kharmin.7683 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > 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. I don't recall MO or the devs ever saying that mounts would not be incorporated. However, with regards to weapon types ... > @"archmagus.7249" said: > There was a HoT trailer where a character had a land spear, and players on reddit got all fired up about them adding land spears. However, multiple devs chimed in (including MO himself) and said that they won't be adding any new weapons to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"archmagus.7249" said: > > > @"Billy.1879" said: > > > I wouldn't be opposed to throwing in cross bows, land spears, great axes and maybe even wands or something like that > > > > There was a HoT trailer where a character had a land spear, and players on reddit got all fired up about them adding land spears. However, multiple devs chimed in (including MO himself) and said that they won't be adding any new weapons to the game. > > Didn't they also say that about mounts at one point? Things like this always make me think that there's something off about the people in charge of this game. They avoid doing things that would clearly be good for the game for years on end. No, they were very careful not to commit one way or the other with mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > Learn the difference. > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: **A.) creative resources skins** Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. **B.) creative resource animations** Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. **C.) bias against established weapons** One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. **D.) more bias against established weapons** A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > **A.) creative resources skins** > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > **B.) creative resource animations** > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. Don't forget c. "you're using the term 'need' wrong" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. The arguments are very logical, you just don't like them (and you left out balance which would be the third argument). Your argument boils down to: it's good because I want it and it might generate more revenue (which it might, but there is no way of you being sure because decline in the areas I mentioned might just as well discourage people from the game) because that's about as much assumption you could make without more data. So yes, Arenanet could spend resources on additional weapons while in the process making their future workload more, they might be even doing so right now. Nothing so far suggests this is the case though. The closest we have for approximations is: - legendary weapons - weapon skin collections - monetizable content The first two of which have seen both a decline (new Black Lion Weapon collections are made without underwater weapons) and a slow release cadence and no update (there is no Legendary tier 3 announced). Without a direct monetization possibility for new weapon types and given the declining resources spent on this content, wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuks.8241 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Always wanted long spears, polearms, glaives for my warrior. Short spears that could function also as a mid range throwing weapon. Love the whip idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. > > Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. > > Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. 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. Your argument is literally not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > > > > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > > > > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > > > > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. > > > > Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. > > > > Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. > > 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. > > Your argument is literally not an argument. Aaaaand yet again, you've literally ignored every single reasoning under the guise of "I am a player therefore I know everything, even more than the devs". You have no argument on everything you say. You have next to no idea of how to **balancing things takes more than just a meager term as "synergize with Elite spec"**. Nor do you know how it would benefit anything in the long run. Do you know how long it will take before people **literally get bored of yet another weapon type that is basically gonna be next to nothing when yet another new weapon type comes in?** It will take a year at best, probably not even that. Your idea stagnates in a matter of months, it's not a _long term plan_, it's a short term plan based on a personal desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > > > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > > > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > > > > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > > > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > > > > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > > > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > > > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > > > > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > > > > > > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > > > > > > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > > > > > > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. > > > > > > Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. > > > > > > Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. > > > > 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. > > > > Your argument is literally not an argument. > > Aaaaand yet again, you've literally ignored every single reasoning under the guise of "I am a player therefore I know everything, even more than the devs". > > You have no argument on everything you say. You have next to no idea of how to **balancing things takes more than just a meager term as "synergize with Elite spec"**. Nor do you know how it would benefit anything in the long run. Do you know how long it will take before people **literally get bored of yet another weapon type that is basically gonna be next to nothing when yet another new weapon type comes in?** It will take a year at best, probably not even that. > > Your idea stagnates in a matter of months, it's not a _long term plan_, it's a short term plan based on a personal desire. I'll help you out. Balance is not being argued here. The reason is, balance is the job of the studio running the game. It's implied that anything they add would be with respect to keeping within some boundaries of balance. "synergize with elite specs" in the context of the thread means it can be utilized by new elite specs in the future (I. E. If a crossbow is released for engineer and necromancer only, it can be made available to thief through the assassin elite spec later). Has nothing to do with balance and for speculative purposes, can be stated as objective fact based on past precedence. As far as the rest of your post, that is merely your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > > > > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > > > > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > > > > > > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > > > > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > > > > > > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > > > > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > > > > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > > > > > > > > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > > > > > > > > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > > > > > > > > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. > > > > > > > > Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. > > > > > > > > Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Your argument is literally not an argument. > > > > Aaaaand yet again, you've literally ignored every single reasoning under the guise of "I am a player therefore I know everything, even more than the devs". > > > > You have no argument on everything you say. You have next to no idea of how to **balancing things takes more than just a meager term as "synergize with Elite spec"**. Nor do you know how it would benefit anything in the long run. Do you know how long it will take before people **literally get bored of yet another weapon type that is basically gonna be next to nothing when yet another new weapon type comes in?** It will take a year at best, probably not even that. > > > > Your idea stagnates in a matter of months, it's not a _long term plan_, it's a short term plan based on a personal desire. > > I'll help you out. > > Balance is not being argued here. The reason is, balance is the job of the studio running the game. It's implied that anything they add would be with respect to keeping within some boundaries of balance. > > "synergize with elite specs" in the context of the thread means it can be utilized by new elite specs in the future (I. E. If a crossbow is released for engineer and necromancer only, it can be made available to thief through the assassin elite spec later). Has nothing to do with balance and for speculative purposes, can be stated as objective fact based on past precedence. > > As far as the rest of your post, that is merely your opinion. 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. I mean they can literally "synergize" existing weapons with new Elite Specs, and that has more of a long term use than simply a new weapon. Why? Because they are unlocking new capabilities on already existing weapons not yet available to certain professions. It doesn't take a new weapon type to actually do what you just said. So as you can see, a long term plan that has less cost is literally working with already existing weapon types to synergize with new Elite Specs. Not only do they not need to make a new weapon type, they can basically use already existing assets without having to spend on making new ones. For example... GS Revenant? Bam, new synergy with Elite Spec, didn't even need to make a new weapon type. And this is just a bog standard example, there's a lot of ways this can work, all not involving a new weapon type. EDIT: I'm not saying that having a new weapon type is all around a bad idea. In fact I would welcome it. What I'm saying is that in order to make a substantial change such as a new weapon type is a lot more complex AND more costly and a big gamble for ANet as of current. You can't just say it's a good idea without affecting certain areas of game development and a game's overall lifespan on a basis of a player since without all of these other information regarding cost and development, there wouldn't be a game to begin with. Yes, feel free to pitch the idea, but you need to understand other factors that come into it outside of what you currently know as a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or they can just improve the usefulness of existing weapons rather add news one that may just be mediocre or cause others to become (more) mediocre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, because that isn't the problem. All weapons in the game are usable and they'll never "fix" balance to the extent that everything can be meta in every situation. The problem is that we need an update to what's available and we're lacking in a large number of iconic weapon types like polearms, greataxes, crossbows, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for them other than you wanting them because other games have them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and want is as valid as need is for a game that undergoes continual development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are things you need, and there are things you want and there are things you can't afford. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not **NEED** additional weapons types, > > > > > > > > > You might **WANT** additional weapon types, > > > > > > > > > The games balance might not be able to **AFFORD** additional weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love how often "balance" is touted a reason not to do this or that. Balancing is hard, so let's just have one class and one weapon type? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that isn't how you approach game development. Balance is always iterative. So is the creation of new tools for players to experiment with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then let's address the issues which have nothing to do with balance: > > > > > > > **A.) creative resources skins** > > > > > > > Implementing a new weapon type, any new weapon type, would require vast amounts of art resources even IF old skins were not modeled for the weapon. This creates more future work load. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **B.) creative resource animations** > > > > > > > Yeah, new weapon type would require an entire set of new animations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **C.) bias against established weapons** > > > > > > > One new weapon would not be sufficient since not all weapons are shared between all classes. As such it would have to be multiple new weapons OR face the fact that now 1 weapon type behaves irregular compared to established weapons. Net result, more work load or bias against other weapon types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **D.) more bias against established weapons** > > > > > > > A new weapon type requires a necessity and role. Since all roles are more or less filled between weapons (most classes have at minimum 1 full power, 1 full condition damage and 1 full utility/support set before elite specializations), these new weapons would either encroach on established weapon territory or requires a completely new role. Net result, more work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is tons more, beside the big one called balance. All the reasons have to do with how resources can and should be allocated by Arenanet. A new weapon type causes a ton of extra work which would be very hard to justify for the benefit they bring. So there, it's not only about balance. I remain with what I said: there is thing you want and things you need. Those two are often different even if perceived as similar. > > > > > > > > > > > > This entire post amounts to little more than two kind of silly arguments that are constructed as an after-the-fact rationalization rather than actually being logical arguments helping to inform the best way to proceed: > > > > > > > > > > > > a. "it requires development effort, so no." Well, no duh. The question is whether the payoff is worth the investment, and it's my view that it very much would be. It would be about as exciting as getting new elite specs with way, way less work going into it. It also would help to create more long-term scalability of the elite spec system. > > > > > > > > > > > > b. "it devalues existing options." At worst, it only will for the short term, in the exact same way new elite specs do. The same argument could be applied to literally any addition to the game, and is very rarely a good reason not to do something. The idea that every weapon needs a unique role is fallacious. No, every weapon just needs to offer a fun way to play a toon. > > > > > > > > > > Remember that statement you said about you not developing GW2? Well it's accurate that's for sure. You have next to no idea on how development costs, resource creation, animation, programming and Quality Assurance all workout as a whole for even just one weapon type. If you think it's a simple case, then go make it yourself. Let's see how well that turns out. Design everything from scratch, program it, pitch it to ANet, tell them how much time, resource and manpower it is to make it, tell them how it will cut back time on other projects that will actually progress the game outside of a new weapon but it's more beneficial because you think the game needs it. Do all that and more and let us know how that turns out. > > > > > > > > > > Your argument is literally "I am right because I played this game and I know what this game needs which I personally believe is true because some people who agreed with me said it's right" when you literally have next to no backing on the benefits and drawbacks of this, how it impacts the game, how long it takes to develop and how much it will cost among other things. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Your argument is literally not an argument. > > > > > > Aaaaand yet again, you've literally ignored every single reasoning under the guise of "I am a player therefore I know everything, even more than the devs". > > > > > > You have no argument on everything you say. You have next to no idea of how to **balancing things takes more than just a meager term as "synergize with Elite spec"**. Nor do you know how it would benefit anything in the long run. Do you know how long it will take before people **literally get bored of yet another weapon type that is basically gonna be next to nothing when yet another new weapon type comes in?** It will take a year at best, probably not even that. > > > > > > Your idea stagnates in a matter of months, it's not a _long term plan_, it's a short term plan based on a personal desire. > > > > I'll help you out. > > > > Balance is not being argued here. The reason is, balance is the job of the studio running the game. It's implied that anything they add would be with respect to keeping within some boundaries of balance. > > > > "synergize with elite specs" in the context of the thread means it can be utilized by new elite specs in the future (I. E. If a crossbow is released for engineer and necromancer only, it can be made available to thief through the assassin elite spec later). Has nothing to do with balance and for speculative purposes, can be stated as objective fact based on past precedence. > > > > As far as the rest of your post, that is merely your opinion. > > 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. > > I mean they can literally "synergize" existing weapons with new Elite Specs, and that has more of a long term use than simply a new weapon. Why? Because they are unlocking new capabilities on already existing weapons not yet available to certain professions. It doesn't take a new weapon type to actually do what you just said. > > So as you can see, a long term plan that has less cost is literally working with already existing weapon types to synergize with new Elite Specs. Not only do they not need to make a new weapon type, they can basically use already existing assets without having to spend on making new ones. For example... GS Revenant? Bam, new synergy with Elite Spec, didn't even need to make a new weapon type. And this is just a bog standard example, there's a lot of ways this can work, all not involving a new weapon type. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said: > EDIT: I'm not saying that having a new weapon type is all around a bad idea. In fact I would welcome it. What I'm saying is that in order to make a substantial change such as a new weapon type is a lot more complex AND more costly and a big gamble for ANet as of current. You can't just say it's a good idea without affecting certain areas of game development and a game's overall lifespan on a basis of a player since without all of these other information regarding cost and development, there wouldn't be a game to begin with. Yes, feel free to pitch the idea, but you need to understand other factors that come into it outside of what you currently know as a player. I feel you're overestimating the effort involved. Considering we are both speculating, consider the fact that ANet has released 2 new mounts recently and 1 new one previously after the launch of the initial 5. How much more effort do you think that involves? The work involved creating a mount has to be more than a weapon considering you have to not only animate the mount but also the rider, it needs unique animations for all frames of movement (I. E. Changes in direction, start and stop, falling, mount and dismount, walk cycles, etc), they also have unique physics interactions, they need to be tested with environments ect. On a cost and complexity point, what argument do you use to defend yourself? Also, yes, someone CAN say it's a good idea because saying such is an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben K.6238 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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 * Multiple new weapon models to provide a base wardrobe (this does not apply if the weapon already exists, e.g. spear) * New character animations for each attack for each race/gender combination * New UI artwork for each attack * New effect animations for each attack * Implementation of new attacks in gameplay code * Trait line balance updates and implementation to include the new weapon in existing trait lines * Further balance iteration to bring it in line with the rest of 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 * 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. Adding new weapons might be nice, but if I had to choose between that and an elite spec, I'd take the elite spec any day. It opens up more possibilities than a new weapon does, and it's a lot better for marketing. However, if the elite spec came with a new weapon (since there's a substantial overlap in work anyway) that would sound even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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. 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. 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. > @"Leo G.4501" said: > I feel you're overestimating the effort involved. Considering we are both speculating, consider the fact that ANet has released 2 new mounts recently and 1 new one previously after the launch of the initial 5. How much more effort do you think that involves? The work involved creating a mount has to be more than a weapon considering you have to not only animate the mount but also the rider, it needs unique animations for all frames of movement (I. E. Changes in direction, start and stop, falling, mount and dismount, walk cycles, etc), they also have unique physics interactions, they need to be tested with environments ect. > > On a cost and complexity point, what argument do you use to defend yourself? > > Also, yes, someone CAN say it's a good idea because saying such is an opinion. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokh.2695 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 A game that allows Hammers and Greatswords to be ranged weapons by means of animations, adding more weapon types is not a high priority. Most things ppl ask for in these threads, and yes, we've seen many in the last years, can be done by skins or by adding new animations. Best example are the alreday mentioned reskinned-hammer-greataxe, reskinned-greatsword-polearm and another good exampl i didn't find in this particular thread already, because i stopped reading at some point, would be the reskinned-rifle-crossbow. If the problem can be solved by skins/animations it's not worth complicating the game by adding a new weapon type. Adding a new weapon type would, f.e. demand a lot of retrofitting(adding the new weapon type to fractal/dungeon weapons, adding cultural versions of the new weapon type, adding blues and greens of the new weapon typ, adding new legendaries etc.), that's maybe just not worth the effort, i.e. the resources might be spet better at a different place in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VDAC.2137 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 IMHO, new weapon types would only add something to the game if they were significantly different than what we already have — whips and maybe crossbows, for instance. I don’t feel that great axes, polearms and spears would add anything unless lacerating as versus crushing damage mattered in game mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoPinoyX.7923 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 > @"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.**_ > 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/) > 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now