User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/February 2008 Page 1

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.

Titles & Accomplishments

Some of us enjoy playing several different professions but, under the current system, must realistically pile their prestige into just the one.

I would like to see titles and/or accomplishments carry between characters. If you can do it once you can do it again for each character on your account, doing so is really just an unnecessary grind.

Alternatively allow switching of primaries so that there is no real need for multiple characters. This would tie in nicely for a unlimited-level system but would have the drawback of lost income from the purchase of extra slots. Daelin Blackleaf 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with being able to change your primary, I'd only expect to see that kind of thing in a Level Boss. Giving the player the opportunity to change primaries takes away the role of the secondary profession. Secondaries are there to pick up the slack the player has in their primary, in my opinion. House Of Furyan 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have only certain, more difficult, titles carry across characters. Perhaps there could be two different classes of titles.--Shai Halud 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How could it be possible to change your primary? you would need new armor, weapons etc. And your appereance should change too and that's impossible because they didn't have plastic surgerie known like ours in those time.

umm lezze, Gladiator = aacount title, hero = acct title, champion =acct. title, must i go on? 24.141.45.72 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Survivor and LDoA to that list and a lot of people would be happy, as for the rest many don't see the fun/challenge in grinding out a title several times over. In regard to changing primary, yes it's a little out-there as an idea, but we have no idea how the appearances and level system will work in GW2. For example, if each new level allowed the addition of another skill then changing primary would make the level cap pretty high and allow it to grow significantly with every expansion. Appearance wise I doubt we'll see it tied to class as it is now. Can you imagine creating 10 or so variants for 8 or more classes over 5 races? That'd be 400 new faces alone. Daelin Blackleaf 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're referencing PvP titles. Which have ceiling so high they're virtually unmaxable. As for lucky/unlucky, they're a crapshoot to raise (you either need millions of $$ to break/retain lockpicks or to festival games like mad). What I'd like to see is that GW2 rewards you for putting more effort into ONE character, instead of some effort into several. Darksong Knight 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind playing only one character. But I really enjoying playing many professions. This is my conflict! Either (1)the rewards should be account-based or (2)one character should be able to play many professions or (3)the rewards should become meaningless (atleast to me). Cameronl | talk 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Less variation in trophies (collectable drops)

Currently, every variation of a species, for example, Tengu, has it's own unique tropy which shares the same design and (mostly) salvage. This is annoying, when you want to collect them for future use, but soon run out of space.

I think special storage has been suggested before, and I'm sure this suggestion isn't all new either. Instead of having, for example: Feathered Caromi Scalp and Feathered Avicara Scalp, why not have all Tengus drop a "Feather scalp fragment". Adjust drop rate to difficulty, and have collectors in higher levels ask for more trophies. Quantity, instead of quality, so to speak. Cp 09:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively you could add the ability to make or craft drops by combining certain things. For example feathered Avicara scalp need 5 for 7-11 damage bow. Then you need 5 shiny feathered Avicara scalps for bow 13-19 damage. Shiny Avicara scalps = 1 avicara scalp and 1 pile of glittering dust. Double click to add them together and bingo you have a new trophy. You could then create lots of different trophies like they have now but you only need to store the base trophie in storage (which is stackable) and make the combination trophies as and when you need it. This would get rid of the problem of having lote and lots of trophies that you don't always need. Stu. 26/02/08.

Companions and Henchies in the Continuous World

Alright, now think about it, can we really have 3,000 Dunkoros running around in a continuous world even if every character is only allowed to bring one? Obviously not, so, unless there is some huge and unimaginable piece of information we’\re missing here, the continuous world makes prefab companions a nigh-impossibility. So where do our companions come from? A process similar to player character creation would probably be the simplest answer, but I’m looking forward to hearing some alternatives.

The next problem is henchies. We can’t have 3,000 Devonas any more than we can have that many Dunkoros, but henchies lack customizability by nature, so, how do we solve this problem? The simplest answer here is the very opposite of the answer to the companion problem: anonymity. Rather than bringing named henchies with us, we simply hire “Human warrior”, “Human elementalist”, and “Asura monk” to accompany us on our journey. It is rather distasteful to consider, but that’s why I’m looking forward to even more alternative solutions to this problem.

How about the ability to name your Companion/henchies in much the same way you can name your pet? --fraught · (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, get this...It's an MMO, encourage playing with other people than yourself, pun intended...

New Attack System

Dual-Wielding: In GW1, I believe that the only weapon which was dual-wielded was the dagger. I’m not sure if should be allowed to dual-wield any two swords we pick up or if duel-wielded swords (and axes and whatnot) should come in pre prepared sets, but I definitely think dual-wielding should be in GW2.

Off-Hand Weapons: If you read the “New Weapons” article, you know I have some odd ideas on how off-hand weapons should work in GW2. Perhaps, rather than doing any damage on their own, certain skills would require a certain type of off-hand weapon and/or the effect of the skill would change depending on exactly what your off-hand weapon is. For example, the same skill which causes skulls to breathe fire could allow a bone idol to generate a fire burst around the character (this is just an example).

Secondary Weapon Sets: One of the most annoying things about playing a ranger (or any ranged profession) in GW1 was that, in the end, you usually ended up fighting a lot of your enemies at melee distance anyway, regardless of your ranged abilities. It would be nice if professions which use ranged weapons in GW2 could equip certain types of weapons in a sort of secondary weapons slot, and they would automatically whip out these weapons as soon as the enemy they’re attacking gets a little too close. Rangers could have knives; monks might break out the kung-fu; sorcerers might equip magical rings and shoot short bolts of elemental power.

Anyway, this would be optional, and a system would have to be configured so that they would not need to, for instance, equip both bow and knife skills, but, rather, a skill which is used with the bow might also have a similar function with the knives. This would be one simple way for A-net the deliver on the promise of skills having “different effects under different circumstances”. Short-range is definitely different from long-range.

I like this. A ranger able to interrupt/condition in melee, a warrior able to dps with a bow, more caster touch spells. Added variety is always good as is making the professions more flexible so long as they don't stray into each others roles. As implied above all of these could be skills and spells that operate differently depending upon distance to target or equipped weapon. Daelin Blackleaf 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was starting to write some similar notes for this type of thing last night before bed. I would like to see either a pre-programmed function or a new attribute linked to an actual secondary or dual-functionality weapon. Think of it like when you watched the opening video of Proph. where Cynn is clearly ranged, using a staff, but (in the video clip at least, clearly kicking butt in melee with her staff. That's what I'd like to see. Also, Assassin's could have two or so styles of dagger, throwable for short or long ranged attacks and melee style, as per usual. This way if an assassin can't execute its skill chains properly (like being interrupted) it can back away and hit at range without having to invest points in an additional attribute House Of Furyan 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Dual Wield note, dual wielding almost always involves a primary weapon and a smaller offhand weapon, such as a Rapier and Main Gauche (Literally, "Left Hand") which is a long dagger. Therefore, a dual wield weapon would in essence be a single handed sword, then an offhand dagger, or if you're wielding a double bladed weapon, a longer blade and a shorter on the other end (This would make it so that no one could pick up two longswords and start swinging - they'd have to be designed for it). Then, there would be more skill chains like the Assassin Lead/Offhand/Dual that we see, only instead of having to land a lead to start a chain on a new target, what about making it so that your offhand merely has to follow the lead, not necessarily on the same target.

If we were to make this more expansive, holding up to the idea that skills are doing different things in different situations, then we have a (generic) skill labeled "Attack X". which (generic) states "...If this skill is used as a lead attack, it does X (condition/damage/enchant strip, etc.)...If it is used as an offhand attack, it does Y." Have the combat system keep track of what hand is being used for each attack, and have attacks follow a set pattern even when auto attacking. So, instead of leading with a skill that is specifically a Lead attack, maybe all auto attacks that are dual wield follow a set attack chain, such as Lead/Offhand or maybe add in a third such as Lead/Offhand/Dual. the graphic image would be unique for each attack, then when you activate an attack skill, it is substituted for the next attack in the sequence. So if you lead with auto attack, and waited for the sequence to finish and start back up at Lead, then hit Attack X, you would get that result. This would solve the problem of "I killed the enemy half way though my skill chain, and now I have to wait 8 seconds before my lead recharges because I didn't get Moebius strike off" that I seem to be getting so often with my assassin.

Moving on to secondary sets, I like the idea of long range weapons being switched for melee when distance is closed. Heck, we have Bo Staves (plural) dropping in Factions, why not let your caster start using them to whack people over the heads when they get to close, instead of wanding and using them as a spear to shoot little balls of light like we do now. Sure, the staves could keep that for long range attacks, but I'd like to see some skull cracking, bone shattering whacks with that damn Zodiac staff of mine. Shen 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Skills that enhances staff and wand damage

Ideas for New Weapons

I originally proposed the “Firearms and Explosives” article last month, but the sentimentalist outrage which characterized the responses, though it lacked both sense and reason, was probably heated and monotonous enough to send the developers into such a fright as they might even consider excluding powder kegs (if not renaming them “magical powder kegs”) from GW2 altogether.

I would mope, but instead I decided to console myself with considering what sort of other new weapons might be added to GW2 to spice up the experience in the absence of my beloved flintlock. Also, I went ahead and included a part on gunpowder weapons since I found I could not exclude them without imbuing my list with a feeling of unnatural absence.

Melee Weapons

• Two-Handed Swords and Axes: Pretty straight forward Idea. They should have slower attack rates probably have a damage range about twice that of their one-handed counterparts but otherwise they should be just what their name says.

• Maces and Mallets: I’d rather consider these “one-handed hammers”, and that pretty much sums up how I’d like to see them handled.

• Staffs (Melee): One of the great disadvantages of having staffs as magical weapons in GW1 was that we didn’t get to see them put to use in melee combat. They should inflict blunt damage and have a higher attack speed than the hammer but do less damage. I’d really like to see one of these in the hands of an Asura. I’ve also read that staffs, historically, had an advantage in combat against swords though I don’t know how that would figure into the game.

• Pikes: I’ve long wanted to use one of these. They should be two-handed, about three meters long, and inflict piecing damage. Their damage range could be similar to that of the scythe, though they would not be able to strike at more than one target. They should probably get an advantage against mounts and mounted enemies as well.

• Halberd and Naginata: Both could be alternative or additional forms of the pike.

• Macahuitl: These are basically those Aztec swords you always see. They’re actually wooden clubs with sharpened obsidian shards for blades. They could make a good addition as an Asuran sword style.

• Brass Knuckles: They made an appearance in GW:EN. Why not pass them down to the next generation? They could really help monks looking to get involved with some kung-fu action.

• The New Look: Since most of the technologies seen in GW1 place it between the 11th-14th century AD, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for GW2 to have a Renaissance look and feel to it. This would mean including later editions of previously seen weapons. This new look, however should not force us to exclude styles we liked from the old game but, rather, allow us to incorporate new styles that might look good in the new one.

Ranged Weapons

• War Boomerangs: Though we usually think of them as Australian, evidence indicates similar weapons were once used in Egypt, Ethiopia, India, and the Southwestern U.S.[1]. They might not return to our hand after throwing, but if we can throw infinite spears, why not infinite boomerangs? I thought it would make an interesting ranged weapon for the Asura, but I’m not sure how to balance it with the rest of the ranged arsenal. They’d be pretty darn big and would probably inflict blunt damage.

• Crossbows: Historically, crossbows have come in numerous styles, and they would help add some variety to GW2’s arsenal of non-magical ranged weapons. They should probably generally do less damage than a traditional bow but have a faster rate of fire. The rate of fire and damage could vary widely according to the style of crossbow. Arbalests would do more damage, and the chu-ko-nu (being the first semi-automatic weapon) would fire in bursts.

• Muskets: (Please, shorten all objections to "I don't want to see muskets in GW2", then contunue with the the rest of your commentary. Chances of them being inmcluded are none at best anyway) The weapons collections of Europe abound with ornately decorated muskets with numerous variations on the firing mechanism. This would be the opposite of the crossbow, with a slower firing rate and higher damage capacity. These, however, could vary depending on what firing mechanism you equip. Skills may allow you to inflict cracked armor and bleeding as well. Special innovations would obviously have to be made to preserve the fantasy atmosphere of GW, but I think they coult help with adding the feeling that the players are in a new age.

• Grenades: Early grenades predate the musket and were basically round iron or clay balls stuffed with gunpowder and a fuse (an example of these can be seen in the movie 300). These would probably function as an off-hand weapon which would simply allow you to use grenade-based weapon skills. If duel-wielding them is possible, then they would probably have an unusually slow rate of fire and inflict AoE damage comparable to (but lower than) that of the fire-ball skill in GW1. Certain grenade skills could also inflict status effects. (Might make an interesting weapon for an elementalist.)

• Rockets/Mortars If anyone’s seen the movie Mulan, they have a pretty good idea what I’m thinking. This might be a good way to offer some AoE power to a profession other than the elementalist. Still, I’m a little stumped on how exactly it should work. I guess you’d just target some guy and blow him away. The base reload time would be phenomenal, but so would the damage. I can’t imagine it as a primary weapon, but I’m sure A-net could think of a good and balanced way to incorporate it.

• Siege Engines (Bombards, Ballistae, Catapults) : I honestly hope no one gets to use these as primary weapons (you’d probably just get slaughtered anyway) but they might be interesting to include if sieges are in GW2 (also might help in big-monster slaying).

Magical Weapons and Focus Items

• Elemental Orbs: I love this idea (my primary is a nuker). These are basically glass or crystal orbs that contain the essences of one of the four (or seven, including dark, chaos, and holy) elements. They are easy to imagine as focus items, but they could also be primary, perhaps duel wielded weapons, similar to wands. Alternatively, if grenades are not included, then these orbs could take their place. Rather than simply exploding, however, these would have elemental effects (earth=fissures, water=ice, air=lightning, fire=magical Molotov cocktail) upon impact. This might also allow elementalists to have weapon based skills and make it a more viable secondary profession.

• Skulls: I don’t recall seeing a single human skull in GW that wasn’t on top of a reanimated corpse. This would make a good focus item, but I’d also be interested in making it an off hand weapon as well. Perhaps it could spit fire…

• Magical Swords (Gandalf had one; why can’t I?): It would be nice to see some elegant and decorative swords in GW2 which are imbued with elemental power and designed for magical use. If staffs can make the transition to melee, why can’t some swords make the transition to magical? They could have ranged attacks or be focus items, I don’t care. I just think they’d look really cool.

• Magical Rings or Bracelets: These too are as likely to be magical weapons as they are to be focus items. Still, as the magical arsenal could use some variety, these might enable you to throw energy bolts or to shoot fireballs from your hands. Might be good for elementalists and mesmers.

• Enchanted Hand or Arm Tattoos: Similar to the rings and bracelets only, probably for a different profession, such as the ritualist or necromancer.

Some nice ideas but, as a player, I would like Anet to stay away from giving the player things like muskets and gun. I think muskets or hand weapons like that would take away from the fantasy theme of the game. Grenades could be instituted without taking away from the current theme by introducing them as magical orbs that non-elementalists can throw. House Of Furyan 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering what I said about the orbs, I really dont think they should go to a non-magical profession. Perhaps mesmers, rits, or necros, but certainly not warriors, assassins, or rangers.Players could still use them if thier character has one of these as a secondary profesion, but I intended the grenades and mortars to offer some AoE power to the non-magical professions as well.--Shai Halud 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, D&D has things like alchemist's fire, acid flasks or blastglobes (which are absolutely hilarious). Anyone can use them since they're a grenade-like item and thus have no weapon requirements, but I think Furyan's idea is that if ele or w/e can blow shit up with magic anyway, why would they need them? Personally, I think anyone should be allowed to use such trinkets. Darksong Knight 01:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to nitpick, but you already can have a sword designed for magical use. Rajazan's Fervor, or stick a Pommel of Enchanting and "I Have the Power" inscription to have a magical sword. Sure, you won't be able to do much damage with it (unless you're a /W), but I can't recall seeing a sword shooting energy or being used for the base purpose of spilling blood in fantasy literature, unless the caster was already a skilled swordsman (i.e. a /W) --Valentein 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about sword which woul look magical (shiny/glowy) and could not be used for melee combat. While it may be a somewhat ridiculousd idea, one cannot deny, it woud look cool (ex. Callandor[2] from the Wheel of Time Series by Robert Jordon). And while it would make sense for anyone to use someting like a grenade or magic orb, I'd like for weapons in GW2 to remain somewhat profession specific with attribut requirments and whatnot--Shai Halud 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

When talking about dual wield and two handed weapons, I think the idea of 50% damage increase for the two handers would be better. For one, most dual wields include a main weapon and a smaller offhand (Because it's easier to use a lighter weapon in your non dominant hand). That way, a sword and a main gauche would not be at a disadvantage to a claymore. Also, I'm going to object to gunpowder weapons. I'd rather this not turn into a Steam-punk game. I like the fantasy approach more than the tech approach, though I admit that my Wizard has thrown about his fair share of Alchemist's fire in DnD. I absolutely love the idea of crossbows, but let's think about this one real quick - Crossbows require mechanical winches to cock the weapon because the pull is so great. They were invented to pierce plate armor and be used with minimal training. So, increase damage, decrease range (compared to a longbow) and increase cooldown. Maybe remove hornbows and give crossbows some armor penetration. This would make them more accurate. The Britons had world renown longbows that had an unbelievable range... but it's a crossbow that's going to take that mounted knight off of that charging horse. Shen 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There could besomething to that "Main Gauch" idea you had shen. One of us should probably post something suggesting a class of offhand melee weapons. I'll do it pretty soon if you don't. Also, please shorten gun objections as requested above. I honestly can't see why everyone on this site hates the idea (no one I've met in real life does! Why?) but over the months I've come to accept it, so the extra proding really has no effect. I really think the dev might hasve gotten the message by now, okay? Thx--Shai Halud 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

erm...i'd like to see some gunpowder themed weapons ^^ guns and grenades! but keep the fantasy side strong, with mechanical weapons making up only a fraction of the GW2 weapons. I found that in GW1, even though there were loads of weapons, most were just reskins of others. I may be wrong, but i'd like to see a more diverse weapon section and weapon design :) -- grandma

I also think guns muskets and what not should be involved but not be like end game if you get hit by one and keep the medievil ones going strong so its not just snother shot em up and more of a chop/blow em up

SPEARS: Give Spears different range... Heavy spears with closer range, and lighter with longer... simple... like bows.

Runner's Agency

Since we’re creating the auction house to try get rid of the hawkers/spammers, maybe there should be a similar establishment to try and coordinate the business of running. People could go to central running agencies to sign up as runners and they could get a running license by completing certain runs within an allotted amount of time or something like that.

Runner’s agents would wait outside of each town and outpost and offer a list of courses which could be made to nearby outposts or distant towns. These would probably be solo missions or only a companion could be brought along. Gaining a party member at any time would disqualify you from the run. That said, each course would have a specific difficulty level.

You would begin the run by selecting your course from the agent outside your point of origin and complete the run by talking to the agent outside your destination. You would be timed on each run, and your best times would appear alongside the course names as well as how many times you’ve completed that course and your average time. More experienced runners could, obviously, charge higher premiums for reliability.

Completing each course within certain time frames gains you point which add up to determine your grade. Grade may be course-specific or character-specific. I’m not sure yet which would be better.

As for price and runner coordination, if you’re interested in making runs, then you could list yourself as available to do certain runs at the local Runner’s Agency. A certain price is suggested by the agency for what you should charge depending on the course and your experience grade, but you get to set your own rates. People who are interested could view your rates and your license and, purchase tickets for a place in your party. I’m still a bit unsure on how this would work, so, if some experienced runners would leave suggestions, that would be nice.

Also, registered runs would probably appear on your license as well.

A less formal system would still be used for unofficial runs. You should be able to show your license to whomever you chose. Perhaps Runner’s Agencies would exist only in the major cities and outposts would be covered by unofficial runs.

I think A-Net looks down on running, so I can't see this as being implemented. --People of Antioch talk

06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archived article and Gaile has stated that they view Running as acceptable part of the game but this is not to say that they will actively support it by giving us "runners box." Renin 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They could at least offer us runner's licenses and courses.--Shai Halud 19:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's to stop a Guild to gain popularity and do this? If such a Guild becomes famous for it, then on good faith people will come to them for runs. --People of Antioch talk

19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ANet may not officially look down on running, in other words they may not actively discourage it, but I don't think it was an intended aspect, or even a welcome development, of the game. My evidence for this is that runners are far more prevalent in Prophecies areas than anywhere else, because it's easier and more relevant to do there than anywhere else. Furthermore, ANet has introduced ways of limiting the usefulness of runners, such as making max armor and such available sooner in the game (Factions max armor is available way sooner than in Prophecies, if you do things in order. My guess is that this will be continued in GW2. Personally, I'm glad, I hate all the begging and advertising for runners that's found in the Prophecies areas. If you want to progress in the game, try playing it. (Satanael 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Anet has said in an interview that they will not incorperate any elements from the previous games which would prohibit exploration, such as the blocks that prevented running in Factions and Nightfall. Now, if they made there be no need for running, I'd be just as satisfied, but if tthey can't get running to go away in the beta, then I'd reccomend Anet take anoother look at suggestions like these.--Shai Halud 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that running will be possible. If party members change zones individually, running would be impossible, although it woud be possible to get an escourt. -- Gordon Ecker 07:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Claymores, crossbows and little sickles

One of the things I would really like to see is some sort of difference between swords except for the skin. What i'm thinking of is That a Warrior can use a normal sword just like in the original games, but also swap to a much stronger, bigger, heavyer and slower CLAYMORE, With HUGE RUNES on it or something, and making it a two-handed variant of a normal sword, using the same skills and attributes, but attacking slower, dealing WAY more damage and being two-handed. Another thing would be to do this kind of stuff for Rangers and Dervishes, giving them a weaker 1handed weapon so they can also get an offhand. for rangers a crossbow, and for the Dervish a little sickle. If you think a sickle isn't very dangerous, ever imagined hooking it behind somebody's throat and slitting?Rhydeble 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for moar crossbowz in gw2, moar variety of weapons in general. --Cursed Angel

16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhydeble, even I made a redendunt suggestion for two-handed swords, so that's okay even if it is a bit over-enthusiastic. As for crossbows, I think even the pope declared those cowardly back in the day, but I don't really care. I just think they look stupid in other games, but I won't try and stop other people from using them in GW2 the way you people do with me and my muskets. But the sickles? I mean, not only are they already in the game (as an axe) but assuming the Dervish is in GW2, how would he hold an off-hand weapon along with a scythe? And as if dervishes weren't powerful enough at close range already. I guess a warrior or dervish could dual-wield sickles in GW2 but that's as far as I'd go.--Shai Halud 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pope declared them cowardly because you could take a peasant, train him for ten hours, send him onto a battlefield, and he'll be able to take down a knight that's trained his whole life and wearing armor that's more valuable than the peasant's entire village. Tried to do the same thing with flails, IIRC. Just a little history lesson. :) --71.229.204.25 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Hero Armor

It got me thinking, why not offer "Historical Hero Armor" as either an in-game 15k armor, pay with real money (ala character slots) or part of a bonus (like how BMP was initially).

Historical Hero Armor are armor set of popular henchie/hero/NPC throughout GW1. Assuming that all (which I know is highly unlikely) profession survives the timeskip here are the armor sets I'd suggest.

Warrior - Devona

Monk - Mhenlo

Ranger - Aidan

Elementalist - Cynn

Mesmer - Gwen

Necromancer - Eve

Assassin - Vizu

Ritualist - Master Togo

Dervish - Varesh Ossa

Paragon - Sogolon

of course part of the problem will be that the armor sets will have to be modified for the opposite sex. It would be fun seeing someone who tailored their toon to look as much as Devona or Cynn with their armor. Have fun butchering my idea! Renin 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, hmm. Varesh for Dervish? Can I have Melonni's Sunspear armour instead? >_> In seriousness though, this is a good idea. I've always loved Cynn, Eve and Gwen's armour. --Mme. Donelle 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we get Cynn's thong too? ;-) (Satanael 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

This user is a member of the Cynn's Thong Fan Club.

You just blew your chance. You should have kept it. Now they'll know, they'll give her granny panties. Renin 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, I mean the Krytan women go commando, so what's a little thong between friends? (Satanael 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Bleh, why Sologon for paragon? I'd much rather have Morghan's armour, considering it's completely different from EVERY type of paragon armour in the game at the moment. And which Master Togo? The old fart from the Factions Campain, or the younger version from the BMP? Silavor

05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was rethinking this one. NPC, Heroes and Henchmen!

Rare weapon skins

I think in Guild Wars 2 there should be rare and very expensive skin weapons and off-hands for other professions than just warriors and paras. Atm theres eternal blades, eternal shields, crystalline swords, voltaic spears and more such stuff. Ok ok theres caster weapons and such, but mainly these weapons are for warriors and paras. Of course theres some rare and expensive weapons for other professions but nothing compared to these. So i would see rare and nice looking staves, wands, focus items, bows and so on in GW2. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if im wrong, but isnt something made expensive by demand... how do you make something in demand, i am unaware of any way to MAKE a weapon Rare and wanted. Just my thought, You could make things harder to get but then again we dont even know how the GW2 system is going to work yet. 58.168.44.216 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rare = expensive. Cool skin = wanted. Rare and cool skin = very expensive, very wanted.

(Limu Tolkki - talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Anon is trying to make is that "cool skin" is really subjective. Early in the game, FDS was by far the most expensive and in demand sword out there, much later it became the IDS. Both weapons were apart of the same original game, and yet each went through their own phase of expensiveness and "coolness", specifically not at the same time. Why? Who knows. Our crazy whims.

My theory is that staves, wands, and foci are not as expensive because they are not really as useful for casters as they are for melee chars. For casters, it's all about the skills, and not about the weapon. (Satanael 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

My One Cent Suggestion

Wow lots of great suggestions for GW2 so far. Here is my one cent suggestions :

Different looks for different grades of weapons e.g. Ancient Scythe has different numbers of claws depending on Purple or Gold
Completed Quest Log I don't know it is really usefull for other players, but I would like to look up what quests I have done so far.
A bar in big town. Just give the toons a break after long day of adventuring and fighting. No under 21 !!!. Or a place/building in town/outpost for players to hang out and duel outside that place.
Perception!!!! What I mean is I would like to be able to zoom in/out very far to see to a place as a whole. GW haves many great looking and gigantic buildings/temples/dungeons; however, I don't feel the giganticness when you enterand/or stand in front of those places. Check these concept arts for GW then you will see what I really mean. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Onlinegamingworld (talk).

It's a crime that GW doesn't already have bars... we have an incorrigible ale hound title and no establishments to drink in. More importantly the completed quest log is a must have for obsessive people like me who like to do just about everything there is to be done in a game they enjoy. Daelin Blackleaf 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Distances of npcs in towns

← moved to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions#Distances of npcs in towns

Click to Move

In one GW2 article someone said Click to Move would go the way of the dodo. Please dead Dwayna do not get rid of Click to Move altogether. I understand that making an algorithm for players to click to move with a 3d environment might be troubling, but please keep simple click to move. I think I will miss it most in towns (if GW2 keeps such things) where I press alt, find the merchant, and click, then surf the wiki for 30 seconds. --Ravious 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also very handy during lag spikes or times when your ISP is playing up and your ping drops. Daelin Blackleaf 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I 3rd that motion. I was hitting about 8,000+ on the ping charts.. :-( thankfully a friend was on teamspeak and i let him know what was going on, so he could help guard me. I would just click on the ground to move to what I thought would be a few steps forward and since we had 8 or so minions (or rather Olias had them) .. we were able to keep the minion army alive until the next battle. and yes I know going near a battle with that high of lag is not good .. but .. ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Varuuth 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing this could be an effort to minimize bots in game. House Of Furyan 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And would also just save time of the devs. People, your computers are going to eventually die and you'll get a new one with better hardware. You're eventually going to get a better ISP if you're actually lagging on GW. It's only a matter of time. Vael Victus 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about clicking the outpost entrance and instantly exiting from outpost (confirm windows can be added). Or even map travel directly to area.

Controls

This is a question for the Anet staff which I wouldn’t mind seeing answered here or in their next interview. You've mentioned a few things about the control system, but have given us literally no useful information on it. Saying that the "point and click" system will not be there seems to indicate that the mouse will play no part in the controls. Will there be better compatibility with eight-button controllers? I'm terrible at playing with just the keyboard, so I hope that won't be the only option. Also, the ability to rock-climb and dive would help bring a feeling of exploration to the game, which is something you've said you wanted to include, so mentioning those in your next interview would be of great help to those of us that make suggestions. Also, I can't imagine controlling diving mechanics with just the keyboard so please give us a second option.

To be honest, I can't imagine ANet removing the mouse from movement controls entirely. Nearly every modern computer game I can think of uses either a joystick or the mouse as an integral part of its movement controls, the reason for this being that 3D games require fluid movement controls, and hitting a button to turn does not provide for that fluidity.

Also, how do we get "useful" information about a game that does not yet exist? What do we use it for? This is nothing against this particular user above, it's just something I've seen a lot of people say, and I've always wondered why... (Satanael 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

I meant information which would be useful in imagining what the controls will be like. Telling us what there will not be, for instance, may not be very useful in imagining what will be. Still, you're right, it;s not a very illustrative term in this case.--Shai Halud 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Golemancers (or something like that)

Image:Uno018.jpg is a concept art for GW:EN/Utopia I gathered from here [[3]] Looking at it, I can definitely see how a golemancer profession could be a viable part of GW2.

On the other hand, I was just reading how the devs want to give certain abilities to each race. The Norn to nornbear transformation is the only example that has been listed, but I would like to propose that the ability to summon golems be the ability of every Asura. This could compensate for their predicted physical weakness, but care must be taken so that this ability benefits every profession relatively equally.

The number of golems each Asura could control along with their strength could be linked to a race-specific attribute, and various golems could influence the summoner's stats (I think I heard something like this was in Diablo 2 or something like that). Or, conversely, basic golems could be bought from golemancers (perhaps at the cost of certain golem parts) and only a certain number would be allowed. They could be customized to accommodate whatever kind of character you're trying to build. They would heal on their own in this case and be reactivated after death as they were in GW:EN, perhaps with some sort of start-up delay. Anyway I'm, looking forward to suggestions indicating which of these possibilities people would prefer. In any case, I reccomend that characters aquire golems early on in the game (no later tham level 10) so thet we can really see them as part of our character and involve them in our builds from an early stage.

Actually, this kind of gave me an idea, maybe Golem making could be an Asura-only non-combat profession. You spend time and attributes to gain the ability to build different aspects of a golem (and which also affect the effectiveness of these aspects). For example, early on you can only build a basic bipedal Golem with basic arms that do relatively low blunt damage. Later, you gain the skills to make one of the arms have a blade and the other have a shield. Once a Golem is built it can become one of your Companions, and in this way you could even have more than one Golem at your disposal, but only be able to bring one at a time.

You could also have materials be a factor in this, such as buying deldrimor steel to create a stronger armor for the Golem. And even high level drops such as the stones you use for the power plants, which could help define the amount of health and energy for magic the golem has. Some of these stones may give the golem a certain boost in certains types of abilities, such as a stone found in the Fire Islands could boost a golem's fire magic. Maybe some special parts of a golem are dropped in high level areas, such as special sensors that make it immune to blinding, or super fast legs that make it faster than normal.

Another possibility is to make it so that the Asura can sell their Golems to other characters of other races, that way all characters can have a truly customizable companion. This might put the economy in favor of the asuras, but 1) that would kinda fit their position in the story anyway as the neutral ones that control the major means of transportation; and 2) there's nothing (that we yet know of) stopping anyone from having their own asura character, so maybe their could be a special option to make a golem for another char on your account, like leaving it in a special storage or something (maybe in your house?). Furthermore, from an economic perspective, have an asura to make Golems won't be much different than a 55 monk to farm UW.

In any case, if we do get the ability to build our own golems, I hope they are customizable not just in their abilities, but in their aesthetic too. Just like the Golems in the picture above, I want to choose quadropedal golems or bipedal, or even tripedal. I want some with no arms but a big mouth, or maybe even one that flies or hovers, I want to be able to make them different colors, different shapes, different sizes. Maybe that's too tall an order, but some say that if you aim for the sun and hit the moon, then you still just shot the moon (or whatever Confucius' quote is). (Satanael 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

On my own suggestions page I thought maybe an asuran warrior would be inside a golem, wear it like armour. House Of Furyan 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the graphic to a link, as I think graphics may slow this busy page. -- 24.16.236.131 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any News yet?!

I've been waiting for quite a long time, and ANet Should have atleast some or just a liltle news about GW2, or atleast a teaser trailer, or even just a screenshot to look at for hours trying to figure out whats that and that. TY for your time.

AGREE! When is the Beta weekend? Hunger for news, facts, images. -- Silverleaf

I just want to know what professions are going to be there, or at least which ones they can confirm so far. Even a "we're definitely keeping the warrior, ranger, elementalist, and monk, they will likeley see some major changes." would make my day. Daelin Blackleaf 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on HoM information for Guild Wars 2. Professions would be nice, be disappointed if Dervish is taken out or altered too much though. House Of Furyan 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The core proffesions will probally stay and the rest will be kicked out I think and if I am correct beta will be in the end of 2008 and GW 2 will release in begin 2009

I'd say Dervish is probably more popular than Mesmer (as in hours played over the last month) these days, even given Nightfalls far later release date. Though of course I have no idea of the true statistics. Daelin Blackleaf 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

if u >< out mesmers im outa here --Cursed Angel

17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like we'll be getting information any time soon. See this. --fraught · (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my dervish's scythe swinging dervish (primary) relative is inheriting his HoM! I'd hate think Guild Wars 2.1 is just going to be Guild Wars Proph redressed with asuran and hairy Norns. I don't think, in my opinion, that any of the human professions already established should be removed (whether from the original, factions or nightfall) but I wouldn't expect to see a Norn, Charr or Asuran running around with a dervish primary. I mean, if dervish (because I love it so) isn't going to be in the first Guild Wars 2 campaign (if we have to wait for Guild Wars 2.3 for that) or if its not there at all I probably won't buy Guild Wars 2. Options, give us options, don't take them away. House Of Furyan 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, i love playing as my derv, gives me a very different perspective from my Ele. But think of the things we already know: You can add Dervish weaposn and armor to your HoM. There are 2 dervish primary heroes, who, if i understand the inheretince correctly, will have dervish descendants as heroes. So it would be completely pointless to have all that, yet >< out any of the proffesoins, even dervishes. Lord Zepherr 04:24, February 21, 2008 (UTC)

Pay to Play

Now, before you immediatly flame me for this, hear me out. I've been thinking about it, and have come up with one of the biggest problems, imo, with Guild Wars; The few elite with infinite gold (probably not infinite but very close) who basically control the market. So, my suggestion is to have an monthly fee of in-game gold for certain extravagant things. I have already suggested this for the house idea, but it could be applied to more, such as the Guild Hall (if the Guild Hall is separate from the house), mounts (I really hope these aren't put in the game), and other things that are not necessary to play the game but are nice to look at. The "better" or "cooler" something is, the more the monthly tax is compared to the not so cool looking versions. This would attempt to balance the economy because those with lots of gold would want the really cool house or mount but would be forced to pay every month. And if someone does not pay that monthly amount, they would not get access to their house, Guild Hall, mount, etc. until they made the all payments they missed. Of course if they bought something that they could not afford the monthly payments for, they could sell it back for a percentage of what they payed. If they failed to make a payment, I feel that ANet would have to still give them the option to access any items that might have been say in their house, just not the option to view, show off, or use their house, Guild Hall, etc. If my ideas are unclear, please tell me and I will try to explain them better. Chocobo 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of gold sinks, but I think most gold sinks that don't become annoying are those that you pay once to get X. Items needing repairs, or "renting" stuff, just means that you need to grind just to maintain what you have already paid for. I think if instead there were more services offered, those could work as gold sinks. For example, you could have a marketplace, with NPCs you pay so they try to sell your items. Or you could have all sorts of NPCs that accept payment to improve your titles, like a cartographer to increase your % explored, a kruzick/luxon to improve your standing with these factions, a mystic to increase your luck/unluck, etc. You could also have some that will buy some of these from you, e.g. faction, rep, and skill points, but much cheaper than what you'd have to pay for to get them. --

Alaris 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gold sinks, by definition, is bad. No. Don't argue. Rich with infinite gold are not hampered, and casuals who just want a bit glitter get hammered. WE DO NOT NEED MORE GOLD SINKS! Why would YOU care about the flithy rich? You should pity them for the amount of time they waste on GW. Looking for someone to admire? Look for those with tough to get and not buyable titles (So no drunkard- but vanquisher and such) or those who have a prestigious guild tag - Rank means zilch these days, and this began IWAY was born. So obviously making title vendors further diminishes their value. What we need to balance economy is very simple: Nuke it. From a pve-prestige-perspective, getting 'cool' stuff is insane for a casual, whom we are concerned about. (Speaking purely pve here) Accomplishents, not goldgrindz, should bring glamour. So, for instance, to get something like FoW armour, you'd have to complete a chain of difficult quests, and wth, at the end solve a rubic cube :P. That'll prevent runners. This will actually help the casual, who LOVES a good, MEANINGFUL quest, and hurt the grinder, who prefers farming. I'd very much prefer EXP and Gold be nuked to oblivion, but we shall see...

fuck this idea --Cursed Angel

20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just please no. I get money, spend it, and taxed more? And taxed even more for spending more because of earning more? Please, it happens enough in reality. And this would force players to regularly play Guild Wars, without the option of taking a long break, unless you had caches of money. CA summed it up nicely, if not rudely. Calor (t) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gold sinks control the inflation by removing money from the game, thus making sure that money has a trading value. Otherwise you get inflation, and the 100k trading limit becomes grossly insufficient. Finally, as seen in many other games, money becomes meaningless to trade. I like a game where money is actually used for trading. --

Alaris 21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to want to encourage people to play not push them away. This idea would only push a larger wedge between the casual player and the farming player. Farming players could come up with fees easy, there's no challenge there for them. Although, telling a casual gamer "Oh, we've got this in the game but if you want this you're going to have to pay a monthly fee of in-game gold or we're going to put an eviction notice on your door" is counter-productive. You're idea doesn't balance anything, this idea only gives farming players even more stuff. If there are going to be houses, you should just buy them with a once off fee, not multiple fees. For casual players it would mean they could still get stuff, like with the armour sets in Guild Wars, but it would take time to do so but more importantly not force them/or make them feel stink about not having it. Making houses and stuff fee based just alienates them from this kind of thing and rewards farmers, and thats not a good thing. House Of Furyan 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the tax for a typical house wouldn't be anything too noticeable, maybe 1-5k a month (which can easily be attained in 1 sitting). But, if you want to go all out and get the best possible house, you have to pay more regularly to keep it up (maybe 10-20k a month or more, not sure what number would help to balance the economy). People who would go for these types of houses could easily afford 10k a month. Of course I know that casual players might want these houses, so they can save up there money, maybe implementing a banking system with interest to help those who are gone for a long time. You could even have the low end houses or whatever not have a fee, to help the casual players. Gold, imo, should be the GW2 currency, not "100k + 30 ecto" or whatever. The way it is now, the casual player will never be able to afford something priced at 100k + 30 ecto. Chocobo 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself FLAMED!! It's bad enough having tax in real life. Faction tax is already annoying, don't start with more. Next you'll want us to fill in forms in triplicate ;)Lithane 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, this ain't real life. Screw the economy, as another suer said, we get enough of it in real life. WE DO NOT NEED MORE GOLD SINKS. How can I emphasize this? Do you want to hurt the XXX-rich? MAKE THEM DO QUESTS. make runs impossible, make quests nigh mandatory ( Good quest rewards, enjoyable dialogue) And, most importantly, CUT DROPS OF MONSTERS. If quests became the major contributor to a game's economy, with nothing repeatable, inflation goes out the window. I'd (and I know many casuals) prefer a system where gold did not drive a game's economy, and ultimately pve balance.

If gold doesn't drive the economy, what will? Sunshine and unicorns? There are three ways an economy can go: money, barter, and none at all. Gold and barter, guess what, supply and demand exist, and those with the most supply get what they want. The last option isn't even viable - it'd require every mob dropping every item and an obscenely high rate, or else there'll still be a few items that are more valuable because they're rarer. Also, there's a problem with your version: Say I do every quest in the game so I'm at the effective gold cap, and then I buy an expensive weapon with it. Suddenly ANet flips a switch and the weapon is worthless. Now I'm out of gold and I have no way of getting more (lol no repeatable quests, amirite?) short of creating a new character. And, guess what, the devoted people are going to be doing exactly that, but faster and better than I am, so they'll be rich anyway. --71.229.204.25 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pay2play is so stupid runescape-ish that I have to throw over only thinking about it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever!!! If you punish a daily player who works hard and strip all their hard earned gains from them to put them on a parr with a casual gamer who plays once a month, then what is the motivation for us to play? Communism doesn't work!!! The reason that the elite have so much cash is because they work hard and earn it. Pay to play? Ha!--Sir Grockalot 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)== Reporting a cheater == Make it easier to report a botter.. I just tried to type /report <name> and it said the player must be in the same district as you ... what?? i get a private message of 'go to www.url.com and buy some gold' and i can't report him/her? . in Guild Wars 2 make it easier.. or at least better. just in case anyone knows where to put this info at .. the players name is ( Asdh Aksd Adl ) Varuuth 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this!! I entered into a tournament the other day and our team lost. Although it was not completely my fault I lost my concentration and did not do as well as I normally do. After we lost one of the memebrs of the team let loose a whole torrent of insults using absolutely dispicable and offensive language. As a scouser I have to admit that the language was quite offensive and obscene (and THAT's saying something coming from Liverpool). As it happens I am a mature adult and let it brush over me, but I hate to think what would have happened had I been a young child!! I tried to report him/her but ran into the same problem as the user above, because we had been transported back to the outpost separately. THET NEED TO UPDATE THE REPORT FEATURE IN BOTH GW2 AND GW1 ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stu. 13/02/08

Well i have a problem with this "reporting". People seem to be using it when a player is not up to their standards in PvP. It really is annoying. I might not be one of the best, or even good, but i deserve a chance to learn PvP. I would say stop this reporting the way it is implemented today. Because you could be punished without being guilty...

To be honest I don't think that would be to much of a problem.. because when you get reported.. ANET will watch you, then punish you if needed. If you aren't doing anything wrong, (against the terms of agreement) then you don't have anything to worry about. Varuuth 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i would like a specific sensor to stop adverstising for those stupid web-sites that offer powerlvling and purchase of gold, i mean if your gonna use those sites, whats the point of even ownign the game cause all your doin is letting some random stranger play for you. And besides i got this PM from a guy advertising soem site called www.ugamegold.com or something of the like, and i told him to stop PMing me, well he does it again, i tell him to shut up, not rudely, i was still asking, not demanding, well he then floods my talk box with his stupid advertisements, i don't liek using my ignore list alot, so i turned off my pm reciever, i ended up missing pms form at leas thalf of my freinds. So i would liek a ban of those types of advertisements. Lord Zepherr, 10:11, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you called it, UGAMEGOLD, thats the offender! Got pounded as soon as i zoned into the great temple. Very annoying72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pets revisited

It is my opinion that GW2 needs a new pet system Yes, I know that there are some very adamant and occasionally hostile views on the whole mount idea. As a compromise,

1. Have the ability to ride your pet into battle using only pet skills (because that is what I had thought having a pet and pet skills were for) or a combination of special, class restricted, mounted attacks. Therefore your pet now has more presence and it is more useful.

2. Have the ability to lodge your pet or have a customized totem or such in inventory allowing you to charm and keep multiple pets at the expense of gold or inventory slots. I really have grown attached to my pet, and it would sadden me to have to get rid of her, but occasionally I might want to play with a different evolution or skin just for a change.

3. Have the ability to purchase your pet armor or like hero’s have an upgrade item to customize your pet’s appearance to suit your style. (and yes I do realize that this idea was stated in an earlier post but it is an awesome idea!)

4. Be able to make them a Party member (like a hero) and give them their own skill bar but as a consolation still require you to carry charm animal and a pet rez in your own skill bar.

5. Mix it up a bit. Make some breeds faster but weaker and some stronger but slower or even ranged, giving you the ability to tailor them to your play style.

And as an after thought give minis a purpose, perhaps, when you bring one out, allow them to attack with like one really lousy skill for a short amount of time……..Hey kinda like Asuran summons! Hagarr 07:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1st of all I don't like the idea that pets get there own skill bar, but it would be awesome to mount them :D . But I don't likt your 4th suggestion; pets are part of a player and are not like a hero. And about that mini thing, they're like trophies not at all like summoned creatures. In other words they CAN'T attack.

Make minis able to pick up items for the party.Prokiller88 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest for the suggestions!!! Especially #2, as the current GW pet system made it so pets aren't these collectibles to hoard and rip out at some random time, so you might wanna change it to make it a very difficult task to change from 1 pet to another. #1 Would be making pets less useful, actually, as there'd be a million secondary rangers getting a pet for the mounting factor and not making them a plausible battle companion when not mounted, so you might wanna consider making mounted combat very limited in when you can actually use it. #3 There's nothing wrong with it, what's better than coming into battle with some stalker in platemail and fancy designs all over its gear?!?! #4 I agree with, but is roughly the same to my previous suggestion and what you said about the armor suggestion being stated in a previous post, and I'd say actually combine charm+pet rez, so you don't wonder why you're hauling around this useless skill (Did that earlier as well in previous post). #5 Is entirely up to you, as pets are so untouched in RPGs any way to improve them is a thumbs up from the beast-masters, but be careful about makin' one species overly powerful and making players fall over each other to get that better pet. (WoW screwed up there a lot, some pets could use different abilities while others couldn't and so EVERYONE who had a pet had a big-cat, boar, or an alien-type creature called a 'ravager' simply because of a single ability each of them possessed.)

Changing Skills in Battle

It would be so cool if you could change skills in battle. Imagine in your templates you have say W/R and W/E and W/Mo set up.

Imagine this scenario: (For example)

There is a large group of mainly melee monsters so you can pick them off with ranger skills and absorb a bit of damage with warrior buffs.

You then walk around the corner and there are a lot of healers amongst the next group. Picking one off at a time with a ranger won't cut it. You bring up your skills and attribute box by pressing k click on load from template and boom your a W/E. Perfect for area damage spells to take out multiple healers at the same time.

The next group has a lot of necromancers all draining health and are spread out. Area damage won't do it this time. Another quick change to W/Mo using healing and health regeneration to counter the health drain and a HUGE big axe to bring the nasty necro's down to size.

This would open the game up for all sorts of stratergies!!! This type of playing would have to be later on in the game when a player has accessed sufficient skills from other professions. After all you couldn't expect a level 8 Warrior to be able to switch between 3 secondary professions.

I just think it would add a depth of stratergy and tactics later in the game rather than: just pick one build, run in, kill, rest, run in, kill, rest, - repeat as necessary. Stu. 06/02/08.

Not to mention the farming of everything in the game, all in one run, and the total collapse of the economy.....Hagarr 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this would belong in a game where you have access to all your skills anyway. One of GW's strengths is that you only have access to 8 skills for the entire mission / task. That means that you need to put a lot of thought into which skills you bring. It puts limitations as to what you can do. The game would have to be much harder if you could switch builds at will. --

Alaris 15:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably want a different game altogether then. Limited skills is one of the signatures of GW. It's one of the reason why I love GW. Renin 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. I always found the fact that you have to go back to town to change skills to be a bit cheesy, like D&D's rule that you have to rest for 8 hours to prepare spells. If you're worried about people exploiting this by changing their skillset every few seconds, you could put in some restrictions, eg a swapped-in skill remains inactive for X seconds/minutes. That would ensure that skills only get changed when it's absolutely necessary (or the player is very paranoid). Similarly, balancing activities like farming etc certainly shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. -- Hong 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resting in D&D was just a bad implementation of recharge rules, IMO. I worked in pen & paper games, but was impractical for computer gaming. However, changing skills in outposts works very well for GW. Personally, I think that build system is a highlight of GW, and I hope it stays in GW2 untouched.

It also encourages balanced builds. If your build is too customized to fight Kournans, then you might die off easy against Djinns that roam the same area, or vice-versa. So you need to plan for the range of challenges you will encounter.

If people can switch builds at will, they will be much stronger than those who don't. That means that balance will have to be adapted, and that people will have to switch builds to be succesful. And for me, that spells disaster for our game: complexity will increase, but fun will decrease. --

Alaris 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally balance would have to be adapted. It would have to be adapted anyway, since they're removing henchies from the game and making it viable to adventure by yourself (or with 1 companion). And your "encouragement" for balanced builds touches on one reason why I dislike the current setup. What happens is that because of the hassle of having to refight everything you've already killed, you're encouraged to try to tough it out, even if your current build doesn't work. Stopping somewhere in the area itself would remove this incentive to keep bashing your head against the brick wall. Furthermore, IME it doesn't encourage balanced builds anyway. It just encourages different specialist builds for different areas.

Also, from an RP perspective I find the idea that you have to retreat all the way back to town to change skills to be just... not very plausible. Why can't you stop in the middle of an area? Places like Kaineng City and Ronjok village show that explorable areas don't have to be 100% filled with monsters that want to eat you. That said, I wouldn't mind at all if this was limited to skill changes, while profession changes or attribute point reallocation had to be done in town. That would provide another way of limiting just how much you can do outside: yes, you can respec from one sword skill to another, but not from (say) monk secondary to ele, or from 12 Strength to 12 Tactics. -- Hong 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also don't like having to start over just because I am hitting a brick wall, especially if doing a vanquish which is time-consuming to begin with. But if I'm not doing well, it's either because my build has flaws, or I am not adapting my tactics to the foe. With current balance, the game becomes trivial if you can respec your skills. There is enough variety of skills within each attribute that even your proposed "limitations" are not that limiting. So you'd be caught in a balance nightmare, where you either balance it to be difficult enough for those who change builds (hence too difficult for everyone else) or you make it easy enough for those who don't change skills (hence way too easy for those who do). Also, I'd hate to have to respec my whole team every time I run into a new mob. With the current balance, I do this only once at the beginning of a task, and that's time-consuming enough with H&H and even more difficult with PUGs.

The problem with RP perspectives, is that the concept is vague enough to provide support for just about any concept. And that it is often brought up to support flawed designs. Show me how the design makes the game fun, balanced, and challenging, and I'll find you a RP perspective that supports it. --

Alaris 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Build system of GW is practically the best, the most balanced system there is. Don't touch it. Touch skills, but not the 8 skills per person thing. One of the bad things about WoW (Here we go again, reefrencing this infernal game jsut because it has attracted more attention..) was the problem taht you could do a bajjilion things by yourself, which meant, essentially, there was no teamwork. 8 skills per bar system ENFORCES teamwork. On a similar note, teamwork is good.

If my memory serves me right, they DID have something similar to the suggestion back when Prophecies was released. After a few kills you were given some points so you can change your attribute points on the fly. If I remember correctly (correct me, just don't flame) that their reason for giving us the current system was to decrease botters/hardcore farmers that made it easy to farm and play with other people. Renin 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

yUP, it was called the attrib refund system and it was teh ONLY way to change your atribs (So you were stuck with your sttribs unless you grinded exp). It was nuked to oblivion, and rightfully so.

Wow! Did I start something here. Sorry. Just to add further chaos to the mix. How about this?

You know how you can have four weapon sets equipped and switch between them in battle by pressing F1-F4, what about if the same worked for builds. You choose four different, (but well thought out builds) in a city or outpost. Then head of into battle. You can switch between these four builds as often as you want in battle, but the builds still have to be pre-determined in an outpost or city in much the same way that they are now.

This seems to me to be one possible solution. Stu. 11/02/08.

It would be really cool to be able to switch between two (and only two) skill templates outside of towns. Lets say if your profession is N/E then you can hotkey switch between two N/E builds of your choice, but changing your primary and secondary profession woulnd't be allowed. It would open up more possibilities without imbalancing the game. Zealous 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of Continent/World

I have heard the world of Guildwars Described as tyria. is this what is correctly refered to as ? and if it is, is there going to be a name change of it or the Continent of Tyria to avoid confusion ? Crazy 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I doubt it, as it would likely confuse things even more. They initially called the world "Tyria" because they hadn't planned on any additional installments. So we had the world being Tyria. Then came Cantha. Now we need a name for the first continent. The only name we really have for it is Tyria. So the continent was Tyria, and the world was referred to as Tyria. It took me some time to adjust to that also. Calor

19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me actually. Before discovering Cantha and Elonia the continent of Tyria was the world as far as it's inhabitants were concerned. There was no difference between the world and the continent, they didn't know what a continent was, there was only Tyria and the waters around it. Daelin Blackleaf 19:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's because Tyria is the best continent duuh xD --Alien

19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yes, both the continent and the world itself are called Tyria. -- Gaile 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Combat Role Reinterpretation

I really hated how weak mages felt. To me it didn't feel anything like a mage, because not only did the graphic effects look weak, but the damage and its use was weak too. I loved playing mages because they felt powerful, but in Guild Wars there aren't any classes like that. Obviously, it can still be balanced (because I want feel powerful, not be stronger than others). My suggestion is to balance this by making a class with stronger attacks to have weaker defense. To rememdy the problem that a monk/healer/protective class pose, since these classes tend to make another completely protected regardless of their defense alone, I suggest that the power of the monk's ability to heal and protect another character is directly proportional to that character's natural defense. (For example, if a mage has weak defenses, then the monk's protective spell with also be weaker when acting on that mage) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:AnonymousSpectator (talk).

The monks ability to heal or protect, or smite, is direction proportional to their skill, a protection monk may have little to know healing capabilities (enchantments that they use also pose a potential downside as well). elementalists are also mages, and wouldn't consider them weak either. It just comes down to how you use the primary and secondary professions. House Of Furyan 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh on rethink, do you want their defense (I'm guessing armour rating) put up higher and by doing this their monk abilities and/or energy drop? Kinda like a Combat Mage. Isn't Paragon basically that? House Of Furyan 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should healing and defensive skills be weaker when they target casters? Lightly armored characters already take more damage, so they need more healing, and a heavily armored character with any defensive enchantment other than Mark of Protection, Reversal of Fortune or Spirit Bond will always be more durable than a lightly armored character with the same defensive enchantment. As for those three exceptions, they could be altered to take effect before armor. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's 2 things I'm talking about here. First, the spell effects 'look' and 'feels' weak, especially compared to the mages that I've played in other games (such as Ragnarok Online, final fantasy, and youtube videos of Warhammer online mages show better effects too). IMO, a mage (offensively) is about casting well placed/timed powerful/massive/destructive spells (what I imagine is during a typical play, time between casts are generally somewhere around 2-3 seconds, that includes taking into account not only cooldowns, but everything that's going on in battle, like waiting for the right moment to strike); and Guild Wars does not give me that impression in the least bit (I'm implying that this is one reason why I love to play mages). Secondly, the attacks of mages (elementalists and other spell casters to some extent) are weak in the amount of damage that they deal. This is due to spells like protective spirit and such, where they protect the percentage of max health; other things like the lack of mcuh difference in elemental/physical defense among the classes contribute to this result as well. The result is, even though I'm a mage, with a monk protecting me, I'm just about as survivable as a warrior. And to clarify about defense proportionality, I said to solve it that way, but there's really several ways to solve the issue (assuming you see it as an issue, of course), like changing hp ratio and whatnot. Anyways, it's just a bit my thoughts... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:AnonymousSpectator (talk).

A fire ele can dish out more damage than any other character, you just have to set up the correct combination of skills. It's not uncommon for me to do several hrundred points of damage to multiple targets in just a few seconds, as well as some degen condtions. Or a air ele, I can rapidly drop a single target before they have time to react. Using Earth, I can outlast any warrior sitting in the midist of a large group, and shrug off their attacks. You can customize your skills to reflect your play style. As well as combine spells, freeze a foe in place and hit him with multiple metor showers, as well as other spell, no wait time, it all depends on your setup. Med Luvin 19:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not every creature or player has protective spirt, and enchantments can be a bad thing. I've run with Protective Spirit on my dervish and had max health regen and still got nailed by eles. A skilled player can find ways around things like Protective Spirit, health stealing doesn't trigger its effect, neither does degen through conditions. A fire ele with some burning effect spells bypass Protective Spirit and render it useless, burning plus meteor shower and fire storm can take most opponents down.

If mages were so underpowered / weak as you're trying to say people wouldn't play them, but they do, and a lot of them. Enchantments can be used against your enemy. I find that in same cases mages can be to overpowered. When you're in Ab and the such and five people are in battle with 1 Ele/d with massive armor and health regen and it doesnt look like they're goin to be going down anytime soon thats just ... whoa. House Of Furyan 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protective Spirit only prevents damage over the cap. An elementalist enchanted with Protective Spirit will generally take a lot more damage than a paragon or non-Frenzying warrior enchanted with Protective Spirit. I generally agree with you about spell visuals, there are quite a few good ones like Fire Storm, Breath of Fire, Ice Spikes, Churning Earth, Spirit Rift and Death Nova, but there are quite a few spells which look quite disappointing compared to their icons, some of the most glaring examples are Fireball and Energy Blast. As for offensive caster power, I've heard that this is the case in PvP, but Elementalists are one of the most powerful professions in PvE. -- Gordon Ecker 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A balanced game will ALWAYS make elementalist/mages SEEM weak, even though they really aren't. Visually, what more could you expect from a start-up name? Remember how Final Fantasy first looked like? I'm sure they'll do something about it. Renin 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness and feelings thereof are entirely based upon your skillbar. When I was playing my Ele with only factions content available. I felt completely ineffective doing 30-40 points of damage with my fireball against Jade Brotherhood (who have obscene elemental armor, btw). Then I get my Me/Mo title character (Yes, mesmer) and now have all the games. I'm dealing close to 300 damage + five pip degen to all enemies in the area in a matter of 3 seconds, plus the obscene damage that Empathy causes in hard mode. Now -that- is what I consider effective... and people tell me that Mesmer is a bad choice for PVE... Shen 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Elemental Skills Strengthenin other elemental skills + More Conditions

In GW2 I was thinking about a new way of powering up elemental skills. Like say an Elementalist casts a water orb and then quickly casts a lightning orb into it could do 1.5x the damage? Or maybe a boulder with a fireball. Another system could be the player holds down a button to combine two spells/or three? Example: "Rain Shower" + "Lightning Bolt" = Could create a thunderstorm. Another system perhaps conditions like the following could also affect damage dealt:

Water: "Wet" - Player recieves 1.5x more damage from lightning but recieves half damage from fire. Once hit by fire this condition is removed.

Water: "Frozen" - Player moves 90% slower and activates skills 100% slower. Fire reduces the duration of this condition.

Fire: "Burning" - Player recieves ?x degeneration and spreads to adjacent players. Once hit by water this condition is removed.

Lightning: "Spasmodic" - Player has a 50% chance of failing to activate skills but has 50% chance of dodging attacks and projectiles.

Earth: "Hardened Skin" - Player recieves 1.5x more damage from fire magic but recieves 30% less damage from all other sources except holy and dark damage. Water reduces the duration of this condition.

Friendly fire could be introduced to help allies suffering from conditions but friendly fire should not deal damage to the ally. This is just a new idea so criticism/better ideas are to be expected. :) 61.69.44.25 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) aza1989

Aren't there already seemly ways of doing this with hexes etc? Get to be careful to not overpower the ele. 1.5x more damage... ouch! I would like to see visual effects for some kind of AOE effects, like a ward, that mists up the area - an environmental effect ele can conjure up suppose that would be the "rain shower" thing you were thinking of but I wouldn't expect any kind of boost to be 50% higher than original.

Some variations on the way we can do things are always fun. House Of Furyan 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, especially the part about using "Damage Spells" to have beneficial effects for your party. Crazy 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds too complex, and as far as what I've read, they want to simplify skills in game. Renin 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PvP Titles

In GW1 PvP Titles have actually made pvp into a grind. Constantly forcing me to play PvP just to get points incase I was to be ‘left behind’ and therefore never invited into groups. Anyone who joined GW late would never get a group in HA for being too ‘noob’ It was ridiculous, that is why HA got less and less people and forced people to play IWAY in order to grind the points.

PvP titles wreck the whole PvP groupings, people should be reconised for their skill, not the amount of time they grind. If you actually let people ‘transfer their achievements’ (ie, fame) you will wreck it all from the outset. PvP should never have been given titles and this is one thing that made me quit in the (after second expansion) because I took a couple of months break and lost my rank 8 groups since they had all gone to level 9 and I was now a ‘noob’.

PvP Titles wreck PvP. Destroy all memory of them. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:89.243.251.218 (talk).

Seconded 100%. While it would be cruel to erase rank in guild wars 1, as so many people have worked hard to get their rank up, I agree that Anet shouldn't repeat the mistake of adding rank into gw2. It started as a cool idea, but people started using it the wrong way, and now if you're under R3, good luck finding a group. I posted on Andrew Patrick's page a few weeks back, and if you're struggling to get a group, he said to find a PvP guild (without a rank requirement obviously), to get you up to the point where your not immediately labeled as a n00b because you have a life and can't play HA 8 hours a day.-Warior kronos 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with this strongly. The PvP titles reward grind over skill and leads to the above mentioned class system. If PvP is to be directly rewarded perhaps introduce uniquely skinned items available to PvP'ers, pets, collectibles, armor, etc. Make such items non-customized so that PvE'ers aren't locked out from the items and people can't /rank you by having you parade all your PvP shop gear. I would much rather see far more inventive rewards alongside such an idea and what I've heard so far has my hopes up. The best reward for PvP is for the PvP itself to be fun and rewarding. Anything else is just icing. Daelin Blackleaf 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We can keep the titles no prob in pv, but with a tiny adjustment: make them undisplayable, problem solved. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:78.176.238.20 (talk).

You all forget 1 thing. HA, RA, TA, HB and Zaishen will be all gone in GW2. It will be replaced with World vs World because of the reason above. Only real PvP will be GvG and I doubt your guild will look only at your title and els your guild is stupid and you should leave it. So correct me if I'm wrong but there will probally barely be a pvp title left.

It's too early to jump into conclusion that HA, RA, TA, Zaishen and HB may not be in GW2. Just like when Factions came, with it came bunch of PvP plays. Unless you're an insider and can guarantee that they will never have their own version in GW2. Renin 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate the Zaishen islands are under water. Al PvP areas on the continent of tyria are closed and the arenas that are left are in Cantha and Elona which are isolated; so there will be no PvP except GvG. If I'm correct the devs have stated that in one of there interviews, so please read those first before you doubt any conclusions. =) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.82.252.129 (talk).

From what i've read, all those PvP oriented stuff will be hosted in the Mist instead of their GW1 regular island. So seriously, for you to say that there's not ABSOLUTE proof that any incarnations of previous GW1 PvP games is absolutely unfounded. Again, I'm not saying there WILL be BUT there is a CHANCE that some other form of HA/RA/AB/HB may exist. Remember, the dev team of GW2 has NOT stated anything solid/concrete as to what will be happening so everything is still in speculation. Renin 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so far we only have two confirmed PvP formats, the serious GvG-like "structured PvP" and the casual "wold PvP", there could be other formats they haven't announced, and even if those are the only two PvP formats at release, they could still add more in an update or expansion. -- Gordon Ecker 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Lion's Arch become the new Battle Isles The_Movement_of_the_World House Of Furyan 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lion's Arch will probally become new sort of Battle Isle seeming balthazar opend a portal there but if I'm right it's also a corsair hide out in GW 2 and it could be a base to launch an attack on the undead dragon; that would be most logical seeming the corsairs have most against the undead dragon and it's closest to Orr. But does anybody have some good suggestions for new PvP seeming the battle isle is gone there will probally be new types of PvP in Lion's Arch. Maby all PvP (except GvG and Competitve mission) will be held in the mists?!

new emotes

i was thinking like /flirt or /die (where character randonly dies in town or anywhere else and does not count towards survivor)

/playdead would be better than /die Renin 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my post is pretty much a copy and paste from my own suggestion page I'm working on.

Emotes

/brag - related to the Players Kind of a Big Deal title track

/notfunny - more of a 'Haha not funny' emote than a laughing emote

/laugh - a lauhing emote

/cry - a crying emote

/ohdear - a rubbing the forehead emote when someone says or does something stupid

/regret - an emote that shows the player trying to talk their way out of saying something hurtful or in poor taste.

/hollywood - over dramatic death emote

/passout - player passes out and collaspes on the floor for a short time

/read - player either sits down and reads a book or stands an reads

/drink - player appears to drink from a canteen

you got some nice ideas there but the ohdear already excists it's called smackhead and hollywood and passout kinda sounds the same to me but the rest is awesome :D

The ohdear one isn't a doh (thinking homer simpson) its more "I can't believe he just said that" kinda thing. Hollywood and passout are similar but passout is a straight forward collapse (not very dynamic) but Hollywood would be something out of a cheesy B-grade film. "Oh, I'm dying, but wait I have to do something, no I'm dying again...." etc House Of Furyan 06:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I humbly request /facepalm be added. Daelin Blackleaf 11:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One thin that totally bugs me: The male elementalist dance, it eventually goes into that gay looking kicking motion, and stays in it, while other proffessions dances cycle and change, i mean i'm not gonna abandon my male Ele just cause his dance sucks, but I wouldn't mind a better dance for them in GW2. Lord Zepherr 07:41, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a dance tutor would be something they could add. Give each profession two or three dances and you can pick one at a time. House Of Furyan 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see gay, have a Paragon play the flute

Conditional Emotes or Status Effected Emotes

Emotes could also be different depending on player states (On a sugar rush or drunk) or related to a title (as some are also with PvP titles.

Sugar Rush

Players can have an emote that they appear hyper active, looking around at everything sharply, going off in one direction a step, then stops and deciding to go another way. Someway to look hyper-active.

Drunk

Various emotes can be effected by this status. Suggested emotes:

/attention Emote could so the body swinging around, trying to keep balance, maybe stumbling forward a bit then correcting.

/drink Can have the player hold an ale bottle or mug to the lips and take a drink.

/dance a drunken dance, need I say more?

PvE Title Track Emotes

Players with a high PvE title track, like Sunspear Title Track, can be in an outpost or area where there are NPC Sunspear Recruits and could call attention. If their track was high enough the NPC Recruits would stand at attention for a brief moment. House Of Furyan 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Accepting the fact that this is a long time into the future there may not actually be any Sunspears. I'd go so far as to say there almost definitely won't be any in Tyria. Daelin Blackleaf 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice the word 'like'. The sunspear title track is given as an example as a PvE title track since no where is there any information on the organisations within Guild Wars 2's pve environment. House Of Furyan 11:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So long as we get the emote at rank 1, then I'll be happy. I don't want to be grinding 160k points for that emote and me being a horder, I'd want to get them all. No grind emotes! Renin 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it say in "The Movement of The World" that Palawa Joko had been recruiting sunspear betrayers, and that the turned sunspears were sent to hunt down the remaining loyal sunspears, that had all fled to Tyria? Lord Zepherr 09:01, February 23, 2008 (UTC)

Dual Linked Skills

This is a small suggestion, or maybe question leading to a suggestion. Would there be any way to make skills linked to more than one attribute? For example, one of the variables would be linked to one attribute, and another to another?

Just like quite a few of the already existing skills ie. Lions Comfort. Unless I read your suggestion incorrectly.Hagarr 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this a while ago; as I recall, my example was a tornado spell that dealt damage based on air and water magic, and had additional effects based on either (so, for example, it might do 50 damage per second and 3 seconds of weakness per hit due to the player's air magic stat, and 35 damage per second and a 6 second 33% slowdown based on their water magic stat). Gaile's response was, I believe, that such would be too complicated for newer players. But it might still be a viable idea for high-end spells (and only high-end spells)... -- Armond Warblade

00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is too complex for GW2 re-envisioning of their skill tree but who knows, maybe their new incarnation of an elite may just very well be that. Renin 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like Anet has finalised anything in Guild Wars 2, dual linked skills sounds interesting and I don't think it would be too complicated for newer players, probably just more complex for Anet to try. Its not like 2 individual spells, its one. Seeing two elementalists pull off spells that combine for this would be harder, although that would be cool. Keep the ideas coming :D House Of Furyan 10:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Although aNet has not stated anything concrete about the skill system, you can basically get the feel of what the devs wanted in GW2 regarding their skills from most of their interviews. They really want to lessen skill complexity since if they'll be adding more skills (just like the current system, new campaign, new skills) through other GW2 campaigns/expansions having a dual-linked skill/s may just hinder their new mantra Renin 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a very basic core with more complex skills in the expansions. More similar to M:tG. So yes, I want dual-linked skills, and dual-class skills, and maybe even editable skills (equip at 5e for 10-15 damage, equip at 10e, 1.5 cast for 20-25 damage)... but that is with the GW1 mindset. GW2 is about basic skills with emergent complexity (from what we've been told), and I find those more complex skills not behaving like that. FWIW. --Ravious 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that hard to have a skill controlled by 2 attributes!! All you need to do in the skill description is to have two different colours, (rather than the green now). For example. Flames of Hell: For 2….6 seconds all adjacent foes are set on fire and take an additional 20…….60 damage per second. Attribures: Energy Storage, Fire Magic. The 2-6 seconds and Energy Storage would be in green and the 20-60 damage and Fire Magic would be in blue. That way you can see which skill effects which part of the spell. Stu. 26/02/08.

Mursaat as a playable race in GW2?

Hey! ;) Erm Yeah.. I know that mursaat will probably be one of the main antagonists during GW2, but i myself and many other people i know would love to have them as a playable race! obviously you would have tp nerf spectral agony (on the lore side of things you could say that because they are recovering from the titan attack that nearly destroyed them, they are not at full strength...) i know you probably wont do this, but if you did.. GW2 > Life. Cheers, Chris

Hey mate I don't want to spoil your fun but the mursaat probally won't be in GW 2 and if they will they won't be a playable race; they just didn't have a big enough roll in GW and they would be far to powerfull and agonising touch is one of there abilities you can;t make it weaker.

They had a huge role in GW, and they won't be playable because most died out. Calor

21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The devs have hinted that the mursaat will have some kind of roll in GW2, but won't be playable. If they go with the campaign model though, its a possibility for an expansion. Ashes Of Doom 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Really in which interview?

Never saw Mursaat being an integral part of the story for other campaigns such as Factions and Nightfall. Highly unlikely they'll be playable but who knows. I could be wrong, or they'll be summons! Renin 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the comments by Linsey Murdock in this thread for the tiny bit of info we have on Mursaat in GW2. User_talk:Linsey_Murdock#Asura_and_Mursaat --Aspectacle 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i knew that they probebly wouldnt be playable, just expressing my dreams for GW2 ;) and btw, the mursaat will be an enemy in GW2 i believe.. they are rebuilding their forces if you look at the lore side of the game.. in EotN there is a set of quests that involve helping former white mantle free themselves from 'facets' of mursaat hiding inside of them.. ill find the quest details later >.<

As rata sum is an anagram of mursaat, and even asura is an angram of ursaa. Asuras know a little the mursaats through polymock. . . and where they live in tyria. It is said that the asura lived underground and where forced to go on surface because of the destroyers, and that the mursaats where killed by the titans. If the mursaats who lived in maguuma south and the fire islands are killed by the titans first borns and the ones sent by the portal to denravi...

it is strange they were mostly all killed. the titans obey the bearer of the scepter of orr, who first command is to invade rin, lion arch and denravi, not chase the remaining mursaats of maguuma.

my conclusion : mursaats are asura. they both are powerfull spellcasters, they both lived since unknown time unknown from humans, they both thinks themselves as superiors to the humans, they both have teleport technology (as margonites and ascalonians well). they both lives in the same areas. If lazarus could "hide" himself in some humans, why not in every asura ? i can't say if mursaats becames asura or the opposite long ago, but i'm sure they are really linked.

the golem factory outside or ratasum, if it wasn't built by asura, was by mursaats, and they know how to use it quite well in the GOLEM mission : ). And, the asura gates, if they built it only for them, would have been quite more smallers. as mursaats don't walk, they even teleport themselves better with it ^^. you want to play a mursaat ? play an asura : ) lussh 12:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ungood

It's always the same, be the hero, slay the monsters, rescue the damsel/kingdom/world. Maybe I don't want to. Maybe I'd prefer to kidnap the damsel, ransom the kingdom, and try to take over the world.

Alignment, yes that dark vs light thing. Each mission could have two set's of objectives some nice, flower sniffing, charitable, all-round nice-guy ending to the mission and a darker, greed fueled, well it seemed funny to me, not-so-nice-guy ending. Perhaps even a couple of points where there is a completely different mission depending on alignment, maybe just once, at the end, where you stop the threat to Tryria and make some reptilian friends or become the threat to Tyria and dominate yourself some scaly slaves. If theres ever a GW3 or a need to move the plot on... well history is written by the victors and you did stop all those dragons either way.

Opens up an array of possibilities and you're not stuck in your alignment, since you can re-run the missions and gain opposing alignment points.

Armor: There could be armor sets that have different skins based on alignment, or even a couple restricted to one side or the other.

Skills: Some could have different effects, probably only visually, maybe more tangibly depending on your alignment.

Pets: Alignment is the difference between a fluffy tigywigy and a vicious spike collared man-eater.

Henchmen: Heroic henchies or monstrous allies.

House/Hall: Blue drapes and white marble or ebony inlaid with gold and bone. You get the idea.

Daelin Blackleaf 11:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Am personally waiting to hear more about how the races interact, whether a Charr character will follow the same story arcs as a human or a Norn etc. Having an independent story arc for each race would be great, could have the same outcome, maybe bashing a dragon or something, but differences in the journey you have to take to get there. House Of Furyan 11:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought similar thing. Maybe the evil forces could be corrupted by dragon, and serve them, and good would be on the side of the gods. anyways, I support this ^^

Nice idea. Going back a bit does anybody remember Might and Magic 7? That had a similar idea where at a certain part in the story you had to choose a path, either good or evil. This meant that the game was twice as playable as you could do the whole thing as evil and then do it all over again as good. There were different missions for each some that were only accessible if you were good for example.

It would be nice to see a distinct path through the missions in the game and get to a point where the decisions that you make have a HUGE impact on the way that the story unfolds. Stu 12/02/08.

Well I hate this idea in any game...alignments are straitjackets IMHO, let the player choose what to do on a whim. "Choose Master of Whispers if you are evil or Magrid if you are good." :( That being said... it seems like you won't be playing the "good" always. For instance it is hinted that a big Charr event/dungeon/mission will be to snuff out the souls of Ascalon. That is pretty non-good to me. Anyway, unsigned. --Ravious 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of choice is a straight jacket, how can you choose on a whim if the choices don't exist, and if there is no measurable impact then the choice may as well not exist. If said event went through then every Charr is destined to be a slaughterer of Ascalonians, theres no choice or whim involved. I too hate it when alignment restricts my options to the point where I feel like I've only seen half the game but I'm not suggesting that, there are no restrictions. If your not happy with Magrid run a few missions and dungeons, slay a few peons and all of sudden she doesn't want to work with you while Master of Secrets (I can smell the cheese coming off that name) starts taking an interest. Daelin Blackleaf 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alignment is overdone. I'd rather go for allegiance or reputation, much like current Kurzick/Luxon/Asura/Norn/etc. Even though I'm not a big fan of grind, that system works pretty well for GW:EN (lux/kurz has too much grind, and all the same skills). --

Alaris 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alaris, alignment is overdone. Good and Evil is for kids stories and politicians, in the real world, there is only allegiance. What is good for the Luxons is evil for the Kurzicks, and vice versa. I see no reason why we couldn't have everything the original post wanted but put into an allegiance type situation. For example, a bunch of human NPCs are trapped deep in charr territory, the player can either go get them and return them to Ebon Hawke and be the "good guy" for the humans, or he/she can go and kill the humans and be the "bad guy", while the Charr follow the same pattern for each choice but in reverse (i.e., killing the humans makes the charr like the player more). The charr are mounting an attack on Ebon Hawke, the player can choose either to defend or attack.

Actually, this give me a good idea, but I'll post it below for individual comment... (Satanael 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

It is true that there are no clearly defined Good/Evil Black/Whites, but all of this could play into a diverse and interesting Roleplaying environment (See below at my Roleplaying and Truncate Limit suggestion). Snuffing Ascalon souls sounds like an evil act to descendents of the Ascalonians, so maybe when interacting or partying up with a Charr, that might display to you so your character would know, or at least get the sense, that this person has done deeds that your character would consider to be evil in nature... Just a thought. Shen 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Damage Type

I would like to see damage type have more of a significant impact on the damage received. For example if you are attacking ice elementals then ice damage should have little or no effect whereas fire should crucify them. I know there is already a system in GW1 like this but it's not that noticable unless you sit down and do some maths work out how much damage you should be doing and how much damage you are actually doing and then hey you are doing more damage against the ice elemental with fire spells. I'm really petty though!! I would like to see a little x2 come up on the screen when I do more damage because of the damage type. It could work the other way with x0.5 for resistance.

Magical damage is easy bu I would also like to see differences in the physical damage slashing, crushing, piercing etc. Make some armors could be more resistant to certain types of attacks. Again I know it's only a small detail but it's the attention to detail that makes or breaks a game, and I happen to think that the deep sense of reward for using an 11-22 sword (slashing damage) agains someone with inappropriate armour and seeing the following attacks come up would be sooooo rewarding: 18 x2, 11x2, 13x2, 21x2, Crit 19x3 Stu 12/02/08.

I agree that damage type vulneribilities and resistances should be more common in PvE, but I think that a 30% or 50% damage bonus would be enough. -- Gordon Ecker 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Two comments... First, it *would* be nice to see if your attacks actually have bonuses, such as vulnerabilities, indicated somehow. 12x1.5 would look odd at first, but would be good feedback. Or an added visual effect... Second, I'm ambiguous about high resistance or immunities like seen in Diablo 2. While it adds an aspect of roleplay and strategy (in the planning), when face with those you can become helpless against the foes, which may quickly become a frustrating experience. So I would keep that for specific regions / missions rather than an across-the-board idea. It's less of an issue with party-based-games like GW, but it might become an issue if more solo-play content is introduced. --

Alaris 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like how Final Fantasy does their "Critical" hits, a visual like bigger font and/or different color. I'd like to see that my Searing Flames is actually doing 50% more damage to an ice monster rather than guessing (like the current system) if I actually did more damage. Renin 08:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

damage done

i think you should have more then just conditions your charater should react to the amount of damage your taking like if a giant would hit you you should get hit back aways and you should be able to jump or duck to avoid an attack. I think that's what they already intend to do in GW2 especially that they're adding a jump (and swim and other stuff) feature. Renin 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Knockback would be a nice effect to have on some attacks, especially if used in conjunction wuth knockdown. It would seem logical that a giant's attack would knock you some distance away, and it would be a second or two before you got up again. Stu 13/02/08.

guilds and houses

i think you should be able to buy houses and land. Guilds should be able to design their own guild halls and fight for contral of other guild halls and towns. so 1 guild could own 3 guild halls and a town and be known as a strong guild

The concept is good, I have to admit, But the idea of ownign other guilds Guild Halls doesn't exactly seem fair, and owning more tha tone town at a time brings up teh ever present issue of "The Super Omni-pwerfull guild that get's too powerfull so that absolutley nobody can un-seat them and they own alot of towns, fo ra very long time, so although it's a good idea, that wouldn't be fery fun for everybody. Now for the house things, thats a very good idea, but if a player is anything liek me at all, they wont spend money to upgrade it, in turn they won't spend much tiem there, in turn the house and land gets very un-neccisary, So unless you coudl make your own liek personal duel arena that would be open to any player to figh tin, i wouldn't spen alot of time at my house. THough knowing me, i'd still buy one, jsut to say "Oh i got my own land" and for the sake of having it. Lord Zepherr 08: 38, February 17, 2008, (UTC)

Hunting and Stealth

After looking at more concept art, I came across a picture of warriors with pikes crouching through the tall grasses towards a giant serpent. It was a bit too large to post here, but it made me think, " This is really a scene that never could have happened in GW1." but it's something I'd definitely love to see in GW2. I know it's probably been addressed in past months, but why not bring it up again?

The developers have been saying they want to add more energy and liveliness to the game, and allowing the players to use stealth, I think, would really help with this. Being able to do things like sneak through tall grasses or around corners could allow us to get the jump on enemies and add more strategy to the game. Stealth could also be affected by nighttime and lighting conditions as well as the enemy' intelligence rating. At any rate, adding another dimension like this to the combat is always good and might help give that feeling of a more interactive world that the devs are trying to create with GW2.

Please sign in with 4 ~ consecutively and read previous posted topics just in case you're doubling the topic already. Renin 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen (and I've read all posts from the last 2 months- I don't want to go further than that), this is actually a pretty original suggestion, and I think its a good one. The aggro circle is a nice game mechanic, but not exactly realistic. How about sneaking up behind that group of charr for once? Sins ftw? Ashes Of Doom 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, just in case the OP is doubling the topic already. I'd wait for them to release the GW2 incarnation of Assassin before this stealth thing is fully realized. Renin 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT WoW!!!

I dont want to wait 30 minutes for my elite to recharge, i dont want to run for an hour to get where i want to go, and i dont want some shitty ass slow-pace of play, i think i speak for most kthxbai 24.141.45.72 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have been paying attention to their press releases, they vehemently said that they're not trying to make a WoW killer. They're just adding stuff they think GW1 lacks and things they can't technologically add since GW1 programming is extremely hard. I do like the idea of running long ways, just keep map travel. I doubt they'll make GW2 "some shitty ass slow-pace" of play seeing that they're really trying not to become homogenized. Renin 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on the running part. Never seemed very natural to me to be able to teleport anywhere instantly. I would like map-travel to be available between pvp areas though, cause when you pvp you don't really care much about realism (omg he didn't die from a spear through his chest!). :P — Galil

03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going for realism, then it would seem to me you would be okay to "craft" for arrows, magical enhancements and the likes. Being realistic can only be so much fun. Retain map-travel, make the map a little bit bigger or at least outposts and towns should be 2 or 3 areas away from each other. Sure treading and running a long way but at least we'll have map-travel. Renin 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like map travel, I use it but thats just because I don't like running through the areas and having creatures spit stuff at me. With GWEN they introduced the Asuran Gates and I think them being the main sure of transportation around the map would be good and it could be kept to main cities, so there's still a bit of walking, running or riding involved. Other sorts of transportation could be introduced. Map travel will probably be preferred by many, but, for me at least, if they had the core cities linked by a gate network I'd probably use those for my main travel and take the run through area to get to it. Would please the geek in me :D House Of Furyan 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GW2 without map-traveling is a world of Grinding, annoying grinding. Buying a mount, feeding it, keeping it safe, sounds very WoW to me which I don't like. I don't want to grind. Period. Map travel makes the world less of a grind! Love the map-travel! Renin 09:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize now (after sleeping) that realism perhaps wasn't the best choise of word. Can't think of a word that does the trick however, but something that goes along with the story would be preferrable. I personally don't think "and then the heroes opened up their maps, pointed at <town name> and magically teleported there" goes well with any story. What I'd rather have is perhaps Asura gates every here and there and perhaps some other means of transportation spread out through the country as well. About mounts, just cause you would be able to get one doesn't mean it would involve grinding, feeding or safe-keeping (doesn't sound too much like WoW like you claim it to tbh, more like Lineage). I personally don't care if we get mounts, but I'd want some other means of transportation than map travelling. I too am against grinding, but you have to realize map travelling doesn't have one bit to do with negating grinding. I can think of numerous ways to travel without having to grind in between the cities. Asura gates, safe (mobless) roads, flying (like they solved it in WoW), teleport scrolls (like in many other MMOs), etc. Surely the ANet team of 140 members (at release of NF, maybe more now) can think of more. — Galil

14:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "immersion" instead of "realism"?--

Cyberman 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking up flight in WoW was very cool... the first time! The nice thing about map travel is that it is convenient, fast, and cost-less. If they rename it or modify it in some way to be more coherent, then sure. For example, they could instead of pretending that you teleport, that you just travel there but the cutscene is skipped. Like in movies, and you could have the red dots going from starting location to end location instead of a load screen. --

Alaris 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't aNet proud of their Map-travel feature to begin with? What would be great is that they put 2 or 3 areas inaccessible just by map travelling, like how far sacnoth valley is from any town or outposts. Limit the numbers of outposts and towns and that would dramatically change how people view map-travel. Current system makes the map seem and feel smaller. Renin 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess, and I think this is pretty well hinted at so far, is that the Asura gates will basically replace map travel. That way, it's still easy to travel, but some places can only be accessed by running there (such as those that are far away from town/gates). This is not really too different than we have now, I mean, you've got to run to Rotscale or Galrath. The only thing I don't really know is how they'll deal with you wanting just to jump someplace once you are far away from an Asura Gate. Will they make you run all the way back to the nearest Asura Gate, or will they have some feature that quickly runs you back to the nearest town? (Satanael 08:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

So long as there's still map travel, even though no matter how limited the places we can actually map-travel to and fro then I'm fine with it. Renin 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be attacking anyone but I have a life, so I wouldn't have the time to run everywhere the idea of having to run to places like in WoW is just idiotic so no, I that we don't have to walk so It would be alot easier to have map travel.-- Ninja Dragon

00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

it all depends on the level of play you want i mean just pointing at where you go is boring and you might miss stuff on the way id like to see mounts but not ones you have to feed and stuff but the asura gate between main cities is good but if youve finished a quest and its a long run back mabye introduce somthing like the home town thing in wow(i know its not wow)but somthing similar so when your finished you can just go back to your home townVinesy 11:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Profession Synergies, rather than more classes

Taken from a discussion on /v/:

I don't want new classes. Stick with the 6 core, but add in synergy skills you can only get by mixing two classes. For example, Ritualist could be removed and the skills gained by being a Monk and Necro at once. The regular skills would have related synergies, like gain buff if carrying item/near spirit, etc. Monk/Necro would get resto and defensive communing spirits, while Necro/Monk would get offensive spirits. Ele/Necro would get the Lightning-based Channeling.

Mix two classes and unlock a third sub-class related to the kind of synergies you'd normally get from the class combo. W/Mo gets paragon-like skills. R/W gets assassin stuff maybe?

Don't go adding new classes every time you release a chapter, add skills and abilities. New playstyles/roles can be added through class combinations.

I think after the core classes that all of the bases were covered, and the other professions were in-betweens, really. You had paragon which was a ranger/monk/warrior, derv which was PBAOE ele/monk/warrior, sin which was sort of like ranger/warrior, and rit which was monk/necro/ele. this is why i feel class combo synergies would be a good idea - you still can have these classes, but as subs to other ones, rather than a new, but not fleshed out class. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:124.190.0.190 (talk).

Please do not forget to sign in after your posts with 4 consecutive ~ , so that we'd know who to talk/converse with. thanks :) I like new professions, limiting professions to 6 just sucks. Who wouldn't want to play a new expansion/campaign with new professions? besides, they all have mentioned that even the "core" GW1 professions might not even exist in GW2. Of course all I know is that a reincarnation of the Warrior, Monk, Ranger and the Elementalist will definitely exist. I also don't like a sub-sub-profession. It makes for a more complex game which the dev team is really sticking to their new mantra of simplifying skills. But then again, who knows? It's all merely speculations from here. Renin 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the professions for Guild Wars 2 should be available from the start. Expansion professions are hard to shoehorn into an existing set of niches. -- Gordon Ecker 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That would leave alot less fun for the PvP oriented people, I mean if their expansions/next campaigns will no longer feature new professions, just new limited skills, what else will our PvP heads look forward to? I think what should be done is that before they put into action the new professions, they should take alot of time to really work out the bugs and skill combos. I think that some of the added professions in GW1 was a little bit rush and not really well thought out. Renin 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If they do add new professions, I don't think they should add more than one per expansion, and I think that they should be extremely careful about making the new professions are viable and desirable in both PvE and PvP. I don't want to see any more professions get nerfed to death in PvE like ritualists were in GW1. -- Gordon Ecker 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One shouldn't be bad but GW2 will be lagging behind amongst other more popular MMOs. 2 should be okay as long as they really really REALLY take their time with it. I do feel bad for my Paragon now and would hate to see if Paragon 2.0 is hastily added on GW2 without much thought on it's synergy with other profession and other races. But then again, it does seem they will be taking their time from releasing newer/added content/expansion/campaigns. Renin 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't enjoy playing the 6 core professions, out of all 10 I enjoy dervish the must. If the humans in Guild Wars 2 don't have access to all the established professions, all 10 of them, from the get-go I think that's a weak play by Anet. However, with the introduction of the new races I wouldn't expect to see all of them having access to the 4 additional professions. I wouldn't expect to see a Charr dervish for example, or a Norn for that matter, or Asuran, as that profession doesn't seem to have synergy with the themes of those races. Asuran Warriors seem a bit flaky, you see them in GWEN and I just think of Yoda without the force or lightsabre. I'd like to see more unique ways of showing the core 6 professions with the other races. Asuran Warriors might be inside a golem, wearing it like armour for example.

In regards to the expansions and campaigns, we'll have what, 5 races. Each campaign could have a theme to which race is the core of that campaign, the first Guild Wars 2 could be themed primarily around the humans and not introduce any new professions there as we've got four other races to try, and also they may be redesigned and take some getting used to again. Guild Wars 2.1 could add another charr profession, for example. That kind of thing. I don't think, personally, there should be that many new professions for the additional races with the first release, as we've got 5 races to choose from. As long as humans have the 10 professions (and aren't butchered), additional professions for the other races can added later, I'd be happy.House Of Furyan 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What I dislike about that is the "race-specific" profession, it would leave alot of irk to several PvP heads. Professions should be accessed by anyone, I know I would so hate it if the Asura has a "summoner" profession which my charr toon can't access, it simply leaves a bad taste in the mouth. IMHO. Renin 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats also another aspect of race specific professions. Also we don't know if they're adding any race specific mechanics to the game. Scratch that, we don't even know what professions the races are using yet. House Of Furyan 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eye of the North has given us a taste of what MAY come. I think what will happen is that that certain races will have access to certain PvE only skills. I could be wrong but that's the impression I got Renin 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft has only nine classes, they didn't add any in The Burning Crusade, and there's only one confirmed new class for Wrath of the Lich King. Anyway, I think that adding new professions over time without making them part of any expansion might be a better option, as "must have" non-core professions would be a non-issue. As for the initial profession count, I don't think that Guild Wars 2 having 10 or 12 profissions would pose any problems as long as all the professions are available at release, I don't think there isn't any fundamental flaw with the assassin, ritualist, paragon, dervish, chronomancer, martial artist proto-dervish or any other hypothetical cancelled professions, however I do think that adding professions in expansions is risky due to integration issues. -- Gordon Ecker 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could be the case, but that to me seems flawed. PvE and PvP shouldn't be too far apart, if there are skills avaliable to that race only in one area of the game, that sucks. Title track skills, yes, thats explainable, but not Race Skills. I'm eager to actually hear from ANET in regards to the races and what professions are in Guild Wars 2. I mean, they should have that sorted by now, maybe not the skills but the professions for each race or all (if they're not introducing race specific professions that is). I'm hungry for some info :D House Of Furyan 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

@Renin: You ask "Who wouldn't want to play a new expansion/campaign with new professions?" - well, at least I don't need any new professions, though I don't mind them. I've been Warrior/Ranger all during all campaigns and I intend to recreate it in GW2 as well.

IMO, it would be best if ANet created those professions at the start, but witheld them for later expansions. We could see NPCs with professions that are yet to come, for example. I fear they will have to add new professions, simply for the "grind is fun, levelling is masterin" crowd out there. (i.e. those who think the goal of the game is to get to max level, instead of actually playing the game)--

Cyberman 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That would still cause the problem I'm worried about. If a profession is only available with an expansion then the other professions will need to be designed to work fine without it. -- Gordon Ecker 11:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GW, compared to other MMOs have little to offer, that's why the need to introduce new professions is being used here. I'm not saying that for every expansion they need to release a new profession or two. I wouldn't mind if they held back every other expansion, or if they do increase the things we can do in GW2 then maybe we wouldn't need new professions to "play" with because after getting all the leet stuff, finishing all the missions, getting bonus and maxding titles, there's not much anything (currently) left to do. Play PvP when you're primarily a PvE-head, I doubt i'll really get into PvP. For me, if they're giving us the same content as GW1 has, they will definitely need to add new professions. They just have to be REALLY careful about what new profession they'll add. They've also stated that there MIGHT not be an actual level cap AND that if we do have tons of characters and play with other people, those lower leveled toons will get a buff. So, at least for me, there's actually less grinding if that's the case. Renin 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A unique attribute to one of the synergies would be nice for example if you become a necromancer/mesmer you unlock the attribute ether magic. There are skills that are unique to ether magic and you can put points into as you would other attributes. Other attributes could be banishing for say an elementalist/ritualist, chaos magic for say elementalist/necromancer and so on. Of cause this means that there would be lots of new attributes for every combination of classes and there would also be lots and lots of new skills to learn, but that's half the fun unlocking new skills and spells. Stu. 20/02/08

Humans vs. Charr

Okay, right now we know that there will be at least two kinds of PvP in GW2, the more "relaxed" PvP world that will take place in the Mists, and the more formal PvP that will happen between guilds (GvG). There is no real mention of anything really like AB or the faction stuff that goes on in GW1. I think it would be a real shame if we did not have something like this in GW2, the hybrid of PvP and PvE that we saw in Factions was pretty awesome, even though it was not as seamless as some of us had hoped.

Therefore, I think we could easily, within the world of GW2 and Tyria, have a similar hybrid of PVE and PVP, but make it even more seamless because we now have a persistant world to work with. In other words, one faction is the Charr, and the other is the humans fighting in Ebon Hawke to try and retake Ascalon. In this realm, there could be specific quests or missions that take place in the persistant world, but only those who have signed up for it through a designated NPC may participate. These quests revolve around some event, say a Charr convoy heading towards the frontlines. If you accept the quest from a Human NPC in Ebon Hawke, you join a team of humans who are going to raid the convoy. At the same time, a different player can accept a quest for the same event but from a Charr NPC in a Charr town, and then join the convoy and help defend it. Those who have accepted the quest to defend the convoy can fight the players who have accepted the quest to attack the convoy, but neither may attack any other players (i.e., those who have not accepted either quest and are just exploring around or something). To help designate who is who, once you accept the quest maybe your character has a GW! Boss like aura around him/her to let everyone know who's side you are on and that you are participating. Then, once the quest is finished (either the convoy is destroyed or is reaches its destination), the designation turns off and no one can attack any other player until a new one of these events starts, and the victors head off to their quest rewards and the losers are, well, just that.

To make it more interesting, maybe the outcome of this quest/event will determine whether another one appears. For example, if the Charr successfully deliver the convoy of supplies to the frontlines, then they amass an army of NPC Charr that will stage an attack on Ebon Hawke, and players can participate in that attack in the same way. You could even set it so that the level of success of the previous event determines the start-out resources of the next. For instance, if only a small portion of the aforementioned convoy arrives safely, then a rather small and ill-equipped army of charr are sent to attack Ebon Hawke, whereas if the entire convoy arrives safely, then the army attacking Ebon Hawke is much bigger and meaner.

Also, the key for this would be to make sure that no matter the outcome, everything is repeatable. For example, if Ebon Hawke gets sacked, the Charr sympathizers should A) get some mean loot for the feat; and B) eventually be forced out in some way. Maybe the ghosts of Ascalon come in and clear out Ebon Hawke LOTR3-style or something like that. It would then be the responsibility of human-sympathizers in Kryta to recruit some NPCs to go take back the vacant Ebon Hawke using the Asura gate. (Satanael 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea, so long as any other races can join in. I'd hate it if my human toon can't join the charr's faction and vice versa. Renin 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, I see no reason why there should be a restriction on what race of player can join each side, and that's exactly why we would need the color aura designation. And also, I would think that participation on each side would give you faction points for each side, and maybe even work towards a title for that faction (hint hint ANet, KEEP TITLES!!).

Ah, that just gave me a thought, maybe if you actually achieve such a crazy difficult thing as sacking Ebon Hawke, those Charr-sympathizing players who participated could not only get some crazy cool loot, but also get a unique title for the accomplishment like "Conquistador del Hawke" or something nifty like that. (Satanael 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Wow that's an awesome idea :D this way the humans can capture cities back and the charr could capture and and ebonhawke would be like cavalon and CoF would be like Houze Zu Heltzer?

ya i like it but i think when attacking a town everyone there should be involved including npcs like merchant and others and walls and other buildings could get damaged in the fighting

                    Canthas half

But think of factions were how many years in the future theyve pushed out all other races excpet the humans. Cantha is now being lead by a shadowy political system full of fascists and evil politians. soooo. we could make a resistence force those of cantha who support the tengu naga gaki and all the other races that were pushed out. Be the resistence fighters of the 'Old Alliances' and then those who support a stronger more unified cantha. Take the title system but add to it yes the pve skills in guild wars from abbing were nice but... We woulda liked more for instance certain pve buffs like eotn rank titles as well as exclusive items weapons etc. Territory exchange and capturement should be more devolped as well as faction battles being able to control ai mobs groups such as siege turtles and npc and ai would be nice. The land it self should change as the fighting goes on like for heavens sake the elementalist called in a meteor shower and killed 4 warriors but the shrub near them has neither become enflamed or has bin incinerated. The fighting locations would obvously change where humans dwell of either factions like the echovald and jade sea. Atmospheric effects changeing the battle field would be nice to like if it rains find it harder to move and so on. to arena net dont just recycle the old ideas we dont need imperial siege turtles here we want something fresh but not alien. armor and weapons of war will of had to change in that amount of time from the last guild wars saga. they will be geared for a much more devolped and broader bestiary of foes to fight. the imperial empire woulve changed alot from fighting races that are not human and are now used to combat theyve become a more militeristic state like the kournans.

And that is how i see cantha... IGN: Archemides Assasin

Keep maximum party size above profession count

In Prophecies the maximum party size was 8 and the profession count was 6, so there was room for everyone. Usually there were one or two unpopular professions, but it wasn't a huge inconveniene to pick up one of them. Factions raised the profession count to 8 but kept the party size cap at 8 (except for the 2 elite missions), making it possible to squeeze in a member of every profession, but far more difficult. Nightfall raised the profession count to 10, making it impossible to include all professions in a same party. I think that the party size cap in Guild Wars 2 should be higher than the profession count, and should stay higher than the profession count even if they add more professions in order to encourage party diversity. -- Gordon Ecker 09:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't actually know the mechanics of PvE and PvP in Guild Wars 2 yet. As far as I know players will be able to travel with a companion and I haven't seen anything about parties yet. I'd only see 8+ size parties being good in events, huge battles etc. House Of Furyan 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need of 8+ seeming nobody would need every proffesion in his/her team; maby only for the WvW we could do party groups of 10+ but for PvE I don't see the problem of max 8..I think that if you get a way to big group you would overpower

The party size should increase more when playing the storyline, 4 is good number to start and 10 is probably good number for normal gameplay. And more for elite missions, even 20+ for bigger raids.

(Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right the max party size for PvE in GW2 is 2.-- Ninja Dragon

00:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pets as companions

I suggest merging the concepts of pets and companions. Once charmed, a pet would be your companion - you would be able to customize its skills and use it in the place of the regular companion(s) available to you. The pet's profession would of course be fixed, and its available skillset limited to what makes sense for such an animal - pets with talons would be able to use dagger attacks, large pets might use blunt attacks etc. The use of 'pets as companions' in this way need not be limited to a the ranger profession (or ranger-like profession, since we do not yet know what professions will be available in GW2). 'Ranger-like' profession(s) could use something like charm animal, a 'necromancer-like' profession might kill something of the required profession and permanently animate the corpse to use as a pet/companion (ideally all animals/enemies to which this would be applied would have a 'undead' texture or model - such models/reskins would be used for regular enemy undead as well). An 'elementalist-like' profession could quest to learn how to summon a elemental or dijn to use as a pet/companion. Asurans (or characters sufficiently friendly with Asurans) could have the option of using a golem as a pet/companion. Conventional hero-like companions would still need to be available for when you need a companion of a different profession to your charmed/animated/summoned/constructed companion. Jbuk 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an awesome idea; for every proffesion a specific sort of pet/companion and for a specific race a different kind of specie (example: Charr, charr hunter beast or whiptail devour, Asura different GOLEMS for each proffesion etc.). I too think it would be nice if the pet will stay on your side always and not only in an exploreble area but in cities too.

My Suggestions

Monster Populations and Farming

I have a suggestion for Guild Wars 2. Seeing all the other RPG games have the system of monsters respaning after u kill them I want to see Guild Wars be a little Different. I hope seeing they are increasing the land size of Guild Wars to the point I hope for in fact there are no such thing as reaching the edge of the world (hearing that in Oblivion there is about no way to explore the whole game b/c it is SOOOO huge u can keep walking for a year straight and you will never find the edge of the world or come across a place u been in.) Why can't Guild Wars 2 have monster populations? It would make more sense. More the players farm a certain monster in game, harder it is to find them to keep farming from them. Its like Skale for example. About a million players keep farming them, and because they farm them, their population goes down and they become harder to farm and find. After a while people stop looking for them cause of their rarity then after a certain amount of time or a certain time like year or whatever the Skale population gets larger again then they become common(as of time of day or season they usually come out like mating season or migrating season or etc.). IT would stop monster spawn killing like in other MMO's which have a few game servers seeing the world is SOOO Big. BUT also b/c of population it can determine how many bosses there are in each species as of a Monster Specie God Like Boss that would take about Thousand of players to defeat in the world as a event of some sort. --72.178.138.105 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Making a monster population system would kill the game. Guild Wars 2 might have more PvE presistent areas vs instanced, and if people are farming a creature those who are new or just reached it would miss out and unbalance the game experience. In my own suggestion page on my user page I suggest having creature herds moving due to seasons, to give a bit of life to areas. House Of Furyan 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But still There is a problem about botting and staying in one area in game still. It would kill the bots seeing that b/c a certain bot is built to kill one monster. See in Guild Wars, there area is determined by a party personal map and on that personal map u kill everything nothing spawns back eh. Now remember what the developers say there is going to be 3 PvE servers or worlds as you call it. Now if there are heards epeople can acually find out when a heard is going to be at a certain time of a year then use the bot everytime that part of the year comes. You know botting gets people PO'ed because they cant farm this many certain items because they have a life and the bots is a substitute for a actual player who is not there. If it was on a population setting the play who makes bots can not predict when is the monster type going to thrive or not as it also make it hard for the bot to find the monster they try to find and farm. Same as Bosses someone posted below about making bosses spawn again. Well do that then will it get rid of our farming problem as fake players? Also items. People now a days just fram greens from the same boss over and over. I would just make sense seeing that GW 2 is going to take place in a 1 world server or whatever make bosses hard to farm and items the drop not boss unique like "Galie's Staff" (Boss unquie) BUT species unique like Valar Charr Staff of ORR or something along those lines. --72.178.138.105 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots would still exist, adding a population mechanic is only a mathematical equation and easily predictable, otherwise would leave too many possibilities for unexpected effects. Population limit also leaves the possibility that a certain species may not generate when its supposed to and leave a hole in an area, or multiple holes. With a population limit or variable botters could very well kill entire areas and make them featureless for the average player (thinking PVE will be presisent not instanced). We do not yet enough about the mechanics for the areas yet (Anet will be working on them now if they're hopefully for a beta this year).House Of Furyan 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We will see till the beta but the system of monsters in GW with zones and they reappearing after you zone as of other games a monster(s) spawns out of no where after it is killed is completely obscured and simply repetitive where players hate seeing its the same thing again. Like getting money: kill a monster, go back to town sell drops, go out of town, kill the monster, go back to town sell drops, as it then repeats over and over as of you die u rez then go back to where u were fighting the monster then die again and do the same again. It Gets old. --72.178.138.105 05:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Weather

Speaking of Time of day when a creature comes out there should be Weather changes like it snows suddenly or it starts Raining or Misting as of sleet or freezing rain. Because of this it would change ALOT of things, like environmental effects. If its cold or snowing it will cause so kind of effect to our characters then just nothing at all. They become slower or something else. As of being hot it will effect our characters motivation b/c of how much armor they have on that make them very hot to fight in or etc.

As of Night or Day it would make sense if during a moonless night our characters sight becomes limited because of no light as of fog also.

Also what would help is if elementalist casts magic it would make sense if they cast a fireball from the heveans, the clouds in the sky moves as a ball of fire comes down to the earth or as they cast thunder some grey clouds would come then u start to see lightning and etc. as o a little rain of a ele some how uses magic to cause it to. BUT seeing the weather change being created from a play the weather in the area doesn't change AT ALL its only in that area that the weather is affected and after the spell everything become back to it was and etc.

Now Seasons, It would help to create the 4 seasons, because of this it would affect the monsters activities in the WHOLE game almost or in that part of the world at least. Seeing its like that Spring also brings out the environment also with trees blooming as of St. Patrick's day u see clovers all over the ground as of everywhere in game almost is fantasy like green. Also it would be cool is to plant seeds then later in the game it becomes a tree, and seeing your able to cause damage to the enviroment with attacks u can destory it then plant another seed or etc. --72.178.138.105 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

another idea about the seasonal thing is that you could have monsters/bosses that only come out during that season. also i dont know how exactly this would work but it think it would be cool if the weather in some parts of the game matched the weather outside.

Bosses

As of bosses. It doesn't make since to have 1000, Dragons Flat bow b/c there is only one Drago Boss. I suggest to make a boss that appears one time EVER in game and it drops a certain Item that can only be found in game ONCE. It would also help kill most of the farming of this certain boss and one of a kind Goldy Weapons would be rare in game be very VALUABLE. Also. --72.178.138.105 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol so when you kill him he's gone 4 ever? mate this is GW there slogan is Death is never the end and the devs would never create a 1 time boss that's just a weird idea unfair to other people

But look at what your saying "Let the bosses have every weapon they have under their name." When a weapon drops It is yours BUT why does it have the name of the original droper or monster on it? Why are you a Necro with GALIES STAFF? Doesn't make sense does it. IF you kill a boss that appears one time in the game doesn't mean it will drop a rare item with its name in it. The rare weapon drops could be species based like i said and if you kill bosses you will get the boss rare items from that species if you get what I mean. Also it will kill farming seeing that if they know a certain monster drops a certain weapon they will farm it to death and do it over and over to get that certain item. Look If you kill a boss another boss in that race will takes it place. HOW well lets say if a monster kills a certain amount of players it gains exp. or another monster so it starts out as a baby (with my monster populations thing in mind) Now if it keeps killing other monsters or players it gets stronger and bigger and it evolves to become and adult. Now if it hasn't died yet and a player kills a boss the race needs a new leader to function so they will make this monster we were following a New boss of this race or the monsters who live in that certain area. Now back to weapons if you kill these boss you will might get a unique item that that races usually uses. EVEN MAYBE a rare item that races uses and they keep sacred. IT would be REALLY weird to see a boss or monster spawn OUT OF NO WHERE after a player kills it for a certain amount of times. Also if you look at a population idea it can EVEN be possible to get a monster when it was in a egg and etc. And IF it was born under u and u rasie it u can make it your pet or transportation ^-^ get where I am coming from? --72.178.138.105 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Species Title(s)

If you kill a certain species in Guild Wars 2 u eventually get a title called "DragonSlyer" Or something like that or "The Dragon Reaper" to being the Death reaper of Dragons or Demons or etc. It would make titles more unique and it would be a One of a kind title almost seeing some titles in game EVERYONE HAS and most players are like whats the point of getting a title if thousands of other people have it also. --72.178.138.105 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

btw still adding more soon --72.178.138.105 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Oblivion note is wrong. It takes less than twenty minutes to walk across the entire world, and the invisible walls are pretty intrusive once you get there. --71.229.204.25 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for infoming me BUT you guys do get the point do ya =)

I dislike Species title(s) because it'll add alot of grinding. Grinding for titles is the only thing we have (currently) since we don't have much to do anymore nor expect anything more. So I really say no on more endless titles. Renin 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

@72.178.138.105: How would that be unique? Or do you plan to award the title to whoever has slain more of enemy type X than everyone else on the server?

@Renin: I think grinding for titles is better than grinding for levels to complete the game. Titles don't hurt anyone. Forced level grinding does.--

Cyberman 09:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GW2 will buff you when necessary so I really doubt we'll be grinding so much for levels compared for titles. I just don't like titles as a mean and end for lack of things to do. The more things we can actually do in GW2, the lesser we have to rely on grinding for whatever. Renin 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember titles are optional. IF any of you have read the Book Eragon (Spoiler) Remeber when he killed the Shade. the whole LAND knew him as "Eragon the Shade Slayer. Also in the game of Fable the character u play doesnt have a name BUT all the NPC's knew him as the title that you bought for him like "Chicken Caser. It would help the designers to even put voice over in the NPC's and they acually Adress you by ur well know title than not have a voive over with some text and your name in it. It can serve as more than a purpose than just showing it off to people but also help the designers and entertain the play if NPC voice over was added to about ALMOST every NPC in game as of enbeded voice chat if the players have a mic so they dont type every single time. I my self wouldnt mind have a nickname of my character if he/she has aheived something it sure in the hell is beter than have ur characters name in text then have a NPC know u by ur title and feel like the world of Tyria acually knows you for your doings.

Also by unquieness there can be a million monsters in game. Kill of one type of monster will give u one of the million titles in game. Now compare that With Guild Wars Look at how many people acually have Max title. Before you can say "OMG I SEE A PERSON WITH THE TITLLE PEOPLE KNOWS ME" But look at the game now. IF you see the person with the title its like "O another person with Rank 2 of the max title or etc. I would be nice to have that feeling again when you see another person reach a title that its One hard to get to or Two a title that it is so rare to get that is barley exisist in game. People Now consider having a Mini Panda or a Everlasting Beetle Juice as a accomplishment and ask there should a title for such a stupid thing for something so UBER hard to get. Somepeople want to show off. Some want to be known in the game or at leaset feel like they are known, As of some other just want to play the game and get around. What Kind of MMO feels like they are acually in that time period....in that world. The last time i had this feeling was from reading Books about Magic wizards and etc. Why cant a game make people acually feel like that? There are only a few now that can only do that. --71.40.88.199 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding NPC voices to address everyone with their current "tittle" would just mean more money to spend on voice over actors/actresses and it's not something (I think) aNet would (at least for now since they're just restarting GW) really think and prioritize simply because there are more important things than an NPC telling you how uber you are. But like I said, titles shouldn't be the means to an end of "nothing left to really do," so i rather have more CONTENT than titles. Renin 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm all for more voices in the game, but give priority to character voices (the player gets to pick for voice for their character). NPC voices are nice but apart from their required "GREET" "BYE" "OPTIONAL" dialogue I'd be happy with just reading text. Voices for everything but given the nature of the game I wouldn't expect to see it indepth. Titles like that are just grinds, the cap would have to be so high and it just gets boring after a while. Yes, titles are optional but you would most likely start them indirectly, and see it at the bottom of your title list. For a lot of people seeing that it bugs them and generally that annoyances forces them to do it. Personally, I hate having something uncomplete, I get the same feeling with titles, I don't need to do it but its there bugging the hell out of me so I do it. House Of Furyan 04:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't we all want everything in this game, given more depth. I like my NPCs talking to me like what they did with Eye of the North but giving them voices because of a certain "title" seems to be not within their budget. Given the budget of WoW, I'm sure that's not all they'll actually be able to add. Now, I'm not saying titles are a bad thing, I do like how Treasure Hunter + Lucky titles affect Lockpick stats (I do hate however, that it is character based). I think they should look into more that kind of title, something that can't affect your gameplay. Renin 04:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I could Agree with Renin that certain titles you want and others you don't want. I do however would like to be called a slayer or something or whatever. But also If your a player who looks in dungeons for rare items that barley no one get it game I would also love that seeing it does give a player something to do than just sit around all day doing nothing after beating the storyline. Besides IF the get rid of titles I don't care BUT they have to replace the titles with mini activities like fishing or play some kind of game in guild wars like cards or something to keep the player going. After someone beats a game most of them just lay it aside and let it collect dust. Title are there for something a player can do as then putting the game aside. Some title people want some people just do it for something to do in game. But like i said its the players decision if they want a title or not. Its mainly on the topic what does the game offer after they beat the story mode? Me Myself Wouldn't mind fishing hours on straight then getting something NPC's would love you about or so forth. Voice overs I would love to hear though most of games today have them no matter what and text is becoming something of the past unless a deaf person needs to read it. It doesn't have to be EVERY NPC in the game that has voice over BUT it should be more than what is in GW right now. When GW released a few voice over i was quite happy even when they fixed Factions and Profocies mouth scynce to where if the character is talk they acaully move their mouths. --72.178.138.105 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Customizing

It would be really cool if u customized your weapon u can acaully give it a name though it will still have its original name like Longsword u can call it Excalliber b/c its only for you and looking at the Medieval times weapons mostly had names.

Holiday Events as of NPC's

Halloween would be cool IF instead of making a new build of the game the NPC's start to to walk out of buildings with Halloween decorations and hang them around town or as in winterday or the Dragon Festival or Canthan new year. New bulds just makes a game feel like....a game. A game like this should feel like that u are acually playing in a REAL LIVE BREATHING WORLD. Npc's start acting like people in the fantasy books or civilians during the medieval ages as of today a little. NPC's should have a mind of their own and play a role in the game also to make it feel alive than just now ing GW they stand around and do a little bit of emotes now and then...DO THEY EVEN HAVE A HOME OR FAMILY or do they usually take a break off work. It would be really really cool to see a system like that, like if Anet wants to creat a even in game u start seeing NPC's doing stuff randomly. People wont know what they are doing until they are done. It will keep the players always guessing. As of also it wont upset alot of people like now in GW stuff just happen out of no where like the presents npc in the 2006 wintersday when the NPC came out of no where and etc.

Also some stuff I am getting from other games like the growing trees is an idea i got from fable 2 and how the world changes with the character getting older, as the of weather idea i took from almost all games like pokemon when the battlefeild became sunny there was a effect as of other conditions. Also the destruction of enviroments with Crysis. Also seeing video games are trying to be realalistic these days it would make GW2 the most realalistic MMO out there like GTA 4 or Fable 2 as of Assassin's Creed seeing how the people who made that game acually researched the time the game took place in and etc. to make it feel around that time you know. Also Some ideas are from Fantasy Movies Like Lord of the Rings or Eragon as of DnD and Narnia and etc. --72.178.138.105 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some nice ideas there, but a lot of them seem to be more along the lines of GW3... At the moment, to have a MMORPG with graphics on the level of Crysis is near impossible. Guild Wars has the best MMORPG graphics around, and we still have obvious glitches with clipping, etc. What we see in single player games probably wont make it into MMO's for several years. If a FPS came out with graphics at the level of GW, it would be considered to be lacking n that department, yet we all acknowledge the superiority of GW graphics. The scale of the environments also affects this. While it might take 20 or so hours to finish a good FPS, it takes that long just to hike across Tyria (fighting, that is, not running). Ashes Of Doom 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Have you ever seen EVE its the Worlds LARGEST MMO map wise though graphics can compare to GW as being close. Anet did say they wanted to make a MMO that everyone would LOVE as of seeing newer games trying to give the player a realistic feel I could agree. Ever watched Dot hack. I really loved their random intown monster event and etc. as of character customization. But like in GW people are asking for the impossible which would screw up the GW coding. GW2 is simple upgrade to what games offer today. Graphics I really dont mind to much but just interaction to the world around the player. Like the Developers said before. "Kick a small stone can cause a avalanche." A small change in the world by one player is ENOUGH to change the WHOLE breathing World of Tryia as of EVERYTHING in it and out it. Also I would not complain about coding seeing that the PS3 is the hard thing to code for atm, and developer mostly want to make the game to come to PC seeing its almost the easiest as u can use C++ Java and etc. -- 72.178.138.105 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Customization

Ok GW character customization is really really limited. In GW2 I think there should be a LARGER scale to customize your avatar and STILL never have another play have the same look as you. In .hack//Sign characters NEVER looked the same seeing tattoos and piercings and such as different color hair and having one eye color different from the others. I can agree there are some people who are lazy to create a character that detailed so there should be a random button as of a detailed random but where u can set the basics traits of what u think ur character should look like then press a button and it will give you a character design around the basics traits u set. As of UBER detailed character design I think there should be a "upload a image off of ur computer or something like that" like the PC version of Fable the Lost Chapters BUT bann the people who use vulgar images for tattoos and etc. Now for character customization I think it should be like "Make a character engine off of those wrestling games or this MMO my brother found called Perfect Wolrd That goes BEYOND detail on how to design your character. THEY EVEN HAVE CHARACTERS THAT LOOK LIKE MICHEAL JACKSON FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. It would give every play a unique look and no one would look alike like in the real world yanno. --72.178.138.105 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A face generator would be nice, like what appears in games like Oblivion. House Of Furyan 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hair Stylist. Prokiller88 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I want a tanning salon/tan-er. I want my pasty white characters to have some color on their skin! hahah Renin 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for the Hair Stylist, I'm so sick of some of my characters haircuts. House Of Furyan 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah! thats good, though i would never, I repeat, NEVER want to see a character that even resembled Micheal Jackson, EVER! But you do present a good point, i was thinking, what i fyou could create a customizable emblem that would be put somewhere on your characters amor, even if he go tnew armor, like in the canthan male elemetalist armor, how there's a flame on the path on your shoulder, in it's place would be put your characters customized emblem. Lord Zepherr 07:36pm, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Traveling

It would make players REALLY happy if there where other means of travel like horses(NOT CENTAURS) as of traveling in a carriage to carry goods from town to town if ur a BIG Merchant or a Ship of your own BIG or small to go to each continent. It would be really cool to walk down a road and u see a player merchant walk past u in a carriage or etc. But also for other players they can take paid boat rides or etc. to go to another city or town etc. without waiting hours on end seeing what is between them. As also a pet dragon or something that u somehow receive as a egg and each year or a certain amount of time they grow in size to the point ur able to ride them from place to place. Also seeing PVP these so called mounts would HELP alot to get from one place to another as of a stragety to fight other players. --72.178.138.105 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of traveling by horse or ship. Carriage would be nice too you could charge for rides or pay others to protect Carriage.--King dude 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Taking an idyllic ride down to Droks. 2k to join. Free booze." --71.229.204.25 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good Idea if the ride lasted about 30 sec if it's more then tha it would just waste peoples time -- Ninja Dragon

00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

i like this idea it would allow the players some feeling of real contribution not just running throgh a gate and the rest of your party are magicly thereVinesy 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Question, have you guys actually looked at any of the discussions and thought "That's a nice idea"? Or just even looked? Some word of interest, even the developers viewing would be nice, a lot of us are putting a lot of ideas out and it would be nice to hear some input from you guys. House Of Furyan 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Charming Pets

One thing that always bothered me about GW1 was that only very specific creatures in the game could be charmed into pets. Why doesn't Charm Animal work on nearly any kind of creature? I know, because having a Titan or a White Mantle Knight as a pet would be stupid, but hear me out.

Instead of having special charmable creatures that are created differently than the monsters, just make the monsters charmable, and different monsters require a different level of beast mastery (or whatever the GW2 equivalent is). That way, if the devs want to make a monster uncharmable, they need only set the required charm level to a level that the players can not possibly reach, like 100 or 1000.

This way, we could have things like minotaurs or skales as pets, and there would be a much larger variety of pets available to us. The only other hitch they'd have to figure out would be what to do with the skills of the monster once it is charmed. I think this would depend a lot upon what ANet decides to do with the pet system. We've seen a lot of ideas thrown around about whether pets should have their own skills or professions, whether they should be inherently different from one another or not, etc. I don't really know, but I think that whatever ANet chooses, this idea can still be figured out. I guess what I'm really trying to say is, I just want to be able to have an imp as a pet. (Satanael 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Oh, also, another cool feature of this would be that there could more easily be real prestige pets, such as monsters that are really good at interrupting or otherwise killing you before you can charm them, and monsters that have a required beat mastery level that is attainable, but only with certain buffs like a +1/20% weapon or something. (Satanael 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

So I herd grindan gaems were bad. --164.47.99.88 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? this has nothing to do with grinding, it's only talking about what you can make a pet, and there's no reason at all why you would have to grind to get any of the pets I talk about here. (Satanael 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

How is that +1/20% bonus you only get at very high levels of mastery not grinding? Do you really think something like that won't give a player who has played longer an advantage over someone who just picked it up? Of-fucking-course it will. --71.229.204.25 08:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're complaint is that people who have played longer will have an advantage over people who have just picked up the game? Uhm, isn't that true with every game, everywhere, under all circumstances? You play Pong for 25 hours and you're automatically better at it than somone who has played it for 1.

Let's get something straight, grinding means you are required by the game to do something over and over and over just to achieve it, like killing 50,000 trolls to get a "troll slayer" title, or requiring people to endlessly farm for money just to get some insanely expensive item. This is not merely requiring someone to play a lot, it is requiring them to "work" in order to achieve what they want, rather than playing in the way they like.

Making it so that a pet may only be charmed by maxing your beast mastery and then using a +1/20% buff is not grind, it just means that you have to max out your beast mastery, which, in GW1, is not very hard to do, and get a +1/20% buff, which, in GW1, is also not very hard. After that, it's just a question of hitting that 1/5 chance of hitting your buff, which is luck, not grind. Casting charm animal more than once on the same animal, one that may be able to interrupt or run away or even die easily, that would take both luck and skill, hence prestige in getting one. (Satanael 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

new armor and god wars

I think we should be able to get armour like preist of balthazar and other armor types for other gods (Kormir, Dwayna, Melandru, Lyssa, Grenth and even Abbadon)

I'd love a Dervish armour themed to Balthazar or Dwayna so when I'm not running with the Avatars I still represent :D House Of Furyan 21:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I had an idea: Characters can choose to side with factions of gods and hold/host districts when they have enough factions. LIek this: at some piont in the game characters could side with "Godly" factions like the current Luxon/Kurzick thing, giving different options to different races. Norn could choose to side with thier own spirits, in which any norn who did side with that faction would recieve some sort of "Spiritual armor" only fo rnorn who sided with the spirits. Asura coudl side with, if they still belive in it, Thier Eternal Alchemy idea, and try to prove it's reality, while asura's who sided the eternal alchemy faction would be able to get asura only armor form some special crafter. Sylvari, i have no clue, i guess, because of thier mentioned "Curious Nature" could be a universal species, unless they have thier own gods in GW2, in which they could get Sylvari special armor. Charr coudl side on a side of thier own, in which they believe in the no god belief established by Pyre, and coudl get Elite Charr only armor for taht faction. Humans, since they seem to be the most universal speiceis siding with so many sides, (White Mantle, when they side with teh norn beliefs, and the 7 original gods), so i would say they could side with any faction, but would only recieve armor form the 7 gods, or another faction which i'll mention soon. Next, a faction which any and every race can join, a legion of the descended or unmention gods, i.e. Abbadon, Menzies, Dhuum, etc. in which every race could get armor from them. Now fo rteh hosting i dea i mentioned, say a group of players, guild, party, whatever had faction of one side like the 7 gods, they coudl host a district in which the armorers for that faction would come, like the town ownership system in GW, except in stead of a guidl buying the town, a battle would be staged for that exact town or district, winner gets teh town, and the add-ons are avalable for every one of that faction instead of the guild only. I also had a thought of giving title tracks for the factions, like " Supporter of the True Gods" for teh 7 gods, but all you had to do was fight with thier blessing or jsut fight a staged battle for them. These tracks would provide specialized skils that woudl coincied with your specialized armor, somewhat like the Lightbringer's Gaze skil, except it woudl use your armor in it somehow like boosting it's power or something. Note: Now before you guy sbite my head off, i never said that a race could only join one faction, just that they couldn't join all the factions, like, i doubt a Charr woudl want to side with the 7 gods, after establishing they have none in GW:EN, and i doubt an Asura would side with spirits when they belive in Eternal Alchemy. And i never intend for it to sound like there would be an Omni-Powerfull faction dominatin gall others, battles for townships could be balanced in the exact same way they mentioned in other announcements, re-shuffling the forces every week or so. and there would be a sort of, "Faction base or capital similar to that faction's personal version of The Hall of Heroes, so a faction wouldn't have to own a town to get specialized skills or armor. Lord Zepherr 08:14, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

one more idea i got: Armor publishing. It always burns my butt that you had to have a complete armor set to actually do something with it. I propose, there be and NPC soemwhere that can taek sets of different armor, as long as they meet soem requirments, being all maxed out with all possible upgrades and an iscription, and if it's still there, being infused. they would just make so that you coudl name your armor set, and then it woudl be considered a set or armor by the same system that teh Hall Of Monuments uses, so i you have a set of armor, composed of different peices, you woul djus tname it, and it becomes a set, and there would be some sort of fee fo rthe service. Lord Zepherr, 01:10PM, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

Recruiting/Guild rankings

Im thinking when a guild is recruiting they could set up a stand with a picture of cape and papers you could read to gain information on the guild.

I think guild should have more then just guild leader officer and member i was thinking like 1.Guld leader (only 1) 2.Guild Captain (2) 3.Guild Officer (no limit) 4.Guild Soldier (the ones that dont make a huge difference when dead no limit) 5.Guild member (doesnt do much except fill a space in guild)

And players should gain the rankings by titles way they act around others and how much experence in fighting and level (up to guild leader and guild captains whose rank is what).

Because why should ANet let people decide their own guild structure, amirite? --164.47.99.88 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving Guilds the ability to pick a theme would be nice, giving uniqueness to the sea of Guilds out there. I'd like to see more additional features and structure to Guild, gives more depth for the role players amongst the masses and makes it fun. You could have ranks within to show the Guild what function these players have, officers is a very bland structure, having degrees of it so players who are more helpful (often helping guildmates or new arrivals could have a different title, like Guild Acolyte). When 'buying' the NPCs you could be able to pick amongest one of each race, so you could have an all Asuran guild with only asuran members and npcs, or a mixed bag.

OPTIONS - give us options!!! House Of Furyan 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are alliances, please make the allies rosters visible as your own guilds would be! 72.128.107.131 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also maybe a flag or somthing at your guild hall that looks like your cape.--King dude 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seasons

I think guild wars 2 should have seasons. Like in ascolon in summer there would be grass warm weather ect. and in winter leavless tree and snow.

Well you already have that..wintersday = winter snow etc. and the rest is just climate control and you won't see grass in ascalon; ascalon = ashed away

Guild Wars 2 takes place 250 ish years after Guild Wars so I'd expect it to be covered in plant life by now. Now, on subject. Seasons would be good nice, the changing seasons bringing additional creatures into a region, or removing them (could see the moving from region to region) and could also give more beauty to the events, such as Wintersday. Walking through a snowy town's portal to a desert or the likes is stupid. I understand the limitations of the engine in Guild Wars to do this kind of thing but, here's a note, just add this functionality into the Guild Wars 2 engine. House Of Furyan 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can agree. Look at winters day If you are in Lions Arch its al covered in snow and etc. BUT look at this U walk outside the portal....WTF its all green and sunny and no drop of snow or ANYTHING it does get on most peoples nerves. Its during the Winter but inside of town it shows the season we are in but out side its COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. So I would totally agree on this. --72.178.138.105 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would so like to have a seasonal system, bu ton the issue of ascalon, on the movement of the world article that was realesed in 2007, it stated that teh burnign heat form Adelberns sword scorched any and all remaining life in ascalon, and that a flight of a dragon twisted and corrupted whatever part of the charr homelands that the ascalonians and Ebon Vanguard had captured, so, even though i would love to see ascalon in teh splendor it was in pre-searing, i doubt that will happen. Lord Zepherr 09:41, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

That same source also says that "green plants grow over the scorched rocks of Ascalon". It may be nicer than the post-Searing wasteland that we know now. -- Dashface

08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Adelbern's sword only scorched the area around Ascalon City, not the entire kingdom of Ascalon, as for the dragon's flight path, it could be a narrow streak, like Quel'Thalas' Dead Scar in World of Warcraft. -- Gordon Ecker 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Arenas

I think beside gvg there should be like an arena in every capital and guild can go and fight there while others can walk by or sit in stands or somthing to watch this instead of having observe.

More tournament like play in a PvE environment would be nice, the viewing mode of PvP is all well and good but I wouldn't mind rocking into a PvE city and going over to watch two teams ripping the stuffing out of each other. House Of Furyan 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Make other races more appealing.

--King dude 00:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)I have a feeling that when game comes out alot of people will want to be charr so I ask if you will make the other races have somthing that will draw atention to them.

I think the races all have something appealing to them as it is. Many will want to be Human because, well, we are human and it's just easier to get into the role-play side of things. Also, as Guild Wars is human-based, most will want that continuity.

As for Norn, well, who doesn't want to transform into a bear and be a 9ft large Viking?

Asura - "cute" (to some), small, arrogant and funny.

Sylvari - a totally new race; by the sound of things, it will be quite Tolkeinish and that's just popular.

Charr have their own qualities as well, so it looks like all the races seem to have a fair amount of appeal to them. --

Brains12 \ Talk 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I want to play all races and professions! So goodbye money, hello GW2 character slots! hahaha Renin 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, as the way I play, there isn't much appeal to play the other races, this purely because we don't know how they work, their race and professions. If all professions are accessible to each race there's no point bar purely cosmetic reasons to play it for me, unless, of course, the variations within each race are different - example an Asuran Warrior rides on the back of a Golem or inside it, rather than holding a shield and a sword, now I'd play that myself, but if its a wee Yoda like creature running around with a sword and shield that doesn't appeal to me that much. Also, if the storylines for each race is different that would make me play as there'd be 6 point of views for the main events that happen within the game. That's appealing to me, that depth of variation within the game. You gotta love content. House Of Furyan 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Content is awsome, and i do think your right. I personally would create a human character first, and make him my "Head" character, partly because I would like to be teh person in the story who bring the humasn back from decline, adn partly becasue of loyalty to my GW characters. Teh charr don't interst me all that much, unless there really is a different story line, bu ti'd make one anyways, just to have one. Sylvari are the new guys, everythin gthey can do is new, and I want in on that, so i'd make one. And asuras, well I'd make one to be the wee yoda liek dude with the huge staff of scythe or whatever that is completley disproportionate to me, while i can weild my own brand of super magic, that just seems awsome to me. Lord Zepherr 09:49, February 18, 2008, (UTC)

No Magic Appearing NPC's

One of the things I hated in other persistent area MMO's was that when something "reset" the NPC would just reappear like magic. Bury some bodies in LotrO they just reappear 20 seconds later for another player. Kill a guard in WoW for a quest... 2 minutes later they reappear. Please when you do the event system such that little towns/ merchants / NPC's / etc. become available due to the event have them "realistically" respawn: 1) come with a caravan 2) come out of hiding 3) etc. Just don't have them reappear like nothing happened. --Ravious 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More creative ways of things showing up for me sweet. No, no David Copperfield! House Of Furyan 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But don't they have a system (in GW1) where certain NPCs disappear sif X quest is active and will only pop out when the quest is either abandoned or finished? But yeah, I do get your point seeing that it will be a persistent world. Unfortunately we MAY have to suffer magically appearing NPCs for GW2. Renin 08:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Professions

I think they should have some more professions like a shaman or maybe a inventor profesions. And certain races would have different professions like the charr would have a shaman or the asura would have inventor.Id like to see inventor as a profession who use their minds to build machines and maybe their armor could also give them skills and a shaman would be like a monk/ele. --King dude 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of race-specific professions. I would want my human/sylvari toon to play whatever profession I want and not be included in any party dungeon hunt because they needed a "charr shaman" or a "norn warrior" cuz a human can't go shaman nor a sylvari a warrior. I think GW really shines in it's professions system, It's remarkably balanced and fun. Renin 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Things that I find myself going for race specific professions is the theme of the race. Having every race have a copy and pasted version of everyone else's professions is kinda off putting. I play dervish a lot, and an obvious theme in that profession is the Five Gods (hopefully Six in Guild Wars 2) with their primary being Mysticism. I can't see a Asuran Dervish, Norn Dervish or Charr as they don't carry the same belief system as a human. Asuran believe in the Great Alchemy, which sees the Gods as a part of it but not in the same sense as a human. Norn have the Wolf Spirit, Bear and Raven, other aspects of beliefs (more like American Indians) having a Norn with a Dervish primary seems odd to me. Having 100% of professions across all races takes away from the uniqueness of those races, races become purely cosmetic. I am, of course, not iron-clad on my opinion, if all professions are indeed cross-race and can be presented in a viable way I'm all for that, but at current time I'm more for unique professions within races. House Of Furyan 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So having a unique profession tied to a single race is balanced, how? Remember, GW is known for it's balanced PvP play. It will not be balanced if a certain profession is tied directed to one profession. How will it synergizes with other profession without making the common profession look so utterly useless and weak? We also don't know if the dervish incarnation shall ever exist also. I wouldn't want to make a Charr because he's the only race that can have a shaman or a norn being the only race can access to paragon. It will really have it's balancing issues. Do remember that they do intend on keeping the /secondaryprofession system in place. Renin 06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance is always the issue. Well, we can talk about this all day but we have to wait on ANET to release the professions. House Of Furyan 07:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also that IF they do decide there will be new professions exclusive to races, and with nearly the same content in GW1 (assuming that there are still little things to do in GW2), will they also be release 6 new professions on succeeding campaigns/expansions? There will be an uproar (once again, assuming they'll do the same with Factions/Nightfall where they introduced 2 new profession) IF they do decide to release on 2 new profession which are exclusive to 2 races. Those who are more in favor of a certain race will certainly get ticked off. Again these are all just hypothetical but my point is, I just dislike profession exclusivity via race. If that's going to be the case, GW2 will definitely just be your cookie-cutter WoWannabee. What was unique with them will be lost. Renin 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a profession restricted to one race unbalanced? Sure, being forced to pick a specific race for a specific profession isn't exactly fun, but I don't see why it would automatically cause a balance problem. As for the arguement against non-human dervishes, Margonites don't have the same belief system as typical humans either, and Scytheclaw Behemoths, Ferothraxes and many Asura-made golems possess dervish-like capabilities, so the profession obviously isn't dependant on a sppecific belief system. -- Gordon Ecker 08:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So assuming that a profession is exclusive to one race, would that automatically mean that only Charrs get Shaman as a secondary when it can outheals the poor sylvarian monk? Again, this is just hypothetical. It comes down to the secondary, can my human become a secondary shaman when it's exclusive to the charrs? I think people will definitely get irked if that's the case. Unbalanced? IF that shaman does out heal a monk, wouldn't people just do this "GLF Charr Shaman, human monks need not apply" kinda thinking. But then again, that's just how I view it. Renin 08:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having single-race classes is stupid. There's no reason for it (beyond flavor, and flavor is a stupid reason to do anything) and it restricts flexibility. --71.229.204.25 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it stupid. However, I don't think it's fun. A big sales factor in GW was that you could combine *any* two professions. No restriction whatsoever, and even though some combos make more sense than others, there's always a reasons to combine any given two professions. With GW2, the same would be great, except that you pick 1 race and 2 professions. My preference goes for any combination is possible, and that both professions can be changed in town. --

Alaris 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually woke up this morning thinking about this, sad for me. Anyway, having different main professions for races is no different than having different professions, period. Thats why we have the secondary, to balance these things out. If there's a Shaman for Charr, others could only have its secondary attributes when selecting it as the secondary. For example, as I mention dervish a lot, I could still play my dervish within any races quite happily without the bonus of the Mysticism or that Avatars as some of my builds focus primarily on the Earth_Prayers which are available as a secondary. Many of my non-dervish characters use a bunch of dervish skills quite happily.

There are always counters to every build and every profession, there are always ways of using every primary and secondary. Having race specific professions may be hard to grasp but it stops everything being cosmetic. I right now, have no desire to play the other races there's no point if humans can do everything the others can do exactly the same. But think about it, In GWEN there are Norn, and they transform into the Bear for example, players get the Ursan Blessing which I think is an over-powered non-transformation human version of the skill. I think of it as secondary. Right now, Ursan out-performs the Bear_Form of the Norn but if it was balanced out better and the Norns did better with their Bear Form than humans do with Ursan it would make sense to me. I'd play Norn then, as I get the cosmetic tranformation but the skills and boosts would also be greater than what say a human or a tiny wee Asuran could have. House Of Furyan 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what u guys are saying so what about all races having all old professions and if there are new ones certains races would have them. Its not that important to me id just like to see some new professions. Which there should be atleast one because of Kormir and just about every profession comes from some god.--King dude 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Race Specific classes? Persistant world? I feel like its been done before by some other MMO..-Warior kronos 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Kornos, if GW wants to be unique, having race-specific profession will just make GW another WoWannabe. So let me guess, all those who wants race-specific professions DOES want WoW but does not want to pay for it? I'm just saying. Renin 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its Kronos btw, =P, but yeah I (+ probly alot of ppl playing gw) could afford WoW, but chose to play GW, because GW is just that. GW. Not WoW. GW is a unique MMO on the market, the 8 skill bar is great, and I cringe every time I see someone suggest for the ability to change skill sets and secondary professions outside of town. And the great part about it is that it is actually balanced most of the time, and adding races just seems like a bad move, and if they do, adding specific classes to the races seems like the kiss of death. BUT. I have said this with pretty much every post I've commented on about GW2. I have a lot of faith in Anet, and until I see further updates on GW2 I'm not gonna critizize it for being a WoW clone, despite my worry about how its sounding right now...-Warior kronos 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I too have a lot of faith in ANet. And having played a bit of WoW, I can say that it's also a great game, but I prefer GW. At this point money is a factor influencing my choice. I like ANet's attitude of giving balanced choices. You want to play W/Me? Fine, go ahead. And you might find a way to make it work too... Not being able to be a Night Elf Warlock was a downer for me and WoW. And I know, I know, according to the lore, Night elves avoid demons... except Demon Hunters... So really, there's no valid reason to disallow this, and some people actually want to play those weird combos. It'd be upsetting if Sylvari couldn't be Ritualists or Necros (or whatever the equivalent is in GW2). Like I said, it's not a game-breaking thing, but it's certainly more fun for me if I have choices. --

Alaris 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Race specific classes is a no no, but race favoured classes is a better solution. For example make the Asuran excellent mages (higher energy and lower health) making them more suited to an elementalist or mesmer and less suited to say a warrior or paragon. That way if people want a REAL challenge they can make a party of poorly suited classes. E.G an Asuran warrior and maybe a troll elementalist (or some other low intellect race). I don't think that the different races should have the same health and energy. Then again I don't think that the different professions should have the same health. After all they have different energy. There is no way an elementalist would have the same amount of health as a warrior. Stu. 19/02/08.

The real problem with race-favoured classes is that most people will end up playing the favoured combos. You'll see Norn warriors and Asuran eles. Who is crazy enough to make a character with a permanent handicap? You'll end up with tons of lost artwork that most people won't consider using, because they just don't play Asuran warriors or Norn eles. But look at the game, most races have representatives of most professions. They are already tons of Charr casters, some Asuran warriors, etc. And they should have race-specific bonuses that enable them to do that. This way, you have Norn warriors that tank better, and Asuran warriors that move more stealthily and has weird attacks. Or Norn eles that use the animal forms to tap into energy pools. That's fun. --

Alaris 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think every profession will have the core professions, but I think they should have access to all 10 because thats what the humans have had for ages now. For me personally, what will make me want to play the other races is the variations, unique ways of ways of portraying them, but I don't think as your example Alaris that this is a good idea "And they should have race-specific bonuses that enable them to do that. This way, you have Norn warriors that tank better, and Asuran warriors that move more stealthily and has weird attacks." otherwise people will just play Norn for a better tank and asurans would be more like assassins? The bonuses should only make them go to the level playing field otherwise it unbalances things. If they're not having race specific professions/classes having one race having a benefit over the others, better tanking or stealth as exampled, seems un-balanced because this would give a non-norn warrior a handicap when going up against Norn warrior. House Of Furyan 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no point to having races and professions unless (1) you can combine them meaningfully and viably, and (2) there are good reasons to combine them that way. I'm ok with having races being purely cosmetic, but I think that there's more potential than that. I'm not ok with races being linked to professions, either hard-wired (i.e. race-specific classes) or not (i.e. Norn being better tanks but with less energy, thus advantaged for melee classes and handicapped for casting classes). The best option, IMO, is to have class/professions offering different gameplay experiences, while remaining balanced and fun. --

Alaris 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Every race could have a race benefit, which is easily explainable, but it needs to be balanced (perhaps race benefit is a thing that could be introduced). Or. I was thinking about the 'Norn being better tanks but with less energy' comment you made, Alaris, its a pity there isn't a dynamic in the game where you can adjust such things, ie, a pure adrenaline warrior can have 0 energy (or 0 energy and no regen) and that loss of energy equates to a benefit elsewhere. Could be extra health, extra speed in attacks or just speed. Brawn over Brains.

They could introduce character attributes and profession attributes (that are current in the game). Character attributes could allow the player to adjust their core stats (health, energy etc) so they could have a character and a build that have more synergy than the current system allows. Such adjustments might also work with the whole primary/secondary situation where you could adjust your stats to allow (in terms of Guild Wars currently) you to be able use secondary runes and insignias. One think I like about adding new races with little history to the player is that you can set them up as totally unique, Asuran warriors for example, could be a sword and shield wielding type, a little yoda running around, or could be suited up in a golem (wearing it like armour) or 'energy armour' where they're surrounded by a protective energy form to better suit the role of a warrior.

Its always nice having these discussions about professions etc, but Anet will be at the point now where they've already sorted this out, I mean, if they haven't I'm going to be totally surprised. I would actually like to hear from Anet about what they've already established for the professions, races and their systems in Guild Wars 2 at the moment. House Of Furyan 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote by Alaris "The real problem with race-favoured classes is that most people will end up playing the favoured combos. You'll see Norn warriors and Asuran eles. Who is crazy enough to make a character with a permanent handicap? You'll end up with tons of lost artwork that most people won't consider using, because they just don't play Asuran warriors or Norn eles. But look at the game, most races have representatives of most professions." - One possible way to solve this problem is to award a title for playing with a handicap. eg for completeing all the missions with a norn ele or Asuran warrior you get a title such as "accomplished great things" or "True survivor" or "unstoppable warrior". It would be like an additional hard mode for those who want a challenge. Stu. 20/02/08

Titles, again? Haven't we all agreed that most titles are bad for your health? Hahaha. Anyway I'm guessing is that they'll give us at least one or two race-specific skills per profession. Tedious but who knows. I just want all races to have access to the same skills and profession as everyone does. I also don't care if race will be simply for aesthetic purposes. I won't even argue anymore. Hahaha. Renin 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for a handicap title myself. I personally still wouldn't mine Character Attributes (where you could adjust your health, speed etc) along with the standard profession attributes. House Of Furyan 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck getting into a PUG while displaying a title that says: "I'm playing a race-class combo that even ANet says is bad". One way to solve the handicap problem is to not have a handicap problem to begin with. Have all race-class combos balanced with each other, and yet have them provide different gameplay experiences. Easily said, I know, but if anything ANet can rise to the challenge. Of the 90 different ways to combine two professions, MOST of those combos offer viable build ideas that combine both professions. From a game-design perspective, that is just pure genious. That rarely happens when you give different races passive bonuses to their stats such as health, mana, etc. --

Alaris 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proffesions could be tied in with races, each race being a bit stronger in 1 specific proffesion. If there are 6 races playable: Asura Norn Tengu Human Charr Sylvari Then each race could be slightly better in 1 proffesion. There might be around 6 proffesions: Summoner(necromancer,summoner) - Asura is best in it Shaman(elementalist,shaman) - Charr is best in it Hunter(ranger,pets,traps) - Human is best in it chronomancer(time mage) - Sylvari is best in it Barminstrel proffesion - Tengu is best in it Warrior proffesion(includes all melee things) - Norn is best in it Each race could have their own bar which loads in time just like energy and hitpoints bar When full you are able to perform a race specific attack Norn = shapeshift into bear Sylvari = put time still for few secs for foes around you Asura = summon a golem Etc

Then you'll definitely have PUGs "LF Asuran Elementalist" only when half of the population of the eles are actually sylvari (this is just an example). It will lead to a clear divide as to what race to be and what specific profession they're better at. I dislike the idea that my charr warrior will be less powerful than a norn. That's just unfair! Renin 12:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

chronos would be able to change time for short peroids, maybe stop for 5 or less seconds and turn back up to to 30 sec would make solo sins soo much better, and gameplay in pvp so much harder, cos time will just go back and the battle can be redone, require alot of work for chronos though, and it wouldnt make anything overpowered the chrono could be like using time to teleport foes and allies and to deal dmg. basically some1 who could team shadowstep, or force foes to shadow step, theyed be spellcaster amour, maybe more basic energy say 35, and a possible skill could be, Target foe shadowsteps to random location and takes 10..80.100 damage, target takes an additional 5..40..50dmg if that foe was casting a spell.

CHRONOS replace sins for kiting cause you could stand still and move them them. another idea would be an elite you couldn't get from skill tome and has to be capped in endgame mish Restore time: All party members return to health, energy, enchantment, hex, conditions, and location that they had 5.25.30 seconds earlier.(will ressurect with no dp) 25 energy 2 sec cast 60sec recharge another Time stop: ALl foes in the instance cannot attack, cast spells or use skills, and lose all health regeneration and degeneration for 1..8..10 seconds 25 energy 5 sec cast 60 sec recast Annoying And Deadly 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make bonuses within missions for handicapped characters or PUGs. Simmilar to easy and hard mode, you could have handicap mode where you get more experience or even unlock skills that can't be unlocked anywhere else. I personally would so enjoy the challenge of doing a mission knowing that all the odds are against me/us and yet I/we still prevail.--Sir Grockalot 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Id just like to say can any of you seriosly imagine a asuran warrier being able to best a norn or char warrier come on people you have to think what would this race of people be good at does a tiny asuran look like it can lift a big hammer and if they resize the hammer to asuran size hows that going to hurt a 9ft tall norn be rational peopleVinesy 11:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't know how strong or durable the asura are, sure, they're tiny, but so are chimpanzees. As for how they'd fight in close combat, realistically, they'd probably use their small size, low height, high maneuverability and the terrain, as well as their opponents' larger size and greater momentum, to their advantage, focusing on trips and hamstrings, and those teeth look like they could do some serious damage to an unprotected limb. On the down side, they would be vulnerable to head shots, holds and throws, and would be easier to knock around, hold in a predator's jaws or swallow whole, and their height would make it harder for them to strike at the head and neck. Anyway, Asura warriors are established to exist, and realism has to take a back seat to good game design. -- Gordon Ecker 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

surviving in wilderness and using it.

I think that when your far from town your should be able to cut down a tree and make a shelter and a fire and be able to cook meat you have or have a water bottle and be able to get water from water near by. Elementalist though would have an easy time doing this. --King dude 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If they increase the functionality of the game areas, added consumes from bushes, trees etc you could eat them, or refine them into something (alchemy). If they added a day/night mechanic to the game a camp fire would be nice, place some wood and light it, but there's additional coding for something that isn't important in any stretch of the imagination in my opinion. House Of Furyan 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't just making barrels explode to cause an AoE damage be better? Or Freezing a lake and making all monster there immobile? I'd survive in the wild if that was the case, burn a tree, monsters get toastie! Renin 08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing environment stuff is always hard. Freezing a lake requires a lot when modelling and programming. Would be fun, make traveling a lot easier if you could freeze a path across the sea or lake.House Of Furyan 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes plz, agreed x1000. This player wanna role play.

(Limu Tolkki - talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)