Would you like legendary weapon dye channels?

[Swagger.1459]

I personally feel this would be a really amazing qol feature for legendary weapons!

[Samnang.1879]

it would be cool cuz like i have eureka and australia... and really want eureka's flame to be blue to match australia

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Unfortunately, whether we want them or not is moot. In order to enable dye channels on _any_ weapon at all, the devs would have to change the underlying mechanics for _every_ weapon in the game (or invent an entirely new system to handle just legendaries).

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Unfortunately, whether we want them or not is moot. In order to enable dye channels on _any_ weapon at all, the devs would have to change the underlying mechanics for _every_ weapon in the game (or invent an entirely new system to handle just legendaries).

 

not only that but we all know or should know by now with anet it will never ever never happen !! its anet

[Biff.5312]

Given how much work you have to put into something that's mostly cosmetic, you'd think there'd be more control over the appearance. You shouldn't have to design the rest of your look around the weapon.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"WARIORSCHARGEING.2637" said:

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

> > Unfortunately, whether we want them or not is moot. In order to enable dye channels on _any_ weapon at all, the devs would have to change the underlying mechanics for _every_ weapon in the game (or invent an entirely new system to handle just legendaries).

>

> not only that but we all know or should know by now with anet it will never ever never happen !! its anet

 

What? ANet has never been against making changes, even big ones. They entirely dropped the idea of transformational content, they implemented the New Player Initiative to attract new players (even if it annoyed and continues to annoy some veterans), and went forward with their long-time (and hidden) plans to implement mounts and raids (gw2 style, of course).

 

It's not that ANet refuses to make weapons dyeable, it's that they have decided that the expense far, far outweighs the benefit. Besides having to create the new subsystems and retrofit every existing weapon into it, the cost of making new weapon skins would also go up. One of the reasons we get so many new weapon skins is that, by design, weapons are simpler than armor (in this game).

 

So, yeah, being that it's ANet means we cannot be 100% sure it will never ever happen. We just know that they won't make the decision lightly; they are going to weigh all the costs (and all the benefits), not just what the fans say is important.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Samnang.1879" said:

> it would be cool cuz like i have eureka and australia... and really want eureka's flame to be blue to match australia

 

Yes! That would be awesome!

[Danikat.8537]

Yes I'd like it. The Dreamer is a bit too pink for my characters blue & purple theme so I'd like to make it a bit darker.

 

But it's not going to happen. Anet have explained, in detail, why adding dye channels to weapons isn't possible and legendaries use the same system as all the other weapons. I mean sure if you want 1/2 the studio tied up with this one change for weeks/months we could get it, but considering how unpopular it was when they bowed to player demand and did bug fix/feature only updates in the past it seems unlikely they're going to be able to commit the resources it needs without losing a lot of good will and potentially losing players.

[WeedyZeGreedy.8635]

> @"Samnang.1879" said:

> it would be cool cuz like i have eureka and australia... and really want eureka's flame to be blue to match australia

 

I come from the land down under

[lokh.2695]

I was kinda divided on this one. On the one hand, more options are always better, so why not give dye channels for legendaries. On the other hand, I hthink it would take quite some effort to implement those channels and that work will most likely only cater to a small amount of players. In the end I voted no because the color of a given legendary, the effects, auras, footfalls and projectiles are part of the personality of the weapon and I wouldn't want to change that, I'd rather take a look at the weapons and decide if I want to go for that look or if I don't mind the way it looks. Legys only need swappable sigils/infusions and we're fine ;)

[DeanBB.4268]

I voted no, but am kinda torn. On one hand, isn't neon-burn-your-eyes-out armor enough? Must the weapons be rainbowneon as well? On the other hand, when done tastefully, it could be nice.

 

But for all weapons, not just legendary. If Anet were to go to the trouble, why limit it?

[Jwake.7013]

I'd say yes, but maybe add a caveat and say I would love to see it as another something to work for, a collection to unlock it(doesn't have to be a collection but just something to work towards example being collection) . Not just something given to you when you make a legendary but when you initially forge it, that unlocked an extra collection so you can make your legendary have dye slots. Not sure others would be up for that, but I always liked the idea of branching off stuff you could work towards after finishing your legendary; like making dye channels for it, or making it level sensitive (so if your in a level 10 area on a new character you can use your legendary sort of thing). Nothing that'd add to the treadmill ofc but extra things that you can work on as a sort of extra progression.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

I just want an option to remove those footprints.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Dyeing weapons has already been commented on (and no they can’t set up some to be dyed and some not. It’s all or none plus necessary UI changes).

 

Here’s what they had to say.

 

[jpetrie](https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3394gf/backpacks_and_dyes_why_not%5Djpetrie%5B/url%5D)

>I can't give you specifics or anything (they'd be very tedious to compute even if I still had access to the code), but GW2's codebase is very much an evolution of the codebase used for GW1. We did not start over, or anything crazy, but nor did we use the GW1 code unchanged.

 

>Huge chunks of gameplay code were added, removed, or refactored so heavily as to be effectively-new (even things you might think would be the same, like inventory). The core rendering and networking capabilities had some significant reworking to support new features, but a lot of the fundamentals remained the same. The very low-level stuff, such as the classes we use to manage collections of data, do math, sort things... those didn't change much and some files might even be identical to the ones in GW1, except maybe for some copyright or header date changes.

>Essentially if you view the code as a vertical stack of functionality, with very-game-specific gameplay code at the top and generic data structure/algorithm stuff at the bottom, the closer something is to the top the more likely it experienced significant tweaking at some point during GW2's development.

 

>To address the specific topic of this thread (dying stuff)... what I recall (so I might be wrong) is that the decision to dye armor but not weapons was a design one (in the sense we chose to do it, not that there were insurmountable technical issues), and made pretty early. We wanted a much richer dye system for GW2 than we had in GW1. This would require some changes to the way that the source art was authored, which increased the complexity (and thus time) of doing so. That additional complexity pays off best for armor, which is more visible on-screen than weapons generally are, and so (I think) it was decided that we wouldn't bother authoring dye support into the weapon art. Eventually this decision would have led to code changes or optimization relying on that assumption, and we arrive at where we are today.

 

>As with all things, it could be made possible to dye weapons with sufficient code and art resources sunk into it. But **it would be a nontrivial undertaking (and probably a non-trivial patch download!) to re-author all the existing source art with appropriate metadata for dye channels.**

>(Please keep in mind that all of this is from memory from a long time ago, so I may be forgetting/misremembering/et cetera some things.)

 

(Emphasis is mine.)

 

I’d rather they spend the nontrivial time and effort it would take to set up dyeing for weapons to make content instead.

[SuperduperMLGbsns.9345]

Problem about the whole could be that people might start to ask to change for every weapon and sprite effect around these.

But yeah, I rather wear the precursor from 'the minstrel' as the main weapon itself. (gold/red is a terrible color set)

 

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> I just want an option to remove those footprints.

I would want it vice versa: the ability to transmutate the weapon and keep the footprints.

[Bunter.3795]

There is a big difference between "would I like it" and "would I like it even if it meant delaying other content". Yes, I would love to dye my weapons or in the very least the glow/special effects from them but when it would start to eat into further development time, where do you put the line? I wouldn't want it to eat into any development time for new content and/or other QoL features some are working on in their spare time.

 

How do you find the happy medium? I don't know. It seems, that is seems, easy enough as every weapon has a color assigned to it already and all you're doing is changing that predetermined color but when you add a checkbox to change that color, how much would the system lag, how much longer would it take to load in, the lag in major events as it has to read every near weapon for it's special dye channels. All these things have to be taken into account and I'm sure there are more that I'm not aware of.

 

Overall, yeah I would love to have dye choices or even colors for weapons but not at the expense of performance or lack of future content.

 

Maybe as a compromise they could change some of the existing weapons to add more colors. As an example we currently have the exotic greatsword Cobalt. It is a nice looking greatsword with a nice blue glow, if your character has a blue motif. Anet could release Ruby, the same exact sword with just a different color on the glow. This would help a lot since we don't get dyeable weapons, we at least get color choices. An idea anyways.

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

I voted no.

For me, legendary weapons have a specific design including appearance, effects, colors... It is a piece of "art" and should remain untouched. When I buy a painting to decorate at home, I don't take brushes and colors to modify it. I keep it as is and admire it. Of course, it is a different scale with legendary weapons inside a game, but at the end the same idea. Hard to explain. Hope it is clear enough. :3

[Mea.5491]

I voted no because I want dye channels on every weapon, not only Legendaries. Careful GW2, ESO is about to get a transmutation and weapon dye system. :P I don't like that game but they are getting one step ahead in fashion wars and it's so annoying, lol. Meanwhile, we are stuck with a neglected/ignored transmutation system, boring Outfits and no way to dye weapons/back items. It makes me sad. : (

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @"SuperduperMLGbsns.9345" said:

> Problem about the whole could be that people might start to ask to change for every weapon and sprite effect around these.

> But yeah, I rather wear the precursor from 'the minstrel' as the main weapon itself. (gold/red is a terrible color set)

>

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > I just want an option to remove those footprints.

> I would want it vice versa: the ability to transmutate the weapon and keep the footprints.

 

Perfect. Give us both options.

OR

... I GOT IT!

 

 

Give us a footprint category/slot.

When you unlock a legendary, you unlock the footprint skin.

So if you get the um... whichever that makes the grass grow one, or the one with the rainbows, or the one with the puddles of red "blurriness which looks like a glitch" and so on, then you have those selected.

Now you can transmutate (or hide) footprints without having those legendaries on.

Want to use a Mordant Sickle? Use it with the rainbow footprints.

Want to use a Quip? Use it with the rainbow footprints because it's not linked to the weapon no more and it's now a "footprint skin" on it's own.

Want to use anything and have 0 footprints? You're in luck! Just uncheck that box to not show footprints.

 

Best of both worlds. Everyone happy. Except for Tanaka over there who is never happy. Especially when he's always whining about balance.

[FOX.3582]

> @"Dreamy Lu.3865" said:

> I voted no.

> For me, legendary weapons have a specific design including appearance, effects, colors... It is a piece of "art" and should remain untouched. When I buy a painting to decorate at home, I don't take brushes and colors to modify it. I keep it as is and admire it. Of course, it is a different scale with legendary weapons inside a game, but at the end the same idea. Hard to explain. Hope it is clear enough. :3

 

Couldn't have said it better my self. You explained it just right.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @"Dreamy Lu.3865" said:

> I voted no.

> For me, legendary weapons have a specific design including appearance, effects, colors... It is a piece of "art" and should remain untouched. When I buy a painting to decorate at home, I don't take brushes and colors to modify it. I keep it as is and admire it. Of course, it is a different scale with legendary weapons inside a game, but at the end the same idea. Hard to explain. Hope it is clear enough. :3

 

When Van Gogh was alive, people considered his art to be trash pretty much.

Don't think the artist behind the Legendaries are dead yet.

Not saying it's trash at all, but many of the "legendary paintings" only became legendary because/after the maker died. OF course, many of them became legendary before the artist died, but yeah.

[Conncept.7638]

No, because dye channels should be added to ALL weapons. Seriously, how is it even a thing that we don't have back item and weapon channels?

 

Cosmetics are 90% of endgame rewards in GW2, that's like MMOs like WoW, where the endgame is a new stat tier, only releasing that stat tier on 6 out of the 9 pieces of equipment your character can equip, preventing you from ever completing the end game rewards for the expansion in question.

 

That sounds like an incomplete game system and a lazily made expansion doesn't it? Well , lazy and incomplete is exactly what the cosmetic system is in GW2 until we get backpiece and weapon dying.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

> @"Conncept.7638" said:

> No, because dye channels should be added to ALL weapons. Seriously, how is it even a thing that we don't have back item and weapon channels?

>

> Cosmetics are 90% of endgame rewards in GW2, that's like MMOs like WoW, where the endgame is a new stat tier, only releasing that stat tier on 6 out of the 9 pieces of equipment your character can equip, preventing you from ever completing the end game rewards for the expansion in question.

>

> That sounds like an incomplete game system and a lazily made expansion doesn't it? Well , lazy and incomplete is exactly what the cosmetic system is in GW2 until we get backpiece and weapon dying.

 

if i can please let me try to help you see why it is they should add the dye channels . now to my case in points

 

in guild wars most items could be dyed fully from weapons to armor. so forth and so on which made the weapons look much more better and cooler looking another case in point check out this link if it does not post and you see why we want these dye channels add to the game

https://wiki.guildwars.com/images/7/77/Texmod_PinkVoltaicSpear.jpg

 

 

[Conncept.7638]

> @"WARIORSCHARGEING.2637" said:

> > @"Conncept.7638" said:

> > No, because dye channels should be added to ALL weapons. Seriously, how is it even a thing that we don't have back item and weapon channels?

> >

> > Cosmetics are 90% of endgame rewards in GW2, that's like MMOs like WoW, where the endgame is a new stat tier, only releasing that stat tier on 6 out of the 9 pieces of equipment your character can equip, preventing you from ever completing the end game rewards for the expansion in question.

> >

> > That sounds like an incomplete game system and a lazily made expansion doesn't it? Well , lazy and incomplete is exactly what the cosmetic system is in GW2 until we get backpiece and weapon dying.

>

> if i can please let me try to help you see why it is they should add the dye channels . now to my case in points

>

> in guild wars most items could be dyed fully from weapons to armor. so forth and so on which made the weapons look much more better and cooler looking another case in point check out this link if it does not post and you see why we want these dye channels add to the game

> https://wiki.guildwars.com/images/7/77/Texmod_PinkVoltaicSpear.jpg

>

>

 

English isn't your first language is it? I'm not saying we shouldn't add dye channels to legendaries, I'm saying we shouldn't compromise by adding them solely to legendaries, and that they should be added to ALL cosmetic items without exception.

 

Furthermore, if dye channels are added to legendaries, the more overzealous portion of the elitist crowd would, from that point on, defend ever adding dye channels to the remainder of weapons, because they would view it as cheapening their legendary gear.

[STIHL.2489]

This is my feeling on it.

 

The current legendary weapons are set up to NOT have dye channels, and be their own way, Much like back items. In this regard, I would rather not see a Electro Pink Twilight, or a Midnight Orange Dreamer. They would just look bad..

 

If they put in Dye Channels to Legendary Weapons, they should put them in for new legendary items that are designed with the idea they can be dyed, so their effects and foot prints and the like can be setup in such a way as to work with that idea.