Leo G.4501

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"hugo.4705" said:

> > Instead of asking for new races, ask for tonics representing those races, more helpful and easier to make.

> > -Tengu Tonic

> > -Largos Tonic

> > -Harpy Tonic

> > ~Already have kodan.

> > ~Already have hyleks

> > ~Already have quaggans

> >

> > Ps: plz, awakened asura tonic, golem mark I and II tonics. CENTAUR tonic.

>

> And make combat tonics useable on mounts.

>

I think they would have to improve tonics quite a bit to make this an equivalent alternative.

Making outfits compatible with the specific racial tonic forms (and making tonics usable with mounts) would be an amazing start.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > I think the high skill players are rewarded by prestige. They get a lot more props and attention if they duel or upload a soloing video than someone showing their guild taking on a map event or zerging in WvW.

> > > >

> > > > They also have more knowledge to strut with regards to build viability, counters and advice.

> > > >

> > > > Is it just me or are there not that many rewarding rewards either way? When I play GW2, it's because I'm having fun, not for the rewards.

> > >

> > > Id rather be handed legendaries for possessing 10x the amount of skill then the average player, thanks. Especially if they are legendaries that you can only get with said personal skill and by no other means, especially not being able to mooch off of others abilities or get carried or pay your way to victory.

> >

> > So you want external validation for yourself on top of the external validation other players will give you?

> >

> > Fair enough. So long as you yourself accept that hollow justification as well. They are just skins, after all. No harm in throwing out more bones.

>

> Yup that's all I'm asking for, a legendary that cant be obtained by opening your wallet, which you can with 99% of the legendaries in the game. I dont see those people walking around with any less prestige or sense of accomplishment that have obtained those.

>

> Tons of raiders walking around with full legendary and they paid for the clears same with those in spvp who paid for carries to legend or wvw where you simply get them by showing up and pressing one, much more efficiently then actually playing wvw with technical skill and prowess.

>

> Might as well have some legendary equipment thats actually based on something besides pay to win, or show up and chat to win.

Just so you know, this is a request made out of envy. It wouldn't be the first (so many things have been begged to make more accessible in the game) and likely won't be the last.

But from my perspective, I give no more prestige to those walking around with legendaries and raid armor than any other player. Heck, most of the time I look down on those types because they tend to be stuck in their ways and would sooner tell a player to go respawn than bother rezzing or using utilities to help out struggling players.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > The problem with racials is that they are race exclusive and depending on balance ppl could be feel forced to play some specific race, and limiting them only to ow would be a waste imho.

> >

> > Not discounting your point, but for discussion purposes, I'd like to argue it.

> >

> > Is it really a bad thing to "feel forced" to play a specific race if its in a game mode that doesn't impact others? Consider that people already feel forced to play specific professions for specific content. Or use specific builds. Or even feel forced to play specific content. So what is the actual cost-benefit of compelling players to play specific races in open world gameplay? I'm sure one could point to imbalance for certain events but even then, who actually cares? No one can tell you what you NEED to play in open world nor can you be pressured.

> >

>

> The fact that current balance is not ideal or that true balance in general might be unachievable is no good argument to intentionally add even more unbalance and parts to the equation.

>

Why is it not a good argument?

You can say it is but then ignore the discussion point of what I presented, to which then why even bother replying to my point if you're just going to ignore what I'm asking? I'll ask you again though: Who would care? Who would actually care that you might feel slighted that your Asura warrior might not be as effective in a certain open world event than a Sylvari warrior? And further still, who shoulders the cost of that concern?

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Especially when those parts are part of a feature which was intentionally designed to not conflict in the first place.

>

To this, I ask you to answer the question in my second paragraph.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Not sure Arenanet has the will to devote man power to such a task when the net result will automatically be something which to some extent will create unhappy players.

>

Why would you automatically assume that? And while I can understand the position of a realist in discussions like these, it's rather beside the point, IMO, to dwell on trivialities when I believe the discussion could focus on what could be done vs what won't.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Keeping the status quo is what every body signed on to and can accept or disapprove of, it remains the status quo though.

Well, I liked my phantasm Mesmer and my Spirit Weapons Armory Guardian. Where's the status quo for them?

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I think the high skill players are rewarded by prestige. They get a lot more props and attention if they duel or upload a soloing video than someone showing their guild taking on a map event or zerging in WvW.

> >

> > They also have more knowledge to strut with regards to build viability, counters and advice.

> >

> > Is it just me or are there not that many rewarding rewards either way? When I play GW2, it's because I'm having fun, not for the rewards.

>

> Id rather be handed legendaries for possessing 10x the amount of skill then the average player, thanks. Especially if they are legendaries that you can only get with said personal skill and by no other means, especially not being able to mooch off of others abilities or get carried or pay your way to victory.

So you want external validation for yourself on top of the external validation other players will give you?

Fair enough. So long as you yourself accept that hollow justification as well. They are just skins, after all. No harm in throwing out more bones.

Made the Greatsword and Hammer for my Guardian and was aiming to eventually get the longbow for my Dragonhunter but then they gutted my spirit weapons and I lost interest greatly...

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> The problem with racials is that they are race exclusive and depending on balance ppl could be feel forced to play some specific race, and limiting them only to ow would be a waste imho.

Not discounting your point, but for discussion purposes, I'd like to argue it.

Is it really a bad thing to "feel forced" to play a specific race if its in a game mode that doesn't impact others? Consider that people already feel forced to play specific professions for specific content. Or use specific builds. Or even feel forced to play specific content. So what is the actual cost-benefit of compelling players to play specific races in open world gameplay? I'm sure one could point to imbalance for certain events but even then, who actually cares? No one can tell you what you NEED to play in open world nor can you be pressured.

At the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't it be better to compel players to make more characters with certain races if the options available look attractive enough? Sure, you could say "you should only have to worry about aesthetics when making a character" and that would still be true, but I think it'd be much more interesting if, for some reason, in some content out there, a player would feel compelled to play a Norn Thief because they had a great concept for a guy that transforms into a Raven or Leopard and actually be FUN vs never bothering at all.

My post got deleted.

But anyway, to throw my hat in the discussion, don't leave out outfits. More and varied outfits with unique styles that may not fit into the light/medium/heavy category (and absolving the need to make 3 weight variations) would be a consolation. Also, more options to tweek outfits (toggle pieces) to improve options.

I think the high skill players are rewarded by prestige. They get a lot more props and attention if they duel or upload a soloing video than someone showing their guild taking on a map event or zerging in WvW.

They also have more knowledge to strut with regards to build viability, counters and advice.

Is it just me or are there not that many rewarding rewards either way? When I play GW2, it's because I'm having fun, not for the rewards.

Engineer :t'

> @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said:

> Wouldn't be worth it. We need actual content, not barbie dollhouses

And yet people still beg for dresses (skins) and doll houses (player housing).

I say do both (content and Barbie doll houses) otherwise the ship you enjoy will swiftly sink.

> @"MetalGirl.2370" said:

> If you are 39, it's kind of sad you look at and even care about how female character in the game looks like....it's a pixel.

A photo of a woman that's digitized is also just pixels.

If you shame and oppress people's physical desires, you're only going to push more people to more desperate (and depraved) measures.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are married or in long and happy relationships that are deeply in love with their significant other... But not everyone in those circumstances are beautiful (in fact, I'm positive less that 40% are). So what do you think happens when you repress people from even looking at (fake) beauty?

Lol there's nothing wrong with looking.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > One disadvantage is that it’s not customization friendly when you see something for one race that would look great on your char of another race but you can’t use it because reasons.

> > > >

> > > > That....that's a lie. That's not true at all.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not sure if sarcastic.....

> > >

> > > But how is it customization friendly to see armor your race can’t use?

> > >

> >

> > So let me get this straight, it's not customization friendly to have an outfit among a series of many different outfits just because you can't change parts of the outfit (or use armor) so you'll look different from someone else wearing the same outfit... But it is customization friendly that you can wear all the same armor another race can even if it's uniquely designed for that other specific race?

> >

> > Or perhaps people's standard for what "customization" is is fluid.

>

> The OP’s post is about armor. My response to the OP is about armor and it not being customization friendly if you can’t use it. Please stick to what is being discussed and don’t drag in irrelevant comments on another subject, namely outfits.

>

> Thanks.

>

Outfits are in the title.

And you asked a question and I gave you an equivalency with regard to customization.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > One disadvantage is that it’s not customization friendly when you see something for one race that would look great on your char of another race but you can’t use it because reasons.

> >

> > That....that's a lie. That's not true at all.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Not sure if sarcastic.....

>

> But how is it customization friendly to see armor your race can’t use?

>

So let me get this straight, it's not customization friendly to have an outfit among a series of many different outfits just because you can't change parts of the outfit (or use armor) so you'll look different from someone else wearing the same outfit... But it is customization friendly that you can wear all the same armor another race can even if it's uniquely designed for that other specific race?

Or perhaps people's standard for what "customization" is is fluid.

> @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said:

> Why not look at real women tho? Never understood this.

And when real women don't look as good? I mean, would you rather people hold women to higher beauty standards? As is, I like my real women with natural curvs and my fantasy women... With other attributes.

> @"Lambent.6375" said:

> Im not sure what all goes into making new armor sets, but if they sold armor in the gemstore for 3-5k gems, and they sold well, wouldn't they be able to shift more resources to armor design and cut down on the time it takes to make them?

>

I'm not speaking from a position of insight here, but I'd say the only way to specifically decrease the time to develop armor sets is to decrease other modeling development (like weapons, NPC/character rigs, etc) and other relevant workers and funnel them into armor creation...or hire more workers. I don't think money is what's slowing the process down significantly.

> @"Cherdakuru.5841" said:

> > @"Blur.3465" said:

> > Personally...I'd love if we could mix and match pieces of outfits.

> > With that said, I do not like armor pieces due to the transmutation charges. I don't know if it's just me or...I don't know, but I don't feel comfortable experimenting with armor looks due to the limitations with these charges.

> > With outfit you just put it on, dye it and stop worrying if you have to change the look of armor piece because you changed the gear.

> >

> > I really wish transmutation charges never existed though >.<

>

> This community is so best and so great, not buying anything from Gemstore to support the developers, so the one left way is to implement BLC and things like transmutation charges

Barely anyone buys transmutation charges tho. Most players just farm map completion or PvP dailies.

Also, outfits are a part of the gem store which would support the devs if you buy them.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> One disadvantage is that it’s not customization friendly when you see something for one race that would look great on your char of another race but you can’t use it because reasons.

That....that's a lie. That's not true at all.

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Aodlop.1907" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Because I don't pay for outfits at all, never purchased one. I don't buy outfits because I enjoy being able to customize my gear, hide items, and make combinations.

> > > > > > > > > > > If you don't want to sell armor sets at the same price as the previous ones, fine. Make them more expensive, as long you make them. I'd pay for it, or I'd farm for it.

> > > > > > > > > > > I really don't like outfits. Can you please start making armor sets again ? Even if you make them more expensive ?

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. <3

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Are you willing to pay 5000 gems for a new armor set? ANet's implied that it takes 8-9x more effort to produce armor sets: there are multiple weights, more variations of dye channels, the pieces have to mix & match with other skins of the same weight, and so on. People already balk at paying 2k for premium MountFits. It seems unlikely that ANet would be able to price armor sets high enough to significantly increase the rate at which they are released.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you want to look at it in that way then the question should be - why are we paying 800 gems for outfits that require 8-9x less work than armor sets and all armor sets are 800 gems from the game beggining?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I'd also prefer more armors, outfits are so NOT unique, makes you feel like army of clones. If you could at least use helmet skins with outfits, maybe it would be a little better.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'd contest the notion that outfits are not unique. How are they not? How many armor options exist that look like one seamless piece of armor/suit? Most armor looks like it's a jumbled of pieces that vaguely resemble a theme. By the logic that there are MORE jumbled together looks than seamless looks, that already makes it more unique.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > With outfits its the fact that when new one comes out a lot of people wears it for a long time. Also it annoys me when I like 90% of the outfit but not like 1 element and I have no way of fixing it.

> > > > > > > Not saying outfits are bad, just not very customizable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Still doesn't invalidate that there are other outfits that isn't the new FotM that you can wear that a lot of people won't be wearing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As for the issue with turning off parts, I think it's harder to promote improvements to outfits when you have people bemoaning them as bad, unoriginal, not unique and such. Lol how many "Improve Outfit" threads are there? But beside that, I have, in the past, put forth the idea to add unique custom options for outfits that would basically amount to "check this box to turn off helmet", "check this box to turn off shoulders", "check this box to turn off special unique part" that would be, IMO, pretty easy to implement.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are other suggestions for outfits I've made but you get the point.

> > > > >

> > > > > in which they could just as much make it an armor. (hint hint)

> > > >

> > > > Making outfit parts "layers" that one can turn off and on is not the same as making outfit parts into pieces that fit with 3 different armor weights.

> > > >

> > > > There are already outfits where parts can be turned off. (hint hint)

> > >

> > > the layers are armor parts, not the other way around.

> > > i have done enough 3D modeling and modding to know how such things really work, all you do is disabling a part of the costume A.K.A. armor parts.

> >

> > Disabling a part doesn't make it a piece of armor, merely something hidden like a clipping mask. More precisely, something hidden with such means isn't beholden to anchor points like armor is.

> >

> > If you're so experienced with 3D modeling/modding, shouldn't you know that?

>

> fancy words for something as simple as a part of a 3D model, a 3D piece of a frame put together in pieces so the game can connect each piece to a function.

> looks like armor pieces to me, where each armor piece is nothing but a separate 3D piece with it's own slot entity to distinguish a glove from a chest piece.

>

> or are you so stuck in fancy words that it should be done with flair and expertise?

"a 3D piece of a frame put together in pieces so the game can connect each piece to a function" may be the initial means of rendering a model for both armor and outfits but "where each armor piece is nothing but a separate 3D piece with it's own slot entity to distinguish a glove from a chest piece" is not the only consequence of building a piece of armor. Again, armor pieces interact with defined anchor points that make up the armor system and has been described why you can't mix medium armor with, say, heavy armor (because the anchor points don't overlap the same).

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Aodlop.1907" said:

> > > > > > > > > Because I don't pay for outfits at all, never purchased one. I don't buy outfits because I enjoy being able to customize my gear, hide items, and make combinations.

> > > > > > > > > If you don't want to sell armor sets at the same price as the previous ones, fine. Make them more expensive, as long you make them. I'd pay for it, or I'd farm for it.

> > > > > > > > > I really don't like outfits. Can you please start making armor sets again ? Even if you make them more expensive ?

> > > > > > > > > Thanks. <3

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Are you willing to pay 5000 gems for a new armor set? ANet's implied that it takes 8-9x more effort to produce armor sets: there are multiple weights, more variations of dye channels, the pieces have to mix & match with other skins of the same weight, and so on. People already balk at paying 2k for premium MountFits. It seems unlikely that ANet would be able to price armor sets high enough to significantly increase the rate at which they are released.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to look at it in that way then the question should be - why are we paying 800 gems for outfits that require 8-9x less work than armor sets and all armor sets are 800 gems from the game beggining?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'd also prefer more armors, outfits are so NOT unique, makes you feel like army of clones. If you could at least use helmet skins with outfits, maybe it would be a little better.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'd contest the notion that outfits are not unique. How are they not? How many armor options exist that look like one seamless piece of armor/suit? Most armor looks like it's a jumbled of pieces that vaguely resemble a theme. By the logic that there are MORE jumbled together looks than seamless looks, that already makes it more unique.

> > > > >

> > > > > With outfits its the fact that when new one comes out a lot of people wears it for a long time. Also it annoys me when I like 90% of the outfit but not like 1 element and I have no way of fixing it.

> > > > > Not saying outfits are bad, just not very customizable.

> > > >

> > > > Still doesn't invalidate that there are other outfits that isn't the new FotM that you can wear that a lot of people won't be wearing.

> > > >

> > > > As for the issue with turning off parts, I think it's harder to promote improvements to outfits when you have people bemoaning them as bad, unoriginal, not unique and such. Lol how many "Improve Outfit" threads are there? But beside that, I have, in the past, put forth the idea to add unique custom options for outfits that would basically amount to "check this box to turn off helmet", "check this box to turn off shoulders", "check this box to turn off special unique part" that would be, IMO, pretty easy to implement.

> > > >

> > > > There are other suggestions for outfits I've made but you get the point.

> > >

> > > in which they could just as much make it an armor. (hint hint)

> >

> > Making outfit parts "layers" that one can turn off and on is not the same as making outfit parts into pieces that fit with 3 different armor weights.

> >

> > There are already outfits where parts can be turned off. (hint hint)

>

> the layers are armor parts, not the other way around.

> i have done enough 3D modeling and modding to know how such things really work, all you do is disabling a part of the costume A.K.A. armor parts.

Disabling a part doesn't make it a piece of armor, merely something hidden like a clipping mask. More precisely, something hidden with such means isn't beholden to anchor points like armor is.

If you're so experienced with 3D modeling/modding, shouldn't you know that?

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > > > @"Aodlop.1907" said:

> > > > > > > Because I don't pay for outfits at all, never purchased one. I don't buy outfits because I enjoy being able to customize my gear, hide items, and make combinations.

> > > > > > > If you don't want to sell armor sets at the same price as the previous ones, fine. Make them more expensive, as long you make them. I'd pay for it, or I'd farm for it.

> > > > > > > I really don't like outfits. Can you please start making armor sets again ? Even if you make them more expensive ?

> > > > > > > Thanks. <3

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you willing to pay 5000 gems for a new armor set? ANet's implied that it takes 8-9x more effort to produce armor sets: there are multiple weights, more variations of dye channels, the pieces have to mix & match with other skins of the same weight, and so on. People already balk at paying 2k for premium MountFits. It seems unlikely that ANet would be able to price armor sets high enough to significantly increase the rate at which they are released.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you want to look at it in that way then the question should be - why are we paying 800 gems for outfits that require 8-9x less work than armor sets and all armor sets are 800 gems from the game beggining?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd also prefer more armors, outfits are so NOT unique, makes you feel like army of clones. If you could at least use helmet skins with outfits, maybe it would be a little better.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I'd contest the notion that outfits are not unique. How are they not? How many armor options exist that look like one seamless piece of armor/suit? Most armor looks like it's a jumbled of pieces that vaguely resemble a theme. By the logic that there are MORE jumbled together looks than seamless looks, that already makes it more unique.

> > >

> > > With outfits its the fact that when new one comes out a lot of people wears it for a long time. Also it annoys me when I like 90% of the outfit but not like 1 element and I have no way of fixing it.

> > > Not saying outfits are bad, just not very customizable.

> >

> > Still doesn't invalidate that there are other outfits that isn't the new FotM that you can wear that a lot of people won't be wearing.

> >

> > As for the issue with turning off parts, I think it's harder to promote improvements to outfits when you have people bemoaning them as bad, unoriginal, not unique and such. Lol how many "Improve Outfit" threads are there? But beside that, I have, in the past, put forth the idea to add unique custom options for outfits that would basically amount to "check this box to turn off helmet", "check this box to turn off shoulders", "check this box to turn off special unique part" that would be, IMO, pretty easy to implement.

> >

> > There are other suggestions for outfits I've made but you get the point.

>

> in which they could just as much make it an armor. (hint hint)

Making outfit parts "layers" that one can turn off and on is not the same as making outfit parts into pieces that fit with 3 different armor weights.

There are already outfits where parts can be turned off. (hint hint)

Can you color it so the crystals don't glow?

I think it's an interesting aesthetic but overly done. Crystal-wear exists in other avenues like Crystal Arbiter/Savant/the medium one and Ice Encased and while I feel it looks like the better light version of the Crystal outfit (Crystal Savant), it wasn't needed since outfits aren't limited by armor weight.

I'm not a fan of floaty-magic-glowie armor but if we wanted to differentiate the outfit from others, maybe make the floaty-glowie crystals "amass" around the shoulders once entering combat (like Exo-suit)?

That aside, I like the form-fitting design of it but I prefer Ice Encased (also form-fitting) if only because the "crystal" isn't floating above your costume.

Also, have you guys implemented "helm donning" for shifting into combat yet? Come on, Anet. Get on the ball, guys.

I think it would be interesting to have some events scale to ridiculous degrees every now and then (think like 2-3 times a week) just for some random novelty fun to be enjoyed. I'd probably target it toward a high-traffic/populated area and at a time with the most people logged in...kinda like a GM prodding the system to mess with people.

It harkens back to those stories of the old-skool MMOs where some trolls manipulated the AI or something and causes a mess that you either combine forces with strangers to bring under control or call in your elite buds to reign in the problem.

Curious, to those stating the meta is only specific group playstyles and goals (min-max elites and quick runtimes), do people make/post videos of the non-meta compositions and how they fare in various content? I'm sure people make them, I've just not been paying much attention to GW2 for a while and Youtube doesn't recommend GW2 to me anymore lol

> @"Menzo.2185" said:

> > @"Dante.1763" said:

> > Keep in mind it takes Anet roughly 9 months to make one set of armor that fits each race and sex due to them having to make sure that it *overall* also matches/doesnt clip(obviously they cant make it perfect across the board.) all the *other* armors that exist in the game(which is far more than GW1 had.).

>

> 9 months? Really? Oh God!!!!

> I will keep using vigil and mystward then. kitten!

I think it's still important you push out your opinion on cosmetics to add to the game.

Also, don't write off outfits so soon. They have some good ones if you want to wear something out of the norm or for certain occasions. They could also present more options to customize or improve outfits along with giving more options for armor skins. Don't assume it's an either-or scenario.

I suggested something similar in the past.

Looking at the idea now, I think the reason it won't be done is because the professions are already running out of gimmicks, so much so, that the devs have to *take away* functionality from the core specs just to add it to an elite spec to then sell via an expansion pack.

That rationalization aside, I think doing such wouldn't be that difficult nor be that extensive if they look into a sort of structure to manage such a feat. For example: rather than changing all the traits and passives, how about just changing the passives and GM traits if the line were set in the "epic" trait slot. Add even more "to do lists", have these additions locked until you perform some quest or whatever. Some of the things you can do is have the 1st passive add changes to a specific weapon(s) that the line could "specialize" in like how Guardians have a trait that changes a hammer skill into another or how Rangers have a trait that add functionality to an Axe skill...but rather than just a single weapon skill, it could be the whole weapon line.

It could be a means of limiting functionality to make balance easier, like adding/moving functionality to utilities when used in the "epic" slot.

I think such a change could do a lot to diversifying builds without needing an expansion and a bunch of extra content to do it or pushing this asinine whack-a-mole balancing practices that tend to result in non-problematic playstyles being *deleted* for the sake of adding other changes that nobody asked for. For example: give me my phantasm Mesmer back, even if I can only use it as a Mesmer with the Illusions tree in the epic slot.