Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive2

No Longer Guild Wars?

This is looking, so far, to be nothing like the guild wars as we know it, i know for one thing, the removal of instanced combat zones.. Why!? the main reason most people stay playing it is becuase of that, and becuase it's unquie, removing it will send it one step closer to being just like the rest of the MMO's around. mind you i have a negative veiw on most things. and simplifying skills? is that just trying to call us dumb? it's another good point of guild wars being removed.. but it honestly can't come back from that, it won't be guild wars.. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Redeem .

(1) Please sign. (2) Instances are not removed: there will be instances in GW2 as well. Persistent areas are added. (3) Don't have a negative view on most things. It's a sure way to generaly life dissatisfaction. (4) I'd like more info on how skills and professions will differ before making a judgement. For one, some professions are too specific in their uses to be viable as solo characters. Some professions are simply not valued in PUGs. If they fix both of these problems, and provide better balance, then that's good. I hope and believe that there will still be plenty of complex skills. Alaris 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't just tell them to sign, a lot people don't know how. To sign, use ~~~~ (see notes section below the "Save page" button and see GWW:SIGN). Use the {{unsigned}} template to tag their comment.

As for claiming that it's no longer Guild Wars, well, I would say that you're jumping to conclusions a bit too early. ArenaNet hasn't even released any concrete implementation details yet. Everything so far is just conceptual explanations and player speculations. -- ab.er.rant 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would someone poor imput sign their remarks? Anet is trying to mix what is good from persistent and instance gameplay, offering the best of both worlds, because some people like one, others like another, and most can enjoy both, so why choose when you can have it all. Simplified skills, I don't know how you drew that conclusion, the idea Anet is going for is fewer skills with better development and alternating function instead of hundreds of ineffectual and overlooked skills which have little to no use variation. This is a serious, very serious improvement, and not realizing is a personal weakness, not a projected failure by Anet. Anyone who likes GW1 the way it is, support continued play and expansion of GW1, stop wondering why a sequel is ambitiously evolving.--BahamutKaiser 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ab.er.rant, I always forget to tell them how to sign (ooops). Well explained BahamutKaiser. As an example, GW:EN has introduced far fewer skills than any other GW campaign, and yet, I find that a lot of those are interesting skills. Quality > Quantity. And I think that quantity was making the game unnecessarily complex, and game design also unnecessarily complex. Alaris 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What I would really like in Guild Wars 2 is removal of the team based system, and a permanent PvE-PvP split. I'm not going to yell at Anet right now for the messed up skill system they have made, but at least they could learn from their mistakes.

Would you care to specify what you mean by the "messed up skill system" and why the other suggestions are needed, as while it may be obvious to you, I did not think that any of those needed to be changed in such a way... -- Frozzen 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Level Cap

I don't really mind having the level cap raised, but if the level cap was made unlimited, I wouldn't be too happy. I mean, many people, including me, like Guild Wars because its not just one huge level grind and you can reach a level and be happy that you are done. But with an unlimited level cap, people would spend hours grinding away time and you would never really be satisfied because you would always know there is someone who is higher level than you. I would never feel ok knowing that no matter how many monsters I kill, no matter how many quests I do, I'll never reach the end. If the cap was made unlimited I would not bother buying GW2, and I'm pretty sure others feel the same way. It would be nice if someone at A-net heard this and took it back to the developers to consider the matter. Desi 07:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise that the unlimited cap doesn't mean that the game play benefits keep growing all the time. The actual beneits from leveling will be capped pretty soon if I understood correctly and the levels gained after that are just a way to show off your amount of experience. -- (gem / talk) 11:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

30 or even 40 would be fine but 100-unlimited...um...NO NO NO is A-net sirus

It's kinda annoying that we get one such section every couple of weeks... people don't seem to read the sentence after the "unlimited levels". Maybe it needs some rewording. -- ab.er.rant 14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well a simple nod at that section would have be sufficient, but then there are people who just seem to like undermining other people's intelligence. Desi 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that, I'm sorry if it felt like that to you. When reading and answering on the suggestion pges, gw2 pages etc I'm very neutral, but I guess it doesn't always seem like that when people feel that they and their ideas are attacked. Sorry.

And tbh the archives aren't that hard to access and topics on this are pretty easy to find. -- (gem / talk) 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've nodded to such sections before and frankly, when you've nodded and seen other people nod, the nodding itself gets annoying. I was more annoyed that we have to keep responding the same thing again and again than the people doing the asking. -- ab.er.rant 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the same questions are asked over and over after archive perhaps a talk page FAQ, or frequently made statements, section could be made to reduce the size of the page without loosing the essence of the conversations past? "Aren't they copying WOW now?" "I don't think it can be done without a subscription fee." "How are they implementing this unannounced bit of information...". If people are coming to the talk page without reading the main article it might catch a few questions... ? --Aspectacle 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that so many things are asked over and over again. It would basically be the main article page rewritten on the talk page and people would still not read it if they don't read the main article page. -- (gem / talk) 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't want to see a high/unlimited level cap EVEN if it is purely for show. Because the level 73 Monk is going to get invited to join groups a lot more often than the level 20 Monk. It's right there by your name: this guy has more experience than this guy! It would be detrimental to balance and the casual player. I'd rather see an XP title (either with levels or just XP: x,xxx,xxx). Let people actually ask questions of new players in their group to determine if he's qualified for the task at hand--not just assume he's level 20, he's a noob. — Cameronl (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that most people know to ignore the levels or titles. For example, a KoaBD is not more likely to get invited than someone without titles. Aside from rank discrimination in PvP HA. Lots of people regularly start new characters, so in the end there are lots of low-level characters played by players with more experience than lots of high-level characters. Alaris 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, except (if it's like GW1) you get 2 invites showing up in your party window with one spot left on the team and you have to choose which guy to take:

• Mo20 Joe Blow
• Mo73 Joe Schmoe

Some people will likely be nice and take the lower level or mix it up because they know it doesn't make a difference. But I bet the majority takes the level 73 and goes. — Cameronl (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, no Monks invite them selves to other partys. All they do is stand there for like 2 minutes & they're invited automatically :P.--§ Eloc § 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Bad example, too true. Make them W/Mo's then... — Cameronl (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But then again, I think in PvE it's likely to be a minor problem. I'd expect the class/race discrimination to be far more important, much like mesmers and sins get now. Alaris 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to judging books by the cover, one gotta have at least a full set of 15k armor to make it into my party, anything else and Id rather take a hero. Might sound a little judgmental but really any one who doesn't care long enough to get together 75ish thousands for a set of armor hardly will be a valued addition in the party, considering it takes a hell lot longer to get good at a profession then to farm together some cash. I am sure I will have same attitude when it comes to GW2, be it no one under level 100 or something close to it. Biz 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, your kind is relatively rare in GW universe. Discrimination based on armor... Do you shout: "GLF more, Norn or FoW armor minimum"? Alaris 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty wwird way anyway since I get my armor based on looks, not cost. And I happen to love the Luxon 1.5k female ranger set more than anything and use it quite frequently even though I could afford Obsidian armor for her. -- (gem / talk) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have 6 PvE characters, one of which is People Know Me, and another is close to having the HoM full. But (1) I'm using almsot all my money on that one HoM (then will build another), (2) I tend to go for looks rather than prestige, and (3) I'm not planning to build the HoM for every character, so prestige armor on every character is moot anyway. As a result, you'll rarely see me in prestige armor, even though I'm no newbie. Alaris 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What I was implying is: When I am presented with a choice of party members Id go for the one in expensive armor, before I look at his skills, just to suggest something completely different, not that picky when options are limited. Thus if I do and will judge others by the armor they wear or the amount of time they spent getting it, Others do too, so visible unccaped levels will also be a perimeter that is to be compared. Biz 07:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What I've noticed in my 25 months of playing, is that most people will ask you to ping your skills and that's about it. They never check out my Obsidian armor or any of my title. Just mainly my skills.--§ Eloc § 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When I first got to KoaBD, I tried using that to get into PUG's. "LFG - KoaBD Paragon". I got shut down for sounding arrogant (although that was not the intent) and show-off, and it actually hindered my chances of getting into a group. Alaris 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I don't think I'd do something like that. I mianly just mainly say LFG E/Mo20.--§ Eloc § 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, just lie how almost no-one wnats to be a paladin, and if one wants to join your party, but there's also a derv who wants in, you go for the derv.

Umm, you sure you got the right game there buddy? Paladins are in WoW I believe.--§ Eloc § 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Paladin = W/Mo — Cameronl (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense.--§ Eloc § 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sure Paladin was name of W/Mo Healing Hands pvp template way back. Biz 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ya, I remember them. I saw them alot in AB. I never understood why they were so useful as it didn't last long.--§ Eloc § 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When you take a "Paladin" that has the three u suck skills (must have all of them to be the "you suck!" skills):!.Sever Artery, 2.Gash (see where im going?...and 3.Mendi...MENDING?!...KICK HIM IMMEDIATELY!

Most wammos know that all that will get you is this: u gonna heal ur self with ur MENDING?? huh u @$%#'in wammo??! huh? (a guy seriously did that to me...i didnt use mending..) I made the stupid descision of becoming a wammo. The worst part is...i cant change my profession yet...--Raph 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GuildWars 2 BETA

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Hey Gaile! I'm wondering if there's going to be a beta test for GW2, or if theres any way to get into it right now (if it already started =o). I know nothing of how to enter/be eligible for the test, but I'd really appreciate it if I could get some details. Thanks beforehand :D

Na, they only beta test expansions. --Deathwing 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This isnt gw1, im sure they will beta test gw2, i hope --Cursed Angel 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm? I think the original Guild Wars (Prophecies) had an open beta? At least there's alot of screens around from that time. And I think Gaile have said earlier that an open beta for GW2 is possible but not confirmed :) - anja 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TO be honest, ANet would be weird if there wasn't an open BETA - for online games, there just always is :P. It won't be for ageeeees yet though, so I'd stop worrying about it ;) Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They refur to a Beta test of GW2 in the newsletter signup on the website, I just do not remember the excact spot. Just look around the main Guild Wars website, it's there:D Devi Talk 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The beta will most likely be public. The alpha test will be the invitation only one, and they do not accept requests to join the alpha. Drago 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is too bad, because I really want to apply! But at least this time we have an excellent game to play in the meantime. purple llama 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I join the Alpha test?

well the answer to whoever didnt sign there question up there is... a while back arena.net was lookin for people who spoke fluent german or french or somethin, i dont quite remember. anyways they were lookin for people who spoke fluent in a second language to be in the testing for GW2. but i think thats the only way to do so. :( or you have to work for them.Fumetsu 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They've revealed (can't remember source) that alpha testers are mostly employees, their family members, their friends and some trusted people that have been in the alphas of the original game. -- (gem / talk) 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd sentence, first paragraph - "Guild Wars 2 is expected to go into beta test in the second half of 2008." — ク Eloc 貢 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

God, a whole year until i can be a charr :( --Cursed Angel 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pet Stables?

Anymore info on this?errr, how do you sign again?o.o User:The gw fan

Check out this for pet stables info in GW2 - [Frog Talk] Barinthus 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct link is [this] (Sorry, I'm not confident enough at editing the wiki to change your post at risk of messing it up so I made my own). Frozzen 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Frozzen, thanks for reposting - I didnt realize I entered it wrong.  :) Barinthus 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GW2 FAQ

It seems to me that we're getting a lot of the same questions. It might be worthwhile building a FAQ, with different categories (profs, races, features, beta, release dates, etc). We could have a lot of those questions clearly state: "No official word at this time." and fill them in as info becomes available. Alaris 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As Gem said when I suggested the same, the page as it stands currently has all of the information we have about Guild Wars 2 which has been published somewhere interesting or said by someone of some official capacity, there isn't much more that can be said on the topic. I don't mind seeing the same data in a different format - a more living document than the current one, if only to structure it so we can capture the common questions and make it clear we know nothing more. If it helps User:Aspectacle/GW2FactSheet is what I used to update the page last. There hasn't been any serious new information for a while. --Aspectacle 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's really neat. If I feel like it, I might combine the info and rearrage it into a new FAQ-style document. Is it OK if I steal your page for that? Alaris 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do. :) Caveat lector - I'm not sure that some of the assumptions and possible poor reading of the setting text is good for public consumption. --Aspectacle 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of a FAQ is to give quick answers, and redirect towards more detailed sources when necessary. Anyway, we'll update the FAQ as necessary to appease the masses. Alaris 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2/FAQ --Aspectacle 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it a lot, it's perfect right now, with the exception of some typos... The only suggestion I have now would be to add an FAQ link at the top of the GW2 page, so that people who are unaware of the FAQ and come to the page would be able to find it and see if their question is answered there. Frozzen 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a link, but I don't know how to make it look like an internal link because of the / in it. Someone help pls. Alaris 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and reworded. -- ab.er.rant 16:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Alaris 16:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Level Cap

What is the level cap for GW2 i think if it is infinite the whole game would be completely unbalanced

The level cap would be either infinite or 100, but the benefits from levels (attribute points, etc.) would stop at some point, and the higher levels would just be for prestige. Calor — talk 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

infinite? level 1337 would be cool.--Cursed Angel 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure that they have only proposed 100 and no cap as level caps, but I'm pretty sure that they have not yet set what it will be... Frozzen 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are people so fixated on the lvl cap IMO they should just leave it as it is in GW 1. People are so primitive they are used to old school stuff high lvl cap much grind. This is just how i think of lvl cap leave it @ 20 in GW 2 it worked in GW 1 why not in GW 2. Cult Mephisto

im only gonna make one char in gw2 so for me its fine, im getting to the max level anyway without grinding, but for now we're level 20 when we've completed like 1/5th of a campaign, for them to make a game much like wow they'll need a higher level cap so that they can make areas harder with monsters on higher level than 30. --Cursed Angel 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I say: lvl cap:100, lvl when you stop getting benifits:50, half 'n half *Watch where you fling those apostropihes!!*...--Raph 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I'd be fine with the level where you stop getting benefits being equal to the level cap would be fine (if the level cap is not infinite), so long as it works like the current attribute points system... not only do you have a greater amoung of points (or, in this case, levels,) between upgrading your skills, but this upgrade gives only the same increment as all increases below it... So that way someone who was level 100 would have only a slightly higher dps than someone who was level 80 or 70 or whatever... -- Frozzen 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you looking forward to most?

I decided to create this thread because while I do see a lot of people suggesting things, I'd like to see what really matters to people and what would just be nice to have... So... Here goes: What aspect of Guild Wars 2 are you looking forward/hopeing for? Sorry that I don't have an answer right now, I need to think >.> Frozzen 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GWWiki is a wiki, not a forum, but its late and I don't feel like correcting atm, so...The thing I'm looking forward to is the expanded level cap, and the persistent areas. Calor — talk 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was intending to have this be a sort of compilation of the above articles, most of which deal with personal preference, and I was trying to see what actually mattered to the GW community, as opposed to "I'd like this but it's not needed"... In addition this could be useful for topics on the FAQ... If that still isn't a good enough reason to post this, let me know and I'll remove it... Frozzen 03:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm most looking forward to simply seeing exactly where they're going to take the game. I want to see what the unique Guild Wars twist is going to be on all of these MMO standards - like persistence. Guild Wars is referenced all over the place by game reviewers for being a gold standard for things like instances and what you can do with no subscription fee I'd love to see Guild Wars 2 to continue on and cut new ground like that. --Aspectacle 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Aspectacle, I'd have to add now that my favorite thing is going to be the ability of PvE characters to be viable PvPers, and also the merger of the two types of combat via things like the large-scale battles in World PvP, as well as more open and diverse PvE... Frozzen 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The character changes sure sound like they have promise, it is a good idea to just let players play what they want with the characters they have. I think World PvP could be really cool. I liked playing Fort Aspenwood/Jade Quarry when there were enough players to play - I hope they've learned some lessons from them. I'm interested to learn more about the rewards for World PvP and how they're going to impact PvE play. I don't really want to see another 'Favor of the Gods'. --Aspectacle 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm most looking forward to the dynamic of skills doing different things under different circumstances. The example I think I heard once was talking about how a fire spell would do one thing while standing still, aiming at a single target, another if you're surounded by targets, and still another while running or jumping. To me this brings a whole new level of possibility and discovery to the game that I'm really looking forward to seeing.

Another aspect I'm really looking forward to is a persistent pvp world with long lasting battles that you can come in and out of. Personally, I consider myself a more casual player, and not having the pressure of having to know exactly what is going on and immediately how to approach a given map/game in pvp will really attract me to pvp more. One of the reasons I like pve so much is I can just go anywhere and just kill things without having to really think too hard about it. But even with AB or something like that, if you just jump in and kill things, you're "ruining" it for the whole team. If I were really into pvp, I would really like the necessary strategy required to do well, but sometimes I just want to kill people, and I think a persistent pvp world would go a long way to offering both of those possibilities in the same arena. (Satanael 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Any new info?

Have there been any new articles or info on GW2 since the dev corner thing? -- Frozzen 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any new articles or interviews. I suspect if anything significant comes out there will be a flurry of cross-posting like with the imagining article so it'll be hard to miss. --Aspectacle 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Worried about the Difference

I like the sound of an open world for everyone to explore but what if this turns into another game like Rs, you know you all alone in an area killing things one minute then everyone and their pet showes up and pushes you out of the way? Is that what we'll be seeing in GW2? Can you imagine running through the Shiver Peaks not having to actual worry about monsters because of the mass number of people out there distracting them from you? I play GW because i dont have to worrie about those kinds of things

Also what about creature spawning will they just fall out of the sky and kill you why your not looking because the area was safe one when you got there, or will the creatures force their way through the players to get to the area they should be in?

Once an area is clear of monsters what will happen then will they converge on the location to retake it or will they just randomly pop out of god knows were like in most open world mmorpgs?

Will guild wars set a new defined line in MMORPGS and stand out like it does now or will it just become yet another name on the list of WoW wanabes? Or worse end up like Rs!

It feels like What you expect in GW is for it to become another run around and kill things game rather than having an actual point like it has now.

The point is will we still be playing Guild Wars or just another game? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Dreynor the mad .

Speak for yourself, GW2 sounds like a new experience to me maybe because GW1 is my first MMO and the only one and I think GW2 is going to be a great game. I don't know if i'll be playing GW1 still if GW2 turns out great or bad, because there's no new content coming to GW1 thereafter.-- Mepp 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to sound exasperated, but so many similar "worries" or "no WoW please" sections keep popping up with more or less the same concerns brought up all over again. I think ArenaNet can be trusted to know what GW players like. And as I keep saying, without any concrete info on the game itself, it'll all just be wild speculations. Wait a while longer. -- ab.er.rant 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

World will be more persistent but It will never become RS, so you don't need to worry. Whole point of GW is to Fix or remove problems of other mmorpgs, little or no grind for items and skills, no kill stealing, scamming etc. Biz 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Move to GWW2

I oppose; I think there should be an article with some general info about GW2 on this wiki. For more detailed info people should be refered to the GWW2 site. --Jill Bioskop 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't keep articles on the Guild Wars games on GW2W, so why should we do the same the other way around? There's no reason why an interwiki redirect wouldn't work just as well - if not better - than maintaining two lengthy articles on two wikis. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the article here should be *much* shorter than on the GW2 wiki. Just the bare minimums, and redirects for more info. Alaris 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alaris. Something like "Guild Wars 2 is the sequel to the current Guild Wars series. It will be based 250 years in the future of Tyria. Many improvements are to be made to the style of gameplay andplayer interaction. The game is expected to go into beta in the latter half of 2008, with an expected release date in 2009/2010. For more detailed information, see GW2W." would be sufficient imo -- Brains12 • Talk • 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brains' suggestion. If it is all on the gw2w it means we only have to look after one copy. --Aspectacle 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what I was saying? And @Santax: what's keeping you for creating a small page on GW2W about GW with a link to this wiki? --Jill Bioskop 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Playing style of GW2

Yes, I know, countless other questions were asked and anwsered with "we will not give information yet". Yes, I know, countless other questions and whines are about "no WoW please" and "persistent world, wtf?!". But this one's different!

What I was wondering for a while now: What will GW2 playing be like? Same concept as GW1? Meaning, 8 skills and limit to party size? Or more like, here's a few dozen skills, train the skills, and just spam them away? I really hope we will stick to the concept of GW1. It just wouldn't feel right if my only skills needed would be Healing Breeze and Flare, which can be upgraded to do more healing/dmg on later lvls.

I hope this was the right spot to ask this, and I hope one of the devs will glance around here.

Excuse my english btw, I'm trying to explain as clear as I can >< BlazeRick 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As of now there is still no word about it but i fully agree with ya there look im not saying or whine about it but i also hope that it won't be another MMO clone in total.

I fell in love with GW course it what different no endless Grind/Farm for the Uber Ultimate Sword of World slaying what can be bought on E-bay for 1000 dollars and Armor just so sure it takes some effort to accumelate the funds but thats OK and Instance just love it im not irritated by screaming kiddos who want to be leet or some people who think im a Mob and kill me so that they feel good. Cult Mephisto

They confirmed (somewhere) that there was no plan to change the 8 skills, 2 professions model which GW players have come to love. As for team size, I really don't know, but most likely it will depend on the area itself. World PvP and some persistent areas for example will probably be you and lots of other random people, but I'm willing to bet that instances and missions will work pretty much the same way as it does now. Thing of GW2 as GW1, with lots of things added. Alaris 16:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear that. Ty. BlazeRick 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What worries me the most is the World PvP itself i do no wish to be forced to PvP if i don't won't to. As far if i read it you can come to each others real to claim it. SO if that i true i'm not buying and/or playing. Cult Mephisto

I believe I've read that PvP will be opt-in in all cases. Even if I haven't, it's a safe assumption -- most mass-market online games are opt-in PvP, and of course GW1 was opt-in. —Tanaric 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved

this: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Guild_Wars_2#Playing_style_of_GW2

Yes, sorry, it's another question about GW2, but I'm so eager to get an answer. I hope that you or someone else from the devs could get me an answer on this. (answer is spelled right, right?) BlazeRick 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She isn't answering any questions about Guild Wars 2. This time isn't any different. Sorry. Drago 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, it was to get any dev's attention, not just Gaile. Gaile was just the 1st one who popped to mind, cus idk what ppl of the devs on the GWW do, besides Gaile, Andrew Patrick and Izzy. And if Gaile couldn't do anything with this, maybe she could send another dev to this page. But, I felt this was a very basic question which decides the main judgement for a lot of GW players. But, I have some responses now which I like and was aiming for. So, no worries. BlazeRick 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, and this is the same thing I've read along with dozens of GWFanboys and girls that they are changing how many skills you can bring, although the essence of the skill bar of GW1 will not be ignored. There will still be a limit as to how many skills you can bring. As far as how it actually plays, well I'm guessing even the devs have not come up with the exact details of how GW2 will really be. It's just too early to tell. I'm sure beta will come at the end of 2008. It's just too early to tell. Renin 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Names

I would like to know if anyone has information on whether or not we will still be forced to use more than one word/name as a minimum requirement when naming our character during the creation process? Personally, that was an irritating aspect I'd never encountered in an MMO before and would like the option instead. --Blackworm 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more realistic though, most entities have two names. Like Bob Smith. Drago 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't supposed to be realistic. Its a fantasy realm. Should be able to have names like Gandalf and Merlin, instead of being forced to have Bob Gandalf and Merlin Smith. Sadie2k 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they were Gandalf the Grey / or White and Merlin Ambrosious if my memory serves me correctly.Lithane 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's "realistic" should not matter (and we have a lot of real cultures that don't use the more commonly adopted <first name> <last name> convention). I found it funny that there's such a rule as well (even though I personally would still use two words), despite a lot of fantasy characters with single-word names, especially in short stories and in the no-idea-who-I-am sort of stories. And technically, it shouldn't make a difference if there's a space or not. A longer minimum length per word would be a better idea than enforcing more than 1 word (if this was originally conceived to discourage short names). -- ab.er.rant 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they should keep the naming system, but change it so that during quests and missions the text when someone talks to you only says the first word of your name, I was getting tired of Master Togo saying my first and last name, but only the first name of the other allies and henchmen. Talon (Silverwing) for example. It makes you feel more into the game, like the characters actually KNOW you. -Keitaro --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.168.226.150 (talk).

Move proposal

It's too big for me to import, so a proper move would need to be handled through Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for technical administration. -- Gordon Ecker 09:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just trim this article down to a brief paragraph about GW2 which mentions the Hall of Monuments and what can and can't be carried over. -- Gordon Ecker 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as long as there is no "normal" Main Page there I would suggest to leave this article as it is for now. After a good Main Page has been made which provides easy access to most information then we can trim this article down. Right now navigation on GW2W is not that ... "obvious". --Jill Bioskop 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, As I've just done a search for 'Guild Wars 2' in Google and this page claims top spot. It'd be a shame to jeopardise that until the gw2 wiki can challenge it. :D --Aspectacle 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tech Specs

I understand that the requirements will be higher.

Speculation::

If my current video card 945GM intel (kill me now) works with GW, do you suspect it'll work with GW2? 69.224.46.164 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tough question, for which there is no answer at the moment. I know that your chipset and integrated graphics aren't really made with gaming in mind. What sort of settings are you running GW on at the moment? If already struggles with or is set at low or low-medium settings on GW I'm guessing you'll have problems. But as there is absolutely no real information on specifications or technology requirements speculating is a bit unproductive. --Aspectacle 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's another 2 years until GW2 comes out. Who knows what kinda PC you have then? BlazeRick 13:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I run GW @ all high settings and it runs like a gem, kamadan dis 1 amer loads up in 2 seconds. In two years, I will have the same PC. I'm a college student, we use cheap laptops :( 69.224.154.64 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope if you run GW sweetly on high settings that you'd be able to play GW2 with the same computer, just maybe with lower settings! It's been said that gw2 will run on computers with moderate specifications so, as computers seem to be getting redundant slower these days I think you're in with a good shot (if you really do have that computer in two years ;). But you'll have to wait and see. --Aspectacle 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're that worried, start saving for a computer/better computer parts now, and in 2 years you might have a great comp lol --Hawk Skeer 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, really. I got this computer recently for roughly $350, and with a $50 video card and $35 stick of additional RAM it runs games like Oblivion and Half-life 2 with all settings on high. So in one or two years, ya, you'll definately be able to find an affordable PC for Guild Wars 2 (GW is already noteworthy for looking extremely good while demanding very little, and I imagine GW2 will be the same). --Cjad the Nord 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PVE: Whats Guild Wars 2 add/change?

Does anyone know if Anet has released any information on the PVE aspect to the game? Do we still have heroes? etc --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:House Of Furyan (talk).

No. Don't know. No etc. And if you scroll up or look at Gaile's talk page, you'll see the same answers over and over again. -- ab.er.rant 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually to your specific question (and some related areas) they have given a response. You will be able to have one hero-like person called a companion with you, and they will not take up a party slot. People who choose not to bring a companion will be buffed so they are not at a disadvantage. I also remember reading (I can't find a source for the following right now) that they will make all the professions in GW2 (whatever they include) more well rounded so that each will have a similar potential for solo/group work. -- Frozzen 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... yes, it's right there written in the article. -- ab.er.rant 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for that. Sorry, I read a couple of articles but they must not have sunken in or something, am getting confused with all the PVP talk 203.173.225.42 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Beta

When will the Beta of gw2 be released and how will it work???? (81.77.67.238 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

There is little information about this at the moment. Jeff Strain has said the beta test will be public and they're fairly confident to start it in the later part of 2008. That's about as much as we've got. No information on numbers, how to sign up or exactly when. --Aspectacle 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)