It's time for new weapon types

[sevenDEADLY.5281]

I can understand the argument about the investment it would require to make new weapon types. However, I would suggest then that they start with the existing weapon models for the underwater weapons. Being able to wield a spear as a normal ground weapon on several classes would be pretty great. Melee spear for some classes, ranged throwing type spear for other classes. The models already exist for the weapons. Some of the trident models could also be used as land spear type weapons. I know I've seen multiple threads about adding spear to "land" weapons over the years. Seems like a good middle ground starting point. Not as much investment needed since the weapons already exist in the game.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

 

>

> ... it's a fun way to add new skills and animations (which is needed) to existing classes.

 

That is argumentative. Many players already have fun with the existing set and adding new skills and animations isn't necessarily "needed".

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

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

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

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> You seem dead set on devaluing a reason for suggesting it, not the suggestion itself.

 

Whatever you want to convince yourself. I think there are better ways for Anet to make the game 'less stale'. Frankly, I think the idea of simply adding new weapons, out of no where for whatever poor reasons we convince ourselves with is just a bad idea.

 

 

[Ototo.3214]

Only weapon type I really want them to add is just...gauntlets I guess? I wanna punch things, and I feel like it's different enough from the other weapon types to be unique

 

I can see them also allowing water weapons on land, but other than that, no...we don't need a ton of new weapons.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

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

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[joneirikb.7506]

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

[lokh.2695]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

 

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

[Ashen.2907]

I would love to see spears as land weapon. Would pay real money for the option. But I dont know that adding them would be all that much less work than an elite spec.

 

Adding spears for all professions would need, IMO, a new trait line for each profession to support the weapon properly. Five (20 for ele) new skills for each profession. New animations. New burst skills for warrior. etc.

 

Sure not quite, barely, as much work as new elite specs, but close. And this is for an existing weapon. Doing all of this for a completely new weapon, such as 2h axes, would be even more.

 

Personally, I would be willing to skip an elite spec to get land spears for my ranger, but I would expect it to be similar levels of work as that skipped elite spec would have taken.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

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

 

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

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

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

>

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

 

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

 

I still miss pre 2015 when they balanced the game around PvP first, balance and skills got more attention and worked much better then, than the current DPS clown fiesta. And unless they can show that level of dedication to try to balance out skills again, I honestly don't trust them with adding more.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"lokh.2695" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

>

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

 

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

 

No thanks.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

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

> >

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

>

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

>

 

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

 

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

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

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

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

>

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

>

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

 

Aka bloat. Enjoy.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

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

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

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

> >

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

> >

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

>

> Aka bloat. Enjoy.

 

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

[Aeolus.3615]

Whe have range hammer, range gs, so we can expect melee bow lol.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

 

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

 

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

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> A "polearm" that only does wide swings and slashes literally is a reskinned Greatsword. A "greataxe" that only does overhead chops and wide smashes literally is a reskinned Hammer.

>

> If you want these things added, you have to do way better than "no it isn't". How would these weapons introduce new gameplay archetypes? what differentiates them from existing weapons/archetypes besides appearance? what substantial differences makes them worth using and therefore worth the effort to introduce and subsequently balance? Try presenting an actual argument and not just "I want it!"

 

And Greatsword is a Scepter because Mesmer....

 

Hammer is a Bow because of Revenant...

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

I do. I remember in pre release Anet saying they would never add Raids or Mounts to GW2. How times change.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

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

> >

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

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

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

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

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

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

 

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

 

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

[archmagus.7249]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> >

>

> I do. I remember in pre release Anet saying they would never add Raids or Mounts to GW2. How times change.

 

They didn't like raids because they were just people running from trash mobs to get to the bosses with 6 health bars and tons of damage resistance. They didn't find them interesting.

 

They didn't like mounts because they thought they could encourage people to skip content. They added them in when they were sure that they couldn't do it with current mounts.

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"archmagus.7249" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"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.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I do. I remember in pre release Anet saying they would never add Raids or Mounts to GW2. How times change.

>

> They didn't like raids because they were just people running from trash mobs to get to the bosses with 6 health bars and tons of damage resistance. They didn't find them interesting.

>

> They didn't like mounts because they thought they could encourage people to skip content. They added them in when they were sure that they couldn't do it with current mounts.

 

And none of that made any sense then and still dont now. Dont feel like breaking down why, but maybe somebody else will.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> >

>

> I do. I remember in pre release Anet saying they would never add Raids or Mounts to GW2. How times change.

 

The only quote I’ve been able to find about mounts did not say never. It said not at launch

 

 

[source](http://guildwars2.cz/otazky-odpovedi-pro-guildwars2-cz/2/) (July 2011)

>Will be there any other kind of traveling across long distances apart from asura gates (e.g. ship)?

 

>Eric: Any of the major (non-capturable) waypoints that a player has unlocked can be travelled to regardless of the distance involved. Prices do vary depending on distance though, and asura gates are free, so a player might find it advantageous to use asura gates in some circumstances. Other than waypoints and asura gates, there will be no other methods of long distance travel such as mounts, ships, etc in Guild Wars 2 **upon initial release.**

 

 

Edit: The Devs almost never say never and I doubt they said never on raids either. It’s much more likely that what they said was misremembered, just like how they said not at launch for mounts became never mounts. Of course if you have an actual quote where the devs said never raids pre release then I’d love to see it.