Just wanted to start a wee discussion here on weapons that are looked down upon as weak, and consider what the actual, practical differences are in these circumstances.
For example, the difference between Glacius and FoV is roughly 40 damage per swing (depending on your sword damage). This amounts to around 15% damage difference. (Also, to throw another number into the mix, fire ticks for 80~100+ damage every Does it really matter?
In a solo run, it takes roughly 4 hits for a Glacius to kill something. It also takes FoV 4 hits to kill them. Ofc, Glacius does swing that bit faster. Although, FoV is fairly likely to drop a fire, and if there's any time between attacks (let's say it got KBd or you got distracted) then those fire ticks will amount to far more than a single swings worth of damage.
FoV is world-renown for coming off as a weak weapon, but in practice it actually does very little difference. To give an example, even in a 4 man party, the difference in damage from swings amounts to about 1 free hit for the Glacius in every nine attacks. That free hit would matter if you had to attack twenty or thirty times, but since even a FoV can kill most strat6 enemies in under a dozen hits, all it's ultimately doing is saving you one swing. Which the FoV is certain to make up for in fire tick damage by that time.
Now, slower swings yes, but that matters a lot less in a practical world than it does on paper. You can rattle on M1 and count how many combos/attacks you can get in a minute, but when you're running around in the CW, you spent a lot of time not attacking, either by running, shielding, bumping, switching weapons, so that slight increase in speed only matters a portion of the time, ultimately diluting the otherwise impressive effects. Not at all to say that the faster swings aren't worth it, or aren't good, just that they're not quite so extreme in a practical environment.
Also, in LD, using a weapon with different timing can mess with peoples heads. Everyone's used to teethpicks, sealeds and brandishes and has a rhythm in their head. Introduce a FoV with a different combo speed to the equation and it screws up their timing. Even though it actually hits slower, just throwing a wrench in their works is enough to cause problems. Personally, I actually find it easier to land hits with FoV than I do with Glacius.
And then they burn...
I was using FoV and Glacius as examples here just to get the point across and hopefully stir some discussion on the matter; get some cohesive testing done or look at other weapons. I'm well aware that some weapons are more UP than others, but the nature of this thread isn't about finding out which is better/stronger/faster and which racks up the nicest tables in controlled testing, but whether or not it actually makes any real difference (and if it does, by how much).
Are there any weapons you do(n't) use because they're UP and have tested? Do you find unpopular weapons to work as effectively as widely used ones, or do you find certain weapons completely unplayable?
That calls for opinion. Here is mine, with a few facts you left behind :
- 15% damage difference is about a DMG Med (7% per low according wiki). I consider that important.
- the fire is random at best, and if you are going to swing a lot, things are going to die fast enough. Same debate than Final Flourish vs Furious Flamberge. We know that answer, almost everyone get the first. There is also the problem of not stacking and fire-resistant mobs.
- we all know that the real selling point of attack speed is NOT the increased damage but rather the ability to shield faster, or interrupt an incoming attack (if you are slower, you get hit instead of interrupting the mob). 1 free attack for 9 attack is about 10% : that's a ASI High (3,6% per low according wiki). Again, I consider that important.
- you mention running around in the CW and a bit later consider that practical environment. I would consider a practical environment to be a place which is challenging, like FSC, shadow lair or a danger mission. Otherwise a lot of things don't seem really useful. And in those places, I'm damn well not going to pass up a DMG Med and ASI High, just for a fire that could well be useless.
As for weapon I don't use because they are UP and I tested (I left out those that I didn't bothered to craft, like Iron Slug, Troika lines and Neutralizer) :
- SSS. It's just too unreliable : about half of the damage is avoided by mobs which simply walks. Compared to DBB which will hit every single damn time and also does more damage than the total theoric possible of SSS.
- Biohazard. It's just too unpractical : the bullets are too slow, and the charge is even slower and lead to massive overkill. If you have a swordie with you, most of your shots will just miss because of his knockback, and you'll never detonate a charge before he killed the target.
- Arc Razor (didn't upgrade to Winmillion, as the Winmillion is supposed to be worse due to dodging/shielding mobs issue) : the attack pattern is meh, the charge is meh, the damage is meh. 'nuff said
As for unpopular weapons I use, despite being underpowered, there is only one DVS / WHB (I have both), because first they shine against Vanaduke, then their attack pattern is very different and fun : I make a challenge of dodging incoming attacks while continuing to attack (by attacking on the side of mobs which goes straight). The damage is clearly UP compared to non-normal, but it's usable if you don't mind (that means I'm certainly not going to use it in danger missions or SL).