Talk:Profession/Archive 3

Moo.

So does that work (warning box) ?, it'l be removed when we know all 8, should we like, move all the speculation sections to there? --Neil • 10:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We have a warning at the top of the professions reveal article telling people to not speculate there. That kind of thing should be off the wiki, at the fansite forums. Erasculio 10:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well people are still going to post prof. reveals like-it-or-not, so where would you put them? --Neil • 10:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. Erasculio 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I know it's a bit late to be asking this, but, when the next profession comes out could we aim to get the "all professions highlighted" picture again? There's a bunch of little details that pop up when they're highlighted (Elementalist lightning and Ranger leaves) in addition to giving them to colour of their specific profession as an aura. It just looks nice and really makes each one "pop". 68.144.77.185 04:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Professions reveal has all of them highlighted. Eive 06:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, not the individual ones. I meant the one with them all together. 68.144.77.185 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, actually we really need to update the necromancer reveal picture before the next reveal to have them all highlighted. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 07:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, instead of doing it with the Necromancer in it, I thought we'd just wait until the end of the month (or whenever the next profession is revealed) so we'd get all of them instead of having to do it twice so close together.68.144.77.185 08:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We keep a picture from between each profession reveal, the necromancer's is the only one not highlighted. It needs to be done before the next reveal or someone will have to Photoshop the individual images together without the next reveal revealed to keep them all consistent. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... I'm willing to do it but I'm not exactly sure how. Just highlight each one, screen-cap, then paste them all together? 68.144.77.185 20:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was copied from a no-flash version of the site, but I don't know how to disable flash. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 16:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You can turn off Flash by disabling JavaScript, I believe. 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Provided they're stored as two separate images and don't use some sort of filter, I/someone could probably decompile the flash and grab the desired assets, if this isn't against anet's wishes. Darke 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but the Necromancer parts appear to be coded differently compared to the other 3. More experience is required. :( - Infinite - talk 13:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling all Autobots! We need someone (with experience) to nab the "all professions highlighted" picture of the profession page before Thursday. Fame, fortune, and renown are but the beginnings of your reward! 68.144.77.185 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying a lot, but I can't get it to work! :( - Infinite - talk 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will give you a muffin or something if you get it! This also goes for anyone who gets the picture. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"T'wasn't meant as a jab at you, Infinite, was just shouting out for others to help you. :D 68.144.77.185 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving it a shot, but I'm not seeing a full image of all of them highlighted in the flash. Eive 06:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) After trying at least 6 separate methods of extracting images from Flash files, I can assure you there is no "all professions highlighted" picture. Unless Chriskang was some magic code god, someone shopped all of the images together. I could do that, but I would rather make it a tomorrow project as I am rather tired right now. Eive 09:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chriskang mentioned he took the picture from the version of the GW2 website without Flash. This time, though, the image available is the one we have here (without highlights). I guess there isn't anywhere a version of all the professions with highlighted pictures. I hope ArenaNet changes that and goes back to higlighted for the next reveal. Erasculio 11:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is disappointing. Still, it could be 'shopped together. Is the cloudy foreground image (and the background image, if one exists) uploaded to the wiki? If not, will someone please upload it? I've got a plan to 'shop it if I need to. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can probably upload any image in it to the wiki, so what do you mean by the "cloudy foreground image"? Eive 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's got dust clouds and particles at the bottom, as well as particles on the right side. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 07:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Guardian

Guess he's the 2nd Soldier. So the "gunner" is adventurer... .--86.111.99.139 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

SPECULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --The Holy Dragons 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been stated there will be no gunner profession. tyvm. -- Konig/talk 14:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Means the charr guy at the top left side of professions picture, mr.omniscient.. .--86.111.99.139 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we stop with people whining about speculations its getting pretty annoying--Icyyy Blue 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not whining I'm jut saying it's speculation.. ;3 --The Holy Dragons 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/8/87/Professions_reveal_detail_7.png ~likely guardian, visible shield and sword. As for gunner.. it's rather dis-preferred. Unless it's a pirate. In which case I want. (and before anyone else does, SPECULATIIIOOOONNNN)~ Reez 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No speculation plox. It has gotten to be annoying. We get it: the guardian is the probable 2nd soldier profession. Now please, stop with the speculation. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I love how there was any "speculation" at all when Logan is called a guardian on the back of Edge of Destiny 71.174.156.37 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, calling him a guardian could've and was probably interpreted as a protector of the group, another word for leader if you say. - Lucian Shadowborn 23:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

the same way that you can get guardian titles in GW, it could've just been his title. (no, not in a sense that they gave him a title from GW)~ Reez 06:42 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys. Forums exist for a reason. Please use them. Thanks. -Auron 07:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of the community expects it to be the second Solider. Do we really need this info? Chanw4 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Don't bother arguing with it for now, it'll only be like this for the next 13 hours, tops. (Besides, it's true anyways, even if it is just superfluous information) 68.144.77.185 08:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated Image

I have an image from the website that has all 5 of the professions now.

>File:11.jpg< Can we get this on the page? Gregory The Avenger | Talk 14:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Profession Page Top Right

To border or to not border, that is the question. Aqua (talk|contribs) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Border. - Infinite - talk 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

no-border = twice as clean --The Holy Dragons 21:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I liked the old images more, actually. The current ones aren't nearly as impressive, IMO. Erasculio 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the concern was is that we weren't able to get a high quality *and* square picture. The different sizes kinda made the guardian awkward. 22:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The new images are available instantly during reveal; the old ones are not. Hence I vote the new ones. - Infinite - talk 22:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this one? Flip it and it should work. IMO, making the articles prettier is more important than how soon the images are available. Erasculio 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is: the background image is slightly more detailed. (And by slightly I mean noticeably). Aqua (talk|contribs) 22:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The format is weirder with the new images. The profession articles have long TOCs, and the new images are big only horizontally, not vertically; we end with a lot of white space and the top of the article being smashed to the side.

And for the records, I also don't like the new quotes. The old ones were flavor text; the new ones are the kind of thing we're supposed to say at the body of the article, not something to be quoted. Erasculio 22:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The "new quotes" are the far more useful "in game descriptions" straight from the videos. It's kinda like how we used the In game description on GWW. And, why not use "NOTOC." The pages are short enough IMO. Aqua (talk|contribs) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

They may be useful, but they lack a point. They are an introductory text explaining concisely what the profession is; the text currently directly below the quote is an introductory text explaining concisely what the profession is. The quotes were just flavor text, which IMO is what the quotes are best used for.

And I would rather keep the articles as easy to navigate as possible, instead of using a NOTOC command just to keep ugly images there : P Erasculio 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Flavor quotes are nice, but serve no practical purpose. ("Pretty but useless") I would much rather has a good, descriptive quote, than a "Good boy! Hold them down while I shoot them, you get a biscuit!" That IMO does several things: a) makes it seems somewhat frivolous and jovial. (In fact that quote particularly irks me). b) It does not help the players understand what the profession does. (In the example I use, you know that someone has a pet and that they shoot things.) Now compare that to the in game description: "Rangers are proficient with the bow. They rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature to slay their targets. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance." Not only does it possess a little of a flavor quote, but it surely tells us what the profession does, and gives us an idea as to their capabilities. Aqua (talk|contribs) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the goal of "The ranger is a nature-themed adventurer profession which combines their use of pets with mobile combat and a focus on ranged attacks. The ranger can use a wide variety of weapons, but they tend to favor bows. Their repertoire of utility skills focuses on pet buffs, traps and spirits of nature". We don't need to have two pieces of text telling what the profession does, especially when one is directly below the other. Both the flavor quote and the description quote are useless; the first at least adds flavor, the second is just redundant. Erasculio 22:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Or perhaps the player written description is the thing to remove... Aqua (talk|contribs) 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The player written description is more complete - it states if the ranger is an adventurer or soldier or scholar, as well as anything else we want it to say. The quote, in other hand, only says what ArenaNet saw fitting to say. It's not really necessary. Erasculio 23:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying they really aren't completely redundant...isn't that why you are advocating for their removal (the quote)? Aqua (talk|contribs) 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The player written text states everything the ArenaNet quote says and more. The ArenaNet quotes say some of the things the player written text states, but not everything. Therefore, we don't need to have both - the more complete player written text should be kept, the ArenaNet quote removed. Erasculio 23:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eras on this.

(Our stuff + flavour quote) > (Our stuff alone) > (Our stuff + duplicated prof description) > (Prof description alone) > (Fluff quote alone). Can provide reasons but Eras has said most of them. -- aspectacle  23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the in-game descriptions. They better explain the profession in an official manner. :) I also think the new images for each profession adds a lot more (the border looks great)! :D Very nice, for sure. --Amannelle 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Flavor quotes don't exactly seem to possess the useful nor the relevance that in-game descriptions do. Flavor quotes should never trump in game descriptions. So what if it is a little redundant, it is the official way that ANet describes the profession during character creation. (And it is only occasionally redundant.) Or perhaps we could do something that I am about to link to in my sandbox and ask for opinions on. Aqua (talk|contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here they are. Aqua (talk|contribs) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To say the truth, it looks like a bit ugly to me. I wouldn't like to have more than one quote per page, and those icons are really very low quality to be used on the wiki. Again, the official descriptions are neither as complete as the text we have writen, nor do they add anything to the articles beyond what is already there. We don't need to have them in the articles at all. Erasculio 01:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the two quote thing if one wasn't directly above the other - it makes the page look clunky. What about if you have the in-game description up the top left where the elementalist page currently has it, and then that one-liner quote underneath the main picture? (Xu Davella 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

(Reset indent) Or we could put the IG description in the abilities section, but I'm a bit suspicious that that idea is not a good one. I shall work on getting higher res icons. Aqua (talk|contribs) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See example again for high res ones. Aqua (talk|contribs) 02:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Before anything, the profession pages are now massively inconsistent. The guardian uses the proposed image, the necro is using a badly shopped image and only the other 3 are using the standard image. I say for now; we have all 5 official website profession images, mirror those (as per Eras) and put them up there for consistent documentation, hmm? - Infinite - talk 12:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

agree--Icyyy Blue 12:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The wallpapers are inconsistant and quite frankly --ugly. Thats' just my opinion. At least with the released images there is some sort of consistancy. - Lucian 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Per Infinite's suggest above, I have edited the profession articles so all share the same formatting until we settle on a common rule for all of them. Regarding the choice between wallpaper or small image: I don't believe there is any advantage in using the small images. Going point per point:

• Image size: the small images add a lot of white space. Compare the white space below the image here and here. The wallpaper image has considerably less white space below it, plus it does not push the text to the left as much as the small image does. Someone suggested removing the table of contents, but I don't believe we should make the article harder to navigate just in order to make the small images fit better.
• Consistency: all wallpaper images follow the same art style. Meanwhile, not all small images follow the same style - most are cropped versions of the individual images seen at the Professions article of the GW2 website, but the necromancer image, seen here, is from a different source showing a different character. Since those small images lack consistency, I think the wallpaper images are better for the profession articles.
• Beauty: it's subjective (I personally like the wallpaper images more). However, the small images are not full images by themselves - they are clearly cropped images taken from somewhere else (in most cases, taken from the image at the official site's main Professions article, and in the necromancer case taken from the second wallpaper). Meanwhile, the wallpaper images are full images, showing the entire character. I believe it would be better to have full images than cropped images as the main images for the profession articles.
• Infinite mentioned above that the small images are imediately released when we get a new profession, while the wallpaper image isn't; however, both are released at the same time. The wallpaper images are found as wallpapers at each profession's article, together with the small images.

Therefore, I don't see much of a point in changing to the small images. Erasculio 10:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My primary concern is/was that I'd have to launch GIMP per profession release or wait till someone else removes the text. <3 Yes, I'm egotistical. - Infinite - talk 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The smaller files are of the (with the exception of the necromancer) profession reveal and are far better than the background images currently in use. Also, Anet uses the heads on profession select that are from the same picture... If Anet uses them for that profession then I think its' only logical to use them here on the offical guildwars2 wiki instead of horrbily cropped background images. - Lucian 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"and are far better than the background images" - why? I also don't understand your comment about the "horribly cropped" images; as mentioned above, the small images are the ones actually cropped from larger images (the ones used at the main professions article), while the wallpapers are full images. Erasculio 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"the small images are" , were. They're straight from the html links and are used on the guildwars2 website to give information on that particular profession. - Lucian 22:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand... This image is a cropped version of a bigger reproduction of this image; only it's badly cropped, since it's cutting both the top of the helm and the weapon, not to mention the shield and the entire lower body. This, in other hand, is the full image showing the character in full. I would rather have the full image than a bad crop as the article's main image. Erasculio 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not badly cropped. :) It is perfect, as it shows the Guardian and focuses on the upper body. It doesn't need to be some full-body illustration, it just needs to give the flavor of the guardian, which it does perfectly. I DEFINITELY prefer the cropped pictures over the full-body ones. They look nicer, cleaner, and their frames emphasize GW2's art style. :) Definitely better. --Amannelle 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it was already uploaded here -because the "new files" page is still broken for me- but an high-res version of this image is on Kekai's blog. Chriskang 00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the smaller image indeed. Just without the black outline. :) - Lucian 0:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Or we could use the profession reveal images (the full ones...) Aqua (T|C) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The cropped images would only look good as they are used on the GW2 website, centered as a banner. The crop is really ugly for a side image: the negative space in the frame is too great and too one-sided. The reveal images, mirrored appropriately, may be fine. The background images are also fine. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Soldier

It's been confirmed that there will be 2 soldier professions. So I find it confusing that in the latest "designing humans" article, Aaron Coberly writes, "… if you’re a warrior, you share the heavy armor class with the guardian (so far)." Hinting at another heavy armour class? Whaaa—? – NuclearDuckie 13:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"So far" is referring to the fact that at the moment, all soldier professions are able to wear the same armor.-- Shew 13:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They have said it is entirely possible that they will add new professions in new campaigns or professions. So the two soldier professions are the warrior and guardian, so far. --hexal 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that makes sense.-- Shew 13:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IG Description and Flavor Quote

Now that we have tangos...can we do "In game description" and then "flavor quote"? Aqua (T|C) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I support only one quote at the start of an article. Pick which one you like best and go with it. -- aspectacle  00:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is my attempt at a compromise with a certain someone who insists upon using flavor quotes. At best the flavor quotes are useless, though there are ones *cough* ranger *cough* than I not only find useless, but frivolous and annoying. Aqua (T|C) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The flavor quotes at least add flavor. The description quotes are redundant; they are not good enough descriptions to relief the need for a description in the article itself, and they do not add anything beyond what's already in the article. While I could see a point in keeping the flavor quotes, I see no point at all in using the in-game descriptions. Erasculio 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If we had to choose one, I'd pick the flavor quotes. Having two very similar descriptions in the same article makes for tired reading. -Xu Davella 04:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The flavor quotes are at best kind of cute, at worst a minor irk. Descriptions are at best redundant, and at worst very redundant. --ஸ Kyoshi 04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thief

Woot! theif revealed. Confirmed to wear medium armor. (Used guild wars guru and gametrailers videos as source)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.65.74 (talk • contribs).

It's Thief, not theif. Also don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). Thanks. Waar Kijk Je Naar 11:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Xu's changes

@ Xu Davella; just to start, i'm not annoyed about anything, so please don't take this that way; in fact the larger change to the article makes it better reading imo, so in general its good work, but I have a couple of points about your last few changes

firstly, imo the first edit wasn't a minor change, so don't tag it as such (sorry if that sounds petty)

secondly, just because something is general knowledge doesn't mean you can remove references for it; for instance known generally isn;t the same as known by all. Its better to have a reference for something than no references at all. All this page needs for a general reference though is a link to the profession page on the GW2 official siteThering 13:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I have a habit of tagging stuff as minor changes as a...er...habit. And as for the references, I'll go and add them back in. I was half awake when I did that. :) -- Xu Davella 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great! and good work with the edits, it really improved the article Thering 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia listing in which order professions were revealed

On some of the individual profession articles, under the trivia section, there is information basically stating the order in which the profession was released i.e. first, second not featuring in the original e.t.c. However some don't list this information. Should we change it so they all have a bit of information about this or not? Kaloce 19:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this information is really needed on the profession page and would be more suited to just being on the Profession reveal page, in my opinion. Fleitos 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not the order for all professions, but rather only the 3 non-GW1 professions as they are exactly that, new. The profession reveal article also keeps track of the reveal order so that could be added as a trivia bullet in the future, when all 8 professions are revealed. - Infinite - talk 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No Derv?

*cries a little*--96.244.250.239 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ofcourse no dervish, The Dervish is a 100% human profession (they pray to the human gods) +scythes aren't included in the game and dervishes are 100% elonian, so IF we would get dervishes they'd be casters (we've got all adventurers) who don't pray to the gods and don't wield scythes (100% NOT dervish) ^^ --The Holy Dragons 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

bsides, the one thing that stuck out for the derv was the AoE damage of the scythe, which a lot of weapons can do in this game anyway. Kinda took that away as well. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.47.76 (talk).

more like they allowed other professions to fight more realistically... when you swing a weapon sideways, you don't hit only one thing... doesn't make sense that only the scythe can do that. that wasn't really "taken away" from the dervish, just granted to other professions so they aren't as "limited" ~~ Kiomadoushi 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This talk has been done many times, so let's leave it at that. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Adrenaline

Source? --ஸ Kyoshi 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The interview on June 10th I believe. - 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A better reference is this interview. Most references to the passive damage were removed at the time. This one was missed. -- aspectacle  07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In one of the most recent interviews it is stated the additional damage from adrenaline may make its return in the form of a trait. Should this be incorporated as a note? - Infinite - talk 11:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: On the Adrenaline article, that is. - Infinite - talk 11:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

May return and will return are two different things. It can be noted as trivia on the warrior page, I think, in the same form as Profession#Trivia, Ranger#Triva, and Engineer#Trivia's notes from the interview which states the "may return" bit. -- Konig/talk 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Armor and Scholar/Adventurer/Soldier

I've decided to bring this up at a less obscure location than where I originally brought it up. My suggestion is to merge Light Armor into Scholar, Medium Armor into Adventurer, and Heavy Armor into Soldier. Aqua (T|C) 20:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. From what we were told, profession plays no special part on what equips you wear (unlike gw1), but class does. Armor A for scholar is Armor A for necro is Armor A for ele... the classes are more important, as Armor A on a scholar always is this, and Armor A for soldier always is that, even though they're all "Armor A". Merging armor types (essentially the class anyways) with the professions' armor classes makes as much sense as having Warrior special skill types and Warrior weapons/sets on the Warrior profession page. ~~ Kiomadoushi 22:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholar is just a fancy way to say "wears light armor" and so forth. Redirect the various armor pages to either Armor or to their respective profession grouping. Whether or not the armor can be worn on multiple professions or not is irrelevant (likewise for whether it appears the same if a single piece can be worn by multiples of the class). -- Konig/talk 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as I'd already told. Alfa-R 11:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- aspectacle  00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --ஸ Kyoshi 04:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Xu Davella 09:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible idea. A F K When Needed 10:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For now, perhaps, but in the future we need to clarify specifically what Scholars, Adventurers and Soldiers are, as well as list each armor type with content. If the articles are still too small on their own during that time and expanding it is hardly viable, it can remain merged. For now, though, merging is fine. - Infinite - talk 11:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

fine for now, but where was the "obscure place?"--Icyyy Blue 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There [1] Alfa-R 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

GW1 Profession?

So are they going to tell us what happen to the old profession from GW1 that won't appear in GW2? Cause I myself really love the ritualist and It kinda bum me out that their not in GW2 >_> which was kinda expected anyways...but yea I would love to know what happens to them :) did rits and necro made a pact :O? and become one yada yada yada, I just wanna know what happens to them, should be a quest in gw2 that explain that hopefully :x --76.203.48.120 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ritualists have reincarnated as engineers in a way (i.e. turrets = Spirits). Or at least, the comparisons between the two have been drawn. And as per, "I hope there's a quest...": wait and see... Aqua (T|C) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Quest? What is that? Anyways, we know the lore behind the monk and paragon's disappearance - their teachings have been merged into other things. Assassin was likely just a case of "what they do has changed so much they received a new name" (though I still favor the old name over the new one...). Dervish and Ritualist... their story is probably something along the lines of "they never really integrated into the other societies and when their home nation was cut off, they eventually died out in Tyria." - If done that way, then those two can be brought into the game in future expansions. Though the Ritualist would be vastly changed in mechanics, and the dervish changed in lore. Konig/talk 21:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There's never been very much lore about the GW1 professions, their history and how they fit into the world, and none of the professions seem to form a cohesive, organized group, so I wouldn't expect to hear anything about what happened to non-returning professions any more than we ever found out why or how the GW1 professions began. Manifold 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

...NOT completely true there... see GW1:Lore, if you bother to read enough, you'll learn things like Abaddon introduced magic into the world, assassins developed as simple assassination experts and formed guilds to make rules for their line of work, and dervishes stepped forward attempting to drive back the darkness of strife of the shattered dynasty era in the time of the primeval kings using chants to summon the light of the gods to save the world. Read up a little more and you'll see we do have a good bit of lore to give the professions, and the whole world of Tyria, a history.

I see Dervishes as capable of returning, with some lore changes. Except for the sylvari, due to their newness, every race has some concept of deities (actually, sylvari recognize other racial deities as possibly existing, trying to learn about the world; the charr have their false gods of the Flame Legion, which makes for a possible personal story). And as a form of magic, any race can call upon the light and strength of a greater deity to empower them. This MIGHT cause some racial imbalances as to which deity set is the best, but they may be able to limit it by not taking forms of certain gods or such, but instead use blessings from their respective deities in ways of "empowerment of strength", "empowerment of life", "empowerment of magic", and change how each deity set works with that per race... Change up the lore to allow other races to see the importance of turning to greater deities (even if the charr must turn to accepting the teachings of the Flame Legion, which creates the conflicting personal story for charr dervishes) and the dervish can fit. (note, i still say last profession is mesmer.) ~~ Kiomadoushi 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure to keep this discussion from degenerating into "x profession could come back because y". Not that discussions that result from asking questions we can't answer are really much better. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"There's never been very much lore about the GW1 professions" BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *catches breath* HA! Very funny joke. Seriously. Go pick up one of the manuals. Go do the profession-specific quests in the tutorial areas (most of which are forced). Go read gw1:An Empire Divided#Unique Canthan Professions. Fun fact: The profession articles on the GWW are lacking immensely. Especially in lore. But there are certainly a lot of lore on the GW1 professions. However, this lore is limited to the human race's perspective. A human monk is different from a charr monk, for instance, and we know nothing of the charr monks.

@Kio: Charr dervish is not possible without taking the divinity aspect out of dervishes. A dervish to a norn is just a scythe-wielder, as they're all faithful and capable of taking on the forms of their deities. Dervishes would just simply need to lose its ties to the Six Gods in order to be brought back as a playable profession in GW2. Guardians are close enough to the dervishes as well, so I don't see much of a niche for them to fit. Konig/talk 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

i only said capable, and with lore changes, and i included dropping the god forms aspects, but instead including empowerments of the deities (like a passive), and not saying they would or that anet would even consider it... but when you point out how they already exist in guardians (and they did say no professions will have too similar of play types), that does rule that out completely. Although, I was really just using that for the point that lore could make anything fit, and that what we know about the dervish making it impossible is actually just ignorance on where the dervish came from because people don't read the lore as they probably should... And charr still have divinity, with a battered history with the flame legion... They could have been born to flame legion, brought up under the knowledge of false charr gods, only to turn on flame legion, using their own powers against them... But that's all lore possibilities! Story can do a lot!!! Actually, I just thought of a real speculative way that Dervishes could potentially return, dropping the divinity thing, story included... I'll be adding it to my speculations page in a little while...

on an unrelated note to the above, we should probably add related lore to the GW1 profession pages, and possibly others, so people aren't so blind to the knowledge out there... ~~ Kiomadoushi 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The manuals and quests are much more about what a profession's roles are, what their skills do, and how to use them. I've seen some expanded lore about the sin, rit, and dervish, but not so much the others. I'm looking through pre-searing quests and NPCs and not finding anything that expands on class lore. My Prophecies manual has plenty about Mhenlo and crew, the human nations, and the mechanics of professions, but nothing about the lore behind them. An Empire Divided really isn't what I'd call "a lot of lore", but it's a start. Is there anything like that for the core professions besides the bloodstones for the casters and which god goes with which attribute? Or is it just general "rangers are close to nature, mesmers are tricky" stuff that is apparent from the name?

This was the most I could find in pre-searing: "Elementalists may frighten lackwits with no greater concept of combat than striking someone with an over-sized mallet, but any Mesmer worth his salt is a far greater threat than a robed buffoon who likes to play with fire. It's true Mesmers are often discounted for their use of illusions, but the most masterful Mesmers eschew illusions for mental domination. A small army of skale are marching through the woods to the east. I will teach you a few skills that should help you dispatch them far better than the brute force an Elementalist would employ. Then you will know what it is like to wield real power."" Manifold 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Kio: I was referring to the statement about charr utilizing the false gods of the Flame Legion - which are of the past by GW2's point, as their goal now is to create a god from their own, rather than take existing beings and revere them.

@Manifold: Apologies, it wasn't pre-Searing, but rather Factions' tutorial area which I was primarily remembering, along with the "changing my secondary" Crystal Desert quests. Most lore in Prophecies, however, is more about the personality and everyday tasks behind the profession, rather than their origin (as of this topic). Non-core professions clearly have their origin history, as shown in the link earlier. There is quite a bit on what they do in lore. Somewhere in Prophecies Necromancers are said to be protectors of balance in the world - in Cantha, this role is split between assassins, rangers, and necromancers, the former providing balance in society's, rangers to provide nature's balance, and necromancers to provide balance between life and death (for instance: "Much as the Ranger safeguards Nature's balance, the Assassin's purpose is to right social imbalance."); elementalists in Tyria have shown to be of dire interest of knowledge (example), while more focused on raw power in Cantha, and more laid back in Elona. Most lore in Prophecies requires digging - lots of it, but my point is: Lore exists. Regarding the Paragon, there is lore on them which you haven't seen, apparently. Don't know if it's anywhere on any gw wiki, but the paragon are leaders (and "guardian angels") that are said to be chosen by the gods and that their destiny is foreseen by them, including a line stating that if two paragons were to clash in battle, that battle was pre-destined. Konig/talk 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to put my prediction on the next profession somewhere...it will be a summoner class, it will call on actual creatures to join the fight on your side, this is my prediction :P Attila The Hun 15:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the note that this is not the place to put predictions. Just to clarify, it's not. --ஸ Kyoshi 04:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Anet already said they won't be tying into Factions lore in the initial release when talking about the thief/assassin. So i doubt there will be a quest, and it may be a while bf they bring up the lore behind it.--Moto Saxon 04:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There's awfully little information available on thief lore, but it should be safe to assume that Canthans had something to do with it, at least when it comes to humans. It could also be a natural development, considering all these big and bustling cities and differing social classes and practices. Many relevant charr have been assassinated, and stealthy approach fits picture of solo norn hunter perfectly. Mediggo 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Konig: How are guardians similar to Dervishes? Dervishes where high pressure AoE melee warriors capable of several damage types with layed enchantments allowing them an interesting mix of balancing defense and offense. None of the Guardians abilites seem similar. Concerning the Dervishes return, well I think they could just make the avatars human exclusive skills like the Norn only transformations. That is really the only part which might be an issue for multi-racial dervishes. I hope they do something with Dervishes. They were my favorite GW1 class and their absence in GW2 is really a lame. So far GW2 has been far less flavorful with its classes going with boring tried and true favorites like Theives and Engineers. One of the elements I liked about GW1 was they seemed to get more flavorful and creative as they went, so far GW2 doesn't seem quiet as willing to move off the beaten path from a lore/flavor PoV despite them shaking up the whole MMO scene with bold new gameplay ideas. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.116.90.194 (talk).

Old Dervish = holy(ish) melee class, like a proto-paladin, while the Guardian is a real paladin. I agree the new dervish mechanics make it a lot more offensive, but the old one was just a paladin with a scythe and robe.--Mark, het Beest 14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, well I never played the pre-feb 2011 dervish so I can't comment on that. I like the current devish and have had a lot of PvE fun with them. So far they are the only proffession that doesn't either already have a counter part or been totally ruled out and I think it is fairly safe to say the last class is not going to be the dervish or a devish counter part being a scholar class. Though maybe with soldier's being short 1 class compaired to the other two they are holding the door open for dervishes. 209.116.90.194 15:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the third time, this talk page is not for speculating about the unrevealed profession. It's for discussing changes to the Profession page. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Though this does make me wonder. Professions in Tyria have evolved because of random stuff... but how would that be in Cantha? Cantha is cut off from the main land... And we do not know what kind of information the Order of Whispers has taken to Elona. That would make us think, that both continents might be lagging behind on anything we now see in Tyria 110-190+/- years after Zhaitans awakening. I wonder... Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible icons for classes

I was thinking perhaps we should add an icon for Soldier/Adventurer/Scholar (hereafter known as class). Perhaps something like Helm/Bandana/Mask? --Briar AHOY! 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated: They already are known as "class"... although that makes me think - this isn't the best place to note classes, but Class redirects to Profession... Shouldn't we have some sort of {{otheruses}} on class, directing to the armor classes?

Related: Not sure how well that'd match. Not all adventurers or scholars wear masks or bandanas. We're fine without icons for it, as the professions take care of icons enough, and classes only matter by what armor you are capable of wearing - they aren't necessary to have icons, or soon we'd have icons for the orders you can join, icons for each weapon type, icons for each waypoint, icons for each field, icons for each user (on top of your sig)... If the icon doesn't already exist in the game, it's not worth adding. ~~ Kiomadoushi 22:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the unrelated note, a lot of people associate class to profession, that's pretty much the only reason why it's a redirect to this page. People who aren't familiar with the game and whatnot. --Xu Davella 23:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hence a reason for {{otheruses}} for the people who ARE familiar with the game and really are searching for class - soldier, adventurer, scholar... ~~ Kiomadoushi 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As said on Comic-Con

The 8th and final profession will be revealed this year! Tomoko 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Last scholar profession

← moved to User talk:Headache

Profession Comparison GW1 - GW2

Well, like the subject says, I just want to get this straight before I continue to write trash:

Some/All professions in GW2 are comparable to the ones in GW1, am I right? So ...

GW2 - GW1

Warrior - Warrior

Guardian - Paragon / Monk

Engineer - Ritualist (most because of this "turrets = kind of spirits"-theory)

Ranger - Ranger

Thief - Assassin?

Elementalist - Elementalist

Necromancer - Necromancer

Now I'm just wondering ... When I played an W/E in GW1 that used his melee-skills as main damage source and elementalist-spells as "support" to that damage, which profession should I take in GW2 to match this playstyle of mine as best as possible? Guardian?

And ... I hope I didn't got that right, but ... is the mace the only weapon available to the Guardian? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.90.128 (talk).

Guardians represent a mix of magic and physical combat so if you like playing something akin to a "Battlemage" that would probably be the right profession. And guardians can use scepters, swords, shields, warhorns, foci, greatswords, hammers and staffs, in addition to maces. Aqua (T|C) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you liked playing warrior, you might just wanna play with a longbow or use banners to deal AoE damage and support. I'dd recommend you to take a look around wiki and official site for skill videos and such. Mediggo 20:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But going by the comparison above i gues the last profession will be a Mesmer/Dervish influenced profession? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damysticreaper (talk • contribs).

Anything's possible, but keep speculation to the user space. --ஸ Kyoshi 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah thats right gueses and such things fall under speculation. Even if it's based on data and follows logic i gues the variable turns everything into speculation no matter how clear and obvious without confirmation it's fall under speculations. Sorry about that then, and about forgetting to sign. Da Mystic Reaper 11:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)