Warkupo

Why does everyone quote me all the time, forcing me to think up some elaborate reply to explain the obvious to whoever is poking me. There were plenty of other posts all sharing my sentiment, but you chose me to launch your argument. It's not fair.

Listen, I don't even disagree with you, some more varied architecture would be appreciated, and probably fulfilled in Going Rogue. But you aren't OP, and OP is the one I'm giving snark, and if you can't figure out why I'm not going to tell you.

I just don't want anyone falling for evil marketing schemes =O

My grandmother will routinely buy things like the slap-chop for 30 dollars because "it came with another slap-chop which was FREE."

Unless you can take the popcorn and leave, no, it isn't actually free. It's a percentage of whatever the movie cost. I could just as easily flip it around and say that I payed 7.95 (or whatever) for popcorn and it came with a free movie. Either way I payed something.

Much in the same way you can't play the update unless you pay 15 dollars a month. So no, the updates aren't actually "free" either. They aren't very expensive though!

@Tokyo: I can kind of understand them playing it safe after that whole AE thing, not to open up sore wounds or anything.

I'm starting to repeat myself, and I don't personally care enough about this to keep arguing about it, so I'm done after this bit. *Edit* No I'm not, I hate myself and I want myself to suffer.

The major flaw in your aesthetics argument is you. Just because you don't like how it looks, and can't get around it conceptually, doesn't mean that everybody is having the same dilemma. In fact, if I had to cite the major complaint shared between Axe, Mace, and Broadsword, it would be the the animations amongst them are aesthetically too similiar, and the only real difference between them is the mechanics of the set that the weapons are currently restricted too.

How similiar are the animations? Between Axe and Mace every single one of the animations is shared. If we extend this comparison to Broadsword the ONLY animation that is unique to it is that of parry. Which reduces the aesthetic side of the argument to whether or not you think the parry animation is adequate for Mace and Axe.

Just in case there is any doubt, here is a quick chart to compare the copied animations.

Beheader-> Bash -> Slash
Chop -> Clobber -> Hack
Gash -> Pulverize -> NOT PARRY
Swoop -> Jawbreaker -> Disembowel
Whirling Axe/Mace/Sword
Cleave -> Shatter -> Headsplitter
Pendulum -> Crowd Control -> Slice

So actually yes, as a matter of fact, you can slash at people with a hammer.

As for the effects of the set, and them possibly not looking appropriate, I am again going to have to strongly disagree with you. All three sets do knock-down, up, and everything in between as all three are rather LARGE weapons. It doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination for me to envision my broadsword, which is already knocking enemies on their *** in it's own set, to be transferred over to War Axe and continue knocking people over. Nor does it take the mind of a child to believe that an axe to the face might be slightly disorienting.

Which leaves the question of why we would possibly want to use an axe on one costume and a sword on the other, the answer of which I feel can be best arrived to by asking yourself if, when using a weapon set, do you use the same exact weapon for every costume? If your answer was "no", or if you know someone who has said "no" then you can probably begin to figure out why the OP, and probably myself, would like such a thing. Concept demanded it, and if you've ever met concept you should well understand what a fickle, yet dear and important, thing she is.

So, I again reiterate, if such a change can be implemented without seriously hampering the progress of something else deemed more important , there is absolutely no reason, be it a concern of whether the animations will fit, or whether the secondary effects will make sense, to deny the sharing of weapon models between the Axe, Mace, and Broadsword power sets.

If the best reason against this idea is truly "I don't like how it looks so nobody can play as it" then I demand all furries and half of Freedom be hurled into the sun for similiar reasons.


*EDIT* - @ Leo_G - It just seems like such a silly reason to deny somebody their fun. "THIS IS THE AXE SET, ONLY AXES CAN GO HERE." Are we seriously going to get hung up on such trivial semantics?

Regardless, I've said my peace (piece? I hate this expression) on the matter. Good luck to the OP.

*Edit 2* - Custom is not Costume.

Just because you state something previously doesn't mean I automatically agree with you, and it is perfectly acceptable for me to then state something in opposite to your opinion. That I didn't quote you specifically simply meant that I didn't wish to address anything you have stated. I don't *have* to argue with you, or even kind of be talking to you, just because you posted something in the thread.

That being said...

There are plenty of reasons to allow this idea, chief among them being that it would probably be very easy to do, at least concerning Axe/Mace/Broadsword considering the meshes already exist and the animations are so similiar that I don't imagine them looking out of place after they have been transferred.

We aren't expecting that we'll suddenly be able to do smashing damage with our broadsword just because we're using a mace, much in the same way we aren't expecting the Talsorian Blade to start doing energy damage.

Let's look at Leo_G then, since you seem to have volunteered him for me to argue with.

I'm not entirely sure why this is considered a good thing. Why should I be forced to play the Battle Axe set, which I may not enjoy from a mechanical standpoint, when it would probably be very easy to just allow me the Battle Axe models on the Broadsword set, which, in this example, I do enjoy.

What if my character concept had relied upon a character who dual wielded an axe and a sword? How about an Axe and a Mace? Currently I have no choice but to either abandon the character or wait until they make a comparable "Dual Mace" or "Mace and Axe" set, despite the fact that the solution is so readily available.

If it doesn't alter game balance, is going to make people happy, and is (apparently) fairly easy to implement I see no reason not to attempt to include this change, and nothing you or Leo_G has stated have made me feel otherwise (which is kind of why I decided to post after both of you, in case you were still curious about that.)


Finally, I think restricting the models just because the set is called "Battle Axe" is kind of silly much in the same way I think debating about what a character is allowed to do because of their "origin" is silly, or trying to shove the Leadership pool onto your character, regardless of whether or not he could benefit from it, just because he's supposed to have leader qualities is silly.

Being able to customize your accolade/epic/patron/whatever powers, along with travel powers is In The Works (tm), but I don't know if it's Coming Soon (tm).

If it doesn't come with GR, I would imagine it coming sometime shortly after.

And now you know why you never ever question GG's winks. Just look at the mess you made all over this topic. Who do you think is going to clean this up!?

Don't hug Alex; His body will spontaneously eat you.

Pancea does not only work in PVP, and no this is not a PVP build. The PVP IO's have two effects, one which is always on, and one which only works in PVP, as labeled in Mids'. While they can only be found in a PVP zone, you can still buy them for utilization in the PVE game.

That said, they are mostly there for the recharge bonus, and Doctored Wounds is probably sufficient for this task, but Pancea does offer superior recharge.