Talk:Guild Wars 2: The Status Quo

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Equipment 2 GW2 wiki? 3 Revisions 4 "you will be levelling your character over hundreds of hours"

[edit] Equipment

I must disagree with Jeff in that I feel skill is drastically more important than equipment. I would much perfer a level 25 character that honestly knows what he is doing in a group than a level 80 with great armor that got both from powerleveling. I think that it will be much like the abuse of the Powerstone of Courage and Ursan Blessing. Anyone else think this way? Steve 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinch of salt tbh. I agree that skill is the main thing, but you have to agree that you need good equipment, there's no point being the best player in the world if your equipment is a load of shit. I like this though. It makes it sound like a diablo style equipment game, which i love(d). ~PheNaxKian Talk 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that equipment is major, but I would still not really like to see an elementalist running around and 'leeroy jenkins'ing everything. Steve 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It just won't be guild wars anymore if you have to level up every character you want to play with. It's like they are removing PvP chracters from the game entirely. GW2 sounds like it will suck Loser223 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the part about PvP? PvP areas you'll be able to either sidekick (for world pvp) or have your character set to a fixed level (for arena-type pvp) so that you'll be on equal footing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the old "skill > time spent" will be kept for PvP (a good thing) but thrown away for PvE, in which a high level character who has mindlessly farmed for hours in order to get powerful items will be more powerful than someone who does not have time to waste but who has skill. This also gives ample room for grinding in PvE, with "raids" and other tasks in which the reward is not having fun, but rather hoping you will be the one to get that "Overpowered Sword of One-Hit Slaying". Erasculio 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to make a game with infinite character development while still keeping the anti-grind policy and I believe that's what they're going to do with GW2. And I will absolutely love it when they do so, it will be far better than any other game out there, if done right. The key is making the power level gains from levels and equipment after a certain point to get smaller and smaller so a character that played for 1000 hours is only going to be slightly more powerful than one played for 200 hours. The worst thing in an online RPG game and most demotivating factor is reaching The Max, and in GW1 max level and perfect equipment is reachable after a couple days of play. PvE doesn't need fixed caps for power level, players don't need perfect gear, and having set max values create dissatisfaction when players know they're not perfect. A much better solution would be to give them a large variety of good/great/awesome/fantastic feeling items AND always a chance to find something even better, even just 1% better.--Yawg 04:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What players need and what players require are two different things. The real difference in power does not really matter - as long as someone who plays more is more powerful, even if only slightly so, when making groups players will demand others to be among the most powerful, otherwise they won't be accepted. This is already in the game - go take a look at how many players are saying "GLF more - must be Ursan rank 10", and consider how small is the difference between ranks 8 and 10. This is just a way to change what today is GW's "The Max" (the player being skilled and really knowing how to play his/her chosen professions, something still rare) into something much easier to obtain, time. Erasculio 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is something that does not need to exist in gw 2. It's already bad enough that you need ursan r 238904729034 in order to get into a PUG now. If those 1% better will exist expect players to kick you out of their groups if you do not have it. Boogy (Talk/Contributions) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pugs want r10 ursans because: 1. this is max; 2. it's easy to get and they're plentiful. It's the same with perfect equipment in GW1, it's everywhere in huge quantities, it makes stuff 1%-off perfect practically worthless and unwanted. But in terms of performance you could use only random nonmax blues found on your way and not see any real difference - it's PvE! It's easy!. People only want max because it exists and is everywhere, so everything that is not max is treated as bad. But you don't have to look far for example of a system with practically no max and no perfection, where you always have a chance of finding something better, but you don't *need to* have the best of the best. And where people think differenly. And it's in GW1... it's Pre-Searing Ascalon and it's awesome.--Yawg 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, am I like, the only person who hears "equipment will matter a lot" and does NOT instantly start thinking they mean "grow character power by finding better and better equipment, therefore grind, lack of skill, doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom"? Because I swear, I still have not heard anything that says they could not be talking about "Equipment can do many many huge things and since you can only equip a few things your choices determine what your character is like to a large degree" and that it could easily not imply any more searching for perfect goods than we already have in the first game? --Star Weaver 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. It's just that doomsayers tend to like to be vocal in their doomsaying. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Player skill should be more important than time spent playing, of course. And by player skill, I mean making a good build, using the right equipment for the build and play style, and playing it effectively. If the comment that "equipment will be more important in GW2" really means "you'll be able to customize your equipment more than in GW1 even though the building blocks will all be available early in the game", then I'm happy with it. If it means "you'll be able to grind endlessly in raids or farming or whatever to get uber-equipment", then I am NOT happy with it. But they already said that they are maintaining their skill > time philosophy, so I trust that he meant the first... at least until proven otherwise. -- Alaris 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GW2 wiki?

This is great work, but shouldn't this be on the GW2 wiki? --Xeeron 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought. It'll be copied there soon by someone. I'll probably break something if I do it now. Calor 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to post it here first as people here asked for it.. We can move it later, but please do not move it now, as there are some people working on fixing it ^^ poke | talk 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I say is just leave it here, but have a link to it on GW2 wiki. For an example, there is a link from this Sylvari page to GW2 wiki's page for Sylvari. Perhaps just do the same for this page as well.Steve 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it here. I don't see where havng the same page on both wikis would be a problem. I say leave it as is now that it is on both. --Shadowphoenix 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Shadowphoenix, for not reading my comment. poke | talk 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize poke. I actually only read the first half for some reason. Please forgive, I acted a bit to quick --Shadowphoenix 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all excited at some of the new information <3!!! --Elven Chaos 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

Some revisions change the meaning of the text. They're at best an interpretation (poke's translation) for an interpretation (whoever wrote the original article), but I'm curious to know if some changes are based on what has been said in the original German article, or based on interpretations of the translation. For example...

• "a robust trading system" or "a robust crafting system". Two completely different things - I see a trading system as something like a Trade House, and a crafting system as something like a set of skills allowing people to make clothes, weapons and etc. Where did the doubt between which one is the right word come from?
• "The camera will be closer to your character" or "The camera will move closer to your character". The former says the camera will be close to the characters, without mentioning the option of moving the camera away from that position. The latter implies the camera will be able to move between at least two points of view, one being closer to the characters. Which one was said in the original interview?

And so on. Erasculio 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke and I are working on figuring these out. We'll get back to you. :D (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks : ) Erasculio 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky sometimes, since there aren't always direct literal translations of wording. :) We're maybe about halfway down the page so far, so expect a revision in another hour or so. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your second example - "move closer" doesn't necessarily imply that the camera can move between points of view - it could be that it will move closer from where it was in GW1. It's a very imprecise statement, so it's going to be ambiguous no matter what. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it also has that connotation. The worst thing is, even if you two manage to translate exactly what has been said on the interview, we would still have to deal with whatever the original writer understood from what Arena Net told him, so those ambiguities will still be there. I guess that's the advantage of statements that come directly from Arena Net, they have one less middle man for us to deal with. Erasculio 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. When there's a lot of doubt, we're trying to stick with more general wording, or lean towards what has already been implied in previous interviews, on the reasoning that if it's not specific about a change, it's probably not a change. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the "move closer", I think it was some kind of rhetorical device that implies a more thrilling experience. Also in the original it was a different tense, it was more like "You swim, jump and climb to explore the new world. The camera moves closer to your character [..]", so I think it should sound more like a written down life experience as if they already played the game.. But that is just my interpretation ;) poke | talk 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I plan to have a look at the translation soonish, just no time for it so far. --Xeeron 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"the camera moves closer" - This is ambigous in German as well. While I interpret it as the camera in general being closer to the character, it could also mean that the camera zooms in on the character once a fight happens.

"attack fails" - Most likely, this means the attack on the dragon, not the attack on the bridge.

"planned to be" - The article is utilizing a German language quirk which symbolises that the author does not report his own view, but the view of others, and does not want to guarantee for the correctness of the statement. I didn't come up with a better way to translate that.

"handicraft system" - the term used is more general than crafting and different from trading. It suggests stuff like smith, carpenter, barrelmaker, etc. --Xeeron 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

to the "attack fails": The attack on the dragon is meant, but whether the attack on the dragon fails or not shouldn't matter for the NPCs from the town to repair the bridge.. I mean even if the dragon is defeated, the bridge is still destroyed :P

For the rest I wont argue about that with you.. I'll just let Aiiane yell at you (if she likes to :P); we agreed on some of the things you changed to leave it as it was before.. poke | talk 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She did like to. Well, sorry for not going through all prior revisions one by one, but your agreement is kind of hard to spot otherwise. And some stuff is simply made up: Everyone is free to conclude that the magical beings will be the mursaat, but the article does not say so. --Xeeron 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "Notes on Translation" section to the end of the page to address issues such as the "magical beings" statement to help preserve the statements as expressed in the article while still allowing notes to be made regarding probable meanings. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "you will be levelling your character over hundreds of hours"

Boooooo. Major, major thumbs down for this part.

If it is a more innocuous mechanic like "Once you hit level 25, levelling becomes mostly cosmetic", than perhaps it will work o.k., but one of the main selling points of guild wars original was the fact that someone could get a fully equipped and levelling character without spending a few hundred hours on it. I'm not interested in spending hours and hours looking for some quest to do to get that one extra skill and/or few extra stats to travel in some new area, I'm not interested in looking for someone to make a character a sidekick just to be able to explore somewhere, or to only be equal in power to a small section of the game, or all the other problems that show up in levelling games.Tambora 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really happy with the announcement of long levelling time, finally it's something different. Don't think about it as if it was GW1 where you want to have all the levelling to 20 done as fast as possible and don't be afraid of the 'hundreds of hours'. We can be sure they will retain the anti-grind policy so the game will not be about having to grind for hundreds of hours to get to max where the real fun starts. I'm sure they will make the hundreds of hours be The Fun. I, for one, hope the levelling won't stop even after those hours, that there's no such thing as an absolute max to be reached ever. (just make level gains after some point get much slower and slower, with smaller and smaller benefits, to keep things balanced and fair) --Yawg 03:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not just "unfun grind" that is an issue, it's also that a character will be unable to access areas due to being a low level, limits on abilities the characters will have, less areas that a character can visit to be not over or underpowered for an area, and other issues that I haven't mentioned here. Every single other RPG type game out these has leveling as a big part of it, many times it works against the game, there's no need for guild wars to do this differently. (and keep in mind that they may have these issues worked out just fine, but based on the descriptions it doesn't sound like it, and whatever is going on with the leveling system, it seems useful to bring up these issues to make sure the developers know about it.)24.12.214.172 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)