This game is suppose to be a battle of rock, paper, scissors in terms of weapons and armor and yet slashing weapons makes a mockery of amor.
Warhammer:
tier 0 chest - 38
tier 1 chest - 37
tier 2 chest - 36
tier 3 chest - 35
Cleaver:
tier 0 chest - 60
tier 1 chest - 55
tier 2 chest - 38
tier 3 chest - 34
It's clearly obvious which weapon is the winner here.
The cleaver is meant for less armored opponents so the damage it deals is significantly higher when people are wearing less armor.
While as the warhammer only deals 1 damage more, the less armor you are wearing so it's quite obvious the warhammer is only meant for armored opponents.
Generally when killing someone wearing no armor you want a fast and light weapon that deals high slashing damage because it cuts into flesh.The warhammer is wasted on unarmored opponents because you're just not dealing nearly as much damage as you would with the cleaver because it doesn't cut into flesh. So the warhammer is meant for armored.
however the warhammer only deals 1 more point than the cleaver for tier 3 armor making the f*cking warhammer useless in every f*cking situation. If the cleaver was nerfed to like 15 damage to tier 3 armor then the warhammer would be the better choice for tier 3.
This is just one example. Slashing weapons deal far too much damage to tier 3 armor. We have blunt, piercing, mordhau grip and half-swording for a reason. We don't need slashing against armor.
External link →