Thursday, 30th June 2016, 17:25 by dowan
Scythes don't count because they're purposely terrible, but your other points stand. It's just that before this change, great swords weren't strictly worse than double swords, and now they are. I guess it sticks out more to me than the other examples because great swords are typical stopping point for training long blades, like how battleaxes are a typical stopping point for axes, and great maces are the typical stopping point for maces. If the intent was to make great swords more like halberds and dire flails, in that they're good early game 2 handers that become outclassed later, that's one thing, but I'm not sure that was the intent. And in those cases, dire flails are replaced by great maces (20 skill), and halberds are replaced by glaives (20 skill).
So what I think should happen is simply that all swords get -2 base damage, rather than just the two handers. That might also help a little with the issues duvessa is talking about, where it's absurdly good early game.
EDIT: Of course, the other option, which I doubt anyone really wants, is to add another 2 handed sword type to be the long blade equivalent to glaives.
EDIT2: The other big problem here is that now a triple sword does 17 base damage, and requires 24 skill, while a double sword does 14 base damage and requires only skill 16. They seem like a worse investment than executioners axes at this point. The problem being that it's an even worse idea than ever to train up for a triple sword, which I don't think are any rarer than double swords.
Last edited by
dowan on Thursday, 30th June 2016, 17:53, edited 1 time in total.
- For this message the author dowan has received thanks: 2
- Arrhythmia, Sar