Talk:Asura gate

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Map travel[edit]

The new map travel? Or something completely different? Cress Arvein 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just a two-way tunnel, not map travel. I believe there is still map travel in GW2, like GW1. Calor Talk 01:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they did say there was going to be map travel.. Somewhere on ign.com. Cant really remember. --User: Blood StainBloodStain 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to find the source, but there is not map travel last I heard. --Fox427 User-EliteDarkFox sig.png 03:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It states that the asura gates will replace map travel here. The English version of the interview is here. They don't outright say that this will replace map travel though. --Fox427 User-EliteDarkFox sig.png 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fee's[edit]

Seriously, what's the point? o.0 --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Money sinks, so that we may hopefully have a somewhat stable economy, not one like GW1, where high inflation rates screw just about everything even remotely resembling an economy up. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Only one thing that ruined GW's economy; SF :P. That bloody skill jut killed the game. --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
More than SF. The gradual power creep in general tbh. And minor fees are fine if it helps the economy, which it will. Money sinks are always good in small quantities. --Odal talk 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Waypoint-travel requires fees, not asura gates. pling User Pling sig.png 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Remember that GW1 builds were used not only to farm gold, but also high end items, thus slightly (not by a long shot though, mind you) balancing things out. But I agree, major farm builds were, and are, the vast contributors to GW1 inflation. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
High end items just got sold to other players, and none of that gold left the economy through that transaction. Lower-end items would be merchant feed, introducing even more gold. Farming inflates things. Period. =/ --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I said that the introduction of more high-end items caused things to balance out, or hell, in case of overfarming, decrease in price (Durr, supply and demand). What I mean is is that those items didn't get ridiculous price tags (like for example Mini Kanaxai and mini Panda). I just woke up, so it probably won't make much sense. :P --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization move[edit]

Yeah, I suppose that's proper, isn't it? It's a gate that was made by the asura, not a trademarked product made by the asura. Gate should be lower case. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"This Bookah's right. Though we constructed these specific gate-like objects, we cannot claim the invention of gates in general nor claim the name. We should refer to them as Asura gates, rather than Asura Gates." - Infinite - talk 20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In general use, the term asura would also be lower-case, though the page title would capitalize it by default. And watch who you call bookah. =P --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"Arrogant Bookah!" :D Yeah, I included the default capitalization in that sentence. - Infinite - talk 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Should indeed be moved. I'd do it, but I have no knowledge of moving policies or anything resembling that. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Same as any other edit, just needs consensus. And at a certain point of inactivity consensus can be assumed. Been moved already, though, it seems. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 04:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an asura gate?[edit]

Ok, I know this sounds extremely stupid, but are you sure that thing in the image is an asura gate? Before you scream about my stupidity, please hear me out.

1. Mind you, I'm not suggesting it's a stylish decoration. I do believe it's a "gate", in the sense of a two-way teleporter. And it's definitely asuran-made.

2. It IS purple like GW1's, so, it might actually be an asura gate and I might be wrong. Other than that, I can't see many similarities (other than being a gate).

3. Now, look at the August trailer, from 2:44 to 2:57. You might notice 10 teleporters (A-J):

> A: the one in the image; outside the huge block that is most likely the center of Rata Sum;

> B-D: 3 identical (purple) gates, on the top of the "block" (2:49-2:50);

> E-G: 3 yellow gates, horizontal (2:53);

> H-J: 3 yellow gates, below the E-G ones (also 2:53);

When I first saw the purple gates, my imediate and intuitive thought was "they teleport you from and to the block" (and I think everyone thought the same thing). Then everyone started saying they were asura gates, and I agreed, while still thinking that, whatever their name was, they teleported you to and from the block. What this means is that A teleports you to B, C or D and vice-versa (there are probably more gates like A around the block). And I don't think that idea is wrong at all; in fact, I don't see any other way to enter the block.

The yellow ones I thought it would be cool if you jumped on them and were teleported to the interior part of the block (its corridors, rooms, etc.), and that's probably true, but we don't have any proof.

Now, the reason why I don't think the thing in the picture is an asura gate is because I realised something with today's news. If there are asura gates in every main city or so, then if someone teleported from some city to Rata Sum, to which gate would they teleport? A, B, C or D? I don't think either of them, because their purpose seems to be teleport people to and from the block (and they are two-way teleporters). Also, while the colour purple makes us think of GW1's asura gates, there ARE gates of other colours (E-J), so that might be just a code (for exemple, yellow gates teleport you to places inside the city, while purple let you go in and out of the city). Also, with the newly-announced "waypoints", my thoughts are that these are exactly that - waypoints. Because they exist in very high numbers (10 are seen in the trailer; who knows how many more exist), while asura gates are supposed to be fewer and connect cities, not points inside the same city (as the page itself says, "each playable race's main city has an asura gate". "An", not "several" or "some").

While this is certainly an asura gate, in the sense that it is a gate and it was built by the Asura, I don't think it is one in the restrict sense the page says (of the type that links the cities). So, what do I think an asura gate in the restrict sense is? Definitely something very similar to these gates, but perhaps more alike GW1's (black with purple rays) or with another colour (if my idea of colour-codes is correct).

I might be missing something, so please, feel free to say what you think and, in case the majority agrees, the image should be removed from the page on the grounds of speculation, until a later confirmation. --217.129.133.230 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The full comment is "each playable race's main city has an asura gate, allowing quick travel between them." The comma may be what's misplaced. It sounds to me more like the comment refers to the particular gates which allow travel between them. I doubt all of those gates were waypoints because, as you said, they look asura-built, and also because we don't see any of them in the other major cities that are shown in that trailer. Waypoints sound more like abstract points in space rather than artifacts or objects, to be honest. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think the quote refers to travel between cities, not inside them. And that was also the idea I got from the news/interviews. And as for your second idea, waypoints could be specific to the area they are on. In asuran territory, they would be gates, while the Human could have flags, for example (and that would make sense). Although you could be right and they could be abstract points. Still, if asura gates really link cities and only that (which is implied because of the existance of waypoints, that teleport inside the cities), then there could only be one per city and, besides the existence of 10 in Rata Sum (and that's only the ones we see) the one in the image couldn't possibly be an asura gate, since it's linking points inside the same city and is therefore a waypoint. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.129.133.230 (talk) at 21:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC).
Sorry, forgot to sign. But now that I think of it, there must be many Asura gates in one city, if they are two-way teleporters (then each one would teleport to a different city). But still, the one in the picture is definitely linking points inside the same city, as I said above. --217.129.133.230 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
They are gates. -- Konig/talk 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure if you understood what I tried to say. I know they are asura gates (gates made by the Asura), but I don't think they are asura gates in the sense of teleporting between cities. I explained it all above: these gates obviously teleport you inside Rata Sum, and are therefore different from the gates that teleport between cities. The recent news differentiates between waypoints (like these appear to be) and asura gates. So, although they are gates made by the Asura, they are not THE asura gates the page talks about. There are two meanings for "asura gate": a general term for gates made by the Asura AND the gates made by the Asura that teleport people between cities. And although the asura gates that teleport between cities may be pretty similar to the one in the picture, that one is NOT an asura gate IN THAT SENSE, so I think the image should be removed. Please, tell me if I'm not being clear. EDIT: Forgot to sign. --217.129.133.230 11:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that those Rata Sum gates and the gates between cities aren't the same, just modified? They are built and operated by the Asura, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if they had several 'functionality settings', so to speak. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Travel between cities was one example of how an asura gate functions. From GW1, we know they're scattered around the world to allow travel between those places. Some places even have multiple gates (Central Transfer Chamber). Maybe Rata Sum is like the new CTC and is the hub of the system, or maybe it's just so large that asura need gates to get across the city. That doesn't mean they're entirely different gates with different technical functions.
Waypoints are located on maps (like the icons in GW1 maps, I guess), not "gates", asuran or otherwise. pling User Pling sig.png 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@Sirrush How do you know they are?? That's speculation. As far as we know, waypoints are different from asura gates, and these certainly look like waypoints (since they are linking points inside the city, although you might be right and they might function as asura gates as well). My point is, if right now all evidence indicates that waypoints =/= asura gates, and, when giving it a name, the thing in the picture IS a waypoint (again, it's linking different points inside the city), then the image is WRONG. I know it's far more intuitive to say that the gate in the picture is an asura gate, but the truth is that, with the information we have so far, we cannot say such a thing. Therefore, the image should be eliminated until further confirmation.--217.129.133.230 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@[unsigned] I think Rata Sum must have more than one asura gate, and the same for the other cities as well, if they are two-way teleporters as they were in GW1. But that's not the matter, the question here is if the thing in the picture IS an asura gate. I understand your point, and it actually makes sense. If the Asura created them, why not abuse using them in their own city? But, as far as we know, asura gates only link cities, that's what ArenaNet has been saying in interviews. I think that, until some clarification on that matter, the image is based on speculation. And, AFAIK, speculation does not belong to the Wiki. --217.129.133.230 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@Pling That was one thing that I haven't thought about, actually. Nothing stops them from being also viewable in the map, though. --217.129.133.230 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
What you attributed to an unsigned user was made by me, by the way - it's just a different paragraph. You're using one given example of gates linking cities to illogically conclude that gates only link cities. The image isn't speculative. pling User Pling sig.png 15:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"And although the asura gates that teleport between cities may be pretty similar to the one in the picture, that one is NOT an asura gate IN THAT SENSE, so I think the image should be removed." I disagree. The caption of said image states the asura gate is active. It definitely is an asura gate, but regardless of purpose it is most definitely activated. That fact is justifying the purpose of that very image. - Infinite - talk 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@Pling Ah, ah, sorry, thought they were 2 different entries. Ok, so you say that I'm "using one given example of gates linking cities to illogically conclude that gates only link cities". My point was that they (Anet) only confirmed that asura gates link cities. Waypoints connect points inside the same city, so those may or may not be also asura gates. But AFAIK, the only official word was "asura gates link cities". If they don't give any other example, then the Wiki shouldn't speculate about other examples where asura gates may also be used. If the one in the image is not linking cities, then it's not doing what Anet said asura gates did and is not an asura gate, then, according to the information we have just now. But, as I said above, it obviously has the appearance of one, so they may be multi-functional or something else. My point? There isn't any word on that just yet.
@Infinite Yes, it IS definitely an asura gate... if you mean that it is a gate built by the Asura. As I already said above, there is a more specific meaning to it: the gates that link cities. The problem with the one in the picture is not whether it's active or not; it's whether it is or not an asura gate IN THAT SPECIFIC SENSE. The trailer shows it linking points inside Rata Sum, hence my disbelief of this being an asura gate that links cities, which is the only usage for them that Anet has already confirmed. I would agree if there was a disambiguation page and this image appeared in the page "asura gate (general term)" or something like that.
Well, I really thought I was right - and I honestly still do - but if nobody agrees with me, then I don't see the point on continuing this discussion. I'm also pretty sure that these will be confirmed to be another way to use the asura gates (in oposition to only using them to link cities) in the future, so the image will be correct in a few weeks/months, probably. I was just trying to make it free of what I think is speculation and inaccuracy for the time being. --217.129.133.230 12:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Asura gates have never been mentioned to have the capacity to "receive" a person who isn't traveling from another gate. Waypoints will allow players to do just that. The asura gates in that city seem to be just for aesthetics and show; making the place seem big, while still allowing you to traverse it quickly. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 04:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Function[edit]

It is a simple immobile-location dimensional transporter, that shortcuts normal reality by bringing together two fixed points with suitable equipment tuned to the same metavibrational aetheric frequency. Just in case you were wondering. EiveTalk 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you're thinking with portals. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 06:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, if you drop off a ledge to an asura gate, do you retain your speed when getting out. *Jumps of a cliff to an asura gate, gets out on the other side with the same speed and sees a wall in front* ;D SnD'- 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would believe that you would maintain your speed since my understanding of the gates is that they link together two places by "folding" reality to make the two locations adjacent and you just walk from one to another.--Elemental Phantom 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
They work just like stargates. Seriously, in Stargate SG-1 there are scenes where the gate acts as a transmission and the actor looks as if a second doesn't pass between the two gates. The explanations may be different, but what goes on is 100% the same. >.> -- Konig/talk 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, my interpretation is that you maintain whatever momentum you entered the gate with as you leave. I wonder if they will use these for 2 reasons, or perhaps have 2 different set of gates: ones that transport you anywhere (like stargates) and ones that can only transport you to a fixed location (like portals). Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that in game mechanics, they only have fixed gates. We saw multiple gates in Rata Sum, for instance, so I have a strong feeling that they won't be changed. In lore, however, they obviously can and by the sounds of it, Divinity's Reach - at least - has one singular gate. As does Lion's Arch and Ebonhawke. -- Konig/talk 02:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Known Gates[edit]

Perhaps a good idea to sum up the locations of known gates + directions?--Mark, User talk:Markisbeest het Beest 20:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GW2 Asura Gates.jpg
Map of functioning Asura gates. As far as i know, this is all the functioning Asura gates at the moment. First time posting on a wiki so i thought i would post it here instead of on the actual page.--Ilaj 04:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Too chaotic for my tastes, unclear, and unnecessary compared to the list (also missing some). Konig/talk 07:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Order Gates[edit]

At what point are we able to use the Order gates in Fort Trinity? I first noticed the ability after finishing Estate of Decay, where the player was brought to Trahearne waiting in an instance of the gate area. Also, I believe the answer to this question should be noted in all relevant articles due to being unlocked functionality/major-gateway. --Elven Chaos Elven's Talk Page 22:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is after the first story mission in Fort Trinity. ~ ♥ Kailani! ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I made sure to check after The Battle of Fort Trinity, and that turned out to not be the case. I could still be wrong though. --Elven Chaos Elven's Talk Page 06:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You can only enter the gate of your order from the orders' HQs, but from Fort Trinity, you can access all three from completing The Battle for Fort Trinity on. I tried using the gates in Fort Trinity right before The Battle for Fort Trinity and right after, couldn't before but could after. Konig/talk 07:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Konig! I made two edits under Asura Gate and TBoFT to reflect this. --Elven Chaos Elven's Talk Page 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was able to use all 3 order gates to get back to Fort Trinity. However, each of those gates is behind a permanently locked door or portcullis with a guard. The guard will only allow members of that order to pass over to the asuran gate side. Seems kind of stupid, since I can get there but they won't let me back? If I just stay inside the restricted area with the asuran gate, I can travel back to Fort Trinity. Sigh....24.8.249.129 22:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Change the passage "When he awoke and left, destroying the Central Transfer Chamber in the process, the asura network continued to receive power, presumably from Primordius' residual magical energy" to be less definitive. Even though it says "presumably", it has been quoted on both reddit and the official forums as fact, and as presumptions go, it's not a particularly well-supported one. I'd suggest replacing "presumably" with "possibly", or even changing the wording altogether to point out that the gate network is still functional, without offering any attempt at an explanation. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)