no they’re not lol.
warriors would still be able to use 3 high quality weapons and have access to artisan weapons whenever those exist.
Much like how mages will have ancient magics, conjurors will have arcanium weapons, warlords have strength weapons, and so on.
Every build seems to have a plan for something specific for them that only that specific build will be able to use.
It doesn’t matter if they get tailored weapons or not.
I admit I was exaggerating when I said “barred”, but it is still less options for warrior builds and thus less diversity
what do you mean lol.
warriors would have literally the exact same build variety they do now.
And we are asking for more- a style of play that uses less weapons.
Like obviously you do not find this enticing and enjoy running 3 weapons. good for you.
What we are ultimately asking for is an option to run less than 3 weapons because we think it would be cool and would enjoy that. There are obviously a portion of people that find this enticing, otherwise there wouldn’t be people asking for it like the discussion I made or this suggestion. just look at the poll and you can see 79% of weapon users would rather run build with less than 3 weapons.
Its like us asking for a burger and u going but we have burgers at home and it’s a BLT sandwich
A key factor here that we do NOT know is this…
How many of those are Conjurers, Warlords, Knights, or Warriors?
I guarantee that the majority of warriors aren’t the ones that are going to opt for less weapons. However, if they want to, then that’s their choice. At best they might get access to their weapons ultimate art a bit earlier, but they have so many stat points that it hardly matters for the first 4 skills (I believe it’s 4 before the ultimate art).
Now for hybrids, yeah, if I played a weapon hybrid I would find it enticing to run fewer weapons. When your stat points are already limited, and you have other potential options for attacks (knights will eventually get spirit weapons). Then, and only then, would I find it completely reasonable to actually opt for running fewer weapons. Hybrids can fall back onto something else, and that’s imo what this suggestion is mainly for or promoting. By the end of the game I can see warriors running 3 legendary weapons with full skills (assuming there is no restriction on them) while Hybrids can opt to get a potential full skill legendary weapon at the cost of 2 weapon slots. They would of course, in the case of conjurer, still have their 2 magics (2nd awakening) to fall back on.
Then lets take a look at the second poll.
Yes the less requirements option in the majority, probably due to the reasons you noted. But it is in no way a close majority.
There is still 42% of people who would want to use this mechanic for something other than “my class lacks stat points but I wanna use the bis weapon”
what on EARTH are you saying???
try to provide valid argument challenge (impossible)
No genuinely none of what you said made any sense.
like when did I say that.
I was under the impression you was against this because it would mean less diversity or something.
Yes that is literally why I’m here.
Me: I disagree with your suggestion because there is no benefit for warriors and thus not viable for them to use less than 3 weapons.
you: so what just keep using 3 weapons
Me: the are warriors that want it and polls show it
you:what on EARTH are you saying???
Warriors get the benefit of being able to use all three weapons at max requirements.
Hybrids would have to have lesser weapons or less weapons.
did u not read?
“there is no benefit for warriors and thus not viable for them to use less than 3 weapons.”
This is going in circles and is completely pointless to continue.
I’d rather a change that gets weapon hybrids some new content instead of one that gives more to warriors that already have mountains.
the issue you keep bringing up of hybrids lacking skills points
is better left for a seprate solution
I’m saying that a warrior using this mechanic to use 1 weapon is unviable vs 3 weapon warrior
What do you mean???
What I’m talking about is literally in the suggestion, do I need to take a picture?
Damn I was under the impression that you were opposed to the second option
mb for misunderstanding
why would I literally say it was the better option and explain why if I was opposed to it???
when did u ever mention the 2nd option “buff for using less weapons” was the better option vs “reduce skill requirements”.
implimenting “buff for using less weapons” is good
implimenting both is even better
implimenting only “reduce skill requirements”. is suboptimal
There are two people:
I’ll let you guess which one I think the 42% is.