Definitive Response: SOTO's Bad New Profession Class Weapon Choices & How They Can Be Improved.

[EdwinLi.1284]

On 7/6/2023 at 9:08 AM, minimoi.8195 said:

As to me some of the weapon choices make sense and some don't.

-Warrior with a staff will probably go support and maybe have a viable healing option with some trait reworks.

 

-I'm also troubled for engi, using a bow while you can use guns? I expect it to be an alchemic condi/support weapon at least. I think engi could have been better with a offhand weapon, a power dps one.

 

Warrior staff been one of the thing that get mentioned once in a while over the years ever since they added Spear type skins for Staff weapons. Something a group of people wanted to see due to how it may provide warrior with Spear type attacks thus treating Staff as a spear instead.

Tech Arrow Bow been one of the things I have been expecting for Engineer for a while. Think Rambo and Hawkeye style arrows with each Arrow having very specific Tech function. Being something like a Rambo and Hawkeye theme bow and arrow, I alway saw this weapon choice to be something more for traps either making it a weapon more to condition applying with each different Tech arrow or if Power focus more on a lot of Vulnerability applying and making things difficult for enemies to escape from the Engineer. 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by EdwinLi.1284

[DeanBB.4268]

3 hours ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

Warrior staff been one of the thing that get mentioned once in a while over the years ever since they added Spear type skins for Staff weapons. Something a group of people wanted to see due to how it may provide warrior with Spear type attacks thus treating Staff as a spear instead.

Tech Arrow Bow been one of the things I have been expecting for Engineer for a while. Think Rambo and Hawkeye style arrows with each Arrow having very specific Tech function. Being something like a Rambo and Hawkeye theme bow and arrow, I alway saw this weapon choice to be something more for traps either making it a weapon more to condition applying with each different Tech arrow or if Power focus more on a lot of Vulnerability applying and making things difficult for enemies to escape from the Engineer. 

 

I like your engineer bow ideas, but it'd be a shame to have this new weapon shine when pistols have been neglected for so long.

[wolfyrik.2017]

On 7/4/2023 at 6:29 PM, Mongk.2458 said:

10 years of GW2 and a you guys still didn't learn that this game open ups the possibilities of base archetypes? It should be normal at this point to see these different takes on them.

If that were true then how do you explain shortbow on engineer? We've already got mid-ranges covered by pistol, flamethrower and grenades when it comes to weapoon need, so archetype seems more reasonable but what archetype could they be going for?

To me it just looks like a poor choice. I'm more convinced that they roll a die to make choices at this point..

or maybe cut the head off a chicken...

 

[wolfyrik.2017]

5 hours ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

Warrior staff been one of the thing that get mentioned once in a while over the years ever since they added Spear type skins for Staff weapons. Something a group of people wanted to see due to how it may provide warrior with Spear type attacks thus treating Staff as a spear instead.

Tech Arrow Bow been one of the things I have been expecting for Engineer for a while. Think Rambo and Hawkeye style arrows with each Arrow having very specific Tech function. Being something like a Rambo and Hawkeye theme bow and arrow, I alway saw this weapon choice to be something more for traps either making it a weapon more to condition applying with each different Tech arrow or if Power focus more on a lot of Vulnerability applying and making things difficult for enemies to escape from the Engineer. 

 

I mean, we've already got the skills you're describing in Mortar, grenades, bomb and mine. So a bow doing these things seems redundant at best.

[EdwinLi.1284]

6 hours ago, wolfyrik.2017 said:

I mean, we've already got the skills you're describing in Mortar, grenades, bomb and mine. So a bow doing these things seems redundant at best.

Which are all kits meant to replace or work with the Main Weapon.

Depending on how the Shortbow is handled, it may synergize with these kits better than current main weapons which so far mostly been used for their stats on Kits rather than synergizing with the Kits. That and if it does end up being a condition based weapon with Trap like skills or field skills, it would provide a additional option for Engineer to use their Main weapon to focus on field DoT effects while leaving Utility for other things that are not Mortar, grenade, and Bomb Kit.

The goal with the weapon system is to expand on possible builds after all. 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by EdwinLi.1284

[wolfyrik.2017]

3 hours ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

Which are all kits meant to replace or work with the Main Weapon.

Depending on how the Shortbow is handled, it may synergize with these kits better than current main weapons which so far mostly been used for their stats on Kits rather than synergizing with the Kits. That and if it does end up being a condition based weapon with Trap like skills or field skills, it would provide a additional option for Engineer to use their Main weapon to focus on field DoT effects while leaving Utility for other things that are not Mortar, grenade, and Bomb Kit.

The goal with the weapon system is to expand on possible builds after all. 

 

That would make sense if kits were cumbersome to access or if more syngerising was kits is something that was needed. To me it would make more sense to look at the gaps in the builds, rather than doubledown on what we already have.

We need more single hand weapons. We don't need more mid-range attack options.

[Mongk.2458]

21 hours ago, wolfyrik.2017 said:

If that were true then how do you explain shortbow on engineer? We've already got mid-ranges covered by pistol, flamethrower and grenades when it comes to weapoon need, so archetype seems more reasonable but what archetype could they be going for?

To me it just looks like a poor choice. I'm more convinced that they roll a die to make choices at this point..

or maybe cut the head off a chicken...

 

I didn't get your quote tbh.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Mongk.2458

[FuriousLight.9160]

I don't give a kitten, Necro is getting 2 swords, i'mma play DK in Gw2 <3

[Kodama.6453]

18 hours ago, FuriousLight.9160 said:

I don't give a kitten, Necro is getting 2 swords, i'mma play DK in Gw2 ❤️

Now I imagined Donkey Kong as a dual sword wielding necromancer. I need someone to draw this.

[Obtena.7952]

So much 'fun' to see players claiming their own random choices for weapons are better than the ones Anet chose. It's very premature to make these kinds of claims. The weapon choices aren't the problem ... it will be the weapon SKILLS that actually determine how good these weapons are.  

Edited August 4, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Batalix.2873]

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

So much 'fun' to see players claiming their own random choices for weapons are better than the ones Anet chose. It's very premature to make these kinds of claims. The weapon choices aren't the problem ... it will be the weapon SKILLS that actually determine how good these weapons are.  

I have found that "wait and see"ing questionable design choices on the basis that implementation might save them, is low-key copium. Especially when it comes to this game.

Not to mention that it really depends on where your frame of reference is, where you think the game's design philosophy is and should be.

If the aim is just that "professions should get rule of cool weapons", which is very much aligned with the spectacle-over-sensibility EoD espec designs, then perhaps these choices make sense. For those of us, like me, that still see a solid 6 years of cohesive game design between core-HoT-PoF where weapon choices largely reinforced the profession pie, so many of these do not make sense, especially as core weapons. Giving Necro a sword and not a shield or Guardian a pistol and not a warhorn is a deliberate either/or decision that chose breaking down core profession identities over emphasizing them.

If the aim is "professions need to fill out their options", that may make sense, although I would argue in cases like Mesmer rifle, Ele pistol, and Engi shortbow, they really aren't fulfilling that aim especially well. I would also argue that the logical end game of this process is that professions will be even less distinct when they all have access to the roughly the same kits.

And even if you don't have an aim at all, there are still design decisions that just make no sense against any backdrop. Revenant and Thief were the two classes that most wanted both a new mainhand and offhand weapon, yet they only get mainhand additions. And, in general, the emphasis on main hand weapons means that entire weapon types have been completely ignored. We haven't gotten a shield or warhorn espec since HoT. We have *never* gotten a focus espec. Why do these weapon types even exist if ANet keeps ignoring them in favor of even more swords and pistols?

The direction of SotO just continually boils down to a singular question: why did all of these systems and choices ever exist in the first place? Why are we still maintaining the illusion of profession and espec choice, of buildcraft and role flexing, when the design for the past few years repeatedly ignores those spaces in favor of...equip your preferred flavor of mainhand and DPS brrrrrrr?

These weapon choices are, imo, quite objectively bad from too many angles, through too many lenses. Yes, you can *hope* that implementation will justify it, but imo it would take an unreasonably high execution to pull that off. Not to mention there is only so much these weapons can do to compensate for the broader erosion of intentional game design they are bringing with them.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Obtena.7952]

17 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

I have found that "wait and see"ing questionable design choices on the basis that implementation might save them, is low-key copium. Especially when it comes to this game.

Not to mention that it really depends on where your frame of reference is, where you think the game's design philosophy is and should be.

If the aim is just that "professions should get rule of cool weapons", which is very much aligned with the spectacle-over-sensibility EoD espec designs, then perhaps these choices make sense. For those of us, like me, that still see a solid 6 years of cohesive game design between core-HoT-PoF where weapon choices largely reinforced the profession pie, so many of these do not make sense, especially as core weapons. Giving Necro a sword and not a shield or Guardian a pistol and not a warhorn is a deliberate either/or decision that chose breaking down core profession identities over emphasizing them.

If the aim is "professions need to fill out their options", that may make sense, although I would argue in cases like Mesmer rifle, Ele pistol, and Engi shortbow, they really aren't fulfilling that aim especially well. I would also argue that the logical end game of this process is that professions will be even less distinct when they all have access to the roughly the same kits.

And even if you don't have an aim at all, there are still design decisions that just make no sense against any backdrop. Revenant and Thief were the two classes that most wanted both a new mainhand and offhand weapon, yet they only get mainhand additions. And, in general, the emphasis on main hand weapons means that entire weapon types have been completely ignored. We haven't gotten a shield or warhorn espec since HoT. We have *never* gotten a focus espec. Why do these weapon types even exist if ANet keeps ignoring them in favor of even more swords and pistols?

The direction of SotO just continually boils down to a singular question: why did all of these systems and choices ever exist in the first place? Why are we still maintaining the illusion of profession and espec choice, of buildcraft and role flexing, when the design for the past few years repeatedly ignores those spaces in favor of...equip your preferred flavor of mainhand and DPS brrrrrrr?

These weapon choices are, imo, quite objectively bad from too many angles, through too many lenses. Yes, you can *hope* that implementation will justify it, but imo it would take an unreasonably high execution to pull that off. Not to mention there is only so much these weapons can do to compensate for the broader erosion of intentional game design they are bringing with them.

Except these aren't questionable design decisions ... we don't even know what the weapons designs ARE yet. Weapon choice is not a design, it's a conceptual choice. The weapons could do ANYTHING from that point, even if it doesn't make sense. (ranged hammer on Rev, for example) . We won't know those weapon designs until they are revealed (at which point the complaint is irrelevant anyways)

The fact remains: People's personal preferences are not valid reasons to justify the claim that Anet's class weapon choices are 'bad'.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Batalix.2873]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Except these aren't questionable design decisions ... we don't even know what the weapons designs ARE yet. Weapon choice is not a design, it's a conceptual choice. The weapons could do ANYTHING from that point, even if it doesn't make sense. (ranged hammer on Rev, for example) . We won't know those weapon designs until they are revealed (at which point the complaint is irrelevant anyways)

The fact remains: People's personal preferences are not valid reasons to justify the claim that Anet's class weapon choices are 'bad'.

Fundamentally disagree. Weapon choice is still a design, especially in a game where most weapons tend to have consistent niches.

[Ashen.2907]

Every possible design choice in every possible field of endeavor is questionable. That doesn't make them bad.

[Acheron.1580]

3 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Fundamentally disagree. Weapon choice is still a design, especially in a game where most weapons tend to have consistent niches.

As already pointed out, there are outliers for weapons. Revenant hammer is nothing like other hammer specs. Staff is usually a support weapon but is pure dps for Daredevil. Axes are a mix of ranged and melee. Scepter is usually condition damage except it isn't on guardian. I don't think there is going to be a universal weapon that people will completely agree they want per class. If it was up to me on ranger I'd take a scepter for more ranged options ANY day over the rifle, but I'm not going to say people wanting the rifle are wrong.

Do I think we could use more focus options? Absolutely, there hasn't been a focus weapon introduced since base game. Longbow could use some serious love, it has the fewest available classes to use it and even then I don't even know if warrior or dragon hunter even bother. Warhorn isn't a bad choice either for diversity.

All that being said, it doesn't matter what the community wants. Anet has been going their own direction without feedback from the players for a long while now, and we are just along for the ride. We can only hope that the concepts they come up for the weapons are interesting, but until we have any idea what those ideas it's pretty ridiculous to call them bad.

[Batalix.2873]

On 8/5/2023 at 2:35 PM, Acheron.1580 said:

As already pointed out, there are outliers for weapons. Revenant hammer is nothing like other hammer specs. Staff is usually a support weapon but is pure dps for Daredevil. Axes are a mix of ranged and melee. Scepter is usually condition damage except it isn't on guardian. I don't think there is going to be a universal weapon that people will completely agree they want per class. If it was up to me on ranger I'd take a scepter for more ranged options ANY day over the rifle, but I'm not going to say people wanting the rifle are wrong.

Do I think we could use more focus options? Absolutely, there hasn't been a focus weapon introduced since base game. Longbow could use some serious love, it has the fewest available classes to use it and even then I don't even know if warrior or dragon hunter even bother. Warhorn isn't a bad choice either for diversity.

All that being said, it doesn't matter what the community wants. Anet has been going their own direction without feedback from the players for a long while now, and we are just along for the ride. We can only hope that the concepts they come up for the weapons are interesting, but until we have any idea what those ideas it's pretty ridiculous to call them bad.

I acknowledge that some weapons are used differently, but that is generally not the norm (and in my opinion, that design space is a sorely underutilized angle of weaponskill design that would have made a LOT of especs from PoF/EoD more interesting). Especially when it comes to more recent weapon design in the EoD specs, which reused animations and generally did not contain any switchups in functionality. We could point to small things like Virt dagger 2/3, Ele hammer 3, mayyyybe BS pistol and Untamed hammer, but on the whole EoD's additions are just straight-application weapons. 

I think it fallacious to trust that these weapons will deviate much from how we know them to operate under the current dev regime; in all likelihood, they generally will not. What we *have* seen is a tendency to move *away* from unique weaponskills into more generic ones. Guardian weapons used to primarily focus on shielding, boons, and healing; except axe and OH sword decided to just do boring straight-damage. Ele weapons used to have some sort of mid-to-long range gimmick to them like we see with MH dagger; sword and hammer heavily pulled back on that feature for more typical melee usage. In fact, I would even argue that for instances where it would have made a lot of sense to deviate from generic DPS weaponskills like FB axe, Scourge torch, and Specter Scepter, the devs still determinedly doubled down on being basic and uninspired.

And furthermore, I do not entertain these ideas that I am prematurely calling them bad or implications that "we have no idea". We have seen what this team does with EoD weaponskills, so past performance. And as for possibility space, I can quite easily look at the remaining weapon options for each profession, and see much better candidates than what were chosen. You can equivocate all you like, but if any sort of objective meritocratic standard for weapon choices existed, these devs failed it.

No paradigm other than abject, chaotic randomness justifies how bizarre these weapon choices are. And by my standards, that is, in fact, not very good game design.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Obtena.7952]

8 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Fundamentally disagree. Weapon choice is still a design, especially in a game where most weapons tend to have consistent niches.

Until that weapon gets skills that can be evaluated within the game, it's quite irrelevant to complain about it's 'design' because until then, it's simply a label. Sure, we can be critical of weapon design ... WHEN we get one. 

The point I'm making here is that know one KNOWS how these weapons will operate, even under the past history of the game  because Anet doesn't always follow traditional ideas of how things should work and the skills are still unknown. People complaining the choices are bad are making a LONG list of assumptions here to do so because they already know not everyone can have all their personal preferences. So if there is a technical reason these are bad designs, sure ... but you aren't going to have those until the weapons are released and we can play with them. 

The idea that, at this point, Anet can 'improve' their choices for the weapons is demonstrating a lack of understanding for how the game is developed. Have no doubt that when these are released in less than a month, the choices Anet made are the ones we will see. I'm willing to bet the designs are already done, in testing and close to being included in the SotO build.

Not the answer you want to hear but ... if these choices do not align with the class fantasies that some people want to play that's just too bad really. Lots of things in the game do not align with how every player wants their class fantasies to work. That's not a reason to complain they are 'bad' . That's an evaluation you can only make once you can use them. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Infinity.2876]

I'm excited for some of the weapon combos and some of them I don't find genuinely interesting.

Warrior Staff: could be a valuable support or support/dmg hybrid weapon but as Lan Deathrider already said it needs proper execution.

Guardian: I'm slightly interested but I wish ele had gotten dual pistols instead but the idea is similar to Lex.

Rev: either a ranged support weapon or ranged power weapon as substitute for hammer, needs proper use of teleports

Ranger: meh

engi: clockwork bow I'm most interested in but could be a real let down

ele: alot better than longbow but could use oh as well

[Acheron.1580]

These weapon choices are odd, I don't disagree with that, but it's so ridiculous to claim that these are bad design choices when you haven't even seen what they are just because they don't fit your idea of fantasy identity for those classes. That's not objective, it's subjective. They also aren't "core weapons", since you'll only have them with the purchase of the expansion, and at that point since any spec on that class can use any weapon after weapon master training you can argue everything is just core, the only thing that changes are your starting options. I don't see the homogenization in this respect that you are worried about because as pointed out weapons can function (and do) differently between classes, even if the basic starting point of the weapon is the same. I'd say pistols are just fundamentally point and bang weapons but that doesn't mean elementalist couldn't be surprisingly different.

 I think the core problem people have with these reveals compared to previous ones is that to date a weapon was released with an e-spec and so your brain tried to tie in the weapon to the spec. Without that e-spec it's just a weapon and you are treating it like it's just an added baseline weapon because you can't picture it with a new theme. Not to say people haven't been disappointed with weapon reveals before too but this one seems particularly salty to me.

So once again, until anything is actually released at all, it's not "objectively bad" just because you don't agree with it, and it's kind of sulky to say it doesn't meet your standards when the only standard you seem to be upset about is it wasn't what YOU wanted because it didn't fulfill your fanfic. If it matters that much to you, don't support them and don't buy the expansion, that simple.

[Bankrotas.8215]

On 7/15/2023 at 9:31 AM, wolfyrik.2017 said:

if kits were cumbersome to access

They are. As long as they don't work as weapons and work of weapon swap to swap into them. 

[Trejgon.9367]

On 7/4/2023 at 12:29 PM, TheeBlackDeath.5692 said:

Instead of Dual Pistol for Guard, we should instead get Warhorn Offhand for Guard since it's the only offhand tool they don't have yet, and it would work perfectly for them to give early access to pre-lvl 80 Alacrity

That awkward feel, when OP have suggested to give alacrity to core guardian and didn't think of any bad consequences of such addition, and then the rest of the post was so engaging, that nobody have pointed it out quite yet....

[Gaiawolf.8261]

On 7/4/2023 at 6:29 AM, TheeBlackDeath.5692 said:

Instead of Dual Pistol for Guard, we should instead get Warhorn Offhand for Guard since it's the only offhand tool they don't have yet,

"Oh. A horn. I guess I can blow into this thing. Gee, thanks, Dad. When do I learn to shoot the guns?"