Talk:Professions reveal/Archive 1

Professions

I have no doubt that these are the professions. The images are following the same style as the races page's images: the image with all races seems to be by the same artist as the image that's currently being revealed, and the individual race images are by Richard Anderson, the same guy who has done these recently revealed images.Shew 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your right Shew. Why would they release a blurred piece of concept art showing 8 figures holding different weapons? Be kinda pointless, also so close to the 5th year Anniversary :). Also, no sig after 3 edits eh Shew? :P --aut (t) 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha...there we go. :P-- Shew 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt the professions. :D But it is the wiki and we're not supposed to state speculation as fact. :( I'm hoping there is a new version of the image coming out today - preferably with a lot more detail. -- Aspectacle  23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming Profession pictures

It's probably best if we hold off on doing that until these things are confirmed. I mean, most of us are already quite sure we see a Mesmer, Ranger, Assassin, and Warrior, but until these are confirmed, we probably should leave it as "Unknown". ^^ Just my 2 cents... Now I need to ask for more lunch money :P --Amannelle 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Reaper of Scythes** 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not... I think we should not write "this is a warrior...", but these images are like any other information here - we not sure about it. Just keep them for now. -- Itay Alon • Talk 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What I think they are-->(left to right from top)

1.Ele(durr)

2.ranger

3.assassin

4.warrior

5.noclue(haha)

6.mesmer

i didnt put my sig...genius(:--IcyyyBlue ♥♥ 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, your noclue profession- Heres to hoping... She looks very warrior-ish, so im not gonna rule out the possibility of her being merely a female warrior concept, but the blue background, and very holy Mace and Shield appearance, and the presence of the "Monk's" blue background color makes me strongly see Paladin. !!!!! if so, then im gonna squee like a little girl. :) 91.22.191.235 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New Reveal:The Warrior

Here we go: http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/warrior/ --_{I Am}Legion talk 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/warrior/

Someone Gunna Change The Picture To Have The Warrior With The Elementalist?--♥Icyyy♥‎ 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dissapointing, we already knew the war was confirmed. I WANT A NEW PROFESSION. Vald Wednesday 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed too. They could have revealed one of the "not-so-expected" professions instead. But I guess they're saving the best for last. -- Ninetythree | T | C | 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At least we're sure the next one will be "not-so-expected"XD--Sierra84.196.121.48 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My moneys on either ranger or necro next, I can see them saving the really unexpected ones for later. --ErikMm 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think they'll save the new professions for last? Ramei Arashi 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They Probably Will, Which Will Suck If You Ask Me Lol But They Should Do That.--♥Icyyy♥‎ 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, actually. My guess is that they'll release the Ranger (Adventurer) next (in time for the GamesCom demo), then the Necro (Scholar)/Mesmer (Scholar)/Assassin (Adventurer) (in whichever order, probably the one I just posted it in), and last but not least the 2nd Soldier and 3rd Adventurer (in whichever order). --Naoroji 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I Seriously Didn't Want The Assassins To Make A Comeback They Ruined The Game In My Opinion.--♥Icyyy♥‎ 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully anet learned from their mistakes for assassins in GW1. For example giving them a skill that had tanking ability (aka SF). I only named that one because it was the most obvious. I'm hoping the assassin will be more like in Assassin's Creed 2, just without the jumping off of rooftops and putting a hidden blade in someone's neck. If you can understand what i mean by using AC2 as an example. More of a physical character less of a caster. Although there would of course be something to make them unique like maybe an increased chance to dodge to something, but not to the extent that they easily outclass other professions. Or something like they can attack faster (much like daggers in GW1) but deal less damage (again daggers) but excel in setting up an enemy to be killed. Less of a killer more of a wound inflicter, which may work with the new combat system for GW2. Or maybe they can deal armor ignoring damage to still give them killing potential. I'm interested in seeing what anet does with them. Daeheru 22:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats why I never like Assassins. Atleast im not the only one that didn't like the sins skills.I made a sin and hated it. Hopefully they don't make the mistake again or ill have a word with them...(:--Icyyy Blue 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Assassins... Ruined The Game"

Actually, assassins with access to secondary professions ruined the game. Secondary professions don't exist in GW2, meaning assassins will be fine (or at least, much easier to balance without screwing up other professions). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if anet knew theyd have access to 2ndary profession, so they shouldnt have made them the way they were!--Icyyy Blue 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well as far as assassin's having access to secondary professions, anet may not have seen the potential of assassins with the right skills that aren't an assassin skill. The problem with MMORPGs as far as skills go, the game designers try to have one intention, but that intention is not the intention of most players, which would be to make the game as easy as possible, meaning that players will look for ways to exploit skills that were not meant to be exploited. If everything was used the way game designers intended, there would be no such thing as a nerf or buff. Nerfs and buffs are made because players find ways to exploit games because naturally players want to have the easiest time playing, so the game designers make things less exploitable and some things more usable. Perfect examples of these in GW1 is prenerf ursan, and the huge popularity of discord heroes. These make the game easy, and thus appeal to players. Nerfs come from players thinking (though some not knowingly or putting into words) "abuse something as much as possible, because it will get nerfed." Daeheru 08:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Formidable and Adaptable SWF

If someone has saved the SWFs files from before the elementalist was unveiled, please send them to me. I'd like to extract her silhouette image. Chriskang 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there were any SWFs from before the Ele was announced. I think the Professions-page was only made at the time they released the Ele. --Naoroji 22:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really? Does it mean that the first 2 images were only released through FB and twitter? And that the first Flash animation on GW2.com already had the Ele unveiled in it? Chriskang 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup!-- Shew ♠♠♠ 23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Silhouette's transparency

Just realized today that the silhouette PNGs have an alpha channel. It was probably too obvious... Anyway, you can see a few more details if you watch them in front of a non-white background. Chriskang 17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Preview. The extra bits are clearest on the last two. pling 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put them on a different coloured background in this article, as well. Black would be the obvious choice, imo. Or is maroon the better choice, Pling? --Naoroji 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark red is the best IMO. Chriskang 19:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Regular red is definatly, it shows a lot more detail in areas that would be white, rather than blending in with the dark colors. btw [[1]] Shadowed Ritualist 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Elementalist

Following on to the rewrite, I put the Formiddable and Adaptable images. Sorry for them being rubbish, but its better then nothing :P. If anybody can be bothered to outlight them precicly then go ahead xD --Naut 18:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename

I disagree with the move to "Revealed professions" - the page isn't really about the professions that have been revealed but the way in which they were revealed. "Professions reveal" wasn't perfect, but "revealed professions" doesn't reflect the page's content. pling 20:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; "Revealed professions" actually sounds like a category, and in that sense it's very wrong. "Profession(s) reveal" was good enough in describing that the actual action is documented. poke | talk 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a long irc convo about the name of this page, and more importantly, whether this page is necessary in the first place, seeing how redundant it seems to document the process of revealing professions; once the game is released it doesn't really serve any purpose whatsoever. My suggestion is, that if you really feel it is necessary to document things as when a profession is spoiled, just have a line on each profession's trivia page, stating when the profession was confirmed. Thoughts? ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My vote is to keep it until the game is released, then we can come to a consensus. As of now, it's quick access to all the profession pictures, and i find it useful. Vald Saturday 20:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Im With Pling On This One.--Icyyy Blue 20:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Revealing of professions" is probably the only concise way to come as close to the 'truth' as possible. But please don't start a name suggestion convo. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 20:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Chaos. This page doesn't have enough content to warrant a separate article. Especially considering once a new step is released and the old one(s) become unavailable, this page is essentially useless. If its only purpose is to help people follow how things are released, link them to twitter or something. We can include the couple images as a series as a note on the profession page if people really want to know about a non-important event with no lasting significance. – Emmett 20:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefered the old name. This just doesn't seem right. --Naut 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of simply deleting this page and moving any relevant tidbits of information to the respective profession articles. The page claims to document an "event driven by ArenaNet," but the event has no name or player interaction or any of that. It's basically a marketing scheme or something similar - something that deserves mention in the trivia section of either Guild Wars 2 or Professions, but doesn't deserve its own page.

More on-topic, though, I would favor "revealing of professions" as the name. It keeps the focus on the act of revealing without sounding too awkward. -Auron 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Mr. Chaos' idea.--h. moo. 20:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This Page Should Not Be Deleted!!/DISAGREE!--Icyyy Blue 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the time before the game is released is important and appropriate to document. As such we should not simply ignore the process of how the professions were revealed. In the end, it might not be that appropriate to have one single page for it, and we might could later (when the process has ended) move the actual information to the respective profession page. But given how much profession specific things we might end up with GW2, this will just clutter those pages, so we could also simply keep the page as it is. Anyway, I am still of the opinion that having this documented is important. In the end it does no harm, but actually documents stages before the game. poke | talk 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell do you want it to be deleted? This page is great, it gives an historical insight on how professions were revealed. This event is exactly what a wiki is for >.> --Naut 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One Shot Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About...--Icyyy Blue 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this "event" (if it can even be called such) is exactly what a fansite is for. This wiki is not a fansite. Once the information is made public, we put it on paper. Once all of the information is available, the page will be completely useless, but it's already pretty useless.

Look at a similar example on Wikipedia. The unique method of marketing for that movie was worth mentioning, but it lacked sufficient content to be its own article. The same is true here. I would like to see some of the information kept, but as a side note on the Guild Wars 2 page, not here pretending to be an article with content when it simply is not. -Auron 20:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"<baxter> but that's a poor argument, since wikipedia is not a district 9 wiki".

Also I don't get why a wiki wouldn't be allowed to document such things, Auron. poke | talk 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect the content level to rise as we get more professions announced. pling 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@Icyyyblue: Pretty sure I do y'know. I like Mr. Chaos' idea. Is That Hard To Understand Or Something?--h. moo. 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats what im thinking pling. Once all the professions have been revealed, there will be loads of information on this page. Simply to much and to pointless to split into different ones. --Naut 20:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Because they're not worth documenting. This page claims to document an "event," already stretching the definition of the word, but proceeds to list blurry jgps with captions and never really has a point. So what if the warrior information was revealed on June 9th? Does it have anything to do with Guild Wars 2? Does it even have anything to do with the warrior profession? Do the blurry jpgs with blurry shadows have content we need to document? As it stands, no, no, and no. It is interesting to note that profession information was released via a series of twitter and facebook updates, but the act of releasing information in such a way is not enough content to fill an entire article (especially one that, when completely filled, will be even more useless than it is now). -Auron 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are worth documenting, and I'm sorry if you are unable to understand that. These "blurry jgps" (It's Jpg and Png, btw) are the professions, and as such it is worth noting, just as valuable as concept art and the like. :) This is a wiki, and there is not official format that is laid out for every detailed occurrence, so it's up to us, basically, how to handle this. :) Seeing as how ANet has put importance on this, why should we not? --173.190.38.91 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, to get back to the actual topic of this section, is everyone opposed to moving this page to "Revealing of professions" for now? poke | talk 20:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody even objected the renaming? ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 23:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I do. "Professions reveal" is shorter, goes direct to the point and is easier to find both when searching through categories and when using the auto filling property of the search box. The explanation of "srs" to rename the article doesn't even deserve a reply, anyway.

GW1W's pages about the Guild Wars campaigns lack much of what Wikipedia has about games in general; there's a strong lack of sections like this dealing with real life aspects of the game, such as development history. This article is one of those things which describe Guild Wars 2 the product, not Guild Wars 2 the game world, and does so by letting people know about part of Arena Net's marketing strategy for the release of the game.

The concerns about this article claiming to describe an "event" aren't really important in this discussion; such claim was actually added today, and it isn't the point of this article anyway. Erasculio 01:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaos try reading other people's comments. As of now it looks like a 8/4 split in favor of staying the same. Myself, Icyyy, Erasculio, Pling, Poke, Vald, Naut, and the IP want it to stay, while Chaos, Oneshot, and the two no links (Auron and Emment) don't. I like this page's format and I firmly believe that this event will need to be documented, as it seems this will one of few such "major" events before GW2's release. GW1 wiki does not have enough info like this, and when it does have prerelease info you can never find it. I also think this is the best name for it. Revealed Professions is not what this page is documenting at all, that is what Profession is for. Reveal of Proffesions sounds obnoxiously redundant compared to Professions Reveal and adding an -ing to the former makes it seems like we Google-translated another languages wiki's article name. Eive Windgrace 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this page should be moved or deleted. Documenting pre-release info can be just as important as documenting post-release info, especially for those who wish to learn about the games history at a later time. This page should stay where it is for now and once the game is released then we can discuss whether or not to delete it. --hnzdvn 06:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read all the comments above, but I can't claim to have put very much effort in registering all that's happening up there. Okay, if consensus is this, then sure. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 10:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm for keeping this name. And please don't delete this page, these kinds of pages are never replicated anywhere else and are often the most interesting pages. Manifold 15:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Concept art

I'd rather see the full concept art at the bottom of the page instead of a crop that takes out a large part of the original image. pling 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

agree, and only the full one came from "GDC 2010 slideshow". -- Itay Alon • Talk 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the GDC 2010 part and uploaded non-cropped versions of the wallpapers. Is it better now? Chriskang 11:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the aim of this section. we want to tell them that there are some pictures from GDC which similar to the site's design, other backgrounds are irrelevant. -- Itay Alon • Talk 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ranger introduced on July 12

There appears to be an editing war where IP believes the ranger was introduced on july 14, this is incorrect. I myself am holding (virtually) the RSS feed entitled "Introducing the Ranger". I received it on July 12 2010 at 8:13 PM EST. The is late though, as most of the activity occurred several hours prior to that time on the same date. The page for the official site confirming this can be found here. Please stop changing it to the 14th. Venom20 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I actually made an oopsie; check it out, pl0x. Then come back, and let's see if we can get this show back on the road. --Naoroji 18:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems convincing. And I checked the ranger history, and there were no edits on the 12th, all were done on the 14th. It's just strange, because according to the official site, here on the 14th is when they also offered the free Ghosts of Ascalon preview. Seemed silly to me that the ranger and the free preview were on the same day. Unless the official site's calendar is totally screwed up. But I am convinced, I owe IP an apology, terribly sorry. 14th it is then. Venom20 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just checked it on twitter too. Btw on twitter Regina posted GoA preview on 15th and GW2Guru thread created on that date too.91.82.212.134 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yeah, I updated the ranger page the morning it was revealed on the 14th. You may have confused the date with the picture released shortly before the reveal? This article says that was released on the 12th. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)