Dagger, Dirk, Short Sword, Hammer, Short Bow

[eaglgenes101]

All these weapons have lower damage than they should. Comparison example: hammer vs. vampire stilleto:

Hammer has a max damage of 4 damage for any 2 quanta, equivalent to one specific quantum. Vamp stilleto has max damage of 4 and heals you for what it damages for 1 darkness quantum.
They have the same flying HP.

My suggested buff is just 1 more damage for each. Comments?

[memimemi]

All these weapons have lower damage than they should. Comparison example: hammer vs. vampire stilleto:

Hammer has a max damage of 4 damage for any 2 quanta, equivalent to one specific quantum. Vamp stilleto has max damage of 4 and heals you for what it damages for 1 darkness quantum.
They have the same flying HP.

My suggested buff is just 1 more damage for each. Comments?

If you buffed these weapons to match Vampire Stiletto, wouldn't you also have to make them rares?  That is, after all, a part of the cost of VS: the time taken to grind out one or two can be significant.

I suggest they stay the same as they are; they seem pretty reasonable in terms of cost/effect to me.

[eaglgenes101]

All these weapons have lower damage than they should. Comparison example: hammer vs. vampire stilleto:

Hammer has a max damage of 4 damage for any 2 quanta, equivalent to one specific quantum. Vamp stilleto has max damage of 4 and heals you for what it damages for 1 darkness quantum.
They have the same flying HP.

My suggested buff is just 1 more damage for each. Comments?

If you buffed these weapons to match Vampire Stiletto, wouldn't you also have to make them rares?  That is, after all, a part of the cost of VS: the time taken to grind out one or two can be significant.

I suggest they stay the same as they are; they seem pretty reasonable in terms of cost/effect to me.

Rarity is supposed to have no effect on effectiveness.
Because of there being one weapon slot, weapons are more cost-efficient than creatures.

[OldTrees]

1) Rarity is irrelevant.

2) I estimate 2 ~= 1/3
1.5 + 1.5X = X

[eaglgenes101]

Oldtrees, can you explain why short sword, hammer, and short bow gain 3 damage on upgrade, rather than what almost everything else gains (1-2 damage equivalent)?

(If the power gain is as large as it seems, this means that either the unupped is weaker than it should, the upped is more powerful than it should, or both.)

[furballdn]

Dagger|Dirk are worse than arsenic/dagger, and only serve as crutch cards until one gets them. Besides, it's a free card, what do you expect from it?
Short sword is fine. 1 for 3 damage is not bad unupped, and 1 for 6 damage is fantastic in rushes.
Hammer is a slightly heavier version of sword, being 1 quanta more, but dealing one more damage.
Bow is like hammer, except the only bonus is to , are ranged, and have less hp.

Honestly, they're fine for other weapons that can be used by everyone.

[OldTrees]

Oldtrees, can you explain why short sword, hammer, and short bow gain 3 damage on upgrade, rather than what almost everything else gains (1-2 damage equivalent)?

(If the power gain is as large as it seems, this means that either the unupped is weaker than it should, the upped is more powerful than it should, or both.)

Some cards have been given rare +0q or +3q upgrades by Zanz. These are rare enough (and usually nymphs) that I think they are a symptom of imperfect balance and only remain because their imbalance is so slight. (I seem to be in the minority when I call something with 1quanta to expensive/cheap imbalanced.)

I am not sure if it is the unupped or the upgraded that deviates more.

[Rutarete]

I think they'd be too close to other weapon's range with increased attack, which makes for a lack of variety. Also, giving them all more attack means (in some cases) extra cost adjustment; think of long sword at 1 for 7. Not to mention Shortbow losing adrenaline synergy.

Does adding attack really solve the problem? The basis of the argument comes from some being inferior to others, right? Will that not always (in all likelihood) be?

[eaglgenes101]

I think they'd be too close to other weapon's range with increased attack, which makes for a lack of variety. Also, giving them all more attack means (in some cases) extra cost adjustment; think of long sword at 1 for 7. Not to mention Shortbow losing adrenaline synergy.

Does adding attack really solve the problem? The basis of the argument comes from some being inferior to others, right? Will that not always (in all likelihood) be?

My suggestion is change the listed weapon damages to 3, 5, 4, 4, and 4 respectively. Longsword, Gavel, and Longbow are fine.

[OldTrees]

I think they'd be too close to other weapon's range with increased attack, which makes for a lack of variety. Also, giving them all more attack means (in some cases) extra cost adjustment; think of long sword at 1 for 7. Not to mention Shortbow losing adrenaline synergy.

Does adding attack really solve the problem? The basis of the argument comes from some being inferior to others, right? Will that not always (in all likelihood) be?

My suggestion is change the listed weapon damages to 3, 5, 4, 4, and 4 respectively. Longsword, Gavel, and Longbow are fine.

I think that this would be a reasonable test.

However, I expect elemental weapons to always* be used more than other weapons.
*I expect Monos, Duos and Trios to always be more popular than Rainbows due to sheer volume of support and options.

[furballdn]

I think they'd be too close to other weapon's range with increased attack, which makes for a lack of variety. Also, giving them all more attack means (in some cases) extra cost adjustment; think of long sword at 1 for 7. Not to mention Shortbow losing adrenaline synergy.

Does adding attack really solve the problem? The basis of the argument comes from some being inferior to others, right? Will that not always (in all likelihood) be?

My suggestion is change the listed weapon damages to 3, 5, 4, 4, and 4 respectively. Longsword, Gavel, and Longbow are fine.

However, I expect elemental weapons to always* be used more than other weapons.

I think I mentioned on the wiki article for long sword. Many of these other weapons are just cheap beatsticks, only good for efficient damage/cost. Most elemental weapons have other things they're used for, such as druidic's healing or OE's control. If I am running a pure mono air rush, longbow is a better choice than EE. Likewise, you don't see druidic staff used in mono life rushes.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I only suggest to put some more +1 attack buffs due to player's mark. Shortbow, for example, could deal 1 extra dam if you have an Air or Life mark. Same goes with shortsword; a +1 buff if you have a  or  mark wouldn't hurt IMO.