Talk:Weapon

Archive

---

• 2009-2010
• 2011
• 2012

Weapon Quick References

I was wondering if people thought it would be worth while to provide quick references for the level 80 exotic weapons of each type, thus making it easier for players to find out which weapons they should get for the stats they want. I've compiled a mock-up in my sandbox in the style of the list of ascended equipment. What do people think? Aqua (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, but we already have this: Equipment acquisition by stats, and not sure if they would overlap or not.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that "Equipment acquisition by stats" is incredibly vague on how to actually acquire items with certain stats, and it completely ignores random drop items that cannot be obtained through crafting, the Mystic Forge or with dungeon tokens.

Let's say I was looking an L80 exotic shield with Condition Damage, Power and Vitality. Using the existing set-up:

1. I would have to consult (and know to consult) Item nomenclature to find out that I was looking for a Carrion item.
2. I would then go to [Equipment acquisition by stats] where I would see from the "Level 80 exotic equipment" section that such an item is available from crafting, other merchants, dungeons or loot.
3. The respective sections would tell me that I needed Ancient Bones and 400 Weaponsmithing (crafting), that is it is available from Sorrow's Embrace or Citadel of Flame (dungeons) and that Legionnaire and Tribal weapons can come with a Carrion prefix.

While this information is nice, it is not particularly helpful in explaining exactly what I would need to obtain the weapon and it does not discuss in the slightest other opportunities (such as purchasing it off the trading post).

Now if we also utilized the lists I'm proposing, you would simply go to the "List of level 80 exotic shields", sort by Condition Damage on both tables, see that Condition Damage with Power and Vitality is called Carrion, sort the tables by prefix and look through the Carrion sections. You could then assess your options and pick the method that appeals the most to you.

tl;dr Equipment acquisition by stats is a start but it is not thorough or exhaustive enough to stand on its own. Aqua (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, there's a table on EABS that shows every stat combination and its prefix. You wouldn't need to consult Item nomenclature to find that out. Manifold 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice that; the other points still stand. Aqua (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The advantage of your version is, aside from stats, it shows skins and how to get them in detail, which is pretty nice if you ask me, and better than EABS which is just too generic.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

EABS and Item nomenclature are both overly complicated. IN especially needs to be stripped down to just the tables that define the prefixes; all the extra fluff should be moved somewhere else.

Your table idea is pretty nice, although I would argue that there's no need to show the attribute numbers - all exotic 80 shields have 90/64 attributes. Instead of 1 column/attribute, condense that to Major/Minor1/Minor2 and show the attribute names. —Dr Ishmael 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that the numerical sorting would work better in this case. If we just stripped it down to "major-minor-minor" format, not only would it not allow for celestial easily, but it would also just be a copy-paste of the item nomenclature table. Beyond that, I don't feel that you should have to go to the respective weapon page just to see its stats (even if you know that they are generally 90/64/40). The goal with these is to provide all data (except for specific acquisition and recipes) on one page so that you don't have to go rummaging across the wiki to make comparisons of items.

I also agree that IN and EABS are both way too complicated to be usable. Aqua (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've thrown a new thread up on Talk:Item nomenclature but it hasn't garnered any responses. I've also begun work on a new, exhaustive list of all non-top tier (not level 80 exotic) shields. Opinions on that would also be greatly appreciated. Aqua (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask the obvious question: why? Non-level 80 equipment just needs to be "good enough" to keep you alive until you reach level 80. —Dr Ishmael 19:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it boils down to a "where do we want to draw the line?" kind of discussion. The usefulness of my "list of level 80 exotics" is evident and apparent, but would people not also find use in a list of shields that lets you compare stats between all non top tier shields? If people don't believe that there is use in such a list, then that's fine, and if they do believe it could be useful, that works too.

Perhaps more importantly, regardless of whether we choose to provide a list of lower tier weapons or not, the state of our weapons section is abysmal. Some weapons have their own pages, some are grouped together, some pages present information on a specific level or tier of the item, others don't, etc. Should we do a grouped by skin, grouped by name or just avoid it entirely like GWW did and have the weapons section just be skin listings? Aqua (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd use it for, but I'd like tables detailing the stats of every possible level/quality for every weapon. Manifold 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] Already did that, strength/defense/attributes. It doesn't have ascended, but they're only at level 80 and only on trinkets, wouldn't be too hard to add. —Dr Ishmael 22:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Weapon tiers

Now that we have Ascended weapons is it worth including a section here which details the tiers of gear? Like there is here Item#Quality. Or perhaps even just a link to this table? The reason I suggest this change is because now that Ascended weapons have better stats than Exotic weapons, it's worth players knowing this I think. By including a table or information which shows players about the tiers it can be made clearer that Exotic isn't the highest tier now, but Ascended and Legendary are. Neon (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that something on weapon rarity would be good. I've added Weapon#Strength relative to rarity, but perhaps a rewritten version of "Item#Quality" would be better. -Chieftain Alex 11:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Haven't legendaries been upgraded to ascended stats? --JonTheMon (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. —Dr Ishmael 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of weapon tiers, does anyone else think it would be useful to add a nice table to each subtype of weapon to show min/max damage, the way sword is shown on the main article of this page? I would like to refer to the Shield page as an example, whoever made that page has included a very basic example of (legendary I think??) stats for max/min damage. It seems to me to be a reasonable consideration. Puk (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New Weapons

I think it's safe to add Sword/Sword and Staff for Revenant based on these two sources:

1. FB Post
2. YouTube @ 11:20

However it's not clear whether one of the above will be through a specialization or from it's core profession. Will there be a new check mark color for specialization specific weapons added? In which case we can probably go ahead and add Staff and Greatsword to Ranger and Necro respectively as well as a strong chance for Shield on Mesmer and Hammer on Engineer. 68.36.214.183 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be adding anything HoT-related to this article until HoT is released. —Dr Ishmael 15:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback 2015/08/20

The row on the profession/weapon table showing how many total weapon skills each profession has has not been updated to include HoT weapons - perhaps a new row should be added to the table.

While I'm on that table as well, the green and yellow check marks are very similar in my opinion, and to my eye nearly indistinguishable. Making those more disparate colors would be greatly appreciated.

--148.74.0.199 20:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Red crosses on the schema

I added blank crosses on the only mainhand & only offhand weapons, to make it visually easier to see that they are as such. I was wondering: can anyone make these blank crosses red in colour, as to make more noticible the fact that they cannot be equipped in the offhand, ever (in the case of the scepter), or in the mainhand (in the case of warhorn, focus, shield, etc.)? 141.135.147.206 20:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean like the following? (Edit: Removed outdated table after implementation. --Tolkyria (talk))

If that's what you mean, and this might only be me, i feel like that would make it less readable, no? Certainly would increase the key/legend below the table at least.

And for more possibillities on the no and yes templates you could have a look at the templates documentations/sources here and here. Nightsky (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thank you Nightsky! That was exactly what I meant! I personally find it to look better, but I won't make the changes if people disagree with me. But a lot of thanks for the tips, they're very appreciated! 195.62.90.249 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the current choice, even though I also would like to have a difference between "weapon unusable in main hand/off-hand slot by specific profession" and "weapon unavailable to use as main hand/off-hand in general." The 0 icon, because it is red, is in my opinion taking away attention from the actual content of the table (what is available) to what has secondary meaning (what isn't available). It especially overshadows icons of elite specializations.

I browsed available icons and I don't see among them one which I would find fitting. There is 0 icon which on one hand is also red/distracting and on the other its shade is less intrusive. How about uploading a grayscale version of 0 icon? Nasurelin (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploaded and replaced the red crosses in the table above. The borders of the icon are a little bit too sharp, definitely needs some fine-tuning before adding it to mainspace. --Tolkyria (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Kvothe, any chance to make it a little bit more white, for me it's still to prominent as Nasurelin already said regarding the red one. Compare: 001, it's still an eye-catcher which here it shouldn't be. Or is it too big compare to tick and cross (which are 3 px smaller)? I'm not 100% convinced yet. --Tolkyria (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To not have to wait for the image cache I uploaded three images for review.

100 - current

10 - could be better but ok (merged icon)

10 - current

10 - as I was already working with the file I made the red version a bit smaller too

—Kvothe (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? —Kvothe (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The "could be better but ok" version looks good in my opinion. If no one opposes I would use it in the table. Nasurelin (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow sorry, I completely missed that you uploaded more icons. I agree, the "could be better but ok" is actually "looks pretty nice, let's use it". --Tolkyria (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Merged the icon to and deleted the version that was too bright. In 24-48h the table should be cache bug free and ready for use. (Otherwise I will reupload under a new name.) What do you think about the second red one - same size as the new white? —Kvothe (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Added.

Kvothe, we use it currently on two mainspace pages (to indicate not-meta-contributing achievements), so no idea, probably for the current purpose the bigger one is better. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 2021/08/04

The link:

Guild Wars 2 Quick Reference Card contains a weapons usability table https://www.guildwars2.com/en/manual/getting-started/quick-reference-card/

now goes to:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/new-player-guide

and does not include a reference table

--24.36.37.168 00:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. The table is maybe a bit outdated given elite specializations anyways so i'll remove the link. Nightsky (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Range of weapon strength increases above prior rarity

I've been trying to incorporate the values in the following table into the "Strength relative to rarity"-section table; however i can't seem to make that work and figured i'd leave them here instead.

Rarity	Increase
	Min	Max
BBasic	n/a	n/a
CFine	25.02%	25.26%
DMasterwork	7.91%	8.09%
ERare	7.52%	7.65%
FExotic	12.82%	12.94%
GAscended	4.96%	5.02%
HLegendary	0%	0%

The values for the "Increase"-colum in the table above are calculated here as they are on the main page except it's the minumum and maximum difference of each step from one rarity to the next over each weapon (with the values here also as per Weapon Strength; not including the "Exotic (PvP)"-columns values). Nightsky (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback 2022/07/26

If I'm understanding the Users column correctly for each of the weapons, it looks to be wrong numbers if we are including Elite Specs. --Trevard (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid but the numbers in that column seem to be correct to me.

The first (or only) number is how many professions can use (be that only in the off- or main-hand; in either- or in both-hands) a weapon without using any elite specialization.

The second number (after the +, where given) then counts how many additional professions may use a weapon when they make use of their elite specializations.

To give some examples:

• Axes can be used by Revenants, Warriors, Rangers and Necromancers without them using any elite specializtion.
• Axes can be used additonally by Guardians and Messmers when they utilize one of their elite specializations.
• Daggers can be used by Rangers (if "only" in the off-hand), Thiefs, Elementalists and Necromancers without them using any elite specializtion.
• Daggers can be used additonally by Warriors and Messmers when they utilize one of their elite specializations. Note that Rangers are already accounted for in the line above here. (While they may also use Daggers in their main-hand as Soulbeasts, they could already use Daggers before.)

As such, over the course of more elite specializations being added, the sum of the two numbers will, for each weapon, approach the number of professions; before at one point equaling it. Nightsky (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback 2023/06/30

I've updated the table to include the weaponmaster trait with the incoming expac, that being said, I haven't updated the number of skill / potential combo, someone else feel free to update it :)

Lastly, I was wondering if there could be a better way to display "Users". It current shows any class that has access to this weapon with the core game, and how many users have access to it with expac. I personally created a spreadsheet to keep track of a different information, and it could be helpful to expose it. It translates into "professions that can equip 1 weapon at the time" + "profession that can dual-wield that weapon". It can be helpful to decide which legendary to go for next to have the biggest impact.

Uman (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Spear weapon table formatting?

I've gone and made the spear record span across the 2H and Aquatic rows, but this looks a little odd... idk if it should span or be listed twice as we've never had a 2H/Aquatic weapon. Yimo (talk)