Why weapon appearance has to be.

Rijacki wrote:

I am not sure I care if they can be over-written or not, however because of the way it works as far as the check on if you can display it or not, I am fairly certain if they wanted to do this, it wouldn't be too hard. Heck, just change the weopon type from say "Dagger" to "Epic" for those types of weopons would do it... and be the most cost effective.
BTW, you can equip something that does not match your Effective Weoponslot weopon, it just turns red(like broken equipment) and says that it can not display doto the weopon you have equiped... So it also can be used to store a back-up weopon(s) if you are pressed for Inventory space, even if that weopon is a differant type from your main weopon.

I am happy to read about it in the test patch notes.
The damage stayle shoudl be vanish though. Why cant i equip a crushing wepaon into appearance while using a slashing weapon ? I have 4 animations. onehanded-shield, onehanded-symbol, twohander and staff. I wouldnt matter what kind of one-handed weapon i wield..
But still happy. If the next epic is as ugly as the claymore 2 i have options

Well, I still think the weapon appearance thing should have never gone through, but since it is, I'm glad that they're heavily restricting it by weapon type and animation style, as well as you being the right class and level to use it.
This still means us monks won't be able to use our Katanas from the summer live events.. There's not many slashing weapons that monks can use that isn't a fist weapon.

Cusashorn wrote:

Be quiet.

Cusashorn wrote:

The restrictionas are not a good thing...
The katanas are fist weapons.

Thank you for adding the weapon appearance slots. However, I don't understand why there are such harsh restrictions being put on them. I can see limiting 2h equip to 2h appearance, but not limiting a 2h axe solely to another 2h axe. I suspect it's something to do with animations, but (please correct me if I'm wrong) I've never noticed a difference between most 1h weapon animations, regardless of whether they're swords, axes, piercers, crushers, etc (with the exception of many fist weapons). And if the restrictions are due to an animation issue, what about weapons that are wielded "abnormally" - for example, the Pin Cushions from the void storm event, which are daggers but use fist weapon animations?
These restrictions mean that, because my current offhand is a rapier, I can equip Anaphylaxis (a rapier) in its appearance slot, but not Throatripper (a dagger), even though they have the same model and animations. This makes no sense! It also sounds like it would make the Frostfell candy canes and ice axes (which seem to have been created with appearance slots in mind) unusable because they are classified as magic affinity, and to my knowledge no "real" weapons are of that type.
Please, if no horrible technical issues would result, consider removing the extreme restrictions. It's fluff. While I'm glad to finally have the option, the way it's being implemented is disappointing, much like the original plan to limit armor appearance to your highest real armor type.

I can use my fabled Epic with the Katana over it but not the Mace would have to find a new weapon for that tat is superior to what I have.

Gomora_Toad wrote:

We where warned this would be the case if they ever implemented it. In fact the 4th post in this thread even quoted the warning about the restrictions, and the way I read the warning it is do to technical limitations that these restrictions are required, not lore or whatever else might be at issue.
Here is the post I am talking about:
Catin wrote:

I'm really disappointed with the harsh restrictions.
It would be a lot better if you just limited it to wield style (One-Hand, etc).

Cexi@Everfrost wrote:

I believe it is as harsh as it is do to techincal reasons, because there are already many weopons that look for example like a rapier that are consitered Swords or more often consitered a Rapier while it looks like a sword, so I don't see why they would have those restrictions for RP reason. Atleast from people that are ok with appearance weopons, those against it likly are against it no matter how it is done.
Personally, I prefure having a restricted ablity to have appearance weopons over having no appearance weopons at all.

Lethe5683 wrote:

(( lmao.

pvp weapons have some of the coolest particle effects... PVErs get the short straws

Since I am not playing on test, what exactly do the test restrictions mean? Can I replace a one-handed slashing axe by a one-handed slashing sword?

ZerkerDwarf wrote:

no. Axe to axe. Sword to Sword.

Cusashorn wrote:

Exactly, what you do on live to prepare is look at the 3 White Text items right below the stats of a weopon if all three iteams match what you have in your Active Slot, then what you put in your Apperance Slot will Display if not it will glow red(like a Broke weopon) and not display.
For exsample if this is what you really equip:

Then this will not show up:

Because one is a Sword and uses Slashing and the other is a Rapier and uses Piecing, I have not been able to test the Main hand vers 1-handed thing, nor the Slashing Rapier vers Piercing Rapier, but I assume those also can't be over written except with similar restricted weopons.
::UPDATE::
Just got my Monk over onto Test Copy, apparently Wield Style does not matter, only Weopon Type*. As I was able to Show a weopon listed as Staff: 2-handed Crushing(a bow staff), in my appearance slot while wielding a Staff: 1-handed Crushing, in my main hand slot. The 2-handed Crushing staff acted just like a Quarter Staff as far as animations. If no weopon or a weopon with the appearance of no weopon was equiped in the Active Secondary slot, it wielded in the Marshal Arts style stance, however if you Equiped a weopon that you can see in your Active Secondary then you started wielding it like a Baton or Club.
*Weopon Type means things like Axe, Great Axe, Sword, Great Sword, Raiper, etc.

Cusashorn wrote:

OK SOE. Then you can save your time and dedicate to other things. Slashing to slashing etc would be sufficient, but axe to axe etc is lame³.
Not being able to replace a (one-handed SLASHING axe) by a (one-handed SLASHING sword) is useless. I for myself don't like clumsy axes and would like to replace it by a swordish (still slashing) weapon (Soulfire, prismatic,...).

ZerkerDwarf wrote:

A) we where told of this issue a long time ago
B)Are you aware that there are many axes out there and not all of them are "clumsy", infact many of them are very effecant and dangerous looking.
C) Many people would be upset if you could cover an Axe with a Sword.
D) Baised on what I infer from the dev responces on this issue the reason for the limitation isn't even to apiese the people I refure to in point C, but is infact do to tecknical limitations.
Personally there are a number of Axes out there that I love the style on, and If I had a good axe I would coose that style as my appearance weopon(secondary). As it stands I am using 2 swords, so I'll have to choose two swords I like, they I have kept a back stock on(as I don't really like the glowing red Void Swords I currently am using).

kela wrote:

Many people were upset when SOE allowed us to cover plate mail with skimpy little barmaid's dresses, but that didn't stop SOE from allowing it. Frankly, if they can accomplish that visual trick, they should be able to accomplish covering an axe with a sword.
& I agree with ZerkerDwarf on that: I don't like axes, nor do I care if there are non-clumsy ones. My Troubie will be stuck with an ugly-as-sin AXE for an epic (why? I have no freekin' clue why SOE made THAT decision) & I'd simply like to continue visually using a SWORD, instead. Why that should cause anyone to get their knickers in a twist is beyond me, just as I never understood the arguments against the appearance armor slots.
Of course, none of this would matter if SOE actually gave us more "good looking" armors & weapons in the first place, &/or a little more choice on our epic weapons. If, for example, each class could choose between several different weapons, all with the same stats -- instead of all carrying the same weapon -- that would be kinda cool.
Finally, Ke'la: NO Swashy worth his/her salt carries an axe. Axes are for plate-wearing tin cans & unsophisticated rustic peasants. Swashy = swords & daggers!

i think its more of a coding problem then just a choice, and dont try an argue if you cant pull up the code and tell me how easy it would be

Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:

Probably the same reason they decided that scouts should wear chainmail instead of cloth/leather.

And in reply to whoever said the axe to axe and sword to sword was neccissary that's a lie. All slashing one handed weapons = same animation. All piercing one handeded weapons = same animation. All crushing one handed weapons = same animation. Same goes for two handers. Any weapons being dual wielded same animation.

therodge wrote:

You have no more right to argue that it would be hard without proof than anyone else has to argue it would be easy without proof.