It's time for new weapon types

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@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.

Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how any idea they have would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

[Leo G.4501]

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

@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.

Again, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Bringing up issues that aren't directed at the suggestion and pertain to issues of the game's design direction is a discussion best targeted to those that decided to limit weapon allocation.

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/

)

So, if they if a limited team could craft quality mounts, which requires as much of more as a new weapon, why assume the level of work is going to be different?

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.

The field of work isn't why I mentioned it, it's the delegation of decisions. When you get to the nitty gritty, the work environment isn't a democracy. There is no 'unified decision'. The person in charge makes the decision after taking in information from the team. And this decisions are weighed by experts whose job it is to make decisions on those decisions.

What I'm politely trying to say is, your QA experience is only relevant to testing the content, not the development of that content nor the delegation of duties in creating that content.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

@"Leo G.4501" said:Again, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Bringing up issues that aren't directed at the suggestion and pertain to issues of the game's design direction is a discussion best targeted to those that decided to limit weapon allocation.

Not outside the scope of the discussion. You only claim that now since it's already proven that there's more that we can do with currently existing weapon than you think.

So, if they if a limited team could craft quality mounts, which requires as much of more as a new weapon, why assume the level of work is going to be different?

Quality mounts? Last I checked, they made 1 mount, 1 GS, and 3 iterations of and armour set that all looked the same. Already your argument is flawed. They didn't make multiple mounts, they made 1 mount. Skins for a single mount are easier to make given that they aren't messing with new mechanics nor are they completely remodelling and rigging mounts outside of the special ones like Hummingbird.

The field of work isn't why I mentioned it, it's the delegation of decisions. When you get to the nitty gritty, the work environment isn't a democracy. There is no 'unified decision'. The person in charge makes the decision after taking in information from the team. And this decisions are weighed by experts whose job it is to make decisions on those decisions.What I'm politely trying to say is, your QA experience is only relevant to testing the content, not the development of that content nor the delegation of duties in creating that content.

The reason I stated the difference in profession is due to exactly this. Unfortunately, this statement is completely wrong. Quality Assurance is not just a case of testing. Quality Assurance alone itself already involves different areas of the development, we don't just test things, we work directly with each team in development. Quality Assurance in and of itself, can split into each area of expertise to work with corresponding teams of Development. So you can have someone testing animations and in game models working with the Arts and Animation team. Someone working on testing out numbers (such as balancing, working on prerequisite numbers and things like crashes.) will work with programming team. Finance wise, the QA Lead will usually have a number of people with them to talk about potentially working towards reduction cost due to file sizes being too big (yes, each mega/gigabyte of data has its cost so less data used with maximum result is always a good key goal). We have just as much say as the developers themselves because we work with them to make sure they, and us, meet the milestones needed and the specified criterias to meet those milestones. If we didn't voice our say in the situations, it would cause an impasse

Here's an example of role diversity in the development industry https://twitter.com/GIBiz/status/1123227756014100480 (quoted message literally states "They're allowed to take on other jobs if they want") So yeah. Quality Assurance was my position, it was my main focus, it was the role that defined me, didn't mean it was my only role.

[Leo G.4501]

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

@Leo G.4501 said:Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

Sound argument. Now let's ask the question again but this time, with the current weapons. Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?

See how this works as well? It's not time for a new weapon type because it was factually true, it was time for a new weapon type because a minority of the people believe it is time. This thread was supported by a fallacy to begin with because the population of the forum is not the same as population in game.

[Leo G.4501]

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:Again, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Bringing up issues that aren't directed at the suggestion and pertain to issues of the game's design direction is a discussion best targeted to those that decided to limit weapon allocation.

Not outside the scope of the discussion. You only claim that now since it's already proven that there's more that we can do with currently existing weapon than you think.

I claimed it when I initially replied to you, not just now. Did you misread what I posted before? Again, how weapons are currently allocated by profession is another discussion from new weapons. It doesn't prove anything except some players don't like how weapons are currently allocated.

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

So, if they if a limited team could craft quality mounts, which requires as much of more as a new weapon, why assume the level of work is going to be different?

Quality mount

s

? Last I checked, they made 1 mount, 1 GS, and 3 iterations of and armour set that all looked the same. Already your argument is flawed. They didn't make multiple mounts, they made 1 mount. Skins for a single mount are easier to make given that they aren't messing with new mechanics nor are they completely remodelling and rigging mounts outside of the special ones like Hummingbird.

Yes, mounts. Roller Beetle, Warclaw and Skyscale.

Regardless, making ONE mount is still as much work (at least) as a category of weapon....assumptions, of course.

The field of work isn't why I mentioned it, it's the delegation of decisions. When you get to the nitty gritty, the work environment isn't a democracy. There is no 'unified decision'. The person in charge makes the decision after taking in information from the team. And this decisions are weighed by experts whose job it is to make decisions on those decisions.What I'm politely trying to say is, your QA experience is only relevant to testing the content, not the development of that content nor the delegation of duties in creating that content.

The reason I stated the difference in profession is due to exactly this. Unfortunately, this statement is completely wrong. Quality Assurance is not just a case of testing. Quality Assurance alone itself already involves different areas of the development, we don't just test things, we work directly with each team in development. Quality Assurance in and of itself, can split into each area of expertise to work with corresponding teams of Development. So you can have someone testing animations and in game models working with the Arts and Animation team. Someone working on testing out numbers (such as balancing, working on prerequisite numbers and things like crashes.) will work with programming team. Finance wise, the QA Lead will usually have a number of people with them to talk about potentially working towards reduction cost due to file sizes being too big (yes, each mega/gigabyte of data has its cost so less data used with maximum result is always a good key goal). We have just as much say as the developers themselves because we work with them to make sure they, and us, meet the milestones needed and the specified criterias to meet those milestones. If we didn't voice our say in the situations, it would cause an impasse

Here's an example of role diversity in the development industry (quoted message literally states "They're allowed to take on other jobs if they want") So yeah. Quality Assurance was my position, it was my main focus, it was the role that defined me, didn't mean it was my only role.

I'll concede the importance of QA with regards to the finished product however this argument still won't rest my argument. You're attempting to use your expertise (Quality Assurance) to assert a point on a different echelon of delegation. You may have an impact on how a decision is made but you're conflating that to making the decision itself. I deal with smart people all the time (Surgeons, Engineers, Physicists, etc) but just being knowledgeable on a subject doesn't qualify you to make those decisions. Not because your expertise doesn't align, but because of the levels of confidentiality of information. At the end of the day, you are still a customer (or do you work for Anet?) and they are the subject matter experts.

[Leo G.4501]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay [FOR YOU] like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

Fixed.

Again, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I know you understand what I mean because you close with your actual argument. You're not wrong. I've long stated that more of the same kinds of options just over-bloats. It's why I am mostly indifferent with GW2's armors...they are mostly options of the same odd, bulky, gaudy types of designs. You are arguing as though the OP claims it is a cure-all for staleness and I don't believe the OP claimed that, but even you'd have to admit, adding a new weapon or two isn't the same as adding a new set of armor. We haven't ever gotten a new category of weapon added to the game yet! We've had recipes added, a craft added, mounts added...if the devs' goals are to add stuff to keep players playing, it's only natural to look at stuff we don't have or haven't seen more of and suggest adding it too.

[Leo G.4501]

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

Sound argument. Now let's ask the question again but this time, with the current weapons. Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?

I challenge you to CTRL+F and search board and back up that context. Disregarding the accusation of your claim (as I never claimed nor assumed that either part of what you said), I further challenge you to poll more people about their experience in the game.

I further challenge you that if you discover what I'd hypothesize you'll unveil (that some players are getting bored while others are not), to assess what could occur to both groups and a control group, if you didn't bother adding anything new.

Because I'm guessing you know I'm leading you on here and you probably won't take those challenges, I'll sum up my point. Adding things to the game may not exclude the individuals that aren't bored but NOT adding things does exclude those that are getting bored. So what does you begging the question actually prove?

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:See how this works as well?

As much respect as I have for you and your professional background, I can't help poking fun: did you QA your response before making it?

[Zenakou.7853]

I agree completely. I was thinking about that the other day myself. Adding new weapon types would expand gameplay and bring some freshness back to the game. GW2 prides itself on customization so adding more weapon types would further allow more players to do that. I would like to see orbs, tomes, fists/claws, scythes, chakrams, or whips for examples.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

I won't go over things again at this stage, because now this is falling into a fallacy circle and that's the last thing I need. I've said my piece, given my evidence, backed by experience in a similar environment, but the below is my last answer.

@Leo G.4501 said:I challenge you to CTRL+F and search board and back up that context. Disregarding the accusation of your claim (as I never claimed nor assumed that either part of what you said), I further challenge you to poll more people about their experience in the game.

I further challenge you that if you discover what I'd hypothesize you'll unveil (that some players are getting bored while others are not), to assess what could occur to both groups and a control group, if you didn't bother adding anything new.

Because I'm guessing you know I'm leading you on here and you probably won't take those challenges, I'll sum up my point. Adding things to the game may not exclude the individuals that aren't bored but NOT adding things does exclude those that are getting bored. So what does you begging the question actually prove?I really don't need to do any of that stuff because at this current moment, my biggest evidence in regards to this whole argument right now is literally the game itself. What you will find in this forum is the smaller number of people playing this game, it's not the entire populace of the game. And if I do end up searching statements from other people, what will literally happen is I'll a number of responses which come from the same people which only adds to the fact that only a small number of people, posting multiple times, are in the forums.

And in regards to feeling excluded. They aren't excluded in any way, shape or form. That's a fallacy yet again because bringing in people feeling excluded is literally a claim that people can't play the game because they don't have a weapon type they want, which isn't true. They can completely play the game, they just don't have something they want

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:See how this works as well?

As much respect as I have for you and your professional background, I can't help poking fun: did you QA your response before making it?

I see no reason why you can't have fun and poke fun at me. Though, I think I responded quite appropriately. Because my counterargument remains valid.

Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?

And as an end note. There are those who have given their ideas in the forums without being thrown down by the forum community, and that's because they have worked to back their ideas alongside seeing the flaws of their ideas when it's shown. And they actually acknowledged those flaws when given evidence regarding why their idea is flawed or how it might have a negative impact on the current state of the game whereas on this thread, you give the reason why it's flawed and it becomes a wall text of ad hominems because no one acknowledges the fact that there are flaws. Yes, even I might have taken this out of context so sorry if I have but current argument remains the same about new weapon types.Yes, new weapon types are a nice idea, but are they a good idea? No (or in this context, not yet) because the developments of new weapon types are currently outweighed by the fact that the current weapons themselves have not been full used to their utmost limit and the fact that there is not enough resources in ANet to develop something new without causing current plans on GW2 to be delayed.

Aaaand I'm out

[Thornwolf.9721]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@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.

No, they said at launch and in HoT there was NEVER an intention to bring mounts. They never had them fully committed to their mind, they dismissed them with the waypoint system several time in fact. What everyone is doing here in this thread was done over mounts for years; And they happened thus meaning NOTHING is off the table once so ever. Simply put they can do whatever they damn well please and we have no say once so ever; If enough people want it then it will happen and with new weapons comes new skins =profit from the gemstore.

As long as it is marketable, monetization friendly, and can bring in more $ they will be all for it. Weapons of new types are not off the table, not like perhaps new races are as it would be far harder to continuously monetize them for more $ which in the long run is all that matters. Money is the key here; Best believe if it can rake it in they will be all for it and I mean they are a business, so thats their priority. Mounts only exist so that mount skins can be used to bring in revanue just like gliders, and outfits notice we rarely get armor set skins anymore? More effort than an outfit for the same asked price? Which is why they prefer to stick to outfits.

Also notice with mounts they can cut corners, which all gaming companies love to do. The griffon, skyscale and warclaw(warclaw might be the unused tiger mount that was data-mined too.) all have the same base rig and share the model and animations. Its in essence the same mount skinned differently and given different benefits; In reality the Griffon model has been used alot, and the raptor used the raptor rider model from HoT. The skimmer had been planned as a creature for Launch, but was never used and is in the files as an unused creature and even features in the art-book alongside the long forgotten bubbles dragon minion from one of the many launch trailers. The jackal is literally the same model as a wolf, with changed animations and higher ploygon count. The springer might be new, the roller beetle is new to some extent and I believe that we also have mounts they had planned that are currently not being used at this moment.

• Tiger mount most likely became the warclaw, or was used as the base rig for the griffon, skyscale and warclaw.
• Spider mount has yet to be used in any meaningful way, but was complete enough to feature in That_Shaman's video when it was data-mined.

[Leo G.4501]

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:And in regards to feeling excluded. They aren't excluded in any way, shape or form. That's a fallacy yet again because bringing in people feeling excluded is literally a claim that people can't play the game because they don't have a weapon type they want, which isn't true. They can completely play the game, they just don't have something they want

You say it's not exclusive but by the definition of the word (quick search: not allowing things to be admitted; restrict or limit to the person, group or area concerned), you want to limit a suggestion because only some people might want it. Giving something to someone that didn't ask or want it isn't exclusive while NOT giving something to someone that did as is exclusive.

One might jump to the conclusion that I'm asserting that if people ask for stuff, they should get it. Incorrect. I'm saying telling those people that ask for stuff that you don't want something so they can't have it is not an argument. If you're not making that argument, then I feel we're close to a compromise. Speaking on the level of difficulty of making new weapon categories, I can't speak from a position of experience and it's on you to prove to me your experience is sufficient enough to speak on my behalf.

@ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:See how this works as well?

As much respect as I have for you and your professional background, I can't help poking fun: did you QA your response before making it?

I see no reason why you can't have fun and poke fun at me. Though, I think I responded quite appropriately. Because my counterargument remains valid.

Why would one assume, that just because a number of people on this thread are already bored with the current weapons, it means all players are already bored of the existing weapons?

And as an end note. There are those who have given their ideas in the forums without being thrown down by the forum community, and that's because they have worked to back their ideas alongside seeing the flaws of their ideas when it's shown. And they actually acknowledged those flaws when given evidence regarding why their idea is flawed or how it might have a negative impact on the current state of the game whereas on this thread, you give the reason why it's flawed and it becomes a wall text of ad hominems because no one acknowledges the fact that there are flaws. Yes, even I might have taken this out of context so sorry if I have but current argument remains the same about new weapon types.

Yes, new weapon types are a

nice

idea, but are they a

good

idea? No (or in this context,

not yet

) because the developments of new weapon types are currently outweighed by the fact that the current weapons themselves have not been full used to their utmost limit and the fact that there is not enough resources in ANet to develop something new without causing current plans on GW2 to be delayed.

Evidence? Where?

And I'm thankful you've stated your piece rather than advance your defensive argument. If you read my first post, I'm actually in agreement with you. Would new weapon types be nice? Sure, it could mix things up, but it's not a priority to me. Basically, I could take or leave new weapons. I even outlined various other things they could do with current weapons as an aside but that's far and away from taking the stance that new possibilities as a whole should be dismissed.

My only regret is it took this many posts to get to this compromise and little regarding what kind of new weapon categories or what new things could be done with current weapon categories was discussed.

You didn't seem to have fun in this back and forth exchange (not going to lie, I do enjoy some lite forum parlay) so why divert the thread in that direction in the first place? We could have as easily discussed what different things could be done with current weapons and enjoyed basking in each others' imaginative game propositions. Or, you know, not wasted each others' time if nothing was gained (I just happened to get to a lull in work today and got to swippity-swiping on my phone while I wait, so no foul on my part).

[Cyndercat.7615]

I think this is a terrible idea and definitly not one that gw2 NEEDS.

Why would i want a new wep with 5 skins to choose from when elite specs give existing weps new playstlyes but still have all the customization available.

On top of that every class will have to get the wep, cant create content for only some the classes ofc, but you know its going to be useless on half of them. At least with elite specs, even if the weapon is bad (dh longbow) the new utilities and profession mechanics can make up for it.

Not to mention the total lack of opportunity cost, which will make balancing a nightmare. At least especs have SOME trade off.

[Divine Monk.2401]

I am pretty sure if they did add any new weapon types it would be for E-Specs &/or New Profs only.

[ROMANG.1903]

Landspears wouldn't require additional skins, we already have a reasonable batch and one or two legendaries.

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay [FOR YOU] like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

Fixed.

Again, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I know you understand what I mean because you close with your actual argument. You're not wrong. I've long stated that more of the same kinds of options just over-bloats. It's why I am mostly indifferent with GW2's armors...they are mostly options of the same odd, bulky, gaudy types of designs. You are arguing as though the OP claims it is a cure-all for staleness and I don't believe the OP claimed that, but even you'd have to admit, adding a new weapon or two isn't the same as adding a new set of armor. We haven't ever gotten a new category of weapon added to the game yet! We've had recipes added, a craft added, mounts added...if the devs' goals are to add stuff to keep players playing, it's only natural to look at stuff we don't have or haven't seen more of and suggest adding it too.

I don't see what you are saying here changing what I said ... we have lots of options already ... so adding more doesn't fix stale game play. If it does, it's a VERY short term solution to it for a fraction of players. This again goes back to whether or not new weapons is the best value Anet can bring to players to address 'stale' play; I don't believe it is.

Think of the other side of this ... if new weapons is such a great idea and add lots of value to players and Anet's business, why don't we have them yet? Instead we get content ... HUM. Yes I'm so intentionally obtuse ... or maybe I got my eyes open and pay attention to how the game evolves.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay [FOR YOU] like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

Fixed.

Again, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I know you understand what I mean because you close with your actual argument. You're not wrong. I've long stated that more of the same kinds of options just over-bloats. It's why I am mostly indifferent with GW2's armors...they are mostly options of the same odd, bulky, gaudy types of designs. You are arguing as though the OP claims it is a cure-all for staleness and I don't believe the OP claimed that, but even you'd have to admit, adding a new weapon or two isn't the same as adding a new set of armor. We haven't ever gotten a new category of weapon added to the game yet! We've had recipes added, a craft added, mounts added...if the devs' goals are to add stuff to keep players playing, it's only natural to look at stuff we don't have or haven't seen more of and suggest adding it too.

I don't see what you are saying here changing what I said ... we have lots of options already ... so adding more doesn't fix stale game play. If it does, it's a VERY short term solution to it for a fraction of players. This again goes back to whether or not new weapons is the best value Anet can bring to players to address 'stale' play; I don't believe it is.

Think of the other side of this ... if new weapons is such a great idea and add lots of value to players and Anet's business, why don't we have them yet? Instead we get content ... HUM. Yes I'm so intentionally obtuse ... or maybe I got my eyes open and pay attention to how the game evolves.

The same question could be posed for why it took us so long to get mounts when it's fairly obvious they would have helped the game years ago. It's a fallacy to just assume Anet knows what they're doing. Companies in general don't know what they're doing. They often make poor, myopic, or arbitrary decisions and cause harm to their business. LW1 and not doing an early expansion are the best examples of this. It has always been my opinion that they over-emphasize the story, which is generally sort of mediocre and something many players don't care about, and underemphasize gameplay systems in the way they develop the game.

For your above post, you can't just throw all "options" under a single umbrella. You get severe diminishing returns with options within a certain category, but that doesn't apply to options in other categories. Skins are basically at the point of causing choice fatigue because they are giving us endless variations of the same thing, but new weapons done well would not do the same - it would actually be a way of at least slightly invigorating the skin market. They would also horizontally expand the way the classes can be played in a way they haven't been since launch. It's also not a short term solution because it would exponentially expand the possibilities for future elite specs.

Given that GW2 is proclaimed to be a horizontal-growth game, it was kind of a problem even at launch how railroaded toons were in how they played, which is the main reason why many people believe GW1 to be the superior game. The truth is we could have used more weapon types 6 years ago, but it's never too late to get them.

Frankly, every argument ever used against mounts by both the players and Anet devs was a bad argument, which is something insightful people recognized. The same is happening here.

[Obtena.7952]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sure ... and it's a better bet than thinking there is lots of benefit to players and Anet to adding new weapons ... so I'm just going to stick with that. What I say doesn't have less value because I can't prove it ... most the things people say about how it would impact the game can't be 'proven' to begin with, so pointing out it's no different than what I said is a big "SO WHAT?". I actually gave reasons I think it's not very valuable ... unlike the OP that simply states matter of factly that new weapons will address stale gameplay.

Well I'm glad we're now on the same page. The big "SO WHAT?" revalation you're having is the same point I was making at least 2 replies back. That is, picking nits over different opinions and choice of expression is the basis of the miscommunication.

@Obtena.7952 said:BTW, don't pretend I was being elusive in my posts either, just so you can look like some forum hero. The fact is that the reason given to add new weapons simply didn't make sense to begin with. Not only do I think there is little business case for new weapons, I think adding new weapons doesn't change 'stale' play like the OP claims.

You're not being elusive, but rather intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a forum hero to understand the reasons to add new weapons even if not stated by the OP. As a player, you should have the qualifications to extend such hypothetical situations to your circumstances and the circumstances to what a majority of players might want. For example, I don't do unranked or SPvP but I understand that adding new maps, modes and objectives could be perceived as beneficial to the playerbase that enjoys sPvP. Why would I be obtuse and pretend I think all PvPers dislike new objectives and wish only for mass brawl scenarios?

Same goes here. Why would you assume, just because the hardcore players would be bored of new weapons quickly therefore all players would be bored of new weapons quickly? Your fallacy argument relies on a fallacy.

I'm not saying all players would be bored of new weapons. I'm saying that new weapons doesn't address 'stale' gameplay [FOR YOU] like the OP claims. That's not the same thing. The idea that the game is stale in an option-rich environment already proves more options won't change that.

Fixed.

Again, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I know you understand what I mean because you close with your actual argument. You're not wrong. I've long stated that more of the same kinds of options just over-bloats. It's why I am mostly indifferent with GW2's armors...they are mostly options of the same odd, bulky, gaudy types of designs. You are arguing as though the OP claims it is a cure-all for staleness and I don't believe the OP claimed that, but even you'd have to admit, adding a new weapon or two isn't the same as adding a new set of armor. We haven't ever gotten a new category of weapon added to the game yet! We've had recipes added, a craft added, mounts added...if the devs' goals are to add stuff to keep players playing, it's only natural to look at stuff we don't have or haven't seen more of and suggest adding it too.

I don't see what you are saying here changing what I said ... we have lots of options already ... so adding more doesn't fix stale game play. If it does, it's a VERY short term solution to it for a fraction of players. This again goes back to whether or not new weapons is the best value Anet can bring to players to address 'stale' play; I don't believe it is.

Think of the other side of this ... if new weapons is such a great idea and add lots of value to players and Anet's business, why don't we have them yet? Instead we get content ... HUM. Yes I'm so intentionally obtuse ... or maybe I got my eyes open and pay attention to how the game evolves.

The same question could be posed for why it took us so long to get mounts when it's fairly obvious they would have helped the game years ago. It's a fallacy to just assume Anet knows what they're doing.

I'm not assuming Anet knows what they are doing ... but I know for a fact that they do what they want and they aren't a charity. Again, this is a business consideration, not about if players know better than Anet.

[Orthonen.9470]

Lances/spears have been in concept art for years now, you know where they are? In the garbage bin at Anet just like the rest of their concept art.

[Leo G.4501]

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't see what you are saying here changing what I said ... we have lots of options already ... so adding more doesn't fix stale game play. If it does, it's a VERY short term solution to it for a fraction of players. This again goes back to whether or not new weapons is the best value Anet can bring to players to address 'stale' play; I don't believe it is.

Think of the other side of this ... if new weapons is such a great idea and add lots of value to players and Anet's business, why don't we have them yet? Instead we get content ... HUM. Yes I'm so intentionally obtuse ... or maybe I got my eyes open and pay attention to how the game evolves.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't but from my perspective, you're either intentionally not wanting to understand what we're saying so you don't have to 'abandon' your argument or we aren't communicating clearly to you.

But why I say you're being obtuse is multi-fold:

1. No one said adding new weapons WILL cure staleness. At most, I feel the OP is making this suggestion because no new weapon categories have been added thus far so it could be another avenue that hasn't been touched on. Even you understand that adding more and more options causes a bloat in customization BUT that's mostly in regards to things you've been given lots of options for. Adding options to things that haven't changed much could affect staleness unpredictably. To what degree staleness would be changed is frankly up for debate.
2. Your counter perspective paints the straw-man that suggesting this means no other content. This isn't AT THE COST of new content. This is a stance many many MANY posters take on this forum, which is hilarious. You even understand that what Anet wants to add and in what priority is Anet's prerogative so why argue over who is entitled to state what is 'best' to use resources on? It would be different if the OP mentioned not wanting LW episodes and to focus on stuff like weapons, but he never said that. So what on Earth are you even going on this tangent for? And this is always mentioned so is constantly argued ad nauseam.
3. You claim to be 'woke' but at the same time have a pessimistic outlook...yet in the same breath know what's best for the game's future content? If I were being obtuse myself, I'd assume you were actually trying to sabotage the game...
4. No criticism. This is a pet peeve of mine. You and others have mentioned that adding new weapon categories are a lot of work and only 1 has gone into detail about HOW it's a lot of work. That's hardly criticism besides the type of workload it is. Nothing on how to lessen the workload or alternatives to the idea or similar ideas that could branch off from such...it's all just nothing-burgers that derail the topic.

[Erasculio.2914]

@"Thornwolf.9721" said:No, they said at launch and in HoT there was NEVER an intention to bring mounts. They never had them fully committed to their mind, they dismissed them with the waypoint system several time in fact. What everyone is doing here in this thread was done over mounts for years; And they happened thus meaning NOTHING is off the table once so ever.

Not to mention how ArenaNet had said that it was unlikely GW2 would ever get an expansion, and yet here we are, after HoT and PoF.

So you are right - things change. Something that was considered a bad idea in the past may be seen as amazing in the future.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@"Thornwolf.9721" said:No, they said at launch and in HoT there was NEVER an intention to bring mounts. They never had them fully committed to their mind, they dismissed them with the waypoint system several time in fact. What everyone is doing here in this thread was done over mounts for years; And they happened thus meaning NOTHING is off the table once so ever.

Not to mention how ArenaNet had said that

it was unlikely GW2 would ever get an expansion

, and yet here we are, after HoT and PoF.

So you are right - things change. Something that was considered a bad idea in the past may be seen as amazing in the future.

They didn’t say expansions were unlikely. They said, "If we do this right," he answered, "we will probably never do an expansion and everything will be going into this Living World strategy."

In other words, no expansions if the LW works out as they hope but there will be expansions if LW doesn’t work out. After some time they saw LW wasn’t bringing in the numbers so they switched to an expansion model.

[Erasculio.2914]

@"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:They didn’t say expansions were unlikely. They said, "If we do this right," he answered, "we will probably never do an expansion and everything will be going into this Living World strategy."In other words, their plan was to keep the Living World strategy and do it right, and thus the game wouldn't have expansions.

But their strategy failed, so the plan had to change, thus HoT and PoF.

Which, as is the point here, shows how things are not set in stone, plans change, and what was once seen as something ArenaNet would probably "never do" can become a reality.

[VDAC.2137]

@"Thornwolf.9721" said:

• Spider mount has yet to be used in any meaningful way, but was complete enough to feature in That_Shaman's video when it was data-mined.

Spider mount! :love: