Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive12

Dye layering?

It seems upon closer inspection of this screenshot on the GW2 site [1] (I modified it to point out who i'm talking about.) custom layering of dye will be possible. Notice that the male and female are wearing what appear the be the same set of armor (with male/female differences, obviously) yet the colors are clearly different on multiple parts. Possible confirmation of customizable dye layering perhaps? Pariah talk 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MMORPG.com interview (near the end, talking to a world-Artist + Flannum) also danced around this. Basically the direction they're going with armor, is to have fewer armor designs overall b/c any class will be able to wear light, medium, or heavy armors. The benefit in this is that they can put more time into each piece of armor... IE: a lot more details and dyable overlays (technically "Decals?"). This would be good, b/c everyone I know who didn't like GW-1... stated lack of significant customization and exploration as their reasons. --ilr 03:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, who dosen't like more detail and customization? It's a plus in my eyes that they're going this route. However, there are some pros and cons to the setup. Pros are added detail and customization, yet the cons are that it (probably) will take much more dye, and you get fewer sets of armor. In the longterm however they will likely add more sets with expansions etc. so it may not be an issue really. I also came up with another idea. In an interview (I think) it was stated that HoM benefits are strictly cosmetic, what if that ties into a GW2 version of the new Costumes? Thus your HoM armor sets would become costumes in GW2 for your character to wear (as costumes are purely cosmetic and offer no bonus). It makes sence to me for them to do that, but of course that's just me speculating. Pariah talk 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I really wish we knew what they were doing with the whole HoM thing... and game-play in general. Although the lack of info has lead me to believe that not even they know for sure :P. Your idea is kinda like what Assassin's Creed 2 does. If you do something, you can play as the guy from the first, but only as the outfit, not his abilities or anything. I like the sound of this, especially if they have completely different armor styles (although they look kinda similar) and you would see some people in GW1 armors, I think it'd add a bit of prestige to it, kinda like the new outfits they have... but not for cash. ~Farlo Talk 05:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely would be cool if they do a costume style situation with the dedicated GW1 armors. They'd have to pretty them up for the new engines though. But even then, It'd still be nice to have nice, good looking faves from GW1 brought in through the HoM Pariah talk 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of the chicks in the front seemingly also have the same armor (the red dress and the other one). They might use a similar system to that of Dawn of War (primary color, secondary color, misc color, some more), or an even better one ;o <3 ---Chaos- (moo) -- 10:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think i'm seeing some kind of a system that goes to what color a specific part is dyed to ... the "warriors" in the back (i say "warriors" since the armor isn't proffession specific anymore) seem to have the cloth part dyed some way and the metal part (i assume those bolts are metal) are dyed in another way ... for the girls in front they seem to have specific parts dyed some way and others the other ... so i'm expecting something like a dye screen ... only that you choose which parts you will dye with what color ... Sneaker 12:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively they screw it all up and dyeing works almost randomly (dye a GW1 object and you never know what it ends up looking like). I suspect they'll have some form of actually smart system, though. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit pessimistic don't you think?

The duel differences in color (silver metal, gray cloth vs. gold metal, red cloth) may not be the result of different dye schemes. Since we really know nothing about the system for armor crafting, it's entirely possible that the differences in armor come from something else. Kinda like how in GW1 there are standard and elite versions of armor, there could be something similar in GW2. Or it could have something to do with the crafting that they've hinted at. If chars can craft their own armor, it's possible the way that works is you learn how to craft a type of armor or armor style, and then you can experiment with different crafting materials to achieve a slightly different look (using the example in the picture, the female could have crafted that armor using iron or steel, while the male could have used copper or gold or something like that).

It's an interesting observation, but we really have no idea exactly what it means beyond that armor will be treated differently in GW2 than it was in GW1. Fun to think about though! (Satanael | talk) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Armor won't be profession specific, at least not in a similar way, which is probably what they meant. Probably some other stuff too. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Satanael's ideas are logical. The gold coloring of the metal on the male could indeed have to do with the materials used to craft it. However.... I'm not sure Anet would go that route as it limits customization (of that part) to only colors of base metals. (Gray, Copper/Brown, Gold) unless the metal would be dyable after crafting, which wouldn't make sence in this case as you could craft something made of iron and then dye it to look gold. But alas, In this vast desert GW2 news is as sparse as water - We'll probably not know for certain untill GW2 is actually playable. Pariah talk 10:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the texture is different between the male and the female's armors... possibly hinting to texture choices or just being crafted that way. And metals come in grey, silver, red (copper), and yellow (gold). Alloys can come in a variety of other colors including white, black, brown, and textured looks. And, of course, other metals such as orichalum, mythril, adamantite, and other mythical metals could convieniently exist providing colors such as green, blue, purple, you name it. Doesn't sound that color-limiting. -~=Sparky (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we are assuming that the choice of metal would be the only material that would decide the base color of the armor. We also have to take into account any leather, fur, cotton, silk or linen used, or different variations of the same (bolt of damask vs. cloth bolt, for example). And these could change not only the base color, but also the way dyes interact with the armor when applied. Adding green dye to cloth could create a slightly more muted version of green than adding it to silk, for example. (Satanael | talk) 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be incredibly cost-intensive, but would really make some armor more prestige than the others. I doubt they'll implement it, but it'd keep the material economy alive. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but chances are that the metal, leather, wood, or cloth (or whatever materials) you use will be decided by the specific armor set. Dyes (and maybe metal plating/engraving, leather burning, stitching, paint, etc.) will affect the texture, color, and design of the armor. Meaning if you want your armor to have a different look all together, you don't have to make/buy an entirely new armor set (which A-Net said it wanted to avoid). -~=Sparky (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fall of Ascalon release date update?

On the main page, we have info saying Fall of Ascalon will be released on Feb 23rd, 2010.

In looking at some on-line sites, thinking of a pre-order, I am seeing dates that look like July 27, 2010.

Just wondering which date may be correct. Thanks for any clarification.--Thorfinnr 22:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just checked publisher website, they have July 27, 2010 as well. Guessing the publisher would know. :) --Thorfinnr 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, updated the page. -- FreedomBound 22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Divine Aura in GW2

Know this is a bit of a Long shot but is Divine Aura going to cross over into GW2. Still an Avid player somewhat with DA and am hoping it carries across. Do Devs read this? Anyone know of anywhere I can post this question? SharazCataclysm 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't put it in the HoM, it's very unlikely that it'll cross over. Same with special dances in Factions & NF. Devs do see this as much as any forum page, and that question's been asked before (but never officially answered). -- Alaris 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

" ...that question's been asked before (but never officially answered)" <---- Nickel for every time I've heard that. -- Tha Reckoning File:User Tha Reckoning Sig2.jpg 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd have a nickel allergy by now. Id be just royalty pissed that becouse collectors edition was not available to me around release of the Proph divine aura would be just one more of the things I can never get in neither of the games. Biz 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on your existing DA to cross over, but I'd count on it being available in the new collector's edition, or something similar (you know you were going to buy it anyway). -- FreedomBound 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol True True I probs would buy it i <3 CE's (Edit to Mr Fancy words :-p) + It would't be a Tautology if I was talking plural, would it? ..... would be a bit annoyed though as I bought CE proph and its still Guild Wars. Guess ill have to watch this space SharazCataclysm 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC) you can't say Collector Edition Editions, its a tautology. :P --58.7.84.174 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they should do something special for the GW2 collector's edition, not bring a port over of DA. Maybe something like a Boss Aura you can wear in towns etc. I think Divine aura's had a fair run, Let them be creative and do something new. Pariahtalk 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But in theory if the code is there existing Divine Aura can carry to GW2, and in my opinion should.194.70.45.244 16:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Short question. Why? -- Cyan 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Divine Aura should carry across primarily because I have it (LOL No shock there). I don't think I am an "Elitist" but i bought Proph CE, paid for and have enjoyed Divine Aura for the length of time played and if they wish to interlink the games as they have already shown they wish to do (HoM), any existing attributes that an account enjoys (DA, Special Dances etc etc) should also be linked. I'm all for Creativity and something new for the GW2 CE and hope something new is created for this, rather than using something old that people have already paid for and in essence will have to pay for again. Am i wrong?194.70.45.244 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but GW2 is a new game, it should be a fresh start for everyone. Just because you bought Proph CE dosen't mean it should carry over, If you like your divine aura so much, just play GW1 and enjoy it there. Besides, the code probably wouldn't be that simple to carry over as it is an entirely new game and likely will be coded differently considering all the changes from how GW1 worked. I know what i'm saying seems like I'm against the players who were there from the start, but when you get down to it a new game should be a new game, not something that holds onto remnants of an old one which makes an elitest "mightier than thou" player base who mocks those who didn't even know about Guild Wars until it was too late. Overall I think the HoM as it is will cause this to an extent, the last thing we need is yet another way for elitists to rub it in to the newbies that they're so epic. (For the record, I myself am an older player, having been around since 2005) Pariahtalk 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point, Im all for the new content, ideas and aspects GW2 will bring. Perhaps in a way I am being Elitist. Noooooo I hate myself more and more each second. And i didnt think about the new mechanics (jumping being one that springs out). And I aint missing GW2 for nothing... U can not has my Gold >.< Guess we will just have to sit and wait for the Beta and General Release. (Tries to make a Time machine to be able to play it) 194.70.45.244 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-order release slip?

Or have I missed something? --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. -- FreedomBound 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ups, excuse me. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Auction House

Anyone have any ideas if they plan to enable an in-game auction house? As the origional GW really lacked in the fact if you wanted to sell anything, you had to stand around for hours on end, hoping for a buyer. Chibot2000 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No such information has been released, else it would be on this page. Suggest it yourself in the Feedback portal if you'd like, but I've already seen it suggested at least once there. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Auction houses only result in "Flippers" and speculators who drive up prices on any kind of impulse item, while creating a "glut" of inventory for every other item leading to an even more massive Disparity between casual players and farmers. Auction houses generally only reward elitists while the current system of rewarding Impulse items (IE: the Zaishen Coin rewards put in earlier last year) is far superior for a "casual" game that is meant to be played casually. If an Auction system ever were to be put in place, it would need major limits on how many bids each account could place between any other account to prevent this Speculation as well as account-to-account hoarding. (I'm not saying price caps, I'm saying sales caps to KEEP competition FAIR). ...at which point it wouldn't even be worth the effort of replacing the open market already present in Kamaden --ilr 03:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important, when discussing auction houses, to remember that the game experience now is very different than it was two and three years ago. This is mostly due to how much smaller the current community is. It's easy to look at the current community and see how ad hoc free market selling works, because there are really only a few places where people bother to go to sell, and even in those places the selling is still manageable. I mean, you walk into LA or Kamadan today and there are both general discussions and selling occurring at the same time. But back in '06, there was a constant stream of text that was barely readable, and it was all selling. And this wasn't just true in LA and Kamadan, but all over the place. Yak's, Droknar's, Augury Rock, and practically every mission town in the game, they were all inundated with people trying to sell you crap or offer you services. We can certainly expect the same in GW2.

Having said that, I would be surprised if ANet didn't develop at least SOME way of better dealing with trading in game. Whether or not that's an auction house, who knows? But something needs to be done. (Satanael | talk) 05:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure an action house will be implemented according to post on the OFFICIAL site. and various interviwes which you should read up on. and secondly said implementaion will NOT have negative effect on the game, the constant stream of sales and services, although much better than it was a few yeas ago, still is extremly irritating. and with the new craft system it will be all the worse. with and auc house the prices can be determind by any sigle member at anytime so NO there won't be any elite ripping off of sorts as you spoke of, just as these flippers can raise the price a few people can come along and sell an item for much less simply to get it sold faster, or if he happens to have a great amount of the item still make a profit from it. and as in GW1 when an item becomes popular and many farms are instated the price of the item will drop so yes these game economys tend to ork itself out. i have no idea where you're spewing this filth from but you have no evidence to fall back on. and as it were, effecting the gw2 community into fearing the new changes when it is all for improvment.

Professions

I don't understand one thing. There is said on the page that: Professions will not be restricted based on the race, the developers hope to ensure that each race is effective at each profession. So, picture yourself this: a Norn and an Asura fighting against each other armed with a hammer. As it is said on the page : Different races will have different advantages and disadvantages; for example the norn will be able to shape-shift into a half-bestial half-norn form, with increased health and melee damage. While on the other hand The asura will possess strong magic and have the ability to control golems. How the **** is that going to help them if they have to fight a Norn with a hammer?

But even if it would help them, a Norn will squash the Asura in one hit, as we know that they are physically very weak. So Asura should get some sort of golem suit or somethig like it, in which they fight. But still, a human warrior would also never defeat a Norn. How do they want to solve that on a realistic way?

So, or the game is going to be very unrealistic (apart from the fact it is a fantasy game), or the idea should be dropped that an Asura warrior is as strong as a Norn warrior.

very well put, i don't understand how people playing a game with talking beast that shoot fire balls can't accept the notion that asura can beat norn.stop being so picky

Last of all, I do want to mention that people that are charmed by warriors, have a high chance of preferring a Norn appearance to an Asura one. So would it be a real nightmare if the profession are not as strong for each different race? F. C. Sauër 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

you speak as though you ran the beta for the game and you KNOW that everyoneone will want to be a norn warrior. people want to play difrent racs for diffent reason. i might play asura warrior becasue it will be amusing to be so small and take down huge beast. trying to say this as politley as possible but maybe you should stop speaking for the whole community.

You have astoundingly little ground to be griping about a gameplay system that hasn't even been shown to us yet. You're also doing it in the wrong place.

I personally think it'd be because of spellcasting while wielding a hammer, in your example, perhaps to buff attacks/armor, ala Fable. Who knows if it'll be as good as Fable was, but I'd love to see a combat system like that in a more modern game. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"a human warrior would also never defeat a Norn" -- Very first skill quest you're offered disagrees ...as for racial combat bonuses in general, my previous conclusions were archived --ilr 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the humans have courage! Remember, foolhardiness = muscles? Also intelligence = muscles. Oh, and don't forget that femininity = muscles. | 72 (UTC) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't lie 72. We all know humans are a weak, not to smart race that let's himself control by its emotions.

To Irl: That is true, but I looked to that quest and there is said in the dialogue: Then they go home and boast about how easy it is to defeat the "puny humans" in battle. This means humans are easy to defeat for them. The guys in Eye of the North couldn't. So, you have to do it. Of course it wouldn't be nice if you would always lose, so yes, they made that guy a pussy Norn. But come on, look the the Norn, and then to the humans. You will see yourself that that won't be a fair match.

Finally, I just want to mention this: Can you imagine a Mesmer Norn? I mean, come on. Norn are born warriors (or rangers in some cases). A spell casting Norn just doesn't look like a Norn. It will just ruin the idea of a Norn. F. C. Sauër 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice the huge irony in my post. Also, if you discount the whole Druid/Mystic element of the Norn, I think you're missing a lot. NOTICE THE HUGE IRONY IN MY POST. Also, if you know the world "boast" you might know something about exaggeration. NOTICE THE HUGE IRONY IN MY POST.

I made it clear for you this time. | 72 (UTC) 20:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

...but their #1 deity of STRENGTH IS a mesmer. --ilr 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did my comment just get ignored or something? Honestly.

"I mean, come on. Norn are born warriors (or rangers in some cases)." Lol, right, clearly. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the O.P. just has the wrong ideas and stereotypes in general about "Professions" and doesn't even realize that GuildWars never fully supported any of his misguided stereotypes. This isn't D&D or Diablo. Infact "Brute Strengh" in GW2 will be decided even more by TECHNOLOGY and Alchemy than by muscle or ancestry. As for the best Rangers, they've always been a product of Dexterity and Range, not "nature survival" or Stature. And no one has more dexterity than the Sylvari... and no one will have greater range than the Charr. (of course that doesn't you couldn't make a Human or Asuran archer team who does just as well...) --ilr 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Satisfy my curiosity here: which stress gets your point across more clearly, CAPS or italics? | 72 (UTC) 12:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ITALIC CAPS. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kyoshi, your post was just to good to answer. I still can't find a proper reply to that.

And sorry 72, no I did not noticed it. I find it difficult to notice that when it is written, and not spoken.

To Irl, yes, it is. But how do you know? He doesn't have any skills. I can change it to warrior there either. And then it is a warrior:P And if he is a mesmer, it is just a stupid mistake by Anet. Making a bear a mesmer, lol.

To Koyoshi again: Avarr the Fallen: Avarr is a Norn whose battles are fought without honor, so not really a Norn any more. Norn have honour. Hogni Truthseeker: Sure, you always got exceptions. Weaponsmith (Eye of the North): No profession at all. At least, not known. So it can be a warrior.

To Irl again: What do you mean with: The O.P.? And why do you link to Factions? I don't see the point of that. Last, Dexterity is no attributes of a ranger, Wilderness survival is. Range? There are shortbows, if you haven't noticed. That is still close range. So, where do you base your point on? On what information? But yeah, those points about the Sylvari and Charr are good. But apparently you still agree that not all professions should be as strong on each race, as you say: (of course that doesn't you couldn't make a Human or Asuran archer team who does just as well...). That is more then just one guy.

Last of all to 72 again: BOLD ITALIC CAPS will do best I think. :P F. C. Sauër 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I always worry that people won't notice it even when I make silly statements ("Femininity = muscles!"). Ah well.

Also, I see ILR also uses underline. So it's MEGA-EMPHASIZED! :D | 72 (UTC) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I didn't knew what Femininity meant and I was to lazy to go and find out. So I did now. Found out I that already knew it, but didn't looked to good at the word. So it looked far more difficult in my eyes:P And yes, you are right. Underlined bold italic caps will get the point most clear:p F. C. Sauër 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw it out there, and I'm surprised he hasn't been brought up yet. I have been waiting too long </3.--Elven Chaos 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you that underlined bold italic caps are OK, but not as good as THIS! -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"So, where do you base your point on? On what information? But yeah, those points about the Sylvari and Charr are good. But apparently you still agree that not all professions should be as strong on each race" -- #1: Prior to 2008, a GW2 dev specifically said that sylvari had the highest "dexterity" making them more adept with bows, daggers, and for some reason: magic too. #2: I didn't say some classes would be weaker as in general or overall, I said some classes may be situationally stronger at certain battlefield scenarios with regard to Solo or Team reliance similar to how paragons currently are "force multipliers" in big teams but awkward in smaller teams. --ilr 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I missed something on there site. But still, who says that Rangers always have been a product of Dexterity and Range? A trapper Ranger doesn't use range at all.

Sparky, you forgot the Italics! Shame on you:P F. C. Sauër 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Until we see the combat mechanics revealed next month(s), there's no telling if Traps will even be part of the game. (PvP'ers could just Bunnyhop through them without ever setting them off). And if they were included, who cares what Species you picked?...even the IMBA PvE-only skills we have in GW1 do almost nothing to help Trappers. --ilr 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was confused by the Profession section of the entry as it gives conflicting statements: Early on it states that a primary and a secondary profession system will be used, but later on it says that no secondary profession system will be used. ??? 74.79.132.108 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Straight from Flannum himself: "We included secondary professions in early versions of Guild Wars 2, but due to the unique mechanics of each profession and the increased role of race in character customization, they are no longer a feature of the game. We feel that this decision will allow us to create a more balanced game" ...and he's right. There's no reason at all for Assn's to be out-tanking Warriors WHILE at the same time out-damaging them in every part of end-game ... or Necros out-healing Ritualists... or last year, Rangers out-melee'ing Assassins as has been such standard fare in GW1. Why? B/c actually fixing those imbalances just results in larger nerfs to the primary classes and slaps on the wrist to the real abusers. This breaks that cycle --ilr 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Only 8 professions. Wonder what's going to be cut out. Hopefully not Dervishes :(

I don't think they'll be directly "duplicating" much of anything past Ele, Warrior, and Necro. Maybe Ranger. The rest will be reworked/recombined/improved/etc and won't be a direct port from the GW1 professions. I think that's a good thing, and hopefully it'll iron out some of the humps of the original design, like how 97% of the playerbase can't play a PvE Mesmer primary (i.e. no FC nukers), or run any Para besides Imbagon, and maybe remove the Monkie-dope syndrome to where you can actually play without one at your side 100% of the time. I'm also really glad to see dual professions gone, as that makes skill balancing about 1,318 times easier, minus some 50 or however many skills within that profession. Hopefully they can actually balance the game now, not chase the myth of it but never get there. Rose Of Kali 23:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

GW isn't GW without mesmers. :P They will obviously be changed in GW2, like everything else. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 23:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gamestop

Just was at gamestop. They have a release date for gw2 of 11/1/2010 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.207.136.87 (talk).

OMG...stop it. ...srsly --ilr 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You could also look up two sections. -- FreedomBound 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this is the 3rd time in less than 2 months we've had this same section. When was the last time a retailer was the first to accurately publish a release date? Has it ever happened? (Satanael | talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NCSoft Q3 results and GW2

I added information taken from the shareholders meeting for NCSoft from Q3 2009 that provided additional information on GW2 - specifically a public event likely taking the form of a closed beta in 2010 and the currently planned release for 2011. This information has since been removed from the "Release and Beta..." section of this article. Since this information is publicly available and clearly updates the timeline for GW2 over whats currently provided, I felt the information was relevant and should be included. If no one objects to the inclusion of this information as provided through ArenaNets parent company, then please restore it to the article. Otherwise, can we discuss so that I can understand why information from one shareholders meeting is included while information from another is not? Also, the notes from the Q4 2008 shareholders meeting is misrepresented in this article as the information, still available through the link provided, clearly indicates a release timeline somewhere in 2010 or 2011 with discussion on this data in the recorded conference call specifically stated that this timeline pretained only to "when a release date would be announced". Therefore I would additionally like to request that the q4 2008 shareholder information be updated to reflect what was actually communicated with that release and during its shareholders meeting. 24.188.207.20 04:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what happened. Someone had erroneously updated the Q4 2008 data as I indicated above. This change was not done by me as it seems to have been added during the January 29 2010 edit according to the version history. If no one objects to the information I added in my February 3 edit, please either restore or respond so we can discuss. 24.188.207.20 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look especially hard at what I was reverting back to as I thought it already included what you'd written in your edit. I've put your edit back in. Sorry for the confusion. --Aspectacle 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the information and for removing the the erroneous information about the Q4 2008 shareholders meeting. I figured that's what happened when I reviewed the version history however, I don't undo someone's edits when vandalism is involved as I'm a little paranoid about undoing too much. Much thanks! 24.188.207.20 03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Release Info Updated

I updated the release info section to include information provided in the Q4 2009 NCSoft report including reference to the release. 24.188.207.20 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Back Story

It's just a thought of mine that could make the game story more interesting. The idea is having Books that can be carried on you that has back story that you have read and has mission you've done. Just like they have now but with more pages, but when turning it in should have to do with chapters not pages. Example would be the Hero's Handbook, it gives you pages from the start. Those could open up like an extension of the chapter with pages to fill with talking to people or reading a book in the area. and so forth. Making it a little harder to fill up a full book. But this would be PvE based only. But this is just a thought. --Neji.B~ 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

this thought can't be used. If you're serious about proposing it then you need to read this: Feedback:Getting_started ...and move it to the proper place. Would you like it moved *for* you an explanation of how and where you should move it? --ilr 06:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

you know you want to do it, just go ahead. MAFARAXAS 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up. Due to copyright concerns, no one can move it for him, but Arenanet can't even read it here. Misery 09:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Customizable UI

I made a post about this in the suggestions for GW2 page, but I wanted to post here to see if there was any support for this. I don't mean just movable and re-sizable like GW1, but something closer to how WoW's UI operates. Not looking like WoW, but just the way they allow you to create custom scripts, windows, etc using XML and LUA scripts. Of course there would be restrictions to not automate game play, but I would love to see more customization in the UI. ~Farlo Talk 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Devs clearly said they want a faster paced simpler game that they can market to the Competitive FPS crowd (that last part explicitly stated in this latest interview) and if what they end up with is so slow or cluttered (in combat) that most players would even want LUA (instead of simple macros for weap switching or jump-attacking & crap) to automate it then they will have failed that goal. Copy Pasting scripts isn't how you measure skill. --ilr 06:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with UI customization. I have suggested it myself. And while custom scripts would be nice, it is too exploitable.However, I would say that UI modification as far as Texmod can do would be fine, and even widely accepted.--Kairu 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well he didn't mention anything about Texmod. ...But that was a community Mod and I wouldn't dare argue against it with Jette lurking about. Maybe Anet should just make it easier for Modders to access the UI source Instead? --ilr 08:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm basically talking about. Like in WoW, the addons cannot cast for you, cannot do anything physical for you, they just change how the UI looks and feels. There are addons which make windows bigger and less cluttered, show more info about items, create new action bars (if GW2 isn't limited to 8 skills again), map enhancements, damage meters, etc. Nothing that makes people better at playing. I'm sure there will be some clever bugger who finds an exploit, so they patch it and ban him :P. I have a couple friends who are into the whole FPS thing majorly, and I know that they love to customize their UI exactly how they want it. Also, there could be a whole new community for it. Not everyone would have to learn LUA. WoW has tons of forums and websites devoted to having a huge database of popular mods and scripts. ~Farlo Talk 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the appeal of this kind of modding, and agree that it would be a great thing to add. I also hope they DO add it. I just hope they add it in a smart way. --Kairu 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. It really enhances the game in WoW, and as long as they keep it fair and such, it should work very well, they can use it as a selling point, and it can create a whole new community within the gaem community, which they seem to be focusing. I know Texmod has done this already, and has fueled many forums, this wiki, and a couple guilds I've seen. ~Farlo Talk 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Inspiration

So GW2 got inspiration from runescapes easy to travel world system? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.2.58 (talk).

Thats Insulting.--Neil2250 , Render Lord 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol java-applet. Reaper of Scythes** 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What? - J.P.Talk 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I call shenanigans --ilr 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually when you do think about, most video games get inspiration from successful things. Although Runescape is insulting to Guild Wars, it does seem that the developing team is getting an idea from it. It sounds whack but think about it... -- WoB 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where there is any inspiration for this. Different things entirely. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it either, honestly. I mean, I played Runescape. What exactly was taken from Runescape? --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What is early in the year? *paste paste*

→ moved from Feedback_talk:Regina_Buenaobra

Anything before summer can be called "early". However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most companies in the gaming industry are notoriously bad at those estimates, so I wouldn't be surprised if "early 2010" turned out to be sometime next year. is for Raine, etc. 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If they really mean Late-Spring... then they need to change the faq to say Late Spring. Otherwise they have till the end of this month to deliver on their "Early next Year" promise from 2009. And I'll point out that it's only info on mechanics, it's not like they're starting a Beta or naming exact skill details... they're just supposed to tell us how we aim at a target (mmo click-on or fps aim?), if we can attack/cast while moving versus being rooted, and if there will be conditional stealth / sniping / critical / body-part stuff to make up for the smaller skill pool than we're used to in GW1. --ilr 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop considering what they post as promises for one thing. That is a misconception that you all continue to operate under. There are no promises in the gaming world. You will get the information when they are ready to release it and not before, no matter how much you whine and threaten and berate them for breaking promises. -- Wyn talk 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, is it okay for one to say one thing and do another so long as that thing is not explicitly made as a promise? Credibility comes from doing what one says they will do, from living up to their word. It is not exclusive to things preceded by the words "I promise". As long as ArenaNet says that they will do things and does not, their credibility will suffer for it. Is that unreasonable?

I agree that whining has shown to accomplish little (though, in some cases, it has been effective) and, as such, should not be encouraged. But expecting a person, a business, to do as they've said they would is hardly out of line. is for Raine, etc. 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting a variety of different factors, though. For starters, you have to realize when ArenaNet first said "We're making Guild Wars 2", the first question that came to everyone's mind was "When will it be finished?". Frankly, in such situations it's practically required to make a rough estimate in the time line, such an estimate that isn't set in stone in any way, shape, or form. ArenaNet provided a rough estimate as a way to provide satisfaction to curiosity, and nothing more.

Now, the second factor you're forgetting is the amount of time, and effort required for such a mass project. There's countless different unexpected problems that can result in further delays, and obviously, a later release. This is less true for games of the offline nature, where companies can provide an extremely accurate estimate of their completion time, and eventually as they near the end of their project, provide an exact release date. That being said, everyone knows an exact release date was never yet provided, not even close. Perhaps some blame should be placed upon ArenaNet for carelessly providing a rough estimate, and then not following up on it. But you simply cannot say "Well, you assumed it would be done now. Why isn't it?" When it's finished, it's finished. I'd agree more if they provided a "set-in-stone we'll-be-done-then" release date. But that was not done as of yet. Keep waiting, my god. patience is a virtue. Ryuu - talk 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How did this become about GW2 release date? This was supposed to be about a statement on the FAQ.--SirBoss 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thing while I was drying myself off with a towel and getting dressed, so I just read the last ~3 things. -nodnod- Ryuu - talk 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you need GWW rehab if you can't live without it while getting dressed... O_O Rose Of Kali 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the credibility factor, but at the same time, people keep talking about broken promises. These aren't promises, they were never promises, they are estimates. There are almost always going to be delays (we've seen it repeatedly) for one reason or another and so an estimated time frame for release of information has to be taken as just that, and estimate. To come here and start berating ArenaNet staff about breaking promises is just a foolish waste of not only their time but the op's as well. It only serves to stir up discontent. There are those in this community that seem to think that every word that is published by ArenaNet is somehow carved into stone and then when it gets delayed they show up here all indignant and self-righteous. I would think that anyone that is in any way familiar with ArenaNet would know by now that if they provide any sort of time frame, you should just add 3-6 months and then be super happy if it gets here earlier than that. As I said before, information will be released when they are ready to release it. Be happy when it comes and stop obsessing over it until it does. -- Wyn talk 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I could give a damn about credibility. This was PRODUCT ADVERTISEMENT. And in this land of capitalism, false advertising and un-met financial schedules hurts a lot more than letting down some insiderish fanboys(and fangirls). --ilr 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get all up-in-arms because someone's definition of a subjective-indefinite differs from your personal definition. In my books, "early" is 5:00 in the bloody morning. To some of my friends, "early" is 10:00AM, and 5:00AM is madness. — Jon Lupen 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, 5am is when I just go to bed... And it was not "product advertisement." Hell, I've never seen a single advertisement of GW, ever... Also, stating the obvious does not make me a fangirl, get off your box. I still find it interesting how many people demonstrate some sort of entitlement coming from what ANet said at one point or another. It is IMPOSSIBLE to give any kind of accurate estimate, so they just throw out a "goal" date, and in this business, more often than not these goals are missed anyway. It is only the final release date that has even a remote value in it and requires more thought than just coming up with a number, everything else is just to say something rather than saying nothing at all. On one end, people whine when ANet doesn't say anything, on the other they whine when ANet can't give them accurate information before it's physically possible to do so. Make up your damned minds. You're acting like you have thousands of dollars in ANet stock and it's about to go bankrupt. Rose Of Kali 09:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

...wait, you think there's any chance that knowing their own most basic skill functions & designs wouldn't be "physically possible" for them this late in development?? They've had since 2006 to start figuring it out... how much friggin leeway are you gonna give them? ..I wasn't calling you a fangirl
(but I'm almost tempted to now..) --ilr 20:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ilr, you can call me whatever you want, I really don't give a shit. As for it being product advertisement, hardly, it was on a FAQ page on their website as a hopeful estimate of when they might have more information to release. And you know what? People will just have to give them as much leeway as they need to get it right. It's very possible that they have decided to not release more detailed information at all because it would spoil the surprise. The fact that they were forced to announce the development of GW2 when they did because otherwise this spoiled, and bratty community would have been here screaming for the next campaign has been what has driven all of this angst to begin with. Most major video games take a minimum of 5-8 years to develop if not longer... ever heard of Diablo III? Development started in 2001, but it wasn't officially announced until 2008, and it's still not here. Give them a break and let them get it right. -- Wyn talk 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

the fuck cares about suprise? i assume people wanna know whether or not is it worthy to wait for the game - Wuhy 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And who exactly is waiting? I mean, there is nothing at all stopping anyone from going and playing other games while GW2 is in development, I mean, seriously Wuhy, do you really think that Diablo players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for DIII to be released? No, they are out playing Halo, or Aion, or whatever else catches their fancy and is available. The same is true for Guild Wars players. Even the most die-hard fans of Guild Wars are out playing other games. When GW2 gets released people will flock to buy it whether they are still playing Guild Wars or not. I'm sure there is no one at ArenaNet who seriously thinks that the success of GW2 depends on the current playerbase of Guild Wars, but rather on the overall success of their development (art, mechanics, etc.). They sold 6+ million copies of Guild Wars, I'm sure they will sell at least as many copies of GW2, probably many more as it is a very anticipated game. -- Wyn talk 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could we just stick to the topic of what's taking them so long to spell out the basic skill mechanics to us? This has nothing to do with a "polished" final product unless they're trying to build another Teaser video --ilr 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, constructive post. Thank you. Although, when did they promise any kind of communication on GW2? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will be releasing more trailers, and it would be foolish to not be working on one right now, but I wouldn't expect them to say anything ahead of time, or else, the way things are going here, they'll soon be sued for "false advertising" of a trailer that wasn't released "on time" yet again. :] Rose Of Kali 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

hah hah, nice hyperbole --ilr 23:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aw, how come you removed most of that post? I is sad. Rose Of Kali 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

b/c: A>I'm trying to cut back & B>the less Regina has to read, the sooner it might get answered --ilr 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of too late for this one, but then again, Regina has commented on longer things before. Short and to the point wins. Rose Of Kali 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

" I mean, there is nothing at all stopping anyone from going and playing other games while GW2 is in development, I mean, seriously Wuhy, do you really think that Diablo players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for DIII to be released? " did I say that? no. I'm saying that I don't wanna end up disappointed when it gets released, I wanna be disappointed now if I have to - Wuhy 13:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you already are, so why not just move on? And what's difference, now or later? Skill mechanics make or break the game for you? Rose Of Kali 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet since I don't know shit about the game. what's the difference? expectations add up the longer you wait for something therefore you'll be more disappointed with a crap game if you waited 10 years for it than one. pretty simple. to answer your third question: if you meant game mechanics then yes, what else? - Wuhy 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure the gameplay is going to make or break the game. is for Raine, etc. 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay and mechanics aren't the same thing. And at this point I'm not sure they can say enough about gameplay for anyone to decide once and for all if they'll love or hate GW2. As far as mechanics, I don't care that much about them, GW1 mechanics were relatively simple, and it was a great game. Any improvement on that (which we already know there will be a lot of) is icing on the cake that is the graphical and storytelling gem that GW2 is shaping up to be. Rose Of Kali 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

^that^ ...if they're wasting a bunch of time on a Teaser/trailer that doesn't tell us much about the actual mechanics but instead just showcases their biggest Eye-Candy skills... then they're goin about it all wrong ...That's not to say that ALL video clips are a bad format to disseminate details, some of them can pack a ton in technical details into a couple minutes without Anet expending any labor on them... --ilr 20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't mind Wyn, she's the resident Anet apologist. Never disagrees with anything Anet says or does - or at least she never allows us to see it - so she therefore comes across as the yes-girl that she more than likely is. If she isn't, then she should step down for a while from the sysop position. As it is, she's too close to the source to get a broader view of things. --173.65.15.183 02:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's because she's in a guild that doesn't suck and plays primarily pve, and therefore still actually enjoys the game. could be wrong ofc. –Jette 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wyn gripes too from time to time... maybe not enough by my standards... but it's immaterial to this topic so ignore the SockTroll plz and stay focused on the mechanics questions that really matter --ilr 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wyn openly disagrees with anet when they do something that she... openly... disagrees with. Go figure. is for Raine, etc. 08:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Gameplay and mechanics aren't the same thing."In my point of view, they are. graphics, story, music and whatever else can all suck as hard as possible as long as the game itself has a meaning, a reason to play for. look at starcraft. ppl still play it and I'd say its not because of the awesome graphics. - Wuhy 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things that GW1 is particularly famous for are the graphics and storytelling, which set it apart from much of the competition, and those also happen to be the things that got me so hooked. People still play tetris, so what? Explain what is this "meaning" you speak of and how it relates to the sentence you quoted? Rose Of Kali 13:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about what you like in the game. I personally like GW for its good game mechanics and suspect Wuhy feels similarly. GW is still the only MMORPG I know of with true prot that isn't just the old version of Life Sheath with tweaked numbers. I skip every cutscene, don't read any dialogue, barely know what my characters look like and don't ever explore the world. I'm not saying that is the only way to play and enjoy the game, but it is pretty narrow minded of you to think other people would not be interested in the mechanics. Misery 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that there's a lot more to it than mechanics. Some games "sell" on mechanics alone, but GW1 had more selling points that made it unique. But that's beside the point. The reason this thread blew up the way it did isn't about what matters more in the game, mechanics, graphics, or whatever else, but about how people accuse ANet of not fulfilling some perceived obligation and acting like ANet owes them something. I don't feel like that's fair to the devs, it's not like they're trying to sabotage their own game and income, but here we have all these people threatening of not buying GW2 if they don't get something they feel like they're entitled to right now. The attitude surprises me. Rose Of Kali 15:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

^You sure the reason it blew up isnt because you must reply to almost every post. While I respect your opinions. I dont think we need to hear every last one of them.--SirBoss 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

^With all due respect, this is going beyond the scope regardless, and I'd like to move the bulk of it to the Gw2 talk page where the discussion can continue with detailed references... Assuming there's no objections. I already looked it over, there's no suggestions here --ilr 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

While I won't be continuing, I'm all for moving this rabbit chase off of Regina's page, thanks Ilr. Rose Of Kali 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case you're someone who only discusses that which others are captive to reading through, rather than the introspective and intellectual guise you claimed above. ...how disappointing. What's fair to the devs is evidence. Evidence of whether they're holding up their own standards and claimed virtues. These are more than just goals. --ilr 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't try to claim or disguise myself as anything, sorry if you believed otherwise. What were you expecting? I just don't continue discussions where I personally don't see a point to continue. When I have nothing else to add, I stop. When something turns into a rabbit chase running off into multiple directions and losing any kind of coherence (from my point of view), I become disinterested in commenting further. That doesn't mean I won't read what others have to say, and possibly comment again if I see something interesting to discuss. Rose Of Kali 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered if people at A-Net read these conversations and just laugh? :D ~Farlo Talk 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all the time. Except why would they waste their time on this? Rose Of Kali 11:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)