There a reason that ES weapons are still restricted to ES? - [Merged]

[Astralporing.1957]

@Katary.7096 said:

@Fractured.3928 said:As far as I'm concerned, Weapons are a playstyle. And utilities are just there to support your weapon. Big difference.Does not sound true for Chronomancer's shield or Berserker's torch, some of those skills you get to cast two or three times each minute, that would make for a pretty boring playstyle.Playstyle encompasses more than just what skills you use. It can also include things like

thematics

. For example, the infamous bearbow playstyle was an effect of people wanting to play

a Ranger with a bow

. Even if said bow was next to useless at that time.

So, for example, wanting to play a melee Elementalist with a sword, but disliking the double attunement mechanic (and preferring either core one, or the Tempest overloads) is also a playstyle.

[robertthebard.8150]

@Taril.8619 said:

@"robertthebard.8150" said:It's funny, to me, that people are surprised that I don't understand why they would want to make themselves objectively weaker, by removing all the benefits from an e spec except the weapon, and that's exactly what this would do.

1) Overworld PvE doesn't require particularly high standards of character capacity, thus "Sub-optimal" builds play just fine there and more weapons means more interesting ways for people to play there.

2) The "Benefits of an E-Spec" in regards to weapons, has only very minor impact on the actual performance of a weapon. There are few E-Spec weapons that are wholly dependent on the E-Spec in order to make them function (Deadeye Rifle and arguably Holosmith Sword) the rest of the questionable ones simply lack a good build to use along with them (Something that can be addressed by new E-Specs, updates to Core Specs and overall balance changes)

3) Core Builds are viable in certain areas of the game (Notably, PvP/WvW where going full glass cannon with 3 DPS specs is often a terrible idea) which can be improved by having better weapons to utilize.

4) Having the option to use E-Spec weapons outside of their E-Spec, isn't limited to just Core builds. It lets you use E-Specs, with the weapon from a different E-Spec. This means you're not "Removing all benefits from an E-Spec", you're still getting the full E-Spec benefits you're just utilizing it with an alternate weapon, like every E-Spec currently does when they use Core weapons.

Except that that's not how that works, is it. The core weapons work in your e spec because you have three spec slots, and two of them are generally core. Assuming running 2 e specs, you'd still have one slot that's open for a core spec. These may not be targeted at specific weapons, generally, but they are targeted at the base class. So, since the base class determines how a weapon functions, they are "married" to the core specs, so of course the core weapons function, no matter what e spec you're in. I have yet to see anyone suggest a build that runs just an e spec, with all other specs left blank.

[borgs.6103]

Simple reason: Lore. An elite spec is also a core spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a role-playing game, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're not a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

[Fractured.3928]

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An elite spec is also a core spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a role-playing game, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're not a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Who are you to say what my Necromancer believes?

There are legit arguments against opening all weapons to core. This is definitely not one of them lol. Especially when you can so easily switch. One second my Necromancer thinks Greatsword is godlike, the next moment he thinks a torch is the newest invention in the world? Then the next day, right back to Greatsword being hte best, and torches are only used in dungeons for scrubs who don't have Darkvision?

Why can't a Thief use a rifle? They HAVE to be a Deadeye in order to use a Rifle? Literally no other way they can even pick one up? It just drops out of their hands? Then why can a Warrior use one without being a Deadeye?

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:While true, we can also easly argue that there's no real reason to implement that change other than the fact that some people want it, right?Yes. The difference however is that some people wanting something is an argument for implementing it (with the strength of that argument depending on the number of said people, of course), but some people not feeling a need for it is just those people lacking an argument for it, it's not an argument

against

it.

Why?Why exactly "some people want it" is suddenly a valid argument for implementing it? And how is it more valid than "some people don't want it"?

[Astralporing.1957]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:While true, we can also easly argue that there's no real reason to implement that change other than the fact that some people want it, right?Yes. The difference however is that some people wanting something is an argument for implementing it (with the strength of that argument depending on the number of said people, of course), but some people not feeling a need for it is just those people lacking an argument for it, it's not an argument

against

it.

Why?Why exactly "some people want it" is suddenly a valid argument for implementing it? And how is it more valid than "some people don't want it"?There's a world of difference between not wanting something to be implemented, because you dislike the consequences, and not wanting something implemented (even though it would have no impact on you whatsoever) just because you personally aren't interested.

[Sobx.1758]

@Fractured.3928 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An

elite

spec is also a

core

spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a

role-playing game

, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're

not

a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Who are you to say what my Necromancer believes?

There are legit arguments against opening all weapons to core. This is definitely not one of them lol. Especially when you can so easily switch. One second my Necromancer thinks Greatsword is godlike, the next moment he thinks a torch is the newest invention in the world? Then the next day, right back to Greatsword being hte best, and torches are only used in dungeons for scrubs who don't have Darkvision?

Why can't a Thief use a rifle? They HAVE to be a Deadeye in order to use a Rifle? Literally no other way they can even pick one up? It just drops out of their hands? Then why can a Warrior use one without being a Deadeye?

It's probably for the similar reason we can pick at most 3 specs at one time. And why we can't use all traits at the same time (what, you mean if I pick one, I forget how to use the other two?). And why we pick 3 utility skills out of 20 while not even counting especs -and don't even get me started on revenant. Because it's a game and real life logic won't "always" apply and it's not exactly what it's balanced around....or is what you're saying only valid for espec weapons for some reason? :p

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:While true, we can also easly argue that there's no real reason to implement that change other than the fact that some people want it, right?Yes. The difference however is that some people wanting something is an argument for implementing it (with the strength of that argument depending on the number of said people, of course), but some people not feeling a need for it is just those people lacking an argument for it, it's not an argument

against

it.

Why?Why exactly "some people want it" is suddenly a valid argument for implementing it? And how is it more valid than "some people don't want it"?There's a world of difference between not wanting something to be implemented, because you dislike the consequences, and not wanting something implemented (even though it would have no impact on you whatsoever) just because you personally aren't interested.

You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".

[Fractured.3928]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Fractured.3928 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An

elite

spec is also a

core

spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a

role-playing game

, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're

not

a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Who are you to say what my Necromancer believes?

There are legit arguments against opening all weapons to core. This is definitely not one of them lol. Especially when you can so easily switch. One second my Necromancer thinks Greatsword is godlike, the next moment he thinks a torch is the newest invention in the world? Then the next day, right back to Greatsword being hte best, and torches are only used in dungeons for scrubs who don't have Darkvision?

Why can't a Thief use a rifle? They HAVE to be a Deadeye in order to use a Rifle? Literally no other way they can even pick one up? It just drops out of their hands? Then why can a Warrior use one without being a Deadeye?

It's probably for the similar reason we can pick at most 3 specs at one time. And why we can't use all traits at the same time (what, you mean if I pick one, I forget how to use the other two?). And why we pick 3 utility skills out of 20 while not even counting especs -and don't even get me started on revenant. Because it's a game and real life logic won't "always" apply and it's not exactly what it's balanced around....or is what you're saying only valid for espec weapons for some reason? :p

My point was, roleplaying reason isn't a real argument. Its all just a game system, not a roleplaying restriction.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Sobx.1758" said:You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".You don't really need most of the things that are in the game now. Nobody needed catmander tags, for example. And yet here they are.

And, again, It's not a conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you want in the game". It's the conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you don't care about, but you will still argue against". Positives and negatives work against each other, but neutral statements (and the "i don't feel the need for this" is just that - a neutral statement) don't impact the equation at all.

It is not that @robertthebard.8150 said he is against the idea because he actively dislikes it. From what he said so far, he was against the idea just because he felt no need of it for himself. And that's not a serious argument.

[Sobx.1758]

@Fractured.3928 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Fractured.3928 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An

elite

spec is also a

core

spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a

role-playing game

, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're

not

a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Who are you to say what my Necromancer believes?

There are legit arguments against opening all weapons to core. This is definitely not one of them lol. Especially when you can so easily switch. One second my Necromancer thinks Greatsword is godlike, the next moment he thinks a torch is the newest invention in the world? Then the next day, right back to Greatsword being hte best, and torches are only used in dungeons for scrubs who don't have Darkvision?

Why can't a Thief use a rifle? They HAVE to be a Deadeye in order to use a Rifle? Literally no other way they can even pick one up? It just drops out of their hands? Then why can a Warrior use one without being a Deadeye?

It's probably for the similar reason we can pick at most 3 specs at one time. And why we can't use all traits at the same time (what, you mean if I pick one, I forget how to use the other two?). And why we pick 3 utility skills out of 20 while not even counting especs -and don't even get me started on revenant. Because it's a game and real life logic won't "always" apply and it's not exactly what it's balanced around....or is what you're saying only valid for espec weapons for some reason? :p

My point was, roleplaying reason isn't a real argument. Its all just a game system, not a roleplaying restriction.

Ah, ok.

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".You don't really need most of the things that are in the game now. Nobody

needed

catmander tags, for example. And yet here they are.

Sure, but catmander is purely cosmetic, while making parts of espec available out of espec is pretty far from being purely cosmetic.

And, again, It's not a conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you want in the game". It's the conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you don't care about, but you will still argue against". Positives and negatives work against each other, but neutral statements (and the "i don't feel the need for this" is just that - a neutral statement) don't impact the equation at all.

It is not that @"robertthebard.8150" said he is against the idea because he actively dislikes it. From what he said so far, he was against the idea just because he felt no need of it for himself. And that's not a serious argument.

Nope. It's not that "I don't care about that in the game, so w/e", it's that I don't want it in the game (or -to show it's about "what I want" against "what you want"- "want for it to not be part of the game" just like in the current state). I'd rather keep those weapons available only for the especs. This is not really a neutral statement and I doubt it was neutral comming from others as well.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".You don't really need most of the things that are in the game now. Nobody

needed

catmander tags, for example. And yet here they are.

Sure, but catmander is purely cosmetic, while making parts of espec available out of espec is pretty far from being purely cosmetic.That was just one example. If you want to get technical (and most people starting the discussion with "but you don't

need

it" are asking for it), there's

nothing

in this game you really need. You don't even need to

play

it, after all.Unless you realize that many people use "need" instead of "want" or "like". In which case sure, it seems some people do "need" espec weapons outside especs. And that's why they're asking for them.

@Sobx.1758 said:Nope. It's not that "I don't care about that in the game, so w/e", it's that I don't want it in the game (or -to show it's about "what I want" against "what you want"- "want for it to not be part of the game" just like in the current state). I'd rather keep those weapons available only for the especs. This is not really a neutral statement and I doubt it was neutral comming from others as well.You might want to separate your own reasons from reasons of other people. I wasn't arguing with you, initially. I do understand that there may be people that do not want this to be implemented because they either actively dislike the idea, or even have (or think they have) some reasons supporting their dislike. That's not what i was arguing with in the part you have decided to insert into. It was about me arguing with someone purely because that person, who didn't even read the thread all too well and kept making a ton of completely false assumptions about it, was against the idea even though he couldn't make an argument stronger than "these weapons would be too weak outside their especs, why would anyone want them?".

[Katary.7096]

@"Astralporing.1957" said:Playstyle encompasses more than just what skills you use. It can also include things like thematics. For example, the infamous bearbow playstyle was an effect of people wanting to play a Ranger with a bow. Even if said bow was next to useless at that time.Let's agree to disagree. For the most part "playstyle" is how you play the game as far as I am concerned. To pick up your example, someone who decides to play bearbow may very well make that decision based on theme alone and is willing to sacrifice playstyle in the process. Meaning they do not care how the character plays, as long as it wields a bow. As a sidenote: If we are referring to a specific ranger as being a bearbow, then I would say the result is based on the fact that someone wants to play their ranger with a bow and a bear.So, for example, wanting to play a melee Elementalist with a sword, but disliking the double attunement mechanic (and preferring either core one, or the Tempest overloads) is also a playstyle.Technically that is a person having a preference for one playstyle (Weaver mainhand sword skills) while also having a preference against another (double attunement mechanic). A person's opinion on a playstle is obviously not a playstyle, because it is an opinion.

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".You don't really need most of the things that are in the game now. Nobody

needed

catmander tags, for example. And yet here they are.

Sure, but catmander is purely cosmetic, while making parts of espec available out of espec is pretty far from being purely cosmetic.That was just one example. If you want to get technical (and most people starting the discussion with "but you don't

need

it" are asking for it), there's

nothing

in this game you really need. You don't even need to

play

it, after all.Unless you realize that many people use "need" instead of "want" or "like". In which case sure, it seems some people do "need" espec weapons outside especs. And that's why they're asking for them.

Yes, that was just one example but I don't think it changes the fact that it was a missed one, right?And sure you "don't need anything because it's just a game", but that's not what I was talking about. You keep insisting all he said is subjective so it doesn't matter, but refuse to admit that what you say is just as subjective and try to claim that "someone wanting x is an argument to implement it", but someone not wanting it in the game... somehow isn't one?

Why do you automatically assume it's just "someone not being interested in using it" instead of "not liking what it brings to the game"?

@Sobx.1758 said:Nope. It's not that "I don't care about that in the game, so w/e", it's that I don't want it in the game (or -to show it's about "what I want" against "what you want"- "want for it to not be part of the game" just like in the current state). I'd rather keep those weapons available only for the especs. This is not really a neutral statement and I doubt it was neutral comming from others as well.You might want to separate your own reasons from reasons of other people. I wasn't arguing with you, initially. I do understand that there may be people that do not want this to be implemented because they either actively dislike the idea, or even have (or think they have) some reasons supporting their dislike. That's not what i was arguing with in the part you have decided to insert into. It was about me arguing with someone purely because that person, who didn't even read the thread all too well and kept making a ton of completely false assumptions about it, was against the idea even though he couldn't make an argument stronger than "these weapons would be too weak outside their especs, why would anyone want them?".

If that's the case, then I've lost a bit of context somewhere along the way and indeed looked at it more from my perspective. But you're correct, if the only argument is "I won't use it because it's too weak and I don't understand why would you want to use it" (and after re-reading that post again, that's pretty much what it seems to be), then it's not exactly an argument.

[Zeivu.3615]

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An elite spec is also a core spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a role-playing game, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're not a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Each update brings more 'knowledge' to the game. The e-specs forerunners teach the next generation how to wield the weapon, but not necessarily how to master it without proper training.

[ugrakarma.9416]

@Fractured.3928 said:As someone who does some programming, and doing plenty of architectural IT work. Not expecting to change things like that, is very much so an oversight. Also, I am unable to find any proof of what you're saying is true, so I'll just choose to not believe that the devs would do something like that.

the proof is Anet's long history of having difficulty making small changes due to the mess in the original code, like categories in the LFG, it took months.

[ugrakarma.9416]

@Miellyn.6847 said:It's really easy to prove him wrong. They added trident to revenant after release. Adding weapons to classes is not a problem.

3 years later after Hot release to add a single weapon thats nov even a new espec, Its proof him right, not wrong.

[robertthebard.8150]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:You don't need espec weapons available outside of especs. It's pretty much the same thing. It's "what I want in the game" against "what you want in the game".You don't really need most of the things that are in the game now. Nobody

needed

catmander tags, for example. And yet here they are.

And, again, It's not a conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you want in the game". It's the conflict between "what i want in the game" and "what you don't care about, but you will still argue against". Positives and negatives work against each other, but neutral statements (and the "i don't feel the need for this" is just that - a neutral statement) don't impact the equation at all.

It is not that @"robertthebard.8150" said he is against the idea because he actively dislikes it. From what he said so far, he was against the idea just because he felt no need of it for himself. And that's

not

a serious argument.

It's not just for myself, I don't see a need for it at all. I see "this will be cool, I think, so they should let us do it", but nowhere have I seen anything that says "this will be great for the game, they should add it". I see a lot of T4 Fractal runners complaining that people were "mean" to them about their build. I see a lot of people with DPS meters pointing and laughing at the "newb". All of this is happening now, w/out taking weapons out of context. This won't work as well as some think it will, and pointing to "but core weapons work in e specs" is irrelevant, since it's about 99% likely that you're running two core specs with your e spec, and that they both benefit the way you've chosen to play. So I'm looking past "I want this" to "what's it really bring to the game", and I'm not seeing anything realistic.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"robertthebard.8150" said:It's not just for myself, I don't see a need for it at all.

Yes. Precisely. You don't see the need.(also, see what i have been saying in one of my recent posts about "need")

I see "this will be cool, I think, so they should let us do it", but nowhere have I seen anything that says "this will be great for the game, they should add it".Nobody said this is going to have some huge mechanical benefit. And "this will be cool" is good enough a reason as i see it.

I see a lot of T4 Fractal runners complaining that people were "mean" to them about their build. I see a lot of people with DPS meters pointing and laughing at the "newb". All of this is happening now, w/out taking weapons out of context. This won't work as well as some think it willAnd i am pointing out to you that people asking for this do not judge this suggestion on the basis of how effective it is. I'm quite sure the players asking for it are well aware that the weapons won't be an improvement as far as effectiveness and minmaxing is considered. They either want the weapon that would complement their (yes, probably inefficient) playstyle better, or a weapon that would be cool, on an espec they find most cool (which often doesn't go in pair at the moment).

So I'm looking past "I want this" to "what's it really bring to the game", and I'm not seeing anything realistic.You do realize, that this way of thinking, judging stuff only on how effective it would be to you, and thinking that stuff that doesn't give you advantage is unnecessary, is something a lot of players would consider an extremely boring approach to games? And that it's a mindset a huge majority of the players don't really share?

So, again, it is about you, not everyone. You may not care about this feature, but a number of other players do. And you being unable to understand why they feel that way doesn't mean their feelings about this are wrong. It just means that not everyone values the same things to the same degree.

So, i have to ask you: do you actually see any reason why implementing it would hurt the game? Or (as it seems so far) is your opposition based merely on fact that it would improve the game in a way you do not care about and would not profit from?

[robertthebard.8150]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"robertthebard.8150" said:It's not just for myself, I don't see a

need

for it at all.

Yes. Precisely.

You

don't see the need.(also, see what i have been saying in one of my recent posts about "need")

I see "this will be cool, I think, so they should let us do it", but nowhere have I seen anything that says "this will be great for the game, they should add it".Nobody said this is going to have some huge

mechanical

benefit. And "this will be cool" is good enough a reason as i see it.

I see a lot of T4 Fractal runners complaining that people were "mean" to them about their build. I see a lot of people with DPS meters pointing and laughing at the "newb". All of this is happening now, w/out taking weapons out of context. This won't work as well as some think it willAnd i am pointing out to you that people asking for this do not judge this suggestion on the basis of how effective it is. I'm quite sure the players asking for it are well aware that the weapons won't be an improvement as far as effectiveness and minmaxing is considered. They either want the weapon that would complement

their

(yes, probably inefficient) playstyle better, or a weapon that would be cool, on an espec they find most cool (which often doesn't go in pair at the moment).

So I'm looking past "I want this" to "what's it really bring to the game", and I'm not seeing anything realistic.You do realize, that this way of thinking, judging stuff only on how effective it would be to you, and thinking that stuff that doesn't give you advantage is unnecessary, is something a lot of players would consider an extremely

boring

approach to games? And that it's a mindset a huge majority of the players don't really share?

So, again, it

is

about you, not everyone.

You

may not care about this feature, but a number of other players do. And you being unable to understand why they feel that way doesn't mean their feelings about this are wrong. It just means that not everyone values the same things to the same degree.

So, i have to ask you: do you actually see any reason why implementing it would

hurt

the game? Or (as it seems so far) is your opposition based merely on fact that it would improve the game in a way you do not care about and would not profit from?

Whether I liked it or not, if it had some benefit, I wouldn't be against it, or I wouldn't rail against it, at least. I feel very strongly that 3rd party software has no place in MMOs, for example, and yet, the devs have said that, within reason, it's ok. So, I don't spend any time on naysaying it, I accept it as something that's not needed, but players can use, and leave it at that. It costs 0 development time to allow it. This would take some juggling. The common argument of "but they can have the team that makes the gem store outfits do it" doesn't float, before it ever gets offered, since they make cosmetics, and while most of this would, in fact, be cosmetic, it has implications on the game's backend that must be addressed, and it's not going to be addressed by an artist.

I've listed one area where I think it would detract from the game, it takes development time from something else. A new e spec, or a lot of them, would be infinitely better than disabling an entire e spec, except for the weapon. Will we get those? I can't say, and it's more than likely that we won't. But as it stands, the people that would be required to jockey the coding around to accommodate this are currently working on something else. What is it that they're working on? I don't know, but it could be something a whole lot of the community would benefit from, rather than a few that would actually use this suggestion. To me, that's better for the overall game.

Also, as far as "as you see it" goes, yes? We're here expressing just that, as either of us sees it, as you indicate in this post. I see it as a feature that would be way underutilized for the cost, and you see "because it will be cool" as a good enough reason to spend the money on getting it added. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, for or against something, it's what the forums are for. I know I can't be posting what others think about it, I haven't done any massive surveys, or conducted any polls. I can only comment on what I think, and I just don't think this is as good of an idea as you do. Ultimately, it's not up to me, but I do believe dev time would be better spent elsewhere.

[borgs.6103]

@Fractured.3928 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:Simple reason: Lore. An

elite

spec is also a

core

spec, but not the other way around.

Like how all Deadeyes are Thieves, but not all Thieves are Deadeyes. They can be Daredevils too. And a Daredevil cannot be a Deadeye.Being a

role-playing game

, when you're "using" all core specs, you're not an elite spec. Meaning when you're using all core Necromancer specs, you're just a Necromancer - you're

not

a Reaper or a Scourge. To you, a Greatsword is just a cumbersome hunk of steel. You can probably use it to cut corpses in half, and nothing else. A torch is just a light source for you when it's too dark to read your parchments of evil spells.

Except NPCs. They're weird.

Who are you to say what my Necromancer believes?

There are legit arguments against opening all weapons to core. This is definitely not one of them lol. Especially when you can so easily switch. One second my Necromancer thinks Greatsword is godlike, the next moment he thinks a torch is the newest invention in the world? Then the next day, right back to Greatsword being hte best, and torches are only used in dungeons for scrubs who don't have Darkvision?

Why can't a Thief use a rifle? They HAVE to be a Deadeye in order to use a Rifle? Literally no other way they can even pick one up? It just drops out of their hands? Then why can a Warrior use one without being a Deadeye?

Do you also question why during your personal story when you were able to use Caladbolg as a Guardian/Warrior/Reaper/Mesmer, which is clearly a Greatsword, that your usual skills didn't appear? Or that heart NPC you helped yesterday wants your help again in order to access what they're selling? Or perhaps that bandit camp you just cleared minutes ago is for some reason packed full of hooligans again? Or why some peasants kept getting kidnapped by Centaurs over and over? Or why Jhavi has to lead people to fight Drakkar again when you go back to Bjora Marches when according to your story, you clearly killed it with Braham, Crecia and Rytlock then Bangar took the credit?

Don't be facetious. Anyone can wield a rifle. But only those "Deadeye-trained" can use them like a Deadeye, same for Warriors, or whatever spec. Just like medkits, swords, flamethrowers, etc.

And before you say: "but my engineer can wield those bundles too, and it has the crappy skills!", of course yours is better because you're trained and have better knowledge with them.

If you want some grounded, non-lore-tied-in, non-in-game reason, pick among:

1. Balance Issues
2. Coding limitations
3. Because Anet wants it that way

[Astralporing.1957]

@"robertthebard.8150" said:Whether I liked it or not, if it had some benefit, I wouldn't be against it, or I wouldn't rail against it, at least.Again, you not seeing the benefit does not mean it does not exist. It just means it's something that doesn't benefit you, personally. Or, that you perceive benefits in a different way than at least some other players.

A new e spec, or a lot of them, would be infinitely better than disabling an entire e spec, except for the weapon.

Nobody wants to disable elite specs... Can you please stop with those arguments bringing up stuff noone even mentioned?

Will we get those? I can't say, and it's more than likely that we won't. But as it stands, the people that would be required to kitten the coding around to accommodate this are currently working on something else. What is it that they're working on? I don't know, but it could be something a whole lot of the community would benefit from, rather than a few that would actually use this suggestion. To me, that's better for the overall game.That's hard to say not knowing what they actually work on. For example, i'd rather they worked on this stuff than on build templates. Or, as another example, on those secret projects that eventually got cancelled and got a lot of people fired. That would definitely have benefitted the game more.

Also, as far as "as you see it" goes, yes? We're here expressing just that, as either of us sees it, as you indicate in this post. I see it as a feature that would be way underutilized for the cost, and you see "because it will be cool" as a good enough reason to spend the money on getting it added.

Actually, while i definitely wouldn't mind them adding this, i don't know if it would be worth the resources spent. On the other hand i'm not so eager as you to assume that the effort would be so massive and the gains so minimal it definitely shouldn't be developed. The truth is, you have no idea either how much work would implementing that idea require. And thus you assume it would be more than it's worth only because the worth to you personally is nil.Notice, how this kind of thinking can be used against practically any idea. Because there will always be people that will see nothing beneficial in said idea.

[robertthebard.8150]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"robertthebard.8150" said:Whether I liked it or not, if it had some benefit, I wouldn't be against it, or I wouldn't rail against it, at least.Again, you not seeing the benefit does not mean it does not exist. It just means it's something that doesn't benefit you, personally. Or, that you perceive benefits in a different way than at least some other players.

A new e spec, or a lot of them, would be infinitely better than disabling an entire e spec, except for the weapon.

Nobody wants to disable elite specs... Can you please stop with those arguments bringing up stuff noone even mentioned?

Will we get those? I can't say, and it's more than likely that we won't. But as it stands, the people that would be required to kitten the coding around to accommodate this are currently working on something else. What is it that they're working on? I don't know, but it could be something a whole lot of the community would benefit from, rather than a few that would actually use this suggestion. To me, that's better for the overall game.That's hard to say not knowing what they actually work on. For example, i'd rather they worked on this stuff than on build templates. Or, as another example, on those secret projects that eventually got cancelled and got a lot of people fired. That would definitely have benefitted the game more.

Also, as far as "as you see it" goes, yes? We're here expressing just that, as either of us sees it, as you indicate in this post. I see it as a feature that would be way underutilized for the cost, and you see "because it will be cool" as a good enough reason to spend the money on getting it added.

Actually, while i definitely wouldn't mind them adding this, i don't know if it would be worth the resources spent. On the other hand i'm not so eager as you to assume that the effort would be so massive and the gains so minimal it definitely

shouldn't

be developed. The truth is, you have no idea either how much work would implementing that idea require. And you assume it would be more than it's worth only because the worth to you personally is nil.Notice, how this kind of thinking can be used against practically

any

idea. Because there will always be people that will see nothing beneficial in said idea.

Ok mate, I've given you the benefit of the doubt due to how bad my memory can be, but that's literally what this is all about, using an e spec weapon outside of it's spec. So, if as put forward, one can use the weapon while using three core specs, they are, in fact disabling everything about the e spec but the weapon. It's literally what the whole thread is about. A simple read of just the topic title will make that abundantly clear.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"robertthebard.8150" said:Ok mate, I've given you the benefit of the doubt due to how bad my memory can be, but that's literally what this is all about, using an e spec weapon outside of it's spec.Yes. How does that have anything with disabling elite specs? Because i don't see the connection.So, if as put forward, one can use the weapon while using three core specs, they are, in fact disabling everything about the e spec but the weapon.No, enabling greatsword on Core Necro or Scourge does not mean "disabling reaper except for GS". Just as picking 3 core traitlines does not mean "disabling 2/5 of the core and both especs". And deciding on a wardrobe pieces for your armor does not mean you "disable all the wardrobe except for 6 pieces". That would be some really backward and convoluted way of thinking.