Multi Weapon Customization

He has, and from what I remember, his response was that the cost for having such a weapon was prohibitive. But even if it were deemed impossible, it doesn't hurt to keep bringing this up. A polearm set, especially if done right, could be a wondrous addition.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

You can't have two sets with the same name and the same weapons. That's both bad game design (why does MvsC2 have two Wolverines?) and it opens a gigantic can of worms. If "Heavy Blade" (axes HAVE blades, but ARE NOT blades) has two different versions, why can't Assault Rifle have two different versions? Or scratch that, why can't Devices have two versions? Preferably one that isn't horribly gimped? Why can't I have a Firey Melee variant on my Scrapper that has Combustion instead of Cremate? Can I have Baphomet's Flaming Footstomp instead of Greater Fire Sword?

I cannot see or accept two powersets that are the same thing but with different powers. It's just not a type of game design I want to be part of.

As well, only one AT uses Broadsword in a way that's at all comparable to Battle Axe, and that's Scrappers. Stalkers have access to Broadsword, but it has one big honkin' stab attack in the form of Assassin's Strike. You DO NOT STAB with an axe. I don't care if you slash, slice or hack with it. That's permissible. But you do not stab with an axe. I don't care if it has a spike at the end. An axe is not a stabbing weapon. A halberd may be, but a halberd is more pike than axe, and is two-handed, to boot.

Once upon a time I tried to argue to allow small hatchets to be used with Dual Blades, but with at least two attacks and Assassin's Strike using stabs, that went out of the question entirely. You don't stab with an axe. It'd be like stabbing with a mace just because it has spikes on the ball.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

that was my point. to read it and see what has been suggested and take the best parts and make a thread about that.

i don't think i would want to stab with a mage with spikes on his balls...

Fixed.

---

You know, thinking about this, I remembered something else that puts a flag pole in the spokes of this idea: Power Customization. A lot of us have been asking for alternate animations for the existing weapons sets for some time, and ideally, I'd like to see animations which use the weapon in question to its fullest potential. One of the stranger aspects of swords has always been the fact that none of the Broadsword attacks stab. They're all slashes. Ideally, I'd like to see at least a couple of stabs added to the set if it ever got alternate animations.

Thing is, you don't stab with an axe, so if we added axes to the weapon models, that'd just mean we will never be able to get any stabs in there. The reason people are saying Axe, Sword and Mace should be the same thing is because they share animations already. But I don't see this as a benefit to be exploited. I see it as a problem to be fixed. Rather than trying to make sets even more generic to the point where it doesn't matter if you're using a sword, an axe, a tree trunk or your own disembodied arm, I suggest we make these sets more unique. If I'm fighting with a sword, then perhaps I should have the option to swing it more like a sword and less like a "heavy object with a handle." Add in a few stabs, maybe even a few two-handed animations. If I'm using an axe, give me a few animations where it feels even heavier, as it should, or alternately where it feels like a hatchet, because that's what some options are.

I like to keep things as malleable as they can be, but as many of the new sets have demonstrated, there is benefit to be had in flair and specific themes.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

So? There can be seperate animations for seperate weapons, also, who's the say someone wouldn't want to stab with an axe? does it piss you off that much to see a Stalker carrying an Axe in place of a sword? If so, perhaps you need to lighten up.

And no, Mace wouldn't be apart of this process. A Mace is a Mace and works entirely differently and cannot be interchanged.

By the way, does it irritate you when an AR blaster wielding a shotgun but use Flamethrower? Mabye there needs to be a seperate Shotgun set and Flamethrower set. /chuckle.

Only one of those can be used to stab. I think where Sam is coming from isn't that he's pissed off at a Stalker using an Axe, but that you apparently don't care if Stalkers look retarded stabbing with a pickaxe. The devs *do* care about how their game looks and it's awesome that its so important to them. Because that means we get awesome stuff like Ninja Run and Kinetic Melee and soon, more alternate animations.

If they were going to mix axes and swords models into Broad Sword and Batlleaxe I think it would be better to rename the former "Light Bladed Weapons" (lighter weight allows you to parry and get around your targets guard, justifying the defs aspects) and the latter "Heavy Bladed Weapons" (bigger weapons let you knock your target around). Not saying it should be done (though part of me does likes the idea) just that it's makes a little more sense then trying to claim two different powers sets are really the same.

Which means absolutely nothing as far as aesthetics are concerned. Also it has more AOE than both War Axe and War Mace, unless you want to count Taunt, in which case they are tied. Slice/Whirling/Headsplitter vs WhirlingWhatever/tier9

... Battle Axe doesn't have any knockback. At all. It has mostly knockdown and knock up. Again, this has nothing to do with aesthetics.

Let's back up a bit, since you don't seem to be able too. Your original argument was that the sets were too different in their animations to be replaced easily. The Mace set didn't use "slashing" animations, you seemed to claim. I pointed out that, yes they did, and as far as animations were concerned everything was pretty much equal except for parry.

I have not claimed that they shared the same effects. In fact, I blatantly stated as much with this fun paragraph you seemed to miss: The secondary effects are not so different that I could not envision the weapons working outside of their sets. Again, broadsword is already doing knock-down and knock-up, both things Axe is doing all the time. My imagination does not need to be stretched for me to visually comprehend that a broadsword could knock people over. Mace does a lot of disorienting effects, with some knockback for good measure. It is not difficult for me to beleive that an AXE might be disorienting when hit with it, and it should be REALLY easy for you to beleive that an AXE can do knockback, since you apparently thought it did to begin with.

The secondary effects, NOR the special effects, NOR the animations are so fundamentally different that you cannot *easily* interchange the weapon models with one another. I am in NO WAY proposing that we get rid of a set, just that we allow all functional meshes into it.

You keep it. I happen to like the axe set, and the proposed change would not effect its' existence.

I'm not saying it can. Much in the same way I'm not proclaiming the TALSORIAN BLADE WHICH THE DEVS PUT INTO THE GAME BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT LOOKED COOL should be doing energy damage even though it is CLEARLY made out of energy and when the vanguard use them they do ENERGY DAMAGE.

It is an aesthetic change, it is there simply for visual enhancement and the ability to enjoy having, say, a sword on a powerset that doesn't deal with sword models but could VERY EASILY be adjusted to do so. That you can't wrap your mind around that is your own downfall.

I don't see a reason to change the names or the powersets in any way. Just add in the meshes. The only reason I'm even on board with this suggestion is that it is easy to do, and doesn't need to change any function of the game. If it did, I probably would be on your side. The only hurdle you need to get over is that you don't think some of the animations work with some of the weapons, which is fine, you don't need to use those weapons, but some of us would like too.

I think it is strange you bring up Assault Rifle, which is actually a shining example for my side of the argument. MOST of the alternative gun models they offer don't make sense at *all* for the function of the assault rifle, but we have them because somebody wanted to wield a Tommy Gun, flamethrower be damned.

The Devs, who you and Leo_G seem to hold to some gold standard on this issue, ROUTINELY compromise sensibility for concept in this manner. The only thing OP is asking for is to be able to use a sword with the Battle Axe set, because his CONCEPT wanted that.

I promise you though, if I "stabbed" somebody in the face with an axe, they would probably be on the floor, bleeding. Unless they had super powers, or something. I count at least nine of those axes could be used for stabbing. Hell, at least two of them have a freaking halberd on the tip, and four of them have bladed tops. Regardless, even if you are "stabbing" someone with the blunt end of an object, it is still going to hurt, which, as far as the animation is concerned, is exactly what I'm doing.

It makes perfect sense. Or at least as much sense as any other super power.

It's a "swing weapon to hit stuff" set.

Well, heck, let's start culling various people's costumes because they "look bad" while we're at it.

If there are separate animations, visual effects and sounds for separate weapons, then why the Funk and Wagnall do they need to be the same set?

Also, whether someone wants to stab with an axe or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone CAN'T stab with pretty much any of the axes we have in the game. It's not a question of "looks bad." You CAN'T. You can thrust with an axe, but that's not a stab. At most it's little more than a punch. It's certainly not the deadliest attack in an axeman's arsenal, as an Assassin's Strike should be.

In fact, Assassin's Creed 2 played with this a lot. They reused pretty much all the animations from the original game, but added maces and axes. The thing is, though, that while the idle swings of the mace were the same as those of the sword, the actual killing blows were not. Where the sword would stab through the chest and cut up limbs, hammers and maces would basically bash heads and smash spines. I'm not sure if the game featured axes at all, but if it did, they were heavy weapons and completely separate.

Yeah.

It does, actually. That's why I feel Assault Rifle is the most stiffed powerset when it comes to weapon customization (technically, no - Pulse Rifle is, but that doesn't count). The Omnigun, the Mercs assault rifles and the various special unlocks do look like they work. Things like the Sniper Rifle, however, simply do not. There's nothing weirder than doing full auto out of a thin-barrelled sniper rifle.

This is actually an artefact of what Weapon Customization originally was - a straight dump of existing props into custom weapons with often no regard with what the weapon set actually did. The Council/Crey "Aliens Pulse Rifle" works great for AR, as do the various Nemesis rifles, since that's what they do anyway, and it's future tech. The Scooby Doo Redding Rail Rifle is another good example, because it's techy enough to look like it can fire all of that crap.

I'd have preferred if they were more sensible in what they were adding to Assault Rifle. In fact, the set's entire name is a misnomer for what the set actually is. It's NOT an assault rifle, it's some kind of futuristic retrotech omnigun. Plenty of people have complained that it's not enough like an assault rifle, and throwing rifle models in a set that has flamethrowers, beanbags and rockets was never going to fix anything. I suppose you can grab a sniper rifle and only take the single-shot rifle attacks, but... Does anyone actually do that?

Put it this way - it's the same argument which keeps us from using left-hand weapons with Shield Defence. Wanna' argue with that next?

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

What... Are you talking about? All three sets have the same amount of AoE. Broadsword has Slice, Whirling Sword and Head Splitter, Battle Axe has Whirling Axe, Cleave and Pendulum and War Mace has Whirling Mace, Shatter and Crowd Control. Only Pendulum and Crowd Control are wider-cone, higher-damage powers than Slice, and both Shatter and Cleave deal more scale damage than Head Splitter. Well, at least Cleave does, I don't know so much about Shatter.

Also, "has nothing to do with aesthetics" is not an argument when you're looking at changing the core design of existing powersets and redefining their purpose. You can't just change this because it looks good and leave two versions of the same set, originally designed to fit different weapons but now having the same weapon in them. An for what? It'd be worse than when Broadsword and Katana had the same animations. Remember how much people complained then?

Check your facts, please. Each Battle Axe power other than Swoop has 0.67 scale knockback in it. Swoop has... I don't remember how much scale knockup on it. The set has knockback, it's just intentionally lower-mag. Knockdown IS knockback. If you want to make petty semantic arguments, ensure they are true first.

Either quote me or stop trying to retell what I said. I never said they were too different in their animations, I said they were too different in their EFFECTS, let alone power names, and I was specifically targetting Mace vs. Sword, because the original argument was Mace/Sword/Axe. As Leo mentions, the different weapons have different visual effects and visual sounds, and they also have different names. Even something as simple as Whirling Sword vs. Whirling Axe. I realise that's already somewhat broken by our ability to replace Thunder Kick with a punch, but that just means I want to see the power itself renamed.

Furthermore, my actual argument, if you'd bothered to read it instead of focusing on insulting my intelligence, was that you can't have two sets that are copies of the same thing but with different powers. That's *** backwards design, not to mention a terrible precedent. Suppose I want to use Radiation Blast with the Energy Blast animations? They're practically the same thing, right? Blasts of energy. Radiation is energy, after all, isn't it?

This is not the Champions system where you pick a power and then apply an element or weapon to it. In this system, weapons are baked into powers. If you pick a sword power, you use a sword with it. That way, it's animation can more closely match how a sword is used, instead of being boring and generic such that it can be used with a sword, axe, mace, sharpened stick, large bone or a small child. I'd like my sword attacks to stab, and you can't stab with a small child. Its chin doesn't get sharp enough until puberty.

So much for Mace not being part of the suggestion.

Has it occurred to you that War Mace deals smashing damage, the kind of damage that's good against robots but poor against plants? You know, the exact opposite of what a bladed weapon usually is? A bladed weapon is good at cutting, preferably cutting soft targets, which is what it excels at. Carnival of Shadows, Devouring Earth, Knives of Artemis. By contrast, the heavy concussive damage of the Mace is better against hard armoured targets such as robots and large stone creatures. Your imagination might stretch far enough to ignore consistency, but I prefer to know what an axe is good for and what it isn't without it swapping on me from set to set.

Furthermore, while parrying with an axe is possible, it just looks silly. And, yes, this is an aesthetic argument, but don't you think there's a reason that neither Battle Axe nor War Mace have that animation? Because I do.

And again - we don't need three instances of the same set.

They very much are. Broadsword makes a cutting sound on most of its attacks and sends metallic sparks flying around. Battle Axe makes a tearing sound an sends yellow sparks flying around. War Mace makes a dull impact sound and I don't believe it has any sparks at all. You can easily ignore these, I guess, but I don't want to. I prefer my sets to be distinct. I like to see the red pillar of pain and know this is a sword. Even if we get the ability to customize the colour of the red pillar of pain into a blue pillar of pain, I know this is Head Splitter or Disembowel, because it's still a pillar of pain.

And what you are proposing is having three sets which are visually identical, but functionally different. This is not good design. This is why people complained about Katana back in the day. The solution is NOT to make these sets more like each other. It's to make them more distinct.

BABs also went out of his way to explain why the Talsorian weapons deal physical damage, and has also gone on the record as not wanting elemental weapons in physical sets precisely because people will expect them to deal elemental damage. We do have elemental shields, but because shields protect from damage and don't deal it, there are not expectations from them.

As far as "my own downfall" goes, it's arguing with you, because you seem to keep skipping half my arguments. I don't want axes in sword sets, because I want sword sets to act more like sword sets. NOT having axes in them is a requirement for this, because axes don't wield like swords, and if you have both swords and axes, all that does is ensure you can never have decent sword OR axe animations.

It is my hope that some day we'll get more sword animations, and they will feel more like what a sword should be like. I enjoy the brutish clubbing animations for the right characters with a big enough sword, but they look patently ridiculous with the smaller swords. That is why it's my hope we'll get a more refined, more athletic version of the sword attacks that would make them look more like actual sword attacks and LESS like axe attacks.

It's actually the same reason I want to see a separate two-handed hammer set, rather than dumping still more hammers into War Mace, because a mace is a one-handed weapon, whereas hammers have the great potential to be really impressive two-handed weapons, and mutually-exclusive with shields, to boot.

MOST of the alternative guns suck worse than a black hole made of sucky games. Check my previous post for an explanation a to why, but I feel adding sniper rifles and shotguns was a HUGE mistake. Again, it set up exactly this kind of rotten precedent, and it looks terrible, to boot. I've seen a precious handful of Assault Rifle Blasters use that confounded Sniper Rifle, and they've made my head hurt every time, because they always seem to grab grenades and flamethrowers anyway. And it looks BAAAD.

I'm am firmly against perpetuating that precedent. I don't want any more sets getting badly incompatible weapons for them. When it makes sense, yes. An axe in a sword set, however, does not make sense. And despite Assault Rifle being called "Assault Rifle," it is not a set about assault rifles. It requires its own special set of eccentric guns that, even when they do look like Assault Rifles like the Mercs guns do, still account for the fact that this is MORE than an assault rifle.

The OP can use the handily provided Battle Axe set, just like if I want to use claws, I use the handily provided Claws set and don't ask for Super Strength to be given claw attachments. If his favourite AT doesn't have access to Battle Axe, then the OP is free to suggest it be proliferated, and I will be right with him to support his suggestion. Battle axe for Scrappers? WANT! Battle Axe for Stalkers? Definitely. You can have a really cool two-handed vertical chop as an Assassin's Strike. I'd kill to have that, no pun intended.

See, this is what I mean - I'd rather this be done right, sets proliferated as they should and animations fitting the weapon be created, rather than that cheap, ugly solution of putting weapons where weapons don't belong.

And this is where aesthetics come in. Stabbing with an axe is simply stupid. It's the equivalent of stabbing with your elbow. It's not impossible, and Lord knows horror movies have done worse (fist-stabbing is common in them), but that does not mean it looks good. Stabbing with a pickaxe is ridiculous. Stabbing with a hatchet is just silly. Stabbing with that axe which has a STICK at the far end is just... Really? Seriously?

Weapons need to look the part. They need to look like they can do what we see them doing. Stabbing with an axe would be the equivalent of stabbing with a mace which, ironically, you are also suggesting.

---

No. In no way can I be convinced to support this. It would basically sink one of my fondest hopes for weapon sets. It would kill it dead. No way, no how. I want animations more appropriate to the weapons in question, NOT weapons even less appropriate to the animations we have. Add quality. Do not subtract it because other things are already pretty crappy. If Axe, Mace and Sword are so close as to be interchangeable, this needs to be fixed, not accepted.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

(Since Sam and others have already addressed the technical issues on why this is a bad idea)

I don't see a compelling reason for it. We all have character concepts that don't fit into the game mechanics. That doesn't mean the devs should waste time and money on useless projects that at best result in a very minor QoL for a small subsection of the player base.

If it's just for aesthetics, why bother?

/unsigned

I do not believe that changing a mesh is really that difficult. I cannot attest to how the system works, but if it's anything like every other game I've used, it is as simple as taking a file and moving it to a new folder and then hitting the "Update" button.

The only reason not to bother is because the devs feel like being lazy, it's harder than I am perceiving (in which case I do not think OP's idea should get in the way of more important affairs such of proliferation of sets or customized animations), or they dislike the idea. That the devs are seeking to make the "Two-Handed Set" incorporate all weapon models that might fit into that ideal (Scythe, Pole-Arm, Halberd, Whacking Stick o' Doom) seems to indicate that they would agree making three different sets that all used the same animations was probably not the methodology they wished to follow.

The sets are likely so similar as a causality of the early levels of development, where the devs needed more sets to pad out the options available to the player to choose from. After six years, I don't think that's really the case anymore (Which is probably why they want to do it right with the Two-Handed set.)

You can't really claim whether or not it would be popular. Unless, of course, you polled the player base and they said no.

@Sam

Which is it then? Broadsword has less or the same? Also I'm not sure If I would argue that Broadsword is more mitigation focused, as I consider the secondary effects of the Axe and Mace sets pretty mitigation-y. I'm not willing to throw their DPA's vs their mitigation effects into a blender and come out with a formula right now to really back that up, though. I will say that parry is one hell of a move, though.

At different Magnitudes KB becomes KD. Saying it has primarily KB attacks is incorrect. Swans and ducks are similiar too, but unless I'm telling a nursery rhyme, not distinguishing between the two is likely to lead to some confusion.

There, I quoted you so you don't forget what you wrote. I know it's hard using that back button, or maybe I just don't understand the love affair with quoting. The only indicator I have from your paragraph is that you don't think the animations are alike, and since you didn't expand upon why you thought anything else was different (yet), the best I could do is explain that, no, the animations are all exactly the same (save for parry and that stabbing animation), as that was the only falsity I could see in your paragraph.

Now that you have expanded to include the animated effects and sound effects, I still do not agree that they are that unique to their weapon. The visual effects on the weapons are largely composed of a 'wind-trail' animation behind the weapon as your character swings it that holds no regard to the weapons shape (the wind trail is exactly the same for sword, axe, and mace, regardless of the fact that mace should probably have some wonky ball trail instead.) with a blueish to sometimes red-ish glow that extends out of the enemy, and sparks for good measure. The final few attacks are largely a series of different colored glow effects chasing after the enemy, and (unless you associate "orange glow" with battle axe) have nothing to do with the weapon that is being used.

Which leaves the sound effects, with mace being the only set to have a slightly different sound (it lacks the SSSS sound at the start, but otherwise is not dramatically different. However, as everyone knows, bladed weapons go SSSS.). They are not so different as to not be compatible, however. Obviously you disagree.

Nothing about these three sets is so different that they could not allow other weapons other than the fact that they are called "BattleAxe" "WarMace" and "Broadsword". Since you just attested to disliking semantics, I'm sure you can understand how silly it is to restrict OP's idea based on a name alone.

I do sort of like the idea of making one powerset called "Heavy Weapons" or something less lame sounding, and then allowing you to choose between each of the powersets "Stance 1, stance 2, stance 3 or something) and then pick whatever weapon model you want. Still, that is beyond the scope of the suggestion, and it would likely take time away from something that is probably "more important." I would wait until all the sets are correctly proliferated, of course.

If you want to use radiation blast with the energy blast animations, I'm not going to try and stop you. If you're having fun doing that I don't care, regardless of the fact that I probably won't follow suite. I do not have any idea how difficult that is going to be to do, however, as you are going to have to change the visual effect of the power while simultaneously still offering the previous, instead of just offering another mesh, which is non-existent in this case, and as such I cannot fully support your idea unless it is relatively easy to implement.

As for the stabbing thing (again), striking someone in that manner with any object is going to hurt. It is not always going to stab (though any object at a high enough velocity, like say what a super human wielding a holy relic might be capable of, is going to pierce through an object.) but it is going to hurt. If you don't beleive me, have a relative or close friend 'stab' you in the face with a baseball bat with as much force as they can muster. It'll be a fun science experiment and is a good way to pass a week or two.

Also it's called a jab when you use a blunt object.

I'm only speaking from personal experience. I know that once I lean on the Parry button, my survivability skyrockets more often than not. By contrast, War Mace's stuns are... Unnoticeable, shall we say, and while Battle Axe's knockDOWN is impressive when it triggers repeatedly, my experience hasn't been very positive. It's nice, but it's not a functionality I feel saves me very often. Then again, my Sword wielders are all Scrappers and my Axe and Mace wielders are all Brutes, for obvious reasons. That's likely causing this discrepancy.

If it says "duck" on the label, I don't care if it's an egg. It's a duck. Unless it's otherwise relevant - which it isn't while we're not discussing the shortcomings and benefits of knockback, and we're not - I intend to call the functionality by what it's always been called by the game and what it's being called by the developers, as opposed to the shorthand that the players have insisted on calling it. I also refuse to call enemies "mob," player characters "toons," inventions "IOs," the Architect "MA" and so forth. Argue all you want about it. This will not change, unless you happen to be God.

Ugh... The reason I put "slash" in quotes is because I was referring to the power Slash, which has its own description, effects and attributes. Though, in hind sight, I should have capitalised it. I'm also fairly certain that's from a post I edited later on, explaining I was in a hurry. And I was. I was actually late for an anniversary birthday celebration. I realise that's no excuse and is my own fault. Again in hindsight, I should have pulled the rushed version of the post and replaced it with the edit, instead of appending the edit at the bottom. My bad.

And you should. You can't make compromises like this, or the entire point of having distinct powersets becomes moot. Why should Ice Blast do cold damage? Suppose I want to use Ice Blast animations with Fire Blast attacks? It can be done, but should it? Suppose I don't want to use Claws, but instead want to use Martial Arts attacks with the Claws animations? I could. But I shouldn't.

This is not Champions. This is not a "design your own power" system. This is not that kind of game. Unless you're prepared to rip out the powersets system and start from scratch, you should not let people play one powerset with another powerset's effects. This corrupts the reason for having powersets to begin with, and that's an incredibly dangerous prospect.

I still fail to see an actual reason why this is so important. If Battle Axe didn't exist, then maybe, fine. But Battle Axe exists. Why not use that?

[qupte]As for the stabbing thing (again), striking someone in that manner with any object is going to hurt. It is not always going to stab (though any object at a high enough velocity, like say what a super human wielding a holy relic might be capable of, is going to pierce through an object.) but it is going to hurt. If you don't beleive me, have a relative or close friend 'stab' you in the face with a baseball bat with as much force as they can muster. It'll be a fun science experiment and is a good way to pass a week or two.

Also it's called a jab when you use a blunt object.[/QUOTE]

And we're back to this nonsense. An axe is a bladed weapon, but it is not a piercing weapon. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the set's single most devastating attack - that is to say, Assassin's Strike - should be performed in the one single action that an axe is NOT designed to do? That's like Assassin's Blade being a hit with the sword hilt. Or worse yet - a kick.

And yet again, you're ignoring what I'm saying probably for the FOURTH time. I don't want more weapons sharing animations. I want LESS weapons sharing animations, because this allows for each weapon's animation to be appropriate to the weapon itself.

I've been involved in many "polearm" threads. My opinion there is the same as my opinion here. If you have a polearm that both slashes and pierces, then you need to restrict yourself to polearms that can do both. This means no spears as they can't slash, no scythes as they can't pierce (not with the shaft end, anyway) and DEFINITELY no staves as they can do neither. If it's a staff powerset, then animate it like a staff. If it's a halberd powerset, animate it like it's a halberd. If it's a spear, then make it a spear. If it's a Scythe... Well, I hope your imagination is working overtime.

Easily the worst, most repulsive thing I can see in this game, visually speaking, is weapons being used as weapons like them should not be CAPABLE of being used. Stabbing axes, cutting maces, bashing swords, piercing hammers... All of that is INSANE, and I would be highly, highly, HIGHLY disappointed if those were to be added. I'm not joking here.

My hope is, for the fourth time, that at some point, power customization will reach weapon sets, and then Swords, Axes and Maces can have their own unique attacks that both set them apart AND play to how the respective weapons should be used. The fact that Sword, Mace and Axe have almost all the same attacks is a PROBLEM, not a SOLUTION. Please do me a favour and read it this time around.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

If this was your thesis, what was the point of arguing against all the reasons I've given for OP's idea? You probably would have saved a lot of time if you had started off saying "I don't want multi-weapon customization because I want the system changed so that the animations aren't similiar to one another to better highlight the different utilities of a weapon" rather than arguing with me about how the animations and effects are so widely different that they couldn't be interchangeable. I can't be held responsible for you being too ****ed to highlight your primary argument, especially when that argument is in stark contrast to what we've been TALKING ABOUT. (assuming this is even it, you're utterly difficult to comprehend with how many ideas you jump to at once in the same post.)

But let's just throw out the last two pages and play with your idea. I definitely like the idea of adding more animations to better suit the weapons (even though I disagree that a jab is not a viable attack. You'd often want to throw one in there so that you aren't predictable with all your wide slashing attacks. Have you ever seen an axe with a Halbred on it? Guess what that is for. The weight on the head of the axe is often beneficial as you will typically be able to throw an enemy their position with this move), however I don't see how the inclusion of such a feature would somehow nullify OP's suggestion. In fact, I imagine it would strengthen it, as there is now a higher probability that there will be animations available that the USER feels better suits their weapon, whatever that may be. I significantly doubt that the devs will replace animations at this stage of the game, given that we know it's possible for them to include both.

That the "heavy weapons" set were divided into three different sets is likely a result of the early years in the game, when they needed more powersets to pad the available options to the players and that the ability to allow weapon customization was non-existence. Also, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed with the "two handed" set, as what I described is exactly what they are planning to do, at least, if what BaB says has any relevance.


Also, Champion's Online had a good idea about giving players the ability to choose any power, just as City of Heroes did when they attempted to launch the game under the same idea. The failing of both of them is that they had no great formula in place to restrict the level of "power-gaming" that would occur if they allowed this, or didn't make every power a carbon copy of one another. Time will tell if DCUO has figured it out yet or not.

Curious. Not sure if what you're talking about is what I'm thinking...could you paraphrase what BaB said about 2-handed weapons? I heard him talk about the difficulties with the rig and all and I vaguely heard about Staff melee being on the white-board but not much beyond that.

Because it's Ice Blast. NOT because of the animations it uses.

Not according to Warkupo's logic. If he likes the the way it looks he should be able to use it on his fire blaster, and if the devs don't allow it . . .

Wrong. Weapons do certain things. Period. Just because we have superpowers in the CoH/V/GR Universe does NOT mean that the purpose of an item changes.

Okay. In fact, I have already begun, in a way. *looks at costume re-design thread in sig*

Er, my statement is agreeing with that. Ice Blast doing cold damage comes from the fact that it's Ice Blast, not from the animations involved, thus there's no problem with using Ice Blast's animations for a fire blaster.

In a world of magic and superpowers, bullets and swords can do non-lethal damage. And blunt wooden swords can cut just as effectively as metal swords.

That's all well and good... but a sword is not an axe. An axe is intended for a given purpose, and so is a sword. It makes no sense to me to use a sword to do an axe's job.

Let us pretend that you have a magical mace. It is enchanted so that it causes slashing wounds when it impacts a person. If you were to create that character in CoH, it would have to be either a mace weilder (and do smashing damage) or a sword weilder (and have the wrong weapon). That's how it works. If you allow a maces to work like a sword, then you would have to change the damage type too. And the Devs have made it quite clear that a given weapon set will NOT change damage types based on appearance (hence no flaming swords).

I guess what bothers me most about this whole thing is the insistance that the Devs should make EVERY idea a player has a feasible one within the cofines of the game. To me, it is far more fun, and imaginitive, to work with the limited options that we have, and to make them work in the best ways one can. If you create some ridiculous concept like a bunny wielding panther and then get mad because you can't make it in the game... well, the problem does NOT lie with the Devs.

In both cases their intended purpose is hitting people.

Indeed, if it wasn't how it works then this suggestion wouldn't make much sense. While I'm sure it could be mildly amusing if someone came into the suggestions forum and suggested that the game work exactly as it already does, that seems to run counter to the purpose of the forum.

Yet they have a sword and mace that are crackling with electricity and don't do energy damage. And all kinds of elemental shields that you can hit people with without doing appropriately elemental damage. Not to mention turnng all your Earth attacks into Lava attacks without adding fire damage. Thus there is plenty of precedent in the game for weapon appearance having nothing to do with the damage type.