New Weapon System Discussion

[Yelinak]

The benefit of flippable weapons is decidedly minimal. If the damage penalty is at all noticeable, I can't see myself using one. What little advantage there could be to having two weapon types in one is probably dwarfed by the lower damage, even if you should have the rare luxury of actually raising two weapon skills equally. And if you don't, the flippability of the weapon is worth nothing. That's the main concern, to be honest: flippable weapons weren't generally used because they were flippable, they just happened to be good weapons for whichever of the two weapon skills you preferred.

There's not much actual tangible value in turning your bludgeoning weapon into a chopping weapon or whatever. These ideas of "oh then you can use whichever side your enemies are least skilled at in order to leverage their lower defenses against it!" are kind of a pipe dream. To get anything out of that, you would need to have both weapon skills exactly equal and know what weapons your opponent is or isn't skilled in. When is that ever a thing? It's just never going to come into play, to be quite honest.

Feels like flippable weapons went from a neat but ultimately immaterial gimmick to something that I'd go out of my way to avoid. In no way is the benefit meaningful enough to warrant a blanket nerf to the entire category. Even if I did alternate between weapon types, I'd rather carry one of each than work with an underpowered one just to save myself the trouble of switching weapons. It's a fluff feature, not a real asset that'll ever realistically help you. This nerf just makes flippable weapons unappealing altogether.

[Narf]

Feels like flippable weapons went from a neat but ultimately immaterial gimmick to something that I'd go out of my way to avoid. In no way is the benefit meaningful enough to warrant a blanket nerf to the entire category. Even if I did alternate between weapon types, I'd rather carry one of each than work with an underpowered one just to save myself the trouble of switching weapons. It's a fluff feature, not a real asset that'll ever realistically help you. This nerf just makes flippable weapons unappealing altogether.

I'd carry an underpowered weapon to avoid the hassle of switching weapons.

To each their own I suppose.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

I like the roleplay aspect. Many of my hunters will choose bludgeoning weapons to 'preserve the hide', even if it's a lower, weaker skill. Some just like flashy things.

[Kaathe]

to everyone sweating that they can't find an amazing weapon very easily, or are getting a bunch of "bounces off armor", please make sure you're noticing the material of your weapon and its suitability to the damage type. See the bottom of this post. https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58815.msg1085495.html#msg1085495

And the idea low strength characters need an amazing weapon (one step down from legendary named weapons of lore) to function in combat is hopefully, surely, untrue... right?

To people saying that Salarr will be overwhelmed by people clamoring for the best weapons - were they not already? should they not be?

[BadSkeelz]

I'd like to see less below average dogshit weapons. Raise the floor a bit so there's more viability of choice rather than a a still relatively narrow band of effective weapons. Looking at some of my old standbys, above average seems to be just fine with good strength and skills. But I dunno why anyone would want to purposefully use a Below Average weapon if any other options are available.

[Wday]

The weapons are great and this system fits with world.  Now you fit weapons to the social class in game and we thrive to get our hands on a upper class type.  For the fighters of the game adds a hunt for better in their role play with weapons.  No longer would someone carry around their chicken bone knife that they have used for twenty years.  Now a upgrade will always be sought after to you find your dog bone dagger.

[roughneck]

I'm not active right now so I don't really get an opinion, and I haven't tried anything.

But, honestly, a sharpened piece of bone is a sharpened piece of bone IMO. One of the things I've always loved about Armageddon, is that I could choose weapons that contributed to the concept of the character without sacrificing survivability.

I also know Armageddon staff are pretty smart. I hope that the system is focused on things like material quality rather than things like "diamond-encrusted" and "demon-emblazoned".

[LindseyBalboa]

Considering that no one has any idea what the difference between average or below average is, has no way to accurately compare current damage to previous damage, and that the things we have been told (flippable weapons almost all had a malus already; it's not a big change and you still get two damage types for one weight, etc) seem reasonable...

I think there's a lot more focus on the ratings than there should be instead of just using the weapons you have access to or like. The only time that comparison comes into play is when you're looking at two weapons of the same type and material (and weight? Is that confirmed it has no bearing on anything with damage, speed, accuracy, etc, as staff mentioned in this thread?). If you're looking at an average bone sword and an average obsidian sword you're looking at two completely unrelated qualities.

As an example, I have at this point used weapons of every quality level posted as known. I still feel like a below average weapon I have is one of the better ones I have access to. It reels a lot and does the most damage, from what I can tell, despite not being great quality. However the material and weapon type match up very well.

tl;dr it's the same game just go get a cool weapon and kill people til you find a cooler looking weapon

[Dresan]

First of all the weapon change was much needed. All in all a good change.



My overall problem with weapon types is mainly that heavier larger is better in every way in terms of killing.

Ideally though, wielding heavier weapons should increase the chances of you beating or winning a fight, but decrease your chances of killing your opponent(because you oppenent would have plenty of time to get up, tap their ass and walk away).  A person would have a harder time winning a fight with ligher weapons, but they should potentially be able to dish out more damage in a much shorter period of time against a defenseless or less skilled opponent.

That is not currently the case, there seems to be no real disadvantage other then just encumberance to going the absolutely largest and heaviest weapon you can wield in two or one hand.

In short, heavier weapons should be a lot slower and inwieldy than they current are, there should be a lot less attacks per round and overall attack speed than they do especially for the amount of damage they can do but at the same time they should continue being more likely to hit and when they hit, they should continue hitting hard. If this were the case, the bonus in combat attack speed agile character get would truely be an important bonus that could not be match by combat skill alone.

Right now though, heavier weapons are just so quick at killing already, even more so with a little bit of skill under your charcter belt that  there is no point in doing anything but high strength character that just find the heaviest weapons they can. This has been further compounded by the fact that poison (another good change) has been made more challenging to use. If this would change, we would probably see much more variety and options where one size would not just fit all.

[LidlessEye]

First of all the weapon change was much needed. All in all a good change.



My overall problem with weapon types is mainly that heavier larger is better in every way in terms of killing.

Ideally though, wielding heavier weapons should increase the chances of you beating or winning a fight, but decrease your chances of killing your opponent(because you oppenent would have plenty of time to get up, tap their ass and walk away).  A person would have a harder time winning a fight with ligher weapons, but they should potentially be able to dish out more damage in a much shorter period of time against a defenseless or less skilled opponent.

That is not currently the case, there seems to be no real disadvantage other then just encumberance to going the absolutely largest and heaviest weapon you can wield in two or one hand.

In short, heavier weapons should be a lot slower and inwieldy than they current are, there should be a lot less attacks per round and overall attack speed than they do especially for the amount of damage they can do but at the same time they should continue being more likely to hit and when they hit, they should continue hitting hard. If this were the case, the bonus in combat attack speed agile character get would truely be an important bonus that could not be match by combat skill alone.

Right now though, heavier weapons are just so quick at killing already, even more so with a little bit of skill under your charcter belt that  there is no point in doing anything but high strength character that just find the heaviest weapons they can. This has been further compounded by the fact that poison (another good change) has been made more challenging to use. If this would change, we would probably see much more variety and options where one size would not just fit all.

I agree. Perhaps two handed weapons could reduce attacking speed? On a separate but related note, I think certain non two handed weapons should have a huge makus if weilded in both hands. For example, a light spear is still effective if two handed, but two handing a small dagger or even a short sword, hatchet etc is ridiculous.

[Nao]

There seem to be factors besides quality and material type that play into the damage rolls of a weapon that are still invisible to players. I'm not sure if it's size or "category" (longshort/shortsword/whatever else there is, dagger/longknife/spear, two-handed vs. one-handed).
This leads to completely unexpected results. I've seen avg/above avg wooden bludgeoning weapons that work well, and 'good' ones from other materials that don't do as well.

> But Nao, just read the description and it should give you a rough idea!

I have no idea what weapon types exist, I cannot see the coded type, and I have no way to tell if the weapon is correctly categorized, or if the automatic conversion assigned the damage dice of a pocket knife for some reason. Then there are these really exotic weapons like ('gythka' and such) where I couldn't tell you how they should be categorized at all.

The result is that there is very little transparency and it's about as hard to tell which weapons are good as it was before the change - you don't know until you try using them. I think the weapon category should be listed when assessing a weapon, the same way that quality is in there, if the goal is transparency.