Legendary requirments not fair
The whole “500k karma” thing is a bit much … 250 ectos s questionable too.
IMO these are far more expensive than Obby, which is their rough equivalent.
Varamyr Langkron / Kirk Vandergrift
Commander on Tarnished Coast [RE]
Greatsword Ranger before it was cool
Commander on Tarnished Coast [RE]
Greatsword Ranger before it was cool
I agree with this. I feel as though 1h requirements should be halved, since we have to get two instead of just one greatsword, for example.
While I can see it from Arenanets perspective that a legendary is a legendary and that some for the achievement will go for the cheaper route, it really just depends on if a player can actually use 2 legendarys at once. In this method I could see the encouragement to make 2. If this is NOT the case and you can only use 1 at a time then it should at least be equal. In either case I agree and do not support 1 handers being more expensive.
‘Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.’
Ah, don’t forget that there is a hidden greatsword that uses Twilight and Sunrise as components.
This still doesn’t justify 1H costs though due to the rifle, bows, and staff. 1H costs should drop.
Varamyr Langkron / Kirk Vandergrift
Commander on Tarnished Coast [RE]
Greatsword Ranger before it was cool
Commander on Tarnished Coast [RE]
Greatsword Ranger before it was cool
I don’t necessarily disagree. However, you can look at it another way. Legendaries don’t provide any stat enhancement, and only affect your character visually each in its own way. Therefore, holding each one legendary (1H or 2H) should be equally as awesome. Holding two legendaries should be double the awesome (not to mention that you have the choice of which combination you like most). I hope this is somewhat understandable :P
Anyway, for this to work right each legendary should provide the same amount of visual appeal… that’s something ANet should keep working on
(edited by CaptainOok.1048)
Well dagger never can provide better visual appeal then big greatsword no matter how you make it imo, and I don’t necessarily think we should get double less requirements but at least some.
I have to disagree. A legendary is legendary however many hands it requires to pick it up. As a result I believe they should be the same costs. I do understand where the feeling comes from a sense of having to earn twice as much, however you are still getting twice the reward as well. I would simply hate my dagger being the ‘easy’ legendary. The’ not really quite as legendary as those other legendaries’ dagger just is not as appealing to me as the current situation.
This is speaking as a thief using dagger/pistol so the increased costs would most defiantly apply to me.
Rocking on Piken Square – the un-official EU roleplay server.
(edited by Erin.7521)
As the previous poster said, I don’t think the price should be based on how many hands you’re holding it with – it should be based on how good it makes you look.
I do agree that a dagger usually doesn’t grab as much attention as a greatsword though… however, a sword or an axe is usually more appealing than a dagger as well.
I think it would be best if the price was somewhat based on the visuals, but that’s something I haven’t seem in any MMO…
(edited by CaptainOok.1048)
Take in mind that using two weapons has the advantage of using two sigil’s. Sure, you need to pay for a sigil too, but those are cheap.
Retsu ~ Inner Monkey [IM] ~ Piken Square
I don’t really think that 1-hand legendaries should have lower requirements than 2-handers because the are just skins. They provide no gameplay advantage, so the mere fact that you even have a legendary puts you on equal footing with anyone else who has done the same. There’s no disparity and no imbalance — and no need to have legendaries in both hands to show your achievement.
At least as a dual-wielder, you have the option doubling your bling rating by acquiring a second legendary to show off. Two-handed wielders don’t have that.