Even if the axe is merely 22% better in practice, that's still pretty impressive considering it's not one of the blunt weapons designed specifically for said purpose.
It takes 9 hits with the axe, and 10 hits with splitstaff leaves about a pixel of ki left in the bar; so I would say the axe is around 12, perhaps 13% better out of the gate. To each is own of course, but for a weapon that is supposed to vastly outclass any other in raw power in order to make up for its lackluster moveset, no, I certainly would not call that impressive.
(I don't have any of Nioh 2's dlc and, as such, have never even used the splitstaff)
So Talby asks if it is normal for the splitstaff to feel a bit weak damage-wise, and despite not having the splitstaff in your game, despite not having actually played with the weapon, you answer? Come on. At least have the goodness to not follow that with "Let's no mislead people" aimed at me, for what is it to mislead if not to give advice about what we don't know?
So far as raw damage numbers go? It literally doesn't matter. In the early going, the differences between the various weapons in terms of how long it takes to kill most enemies (barring ki damage / grapples, naturally) is miniscule.
Minuscule? At this point you've devolved to spouting nonsense.
For reminder, this is the starter Axe, with
87 base attack and
120 attack:
Now here it is against the first Enki in the first mission. Being careful not to attack from the back nor when his ki bar was entirely depleted, and using exclusively the Light Attack in High Stance, it takes
17 hits to bring Enki's health to zero (apologies for the music, somehow it never occured to me that the software might capture sound from outside the game):
These are the starter tonfas, with
44 base attack (
51% of the axe) and
73 attack (
61% of the axe):
Here they are against Enki, still using only the Light Attack from High Stance; and it takes
29 hits to kill Enki:
These are the starter fists with
47 base attack (
54% of the axe) and
79 attack (
66% of the axe):
Here they are still in the exact same conditions, and it takes 32 hits to kill Enki:
In the end the axe requires
17 hits to kill Enki, the tonfas require
29 hits (
+12 hits,
+70% hits), and the fists require
32 hits (
+15 hits,
+88% hits)
.
So in what mad, mad world of numbers is the axe doing
~13% more ki damage than the splitstaff considered 'impressive' given the facts, while raw damage numbers that end up requiring
70% and
88% more hits to kill are considered 'minuscule' because they 'literaly don't matter'?
With the axe's raw damage, going all out instead of pausing as I did for the sake of this test, the time required to kill Enki would be a lot shorter than the time required with tonfas or fists.
Unfortunately, 'kill time' is harder to judge precisely compared to the exceedingly simple 'number of hits required to kill', since there is a bit of random involved with what attacks Enki decides to use.
This being said, always using the same High Stance Light Attack as before, always getting a horn break on the first hit, always playing as aggressively as I can, and accounting precisely for the time I don't spend attacking when Enki is down with his ki depleted (thus focusing solely on the physical damage), my kill times against that first Enki seem to average around
31 seconds with the axe and
41 seconds with the tonfas, meaning a
~32% difference.
This is from 30 kills with each weapon—it's painstaking to record then rewatch while taking a count of the seconds spent fighting, and it has already taken way too much out of my morning, so I'm not gonna push to average 100 fights.
There's no way around it: the raw damage of the axe really does make a big difference. It's nonsensical to claim otherwise, the numbers are there.
/e: for the anecdote, when I'm playing in the Underworld or in the Depths the only NPC aid I'm always glad to have is Yasuke, because he deals so much damage with his axe.
So the kusarigama doesn't inflict heavy ki damage, except for the part of it that does. Gotcha, you can see how I got mixed up there.
I know it's just a snippy retort because you feel like you have to, but in the unlikely case it is not... do you truly not understand the nuance?
It's like if someone came in and asked, "Hey guys, what weapon does the best ki damage?" and I answered "Probably the Dual Swords," but without mentionning that I'm thinking about God Of Wind (which inflicts ki damage far above average) and not about of the overall weapon's perfomance (which is pretty poor when it pertains to regular ki damage). It's always good to be precise; wouldn't want to mislead people, now would we?