I think part of the reason blunt and pierce damage is so (edited from overwhelming lol) UNDERwhelming is that cut damage is just so high. It doesn't really matter that pierce damage increases the best with the speed bonus or that armor is least effective at blocking blunt damage because most weapons that deal cut damage just deal so MUCH cut damage.
Couple this with the fact that every single weapon swings in an arc of over 180 degrees, dealing max or near max damage in the vast majority of that arc, and you'll find that cut damage ruins the gameplay of certain weapons being situationally better than others. Even if pierce damage was on par with cut damage (compared to currently being very underwhelming) it is already much harder to land a hit. The two together mean I rarely thrust a sword unless a swing might hit a wall or an ally.
Imo, right now the main variable that makes some weapons better than others is simply the damage value. Especially in MP, the balance between swing speed and length is made less important by the fact a person can run away from an opponent, start swinging, spin around for an almost guaranteed hit since the swing is so wide, and keep spinning in the same direction to continue running away. If that wasn't as easy then the balance between length and swing speed (and handling) would be more important, possibly even more important than the absolute damage value.
But because cut damage tends to be at an absolute value so much higher than blunt or pierce, it is my experience that damage type is often overshadowed by the damage value alone or the bonus against shields perk that comes with axes.