Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive5

We want to be WoW?
At least that's how the whole article reads to me. I doubt I'm the only one who feels like all the "additions" mentioned are the things I hate most about all the MMORPGs out there. GWs won for me specifically because it wasn't an MMORPG at all, but looks like they're going to fix that for GW 2. Hope there will be a free trial, because looking at the changes, I wouldn't buy it, not matter how pretty the screen shots were, and that's just sad considering that I own the collectors edition of every Guild Wars campaign. Can we get some good news on this page? Seriously, anything that doesn't make a real GWs fan taste bile would be fine. If the developers read this stuff, then let us know what's going to be the same, so we'll know why we would want to play it at all. 68.229.245.110 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, some stuff will change, but I still have faith in ANet and think the result will be great. Since you seem to be passionate about GW I think you can take the time to read through the various interviews and other stuff that is linked to at the bottom and form an image of the possible future of GW2. If you really try to catch every thing they hint to you might notice how much the game might improve with GW2 instead of being 'another WoW' or something. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You assume I haven't read them. Look, I was an ArenaNet fanboy.  I recommended GW to all my friends, I STILL recommend it to people.  What I want is some info that says why a GW fan would want to play GW2, because the info out there right now doesn't tell me.  Instead it tells me we will have persistent game areas and world messages when dragons respawn, which is something I just do not want, at all, ever, under any circumstances.  It sounds like every MMORPG my friends ever whined me into playing with them, and if it is like that then I'd like to know now.  That way I can save my money and keep playing GW instead of quitting GW2 after two or three weeks and hating ArenaNet.  I could see ArenaNet pulling it off, don't get me wrong, but it would take a lot of positive info to offset all of the, admittedly in my opinion, horribly disgusting changes I've read about so far. 68.229.245.110 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there certainly isn't more info available atm and the designers will most likely not tell us more too soon since they are in pretty erly stages of development and many things haven't been set to stone. I wouldn't worry about losing money with GW2 though since more information will certainly be availble before the game is finally released. Betas are next year and we'll surely get a lot of info from the beta testing phase and that might still be long before actual release. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Yes we do! They arn't changing GW2 because they want it changed. If Anet had its way they could just add new campaigns with little or no extra skills, no new professions and so on as long as some one pays for it. They didn't, instead they listen to what people ( GW 1 owners ) want changed and implemented as good as everything you could possibly ask. Changes may seem like WoWclone but its not, it will never be, its still same good old GW with all its glory of party based combat and abnormaly diminished solitary play style. Biz 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And in addition to the above comment, they have said they are very committed to keeping the aspects of Guild Wars that made GW1 so popular, so don't worry too much about it being entirely different--while they are more likely to announce the differences, the similarities will still be there. --  Frozzen   [[Image:User_Frozzen_sig.PNG|User_Frozzen_sig.PNG]] 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is SO FAR GW2 looks like a WOW clone. It looks grim and scary, and it seems like a step in the wrong direction. I used to be like Anon. However, at so point I realized tis just too soon to be sure of anything. I don't know what to think right now. Anyone that says that it will DEFINITELY be a great game is kidding themselves. Anyone that says it will suck is too. The fact is, we don't know and won't until the Beta. We'll all just have to wait until then to make any good decisions about this game. --Mortazo 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The general description of the additions to GW2 makes it sound like the more traditional MMORPG. Because as the interviews explained, I believe that's exactly what ArenaNet is trying to incorporate. To add elements that are more familiar to the MMORPGers at large, and then ease them into the GW-style of play. I feel that ArenaNet can be trusted to keep the GW feel in GW2. So until we know more, everything is just speculation. I doubt even the ArenaNet developers have much to tell. It's far too early in development. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though WoW requires a greater financial investment than GW, it is by FAAAAR more popular. You are being selfish if you think what a clear minority of the gaming community want to remain as opposed to moving into the superior WoW model. People obviously want to play a game like WoW and the biggest flaws in PvE guild wars are non issues in WoW. A move towards WoW is a move in the right direction, I just hope they focus a little less on PvP and realise a MMORPG is about PvE first. Anon


 * Basically your argument is that popularity is equivalent to quality. This is obviously not the case so I feel no need to repudiate you.  I will say that WoW is a dull, insidiously boring grindfest, and the 2 weeks I tried to make myself play it made a petite piece of my soul die, every day.  So you're opinion is not fact, and say the WoW model is superior will not make it so.  If the development team for GW2 is thinking the same way, they are being stupid.  They will alienate their existing fanbase, atleast the part of it like me that will not play a game at all similar to WoW, and they would be going into direct competition with Blizzard for their fans, and guess who's going to win with the WoW junkies?68.229.245.110 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having played WoW admittedly only 10 days, but almost full time 10 days, I can say that WoW has several gameplay flaws that GW has avoided. I can easily afford the WoW fees, but I choose to play GW because the gameplay is more refined. I'm optimistic in thinking that GW will build the persistent areas such that these flaws will not be present in GW2. Personally, I am looking forward to having persistency and solo added to the gameplay, in addition to instances and party play. But I see why some people are concerned: it all depends on whether ANet solves the problems that Blizzard haven't solved. I think they'll solve it, but that remains to be seen. Alaris 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can enjoy WoW, but its primary problem, imho, is the grind. If Anet can someone make leveling feel like its part of the game, and not part of a grind, and make it fun to do more than once (anyone that has played diablo can tell you, leveling is only fun once, after that, its just a race), then I have no problem with GW being a bit like WoW. It doesnt have 9 million players for nothing.(alleged players I should add, no telling how many of those are actually active.)--Ryudo 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And how many of them are farmers :) The problem with the grind is the time investment, and since there's a huge time investment, qutting it, even stopping temporarily, becomes all the more harder. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone who has played an MMO will understand that PvP on MMOs is usually rubbish for several reasons-Favoritism toward people who pay more, elitism, grinding, mobbing,.... MMO = PvE, if you want PvP get an FPS.


 * IMO the PvP is what sets GW apart from every other MMO, and it appears they will be both maintaining the current type of PvP as well as intoroducing new more casual world based PvP, which in my opinion would make it an exceptional game, because some of the time I love getting a GvG group formed up with set builds and heavy tactics, but sometimes just raiding a city would be really fun too. I hope GW 2 will prove to be a combination of the best of both worlds.-- [[User:Frozzen| '' Frozzen

'' ]] 07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a good indication of the understanding and direction of ANet can be found in Jeff Strain's speech earlier this year (Find it here). I also think it's important to note that a lot of the things ANet is talking about adding in GW2 are not unique to WoW, e.g., more persistance. This is something that I think I lot of people really like about MMORPGs in general. For example, with heavily instanced games like GW1, there's just too many loading screens, it reminds me of FF7. Great game, but over half my hours spent "playing" were actually just sitting there waiting for it to load. Anyone with a slow connection speed will fully appreciate my sentiment on this. And persistance has the advantage of less loading. Plus, I think a lot of people like the ability to see other players play, see knew build ideas and strategies in use, rather than just talking about it. Persistance allows for all of this, and therefore has some great advantages over instanced areas. Of course, instanced areas have their advantages too, such as preventing kill stealing and things like that. That is why ANet has clearly stated it will not totally remove instanced areas. My own personal imagination on this envisions persistant areas covering the "non-essential" aspects of the game such as the explorable areas and towns/cities, with some special events in it such as the famous dragon-bridge example. Whereas instanced areas will likely be used for the more "essential" areas such as story/mission areas (such as a place where Primordius is fought, for example), and elite areas like today's FOW and Underworld where high level drops occur. This way, there's no line to kill the end boss, and no one steals your green-drop kill, but we can still all hang out together and have fun killing random stuff and finding cool parts of the world. (Satanael 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC))


 * There is limited info out about GW2, yet everyone is passing judgement. Comparing it to what is currently out, and existing. We have seen from GW, that Anet isn't about copying what is existing. Lets give their track record a little credibility, and wait for the game to come out before we pass judgement on peoples opions and preception of what they think the game might be.Med Luvin 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Too many loading screens? What are you serious?  The instanced areas in GW1 are massive compared to games such as Final Fantasy where you only have to go ten spaces into a new area.  It seems ANET's originality came from giving the player the choice to either do their own things in areas with heroes / henchies, or add players and experience it on that level.  Changing a very successful formula, which is what GW has, and turning it into a format such as WoW just makes it that, WoW.  As it stands to me, and a lot of my GW friends it appears that GW2= WoW with just a few more bells.  I think its a shame to see that general GW gameplay is being morphed into WoW gameplay for GW2.  Come on ANET, continue being original not just copying what everyone else does. 203.173.225.42 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that "grind" in GW2 will be much like it is post-GWEN. Grind will be limited to meaningless achievements rather than player development. The level system sounds like it has a "true" cap at 20, but will barely push your attributes (whatever system that they use) up by meager amounts in PvE as you continue to gain experience. Basically, the game will likely resemble a standard MMORPG while lacking all of the failings of the genre. Guild Wars' problem was attempting to EMULATE standard MMORPGs on a much smaller scale, so that grind is fast and there's not much content. GW2 will be a MMORPG but will leave out standard practices. It will be an evolution of the genre, into a pick up and play game that also has a reward system to enable over-achievers. Don't wet yourself just yet. GW2 will be fine. I'm more concerned about the skill system, and whether companions will be allowed in PvP, if anything. --Reklaw 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To all the players that say gw2 being like WoW would be a good thing please buy WoW and leave us alone. Seriously. Some people play guild wars because they like it. The reason GW has been such a success was because it got business from the players that WoW alienated. and to that guy that said that PvE is all that matters in mmos, are you crazy? Just because you like pvp in fps better doesn't mean that some people don't like combat in rpgs better. I would think that all the guilds that focus specifically on pvp would show you that some people like that.--Yankeefan984 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been 6 months+ since the announcement of GW2...in that six months, I, and my entire household have completely switched to playing WoW. I see no sense in wasting any time, effort or money on GuildWars, ArenaNet or PlayNC if they wish to simply abandon the game.  As for GuildWars2, I won't play a clone, and I won't buy a clone.  It has been stated that they'll keep the GuildWars1 servers running until...when???  Has anyone out there played Auto Assault?  No thanks, nonspecific answers don't get my money, loyalty or support.  I'd rather pay every month for continued service that is demanded by my monthly fees, and I'll play the original WoW as opposed to this copycat so-called GuildWars2 version, any day, hands-down.  Blizzard is getting my gaming dollars from here on out.  I miss GuildWars, and I truly believe that it was the greatest MMORPG ever made, with customer support second to none, beautiful graphics, great speed and interface, but I simply will not dump any more time and effort into a game that is going to vanish at some vague point in the future, now lacks the support and updates that are currently devoted to v2.0, and that will not allow my efforts to continue into the new version.  In this household, I have spent in excess $3000 on accounts, expansions, campaigns, mission/skill packs, and character slots...all spent in good faith on a game that was IMHO worth it...and all wasted to a very flawed business decision, that is obviously targeted at creating a duplicate of WoW in the hope that they can draw some of that market (can anyone remember "New Coke"?).


 * At this point, there is considerable investment made in WoW (with it's pitiful customer support, gastly "child-like" graphics, horrid storyline, poor interface, high latency, 10 million (minus the 4 million bot/farmer) accounts and ridiculous maintenence schedule). With 8 WoW accounts now maintained in this household...I seriously doubt that there is anything that can be done to draw us back to GuildWars for v2.0...  Thank you PlayNC/ArenaNet, I really enjoyed playing GuildWars.  Good luck, and farewell.  Gwynna Vive 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So? Stop investing in games, and instead play them for fun. That's what GW is all about in the first place. From your post, it sounds like you're playing WoW, but you'd rather be playing GW. So play GW. Simple. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Alaris. If games are an investment you're playing them wrong - they're your life and not a game any longer. From my point of view abandon GW for GW2 or abandon for WoW - what's the difference? At least GW2 will be a new game and likely won't have any of those things which leave you scathing WoW. I seriously wish people would stop making assumptions about GW2 when we know close to nothing about it. -_- --Aspectacle 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So you stopped playing GW, a game you supposedly love, because GW2 is "copying" WoW? Do you actually think that WoW didn't "copy" anyone else? It's not like it invented the genre, and your assertion of it being "the original WoW" is ridiculous. ANet are simply implementing features that they think will improve the game. Given that, the fact ANet stated that GW would continue running as long as there's players playing it, and that no one has any idea how they're actually going to implement these supposedly "stolen" features in GW2, I can't help but wonder what you were smoking when you came to the decision you did. Capcom 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange isn't it? The conclusions that people come to by reading just a small part of a big whole. The moment they see "introduce persistent areas", they conclude it's a WoW clone. The moment they read "higher level cap" and "playable races", that's it. The "WoW clone" theory is stuck in their heads and they don't bother trying to read more. The fact that it still has GW elements in it no longer of matters, all that matters is that it has WoW elements in it, therefore, it's a WoW clone. Never mind the fact that most all existing MMORPGs has WoW elements in them, or rather, WoW shares certain elements with most MMORPGs... But kudos to the makers of WoW for being so successful to have established itself as the de facto standard in the world in MMORPG, where everything that even remotely resembles WoW is decried a WoW clone. -- ab.er.[[User

talk:Ab.er.rant| rant ]] 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should look at what ANet has done. They took the best of MMO's and fixed their problems. I see adding instancing, races, and higher level cap as a continuation of just that. Except... well... ANet will find a way to make it work. My hunch anyway. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, just a note before I interject my opinion here - I haven't read everything that has been said here down to the last word - but there is something I want to point out. Jeff Strain was originally Lead Programmer for WoW, but left, because he didn't like the way the game was going. Do you think he would ever let a Guild Wars sequel become resemblant of a game he chose to stop working on due to it being, in his eyes, the wrong kind of game? I will admit there are a few aspects about Guild Wars 2 that frighten me somewhat as a GW fan, such as the higher level cap, where the whole point of GW1 was to put the player's skills to the test, not the number of hours they spent grinding. But I doubt very much GW2 will be any kind of WoW clone - and in case anyone's wondering, yes, I have read up on pretty much all the publicly available material regarding GW2 in any way. I still think saying it's a "WoW clone" is a little far-fetched. Oh, and to those who are saying GW1 is being abandoned; wrong. ANet didn't plan GW2 just to copy Blizz (or however you want to put it). I suggest you read up about Guild Wars Utopia, as it explains how GW2 is only in the works because there was a wide array of new content and features that couldn't be introduced to GW1 without making it too bloated. In any case, once GW2 is out, GW1 will not be neglected. I specifically remember ANet stating they would continue to provide improvements and new content for GW1 in the form of updates. -- Slarynn 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The higer level cap is like, After 20 you get very small rewards, such as mabe one skill point, or mabe hero skill points, or something else entirley. a level 22 will be able to beat a level 44 with barely any trouble. in fact, If you want, you will be able to stay at level 20 forever. The persistance will not allow people to kill jump, or loot, or crap like that. somehow A-net is going to keep away from that. and they won't have persistance EVERYWHERE, most likeley there will be instanced missions or dungeons, as well as persistance area's with little to no monsters. It's giving you WOW features and original features withought the boring learning curve or the complexity.--70.71.240.170 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me actually that GW has a pretty good plan, adding in persistant areas makes the game more interactive, but how persistant are these "Mythos-like" areas (they seem to be like the overworld addition to that game). I mean sometimes I just don't want to deal with people that are farming and stuff, but it overall seems to be good. I was wondering if there was a possibility of making your own voluntary copy of the graph so you can complete a quest or to vanquish a map
 * Also is the title system gonna be like GW1? I like it alot, its something to do and a good track on people who want to complete something wholesomely like me.
 * Also how simple are skills going to be? It is nice to have a plethora of skills I do not like wow for the overly simplistic skills, the GW skills are fun to me because I like to find out good builds and not spam like in WoW. I mean the copy skills with different names are a little too far, and some were almost the same but had enough differences.
 * How is the elite skills going to work in persistant zones? I mean pretty much you can hire people to kill the boss, or you'll find him killed when you want a challenge, it seems like it would become really easy to get them.

--[[leoleez|leoleez]

I think this argument is retarded... They stated, clear as day, that the original game will still be updated and functional. I've played WoW before and the only thing GW2 has in common with it is jumping(Basic) and free roam... That's all. That I can tell, it simply takes off all the crap-ass limits we had in Guild Wars... The game is still the same basic premise, but revised into an MMORPG... Guild Wars is for those who don't like MMORPGs... Guild Wars 2 is to appeal to those who prefer those games... I miss playing in an open environment and meeting other players.. .But I LOVE The way Guild Wars was produced... so now they're takin' all there is to love about Guild Wars, adding more to it, and basically appealling to those die-hard MMORPG fans (like myself). I've been playin' Guild Wars since the two day free trial before the beta... and I've loved it, LOYALLY since... But I more than welcome these changes, which will (Hopefully) prevent my endless hours of boredom I experience with Guild Wars ONE. 76.23.150.107 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, they ARE turning this into WoW. Come on, an unlimited level cap? Sure, they lower the rewards as you progress, but still... you've got to play constantly to stay ahead of the game. Anyone that joins a few months after the game is created is at a MAJOR disadvantage. I don't want to spend all my time playing. I think that Anet doesn't really care what happens though, because as soon as like a hundred thousand people buy it on the opening day, they've made their money. If they leave GW1 servers up, that's the game I'll keep playing. --71.70.200.231 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So... you work for ArenaNet? They haven't even confirmed the level cap. It was only suggested. And there's no "lower the rewards". It's more like, no rewards for leveling up beyond a certain point except bragging rights. Since you seem to like GW1 so much, try to have a little more faith in ArenaNet. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If they hey make GW2 like WoW, they lose lots of players cause the people that play wow will only get GW2 if they run out of money for paying WoW and LOTS of gw players dont like WoW.But i dont think a net will make a wow clone.And if they make it as original as they can they will have a better chance of getting more players to buy it. Super Range Ranger Cow 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

concerns for gw2
first of all, this is my first post so im not sure if i went about this right. getting use to wiki takes time.

back to topic at hand. if anyone has information that can help or want to discuss other concerns please feel free to do so here.

my biggest concern, and pretty much only one, is the raising of level caps. lets face it, what i love about GW is that everyone is at an even keel. 20 is set in stone and i do not have to worry about a level 40. however now it seems that they wanna raise it and also talkin about a no level limit. where would it end for supreme dominance? the high end will get ruined because obviously more people have time than others. so the game would slide to those people. guildwars as it is is a game i hadn't played in about a year, since factions. but i came back with eye of the north and having a blast. the only things i had to do, which were alot, is get all my new skills. but if i have to catch up in levels as well. it would never end. mmo's are fun due to its never ending story and something always to do but in an aspect of pvp where the par is set at a distance never to be able to catch up is crazy.

as for everything else the game sounds amazing. i hope when they add the items they are planning to the work the way they are intended. if it does this game will probably be owned by the entire us military because i will go around and make everyone get it if i have to. we will be a guild called DoD or something. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Armyguy463 (talk).


 * You're making the mistaken assumption that people won't ever stop getting more powerful. Imagine GW1 if they raised the level cap to 100 tomorrow.  Would anyone be any more powerful?  No, because all of your attributes max out at level 20.  It's just a number.  It's a tired, old subject. --Reklaw 10:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

what about hit points? they go up as you level. yes i took into consideration that they can cap attribute points. i would even like the possibility to max out more attributes. however the it becomes less strategic. but my main concern is hit points. a lvl 20 obviously has more than a level 5, and a level 100 would have more than 20. --Armyguy463 10:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC) armyguy463
 * If you can accept a cap for attributes, isn't it logical to just assume they'll put in a cap for health and energy as well? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 10:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

true, so we assuming the level up is just for braggin rights? hey i got a level 100 necromancer. --Armyguy463 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably the only thing I'd accept in GW2 if they want to put in a ridiculously high level cap. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

likewise. but knowing me i'll still want lvl 100. --Armyguy463 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either that, or less xp required to gain the levels? More xp rewarded? In the long run I've always had the same opinion as Reklaw. It's just a number. Raising the max level to 100 would achieve nothing if they also raised the xp gained or decreased the xp required. I couldn't care less about what the max level ends up being, what matters is how long it takes to reach said level. Also, GW never was about the levels in the first place. &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've heard it's less of a cap and more of a decreasing returns, so that the same number of levels will give you much less of whatever levels will give you if you are a higher lvl, so someone level 50 might be only marginally better than lvl 20 (the 50 to 20 example is my own, I'm not sure how steep the scale is) and still quite within the lvl range to compete. So, this is essentially the same as a cap, except with marginal benefits beyond that cap.--   Frozzen  [[Image:User Frozzen sig.PNG|User:Frozzen]] 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you still be able to use other char from GW1? king 02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Were all just going to act like you actually read the main article, and ignore that last comment. Trust me, its better for you (thats a NO! old chars are gw1 not gw2... its in the main article)-68.44.237.208 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Subject of level cap, i think they main problem here will be prejudice. Example: level 55 Sylvari Monk asks to join your group, as well as a level 21 human monk. The Sylvari is much higher leveled, but his build sucks, where as the level 21 human monk has a very effective and useful build (think a bonder or healer or something...) Which one does your prejudice leader pick? The level 55 Sylvari Monk with the crappy build!--[[Image:User_Raph_Sig2.jpg|19px]]Ra ph  Tal ky  22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. The more likely scenario is that the current trends for discrimination based on builds will live onwards. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 14:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Beg*Beg*Beg* Please don't raise the level cap. If the effect is just cosmetic then why do they want to make it and stir up the community? GW to me is the best online game out there because they emphasize on fairness among player. We don't need to spent 24/7 to become a godlike hero. I love the low level cap concept and so that it's easier for player to get into the game anytime and still manage their life. Green item and stuff is a great system implemented by arena net as it allow casual player to be able to afford max perfect item for low cost. Arena net offer the world a revolutionary online game where there's only minimal grind (lv20 cap is unheard of) and that player depend on their team combo and brain to make the kill rather than grinding and hording epic item...yuack... IMHO arena net should perhaps consider totally destroy the c2pig leveling system that is feeding on the life of innocent gamer in dark single bedroom everywhere in the world. Reward teamwork and smart player....Discourage ant worker from hogging the game.  -channel --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:60.53.50.192 (talk).
 * Try to read more regarding the proposed higher level cap before worrying about it. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would welcome a higher level limit but this side-kick system seems really unfair to me. Basically, it seems to me that players will be able to have all the benefits of a max level charachter, without needing to spend the time to actually become max level, which is completely unfair on those who do spend time leveling up. Just another thing that seems that GW will turn into a game where it is so focused on making the game fair, the actual level of skill and determination of the players simply doesn't matter anymore.--Neyon 10:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They do have to team up with someone of a higher level to get the benefit. So that benefit disappears once they are back on their own. Higher-level chars often won't put up with leeches unless he's a friend, or he pays. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read that feature a little deeper, you'd realise that the focus is not on allowing the lower-level player to level up faster, but to allow the lower-level player to play with those of a higher level (such as a new player tagging along with a bunch of friends). Also, given GW's success at removing the problems of actually leveling up, have faith that they won't screw it up for GW2. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If something like the current system remains, whereby the experience gained from kills is based on your level against foes level and number of party members, then the higher you get the more pointless it will be to fight lower level enemies. ie currently you get no exp from monsters 5 levels or more below you. My biggest concern as a pve only player is wether ganking will be introduced into the persistent world as its the one thing i hate about other games and love how GW's appeases both sides and yet manages to keep them seperate. User:BogusDude

I reckon the "reward" for leveling up, i.e. hit points, attribute points etc, will be reverse exponential as you increase in level. Basically, the higher level you are, the smaller the reward you get per level. So moving from level 10 to level 20 will have ALOT more impact than moving from level 90-100. Or, it could just be that the levels are the same as now, just in smaller increments. So lvl 100 could be equal to our current level 20, so every 5 GW2 levels would be equivelent to 1 GW level. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

so many people have said this but..
this page NEEDS semi protection. The ratio of vandals to do-gooder ip's is like 8:2 (not to be a math geek but still......)--Ra ph  Tal ky  01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page does NOT need protection, it's a talk page that's open to all, vandalism gets reverted so fast it's surprising anyone even sees it except in RC. We have a REALLY good team of sysops.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wynthyst 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And the ratio of do-gooder ips to registered users who are actually contributing is probably also 8:2 (not supported by actual numbers, but still...) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It saddens me that SO MANY of the hardcore of GW don't bother to come to the wiki andempart their thoughts and opinions on us. --Wolf 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More Free Roam
Nearly all areas in Guild Wars 1 were littered with literally hundreds of adversaries, ancient evils and even wild animals that thirst for your blood. Why? Who knows. Animals don't seem to attack one another, so I assume Wammos are most animals' primary source of nutrition. It was very rare to come across an area that you could actually freely explore or admire without the constant harassment of being attacked. I believe this mainly goes back to Prophecies and Factions, especially, in that the developers didn't want players to be able to easily move on to new areas. There's certainly nothing in most places worth protecting. Zones in Guild Wars are simply areas where quests are placed, or areas you must fight through to earn the right to get to a new town. There's normally no treasure, no secrets - nothing of consequence that would warrant aggressive monsters beyond the need to protect new towns, and the forseen challenge of handling aggro.

I'd like to see more areas like pre-searing Ascalon, in which there are some animals that are very aggressive, and others that may be only mildly aggressive (and won't sprint full force after you for miles, frothing out the mouth and screeching for your flesh as you just try to walk back to town), and plenty that aren't aggressive at all. Still others would become aggressive if you attack one of their species. Etc. I miss being able to walk amongst the wildlife without it developing a massive erection for violence just because I'm nearby.

So depending on how things are designed, I'd like to be able to be part of the environment rather than having to conquer the environment, just to enjoy what little I've left of it. I think it would definitely help the presentation of the game. In GW1, there is a distance that most players have between themselves and the world, as a result of how the atmosphere of the game is formatted. There are static towns full of other heroes (even if you're, according to the story, the only hero there), and about 12 NPCs, and then there is everything else: a world of wildlife that would love nothing more than to slaughter you, and completely ignore everything else. I believe removing this separation of player from the overall world he's in would go a long way towards uniting the player with the atmosphere. --Reklaw 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah... there is nothing that can survive on wammos, how ever I do know entire tribes of Charr who only eat squishy casters. Having instant travel means that if getting to a new town creates no resistance at all u are left with walking trough the game. Biz 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am going to make an asuran dervish or something. Same idea as the person who said little asuran with a big hammer, but what im more afraid of is the lack of new content. I don't wan tthis to be one of those games where they promise a lot of changes, but it is all the same thing just with different names. That would just not be fun at all. I would rather something like the warrior name stays a warrior, but they have dual wielding or something like it. One thing that would be awesome is a perfect auctioning system like the auction house in WoW, but theres talk it won't happen... [Vincent Ill:Celestial Order of Light[Cool]]
 * Indeed, less professions that can do more stuff is a lot better then having 4 (W,D,A,P)melee/warrior like professions. From information I have it seems like its something they are trying todo, still free roam is only good when you compleated storyline. Biz 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Customizing ur weapon's name
When i read in the maual that i can customize my weapon i thought of choosing parts,colors,effects, and of course the name. Hopefully they're gonna add this.

er....dont know, effects and names would be fine. but colors is already covered by dye, and making parts would mean more skins, and more skins means craploads of coding, and possibly alot of platinum escaping from peoples Xunlai chests--Ra ph  Tal ky  19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Im thinking just how many swords will be "Doombringer" =) all of them ? Still, what your describing is preety much the system of GW1 apart from names, then again, I dont see how naming your sword is gona make any difference overal. Biz 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More immersion, and attachment to your character/equipment. And being able to modify the looks of different aspects of a weapon has obvious impacts on how much one would like the weapon. --76.2.228.91 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I grow VERY attached to my weapons, my warror has only been through 3 swords, ever, in 3 years. A way to further customize weapons would be great, Then i would probably only go through one sword ever, lol. --Wolf 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Allright, still dont think they acctualy mean changing looks when mentioning "parts", rather upgrades to be placed in slots, Or?. Biz 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure when they said parts, they ment the standard assortment of upgrades we have now. --Wolf 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelyan thath idea is supa good! imagine my shcyte =PPPPPP in ice gigantic ! :O

Features Under Consideration listing
I think there may have been some misinterpretation of chats that took place last fall. I made an explanation on this page. I'm believe that listing either of these two suggestions as "features under consideration" may give them too much weight in the reader's eye; I would recommend not listing them. This is just a personal opinion, to try to keep suggestions -- even highly popular ones -- from being seen as being on the dev schedule. -- Gaile 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea,instead of die and such you should be able to re-customize your characters appearance, (at a cost of course.)This would come with a list of unlocked appearances that you could gain throughout the game. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:144.139.119.243 (talk).

When will the beta come?
I've been wondering, last time I checked, it said the beta was to come out the 1st half of this year. It has'nt come out. Has it been moved or what? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.121.168.43 (talk).


 * Its been moved closer to when GW2 will launch. Which will be in the later half of 09 (guessing). Dominator Matrix  21:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)