User talk:83.178.101.228

GW -> GW WoW 2?

→ moved from Talk:Guild_Wars_2#GW_-.3E_GW_WoW_2.3F

you have been following what anet are saying/watching vids right? and not just assuming this from reading one interview or hearing it from a friend.--112.213.148.35 03:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if GW2 =/= WoW2?, WoW is better than GW in almost every way; aside from graph. and subscription, GW2 =/= WoW2 is a *GOOD* idea. --Neil • 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't make this obvious trolling any bigger, or it will get moved... --ilr 22:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty worried myself. First the hint that handicapped players will be screwed into being forced to try to use pre-windows|pre-mouse|1980's style keyboard movement, the addition of guns, dropping secondary professions, no heroes......next you'll say you did away with assigned drops? [Remember these guys? Do all the hard work and some pug runs up and grabs your drops?] I am NOT looking forward to GW2, seems the bnet bandits have bonded with their former buddies and the new wow|gw2 are one and the same. Too bad too, GW1 was really innovative, what the "players" wanted, and a real step ahead...so why the sudden back-step? Why the sudden degradation of something that should've been the next step forward? A further reduction in skills and and less control over their usage? Open instances where others can pop in and out? These guys are flashing back to D2. I am actually very concerned. What happened to progress instead of digressing? And you want to charge $60 for less? I am not amused. I shall check it out, but am set up for disappointment. GW1 still has so much more to offer. And yet it is just being tossed away for what? wow2? And why call it "Guild Wars 2"? That "implies a continuance, you carry your characters over to the new realm, whether by asuran gate or whatever. This is NOT GW2, it is GW new. It is not a continuance, you MUST start all over yet again [after 5 years of investment into your characters and all that effort and in-game money - for what? to throw it all away?] ...it needs a realistically new title: guild wars new, guild wars future.....not a misrepresentation of a continuance of all of your hard work by dropping a number 2 on the end. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Oliasys (talk).

You clearly haven't been keeping up with the news if you're concerned about even half of those things; I can't even tell if you're trolling or not. Don't have a clue what you mean by "handicapped players will be screwed", first off.

Guns were invented, yeah. 250 years of time will bring you that sort of technological advancement, and with magic it'd be even easier. They already had cannons and gunpowder, so this is not a big leap for that time frame.

You know secondary professions are the reason Shadow Form could solo practically everything in the game, right? This is why they changed that and instead made professions able to interact with each other's skills, and made each profession very unique but with many ways to play it.

Heroes didn't exist before NF, but you held your faith in the game for a few years until then, didn't you? It's an MMO, so play with people.

Drops are assigned. Or rather, everyone who participates in killing something gets experience and a shot at drops.

"A further reduction in skills" Because having over 1500 skills in a game, half of which are useless, is a bad thing. "less control over their usage" Dunno where you get that idea.

"GW1 still has so much more to offer. And yet it is just being tossed away" Guild Wars will stay online as long as there are players on it.

"And you want to charge $60 for less?" So simple content added to the current and un-expanded Guild Wars world is considered "more" than an entirely re-designed, larger-scale, higher-resolution world with entirely new experiences to play through? Yeah, okay.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in (clearly not Tyria) where humans live more than 250 years, but yes, your character will have been long dead by the time of GW2. And your argument about the name is simply too laughable to merit a serious response. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GW2 will be so much more than a WOW clone end of the line. The only thing i would have to say is bad according to me is the high energy coupled with potions and zero energy managment. I don't like how it sounds but lets keep the judgment for after the game comes out, ok? --RhoninSoren 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that they're losing the essence of Guild Wars in the changes they're making. Dumbing it down... Eff. What I love about Guild Wars is the complexity of it. Look! A ton of skills! But you can only have EIGHT. Strategy of it is beautiful.

What I want is more skills, more professions, more weapon types, skill types, locations, enemies, storylines. Give me effing GW:Utopia after the release of GW2. Cantha gets separated, so why not? There's room in 250 years and the rest of a planet for another campaign. Anyone else with me on this? I'm not playing that abomination of my beloved Guild Wars, no matter how bored I get with Derv skill revamps and Zaishen BS and Wars in Kryta. Signed, User:AV, who forgot his password. Go ahead and speak up if you agree so I don't look like a douche? 24.31.254.47 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dumbing it down" You seem slightly confused. Have you not heard anything about attribute points, traits, the fact that there are now ten skills instead of eight (fifteen or even more including weapon sets and attunements and specialty skills like pets and virtues and adrenaline skills), any of this ringing a bell?

"What I want is more skills" And now it's clear you're confused or trolling. We have over 1500 skills in this game, a large number of which are already near- or completely useless, and you want more? --ஸ Kyoshi 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to say that you're not entitled to an opinion of which game you like better, but your reasoning on both counts is somewhat flawed. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "dumbing it down" is exactly what they are doing, in terms of battle preparation and interrupts. ANet has made it more than apparent that they want it to be impossible to make a bad build and to make attributes rudimentary. However, actual combat, though only one part of GW, is not being dumbed down (as far as I know, other than the ironic suppressing of interrupts). –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, but not to the extent that people keep complaining about, especially since most of the complaining is that the dumbing-down decreases the ability for a player to be individual. Which goes back to traits, weapon swapping, attributes to a lesser extent, and in fact more skills readily available at one time than in Guild Wars. --ஸ Kyoshi 03:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not confused, nor trolling. Restricting it to ten skills will already make creating great builds way too easy. With the specialty skills and weapon sets, you won't even have to give throwing a skill in you bar a second thought. It's fast becoming a "bring every skill you've got and just make sure not to forget to heal yourself" game. Eight keeps you picking each and every skill with absolute precision and making sacrifices, coordinating with teammates, it's why a 600/Smite is badass. There's strategy.

And you heard me right. More skills. Sure you may view the majority of them "useless," but that sound suspiciously like the preaching of a metagame apostle, focused on speedclears and profitability. Sure, many skills' functions could be improved (while retaining the integrity of what they were meant to accomplish), but not every dedicated GW player is hellbent on his next VS.

A new caster class would reap an entirely new crop of skill types and abilities for the farming game, or if you must, speedclearing. User:AV 24.31.254.47 03:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true, Kyoshi, I don't know why people think that the system makes it harder to be individual, especially if it doesn't matter what you bring (i.e. one shouldn't feel deterred from picking the skills, equipment, or traits one wants for inviability, etc.). What does skill selection or dumbing-down have to do with farming? –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IP seems to think that complexity in gameplay can only arise through complexity of builds. This is, needless to say, wrong. -- Hong 09:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Restricting it to ten skills will already make creating great builds way too easy."..."Restricting it to ten"... We have 8 right now, how is 10 a restriction??? And do you not think that with the current 8, there is a problem with builds? Mathematically, adding two more exponentially increases the number of combinations. Also, how is it becoming "bring every skill you've got" game? Once again, it's 2 more slots, it's not like they're opening your spellbook like WoW does. And for those who discovered builds like 600/Smite, it is a very intuitive process of discovering these good builds and it's pretty intelligent that they did, but when the majority of the player base copy/pastes these builds off a wiki or forum, it loses any complexity besides the number combination you memorize. So no, there is no strategy.

Also, why does a broader range of skill selection instantly mean better choice and gameplay. With more skills you have more balancing, more conflictions, more ineffective spells that are shoved aside, and a skillbook that acts like butter spread over too much bread. Disregarding your goals in the game, how can you honestly say that more skills that are effectively mimics of each other is more appealing than fewer, but more varied and unique? (Keep in mind, "fewer" is anything fewer than 1500, it's not like skillbooks are suddenly only going to have 30 to pick from)

Sadly, nothing anyone says, including myself, about the spell mechanics of the game has any warrant at all considering there hasn't even been a closed public beta or any substantial testing outside A-net's QA team and the 20 minute demos at the expos, which if you confuse for the final product, you have some very weird thoughts on game production. ~Farlo Talk 09:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"that sound suspiciously like the preaching of a metagame apostle, focused on speedclears and profitability." And yet you laud 600/smite, a build designed for speedclears and profitability. You change more than one skill in 600/smite and it falls apart. You can't run it without Spell Breaker because you need spell invulnerability. You can't run it without Protective Spirit because then you die. You can't even have a useful 600 without a smite to back you up. How is that more individual and a broader range of viable skill selection? --ஸ Kyoshi 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I do believe this fool has been thoroughly smashed. ~Farlo Talk 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)