Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive

Races
Note that, the magazine specifically states that the official number of races has not been stated yet. Implying that there may be more. - FireFox  18:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm really hoping Tengu and Centuar are included, those and Dwarf were all intregal races in the existing game, and Centuar could open up some unique features as a race, since they are basically their own mount. Perhaps they will offer additional races as the game progresses instead of professions.--BahamutKaiser 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like the dredge to be a race personally, i'm also wondering how many people will actually play humans --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Mpjc.
 * Me for one. I don't find any of the new races to be particularly attractive for me as a character. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to be something other than a human, I think it would give the game a kind of twist.

If this is true...
If this information about Guildwars 2 is true, and it isn't connected to the other games, Nightfall will be my last game from ArenaNet... Sorcix 15:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * The articles say, that GuildWars 2 is somehow connected to GuildWars P/F/N/EN. Hall of Monuments is the keyword for this. - MSorglos 16:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It amazes me how people are so afraid of change! I love GW, all three campaigns but I'm also really excited about GW2. A whole new game (ish). New skill, systems, characters ... Bring it on I say. >> (Vandal2k7) 04:36, 28 March 2007 (EDT) Well my problem is what happens to my GW characters? Do they just stop being used or do I get to keep all the skills etc or what? Spied

Yeah I have the same problem, I mean I worked really hard to get those guys to where they are now and I just don't want to lose them and have to start completely over. Dakar


 * As I understand it the skills in GW 2 will be very different than those in GW 1, so I would expect that keeping skills/items/armor or whatever would not make sense. LordBiro 14:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Also, as has been said before, GW2 is set 100 years in the future. Your character would be around 120 by then.  Neverwinter Nights 2 never let you bring over your old Nwn1 characters, same with many other games, so why should GW2 let you bring them over?  --User:Albinobird[[Image:Albinobirdsig.JPG|Albinobird]] 12:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * But Neverwinter Nights was not an MMORPG-like game. Some of us were expecting a new release every 6 months for more than just 2 years.  Anet could get around the 100 years into the future business if they wanted to.  (E.g., dead heroes live on in a place called the Hall of Heroes in the Rift, could be summoned forth in Tyria's darkest hour!) --Ctran 00:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I just hope(d) that they will decide to let us keep our characters. =( Although I suppose it is kinda nice for a change, to change the primary... forever I've wanted my crappy (even crappier now cuz of the soul reaping nerf) necromancer to be a dervish. That'd be awesome. Of course, never will happen. :( 68.9.197.232 20:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Why dont you just make a dervish right now? lol

I think I read somewhere that Eye of the North will be the connector between GW1 and GW2.--TriceBattle 23:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I personally think that what will happen is you will have two games... and I don't mind that. It is not like I have been putting a monthly fee into my characters so not playing them isn't as huge a deal as it would be with other MMORPG games. In this case the way I see it you can play GW2 or you can play GW1, your choice... I personally will buy it and if I don't like it I can easily not play it. The connection between GW1 and GW2 is storyline based (or at least that is what I have been reading) you can bring your titles into GW2 which has some effect in the game. Most likely special items and things. What I see with GW2 is a more RPG structure as opposed to the competitive adventure RPG hybrid that is GW1. I welcome this with open arms, especially since it will be free to play. --Saji-Kun 17:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully this will explain some things. GW1 and GW2 will be seperate games. Guild Wars 1 will continue to run after the sequel's released, and you will continue to be able to play your characters, though I haven't found when new campaigns or expansions will be released, if at all. Guild Wars 2 will be a completely seperate game, and will then consume most of ArenaNet's resources (though again, Guild Wars 1 will still be running alongside). It will be their main game. This structure is quite common when it comes to sequels in the MMO genre, and no-one will lose their GW1 characters. You cannot bring characters over from one game to the other, but with the Eye of the North expansion you can carry-over achievements, or titles, something along those lines. Some of this is already listed on the main page, but putting it here may alleviate some concerns. -- Rob --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.116.83.209.
 * Thanks, but this discussion ended 2 months ago, so I'd assume they probably know this by now. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki?
Will ANet want GW2 content combined on this site or on a separate official site? Might be good to know... --  Vallen Frostweaver  16:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


 * It would be really complicated to keep them both at the same wiki. We would need to create duplicate articles for almost everything due to differences between the games. We would need an article about experience for both games for example. This would also cause mistakes and chaos from the contributors as they might accidentally edit the article of the wrong game. I would highly suggest a separate wiki for both games. This might also make implementing the in game help systems easier. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I'll reserve judgment until we see how much different GW1 and 2 are. But I'm already thinking of all the work we have transferring data from Guildwiki to here... Armond 00:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Exactly why I was thinking about mentioning it now so that we can discuss ANet's plans with them and be prepared for wht they decide on. If they want to have another wiki then that's cool, but if not, then maybe we start discussing other options since discusion takes so long to come to decisions on a wiki.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Mixing two games in one wiki will be a mess, irrelevant if have much in common or not. Even small differences will cause a lot of confusion. And the games will certainly include a lot of stuff named just like in the other, but with different game mechanics and game stats. Duplicate articles or articles that include info for both campaigns are a mess. Creating a new wiki will prevent any problems after the wiki policies, formatting etc are set up. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 09:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, but I was asking if ANet will be supplying us with a means for a separate GW2 wiki in the future or not. Otherwise, a new unofficial guildwiki2 may be coming out instead or they may want us to persue a different avenue.  I don't know. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree with Gem ... a single wiki for both game series would be cumbersome at best. It would be better for clean documentation between them to create multiple wikis, with inter-wiki linking between them. --Barek 21:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I've asked our IT department to provide a second wiki site, preferably with a shared user database, for hosting GW2 wiki content. I'll keep you posted. --Mike O&#39;Brien 22:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

reset indent I understand that the feeling at guildwiki is that it is going to be best left to the official wiki to cover GW2... but don't quote me, a year is a long time in which plans can change Fox 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


 * What GuildWiki does shouldn't be the determining factor for here. But seeing as it has been brought up: GuildWiki is in a wait and see mode.  If an official wiki holds the content, then they may not even document GW2 beyond mentioning that it exists.  If there's enough demand to have them host one, then discussions thus far is that they will create a second wiki for GW2 content once release gets closer and significant content starts to become available.  My personal guess is that would be not much before beta and load testing beginning for GW2. --Barek 21:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Need interwiki links --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.29.74.123.
 * Umm... yes, this section is talking about a GW2 wiki. Try this instead: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Requests_for_technical_administration -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Anon mighta meant that we'd find interwiki links useful for making links back and forth between the wikis. Armond 00:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think it is a bit silly to have a GW2 wiki before people have an oppourtunity to discover and convey information from the game. Basicly it would be a Wiki about speculation and relaying reports about the developement of a game which is mostly unformed at this point.  I do however suggest the involvement in a wiki such as NikiWiki:GW2, which is designed for suggestions and speculation about GW2, as Anet is still developing and deciding on which aspects to involve in the game, and unlike some sensations conveyed by others, they do a vastly better job of receiving player imput than those MMOs, reguardless of the subscription they require. --BahamutKaiser 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Other links
Wired blog entry. Nothing paticularly new - but does suggest that the skill system will be changed. "...rather than have overly complex skills ..., players will learn less complicated skills that they will be encouraged to test out in any situation they can think of. What happens if you use this skill while jumping, or that one while surrounded by monsters? ... Strain referred to it as 'emergent complexity,'...". I swear I've heard 'emergent complexity' mentioned in relation to the GW1 system so I guess they're still trying to work that one out. --Aspectacle 01:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * wow new feature, they just said we can jump. (I assume they mean that it wont just be an emote this time...) -- Scourge  [[Image:User Scourge Spade.gif]] 02:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


 * According the Kotaku article characters will be able to Jump, swim & climb trees. As well as many other things. --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 09:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


 * By the sound of it, it seems it will have powerful platforming elements akin to adventure games, combat may evolve alot with significant movement variety. As well, the who idea that certain skills or attacks will variate wile used in combination with movement suggests an action based control scheme.  It may be a bit of a stretch, but if you are using movement + action combinations to produce unique effects, it sounds alot like action relative combat, which is a serious seller for me :) --BahamutKaiser 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

official logo
seeing as there is a picture of the GW2 logo in the guild wars website could we get a proper render for the article? :) -- Lemming64  11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

WoW/EQ Copying
I for one think this is a crude attempt to make Guild Wars more like WoW or EQ, which are two games I TRUELY despise. No level cap would be a total and utter disaster as it would create a stupid hierarchy of high level players, such as in all other MMORPGs. Different races seems to be a good idea, except that it's copying the other two games. I will not purchase Guild Wars 2 ever. It's a waste of time, money and people. --Fiznuckin Biznitch 00:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * How is having multiple races copying Everquest or World of Warcraft? The original Neverwinter Nights had multiple playable races 8 years before Everquest and 13 years before World of Warcraft. -- Gordon Ecker 00:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * And, who's to say that 100 levels (or infinite as they are saying) isn't that different from what we have now actually. I can level up forever in GW1 but my attributes and health max at lvl 20.  For all we know they may just give you silly stuff for leveling up.  Until we know more you might want to reserve your judgement of what GW2 is about.  I mean it won't even beta until next year. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Multiple races is nothing new, as stated. Someone at ANet (I forget who) said something along the line of "we know what you want, have faith". ~Skuld 09:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * In short, you (Fiznuckin Biznitch) are a dumbass --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:4.79.181.242.
 * Please refrain from calling anyone names. It's in the Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks section. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I really, really hate when people care about originality these days. It's so incredibly hard to be original without copying someone else. Multiple races is a good idea. Period. It doesn't matter who they "stole" it from. It's like copying the wheel, someone was bound to do it at one point, just because EQ did it first doesn't mean GW2 is going to suck. I'm excited to see the change in Guild Wars because it's simply not a rewarding experience, it's all who has the best team coordination, which is nice, but frankly gets old fast. I just hope GW2 will let me bring Wayne over... my original character... he's been in so many fierce battles and everything. That'd be AWESOME! 68.9.197.232 19:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * ZOMGZORZ GW2 SI COPIING D&D!!!1!@!eleventy-two! Armond 22:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

reseting indent. I also have my share of fears, most fear comes from the races concept. IMHO they will probably have something to differenciate them from each other race, which will force one race to be focused on one proffesion more than other. Also I fear that races/professions (like assasin kills a mesmer, warrior kills assasin, mesmer kills warrior) will be balanced instead of the skills.Sith 05:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) User:68.9.197.232 check out: Hall of Monuments, as far as we know you cannot bring your GW1 character over to GW2, theres even a little discussion at the top of this page about it. -- Scourge   05:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I love this insanity, the game is more than a year and a half away, and people thing they can speculate as to what it will be like when it is finished, get a grip. -- Lemming64 06:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The only reason I can see why some potential "copied" content might suck is because you play those other games. Understandable that you don't want to play yet another game with similar features. But having the opportunity to play different races is just another great reason for me to buy GW2. I'm not bored by that feature because I hardly ever played a game that featured that. I even remember it: a Dungeon Siege add-on, you were able to play a Giant class...

And just for you haters information: without imitating and/or evolving something that had been done before we would still live in caves and you would still play Pong. But you can blame ANet and every other developer for imitating principle game ideas and mechanisms of games that, in the end, all base on Pong. Our todays huge game industry goes back to this tiny little stupid game on the Amiga.

Imitating makes the world go around, that goes for Nature as well as for Humanity and it's products. There is little to no original matter born in the world nowadays and it becomes more unlikely by the minute. But it doesn't hurt us because there is still so much we can reform and recycle. Wiking 14:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think people are confusing race and species. I am all for different races, assuming that there will be no limitations on the abilities or professions.  Failing this, or adding different species is a cheap knockoff of other games...not to be exceptionally critical, but GW1 has a given set of aspects that made it so very successful, and my chosen game because of those aspects.  Varying from that leaves nothing more than monthly fees to differentiate between GW and the other games, and monthly fees are not something to sway me to or from a game.  In fact, a game with monthly fees has a huge responsibility to the continuity of the game and the players, so the game will be much more receptive to player input (the loss of subscribers will force any real issue)
 * People do not accept change without major repercussions; it is in our nature. If anything, ArenaNet needs only to observe the history of Coca-Cola, and how they got greedy enough to introduce "New Coke" to try to take Pepsi's share of the market, only to lose their own (larger) share.  Players wanting the different species and limitations and such are already playing WoW or such, and GW will not be able to draw them away from those games (because of the investment they have where they are, and the change factor)24.235.169.119 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most of this speculation about GW2 ripping off features from WoW and EQ2 is simply ignorance of where ideas truely originate and what is truely an intellectual property. I think it was Albert Einstein who said "the secret to creativity is hiding your sources", correct me if you can find the exact quote.
 * The entirety of human achievement is built upon taking what the human race has achieve thus far and taking it a step further, this is an aspect true to every single achievement since the dawn of time, so assuming that because others have utilized features, which were ultimately derived elsewhere anyway, would be reason to omit because they "belong" to other games really is a lack of understanding, ergo ignorance.
 * Outside of a few outstanding features which directly draw from creations by others, like the Dragoon character from the Final Fantasy series, there are very few things which are exclusive to a certain invention, truely intellectual properties are few and far between, and anything drawn from the grand cannon of history and fantasy is far from an intellectual property, or exclusive to something like WoW and EQ.
 * That being said, Anet has a goal here to include the majority of enjoyable features for the maximum number of players. Wile a few players will appricate limitation and exclusion of certian content, those players are much more likely to use what they want reguardless of alternate options wile an influx additional players will be drawn to new more inclusive features.
 * Lets get real about the quality features GW provides to their gamers which make GW and exceptional game. GuildWars halmarks are skill based gameplay, lack of grinding, a focus on pursuing activities instead of pursuing advancement, cooperative play and dependancy, and competative soundness and enjoyment.  None of those features require exclusion of races, inclusion of click to move, inclusion of auto targeting or auto attacking, or a low level maximum.  It will certainly require a greater amount of tradeoffs, exceptions, additions, redevelopement, and creativity to include many new features wile maintaining those "GuildWars Halmarks", but with extensive and intellegent developement, it can be done.
 * Case and point, reengineering well known ideas and interests to discover the next level of inclusion and entertainment is not copying no more than making a better car than your competition with most of the same features is copying, neither of those car companies invented the car in most cases, and both drew their ideas from previous discoveries, even if one preceeds the other with advancements on technology from the previous.
 * If anyone has reason to support or protest the inclusion of certain features in GW2, I invite you to join me at NikiWiki:GW2, and introduce your opinion or discuss those already there.--BahamutKaiser 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[FFS Can everyone stop sayin stuff like OMG ITS COPYING WoW. Its having its own style thats like sayin OMG WoW Made MMORPG. The other games just copied us] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:193.60.218.253.
 * Yes, can you please stop as well? The discussion on this section has stopped 5 months ago. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

idea
AN should add in GW2 some economy like item crafting, gathering minerals etc. imo --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:83.2.141.113.


 * This is just a documentation site, if you want to make suggestions about GW2 try one of the many fan forums such as Guild Wars guru -- Scourge  [[Image:User Scourge Spade.gif]] 05:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Or try NikiWiki:GW2, a wiki for the sole purpose of organizing new concepts and ideas for Guild Wars 2 -- Jeni 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you looked familiar, I saw you spamming that same website in Kamadan D5 a couple of weeks ago. -- Scourge  [[Image:User Scourge Spade.gif]] 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible eye of the north extension
Will eye of the north possibly have an extension that will allow GW2 charchters to access the sub terrian part of the continient? this would make sense because the Hall of monuments would be underground am i right? or is none of that confirmed?


 * I doubt it, the Hall of Monuments only gives "access" to 100 years in the past as far as items, companions, armor, etc. I don't think any locations will come from the Hall of Monuments. --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 15:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Any type of armor?
"It has been stated that in Guild Wars 2 characters will be allowed to wear any type of armor." Where has this been stated? Wiking 14:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * My question is more what does this actually mean :P Is this saying that a monk can wear all types of armor in reference to looks... or is it to all functionality as well? *laughs at the idea of a monk in pull plate trying to cast a spell but falling over under its weight*--Saji-Kun 18:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * You can also trade over armor sets from GW1 using the HoM, I'm guessing stats & looks are unhinged, we can only find out when we know so let's wait until then eh? --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 19:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for straying from my question but it still stands: Where has this info been stated? Wiking 14:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * So far, on this talk page... >.> Sorry, but I haven't seen anything of this beyond speculation and some peoples hopes that they immitate FFXI with a single character to all professions option and the race and items gives the difference in performace (besides the players own skill). All speculation as far as I can tell and no facts or links to such. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * It appears that someone was reading too far into the Hall of Monuments information. I think we should remove the note if a source isn't found soon. -- Gordon Ecker 01:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hi there, i am the person who posted this statement on the Guild Wars 2 page, I read it in a forum somewhere, it was posted by someone who was sharing information from the mag. sorry if this caused a hassle. I will now remove the post and in the mean time try to relocate the source of the information. again sorry --[[Image:User Wacked 1 Link Sprite.gif]]  Wacked 1  13:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Speculation
Currently the article states "But due to previous conflicts with say, the Charr and the Humans it is likely that their feud will continue and they will still fight each other through the second installment of Guild Wars." I don't recall that in the magazine, but no time to look. If this is just speculation, then I feel it should be removed from the article and just discussed in the talk pages for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it appears to be purely speculative. -- Gordon Ecker 21:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think someone with half a brain could draw a conclusion that the charr and human-like races are a keystone of the plotline of guild wars. Doesn't take a genius to realize the conflict between them will continue, durr? I doubt you speculate for eternity until making a decision, considering it is impossible to comprehend all decisions that can be made. We simply use common sense. Why not use common sense for this? course there'll be conflict, where have you been in the storyline? --Omigawa 16:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Just of note, Guild Wars 2 takes place hundreds of years after the events of Guild Wars 1, its quite possible that the Charr and Humans may have resolved their differences by then (there are hints of this in Nightfall, and I suspect that GWEN will continue along with this). Anyways I'd like to see this speculation removed. Also: regarding playable races, Gaile Gray has stated here that Surrow is not a new playable race (for five races add Human to the new four). I'm afraid we'll have to wait a touch longer to find out the other playable races. --Indecision 18:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, and doggies and humans will be walking hand in hand throwing flowers out of a basket all the way to the superevil creatures that spawn in the nethers 100 years from now. Goodie goodie gumdrops :D--Omigawa 06:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Removing that note. As others said above, it's pure speculation and very subjective. (I personally would find it strange if it was still a Charr vs Humans conflict in GW2). Until there's something more concrete to base that assumption on, it doesn't deserve to be on the main article. --Dirigible 06:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure all the playable races will have the option to be on the same team. If there are separate player factions, I suspect it will be more like Luxon vs Kurzick than Alliance vs Horde. I'm also pretty sure that all the races will have hostile NPC factions like the Corsairs and Stone Summit. -- Gordon Ecker 01:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

New Race Announced!
From Eric Flannum; this hadn't been mentioned anywhere else but while he was talking about racial traits:
 * "So people who like playing as warriors are going to get a lot of variety out of choosing whether they want to be a Norn, a Surrow, or Human warrior - as those are all going to feel very different."

Looks like he let something slip he wasn't supposed to :o --Santax 05:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Interesting. Have you got a link to the post or interview? -- Gordon Ecker 06:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75018&page=1 --Dirigible 06:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * GWO thread. It might be that the eurogamer.net guys have misheard "Asura" for "a Surrow". Seems likely to me. --Dirigible 06:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I certainly agree that there is enough reasonable doubt not to add this to the wiki. LordBiro 07:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not too sure... ah-zuh-rah or ah-zoo-rah can't really sound like a-suh-row. --Santax 09:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think there is some question. Perhaps it is overly cautious, but when you're discussing terms that you are unfamiliar with (or in this case, that you have completely made up) it's not really too difficult to fill in the blanks incorrectly. LordBiro 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Too late - Special:Contributions/77.98.24.142 - "Be not so Bold ^^ -- Snog  rat [[Image:Trigsig.png]] 07:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Oops - that's Santax's forget-to-sign-in-redirect ip! Sorry, mate :D -- Snog  rat [[Image:Trigsig.png]] 07:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up... the level 100 thing is mentioned twice, this could probably be rewritten into one paragraph.

" for instance. "
" Guild Wars 2 will still have instances, but also claims more advanced persistance. This might include different quests becoming available depending on the outcome of a particular fight for instance. "

This can be seen as quite confusing. SHould the "for instance" bit read "for example"?


 * Yes. -- Gordon Ecker 20:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * LoL. Sirocco 21:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Customized weapons and the Hall of Monuments.
It was stated that you would be able to put several weapons in Hall, which will show up in display showcases in Guild Wars: 2 that your characters will be able to remove and use. I was wondering: Would cuztomized weapons be able to be taken down and used? I couldn't find the answer anywhere so decided to try here. --Ziji 13:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 * No one knows more than what is on this page, really. if there are any official announcements with a given reputable source, it will be posted here and then you'll have your answer. --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 13:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the insight, I'll be sure to keep checking for answers--Ziji 18:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Once you put your items in the Monuments can you get them back? if not then my warriors stuff isnt going near those monuments...untill i move on to GW2 Permanetly...if that happens...:P --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.215.152.178.
 * Of course you can. I don't think you even literally put the item in. The idea is that the Hall of Monuments remembers what your character achieved. It's not a time teleportation device that sends your current items several hundreds of years into the future to your descendants. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 22:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * No no, it's a valid concern. The reasonable assumption is that you can, which is also what I believe. But at the same time there has to be ways to control against exploit, e.g. putting the weapon in there then giving it to a friend so he does the same, rince and repeat. Most likely putting the item in with "sign" it, much like customization does, so that you can't trade it with other players. Alaris 22:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the thing about putting an actual item in the Hall of Monuments was an example of what you might be able to do, and may have been speculation on the magazine's part. -- Gordon Ecker 22:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll look into it more and post any information I recieve. Till then, we can only hypothosize about what ArenaNet is will do.--Ziji 23:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Even if you simply customize your weapon, it cannot be traded, so all that is neccessary is for you to customize particular weapons in order to enter them into the hall of monuments, this way you could keep your weapon, and record it into the hall of monuments, and no one else would be able to enter it because it is customized to you. And Armor is customized too.--BahamutKaiser 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

charr a playable race??
if the charr is a playable race then does that mean they will have a totally different story from the other characters...because it was my belief that charr were the enemys on this game....so will you be playing the bad guys or will it be a charr turned good helping the humans??
 * The story happens hundreds of years later from GW1. Maybe humans made peace with the Charr and are now fighting a common enemy, or something. Who knows. --Dirigible 10:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The new playable races in GW2 will be introduced in GW:EN, some of which will be playable as heroes. I expect that at least some Charr (and Asura and ...) will form allegiances with humans to fight against the destroyer in GW:EN, an alliance which will not be forgotten by the time GW2 comes. Alaris 11:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think it's pretty obvious there will be two general factions (or possibly more). Charr on one, humans on the other. Seems pretty self-evident IMO. --Omigawa 13:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * How is it obvious? Scorch Emberspire makes it pretty clear that the Charr were the Titans' dupes, and when the articles mention PvP, they refer to GvG-like "structured PvP" and "world vs. world" battles in the Mists as the two major PvP types, with no mention of any faction-based PvP like Factions, Final Fantasy Online or World of Warcraft. -- Gordon Ecker 03:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see any evidence at all showing that we will have charr and humans in different factions. I read the last preview in GameSpy, and from what I understand the races are united against a new common enemy, not against eachother. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  03:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Not trying to be racist, but here's the breakdown. Charr : Hitler Humans : Jews. They are NOT friends. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.92.149.80.
 * Worst analogy ever. Sirocco 17:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So bad, that he didn't even sign it. That, and actually, Charr and Humans will work together and build alliances and fight against common ennemies. The ones we fought in Prophecies were fanatics, not at all representative of the general Charr populations. Just like we should not judge the Muslims based on terrorists, or the Catholics based on the crusades. Was that a better analogy? Alaris 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like Anonymous doesn't know about Godwin's Law. Anyway, it appears that the Charr have been deceived and manipulated by some crazy cult with powerful backers. I'd compare the Prophecies Charr to the Orcs of the original Horde. -- 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good analogy. Wasn't there some sort of backstory that says there's now a split in the ruling hierarchy of the Charr? The shaman class are trying to maintain their hold over the Charr tribes after the exposure of the titans as false gods. More and more tribes are breaking away from the warlike and ruthless rule of the shamans. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's mentioned in the fansite kit, and is duplicated in the Charr article. So far, the Shaman caste has been able to put down all the rebellions, however they seem to be losing their grip on power. -- Gordon Ecker 09:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Future Quest to free a tribe from their rule perhaps :) whitehike 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reset Indent

I don't see why it is a problem to play a character that is also an enemy, a vast number of human collaborations are enemies in GW as well, perhaps the most frequent enemy is another human of one faction or another, it wouldn't be much different for a charr, with Charr used by players and Charr still pitted as enemies to the general player. A bit of strife characterization would be natural between Charr and Human, but Charr can have factions on both sides of the conflict just like Humans.--BahamutKaiser 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow I guess not many have catched this but I beleive KEY WORD BELIEVE NOT TOTALLY PROVEN that this has been resolved...in something aobut GW:EN and GW2 it talked aobut the charr and some conflicts with them. It said that they were fighting humans and all that but they were also struggling with conflict from within there ranks. My guess is after the titans were destroyed some believed the charrs cause was not as rightwous and true as they thought before...thus they formed a wholen ew group. I beleive this is the type of charr we will play in GW2 and we interact with friendly in GW:EN. ~Ashvirenza --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.41.43.130.
 * Umm... that was already mentioned and noted above. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

100 years?
So initial reports had Gw2 100 years into the future. The article I just read from gamespy suggests (actually quotes Mike O'Brien) as saying this is 250 years. Which one is correct? I'm inclined to believe the earlier articles, but as the most recent interview the story might have changed? --Aspectacle 08:13, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The PCGamer article wrote "hundreds of years after EotN", not "100 years". So 250y is probably correct. --Dirigible 08:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah so. The article here is misleading, then.  Thanks for the info I'll fix that up. :) --Aspectacle 08:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Not misleading at all. Nations doesn't refer to 1 nation. Dozens doesn't refer to 1 dozen. The s exemplifies the plurality, indicating that there is in fact more than 1 of. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.92.149.80.
 * Umm... 100 years is not hundreds of years. I think you misunderstood something. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Race problem
I see a very big problem with races in GW2. The fact being that one race might not be able to be a warrior, or one race might not be able to be a monk. As seen in other games, I think this will be something to fear in the future. I mean, the classes have yet to be confirmed and everything, but if I want to make an Asura mesmer... and it doesn't let me? I see a problem there. And for one, Norn do not look like the type to be a monk. Anyone else have thoughts on this? -- ( General  |  Talk ) 00:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It's another one of those "we don't know yet" things. Racial traits in character creation (c.f. AD&D) can be annoying, but make the game more enjoyable to role players. I personally enjoy making my characters different - hulking great monks and tiny little warriors for example. I'm hoping you can use any race in any way, but who knows? It might be an end to classes altogether - your race is also your class. Doubtful, but hey - we don't know yet! -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 02:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * But its eating at my soul!!! No, not really, but it does flick my ear a bit. "(c.f. AD&D)" -.- I used to play D&D. Maybe its why I question these kinds of things. You're right, its too early to tell. -- [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]] ( General |  Talk ) 02:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Yup, definitely too early. We don't even have information on how the professions will get implemented in GW2... or even if they're going to keep the professions. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:28, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Professions was another thing I was interested about. I will just have to wait and see. -- [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]] ( General |  Talk ) 21:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

you will be aable to use ur chars from other campaigns if u guys are scared lol just go to guildwars.com
 * Uhm, no, you will not? Or what do you mean by other campaigns? It's stated several times that GW1 chars will not move to GW2. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, that comment is irrelevant to the race issue.
 * Too early to tell, of course, but here's my 2 cents anyway. As of now, most monster races in GW contain examplars of each professions, to my knowledge. For example, Charrs have warriors, rangers, monks, elementalists, etc. And it makes sense, because what would happen if for example the Charrs didn't have monks? They'd get wiped. Norns might be tougher, but they also need healing. Similarly, Asuras might be weaker, but they also need tanking. These races can't rely exclusively on other races to fill in these gaps, or they'd get wiped.
 * I'm hoping that at least they'll let you create any race/class combination (at your own risk) or at best have balanced incentives to play any combination of race and profession (e.g. Asura Warrior might have a skill to enhance the quality of armor through craftmanship, whereas Norn Warrior can shapeshift). Alaris 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said above, there's no information on professions yet, so speculating based on GW2 races and GW1 professions isn't going to be very accurate. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about needing a given profession. If the Norn don't have Monks, they might have Ritualists and Paragons to cover the healing and hex removal. If the Asura don't have Warriors, they might have magical automata like the Forgotten and the Mursaat use, or they might have trained animals to handle the tanking, either of which could be available as companions. -- Gordon Ecker 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Norn Ritualist. I don't know why, but I find that funny. But to get back to it, yes, speculation is going to be inaccurate. I just hope they keep the philosophy they seem to have adopted so far, that you can combine anything with anything as you wish. I'd be a Night Elf Warlock in WoW, but they wouldn't let me. Thankfully, because as a result, I'm in GW instead. Alaris 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is that there could be primary profession restrictions, but no secondary profession restrictions. -- Gordon Ecker 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe kinda like choosing your primary profession, to get your primary attribute. Then your secondary attributes are dependent on the skills you choose to equip. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

reset indent

I think the difficulty between Race proficiency with certain professions can be delt the same way as profession deficiency is delt with already, by providing alternative means and opportunity. This can be preceived in the use of elementist, who is depicted as a most powerful damage dealer, but is actually more oriented with additional effects and disabling. The same can be done for a race like Asuras being a warrior, though Norn are Giants, and can shape shift into bears for more health and power, as if they don't already have more power being 4 times in size to an Asuras, Asuras can attain advantages based on their stature. This could include higher difficulty targetting an Asuras, because they are smaller, making them harder to hit, and their naturally higher magic apptitude could manifest strongly in the use of a Warrior/Caster combination, making heavier use of magic abilities and magic augmentation of thier attack to compensate. Creative developement and possitive thinking can open your mind to the wealth of possibilities available. With this, though there be a limit of maybe 10 professions, and 5 or more races to associate them with, each race can utilize all the same professions, but allow significant, but competative differences to exsist. I think the easiest way to include some measure of balance and security for each races advantages though is to include a few abilities and skills available based simply on a Race. With this, the race itself can function as a sub profession itself, including abilities and features which will be available no matter what the profession selection is, this would ensure that each race would have their halmark advantages present reguardless, and preserve tradeoffs among race differences. Honestly, I think this is great for turning into a werebear.--BahamutKaiser 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well this is just my thought but if you were able to pick any prof for any race then everone willl just pick the one with the best passive skill/s, but for asuras beinging wars i dont think so. but maby they dont have that potential of other war races they can still have it as a secondary. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.32.183.101.
 * Most races of monsters have a great variety of professions. Even Asuras might need some tanks/frontliners, but those might be more dynamic like assassins and/or use technology to assist. I think race-professions restrictions are bad.  You should be able to play any race with any profession, and have reasons to do so.  But in the end, I'd still expect Norns to be better tanks, and Asuras to use summons and/or technology to be effective warriors. Alaris 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Asura tanks? Doesn't make sense flavor-wise, since they created golems specifically for defense and physical tasks. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean there won't be the odd-ball Asura that wants to be a Warrior or Ranger. Just because races have a tendency towards one behavior doesn't mean they all have to agree with it. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because there are oddballs that don't agree with their race's tendencies doesn't mean they must have the potential or capacity for it ;) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference should not be in whether they can, but in how they do it. Norns tank using their Bear forms, whereas Asuras tank side-by-side with their Golems (moving out of combat once in a while to regenerate) or they use technology to compensate for their weaknesses. It'd get boring if every Norn is a warrior, every Asura is an elementalist or mesmer, and every Sylvari is a ranger. Not much better if Asura/Warrior is not a viable option. You get the idea. Alaris 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. It's just I feel it doesn't really make a difference. I feel that the current system of professions is more than enough complexity. Throwing in races feels unnecessary. But of course, that depends on how they planning to incorporate racial bonuses and penalties. And what you're suggesting needs something along the lines of having attributes that govern max health and max energy, possibly even armor bonuses. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I suggested changing primary professions lower down. I really dislike games with more than one non-cosmetic permanent character creation / developement choice. -- Gordon Ecker 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This way you can have 1 char per race, and spend more time developing those few characters instead of spreading yourself too thin. Those who want to spread thin or start over can always do that. Alaris 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Control Changing?
I don't know what is meant by "click to move" being removed, but if it involves removing mouse control for movement and for view changes, I will not be forking over any cash at my local EB store. As a sufferer of vertigo, I cannot play first person view without severe attacks, and I won't pay to support any game that requires keyboard movement because it makes for far too many controls (bad enough having to reassign keys, and removing the many useless commands that are scattered all over the keyboard by default at present) and makes interface far too "unintuitive". Efforts for developing methods of movement would be better spent on changing the small compass map (and rid us all of that annoying "draw on compass" feature, and replace it with the ability to flag a point and move to it (just as we are now able to do with heroes and henchmen).

As for the vertigo (and epilepsy for many people), appearing at a shrine or being dead or ressurected in the current game can trigger attacks because of the view invoulutarily spinning. For those who suffer such, I can offer some advice, close your eyes when you know you will be appearing at a shrine (or being ressurected for that matter) and listen for the sound to finish. It works for me (and for a guildmate who suffers from mild epilepsy) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.235.169.119.


 * 'Click to move' means the ability to click a place on the ground to have your character to move there. Changing camera view etc with your mouse will still be possible. See WoW for an example on this. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The very reason why I chose to play GW instead of WoW... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.235.169.119.


 * You play GW instead of WoW due to a single small thing, 'click to move'? Woah, I would have believed something like 'fully instanced world', 'possible to play solo', 'no monthly fees', 'no grind', or any of the other bigger things that people like in GW, but that seems to be one of the smallest and most irrelevant differences when comparing GW and WoW. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gem. So many good things in GW, GW:EN, and GW2, I'm a self-proclaimed GW-addict-for-life if they continue the trend. However, I also agree with "unsigned bunch of numbers" that click-to-move was fun, and I will regret its departure. I see no reason why it can't stay in parallel to the new control scheme, even if it means that it only allows certain moves (i.e. it won't jump for you... and it won't go down cliffs for you). I enjoy the click-to-move to get to places while eating something with my free hand. Alaris 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, clickmoving is pretty ok, but I'm ready to let it go to get some of the other stuff like jumping. :) Besides, I just use autorun and control the movement direction with my mouse when I need my other hand free. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping is going to be so annoying. I'm all into a real Z-axis for GW2, but I seriously hope that players will not be able to use the "jump"-command in towns/outposts (if this is the way for GW2). Just let it be an 'emote'-action instead of a simple keypress. -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as they introduce a small lag to the landing from a jump, thus making jumping forward slower than regular movement, people wont be bunnyhopping around. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But jumping with an emote makes it kinda annoying too, which makes any sort of timing-dependent jumps for quests/missions difficult at best. It should be fun. We have running chains in outposts, GW2 would get bunny-hopping chains :D -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jumping is slower than running IRL, and, excluding jump-enhancing skills, it should be slower than running in-game, that would be enough to ensure that running will be the preferred movement style. -- Gordon Ecker 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

reset indent

Removing click to move does not mean first person gameplay. Just as GuildWars(1) allows you to zoom from first person to distant view, I'm sure GW2 will have the same option. And as many good RPGs of this nature already use, the mouse is the likely feature to select camera angle. Wile I believe that a level of mouse targetting should exsist, to allow projectile attacks to track their target without including shooter mechanics, the use of close quarter combat and moves can easily be developed on a simple hack and slash action based scheme, and movement can easily be controled by keys. Since direct control of your character will likely involve automatic alignment of your camera, the same way GW1 camera angles function, the camera angle is not actually changing much. Though a measure of additional control will likely be required in order to move your character, I think it makes the use of your character much more emersing, and including developed Action and Platforming gameplay elements is a leap forward in MMORPG features.--BahamutKaiser 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here's what matters to me that I'm afraid the new control scheme will take away. If it doesn't take those away, then I'm happy with the changes. (1) The ability to move and eat snacks / drink coffee. (2) The ability to look at yourself when standing / doing stuff. Why else would you want to buy different armor styles and customize appearance?
 * For example, in LOTRO, I was unable to look at myself past the character creation screen, which I found very frustrating. In contrast, I can click somewhere to move or attack in GW, and then use the mouse to change the camera so I can see myself doing that action. Alaris 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly game virgins, learn to RPG. First Person RPG's do not mean you can't see your character. Autorun does the same thing as click to move (only you would still need to be using 1 hand to strafe left/right). What the hell problem do you have with jumping? A cosmetic problem? WHO GIVES A DAMN? OH NO THAT BANNER IS BLUE THAT OFFENDS ME I WANTED TO SEE A RED ONE /tears. The most retarded, useless complaints.. honest to god, what the hell? - Omigawa --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.92.149.229.
 * Um, First Person does indeed mean you can't see your character. First person means you are seeing through your character's eyes. If you can see your character, it's third person. Autorun does not do the same thing as click to move. GW already has autorun - hit R and you will run in the direction you are facing. Not at all the same as running towards whatever you have clicked. Also, much of this discussion is not complaining, merely anticipative discussion on upcoming features. Outbursts like yours are certainly not necessary. -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder who's the silly and virgin person. Ever heard of a genre called First-person shooters? You know, FPS? Games like Counterstrike? Quake? Doom? Unreal? Ever noticed that the default view is always where you can only see what weapon you're holding? And as Snograt mentioned, you might want to recall that using the mouse to move will let the game client set a auto-pathing for your character. I definitely prefer the game to navigate some of the more curvy areas for me while I go have a drink rather than needing to use a combination of keyboard and mouse to turn my character up and around some cliffs. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To end the debate on FPS, an official source. GW is both first-person and third-person (not really shooter because you never need to aim yourself), depending on whether you zoom in or not.
 * There are lots of advantages to the click-to-move as it is that players don't want to see disappear: (1) ability to navigate around things, (2) one-hand free for refreshing beverage, and (3) ability to look at self when doing things. It is unclear whether the new control scheme will still allow for this.
 * I think they want to remove it so that you have to figure out for yourself what is the best route. It would be computationally complicated to have AI do that taking into account sliding and jumping. However, limiting the click-to-move to running around obstacles would be fine, where complex moves would have to be done manually.
 * As for jumping, it does look silly to see people jumping everywhere, doesn't it? If jumping speed is a bit slower than running speed, that will be incentive enough to make people stay on the ground except for when they need to jump. Alaris 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main features they are trying to introduce to GW2 is greater player emersion and realistic movements, Anet actually stated that this would mean no click to move in the PCGamer interview if I'm not mistaken. The use of climbing, jumping, sliding and maybe swimming, among other things, on a truely 3d environment makes gameplay more like a platformer.  It is my honest hope and interest that GW2 character control mirrors games like the recent Zeldas on 64 and gamecube, with broad but simple character movement abilities and action/platform type combat.
 * Speaking of a penalty or restriction which would prevent people from bouncing around all the time, beside a likely vulnerability from being hit mid air, I suggested something like a jump action delay . This isn't a suggestion wiki, but I made a few ideas at NikiWiki:GW2 which you can check out.  There are alot of interesting and enjoyable ways to include such active mechanics and gameplay, and I'm really looking foward to it, because the world has enough good point and click games, a good action/platform MMO has yet to be capitolized on.--BahamutKaiser 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hell, I'll just be happy with the removal of a few billion pointless invisible walls. "What?  I cant go up that 170degree incline!  I might slip and get dirt on my favorite jacket!!"  Cant wait for that to be gone! --RavynousHunter 03:44, 23 July 2007 (CST)


 * Don't you mean a 10 degree incline? Inclines and slopes are only measured between 0 and 90 degrees, anything more would be a ceiling or inverted slope, so by saying 170 you could get the impression of a nearly upside down cliff hang.--BahamutKaiser 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reset Indent

on huge thing you all are missing about the click to move...im thinking this is why they are taking it away. As many have come to use in places like Dragon arena if you face an opponent and click beside you, you will move in that direction much faster than a strafe. This can be liberally used to dodge Dragon Blasts. That being siad i believe it is not a cosmetic issue but one of the mechanics. Maybe not the ones i mentioned but still some time of mechanics within the game... Just my two cents on this topic.

~Ashvirenza --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.41.43.130.
 * Umm... I think you missed the fact that you are supposed to be able to dodge them... and uh... Dragon Arena is so inconsequential to GW that I highly doubt it was even thought of when they're deciding whether the click-to-move should be removed or not. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Click movement' is not 'just one little thing'. This is a major change in useability that will seriously hamper playability for people with wrist stress problems, or people concerned about developing such problems. Holding your hands in the constrained WASD position for hours on end is, for some, a quick way to develop a lifelong injury. If GW2 removes all mouse movement, I simply won't get it. Every game I play allows me to move with mouse or keys and especially, control the camera and direction of movement with the mouse. I usually move by hitting 'R' and then using the mouse to turn, or by holding down both buttons and using the mouse to turn. I can do that in GW, WoW, and City of Heroes. I couldn't do it in NwN2, so I shelved that game. I use my mouse left handed, leaving my right hand to use the keyboard for targeting and using abilities. I NEVER use WASD to move, and if GW2 confines us to that like NwN2 did, it will simply be unplayable for a large number of people.--Jyotai 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing click to move does not mean that you can't use autorun and then change the directions by holding the right mouse button and changing view. It means that you can't click on the ground to have your character move to that spot. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have 2 problems with your arguments Jyotai. One, nobody is forcing people to play "for hours on end", and you are incorrectly implying that wrist stress problems (carpal tunnel syndrome) are only caused by prolonged use of the keyboard - your wrist gets involved too when using a mouse. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ab.er.rant, but I disagree with you here on both counts. (1) Sure, nobody's "forcing" us to play, but that's arguing on syntax while not even addressing the real issue. Players will play hours on end, and if the controls are not comfortable, that's a problem. (2) With the current control scheme, a player can easily do some of the playing using either hand, giving a break to the other. Removing click-to-move *sounds* like one important functionality that allowed playing without the keyboard gets left behind. We don't know the next control scheme yet, for sure, but I feel it's not too early to say what we want. Alaris 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a serious development dilema, which comes down greatly to preferance. In order to have an immersive combat system, you have to have more action based controls, it makes the game more realistic and dynamic to play when your actually deciding movements instead of directing them.  Inevitably, I think far more people are going to be attracted to GW by action based movement and gameplay rather than repelled, and GW is trying to come up with ways to make the game original and better than other games, action based gameplay is one of them for sure.  A simple point and click strategy game just isn't as interesting, that's why combination genres like Zelda are so popular (most popular).  Hell, if there was action based combat in Pokemon, I might have played it past red and blue, ease is not a halmark of enjoyment in gameplay.


 * Controls should be comfortable, and working options like a controler should be considered to allow easier control in the game, but what is the point of playing when it only takes half your effort?, is it really a challenge if your doing it with one hand? You can say some people perfer this so they can do something else, or because it is easy, but most people who are really interested in the game wouldn't dare use one hand anyway, and it is the people who are doing this as a significant passtime rather than a distraction that pursue and support the game stronger.


 * The whole difficulty of play goes hand in hand with the enjoyment of play and pursuit of action rather than time spent playing, time spent grinding, time spent onehanding the game just to get further rather than full involvement to enjoy the here and now. It simply goes along with the pursuit of a more involved game rather than a more consuming game, games should not be pursued with one hand at leisure wile you break down the hrs it takes to progress, it should be done with 2 hands actively to test your ability.  No game has ever gotten merits for being easy enough to play with one hand, and GW1 isn't one of them either, in the heat of battle, you better be using 2 hands to move around dangerous obstercals, hotkey your attacks and call targets, and pick targets effectively.  Nowhere in GWs promotions is there anything about being easy to play, in fact, the opposite is basically stated, skill is merited, skill being ones ability to play.  Click to move really belongs in RTS, GW needs to be more.--BahamutKaiser 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a master of long responses, BahamutKaiser. But at least you do present good arguments. The point I was raising was that you don't need both hands all the time, and this is something I like. Of course, when it gets tough, I use both hands. And of course, I wouldn't want the game to be playable all the time using one hand. Also, keeping a basic point-to-click for navigating between fights would be nice, even if you can't use it to jump/slide/whatever. Because let's face it, there are times when you just need to get from A to B and there's nothing threatening in-between. Alaris 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hall Of Monuments??? Name Preservation?
Ok It is great the Hall of Monuments will save some of our Titles...

But I have not heard that they will preserve a guild name (in the long form) and the char names as well so that ONLY I can if within a certain amount of time can recreate my guild and my char's etc because to me.... I would like to continue to be the same char names within the new game and the same guild. Chik En 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Character names is said to be reserved for you for GW2. Guild names is mentioned, but nothing is clear about them yet. But I do think Anet knows many people would like their guild names reserved also, and they are working on that :) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 09:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is great. I really do wish that Guild Names be reserved as well for the Guild Leader. --125.60.241.168 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dwarves?
Someone added Dwarves to the list of playable races (and the template for those playable in GW2). Where was this said? Capcom 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This video, it gets mentioned at 7:12 (I'm the one that originally edited the article with the new race). Colindem 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the person in the video is wrong as Gaile is stating otherwise here. Colindem 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rideable Pets/ More (a lot more maybe?) Pets
Will we be able to ride pets and have a larger variety of pets? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nexus.


 * According to the PC Gamer article pets and heroes are going to be replaced with companions. So far, ANet hasn't said anything about mounts. -- Gordon Ecker 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe it did say you would get different companions for different areas through, so it is unlikely to be a pet, it is likely to be something associated with that area, a mount could be a very natural possibility, like the desert wurms you rid "in" Nightfall. All that aside, I think it is best to include as many elements of gameplay as possible, pets, Hero type companions and mounts.  Maximized inclusion ensures that the maximum number of interests are met, and more people will be drawn to the game.  As long as it fits GW story background, it should be in the game.--BahamutKaiser 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Premium Members
It is stated that there will be no monthly fees. However, many other games make that promise and they have premium members. Is there any news, for or against, us having to pay for special "luxuries" such as special items or the ability to level up past a certain point?--Jimmynice 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. ArenaNet has so far stated that GW2 will follow along the same model as GW. With periodical releases like the current campaigns. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, although they've said that a single standalone game followed by expansions is more likely than multiple standalone campaigns. -- Gordon Ecker 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

it would be better premium members that way arena net would have stedy source of income which means regular updates --90.199.57.103 10:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No it won't be better because it'll turn the GW2 business model into something that alot of other MMOs are doing. The whole point of not requiring players to pay subscription is to be different. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is exactly what has attracted a lot of players to GW, you can play it, leave it for a while, and come back to it. You can buy it in stores, and you don't need a credit card. You can upgrade it when you want, if you want. This has worked for ANet and for the fans, and ANet has stated repeatedly that they won't change it. More regular smaller expansion packs makes regular income, but otherwise, ANet has been able to survive 6-12 months between games, and it won't have a hard time continuing this. Alaris 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The developers thouroughly described how their costs and requirements run economically efficient enough to maintain a video game world without the monthly fees. This really isn't much different than a number of old blizzard games which never required costs, somehow they cover the general cost of the maintenance and hardware with the cost of the game, and budget effectively.  With developements in technology and pioneering, alot of new games could engineer their games to be subscription free, though I think it has more to do with greed than neccessity preventing them from doing this.  I will agree that there are some significant ongoing costs associated with maintaining online service and support, and I wouldn't have any problem playing 5 or 7 dollars a month for an outstanding MMO, but the costs tacked to others like WoW really comes off as gouging IMO, and I cheer Anet for their success with subscription free modeling.


 * Most of all, it means that they only charge us more money for expansions and improvements which we accept and buy, instead of charging a monthly fee and passing out content as they see fit. This demands that Anet make quality expansions which are appealing enough to sell to us, and that if we do not want to experience them, don't like them, or are simply broke, we don't have to buy them.  I sometimes wonder how Anet could afford to support and maintain a complete MMO without a monthly cost, but than advancements in technology and communication have progressed alot, and it only makes sense that the ability to host over the net has improved.--BahamutKaiser 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Races all conflicting
This could be all wrong but Gaile stated something about world PvP being like 4 alliances and a 5th...what if each "Alliance" is just a race fighing for the upper hand in the world. This is highly unlikely but im just bringing something to the table. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.41.43.130.
 * Please add new sections to the bottom of the page, not right smack in the middle of it. Thanks. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

single character
what does Anet mean when they say "a single character system" ? Are they referring to the fact that a single character can wander its way through any class, or are they stating that you will only create one character and eventually make him evolve in ALL classes available to him, and switching from one to other as required ? perhaps by similar means than the builds/equipment system in GW ? If the latter, that's lame, we can't try out all the races. How are we supposed to know in advance which race will suit us best, especiually with so much high level content ? SmegEd 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather think they mean they are moving away from the PvP character system. Your character will instead change depending on the game mode you play, so you, for example, don't have to make a PvP character to access all your unlocks. (I'm not saying unlocks will be in GW2, I just want to compare it to the GW1 system) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I think... There won't be any Heroes/Henchmen in GW2. It will be possible to use only ONE non-playable companion. Moreover, you won't be forced to use it - it has been stated, that if you don't use a companion (that doesn't count as a party member), you get special buffs that increase your character's stats. ANet wants to allow people to play as they want - in party, or in lone-wolf style. In GW1 playing solo is possible through adding many NPCs (because the game requires playing in a full group: playing with 1-2 characters in team is possible only with the most specialised, single-target builds). As in GW2 playing without any other people means being in a party with up to 1 NPC, ANet has to change characters (variety of skill uses, ability to switch them in danger etc.) in order to let people use them in a wider spectrum (what's needed when playing alone). Characters in GW1 (except warriors, specific farm builds etc.) aren't universal and able to survive alone. Try to imagine a GW1 mesmer (or, in fact, any other caster) facing a few giants - death in seconds... It's obvious that ANet won't remove casting classess from the game - they have to change them in a way present in all other MMORPGs. I think they'll give defensive skills for everyone and so on - it would be, hm, LOL, if everyone would take a Monk as the companion :) . MonkOfWar 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. It does make a certain sense that way. Going solo in GW is perhaps what I have most missed when compared to other mmorpgs, farming excepted. In a way this improvement makes the game even more a CORPG since now if you want to play with a full party you're pretty much obliged to get other players to join your group. I can just about see it from here, exploration zones which you can fairly well solo through apart from a certain place with so many monsters (a fortress or a guard post) that you have to bring a party if you want to go through (with of course something nice at the other end ^^) SmegEd 08:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, does this mean that we'll only get one character per GW2 account? If so, does anyone know if we have to/can use a character name we've already have saved in GW1? ※OhYo 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Names used in GW1 will be locked in GW2 and can be recycled only by owners of original name, same goes for armor, as it will be available only for the character who's name is what you recycled. As for one character only its highly unlikely since Hall is for individual for each character, not account wide. Biz 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that said, is there any hint for confirmation that we might be able to make new character names in GW2 and keep GW1 benefits? or must we use the same names from GW1? (also this probably means only humans in GW2 will have GW1 benefits, as their descendants ><)※OhYo 07:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no information about this, it's all speculation. I'd assume that you can transfer benefits to a character of any race, as players will want to make new races. As for the name, I sure hope you can use any name you want. I also hope you can use any profession you want. But like I said, it's not known at this point. Alaris 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do I get the feeling that I shouldn't have bothered playing 2000+ hours on the characters that aren't my main if I haven't a clue if any are going to help my "single character" in GW2. I hate 'speculating' over the fate of my many hours in GW, I need some facts. What's the best way for me to get the most out of GW2 by playing GW1 now?※OhYo 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone else finds this irritating. I started a thread in the forums, and other players told me to stop whining, GW2 won't be out for a year. Well, yes, that kind of is the point, because when it does come out, it'll be too late to find out. Gaile? Anyone? Alaris 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, I'm not going to stick my head in a hole in the ground like a Moa bird. (I've also ran into several "what's going on?/stop whining!" threads) We're not whining, nor being impatient nor being curious; we just want to know why we're playing GW. I'd just hate to find out the day before GW2 and say "Well, I wish I knew that would happen, because I would have spent the past 2+ years doing this instead." Wonder if the upcoming magazine will say anything in the '50+' pages it has; anyone read the European version and find any answers?※OhYo 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell you *why* I'm playing GW, it's because I find it fun. But yes, I also like the rewards, and I like being able to plan for them. I've had much angst over whether to continue getting titles on my Paragon title-hunter (PKM), or start a new Ranger for that purpose. If we had ANY idea on how GW1 HoM links to GW2 rewards, it would be possible to plan ahead. Instead, it's a lottery, with winners and whiners. Alaris 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh "Single Character System" sounds like they are moving away from the account based system. Where when you unlock a skill it is unlocked for all other characters (but you still gotta buy it). It sounds like when you unlock a skill in GW2 only the character that unlocked it has access to it, this means each additional character you make can't just buy the skill right away. So you can't go buy a skill on your monk, then go on your ritualist who isn't as far in the game and then buy it for him. I hope they don't change PvP in such a way ... Chuiu 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "single character system" at least nothing confirmed. Biz 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the language used by Anet connotates a multiple character system; they seem to refer to this 'single character system' by means of assuring no necessity of PvP characters.※OhYo 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GW2 Beta
When can we sign up for the Guild Wars 2 beta?Blackie ewilson92 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably when it's announced. Which it isn't yet. Counciler 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Guild Wars 2 Beta testing period will begin in the second half of 2008. We have not provided details about the test yet because it's so far away and we're focused on many other things right now. Like GW:EN's release in 23 days. :) Keep in mind that the Guild Wars Beta tests involved public events rather than testing for which you signed-up. (The ATS testing was the exception, but it's somewhat unlikely that we'd be conducting that form of test again.) We may well do events in the future -- only time will tell. We'll have more information about this after the new year. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thx![[image:ranger-icon-small.png]]Blackie ewilson92 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't not add new coment to your userpage - well would you bring little informations [about this]? TIA ^^ -- Grethort [[Image:User Gret Chii.jpg‎ ]] 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 imploved languages
I don't see any notes about that but maybe some1 will public information about improved languages in Guild Wars 2. Currently we got languages like English/French/German/Spanish/Italian/Polish/Russian and asian languages.

Then there's will be language-based servers? And what languages Guild Wars 2 will get? -- Grethort 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that GW2 servers won't be language-based. First of all, there will be a few, very large realms. If the servers were language-based, RvR battles would be really fun - Poles against Germans, for example. Moreover it has been stated, that server migrations will be free of charge and without any restrictions - if the servers were language-based, switching them wouldn't be very useful. I don't know, what does ANet want to do with languages in their next game (that I just can't wait for, argh ;) ), but I think that the realms will be divided through much massive criteria - continents or something. MonkOfWar 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep... ;) -- Grethort [[Image:User Gret Chii.jpg‎ ]] 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why they would have multiple languages on the same server when you'll be able to switch servers nearly as easily as you can switch districts. -- Gordon Ecker 05:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly asking for languages but thx for sharing me this info ;) -- Grethort [[Image:User Gret Chii.jpg‎ ]] 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cross-server party search
I'd appreciate it if party search worked across servers, with local searches at the top of the list and searches from other servers collapsible. -- Gordon Ecker 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The more location options the better, there should definetly be rewards for repeating instance events and localized points of deployment which would go even further to make teammates available for an occasion. I think the greatest difficulty in finding groups isn't the party location features, no matter how fast players can move to different areas, if they are somewhere else you have to use search engines and location becomes harder to bring a group together for whatever.--BahamutKaiser 05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Skill System
Not looking forward to the new skill system that is hinted at, they are making GW soooo much more like WoW 76.170.188.190 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Unless I missed something, we know nothing of how the skill system will change, or even if it will change at all (aside from re-vamping the skills that is). The higher level cap might not even affect the skill system, because it might be entirely cosmetic. Alaris 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a cosmetic level? If it isn't a real level, than it isn't a level, why do people keep suggesting this, if Anet sees the value of additional levels, than they will add more levels, if they don't, they woln't, I don't know why people dwell on the idea that Anet "Will" add more levels and you simply hope they will be cosmetic because you don't want to participate in level difference, and I also don't know what "levels" have to do with "skill systems".--BahamutKaiser 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what it is. And we both know that whatever ANet comes up with, as long as it's not grind-fest, it'll be good. Alaris 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Structured PvP
"Structured PvP is similar to today's GvG. It will allow you to enter the game at maximum level with all skills, races, items and classes automatically unlocked."

It has been said that there will be no maximum level limit in GW2, how can it be possible, therefore, to to enter a game at "maximum" level?
 * I think it's meant to say maximum/fixed level, that everyone automatically joins in at a fixed level. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There will be a max level. It will probably not exceed 100, but it might. There will be a cap no matter how high it may be. --208.117.81.202 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? It hasn't been decided whether they want to cap the level. And yes, you can continue to increase a character's level without increasing his abilities. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They have not yet decided the level cap or whether to have a level cap, yet it is only functional to have a maximum value for many battle and story stability issues. Whether we have unlimited levels or not, the notion of increased levels without increased ability power is a gimmic, and not a legitimate feature no matter how many people bring it up.  If you have not gained power and abilities than you have not gained a level, and construcing any alternate fashion of growth outside of increased character power per level is a trick to pacify those who do not want high or endless character progression.  Fake levels are not an acceptable option.--BahamutKaiser 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know your opinion, BahamutKaiser. But I must remind you that to a LOT of people, fake levels ARE an acceptable option. Calling it fake or gimmick won't make a difference. Alaris 05:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What people are willing to accept and put up with is not a goal for game design, it is what people are intersted in and seek that makes a goal worth pursuing. It is a gimmic and it is fake, a RPG level can most accurately be described as a calculated growth in power, and twisting and disguising something else as a level is a trick and a gimmic. Nobody wants fake levels, at all, those who accept it are those who do not want additional levels, and think that fake levels is a means to compromise with alternate interest, when in fact they offer nothing to those who want otherwise. Fake levels offer absolutely and completely no benifit to the game, it is a weak title track pasted over level based character development, it offers absolutely no benifit to those interested in additional levels, and every single person who accepts it is only interested in a low character development threashhold and thinks that negotiating a gimmic will allow Anet to pursue their interests.

False levels are not a valid topic, and no matter who accepts and considers it, it will never be a reasonable or useful addition. And since Anet isn't made of a bunch of fools, whether they accept a high or low character threashhold, they have no reason to consider false levels. Functionality and Consistency outwiegh any amount of misguided interests, so it really doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees, because it is not rationally sound. And naturally, I've yet to hear one enjoyable benifit from this scheme since its conception, making it all the more obvious that this is a weak attempt to mask interests. If you really want a low character development threashhold, ask for it, not some ridiculous scheme which no professional developer is going to fall for.--BahamutKaiser 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When I started playing GW, got to level 20, and played more, I realized a few significant things.
 * (1) I realized that I did not want *real* levels. I don't want to level up forever, getting stronger at each level. Because I hate to think that if I come up with a challenge, I can just go kill some monsters, level up, and the challenge goes away. That, to me, is fake. Indeed, game designers know too well that this is a ploy to get people to play longer, which works well with subscription-based games.
 * (2) That the *real* levels are actually fake. In those games, the power you gain through levelling up is matched by the difficulty increase of the monsters. So you get stronger than *earlier* monsters, but you're always about matched to the *current* monsters.
 * (3) Most real achievements in GW show through cosmetic changes to your character. Elite armors, titles, elite pets. I like that. This is the "one enjoyable benifit" of *fake* levels you asked for. Alaris 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all relavent points, and perfectly understandable, if you do not want lots of character development, than so be it, it isn't a bad thing at all. When I played GW for the first time, I also realized how little character progression ment, but in the end it still ment something, you can become comparably stronger and enjoy the accomplishment, as well as unique approach and challenge of fighting different ways with stronger characters, especially in situations against seriously outmatched odds but much higher power.  The cartarizing point here is that a love for strategy and action based content, and lack of insterest in character development offer no support for fake levels, it only promotes low levels and small amounts of character development.  In no way does adding a bunch of fake levels improve a low character development scheme, it is honestly mockery, instead of recognizing equipment gained, places reached, and unique experiences and accomplishments of seasoned players, lets recognize the amount of playing he has done with a number that doesn't have any value or appeal whatsoever.


 * The truth is, fake levels is an avenue of ridicule, "oh you reached level 100 and you still haven't gotten good enough to beat the game", "youve been playing so long that you reached level 300 and you can't afford better looking armor?" There is no benifit in fake levels no matter how much you don't like character progression.  If you don't like levels, than support low character development, and stop trying to stroke Anets ambition with the idea of fake levels so high levels can be solicited with absolutely no meaning or significance.


 * Besides that, there are alot of interesting features and challenges which can be developed around high level and character development, and imposing lacking features on a system with options does not deny the opportunity to make unique and enjoyable content around character development. Firstly, with some simple AI, foes can assess your strength, and seek aid to challenge opponents/players, who greatly outmatch their level, this way the same areas can be played early and late players, with different behaviors to challenge them.  Features like this give the enemies a sense of intelegence and realism, wile keeping challenges consistent.


 * Levels and character development can be balanced properly, that way opponents can be matched up evenly in PvP with equal total levels instead of a universal level and number of competators on each side. Done properly, a level 100 character can fight a challenging match against 2 lvl 50s, or a lvl 50 can fight a challenging match against 5 lvl 10s, this is a kind of unique and interesting combat that simply isn't offered in a base value game where everyone basically starts at the same point.


 * If you apply dated mechanics character development, your obviously going to come up with all the same problems which plauged retro games of the same nature, but when you consider the development of supporting features and scaling challenge with unique situations, it offers an extremely dynamic evolution in game experience, and offers more enjoyment rather than less. Options like the Diverse Level Development suggested in the suggestion section, and functions like these offer many things not available with a base power value, and overcome the ease associated with underleveled content.


 * If you base your persective on what you already experience, your always going to come up with some bias reason to herald how this is the only way it works and other ways just arn't as good, believe me, there are people saying that from every game type, good or bad, functional or disfunctional, thats just bias experience. When you consider the benifits of an alteration, and make preperations to address and eliminate any unsatisfactory features, you can discover even better features of gameplay.


 * I shouldn't have to explain that Anet wasn't considering fake levels when they brang up the topic, and not a single person has offered a good reason to consider it. They obviously see the value of character development as a widely popular reward and gameplay experience, and are inovative enough to seek ways to make it an enjoyable experience instead of copying the mistakes of others.  Believing otherwise is misjudgement and lack of faith in Anets record and promotion of innovation and dynamic gaming which caters to what players really enjoy in a game.


 * The point here is that your interests are easily understood, but better options are always a possibility, and fear only limits possibilities. When you grasp to a comfortable feature out of fear and bias toward alternatives without considering the evolutions which can be discovered to remedy their horrors, you really only stagnate the industry with your clingy agenda.--BahamutKaiser 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, as you pointed out, it all depends on how it's done. Meaningless levels based on grind tells nothing, unlike say KoaBD titles actually require lots of effort to achieve (some pure grind, some pure skill, and many in-between). But levelling up balanced with monster strength is also equally meaningless. I'm hoping that ANet will find an enjoyable alternative... they do have a good track record of fixing problems found in other online RPGs, and making fun games. Alaris 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)