[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!
More weapon variety, Less weapon-centric talents
Alchemy, Martial Arts, Ninja, Puppetry, Gunner, and Chain all require you to use specific weapons to use any of the skills and the weapons have very limited variety. For example, there are 2 chainblades, Stinger and Cutthroat, that have different stats but the same identity. (High crit, High Max damage)
There should be more variety like:
Close Combat has swords, axes, blunts, 2handers, and dual wielding.
Archery has Long Bows and Crossbows (and short bows but they're obsolete since there are Fast speed longbows that are special upgradeable)
Magic can be used bare-handed, with wands (normal, healing, or combat), with staffs, and with shyllien knuckles
If the talent wasn't called "Dual Guns" there could've been a gun "long bow" like a sniper rifle or a one handed pistol usable with a shield.
The Tower Cylinder was/is a great idea for a "two-handed greatsword" cylinder but setting it up takes too long and there are too many limitations where you can't set it up and what skills you can and can't use with it. You should be able to set it up and walk away from it or instantly summon and de-summon it like you can with a chair or a piano. It also should be special upgradeable. Every weapon should be special upgradeable if it can be upgraded normally.
The Hobnail knuckle and the Spiked knuckle have splash range and splash damage upgrades vs the Bear knuckle that only has damage upgrades. This could be a good secondary weapon to knuckles. Claws could be a subclass of knuckles that give higher splash damage at the cost of weapon or skill damage and allow normal windmill range or something.
Pierrot and Colossus marionettes could have different effects. Pierrot could have higher critical rate/damage for boss killing while Colossus could have significantly more AOE and defenses for mob killing.
There's a lot of potential.
Comments
Logical suggestion. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the specific purposes presented; I'm agreeing with the general concept of the two puppets having different strengths and bonuses outside of one simply being a backup for the other.
Tower Cylinder is generally a turret cannon. It's not really a problem of the weapon in itself that most content requires a lot of travel. I don't really know how turret cannons can be brought into relevance, except in situations like the Golems of Abyssal Lord, even with damage and installation reworks. It's just generally not a common situation to need a turret cannon, when the lightweight version handles the job a lot better.
But, I did meme with someone a long time ago about making Tower Cylinders into some kind of pet-oriented weapon, where you can attach it to Large-Sized pets like Ceraunus or Food Truck and use alchemy skills while mounted on the pets. We weren't being serious, but doesn't that sound like an interesting solution? Firing Water Cannons from your pet-turned-artillery-tank?
I see what you're getting at, but this will still be a pointless change. Knuckles are clearly not intended for AoE, unless you tryhard with Drop Kick and Focused Fist, which is more utility than damage. Chain Blade and 2H Final Hit/GFS are clearly the dominant AoE styles, so what purpose would those ideas serve outside of aesthetic or change for the sake of change? If you went further with it and added inherent splash damage/range and pierce so it could be used with Final Hit or Final Strike, you'd be on to something and yet it'd still fall short of 2H weapons like the Divine Blade. But, knuckle serves its purpose very well right now as a boss-destroyer, through Revenant/Perseus. You'd be hard-pressed to make an objective argument as to why it should also cover AoE.
I disagree with you on this. The main point of talents is to help you train those skills faster. Talents let you specialize in a type of playstyle more than anything. If I use a two-handed sword and knuckles as my main two weapons, I might choose Ninja because it gives a split mix of STR and WILL per level. Glyphwright for DEX/INT, etc.
If, for example, a Thief talent was released. I can see Devcat making it mandatory to equip "Thief Daggers" just to steal gold from monsters. There's no reason it shouldn't be useable bare-handed.
You can see they do add a little utility to talents like they made music buffs possible without needing to equip instruments by introducing singing or they made it so everyone can get bachram effects regardless of what weapon they're using.
But doing things like introducing Bash, adding splash damage to Assault Slash, and Smash damage effects only to weapons considered Close Combat weapons widened the gap between 2-handed swords and Lances. They tried to make close combat more weapon focused.
They could make the set-up time near instant, like the small animation for mounting a pet, and make it special upgradeable. Most content is just fighting enemies in a dungeon room or a barrier like Shadow Wizard. I get there's some content that makes you move around a lot or run and gun shadow missions but that's exactly why the set-up time is a pain.
I don't expect it to be as fast as people who run dungeon/missions, hop off their pet, 1-shot everything, and hop back on and move to the next group but it doesn't need to feel like it's a relic from the pre-dynamic combat update.
The fact that Spiked, Hobnail, and Steel claws all have splash range/damage upgrades makes it seem like they (the devs) dabbled with the idea of splash.
What I was getting at here was that there is a lot of variety for the older talents/skills and as newer talents/skillsets came out, they REQUIRED you to have the weapon equipped to use any of the skills and had no other options for a different playstyle.
Wands vs Staves play differently
Crossbows vs Bows play differently
1`h and shield vs 2h swords
They're becoming more homogenous now though. Crossbows having the range of longbows and no longer being locked into magnum shot. Longbows no longer having Slow attack speed like the Divine Bow. Staves not needing to charge an element before casting Int. Magic, etc. But there are still some differences like armor pen on crossbows or Staff-only magic.
There should be a subclass of knuckles that play differently. Not better or worse but differently. Chain blades are relatively new and 2H FH wasn't really a thing before the Close Combat update. Just because they're the AOE everyone is currently using doesn't mean there can't be other options. Look at alchemy. The main gimmick was that it was a skill set that you didn't need to have stats prior to be strong. Now that's changed and you could ask why it should exist vs magic. Outside of a bit of utility, it's just mid-ranged wand magic with a different name but I and other people playing alchemy enjoy it because of those slight differences.
So, we agree that talents serve the purpose of encouraging weapon specialization.
Me: "The point of talents is to specialize use in specific types of weapons."
You: "If I use a two-handed sword and knuckles as my main two weapons, I might choose Ninja because it gives a split mix of STR and WILL per level."
I never said that the point of talents was to use weapons that were specific to the talent.
My question is, "How would this help anything?" It'll still see less use, compared to Revenant/Perseus (or any non-turret cylinder used for utility purposes).
I get you. But, why should this happen? Would people still use it even if they did? We have to make the comparisons between weapons to determine what purpose it would serve and if that purpose is already well-served elsewhere.
That's acknowledged. But, these weapons were made before we had much better splash weapons like Divine Blade. The argument you're making is that because [x] existed for [y] during [older] period, we therefore should be using [x] for [y] in [current] period even though better uses of [x] exist on other things. If re-introducing [x] on [y] doesn't compete with [x] on other weapons, what's the point of reviving [x] on [y]?
Right, but those differences/similarities in that realm are all useful in the general concept of ranged fighting in that there isn't anything that compares to rapid-fire piercing crash shots while mounted or stationery rapid-fire flaming magnums. The changes you're suggesting in (for example) adding splash to knuckles are already catered to with a 2H sword. Even if you did give wider splash to knuckles, it'd be subpar to just simply using an AoE or Close Combat weapon skillset with splash. It'd be a pointless concept, which I believe is why the devs didn't pursue it further.
Okay. Why? You still haven't made the argument as to why this should be the case, outside of it just being something you want. It's not enough (by the Forum's standards and in general logic) to just declare [x] should exist, or on basis of it being there once before in the past. And what's the point of it being different, if it's not useful? What's wrong with something needing to be useful? This goes back to my question, "Is this just a suggestion of change for the sake of change?" If so, I'll end my part in the discussion and just move on.
Chain Blades have been here for over 4 years and 2H FH is 2 years. Regardless, period of introduction doesn't dismiss the point that they serve a purpose and serve it very well.
I didn't say that, either. I'm simply asking why your suggestion should be considered and what purpose it would serve.
So, it had a purpose? Right. A purpose so people who hadn't developed stats could have a magical talent to use. I can ask why it should exist by comparison to magic (and trust me, I do), but the answer is clear. It's a great utility set and also is considerably competitive in dealing AoE DPS when combined with other talent skills, but requires high Erg and gear investment and focus and so differentiates from Chain Blade and some of 2H FH on that basis. It also clearly deals more damage than wands and has way more utility in crowd control and aggro control than the purely offensive mage talent set. There's clear differences between Alchemy and Magic, despite them doing the same type of damage. They're both still useful for specific purposes.
My whole point in being here is simply to find out why you want this and what purposes it would serve and how well it would serve the purpose. You don't have to answer those questions, of course. It'd be nice if you could, but I'm not convinced that you can and it reveals a blatant flaw in your idea. It honestly just seems like another "niche change for the sake of niche change/diversity for the sake of diversity" suggestion, on basis of "because I want it and said so." It'd be better if you did some more critical thinking about "purposes served" that would benefit the devs and the entire gaming atmosphere.
As for why, it's because this game was heavily based around customization and options. I feel that newer weapons are homogenous and stale, which are the opposite of what the game was based on. Adding variety gives other options for playstyles like differences between Longbows/Crossbows, 1h and shield/2h/dual wield
You're asking me "why" a lot but you're not really posing it fairly.
What you're doing is horrible. Rather than explaining why it might be a bad idea to have something like this or update something like that, you're doing the laziest thing imaginable and asking "Why should something exist when there's no reason for it to?" Then I have to sit here and somehow justify a subjective "want" as if a suggestion post can only be things needed in the game.
This is my feedback. There's zero merit in not wanting new things in a game unless you think it will somehow break balance or take away from some other update so I don't see why you're asking "why" or what the problem could be.
They aren't fair questions. There's no flaw in my idea because the only thing you're repeating is "Why?", to the point where it gets existential, after I've already replied to you and given my reasons and thoughts. There's nothing wrong with suggesting a change for the sake of change especially when I'm suggesting it knowing it doesn't affect anyone negatively.
What does this even mean? I get your thoughts though. You probably think updates are a zero-sum game and that if some update, that you felt was pointless, released, it it would mean to you that you lost a possible better update. I don't think it works like that. I don't know how often the feedback gets to Korean devs but if they found a suggestion interesting enough to implement, it would mean that there was nothing else more pressing they could release at the time. You're not going to miss out on a reforge update or whatever it is you're wanting just because they decide to add a few weapons or improve tower cylinders.
And the main point of the post isn't even about that. It's about how every new combat talent releases with a single weapon where all the skills are locked to the weapon. It's about how every talent is so weapon specific compared to how varied Close, Ranged, and Magic are, and how it's been a slow descent into this state.
Okay, so this is just about what you want, but being presented as an absolute objective thing that should happen? Which one is it: Are you suggesting an idea, or are you just making a demand? If it's the latter, you can disregard everything I say after this section because it all assumes you're here to have a discussion.
Buddy, you're making the suggestion. I'm not even here to tell you why it's bad. The fact I'm asking these questions shows my genuine interest in your suggestion. All you simply have to do is justify/explain it and we'll go through flaws and benefits together.
Repeatedly calling a question you can't answer "unfair" and opting to antagonize it and claim perfection instead of answering it is exactly why your suggestion is being proven to be terrible. The burden of proof is on you to justify it; not for me to negate it.
By the way, The Forum Guidelines request the same thing. You must explain why you want to see your suggestion happen. They specifically say you must do so. I'm not here to enforce that rule; but I'd like to know why a suggestion to change a game I also play should be made, since it obviously would affect me.
The clear obvious: how does this idea benefit Nexon and everyone else in the community? What purpose does it serve? I'm being fairly direct, here. Just answer the question.
You don't know anything about me, this isn't about me, and you're wrong about me. You've now created a straw-man to grandstand upon instead of just answering a question (worded multiple ways, but still tackle the same thing). And last I checked, you didn't really address anything I said that was aimed at the topic other than antagonize me for asking the purpose of your suggestion.
But, I'll ask it once more: "What purpose does this suggestion serve; why should it happen?" You still don't have to answer it. But, failing to do so means I probably won't be responding anymore as further engagement would clearly be a waste of time as this idea likely won't happen. It had potential, but the presenter failed to justify it and decided to just label anyone not just saying "I agree" as "bad people."