It's time for new weapon types

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@"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.

That’s true, in case of expansions they said either/or and that’s how it worked out. Plan A didn’t work out so they switched to plan B. With mounts I can find people referring to them saying, not at launch but maybe later but the actual quote isn’t findable. (If you or someone else can find a quote saying there was never any intention to add mounts and post it, that would be most helpful).

As for new weapons my guess is could do as you ask by re-using old weapons by adding new animations to them, for example, making one staff that looks like a spear and giving one new elite spec a spear throwing animation or making one greatsword look like a Great Axe and doing the same. However I don’t see them making separate new weapons as that costs much more, for example requiring changes to the wardrobe in the bank and adding a new wardrobe section in the Hero Panel for each new weapon. Those costs they can avoid by re-purposing old weapons.

Edit: the Daredevil and how they use staffs is how I see them adding new weapons. The Daredevil uses staff like a pole and has a couple of skins for it.

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@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.

I'm not getting into pedantic arguments with you why you think I'm obtuse ... it's a waste of time. More options in an option rich environment will not address the issue the OP says it will address. Are there other reasons to add new weapons? if there are, let's hear them. If not, then there isn't anything to discuss.

[Erasculio.2914]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:As for new weapons my guess is could do as you ask by re-using old weapons by adding new animations to them, for example, making one staff that looks like a spear and giving one new elite spec a spear throwing animation or making one greatsword look like a Great Axe and doing the same. However I don’t see them making separate new weapons as that costs much more, for example requiring changes to the wardrobe in the bank and adding a new wardrobe section in the Hero Panel for each new weapon. Those costs they can avoid by re-purposing old weapons.

At the same time, ArenaNet would likely profit more by selling weapon skins for a new weapon type than for an old weapon. How many weapon skins are players going to buy for the weapons they already have? Releasing a new type of weapon would mean releasing something no one has skins for.

It's basically the same thing for mounts. Now that ArenaNet has already offered many skins for the mounts we have, they are facing decreasing returns: how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount? By releasing new ones, ArenaNet can sell skins for mounts no one has skins for.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:As for new weapons my guess is could do as you ask by re-using old weapons by adding new animations to them, for example, making one staff that looks like a spear and giving one new elite spec a spear throwing animation or making one greatsword look like a Great Axe and doing the same. However I don’t see them making separate new weapons as that costs much more, for example requiring changes to the wardrobe in the bank and adding a new wardrobe section in the Hero Panel for each new weapon. Those costs they can avoid by re-purposing old weapons.

At the same time, ArenaNet would likely profit more by selling weapon skins for a new weapon type than for an old weapon. How many weapon skins are players going to buy for the weapons they already have? Releasing a new type of weapon would mean releasing something no one has skins for.

It's basically the same thing for mounts. Now that ArenaNet has already offered many skins for the mounts we have, they are facing decreasing returns: how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount? By releasing new ones, ArenaNet can sell skins for mounts no one has skins for.

Or they could repurpose old weapons, not have the extra costs associated with new weapons and still sell new skins for them.

Edit I liked this “how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount?”How many skins are players going to buy for the same new weapons and will it pay for the extra costs? Why not avoid the extra costs and sell skins anyway?

[b k.1648]

@Leo G.4501 said:Role and feel tend to be tied to a the weapon itself. Hardly much work that isn't handled in a few conversations and last I knew, conversations aren't that strenuous.

This phase needs to be nailed down before anything else can start, however. The designers involved in such a change tend to be quite senior, and therefore have a lot of other things to keep an eye on as well. So while it sounds like light work, it tends to take some time to solidify the concept - decisions have to be made on what mechanical role the weapon is going to fill, what the skills are going to be to accomplish that, how the weapon is going to be held and animated in order to distinguish it from other weapons available to that class, etc.Compared to a new specialization, the topics covered will be pretty much the same but they're smaller in scope.

• New UI artwork for each attack

Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You still need artists to do this if you want skill icons to work. Relatively small amount of work but it does need to be done.

• New effect animations for each attack

This is something that I feel needs to be addressed to all skills as effects bloat has been a strong complaint of the game.

Still needs to be done, regardless of how flashy they are. Skip this step, and your character is just waving a stick around.

New elite spec:

• Concepting for the elite spec's role and feel, new weapon, utility skill, and trait design for how it achieves that

Haha? you literally bundle like 4 points together whereas you spread them as much as possible for the other (for weapons, concept/role, skill design and trait design were separate...you even lump utilities in there).

Because it's the same design phase. I can break it up into dozens of pieces if you like, but it wouldn't prove anything.

You also forgot one other aspect. Precedence. You don't merely develop 1 elite spec. They come in bundles of 9. Creating a new weapon has no such precedence. In fact, it's sort of a lore concept that certain professions have access to fewer weapons.

Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@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.

I'm not getting into pedantic arguments with you why you think I'm obtuse ... it's a waste of time. More options in an option rich environment will not address the issue the OP says it will address. Are there other reasons to add new weapons? if there are, let's hear them. If not, then there isn't anything to discuss.

Weapon categories are not that option rich an environment and have never been expanded since launch. By acting like all options fit under the same umbrella, it seems to me that you're suggesting we never need new development on anything that would give players more options because we "have enough."

So, no more elite skills!No more skins!No more mounts!No more masteries!

Yes, that's the Obtena I know from years of posting on these forums.

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

[Leo G.4501]

@Ben K.6238 said:Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

I can name one that was only usable by 2 professions. Shortbow.

[Leo G.4501]

@Obtena.7952 said:See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

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

I mean, if you want to actually talk about new concepts, what about a gauntlet type weapon? The reason to suggest it is because it can introduce styles of animation of the user fighting with hand-to-hand. The closest you can get to this is utility skills. The same could be said for scythe weapons and how the skins do not translate to existing animations which is why there is a desire to either customize animations (unlikely) or to create another weapon that has animations to emulate a scythe fantasy style.

I'm sure you already knew this but you either feel that rationalization has no substance or you wanted someone to state the obvious for some reason.

[Naxos.2503]

I'm surprised nobody even mentions the spear as Simply being retooled for land, similar to how harpoon gun is a rifle for water. Ben K actually touched on that, and I feel that's something that should be discussed more, considering it's a lot more feasible than making a new weapon type from scratch.

Seriously, they use the same skins, with very small exceptions. It wouldn't require any asset work to make that work, hence lessen the load. What work would remain is a matter of : design, weapons have to have a specific role and purpose for any and all classes ; balance, any new element of gameplay needs to be properly balanced so as to not invalidate previous choices, while still standing on it's own.

Past that, there is no more workload than the rest beside an initial work required for the design of the skills, the balance, as well as the general coding required for any skills. And I'm pretty confident in saying that would satisfy people who want a new weapon.

Does that mean I think the devs absolutely Must do it ? No. Do I feel it'd be nice ? Absolutely. Will it be useful ? If done properly, it can give a Lot of options to core classes that are pidgeonholed into roles, so yes.

[Zenakou.7853]

Land spear would be a great idea, a simple auto attack chain could featureSpear swipe: strike target for x damageVicious attack: strike target for x damage and inflict 2 stacks of vulnerabilityMaiming attack: strike target for x damage and inflict cripple for 2 or 3 seconds

Elementalist wielding fist weapon auto chain could beBurning jab: strike target for x damageFlaming hook: strike target for x damage and grant 2 stacks of mightDouble dragon: strike target twice for x damage and burn for 2 or 3 secondsFist 2 "bed of coals" stomp the ground and unleash burning hot coals that strike nearby targets for x damage and cause burning for 1-3 secondsFist 3 "dragon's tail" perform a flaming sweep attack that does x damage and cripples foes for 2 secondsFist 4 "burning uppercut" perform a flaming uppercut that knocks foes upward and delivers x damageFist 5 "starburst" shadow step to target and deliver x damage and cause burning for 2 seconds

Mesmer wielding orb auto chain:Chaos bolt: shoot a bolt of energy at foeChaos blast: shoot a second bolt of energy at foeChaos explosion: deliver damage to foe and inflict 1 stack of confusion for x secondsOrb 2 "blackout" strike foe with chaos magic and cause blindnessOrb 3 "shame" strike foe and immobilize for 1 secOrb 4 "phantasmal sorcerer" summon an illusion that strikes foes with chaos magic and inflicts chillOrb 5 "wastrel's collapse" deliver x damage to foe and pull them to you

Guardian wielding a scythe auto chain"Zealous sweep: strike foe for x damageLacerating sweep: strike for x damage and inflict 2 stacks of bleedingRadiant scythe: strike for x damage and grant 2 stacks of mightScythe 2 "rending sweep" strike foe and inflict 2 stacks of vulnerabilityScythe 3 "chilling slicer" strike foe and inflict chillScythe 4 "smiter's boon" strike foe and remove 2 boonsScythe 5 "purifying ward" deliver damage to nearby foes and place a symbol on the ground that removes 1 condition from nearby allies for 3 seconds

Those are just some examples of skills I think could fit some new weapons while being somewhat in line with the theme of each class.

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

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

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

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

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

[Erasculio.2914]

@"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:Edit I liked this “how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount?”How many skins are players going to buy for the same new weapons and will it pay for the extra costs? Why not avoid the extra costs and sell skins anyway?

To give an example:

If ArenaNet announces they will release a new sword skin on the Gem Store. Then...

• There are dozens of sword skills in the game. Why would I buy a new one?
• Having been playing the game for a while now, I already have a lot of unlocked sword skins. Why pay for a new skin when I already have many available for free?
• All my characters who can use a sword already have one, with a skin chosen to match them. Why would I get a different skin now?
• Gem Store skins are nowhere near close to being as elaborated as Legendary items. If I want to get something expensive/flashy, why go for a Gem Store item instead of a Legendary?

In other hand, if ArenaNet announces they will add a new weapon type to the game - say, scythes - and will then sell a few models on the Gem Store:

• Suddenly we're talking about a weapon type that has no skin available in the game
• And it's a weapon type that no one has a single skin unlocked for
• And it's a weapon type no one has yet, so every character going to use it is going to look for a new skin
• And, the Gem Store skin has no competition from flashy things such as Legendaries, since the new weapon type would have no legendary right now

In other words, the supply of skins for a new weapon type would be significantly smaller than that of current weapons, while the demand would be the same or higher. It would be a nice way to make money.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:Edit I liked this “how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount?”How many skins are players going to buy for the same new weapons and will it pay for the extra costs? Why not avoid the extra costs and sell skins anyway?

To give an example:

If ArenaNet announces they will release a new sword skin on the Gem Store. Then...

• There are
  dozens
  of sword skills in the game. Why would I buy a new one?
• Having been playing the game for a while now, I already have a lot of unlocked sword skins. Why pay for a new skin when I already have many available for free?
• All my characters who can use a sword already have one, with a skin chosen to match them. Why would I get a different skin now?
• Gem Store skins are nowhere near close to being as elaborated as Legendary items. If I want to get something expensive/flashy, why go for a Gem Store item instead of a Legendary?

In other hand, if ArenaNet announces they will add a new weapon type to the game - say, scythes - and will then sell a few models on the Gem Store:

• Suddenly we're talking about a weapon type that has no skin available in the game
• And it's a weapon type that no one has a single skin unlocked for
• And it's a weapon type no one has yet, so every character going to use it is going to look for a new skin
• And, the Gem Store skin has no competition from flashy things such as Legendaries, since the new weapon type would have no legendary right now

In other words, the supply of skins for a new weapon type would be significantly smaller than that of current weapons, while the demand would be the same or higher. It would be a nice way to make money.

You forget though, the new weapon might be only for a couple of professions so only the people who play those professions will be buying and of them, only those who like that skin and of those, only those who buy cosmetics from the gemstore (not everyone does you know). So not everyone is going to be buying these new skins yet the costs of adding a new weapon are still there.

Edit: from a post on pricing

..... style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game. ....

Which suggests that in order to make a profit on new weapon skins in the gemstore they’ll have to be priced high in order to recoup costs.

[kharmin.7683]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Ben K.6238 said:Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

I can name one that was only usable by 2 professions. Shortbow.

RangerThiefRenegade

[Erasculio.2914]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:So not everyone is going to be buying these new skins

Yet it would probably be more people than if they released skins for existing weapon types.

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:Edit: from a post on pricing

..... style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game. ....

Which suggests that in order to make money on new weapon skins in the gemstore they’ll have to be priced high in order to recoup costs.

Not really. As see on the post you quoted, there are other ways to deal with it than just a higher price.

[Leo G.4501]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:Edit I liked this “how many skins are players going to buy for the same mount?”How many skins are players going to buy for the same new weapons and will it pay for the extra costs? Why not avoid the extra costs and sell skins anyway?

To give an example:

If ArenaNet announces they will release a new sword skin on the Gem Store. Then...

• There are
  dozens
  of sword skills in the game. Why would I buy a new one?
• Having been playing the game for a while now, I already have a lot of unlocked sword skins. Why pay for a new skin when I already have many available for free?
• All my characters who can use a sword already have one, with a skin chosen to match them. Why would I get a different skin now?
• Gem Store skins are nowhere near close to being as elaborated as Legendary items. If I want to get something expensive/flashy, why go for a Gem Store item instead of a Legendary?

In other hand, if ArenaNet announces they will add a new weapon type to the game - say, scythes - and will then sell a few models on the Gem Store:

• Suddenly we're talking about a weapon type that has no skin available in the game
• And it's a weapon type that no one has a single skin unlocked for
• And it's a weapon type no one has yet, so every character going to use it is going to look for a new skin
• And, the Gem Store skin has no competition from flashy things such as Legendaries, since the new weapon type would have no legendary right now

In other words, the supply of skins for a new weapon type would be significantly smaller than that of current weapons, while the demand would be the same or higher. It would be a nice way to make money.

You forget though, the new weapon might be only for a couple of professions so only the people who play those professions will be buying and of them, only those who like that skin and of those, only those who buy cosmetics from the gemstore (not everyone does you know). So not everyone is going to be buying these new skins yet the costs of adding a new weapon are still there.

I think we're approaching suggestions from a very flawed standpoint here. We are putting the cart before the horse as we have a vested goal, as players, to attain new and cool things. I have no idea why people keep entertaining the notion of monetizing themselves unless you start from the perspective that the game is dying. Either you feel Anet has failed and the game has slipped into obscurity OR you are sabotaging other possible suggestions in hopes the content you prefer is focused on or improved.

Feasibility isn't an argument used here because you all know it is perfectly feasible but would require great deals of similar work that the devs have shown they are already capable of. So those above two reasons are the only real reasons here.

That is to say, we're all familiar with the idea of "I'd buy that for a dollar" but this thread here is some weird undead mutated version on trying to control a market. The individuals making a product are the ones who will discover how marketable a product can be or will find ways for it to be so by controlling the resources to make the product or seek more customers.

Some of you guys make making suggestions WAAAAY too complicated...

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:So not everyone is going to be buying these new skins

Yet it would probably be more people than if they released skins for existing weapon types.

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:Edit: from a post on pricing

..... style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game. ....

Which suggests that in order to make money on new weapon skins in the gemstore they’ll have to be priced high in order to recoup costs.

Not really. As see on the post you quoted, there are other ways to deal with it than just a higher price.

What? The ‘lower price per average bundle’? Those have a total higher price, eg, it might be a bundle of 4 skins at 500 gems each instead of 700 gems individually, with the total price of the bundle being 2000 gems. That price will be too high for many as not all can afford 2000 gems and not all will like all the skins so won’t buy the bundle as it’s no longer a savings.

[Obtena.7952]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

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

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

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

If there is another BETTER reason to introduce completely new weapons, then

that

is worth discussing if you want my opinion. What the weapons are and what they do isn't value.

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

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

[Leo G.4501]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Ben K.6238 said:Name a single weapon in this game that's only used by one class.

I can name one that was only usable by 2 professions. Shortbow.

RangerThiefRenegade

And when did the game get Revenant? And when did Revenant gain Renegade?Answer: Shortbow was exclusive to 2 professions for longer than it has been available for its 3rd.

The point still stands: the precedent for making a new weapon and proliferating it isn't as steep as making a new elite spec.

[b k.1648]

It's a bit steeper than that. Can you honestly imagine them introducing, say, a greataxe and then only giving it to the Warrior and Revenant?

Players are going to expect every class to get something. So you have the 9 sets of skills problem whichever way you go, and if you bring one weapon in, you're probably going to need a second weapon to keep players of the other 4-5 classes that don't get weapon #1 happy.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to do that amount of work for the sake of new weapons, but I do think it has to be weighed up carefully. There's also the decision of whether it should be an "end-game" weapon or not, because if you get access to it from early levels, it then has to be added to all the appropriate quest and levelling rewards, heart vendors, et cetera.

[crepuscular.9047]

I want a new weapon rarity 'Mythic', above legendaries, which can shape shift into any weapon type

to get it, you need to mystic toilet all gen 1 + gen 2 legendaries

[Clyan.1593]

I don't think new Weapons make sense, let me tell you why:The way to properly define a weapon in gw2 is to think about if it is 2-handed, 1-handed or offhanded and if it is melee or ranged.By that you can already see that the 2-handed hammer and the 2-handed GS are overlapping in functionality.And so, it's not surprising the hammer is kind of a... forgotten relic in this game. Because why would you put a lot of effort into balancingtwo weapons if you can already achieve the same result with only one?Therefor: Adding a 2-handed axe is just a waste, it adds nothing, except an icon and an animation that will resemble swinging a big axe.

The magic lies within the skills and not the item.Let's say your 2-handed axe has an auto attack that hits for xxx dmg and applies x stacks of bleed.Well... you could just give that skill to GS in a new specialization and the difference would be non existence.With other words: Weapon types don't matter, they are just placeholder for skills.

So pls explain: Why do we need a new type of weapon that clearly overlaps with the existing ones?Just for some skins or the illusion of playing something "different"?

[Einlanzer.1627]

@"Clyan.1593" said:I don't think new Weapons make sense, let me tell you why:The way to properly define a weapon in gw2 is to think about if it is 2-handed, 1-handed or offhanded and if it is melee or ranged.By that you can already see that the 2-handed hammer and the 2-handed GS are overlapping in functionality.And so, it's not surprising the hammer is kind of a... forgotten relic in this game. Because why would you put a lot of effort into balancingtwo weapons if you can already achieve the same result with only one?Therefor: Adding a 2-handed axe is just a waste, it adds nothing, except an icon and an animation that will resemble swinging a big axe.

The magic lies within the skills and not the item.Let's say your 2-handed axe has an auto attack that hits for xxx dmg and applies x stacks of bleed.Well... you could just give that skill to GS in a new specialization and the difference would be non existence.With other words: Weapon types don't matter, they are just placeholder for skills.

So pls explain: Why do we need a new type of weapon that clearly overlaps with the existing ones?Just for some skins or the illusion of playing something "different"?

Because a lot of people care about thematics as much as or more as mechanics. Even so, mechanically, it's a fun way to add new skills and animations (which is needed) to existing classes. And it's also a way to help expand the elite spec system to make it more flexible.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:See, that's just untrue ... classes have been getting expanded weapon sets every elite spec, so YES, the options to play with new weapons on each class does expand since launch.

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

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

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

If there is another BETTER reason to introduce completely new weapons, then

that

is worth discussing if you want my opinion. What the weapons are and what they do isn't value.

There are a multitude of reasons you're just ignoring. I don't even know where the "stale gameplay" argument came from. There is no argument floating around that new weapons would single-handedly, permanently fix "stale gameplay". MMOs need perpetual expansion of different systems to avoid getting stale. This is one low-hanging fruit system that can be expanded to great benefit.