My friend has 2 months of FSC experience and a load of good UVs (Blizzbrand undead med, prisma driver undead high, CoA shadow med, etc.) and he's thinking about getting a Triglav to experiment with. However, does this sword actually have any strengths over other similar swords?
mainly looking for comparisons with sealed swords (alternative heavy swords) or leviathan (alternative normal dmg sword)
Does the 3* triglav freeze on second swing?
Apparently the status was removed from any of the normal swings.
Bopp, is the troika line really faster/harder to shield as compared to sealeds?
And it executes these swings faster
Is this confirmed anywhere, because I can't see the difference at all. Both swords are subject to a small degree of lag that makes the swings look a bit juttery/hesitant, but after repeated swings (both single and combos) I just fail to see either swinging any faster, unless Suda swings noticeably slower than Khorovod.
At ASI: Medium, DA/GF achieves about 32 combos per minute, while Sudaruska/Triglav achieves about 28 combos per minute (see here). Of course, there are other ways to measure speed that one can imagine.
I said that DA/GF has easier "shielding/dodging", simply based on the general principle that faster swords let you complete your swing and shield/dodge faster than slow swords do. I have no specific data about how one shields or dodges with Sudaruska/Triglav.
It's possible that Sudaruska/Triglav has really different behavior in the one-swing play style, than it does in the complete-combos play style.
Huh...s'ever so slightly faster then...can't say I've ever noticed looking at single swings/combos.
And aye, cannae say I ever really sshield-cancel or shield after swings at all, the recovery makes it awkward and the KB makes it redundant; although both of my chars use swiftstrike so I'm generally only in the habit of shielding to bump/cancel these days rather than actually shielding to defend.
Either way, cheers for the heads up, good to know!
I switched to my Sudaruska for one run through IMF because I was heating some other things and my usual DA/GF didn't make sense. It felt sluggish compared to the already-slow DA/GF. Also everything took 1-2 extra hits to kill, which was annoying. And the charge attack was absolutely useless.
Sigh.
In IMF there's pretty much no reason not to use the DA, since there's only like three gremlins, slimes are neutral and everythin' else is weak to DA including the bosses. That's three full floors of ele-weak mobs, hard to argue, especially since the charge of Suda is pretty unusable in IMF, what with every room bein' tiny and cramped, killing the point of enormous KB.
I assume the comparison of regular attacks between Triglav and Calibur is going to look pretty much the same as between Sealed Sword and Brandish; you basically give up speed for crowd-control.
But normal-damage weapons in general seem to be useful primarily for people who just aren't willing to craft more than one sword, or who have some highly specialized use in mind. I have yet to see any use for either the Calibur or Triglav that would persuade me to craft one.
Normal's good beyond just lack of crafting. With high damage weapons, the difference in damage doesn't amount to enough to actually matter much, and only really shows up in large parties; even then we're talking 1/2 more swings to kill on a mob that takes 4+ swings anyway. It's something, but not a lot. And it applies the same for gray damage too. Normal just works out nicely across the board and you never have to worry about any gray damages, switching weapons or such. The main reason that people don't like normal weapons isn't becasue of the normal type, but the weapons they come attached to tend to be UP, so folk just make a connection "normal = crap" when it's actually the weapon. If Triglav was pure elemental, the DA would still ultimately outdamage it on ele-weak mobs, for example.
Take the Pepperbox as an example of a solid normal type weapon that's drastically underrated due to normal type despite having high dps that can never be reduced.
Uh...no. Sorry, you're just completely wrong on this one.
Even with high damage weapons such as the Divine Avenger, having the right damage type is still generally a 30-40% boost in damage. That's almost as big as the difference between having "increased damage: maximum!" and having no damage boost at all. That will usually mean at least one less attack to kill something, even solo. And if you know for some reason that it won't on the current level, you can still use it as a substitute for other damage bonuses, freeing up slots for something else.
If you equip the right weapon for the level, you don't generally need to worry about gray damage--even if you only have room for one weapon! Can't bear the thought of your DA doing reduced damage to the gremlins in IMF? GF is neutral vs. constructs and strong against both gremlins and slimes. Fiend arena has an alarming number of constructs? Swap the BTB for a Glacius; it's still neutral against fiends. There are a couple levels where something is resistant to any damage type you could bring, but they're extraordinarily rare, and you can still deal gold damage to >50% at the cost of gray damage to like 5%.
But that's just with one weapon; knights get a second weapon slot even without upgrades! With two damage types at your disposal, you can do neutral or better to absolutely anything in the game (OK, except Vanaduke). Strictly speaking, you don't even need to change them from level to level.
Calibur does the same damage in the same attack pattern as the Brandish line, and until the recent change to Brandish charge attacks, there was pretty much universal agreement that Calibur had the better charge. Yet we still saw tons of Glaciuses and Acherons and very few Leviathan Blades. The Calibur was at least as good in all respects except damage type, and people still didn't use it. Because normal damage just doesn't hold a candle to being able to equip any special damage type you want.
Thanks, Antistone. I'm running out of energy for arguing against Darkbrady about normal weapons.
I do have one small correction: Leviathan's regular attacks are the same as a 5-star Brandish's, except that the Brandish's third hit does more damage, even against its neutral monster type (let alone its preferred monster type). Of course, this just bolsters your argument, Antistone.
having the right damage type is still generally a 30-40% boost in
If those numbers are accurate, then they'll still work out exactly what I've said. Me and Bopp have been debatin' a lot on the issue, and I have been doing a multitude of tests. In almost every solo case I've tried, the difference per-swing is nothing~basically negligible with slow swords. When it took 4/5 swings for a normal type to kill, it took 3~4 for a special to kill. When it took any less than that, there was no swing difference. In larger parties this difference still doesn't show up until there's at least 4+ swings for anything to kill.
Can argue numbers as much as you want here, I'm arguing practical application, and that speaks a lot louder than raw data. So far, I notice very little difference.
Also, note that I don't just advice normal everywhere. Post #9 I advised ditching normal and using DA in IMF becasue there's just no benefit to NOT using a special type weapon, but in levels where types vary more, normal works out nicely. (not BETTER, but not worse either).
And why?
Because every time you argue that that 30~40% matters so much, remember that it applies to the negative in gray damage, too. So if you absolutely insist that it's always a swing less on preferred enemies, then on unpreferred enemies, the damage will be reduced by as much, typically to a less more. Normal is consistent. Consistency is nice.
TL;DR:
For the umpteenth time, not BETTER. Idk how much I have to emphasise that nowhere am I saying that it's better. I'll happily agree in certain circumstances it's worse, but pretty much everywhere else it's a viable option, otherwise people wouldn't ever use Calibur.
One swing per monster is a massive difference. I have no idea how you can argue that killing monsters in 4 hits instead of 5 is not a big deal. Multiply that 1 swing by the dozens of monsters on each floor and it adds up. For many monsters, that extra damage also means killing them before they can get off another attack. You might as well argue that leaving your weapon at 4* is equally good because you'll only need one extra swing to kill the monster anyway.
Why would you use a DA on Elemental-resistant enemies? You have more than one weapon slot.
My point was that in small parties, you dono't generally need more than 2/3 swings to kill [whatever] anyway, and when you do, you'd ideally be hitting them all at once. One more swing per monster isn't such a bad thnig when you're swinging at 5 mobs at a time.
And 5* offers more than just damage, if it didn't, I really wouldn't be so concerned with 5* for the very same reasons. I'd still want the extra damage, but it would be far less important than it is now.
Also, not everyone has 4 weapon slots, and not everyone wants to just bring along a bunch of swords for every possible type of monster, some folk like having different weapons. For instance, for my swords build I use a gun and two control bombs and a sword. I don't really wanna drop either of them just for another sword so I can potentially have one swing less for the occasional mob and lose out on valuable other stuff, when I could just take a normal type and have consistent damage.
Not to say that people shouldn't carry two types of weapons, but there's no dire need to, is my point.
EDIT:
Also, wolver / feind maps. There's no slow pierce weapon and shadow is neutral but...so's normal o.o And, personally, I neither have a Faust, nor do I like the charge.
I'm not sayin' that the bonuses aren't good, I'm just sayin' that they're not as massive as people make them out to be. One more swing per kill every few monsters at worst is not a massive deal, what can I say. :/
Let's recap:
Darkbrady: Normal weapons are worth using even when crafting costs aren't an issue, because the bonus on special weapons doesn't usually matter, and normal weapons never take a damage penalty.
Me: Actually, the bonus on special weapons pretty much always matters. Furthermore, special weapons pretty much never take a penalty either, so normal weapons have no advantage at all. It's just downside with no upside.
Darkbrady: OK, so the bonus damage DOES matter, but I have decided (for unspecified reasons) that that's less important than avoiding penalties, and I choose to ignore your explanation of why special damage weapons never actually take penalties either.
Everyone on the same page? Right. I don't think there's anything more to say here.
"Is Triglav good for anything?"
Compensating.
Antistone, that is not a fair summary of the discussion here.
Nevertheless, I agree with your general argument and I disagree with Darkbrady's general argument.
Edit: Orangeo, that's funny (but probably not helpful).
*ahem* If that's really what you took from that, then you're not taking this discussion seriously to begin with, in which case I have no interest in debating with you. Try and keep an open mind and actually read what I'm saying.
No, it's either worse, or good enough. It's not "better" as I've said countless times on many different posts, but it's consistent; there is never gray damage, whereas unless you're in a map where there's only one type of enemy, spec. weapons will always result in grays somewhere, and whites somewhere. The main thing I'm pointing out is that people act like "normal = the plague" and that it's beyond useless. I'm sayin' that the only disadvantage is the occasional extra swing, which really isn't as big a deal as many people make it out to be.
Basically, I'm sayin' that tellin' people that normal is never an option is as bad advice as tellin' people that it's great. I'm tryin' to be clear in the respect that it's VIABLE, it can and will work reasonably and the disadvantage is only damage, which really isn't THAT huge a gap, whereas the advantage is consistency, which is a personal choice matter.
Dealing 'crit' damage makes the difference between interrupting or defeating the enemy, and taking an undesirable hit.
/
Interruptions come from combos, not orange damage; even with normal type weapons you can still interrupt stuff o.o
Although aye, if the enemy would die on the first hit instead of needing a second that could save you from unexpected attacks, but that only tends to happen on mobs that have enough health to survive several swings anyways, in which (I, at least) tend to be a bit more cautious around, specifically to avoid that type of issue, even with special weapons.
No one said Sudaruska/Triglav isn't viable. You can use whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, Troika lines are inferior to Sealed Sword lines in just about every respect. Still, the Sealed Sword lines are among the best weapons in the game, so being worse than them doesn't automatically make Troikas terrible weapons.
They need to change the Sealed Sword Lines' Descriptions. They say the Blades are Rare Swords used by only a Few, but a Lot of people use 'em. I Understand, that when Spiral Knights first started, they were given out in Lottos, but things Change.
@Otaia:
It's not just a comparison of heavy weapons, just normal vs. spec in general. Peoplegenerally furiously advise special only, but all I'm doin' is makin' the point that normal does stand its ground, it isnae just completely outclassed, or at least not in any substantially important way. One hit may build up over several floors, but it's not as bad as what most folk make it out to be, which encourages newer players that normal will take 2/3x longer/harder tthan special, which is completely untrue
@Iron:
Agreed :(
"Interruptions come from combos, not orange damage"
These are forms of truth, and I never said anything that excluded these or otherwise.
- Interrupts come from
1) whether the attack can/has the ability to cause an interrupt
2) dealing enough consecutive damage within a frame.
- I never specified "orange damage"; Maximum damage bonus nets a similar height of damage as super-effective hits.
Considering that, you do not need any damage bonuses to gain super-effective and interrupt potential from weapons with a special damage-type.
Unless you primarily play solo/2-player runs and your collective data + experiences are based on those, you'll have noticed that flat damage output practically cannot interrupt enemies in large parties and/or deeper depths, as well as enemies being noticeably more durable.
____
Regarding the Sealed Swords:
Before the Jelly Palace existed, the Sealed Sword and Antigua could only be obtained as blue-moon treasure box drops. There were complaints/requests for the items to be open to the general playerbase through some method, and so they were added along with the Royal Jelly Palace as Token prizes, much like they are now at Brinks.
Forgive me, I thought you meant "orange damage" by that. My bad.
Although aye, I generally do play in 2 player parties and not often in larger ones, so enemies are generally pretty easy to interrupt for me, with any basic combo, excluding my gun which can only interrupt on the charge, sadly :(
You prefer a detailed, nit-picky response? Fine.
YOU WRITE:
"If those numbers are accurate, then they'll still work out exactly what I've said. Me and Bopp have been debatin' a lot on the issue, and I have been doing a multitude of tests. In almost every solo case I've tried, the difference per-swing is nothing~basically negligible with slow swords. When it took 4/5 swings for a normal type to kill, it took 3~4 for a special to kill. When it took any less than that, there was no swing difference. In larger parties this difference still doesn't show up until there's at least 4+ swings for anything to kill."
First - I have found that different monster types have different amounts of HP, and that monsters gain more HP every floor you go down (even within the same stratum). I have also found that different weapons do different amounts of damage per hit.
Therefore, the same damage bonus that doesn't make a difference in number of swings in one case might very easily make that difference if you're attacking a different monster, or are on a different depth, or have a different number of "increased damage" ability ranks. Unless you have tested every weapon at every depth against every monster type with every possible amount of "increased damage", you cannot possibly conclude that the special type bonus will never make the difference between needing 3 swings and needing 2.
I once changed from using a Glacius with VH damage to using a Glacius with max damage, and I found that reduced the number of attacks needed to kill a gun puppy (while soloing) from 3 to 2 in depths 14 and 15, but still left it at 3 at depth 16.
Because I look at actual numbers instead of just number of swings, I can make predictions with a fair amount of confidence. The difference in damage between VH and max is a lot less than the damage between a Glacius and a Leviathan Blade when attacking a construct; therefore, I can say with confidence that a LB with damage max is still going to take 3 hits (at least) to kill those gun puppies on the levels when the Glacius took 2. Therefore, your conclusion that the special damage bonus doesn't make a difference when a monster dies in 3 or fewer swings is incorrect.
If monster HP is distributed uniformly, then if a monster used to take you 3 swings to kill and you now inflict 40% more damage, there is an 80% chance that it will now die in 2 swings. Of course, monster HP is not uniformly distributed and not all swings are equal, so things are more complicated than that, but the fact that you found one test case where it didn't make a difference doesn't change the fact that it often does.
Second - Even if you know for a fact that the special damage bonus won't reduce the number of attacks needed to kill an enemy on the particular level you're playing, it can still help you, by allowing you to de-equip other damage bonuses (such as trinkets) in favor of some other equipment without increasing the number of attacks needed to kill something. (Or, if you didn't have other damage bonuses equipped, then you can equip some, and the combination of damage abilities plus special damage will almost certainly do what neither of them did alone.)
According to the available data, the combination of special damage and a strong damage bonus ability is enough to reduce you from 3 hits to 2 hits in 100% of cases.
I made this point in an earlier post, before you wrote the above paragraph, and you seem to have chosen to ignore it.
Third - You imply that most (all?) monsters will die in 3 or less hits when you are playing solo and using a normal damage weapon. How exactly have you made this determination, and what level of damage bonus are you assuming the player is using?
I haven't specifically tested, but while it seems vaguely plausible that this would be true of most enemies when using a Troika with damage bonuses (or on a lower tier), when using a tier-appropriate fast weapon with no damage bonuses, it seems very unlikely. Certainly that's not going to be true of the Valiance in stratum 6; I highly doubt it's true of the Leviathan Blade, either.
Fourth - You imply that solo play is the norm, and large groups are a rare exception. That may be true for you, and it's not exactly easy to collect statistics on this sort of thing, but I highly doubt that's true in general. If a given player typically plays in a group of 4, and special damage makes a clear difference there, then why should they care whether it makes a difference solo?
In Summary: You seem to have admitted that it makes a clear difference in a common use-case. You claim it doesn't make a difference in some other use-case, but your data is almost certainly faulty, and your analysis from your data makes a critical flaw that I specifically pointed out in an earlier post, so I don't see how this could possibly qualify as a rebuttal.
YOU WRITE:
"Also, note that I don't just advice normal everywhere. Post #9 I advised ditching normal and using DA in IMF becasue there's just no benefit to NOT using a special type weapon, but in levels where types vary more, normal works out nicely. (not BETTER, but not worse either)."
First - I have already pointed out that "levels where types vary more" are practically non-existant. Apart from four wolvers in the entirety of FSC, the Vanaduke's mask (which is the only thing in the game that is weak to normal), and unknown passage (where you can change equipment at any time), I can't think of a single level in the entire game where you can't walk in with a single well-chosen special damage weapon and deal neutral or better to every single thing in the entire level. Can you?
Second - Even if this were true, it would only apply to knights who are unwilling to devote more than a single weapon slot to general-purpose fighting. Considering that every knight in the game has at least 2 weapon slots, and many have more, that's a pretty specific subgroup--but you're talking as if what you said applied to everyone.
In Summary: You have once again chosen to completely ignore a critical point that I articulated in a previous post. You are once again considering only a rare and specific scenario, but this time you don't even bother to point that out.
YOU WRITE:
"Because every time you argue that that 30~40% matters so much, remember that it applies to the negative in gray damage, too. So if you absolutely insist that it's always a swing less on preferred enemies, then on unpreferred enemies, the damage will be reduced by as much, typically to a less more. Normal is consistent. Consistency is nice."
First - I have no idea what "typically to a less more" means. Maybe you should read your posts.
Second - The penalty for using the wrong damage type works completely differently from the bonus for using the preferred one. If you don't know how something works, don't base your argument on it.
Third - You are implying that you will encounter enemies resistant to your damage type just as often as enemies that are weak to it. That's totally absurd; the entire point of having a choice of what damage type to equip is to that you can choose the one best-suited to the mix of enemies in the level. In most levels, you won't encounter one single resistant enemy. Ever. And even if resistant enemies are unavoidable in a particular level, you'll obviously choose your damage type to be good against common enemies and/or bad against rare ones, not the other way around.
In Summary: You aren't invoking logic, you're just reciting a mantra. And you don't know how the damage mechanics work. Even giving you the most charitable reading possible, this applies only to (1) knights already using up all-weapon-slots-but-one with utility items (2) who are playing one of, like, two levels in the entire game (3) and care more about their worst-case damage than their average-case...and you fail to specify any of that.
YOU WRITE:
"TL;DR:
For the umpteenth time, not BETTER. Idk how much I have to emphasise that nowhere am I saying that it's better. I'll happily agree in certain circumstances it's worse, but pretty much everywhere else it's a viable option, otherwise people wouldn't ever use Calibur."
First - "Viable" could mean anything and thus can't be argued, but this discussion started because you said there was a reason to use normal weapons other than crafting costs. That logically entails that it is BETTER in at least SOME situation, since otherwise there would be no reason to equip it once you had access to special damage weapons. That's the freaking thesis sentence of your argument. If you no longer intend to support that thesis, then you are agreeing with me!
Second - We have already both agreed that crafting one normal weapon costs less than crafting three special ones. That's a reason for someone to use a Calibur. There doesn't have to be a SECOND reason, even if we were assuming that every single player in the game made an informed and rational choice regarding their equipment (which would be absurd). And, as I have already pointed out, Calibur use is MUCH RARER than Brandish use, despite having no apparent downside other than damage type for most of the lifetime of the game.
In Summary: - It's really interesting to note that your "TL;DR" consists almost entirely of arguments that you didn't make anywhere else in your post. I am forced to ask: what do YOU think that "TL;DR" stands for?
I CONCLUDE THAT:
Wow that was a long argumentation, read it all, agree with everything Antistone said.
Some hard facts concerning his argumentation :
- the third point of first paragraph can easily be proven : in FSC while solo, I need at least 1 first swing and 2 second swing of DA to kill a zombie with DMG : med, or 3 first swing + 1 second swing to kill hit. There is no way a Troika do less than 4 hits against them.
- for the levels with several monsters types, there are actually more : clockworks tunnel with danger room will almost systematically be something different. But let's be honest, if you do danger rooms, you are experienced enough, so it's a bit of an edge case (and most people don't do them because it's too dangerous). There are also arenas, which are hard to predict exactly what mobs will be in (sometimes gremlins instead of constructs at the end for example). I can't say for sure you can't take one specific damage and still do neutral or critical, but it would be hard.
"does this sword [Triglav] actually have any strengths over other similar swords?"
No.
I just woke up, so forgive me if I skim that more than read it intently, but twisting words and calling it a summary, then taking offence to what I said and by the looks of it, clearly just going into over-semantics becasue you're mad...doesn't look like you've got anythin' new to say but hey, I'll read.
[TL;DR at the bottom, for those less interested in this increasingly pointless argument]
First
All you did was argue what I said; that monsters WILL die in fewer hits. My point was that people make this out to be the end of the world: "omg it takes me FIVE hits now instead of four!! /seppuku". All I'm sayin' is that this is really not a reason in itself enough to ditch a Normal type, especially when that "five" turns into "six" with a gray type. Also, considernin' Danger Rooms might be completely different, and you may very well prefer the normal sword charges over the "optimal" special type charges.
Second
Only applies in some levels if you know for a fact how many swings things will take to kill and really, really, REALLY care about the first point; that's to say, can't stand the thought of anything dying is one more hit. To whit, my original point; who really cares if it dies in one more hit. S'not that big a deal, yo.
Third
Imply...eeeh, guess I did. My point was mainly that differences won't start showing up until there's large numbers of hits involved, however with fast weapons, the difference between 6~8 swings is pretty much the difference between 4~5 swings of a slow sword, as the animations just get off faster, so ultimately the difference is extremely minor, if there's any at all, between fast and slow normal types in this comparison.
Fourth
That's a completely unfair inferrance. I never implied anywhere that it was "the norm". I stated plenty of times that normal works out at very minor to no difference than special damage IF you play solo/2 man. I specifically mentioned that larger parties are where you start noticing differences in normal/spec BECAUSE that's when you want to start really considering if you're as melodramatic as yourself and that that extra swing or two will end the world. Nowhere did I say that the group play was rarer. I was actually using that as an balancing AGAINST myself to keep the issue fair, how can you possibly be using that against me?
Summary
I've admitted countless times that there IS a difference. My whole point is that...who really cares about that difference? My suggestions are clearly not aimed at people who spend twenty-five minutes before each floor planning out the highest and most optimal build for ending the floors in record time and reducing as much damage-redundancy as possible. My suggestions are just to people who wanna have a bit of fun and play with a sword they like, I'm simply tellin' folk that all this "normal = worse than useless" they hear is utter crap, and that it really won't slow them down.
My "data" is based on experience, btw.
First
The fact that your very first chosen example was "FSC" tells me all I need to know. Some people do more floors than just boss lairs, dawg. My point this time (gettin' bored sayin' this already..) is that there's also few levels where you'll find consistent orange damage, most others you'll find a half/half balance of orange/white(+some grays), and in those levels are where normal will keep up nicely. Normal only won't keep up quite as well when there's pretty much an entire level with one spec. type. I said that already; is your plan to justs take everything I've admitted that's wrong with my advice and throw it against me, 'cuz it's a pretty bad plan.
Second
Not everyone feels like carrying around 2/3 swords/guns specifically of that type just for dealing with every single time of monster that comes by, get over that fact already. I'm not saying "omg ditch your cool combos and get normal" I'm sayin' that "normal fits in nicely with EVERY combo".
Summary
Just...completely wrong. I think a more accurate summary is that you're still taking my advice of "normal is viable; don't be afraid to use it if you like it" as offensive somehow, and feel like I'm trying to..insult you? I'm not really sure, but you need to get the hell over it already.
First
Nice. You found a single typo in everything I've said and are taking a dig at my grammatical skills? Way to really convince me that you have a reasonable argument, and are not just being whiney and overly-defensive.
"Typically to a swing more". Try and take it from context. S'not that hard.
Second
I never gave specifics, I said that damage being reduced will have a similar effect to the weak special weapon is to the normal sword, as the normal sword is to the strong special weapon. And if you've been paying attention so far, you should notice that I'm basically saying that that difference, is also pretty menial. All I'm sayin' is that those "omg 1 more swing /end of the world" people should consider gray damage too, since apparently that kind of massive damage change will blow their heads off.
Again, sayin' that it DOESN'T MATTER.
Third
ts;dr.
No, I'm not. Stop inferring wrongly.
Summary
Idc how mechanics work on a "they do exactly this much damage" level, and not once have I said I do. I'm working purely on experience. If I can do three teirs full of mobs and have to actually stop and count to notice a difference between them, that's all I need to know. The difference is that menial that to me it comes down to "Hmm...that charge is crap, I like the normal charge/look/everything more, I'll go with that". YOU are the one gettin' pendantic about all that so..again, get over it. I'm not taking a dig at your precious weapon mechanics or your hyper-accurate swing/kill formulas. I'm just saying that it really doesn't matter at all to most people who just go in and kill stuff without putting themselves on a timer.
TL;DR
Viable means that they work, and can be used. They're not useless like most people talk about them as. If you take "viable" as better, that's your problem with being wrong, not my fault. A quick dictionary search of "viable" will give you:
"practicable; workable: a viable alternative."
As in, even if crafting costs aren't an issue, you can still use Normal type weapons if you want becasue the difference really doesn't matter as much as you non-optimal-ophobes act like it does.
TL;DR Part Two
There doesn't need to be a second reason for you to use a special weapon as well. But if folk go around acting about normal the way you do, then no new player is ever gunna touch it again, assumin' it's awful, then get better, then start giving the same misguided advice, which is just bad teaching.
TL;RD Summary
Again, picking up on a comment I made...days ago, now? And about ten posts ago, idek, to try and make the point that "i'm stupid, therefore you're right" or something? The one time I used it was becasue I went on a massive explanatory rant like this one of which I'm getting seriously sick of (becasue I'm beginning to think that with your attitude you'll simply hear none of it, despite the logic) and wanted to sum up with the general tone, of which I'll do the same thing now, if you'll excuse me.
~~
TL;DR?
~~
Normal type weapons are not as bad as you folk make them out to be. They're not better, but who really gives a damn? They're pretty much the same thing in most circumstances, so feel free to use them all you want, for any reason including crafting costs, weapon slot issues, appearance, charge preferences et cetera, becasue ultimately, if you have to take one extra swing to kill something and someone in your party starts blowin' their top off goin' on about how the world is ending, that's THEIR complex to deal with, not yours. If a weapon is significantly and meaningfully worse (if you asked me for a comparison between Nitro and BAB) then I would not give such advice.
Chill out folks, enjoy the game, no need to be a hyper-optimalisationist. (Yes Anti, Ik that's not a real word) :)
(p.s., don't go trollin' me now sayin' that "i'm a minority, everyone loves the best stuff only evar" or somethin' or talk about how I'm only directing my attention to small and/or specific groups.
http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/41855
Plenty of people are truly exhausted by that 5* "everythin' must be perfect" attitude, so my advice can cater to a reasonably large group. Just FYI.)
i dont think trigalav is that good, the sud looks awesome tho :D
everything else: blahbidy blah arguing :D (didnt read the whole thing, but thats the impression i get) :)
sorry if im getting you mad with the above statement :) ^
"My "data" is based on experience, btw."
That is laughable. Go read the entire snarbolax gun thread and compare your posts to mine in our arguement.
Darkbrady is a guy that said people "do not use blitz needle outside of Vanaduke because it is piercing damage" and because "piercing damage guns are not worth it for new players" even though new players, unlike him, don't waste their time in things like pepperbox because they have a bit of thought about their future.
Laughable because he claims his data is on experience yet he always talks tier 1 and 2.
Normal damage is inferior because it yields lower damage values, plain and simple. Yes, normal weapons are capable of killing enemies well. If you like the feel of any given normal weapon, then use it. But a lot of us play this game with the goal of optimizing our gear to be as absolutely effective as possible (because what's the fun otherwise? I can beat pretty much anything in T3 without dying... does that mean my gear is good enough and I should just quit bothering to get better stuff?). And if you're coming to the forums for gear discussion, you're going to be talking optimal, and optimal does not really have a place for normal weapons.
Also, I'd estimate that about 98% of the attacks I make deal orange damage, and of the remaining 2% that don't, probably 98% of those deal standard damage. Gray damage is pretty much a nonissue, and there really isn't any good argument for using a normal weapon other than the fact that you just like the feel of it, you don't want to craft multiple weapons/buy weapon slots/just need a sidearm/other logistical issues, or you are really bad at switching between weapons. Those can be important reasons, definitely, but they are the only ones.
Normal damage for novelty weapons isn't a terrible idea. I'm personally crafting a Neutralizer before thinking about a Biohazard because, for me, it's just for fun and I'd like that fun spread over as many level types as possible (in this case, zombies in particular).
But unless you're making a Levi for your one and only sword, normal damage is probably something you should ignore for your primary weapons.
^ Neutralizer huh? Awesome gun. I wonder if anyone catalyzed an enemy in lockdown....Shivermist action, neutralizer/Biohazard, and so on. I doubt it would work, but it would be cool to try.
I've (rarely) seen people try to use catalyzers in Lockdown. I usually very slowly walk out of the way of the incredibly slow bullets.
Don't forget about Vana mask, which is pretty much the sole reason to have a normal weapon (I actually carry a DVS or Leviathan just for that in FSC ...)
Other than that ... Normal weapons are here for beginners that don't know how damage works or use only one weapon slot. And for people who prefer the look rather than optimizing. But hey, if you do a weapon for the look, you should really do WHB and not bother with the rest. Because having a wolver barking at each shot is SO awesome.
As for catalyzers in LD : I saw some in actions and .... they are worthless because of the slow bullets. There is really not work-around. Shiver is not that great because in T3, half of the population is going to be shiver-immune, and the other half is easy to kill anyway.
Troika is terrible in comparison to other weapons and really shouldn't be recommended at all. Thanks for the answers guys.
According to the descriptions above, the Troika lines are generally slower when compared to the Sealed Sword lines, while it may deal lower damage overall. These are already proven by multiple players, so to take it seriously, it may be a weaker weapon when used to damage enemies. I knew those differences long ago, but those weren't the reasons why I shall test out the sword.
Is there a such difference in knock-back?
The Divine Avenger is a sword favored by users, due to the knock-back it provides when dealing with swarming construct enemies, and the critical damage towards undead, which would obviously make players think twice before taking a Sudaruska/Triglav along. The question is, can the Sudaruska/Triglav deal more knock-back to provided enemies?
Is there a difference in AOE when you strike?
Both the Sealed Sword and the Troika are Heavy-Weapons, but would the Troika lines have a greater radius when you strike?
These couldn't be easily defined, but I would appreciate any answers.
~Arch
They have the same attack range and knockback.
I've never heard any comparison about the knock-back, so I don't have sufficient evidence to make that a serious question, but I would appreciate any evidence to support your answer, if it could be made. On the other hand, sometimes I hear that the Troikas have a slightly greater radius when used to strike, so that's why I am questioning the fact. It wouldn't be easily done to compare it against other heavy weapons, so if no one could answer this question for it to be proven, the case is closed, for now.
If you can get your hands on a Sealed Sword and a Troika, you can test it for yourself in the Advanced Training Hall. Stand near a ghost block while wielding the Sealed Sword. Attack the block. Move backwards ever so slightly, and repeat, until you can no longer hit the block. Switch to the Troika. Attack the block. You won't be able to hit it. Repeat for facing different directions. There is no difference between their swing radii.
As for knockback, suffice it to say that I have used both weapons and I do not see a difference between the two in terms of knockback at all. If there is some miniscule difference (doubtful), it is probably cancelled by the slower recovery speed of the Troika.
I don't really want to go through the trouble of making a video just to prove this. Just take my (and others') word for it, or try it out for yourself.
@Kalania:
Most people are talking about optimisation, but my entire point is that it's not the ONLY option, as is often implied by many of the more experienced players. Folk have a habit of makin' it sound as if it's either "the best or not at all" and that normal is as much an option as using a 2* pierce gun in RJP. My point is simply that normal is always, always an option.
@Most of the rest of comments on Normal:
I don't blame you all for readin' most of the mega-posts, but my basic jist was that normal is not better than spec., but still viable options and can very easily keep up your killrates, if you don't feel like carrying around several different types. It's not as bad as will be often made out to be.
@Rawr:
Darkbrady is a guy that said people...
Actually, I haven't said that anywhere. It's not my fault that you can't pay attention and just infer gibberish.
And if you wanna bring up that Snarb thread, go ahead. But you'll find that you changed topic more times than I cared to even count. I don't "always talk T1/2", but when the discussion solely involves 2* players who have no/early access to T2, then yes; T3 is entirely irrelevant. You'll notice that most of Anti/my discussion is based on T3.
piercing damage guns are not worth it for new players
As for your second lie, my point was that piercing guns are less important for T1 players since any other gun will do fine against pierce-weak enemies. It was also a response to your claim that a lack of pierce weapons is WHY gunners are underpowered, to which I said that piercing guns aren't the issue, and that a lack of armour is the reason T1 players convert to wolver.
For the fifth time, pay attention.
As for the Pepperbox, any basic experience of running all the tiers should show you that a stationary pure pierce gun is far less used, as most pierce-weak mobs dodge, making Blitz pretty hard to use even remotely as effectively as it's used against Trojans/Vana. So getting a gun soley for FSC is all good and well, but I think about my future on the assumption that I won't spend my entire SK life inside FSC. Pepperbox is basically just like Blitz...but everywhere. Ever used Blitz on JK? Pretty useless. The 4* pepperbox alone is nearly as fast as FoV, without any of that old self-inflicted fire, and no headbutt issues.
Lol.
Brilliant summary Smash xD
I'd say it's somewhere between the two, s'not highly competitive, but s'not as bad as just a whole lower class, but aye; gets the point across nicely xD
As far as I can tell, people prefer Sudaruska over Triglav, because the Triglav's freeze, when it works at all, hinders knockback, and people with these swords like their knockback. The swords do seem fun to use, in the opposite way that Cutters are fun to use.
The damage on Sudaruska/Triglav is pretty pathetic, compared to something like DA/GF used against its preferred enemies. DA/GF out-damages it by a lot on the first swing, the second swing, and the charge. And it executes these swings faster, and its width and reach are apparently just as big as Sudaruska/Triglav's. So enemies are easier to hit, damage per second is astronomically higher, shielding/dodging is easier, etc.
Against DA/GF's neutral enemies, things are not quite so lopsided. Sudaruska/Triglav's first hit does more damage, but its second does much less, so the combo does less. And the charge does much less. And the same comments about speed apply.