Talk:Swordmaster Guide

From SpiralKnights

Revision as of 17:56, 28 January 2012 by Antistone (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

ASI Vs. Damage Boost

I'm gonna add a bit about ASI Vs. Damage boost... Hopefully It will help add variety of play... ~Tsubasa-No-Me

ASI hardly makes a difference for fast swords. They should be moved to the damage boost category.--Trying 04:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
My tests have indicated that ASI makes the same proportional difference for both fast and slow swords. I really think damage vs. speed is more of a play-style thing than something you'd choose on the basis of which sword you're using. Some people say slow swords benefit from speed because it mitigates their weakness, others say slow swords benefit from damage because it enhances their strength... --Antistone 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope ya don't mind

Gonna add my "Ask a Master Swordsman Anything" link in there. Also gonna edit a few things for the brandish line, anything else I see I'll tell you here first.



To do list

To do: -Add some sword technique videos -Add more links to other Wiki pages -Write tactics against bosses

--Prizmat 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated to include Sudaruska, Triglav and Spur. Hope you don't mind.

--OverDingle 18:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Page Title

It really should be Swordsman instead of Sword-master. Usage is not equivalent to competency.--SpiralMike 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but Swordmaster just sounds so much better xD You may rename it if it is a significant difference --Prizmat 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Revamp Start

I did a little revamping of the slow/medium sections including sections for every sword instead of the lines, and basing them off the highest * version for consistency. IMO both this and the gun guide need more revamping still, including videos/pics and such like the bomb guide has. It'll be hard to match the bomb guide in quality but it won't hurt to try. :P ~Katmint 21:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid Sets

Katmint writes: "There are very few, if any, situations where this would be preferred over a full Skolver or Vog set as the individual defenses and status resists, while better than none, are nothing compared to those of the full sets."

It's possible I'm missing something, but this sounds like shoddy reasoning; assuming that you encounter a mixture of piercing and elemental damage, why would mixed defenses be worse than full defense against only one? I would tend to think the opposite: mixed defenses will make your worst-case scenario less bad, which will usually improve your odds of survival (unless you already die in the average case).

Could this statement either be justified or edited, please? --Antistone 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's referring to if you chose *only* the hybrid set. Sure the two, but halved defenses might come in handy sometimes, but the full sets will be much more useful overall. The section is more about what armor set to choose first and offers their pros and cons like it says in the intro. ~Katmint 20:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
So you are merely trying to say that using ONLY a hybrid set is worse than having ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS and switching to whatever is best at any given moment? That's a very trivial and obvious point, and extremely confusing in a section that, as you say, is giving advice about which set to get FIRST. That paragraph should be talking about the pros and cons of having a mixed set compared to owning ONLY Skolver or owning ONLY Vog Cub. --Antistone 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
But that's what the section is talking about already. The only part that talks about having all the sets is the intro. This isn't just my opinion, I'm also taking things from advice threads and the like, which universally say that it's always better to specialize, not generalize.. ~Katmint 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not understanding you at all. You ARE saying that a mixed set is worse than a SINGLE specialized set? You have not presented any reasoning that appears to support that conclusion in any way. Popularity is not proof, and it certainly is not explanation, though if you had provided links to any of your sources I could check whether any of them present clear reasoning. --Antistone 20:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources are hard to find with forum's search feature but one of them is Honestly, I am terrible at arguing and I will never make any sense to you, I tried to write the article so where nobody would argue with it on the talk page, but that sure went over well. If you think you can write a better version of that section, nobody's stopping you. ~Katmint 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section and tried to make the best cases I could for both the pros and cons. I'm only at 3-star armor myself and it is legitimately possible there are subtleties I'm missing, but unless someone comes along that is able to articulate them, I'd argue this is the most helpful option. --Antistone 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That will work, I guess, although if you haven't been to tier 3 yet that would explain some things. Elemental defense is really important in tier 3 and piercing is made even more irrelevant since the only thing remotely threatening that does piercing, Alpha Wolvers, actually get easier in tier 3 because their warping makes them very predictable. That's why I was biased against the mixed set, as its only purpose seemed to be to add some piercing defense, which isn't really that useful. That's also my point about Skolver being a pure offensive set for those confident they can dodge well. ~Katmint 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If your concern is that elemental defense is just plain better than piercing, that should cause you to rank mixed as worse than Vog Cub but better than pure Skolver, shouldn't it? And if that's a major reason for your rankings, shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the descriptions? --Antistone 23:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It is, which is why I called Vog Cub the "more defensive" armor, while Skolver is more of an offensive armor. I don't want to state anything directly or the article might seem too biased, if I was writing it with straight opinion I would just say "Vog Cub is the best of the sets, Skolver can also be useful but if you are going to sacrifice some elemental defense you may as well get both pieces for more damage." That's pretty much my view of it. This is also all based off tier 3 unless stated otherwise, like mixed Vog + Skolver can be useful in the Jelly Palace as the lumbers and gun puppies deal elemental, but pure Skolver is still better for damaging the JK faster. In any case, like I said I'm terrible at debating, so if you still don't understand I really have no idea how to explain it any better. ~Katmint 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Saying Vog Cub is the defensive set does not convey that elemental is more important. Vog Cub would be the defensive set even if elemental and piercing were equal, because it lets you shield sooner after attacking. If elemental damage is significantly more common than piercing, you should say exactly that.
"If you are going to sacrifice some elemental defense you may as well get both pieces for more damage"...there's no obvious reason why that would be true. If there's a non-obvious reason, you should explain it. If that's just your personal gut feeling with nothing to back it up, then it probably shouldn't go in the article, or at least you should explain that it's just your personal gut.
Furthermore, if elemental defense is significantly more important than DPS--and especially if you feel an all-or-nothing approach is warranted--doesn't that argue that you shouldn't get either Skolver OR Vog Cub, and should instead go straight for Grey Feather, which seems (based on a quick scan of the armor table) to have the highest available elemental defense?
I'm not saying that I have a better understanding of the options, but it seems to me like you're assuming the reader has a great deal more background knowldge than is appropriate given the nature of the page, and furthermore that you haven't thought your recommendations through in much detail, instead simply parroting common choices. That doesn't seem very helpful to me.
I don't expect you to debate me and tell me why some theory I spin is wrong. I do expect someone writing a guide to have an internally-consistent basis for making a recommendation, and to explain that basis clearly enough that I can understand it. To write a guide, you don't need to be good at debate, but you DO need to be good at explaining things. That's kind of the point. --Antistone 00:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Funnily, I actually use the Grey Feather set myself. Although I wouldn't say it's more important than DPS, they're probably equal. I'm not really "parroting" a common choice, just mixing my own opinions and what I've gathered as the general public's. As you pointed out, I'm not very good at explaining things either, I've always had problems with people having no idea what I'm talking about. But nobody else was touching the guide, so I just gave it a shot. Also, I already explained everything that you are asking to be explained in my previous responses. Like I said, I really can't explain it any better than I did, there's nothing I can do if you still don't understand. ~Katmint 04:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've played a fair bit of tier 3 now, and I don't see this overwhelming preponderance of elemental damage you've implied. Slime and beast levels are filled with piercing damage, and fiend and undead levels are filled with shadow damage, just like you'd expect. Elemental is basically only dealt by constructs, and while they are the most common monster class, they're still only one class out of six. I'll grant that Mecha Knights get a better upgrade at tier 3 than most monster lines, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the "elemental is far more important" meme is mostly a holdover from when more monster types dealt it and we didn't have piercing/shadow turrets. --Antistone 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Control Scheme

The current Control Scheme is almost forced to be used, without showing that there are (for me, better) alternatives. Did you ever tried using 'Space' as shield and RMB as next weapon? It might be an idea to show different schemes. --TGYoshi 18:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, that section doesn't even need to be there. Everyone has their own preference for control scheme. The guide also fails to take into account those who use the mouse with their left hand or have a non-QWERTY keyboard layout. Personally I find swords much easier to use with move and face bound to the arrow keys, and using PL:" and mouse for aiming guns or kiting with sword charge attacks. That's the only control setup I'm comfortable with. :\ ~Katmint 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that that section actually pushes people to use the shown setup, and not trying to find out their own preference. And indeed, for people who are left-handed or use a non-qwerty keyboard it's worthless as well. - Short: The section is only a HEAVY opinion, too heavy. TGYoshi 18:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, however, it does say that it is an "example." Perhaps something along the lines of "However, keyboard set-ups are a matter of personal preference" could be added.--03u9 l Pueo 22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe make the whole scheme less visible. Since it has a dark lay-out it's really eye-catching for me. --TGYoshi 11:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommended Choices?

Should the Weaponry section (where it lists the speed and such of all the swords) contain a section that compares all the swords of a specific speed and recommends one based purely on pros and cons, with no bias? I feel like this could help newer players see which sword is "best" overall. --03u9 l Pueo 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with saying one thing is better/worse overall is that someone will protest it. I tried saying mixed Vog/Skolver was worse than specializing sets and it caused a huge wall of text argument. So I say no. ~Katmint 18:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I see. Thanks --03u9 l Pueo 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Damage Types

"Generally, swords have either Normal or split Normal and other damage. This prevents swordsmen from taking as much advantage of damage types as gunners can, but the bonuses are still quite significant. The only exception are the Flourishes and Thorn Blades which deal pure Piercing damage which allows them to greatly outdamage other swords while fighting enemies vulnerable to Piercing."

I've been doing some calculations recently, and my results show this to be untrue. Due to the way damage is calculated, whether pure special damage receives better bonuses than split normal/special damage appears to depend on how much base damage the attack in question has. In the damage ranges that most guns are in, pure special does in fact seem to receive higher bonuses. However, in the damage range where most swords are, split damage seems to receive equal or greater bonuses compared to pure special damage.

The forum thread where I discuss my efforts is at and some graphs I made from my data are on my user page. --Exasperation 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools