I understand your complaint, I like the idea of using swords for looks even though you like the mace skills - I was very happy when WoW abandoned the idea of specific weapon skills/set ups in favor of more basic DW or 2H or 1H etc.
But I suppose it is more "realistic" that a mace would be used differently in combat than a sword, etc.
Though it always makes me chuckle to cite "realism" in a game in a fantasy setting lol
If you are going down the realism route, it makes even less sense to carry so many weapons around. People just did not, and would not carry a pair of swords, a great sword, a mace, and a bow with a quiver. You would look like a guy who needed to shout "lightning bolt" five times to cast a spell.
Also, people tout this as one of the highlights of the combat system, saying it brings fluidity and skill to the game, when in fact to me, it is just as rigid as saying you can or should only use one, ideal kind of weapon. A better system, would be to make different skills work out as capable methods of fighting, each on their own, in a different way. Then people who wanted to use two weapons could do so, while the great sword fighter did his or her thing.
I like a good many things about GW2's combat, but weapon switching is not something I enjoy.
Your looks go against basic core systems of GW2. Don't expect it to ever change it the way you want, because it doesn't make sense from a design perspective (which has been highlighted by others already).
I don't think you people understand what op means, atleast I don't think he is talking about cosmetics and changing different weapons into others weapons. I think he is talking about the fact that you can only use two weapons at the same time, If so I really agree with you, imo you should be able to remove few skills from e.g dual wield swords and equip a bow at the same time which also adds a few bow skills.
i disagree with you. OP is Not talking about the fact that you can only use 2 weapons. He is clearly talking about that you have to use 2 weapons, and thats its a shame that he can't keep hs prefered visual choice (longbow and two swords) because he will have to go for the weapons with the skills he wants.
Its very important that you can see what weapon opponent and friends use. With a game based on looking at game and not the U,I an abillity to "decive" others about what effects your skills has would be a mistake. Thats also the case in PvE
The only way to give OP what he wants is if its was only on his own screen that he could appear with weapons that actual had skin belonging to other weapon types (hammerskin on a longbow).
But that is a route i really don't see a need for ArenaNet to take. It would still properly create more confusion than good is.
What people seem to be missing is that weapon skills in GW2 are more than "I plunge my dagger straight into your heart", "I bash your head in with my hammer", "I try to slice you with my sword".
In itself one could already analyze each single generic weapon class and probably find dozens of different fighting styles for each weapon.
Yet one could argue the ANet has determined which style of attack (or defense) they consider most suitable for a particular weapon (for a character class).
The problem is with the skills that are less (or none at all) tied to the actual way you are wielding the weapon but rather to an effect activated for that weapon.
a Guardian can use his (two-handed) hammer to create a ring around him that foes cannot cross. Trapped enemies cannot exit the ring while it is active.
He can not do so with his (two-handed) greatsword or (two-handed) staff or any of his single hand weapons, no matter if main or off-hand.
So, what makes the hammer so uniquely suited for creating this effect? Is it that the hilt (and thereby the reach) is longer than single handed weapons?
Which would still leave the greatsword and the staff. (Not to mention the spear which oddly seems to be an exclusively aquatic weapon in GW2 for some strange reason?)
No can do... oh, and by the way: isn't it rather odd that there are no small hammers (Thor-like) while at the same time axes obviously can't be big? Whatever happened to the classic waraxe you chopped your enemy in half with?
Okay, let's forget about class specific skills with weapons and go for e.g. the rifle in general.
An Engineer can shoot his rifle from the hip while a Warrior can't? And - given that all rifles are basically the same - an Engineer can "trigger" a shotgun effect via Blunderbuss while the Warrior can't?
Just as an Engineer can't take an aimed shot? And obviously not beat somebody on the head with the rifle's stock?
And to bring a bit of extra confusion into the whole thing: Is the Ranger that proud of his bow and arrow that he refuses to take a step into modern times and equip a rifle?
Wouldn't you think that a Ranger - who is essentially a hunter - should not just have the rifle but also the Aimed Shot ability? And potentially the Net Shot ability?
Step by step things get ever weirder in ANet's weapon skill system.
Which reminds me of the first time I played D&D. Due to the group composition I was forced to play a cleric. When I asked my DM why I can't give my cleric a sword but rather have to go with weapons like the hammer, the club, the sling or the mace, his feedback was "errr... well, it's against their faith to spill blood." Right, ever seen how many sharpe edges a mace has?
ANet is doing very much the same, asigning random weapons to classes and random "effects" to weapons.
Which makes it perfectly understandable if the OP says, he'd love to see his hero use to swords in a dual-fighting style, but at the same time as ANet has determined that only - say - the off-hand axe allows the Warrior to do a spinning attack on multiple foes (Whirling Axe), he would rather have to equip an axe than a sword in his off hand.
Now, of course, if you were to tell me ANet has made a perfectly wise choice and such a spinning attack is only possible if you have an axe in your off hand, not if you had, say, a mace, a knife or dagger, or another sword in it, well, I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy who doesn't want to see the flaws in GW2's design.
Oh and here I thought the op meant he couldn't make his character look how he wanted him to look and not be effective. So it's just he wants a certaint style skill tied to all weapons, making them not unique? Let me know if I'm wrong guys this is a interesting thread.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Now, of course, if you were to tell me ANet has made a perfectly wise choice and such a spinning attack is only possible if you have an axe in your off hand, not if you had, say, a mace, a knife or dagger, or another sword in it, well, I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy who doesn't want to see the flaws in GW2's design.
"If you agree with me, you're an intelligent person, but if you don't, you're an idiot".
Too bad you couldn't resist ending your post with that, because it definitely wasn't needed to make your point, which is interesting, quite detailed and well written.
Maybe later, in a patch after release, ANet can make it so that some skill which are not weapon specific can be swapped around, like e.g. assign that whirling move from the axe to a sword. It's not a bad idea per se. I still think that skills that are very weapon specific (e.g. a hammer making the ground shake or stunning you) should remain weapon specific though.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Now, of course, if you were to tell me ANet has made a perfectly wise choice and such a spinning attack is only possible if you have an axe in your off hand, not if you had, say, a mace, a knife or dagger, or another sword in it, well, I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy who doesn't want to see the flaws in GW2's design.
"If you agree with me, you're an intelligent person, but if you don't, you're an idiot".
Too bad you couldn't resist ending your post with that, because it definitely wasn't needed to make your point, which is interesting, quite detailed and well written.
Maybe later, in a patch after release, ANet can make it so that some skill which are not weapon specific can be swapped around, like e.g. assign that whirling move from the axe to a sword. It's not a bad idea per se. I still think that skills that are very weapon specific (e.g. a hammer making the ground shake or stunning you) should remain weapon specific though.
Korrigan,
i agree that if the effect is obviously very weapon specific - your hammer groundshaker being one possible, though I would argue that a staff or the butt of a spear could potentially have the same effect, but for example a pulling attack as part of a spear attack - should be locked to a weapon, but obviously many skills are actually not that unique in GW2.
Whether it is lunging at your foe or crippling him with a slash/blow, this would be perfectly fine as general skills for most weapons.
And yes, maybe ANet will be changing this in a later patch.
The question is just why not do it in the first place?
(And please, if you read my post Ididn't say that if you don't agree with me you are an idiot. Rather I said if you defend ANet's way of doing it as the best of all possible ways then I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy ;-) )
I could for example be simply done via changing stances: an offensive stance will give you a range of similar/identical weapon skills across the board for (almost) all weapons, all of these attacks aimed at getting close with the enemy, hurting him as much as possible, crippling him if possible.
A defensive stand may on the other hand focus on blocking and or using a successful defense to your advantage (riposte).
A third stance maybe be completely utilitarian: your groundshaker, a spearjab that pulls the enemy closer (only to then kick him off the spear again for a bit of extra ripping effect), etc.
It always seems a bit of a shame if a potentially good game sort of "corrals" people into picking something that they don't really want but have to take because it offers the biggest advantage for their playing style: "I don't really like Dwarves but considering the huge XP bonus they get, yeah, I guess I'll go with them." or "I'd love to have my guy whirl around with his swords like a dervish, but sadly I'll have to use an axe instead..."
Originally posted by RizelStar Oh and here I thought the op meant he couldn't make his character look how he wanted him to look and not be effective. So it's just he wants a certaint style skill tied to all weapons, making them not unique? Let me know if I'm wrong guys this is a interesting thread.
As I understand, he was wanting to skin certain weapons as other weapons (i.e. a mace as a sword) for the sake of appearance, while still being able to have the non-sword skills to use.
As far as I know, transmutation is currently limited to weapons and armor of the same class, so a mace can only be skinned as a mace, medium armor only as medium armor, et cetera.
Personally I would be all for it as far as PvE goes, but for PvP it would cause a lot of problems - imagine going after a Guardian only to find out it was actually a Thief!
Actually the current weapon based system is very much fun....
Except for my looks, i want to play a dualwielding character, with two swords, a longbow with arrows on his back.
But with all the options from the other weapons, that you can not forfeit on the other weapons, i will make my choices based on weaponskills and not on looks, which is kind of sad.
There are other games that allow people to have different weapons equiped for stats/skills and other weapons equiped for looks. It would be cool if GW2 would also have such an option.
Every other game has done this, why when one game chooses to do something different would you want to change it? How are you going to pull off Shield animations or Mace Animations with an off-hand sword? What would that do for your opponent in PvP who needs to see what you are running to read you? I think the fact that the weapons you use actually determine a set skillset is more in the right direction for how it would be when you use a real weapon. It changes the identity of your attack.
What people seem to be missing is that weapon skills in GW2 are more than "I plunge my dagger straight into your heart", "I bash your head in with my hammer", "I try to slice you with my sword".
In itself one could already analyze each single generic weapon class and probably find dozens of different fighting styles for each weapon.
Yet one could argue the ANet has determined which style of attack (or defense) they consider most suitable for a particular weapon (for a character class).
The problem is with the skills that are less (or none at all) tied to the actual way you are wielding the weapon but rather to an effect activated for that weapon.
a Guardian can use his (two-handed) hammer to create a ring around him that foes cannot cross. Trapped enemies cannot exit the ring while it is active.
He can not do so with his (two-handed) greatsword or (two-handed) staff or any of his single hand weapons, no matter if main or off-hand.
So, what makes the hammer so uniquely suited for creating this effect? Is it that the hilt (and thereby the reach) is longer than single handed weapons?
Which would still leave the greatsword and the staff. (Not to mention the spear which oddly seems to be an exclusively aquatic weapon in GW2 for some strange reason?)
No can do... oh, and by the way: isn't it rather odd that there are no small hammers (Thor-like) while at the same time axes obviously can't be big? Whatever happened to the classic waraxe you chopped your enemy in half with?
Okay, let's forget about class specific skills with weapons and go for e.g. the rifle in general.
An Engineer can shoot his rifle from the hip while a Warrior can't? And - given that all rifles are basically the same - an Engineer can "trigger" a shotgun effect via Blunderbuss while the Warrior can't?
Just as an Engineer can't take an aimed shot? And obviously not beat somebody on the head with the rifle's stock?
And to bring a bit of extra confusion into the whole thing: Is the Ranger that proud of his bow and arrow that he refuses to take a step into modern times and equip a rifle?
Wouldn't you think that a Ranger - who is essentially a hunter - should not just have the rifle but also the Aimed Shot ability? And potentially the Net Shot ability?
Step by step things get ever weirder in ANet's weapon skill system.
Which reminds me of the first time I played D&D. Due to the group composition I was forced to play a cleric. When I asked my DM why I can't give my cleric a sword but rather have to go with weapons like the hammer, the club, the sling or the mace, his feedback was "errr... well, it's against their faith to spill blood." Right, ever seen how many sharpe edges a mace has?
ANet is doing very much the same, asigning random weapons to classes and random "effects" to weapons.
Which makes it perfectly understandable if the OP says, he'd love to see his hero use to swords in a dual-fighting style, but at the same time as ANet has determined that only - say - the off-hand axe allows the Warrior to do a spinning attack on multiple foes (Whirling Axe), he would rather have to equip an axe than a sword in his off hand.
Now, of course, if you were to tell me ANet has made a perfectly wise choice and such a spinning attack is only possible if you have an axe in your off hand, not if you had, say, a mace, a knife or dagger, or another sword in it, well, I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy who doesn't want to see the flaws in GW2's design.
Basically, no. The reason ANet went with this design philosophy, is because of "balance", and to establish unique roles tied to each weapon.
- First of all the Ring example on the Guardian is just them coming up with skills that go along with the identity of the template they are trying to create. Of course there will be some Hammer type attacks, but then they mix in some magical attacks because it's the Guardian, and when coming up with magical attacks they try to keep a theme based around the skills they are putting on the weapon.
- If you want to get into the lore, then the Engineer could have modified his Rifle to activate a blunderbuss sort of attack, why are we arguing this? You obviously don't want the Engineer and the Warrior functioning exactly the same when they opperate a Rifle. They are two different Professions.
- Balance is one of the biggest reasonings here, both in PvE and PvP. Of course, PvP is a bigger issue anytime balance is concerned, but allowing people to take different skillsets from different weapon templates and using them on those weapons creates issues in both departments. The way the templates for each weapon is made, allows ANet to really fine tune their balance and keep things more viable. When you have no variables as far as the weapon set goes, this just makes things so much easier to tweak, because you have less combination of skills to worry about when you try to balance a skill. In other games, balancing one skill can throw tons of things off, in a game where you could switch skills from different weapon sets to others, this would really be difficult. They already had something much more flexible in GW1, but it was painful to balance.
- Viability and Identity, whenever you make things easier to tweak and balance, you then open up the door to many different possibilities. In a game where you choose and switch everything, it is harder to balance, and the identity often gets widdled down to a couple viable options at a give time in the state of balance. However, when you have a templated system, you have more control over things, and are able to bring the different sets in line with each other. This then offers many many choices to the player, because to a degree it isn't always about what is the best, it's about what do I want to achieve and how do I want to do it? Obviously in the beta state of the game, not everything is completely balanced, but for the most part across the Professions, a lot of things are actually in a great state. This is already probably the most balanced MMO I've ever played.
And I thought *I* was vain when it comes to character appearance.
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out how to express my sentiments on this idea and not be insulting to anyone, and I just can't. I just find the idea fundamentally loathesome. And I can't even adequately describe why.
And I thought *I* was vain when it comes to character appearance.
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out how to express my sentiments on this idea and not be insulting to anyone, and I just can't. I just find the idea fundamentally loathesome. And I can't even adequately describe why.
Not in favour.
but you must admit that see a staff using arrows to hit people must ve very fun . xD
i totally agree with you, dont make any sense, most of weapons have skills that dont if use on other weapon just look stupid and remove all imersion of the game. see a staff knockdown people or 2 mace hit like a dagger will ruin the game for me.
i bet someone will make a post where he is a scholar class but want use heavy armour as cosmetic...
And I thought *I* was vain when it comes to character appearance.
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out how to express my sentiments on this idea and not be insulting to anyone, and I just can't. I just find the idea fundamentally loathesome. And I can't even adequately describe why.
Not in favour.
but you must admit that see a staff using arrows to hit people must ve very fun . xD
i totally agree with you, dont make any sense, most of weapons have skills that dont if use on other weapon just look stupid and remove all imersion of the game. see a staff knockdown people or 2 mace hit like a dagger will ruin the game for me.
i bet someone will make a post where he is a scholar class but want use heavy armour as cosmetic...
It would be funny, but it would *break my immerson* (I lol IRL).
Seriously, every game has done exacatly what the OP has wanted. if you want to play a game that values looks over balance and funtionality there are tons of games out there for you. I would love to be able to wear chain as a mesmer but since I cant do that due to balance issues, oh well.
This is a case of you can't have your cake and eat it (in terms of balance and what you are suggesting).
I remember in DaoC I use to go into the battlegrounds with my 'Zerker. I made here a blond little human girl. I would run around with a staff equited. I always loved when someone would jump me, thinking I was easy caster pray, and then I would switch weapons to duel axe and BADGER OUT on them.
What I am saying is the look of your weapon is a big part of PvP. No way would they let you pick any weapon you want for looks. That and I would REALLY rather them code in the stuff needed to launch instead of that.
Actually the current weapon based system is very much fun....
Except for my looks, i want to play a dualwielding character, with two swords, a longbow with arrows on his back.
But with all the options from the other weapons, that you can not forfeit on the other weapons, i will make my choices based on weaponskills and not on looks, which is kind of sad.
There are other games that allow people to have different weapons equiped for stats/skills and other weapons equiped for looks. It would be cool if GW2 would also have such an option.
Put it out there on the BWE forums. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support (and pointless flames). I do agree with you, btw, it'd be nice when all games to also use weapons in the appearence tag... But I also kind of get why so many of them don't...
I should be a little clearer. I mean 'same kind' weapons. If I have a long-sword, than I should be able to equip some kind of fancy-looking one-handed sword in appearence and not a mace or two-handed sword. Same with a bow...
Perhaps they'll do something with transmutating weapons. You turn your focus into a dagger but it still gives you 'focus' skills or some such...
Originally posted by RizelStar Oh and here I thought the op meant he couldn't make his character look how he wanted him to look and not be effective. So it's just he wants a certaint style skill tied to all weapons, making them not unique? Let me know if I'm wrong guys this is a interesting thread.
As I understand, he was wanting to skin certain weapons as other weapons (i.e. a mace as a sword) for the sake of appearance, while still being able to have the non-sword skills to use.
As far as I know, transmutation is currently limited to weapons and armor of the same class, so a mace can only be skinned as a mace, medium armor only as medium armor, et cetera.
Personally I would be all for it as far as PvE goes, but for PvP it would cause a lot of problems - imagine going after a Guardian only to find out it was actually a Thief!
Oh ok, thanks for the info/clarification.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
As I stated earlier in the thread, not only is this system an intergral and welcome element of GW2 and thus not subject to change, but we actually have a lot more freedom than one would have playing SWTOR or TERA, where your class decides your weapon choice for you.
Comments
If you are going down the realism route, it makes even less sense to carry so many weapons around. People just did not, and would not carry a pair of swords, a great sword, a mace, and a bow with a quiver. You would look like a guy who needed to shout "lightning bolt" five times to cast a spell.
Also, people tout this as one of the highlights of the combat system, saying it brings fluidity and skill to the game, when in fact to me, it is just as rigid as saying you can or should only use one, ideal kind of weapon. A better system, would be to make different skills work out as capable methods of fighting, each on their own, in a different way. Then people who wanted to use two weapons could do so, while the great sword fighter did his or her thing.
I like a good many things about GW2's combat, but weapon switching is not something I enjoy.
Well, weapon swapping is the core of GW2 combat... if you don't like that, I wonder how you can like the game overall...
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Your looks go against basic core systems of GW2. Don't expect it to ever change it the way you want, because it doesn't make sense from a design perspective (which has been highlighted by others already).
What people seem to be missing is that weapon skills in GW2 are more than "I plunge my dagger straight into your heart", "I bash your head in with my hammer", "I try to slice you with my sword".
In itself one could already analyze each single generic weapon class and probably find dozens of different fighting styles for each weapon.
Yet one could argue the ANet has determined which style of attack (or defense) they consider most suitable for a particular weapon (for a character class).
The problem is with the skills that are less (or none at all) tied to the actual way you are wielding the weapon but rather to an effect activated for that weapon.
Going by this list of skills for the Guardian http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_guardian_skills
a Guardian can use his (two-handed) hammer to create a ring around him that foes cannot cross. Trapped enemies cannot exit the ring while it is active.
He can not do so with his (two-handed) greatsword or (two-handed) staff or any of his single hand weapons, no matter if main or off-hand.
So, what makes the hammer so uniquely suited for creating this effect? Is it that the hilt (and thereby the reach) is longer than single handed weapons?
Which would still leave the greatsword and the staff. (Not to mention the spear which oddly seems to be an exclusively aquatic weapon in GW2 for some strange reason?)
No can do... oh, and by the way: isn't it rather odd that there are no small hammers (Thor-like) while at the same time axes obviously can't be big? Whatever happened to the classic waraxe you chopped your enemy in half with?
Okay, let's forget about class specific skills with weapons and go for e.g. the rifle in general.
An Engineer can shoot his rifle from the hip while a Warrior can't? And - given that all rifles are basically the same - an Engineer can "trigger" a shotgun effect via Blunderbuss while the Warrior can't?
Just as an Engineer can't take an aimed shot? And obviously not beat somebody on the head with the rifle's stock?
And to bring a bit of extra confusion into the whole thing: Is the Ranger that proud of his bow and arrow that he refuses to take a step into modern times and equip a rifle?
Wouldn't you think that a Ranger - who is essentially a hunter - should not just have the rifle but also the Aimed Shot ability? And potentially the Net Shot ability?
Step by step things get ever weirder in ANet's weapon skill system.
Which reminds me of the first time I played D&D. Due to the group composition I was forced to play a cleric. When I asked my DM why I can't give my cleric a sword but rather have to go with weapons like the hammer, the club, the sling or the mace, his feedback was "errr... well, it's against their faith to spill blood." Right, ever seen how many sharpe edges a mace has?
ANet is doing very much the same, asigning random weapons to classes and random "effects" to weapons.
Which makes it perfectly understandable if the OP says, he'd love to see his hero use to swords in a dual-fighting style, but at the same time as ANet has determined that only - say - the off-hand axe allows the Warrior to do a spinning attack on multiple foes (Whirling Axe), he would rather have to equip an axe than a sword in his off hand.
Now, of course, if you were to tell me ANet has made a perfectly wise choice and such a spinning attack is only possible if you have an axe in your off hand, not if you had, say, a mace, a knife or dagger, or another sword in it, well, I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy who doesn't want to see the flaws in GW2's design.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
"If you agree with me, you're an intelligent person, but if you don't, you're an idiot".
Too bad you couldn't resist ending your post with that, because it definitely wasn't needed to make your point, which is interesting, quite detailed and well written.
Maybe later, in a patch after release, ANet can make it so that some skill which are not weapon specific can be swapped around, like e.g. assign that whirling move from the axe to a sword. It's not a bad idea per se. I still think that skills that are very weapon specific (e.g. a hammer making the ground shake or stunning you) should remain weapon specific though.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Korrigan,
i agree that if the effect is obviously very weapon specific - your hammer groundshaker being one possible, though I would argue that a staff or the butt of a spear could potentially have the same effect, but for example a pulling attack as part of a spear attack - should be locked to a weapon, but obviously many skills are actually not that unique in GW2.
Whether it is lunging at your foe or crippling him with a slash/blow, this would be perfectly fine as general skills for most weapons.
And yes, maybe ANet will be changing this in a later patch.
The question is just why not do it in the first place?
(And please, if you read my post Ididn't say that if you don't agree with me you are an idiot. Rather I said if you defend ANet's way of doing it as the best of all possible ways then I will consider you a blinded GW2 fanboy ;-) )
I could for example be simply done via changing stances: an offensive stance will give you a range of similar/identical weapon skills across the board for (almost) all weapons, all of these attacks aimed at getting close with the enemy, hurting him as much as possible, crippling him if possible.
A defensive stand may on the other hand focus on blocking and or using a successful defense to your advantage (riposte).
A third stance maybe be completely utilitarian: your groundshaker, a spearjab that pulls the enemy closer (only to then kick him off the spear again for a bit of extra ripping effect), etc.
It always seems a bit of a shame if a potentially good game sort of "corrals" people into picking something that they don't really want but have to take because it offers the biggest advantage for their playing style: "I don't really like Dwarves but considering the huge XP bonus they get, yeah, I guess I'll go with them." or "I'd love to have my guy whirl around with his swords like a dervish, but sadly I'll have to use an axe instead..."
dont forget that the weapon system has pvp implications. You see a guy coming at you with a hammer you have a decent idea on what to expect.
This makes pvp better imo.
As I understand, he was wanting to skin certain weapons as other weapons (i.e. a mace as a sword) for the sake of appearance, while still being able to have the non-sword skills to use.
As far as I know, transmutation is currently limited to weapons and armor of the same class, so a mace can only be skinned as a mace, medium armor only as medium armor, et cetera.
Personally I would be all for it as far as PvE goes, but for PvP it would cause a lot of problems - imagine going after a Guardian only to find out it was actually a Thief!
Every other game has done this, why when one game chooses to do something different would you want to change it? How are you going to pull off Shield animations or Mace Animations with an off-hand sword? What would that do for your opponent in PvP who needs to see what you are running to read you? I think the fact that the weapons you use actually determine a set skillset is more in the right direction for how it would be when you use a real weapon. It changes the identity of your attack.
Basically, no. The reason ANet went with this design philosophy, is because of "balance", and to establish unique roles tied to each weapon.
- First of all the Ring example on the Guardian is just them coming up with skills that go along with the identity of the template they are trying to create. Of course there will be some Hammer type attacks, but then they mix in some magical attacks because it's the Guardian, and when coming up with magical attacks they try to keep a theme based around the skills they are putting on the weapon.
- If you want to get into the lore, then the Engineer could have modified his Rifle to activate a blunderbuss sort of attack, why are we arguing this? You obviously don't want the Engineer and the Warrior functioning exactly the same when they opperate a Rifle. They are two different Professions.
- Balance is one of the biggest reasonings here, both in PvE and PvP. Of course, PvP is a bigger issue anytime balance is concerned, but allowing people to take different skillsets from different weapon templates and using them on those weapons creates issues in both departments. The way the templates for each weapon is made, allows ANet to really fine tune their balance and keep things more viable. When you have no variables as far as the weapon set goes, this just makes things so much easier to tweak, because you have less combination of skills to worry about when you try to balance a skill. In other games, balancing one skill can throw tons of things off, in a game where you could switch skills from different weapon sets to others, this would really be difficult. They already had something much more flexible in GW1, but it was painful to balance.
- Viability and Identity, whenever you make things easier to tweak and balance, you then open up the door to many different possibilities. In a game where you choose and switch everything, it is harder to balance, and the identity often gets widdled down to a couple viable options at a give time in the state of balance. However, when you have a templated system, you have more control over things, and are able to bring the different sets in line with each other. This then offers many many choices to the player, because to a degree it isn't always about what is the best, it's about what do I want to achieve and how do I want to do it? Obviously in the beta state of the game, not everything is completely balanced, but for the most part across the Professions, a lot of things are actually in a great state. This is already probably the most balanced MMO I've ever played.
And I thought *I* was vain when it comes to character appearance.
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out how to express my sentiments on this idea and not be insulting to anyone, and I just can't. I just find the idea fundamentally loathesome. And I can't even adequately describe why.
Not in favour.
but you must admit that see a staff using arrows to hit people must ve very fun . xD
i totally agree with you, dont make any sense, most of weapons have skills that dont if use on other weapon just look stupid and remove all imersion of the game. see a staff knockdown people or 2 mace hit like a dagger will ruin the game for me.
i bet someone will make a post where he is a scholar class but want use heavy armour as cosmetic...
It would be funny, but it would *break my immerson* (I lol IRL).
Seriously, every game has done exacatly what the OP has wanted. if you want to play a game that values looks over balance and funtionality there are tons of games out there for you. I would love to be able to wear chain as a mesmer but since I cant do that due to balance issues, oh well.
This is a case of you can't have your cake and eat it (in terms of balance and what you are suggesting).
I remember in DaoC I use to go into the battlegrounds with my 'Zerker. I made here a blond little human girl. I would run around with a staff equited. I always loved when someone would jump me, thinking I was easy caster pray, and then I would switch weapons to duel axe and BADGER OUT on them.
What I am saying is the look of your weapon is a big part of PvP. No way would they let you pick any weapon you want for looks. That and I would REALLY rather them code in the stuff needed to launch instead of that.
Well of course you do. You're not going to make an omelette out of C4 or blow up a building with a couple eggs.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Put it out there on the BWE forums. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support (and pointless flames). I do agree with you, btw, it'd be nice when all games to also use weapons in the appearence tag... But I also kind of get why so many of them don't...
I should be a little clearer. I mean 'same kind' weapons. If I have a long-sword, than I should be able to equip some kind of fancy-looking one-handed sword in appearence and not a mace or two-handed sword. Same with a bow...
Perhaps they'll do something with transmutating weapons. You turn your focus into a dagger but it still gives you 'focus' skills or some such...
Oh ok, thanks for the info/clarification.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
As I stated earlier in the thread, not only is this system an intergral and welcome element of GW2 and thus not subject to change, but we actually have a lot more freedom than one would have playing SWTOR or TERA, where your class decides your weapon choice for you.
I definitely prefer the GW2 system.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
