Talk:Professions reveal/Archive 2

NEW REVEAL!!!!!!

next month AWESOME! :D (if Scholar plz Mesmer,if soldier plz Paragon thingy,if adventurer IDC! I've already got my ranger :3) --The Holy Dragons 18:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the announcement too. Awesome. It's here, if anyone is wondering. ShadowRunner 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Psssht! it's also on the page itself --The Holy Dragons 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Half a month... is there any hint about wich week or day of January would it be?Lokheit 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is almost definitely not this week, so that only leaves the next two weeks. Most likely, they'll put it off as long as possible. Eive 23:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol the probably will realease jan 31 knowing Anet they have to have it perfect before anyone knows

Arenanet reveals professions on Wednesdays, so it would be the 26th at the latest, which is my guess. - Giant Nuker 03:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure its only on wensdays? I don't remmber the Warrior beind released on a Wensday think it was a late Saturday-Sunday that time. 74.171.163.219 06:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe only three of the reveals have been on Wednesdays. With one on a Tuesday. I'm fairly certain the page says when, but cba to look. Eive 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Tues, Wed, Wed and Thurs for each reveal respectively. (Xu Davella 08:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Wrong, Ele was revealed on Tuesday, and the other three were all revealed officially on Wednesday. For the Necro you might be thinking of Gamescon or when the skill videos were leaked. Eive 09:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I just hope its new not just a return profession, but either way ill be happy.(:--Icyyy Blue 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new information, regardless of profession type, would be wonderful (personally I'm hoping for the "assassin"-esque profession but there you go). Also, is there any information on why they stopped revealing in stages? Like, with the elementalist how they slightly unshaded the picture, and then revealed it afterwards? I kind of enjoyed that teasing. 68.144.77.185 04:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'd rather have them do it all at once. I don't really care what it is, as long as its awesome. Kaon Frostblade 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation Archive

Seriously this page needs a speculation archive to keep speculation OFF the talk page. Can you really call this an irrational opinion? - Infinite - talk 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that something called a speculation archive would lead people to believe that it's ok to speculate here, since there would an entire archive dedicated to it. Maybe calling it a "Speedy archive" or "Misplaced discussions archive" and speedy archiving those discussions would work? Erasculio 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything to restore this page in its rightful glory? I was thinking more along the lines of moving every shred of speculation into said archive as soon as it's put up here, more or less. We've warned plenty in the past, surely. - Infinite - talk 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I could see people miss-using that archive and thinking that it is a page dedicated to speculation. Although it's bothersome, we may just have to monitor the page manually and move speculatory topics to respective usespaces. Venom20 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Moved to" parts afterwards? Otherwise we'd end up with a wall of moves and a few topics relevant to the article's revision. Not very neat. - Infinite - talk 21:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Infinite's idea, actually. IMO it would work as long as we name it something other than "speculation archive". I don't like the idea of moving speculation to an user's talk page - the person who makes the move has slightly more work doing that than just archiving it, and that's exactly the kind of thing in which IMO we have to make the cleaning job as simple and easy as possible. Erasculio 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename it to something appropriate but not overly obvious and it will be treated as a common archive, I think. - Infinite - talk 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like "misplaced discussions". Don't even need to call it "archive", if we want to keep it concise. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced discussions are what you would call moved to user's talk page (120.145.135.129 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

We'd need something in place before the next reveal, at least. (Xu Davella 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

I agree and propose "misguided" discussions, to appoint the incorrect reason for the speculation topics (as they shouldn't be on Wiki main space talk pages). - Infinite - talk 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the records, I think misplaced would be better - I'm worried that if people see a "misguided discussions" section, they will simply discuss in there assuming it's just a weird page name. I think "misplaced discussions" would be easier for people to understand that those things are in the wrong place (with the proper place being a forum). Erasculio 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What if we just call it "Garbage Can" and put a header that says something to the effect of, "Don't talk on this page, speculative and pointless discussions are stored here." However, I don't know why we should even bother, why not just delete them? It's basically the same effect with less possibility of people continuing the discussion. If we make a page to move the garbage to, it will probably get very long and we'll have to make another, and maybe another, etc... –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I support this idea in any form. Whether through a Speculation Archive, a "Misplaced Discussions" page, or simply deleting the speculation. It needs to stay off of this page. Eive 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would rather delete it too, but I think people are still a bit wary of deleting talk page stuff. Erasculio 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we go with misplaced discussions then? - Infinite - talk 11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of "misplaced discussions." Eive 22:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Gogogogogo!!!!!111 Erasculio 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Speculation Archive"

(aka. Misplaced Discussions). While I approve greatly of the idea, the seeing the implementation makes it feel iffy to me. Generally speaking, archives should reflect the discussions in the way they were on the talk page (chronological order), and the misplaced discussions archive simply lacks that entirely (I can understand if the first topic is to explain why, but still...not quite the right way to do it IMO). I also want to know if anyone for the misplaced discussions archive would like me to move all the prior "misplaced discussions" there as well (or do it themselves) and reorder it to be in an appropriate order. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the stuff that's already been archived?(Xu Davella 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

Yes to both please. Eive 10:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure go ahead, I wasn't really bothered to find a system for it, as they're all topics and discussions that should not be on the wiki in the first place. :) - Infinite - talk 14:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the 15 "these are my heavily researched and thought out profession groups, so obviously they must be correct" discussions, should I move the discussions that take the form of "I hope they release the next reveal this week" ? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Those discussions are a direct spin-offs to the ordinary speculation discussions, to be honest. Remember, talk pages are purely to discuss the content of the article they are for. - Infinite - talk 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree to all of this, including removing the "I hope..." discussions, as they don't contribute anything. It will make the archives easier to navigate for actual discussions. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank the Gods. I'd be cut off from the cookie rotation. Zolann The Irreverent 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated Image

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

Can we get this on the page? Gregory The Avenger | Talk 14:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Crop and rename, if you would, please. - Infinite - talk 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

'bout the dates

Shouldn't we mention the year (and not just the month and day) in the pictures' informations ? I mean, it's quite obvious now, but April 20th is getting closer and I believe it might become necessary. -Alarielle- 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that we're in a new year... yes. I concur. -- Konig/talk 23:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Eive 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Highlighted Guardian

Anyone else noting that the image is no longer animated? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 15:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it'll be fixed soon. Anet often had some problems with the page iirc (e.g. Dual-Elementalist in the right nav-bar). --LegendKiller2 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're fine-tuning the page bit by bit. Notice the blue glow on the mace at the main page. --RaXsO 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Gaurdian

Stuff needs some more updating & I don't know how to do it. :( Zolann The Irreverent 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So far so good.

Well, he nailed this one pretty good.[1]--Emmisary 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing. But then I realized, there are really only so many ways one could fit that silhouette with the general thought of a guardian/paladin thing. Aqua (talk|contribs) 01:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that the floating sword is correct, but yeah, 'tis speculation. Aqua (talk|contribs) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The mesmer woman isn't going to be what he drew. You know why? Because the one he drew fits the silhouette perfectly but looks ugly like hell xD. --Naoroji 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2. I can't really imagine anything else someone could have thought that was after seeing BML. Eive 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that was easy enough to guess already. I still think the Charr with the gun is in fact looking towards (and over) his gun, rather than facing away and looking sideways, because of the horn silhouette. lolspeculation. - Infinite - talk 12:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Reveals

So I'm wondering why 2 of the 3 left-to-be-revealed classes aren't listed under Upcoming Reveals as we know that they are going to be there. Mesmer, while it hasn't been officialy announed by any staff at Anet, was in, at least, the 1st GW book, Ghosts of Ascalon (I haven't read the 2nd one yet). And it HAS been officially announced here that there will be a rogue/assassin type character. I see that there was an edit war between having them listed on there and then removing them. We do know of their existence, why do we not keep them there? --Musha 23:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added back in the note about the rogue/assassin type profession, but the information is that vague I wouldn't be surprised if it got removed. The technicality is that the developers did not specifically say that an assassin/rogue was on the table, it was the writer of the article in that interview who interpreted it as such - and quite frankly that is enough to have it removed (now that I think about it, it should probably be removed). As for the Mesmer, although it has been mentioned clearly in both the books, there has been no official announcement that this profession is going to be playable. You can't take information from novels as official information since they do not portray to the mechanics in game most of the time. (Xu Davella 02:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

First of all, that hint about the assassin is extremely important as far as hints go, so it DEFINITELY belongs in this article. If it bothers you, simply say "We are told by ____ that..." or some other beginning. Also, the Mesmer is 100% confirmed to be in GW2. :) That is a fact and is not disputable by any means. Will it be playable? That is unknown. :D --Amannelle 03:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if something was officially released, even just an almost vague hint, it should be on this page. Mesmers had better be playable or I won't be able to think of anything good about GW2 PvP. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 04:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point something out, there is now a pattern to what order they're revealing depending on armor type (scholar->heavy->adventurer), (elementalist->warrior->ranger->necro->guardian->?) they've also hinted towards the next class being something close to the sin remake ("a profession for people who play sneaky rogues or assassins is on the cards"), which is to say that an adventurer is probably next. by this we can assume that if mesmers are going to be playable, that it's going to be revealed second last, before the last adventuerer profession (ele->war->ranger->necro->guard->pseudo-sin->mesmer->mystery adventurer) ~ Reez 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Any patterns are coincidental, according to the When It's Done article. Manifold 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

While it is coincidental, it will likely happen this way. No, not because of some preconceived pattern-- that pattern cannot actually exist (we have too few soldiers). HOWEVER, from the information we have, we can deduce the assassin is next, mesmer to follow, and the 3rd adventurer last. We know this because ANet said the fans of sneaky professions will be seeing one following the guardian. Then, we know the Mesmer will be next because we can see in the books that they have had the foundation for the mesmer (illusion and mind domination) for quite some time. As to the last adventurer, we haven't heard anything, seen anything, etc. We have NO EVIDENCE of it being mentioned, hinted at, etc (aside from the silhouette existing, it would almost be like there wasn't a 3rd adventurer). ANet has been completely silent about it. Therefore, I believe it has the least amount of progress and will be released last. I say all this just so you know that Reez will likely be correct in such an assumption, but not for the right reasons (so when it comes to pass, you wont be like "I knew there was a pattern!") :D That's all for now! *poofs* --Amannelle 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a company filled with passionate gamers; there *is* a pattern, disregarding their words. That's how, like, 80% of gamers works. :P - Infinite - talk 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the closest they are to a planned pattern is that every time they announce a new profession, they reveal information about it. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't assume that the profession appealing to people who like sneaky, roguish types is an adventurer. Mesmers could easily fit that role as a scholar. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble imagining this is a mesmer. Looks pretty sneaky and roguish to me. Rose Of Kali 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that and thought the exact same thing. --Musha 14:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

When did "a profession for people who play sneaky rogues or assassins is on the cards" start meaning "that brown-tone picture of the guy with daggers is the next profession?" –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 00:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When did people expressing their excitement about a game and thus extrapolating information about it get you so worked up? Just wait and see. I bet we're right. And if we are, would it really be so bad? --Musha 01:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@Sparky: I think the idea was more "that brown-tone picture of the guy with daggers is the sneaky profession". The jump you're implying doesn't seem to have taken place. Either way, this discussion is suddenly much less than related to the page content. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Back on the topic of the page: my original point was that anything concerning a "mesmer" profession being revealed or anything past the hint of "a profession catering to sneaky/rogue/etc." is speculation and does not belong on the page. @Musha: I hope we are right about an "assassin" profession being revealed. If you think I'm "worked up", it's just because you aren't very familiar with me. I barely even have emotions. @Kyoshi: Rose's comment implied that I was talking about this, which was not related to my comment at all. Any possible interpretations that I can think of are mildly annoying. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well they did say that after the guardian was released, that there was going to be another profession that would have similarities to an original profession, but not quite. So it's very much up in the air as to the actual name of the next revealing profession. (Xu Davella 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Professions picture

has Guardian with Left-handed Scepter and Right-handed Shield, but other pictures have Guardian with Right-handed Scepter and Left-handed Shield. Game mechanics say off-hand for Guardians can only be focus/shield(no weapons). Can the Guardian be Left-handed for weapon or is the professions picture just false and misleading? Also, the picture does not animate anymore... 99.244.36.18 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't know anything about right- or left-handedness. The character creation process that we've seen (in the demos and released footage) doesn't include a choice, but the actual appearance choices are predetermined--main hand choice could be included in that process. Moreover, it's rather silly to call the depiction "misleading"; at worst, it's artistic license to show the shield clearly. ~Ekko (talk)

The "Blue Mace Lady" has the weapon in the right hand and shield in the left. This one is probably just mirrored for best appearance, that's all. Would be neat if they did include a choice of which you want your main hand to be. Rose Of Kali 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, would you look at that! Rose Of Kali 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see that before? --ஸ Kyoshi 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Animations

It's animated now... whoever can get the highlighted and un-highlighted guardian images, go for it. Aqua (T|C) 01:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On it, will probably get beaten to it though. Eive 01:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's animated, but the guardian isn't there. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is. (Clear your cache). Aqua (T|C) 01:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On a partial side note, the non-flash version is still the same as previous version. And I forgot how I downloaded the flash last time, so I most likely won't be the one to deliver. Eive 01:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded the non-highlighted guardian picture. I don't think there is anything else that is new. Eive 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:D You should upload a new version of the highlighted image. The current one doesn't look right. -- aspectacle  02:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What doesn't look right about it? Eive 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This one File:Guardian_03_concept_art.png is photoshopped out of the static image. If you upload the flash image it'll have all the coloured background brush strokes which are 'shopped out of the one we have uploaded atm. -- aspectacle  02:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the unhighlighted version straight from the .swf file itself. Did you mean File:Guardian_04_concept_art.png? Eive 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:P yes. Sorry - I meant to change the name. -- aspectacle  02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Upload a new version or upload as a new file? If the latter, what name? Eive 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

While you're at that, could someone nab a full picture with all professions highlighted for the page? Be nice to have once again (would love it when all were revealed :D should look awesome) 68.144.77.185 05:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't. They don't have that anymore. Eive 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Looks like good olde photoshop or paint.NET... - Lucian 5:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I can Photoshop it, but I don't have all the images to piece together. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Piece of info

We have documented the hints about 'at least one new/renamed/returning' and 'assassin-like' professions - what about that one clue about the weapons professions could use? The one that mentioned one could use bows but not guns, guns but not bows, blah blah blah? Is that on the site somewhere? Should it be on this page?--Ph03n1x 06:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It was on the page at one point, but apparently someone thought they should take it off. Eive 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember a discussion about that but for the life of me I don't know how that turned out. Obviously the info was removed as a result, :P (Xu Davella 09:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Check the archives to see that discussion. Erasculio 11:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One word: Gunslinger --209.181.27.199 15:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

i looked at the archive and i didnt see it.:/--Icyyy Blue 15:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't, either.--Ph03n1x 05:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this as well, but where it went, no clue... That's probably speculation's fault. ^^ - Infinite - talk 14:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Must be at the archives of the Profession article, then. Erasculio 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the entire edit history of the article. That info was never mentioned here - erascullio must be correct. (203.46.11.172 23:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

OK, the edit was removed [here] and you can find the discussion about it here. Dang, I wish I wasn't doing this at work, this is causing my workload to back up :S (203.46.11.172 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

That list was massively incorrect anyway. Elementalist can't really focus on support as much as necromancer can, let alone guardian. But mehh. - Infinite - talk 12:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Those annotations that were put in next to the information given counts as speculation anyway. Not that it made it look any better without them there. (Xu Davella 12:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

@Infinite I think that the water elementalist is pretty much a support role and right now the best healer, so I think that the elementalist is a good supporter for what we know, a different kind of support than the guardian or the necro, but good support. Lokheit 10:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from Well of Blood I can't really seem to find any good support on Necromancers yet where the Elementalist actually has about half the Water skills devoted to support. Malice- 10:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to start speculation, but an elementalist has 4 skill bars available; working constantly with water magic nearly grounds the elementalist. So no, it's not a support-focussed profession, even with water attunement. - Infinite - talk 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Our list is nearly devoid of earth and air attunement skills, so I don't know if you can say that for certain just yet. --ஸ Kyoshi 14:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We know that Earth Attunement protects only the elementalists themselves, with normal support-orientation (more on that later on in this comment) and Air Attunement focusses on strong offense and conditions (as per their attunement pages and the official site). Those two are definitely not more supportive as a ranger with traps or a warrior with shield, etc. Water Attunement has the added effect of healing, which is considered the weakest form of support in this game. Ergo, the Elementalist is not a support-oriented profession and keeping it in Water Attunement alone grounds the team drastically. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, you know. - Infinite - talk 14:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Water spells heal and control enemy movement, fire spells create interactive objects (Conjure spells too) and knock down and such, air stuns and blinds (preventing pursuit by enemies), and the elementalist him/herself is proected while in Earth Attunement, which is to say, the skills in that attunement don't necessarily also protect only the elementalist. It's certainly the most versatile so far in that it can change support/control types drastically at any time.

To rephrase your statement, sometimes offense makes a great defense. But anyway, this is getting off track. I'll gladly discuss with you in the user space if you want to continue. I do so love game theory discussions. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(reset)I wasn't saying that it was a support specific profession, only that it was capable of support as the others. In fact every profession is a capable supporter for what has been stated and what we have seen. Even a banner bearer warrior can be a good supporter on this game. Lokheit 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has a place on my talk space at this point in time, if you'd all please. :) - Infinite - talk 14:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read through that deleted content and the facts themselves seem worth mentioning. The reader can determine which professions are described by the clues, yes, but as some of that information is indisputable and sourced, doesn't it have a place on the mainspace?--Ph03n1x 08:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I added the overview again, leaving out speculation and waiting for a citation on the last line. Note that the old notes "this sounds like that profession" is speculation and is thus left out. - Infinite - talk 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Those statements are mostly fake; they are not things that have been said directly by ArenaNet, rather player-created comments based on things ArenaNet has mentioned when talking about other mechanics and other features. It's very different from the very direct "of the returning professions, at least one will be a new profession" and so on statement, which was specifically meant as a tease for new profession reveals and which used the kind of language the other comments have been artificially forced to fit into. Erasculio 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That is if that is still the very same reference used back then, but yes, I was careless not to reinstate the actual claims, rather than what the edit said. - Infinite - talk 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A conjecture

← moved to User_talk:Nalana Darkling

The Thief

The Thief has now been revealed! ;) Though not on their website yet... http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-11-guild-wars-2/711237 --Hasselmannen 14:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We were aware of this, yes. - Infinite - talk 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That link seems to be empty... fix? --Musha 18:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a leak, removed. - Infinite - talk 18:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anet is going to detail the Thief next week, since that cat is already out of the bag. Ramei Arashi 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally was not aware of it. Thanks!--Ph03n1x 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Three professions will be catered to those who played as a monk in the original Guild Wars.

I found the source. But it seems outdated now (the third unannounced profession is obviously the guardian). Removing quote from page. Chriskang 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thief, Mesmer, aaaaaaaaand?

← moved to User talk:Kew24

The Last Adventurer?

← moved to User talk:Cael

Revert on upcoming

"Arenanet has specifically said that they are avoiding returning professions from Cantha and Elona directly by name (ergo why they renamed the Assassin)." Source this and mesmer is the ONLY option (which we already knew). - Infinite - talk 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*gasp!* Ooooh, I'm gonna look for that source if it makes me bleed....get it? (Xu Davella 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't blame them if that is the case. All the added professions... well... –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in avoiding the profession-names. --The Holy Dragons 07:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

http://games.on.net/article/11863/Exclusive_Eric_Flannum_On_GW2_-_Thieves_Crafting_and_a_new_Video how do I source this? Found the link. Quote: "Finally, in our lore the assassin is very much a profession that has its root in Cantha and since we aren't visiting Cantha in the initial release of Guild Wars 2 we didn't want to draw any lore parallels between this new profession and the assassin." Ergo, if they are not visiting Cantha (or Elona, they said that in another article), they will not want to draw any lore parallels between any reworked profession and an original Canthan/Elonan Profession. Timanth 00:35, 19 March 2011 (PST)

Agreed, I think we can conclude that the mesmer will be the returning profession now. Oh wow, surprise, surprise. - Infinite - talk 15:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This info and analysis should be up on the front page, not just the announcement that the mesmer is all that's left, no? ~Ekko (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, deduction tells us it can not be anything but the mesmer, we just haven't had the official word yet. So the info on the upcoming reveals can say something like "the mesmer is the only possible returning profession{ref}". - Infinite - talk 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it.Timanth 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

that one quote on the main page under overview is a bit misleading with the end bit chopped off.. the original quote is (in response to the question if ritualist were definitely out):

"People will, who play a ritualist or a mesmer or a necromancer or any of the old, old characters, will feel like they have a home somewhere in Guild Wars 2"

the point under overview is as follows:

Players who enjoy the play-style of the ritualist or mesmer will feel at home in Guild Wars 2

that seems a tad misleading to the profession reveal.. especially considering that the article was made only after necromancer was revealed.

I don't suppose we could change it?

unless you linked it to the wrong interveiw, in which case you might want to fix that, as that was the only place in that interview it was linked to that ritualist or mesmers were even mentioned.

~Reez 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"People who enjoyed the play-style of any of the six original professions will feel at home in Guild Wars 2?" That would denote all of the old, old characters. (Xu Davella 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

dunno :l to be honest, given the actual context, it doesn't even seem like it needs to be included, other than giving mislead speculation. ~Reez 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That is what they would mean by old characters, but I guess you're right. I can't think of any other way to cite that info without going right ahead and removing it. (Xu Davella 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm going to go ahead an remove it, as it's already created misinformed speculation on the mesmer talk page.~ Reez 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong conclusions

← moved to User talk:AdventurerPotatoe

Commando

For lolz, does anyone feel like extracting the commando image? Aqua (T|C) 13:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

we should wait for chris :p --The Holy Dragons 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to do it, you know ;) Chriskang 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the Shadowmancer either, we need infos on that on here... This is a pretty good April Fools Day. xD ~~ Kiomadoushi 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include the Shadowmancer, you would need to include the Alchemist too; and imo that's a bit too much. It might be good to document each of those on the April's Fool article instead and mention here that along with the Commando there were other professions "announced"... poke | talk 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Group all three under "April Fool's reveals" then, and have a gallery of 3 (if there is a silhouette reveal for alchemist at all). Also carefully note how only the commander was done by ArenaNet and how even that profession was an April fool's joke. - Infinite - talk 15:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What's this about an Alchemist? 203.94.61.143 16:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Revealed" by the german fansite Wartower, see this thread on GW2Guru. I heard some french fansite also revealed a profession (yes, another one..). poke | talk 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the jokes most funny to you are the ones that poke at your reality... right? We want professions, we get them... about 5 when we're looking for only 2. Strange how everyone decided to make a profession... Just for the heck of it, lets make a charr God profession that eventually kills one of the 6 gods, taking its rightful place in the eternal alchemy as a spirit of the wild. ~~ Kiomadoushi 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Those commmando skill vids are hilarious! I want to know how they did that! It truly appears that those commandos are in the game throwing grenades and sneaking up on charr. --Musha 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

because they are, though they'll probably remove it. --The Holy Dragons 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

if you touched the GW1 version of the commando yet, you'd see its a disguise, they probably just turned on the effects on their test servers before taking the vids, then mixed them with other effects... if you notice, those are the only vids that DON'T show how deadly the skills are - they cut out before it shows dead enemies...~~ Kiomadoushi 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

not the same skin (the GW2 one is more rendered iirc) or animations. --The Holy Dragons 18:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And the animations... Commandos lining up at the doorway for a breach and clear? Not just a skin. --Musha 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

100% confirmed given data?: Mesmers

Given that we now know that there is another returning profession, that the monk is not returning, the paragon is pretty much fussed as the guardian (in adition to be a heavy armor wich are completed), and that the dervish is a profession 100% from Elona culture, the same reason for wich they changed the Assassin, and they are also religious wich is a trait not common to all the races, we only have the Mesmers as the only profession that could return to this game without any change. I say that because all the "this is speculation don't post there" talk. If they haven't lied and there is another profession returning without changing either name or concept, the Mesmer is the only option right now. EDIT: Signed from my account Lokheit 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See here for me bringing up basically the exact same point. There are people still questioning things (which is just questioning for questions' sake). - Infinite - talk 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, the key point is "without changing...concept" which can occur. People will fight over it, and it's my understanding that we want to stop all that unnecessary drama. So just leave it for now and when/if it's revealed we can put it on. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the only one that could compete for the spot right "changing the concept but not the name" is the Dervish, and Dervish is a word that implies a very specifid concept, you change how it works and the personality of this one, then you have to change the name. Lokheit 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

People claim Rit is also viable. Absurd, yes, but it prevents consensus. - Infinite - talk 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rits are absurd. They were used as healers, which GW2 doesn't have. They had weapon spells, which Guardians took over. The only unique thing left to them are spirits which (as they are) wouldn't work in the open world format, and if redesigned would be to close to the game play of a necro+minions. Mesmer is the logical profession left imo, too. Also given that anet said they had a profession that deals with mind games. --Moto Saxon 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just let it go. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, we have no direct confirmation and will not document it until we do, regardless of what is "viable." --ஸ Kyoshi 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true. We ALL know it will be the Mesmer. But this page is for profession reveals and the mesmer has yet to be officially revealed. If there was a profession appearance or mention page, then Mesmer would already be listed. Until then... we have to wait until it is actually revealed. --Musha 09:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also for the upcoming reveals: The entire reveal process is documented here and if facts point to an upcoming profession being inevitably a mesmer, there should be a clear mention of it. You can't selectively document things, the whole is important. - Infinite - talk 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

just my 2 cents but didn't Anet state somewhere that they only reveal professions if they are certain it works in the game... so what if the mesmer turned out not to work in the game than it would be cancelled and not one of the professions. So I'm not really agreeing on the 100% part I'm thinking it's more like 97,34167% Prince Grazel 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself; there is no other profession that can make a return besides the mesmer.

• Monks are out, (as seen here and in an interview here),
• Ritualists are split, (as seen here, with a key reference here),
• Assassins are renamed and remade, (as seen here with interview eleboration here),
• Paragons are explicitly mentioned in the guardian backstory, (as seen here, tied to the lack of spears and most of its shouts now being guardian shouts),
• Dervishes can not return in name, (as seen here and here with scythes now being a necromancer animation).
  

Equally:

• Warrior
• Ranger
• Elementalist
• Necromancer

I really don't understand how it is not 100%. Am I missing a magical 11th profession that in all my gw1 time have never noticed before? Where is the source denying it, opposed to the listing of the facts which make this argument fact in turn? It's like documenting 2+2 but never mentioning the answer (4). ^-^

In short; there is no sustantial argument against what people claim is "speculation", which is "speculation" based fully on factual points. The note can and should be added back. - Infinite - talk 12:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source stating clearly that ritualists and paragons are out? The fact that there are parts of them in the guardian doesn't prove anything. When the GW2 warrior was revealed there were several parts of the GW1 ranger in it, though the GW2 ranger was revealed afterwards. Chriskang 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. In this interview Eric Flannum says one of the reasons for not calling the Thief Assassin is "in our lore the assassin is very much a profession that has its root in Cantha and since we aren't visiting Cantha in the initial release of Guild Wars 2 we didn't want to draw any lore parallels between this new profession and the assassin". I guess same goes for Elona so Paragons and Dervishes can be ruled out. Corvus 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Paragons were soldiers in GW1, 80 AL. Were they to return, they would have to be a soldier. (Warrior -> soldier, ranger -> adventurer, assassin-remake -> adventurer, elementalist and necromancer -> scholars.) Their armor rating in GW1, including their profession-oriented GW2 armor concepts are all based around this. If we had pointed out the paragon would make its return as the second soldier, I'd get the exact same arguments I use for support, in my face as arguments against such a claim. The source that paragons are out is found in the backstory for the guardian, as I pointed out above. Reading all of these also points out that paragons are already back, as parts of the guardian. The only thing people are using here is "but it doesn't specifically read "paragons are out", does it?" No, it doesn't, but you used to same arguments against the 3 pets (animal companions, minions and spirit weapons), all mentioned in articles with the developers. It's not quite a viable argument here as you're basing that argument on speculation itself.

The ritualists are a lot harder to pinpoint, but they too are already properly sourced; there are no dedicated healers (so no restoration magic), there are no spirit weapons (because the guardian took them) and there are no spirits (as they would not viably work on this open-world set-up, where an x amount of players could benefit from defensive spirits no more than 2 seconds, OR they would make a small group practically invincible). The ritualist would need heavy remakes and with the lack of functioning spirits a rename as well. The gw1 Canthan ritualists are simply based around spirits and spirit weapons. The original ritualists were monks in the Prophecies release, further boosting the argument (seeing how the assassin was remade due to Canthan lore parallels, thus also ruling out the Canthan ritualist, reducing us to the Tyrian variant). The same interviews also weakly state that the ritualists have been reworked into the guardian; ArenaNet would not list such bad conclusions.

Again, unless I am somehow still jumping to my conclusions, we need a source against the note because all sources combined are the source for the note. And on a side-note; I am not arguing against a remake of any of these professions, but for the returning profession, we are only left with the mesmer and should document as such. - Infinite - talk 13:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Am I missing a magical 11th profession that in all my gw1 time have never noticed before?" The Commando. :P --Riddle 03:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Chriskang, I'd have to look up the article...but one did state that when Elonian's scattered the Paragons were spread wide through out the country and eventually turned into the Guardian. The Mesmer is the only returning profession that is able to return, this should be noted on the page. --Moto Saxon 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I hate playing peacemaker on binary issues. No matter what you pick as "default" someone is going to @#!*% about it. I'm done caring for now, do whatever you want. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the evidence rejecting other possible returning professions is strong. However, if it has to be argued, then it is speculation. Commonly accepted speculation based on facts is speculation nonetheless. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kyoshi and Sparky (among others). For my argument against the opposition, Anet is the ultimate decider on every decision made in GW. If someone at the office decides one day to bring the Paragon back, despite lore and mechanics, then the 7th profession will be the Paragon. No "But the Mesmer makes much more sense" could dissuade them. That is the .1% that keeps the "Mesmer being the only possible return" as a speculative statement, and off the page. - 03:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone claims that no other class can return because skill lines have been split or certain weapons no longer exist. Need I remind people that both hexes and rupts have been removed. If mesmers were to return, I doubt that their playstyle will be preserved. They may actually use illusion magic. I always chuckle when I read something like "Paragons are out becasue spears are not in" or "Rits are out because they heal". Venom20 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No interrupts, you say? "That is not to say that we don’t have interrupts, but with our lowered emphasis on healing, it is much less important." Let me put it this way; there is nothing, mechanics-wise, lore-wise, options-wise, and whatever else not that rules out even a single mesmer aspect. All the other "options" are ruled out for the majority of their original concept. And Venom, I didn't say just healing with ritualists, nor did I just say spears for paragons, the facts reach much further than this.

The note would have to read "Following sources, the only possible returning professions in its original form is the mesmer. However, this may be subject to change if introduction to GW2 in its original form is not viable."

I don't think that note reflects any false information, yet does justice to the overwhelming amount of evidence and the small percentual objections. - Infinite - talk 10:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That just seems like such a useless statement to put. If you believe that it will probably be a mesmer, that's fine. If other people think there is still a possibility for it not to be a mesmer, that's also ok. So, why not just wait 2 weeks or so for the official press release? :) ERIC the ESKIMO 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

All of these references were made at different points of the game's production (by different people), and as far as deduction goes, it is still a form of estimation. Infinite, you make a good point, but if you add in that note, you're going to have to add in all the references that leads to that conclusion, and a point-summary explaining how it cannot be any of the other professions. That way we're going to avoid people questioning the validity of the information, while hyping up the "omg MESMER" crowd.-- Xu Davella 08:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed how much the opposition base their objections of if wanna do this or if they wanna do that not thinking if anet would really do that and if they even want to do that. Using if is fine but don 't overuse it up to a point you are not using logic anymore but are just speculating about it yourselfs by using if all of the time. The employees of anet are not tha senseless just to do whatever they like and mess up GW2 who they want to be perfect, using if and they can do whatever they want at such arguments goes against anet wanting GW2 to be perfect so please stop using it. Damysticreaper 10:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I suppose that if people object to a full list of facts, pooints and references that validate the note, we can also do without one. - Infinite - talk 12:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get our priorities straight here: I'm pretty sure anyone that can string together the clues (i.e. everyone here) knows that the mesmer is the favorite choice for the returning profession. The chance that the mesmer isn't returning is so small that arguing based on that small chance is (becoming) absurd. Given the evidence for the mesmers return, ArenaNet would have to pull something ridiculous to not bring the mesmer back (Ridiculous as in, "Here's the chronomancer, since he can manipulate time, he has actually been in Tyria since the Guild Wars, even though we introduced him in 1080 AE").

Having said all that, I still disagree with listing the mesmer as a revealed profession at the moment. I say this not for the reason of "there's a small chance of X happening," but as a floodgate/slippery slope concern. We have plenty of reason to list the mesmer right now, but that establishes that we document unrevealed professions based on "perceived" evidence. I'd rather not give anymore leeway to people who argue like, "One of the hidden professions is the Alchemist. My evidence is: cats = puppies; the sky is blue; and your an idiot if you disagree w/ me. Therefore, I am listing the Alchemist as a revealed profession."

We've seen how much drama happens when we tell people not to list a statistically likely choice for a profession. I'd rather not deal with the mess of telling someone that their idea of a returning profession is bull because their evidence is actually faulty or not as clear as the evidence for the mesmer's return. --Riddle 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The only difference is that the "alchemist" would have its name improvised based on the novels (and some blog posts), but otherwise yes; that is the kind of objection that justifies not including a note. - Infinite - talk 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources are there, and the information can be linked. AFAIK, that's good enough to have added to the article. It just seems like a pain in the @#!*% to deal with. -- Xu Davella 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are users out there who still legitimately claim Mesmers could possibly not be the 7th profession (and not because they're playing devil's advocate or trolling), why haven't any of them made arguments against noting the Mesmer's inevitable return? Where are these hypothetical people?--Ph03n1x 19:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ph03n1x, just because it's logical doesn't make it any less speculative. Aqua (T|C) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of sources, arguments and facts, as long as people have trouble with a note, we might as well not add it, which is what Riddle pointed out and I do believe I rested my case with that. - Infinite - talk 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My point was not the statement's validity, but that the people advocating its removal are doing so because they say other people have a problem with it. Which people? If, in fact, there ends up being no one who actually has the opinion that Mesmers have a significant likelihood of not returning, then where's the argument? Wouldn't that be speculation, assuming there are people who believe a hypothetical opinion?--Ph03n1x 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The way the wiki defines speculation is that it is anything that is uncertain or based on assumptions. Yes there is a high probability of the mesmer's return, but it is not a certainty; therefore, it is considered speculation and as such doesn't belong in the main space. Aqua (T|C) 00:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And with that you have the following problem. As always people are saying not to add the mesmer because it hasn't been confirmed to return. Now let me ask this then if it isn 't going to return than what would be returning of the returning professions? We already have the assassin and the paragon rerolled in the thief and guardian, the dervish is a traveler class and as with the ritualist like the assassin cannot return in name due to being a no-core profession. So what other profession would be able to return if it isn 't the mesmer, what other profession has evidence of returning other than the mesmer? Damysticreaper 10:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. However, if you'd like to know without reading the rest of the page, ritualists and dervishes are not ruled out. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 15:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Damysticreaper, you completely miss the point. As Aqua put it, what belongs in a wiki's main page is fact. Not things you deduce out of facts or things that are just obviously true, but confirmed facts. I'm not one to disagree with the mesmer being there, but this is a wiki — an encyclopedia about the game, which contains what is certain and shouldn't contain more. A note like Infinite suggested, indicating it's not official, is arguable, but that's about it. Other than that, I guess the Ritualist is ruled out as returning profession (with the same name) because of its Canthan background, but I would have to say everyone ruling the Rit out does it because "the weapons spell are the guardian's" and "the Rit is mainly a healer"… You forget that the base concept of the Rit is that of a spirit summoner. Now, I guess the Rit is not returning, I was just pointing it out. -Alarielle- 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I was merely pointing out the facts at hand, defending the original note. I never asked for speculation. In fact, I apologized for the one speculative argument I managed to slip in by accident. If the note, regardless of conclusive evidence put forth is still subject to and/or sensitive to the speculation argument, it is better not to have such notes. - Infinite - talk 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ritualists were originally in Prophecies, so the name is not bound like "assassin" was. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

*Chuckle

This is pretty dumb... Compromise: Based on the many references to mesmers, it is very likly that mesmer will be a proffesion.-- Necro Shea Mo 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"very likely" =/= Completely confimred let's add that to the page! - 18:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No. This page is for professions that have been officially revealed. Even though Mesmers WILL be revealed at some point, they have not been revealed yet, and so do not belong on this page yet. --Musha 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is seriously getting out of hand.

This page deals with the past tense. It documents what has been revealed. A F K When Needed 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Where do you suggest it go?????-- Necro Shea Mo 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mesmer. "Due to a multitude of sources and facts, it is very likely to make a return in Guild Wars 2." - Infinite - talk 19:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

^ A F K When Needed 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is likely is still speculation. In other words, probabilities are really useless and unprovable facts. Plus Riddle's comment above. Now why the @#!*% can't we drop this? (edited for clarity) --ஸ Kyoshi 14:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to read that three times before I understood it.

No offense, but the formulation is horrendous. A F K When Needed 15:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see why every few minutes we have to repeat why the Mesmer can't go on this page. By the way, my first comment was saying "very likely doesn't equal let's add it to the page." Since Musha seemed to either not be responding to me or not understanding. - 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Whats been said makes sense.... It belongs on the mesmer page. Not here.-- Necro Shea Mo 19:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

more trouble

"...we know that many enjoy mind tricks and aspects like that. And we'll quite certainly not disappoint those people." - re: Talk:Mesmer#Buffed_Article. Don't know how to get access to the source given by guy on GW2G, but it does look noteworthy. It would be a note along the same lines as the ones in the overview, just can't mention that it's "mesmer" and would be really hard to re-word. Just thought I'd spread a bit of chaos to an already agitated talk page. :) --Xu Davella 11:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not revive a finally dead discussion, please. You could pile up another few million sources and references, people will still tell you it's speculation. - Infinite - talk 11:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless those references proved it. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 18:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I didn't think it'd need further clarification. :P - Infinite - talk 19:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

oi you people

This page documents the professions revealed by ArenaNet. Mesmers aren't one of them.

It's not a Playable Professions page. It's a reveals page. The Mesmer hasn't been revealed.

Does a non-revealed profession belong on a page that documents revealed professions? No. A F K When Needed 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's documenting the ArenaNet marketing campaign, not revealed professions. If the mesmer was not officially revealed, but confirmed, then the mesmer would belong on this page, just as the warrior, necromancer, and thief had before. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no practical difference. A F K When Needed 13:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

All the images, dates, and official hints about the professions reveal would not belong on a list of revealed professions. To an extent, official confirmation is revealing, anyways. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"To an extent, official confirmation is revealing, anyways."

That's my point... A F K When Needed 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been on the Mesmer talk page for a month, and I'm sure all those of us who are fanatical enough about it had seen it by now, so there was really no need to move it here and cause trouble. Plus, the to-be-announced 7th profession has already been logically deduced in speculation 100 times over by now through various hints, so there was really no need to add more fuel to that fire either. Sorry to sound so harsh, but if the admins don't want speculation here than lets just keep these hints off, especially now that we all have more than enough to privately deduce the prof anyway. Lysander 00:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I will include this here to not start another section about the same. On the new blog entry about the Krait, there is a Krait character labelled as: Nymfassa, krait hypnoss. Hypnoss where mesmers on the original game, the mesmer profession in spanish is named Hipnotizador, and I guess that Hypnoss is the latin for mesmer... more fire to the topic :P Lokheit 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OMG, some species that use to exist (cover your ears children) still exist. No way! Also, I'm pretty sure that there is no latin for mesmer. Please, we get it already, now stop. Aqua (T|C) 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, NPCs do not follow playable professions so that is irrelevant. - Giant Nuker 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it just further proves that the concept of mesmer still exist, but that's nothing new. So mesmers definitely exist in Tyria, but they might not be a playable profession. Even though I find it very likely that they are playable... Tuomir 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You were right, it isn't latin for mesmer but greek for sleep. Anyway it wasn't my intention to say it's what confirms them (I already believe they are 100% confirmed with the krayt or not :P), just throwing another possible hint to the current enourmous pile, no need to sarcasm there, I wasn't giving it a lot of importance. Lokheit 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)