Why is every weapon weaker than the starting swords that I find?

[DoyleDeth]

Why is it that a Brass B@stard sword puts my attack down by -20 when compared to the starting Brass Short sword which gives me five? The weapon upgrade system is a joke. I have yet to find myself a decent weapon upgrade because evey time I find one its way weaker. Please tell me how a short sword does way more damage than a B@stard sword? It makes ZERO sense to me.

[.//slayer]

Maybe you should take a more careful look at the weapon system before calling it a joke. Damage and Attack are different stats that consist of different components. The attack (which is the first number you see, varying from -20 to +5 etc.) influences the chance to hit (which also depends on many other factors listed in the "Attack" stat on your character sheet if you hover your mouse over it).

Damage is the next stat in the weapon window, and I'm sure the weapon with -20 will have a much higher one. Besides, stronger weapons have stronger effects including bleeding, wounding and stun, which are all listed in that same weapon stat window, you just need to look a little further than the Attack number.

[DoyleDeth]

Thanks for your reply, but you could have been a little less condescending about it. I'm fairly new to the game and you can't expect me to know the ins and outs of the game right off of the bat. It seems kind of ludicrous to lose 20 attack just to add 2 dmg when the hit percentage is bad enough as it is. Half the time I miss every attack, so losing 20 makes it sound like I'll never hit anything.

Thanks for the help anyways.

[.//slayer]

Thanks for your reply, but you could have been a little less conscending about it.

Didn't mean to offend you, it's just the sort of reaction that I got when I saw you blaming the weapon system, even though it's more or less self-explanatory with a few glances over the interface, since it didn't do the game justice.

You're right that the game could've explained itself better, though. It's something generally agreed on among most of the players. Hopefully something that'll be addressed in sequel.

Anyway, I hope the learning curve won't discourage you from playing and enjoying it. LoX is worth the time you put into it, even with the minor drawbacks like the cryptic interface. Good luck and have fun!

[h.arle]

Originally posted by Doyledeth:

Thanks for your reply, but you could have been a little less conscending about it. I'm fairly new to the game and you can't expect me to know the ins and outs of the game right off of the bat. It seems kind of ludicrous to lose 20 attack just to add 2 dmg when the hit percentage is bad enough as it is. Half the time I miss every attack, so losing 20 makes it sound like I'll never hit anything.

Thanks for the help anyways.

Compare the change in hit chance with the weapon that's -20 to attack modifier and the one that's +5 - in my experience, at least at my current (higher) level, it doesn't make much of a difference, mostly because my base attack modifier (from agility and weapon expertise) is already high. Generally, except against a few enemies, the 2H weapons with lower accuracy deal more damage, even if they miss more often.

[DoyleDeth]

I guess the thing that confused me was that the heart symbol symbolizes damage, which is pretty stupid IMO.

[h.arle]

Originally posted by Doyledeth:

I guess the thing that confused me was that the heart symbol symbolizes damage, which is pretty stupid IMO.

[Kaesar]

Realistically, in my opinion, the starting swords ARE better than the rest BECAUSE of that -20 attack rating. Damage is good and all, but if you can't hit anything, that damage is worthless.

[h.arle]

Originally posted by Kaesar:

Realistically, in my opinion, the starting swords ARE better than the rest BECAUSE of that -20 attack rating. Damage is good and all, but if you can't hit anything, that damage is worthless.

Eventually you'll get enough Attack Rating from Weapon mastery, skills and your attributes that going from a weapon that gives +5 bonus to AR to one that gives -15 will lower your hit chance by ~4%, but increase your damage per hit in 30-40%. Damage-wise there's no question that 2H is superior 1H.

[Fortuna]

Originally posted by Harlequin:

Originally posted by Kaesar:

Realistically, in my opinion, the starting swords ARE better than the rest BECAUSE of that -20 attack rating. Damage is good and all, but if you can't hit anything, that damage is worthless.

Eventually you'll get enough Attack Rating from Weapon mastery, skills and your attributes that going from a weapon that gives +5 bonus to AR to one that gives -15 will lower your hit chance by ~4%, but increase your damage per hit in 30-40%. Damage-wise there's no question that 2H is superior 1H.

Eventually. But at the beginning of the game that the OP is discussing, the -20 really does make the weapon inferior (it even lowers damage).

[h.arle]

Originally posted by Fortuna:

Originally posted by Harlequin:

Eventually you'll get enough Attack Rating from Weapon mastery, skills and your attributes that going from a weapon that gives +5 bonus to AR to one that gives -15 will lower your hit chance by ~4%, but increase your damage per hit in 30-40%. Damage-wise there's no question that 2H is superior 1H.

Eventually. But at the beginning of the game that the OP is discussing, the -20 really does make the weapon inferior (it even lowers damage).

It lowers your DPS, not your damage-per-hit... but yeah, it makes sense. Early on you have very few misc. modifiers to your accuracy, so that a net +30 (going from a -20 weapon to a +10 one) bonus could easily be tripling your accuracy. Later on, when just from weapon expertise you get over 100 in accuracy (disconsidering agility, other skills, buffs, etc.), the 30 points won't make that much a difference.

[Fortuna]

Originally posted by Harlequin:

It lowers your DPS, not your damage-per-hit...

That's the thing, though... AR even affects your damage per hit. So taking a -30 hit early on is just terrible.