Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Is there any particular reason behind the weapon reistrictions?

2»

Comments

  • Shroom_MageShroom_Mage Lafayette, LAPosts: 863Member

    You might as well ask questions like "Why are there only 8 classes?" "Why don't they add more weapon types?" "Why are there only 3 elites per class?" or simply "Why not more?"

    It's pointless to ask any of these. They'll add more when they get to it. Sheesh.

    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss

  • JoeyMMOJoeyMMO SomewherePosts: 1,326Member

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    It seems like guild wars could easily go the route of allowing every weapon for every class, obviously functioning in different ways for each class. If you look at say, the greatsword on a mesmer vs the greatsword on a warrior, same weapon, on a mesmer is suddenly a long range cannon type weapon, on the warrior the traditional large cleaver it should be.

    Is there an actual reason behind say, a mesmer not being able to dual weild pistols? or a warrior being able to use a staff, or whatever else, perhaps there are some strictly mage type weapons like the totems and stuff, but a large amount of the weapons and weapon combinations seem like they should simply be availble to every class.

    I personally will be making this sugestion when i get into the beta, but i was wondering what others thought, did they mention the reason behind the restrictions? As it stands now it seems fairly arbitriary.

     If you're going to give every class every weapon, then why not just do away with classes alltogether? Skills are tied to weapons. Every class having access to every weapon would be perfect for a classless game. It would mean elementalists shouldn't have different attunements because of balance. Engineers shouldn't have kits etc.

    The game has classes and elementalists are not going to be wielding greatswords anytime soon. It's fantasy! Weapon restrictions for certain classes can sometimes simply make sense.

    imageimage
  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member

    Originally posted by JoeyMMO

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    It seems like guild wars could easily go the route of allowing every weapon for every class, obviously functioning in different ways for each class. If you look at say, the greatsword on a mesmer vs the greatsword on a warrior, same weapon, on a mesmer is suddenly a long range cannon type weapon, on the warrior the traditional large cleaver it should be.

    Is there an actual reason behind say, a mesmer not being able to dual weild pistols? or a warrior being able to use a staff, or whatever else, perhaps there are some strictly mage type weapons like the totems and stuff, but a large amount of the weapons and weapon combinations seem like they should simply be availble to every class.

    I personally will be making this sugestion when i get into the beta, but i was wondering what others thought, did they mention the reason behind the restrictions? As it stands now it seems fairly arbitriary.

     If you're going to give every class every weapon, then why not just do away with classes alltogether? Skills are tied to weapons. Every class having access to every weapon would be perfect for a classless game. It would mean elementalists shouldn't have different attunements because of balance. Engineers shouldn't have kits etc.

    The game has classes and elementalists are not going to be wielding greatswords anytime soon. It's fantasy! Weapon restrictions for certain classes can sometimes simply make sense.

    Or show lack of imagination among the game developers. Not that I'm saying GW2 suffers from this, but many games from table top D&D onward have always seemed to fetter their own creativity by enforcing these so called "class restrictions" upon themeselves.

    I thought that was the main reason GW2 had such a large following, because A-net was so passionite about doing things differently and not just following the same path of copy paste mechanics so many other MMOs had done before.

    So that said I don't understand why some fans seem to think Deserttfox's proposal is so heretical. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel GW2s current class/weapon choices are very restrictive, but then again, more variety in weapons choices actually sounds like it could be fun.

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,915Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by JoeyMMO

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    It seems like guild wars could easily go the route of allowing every weapon for every class, obviously functioning in different ways for each class. If you look at say, the greatsword on a mesmer vs the greatsword on a warrior, same weapon, on a mesmer is suddenly a long range cannon type weapon, on the warrior the traditional large cleaver it should be.

    Is there an actual reason behind say, a mesmer not being able to dual weild pistols? or a warrior being able to use a staff, or whatever else, perhaps there are some strictly mage type weapons like the totems and stuff, but a large amount of the weapons and weapon combinations seem like they should simply be availble to every class.

    I personally will be making this sugestion when i get into the beta, but i was wondering what others thought, did they mention the reason behind the restrictions? As it stands now it seems fairly arbitriary.

     If you're going to give every class every weapon, then why not just do away with classes alltogether? Skills are tied to weapons. Every class having access to every weapon would be perfect for a classless game. It would mean elementalists shouldn't have different attunements because of balance. Engineers shouldn't have kits etc.

    The game has classes and elementalists are not going to be wielding greatswords anytime soon. It's fantasy! Weapon restrictions for certain classes can sometimes simply make sense.

    Did you read his post? How hard would it be to add different skills for each weapon to each class making them perform differently? Answer: Not any harder than what they've already done, it would just add a bit of time.

    I'd love this idea to be implemented. But for different reasons, character look, persona reasons. It could add more to set each player apart on a visual level. While your Warrior carries a large sword, mine carries a staff and a set of pistols, make pistol skills more close range melee oriented, step back a bit to use the staff(martial arts style). How would a decent implementation of that not be beneficial?

    Is A-net above the idea of a suggestion box? Is any company?

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • therez0therez0 Ridgecrest, CAPosts: 379Member

    Whats awesome about GW2, is that the skills are not tied to attributes intrinsically like they were in GW1. Additionally, status effects are not skill-unique, but rather come from a global pool. So, once they get to a a point where one weapon's skills are balanced, it will stay balanced. If they find that snares are doing a bit too much slow, they can adjust all snares all at once. Further, without dual professions, theres not going to be any unexpected synergy that makes certain builds obviously more powerful than any other.


    Now, why am I blathering on about this?
    Because it means that A.net has a longevity plan for the balance of the game (which they didn't have in GW1); once they get balance to a certain stable point, they can begin adding more stuff to balance without damaging the existing balance. Whether that means more weapon choices, or more races (Races would most likely be easier to balance), or another profession remains to be seen.


    On a personal note, I would love to see an Ele wield a greatsword. I can imagine one doing a horizontal spin backwards, only to release a gout of flame (or a wall of ice, or gust of wind, or a pool of mud) as the sword comes back around to the fore. Adding weapons choices, IMO, doesn't in any way change the identity of the professions. The Class mechanics are what defines them, weapon skills can be tuned to match (like a dagger ele doesn't really match what my ideal image of an ele is, but the skills make it work as an ele). Similarly, I can see a warrior or thief using a staff, just make it martial-arts style combat; just because one profession uses a weapon one way, doesn't mean every profession has to use it that way.


    But realistically, we should wait for the game to get balanced before demanding more weapon/skill choices.

  • RequiamerRequiamer ???Posts: 2,034Member

    Ye somehow i understand the OP, but then again you would have so many build choice it wwould be just too much. What would be cool is if the reskin option let you actually use skin from other weapons in pve and the WvW, especially the skin your class can't use.
     
    I'll just edit a second to say that i really don't think this limitation is arbitrary, from my understanding they used weapon in a similar way fps use them, this mean each weapon actually have specific purpose, like aoe, range and who knows what else. So switching weapon will actually be a big part in the combat success, something that is rather absent from mmo.

  • bongolinbongolin SofiaPosts: 31Member

    I hear they will allow to switch to any weapon you like in combat. Something in synergy to the revamped elite skills.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,041Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    It seems like guild wars could easily go the route of allowing every weapon for every class, obviously functioning in different ways for each class. If you look at say, the greatsword on a mesmer vs the greatsword on a warrior, same weapon, on a mesmer is suddenly a long range cannon type weapon, on the warrior the traditional large cleaver it should be.

    Is there an actual reason behind say, a mesmer not being able to dual weild pistols? or a warrior being able to use a staff, or whatever else, perhaps there are some strictly mage type weapons like the totems and stuff, but a large amount of the weapons and weapon combinations seem like they should simply be availble to every class.

    I personally will be making this sugestion when i get into the beta, but i was wondering what others thought, did they mention the reason behind the restrictions? As it stands now it seems fairly arbitriary.

    In a few cases it doesn't make sense, I don' t see a elementalist with a 2handed axe or shield.

    But in many cases it is because it would be a lot of work and it would be rather complicated for new players.

    That work could be put into making 1-2 new classes instead, We are talking about a huge number of attacks that would have to be created and balanced. Most weapons need 2 attacks if you use it as main weapon, 2 as secondary weapon and one for each other weapon you combo it with and another one if you only uses it. That would be a lot of attacks to add.

  • RequiamerRequiamer ???Posts: 2,034Member



    Originally posted by bongolin
    I hear they will allow to switch to any weapon you like in combat. Something in synergy to the revamped elite skills.

    No you have 2 set you can switch in combat, out of combat you can do what you want, but you have to prepare 2 sets for combat. Actually i think its a good limitation, if not you would just be able to do everything and i don't think its actually good, having to prepare yourself and make choice is an interesting part imo.

  • bongolinbongolin SofiaPosts: 31Member

    Originally posted by Requiamer

     






    Originally posted by bongolin

    I hear they will allow to switch to any weapon you like in combat. Something in synergy to the revamped elite skills.




     

    No you have 2 set you can switch in combat, out of combat you can do what you want, but you have to prepare 2 sets for combat. Actually i think its a good limitation, if not you would just be able to do everything and i don't think its actually good, having to prepare yourself and make choice is an interesting part imo.

    :( Don't spoil my 1st April fun...

  • someforumguysomeforumguy HomePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by therez0

    Whats awesome about GW2, is that the skills are not tied to attributes intrinsically like they were in GW1. Additionally, status effects are not skill-unique, but rather come from a global pool. So, once they get to a a point where one weapon's skills are balanced, it will stay balanced. If they find that snares are doing a bit too much slow, they can adjust all snares all at once. Further, without dual professions, theres not going to be any unexpected synergy that makes certain builds obviously more powerful than any other.



    Now, why am I blathering on about this?

    Because it means that A.net has a longevity plan for the balance of the game (which they didn't have in GW1); once they get balance to a certain stable point, they can begin adding more stuff to balance without damaging the existing balance. Whether that means more weapon choices, or more races (Races would most likely be easier to balance), or another profession remains to be seen.



    On a personal note, I would love to see an Ele wield a greatsword. I can imagine one doing a horizontal spin backwards, only to release a gout of flame (or a wall of ice, or gust of wind, or a pool of mud) as the sword comes back around to the fore. Adding weapons choices, IMO, doesn't in any way change the identity of the professions. The Class mechanics are what defines them, weapon skills can be tuned to match (like a dagger ele doesn't really match what my ideal image of an ele is, but the skills make it work as an ele). Similarly, I can see a warrior or thief using a staff, just make it martial-arts style combat; just because one profession uses a weapon one way, doesn't mean every profession has to use it that way.



    But realistically, we should wait for the game to get balanced before demanding more weapon/skill choices.

    This ^ (post of the thread)

  • darkehawkedarkehawke SouthendPosts: 178Member

    Maybe they just don't have the time or there are more pressing matters for them.

    I don't think there is a real reason. I'd rather have the game released though than see it delayed to make changes. But that's just my opinion.

     

    Currently playing- SWG PreCU & GW 2
    Have tried WoW, AoC, & Vanguard, SWG:NGE, GW, LOTRO & SWTOR
    Best MMO: SWG
    Worst MMO: SWTOR

  • bongolinbongolin SofiaPosts: 31Member

    Originally posted by darkehawke

    Maybe they just don't have the time or there are more pressing matters for them.

    I don't think there is a real reason. I'd rather have the game released though than see it delayed to make changes. But that's just my opinion.

     

    Its intentional, obviously. Balance is the number one for that decision. Then the diversity within the 10 skill system, you have active abilities to play dertain role/play style at a time. But not as in GW rock/paper style, where your build might be completely useless in some fights. In GW2 you always can perform average->good->superior, depend on your skill as player, the situation/build purose/team you are in/solo...etc.

    All this arent my thoughts, its what Devs. said.

  • ZeroxinZeroxin LondonPosts: 2,521Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ropenice

    A few touchy responses just because he would like to have weapons not have class-restrictions. This wasn't even a hater-type post. Things like this give GW2 fans a bad name. Hope this doesn't reflect how the community will act in game. Doubt it will, as forums usually don't represent majority of players in games. But why the bitter?

    I know some people like to attack other people but please just stop with the "reflecting how the community will work" thing, it's getting annoying now.

    In reply to the OP

    Each weapon and set have a specific role they fill. Some fill control and some fill defence and some fill support. When a class has come to the point where if they introduce another weapon to that class it may seem out of place (for instance a Warrior with a staff, seriously wtf?)  or if it gets to a point where any weapon they introduce will overlap or overtake another weapon's functionality then they won't introduce it because of those facts. I understand what you mean by "why can't I wield a pistol in my main hand when I can do it in my off-hand?", it doesn't make much sense but it might just be like I said earlier, playstyle overlap my come into play between the Engineer or Thief versus the Mesmer or something like that.

    This is not a game.

  • DeserttFoxxDeserttFoxx North York, ONPosts: 2,360Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    It seems like guild wars could easily go the route of allowing every weapon for every class, obviously functioning in different ways for each class. If you look at say, the greatsword on a mesmer vs the greatsword on a warrior, same weapon, on a mesmer is suddenly a long range cannon type weapon, on the warrior the traditional large cleaver it should be.

    Is there an actual reason behind say, a mesmer not being able to dual weild pistols? or a warrior being able to use a staff, or whatever else, perhaps there are some strictly mage type weapons like the totems and stuff, but a large amount of the weapons and weapon combinations seem like they should simply be availble to every class.

    I personally will be making this sugestion when i get into the beta, but i was wondering what others thought, did they mention the reason behind the restrictions? As it stands now it seems fairly arbitriary.

    In a few cases it doesn't make sense, I don' t see a elementalist with a 2handed axe or shield.

    But in many cases it is because it would be a lot of work and it would be rather complicated for new players.

    That work could be put into making 1-2 new classes instead, We are talking about a huge number of attacks that would have to be created and balanced. Most weapons need 2 attacks if you use it as main weapon, 2 as secondary weapon and one for each other weapon you combo it with and another one if you only uses it. That would be a lot of attacks to add.

    but correct me if i am wrong, but the elementalist can summon a 2 hand sword and use it can it not? Same with a hammer, and a bow, and why cant an elementalist use a shield? Because of the lore? Because of the rules? You know what doesnt make sense, a mesmer using a 2 hand sword as a long range weapon. Why are we ok with that but no other unique possibilities?

    Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy

    Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman

    Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson

  • DeserttFoxxDeserttFoxx North York, ONPosts: 2,360Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Zeroxin

    Originally posted by ropenice

    A few touchy responses just because he would like to have weapons not have class-restrictions. This wasn't even a hater-type post. Things like this give GW2 fans a bad name. Hope this doesn't reflect how the community will act in game. Doubt it will, as forums usually don't represent majority of players in games. But why the bitter?

    I know some people like to attack other people but please just stop with the "reflecting how the community will work" thing, it's getting annoying now.

    In reply to the OP

    Each weapon and set have a specific role they fill. Some fill control and some fill defence and some fill support. When a class has come to the point where if they introduce another weapon to that class it may seem out of place (for instance a Warrior with a staff, seriously wtf?)  or if it gets to a point where any weapon they introduce will overlap or overtake another weapon's functionality then they won't introduce it because of those facts. I understand what you mean by "why can't I wield a pistol in my main hand when I can do it in my off-hand?", it doesn't make much sense but it might just be like I said earlier, playstyle overlap my come into play between the Engineer or Thief versus the Mesmer or something like that.

    a mesmer, ranger, theif and warrior can all duel weild swords. Nobody would confuse thsoe classes, allowing the use of dual weild pistols would be no different.

     

    The weapon restrictions just seem random. We cant go with lore, because even from a lore stand point, no sane person learns how to use their off hand before their dominant hand, so it goes without saying if you can wield a sword, pistol or whatever else in your off hand you would instinctively learn how to do it with your main hand first, so pistols being off hand only is completely senseless.

    Thats just one example, for people saying it doesnt make sense, like a warrior with a staff, well staffs are martial weapons, i know a lot of people have forgotten that staffs are a melee blunt weapon and an extremly effective one at that and a warrior being able to use one shoul be no more unaccpetable than the greatsword weilding mesmer.

    Im sorry, everytime someone tells me certain weapons don tmake sense i will just keep bringing that up. Because there are no other games that allow a caster to use a greatsword... as a casting weapon. So Areanet seen fit the break the mold in that instance, why did they stop?

    We know elementalists can summon elemental weapons and use them or give them to party members to use, so why is it foregn for an elementalist to simply use a 2 hander at all times? Duel weildiing daggers are ok for a mage, but not duel weilding swords? or guns? or even a bow? or a rifle? If a mesmer can focus their magic through a pistol why cant a mage? If a warrior can use a rifle, what logical reason is there to explain why they cant use a pistol?

     

    If guild wars is trying to do something different, which they clearly are, then they should start by removing arbitrary restrictions. And take the extra time to balance all weapons for all classes.

    Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy

    Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman

    Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson

  • achesomaachesoma Portland, ORPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon

    I agree with OP.  In most games, weapons define the class but in GW2 the class defines the weapons.  Weapon restrictions have always bugged me about MMOs.  GW2 has the perfect formula to do away with it.

    The best answer I can give is:  expansion packs.  There is plenty of room to expand the classes via weapon choices and even adding more weapons themselves.  At least, this is my hope.  I'm sure they left out greataxe for a reason. 

    image

  • GWFandaddyGWFandaddy Houston, TXPosts: 180Member

    To the OP, I'm still wrapping my head around Rangers using swords, Warriors using bows, Guardians using staffs.  Not that I think these are bad ideas, it's just not what I'm use to, or make sense to ME.  It's possible, Anet wants to let these ideas take root, as conventional thinking, before they begin to add more to the mix.  Just my .02

  • ConnmacartConnmacart OsloPosts: 681Member Uncommon

    I see no problem with how Anet assigned weapons to classes. The only weird one to me is greatswords for mesmers. As for not giving all classes access to all weapons. I'd say balance issues might arise and why make it overly complicated, when there is already enough diversity.

    For Pistols as offhands only. To me it is down to fighting style the same as sword and shield, sword and dagger or dual swords. You don't use the offhand the same as your main hand, so there is no reason to learn it with your main hand if the style doesn't revolve around it.

    It's true though that most people have forgotten that things like Staves are melee weapons and not caster weapons.

  • ConnmacartConnmacart OsloPosts: 681Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by GWFandaddy

    To the OP, I'm still wrapping my head around Rangers using swords, Warriors using bows, Guardians using staffs.  Not that I think these are bad ideas, it's just not what I'm use to, or make sense to ME.  It's possible, Anet wants to let these ideas take root, as conventional thinking, before they begin to add more to the mix.  Just my .02

    Rangers are often associated with forests, but how useful is a bow really in a forest so sword and dagger is quite natural, had they been called archers I might have agreed. Samurai warriors in japan where often highly skilled in a form of longbow aswell as a katana. And staves ofcourse are very valid melee weapons.

    Mmo's have dumbed down weapon use from their historic relevance and anet is just rectifying that.

  • GWFandaddyGWFandaddy Houston, TXPosts: 180Member

    Originally posted by Connmacart

    Originally posted by GWFandaddy

    To the OP, I'm still wrapping my head around Rangers using swords, Warriors using bows, Guardians using staffs.  Not that I think these are bad ideas, it's just not what I'm use to, or make sense to ME.  It's possible, Anet wants to let these ideas take root, as conventional thinking, before they begin to add more to the mix.  Just my .02

    Rangers are often associated with forests, but how useful is a bow really in a forest so sword and dagger is quite natural, had they been called archers I might have agreed. Samurai warriors in japan where often highly skilled in a form of longbow aswell as a katana. And staves ofcourse are very valid melee weapons.

    Mmo's have dumbed down weapon use from their historic relevance and anet is just rectifying that.

    I wasn't being critical of Anet's decision, just saying it's going to take time to get use to a mez with a great sword, that's all ;)

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.