Appearance Weapon/Shield Slot

[Keiry]

So, i got all excited becuase I thought there was gonna be a use for the Cloister shield after all (being a horrible shield with a cool graphic). I was gonna use it to overlay my buckler on my zerk so It doens't look like I have a pizza box for a shield, but, it only works for armor....and even with that, they screwed it up with the whole weight/armor type thing. It wuld be nice if SOE didnt make it that complicated and just made anything to be worn in appearance and shield slot, maybe weapon slot too, to be available on appearance as well.

[Kizee]

<p>I think the appearance slots are a bad idea.</p><p>People will be running around looking like they have full sets of "insert uber armor here" when in fact they only have one piece. </p><p>Kinda makes it less impressive for people who actually put the time and effort to get a full set.</p><p>So no... i don't think they should put in apearance slots for weapons and shields too.<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </p>

[Lint26]

<p>You need to actually own the armour to be able to display it so noone will be running around looking like they own a full set of uber armour unless they actually do!</p>

[Sapphirius]

<cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People will be running around looking like they have full sets of "insert uber armor here" when in fact they only have one piece.</p></blockquote>You can't equip anything that you don't already own, so if someone has <insert uber armor here> equipped in their fluff slot, then it's because they earned <insert uber armor here>.

[Kizee]

<cite>Sapphirius wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People will be running around looking like they have full sets of "insert uber armor here" when in fact they only have one piece.</p></blockquote>You can't equip anything that you don't already own, so if someone has <insert uber armor here> equipped in their fluff slot, then it's because they earned <insert uber armor here>.</blockquote>I understand that but doesn't it show the whole armor set if they just have 1 piece?

[xOnaton1]

<cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I understand that but doesn't it show the whole armor set if they just have 1 piece?</blockquote>No, I'm not sure where you read that. This is what the new inventory window looks like. You would need 6 pieces of armor to look like you're wearing a set. You would need less for a gi or robe, but that how those always worked.<img src="http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1673/inventoryappearanceslotbc8.jpg" alt="" border="0" />If you want to discuss the changes regarding weight requirements, you should post in the big, 45 page thread.Othesus - Dirge - Lucan DLereVaspar - Fury - Lucan DLere

[Keiry]

main thing I wanted was to have the shield slot able to do this, because bucklers either look like dinner plates or pizza boxes....the cloister shield looked preety nice in the dressing room for a zerk.

[Sapphirius]

<cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand that but doesn't it show the whole armor set if they just have 1 piece?</blockquote>Hehehehe. No, if you want to show all the pieces, then you must <i>own</i> all the pieces already.

[Kizee]

<cite>Sapphirius wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand that but doesn't it show the whole armor set if they just have 1 piece?</blockquote>Hehehehe. No, if you want to show all the pieces, then you must <i>own</i> all the pieces already.</blockquote><p>Ahh ok.</p><p>I thought that it was just 1 slot that took the piece and made the rest of the armor look like that certain piece. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Supp]

<cite>Keiry@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>main thing I wanted was to have the shield slot able to do this, because bucklers either look like dinner plates or pizza boxes....the cloister shield looked preety nice in the dressing room for a zerk.</blockquote><p>Here here. I would like fluff slots for weapon, secondary and ranged as well. Currently, it's only for armor. But there are much cooler looking bucklers, weapons and symbols that I would like to be showing, most notably on my brawler and priests.</p><p>I also placed this information into the big fluff armor thread to provide more visibility. </p>

[quasigenx]

I agree. Queue the people running into to post that you shouldn't be able to have fun playing YOUR character how YOU want to in 5.. 4... 3.. 2.. 1...Let the peeing in the lemonade commence!

[rumblepants]

<p>Hopefully people aren't thinking about wielding axes that look like swords for appearance, or bucklers that look like tower shields. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Skua]

i agree appearance weapons

[Jesdyr]

<cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hopefully people aren't thinking about wielding axes that look like swords for appearance, or bucklers that look like tower shields. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>Why not?  some people think this would be perfectly acceptable. Along with having the appearance of a 2h sword while actually using a 1h axe and shield or maybe duel wielding daggers while actually using a staff. (I think there should be appearance slots for weapons but limited to "type" you are actually using)

[rumblepants]

<cite>Jesdyr@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hopefully people aren't thinking about wielding axes that look like swords for appearance, or bucklers that look like tower shields. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>Why not?  some people think this would be perfectly acceptable. Along with having the appearance of a 2h sword while actually using a 1h axe and shield or maybe duel wielding daggers while actually using a staff. (I think there should be appearance slots for weapons but limited to "type" you are actually using)</blockquote>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> 

[quasigenx]

<cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...

[Laiyo]

In one of the pen and paper RPGs I actually GM for, I allow players to describe their weapons however they like. The only rule is: it is a description only, the mechanics for the weapon (advantages, disadvantages, number of hands used, materials, etc) must adhere to the mechanics of a "stock" weapon.  As a GM it works for me because the game's mechanics remain intact with no need to add anything new mechanically.  It works for the players because their characters fit more closely to what they envision their character's look to be.Given the limitations of the system and that complex things tend to be more prone to breaking, I'd think such fluff should be restricted similarly.  As in no substituting a shield and weapon for a two-handed weapon as that introduces some complexities for display that may be prone to breaking or increasing server load.

[rumblepants]

<cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...</blockquote>Probably because it's been given a dose of common sense.

[quasigenx]

<cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...</blockquote>Probably because it's been given a dose of common sense.</blockquote>I just don't understand the sense of entitlement that would lead you to assume you should be able to tell me how to play, especially when it effects you not one whit. Next thing you know, you'll be showing up at my house and telling me to put pants on while I play...Too much info? I don't really care about this topic, this is mostly spill over from the main fluff slot thread...

[rumblepants]

<cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...</blockquote>Probably because it's been given a dose of common sense.</blockquote>I just don't understand the sense of entitlement that would lead you to assume you should be able to tell me how to play, especially when it effects you not one whit. Next thing you know, you'll be showing up at my house and telling me to put pants on while I play...Too much info? I don't really care about this topic, this is mostly spill over from the main fluff slot thread...</blockquote>How condescending of you. While we're at it why can't we have the option to turn all models into females for us male players (or maybe male if you swing that way) and vice versa for females regardless how their characters and their stories were designed? Surely if we are able to alter the appearances of anything for the mere benefit of our own self gratification then we should have the option to do that as well!

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">One thing I would like to see in the appearance slots for Weapons are Sheaths while not in battle the weapons look are partialy covered by scabbards hooks for hammers and axes and quivvers for bows.</span>

[Sapphirius]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">One thing I would like to see in the appearance slots for Weapons are Sheaths while not in battle the weapons look are partialy covered by scabbards hooks for hammers and axes and quivvers for bows.</span></blockquote>Now this suggestion I like. It would be something new for weaponsmiths to make as well since they are a tradeskill class very much hurting in terms of desireability.

[StargateFanGirl]

<p>I would think that if they implemented visible quivers and sheaths and they were craftable they would be made by tailors. Tailors make quivers, sheaths, ammo sacks, satchels, bandoliers etc...</p><p>It's an interesting idea but I don't think they'll implement it, it might prove to be too tricky or time consuming to code and the load on the server might be too much. Having to code in sheaths and the like for functional weapons - weapons in and out of them - and possibly fluff weapons as well and making the servers determine whats shown to the client ignoring the possible issues that may or would come up with just fluff weapons... I think it's to much to ask.</p><p>Armor is vastly much more easy to implement, it moves with your character all the same way as it's determined by the skeleton of the character, but when you're wielding a 1hs and a shield and have a fluff 2hs equipped as well, how does the server determine what animation to call for the weapon? Does it go by what you have equipped in your functional slots and show you slashing and bashing and flinging that 2 hander around like a 1 hander and bashing an invisible shield? Or, does the server draw you swinging that 2 handed sword and ignoring the animation that's called up by your Shield art? </p><p>It doesn't take a Soothsayer to fortell a future full of broken graphics, there's a lot of potential for conflict there; it would however be a lot simpler if fluff weapon slots were limited to the type of weapon you have equipped so there would have to be no changes to animations. Although considering the debate over just the existing fluff slots and the restrictions in place now, I dont know well people would like having their fluff weapon choices so strictly limited.</p><p>Example: 1 handed bash and a shield in functional weapon slots and 1 handed bash and a shield in fluff weapon slots, no 2handed staff in your functional slot and dual swords in the fluff slots.</p>

[Sapphirius]

<p>Except out of all three outfitter classes, tailors are hurting the least with weaponsmiths hurting the most. I say weaponsmiths for two reasons. One, sheaths were often made of wood or metal, and two, weaponsmiths need recipes that are not only new but <i>add value</i> to their tradeskill class.</p><p>A weaponsmith can only make items for two slots: primary and secondary. Most people don't even use secondary weapons. Tailors make cloth and leather armor for 7 slots, hex dolls for 2 slots, ranged weapons for 1 slot, and bags for 6 inventory slots. What's more is that T7 weapons are... well.. let's just say in sad condition. Weaponsmiths have been struggling ever since LU 24, when the ability to make ammunition was taken away and given to woodworkers in order to be "fair" with the recipe count for leveling tradeskill classes. Unfortunately, in their nerfage of weaponsmiths to be fair to woodworkers, they hurt that particular class far more than anyone could have ever imagined.</p>

[Swashbuckler_Tisiphone]

it might be a bit much to see a wizardusing a massive handed axe lol, but within reason i guess, anyhowsjust wanted to say visible quivers and  scabbards would rock , the weapons just myseriousaly hang off my chars belt, would be a nice change

[Raveller]

<cite>Sapphirius wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">One thing I would like to see in the appearance slots for Weapons are Sheaths while not in battle the weapons look are partialy covered by scabbards hooks for hammers and axes and quivvers for bows.</span></blockquote>Now this suggestion I like. It would be something new for weaponsmiths to make as well since they are a tradeskill class very much hurting in terms of desireability.</blockquote>My weaponsmith is doing quite well, thank you. Apparently there are plenty of players on AB with a smattering of intelligence.

[Raveller]

<cite>Swashbuckler_Tisiphone wrote:</cite><blockquote>it might be a bit much to see a wizardusing a massive handed axe lol, but within reason i guess, anyhowsjust wanted to say visible quivers and  scabbards would rock , the weapons just myseriousaly hang off my chars belt, would be a nice change</blockquote>Additionally, I'd like to display one-hand/DW weapons and bows at the same time; at least when a shield is not equipped.

[Sapphirius]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sapphirius wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">One thing I would like to see in the appearance slots for Weapons are Sheaths while not in battle the weapons look are partialy covered by scabbards hooks for hammers and axes and quivvers for bows.</span></blockquote>Now this suggestion I like. It would be something new for weaponsmiths to make as well since they are a tradeskill class very much hurting in terms of desireability.</blockquote>My weaponsmith is doing quite well, thank you. Apparently there are plenty of players on AB with a smattering of intelligence.</blockquote><p>And somehow, I should have known that a simple comment about weaponsmiths needing to have more desireable recipes such as these proposed sheaths would draw <i>you</i> out of the woodwork to make yet <i>another</i> crackshot in your AB vs. LDL feud. You, my friend, are in the minority if you think weaponsmiths are fine the way they currently are.</p>

[Lodrelhai]

<p>Because of the added factor that animation changes based on your equipped weapon, plus some attacks, like shield bash, would look very very odd if you were weilding a 2h in "appearance," I'd completely agree with the limitation of appearance weapon slots to only the same type as you currently have equipped (a restriction I do not like in armor).</p><p>I would, however, request one single exception: Naomi DenMother should be able to weild a rolling pin.</p>

[Vatec]

Strangely enough, while I'm in favor of fewer (or no) restrictions on fluff armor, I really don't like the idea being applied to weapons and shields.  I would =much= rather they just created more different shield and weapon designs instead.  Unlike armor, these don't need to be redesigned for each race/gender combination, so there's no excuse for SOE not making more of them.While I can see the potential (for example, I personally like the leafblade graphic but prefer the short spear stats), I think that, unlike armor, this =really= would open up a can of worms.  I can't give a specific, rational explanation for what bothers me about it, though :^P

[MrWolfie]

<cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...</blockquote>Probably because it's been given a dose of common sense.</blockquote>I just don't understand the sense of entitlement that would lead you to assume you should be able to tell me how to play, especially when it effects you not one whit. Next thing you know, you'll be showing up at my house and telling me to put pants on while I play...Too much info? I don't really care about this topic, this is mostly spill over from the main fluff slot thread...</blockquote>How condescending of you. While we're at it why can't we have the option to turn all models into females for us male players (or maybe male if you swing that way) and vice versa for females regardless how their characters and their stories were designed? Surely if we are able to alter the appearances of anything for the mere benefit of our own self gratification then we should have the option to do that as well!</blockquote><p>I think you're the one taking the moral superiority high-road in this thread.</p><p>And those options of which you speak? </p><p>In a fantasy-oriented story, they'd be called<i> illusions</i>.</p><p>I can already do this. For no real logical reason I can already look like a vampire, a droag, any player race, a gnoll, a bear, a rat, a snake, a bird ~ for the <i>benefit of mere gratification</i> I can appear to be any of these things. I can wander freely in my home town as a tiger or a tree (!) and no-one bats an eyelid. And, for no reason whatever, I can turn these illusions off at will. Really, based on precedence in <i>this</i> game, there's absolutely no argument against my appearance being altered by gender, or indeed the appearance of anything to do with my character; clothing, weapons, shield, race or species.</p>

[mellowknees72]

<cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sapphirius wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People will be running around looking like they have full sets of "insert uber armor here" when in fact they only have one piece.</p></blockquote>You can't equip anything that you don't already own, so if someone has <insert uber armor here> equipped in their fluff slot, then it's because they earned <insert uber armor here>.</blockquote>I understand that but doesn't it show the whole armor set if they just have 1 piece?</blockquote><p>I think that only applies if you have a robe (which covers nearly everything), or a Gi like a monk/bruiser, where the chest dictates the look of everything you have on.</p>

[Allurana]

<cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote>My lemonade tastes funny...</blockquote>Probably because it's been given a dose of common sense.</blockquote>I just don't understand the sense of entitlement that would lead you to assume you should be able to tell me how to play, especially when it effects you not one whit. Next thing you know, you'll be showing up at my house and telling me to put pants on while I play...Too much info? I don't really care about this topic, this is mostly spill over from the main fluff slot thread...</blockquote>How condescending of you. While we're at it why can't we have the option to turn all models into females for us male players (or maybe male if you swing that way) and vice versa for females regardless how their characters and their stories were designed? Surely if we are able to alter the appearances of anything for the mere benefit of our own self gratification then we should have the option to do that as well!</blockquote><p>I would like to add my vote for this...fabulous idea.</p><p>Seriously.</p>

[Supp]

This thread is derailing. The author wants to replace the appearance of one kind of shield for another. He didn't say anything about wielding a 2hander while making it appear he has a 1 hander and a shield. Because of the shield and weapons animations, it would have to be one for one of the same type. And that's what I want. Trying to ask for more than that I think would complicate matters to where such a request would likely go unanswered.

[miliskel]

u can put armor over the trop of armor, u cant put a club over a sheild and sword, i vote NO for this one lol..

[Supp]

<cite>miliskel wrote:</cite><blockquote>u can put armor over the trop of armor, u cant put a club over a sheild and sword, i vote NO for this one lol..</blockquote><p>Can you put GL30 clothing over a BP?</p><p>Or a brawler harness over an vest?</p>

[miliskel]

ofc u can put a gi over a chestplate if thats what ur talking about, but u are only hiding the chest peice as it covers the leg, u cant cover a claymore with a club is what i was saying..

[Supp]

Mil, what I'm saying is you cant hide a BP with a Gi, formal dress, or anything that shows skin. The BP would simply be invisible. I was likening that to your example.

[Willias]

If you give a mouse a cookie...

[mellowknees72]

<cite>Willias@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you give a mouse a cookie...</blockquote>...it will still continue to poop in your cupboards.

[Uumuuanu]

<cite>Othesus@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kizee@Befallen wrote:</cite><img src="http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1673/inventoryappearanceslotbc8.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="300" height="632" /></blockquote>Thank you for showing this window, this says it all.   *Runs to Sucks First Avenue in Freeport to get his new outfit*   *note play on Sax 5th avenue*

[Llogwey]

Didn't I hear somewhere that even for armor slots you were forced to use the same type of armor (cloth, leather, chain plate) for both equipment and appearance? Thus a Gi over a BP is actually impossible. and the other way too... As for replace a "one hand piercing" weapon with another of the same kind, why not? Though, so far, great artefacts/relics were weapons or shields only and have some have a unique appearance which is meant to be that unique (prismatic weapons for example) what if you wear the P3 but show the appearance of the P2 or P1? (which, according to me looks far better than the P3)

[Wilde_Night]

<p>Actually this was posted in In Testing Feedback by Rothgar under the thread Appearance Item Restrictions:</p><p>Even though I know how much people love reading 50-page threads, I thought I'd start a new one anyway.  <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />A change should be going out to the Test server later today that removes the previous restrictions on appearance items.You'll now be able to equip anything in an appearance slot that is <b>usable by your class</b>.Greg "Rothgar" SpenceEQ2 Programmer</p>

[Willias]

<cite>Llogwey wrote:</cite><blockquote>Didn't I hear somewhere that even for armor slots you were forced to use the same type of armor (cloth, leather, chain plate) for both equipment and appearance? Thus a Gi over a BP is actually impossible. and the other way too... As for replace a "one hand piercing" weapon with another of the same kind, why not? Though, so far, great artefacts/relics were weapons or shields only and have some have a unique appearance which is meant to be that unique (prismatic weapons for example) what if you wear the P3 but show the appearance of the P2 or P1? (which, according to me looks far better than the P3) </blockquote>I can't think of many RPGs where the weapon you have equipped isn't shown.There should be SOMETHING about your character that shows what you actually have equipped.  The armor thing is cool, I like it.   It's just clothing after all.  There's many, many RPGs out there where the costume that your character has equipped at level 1 is what they have equipped all the way until level 99.  But being able to change the overall appearance of the weapon that you're actually hitting things with?  That's silly.

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Willias@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>But being able to change the overall appearance of the weapon that you're actually hitting things with?  That's silly.</blockquote>Umm .. not anymore than making plate look like cloth.

[Keiry]

yes, i agree that you shouldnt be able to put say claymore shield over buckler of the howler, or frostwrath over grinning dirk of horror. There should be a slight restriction, which would be quite simple. You can only put the same weild and weapon style over a weapon, and only the same shield style over a shield. This means you can put a 1h axe over a 1h axe, but not a 1h sword over a 1h axe or a 1h axe over a 1h sword, and you can't put a buckler over  tower, and vice versa. I think if they implented that, my idea could work <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Luag]

I'd like to lend support to this idea, I've used weapons and shields that looked dumb just because the better looking ones weren't as good in game, and the "reality" arguments as as silly as they can be, when my flying carpet cat man gets blasted with a fireball from a big frogman I'm not thinking "that fireball is probably 500 degrees Kelvin"  I'd just enjoy a good game that looks good I'd be fine with a similar type restriction, like using bucklers for bucklers, and 2 handers for 2 handers, I have a great fabled 2 handed flail on a inquisitor but I like  the look of him using a hammer better, the metal ones like the wailing war hammer, having the image of your character that you wnt has no down side

[Radigazt]

<cite>Lodrelhai wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Because of the added factor that animation changes based on your equipped weapon, plus some attacks, like shield bash, would look very very odd if you were weilding a 2h in "appearance," I'd completely agree with the limitation of appearance weapon slots to only the same type as you currently have equipped (a restriction I do not like in armor).</p><p>I would, however, request one single exception: Naomi DenMother should be able to weild a rolling pin.</p></blockquote><p>I dunno, think of it as someone using the hilt of the two-hander to bonk you on the head as u were defending from the overhead chop.  I'd imagine a bonk like that might daze or stun me for a second or two.  </p><p>Agreed on the rolling pin, it'd be funny.  <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Radigazt]

<p>Personally, I'm fine with anything as long as we can personalize it.  If a mage can take bat form, gnoll form, ogre form, etc., why can't he take a form that looks like himself in plate armor?  Heck, at the very least the Illusionists and Coercers should be able to do it.  </p><p>As the OP said, I think we should have these appearance slots extend to weapons and shields.  IMHO, it'd be a good thing.  This game is about magic, and being bewitched by false appearances seems to make sense.  If that old rusty short-sword looks like the second coming of Excalibur ... I don't think my immersion will be destroyed.  If that Berzerker wielding the pizza box now looks like he's got a nasty kite shield, I think I'll be able to adapt my senses to accept that.  </p><p>If Jeff Malone wants to have the appearance of wearing a shirt ... well personally I'll be very thankful.  </p>

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">I still think appearance slots should be scabbards, sheaths, slings(for 2hb and shields), and quivers. These items would <b>not</b> jump into your hands in battle but would make it look like you take better care of your sword. Hmm odd shaped weapons could have scabbards that come with them. </span>

[Kyth]

I hope that we will see an appearance slot for weapons someday. There really isn't much difference between this and having appearance armor slots as far as immersion is concerned. I've come across some pretty awesome looking weapons, and its sort of a shame that they can't be put to use because of their inferior stats.

[Wyrmypops]

<p>Yeah, kinda disappointed that the weapon slots have been left out of the appearance schtick. </p><p>Being able to equip a nice looking 1H axe in the appearance tab would be appealing to me. Whether it would require I have a 1H axe equipped in the used slot, or any kinda of 1hander, or ignore whatever I have in there at all, doesn't really bother me. I could appreciate it might be weird to have a 1hander overwriting the graphic of a 2hander (or vice versa) because of the speed of blows being dished out and such like. </p><p>Normally, I lean more towards realism and favour dark/low fantasy to high fantasy. But I just can't appreciate any of the reasons given for this not to be. It's non-sensical to allow a bare graphic overwrite a solid equpped graphic, but it's in, and we love it. Being able to apply our aesthetic ideals to our weapons. </p><p>Hehe, and yeah, if there's any place for scabbards and the like, give 'em to weaponsmiths. When we're starving we'll take crumbs. </p>

[Skua]

hope that we will see an appearance slot for weapons someday. There really isn't much difference between this and having appearance armor slots as far as immersion is concerned. I've come across some pretty awesome looking weapons, and its sort of a shame that they can't be put to use because of their inferior stats.100% agree

[PaganSaint]

<p>I agree that there should be appearance slots for weapons/shields.</p><p>It would be completely fine, and solve many many whines, if say for warriors you could put a tower shield in your appearance slot while actually using the dinner plate.</p><p>My idea is this: if you are using a two hand weapon as your actual weapon you can only have a two hand in your appearance slot; while if you are using a one hand and shield as your actual weapon combination you can have any one hand and shield, but not a two hand or dual wielding, in your appearance slot; and while dual wielding only being able to dual wield in your appearance slots.</p><p>Remember, you do not gain any benefits from your appearance slot items, they are just there for the appearance, so limiting appearance slots to only like weapon type, sword if using a sword, axe if an axe, does not make sense.</p><p>If there is any sort of animation consideration, base the damage and effect off of the weapons wielded and the animation upon the appearance slot items. They are not inherently intertwined by mechanics, they can be split apart.</p><p>There are very many good looking effects and items in the game that are not used because they suck for actual use. Allowing those items a place in the appearance slots, like cloaks and armor, will give the items and the time spent on designing their appearances new life.</p>

[Solarax]

Personnally i love the slots we have but i was really disappointed when i saw that we dont get weapon and shield slots.i have been saving some of my older better looking if weaker weapons just for this and im not ready to sell yet because im holding out hope that the devs will allow weapon slots in since it has no mechanical impact .

[Tyrion]

<p>Wield GBH and Buckler of the Howler normally, but visually, they're both unappealing. If I could use Immortality's Weight (the graphic I wish GBH had) and Qeynos Guard (aLa Lego Shield of Blue Glowyness!), I'd be a happy camper.</p><p>Weapon/Shield/Ranged Appearance Slots ftw!</p>

[Cocytus]

<p>While I think it'd be cool for appearance primary/secondary slots, I can understand arguments against this, completely. I think either way's fine :p</p><p>I know that if we do get appearance weapon slots though, I'm gonna go finish prismatic 2.0...</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Cocytus wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>While I think it'd be cool for appearance primary/secondary slots, I can understand arguments against this, completely.</p></blockquote><p>I guess that makes you a more understanding person than me, because I don't fathom the arguments against ANY of the appearance slot uses.</p><p>I just don't understand why people are getting all hung up over what other people's characters look like. IMHO, so long as everything remains relatively "fantasy sword & sorcery", then I'm good with it.</p><p><img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> for appearance weapons & shield</p>

[Chefren]

I wouldn't mind appearance primary/secondary hand slots with the same restrictions as armour, so you would have to be able use it (and have it attuned) to equip in an appearance slot. Then again, the armour appearance slots solved the mismatching armour problem, but that doesn't affect weapons. This makes this change a lot lower priority I would say. Scabbards, quivers, visible bows and such would be much higher on my list as well.

[Wyrmypops]

<p>I've recently felt fresh desire for this, weapon appearance slots. </p><p>We've started seeing new weapon graphics in RoK. Gorgeous and evocative weapons. Savage looking swords that'd appeal to a zerker. Elegant tri-finned daggers that scout friends have their eyes on. There's even a bottle that appeals to some bruisers. All sorts of attractive weapons. But unless they have the appropriate stats they're kinda pointless eh. </p><p>Limit it all you want. Only showing 1-hand appearance weapons over a 1-hand equipped weapon. Or a crushing weapon over a crushing weapon. Or a delay of 1.6 weapon over a 1.6 weapon. Whatever. But it feels like a fun thing is being missed out on here.  </p>

[Ashlian]

<p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm willing to accept restrictions such as slashing over slashing or crushing over crushing, though I think you might also just let people do as they do with with the regular appearance slots and simply EQUIP ANYTHING THEY CAN USE. I'm sorry, but why do they really need to be restricted to what they're actually using? It doesn't kill anyone to see a slashing animation when someone is really using crushing, or a two handed animation when someone is actually dual wielding. All it does is allow the individual to APPEAR as they think their character SHOULD while using the items that give them the best abilities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: Arial;">I'm one of the subjects of a documentary film on MMO's, Second Skin. Little plug for it here, <a href="http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/</a> , go Victor and Juan Carlos and Peter!, they're in the final days of editing it before they turn it in for the Austin Film Festival. I can't wait to see how it turns out. At any rate, last night they met my boyfriend and I ingame to film machinima of our characters. It was the first time they had seen us since the appearance slots were put in. They've always said that EQ2 had the best graphics of any game they've looked at, and they've gone through a lot of games in the past year. I showed them my recently acquired RoK look, first the one I have in appearance.....then the one WITHOUT appearance slots. Without appearance slots, I am once again dressed in at least four different colors, including neon green and a rather hideous yellow. And brilliant blue. Oh....my.....god..... They were just stunned at the difference, and said they didn't know why all the MMO's don't do this. One of them plays *cough* that "other" game. He was a sad panda. They spent thirty minutes just looking at the different clothes we've acquired.  And they felt that one of the biggest draws to any game for everyone they've talked to is the ability to create that fantasy you have of your character in the manner you wish. Customizing it. We all want more customization.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: Arial;">Weapons are as much a part of the overall look of your character as clothes, and I really do think SOE would be making as good a move as the appearance slots to include them. And I honestly think the appearance slots were virtually an unqualified success. They certainly made me the happiest I'd been about how my character looked in the entire time I've played EQ2.</span></p>

[Sylphier]

<cite>Ashlian@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm willing to accept restrictions such as slashing over slashing or crushing over crushing, though I think you might also just let people do as they do with with the regular appearance slots and simply EQUIP ANYTHING THEY CAN USE. I'm sorry, but why do they really need to be restricted to what they're actually using? It doesn't kill anyone to see a slashing animation when someone is really using crushing, or a two handed animation when someone is actually dual wielding. All it does is allow the individual to APPEAR as they think their character SHOULD while using the items that give them the best abilities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: Arial;">I'm one of the subjects of a documentary film on MMO's, Second Skin. Little plug for it here, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/" target="_blank">http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/</a> , go Victor and Juan Carlos and Peter!, they're in the final days of editing it before they turn it in for the Austin Film Festival. I can't wait to see how it turns out. At any rate, last night they met my boyfriend and I ingame to film machinima of our characters. It was the first time they had seen us since the appearance slots were put in. They've always said that EQ2 had the best graphics of any game they've looked at, and they've gone through a lot of games in the past year. I showed them my recently acquired RoK look, first the one I have in appearance.....then the one WITHOUT appearance slots. Without appearance slots, I am once again dressed in at least four different colors, including neon green and a rather hideous yellow. And brilliant blue. Oh....my.....god..... They were just stunned at the difference, and said they didn't know why all the MMO's don't do this. One of them plays *cough* that "other" game. He was a sad panda. They spent thirty minutes just looking at the different clothes we've acquired.  And they felt that one of the biggest draws to any game for everyone they've talked to is the ability to create that fantasy you have of your character in the manner you wish. Customizing it. We all want more customization.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: Arial;">Weapons are as much a part of the overall look of your character as clothes, and I really do think SOE would be making as good a move as the appearance slots to include them. And I honestly think the appearance slots were virtually an unqualified success. They certainly made me the happiest I'd been about how my character looked in the entire time I've played EQ2.</span></p></blockquote>I'm sorry, I can't read this.

[Ashlian]

<p>That's what I get for not checking settings after my boyfriend has messed with my computer....sorry!</p><p>-I'm willing to accept restrictions such as slashing over slashing or crushing over crushing, though I think you might also just let people do as they do with with the regular appearance slots and simply EQUIP ANYTHING THEY CAN USE. I'm sorry, but why do they really need to be restricted to what they're actually using? It doesn't kill anyone to see a slashing animation when someone is really using crushing, or a two handed animation when someone is actually dual wielding. All it does is allow the individual to APPEAR as they think their character SHOULD while using the items that give them the best abilities. </p><p>I'm one of the subjects of a documentary film on MMO's, Second Skin. Little plug for it here, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/" target="_blank">http://pwdocs.com/secondskin/</a> , go Victor and Juan Carlos and Peter!, they're in the final days of editing it before they turn it in for the Austin Film Festival. I can't wait to see how it turns out. At any rate, last night they met my boyfriend and I ingame to film machinima of our characters. It was the first time they had seen us since the appearance slots were put in. They've always said that EQ2 had the best graphics of any game they've looked at, and they've gone through a lot of games in the past year. I showed them my recently acquired RoK look, first the one I have in appearance.....then the one WITHOUT appearance slots. Without appearance slots, I am once again dressed in at least four different colors, including neon green and a rather hideous yellow. And brilliant blue. Oh....my.....god..... They were just stunned at the difference, and said they didn't know why all the MMO's don't do this. One of them plays *cough* that "other" game. He was a sad panda. They spent thirty minutes just looking at the different clothes we've acquired.  And they felt that one of the biggest draws to any game for everyone they've talked to is the ability to create that fantasy you have of your character in the manner you wish. Customizing it. We all want more customization.</p><p>Weapons are as much a part of the overall look of your character as clothes, and I really do think SOE would be making as good a move as the appearance slots to include them. And I honestly think the appearance slots were virtually an unqualified success. They certainly made me the happiest I'd been about how my character looked in the entire time I've played EQ2.</p>

[Wodge]

<p>Ok, after reading the first few posts, it slowly degenerated into "Thou cannost wear platemail over yonder cloth!" etc.</p><p>So i'm looking for some clarification; when I first heard they were doing this, this is how I thought it may work:</p><p>1.  You can use any shield on your appearance slot if you use a shield.  So round, tower, kite shields and bucklers can be used in place of any shield, not symbols, tomes or totems.  Can use totems, tomes or symobols in appearance slot, if you have one equipped in the stat slot.</p><p>2.  Weapon's need to be of the skill used by your currently equipped stat slot weapon.  I.e if you're using a 1h slashing longsword, you can use a 1h slashing war axe, but not a 1 hand crushing like a mace or morning star.  Also, you cannot use a 2h weapon in appearance if you are using 1h and 1h/shield.</p><p>3. Appearance slot items can only be used if the class can use them, so as a paladin, I cannot use a katar, even though it is slashing weapon, as it's bruiser/monk only.</p><p>Now if anyone who's actually been on test can tell me if this is true, and if not, how it works, that would be great (tried doing a forum search to see if theres already a post, but alas, searching forums is tedious at the best of times)</p>

[Skywarrior]

<p>Necro'd thread.  Perhaps use a newer one.  This one will just add confusion.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><cite>Jesdyr@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>rumblepants79 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hopefully people aren't thinking about wielding axes that look like swords for appearance, or bucklers that look like tower shields. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>Why not?  some people think this would be perfectly acceptable. Along with having the appearance of a 2h sword while actually using a 1h axe and shield or maybe duel wielding daggers while actually using a staff. (I think there should be appearance slots for weapons but limited to "type" you are actually using)</blockquote>Yep, and those same people I guess would cherish the day this game officially becomes a cartoon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> </blockquote><p>Oh wait... this is an old thread... I was wondering why everyone was being so stupid.  Hopefil;ly that idiot I quoted above has quit by now.</p>

[ke'la]

<p>I would look to <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=440004" target="_blank">this thread</a> for your answers, start with the posts dated after 02/19/2000, befor that is was a thread asking them to add the Weopon Appearance Slot. It seems to be the most active on that subject.</p>