Leo G.4501

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > > There are enough weapon types in the game to be used differently in future elite specs. Crossbows for example using rifle or pistol, throwing spears using staff, whip using foci.

> >

> > I'm sorry, but how does one get a whip from this:

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/f/f7/Bell_Focus.jpg

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/5/5a/Consortium_Clipper_Focus.jpg

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/1/16/Gaze.jpg

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/1/10/Inquest_Focus.jpg

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/a/a6/Mojo.jpg

> >

> > Or practically any of the foci that aren't the desert king skin? Or better yet, using a skinned focus, how do you go about emulating a whip's actions?

> >

> > For crossbow, rifle is the wrong weapon. You probably mean the harpoon gun which are the rifle skins that were likely modified from the rifle models to incorporate arrow-like projectiles. Throwing spears using staff isn't the direction I'd take, just use the spear as it already has throwing animations and the skins fit its use.

> >

> > The question is, why force something that will look bad when you can actually put some work into something that will look great? This is the argument used against adding new races all the time ("if you're going to cut corners and skip content, it won't be as good as the core 5 races and not worthy of the resources"). Unless you really just do not want to agree that ANet could use harpoon gun/spears or just make a whip weapon, why cut corners when they likely have the resources or assets available/premade?

>

> They emulate a whips actions the same way they make bundles have animations. They can make any class use different animations when they wield certain weapon.

>

> These arguments against using already made weapons as proxies for new ones has been defeated since they added Daredevil and Revenant using staff as a melee weapon.

I was asking a question but you didn't answer me.

The difference between your examples and the staff examples is that they are still long blunt shafts. You haven't really explained how you'd get a whip out of a bell or why one would chuck a staff like a spear or how it could be made to look decent.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > > > I'd prefer they balanced existing skills before adding more.

> > > >

> > > > Anybody with any knowledge of game design knows this isn't how game development works. The existing skills will never achieve a state of "balance" - it's a perpetual process of iteration. Therefore, it makes no sense to hold off development of systems for the sake of "balance".

> > >

> > > In the same manner that adding more skills to the balancing issue isn't helping either ?

> > >

> >

> > What is this a question to? What is this directed at?

> >

> > But I'll save you the trouble. No. If ANet is going to add skills to the game, your precious desire for balance isn't going to stop them so that spells the end of your argument.

>

> Aka bloat. Enjoy.

Hehe oh boy. You sure showed me! When the game finally dies 5+ years from now because the devs 'listened' to players asking for more skills, we'll look back to your post and remember just how right joneirikb.7506 was and how he predicted all this...

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > I'd prefer they balanced existing skills before adding more.

> >

> > Anybody with any knowledge of game design knows this isn't how game development works. The existing skills will never achieve a state of "balance" - it's a perpetual process of iteration. Therefore, it makes no sense to hold off development of systems for the sake of "balance".

>

> In the same manner that adding more skills to the balancing issue isn't helping either ?

>

What is this a question to? What is this directed at?

But I'll save you the trouble. No. If ANet is going to add skills to the game, your precious desire for balance isn't going to stop them so that spells the end of your argument.

> @"lokh.2695" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > The question is, why force something that will look bad when you can actually put some work into something that will look great?

>

> Becuase the work put into it might be better spent elsewhere.

Apparently, you didn't understand the context of what you're replying to. What you're advocating is that it's better for ANet to half-kitten their work (making staves into throwing spears, foci into whips) instead of just trying because "the work put into it might be better spent elsewhere".

No thanks.

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> In general, imo any regulation that promotes smarter behaviour or let people decide more intelligently, is favourable.

>

>

Your suggestion promotes LESS smart behavior (as you're seeking more ways to take the thinking out of purchasing when, in fact, EVERY purchase you make you should be thinking critically about your income, budget and level of necessity of the product) and takes away decision from people (allowing the individual to decide their own level of impulse buying requires no government regulation).

I don't care one way or the other about lootboxes as I'll buy them when I want them and ignore them when I don't care but individuals using positive flowery language to advance their agendas is far too common in politics today. Basically, people saying how good or moral or how much improved change something can be while making up data or secretly pressing bills that are the opposite their constituents voted for them for. The whole "For the children!!" trope is so overly used. Why not just say it could promote better end products if the whole "scheming players into low-chance loot reward traps" option were removed from the table to create more game-centric ways of getting the player to get the same loot? Because all the other pleasantries presented? People see through that: you just want your shinies without funneling money away for them lol. Basically, people being cheap.

I'd imagine if relegation gets too stringent or if they cannot replace the stream of revenue with an equivalent source (because AAA games cost money and just breaking even doesn't cut it), they will simply stop marketing to kids.

There will still be the E for Everyone games and the T for Teens games but a majority of the "juicy" AAA games that kids these days crave might just become MA+. One might say "Ah! you'd cut off a huge demographic and deeper into profits" well, things like Amazon/Steam/digital downloads make it so it may not be important to market games in your brick-and-mortar locations and if kids end up getting their parents to buy whatever games they want, even the MA games, you just push kids to play the same games illegally but no one is going to prosecute a kid for playing a game...

That and the demographic for video games seems to continuously broaden. Games once considered baby/kids focused still appeal to adults+ which could be due to the west infantilizing its citizens (see: politically correct, anti-bullying nanny-state antics or the daycare-like universities being combated now) or just that media itself is so accessible and tailored to the user's desires.

Was just contemplating a mechanic for an elite spec for Ele to grant it access to weapon swap.

With the concept of trade-offs being a thought (or afterthought as the case may be), the first concept to spark to fulfill this would be to remove attunements. So now you're looking at a skill bar with a weapon swap and F1-F4 buttons being simple triggers.

So now you've got 2 weapon options but how to incorporate these with the core weapon skills? Simple. Just like you can equip utility skills, you can also equip attunement skills to each of those available if that skill is equipped. So if you've got a dagger/focus in 1 set of weapons, you can set Vapor Blade, Ring of Earth, Shocking Aura, Swirling Winds and Obsidian Flesh as that skill set and you would do so out of combat. You can swap these skills to, say Lightning Whip, Drake's Breath, Burning Speed, Magnetic Wave, Obsidian Flesh but you have to be out of combat...and each skill becomes charges based that start at 0. So it's not possible to swip-swap willy-nilly to min-max but you gain a slight capability similar to Thief in that your skills are semi-ammo dependent and some can be used twice in a row. Of course, charges still have to recharge and some skills will have recast limiting timers + charge timers and the amount of charges the skills have would differ depending on skills (Burning Speed might have 3 charges with a cooldown of 1sec and a recharge of 22 seconds while Obsidian Flesh might have 2 charges with a cooldown of 10sec and a recharge of 110 seconds).

So then what would the F1-F4 skills do? Well, firstly, the main effect likely could be determined by the main-hand weapon. So wielding a Staff and clicking F1 could grant the "Combustive" attribute for several attack charges (and limited by time), granting your attacks greater AoE range and targets that you strike will spread conditions to one other target around them and targets you strike afflicted with burn will spread burn to 3 foes. Wielding a dagger and clicking F1 could grant "Heat Exhaust" attribute which cuts condition duration greatly on yourself while giving attacks the chance to transfer conditions from yourself. Basically, the F skills would be tailored to the weapon's use.

And traits? Probably the most fun because a lot of the traits that affect attunement would be transferred to any attunement skills but only when you use the corresponding F skill and often supercharged due to their temporary nature. So Empowering Flames would grant a grant higher power when you click F1 because it's a temporary buff but you can use it with any skills. Conjurer would be a premiere skill of the spec as this trait would add 1 charge on all your skills that have charges, not just conjures.

Ultimately, the spec would be pretty flexible like an Engineer build. You'd end up having fewer available skills at a time but more variety and the ability to not only gain weapon-specific element attributes for short bursts but the ability to link some skills like a thief.

I think the more interesting aspect to Elementalist Elite Specs tend to be how the profession mechanic is altered to incorporate the theme of its new weapon, more so now that the devs are looking into more of a trade-off mentality for these alterations.

So if an Elementalist spec gets high-powered single-target long-ranged offensive capability with its possible weapon, the rifle/bow (I feel it could be either), what changes to its profession mechanic would allow that? What trade-offs?

Think it might be possible the profession loses attunements completely for a new type of OOC skill selection + weapon swap? Just a thought I had...

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> There are enough weapon types in the game to be used differently in future elite specs. Crossbows for example using rifle or pistol, throwing spears using staff, whip using foci.

I'm sorry, but how does one get a whip from this:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/f/f7/Bell_Focus.jpg

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/5/5a/Consortium_Clipper_Focus.jpg

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/1/16/Gaze.jpg

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/1/10/Inquest_Focus.jpg

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/a/a6/Mojo.jpg

Or practically any of the foci that aren't the desert king skin? Or better yet, using a skinned focus, how do you go about emulating a whip's actions?

For crossbow, rifle is the wrong weapon. You probably mean the harpoon gun which are the rifle skins that were likely modified from the rifle models to incorporate arrow-like projectiles. Throwing spears using staff isn't the direction I'd take, just use the spear as it already has throwing animations and the skins fit its use.

The question is, why force something that will look bad when you can actually put some work into something that will look great? This is the argument used against adding new races all the time ("if you're going to cut corners and skip content, it won't be as good as the core 5 races and not worthy of the resources"). Unless you really just do not want to agree that ANet could use harpoon gun/spears or just make a whip weapon, why cut corners when they likely have the resources or assets available/premade?

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

> > >

> > > Again, what you said really doesn't change the fact that added completely new weapon doesn't change 'stale' gameplay if you already have options that can do that and the game is already stale to you. If your best reason to add weapons is to address 'stale' gameplay ... then you need to do better to justify new weapons. If new weapons were the best way to address that ... why haven't we seen it yet? Either the game isn't stale enough for most people or new weapons aren't a good way to do it.

> >

> > I mean, if you want to actually talk about new concepts, what about a gauntlet type weapon?

>

> I don't know why I would ... clearly I don't support the idea of new weapons just to satisfy some people's idea that it would have a great impact on stale gameplay.

>

> If there is another BETTER reason to introduce completely new weapons, then **that** is worth discussing if you want my opinion. What the weapons are and what they do isn't value.

Clearly, the OP did state reasons for why it would be good to implement. Mixing things up is just a reason, not the purpose.

And BETTER is a subjective qualifier. There's no way to appease such a qualifier especially when the individual placing the qualifier refuses to discuss anything so we'd know how to go about fulfilling their desired qualities.

At this point, I have no idea why you're wasting your time replying to me then. I wouldn't mind discussing ideas but you clearly do.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

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

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, what you said really doesn't change the fact that added completely new weapon doesn't change 'stale' gameplay if you already have options that can do that and the game is already stale to you. If your best reason to add weapons is to address 'stale' gameplay ... then you need to do better to justify new weapons. If new weapons were the best way to address that ... why haven't we seen it yet? Either the game isn't stale enough for most people or new weapons aren't a good way to do it.

> > > >

> > > > I mean, if you want to actually talk about new concepts, what about a gauntlet type weapon?

> > >

> > > I don't know why I would ... clearly I don't support the idea of new weapons just to satisfy some people's idea that it would have a great impact on stale gameplay.

> > >

> > > If there is another BETTER reason to introduce completely new weapons, then **that** is worth discussing if you want my opinion. What the weapons are and what they do isn't value.

> >

> > And you claim you aren't being obtuse about this...

>

> This isn't being obtuse ... it's about how I value my time. I don't see any value in talking about what a new weapon could be. I know that the OP listed his reasons for why he thinks this is a good idea. I don't agree with them. I don't see why that's a problem for you, or why that makes me obtuse. People that don't agree with you are obtuse? I don't think you know what that means.

You value your time so you decide to waste it bickering with me rather than brainstorming.

It's not about disagreeing, I'll do that all day. It's just your reasons for disagreement and you can't seem to let it go when people criticize your rationalizations.

Someone who values their time? @"Illconceived Was Na.9781". I came into this thread criticizing a post he made and you know what? He didn't see a reason to waste his time replying to it.

You, on the other hand...I'm just trying to get you to actually discuss the suggestion of the thread or at least criticize it lol. You seem dead set on devaluing a reason for suggesting it, not the suggestion itself.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > > Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

> >

> > I can name one that was only usable by 2 professions. Shortbow.

>

> Ranger

> Thief

> Renegade

And when did the game get Revenant? And when did Revenant gain Renegade?

Answer: Shortbow was exclusive to 2 professions for longer than it has been available for its 3rd.

The point still stands: the precedent for making a new weapon and proliferating it isn't as steep as making a new elite spec.

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

> > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

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

> > > Edit I liked this “how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount?”

> > > How many skins are players going to buy for the same new weapons and will it pay for the extra costs? Why not avoid the extra costs and sell skins anyway?

> >

> > To give an example:

> >

> > If ArenaNet announces they will release a new sword skin on the Gem Store. Then...

> >

> > * There are [dozens](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gallery_of_swords) of sword skills in the game. Why would I buy a new one?

> > * Having been playing the game for a while now, I already have a lot of unlocked sword skins. Why pay for a new skin when I already have many available for free?

> > * All my characters who can use a sword already have one, with a skin chosen to match them. Why would I get a different skin now?

> > * Gem Store skins are nowhere near close to being as elaborated as Legendary items. If I want to get something expensive/flashy, why go for a Gem Store item instead of a Legendary?

> >

> > In other hand, if ArenaNet announces they will add a new weapon type to the game - say, scythes - and will then sell a few models on the Gem Store:

> >

> > * Suddenly we're talking about a weapon type that has no skin available in the game

> > * And it's a weapon type that no one has a single skin unlocked for

> > * And it's a weapon type no one has yet, so every character going to use it is going to look for a new skin

> > * And, the Gem Store skin has no competition from flashy things such as Legendaries, since the new weapon type would have no legendary right now

> >

> > In other words, the supply of skins for a new weapon type would be significantly smaller than that of current weapons, while the demand would be the same or higher. It would be a nice way to make money.

>

> You forget though, the new weapon might be only for a couple of professions so only the people who play those professions will be buying and of them, only those who like that skin and of those, only those who buy cosmetics from the gemstore (not everyone does you know). So not everyone is going to be buying these new skins yet the costs of adding a new weapon are still there.

>

I think we're approaching suggestions from a very flawed standpoint here. We are putting the cart before the horse as we have a vested goal, as players, to attain new and cool things. I have no idea why people keep entertaining the notion of monetizing themselves unless you start from the perspective that the game is dying. Either you feel Anet has failed and the game has slipped into obscurity OR you are sabotaging other possible suggestions in hopes the content you prefer is focused on or improved.

Feasibility isn't an argument used here because you all know it is perfectly feasible but would require great deals of similar work that the devs have shown they are already capable of. So those above two reasons are the only real reasons here.

That is to say, we're all familiar with the idea of "I'd buy that for a dollar" but this thread here is some weird undead mutated version on trying to control a market. The individuals making a product are the ones who will discover how marketable a product can be or will find ways for it to be so by controlling the resources to make the product or seek more customers.

Some of you guys make making suggestions WAAAAY too complicated...

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

>

> Again, what you said really doesn't change the fact that added completely new weapon doesn't change 'stale' gameplay if you already have options that can do that and the game is already stale to you. If your best reason to add weapons is to address 'stale' gameplay ... then you need to do better to justify new weapons. If new weapons were the best way to address that ... why haven't we seen it yet? Either the game isn't stale enough for most people or new weapons aren't a good way to do it.

I mean, if you want to actually talk about new concepts, what about a gauntlet type weapon? The reason to suggest it is because it can introduce styles of animation of the user fighting with hand-to-hand. The closest you can get to this is utility skills. The same could be said for scythe weapons and how the skins do not translate to existing animations which is why there is a desire to either customize animations (unlikely) or to create another weapon that has animations to emulate a scythe fantasy style.

I'm sure you already knew this but you either feel that rationalization has no substance or you wanted someone to state the obvious for some reason.

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

I can name one that was only usable by 2 professions. Shortbow.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I don't see what you are saying here changing what I said ... we have lots of options already ... so adding more doesn't fix stale game play. If it does, it's a VERY short term solution to it for a fraction of players. This again goes back to whether or not new weapons is the best value Anet can bring to players to address 'stale' play; I don't believe it is.

>

> Think of the other side of this ... if new weapons is such a great idea and add lots of value to players and Anet's business, why don't we have them yet? Instead we get content ... HUM. Yes I'm so intentionally obtuse ... or maybe I got my eyes open and pay attention to how the game evolves.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't but from my perspective, you're either intentionally not wanting to understand what we're saying so you don't have to 'abandon' your argument or we aren't communicating clearly to you.

But why I say you're being obtuse is multi-fold:

1. No one said adding new weapons WILL cure staleness. At most, I feel the OP is making this suggestion because no new weapon categories have been added thus far so it could be another avenue that hasn't been touched on. Even you understand that adding more and more options causes a bloat in customization BUT that's mostly in regards to things you've been given lots of options for. Adding options to things that haven't changed much could affect staleness unpredictably. To what degree staleness would be changed is frankly up for debate.

2. Your counter perspective paints the straw-man that suggesting this means no other content. This isn't AT THE COST of new content. This is a stance many many MANY posters take on this forum, which is hilarious. You even understand that what Anet wants to add and in what priority is Anet's prerogative so why argue over who is entitled to state what is 'best' to use resources on? It would be different if the OP mentioned not wanting LW episodes and to focus on stuff like weapons, but he never said that. So what on Earth are you even going on this tangent for? And this is always mentioned so is constantly argued ad nauseam.

3. You claim to be 'woke' but at the same time have a pessimistic outlook...yet in the same breath know what's best for the game's future content? If I were being obtuse myself, I'd assume you were actually trying to sabotage the game...

4. No criticism. This is a pet peeve of mine. You and others have mentioned that adding new weapon categories are a lot of work and only 1 has gone into detail about HOW it's a lot of work. That's hardly criticism besides the type of workload it is. Nothing on how to lessen the workload or alternatives to the idea or similar ideas that could branch off from such...it's all just nothing-burgers that derail the topic.

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> And in regards to feeling excluded. They aren't excluded in any way, shape or form. That's a fallacy yet again because bringing in people _feeling excluded_ is literally a claim that people can't play the game because they don't have a weapon type they want, which isn't true. They can completely play the game, they just don't have something they **want**

>

You say it's not exclusive but by the definition of the word (quick search: not allowing things to be admitted; restrict or limit to the person, group or area concerned), you want to limit a suggestion because only some people might want it. Giving something to someone that didn't ask or want it isn't exclusive while NOT giving something to someone that did as is exclusive.

One might jump to the conclusion that I'm asserting that if people ask for stuff, they should get it. Incorrect. I'm saying telling those people that ask for stuff that you don't want something so they can't have it is not an argument. If you're not making that argument, then I feel we're close to a compromise. Speaking on the level of difficulty of making new weapon categories, I can't speak from a position of experience and it's on you to prove to me your experience is sufficient enough to speak on my behalf.

> > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > > See how this works as well?

> >

> > As much respect as I have for you and your professional background, I can't help poking fun: did you QA your response before making it?

>

> I see no reason why you can't have fun and poke fun at me. Though, I think I responded quite appropriately. Because my counterargument remains valid.

>

> _Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?_

>

> And as an end note. There are those who have given their ideas in the forums without being thrown down by the forum community, and that's because they have worked to back their ideas alongside seeing the flaws of their ideas when it's shown. And they actually acknowledged those flaws when given evidence regarding why their idea is flawed or how it might have a negative impact on the current state of the game whereas on this thread, you give the reason why it's flawed and it becomes a wall text of ad hominems because no one acknowledges the fact that there are flaws. Yes, even I might have taken this out of context so sorry if I have but current argument remains the same about new weapon types.**Yes, new weapon types are a _nice_ idea, but are they a _good_ idea? No (or in this context, _not yet_) because the developments of new weapon types are currently outweighed by the fact that the current weapons themselves have not been full used to their utmost limit and the fact that there is not enough resources in ANet to develop something new without causing current plans on GW2 to be delayed.**

>

Evidence? Where?

And I'm thankful you've stated your piece rather than advance your defensive argument. If you read my first post, I'm actually in agreement with you. Would new weapon types be nice? Sure, it could mix things up, but it's not a priority to me. Basically, I could take or leave new weapons. I even outlined various other things they could do with current weapons as an aside but that's far and away from taking the stance that new possibilities as a whole should be dismissed.

My only regret is it took this many posts to get to this compromise and little regarding what kind of new weapon categories or what new things could be done with current weapon categories was discussed.

You didn't seem to have fun in this back and forth exchange (not going to lie, I do enjoy some lite forum parlay) so why divert the thread in that direction in the first place? We could have as easily discussed what different things could be done with current weapons and enjoyed basking in each others' imaginative game propositions. Or, you know, not wasted each others' time if nothing was gained (I just happened to get to a lull in work today and got to swippity-swiping on my phone while I wait, so no foul on my part).

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

> >

>

> Sound argument. Now let's ask the question again but this time, with the current weapons. Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?

I challenge you to CTRL+F and search board and back up that context. Disregarding the accusation of your claim (as I never claimed nor assumed that either part of what you said), I further challenge you to poll more people about their experience in the game.

I further challenge you that if you discover what I'd hypothesize you'll unveil (that some players are getting bored while others are not), to assess what could occur to both groups and a control group, if you didn't bother adding anything new.

Because I'm guessing you know I'm leading you on here and you probably won't take those challenges, I'll sum up my point. Adding things to the game may not exclude the individuals that aren't bored but NOT adding things does exclude those that are getting bored. So what does you begging the question actually prove?

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> See how this works as well?

As much respect as I have for you and your professional background, I can't help poking fun: did you QA your response before making it?

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

> > >

> >

> > Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

> >

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

> >

> > You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

> >

> > Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

> >

>

> I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay [FOR YOU] like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

Fixed.

Again, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I know you understand what I mean because you close with your actual argument. You're not wrong. I've long stated that more of the same kinds of options just over-bloats. It's why I am mostly indifferent with GW2's armors...they are mostly options of the same odd, bulky, gaudy types of designs. You are arguing as though the OP claims it is a cure-all for staleness and I don't believe the OP claimed that, but even you'd have to admit, adding a new weapon or two isn't the same as adding a new set of armor. We haven't ever gotten a new category of weapon added to the game yet! We've had recipes added, a craft added, mounts added...if the devs' goals are to add stuff to keep players playing, it's only natural to look at stuff we don't have or haven't seen more of and suggest adding it too.

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Again, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Bringing up issues that aren't directed at the suggestion and pertain to issues of the game's design direction is a discussion best targeted to those that decided to limit weapon allocation.

>

> Not outside the scope of the discussion. You only claim that now since it's already proven that there's more that we can do with currently existing weapon than you think.

>

I claimed it when I initially replied to you, not just now. Did you misread what I posted before? Again, how weapons are currently allocated by profession is another discussion from new weapons. It doesn't prove anything except some players don't like how weapons are currently allocated.

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > So, if they if a limited team could craft quality mounts, which requires as much of more as a new weapon, why assume the level of work is going to be different?

>

> Quality mount**s**? Last I checked, they made 1 mount, 1 GS, and 3 iterations of and armour set that all looked the same. Already your argument is flawed. They didn't make multiple mounts, they made 1 mount. Skins for a single mount are easier to make given that they aren't messing with new mechanics nor are they completely remodelling and rigging mounts outside of the special ones like Hummingbird.

>

Yes, mounts. Roller Beetle, Warclaw and Skyscale.

Regardless, making ONE mount is still as much work (*at least*) as a category of weapon....assumptions, of course.

> > The field of work isn't why I mentioned it, it's the delegation of decisions. When you get to the nitty gritty, the work environment isn't a democracy. There is no 'unified decision'. The person in charge makes the decision after taking in information from the team. And this decisions are weighed by experts whose job it is to make decisions on those decisions.

> >What I'm politely trying to say is, your QA experience is only relevant to testing the content, not the development of that content nor the delegation of duties in creating that content.

>

> The reason I stated the difference in profession is due to exactly this. Unfortunately, this statement is completely wrong. Quality Assurance is not just a case of testing. Quality Assurance alone itself already involves different areas of the development, we don't just test things, we work directly with each team in development. Quality Assurance in and of itself, can split into each area of expertise to work with corresponding teams of Development. So you can have someone testing animations and in game models working with the Arts and Animation team. Someone working on testing out numbers (such as balancing, working on prerequisite numbers and things like crashes.) will work with programming team. Finance wise, the QA Lead will usually have a number of people with them to talk about potentially working towards reduction cost due to file sizes being too big (yes, each mega/gigabyte of data has its cost so less data used with maximum result is always a good key goal). We have just as much say as the developers themselves because we work with them to make sure they, and us, meet the milestones needed and the specified criterias to meet those milestones. If we didn't voice our say in the situations, it would cause an impasse

>

> Here's an example of role diversity in the development industry (quoted message literally states "They're allowed to take on other jobs if they want") So yeah. Quality Assurance was my position, it was my main focus, it was the role that defined me, didn't mean it was my only role.

I'll concede the importance of QA with regards to the finished product however this argument still won't rest my argument. You're attempting to use your expertise (Quality Assurance) to assert a point on a different echelon of delegation. You may have an impact on how a decision is made but you're conflating that to making the decision itself. I deal with smart people all the time (Surgeons, Engineers, Physicists, etc) but just being knowledgeable on a subject doesn't qualify you to make those decisions. Not because your expertise doesn't align, but because of the levels of confidentiality of information. At the end of the day, you are still a customer (or do you work for Anet?) and they are the subject matter experts.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

>

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > What issues?

> As previously stated

>

> _The sole issue with that logic is that it purposefully puts new weapons in a position already similar to what we have. They lock out certain people out of a potential combination outside of certain Elite Specs when they could potentially use these weapons outside of an Elite Spec. Again, that also includes balance. **We already have weapon types that are not usable by certain professions unless they are of a certain Elite Spec, and some weapons that aren't even usable by certain professions outright.**_

>

Again, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Bringing up issues that aren't directed at the suggestion and pertain to issues of the game's design direction is a discussion best targeted to those that decided to limit weapon allocation.

> > Were all of those employees working on the new mounts?

> No they weren't, they were working on the things which were far more important. Future GW2 content. Some were doing other projects outside of GW2 but majority of them were doing the content for GW2 (as per statement here https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/news/whats-next-for-guild-wars-2/)

>

So, if they if a limited team could craft quality mounts, which requires as much of more as a new weapon, why assume the level of work is going to be different?

> > Do keep contemplating and get back to us.

> I'll keep trying lel

>

> > My professional background is military communications. From one professional to another, when a workload is put on your team, it's the leader's responsibility to delegate the workload, and not the worker to decide the financial efficacy of a decision. That is someone else's job.

>

> There's a difference in profession here so what you experience on your field is not the same as what I have experienced in my field. Producers and Team Leaders work with their team and other teams to delegate things to make a unified decision because each of their role will have an effect on the role of the others. What you're talking about is a boss/manager role who has sole control over most, if not all, decisions.

The field of work isn't why I mentioned it, it's the delegation of decisions. When you get to the nitty gritty, the work environment isn't a democracy. There is no 'unified decision'. The person in charge makes the decision after taking in information from the team. And this decisions are weighed by experts whose job it is to make decisions on those decisions.

What I'm politely trying to say is, your QA experience is only relevant to testing the content, not the development of that content nor the delegation of duties in creating that content.

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > There's nothing wrong with my logic. However, your reply does enlighten us with why you disagree with the suggestion.

> >

> > You have an issue with the current system of elite specs limiting certain weapon choice. That is outside the scope of this discussion. You came in thinking this should solve that issue when the OP formulated the suggestion to confirm to the status quo.

> >

> > While your other criticism isn't wrong, it also doesn't prove that this is a bad move, just not one you agree with.

> >

> > An aside: what is your opinion on warrior and guardian future specs? As you may know, those professions have access to most weapons relevant to their style. Options for future elite specs get narrower with each round. Should they not do something different? Not give the spec a new weapon? Recycle one they already have? Just give warrior a scepter? I'm curious.

>

> Oh there's nothing wrong with the logic, it had issues definitely, but nothing wrong with it.

>

What issues?

> As for whether it would be a bad move or not, I base that on current events. Arena Net had to layoff 100+ employees recently which has impacted the company's development potential due to cost. This is a fact that's been around for some time so this is something that cannot be rejected fact wise. If it were a case of Arena Net currently on good footing, I wouldn't argue against a new weapon type.

>

Were all of those employees working on the new mounts?

> In regards to E. Spec on a warrior, I see no reason why warriors can't use a scepter. Depending on concept, they can use it as a melee weapon (a reverse on Revenants using hammer as range) or they can use it as a range and be able to conjure flying weapons (kinda like the Archer hero type in the Fate Series, specifically Gilgamesh). I can't think of something out of my head right now for staff and focus but if I ever do, I'll see if it's anything decent.

>

Do keep contemplating and get back to us.

> Not overestimating it. Worked Quality Assurance for 3 years myself and all the contents we had to test always go back to developers to be fixed, adjusted or be given feedback to regarding balance. It can take up to a month to test something as simple as the Exordium legendary GS they are about to release because of the prerequisites for it as well as testing it out on every single profession that can use it to make sure nothing gets broken. That QA Testing alone will be going back and forth between the art team, the programming team, the producer, then back to the QA team to test it yet again. Very rigorous amount of QA testing alone for one weapon on a weapon type that already exists in game. It can take up to a week for testing if all goes smoothly as planned, if not, it takes up to a month, possibly more. That's on a basis of an MMO, where we had delays because not everything was working as intended. There are scenarios where certain content had to be brought back to developers and redone outright because it crashes the game, and these were simple items which cost manpower to fix.

>

So how does that compare with creating a GW2 quality mount and the amount of QA testing involved?

> Yes, someone can say it's a good idea because it's an opinion. But is it factually sound? Working behind the scenes is never the same as playing a game as a simple player. I've only ever worked QA, but that experience alone exposed me to the difficulties which game developers had to face in order to make game content, and that was only a small portion of it. QA Alone to most people will sound like me just playing a game, but it's not. I'd have to repeat things up to 100 times sometimes to make sure nothing breaks. And oversights such as the recent banner bug that occurred wouldn't be fixed in a day unless someone from the programming team is available to work with the QA team to get those fixed, that time could be spent on the current content instead but because there was an oversight that was broken, that's hours out of developing new stuff. It took them 4 days, nearly a week to fix all the bugs that happened with the latest balance patch.

My professional background is military communications. From one professional to another, when a workload is put on your team, it's the leader's responsibility to delegate the workload, and not the worker to decide the financial efficacy of a decision. That is someone else's job.

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > I'm sorry, but I don't have to be an Anet employee to know making new weapon types is (or should be) less work than making new elite specs. I also don't need to be to know that doing so would synergize with the elite spec system and benefit it in the long run while also providing additions that will excite a lot of players in the short run.

>

> The amount of work involved is actually pretty similar.

>

> New weapon for one class:

> * Concepting for the weapon's role and feel, skill design for how it achieves that

Role and feel tend to be tied to a the weapon itself. Hardly much work that isn't handled in a few conversations and last I knew, conversations aren't that strenuous.

> * Multiple new weapon models to provide a base wardrobe (this does not apply if the weapon already exists, e.g. spear)

Probably the most effort out of your points for the design team. Considering how many weapon skins they pump out, a mildly high about off work.

> * New character animations for each attack for each race/gender combination

And if they ever make new weapons, this is the part I hope they pour most of not all their initial effort into.

> * New UI artwork for each attack

Irrelevant.

> * New effect animations for each attack

This is something that I feel needs to be addressed to all skills as effects bloat has been a strong complaint of the game.

> * Implementation of new attacks in gameplay code

Mostly a coder team prospect but a mildly high amount of work none the less.

> * Trait line balance updates and implementation to include the new weapon in existing trait lines

If it isn't patch worked into citrus traits, then it must likely doesn't need much work if any at all.

> * Further balance iteration to bring it in line with the rest of the game

>

Yup, balance is an on going effort no matter how skills and traits are introduced in the game.

> New elite spec:

> * Concepting for the elite spec's role and feel, new weapon, utility skill, and trait design for how it achieves that

Haha? you literally bundle like 4 points together whereas you spread them as much as possible for the other (for weapons, concept/role, skill design and trait design were separate...you even lump utilities in there).

> * Two new weapon models for the related collections

> * Character animations for each new skill for each race/gender combination

> * UI artwork for each new skill, trait line, and exclusive mechanic

> * Effect animations for each new skill

> * Implementation of new skills, traits and special mechanics in gameplay code

> * Further balance iteration to bring the elite spec in line with the rest of the game

>

> I'm probably missing a few steps here as I'm a lot more familiar with the art asset process than the code, but the only substantial differences are that you need to design and implement an additional specialization mechanic for elite specs, and you need to create a lot more weapon art for a new weapon. An elite spec requires more work on utility skills but that should more or less even out when you start doing new skills and animations for any other classes using a new weapon.

>

You also forgot one other aspect. Precedence. You don't merely develop 1 elite spec. They come in bundles of 9. Creating a new weapon has no such precedence. In fact, it's sort of a lore concept that certain professions have access to fewer weapons.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

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

> > > > > Law 1 of the GW2 forums: there will always ALWAYS be a reason to shoot down any and all ideas.

> > > > > Law 2 of the GW2 forums: there will be people that will willingly provide those reasons.

> > > > >

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

> > > > > > > Because the game is old, getting stale, and a new Elite spec every 2 -4 years isn't enough.

> > > > > > If 9 new elites isn't enough every 2-3 years (it hasn't been even 2 years since PoF launched), then how would adding a single weapon help, especially if it was done without many skins or without revamping at least one trait line per prof?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And if ANet were to do all that work, how would that help speed the pace of changes, rather than slow things down? Or if ANet changed priorities so it could do all the above within a shorter period of time, why pick "new weapons" instead of new prof or new race or any of a number of other things that people also want from older games?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I mean, let's just add a new mount instead. That can't be harder to accomplish, I'm sure.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > I see no need for this. Elites get new weapons every time one is released. Adding weapons to reduce 'staleness' is a fallacy ... there have been more significant introductions of things to address 'staleness' and if they don't do it for you, a new weapon most certainly won't.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If adding something that they haven't added yet is a fallacy then how about stating WHY it's a fallacy? If adding a new Elite spec can reduce staleness (and it has been proven to), how is that much different from adding a new weapon (an idea, mind you, that hasn't been elaborated on in the thread yet so you'd literally have to imagine what the idea would do and then attack that imagined idea)?

> > > > >

> > > > > How is this forum this bad? Seriously? I think the main reason I even read these things is to be entertained at the absurdity of some of the posts that are intentionally contrarian to the most benign or universally beneficial ideas you could imagine.

> > > > >

> > > > > Would I want new weapons/categories/ways to wield weapons to be added? Sure, it can't hurt. It's not a priority of mine but I think anything from being able to wield a 1-handed weapon using both hands or wielding no weapon to be an option or using a scepter in the main hand or having trident as a ground-based weapon or just having a new weapon altogether...all of those ideas are better, IMO, than adding another new mount. I'll rest my commentary there on suggestion unless more about it is discussed.

> > > >

> > > > I've pretty much long thought the same thing. But it isn't just the GW2 forums. It's the general population. Intelligent players knew for years that mounts, if done well, would be great for the game. Anet knew it also, which is why they finally did it. People like those in this (and many other threads) naysayed them the whole way. Common sense prevailed, and they have now moved their mindless contrarianism to other topics.

> > >

> > > Do not conclude that Anet implemented mounts because people wanted mounts. You do NOT know if that's why they finally did it.

> > >

> > > Again, the question here has nothing to do with what people want. It's a business, so the questions are related to if doing something is good for the business.

> >

> > Well if the argument against the suggestion is that it won't be good from a business perspective, one would assume the burden of proof would be on the one who has some relevant intelligence to prove one way or the other. Since it is outside of our realm of intelligence to prove it is not a bad business move (how would we prove such?) it is thus on you to prove that it is a bad business move. You can pull relevant information from similar attempts made by other studios or speculative costs. But beyond that, you'd have to prove it is somehow a cost not congruent with recent and future known additions to the game.

> >

> > That all being said, I'm certain you CAN'T prove that because you don't have the relevant intelligence to offer such evidence SOoo, why persist arguing said point? Nothing wrong with stating an argument as a possibility, but to pursue said argument knowing you can't prove it is a sure fire way to derail all further discussion. Is that what you're trying to accomplish?

>

> I think it's not that hard to think how there are better ways for Anet to give players more value with their time than new weapons. As I already said ... new weapons addressing 'stale' play is a fallacy. The content doesn't change. If you want to avoid stale play by having other choices ... players have access to that with 9 classes with all kinds of different weapons/traits/skills available to them.

So what you're admitting is you can't prove it is a bad business move, just one you wouldn't bet on.

Isn't it just simpler to say what we mean?

BTW, you're welcome. I'm just trying to help you communicate with the OP without a drawn out back and forth that just derails into things not about the actual suggestion.