Why can't we dye our weapons?

[Ashen.2907]

@Trise.2865 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@The Greyhawk.9107 said:

Weapon dyeing was hardly one of the most popular elements of GW1,

Anecdotal I admit, but I ran a very active full alliance of full guilds that had half a dozen guilds on a waiting list for entry and I don't know of a single player who didn't dye at least some of his weapons.

That's an odd coincidence, because no one in my full alliance ever dyed their weapons.

You sure about that? Not one player. Not one weapon?

[Trise.2865]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Trise.2865 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@The Greyhawk.9107 said:

Weapon dyeing was hardly one of the most popular elements of GW1,

Anecdotal I admit, but I ran a very active full alliance of full guilds that had half a dozen guilds on a waiting list for entry and I don't know of a single player who didn't dye at least some of his weapons.

That's an odd coincidence, because no one in my full alliance ever dyed their weapons.

You sure about that? Not one player. Not one weapon?

Yup.But, to prove the point: Same question.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Ashen.2907" said:Because, "everything you loved about GW1," was not meant to include many of the most popular elements of GW1.That's because the list of "everything you loved about GW1" is different depending on whomever you ask. And the list of "most popular elements of GW1", would probably surprise all of us, because it would surely include some elements we considered bad, and not include some we thought were popular. Even if those elements would be different for each of us as well.

That saying, personally i don;t think that on the popularity ranking of GW1 features dying weapons was anywhere close to the top.

[lezbefriends.7516]

To prevent more legendary mismatching.

[Guthix.5138]

That sucks that they couldn't include dyable weapons into the game.

[Grrampzz.9238]

I agree it sucks it's gone! I loved this feature in GW1. They don't seem to realize it would help weapon skins sell.

[Linken.6345]

52 minutes ago, Grrampzz.9238 said:

I agree it sucks it's gone! I loved this feature in GW1. They don't seem to realize it would help weapon skins sell.

Have you seen some of the skins?

Take the super adventure box ones as an example and understand why this would hurt their bottom line.

[Parasite.5389]

in short its not worth the investment;

compared to back items which were previously undyable, there are far too many weapons skins in the wardrobe to make it worthwhile.

firstly the wardrobe system  would been to be recoded to include the option, you're then asking an artist to go in an remake all 4848 weapon assets to include dyable color channels, and check those channels against any effects or animations associated with that skin (the Vermilion Tail Feather would look pretty terrible if the animation didn't match your dyes)

not everything needs to be dyable

Edited February 28, 2023 by Parasite.5389

[MarzAttakz.9608]

35 minutes ago, Parasite.5389 said:

in short its not worth the investment;

compared to back items which were previously undyable, there are far too many weapons skins in the wardrobe to make it worthwhile.

firstly the wardrobe system  would been to be recoded to include the option, you're then asking an artist to go in an remake all 4848 weapon assets to include dyable color channels, and check those channels against any effects or animations associated with that skin (the Vermilion Tail Feather would look pretty terrible if the animation didn't match your dyes)

not everything needs to be dyable

I for one would buy more skins if they did that.

From a work standpoint, that's what you have juniors and interns for. The assets are already there, the colour channels already present. Do an audit, make note of weapons with more than 4 channels, escalate to a senior. Take the remainder, split into batches and get cracking.

Not every single dye has to look perfect, a compromise can be made.

[Lord Korag.8439]

Because other dragon variations of legys of gen3 would be meaningless then.

[Gibson.4036]

1 hour ago, MarzAttakz.9608 said:

 

From a work standpoint, that's what you have juniors and interns for.

Legally, in the US, you can’t rely on interns to do work that you’d otherwise have to hire someone to do. Otherwise they lose their exempt status, and you have to pay them minimum wage and overtime.

If an internship is not exploitative, your staff is investing as much or more labor training and mentoring them than they are getting in return from the intern.

You can’t solve labor issues with interns if you are an ethical and completely legal company.