxes are worthless to a merc. Every single upper tier weapon should be a viable option to a merc. As it stands right now, only a handful, at best.

And I disagree with that logic.

A person with a greataxe is not going to be able to swing and ready for the next blow as fast as, say, a person with a katana. Sure, when a greataxe lands, it will hurt more, but the speed of the katana means that more hits are being dealt. The damage actually would even out, and the greataxe may, or may not be on top.

I disagree that a person with a reach weapon shouldn't do as much damage as a person with a non-reach weapon. Why? Reach weapons CAN be used on the front line. Your argument doesn't follow with necessity - a naginata can be more deadly than a shortsword, a battlespear more apt than a claymore. I don't have to continue to point out individual instances where weapons defy your ideas, but it is more than enough to lend credence suggesting that your idea isn't sound.

Yes, but it is about balance. Can you use a shortsword in the second row? Of course not. For the ability to have a weapon to reach across the front row, there has to be some drawback. On the greataxe example vs Katana. You get a shield along with your katana. That is a massive advantage. What is the advantage of ever using a two hander then? It is more about game balance than what is in the game right now.

Right now, there is no game balance, when it comes to weapons.

Did you know that most two-handers do more damage than one handed weapons on base damage stats alone?

The more you know.

Ardith, if you read my post though, you would of known that I said they do less damage per round on a merc that is specced in it vs a merc that is specced in katana/khopesh, for instance.