A basic approach to balancing weapons.
Fact: It takes roughly around 1-4 hits to kill people with most weapons, depending on the weapon and what class you are hitting. That is a very low amount of hits. Miniscule number changes on the different weapons and their variants isn’t really going to do much in terms of variety and weapon balance.
I suggest balancing weapons in terms of how many hits it takes to kill someone and where those hits land.
To break down the norse sword:
It 2 shots: MAA, Archer, VG
It 3 shots: Knights.
I know that maces 2 shot VGs if they hit the head, so why does a norse sword kill VGs without headshots?
You can see the balance of the weapons in this manner and you can really balance them out by giving them pros and cons in this regard. One sword could have really good base stats, but it can’t kill VG in 2 shots; and another sword could kill VG in 2 shots if you get 2 head shots, but is not as reliable in stats as the first sword. So do you want a balanced sword, or one where you have to aim for the head?
I feel this is the best approach to balancing all the weapons in the game.
Martin last edited by
Well, the Norse sword is the anti-Vanguard sword, as Vanguard’s weakest damage type is the stab, and one other sword is better at overhead (Broadsword), which is what the Vanguard is most strongest against, and then there’s the Falchion which deals 50% blunt and 50% swing. So while it’s true you do balance weapons on hits, don’t forget there is a light ‘best counter’ effect going on. Blunts > Knights, Stabs > Vanguard, Slashes > MAA (read: Not true for every weapon, just a ‘guideline’). The Knight may need a bit more reduced damage from piercing weapons to make Norse 4 hits, which then makes 1h blunts more viable (disregarding the fact that MAA really needs reduced damage from blunts anyway), we will have to see over time.
I agree that damage should not be one of the core basics of balance.