Talk:Guild Wars 2

Archive

---

• March - September 2007
• October - December 2007
• December 2007 - January 2008
• February - March 2008
• April - May 2008
• June - July 2008
• August - September 2008
• October - December 2008
• January - March 2009
• April - June 2009
• June - October 2009
• October - December 2009
• January - March 2010
• March 2010 - July 2011

Beta

It's been in it for 2 weeks now. Don't ask how I know.
(Go Ask Regina instead. ...their marketing Dept's pulled a quicky on all of us). --ilr 21:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean alpha. Beta was to be announced in their newsletter and both wikis. Of course if you have source I'll be more trusting. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I first read this and Kyoshi's reply (which I read wrong the first time), I immediately had an internal shit-storm thinking that they just announced it, followed by searching any related sites and all my emails for any mention of it. Why don't you wish to share your insight? ~FarloTalk 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

wait what..?- Zesbeer 01:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Catch22... I hate it even more than you guys do: Late Alpha, super Early Super Closed Beta... Whatever it is... there's press members of the non-GW community with a play-at-home release and I know b/c the Screenshot I saw was of a shrine that can't be accessed in any of the Convention Demos. However sharing the screen would violate the NDA and make me just as "Rogue" as their CM's who keep telling us that Beta doesn't exist yet. I'm not going to force their hand on it, it's up to them to come clean. I'm just making this point ahead of time b/c "I told you So's" are what I do. It's just like predicting the Engineer over a year ago... It matters not to me whether anyone else believes it --ilr 14:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They already said alpha was going to be exclusive to people the ANet staff know. I'm not sure where the press works into that but I assume it's because some of them have good friends in the press. I'm sure if you tell ANet about it in a private channel they'd care a lot more than they do when you try to pressure an answer out of them (and a lot more than we do when you just gossip about it). --ஸ Kyoshi 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So is there a beta or not? If so can anyone say here please. Also nothing has been posted about the comic-con on the GW2 web site any ideas why? Anyone know what was actually said there? Anything about the release date of the game as the wait is getting stupid. Ultrametroid 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue about Comic-Con, but if this rumor holds any merit (which sadly we possibly won't ever know) than there is a closed beta or other testing phase being conducted, but probably not as A-Net has said testing will be later on this year. Either way, there's no public or "sign-up" beta as of yet, nor has there been a release date announced as far as I know. ~FarloTalk 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Ultrametroid [1] thats a video of the panel they did.- Zesbeer 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I actually found a link somewhere a few days ago which confirms that alpha is currently happening. I'll post it later if I find it again. But again, alpha is for friends and close family of ArenaNet staff, and closed beta has not begun yet. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

[Eurogamer] like this one? They also said somewhere (maybe there) that the alpha is in testing, and closed beta will be in 2011, but they have not started taking applications for the closed beta. --Falseprophet 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Total development time so far.

• this is an important reference/footnote...
  ...that apparently doesn't have a home. (So I'm putting it here incase it's needed later) --ilr 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got that all down (or most of it), but still good to have just in case. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Present and Future Release Date Speculation

Do we really want these dates on here? I know it's good to try and guess and make the page as informative as possible, but especially on the official Wiki, people might not take it with a grain of salt and begin spreading it around as truth. I believe we've had the same discussion about Winds of Change, as well as others I can't remember at the moment, and the end result was to keep speculation and retailer's guesswork off of the wiki. ~FarloTalk 04:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What dates do you mean? Aren't the ones in the article from official sources? 75.37.22.30 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most recent post was this, claiming it's July 26th, and no, that's not official, it's just what Amazon says. It doesn't really matter which date's hypothesized though, none of them should be spread around on here when we have no real idea. ~FarloTalk 07:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

They're not "spread around", it's one sentence on one page, and it's for a bloody book, not the next coming of Jesus Christ. If it changes, the page can be updated, the date is many months away (and it's June, not July). -- FreedomBound 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we said six months ago that the game is possibly coming out on [insert arbitrary retailer's release date here] then we would have been wrong. Stating uncertainty in the guesswork shows that we know it could be wrong, which (to several of the skeptics who saw retailers' dates change to "TBA" after the dates were passed, including myself) effectively nullifies the fact that we said anything. It's not the next coming of Christ, so we don't need to have a potential date sitting here for the good of the world. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add a note at the bottom that says that dates announced by retailers are usually arbitrary, but if anyone cares, Amazon says etc. That satisfies purists who only want official data in the main article. And it offers something to the tea-leaf readers, who want every bit of data to be included. At the same time, it separates for the rest of us the difference between official news and speculation. 75.36.183.81 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This was my problem when it was first put up, whether or not you disclaim it, users that don't know better will assume that is a solid date. You can't know for sure that it will happen. There's no proof that it is coming out at that time, and until it is officially announced, I vote that it be reverted to the unannounced version. Freedom_Bound, if it isn't that big a deal, you won't mind it being left as it was before you added the date in. --Kairu 22:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Click to move removed?

Why would mouse movement in the form "click to move" be removed from the game? I don't understand why they would take away features rather than add to them. Aside from the fact that there are many who prefer that form of control, "click to move" is much easier for many people with physical limitations, making the game more accessible.

How do we lobby for greater accessibility? Singing Wolf 06:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

because clicking has gained an entire new function in the game. --The Holy Dragons 07:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The addition of a z-axis also makes clicking a certain place on the map a good deal harder, at least I think it would. Darkshine 04:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps Shift-Click could invoke click-to-move. I very much like the click-to-move option, although it got me into trouble a few times since the characters moved in a different path than I expected. Separ 01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Click to move had been removed because of the new way combat works. One needs to be very active and dynamic with movement, including dodges, to be effective in combat. to this end, click to move would not be useful and probably detrimental to the intended flow and style of combat.

Why would click to move make you less able to dodge and be dynamic? Lots of people, myself included, use it for Dragon Arena, among other things, which is all about dodging and positioning. Turning around takes additional time using keys, I think strafing is slower than turning and running, at least in Guild Wars 1. Manifold 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gw1 dodging is not the same as gw2 dodging. Anyways, click to move was most likely removed due to the ground-based targeting system for AoE skills. Konig/talk 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Article

Is it really necessary having to update 2 Guild Wars 2 articles everytime new infor is released? Why not redirect this page from the GW1 wiki to the gw2? In my opinion it would be much better not only we won't need to update 2 pages but also Guild Wars 2 has nothing to do with Guild Wars 1 wiki. --MageMontu 12:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

that's actually a really good idea seeing as this wiki is for gw1... +1 from meh. - Zesbeer 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't just redirect it the way we'd redirect a common misspelling to the real article. ArenaNet staff technically can, though I am unsure of if they know how and are willing to do so (if they do it once, they could be inundated with requests for it to be done on other articles).

We could always just have a pretty box with words to the effect of "want an article about GW2W? here's a whole wiki about it!". A F K When Needed 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We can use the see... model for 90% of the content in this article. All GWW really needs to say about GW2 is that the two games have little in common besides lore (separated by centuries), developer/title (ANet/GW), and that players will be able to pass on their accomplishments (but not toons) on an account-wide basis. Everything else is (in theory) beyond the scope of a GW1 wiki and exactly the scope of a GW2 wiki.

However, I still think people will want to see the last 2-3 bits of news without having to change wikis. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What Tennessee said sounds also good. --MageMontu 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this. You cant remove most of the content with links to the GW2W, as there would still be a Wiki page about GW2 here which defeats the purpose of this discussion. It also ads another click, which is a nono in web design. --Kairu 15:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There should still be imo a GW2 article in the GW1 wiki, because aspects of GW2 pertain specifically to GW1, notably the HoM + reward calculator, the linked histories/lore, and the account-to-account transferability. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I stated this before, I'll state this again. This article should hold a little bit more information as gw2:Guild Wars does. Maybe a bit more, since it's dealing with an unreleased product (but once GW2 is released, I expect the info to downsize), but still keep it to general stuff. IMO, the following sections can be outright removed:

• About the game (maybe keep the controls and music sections but as bulletpoints for somewhere else)
• Weapons (100% unnecessary)
• Skills
• Traits
• Dye system
• Player versus environment (except dynamic events, underwater exploration, and setting, but summarize the sections)
• See also (replace with gw2:Guild Wars 2 as that's where 99% of this stuff really belongs)
• External Links (only external links necessary is the official gw2 website)
• Fansites (belongs solely on GW2W)

In other words, what we should keep, but summarized, from what's currently on this page should be:

• General
  • Controls
  • Music
  • Races
  • Professions
• PvE
  • Event system
  • Underwater Exploration
  • Setting
• PvP
  • World PvP
  • Structured PvP
• Notes (merged with beta/release, each getting a couple lines, but greatly cut down to remove the bs/unnecessary entries like "On January 30th, 2009, Regina Buenaobra stated that she has played Guild Wars 2.")

In other words, have just enough on this article so that people can tell "this is a different game" and what the principle features of said game are. Sections like Guild Wars 2#Energy are completely and thoroughly unneeded. Konig/talk 20:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit (kinda): I have made a draft of a rewrite here. I have not yet to fully edited the PvE or PvP sections as of posting this. Konig/talk 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Konig. This has been a "all the details about GW2" page, which was fine while we knew little about GW2, but now that we know most of the systems and features, they should only be given an overview here. Manifold 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

agreed with kong though i would remove even more look at the Guild Wars page there is a brief paragraph about the game there and then links to the articles that need to be linked i think we should do the same for this if people want info about gw2 they should go to the gw2 wiki.- Zesbeer 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When GW2 actually launches, just archive this sucker. --ilr 09:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at your edit later, Konig, but overall it looks good. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Zesbeer, I agree. My draft is a compromise though - don't denote every piece of information, but keep enough to satisfy those who want a lot of information.

Anyways, exclusing the Game engine, PvP, and Controls section, I pretty much reduced the entire thing. I went ahead and replaced the main article with my rewrite - feel free to revert or alter any bit of it. Konig/talk 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

i am fine with your changes though still wish it was shorter with links to gw2 wiki sections for the appropriate page but i am ok with how it is now. i would really like it if we added a note saying something like wait dose this belong here? probably not please post on the gw2 wiki. and really focus people on making edits to the gw2 wiki (also we can make the page shorter once the game goes live)- Zesbeer 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My only comment about the current state is that the races and classes have been way understated. --JonTheMon 03:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is in too much details, details that should be left for the GW2 wiki. What I think is best to do is a small paragraph regarding the lore and something about the HoM + the link to the full article on GW2 wiki. --MageMontu 08:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Release Date: Update

Due to the interview the Wiki Community had with Colin Johansen, perhaps the release date should be modified to say "early 2013" instead of "before the end of 2012"? I would link the interview here but I'm a Wiki-novice. Donutdude 14:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to the fact your comment sounds serious: "1 April 2012

Colin Johanson answers questions from the wiki community in an exclusive interview."

Check the date. Konig/talk 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, since the interview was conducted on Fool's Day, one should simply assume it's a ruse? Fair enough. Donutdude 10:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

what was funny about that interview was that up untill the end it was simi believeable.- Zesbeer 10:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm noticing a lot of inconsistent capitalization on this page concering the races. I know that on the GW2W we don't capitalize them, but I don't remember what the practice is here. I'm not so concerned about having it one way or another as I am about having it consistent, but lower case seems to make sense simply because of English grammar concerning species. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GWW capitalizes as per what's seen in-game. Konig/talk 04:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Extremely powerful bosses

Who are the most powerful boss enemies in the game? Noting them is worthwhile for those who are looking for huge bragging rights.