Guild Wars 2

So far, there are eight skins in the vendor:

Wooden Dagger
Bell Focus
Candy-Cane hammer
Pop Gun
Princess Wand
Slingshot
Toy Staff
Toy Sword

There are 10 skins for sale with gems:

Short Bow
Hammer
Axe
Greatsword
Dagger
Long Bow
Shield
Sword
Pistol
Staff

This means that if you want your weapon to be festive as a user of the long bow, axe, great sword, shield, or pistol, you have to go the gem route. For those who use mace, warhorn, torch, harpoons, spears, and tridents…you’re out of luck.

So, why is it that some weapons get vendor skins, some get gem skins, and almost half get jack squat? I would like for a developer to actually answer this inequity in their design.

Stating a lack of resources is not a reason when the developers clearly managed to design two staves, two swords, two bows, and two hammers.

the strangest part is no mace skin, because they could just shrink the hammer one for it

A lot of it is strange, honestly. The lack of feedback on why some users have been left without skins, however, is frustrating. Guild Wars 1 was all about making sure everyone was included. GW2 seems to be doing away with that policy with entire weapon sets being completely ignored.

What’s worse is that whoever made this decision is not giving any information as to why they chose to neglect a pretty decent size of weapon choices.

They used to have candy cane weapons.. as in an entire line.

You forget though! Candy canes are hard to make… I mean..
My partner made one as one of their first projects in blender…

And they’d have to make a new model for every single weapon!

Oh wait they could just shrink them and bend them and stuff… Its not like the geometry is difficult.

Oh well?

Also, does anyone else feel the hammer is a LITTLE bit thin?

Ok, maybe the hammer is very very thin for a proper candy cane hammer. It looks brittle. It could have had a globe in it and been a staff..

The vendor items almost feel like an afterthought. They did some of the gemstore items and went, “Oh, this won’t go over well if we don’t throw them some free crap.”

So they rushed together the other items and said go. There seems to be no admission that the designers and developers screwed up in omitting weapons or if it’ll change. In a game where cosmetics are a crux of the design, it’s baffling that a whole line of weaponry would be left out for these events.

cainejw.7142:

So far, there are eight skins in the vendor:

Wooden Dagger
Bell Focus
Candy-Cane hammer
Pop Gun
Princess Wand
Slingshot
Toy Staff
Toy Sword

There are 10 skins for sale with gems:

Short Bow
Hammer
Axe
Greatsword
Dagger
Long Bow
Shield
Sword
Pistol
Staff

This means that if you want your weapon to be festive as a user of the long bow, axe, great sword, shield, or pistol, you have to go the gem route. For those who use mace, warhorn, torch, harpoons, spears, and tridents…you’re out of luck.

So, why is it that some weapons get vendor skins, some get gem skins, and almost half get jack squat? I would like for a developer to actually answer this inequity in their design.

Stating a lack of resources is not a reason when the developers clearly managed to design two staves, two swords, two bows, and two hammers.

I guess. People complained when they were a very rare drop and 40 gold plus a piece during Halloween. “Why can’t we just buy the for gems” Well now you can. There is no way to please em’ all. I will say though Mace and Pistol could use more skins in general.

So the developers decided that certain weapons didn’t need vendor skins and gem skins because a fraction of the user base got precursors from a chest?

That seems like an interesting argument to make that underused-weapon users were punished.