ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/New Weapons (collective suggestions)

More Choices of weapons

While the weapons-with-abilities-part looks interesting, it's incredibly hard to balance such things. I also think dual-wielding options (while still being able to switch to a weapon+shield set) is a bit imbalanced. If you want to, you can greatly increase your damage by simply switching weapons, and switch back when under fire. Also, one-handed weapons will become so powerful, two-handed weapons will never be used, or a single one-handed weapon will become ridiculously underpowered. So I don't think they will add this. --Sir Bertrand 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all relative. If dual-wielding was added, they wouldn't leave the weapons at their normal attack values. Everything would adapt and change to make dual wielding fit in and make sense. For instance, you could make both weapons weaker if you're dual-wielding, and make two-handed weapons stronger. Imaster 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossbows

It's will be good option for Ranger, IMHO. --91.78.177.37 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossbows are classically a weaker weapon than the long or shortbows. They take about three times longer to reload and have only marginally improved accuracy, and that improvement degrades as the skill of the marksman improves. Besides, who in the hell would use one? We'd have to make a second ranger class just to accommodate one new weapon. No. --Jette 09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Crossbows have much more hitting power and much more accurate. I'd still like to have crossbow on the game. I like the idea and I always wanted to get a crossbow in the game. It would be interesting to have crossbows. chu-ko-nu is a crossbow witch can make a rapid fire. --Rated Five 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This a RPG, not a simulation. (Nothing in GW1 works as in real life, and you're wrong about RL crossbows anyway) Backsword 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm...NO? Bolts usually have metallic tips or are steel all together, are thicker, and have WAY more impact and stopping power. They take about 3-5 second to load, if you know what your doing. I thing a Crossbowman would add some Soldier/Imperial feel to the game, most of the profession's have a home-grown, backwood, "I-learned-this-in-tha-desert-from-a-ninja-sage" feel. Basically wild.Phill Gaston 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The crossbow was bascially the forerunner of the gun: more accurate and with a lot more stopping power than the bow, which was more of a pain to reload (which is the main reason it wasn't that popular). I like the idea of adding a crossbow. It would be to the long bow what the hammer is to the axe: slower and stronger. The range would be a bit less and you would fire straight instead of in an arc-- this means the shots 'miss' less, but you can't shoot at some trickier targets. It could work. ~ Imaster 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the crossbow was weaker than the bow, had a slower firing rate, and was less accurate than a longbow. However, it was fairly cheap and it was much easier to train large numbers of men in thier use. Good longbowmen took a lifetime to train. You might be thinking of the arbalest, which was a variation on the crossbow which was made of steel and fired metal bolts instead of wooden ones. It was much more powerful, penetrated armor reliably, and could be accurate up to 500 meters.User:Shai Halud|Shai Halud]] 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

/sigh why do people think that the crossbow is less accurate? The Crossbow is basically a small, really watered down version of the Roman Scorpions which were known to be very accurate and extremely deadly deadly, It is also true that if you know what your doing you can fire them much faster then a bow, but they just aren't long range weapons, they're short range weapons. The longbow was a very powerful weapon but those were taller then most people were tall. There is more then one reason that we went from bows to crossbows, to guns. The main reasons are deadliness, cost per unit, and time to train per unit. The crossbow full filed most of those requirements with the sheer stopping power of a hand held siege weapon --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.173.139.166 (talk).

lol nice n00b equipment that does 200 damage with no skill.

Dual Wielding

It would be incredibly imbalanced. Either dual-wielded weapons will deal far more damage than two-handed weapons, or single one-handed weapons with a shield/focus item would deal far less damage. The only way to balance it is greatly reduce the difference between single and dual-wielded weapons, which completely destroys the idea. --Sir Bertrand 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't unbalanced, and of course dual wielding will do more damage then 1-h and a shield/focus. That is because the off hand will give different bonuses which balance it out. However 2-h should do the same damage and 2 1-h weapons. Making this completely balanced.--Catforsale344 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It wouldnt 'imbalance' anything.. for example, you use dual swords.. yeh more dmg and most likely atack faster, but say if you took a sword with a shield you get extra armour by wielding the shield and most likely spells that make your block rate higher which you can only get while using a shield. The 2 handed weapons most likely will have a high damage rating making them just as powerfull as dual weapons. but so far nothing has been anounced so there prob is a chance that there wont even be dual weapons. Richi2k7

I thought of this idea too, but I think that only a warrior-like profession should be able to use this feature; for, say, if you were to use a Mo/W, the monk wouldn't be able to dual wield. az :D 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) When you dual wield, both weapons inflict 30% less damage? Increase shield def rating to 20?

Imba fixed. Phill Gaston 04:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at WoW you will find most hunters with a single one handed weapon instead of dual wielding, this is because people find spike damage better then DoT damage, and each form of damage has its own form and use in every fight, like DoT damage is useful when you're fighting a 55 monk, as they will die faster when you can hit 20 times in just a few seconds, however a spike weapon wont work against that. There is the other case where your fighting a boss, a single one hand will be used with a shield for the tank, while the DPS hurt the guy, spike and DoT damage has its advantage and disadvantages here, the boss might have good armor therefore the much weaker dual wielder who normally has better DPS then the spike is relying on the + damage of skills to keep the DPS high and to avoid hitting nothing but 0-3 damage a hit, while the nice spike damager does 10-20 damage a hit then still has the + damage to use during the fight, while they might do the same damage by the fight, the spike damage will kill the boss faster then the DoT damage. As someone who can play as both an assassin and a dervish, you learn that there are some things that are much easier to kill with each class --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.173.139.166 (talk).

Firearms

Guns are a horrible idea all MMOs have them and Rangers already have Bows. It would just be doing something all other MMOs are buying into, no one ever had guns in GW1. Snipertango247 18:54, 20 July 2008

I wonder who added in Assault Rifle? :S If guns were introduced, I'd like to see something like a pellet gun that relies on a mechanic that is different than gunpowder. (Terra Xin 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

IP 84.1.200.131 Tho' it was actually "submachine gun", which is not the same thing. Backsword 12:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty 5 kryta in chaos lol --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:89.133.215.241 (talk).

NO FIREARMS! I cannot stress that enough, I (and many others) would quickly lose interest in GW2. I do not play games with firearms because frankly they are boring, and if GW2 gets them then it will bore me (and others). --Shadowphoenix 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. How does the inclusion of firearms bore someone? Its not like we're excluding other weapons and as long as the damage rating isn't set too high for them they won't make other weapons useless. It's just another weapon.--Shai Halud 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the the 200 year time line skip is going to need some "Technology" improvement... so GW2 might be steampunk which would be interesting.--Anraiki 07:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand some people's needs for conservation, some people are letting their immediate emotions close them off to new ideas. First of all, firearms =/= FPS game. If there were guns in GW, it wouldn't be a matter of seeing an Azura walk by with an AK and a bandolier hanging from his ears. The guns would be implemented with an appropriate story and be a realistic advancement for the people of Guild Wars. Gunpowder and other explosives have already appeared in GW1, as have complicated mechanisms and siege weapons like the trebuchet and the ballista. Since GW2 is, as said, centuries in the future, isn't the obvious next step some kind of firearm? Although the dwarves have basically left the scene, the Azura could be the ones to make the breakthrough. Heck, they're already lazing about calling everyone and everything 'bookah' while golems do their work for them. Apart from the feasability of such an advancement (and it is in no way a stretch), how about the addition of the firearm as an available weapon? My question is, 'why not?'. The Rangers have bows and the Eles have massive fireballs. In what way would the gun be overpowered? Don't let the word 'gun' conjure up a picture of Master Chief with a huge rocket launcher. Think of the gun in the context of Guild Wars and you'll see why it's a fine idea, no more or less out there than anything else on this forum. Imaster 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, humans and Charr are both in better positions to develope fire arms as they would have easier access to the Shiverpeaks (where leftover powder kegs could no doubt be found) and they lack the technical skill of the Asura to develope more advanced magic based weaponry. Both races have strong military traditions and study warfare extensively. They would be very interested in weapons like muskets, cannons, and grenades. The Norn might consider guns dishonorable, but Sylvari might be interested in aquiring them. The Asura might use guns, but I don't think they'd invent them or use them as extensively as magical weapons. I think they would only really be interested in weapons which could be mounted on thier golems like, perhaps elemental energy canons. They don't like to do the dirty work themselves.--68.223.25.117 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm divided on this aspect...In 200 years I could see the Asura, Norn, or Humans developing the use of Gunpowder and inventing firearms. Of course not the Sylvari and the Charr seem a little too (for lack of a better word) savage to discover and implement the use of gunpowder and firearms. Asura could use it as a way to power weapons that release their arcane magic, Norn could have stumbled upon the stockpiles of powder kegs of the Dwarves before being driven out by the Destroyers, and Humans could have discovered the secrets in Cantha but recently brought it over to Tyria before the dragons awoke. They simply didnt use it during the previous campaigns because they were still experimenting and improving the technology. As long as firearms are implemented into the developing story of GW2, just dont come out of the blue, and are balanced out to be overall equal to the existing bow and arrow *firearms are slower to fire but have higher dmg ranges* then I do not mind them being introduced into GW2. Malchior Devenholm 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK well in GW we can make it less of a firearm and more of just another projectile weapon, Asurans will use magic to power some of theirs rather then the gunpowder that we normally think has to be used in a gun to make it work. All we need is a reaction in a chamber to fire a projectile rather then just lighting some random infinite amount of materials repeatedly in the same chamber, this also allows you to add attributes to your "gun" like force-freezing the water in the chamber causing it to crystallize and rapidly expand sending out the projectile, or simple air magic compressing air so much that it becomes hot, then rapidly releasing it which is must more effective then the other option because i haven't figure out how to make the ice melt and return into the chamber, or make the continued use break the gun, but hey this is game physics so who cares? So in simple terms GW wont be following most other games if they implement guns in this way rather then the way you think they have to be made, but many people just wont care for the sheer cleverness of making a gun magic based rather then physics based. It will also force another skill tree for a magic based projectile unit. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.173.139.166 (talk).

I don't think firearms would automatically affect the rating, and IMO the game rating con point should be removed. World of Warcraft, Warcraft III and many recent Final Fantasy games have firearms, and they have T ratings in America and similar ratings elsewhere. It seems that ratings boards are generally stricter towards games with modern, realistic firearms than historical or unrealistic firearms, and also seem to be stricter towards first person shooters such as Halo than games which depict the use of firearms from a third-person perspective such as the Tomb Raider series. -- Gordon Ecker 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ratings boards have no idea what they are doing and can appear at times to be all politics/hype and no credibility.

Firearms could be allowed, as long as they were like the Jamestown-era muskets. A single Native American archer could fire a bow 4-5 times during the time it took a musketeer to reload. Also, a musket was far less acurate, but much more powerful. Arrows couldn't pierce Spanish armor, but guns could. Just make guns like they were during the colonisation of America. 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Javelins

Backsword, this wiki is designed to present information about Guild Wars only. It does not run on historical truths. Therefore, javelins do not exist in Guild Wars, regardless of the fact that it is a thrown weapon exactly like the spear. You can't introduce terminology that has a more accurate name when that name isn't even used. Otherwise, people are going to come in here asking "why can't we have javelins?" To add, the spear and lance are two different weapons. The original article that was written had the two separate, and we should respect that.(Terra Xin 14:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

I disagree. Imagine someone invented a weapon called 'Thermonuclear bomb' which was supposed to be a rock tied to a stick. Don't think people would be confused by that? It's better to communicate the idea clearly, rather than itheir invented language. Backsword 12:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Thrown Weapons

If there is a Strength attribute or other measurement of physical might (which I'm sure there will be), I think it should allow your character to interact with less-than-conventional items and utilize them as thrown weapons. Domination and Air Magic could also be used for these purposes, or at least something along those lines. Or whatever seems appropriate depending on the item. These would basically function a lot like the items that you hold and then hit the Drop Item button, only if you didn't want to drop them/let them go, you could select a target and attack them instead.

Examples:

• Boulders-Depending on the size of the boulder, it would require a certain level of strength/air magic/earth magic in order to manipulate it. In any case, the "holding" method would change but the effect would stay the same. You pick up the boulder, hurl it at your enemy, it squishes them for a whole ton of damage, and depending on how far it was thrown/how far it fell or how many times it's been used, it might shatter and become unusable(exploited).
• Corpses-Tired of necros being the only ones who can make use of a corpse? Have no fear! If you meet the minimum Strength requirement, you can pick up your buddy's dead body and hurl it at your enemy for some squishing damage. This would exploit the corpse of course.
• Rubble-Just blew up the enemy gate with a couple powder kegs? Why have the fun stop there? Pick up the pieces and drop them on their allies moving to catch you in a pincer. Talk about showing them the door, huh?
• Monks-What? They're small enough. Most of them are anyway...I'm just trying to give them adequate damage output since smiting is rarely as effective as it should be.
• Powder Kegs-Why drop it when you can chuck it/roll it?
• Honey Combs-Requires Beast Mastery or Wilderness Survival. Throw it at your enemy and a swarm of bees inflicts piercing damage and poison.
• Unchained Energy-Requires fast casting or energy storage to safely manipulate. Throw it at your enemy to make a big shiny boom.
• Tree Limbs-Put that axe to good use. Chop down a tree and use it to kill your enemies in style.
• Rotten Moa Eggs-Poor things didn't hatch. :-( Oh well. Their sacrifice shall be our victory! Our very smelly victory.
• Snowballs-Cmon, it's always snowing in the Shiverpeaks. Why do I have to wait for Wintersday to unleash some snowball mayhem?
• Pies-Pie in the face? Blindness? Deliciousness? Anyone?
• Ale Kegs-Same as Powder Kegs except you wouldn't know which one you were picking up in some cases. These would basically be like duds. Only suds, instead. When you hurl (additional drunkard pun) them at your enemy, instead of explosive damage, they become intoxicated.

Anyway. That's all I got for now. -Painted Bird

Wow, ummm that is pretty retarded... All the items are not that great and would probably wreck the game...75.152.130.136 06:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

True that some of the ideas are well "retarded" and "game breaking" however I found quite a few of them funny, particularly the monk, rubble, and the tree limbs...actually all of them were quite amusing. Weaponmaster 09:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)