Talk:Tyria

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this should be named Tyria (continent), with a disambig link replacing it here. What do you think? Cress Arvein 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Maybe, though, if the same odd naming convention is followed as GW1. Calor Talk 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A bit late too the party, but I think Cress is right. Disambig page, pl0x. --Naoroji User Naoroji Sigavatar.jpg 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The name won't be changed, but I don't see much need for a disambiguation page - just a link is worthy. -- Konig/talk 18:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
To expand, I only think disambiguation pages are needed when there are three or more pages with similar names. I don't think there's such yet with GW2, so I don't think there's need for any for now. -- Konig/talk 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Regions?[edit]

If we have the map there, why not put things like steamspur mountains and such? Since we can be pretty sure they'll be in gw2 Shadowed Ritualist 05:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we only know of their location? We also don't know if these things are regions on their own or sub-regions. I bet the Steamspur mountains are a subregion of the Shiverpeak Mountains, otherwise the bloodstone in Bloodstone Cave couldn't be called the Shiverpeak bloodstone. Or maybe no one has gotten to it. I for one am not really willing to go change/add things like changing the Maguuma Jungle to Maguuma Wastes like some think it was renamed because I think that the Maguuma Wastes is a sub-region (the arid area) of the Maguuma Jungle, just as the Tarnished Coast is. -- Konig/talk 05:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You're saying names can't change over years. Clearly it HAS changed. It's in bold to represent it's a regional area (Maguuma Wastes). Just look at Henge of Denravi, it's now RUINS of Denravi. That is enough evidence to show names change over the years. If it's a subregion, then where is "Maguuma Jungle" written on the map? Doesn't necessarily have to stay a jungle. As with the Steamspur Mountains, I believe you're correct, it's just a subregion of the Shiverpeaks. --122.111.180.153 05:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A name means nothing without context. I'm sure there is still quite a bit of jungle, since the sylvari live in a part of it. I guess some of the changes could have caused a drought or change in the water table in the northern half. or as Konig has said it could just reference the general highlands up there that are typically arid places. Something had to happen in order for Denravi to be ruins though, since it lasted for many hundreds of years without a caretaker, if I recall correctly.--Corsair@Yarrr 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I never said names can't change. But that it has been stated multiple times in relation to Guild Wars 2 that the Maguuma Jungle is called Maguuma Jungle and not Wastes - the Art of Guild Wars 2 is one such official documentation, the official website is another. We also know that the Tarnished Coast has been called a sub-region of the Maguuma Jungle. I didn't say "names can't change" - because it clearly can. I'm saying that it might not be a situation of name changes in this particular situation. Where is Maguuma Jungle? Tell me, where is "Shiverpeak Mountains" - instead of that, we get "Northern Shiverpeaks" and "Southern Shiverpeaks" along with this newly mentioned "Steamspur Mountains."
@Corsair: I think the Henge has become Ruins due to the White Mantle's attack on the Shining Blade in the Maguuma during Prophecies. The SB constantly refer to being defeated in the Henge of Denravi during the WiK, so I wouldn't doubt that the WM wrecked the place. -- Konig/talk 07:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Still can't deny the fact that Maguuma Wastes is written in bold. Compare that to "Kryta" on the map. I guess that means Kryta is just a subregion too! :o --122.111.180.153 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Compare it to Northern and Southern Shiverpeaks, which are clearly not regions on their own. It's the same as the Desolation - which is a subregion of the Crystal Desert - and the Tarnished Coast was stated to be a sub-region of the Maguuma Jungle in the past. It's only logical deduction to think that Maguuma Wastes is a part of the Maguuma Jungle, just as the Tarnished Coast is; just like how the Desolation is part of the Crystal Desert and the Northern, Southern, and Far Shiverpeaks are part of the Shiverpeak Mountains. -- Konig/talk 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In-game map[edit]

Here, from 3.38 to 3.50, we can have a pretty good idea of the huge map of Tyria. It has pretty bad quality, but I guessed some people might be interested. And it's not even the entire map!! (The majority of Orr is not shown) --188.80.150.133 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars 1 map[edit]

Do we really need the GW1 map here? We already have a GW2 map from Ghosts of Ascalon, plus the overlayed map plus the GWW template linking to GW1W. IMO, it's a bit of overkill to have the original map here. Erasculio 12:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind seeing it go. It's a GW2 wiki after all. ge4ce 12:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No need anymore, I think. The overlay is enough. -- Konig/talk 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's fully explorable! <3[edit]

that would be awesome ^^ (though maybe not possible) climbing mountains and stuff :D --User The Holy Dragons sig.pngThe Holy Dragons 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Arena Net says that was the point of adding the ability to jump / the Z axis. They said it was upsetting for players to see this gorgeous high mountain top that they wanted to climb and look off of, but not be able to get there... Also, think about it, it's one of the major reason's why the map has undergone change. So their thinking about it anyways. I personally, am hoping for a larger world. I was comparing the old Guild Wars map with number two's map... and in my opinion I'm worried (but I shouldn't be). It's like they just cut the Crystal Desert and the far Northern Shiverpeaks in half, replacing it with water. So there better be hugh cities like Atlantis under there! SpiritSplit 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Fully explorable? Definably not. That's a lot of land to hold and given the number of explorable areas/cities and the size we have, I'd say we're going to get the same amount of explorable to Prophecies and Eye of the North combined (not the same locations completely though, obviously). Furthermore, we got confirmation that the Crystal Desert and Ring of Fire will not be explorable - I somehow doubt exploring (all of) the Far Shiverpeaks and Charr Homelands. @SpiritSplit: GW2's map doesn't go as far north as GW1's does, but it does seem to go as far south, if not moreso, east, and west. Konig/talk 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember that there are many different types of people, with many different types of play style. Exploring every nook and cranny of a world might not be interesting to you, but to others... it could be a life long dream (In this world and out). Your above comment worries me even more now. With every game that has had a sequel, one thing has always happened; they make all kinds of improvments, just to take away from other perfectly fine content. --SpiritSplit 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the initial release, by all appearances, there will be more "land" to cover (especially compared to Prophecies) - not only in terms of map to uncover by due to a change in scaling. Of course, this is all theoretical and I could be dastardly off. But I can state that we have been told that the Ring of Fire and Crystal Desert are not explorable. The latter can be "seen" from somewhere though. And for the record, I do love exploring every nook and cranny. Konig/talk 21:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, here you go, an answer to our questions:
"Onlinewelten: How vast will Tyria be in Guild Wars 2? How about the distances between the locations?
Eric Flannum: Tyria in Guild Wars 2 covers a significantly larger area than in Guild Wars, and at the same time contains much more playable space in each area. The world of Guild Wars 2 will not only be by the largest world we’ve created thus far, but will also be much more densely packed with interesting things to do and see. As far as distances between locations go, our maps are much larger than they were in the original Guild Wars, and players will be able to travel a long distance between zone boundaries."
And here's the link to Onlinewelten. I'm a little less worried now. However, I'd still like to see "every nook and cranny" made explorable. As for the fire Island's, I'm sure they got plan's for that. --SpiritSplit 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I said in regards to scale. When Eric said that it's the largest world, it means in terms of playable size compared to each GW1 game individually - which just means its bigger than all of Prophecies (the biggest campaign for size), which would be close to what I originally said (roughly Prophecies+Eye of the North in terms of explorable area). Of course, it'll also be scaled bigger - meaning in the time it takes to get from point A to point B in GW1 it'll take longer to go through the same places in GW2 if going at the same speed, however if you were to take the two maps and put them to the same size, the explorable area would look roughly the same amount (just in different areas). Every "nook and cranny" is pretty much impossible and actually limits the developers for future ideas, as they can't go back and add a new area or two (like what happened with Sorrow's Furnace) after getting an idea. I'd rather see an expansion to the GW1 map - even if unexplored - along with exploring new areas so that we can get completely new areas to explore, rather than places that hold the same name but are overall rather different (some "walls" that exist in GW1 have already disappeared in GW2 maps, and vice versa - particularly speaking around Queensdale aka Divinity Coast and Watchtower Coast of GW1). Konig/talk 05:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You also said "Of course, this is all theoretical and I could be dastardly off," which mean's you weren't 100% sure. All I simply did was make a simple contribution/confirmation. As for bit's of the map disappearing, a lot of that has to do with both the rise of the dragon's and movement of the land. I agree with your idea about leaving bit's of the map closed off for later idea's. However, there's a chance that their not going to touch it. As for Sorrow's Furnance, I didn't know anyhting about future idea's being limited for filling in too much of the map? What happened there? --SpiritSplit 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Making the world fully explorable, like it pretty much is in WoW, leaves many possible glitches and exploits unless tremendous amount of QA (which ArenaNet does lots, but probably not so much) has been done. Mediggo 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm aware that I wasn't completely sure, but what I was commenting on was how you at least made it out to seem like I was disheartening you but Eric's words reassured you, when we were saying the same thing. Regarding what happened with Sorrow's Furnace - it was an area added to the game a couple months post-release, much like the Domain of Anguish for Nightfall. It contained gw1:Grenth's Footprint and gw1:Sorrow's Furnace itself, along with the gw1:Titan quests to continue the story. They were probably all planned when creating the game and released post-release so that players don't rush through everything. The Dominion of Winds is suspected at the moment to be of such situation - or alternatively a future location for the tengu as a playable race. But that's speculation. Konig/talk 21:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can definately level with the QA issues. I mean really think about it... So much of this world is consumed in IST... and there are so many issues. Wether it be hack's, lag's, glitches, or the developer's fault... I get irritated sometimes. Well, as long as they slowly fill the world in and keep us busy, I'd be happy. I went ahead and added feedback on the subject, from there, it's up to ArenaNet.
And Infinite, my apologizes for the confusion. I was just looking for fact's that could both comfort me and contribute to this article. Sorry for mis-reading. --SpiritSplit 21:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Source for areas listed unexplorable?[edit]

88.85.130.64 10:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Observations of the map - we were told how many explorable zones there'd be, and in the press beta you could make out numbers in various spots of the map, which were the level indicators for said explorable areas. We counted them up and where they were - there were none in the listed unexplorable regions. Crystal Desert and Ring of Fire were outright confirmed by Anet a while back as well. Konig/talk 01:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Official full world map revealed[edit]

I hate to link to videos in the wiki rather than give detailed information, but we have now been given the official world-map view of the entire world of Tyria here. How should this new info be added exactly? I suppose somebody could take screenshots of a full-screen view from that video? This information was pulled from textures in the actual game files used for in-game globes, so maybe somebody could grab those and put together an official jpg image for it? -- DrakeWurrum 16:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind - I see the person who posted on reddit uploaded images of the world map to imgur already! -- DrakeWurrum 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
And only now do I realize I'm in fact on the wrong Tyria page... -- DrakeWurrum 16:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional images[edit]

I think having a gallery is fine, even if people *coughKonigSantaxcough* are having a dispute. Either the maps or the screenshots of the major regions are fine, but it would probably be better to have the maps. --JonTheMon 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That was my thought, I just don't want constant revert wars so I figured that no images>constant reverts. Re-add em if you want, my caring meter's constantly dropping at this point. Konig/talk 16:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment that the images were removed by Konig solely because they were added by me, the "alternative" maps are actually:
  • a map from the novel (which is actually pretty decent and could be kept on the page, just not in the gallery section)
  • a map showing the changes in coastline between GW1 and GW2, which although pretty ugly, could have a place on the Rising of Orr page, jut not here
  • a partially explored map of Tyria during alpha, and a partially explored map during beta, complete with UI. neither image is clean, or particularly relevant to the page - they have some historical value, but would be better suited over at Map
The alternative is having, you know, actual pictures of the location on the location page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"Ignoring for a moment that the images were removed by Konig solely because they were added by me" No need to ignore it, since that wasn't the reason. The reason I reverted you was as I claimed in the edit summary (if you even bother to read those, that is): "the seemingly random screenshots" "of a single place in each lore region" But allow me to elaborate: there's no known or presented reason to these images. They're just images, placed for the sake of being present, and are credited for being a part of a map-denoted region. Where's the value? Where's the purpose? I see none, you presented none. Why have these images? Why have them over others? What does this have to do with Kryta other than being there? It shoes nothing of the landscape or the land itself. They felt pointless to me and of lesser value than the maps you removed, so I reverted. I would have done the same if Bob Saget or Jeff Grubb added them.
"the changes in coastline between GW1 and GW2 [...] could have a place on the Rising of Orr page" Why? It's just as relevant to the Tarnished Coast area, Sea of Sorrows (especially Sea of Sorrows), and Kryta areas. I hold no disagreement over the alpha/beta maps, however. Konig/talk 16:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Having a variety of images to demonstrate the varieties of terrains isn't a bad idea. And using DR for Kryta seems logical to me, since Kryta = human = DR. But, I'd still give my vote to the maps. --JonTheMon 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Harathi Hinterlands[edit]

The additional image on this page with each zone highlighted has Harathi Hinterlands misnamed as Valley Headlands... Which I believe was only the name during beta? Is it possible for the person who created the image to fix that?

Not even beta - it was the development name. Same with Regrown Flame for Fireheart Rise. The map even lacks Orr zone names. Definitely out of date. Konig/talk 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

New areas since launch[edit]

With the continued evolution of the map, I've occasionally wondered what new places have been added in the last several months. Recently, one of the devs showed off a map of Tyria with all the new additions highlighted. I identified the various places and have it available. SarielV 20 x 20px 21:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

NewAreas20130926.jpg

Formerly Inaccessible Regions[edit]

For example, the Crystal Desert is getting opened up once Path of Fire is released.

--EricLnu (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/01/06[edit]

This article should take a bit of a revamp, the areas presented in the article belong to both Tyria the continent and Elona and the article was supposed to have its focus in Tyria the continent only. You probably could move the areas (and the half the picture of the map) to the Elona thread, since everything from the Crystal Desert down is part of Elona and not Tyria. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oretoh (talk).

See related topic. And archived related talk topic.
People cannot seem to agree how to document the two (Tyria and Elona). "Tyria" refers to ultimately the following things in the games: 1) the world; 2) the "Tyria the continent" you're talking about, which has been recently renamed to "Central Tyria" since we've began leaving the area; 3) the actual lore continent/supercontinent, which includes Central Tyria, Elona, and a lot, lot, **lot** more (see this image); and 4) the mechanical continent (aka what we see in world map). In GW1 the last thing was what is now called Central Tyria, while Elona was its own, but in GW2 both are now one. GWW labeled "gww:continents" as the mechanic world map, because that's what devs called them in promotions, and it was pretty straightforward. Annoyingly, change in direction has made things *not* so straightforward.
I think those who added the Elona regions are of the opinion of simply documenting the world map on a singular - this - article.
TL;DR The current set up is not necessarily wrong. But people cannot seem to agree whether Tyria should document "Central Tyria", the world map, or "Continent Tyria" as the 'new' (aka Season 2) lore has presented. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy answer, thanks to ArenaNet's change in procedure between GW1 and GW2, and their naming methodology. Konig (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)