Between Acheron and GF I really don't see a need for any sort of a "general purpose" shadow-only sword; Acheron if you want speed, GF if you want power.

Rather than a copy/paste shadow flourish, it should mimic the last 2 swings, and without the forwards movement.
Thats how you should poke things. Flourish is a weird thing in that aspect.

Wouldn't mind a pure shadow winmillion.

+1

Do we really need a pure shadow sword nailing us in LD? Hammer/teethpick is cope-able because there's an abundance of widely used pierce/elemental armour, but the only shadow armour that gets used with any frequency is Snarb/Shadowsun, and their alternative lines get used just as much. GF is used heavily over DA not because of that 1/20 curse, but because nobody has shadow armour. Imagine if it was pure shadow?

Pure ele hammer came out and how many of those clones switch to ele defence?

None. All it would do is punish the players who can't cope with crazy strikers runnin' around with pure damage weapons. Such as bombers, who have zero access to relevant shadow armour.

The point of the suggestions forum is to suggest and discuss ideas. If the idea was poorly thought out, but still viable, then the others can point out flaws and improve it. If the OP is rigid in his stance about it and it gets nowhere, it'll get nowhere.

Shadow swords as I have already said are very powerful as it is. making a pure one would just...Honestly.

"First of all, the pure damage can be reasoned."

Nobody said it couldn't be reasoned. I'm saying Shadow weapons are already so powerful, having a pure would make fighting those already simple monsters even more simple.

Seerusly, with an Acheron, solo, Gremlins die in two hits, as do slimes, unless fused lichens, and the Jelly King is hardly even a challenge. And that's SPLIT damage.

Imagine how easy those monsters would be with a weapon even STRONGER than the GF with more speed than the Acheron.

Sure you could balance the numbers a bit, but then it'd be totally outclassed by the two former weapons. It's a case of 'UP or OP'.

"T2 would have less wolver clones, and more skelly for the protection or people will just get it and it will kill wolver strikers faster."

You don't get it, the reason LDers even USE armour is because the Skolver gives a sword damage buff. That's all they give a damn about, the damage buff. All they're going to do is try to dodge more hits and lay it back out.

In other words, "arguing" is me calling you a doody-head, and "debating" is me explaining why you're a doody-head.

Debate all you want, acting upon suggestions is beyond our capability. The forum is a random suggestion box, nothing more. We can suggest anything we want and we don't even need to explain why we want it, just know that someone somewhere wants it.

Anyway back to the topic at hand, I have come to suspect that the primary purpose of the pure non-normal damage sword is not to give them a damage buff against certain monsters, rather it is to give them better handling in exchange for a huge damage nerf for other monsters. The flourish is a good example of this, it is exactly as strong against undeads and gremlins as a calibur but is a lot safer to use. Splating kats with the hammer never gets old as it works so well, yet it also shares some of the same damage numbers as a Suda for fiend fighting.

I assume the purpose of a pure shadow sword is to 'feel' better than an Acheron or Faust.. I never realy got the feel of gremlin fighting with the Faust, but thats just my opinion.

Why would you want a pure shadow sword? Pure specialized weapons are completely inferior to split damage weapons in PVE. Pure specialized weapons only have an edge in PVP, and suggesting this for PVP is a terrible idea because of that edge. In short(er), Pure damage is UP in PVE, OP in PVP. Suggest a mechanic, not "pure damage," and no; "make it have 4 swings" isn't a mechanic.

@Oatmonster
"Pure specialized weapons are completely inferior to split damage weapons in PVE"

Explain why? Why does everyone use Toothpicks in fiend and beast levels? Isn't the hammer the highest DPS weapon when fighting Construct and Undead? (and if it isn't, it should be)

@Exerpa
Also, should I feel guilty about carrying guns of all 3 types?

Nope, guns use projectiles, which are supposed to be pure damage. Also, guns deal far less damage than swords, so you need to use pure damages to get some sort of "edge".

#Badpun

I'd have to agree with Oat here. Pure damage weapons have been shown to result in the same damage to neutral targets, thus making them more or less "no better" than any split damage equivalents, and implying that monsters in the CW are pure defences, and don't have a (high) normal defence behind them. WRH has huge damage simply because...it has huge damage. It's base damage is massive, it's not becasue it's pure ele that makes it hit so hard, just because the damage bar is so high to begin with.

But in PvP, the pure damage weapons aren't taking reductions from "normal" defences (that everyone invariably has) so deal a massive amount more damage than their split damage counterparts, making them pretty OP in pvp.

@Hexzyle, It doesn't make sense, but that's just the way it is. When coupled with specialized damage, normal damage seems to have a bonus against weak monster types that it lacks on its own. This was calculated by taking damage numbers from neutral and weak monsters and finding the percentage by which damage is increased. When you look at the FF for example, there is about a 33% ((258-193)/(193/100)~33) increase from neutral to weak. If half of a sword's damage were normal, you'd expect the bonus to be about halved, or at least reduced. But when you look at the Acheron, you see that the increase is actually about 36% ((270-198)/(198/100)~36).

I'm going to say it again, people use toothpicks in PVE because there are no other piercing swords and their mechanic is perfect for fiends and beasts, not because they do more damage. People use hammers in PVE because the dash and swings allow for major damage, not because of the pure damage.

@Darkbrady, That doesn't make sense either. If enemies had pure resistances, normal damage on its own should be hitting "weak" damage numbers instead of "neutral" damage numbers. Unless split damage weapons are just special, which doesn't make any sen- oh wait, all split damage weapons are swords. OOO only likes swordsman. That makes sense now.

Pure normal weapons hitting pure [spec] defence enemies would have [white] damage because there's no inherent bonus or drawback. It's normal, it's basic, it's middleground.
Split normal/spec hitting pure [strong spec] defence would have [gray] damage because the special type is being reduced, while the normal keeps it up a bit.
Split normal/spec hitting pure [weak spec] defence would have [orange] damage because the special type is taking advantage of that; the normal is just stacking on, really.
Pure spec hitting [weak spec] does the same damage because the enemies (by implication) have no normal defence to reduce normal/spec, and thusly are already hitting optimum damage.

In PvP, split normal/spec hitting [weak normal/spec] hits for less than pure spec because the normal defence reduces the normal damage as well, while the pure damage is only reduced by the defence, allowing it to hit higher damage than its split type counterparts, and thusly making it appear stronger and scarier, despite having no obvious benefits in the CW.

There's never really been any indication that enemies have split defences, as they separate neatly into 3 groups: weak, neutral, strong. Having it split beyond that would just be pointless, really. It only affects in the reverse, because enemies deal varying degrees of split damages, so they gave us split armours to deal with that concept. It only seems to have an effect in PvP which was introduced long after the inception of the original weapons, as were pure damage swords. Maybe it's something accidental they never considered? Maybe they wanted an OP sword or three floatin' around in PvP to make up for the fact that swordies aren't OP enough already, or something.