Why weapon appearance has to be.

Yep, I'd appreciate if all buff animations with a lute would be exchanged with the ayonic axe, so that the troub plays on his epic instead

Lethe5683 wrote:

Ive got a good deal to put in on this subject and think it is most interesting (and you are both wrong ), but its a mile off topic here. maybe one of you could start a thread in an appropriate for it and continue?
I understand the restrictions, though some of the results seems oddly arbitrary.. but I realise thats just the mechanism showing. If it stops candy canes as weapons then yay for the restrictions.
I would also say that I cannot think of any class of weapon without SOME cool types, though swords and daggers clearly have the advantage in a huge way on looks, almost by their nature.
Can anyone clarify what the situation is with shields in this? can I assume I can use m y favourite buckler in appearance over the buckler I am using?

shaunfletcher wrote:

I believe it is the same restrictions, Buckler for Buckler, Tower Shield for Tower Shield, Symbol for Symbol.

thanks, been keeping my buckler of the frontier for a while on my mystic in the hope of being able to use it again!

shaunfletcher wrote:

We're both wrong about appearance slots restrictions or which weapon is better? It's impossible for use both to be wrong about the second.

Lethe5683 wrote:

IRL the cops just pull out their pistols and shoot them both

I have to admit even I think the Troub epic could be better. A Flutesword would have been best. Kind of like the Green Ranger from the original Power Rangers. That was awesome.

Lethe5683 wrote:

The second. Im not saying it was easy but you guys managed it
Seriously, its a great topic for the off topic forums. Real world weapon comparisons of EQ2 weapons, to which the answers are like most real world things complex and subtle, and always always arguable.

Cusashorn wrote:

I'm with you on that one! Too bad they don't have crushing skill, they could have a tassled steel flute too, like in the old kung fu movies.

kela wrote:

You were wrong... again. A dev recently stated there is no technical limitation.

My main is a Troubadour with her mythical Ayonic Axe. I'm really annoyed at the cheap joke the art team played on Troubs by making it a stupid looking Axe (as in the axe-man guitarist from some crummy 70's rock band).
It took me a LONG time to get this axe. I dont want it to be some sort of funny haha item the devs thought would be cute. I want it to look like the premier weapon it should be.
That said...at least I dont have to wield that monstrosity the Templars have to put up with. It looks like it was designed by Ann Summers...
Whoever designed the mage ones got it right. They're cool looking, the right size and look like they are for the right classes. The Fighter ones look great as well.
Its really the exceptionally poor scout and priest ones that need work.

Guy De Alsace wrote:

Well no worries now since they removed almost all of the restrictions.

TBH I would have been happy with a weapon size slider. I dont know but someone on the design team has some sort of fetish for comically oversized weapons
Thex hammer, Templar hammer etc...qeynos claymore....

Lethe5683 wrote:

Where was that said?

Cusashorn wrote:

Somewhere... why would I tell you? If you find it you'll just try to get it reverted for whatever reason you think it shouldn't be allowed.

Well you're getting your weapon appearance slots in the next GU (estimated to be coming out mid-march...no garentee of course on the time).

Now let's try for mount appearance slots!

now I'm no expert but I'm 99% sure that a different model on your weapon via alternate appearance does not affect the game in any other way than visually.

The most logical reason for only allowing pierce weapons over pierce weapons and such is to restrict people from going overboard. if you have a ugly pierce and you happen to find a cool one you can use the model of the cool one instead.

Galvanize@Nagafen wrote:

And how is using a different type of weapon "going overboard"?

Lethe5683 wrote:

You wouldn't want someone to come up and bonk you on the head with a hammer if you saw only an assassin's dagger in his hand, would you?

This thread is doing nothing but proving to me that 90% of the participants have zero actual knowledge about weapons combat beyond what they've seen in movies. I'm patiently waiting for the inevitable weeaboo katana-worshipper claiming the samurais to be the BEST SOWRDSMEN OF ALL TIEM!
As far as appearance slots go, the fighting animation has absolutely nothing to do with the damage numbers being dealt, so why can't the animation simply go with the weapon that is shown? Equip an axe over a sword, move like you're wielding the axe you see. No big deal.
I support only being able to equip weapons your character can wield, and matching hand-styles (only two-handers over two-handers and duel-wield over duel-wield, ect...) As far as type of damage, what possible difference can it make if you mix slash/crush/pierce since appearance-slot weapons won't change the numbers one bit?