User talk:63.106.124.254

→ moved from User talk:Bobby Stein

Ascalon

I know the Charr have it at the beginning of GW2, but at some point, will humanity ever reclaim Ascalon? We should, since we were given so little time there in GW1 before the Searing. It wouldn't be right to not get it back at some point. --63.106.124.254 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be right? It was the Charr's to begin with, and it isn't like humans won't be able to go there in GW2 (at least, I hope humans and other races can). Besides, isn't this a huge spoiler? It would ruin the story if humans took back at least a portion of it. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't ruin the story. Anet owes us this, after giving us so little time in Ascalon pre-Searing in GW1. Going there and having it be your own are two different things. There's room east of the Shiverpeaks for both humans and Charr, with the ruins of the great wall as the dividing line. --63.106.124.254 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Humans and Charr hate each other too much to live as neighbors. Working together to be rid of the dragons is one thing, but living together is another thing. Perfect example: Kurzicks vs Luxons. Both times Shiro became a threat, they worked together, but both times after his death, they go back to fighting. Even though one side wants peace, the other doesn't. The Charr/Ascalonian (what is left of Ascalonians) relationship is even worse. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why part of the agreement would be to give the other races the right to intervene if the peace is broken by either side, if either side attempts to move beyond their side of the wall. --Axwind 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*As I said to this on the GW2Guru thread about this (which was made by the same person) - The Ascalonians gave up their homeland, except those at Ebonhawke, the Norn won't fight against the Charr, the Sylvari would join either side just for the experience, Asura would probably stay out overall, and the Charr and Humans hate each other too much to live together. All of Ascalon is controlled by the Charr, except for Ascalon City and Ebonhawke. It's virtually impossible for the humans alone to take back half of the Charr's land, which has at least one major town.

Now let us think about this game mechanically. If somewhere in the storyline, Ascalon is returned to human hands - What happens to the new charr players? They will start in human controlled lands? What about the players who haven't gone through the storyline? In a persistence, this cannot occur without game mechanic issues.

Last note: If Ascalon ever goes back into human hands (which I see no reason why it should, humans have Kryta and the land was originally Charr homeland anyways), it won't happen until at least after the events of GW2. Meaning GW3, if there will be one, or just any game or book based after any and all games of GW2. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You forget, in a story, ANYTHING is possible. All it takes is taking the story in the direction that leads to the destination. The Norn would help the humans IF evidence of Charr duplicity against them were uncovered and their sense of betrayal from the Krytan queen dealt with, and IF the humans proved themselves first in other ways. THE ALLIANCES WITH THE NORN AND THE OTHER RACES HAVE TO BE EARNED. Understand that. I know they won't just be given. And no, humans and Charr would not live together, they'd live in their own regions east of the Shiverpeaks, not really mingling much, Charr north of the wall, humans south of it. And gameplay-wise, the system can be designed to work with such changes, using dynamic towns/outposts or another method, with the ability to switch between versions when a player wants to, and also, Kryta is too flooded and divided to be a good homeland for humanity. A green, growing Ascalon would serve that purpose much better. And you can't say when the reclamation will happen, as you don't work for Anet and are not privy to the complete story. So don't presume to do so. --Axwind 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... He never said that he was privy to ANet's design plans; he's merely pointing out that in a world which is a persinstance (or, a persistent instance) it's very hard to make an area which was once Charr-controled become Human-controlled in the middle of one person's storyline simply because THEY completed some quest and the people around them didn't. What your ideas fail to recognise is this idea of a persintance: you CANNOT allow what ONE person does to chance the landscape dramatically for EVERYone, because that just isn't feasible. What you're proposing would result in the landscape changing back and forth so many times so rapidly that it would probably crash whatever servers ANet chose to erect. Again, let me make this clear: in GW2, there are no outposts, no instances (except for dungeons), NONE of the unique style of map play we have come to expect from GW1. The designers have already told us that it's going to be one solid, continuous world (think Runescape, World of Warcraft, Perfect World, etc.) which means many people on the same server in the same place all seeing the same thing. Perhaps when one beats the game that individual person sees a cinematic in which land changes hands (as Azazel was suggesting), but beyond that nothing is really doable on a large scale. It'd be NICE if it was possible, but I just can't see how they would do it. -- Timeoffire45 rawr 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps via their new event system, I don't know. But as we don't yet know what all the new engine is capable of, we can't really say at this point what it can or can't do. --63.106.124.254 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The gods and GW2

I hope that, this time around, you'll not go the same, tired old route with the gods that fantasy stories always seem to go, ie the Roman/Greek mythology model. I understand the GW gods are in place, but that doesn't mean they can't be presented differently this time around. You've made it known that in GW2 you want to tell a different kind of story. Here's an opportunity to help do that. For once, let the gods of GW2 be gods. Not just superhumans with limited scope and a lack of influence and power. Do away with the typical anti-god motif so prevalent in many fantasy stories, and instead allow faith in the gods in GW2 to be seen as a source of strength, not weakness. Allow another point of view to be for once presented, instead of the typical "humans must be faithless to win" theme. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive in real life, and that should hold true in GW2 as well. The gods, in GW2, should be allowed to be gods. --63.106.124.254 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a suggestion, and suggestions are not really allowed to be read by the Arena Net staff thanks to license issues. Your point is also not exactly clear, given how you are talking about two different things (the Greek gods were limited in scope, yet they were known for blessing their champions and rewarding faith). Erasculio 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, remove the limits to their scope. Let them be gods. In the time of GW2 (and from what I know of EOTN), the view of them has been less than complimentary. Gods don't come or go, they simply are. I doubt they ever really left the world of GW, they just no longer manifest physically. Yet the story would have us believe they are less than what a divine being should be. Fallibility is not part of the divine. Mortal beings should not be able to do a thing to them, yet we are able to "kill" Abbadon, so to speak. That should not be possible. At best, mortals should be able to deal with the physical manifestation, nothing more. But a real god is not merely physical, nor can a real god be surpassed. For once, portray divinity as more like what it really is, as opposed to the traditional portrayal. --63.106.124.254 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You have what I like to call "Monotheistic thinking" - The only gods which are "all powerful" and "immortal" are the monotheistic gods. Any and all polytheistic gods have limits and can be killed. Gods are one of several deities that preside over some portion of worldly affairs. The GW Gods does this perfectly. Extreme power only in their worldly attribute. If you want to look at it a different way, then it is the monotheistic god which is inaccurate. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, just different. I was just saying that GW2 could take a different approach with the whole thing, given that they want to tell a different kind of story. Just because, storywise, there are multiple gods, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to follow the polytheistic rules. --Axwind 00:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is just me and Kerrsh, but multiple beings that are all powerful yet some stronger than the others seems.... paradoxic. How could all powerful beings be supplantable and defeated by other gods? -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said they could be. But as GW1 followed the traditional model, there isn't much that can be done there. However, with GW2, there are new opportunities. All it takes is writing the story in such a way as to take advantage of those opportunities. --Axwind 13:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)