Golradir said:
I don't play NW, so not there, no.
I'd like to make a well thought out reply, but as you're not doing it, that would be rather unfair. Sword to make up for the learning curve, and "if you're a pro and you use a sword you should be ashamed..."
I made the original statement, you are the one who replies, that is the definition of replying. Everyone here agrees that 4 attacks are harder to block than two, therefor the sword user has an advantage because the majority have only 2 attacks. That is very obvious. Sure if you're really good, you can handle a sword attacker, but it is harder, and denying that is just lying.
Therefor if you are an "expert" at the game, yet you still pick the weapon that gives you more of an advantage over the other players, then you should be ashamed, I stand by that.
This statement doesn't apply to native players, as in native, everyone is at the same level, all with access to 4 attack weapons.
Where the sword comes at a disadvantage is when you come up against group, but in a 1 on 1 duel, sword always has the advantage, if they are good enough to block and counter feints, then there is little I can do to them, can only chamber the up attack and thrust, the upper attack being much more difficult to get the timing right due to the different swing speeds. I alwasy use a bayonet and come up against really good players with swords, the only way to beat them is wait for them to make a mistake, which is rare seeing as they only have two attacks to worry about blocking.
There we go, I hope I have explained my position, care to reply?