Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive 2

Release Date

Given the "situation" (i.e. cluster-f***) that is the release date of GW2, I would think it is important to get it right on this wiki. The "letter to our fans" stated 2010 or 2011, yet the wiki says 2010 only. That should probably be edited.Vidal 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been stated various times that info on GW2 will be released this year.-- Shew 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about info about GW2, but about the game itself. The page says that GW2 will be released in 2010. This contradicts the financial report from NCSoft that says 2010 or 2011. Has 2010 been nailed down as a release time, or should it be edited?Vidal 08:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

changed to say it will be released from 2010-2011. ~ PheNaxKian 12:35, 31 July 2009

More info could encompass the release date.-- Shew 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So...there's some news from the gw2guru site about a quarterly stock holder blah blah meeting where NCSoft reported that they anticipated no releases in 2010, only some betas. It's nothing concrete, but it's news I supposeVidal 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I made some comments about it here, suffice to say that "nothing concrete" is how I think we should leave it. (Satanael | talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

+ an ANet artist (Fan Yang) has 2010 listed for GW2's expected release date on her website. She updated the job info recently to include Nov '09.-- Shew 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I was able to put GW2 on pre order so in theory (and by what i was told) it is out December 1st Ocren 05:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All dates are placeholders, regardless of where you order it from. The only official date we get will be from ArenaNet or possibly NCSoft, all other dates are false.--Corsair@Yarrr 05:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that Corsair is correct. Apparently I get to play the game a month before you do :D

None of the shops know yet, and I imagine they'll all have to revise their estimates to a later date. A F K When Needed 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dance, people, DANCE!

Well, since this is the GW2 talkpage, I will post this here...

I'm one of those people who think new races are a great idea, however, something conserns me. In the original games, you play as a human, but the humans are all different, since they have different proffesions. And im not just talking about armors and looks, im also talking about the way they dance. Yes, dance. I have always been a fan of the GW dances, they are fun, and very mixed. However, when new races are introduced to the game, maybe Anet will take the "easy" way, and make all (for example) norn males dance the same, and not dance different from proffesion to proffesion. GW have 20 different dances today (player dances...), and if races dance like eachother, it would only be 10 (!) different dances in GW2.

Why is this a problem, you may ask? Well, I have seen many arguments about the new races is making a whole people, like the Asurans, have one personality, and not many different ones. And I think the fact that a whole race dance the same is contributing to this. If all male Asurans dance the same, they will almost have no personality at all. And, as a fan of GW dances, I personaly think it would be extremly boring. In GW, big dancepartys starts often, its a fun way to interact with people. But how fun is a whole district with just, for example, wariors? All dancing the same way? Pretty boring. And think, how the towns for new norn, asurans, humans, charrs and sylvari, it would be just like the district full of wariors.

I do realize that all races having a different dance for ewery proffesion and gender, is imposible. If all the GW proffesions is still in GW2 (wich they wont, I know...) It would be around 50 different dances, and that would be ALOT of work programing. However, one idea is to let some proffesions dance the same, like the male norn ranger and warrior, but the male norn monks dance different. A change like that, that just not all norn males dance the same, would atleast make me feel the race has more than one personality.

I think the dances are so original and fun in GW, and the fan made GW MV's are always better than other mmos. So please consider this idea, if anyone reads it, and don't destroy such a good part of GW, the big, different, and fun, dance partys! :DD (I know, I can't spell, but I'm swedish...) Charocles 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you post this twice on both wikis just use one.... and I would think that Anet would keep the 20 dances they have now but modify them to work with the skin of Norn (male, female ,all professions) Asura (male, female ,all professions) Sylvari (male, female ,all professions) and Charr (male, female ,all professions) because they just have to copy and edit the human system from GW1 just change it so the non-profession armor works change the skins to go with the race and their armors. - Giant Nuker 12:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you Giant Nuker, on one thing: I don't think (or should I say, I hope) they don't keep the same dances. Some old dances would be nice, but having new dances would grand. But yeah, one dance per profession per gender per race would be a large amount, but would also be more interesting. -- Konig/talk 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I posted it twice? Simple... I want more people to read it... o.o and ye, Konig, it would be more interesting^^ Charocles 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

new topics at the bottom. 84.43.94.172 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we have no idea how the profession system will work. We don't know if there will even be professions. P.S. If there's 10 professions and a dance for each one and each gender/race, then that would be 100 different dances. Not 50. -~=Sparky (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

24(or 23) dances I think (10x2[proph X sex]+4[factions/nightfall [/dancenew]--ErikMm 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they will include a completely new dance function where you would type something like "/flamenco" and you character would do that, rather than have static dances assigned to certain professions or races. Everyone should be allowed to break into thriller if the need strikes them. 70.31.63.61 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But letting players have access to every type of emote is something that, say, Runescape would do. The fact that various professions have various dances adds a unique flavor to each of them, and gives them special characteristics. :D If you let just ANYONE do any type of dance it would take away from that, and be 1 less thing special about professions. --Amannelle 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Official GW2 Website?

Is/will that be the gw2 website? It kind off looks that way, the dragon animation looks cool anyways =P --Talk 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is/will be the site. And we're also supposed to get information and such soon at Gamescon. 99.239.6.27 14:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ye, after checking some sites I've been updated about the newest gw2 news, maby i should do that before I post ey? =)--Talk 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just tried to decompile the .swf, no luck. Didn't find anything. But I do have it in .avi format, now! 99.239.6.27 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if i should post this here, but on facebook, i heard that news on gw2 will be updates soon and that they'll keep giving us info instead of leaving us in the dark. Am i the only one who has this info? --Warnlord 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. -- Pling \ talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about that mass message I sent out ("Guild Wars 2 Updates Will Be SOON"), "Updates" refers to the "exciting week ahead."-- Shew talk 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

delivered. http://www.guildwars2.com/en/

Tengu in Trailer?

Did anyone else see this? There's a still of what looks to be a centaur with a bow shooting arrows at a HYUGE bird man. I'm assuming that's a Tengu. It's in the orgasm of the trailer when pics are flashing by too fast.Vidal 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i personally think it was a norn in raven form 72.174.166.211 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This image? Doesn't really look like a Tengu or raven to me. Maybe the Nornbear's decided to come back as a paragon >.>. -- Pling \ talk 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a Tengu. Tengu don't have wings and a separate pair of arms; they use their wings as arms. 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some kind of a griffon, it's probably a random GW2 creature or maybe a norn in raven form (although i doubt norn can transform to animals other than bears) --Majere II 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we got raven blessing in EotN so i don't see why not. Deadpool 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When I saw it in the trailer, I thought of raven form norn as well. I'm gonna giggle when I see wolf form norn running around (werewolves!). -~=Sparky (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean furries. 03:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Norn are said to be able to "become the bear" not anything else. --Majere II 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bear only? That seems a bit limited to me. Deadpool 17:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Norn revere the spirits of nature—from the wolf to the snow lynx—but the most powerful of these is the Bear Spirit, who, according to myth, blessed the Norn with the ability to change shape and "become the bear". from gwen manuscripts. Now tell me how can you say it is limited, is there any other race that can transform into an animal? --Majere 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but i do remember some EotN concept art with norn in bear, wolf, and boar form so there might be hope for more forms.Deadpool 02:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

its a norn in raven form!!! It's been confirmed that the Norn can shift into all 4 animal forms. This is in an interview posted on GW2 Guru on 9/8.Vidal 06:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope its a norn in Raven Form cause that would be fun!!! Gschmechel25 15:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Guns?

"Guns have been confirmed as a weapon type available to all races." Uh oh --Majere 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is already a GIANT topic call guns on the Guild Wars 2 Page of Guild Wars 1 Wiki if you wish to add something to this topic please say it over there. - Giant Nuker 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

...you're telling someone to go talk about GW II on the GW I Wiki?

You're a moron. A F K When Needed 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It says on the Charr page that: "they are said to have led the revolution of physical technology--GUNS, explosives, and war machines." So, I don't know. Lzuruha 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regina Buenaobra has confirmed it on her journal that 'there will be rifles and pistols in the game', so it's actually pretty much of a fact now. · LOQUAY · 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty bad in my opinion :/ --Majere 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying it would be easier for everybody to follow what happening by just using 1 topic space and the one already on the 1st guild wars wiki has bigger content and it's named the exact same name "Guns?". The one there is many pages long and all my input is there too. - Giant Nuker 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can consider this as a continuation to the wiki 1 topic i guess. I didn't know it was there but it fits this wiki much more anyway --Majere 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GW has had gun powder in game for some time, showing the beginnings of non-magical technology. 250 years on, I don't think they'll be a poor fit in the world. They might be to the bow like the hammer is to the sword? --Aspectacle 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If they would function like medieval/post medieval guns it would be fine i guess since they are much less dangerous than modern firearms. I guess they'll have a slower cool down, maybe only a limited amount of bullets, and i bet they'll have a relatively shorter range than bows. --Majere 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you won't have machine guns... xD Rather something like this. · LOQUAY · 08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the question on everyone's lips is whether the 'charzooka' is going to end up in game in some form or other! That would be hilarious. :D --Aspectacle 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, think about it as an elementalist that shoots fireballs at you :P it looks pretty awesome, but i think it's more like a siege weapon --Majere 13:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Trailer

Excuse my language but that trailer WAS FUKIN AWESOME!!!! I can wait for it to come out. 71.196.211.63 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

/agree-- Shew 00:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it was even better than screenshots --Majere

11:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say how excited I am about that video of an actual dungeon, i.e. the lower levels of a castle/fortress. GW1 really lacked that. The only thing close I can remember was the passage into GWEN.Vidal 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

KEW24: wen did u see it cus i cant find it

/agree --ErikMm 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New art section at the website

The GW2 website has a new Art Section featuring concept art (including some unseen images), the cover of the upcoming artbook and some wallpapers. How do you think we should upload those pieces of concept art to the wiki? The naming convention they are using would be bad for our sorting system. Erasculio 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Konig has found out names for a few. I think you should pick a naming scheme for unnamed images which fits whatever sorting scheme there is - I don't think we need to hang on their naming scheme. --Aspectacle 09:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have began a discussion about this here, hopefully we'll manage to find a good solution there. Erasculio 11:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No Henchies?

"Early information stated that companions would have customization similar to Heroes and that henchmen would not be in the game." - This seems to have been added by Aspectacle on Oct 9, but there is no citation. I don't recall there ever being any mention of henchmen one way or the other except on Gayle's talk page where she seemed to imply that henchmen were being considered for inclusion. That was a long time ago, if there has been any recent mention of henchmen by the Anet staff or if I missed something, please correct me and provide citation. I am, however, a pretty avid reader of the interviews and press releases, so I hope no one minds me taking this part out until citation can be provided.--Shai Halud 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here (translation of the original article, which is linked on the page)-- Shew 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Shew. Also the original PCGamer article said "But, instead of Heroes and henchmen, Guild Wars 2 will introduce pets and companions---NPCs whose skills and abilities you can customize (similar to Heroes)." Although I have to note 2009 information from the Dutch PCGameplay (translation here) seemed to strongly imply that henchmen would be making a return. However because it is the only one and it seems to counter the official FAQ and older information I've not included it here and qualified the older information with the issue of its age. -- Aspectacle  00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a more recent article which confirmed that henchmen or the equivalent would be available? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Massively's Sep. '09 interview says "Guild Wars 2 won't have the same Hero or Henchman systems that we had in Guild Wars 1. That being said having heroic characters to interact with is a huge part of telling a compelling story so players will have NPC heroes who are very much part of their stories." I'm pretty sure this is the only recent article that mentions henchmen other than the one that Aspectacle pointed out.-- Shew 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The dutch interview translation I linked certainly says they'll be back. The official FAQ says you should be able to reach max level without ever joining a group - which if you put a Guild Wars twist on those bits of info, soloing means an AI party not a human party. I had text to that effect in the article at one time, but removed it because I felt I was assuming too much. It is possible the henchmen help us in instances, but we solo (in a standard MMO sense) in the persistent areas. Gordon's qualification is a good middle ground which indicates we think the information has changed, but don't yet know what it could mean for the game. -- Aspectacle  21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<shameless plug>This would be easier if we could add inline citations with cite.php.</shameless plug> -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means technically, but could we not use something like what Wikipedia has (a reference list and superscripted numbers)? EDIT: Nevermind...that's the same thing.-- Shew 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

References are definitely good for the reader, but are a pain to put in. I guess we don't need to be as formal as wikipedia which should greatly reduce the overhead. Given the age of the Gordon's initial request for install, perhaps we need to directly ask Emily on her gww talk page? -- Aspectacle  02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should get it on the community requests list first (preferably on both wikis). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Professions specific armor?

"Armour and weapons will no longer be profession specific." Sorry to start this kind of thing up again, but where was this stated? I'm actually more curious about where this was stated because I haven't seen that interview or whatever, not because I necessarily doubt its validity. Anyway, just curious where people saw that stated. (Satanael | talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here-- Shew 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

huh, guess I must have just forgotten that part. Thanks! (Satanael | talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New Video

On the Guild Wars 2 website their is a new video about the races. We NEED to all the information we can from that video and add it. - Giant Nuker 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The website has also been updated with a new Races section. Lots of interesting stuff there. Erasculio 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

After seeing how awesome the game looks, I absolutely can't wait to see what Cantha looks like!-- Shew 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Bad time to say there isent cantha in GW2?,since all boat trade was corrupted by orr?--Neil2250 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is assumed by pretty much all that Cantha would come back in an expansion and since we are dealing with Zhaitan who controls the minions that are blocking passage through the Sea of Sorrows in the first part, passage could be possible in an expansion. - Giant Nuker 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Skill affected by certain circumstances

"Skills will have different effects depending upon the circumstances in which they are cast. For example, a skill may react differently if the caster is jumping or surrounded by enemies at the time of casting." I've seen articles reporting this, and I've seen articles reporting that jumping does not have an affect on skills (which is what I have always thought). Where is this even discussed? I just did a quick scan of the interviews (excluding the video ones), and I didn't see anything regarding this, but I'm almost sure it's been mentioned. Does anyone know the source?-- Shew 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the early interviews state skills having different effects under different circumstances, but on GW2Guru there was a post of someone who "overheard a dev talking at PAX" about there being a problem with lag. As far as I know they didn't confirm nor deny this, so I'd leave it at the official info. --142.68.130.88 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference I have is http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/03/interview_guild/ I'm fairly certain it is the only reference I've ever seen about this attribute of skills. I was intending to remove the line because of the guru refute (which IMO nullifies this fairly weak piece of information whether it is correct or not) the next time I update the page - updating the page is taking me longer than I'd hoped because I can't seem to string an hour of free time together at the moment. -- Aspectacle  01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall a dev saying elsewhere that they had to cancel plans to make skills have different effects while jumping, but no reason or any other circumstance (running, swimming, etc.). I believe that was in a PAX video. -- Konig/talk 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest someone (re)watch the PAX videos and update the page accordingly depending on what the video says.--Orry 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the reference. Perhaps when we get some more gameplay information we can add it back in but at the moment I don't think there is overwhelming evidence that this is a part of the game. -- Aspectacle  09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Content of this page

Does anyone have any opinion on the content of this page and it's relationship to the FAQ and the individual articles? I'm kinda over updating some of this information in 3 (or more) different places and was wondering if there were any objections to minimising this article and relying more on linking out to the more detailed content individual articles? I acknowledge there is some information here which might need a new home or some reworking to fit, but is there agreement that this direction for the page is a good idea? -- Aspectacle  09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this article having summaries of the features, with a {{see|title page}} at the top of each section, for instance, you'd have the World versus World section, the first line would be {{see|World versus World}} then the rest would be a brief summary of what it is and that it is new to the Guild Wars franchise. This way, the article isn't incredibly long, but still covers the basics of everything. -- Konig/talk 10:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of smaller summaries. Helpes people just breezing through for information. I also suggest moving the "Graphics and Game Engine" and "Music" sections to the bottom of the page. At least from my perspective, as a complete newcomer to a game I'm more interested in gameplay and classes than how pixels are generated and the soundtrack. Mat Cauthorn, The Botanist 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't like the question/answer format because the questions are specific, and therefore, they don't cover everything.-- Shew 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[[User:Aspectacle/GW2]] is an incomplete version of this page (it doesn't have images or the links out at the moment) but it is the level of detail I had in mind. I've probably been too tough on some sections which don't have a detailed article. I'm interested in feedback before going much further - I'm too lazy. ;) -- Aspectacle  00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In Combat Consumables in GW2 and other Info from the Trailer

Take a look at the trailer people. You can see a fighter use a Potion during combat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Gra_LQwEM @ 0:51 But what is the guy on the upper left doing @ 0:51? He seem to be drinking a Potion or something. In combat Pots and Consumables in GW2? Thats new in ineresting.

Hey 1:01 seem to show multiple Sword wielding classes. Remember the Class Restriction thing Anet said about the game. Seems interesting seeing all these classes using swords.

Also notice 3 Shield wielding classes --Knighthonor 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We're trying not to include too much speculative information here Knighthonor. People come to the wiki looking for accurate information on the game. From those images we can't draw any real conclusions on what that character is doing. As others have said in your thread on the guru forum it could equally be a heal-self spell animation. Some of the weapon info we can include I think, but not on this page. As the topic above indicates this page will be under-going a revamp as soon as I get around to it. -- Aspectacle  03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Remember the GW1 trailer- Duel wielding devona. So its likely to change as far as balance goes izzy is designing the skills.We are doomed. --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 13:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Housing?

Any news of this feature being implemented? I couldn't find anything in the FAQ or on the Talk pages :\. Thanks for any possible answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.116.123.116 (talk • contribs).

Nothing has been said about housing. That doesn't really mean much because they've not really talked about GW2 gameplay in great detail yet. Maybe later this week? -- Aspectacle  10:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tired

Can this be released yet lol, im too excited>.<--♥Icyyy♥‎ 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

sidekicks

"In the areas where you can level, a sidekick system will be used to allow you to play with your friends of different levels." - Didn't they nix this? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.208.144.67 (talk).

You're probably thinking of Companions. Manifold 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Armor and professions

" The selection of one of the eight available professions determines most of what your character is capable of doing. It restricts the armor type you can wear..."

Do we have a source for this? I thought I read somewhere that any prof and race can wear any armor, it's just that certain armor types affect a player in ways that would be adverse for certain play styles (e.g., heavy armor lowers max energy or increases spell cost or something like that)? (Satanael | talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"I read somewhere that any prof and race"

Race? I wouldn't be too quick to believe that one. A F K When Needed 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Combat article: "Each of these professions is roughly categorized by the type of armor they wear: scholars wear light armor, adventurers wear medium armor, and soldiers wear heavy armor". Erasculio 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies, I think I read this one too quickly, and didn't see the "...from their weight category..." part. (Satanael | talk) 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

AFK, you should watch the trailers more often. There are multiple times you can see, per example, a charr and a norn (or a human, w/e it is) in the same heavy armour. My guess is that armour won't be race-restricted. --Naoroji 07:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they may make some race specific armour, just for some variation and to fit the races more. But only armours such as elite or town. --Odal talk 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Level 80

Theres 80 levels right, I read somewhere it was max 80.--Icyyy Blue 01:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Eive 01:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why they chose 80 instead of 100 what was the article again I never finished reading it.--Icyyy Blue 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They announced it on the blog, the one about progression and something. (Satanael | talk) 06:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Controls?

Should we write these down? --Amannelle 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the F key has heavy use... I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. In-game, when near people, a little thing comes up that basically says "F-Greet" or "F-Talk", or "F-Pick up", etc. It's basically the interaction tool in the game. --Amannelle 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Singular or plural, Guild Wars or Guild Wart?

So hai! I read the Elder Dragon(s) discussion and people been discussion whether the article should be singular or plural so I was thinking hey nobody said we should use plural version of War in Guild Wars so I propose a change of this article name to Guild War 2. Actually, Guild Wars never had anything much to do with guilds at war with each other so why keep this senseless name? Question to devs mostly ty. Please comment. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.81.109 (talk).

Read the logo on the right. Also Sign Your comments.--Emmisary 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  :^trololololol. The name of the game is obviously Guild Wars and is only referred to as Guild Wars in the game. Elder Dragons are referred to as Elder Dragon in the game. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Elder Dragons are referred to as Elder Dragon in the game." on the blogs* - Infinite - talk 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"in the game" Lolwut, already? How to get in? --Super Igor 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he's the one who leaked the Necromancer skill videos! Blasphemy! --Naut 23:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm I guess you don't know about it but the demo already took place in Cologne, Germany. I took it from Talk:Elder Dragon: "Don't know if it changes something to the debate but the leaked gameplay video shows the word "Elder Dragon" (singular, capitalized) used in game (@4:03 inside the video). User:Chriskang 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)". So you are saying this guy lies? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

An Elder Dragon, the Elder Dragons. Irrelevant: Obvious troll is obvious. - Infinite - talk 23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Idk if this is a troll or not but the guy actually has a point; considering how little Guild Wars had to do with actual guild wars and the neglect GvG had recieved, the name really does seem quite senseless. I don't mind though. --Super Igor 23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ^_^--Icyyy Blue 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I have to disagree, GvG is actually one of the most important PvP in the game ever since so the name is fitting. Also, "Guild War" sounds horrible imo.

Also, I have checked the video myself now and it clearly says "Elder Dragon" in the description while loading an area in-game.

@Super Igor: Just for your info, you can get in the game again at PAX in Seattle, September 3rd-5th, you might want to check it out or at least check out the gameplay videos, it's really worth seeing. I also highly recommend checking news more often so you don't miss such things in the future. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an NPA, but god, you're funny to check RC for. - Infinite - talk 00:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"@Super Igor: Just for your info, you can get in the game again at PAX in Seattle, September 3rd-5th, you might want to check it out or at least check out the gameplay videos, it's really worth seeing. I also highly recommend checking news more often so you don't miss such things in the future." I check those things regularly tyvm but it's highly unlikely that I'm going to make it to PAX. What are you getting at anyway? --Super Igor 00:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) By saying "this is not an no personal attacks" you actually used double-negation and therefore admitted violating it. Also, good to hear you are having fun lol.

@Super Igor: Well, you asked how to get in so.. I answered. " "in the game" Lolwut, already? How to get in?" ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a demo though, isn't it? The game itself isn't out yet. EDIT: Your comment made my nitpick-o-meter go off the charts again. :> --Super Igor 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Might not be obvious but I meant it as a joke. I must agree with nitpicking-o-meter on its calculations though. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else bothered?

Eric Flannum as lead design? Really? They're almost turning GW into Guild Warcraft. GW is supposed to be instanced, not persistent. And why are they getting rid of secondary professions and how builds worked? It's like they're holding our hand and telling us how the play the game now. And what's with the way primaries work? It's like if you're a ranger and don't like your pet, you're going to be a worthless character. I never used my pet in five years as a ranger on GW. Can anyone convince me this game is going to be okay? -- InfamousMyzt

No because nobody cares about you. Don't buy if you don't like, straight and simple.--Emmisary 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You have some deep interpersonal issues. I'm very sorry. --InfamousMyzt

new game means new things and the rangers are meant for people who want to use pets if u want to use a bow you can be a warrior or maybe one of the new professions Victor6267 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if common sense and facts make me a person with interpersonal problems....>>--Emmisary 02:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of staff: check. Comparison to Warcraft: check. Complaints about instancing: check. Declarations of what GW is "supposed to be": check. Complaints about lack of secondaries: check. Complaints about dumbing down: check. Complaints about new profession mechanics: check. Hates animals (and doesn't know how to play Ranger): check. Ends with a loaded question: check. A very comprehensive troll we have here. Arshay Duskbrow 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Expressing valid concerns doesn't make you a troll, no matter how many people have expressed them. And by the way, pets are only used in gimmicks and pve. Good rangers don't waste their attribute points. 02:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Felix. If anyone is a troll, it's the people insulting without giving points. And I have no idea what kind of build you used, Arshay, maybe you didn't play the same GW as I did, but the only good pet build I'm aware of is B/P. --InfamousMyzt

I guess you two never played Fort Aspenwood, where a pure beast build makes for highly effective amber running. There's nothing quite like the entertainment of running off with the amber while your locked-on pet slaughters the person chasing after you. I suggest you try it sometime before it's too late (that is, GW2 launch day). As for the rest... InfamousMyzt, why would you look here to be "convinced" of anything? Read the GW2 site articles, the official blog posts, the interviews all over the game news sites. Watch videos. Visit Guru. For months, in all of these venues, the GW2 staff has been bending over backwards to address your concerns. As someone who was myself expressing the same doubts last year, I am now more properly informed, and the information reassures me that - on the whole - they have the right ideas and are executing them in the best and most diligent way they can. Yes things will be different, but different does not mean bad. Arshay Duskbrow 03:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There are several good builds that use pets. Notice that none of those links are to a classic bp build either. And these are just some builds published on PvX. Most good rangers will create their own build and not use a publicly produced one. Also, please sign your comments with 4 ~'s. Venom20 03:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fort Aspenwood is glorified pve, and all those builds are gimmicks. But this is the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, so I don't know why we're discussing the specifics of Build Wars here. 04:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"pets are only used in gimmicks and pve. Good rangers don't waste their attribute points." Because you brought it up, possibly. Arshay Duskbrow 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now I'm bringing it down. 04:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I pretty much copy Arshay's first comment, except the part about trolling. Either InfamousMyzt has been living under a rock since information started getting released or he/she has been keeping his/her rage bottled up for far too long, and also not looking up any of the explanations given for these issues he/she has brought up. In any case I'll address them because I'm bored at the moment.

If the lead designer determines that one game is going to be exactly like another, then why hasn't every other ArenaNet game been a copy of WoW? They have several former Blizzard employees on their teams.

Secondary professions were removed because they made the game too difficult to balance, through both the secondary profession system and sheer number of skills. A primary attribute would be overpowered combined with another profession's skills and would need to be re-balanced in a way that didn't completely ruin the originality but didn't leave it overpowered either; nearly impossible.

They said there would be classes allowing for ranged/support play without having a pet. You already have warriors that can use bows and rifles, and have no obligation to use a pet. Rangers will use pets just like elementalists will use attunements. Are you angry that elementalists have to use attunements?

And as for your last question, if none of these answers work for you, then I can guarantee that this game will be absolutely terrible and you should never buy it. Don't even touch the case; it might have Blizzard-cooties. --Kyoshi (Talk) 03:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ewwww.....cooties Venom20 04:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to be pretty open about it, because it's a new game and all. But the more I read and the more videos I watch, it seems less and less like Guild Wars 1. I loved making builds, but now half your skills are based on the weapon equipped. I like using Wilderness Survival/Marksmanship/Expertise builds, never liked Warriors or Adrenaline. It bothers me that they're making a class entirely around one attribute, moreso than GW1 Primary attributes. I'm waiting to see, and I will definitely buy it no matter what, but I'm just upset I guess. I was excited about GW2 when it was first announced, but everything about it is too stereotypical. They're focusing a little too much on the storyline and random events compared to working on gameplay. It seems barely customizable as far as builds go. Thanks for all the comments though. 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)InfamousMyzt

I initially had your concerns regarding this, and I still feel they are trying to make the game more accessible to a community that may know little more than WoW. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does mean certain aspects are 'dumbed down'. Lack of a secondary class is okay by me. It removes more complicated builds but then in a way it promotes teamplay more.

I have no problem with the primaries. The warrior works with adrenaline, that hasn't changed much, though they now have access to bow skills. The Ranger now works with animals. Theres a change there but it is still a ranger. Elementalist can shift attunement mid fight, another big change. Necromancers no longer require corpses, use of deathshroud and can lay a variation to traps.

My point is that things have changed, this is not a remake. There are certain expectations to creating sequels and not everyone will be happy with the changes made. Prejudgement is most often misjudgement. I have faith that the people at Arena-net know what they are doing.

Regarding your point on that the class is being built around the primary attribute. While this may be true, in Guild Wars 1 the primary attribute couldn't be too significant or else it would defeat the purpose of bringing it as a secondary class, which of course is not an issue in GW2 --Decoinferno 11:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just get the feeling they are getting rid of making builds almost entirely. All you do now is click on the skill, then click on it's replacement, making very few combinations possible with the five skill slots they give you, and even then, one is for healing and one is for an elite. It seems to be...easy mode. Yeah. I went there. And them making no secondary possible has also made it too easy. I soloed through most of Guild Wars because that is just my play style. But it looks like I have to change for GW2. I just don't understand why they redid the build system to make the game easier. That was one of the key elements of GW, the difficulty of making a good build. And instanced areas was the other key reason I bought the original game, to be away from kill stealers and people I didn't like. Sure, they added an anti-ks system, but I still don't want people attacking my monsters, nor do I want monsters spawning on top of me. But I guess I'll have to see when it's released. I'm hoping for a beta. <3 InfamousMyzt 13:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're going to use an elite skill anyway if you have one, so it's hardly forcing you. Without dedicated healers, you'll want a healing skill anyway. The weapons give you a change in functionality on the fly in battle; you effectively have 15 skills on your bar, or 25 if you're an elementalist. (I assume some later professions may have more sets, since Regina commented somewhere about how "all current professions" have two sets, so that's more variety.) The only hitch is that the weapon you choose will lock your first 5 skills into...a good skillbar? Not sure that even counts as a hitch. You'll have plenty of utility skills to choose from, too, plus traits, plus attributes. Customization has been shifted around, not removed. EDIT: Oh, and they said the entirety of the game is completely solo-able, since everything scales based on how many people are involved. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a sword, 3 new skills, take a shield, 2 more skills. change sword for axe for 3 different skills then change the shield for another axe to gain 2 other skills. Mix match, 1 skill for survivability, 1 slot for elites (how often do you go without an elite in GW1) and a few slots to vary your build.

Builds are still there, we even have 10 skills on a bar now. Not to mention that Arena-net has already stated that they wanted to focus less on the number of variations on skills but onto making each skill more meaningful, giving each skill further functionality.

Top onto this the trait system and it becomes clearer to see that builds are still an important factor of GW2. --Decoinferno 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't use healing skills or necessarily elites when farming sometimes. I like being able to decide if I want an elite or healing. Stances and Enchantments can sometimes be a better choice than a simple healing skill. It's about choices. Even if the weapons give a good five skills, it's the fact that I can't pick different skills after I get bored with those that bothers me. It's like Halo. They give you a starting weapon and you just have to deal with it. Bad dynamics is better than static. InfamousMyzt 16:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blablabla... Let me point the fact that not all healing skills are just for healing, they can be buffs or something else and elites are extremely OP skills you can use every 12 minutes. You can also modify your 10 weapon skills (12 assuming you're a warrior, 20 assuming you're an ele) trough the traits (12 slots). Let's do some maths, i love that : you have 2 weapon sets. you have 5 skills slots you can freely modify. You have 12 traits slots. 19 things you can change to have a unique build, vs 8 previously. WTH in fact build making in GW1 was soooooooooooooooo dumb. Qral 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

instanced ftl; also; WoW is something GW (in its current state) SHOULD copy... --Neil • 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Every TWELVE minutes? That's a ridiculous amount of wait time for a skill. And the traits make the skills MODIFIABLE, not customizable. GW is not WoW, and should never be. If people think WoW is better, they should play that instead. GW should never copy WoW. Everything in GW1 was perfect to me, especially builds and instances. I hate seeing people all the time while I'm trying to get things done. They interfere. InfamousMyzt 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @ infamousmyzt, you said that you didn't like to use an elite of healing skill sometimes. This new skillbar works out well for you then. If you ignore those two skills, you are back to an 8-skill skillbar like GW1. Also, you can always change your weapon sets outside of combat. Let's talk about the ranger (because it's been mentioned). Assuming that you have all the weapons in your inventory, you can have access to 11 different sets of skills (5gs, 5lb, 5sb, 3ax+2d, 3ax+2ax, 3ax+2to, 3ax+2wh, 3sw+2d, 3sw+2ax, 3sw+2to, 3sw+2wh) for only your 5 first slots. These 11 different sets can change drastically depending on your traits selected. Factor in the 1 slot for healing and 1 for elites (we don't know how many to choose from yet) and 3 free choice slots. This is still a substantial amount of builds that can be used by a single class. And even if you and I have the same skills selected, our traits can be different and thus our play styles would not be the same. It's CHAOTIC!!! Lol at elites that can be spammed. I prefer the idea of elites only being used every 10 minutes Venom20 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@Venom20: You definitely made me feel better about it. I don't like it, but I'll deal with it to get through the storyline at least. GW got it's difficulty from open-ended build-making and basing around an elite, or rarely choosing not to use one depending on build style. With a ten minute recharge, the new elites will be almost useless. Only six times an hour? That's a bit underkill... InfamousMyzt 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it's called "elite skill" and not "skill a bit more powerful than most of the others". Elite means (at least as a frenchie understand it) something that you barely can't compare with normal. Elite armors in gw1 were nice, but their price was 15 times higher than a standard armor. I think it's the same way to see these skills. Qral 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would actually say we should call them heroic skills so ex-gw1 players don't feel the concept has radically changed. But of course, the wiki czars would have a panic attack if I tried. --Emmisary 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Official terminology says that's elite skills, and IMO it's a good term.Qral 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time grasping the fact they're still calling this Guild Wars. The only thing they didn't change is the storyline. :\ InfamousMyzt 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I do agree with you myzt, the elite skills should be more epic. The ones I've seen so far have been meh, perhaps worthy of a 5min cooldown, but certainly not the 12min they have. Venom20 02:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@InfamousMyzt: I had the same disappointment when I first heard about the changes in the GW2 skill bar, but when I tried the demo it changed everything I thought about it before. To be honest the new skill bar is far more complex and customisable than the old one. First of all unlike GW1 you have a bigger choice of weapons, you can swap sets during battle which means you can actually change skills and fighting style in the middle of the battle. Traits change how skills function too for example there's a trait for the ranger's shortbow skill: Spread Shot, which increase the number of arrows you shoot. In addition to traits each skill has a tier that you can buy/gain and improve the effectiveness of the skill. Weapons are much more customisable too with different bonuses, and of couse you have attributes. Don't forget about all the environmental weapons that have their unique skills. If all of this is not enough there's the new combat system which is very different and much more entertaining than the old system, you can jump and dodge, your position is very important, and when you lose all your hp you can still fight to survive. It's much more lively and active. Don't worry, that game is going to be one of the best (if not the best) mmorpg ever created --Majere 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@Majere: Thanks man. Does anyone know how re-specializations will work? InfamousMyzt 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean changing traits and attributes? The traits page says you can respec out of combat. The attributes page vaguely says it'll be easy to respec.

Not to be rude, but this is the wiki for the game you're asking about. Could you do some of your own homework on it? --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done the research. They just apparently haven't release the information I'm looking for. I've read all the exclusives and seen the videos, but I want real information, not the vague stuff they release. I'm mainly wanting people that played the demos at gamecon/pax to respond. InfamousMyzt 18:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though you're waiting for PvP content, information in that regard should be released soon (or is next on the list of upcoming news at least.) (Xu Davella 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

I just said you're on the wiki for the game. The homework is right here. I linked you to the homework for the things you just asked. That's all I'm saying. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting more for changes from GW1 to GW2. I found GW1 to be an absolutely perfect game for me. And I read both of the pages you linked me to before you linked them. They just don't have the answers I'm looking for. I might have to wait til it's released to find out. Thank you though. InfamousMyzt 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just worried they're calling re-specs of attributes "easy," but then they charge for it and you have to go to a certain NPC to pay for it too. I love GW because I can go into a town and just respec everything, even secondary, without paying anything or talking to anyone. It was my favorite feature. <3 InfamousMyzt 05:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"With no in-game cost, you can respec at will, outside of combat." What part of this is not clear?? Arshay Duskbrow 06:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the troll award for this thread goes to every person who pretended that pets in gw1 werent a complete waste of bar space and attribute points! sorry OP, they were better. -Auron 08:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

<3 Auron. And Arshay, I'm talking about attributes, not traits. I don't care about traits. InfamousMyzt 11:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Traits are pretty much the new 'GW1 attributes'. The attributes in GW2 are different, they are the same for all professions and only determine your overall damage/hp/energy. Again it's a whole new game and you can't really compare it to the old one. If you liked GW1 that much I think you can count on anet to develop another great game --Majere 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know i will be great. I'm just wondering why they're changing it so much. I read that they will make it "easy" to re-spec attribute points, but that doesn't mean it will be AS EASY as it was in GW1. And attributes will play a large role in GW2, try fighting Zhaitan with all attributes at 10 :> InfamousMyzt 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They're changing it because of things they didn't think were working, obviously. For example, trying to properly balance over 1000 skills and all the combinations there could possibly be, both team and solo builds. The heavy area instancing forced you to pre-create teams to go out and do things, which was limiting in a social aspect. And so on.

The only other reason a game design team would change things is to cut costs, and it's pretty clear that's not what's happening here. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember I didn't have any problem with attributes in the demo.. Another reason why they might change GW is that they want to try new mechanics, new possibilities. Think how boring it would be if GW2 would've been almost identical to GW1. People want new stuff, after playing the same game for 5 years you know. And of course you can always continue playing GW1 if you wish, no one forces you to buy GW2 --Majere 09:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Skill Icons

GW2 skill icons seem to be warping to a more cartoonish style, almost like how Legend of Zelda went to the Windwaker kind of cartoon. --168.223.11.223 15:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're cartoonish, more like they got them 1:1 from the Artworks. Anyway, I like them(Ok, I also liked the cartoonish way of TWW, but I don't think it would fit into a GuildWars game). --LegendKiller2 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're more like concept art icons. Sort of like going back to Prophecies icons after the Factions and (especially) Nightfall ones felt almost excessively smoothed out and shiny. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Day/Night Cycle

I thought I had read somewhere on the forums or in an interview that the day/night cycle was meant to be 2x faster than "real world time". Like, at noon and midnight it'll be night, at 6am and 6pm it'll be day. Can anyone confirm this? (having trouble finding a lot of earlier articles) 68.144.77.185 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of hope they don't do it in such a regular schedule. That means that every time period will have a window of 6 hours, so most people will be playing running the same effect. Also, I have not read this article you are speaking of. They should run the night/day cycle odd hours, so as to shift the window (of night or day) from day to day. This way people who always play the same time of day won't always get night or always get day. Perhaps night and day will not be equal time. I don't want to start speculating here. I'll see if I can find this article, I am interested to know now. Venom20 18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember it being 2x regular time, but I do remember it'd be faster. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone said that for the demo they had it at 80 minutes day and 40 minutes night but they were playing with different values to see what worked best. -- aspectacle  19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)