Weapon 1: Pure Normal
Weapon 2: Pure Elemental
Let us assume that Weapon 1 and Weapon 2 are from the same alchemy tree.
Subject 1: Slime (not resistant, nor weak to elemental)
Subject 2: Undead (weak to elemental)
________________________________
[obviously] - Weapon 1 vs Subject 2 < Weapon 2 vs Subject 2
[but] - Weapon 1 vs Subject 1 > Weapon 2 vs Subject 1 - [should be true]
________________________________
Thank you for your time.
You're proposing that normal weapons do a little better than non-normal weapons against their neutral targets. This has been proposed already. I'll repeat my two points, rather than finding that thread.
A. Three Rings has constructed the rules of the game to encourage the crafting of lots of specialized items, because crafting requires crystal energy, which is purchased with real money, which is Three Rings' revenue. Any proposal that would strengthen normal weapons relative to non-normal weapons must address this issue.
B. Non-normal weapons already have a drawback, in that the vulnerability bonus (for example elemental damage against constructs) is nowhere near as big as the resistance penalty (elemental against gremlins). In this sense, normal weapons are already almost as good as specialized weapons.
You have to play with monster defenses, not with the weapons themselves. Make that slime slightly resistant to elemental.
Why?
-Because if you just make the normal weapon stronger against slimes to beat an elemental sword you're also making the gap between it and a shadow weapon smaller.
We don't yet know what is going to come up in the game. Imagine if, say, Maskewraith has the ability to inflict deathmarks.
If normal weapons were a bit stronger than their specialised counterparts, they'd be superiour to deathmarked targets.
That was actually done before the game went live, and the sentiment was that only Normal equipment were the most optimal equipment and it was not worth the effort specializing (Spiral Order to the end of the world whoo!). Additionally, dual-damage type weapons were especially afflicted because they would be unable to hurt anything effectively.
Normal weapons are situationally better against things that specialized weapons are the same against.
If I am fighting slimes and the undead, bringing a Divine Avenger will be the best option.
If I am fighting slimes and beasts, bringing a sudaruska will be the best option.
^ If you fight slimes and beasts, you use a Faust? Why is it any different from slimes and undeads?
@Small-Juances
If I'm using my divine avenger to kill slimes and fiends, let us say for a moment, and I am relying on that as my damage source, then I am doing no more damage than if I were to use sudaruska. But if I use sudaruska, I will be prepared for say, construct as well as beasts and gremlins that pop up. You could argue that bringing divine avenger and gran faust would be optimal, but my argument to that would be that bringing say, valiance or shivermist buster to support your sudaruska would be a far wiser decision purely due to the fact that after being able to deal an adequate amount of damage, utility far outweighs the relatively small damage boosts from type specialization.
Using specialized damage to your advantage, that is, to destroy whatever the main threat on a level happens to be, is a good tactic, but can be enhanced by bringing a normal weapon to back it up. Divine Avenger + valiance vs constructs is a solid option, but divine avenger + argent peacemaker will leave me open to trouble from the inevitable gremlin mender that will accompany said construct. Sentenza would also work to support me in this case, but only in that it is able to attack construct normally.
However, in the case of slimes and fiends, two targets that account for their weaknessess as a whole, bringing two specialized weapons leaves much to be desired.
So you're saying normal damage should deal MORE to neutral targets? That doesn't seem balanced...