Why weapon appearance has to be.

You are somehow 'forced' to wield your mythical weapon (in actual combat out there, not in town). Many epics/mythicals just look ugly; some even like exaggerated plastic toys. All this is a matter of taste and you can't please all people all of the time. Weapon appearance would solve that problem.
There are many great looking weapon models out there which all disappear in the void, at least in T8 or at level 80 since everybody wields the mythical (plus off-hand maybe). For years I've been storing the prismatic weapon from Darathar in my bank vault, hoping one day to wield it again. As a berserker e.g. I am forced to wield that strange oversized supertanker propeller which I really hate to look at meanwhile.
Just complete what has been begun with armor appearance and add weapon appearance slots. Is it that hard to implement? (no sarcasm, serious question). Concerning animation while wielding 1hander+shield (actual) and a 2hander (appearance) and such.
In PvP there might be an unwanted strategic component (dual vs 2handed vs 1handed+shield)... maybe there a different rule set might be applied.
The usage may be restricted: level and class like armor, 2handed slashing has to be optically replaced by another 2handed slashing weapon etc. If such a rule is applied, one might have to think how a out-of-combat- and a in-combat-weapon-switch can be solved. Keep the appearance weapon? Unequip it automatically to stick with the rules? Some kind of special macro system for the weapons (predefining which weapon is accompanied with which appearance weapon)? Etc...
Also pure fun weapons (such as the candy sticks) could be prohibited in the appearance slots to keep a 'serious' feeling.

Part of me agrees with you. It would be kinda cool to have weapon appearance, especially since there are a few really cool looking weapons that simply stink, such as the axe from the frostfell quest. However, I think part of SoE's logic would be that you can wear armor over your armor to look how you want, but you can't do the same with weapons. I mean you can play basketball looking like a baseball player, but making your basketball look like a bat is a little more difficult

While I agree that it might be kind of cool, I'm not sure this would be easy to implement into the game. Over my years of playing EQ2, I have seen several awesome looking weapons. I either outgrew those weapons or the stats on them sucked for me to begin with so they became merchant fodder.
Appearance slots for armor seems like a far easier thing to implement (and thank god they added it). With weapons, you would have to take into account the types of weapons (slash, pierce, crush, etc.) and the movement of the character when they are in combat. Also, how the appearance weapon would overlay on the actual weapon would surely create issues. I'm sure there are a whole host of complications when it comes to adding this. I'm certainly not a game designer but it seems like it would be difficult to add and take a long time to make all changes.
I'm not saying it will never happen but it probably won't happen any time soon. For now, I can deal with the way my weapons look. I actually like the two weapons I use now.

There was a question about this asked in the Dev Question Thread. Here is the answer:
Q: Would it be posible to add appearance Item slots for Weapon and ranged/shield slot as well as the ability to place torches in a slot designated for torches?
A: Funny you should mention this. It’s being discussed. One thing is certain though – the weapon/shield in the appearance slot would have to match the exact type and wield style of the item in the main hand.

So it looks like it might at least partially come true.

Wearing plate armor over plate armor isn't 'realistic' either...

ZerkerDwarf wrote:

I frequently wear cloth appearance armor over my normal chain gear. I know it's not realistic and I don't think that was ever the issue.
I think the issue was with the coding and design. Appearance armor doesn't DO anything...it's just an image. You don't 'wield your clothes' or start flinging your clothes around when you are fighting. Armor models had all ready been created for all races/genders so it was just a matter of adding additional slots.
With weapons, I imagine there would be some kind of programming/design issue. For example: When I am wielding an axe, my fighting animation looks a specific way and there might be particle effects for that particular weapon. Now if I want to carry a whip instead, that would cause an issue with my fighting animations and any associated particle effects.
If they said it was being considered, that's a good sign. Like they said though, it would have to be the same weapon type. So an axe replacing an axe, a dagger replacing a dagger. I would be okay with that. There are plenty of cool looking weapons to choose from. I know I could find something I love.

Catin wrote:

I can't help feeling that the Frostfell axes are a sort of portent/precursor for this too.

This has been talked about before and I do remember a Dev saying that they are "possibly" looking into this.
I agree it would be nice to have weapon apperance slots.

When I first read that answer a while ago, I was all "woot". Then got a lil "about ruddy time". Then the first part of the answer leapt out. "Funny you should mention this". As if it was a wild and completely new thing to mention and hasn't actually been a topic of various threads, one of which has invariably been on the first page of this or the general forum since appearance slots came in. Still, that's nit-picking, back to "woot".

Wyrmypops wrote:

"Funny you should mention this" is a way of saying, I was thinking the same thing... or a precurser to saying we are already on it... it is not an exclamation of suprize... if anything it is more a way of saying I was waiting for you to ask that.

Er, no, it is an expression of surprise. It's funny you should mention this, being that it is funny that someone should mention this, rather than expected or predictable you should mention this. When that phrase is used it suggests it's a surprising coincidence, that it's funny you should mention, that phrase like good phrases do removes the need for extraneous words, like "it's funny you should mention this, I wasn't aware anyone else had thought of it, and we are discussing it, what an amusing coincidence".
Unless the phrase was used ironically, with a knowing grin accompanying the answer, knowing full well that question was going to be asked and having an answer ready in waiting. Though now I have the urge to try and find that irish comic rip into Alanys for her improper use of the word Ironic in her song about a series of events that weren't ironic at all, just a series of events that were unfortunate. Unless the person that was already late for work and got stuck in a traffic jam, was the town traffic planner.
Not that I care. I'm with my woot. Glad that for ages now I've been saving several of the more appealing looking weapons for the graphic they have.

Wyrmypops wrote:

Really, so now if you say a phrase, it is because you are leaving out words... and we get to pick what words they left out.
Okay, maybe the words they left out where...
Funny you should mention this, for the 1billionth time, it is not like we don't get asked this question atleast once a month sence the first perposal for apperance slots was made public, not only on the boards, but at any and all events that the devs and players come in contact, it's being descussed.
See we can both put words in Devs mouths and being that the devs would have to be Blind, Deaf and Mute NOT to know about this request I would say my version of what was left out is more accurate...
Ether that or they where using it in a Sardonic way, which just so happens to be the way the devs say more or less everything, and only way I have ever heard, seen or used that specific phrase.
You know, "Funny you should Mention that" followed by say a press of a button and the begining of a 5 min preproduced display answering the very thing that was asked about, in detail.
Or in answer to a question about visting the rest of the Shaddered Lands... BEFOR the TSO offical anouncment... In that case it was also being avasive... Funny you should mention that, we are thinging about ways to revist those islands. 2hrs or so latter Smed's address revealed we where going to Innithule Swap.

Why ive also wanted a great weapon appeareance slots. i say the appeareance piece shouldnt be limited to what your using, cause theres a lot of cool two handed weopons (like the spoon) thats two handed, when my toons never use two handed weopons. Plus theres all that cool looking silhouette stuff from frostfell events that would look good to have on one.

Olik@Nagafen wrote:

What if the only way to give a weopons appeareance slot is if it was limited to the type of weopon you are (really) holding, do to animation, and other mechanics issues. Would you have a problem with them adding Apperance slots for weopons with that type of restriction then?
For the record I don't care one way or the other... other then wanting the option.

I can't imagine why an appearance weapon should cause any trouble at all. Wielding both an appearance weapon and a normal weapon, the char behaves just like with the normal weapon only. Aren't the only differences between appearance and normal weapon some invisible calculations in the background?
"Stand, move, swing and look according to the appearance weapon and calculate everything (stats, procs, damage, delay, etc...) according to the non-appearance weapon. Just behave as if the non-app.-weapon had the 3D-model of the appearance weapon." Wouldn't that be the basic idea when programming it?
What's the difficulty of making use of the stats and properties of a 4s delay hammer and displaying a 3s delay (which doesn't matter at all) sword?

(I admit, I'm lacking any knowledge of EQ2 programming at all )

ZerkerDwarf wrote:

Its in the animation.

Noaani wrote:

Thats my belief as to the reason why too... All melee attacks have differant animations tied to them baised on the weopon(s) that you are wielding... you do a very differant attack with a 2-handed sword then you do with a 2-handed Bow Staff, for exsample. If they where to remove weopon equip restrictions they would have to add probly a sugnificant amount of code... as well as addtional Avatar Checks, for every swing of the weopon(both AAs and CAs)... times that by 6 in a group or 24 in a raid and suddenly the amount of lag may start to pile up.
Back, to differant animations for differant CAs baised on Weopon... some attacks can only be made with specific weopon types... such as 2-handed Sword or Shield and Sword... if you are allowed to wield a 2-handed sword in apperance, suddenly they have to tie a new animation to that attack, that also would likly be alot of work.
All of that possable lag and addtional work would be to gain a minimal differance, seeing as how most people will be wielding the same type of weopon they would have in appearance anyway... the only ones that wouldn't would be Tanks who want to show off thier "Big Sword" while still being able to tank(Sword/Shield equiped). The reason I say that is because the class baised weopon restrictions would still be in place, wich does kind of limit the types of weopons you can wield anyway.... save for Warriors.

While I see that there might me no animation for a shield bash while wielding a twohander in appearance, I still don't see any difficulties with a restricted appearance rule saying "must same type of weapon (slashing, piercing, 1h+shield, 2hander)".
Since you can swap weapons during combat, including e.g. "1h+shield" being replaced by "2x1h" or "2h", appearance weapons that don't match the rule, might be unequipped automatically.

I agree.... I feel that it would be very nice to have an appearence slot for weapons.. Granted My mythical ( Fang of Ichor ) and my off hand (Throat Ripper) Dont look bad. I am lucky to actually have one of the few mythicals that do not look like over sized toys. But i remember a weapon that i had two off a long time ago that dropped off of Hag in unrest that had the coolest graphic and i loved dual wielding those. I would love to see my self being able to wield those again

ZerkerDwarf wrote:

They said a month or so ago they were looking at it, but as I said, the animation is the issue they were discussing.