Secound Try...

Ok the weapon req, to me doesnt really mean anything. A lvl 2 toon could have the best weapon in the game. You might still have less damage, but still, it makes no sinse for a lvl 2 to have a maxxed Green Sword. Etc.

Suggestion:
Basically, anyone below lvl 20 cannot use a weapon until their attribute lvl meets the weapon requirement. Then people who are lvl 20 can use anything they please. 13 req staffs. I have a bow on all of my chars for pulling....etc.
And I know when ever i finish a mission i have loads of crap. No...iam not gonna sell all of that, just maybe the 'blue' ones.

What this would do:
YOu could sell low req weapons and not get laughed at by most other players.
There wouldn't be greens and rares selling everywhere you look.
Low lvl chars could farm and still make some money. By selling those low req weaps.
There would be another point in being low level.
More variety in weapons people use.
People would have more money from the start.
And it wouldn't be hard to sell them either. Because if you go to Ascalon that would be all the low lvl chars could use.
Cons:
A slight annoyance maybe. But only when we would maybe first start this.

Please. Any comments, negatives positives, votes? This would make the game a lot more fun i think.

Ok, whats the suggestion? And really, there is no point in being low level as you can easily get lvl 20.

Please post some ideas or votes on this. I mean honestly, what harm would come out of this?

This would change so much for the good!

I think the requirement system used in Guild Wars creates a unique, but very appropriate game mechanic. In other RPGs I've played, such as Dungeon Siege, if you don't meet the requirements, you can't wield the weapon. However, Guild Wars takes it a realistic step forward.

In this game, you can wield anything you please but if you don't meet the requirements, you won't be able to use the weapon properly. Weapons won't do as much damage. Shields won't protect you anywhere near effectively. Personally, I feel the current requirement system works like a charm.

So it doesn't need to be changed in my opinion.

Yes but, it still doesn't make sinse to see a lvl 5 char using a perfect sword with a rare skin too.... aka - greens

And its not really that iam getting at, its the trade issue. Those little crappy blue text weapons you find. You can sell them for more then what youd get at the merchant. As of now you would just get laughed at trying to sell it at Ascalon.

Its an interesting idea but maybe not for me.

Everyones experience of the game is different, I did tend to play gw to an obsessive level till fairly recently.

Being retired I could devote ridiculous amounts of time to the game, getting to lvl 20 seemed to take quite a while in Prophesies and I would have liked some nice weapons at that time.

As for having more of the map to explore in a presearing state, once you get past the snowy mountains its all green again so would probably look the same before the coming of the Charr.

There will be a chance to adventure presearing with the bonus missions you can get if you spend enough cash in the online store "look forward to that".

With the coming of factions I was level 18 by the time I left Shing jea island and it took no time at all.

Slightly longer to get to the same point in Nightfall but again no problem.

I think once I had done the missions with one or two characters it was real easy to rise very quickly.

Money was also no problem once I found areas to farm, There was a lake with an island on shing jea I used to farm that quickly got me 100k which has been plenty for my needs.

good luck with the idea though, its good to examine aspects of the game its how improvements come about.

David

I DOES make sense.

Why? Because the rarity of a weapon means how hard it is to be found. Not how hard it is to use it.
Anyone can hold a sword or an axe in their hands. It's not like learning to use different vehicles.

A high end character can get items for the other members of its 'family'(account) thanks to Xunlai storage.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=215

i don't get this idea. it's pretty bad.

Guild Wars is about attributes and skills.
Remember, this is not World of Warcraft. Different game mechanics.

Reading that comic makes me a say a big NO to this idea. I think I'm not the only person that has got this feeling but a certain weapon inspired me to make that type of character one day and be happy weilding that weapon since the beginning and I'd like it to remain like this.

- Ganni

I don't get requirements. What about a sword makes it different from another sword of the same type, which would require more "skill" to get more damage out of it?

Hell, why are weapons different damage ratings anyway? Again, what about a sword that's 10-18 damage req 6 swordsmanship any different from the same type of sword that's 15-22 requiring 9, other than the game mechanics? It's not like the higher level sword is made of a different kind of steel that "hits harder"...

Damage from a weapon should rely solely on the attribute requirements of the character wielding it. The logic of this is if you assign more attribute, you know how to wield the sword more efficiently, allowing you to hit more vital areas more often thus striking for more damage. I should be able to pick up any old steel blade I see lying around that's in good condition, swing it at some dude's face and do the same amount of damage depending on how well I know how to use it.

The only thing I can say about req's is that you could compare them to the way weapons were in D and D, or even how they would be made. A 'perf' req. weapon would be like a mastersmith weapon, though not doing the extra damage like in DnD, it's sometimes more convenient depending on your build. As for why some weapons have different req's, imagine that the skill level of the maker wasn't that good. The sword may be a little off balance, or perhaps weighs more than it should, therefore requiring more skill to wield it.

If you wanted to take it even further, say between different styles of blades, a heavy blade like a fellblade takes a different style of useage than a katana, and the current requirement system would seem to mesh better, lore-wise, rather than simply by level. Also, if the by level system were implemented, a monk/ranger would be able to wield a sword as effectively as a warrior (albeit without being able to use any skills) and that wouldn't make much sense.

I like the system the way it is now, and don't see much reason to change it.
But that's just my two cents

I like the system how it is. Plus you can get to lvl20 pretty quick anyway making this pointless. Seems all it's good for is so low levels can sell crap for a few 100g's. And that's only remotely useful in prophecies. Every other campaign you get up to max lvl in no time, and would be annoyed at this req.

Also, it would constrain people's build. I mean, make it you need say 9 sword to use a req 9 sword. All the warriors would then put all attribs into sword and nothing into strength or tactics till they meet the req. Likewise for other classes. You get all beginning MM's with all death and no SR, or ele's with all fire and no ES. Or how about monks with all prot or heal but no DF? You'd get all low level classes running 1 attrib line only, which would be pretty restrictive for builds. I think that all classes should max attrib for there main line (sword, fire, curses, prot etc) but there should be some flexibilty, especially early where you're squeezed for points.

I say don't change it. The only suggestion I would make is this:

Currently if you don't meet the req, the weapon does the minimum damage of any of that weapon class. I think the amount of damage it does should be based on how far away you are from meeting that req and MAYBE even have the possibility of doing higher damage than what is listed if you sufficiently exceed the req. My guess is that would be difficult to program or incorporate this late in the game and could seriously throw off balance (the additional damage part, not the first half) so it will never be realized. Just a thought.