Would implementing Spears on land really be such an issue?

[Edelweiss.4261]

I think new weapons would be such a significant boon to the game that the cost to implement would be worth it. New weapons could, in theory, break some of the implicit rules of other weapons. Image wielding a scythe as an anti-group weapon. Most weapons limit cleave to a few targets, but let the scythe hit more targets at a lower damage rate. Let spears serve as anti-armor weapons that focuses around unblockable attacks. Have great axes deal additional damage based on ally-applied conditions. There's so much you can do with new weapons that can be spread across multiple classes! New weapons can be game-changing.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> New animations as you can’t really use the underwater ones. Effects, too.

>

> New skills for the same reason as above which means tons of balancing.

>

> All in all it would be more work than you think.

>

>

 

Arent they adding new skills with every elite spec? Also mounts were alot of work too and they basically carried the expac sales on their own. I think something as requested as new weapons will do the same, regardless of work.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > New animations as you can’t really use the underwater ones. Effects, too.

> >

> > New skills for the same reason as above which means tons of balancing.

> >

> > All in all it would be more work than you think.

> >

> >

>

> Arent they adding new skills with every elite spec? Also mounts were alot of work too and they basically carried the expac sales on their own. I think something as requested as new weapons will do the same, regardless of work.

 

The thing is of course “effort vs profit”. The Elite specializations were a huge selling point of the two expansions so it was worth it for Anet to do so.

 

Going through the same process in turning underwater weapons into land weapons “just because they can” of course wouldn’t be.

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > New animations as you can’t really use the underwater ones. Effects, too.

> > >

> > > New skills for the same reason as above which means tons of balancing.

> > >

> > > All in all it would be more work than you think.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Arent they adding new skills with every elite spec? Also mounts were alot of work too and they basically carried the expac sales on their own. I think something as requested as new weapons will do the same, regardless of work.

>

> The thing is of course “effort vs profit”. The Elite specializations were a huge selling point of the two expansions so it was worth it for Anet to do so.

>

> Going through the same process in turning underwater weapons into land weapons “just because they can” of course wouldn’t be.

>

 

And why couldnt that arguement work for anything else they've done? Mounts, elite specs etc. "They did it just because they can" and it was succesful.

 

In the same sense the next elite specs using new weapons would be a success. An even bigger one than normal elite specs since new weapons have been up there with mounts for top requested things.

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @"Edelweiss.4261" said:

> I think new weapons would be such a significant boon to the game that the cost to implement would be worth it. New weapons could, in theory, break some of the implicit rules of other weapons. Image wielding a scythe as an anti-group weapon. Most weapons limit cleave to a few targets, but let the scythe hit more targets at a lower damage rate. Let spears serve as anti-armor weapons that focuses around unblockable attacks. Have great axes deal additional damage based on ally-applied conditions. There's so much you can do with new weapons that can be spread across multiple classes! New weapons can be game-changing.

 

So can already existing weapons adjusted to a new elite spec. So far noone has given any compelling reason why adding a new weapon would be cost effective for anet to make. New weapons cost ALOT in terms of ongoing support in new skin sets and likely have a very high implementation cost (despite what OP seems to think). If they can get the same sales from just reusing existing weapons in expansion why on earth would they add a whole new weapon.

 

As I said before, the only reason to add a complicated and potentially non profitable system to the game would be as a key selling point for an expansion. And they already have other features that are much more requested.

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > > New animations as you can’t really use the underwater ones. Effects, too.

> > > >

> > > > New skills for the same reason as above which means tons of balancing.

> > > >

> > > > All in all it would be more work than you think.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Arent they adding new skills with every elite spec? Also mounts were alot of work too and they basically carried the expac sales on their own. I think something as requested as new weapons will do the same, regardless of work.

> >

> > The thing is of course “effort vs profit”. The Elite specializations were a huge selling point of the two expansions so it was worth it for Anet to do so.

> >

> > Going through the same process in turning underwater weapons into land weapons “just because they can” of course wouldn’t be.

> >

>

> And why couldnt that arguement work for anything else they've done? Mounts, elite specs etc. "They did it just because they can" and it was succesful.

>

> In the same sense the next elite specs using new weapons would be a success. An even bigger one than normal elite specs since new weapons have been up there with mounts for top requested things.

 

They added mounts as a key sellling point of the new expansion. They were added to generate hype and boost sales, not just 'because they can'. They also had a long term unique monetization model in mount skins. Land spears have no long term monetization. Most people already find elite specs reusing existing weapons enough to be worth buying an expansion for.

 

Why then would they add a key selling point that has little ROI, when they could instead invest in things like underwater combat, which is not only much more highly requested but has much greater potential to generate revenue for Anet.

[Arcaedus.7290]

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> So can already existing weapons adjusted to a new elite spec. So far noone has given any compelling reason why adding a new weapon would be cost effective for anet to make.

 

Alright, well so far no one has given any compelling reason why adding a new weapon would **not** be cost effective for them. Those who are criticizing this post are relying on the same technique that I relied on for making this post: logical extrapolation based on observations of already existing content. Unless you have experience in game design and net code, you probably don't know any more than I do about resource cost here.

 

>New weapons cost ALOT in terms of ongoing support in new skin sets and likely have a very high implementation cost (despite what OP seems to think).

 

I would agree with this statement. Picture this for a moment though: before PoF, a warrior with a dagger did not at all exist. To implement daggers into the warrior class through an elite specialization no doubt costed them a lot. It was essentially creating something for warrior that did not exist before. They then did the same thing 8 more times for the other classes. And there you have exactly what I'm arguing may be possible with spears/tridents/harpoon guns in a future expac.

 

>If they can get the same sales from just reusing existing weapons in expansion why on earth would they add a whole new weapon.

 

I mean, they would be reusing existing weapons with spears/tridents/harpoon guns. Maybe the level of recycling I'm suggesting actually is NOT possible, but that's something for Anet to evaluate. Have they have evaluated this before and decided against it? Possibly. But did they do so in this context? Possibly not. I did some searches on the forums here and on the GW2 reddit before realizing that no one has really proposed something quite like this.

 

> As I said before, the only reason to add a complicated and potentially non profitable system to the game would be as a key selling point for an expansion. And they already have other features that are much more requested.

 

This is exactly why they haven't added new weapons into the game so far. Gliders/horizontal character progression (HoT) and Mounts (PoF) were both HUGE on their priority lists. I know I'm saying this in hindsight but this was pretty obvious before the release of either expacs since as you said, it's easy to see how these things are both massively appealing to almost all of the player base, AND recurrently monetizable.

 

I think this post's suggestion fits the bill on both of these points though. Never mind the costs for a second (I mean it's not your job to worry about these), and just think: do you want new weapons? Who doesn't? New weapon skins are also recurrently monetizable. In both points, the magnitude is far lower than it was for either gliders or mounts but still positive.

 

[phs.6089]

Won't hurt if new elits got couple of new weapons. Problems might be in classifying aqua weapons into land ones from programming perspectives but again i don't have the code

[Arcaedus.7290]

> @"phs.6089" said:

> Won't hurt if new elits got couple of new weapons. Problems might be in classifying aqua weapons into land ones from programming perspectives but again i don't have the code

 

Good point. The code for this is likely very old at this point and dev's have mentioned in AMAs and other threads (just from memory) that the code is so convoluted that some seemingly simple things are currently impossible in the game right now. I don't know what the situation is on UW weapons but have yet to hear any direct word on the idea of spears or any new weapons in the game. I like to think that as far as the game's combat goes, the coding is at least manageable since it's one of the biggest selling points of the game overall, so it's a possibility? :D (pls don't kill the dream Anet devs!)

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @"Arcaedus.7290" said:

> > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> >

>

> Alright, well so far no one has given any compelling reason why adding a new weapon would **not** be cost effective for them. Those who are criticizing this post are relying on the same technique that I relied on for making this post: logical extrapolation based on observations of already existing content. Unless you have experience in game design and net code, you probably don't know any more than I do about resource cost here.

>

Opportunity cost is a thing in business. For every decision you choose to pursue, u take away resources from other potential invenstments. You will have to pay people to basically rewrite the game code to allow an underwater weapon to be equipped on land. Then you have to code the wardrobe to allow spears as a new weapon. Considering anet have told us wardrobe is already extremely limited and thats why we dont see every single possible outfit or skin there is, I imagine this would be costly to do. I dont think thats an unreasonable assumption. Then there is the cost of animating all these weapons. Much higher than adding a dagger to warrior, as dagger auto animations already exist. Spear has no animations workable on land to go off.

 

Furthermore, you have to support this new feature by adding skins. At least 10-20 skins to make it an acceptable choice of weapon. Considering we get an average of 3 sets on skins PER EXPANSION, for free. Its very unlikely anet is going to want to create all these skins, when again, they can just add an existing weapon to a class and not have to worry about skins for it. ON top of that, every time they add a new skin set to the game, they are going to have to create an additional spear skin, adding tons of recurring costs. The only possible monetization is unique skins in the gem store. But theres only sp many anet can release before gem store becomes oversaturated with skins and players become unhappy.

 

 

 

 

>

> I mean, they would be reusing existing weapons with spears/tridents/harpoon guns. Maybe the level of recycling I'm suggesting actually is NOT possible, but that's something for Anet to evaluate. Have they have evaluated this before and decided against it? Possibly. But did they do so in this context? Possibly not. I did some searches on the forums here and on the GW2 reddit before realizing that no one has really proposed something quite like this.

>

You said it yourself, recycling these weapons isnt possible because they use animaitons designed for a 3D plane. This would NOT work at all on land and all animations would have to be redone from scratch, right down to simply holding the weapons.

 

 

>

> This is exactly why they haven't added new weapons into the game so far. Gliders/horizontal character progression (HoT) and Mounts (PoF) were both HUGE on their priority lists. I know I'm saying this in hindsight but this was pretty obvious before the release of either expacs since as you said, it's easy to see how these things are both massively appealing to almost all of the player base, AND recurrently monetizable.

>

Yes mounts and gliders are monetizeble, spears arent because are limited to fitting in with the current framework other weapons use and therefore wont generate more revenue.

 

> I think this post's suggestion fits the bill on both of these points though. Never mind the costs for a second (I mean it's not your job to worry about these), and just think: do you want new weapons? Who doesn't? New weapon skins are also recurrently monetizable. In both points, the magnitude is far lower than it was for either gliders or mounts but still positive.

>

 

I dont really care if we get spears or not. Id rather develeopment goes towards other things personally but thats irrelevent. If you are going to suggest a feature, and even go as far as suggesting it wont be much work to create that feature, you need more of an argument that 'i want it. it will be good for the game'. If you want anet to seriously consider putting spears in the game you need to suggest how it will be profitable for them to do so. And right now I still dont see an argument on why they would be.

[Arcaedus.7290]

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

 

> Opportunity cost is a thing in business. For every decision you choose to pursue, u take away resources from other potential invenstments. You will have to pay people to basically rewrite the game code to allow an underwater weapon to be equipped on land.

 

We don't really know how difficult or costly reworking that code may be though. I could also make these same arguments to favor skipping out on many of the features you want to see in the game as well (support for dungeon content, individual outfit pieces, more narrative focus on other races besides human).

 

>Then there is the cost of animating all these weapons. Much higher than adding a dagger to warrior, as dagger auto animations already exist. Spear has no animations workable on land to go off.

 

This I disagree on. Look at revenant and daredevil staff. There was previously no precedent for staff being used as a melee weapon. They borrowed animations from hammer to get the job done meanwhile creating a few unique ones as well. As far as the melee attacks go (thrusts, strikes, blocking, holding/idling with spear) there is plenty of precedent. Thrown attacks even have a precedent (DH's Spear of Justice/f1 virtue).

 

> Furthermore, you have to support this new feature by adding skins. At least 10-20 skins to make it an acceptable choice of weapon. Considering we get an average of 3 sets on skins PER EXPANSION, for free. Its very unlikely anet is going to want to create all these skins, when again, they can just add an existing weapon to a class and not have to worry about skins for it.

 

They actually used to make skins for the underwater weapons, and stopped since 1. they began to neglect underwater content and 2. it probably wasn't making them money. It's possible that 2 is the cause of 1, but either way, if the narrative they're trying to tell took a turn towards the Deep Sea Dragon or an expac with Underwater content, I think my proposition is a reasonable one.

 

> Yes mounts and gliders are monetizeble, spears arent because are limited to fitting in with the current framework other weapons use and therefore wont generate more revenue.

 

They have the potential to generate more revenue through gemstore skin sales like I argued. Nobody really knows for sure. Neither you nor I are in a position to do the opportunity cost calculations on it though.

 

> I dont really care if we get spears or not. Id rather develeopment goes towards other things personally but thats irrelevent. If you are going to suggest a feature, and even go as far as suggesting it wont be much work to create that feature, you need more of an argument that 'i want it. it will be good for the game'. If you want anet to seriously consider putting spears in the game you need to suggest how it will be profitable for them to do so. And right now I still dont see an argument on why they would be.

 

With each batch of elite specs, they already put a lot of work into coding a new weapon for each class. I'm inquiring about just how much more work it would comparatively be if they decided that the new weapon to be coded for each class be ones that already exist in the game's code (albeit in underwater content currently). I did suggest how I think it might be profitable for them to do so with what limited knowledge I have. It's no Gliders or Mounts, but it's something.

 

One last thing. This may be a little bit ad hominem but I think it's relevant: This issue is just as desired by some players, as your preferences are desired by you. People appreciate and want different things from this game, so it's okay for them to voice their opinions on what they want in the future. I don't think it's productive for players to put down other players' suggestions based solely on arguments of perceived costs to Anet, since it's not their (your) job to evaluate this. If you like this suggestion, say so, if you don't care, which seems to be the case, it's okay to just ignore the post. This is not going to be the case where this suggestion just suddenly catches fire, and Anet feels forced into implementing it into the game (at enormous costs to themselves) due solely to popular demand. I don't even think we have precedent for anything like that.

 

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @"Arcaedus.7290" said:

 

 

> They have the potential to generate more revenue through gemstore skin sales like I argued. Nobody really knows for sure. Neither you nor I are in a position to do the opportunity cost calculations on it though.

>

Again I already said they will struggle to generate revenue through the gem store as new weapons will have to fit into the current framework current weapons use. AKA sold though blc tickets. This is only going to add more work for anet creating a 19th weapon to every future set. Considering people already buy plenty of blc, I doubt the inclusion of an RNG spear skin into an already large pool of weps will greatly increase sales. They can sell individual skins but again like I said they can only add so many before customers start to complain as their weapon choice isnt prioritized for unique skins and we have 20 spear skins in gemstore.

>

> One last thing. This may be a little bit ad hominem but I think it's relevant: This issue is just as desired by some players, as your preferences are desired by you. People appreciate and want different things from this game, so it's okay for them to voice their opinions on what they want in the future. I don't think it's productive for players to put down other players' suggestions based solely on arguments of perceived costs to Anet, since it's not their (your) job to evaluate this. If you like this suggestion, say so, if you don't care, which seems to be the case, it's okay to just ignore the post. This is not going to be the case where this suggestion just suddenly catches fire, and Anet feels forced into implementing it into the game (at enormous costs to themselves) due solely to popular demand. I don't even think we have precedent for anything like that.

>

 

I never said people cant voice their opinions. I have every right to put down a suggestion if its framed as a serious request as an addition the game, just as you have the right to suggest it and it IS reasonable put it down on the basis of cost. Cost is the number one issue affecting implementation of features after all. If you want your suggestion to have even the slightest chance of being added, you need to prove to anet this is going to make them money. And lots of it. I will not simply ignore a suggestion just because I dont think its reasonable, otherwise the topic becomes a pointless echo chamber with non of the issues ever being addressed.

 

Also I understand the things I want in the game will never made it to release because of money concerns, thats why I only post them in wishlist threads, not actual suggestions.

[Arcaedus.7290]

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

 

> If you want your suggestion to have even the slightest chance of being added, you need to prove to anet this is going to make them money. And lots of it. I will not simply ignore a suggestion just because I dont think its reasonable, otherwise the topic becomes a pointless echo chamber with non of the issues ever being addressed.

>

> Also I understand the things I want in the game will never made it to release because of money concerns, thats why I only post them in wishlist threads, not actual suggestions.

 

Your first sentence has truth to it from Anet's point of view but I don't necessarily think that's a hard and fast rule. Long before PoF and even before HoT, players had been suggesting mounts. Not once did I ever see someone proposing a cost-benefit analysis of mounts. The closest thing I saw was a very simple piece of logic, along the lines of "if you introduce mounts into the game, future game mechanics could be centered around them, plus you could make gemstore mount skins." I saw this argument many times. It was essentially just stating the obvious. It's not like players who made or agreed with these suggestions really knew the resource cost behind mounts or just how lucrative they could be... they just wanted mounts because it just seemed right for the game/they'd be cool, or what have you.

 

Honestly, I see anything that players propose as a wishlist thread. There isn't a formal proposal process because we don't have access to the information we would need to convince Anet whether something would definitely make them money. This one is essentially that and with an argument for how spears/new weapons could be implemented into the game if Anet was so inclined. It's plainly obvious that they want to put them in game (concept art for various maps) but it's also obvious it would be too resource heavy to just flat out implement them into the game as a standalone update (otherwise they would have done so already). In my opinion, if the game's narrative ever heads in that direction, it's worth considering some novelty as far as underwater weapons go.

[Edelweiss.4261]

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> So can already existing weapons adjusted to a new elite spec. So far noone has given any compelling reason why adding a new weapon would be cost effective for anet to make. New weapons cost ALOT in terms of ongoing support in new skin sets and likely have a very high implementation cost (despite what OP seems to think). If they can get the same sales from just reusing existing weapons in expansion why on earth would they add a whole new weapon.

 

I'm not arguing that it is cost-effective. There's no way it could be. I'm saying that it should be done despite that.

 

Adjusting existing weapons for new classes doesn't change the content that already exists. Rather, adding new elite specializations will have diminishing returns as elite specs are mutually exclusive. Why choose a new elite spec when I like how the old one plays? People may find they like some of the new ones, but, with each round of elite specs, more people will not feel that new elite specs aren't worth the cost of an expansion. Adding new weapons to interact with old content. This does assume that there will be more than one more expansion.

 

As for other expansion-selling features, none are coming to mind. Underwater revamp? I'm not sure fixing that is even possible. Player housing? I wouldn't pay $1 for. I'd probably skip that expansion like I originally did with HoT. New race? Gigantic resource dump for virtually nothing. New mounts? What can they add to make my current mounts obsolete? All the next expansion will add is more of the same. That's fine if it goes for like $20, but, for the full price, I need something new. What great ideas can you think of?

[Eddbopkins.2630]

The only reason id want new weapons is you get new weapon skills, new play styles. Gw1 had such an assortment of skills that build diversity was so outrageous and overwhealming that it created a plethra of viable options.

Now that in gw2 skills are tied to weapons it lowers the diversity and play style that can happen with each build. I was always against skills being tied to weapons from day 1 but it is what it is.

In terms of diversity and build options gw2 is a step backwards compaired to gw1 i feel.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Eddbopkins.2630" said:

> The only reason id want new weapons is you get new weapon skills, new play styles. Gw1 had such an assortment of skills that build diversity was so outrageous and overwhealming that it created a plethra of viable options.

> Now that in gw2 skills are tied to weapons it lowers the diversity and play style that can happen with each build. I was always against skills being tied to weapons from day 1 but it is what it is.

> In terms of diversity and build options gw2 is a step backwards compaired to gw1 i feel.

 

While I agree with you about it being limited, in all fairness only _half_ your skills are tied to your weapon. Unless you’re a Revenant, you can freely choose the other half... with some limitations.

 

Limitations that _kinda_ blow, though.

 

I’d love to be able to play without an Elite skill in favour of an additional regular Utility skill in it’s place... :confounded:

 

 

[Martin The Brave.8731]

I don't understand this communities rational, when people say "Arenanet should not waste their time on X content because it would be to much work". Arenanet is a Video-game development COMPANY, I don't know if people have forgotten but it is their job to deliver content the player base wants. This was the same argument people gave with Mounts,Raids,Classes etc. It's not your job to worry about whether or not Arenanet can afford it. Arenanet has been around long enough to figure out whether or not content is worthy of release.

 

If an overwhelming majority of the community wants "X" content (Realistic goal/content), and Arenanet is unable to provide then they have failed their customer base.

[Trise.2865]

> @"Martin The Brave.8731" said:

> I don't understand this communities rational, when people say "Arenanet should not waste their time on X content because it would be to much work". Arenanet is a Video-game development COMPANY, I don't know if people have forgotten but it is their job to deliver content the player base wants. This was the same argument people gave with Mounts,Raids,Classes etc. It's not your job to worry about whether or not Arenanet can afford it. Arenanet has been around long enough to figure out whether or not content is worthy of release.

>

> If an overwhelming majority of the community wants "X" content (Realistic goal/content), and Arenanet is unable to provide then they have failed their customer base.

 

It is our job, as the customer base, to provide this company ArenaNet with accurate information on how we wish to be served. It is OUR task to communicate what the "overwhelming majority" actually wants, and not just some vocal minorities (who have already kittened up the game in the ways you've mentioned, and more). The way to do that is by detailing projects and content that we would choose to see before a proposed feature, and suggest they prioritize allocation of resources in that direction to please the greater majority. It has nothing to do with what they can or can't afford, but more what we as a community deem more important. It's no different than what the OP is trying to do.

[Arcaedus.7290]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

 

> It is our job, as the customer base, to provide this company ArenaNet with accurate information on how we wish to be served. It is OUR task to communicate what the "overwhelming majority" actually wants, and not just some vocal minorities (who have already kittened up the game in the ways you've mentioned, and more). The way to do that is by detailing projects and content that we would choose to see before a proposed feature, and suggest they prioritize allocation of resources in that direction to please the greater majority. It has nothing to do with what they can or can't afford, but more what we as a community deem more important. It's no different than what the OP is trying to do.

 

Its arrogant to think that a majority or even a plurality of the community's suggestions about Anet's resource allocations actually sways their decision-making process. The main influence we have is being vocal enough about wanting something (whether it's reasonable or not) and if they hear enough yays, the next step is evaluating if it can be feasibly implemented into the game. I agree with Martin on this one; it's Anet who determines whether or not the request is reasonable, not us.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"Martin The Brave.8731" said:

> > I don't understand this communities rational, when people say "Arenanet should not waste their time on X content because it would be to much work". Arenanet is a Video-game development COMPANY, I don't know if people have forgotten but it is their job to deliver content the player base wants. This was the same argument people gave with Mounts,Raids,Classes etc. It's not your job to worry about whether or not Arenanet can afford it. Arenanet has been around long enough to figure out whether or not content is worthy of release.

> >

> > If an overwhelming majority of the community wants "X" content (Realistic goal/content), and Arenanet is unable to provide then they have failed their customer base.

>

> It is our job, as the customer base, to provide this company ArenaNet with accurate information on how we wish to be served. It is OUR task to communicate what the "overwhelming majority" actually wants, and not just some vocal minorities (who have already kittened up the game in the ways you've mentioned, and more).

 

Exactly, if you dig up that old poll which must exist where 90% of the community voted no for "do you like wearing pants?" this will back up that they truly listen.

[zealex.9410]

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > > > New animations as you can’t really use the underwater ones. Effects, too.

> > > > >

> > > > > New skills for the same reason as above which means tons of balancing.

> > > > >

> > > > > All in all it would be more work than you think.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Arent they adding new skills with every elite spec? Also mounts were alot of work too and they basically carried the expac sales on their own. I think something as requested as new weapons will do the same, regardless of work.

> > >

> > > The thing is of course “effort vs profit”. The Elite specializations were a huge selling point of the two expansions so it was worth it for Anet to do so.

> > >

> > > Going through the same process in turning underwater weapons into land weapons “just because they can” of course wouldn’t be.

> > >

> >

> > And why couldnt that arguement work for anything else they've done? Mounts, elite specs etc. "They did it just because they can" and it was succesful.

> >

> > In the same sense the next elite specs using new weapons would be a success. An even bigger one than normal elite specs since new weapons have been up there with mounts for top requested things.

>

> They added mounts as a key sellling point of the new expansion. They were added to generate hype and boost sales, not just 'because they can'. They also had a long term unique monetization model in mount skins. Land spears have no long term monetization. Most people already find elite specs reusing existing weapons enough to be worth buying an expansion for.

>

> Why then would they add a key selling point that has little ROI, when they could instead invest in things like underwater combat, which is not only much more highly requested but has much greater potential to generate revenue for Anet.

 

Land spear or any weapon has plenty of opportunity to be monetised through gemstore and blacklion skins. They havent done spear skins for a while they easily have room and themes to make spears from.

 

But again why someone just like mounts that has been requested for year wont work? Esp when mounts had a number of very vocal ppl being against them with a passion.