Why are weapons tied to Elite Specs?

[castlemanic.3198]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > You explain it in lore by saying each spec requires a different mind set or focus or chant or runes to perform and they contradict each other.

> >

> > It's a fair point, so that each battle you get into a different mindset depending on what you wish to do. I don't think it entirely holds up though, and besides, mechanics do not always have to be connected to lore (being defeated in lava).

>

> That's not lava, it's actually slightly too hot tomato soup.

 

Ah, yes, I always get the two confused.

[Coulter.2315]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > You explain it in lore by saying each spec requires a different mind set or focus or chant or runes to perform and they contradict each other.

> > >

> > > It's a fair point, so that each battle you get into a different mindset depending on what you wish to do. I don't think it entirely holds up though, and besides, mechanics do not always have to be connected to lore (being defeated in lava).

> >

> > That's not lava, it's actually slightly too hot tomato soup.

>

> Ah, yes, I always get the two confused.

 

You should always taste first before jumping in, wouldn't want to get red stains on your shoes.

[Dual.8953]

Aside from the aforementioned balance reasons, there are other benefits to tieing weapons to specializations, such as it allows the devs to make weapons that have greater synergy with their elite. Like how Holosmith’s sword plays with heat and Deadeye’s rifle plays with malice, we wouldn’t get things like this on general use weapons. In addition it allows the devs maximum freedom when making elites, let’s say in the future the devs want to make another rifle thief with a more run and gun style then Deadeye, then they could make a new set of rifle skills for this new spec rather then being forever barred from reusing rifle.

[Nuka Cola.8520]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> To control balance and give each spec a unique playstyle and feel. This is a good system.

 

The trait line itself is already unique and offers different playstyles. A weapon doesn't make anything unique.

[sorudo.9054]

with the necro only having the reaper as a powerful spec and all others are just play things, i really don't wanna lose my GS but at the same time wanna use the new weapon on it.

in balance it would actually make the necro viable for a change, it has bin underpowered for quite some time and since the reaper the necro finally stands a chance.

[Nuka Cola.8520]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> For the sake of balance. And no the "balance is already kitten so why not just unlock them" mentality doesn work here.

 

Balance? Kk! What elite spec weapon would render a build op if Anet allowed us to use every weapon on any spec? Everyone jumps to the "balance bandwagon", but weapons aren't powerful enough to make this much of a difference. It would offer more freedom in build creation. Nothing else.

[Panda.1967]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > Thing is, a weapon can only have 2-5 skills. How hard is it to monitor something this minuscule? If they're having trouble monitoring 2 weapon skills, that's something wrong with the dev. I do not believe this is adding any fuel to the fire at all. If every weapon had 10-30 skills, sure, if they had trouble with balance, they sure will have more trouble. But 2-5 skills? I mean, that's just laughable. At least that's how i see it.

>

> The reality is, how do those 2-5 skills interact with every traitline, every heal/utility/elite and how they also interact with the rest of the weaponsets available for use.

>

> It's not "just" 2-5 skills. It's the interaction of those 2-5 skills with *every possible combination*.

>

> As it is right now, each weapon interacts with their specific traitline and a combination of 2 traitlines. Using that combination a single weapon interacts with 10 variations of traitlines if we assume it is as it is right now. We're not even going into the specifics of other weaponsets, how many ways you can pick a traitline or any of the heal/utility/elite skills. Let's just talk traitlines.

>

> If the weapons were released for the core class, then that weapon would now interact with *another* 10 variations if we assume they work with the second elite specialisation. And then we get into the variations of having 3 core elite specialisations (which I want to say the number is about 18 without doing the rigorous math behind it).

>

> So where a single weapon would interact with 10 variations of traitlines as it is, if they were implemented into the core class, we're looking at easily **thirty eight traitline variations**.

>

> And then there's how a player chooses the traits in each traitline. 3 choices per tier, 3 tiers per traitline. That's a lot of variation as it is. Imagine that for over **thirty either variations of traitlines**.

>

> And then on TOP of all of that, we're now looking at another weapon set or the completion of the weaponset using those skills. then the way that the weapon interacts with other various heal/utility/elite skills, how that varies with the different class mechanics depending on the elite specialisation (and the utility skills that come with the elite specialisation).

>

> So no. Saying it's "just" 2-5 skills completely misses the number of interactions a new core weapon would add to the game. The reality is more complicated than it seems at first glance.

 

FYI, there's only 10 spec combinations for Core as well. WIth 5 choices any combination of 3 with no repeating choices has a maximum permutation of 10. Coincidentally, when given 6 options with 1 option required, the remaining combination of 2 out of the remaining 5 options still has a maximum permutation of 10.

 

1. A B C

2. A B D

3. A B E

4. A C D

5. A C E

6. A D E

7. B C D

8. B C E

9. B D E

10. C D E

 

1. A B F

2. A C F

3. A D F

4. A E F

5. B C F

6. B D F

7. B E F

8. C D F

9. C E F

10. D E F

[Jukens.1693]

Please allow all weapons for PvE at least! Weapons won't impact PvE as much as PvP.

 

This is going to kitten so badly as they keep adding new specs.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > @zealex.9410 said:

> > For the sake of balance. And no the "balance is already kitten so why not just unlock them" mentality doesn work here.

>

> Balance? Kk! What elite spec weapon would render a build op if Anet allowed us to use every weapon on any spec? Everyone jumps to the "balance bandwagon", but weapons aren't powerful enough to make this much of a difference. It would offer more freedom in build creation. Nothing else.

 

Clearly people don’t know how Balance works, if you unlock Weapons from elite Specs the Devs will have to go through every feasible combination of traitlines and skill interactions.

 

Currently they only have to balance around interactions of the Weapon with one Constant Specialization and two Variables, this allows for easier and mor efine Runes Balance than can be achieved with out that restriction, then here is the facts some weapons are designed around their associated Elite Spec and aren’t functional without the Elite Specs.

 

[Coulter.2315]

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > To control balance and give each spec a unique playstyle and feel. This is a good system.

>

> The trait line itself is already unique and offers different playstyles. A weapon doesn't make anything unique.

 

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > To control balance and give each spec a unique playstyle and feel. This is a good system.

>

> The trait line itself is already unique and offers different playstyles. A weapon doesn't make anything unique.

 

Nonsense. Tell me that Chrono tank would be a thing without shield.

[mtpelion.4562]

Build Variety in Single Player Games = Awesome fun

 

Build Variety in Multiplayer Games = Balance Nightmare

 

 

[R E F L H E X.8413]

I dont like weapons or skills being tied to elite traitlines I think the weapons and utilities should be buffed by the elite line and available to all like the other traitlines are tied to a set of utilities and weapons but only buff them to be better with the trait than without them.

 

for example illusions should be the traitline that lowers recharge of torch skills but torch isnt tied to the traitline the traitline only buffs the weapon. Chaos deals with manipulation skills if i remember right but only buffs them not tied to them.

 

i'd like to run a torch on core necro and not be tied into losing my core shroud for shades. or gravity well on a core mes powerblock build.

[Panda.1967]

To everyone who's claiming balance reasons because of having to go through every possible trait line combination... it's actually a lot simpler than you make it out to be.

 

They only need to look at the individual traits that interact with the weapon and the combinations of those traits. A trait that has zero interaction with the weapon at all has no impact on balance for the weapon, as such a spec that contains no traits that can interact with the weapon also has no impact on balance for the weapon and can be ruled out for balance concerns. It only takes a few moments to rule out traits that have zero impact on a weapon as well. Given that they already should be balancing them to the core traits as is, there would actually be very little additional effort required to ensure balance with 3 core specs or with a different elite spec.

 

Not to mention the simple fact that they neglect to balance existing weapons to combinations with new elite specs. Some core weapons perform better with elite specs than the weapons meant to be used with that spec.

[dagrdagaz.4913]

As i have suggested in a topic on the old forum;

Add one or more traits to the new elite spec that the new weapon benefits from but dont lock the new weapon behind the new elite spec.

That way its recommended but not mandatory to use the new weapon and the elite spec together.

[castlemanic.3198]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> FYI, there's only 10 spec combinations for Core as well. WIth 5 choices any combination of 3 with no repeating choices has a maximum permutation of 10. Coincidentally, when given 6 options with 1 option required, the remaining combination of 2 out of the remaining 5 options still has a maximum permutation of 10.

>

> 1. A B C

> 2. A B D

> 3. A B E

> 4. A C D

> 5. A C E

> 6. A D E

> 7. B C D

> 8. B C E

> 9. B D E

> 10. C D E

>

> 1. A B F

> 2. A C F

> 3. A D F

> 4. A E F

> 5. B C F

> 6. B D F

> 7. B E F

> 8. C D F

> 9. C E F

> 10. D E F

 

Thanks for the correction! So 30 combinations with traits. Thats still a lot of combinations.

 

> @Panda.1967 said:

> To everyone who's claiming balance reasons because of having to go through every possible trait line combination... it's actually a lot simpler than you make it out to be.

>

> They only need to look at the individual traits that interact with the weapon and the combinations of those traits. A trait that has zero interaction with the weapon at all has no impact on balance for the weapon, as such a spec that contains no traits that can interact with the weapon also has no impact on balance for the weapon and can be ruled out for balance concerns. It only takes a few moments to rule out traits that have zero impact on a weapon as well. Given that they already should be balancing them to the core traits as is, there would actually be very little additional effort required to ensure balance with 3 core specs or with a different elite spec.

>

> Not to mention the simple fact that they neglect to balance existing weapons to combinations with new elite specs. Some core weapons perform better with elite specs than the weapons meant to be used with that spec.

 

It's not *that* simple, because there are a number of traits that can interact with multiple aspects of what a weapon does. The domination trait for core mesmers that increases the cooldown of a skillcast when interrupting interacts with the chronomancer shield. Any trait that enhances or adds a condition when another condition is initially placed also affects when a new weapon adds that condition. There's a core ranger trait that reduces the cooldown of dagger and torch skills, and soulbeast got a mainhand dagger, where that trait would initially only affect an offhand weapon. Any traits that up stats like precision, power, condition damage etc. any weapons that interact with class mechanics (for example, the firebrand axe has a symbol skill) that can also be enhanced, on top of general stuff like the warrior trait that enhances movement speed while wielding melee weapons (which affects the spellbreakers dual daggers). There's a lot of traits that affect weapons, directly or indirectly, and ruling them out of hand simply because they're not "weapon traits" dismisses how diverse the traits are and what they can do (that's not to say the system is perfect).

 

You also have to figure out how a new weapon would not only interact with all currently available weapons, but also how that weapon would also interact with every *new* weapon it would interact with, how it would also interact with a second weapon set and how it interacts with every heal/utility/elite skill and how it interacts with every *future* heal/utility/elite skill. The traits discussion was to show how much variation can occur because it was the simplest one to discuss mathematically, the amount of future balancing that it would take to make sure every existing weapon balances with every future weapon, on top of any unforseen interactions with traits/utility skills means that there's a lot more to the balancing act that simply 'adding two skills'.

 

How *effective* their balance team is is not a part of this topic, the question specifically revolves around why we don't add new weapons to core specs, your view on how effective the balance team is does not dismiss the real concerns with balancing. There's simply no room to allow new weapons to become core weapons.

[Panda.1967]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > To everyone who's claiming balance reasons because of having to go through every possible trait line combination... it's actually a lot simpler than you make it out to be.

> >

> > They only need to look at the individual traits that interact with the weapon and the combinations of those traits. A trait that has zero interaction with the weapon at all has no impact on balance for the weapon, as such a spec that contains no traits that can interact with the weapon also has no impact on balance for the weapon and can be ruled out for balance concerns. It only takes a few moments to rule out traits that have zero impact on a weapon as well. Given that they already should be balancing them to the core traits as is, there would actually be very little additional effort required to ensure balance with 3 core specs or with a different elite spec.

> >

> > Not to mention the simple fact that they neglect to balance existing weapons to combinations with new elite specs. Some core weapons perform better with elite specs than the weapons meant to be used with that spec.

>

> It's not *that* simple, because there are a number of traits that can interact with multiple aspects of what a weapon does. The domination trait for core mesmers that increases the cooldown of a skillcast when interrupting interacts with the chronomancer shield. Any trait that enhances or adds a condition when another condition is initially placed also affects when a new weapon adds that condition. There's a core ranger trait that reduces the cooldown of dagger and torch skills, and soulbeast got a mainhand dagger, where that trait would initially only affect an offhand weapon. Any traits that up stats like precision, power, condition damage etc. any weapons that interact with class mechanics (for example, the firebrand axe has a symbol skill) that can also be enhanced, on top of general stuff like the warrior trait that enhances movement speed while wielding melee weapons (which affects the spellbreakers dual daggers). There's a lot of traits that affect weapons, directly or indirectly, and ruling them out of hand simply because they're not "weapon traits" dismisses how diverse the traits are and what they can do (that's not to say the system is perfect).

 

Never said to rule them out simply because they arn't "weapon traits". I clearly said "**A trait that has zero interaction with the weapon**" that does not mean exclusively "weapon traits", it includes any trait that's effect is applied directly or indirectly to a weapon skill in any way. If a trait only affect a weapon through combination with another trait, then it still has interaction with the weapon albeit indirectly.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > This is just upset with balance, which I promise you will not be helped by unbinding weapons from elite specs.

> > I never claimed they should, i just claimed that the current system is only good on paper. Which by the way, you've only acknowledged by your proposal to just make existing weapons go to new elite specs when they run out of design space, which is the exact flaw im point out. They've pigeonholed themselves design wise. The literally are on the clock and have 3 expansions max to figure out what they're going to do when they reach the existing limitations in the system of there only being 14 unique weapons and there being a class with access to 11 of them currently.

> >

>

> Games don't last forever so you do not need an infinite series of weaponry. Your worry about what happens to warrior weapon development after the game has been out for 11 years is a little premature and pointless since they can reuse weapons as I mentioned above. Were you hoping for some infinitely repeatable paradigm which allows GW2 to produce warrior weapons until 2100? This is not pigeonholed design space, it just means the skyscraper has a roof.

 

11 years is premature ?

 

Im literally talking about a 6 year window. Given the following data that we know the next expansion and eSpecs are already going through the first design phases as we are here talking about this. It's not too early as if they plan on keeping the same cadence (which we have no inclination that they don't) then they have 4 years total to figure out what they are doing with at the very least warrior and if they want to practice healthy development eSpecs as a whole concept.

 

Again, im not saying unbind them i am saying that the paper that's in the printer is about to run out and it's going to be time to restock it. The current design scheme works for now, but is not a sustainable model. They could take many means to circumvent this like not giving warrior any new weapons, or giving other classes multiple weapons. They could very well say that warriors end-all elite spec is Weapon Master and give them access to all weapons but no new utility skills. At the end of the day though the current model will have to change be it as simplisitc as opening up weapons to all or by trying some unique work-arounds to the normal paradigm.

[Ariurotl.3718]

> @"R E F L H E X.8413" said:

> or **gravity well** on a core mes powerblock build.

 

Oh yeah, let's unlock utilities, healing and elite skills from e-specs for core as well while we're at it. Then we'll all collectively whine at the balance team for nerfing everything because everything went out of control, good times.

 

If ANet unlocks elite weapons for core specs, they will also nerf everything to the ground. You will NEVER have a core thief happily running staff and rifle without BOTH getting nerfed into oblivion.

[Coulter.2315]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > This is just upset with balance, which I promise you will not be helped by unbinding weapons from elite specs.

> > > I never claimed they should, i just claimed that the current system is only good on paper. Which by the way, you've only acknowledged by your proposal to just make existing weapons go to new elite specs when they run out of design space, which is the exact flaw im point out. They've pigeonholed themselves design wise. The literally are on the clock and have 3 expansions max to figure out what they're going to do when they reach the existing limitations in the system of there only being 14 unique weapons and there being a class with access to 11 of them currently.

> > >

> >

> > Games don't last forever so you do not need an infinite series of weaponry. Your worry about what happens to warrior weapon development after the game has been out for 11 years is a little premature and pointless since they can reuse weapons as I mentioned above. Were you hoping for some infinitely repeatable paradigm which allows GW2 to produce warrior weapons until 2100? This is not pigeonholed design space, it just means the skyscraper has a roof.

>

> 11 years is premature ?

>

> Im literally talking about a 6 year window. Given the following data that we know the next expansion and eSpecs are already going through the first design phases as we are here talking about this. It's not too early as if they plan on keeping the same cadence (which we have no inclination that they don't) then they have 4 years total to figure out what they are doing with at the very least warrior and if they want to practice healthy development eSpecs as a whole concept.

>

> Again, im not saying unbind them i am saying that the paper that's in the printer is about to run out and it's going to be time to restock it. The current design scheme works for now, but is not a sustainable model. They could take many means to circumvent this like not giving warrior any new weapons, or giving other classes multiple weapons. They could very well say that warriors end-all elite spec is Weapon Master and give them access to all weapons but no new utility skills. At the end of the day though the current model will have to change be it as simplisitc as opening up weapons to all or by trying some unique work-arounds to the normal paradigm.

 

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > This is just upset with balance, which I promise you will not be helped by unbinding weapons from elite specs.

> > > I never claimed they should, i just claimed that the current system is only good on paper. Which by the way, you've only acknowledged by your proposal to just make existing weapons go to new elite specs when they run out of design space, which is the exact flaw im point out. They've pigeonholed themselves design wise. The literally are on the clock and have 3 expansions max to figure out what they're going to do when they reach the existing limitations in the system of there only being 14 unique weapons and there being a class with access to 11 of them currently.

> > >

> >

> > Games don't last forever so you do not need an infinite series of weaponry. Your worry about what happens to warrior weapon development after the game has been out for 11 years is a little premature and pointless since they can reuse weapons as I mentioned above. Were you hoping for some infinitely repeatable paradigm which allows GW2 to produce warrior weapons until 2100? This is not pigeonholed design space, it just means the skyscraper has a roof.

>

> 11 years is premature ?

>

> Im literally talking about a 6 year window. Given the following data that we know the next expansion and eSpecs are already going through the first design phases as we are here talking about this. It's not too early as if they plan on keeping the same cadence (which we have no inclination that they don't) then they have 4 years total to figure out what they are doing with at the very least warrior and if they want to practice healthy development eSpecs as a whole concept.

>

> Again, im not saying unbind them i am saying that the paper that's in the printer is about to run out and it's going to be time to restock it. The current design scheme works for now, but is not a sustainable model. They could take many means to circumvent this like not giving warrior any new weapons, or giving other classes multiple weapons. They could very well say that warriors end-all elite spec is Weapon Master and give them access to all weapons but no new utility skills. At the end of the day though the current model will have to change be it as simplisitc as opening up weapons to all or by trying some unique work-arounds to the normal paradigm.

 

I'm saying your concern is premature and I have already given an easy solution which functions within the current system, could also add new weapons or shift spear & trident to land (all this would extend the current system to 2030). You don't need to mess with the current system, remember it took a lot of design time to get where we are, don't want to ask them to reinvent the wheel just because there is possibly a road bump at some point after the car might explode.

[OnizukaBR.8537]

Elite is way better the way it is, it gives build diversity. Without the weapon limit of elites, every class would just pick the best weapon for the type of damage ( power or condition ) and never use another thing. For example every cond necro would use torch, now we have cond reaper that use off hand dagger and cond scourge that use off hand torch.

 

Without this kind of limits there isnt diversity because you just pick the best in slot.

[Egg Shennn.6240]

It doesn't have to go to the extreme of every class using every weapon to be better than it is currently. Even just the ability of the class to use any weapon it has gained access to through the speciializations you've learned would be more fun. So a Necro for instance, being able to use GS whether they were running Core Necro or Scourge if that's what they wanted to do. It's a much smaller balance issue to balance the weapons use when it's one trait line difference on the character (Reaper to Scourge traitline for example).

 

Even if it was strictly PVE, where it's not a PVP competitive environment and a large number of players just want to really enjoy their characters and simply have a build they feel is cool and fun, not meta.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

>don't want to ask them to reinvent the wheel just because there is possibly a road bump at some point after the car might explode.

 

So instead of thinking long term you'd rather avoid it entirely. under the guise of catastrophic system failure ?

Glad to see you at least admit there's a flaw with the current status quo and that the model isn't sustainable and will need to be looked into before long! That's all i was saying to begin with.

[castlemanic.3198]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> 11 years is premature ?

>

> Im literally talking about a 6 year window. Given the following data that we know the next expansion and eSpecs are already going through the first design phases as we are here talking about this. It's not too early as if they plan on keeping the same cadence (which we have no inclination that they don't) then they have 4 years total to figure out what they are doing with at the very least warrior and if they want to practice healthy development eSpecs as a whole concept.

>

> Again, im not saying unbind them i am saying that the paper that's in the printer is about to run out and it's going to be time to restock it. The current design scheme works for now, but is not a sustainable model. They could take many means to circumvent this like not giving warrior any new weapons, or giving other classes multiple weapons. They could very well say that warriors end-all elite spec is Weapon Master and give them access to all weapons but no new utility skills. At the end of the day though the current model will have to change be it as simplisitc as opening up weapons to all or by trying some unique work-arounds to the normal paradigm.

 

Elite specs are fine as is specifically because weapons can be reused by future elite specs on the same class with different skills, thus providing endless possibilities for use (for example, the torch for the berserker works as is, but the torch can be used in a future warrior elite spec called "firestarter" where the torch becomes like a magical weapon used for spellcasting, and then another elite spec has warriors draw in fire and empowers themselves by taking burning stacks from allies and releasing it in a giant burst of fire, and then another future elite spec can use a torch to blind enemies by increasing the intensity of the light of the fire or by throwing ashes). The current model is infinitely sustainable in this manner, though it entirely depends on the imagination of the devs to make sure each elite specs use of the same weapon is unique and interesting.

[TexZero.7910]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > 11 years is premature ?

> >

> > Im literally talking about a 6 year window. Given the following data that we know the next expansion and eSpecs are already going through the first design phases as we are here talking about this. It's not too early as if they plan on keeping the same cadence (which we have no inclination that they don't) then they have 4 years total to figure out what they are doing with at the very least warrior and if they want to practice healthy development eSpecs as a whole concept.

> >

> > Again, im not saying unbind them i am saying that the paper that's in the printer is about to run out and it's going to be time to restock it. The current design scheme works for now, but is not a sustainable model. They could take many means to circumvent this like not giving warrior any new weapons, or giving other classes multiple weapons. They could very well say that warriors end-all elite spec is Weapon Master and give them access to all weapons but no new utility skills. At the end of the day though the current model will have to change be it as simplisitc as opening up weapons to all or by trying some unique work-arounds to the normal paradigm.

>

> Elite specs are fine as is specifically because weapons can be reused by future elite specs on the same class with different skills, thus providing endless possibilities for use (for example, the torch for the berserker works as is, but the torch can be used in a future warrior elite spec called "firestarter" where the torch becomes like a magical weapon used for spellcasting, and then another elite spec has warriors draw in fire and empowers themselves by taking burning stacks from allies and releasing it in a giant burst of fire, and then another future elite spec can use a torch to blind enemies by increasing the intensity of the light of the fire or by throwing ashes). The current model is infinitely sustainable in this manner, though it entirely depends on the imagination of the devs to make sure each elite specs use of the same weapon is unique and interesting.

 

While not out of the realm of possibilities, it doesn't fit with the initial premise of 1 new weapon per elite spec. Now, i do concede that spellbreaker broke that mold already and could very well be the groundbreaker needed for them to continue to break the mold futher, too which i'd have no problem. But as it stands i don't think anyone can argue 1 new weapon per spec isn't sustainable and will eventually have to be looked at be it re-using weapons, not giving new weapons, or some form in-between.

 

[sokeenoppa.5384]

The way its now allows us to have same weapon for different spec with different skills