[Merged] The (Unofficial) Guild Wars 2 Speculation Thread

[JayyDestroyer]

(I wasn't entirely sure where to put this, as it's not a suggestion thread, bug report, off-topic, lore or an amusing GW story, so I'll put it here)

The idea of this thread is to go past suggestions and start thinking about, as well as expanding upon, what little we know about GW2. Some ideas that were hinted at in magazines and other articles were obviously designed to provoke discussion and make us consider what these ideas mean.

The source of discussion is:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Feel free to browse and discuss ideas that were bandied about on that page.

I'll start:

The skill system will be modified. There will be fewer, less complex skills which may behave differently in different situations, such as if the character is jumping or is surrounded by monsters. A system similar to the limited 8 skill system will be used.

This immediately strikes me as to what could be in the minds of the developers. If there are fewer, less complex skills in GW2, it's going to be a lot easier for them to balance the game. I think that this implies more interactive environments, which will hopefully shake things up a bit, as people will have to consider not only their build, but with a greater emphasis on positioning than in GW. For example, an assassin like profession might be hiding in bushes on the ground underneath a bridge, ready to climb up and strike the elementalist. A skill like "assassin's dexterity", which has a vague description like "Useful for striking unsuspecting enemies" - the player will really have to experiment with this skill to see what he can do with it. The same skill could be used to hide in a tree, or become partially hidden if getting attacked. Exact damage figures would be hidden from the skill description. With the introduction of the Y-axis, the oppurtunities are broad, and with no real "best build" to speak of, imagination and exploration becomes vital as opposed to copying a popular build from PvXwiki.

[aspboy]

I wonder how race selection will effect player stats.

Will there be racial only skills, and will they be linked to player level instead of attributes?

With race choice added to character creation, armor sets will no longer be linked to profession.
Also, since profession is no longer the base factor of a character, it might mean we can switch primary professions.

Y-axis will mean player interaction with the environment will increase, could that also mean destructable terrain?

[kazmodan]

can i kill myself by targeting a meteor shower on my behind?

can i jump into a river and take off burning?
will i sink if people use ice moves on me while im swimming?

can i gale someone off a cliff?

will i be able to burn the tavern roof off with firestorm?
snipe a ditzy sylvari from tree?


???

[aptaleonII]

I personally want to know how big a part the Dredge will play. They were always my favourite species in Guild Wars, and now we know they will be back in GW:2, occupying a lot of the Dwarven lands. We also know they will be "virtually unrecognisable as the primitive, frightened creatures from before". Playable Dredge!?

[aslani]

There will be fewer, less complex skills...

Is it just me or that means that there will be a lot of complex skills?

[Alex Noid]

will i sink if people use ice moves on me while im swimming?

can i gale someone off a cliff?

???

Ice floats:laugh:

In CoHeros I can 'gale' bad guys off of roof tops. When they hit bottom, they take damage. Hope the same holds true here.

I expect to see classless skills/spells. If they intend to reduce the number of skills, then there should be more available to everyone. Hence, why not allow all skills to all professions? With appropriate limiters.

-ANoid

[kazmodan]

skys the limit eh.

onto a more serious note. i wonder if GW2 will have things like.

1) mounts regular/flying. running used to a big part of GW1, hows that going to carry over into GW2? will anti running measures be put in ala doors, or will we actually have an actual, persistent world where we can walk where we like (given that we dont get killed by angry dragons on the way).

2) will GW2 have integrated voice chat? having to have vent/TS on whilst playing gw...some people never get round to that because its too complicated, an in built feature would make it more accessible, and would enhance the interactive-ness of the game...

3) Will the Z axis add gameplay elements...such as dodging projectiles, swimming deep underwater, jumping on someones head and killing them ala cs style : P

[Aiiane]

Is it just me or that means that there will be a lot of complex skills?

It's just you. Note the placement of the comma, which implies that both "fewer" and "less complex" modify "skills", rather than "fewer" modifying "less complex".

[aslani]

It's just you. Note the placement of the comma, which implies that both "fewer" and "less complex" modify "skills", rather than "fewer" modifying "less complex".

It would have been clearer if they used "and" instead of a comma. Because in sentence like, "A big, colorful baloon" mean the coloful baloon is big, not the baloon is big and colorful.

Anyways, thanks for clarifying the dreadful English grammar. :smiley:

[Manwithtwohands]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5330/carnacqm2.jpg
The Great Carnac is getting a vision.
WaaaahhhhHHHHhhh.
Guild Wars....2....will have player created guilds.

[Asbjornsalech]

Anything would bne great but mounts, mounts are the worse invention ever amde in any MMORPG

[Celestial Kitsune]

I hope they don't hide exact damage figures from the skill description. I really like to know what a skill does at each attribute.

There will be fewer, less complex skills, z-axis, World PvP.... I guess Paragons will be there still, but I have a feeling that good old wammos will prevail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6zmA43u4jo)...

[FourthVariety]

may behave differently in different situations, such as if the character is jumping

Finally Wammos will not only have mending, but it will be upgraded in a way that you receive 15 health every time you jump. Expect fierce competition for the guild name "Bunnyjumpers of Doom"

Meanwhile all Rangers join the choir: "Kris Kross-fire will make you ... JUMP..JUMP"

[De Daniel]

I hope the title discrimination will end and that rank 4-10 heros dont get a same sort of title because of hom in gw2. I think everybody should have the same oppurtunities when gw2 starts. Not exclude rank 1-3 from HoH if somthing like that still exists..

[Badenstein]

I would like to see the core concept of the Mesmer to carry over. I realize that the professions wouldn't be there, but to me, GW2 without the "trademark" Mesmer would be just wrong. By core concept is to have spells that interrupt, steal energy and stop spells from going off. I also liked the armor for the Mesmer.

If the profession idea is going to change, allow me to build my own version of a Mesmer.

But please.... no monk profession. I would hope there would be a way to have healing without having one profession be the healer.

[Thalanor Thornhale]

I would like to see the core concept of the Mesmer to carry over. I realize that the professions wouldn't be there, but to me, GW2 without the "trademark" Mesmer would be just wrong. By core concept is to have spells that interrupt, steal energy and stop spells from going off. I also liked the armor for the Mesmer.

If the profession idea is going to change, allow me to build my own version of a Mesmer.

But please.... no monk profession. I would hope there would be a way to have healing without having one profession be the healer.

Something that hasn't been done yet, but would fit in the theme....redirection of damage to a close by object (friend or foe).

[Kalidri]

I've kind of decided to stop worrying if my favorite classes carry over or not. My intention is to try and treat this as an entirely new game with some similar elements. As long as the game is as beautiful as the original, carries on being fairly easy to learn, I am looking forward to playing it. I hope I get to take part in the beta.

I know that the same art team is working on GW2, so I am comforted by that. As for game mechanics - we can only guess really, but with an additional axis of movement added - I wonder how similar it can possibly be? I'm looking forward to a game that is less like running through a maze and more explorable. I hope I'll be swimming and climbing walls in game...

Only, I hope the movement control is not so twitchy that it is easy to die falling off a cliff...even though in real life you'd be far more careful!

[Badenstein]

I've kind of decided to stop worrying if my favorite classes carry over or not. My intention is to try and treat this as an entirely new game with some similar elements. As long as the game is as beautiful as the original, carries on being fairly easy to learn, I am looking forward to playing it. I hope I get to take part in the beta.

I totally agree. My post wasn't an attempt to say, "Make GW2 like GW1 but better." I was just stating that to me, the GW world has been defined by some unique design elements. I would like to see some "similarity in the world" between the two games in the sense that I could tell that this new game is set in the same world as the old. I would like to see some of those items that are unique fantasy world designs to continue into GW2.

I remember playing in the GW for everyone event where they got way more people in the game then they thought.

[Balan Makki]

I've heard hints of RTS styled feel to WvW, the Mist, suggesting that these battle will be HUGE comparatively speaking. I'd like to see PvP anywhere players choose to flag and fight, Persistent or Instanced. PvE players can just stroll on by doing their own thing -- nothing to look at here, just keep on moving.

I'd hope that A-Net is trying to put back the War in Guild Wars. Rarely do you see a game that can actually combine PvP and PvE into one complete package -- PvPvE. If done properly PvPvE would be amazing. . Warhammer, maybe, Conan possibly. To me Alterac Valley (Vers. 1) did this. But many WoWers just wanted to finish the match, over and over and over, ad nauseum for honor points/grind, thus AV was gutted, over and over. Blizzard still doesn't have a clue how to handle PvP. . . A-Net with all it's clout and PvP experience is in a solid position to grab a huge market. You know, the market that is always clamoring for PvP servers in every MMO release -- around half.

I've heard talk of swimming, jumping, swinging, climbing. . . not flying. Climbing could be something as simple as scaling a Char-like watch tower, or as complex as a 5,000 ft. shear cliff. Swimming has endless possibilities. Imagine all those long underwater journeys in a large luxon Sea turtle. Jumping will be for annoying assassins in PvP, can't see much use for this other than some neat jumping/climbing puzzles ala Tomb Raider/Prince of Persia. . . or maybe some fun attack animations when combined with a jump. Context based attacks -- JediKnight2, Conan. Flying, they'll add this as a new feature for the 1st expansion. Swinging will be for Swingers named Johnston.

As for persistent environments, I really hope they're huge -- a clear case of: size matters -- as large as the average, pay to play MMO, larger if A-Net sees a market value, and has the resources. These shared environments leading to as many if not more Instanced adventures compared to say GW1. Would be cool if you could choose between Instanced, or Persistent when entering a zone -- just talk to an NPC who will share a couple of secret hunting spots (teleport you into an instanced zone); rather than the shared one you are standing in. . . .

If there were not going to be level/stat grind in GW2 I'd start petitioning for PvP servers. PvP servers would work wonderfully in GW1 system, but in a GW2 level centric system PvP servers would be too problematic catering only to hardcore southparkers. Though, If levels meant nothing in GW2, and could be virtually "Toggled off" then, Bring it.!! At least flagable for PvP in the greater world would be fun.

Considering the unlimited nature of Instancing: For example, there could even be PvP Phasing, a pseudo instance where players, existing in the PvE persistent world, could choose to enter PvP combat and simply Phase in to a Balthazar Form, turning into spirits when viewed by a PvE player (non flagged). Other PvP players would appear as regular players, but any PvE players would become invisible, non collision. Imagine a persistent world where battles were constantly being fought, NPC or player, anywhere, anytime -- The conquest for Lion's Arch! PvE players would be able to witness the raging battle of Balthazar Spirits (PvPers) taking place right in front of them, PvPers would only see other PvPers, fighting in the other, PvP pseudo instance -- Same world just different realities. Many PvE quests could initiate zone wide mayhem between NPC and Player Factions. When a game does PvP right, even PvE players will participate. Perhaps this pseudo instance could be call the Mist. Making the Mist as massive as the entire game world. . .

Just isn't enough info on GW2 to bite into yet, perhaps because it's still in such an early stage of development, and so much can still change.

Lets hope for lots of fun .:sunny:

[aslani]

There will be fewer, less complex skills which may behave differently in different situations, such as if the character is jumping or is surrounded by monsters.

Basically;

Great Ball of Fire 10/2/7
Spell. Send out a ball of fire that strikes target foe and all adjacent foes for 7...91...112 fire damage. If you're adjacent to target, all nearby foes are struck for 15...99...120 fire damage instead. If you activate this spell while jumping, target foe and all adjacent foes are struck for 7...91...112 fire damage and knocked down instead. This Spell causes Exhaustion.

If I'm right, that will be sweet! :laugh:

[Lord Juan]

Basically;

Great Ball of Fire 10/2/7
Spell. Send out a ball of fire that strikes target foe and all adjacent foes for 7...91...112 fire damage. If you're adjacent to target, all nearby foes are struck for 15...99...120 fire damage instead. If you activate this spell while jumping, target foe and all adjacent foes are struck for 7...91...112 fire damage and knocked down instead. This Spell causes Exhaustion.

If I'm right, that will be sweet! :laugh:

They said the skills will be less complex :P

[Aliandra]

As for persistent environments, I really hope they're huge -- a clear case of: size matters -- as large as the average, pay to play MMO, larger if A-Net sees a market value, and has the resources. These shared environments leading to as many if not more Instanced adventures compared to say GW1. Would be cool if you could choose between Instanced, or Persistent when entering a zone -- just talk to an NPC who will share a couple of secret hunting spots (teleport you into an instanced zone); rather than the shared one you are standing in. . . .

I really like this idea. It would let people who don't wish to run across dozens of random fellow adventurers play an area, would probably reduce lag for those with bad connections, and just doesn't sound like it would be too hard to implement.

Considering the unlimited nature of Instancing: For example, there could even be PvP Phasing, a pseudo instance where players, existing in the PvE persistent world, could choose to enter PvP combat and simply Phase in to a Balthazar Form, turning into spirits when viewed by a PvE player (non flagged). Other PvP players would appear as regular players, but any PvE players would become invisible, non collision. Imagine a persistent world where battles were constantly being fought, NPC or player, anywhere, anytime -- The conquest for Lion's Arch! PvE players would be able to witness the raging battle of Balthazar Spirits (PvPers) taking place right in front of them, PvPers would only see other PvPers, fighting in the other, PvP pseudo instance -- Same world just different realities. Many PvE quests could initiate zone wide mayhem between NPC and Player Factions. When a game does PvP right, even PvE players will participate. Perhaps this pseudo instance could be call the Mist. Making the Mist as massive as the entire game world. . .


I also like this idea, though I would limit the ghosts appearing to certain explorable areas, because I could see them getting annoying. Or maybe just have a toggle to turn off your spirit sight, or whatever. :tongue:

[Aiiane]

As for persistent environments, I really hope they're huge -- a clear case of: size matters -- as large as the average, pay to play MMO, larger if A-Net sees a market value, and has the resources. These shared environments leading to as many if not more Instanced adventures compared to say GW1. Would be cool if you could choose between Instanced, or Persistent when entering a zone -- just talk to an NPC who will share a couple of secret hunting spots (teleport you into an instanced zone); rather than the shared one you are standing in. . . .

I like the idea in the a sense, but (you knew it was coming, didn't you? :tongue:) there's a downside involved in that: designing for a persistent zone has certain considerations that need to be incorporated, or it won't work. For instance, many of the mechanics used in Missions simply wouldn't work in persistent areas, because they make permanent changes to the environment for that mission - even the very first mission of Prophecies illustrates this (It'd be a rather short mission if you entered just as someone else was being chased back to the wall by the Charr).

Even quests in explorable areas face this difficulty in some respects - for instance, the titan missions would be rather difficult to incorporate into persistent explorable areas.

Thus, with such an approach you'd effectively be limited to the lowest common denominator of the two styles, which (I would think) would stifle the potential creativity of design that was one of the better components of GW's instanced system.

[Balan Makki]

I like the idea in the a sense, but (you knew it was coming, didn't you? :tongue:) there's a downside involved in that: designing for a persistent zone has certain considerations that need to be incorporated, or it won't work. For instance, many of the mechanics used in Missions simply wouldn't work in persistent areas, because they make permanent changes to the environment for that mission - even the very first mission of Prophecies illustrates this (It'd be a rather short mission if you entered just as someone else was being chased back to the wall by the Charr).

Even quests in explorable areas face this difficulty in some respects - for instance, the titan missions would be rather difficult to incorporate into persistent explorable areas.

Thus, with such an approach you'd effectively be limited to the lowest common denominator of the two styles, which (I would think) would stifle the potential creativity of design that was one of the better components of GW's instanced system.

Well, in a strange way GW1 already does this, many of the missions are given to us as areas that will eventually be unlock as explorable. Once a mission is complete in GW2, as an instance, the next time you travel that way it is part of the persistant world. With other players moving about within. I guess I was just suggesting using an npc that would allow you to re-enter the instance as just a hunting, questing, solo area empty of other players.

Instancing is truely amazing, I don't think Devs have even stratched the surface of what is possible. Strange how slow an industry moves. Back when AC2, then WoW went into development and I was filling those forums with Instancing ideas, yet still so little has been done -- seems like a decade has passed. GW and AO (Anarchy Online, the granddaddy of instancing) have taken the lead, but including instancing fully in a full-featured MMO will not likely happen till Age of Conan or GW2 :flowers:

[Balan Makki]

I also like this idea, though I would limit the ghosts appearing to certain explorable areas, because I could see them getting annoying. Or maybe just have a toggle to turn off your spirit sight, or whatever. :tongue:

Yeah, but so much could be done, it could simply be random ghost apearances, The spirit of an archer firing a flaming arrow into a distant fog, the image fades. . a strange echoing sound of steel clashing in the distance, a trail of limbs, blood and carnage as you aproach an outpost. . .. Hints of the Mist could be slight suggested clues, could be toggled on/off, could be constant to a Spirit Walker. . . A Seer. A PvPer. . . .

Many possibilities.

[Greenery]

Retain the Kuzick and Luxon rivalry, I love these factions rivalry, which even got players into it. Personally, I dont care abt level cap, but keep attribute cap please for balance sake.

k thx bye!

[raspberry jam]

Would be cool if you could choose between Instanced, or Persistent when entering a zone -- just talk to an NPC who will share a couple of secret hunting spots (teleport you into an instanced zone); rather than the shared one you are standing in. . . . I think it's kind of sad that most of the world will be non-instanced; I really like that part about GW. There is nothing as annoying in games with persistent worlds as when you are doing something that you think of as a difficult, heroic adventure... only to see that some guy twenty levels higher than you is already soloing it, for fun. Who's the hero? He is, not you. You might be on a quest to save a village from a gang of bandits, but he just killed all the bandits by growling menacingly at them, so now you get to wait five minutes for them to respawn.

However, they said that it will be possible to change districts. It would be great for people who feel like me if there was a possibility to create a district of your own, for only yourself and those you'd care to invite. That way you'd get the best of both worlds: at any time, you can switch to a "public" district, which would be filled with people, or back to your own, private world.

[QtheMuse]

I think it would be nice if they game could have multiple endings. Say if you do a certain set of main story quests you could gain a specific title such as.

Defender of Tyra, Char Warmarshal, Norn Battlemaster, Asurian Mindbender, Slyvian Tree Herder (lol)

and it would change the ending of the game for you and it would show a cut scene of you greatly improving that race for the better, while either smashing or helping their allies. Then you could go back and do the other titles until you get like a Savior of All title.

Only problem i would see is finding people to do the quests with if you don't have it but maybe it wouldnt matter, sort of like how you can team up with someone to to the Magrid the Sly quest in Gandra city if you don't pick her over the master of whispers

[Zatsume]

I wonder how race selection will effect player stats.
Will there be racial only skills, and will they be linked to player level instead of attributes?


I hope that not too much... I really would like to make:idea: ASURA WARRIOR... give him a big hammer --> mash mash

[QtheMuse]

I hope that not too much... I really would like to make:idea: ASURA WARRIOR... give him a big hammer --> mash mash

Whats he going to mash, my ankle? or maybe he will clean my toe nails with it.

I hope there will be some suspension of disbelief. Last thing we need is a bunch of Stich anklebiters running around with swords and hammers and shields.

[JayyDestroyer]

Retain the Kuzick and Luxon rivalry, I love these factions rivalry, which even got players into it. Personally, I dont care abt level cap, but keep attribute cap please for balance sake.

k thx bye!

There'll be no Luxons/Kurzicks in GW2, it's been mentioned that in the future, the emperor gets trigger-happy and unifies the whole of Cantha (defeating Lux/Kurz).

[aspboy]

I hope that not too much... I really would like to make:idea: ASURA WARRIOR... give him a big hammer --> mash mash

tbh i hope they add in weapon size restrictions like DnD has, or specialisations like exotic, etc.

The smaller races shouldnt really be running about with giant weapons, and weapons shouldnt scale in size depending on whois weilding it.

As for the Kurz/Lux, those guys have been fighting long enough :laughing:

[chriswck]

I would like to see the core concept of the Mesmer to carry over. I realize that the professions wouldn't be there, but to me, GW2 without the "trademark" Mesmer would be just wrong. By core concept is to have spells that interrupt, steal energy and stop spells from going off. I also liked the armor for the Mesmer.

If the profession idea is going to change, allow me to build my own version of a Mesmer.

But please.... no monk profession. I would hope there would be a way to have healing without having one profession be the healer.

Though I would agree that there should not be a dominant healing profession, I hope there would not be healing potions or "sit" functions that are used to replensih health, which almost every other mmo possess..

[Tiny Killer]

"sit" functions that are used to replensih health, which almost every other mmo possess..

Don't forget the WoW version of: Gee, I am almost dead. Maybe if I eat this nice, tasty bowl of clam chowder it will pep me back up a bit!

[TaSTY]

Jump. Increased level cap. More areas to explore. More freedom.

Yes pzlzz

[Balan Makki]

I think it's kind of sad that most of the world will be non-instanced; I really like that part about GW. There is nothing as annoying in games with persistent worlds as when you are doing something that you think of as a difficult, heroic adventure... only to see that some guy twenty levels higher than you is already soloing it, for fun. Who's the hero? He is, not you. You might be on a quest to save a village from a gang of bandits, but he just killed all the bandits by growling menacingly at them, so now you get to wait five minutes for them to respawn.

Yeah, the whole amusement park feel of Persistent MMOs is rather annoying and passe, I think GW1 has really innovated in this direction, I'm under the impression that we won't see this problem in GW2, as it is supposed to be more of a Random Event driven world, nothing to farm, or grind-hunt in the Big World, just dragons and other evil denizen appearing at random. And, there will still be loads of instances to enter, farm, quest as a hero player.


They actually may be planning on taking Instancing to the next level, by using LoD -- not 'Level of Detail' but "Level of Difficulty" Similar to what they've started in H-Mode, but far more robust. Allowing a single character to enter an instance and have that instance automatically adjust to that characters power and play ability, algorithm based on players play-style, history, etc. . . something I've been plugging for a long time, but no one seems interested in listening. . . free advice is never worth much. But I'm guessing A-Net does have the tech now to do such a thing. Basically ramp up the difficulty depending on how the player plays, who he's with, what Difficulty settings have they chosen for the Instance. This sort of thing would allow for unlimited leveling, all they'd have to do then is add another layer for any PvP interaction, when players PvP, anywhere, they're stats, skills etc all balance across, allowing for Seamless PvE to PvP interaction. Although there would have to be a PvP layer to NPCs as well, or just simply PvP NPCs with the associated stats when the environment becomes PvPvE.

It's my hope that Level will only mean something in an Instance, thus in the Big World, all players will be running around capable of doing about the same thing, sats being about the same. The only difference would be maybe, skills, armor skin, and, the Number above the players head, A number which would be toggled OFF in my case. I really do not plan on playing a Level dependent game ever again, and I'm guessing many others are finally waking up to feel the same way. Perhaps with such a system, side-kicking could be virtually seamless, players not even noticing they've entered an instance with higher level monsters/players, being that their "game settings" have "Show Level" toggle to the Off position. This would please both sides of an large issue, kinda.

Brilliant Ideas A-Net will surely have, they're just hard at it, sorting through the details.

[raspberry jam]

Balan, if you would have levels in the game, but automatically adjust the difficulty anywhere you go... essentially making levels a "show xp" title with no relevance to game mechanics, except to make the game harder to write... why bother with levels at all?

[Balan Makki]

Balan, if you would have levels in the game, but automatically adjust the difficulty anywhere you go... essentially making levels a "show xp" title with no relevance to game mechanics, except to make the game harder to write... why bother with levels at all?


Very good point. Shhh.. Those who want levels, probably wont know the difference. But truthfully, It could actually be a content limiter, allowing only access once you've reached a specific point in the game. Thus you'd need to be at least level "X" to access content in an area(instances), once that content becomes "unlocked" to a player it then becomes a LoD Instance. Which then becomes endless Content as long as that player is interested in returning there. This content Limiter could also add new Events to old areas (instances) once a player has progressed a bit further into the game, making that old instance a continually re-playable area. I'd personally prefer a title system rather than boring numbers. Something I'm guessing A-Net is also seriously considering for GW2. And it may be that the Big World will be rather horizontal in design, I think A-Net said something like, Spokes on a Wheel, or was that for GWEN, can't remember.

Need more RP in this game, hide the numbers, at least make them less relevant.

[raspberry jam]

I for one hope there won't be artificial content limiters like that. Making things hard to access simply because it's difficult to get there makes for a more realistic-feeling world, I think.

[Balan Makki]

I for one hope there won't be artificial content limiters like that. Making things hard to access simply because it's difficult to get there makes for a more realistic-feeling world, I think.

I agree, I'd much rather see the content fairly accessible from the start, though as the difficulty of an instance increases, so would the content therein. Thus fresh content would constantly stream/change inside or around all these existing areas, new monsters, new quests, allowing the devs to spend less time creating the world and more time updating/adding content. Would even be cool to see content unlock dependent on your title track/level track, thus you'd open up content that you could bring your friends to who are not of the same title track. Areas where you have high favor could even have an increase chance of spawning unique/elite quests that you could accept then drag friends to. Many instanced areas, or Mirror Instances of the Big World could have very dynamic content, monsters, quests depending on circumstances, not just level/rank.

I'm really hoping someday some developer adds a way for player to create content as well. That Spore vid (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5146132&postcount=183)posted in GW2 suggestion thread is a perfect example of a world growing from the work of thousands of players (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5146132&postcount=183). My favorite sword skin in the game was player designed contest winner. The asynchronous access to players and content idea is really cool as well, imagine that in an MMO. I've made a few suggestions in about being able to leave behind your character, while off line, by stationing them in the Mist in place of NPCs, in guild halls etc. as vendors selling your custom created content -- asynchronous access.

[Kailden Jera]

Okay here's the deal...

Yesterday, a friend of a friend of mine, who is an active member of the GuildWarsPT fansite told me an insight about the Guild Wars 2 character development system...

Whilst I found it somewhat disturbing and very WoWish, my friends loved it... Immediately started to inquest some players I know but nobody could tell me a thing. I must have answers!

Before you ask "what the heck are you talking about???" I'm going to tell you what I have heard.

According to my friend's friend, it seems the level cap will remain at 20 to some point. While this sounds strange, because Anet assured you there would probably be no Level Cap or a higher one, this gets even stranger...

Seems that a character can attain level 20 multiple times, what this means is that each character has to evolve each Professions level separately. Good new is that a character can change their primaries freely. This means one can start as a Monk, evolve to level 7 and then learn the Warrior profession as a level 1 while keeping their other 7 monk levels as a secondary profession (this means that a Wammo can be as weak as ever, heal and flinging their swords as well).

I asked about armor issues regarding professions but he didn't know who would that work... Probably as in a Cloth-Leather-Iron system like in WoW or something. As for primary attributes and runes... Well... Seems that weaker versions of the primary attributes would be created in order to preserve balance. But there more...

It seems that the races are going to work EXACTLY as the Professions in Guild Wars 1 work. Your limited to the one you start with and you gain special racial attributes that increase some traits and... Racial Skills... Combined with racial attributes... I felt like hurling when I heard this...

Asuras use Asuran Skills, one of the attributes my friend's friend told me was Engineering, Superiority and something related to Golems in one of those attributes, but that got lost in my friend's friend translation to Portuguese. Norn turn into bears and have huge strength while the Charrs boost companions abilities. No word on Humans or Sylvari but he told me that Humans would have something to do with the faction they chose (much like the PvE skills we have now, that could mean that Humans could learn weaker versions of the other racial skills, but they told me nothing regarding that). Ah... Forgot to mention... Races have restrictions when picking their first class but according to my friend's friend this restrictions are lifted once you advance in the game.

I need to know... IS THIS TRUE! It can't be... It's too gruesome... And just awful... I'm thinking in not buying Guild Wars 2 if it works like this...

I personally believe it's false... Some thing are not explained... If this was true, what would be the point of having multiple characters??? For looks? Different story lines? Better farming skills? And let's not mention the PvP chaos...

And if it's indeed true (which I doubt), where the heck did my friend's friend got this info? Did some Anet worker spilled the beans? Because the way he told, he SURE was convincing. Convincing enough to make run to GWO first thing and clear my woes that is...

[Xycury]

The character leveling seems like something from Final Fantasy Tactics...

You pick your primary but can evolve into something else immediately and you can just pick something entirely different later ....

... but having 2 sounds interesting.

This would ultimately induce grind of character development because now a character could be 100% and would only differ by race, which is interesting.

I think this could ultimately limit certain people, and I'm going to be confused as ever trying to pick the best race for what I want to run, because I may not do any other race after that, and I don't want to be gimped in a race...

I wouldn't mind knowing more, but the beta will clear this up.

I think speculating and trying to find out is futile right now.

[Santax]

I think speculating and trying to find out is futile right now.
QFT.

I find this (possible) news (particularly about the professions) interesting, and even a bit exciting. ANet never fails to innovate, and I think this could work spectacularly if it's pulled off right.

So yeah, bring it on :)

[Badenstein]

I would think that something like you are talking about is speculation. From what has been "hinted" at in some trade publications, nothing is definite yet. I bet they have a few models worked up. I wouldn't worry about it yet. One publication talked about not having professions, if I remember right.

[Whren]

The character leveling seems like something from Final Fantasy Tactics...

You pick your primary but can evolve into something else immediately and you can just pick something entirely different later ....

Its also exactly like Final Fantasy 11 online. Two professions at once, the secondary is always equal to half the primaries level. Only primary gets exp and each job must be leveled as a primary to advance. both primary and secondary can be changed anytime you are in your house in a city

[Badenstein]

I would like to see a game designed where the rewards for quests be useful. They seem useful for the first character you level, then after that, you just sell them for the cash.

[iifa]

not FFT..... it"s more like FF Online...
Anet is copying..!?

[Valorum Dynamo]

Innovative to say the least....

It also reminds me of some other random MMOs that these little kids play... lol

[Scutilla]

I asked about armor issues regarding professions but he didn't know who would that work... Probably as in a Cloth-Leather-Iron system like in WoW or something.
This is the only bit I can confirm; it was mentioned in the original PC Gamer article in April.

It's an interesting system, and sounds pretty plausible. The idea of being able to change primaries at will and level them all up sounds really neat. Now I'll no longer have to bring one character over another because the group absolutely HAS to have a monk.

Even so, I'd wait for official confirmation. Secondhand "friend of a friend" reports are often either sketchy or outright false.

I personally believe it's false... Some thing are not explained... If this was true, what would be the point of having multiple characters??? For looks? Different story lines? Better farming skills? And let's not mention the PvP chaos...
To have one of every race, or simply for the sake of developing different characters with different personalities. I don't know what you mean about chaos in PvP; if anything this would greatly streamline the process of integrating PvE characters into PvP.

[Balan Makki]

Neat rumors, but rumors all the same.

[Kailden Jera]

Neat rumors, but rumors all the same.

Not according to my friends... But I would trust them for the Monk slot on a trip to Mallyx, that's for sure.

Pity my thread got merged... Now It won't get the attention it deserves. And I won't the answers I seek...

[Zayren]

Okay, here's what I hope for in GW2: WoW-like dungeons. The ones in GW:EN are cool and all, but seriously, not even close to stuff like Stratholme/Scholomance/Scarlet Monastery. I LOVED those dungeons, they were epic win. However, I hope to god they don't do any raids. Raids are the bane of my existence and why I quit playing WoW. I really hope they make some dungeons like the ones I said, they just have a depth to them sorely lacking in GW, and exploring them is extremely fun. Also, one of the best parts: Multiple bosses that each drop unique loot!

Edit: I forgot Gnomeregan! That place was probably the coolest place ever. To bad it was such low level...

[Erasculio]

Asuras use Asuran Skills, one of the attributes my friend's friend told me was Engineering, Superiority and something related to Golems in one of those attributes, but that got lost in my friend's friend translation to Portuguese.

If you have the original in Portuguese, post it or the link, I can read it and try to figure out where it came from.

Erasculio

[Kailden Jera]

If you have the original in Portuguese, post it or the link, I can read it and try to figure out where it came from.

Erasculio

They said this from mouth to mouth. I have absolutely no Idea where they heard this. But I can write exactly what they say, it's easier in Portuguese. For the Asuran skills:


Bem, é assim, as raça que existem no Guild Wars 2 funcionam como as classes no Prophecies. Cinco raças core e eles estão a pensar lançar uma por campanhã e duas classes a acompanhar. Os Asuras, que são os meus preferidos, vão ter estes attributos:

Engenharia, que funciona como o Spawning Power dos rits para diversas skills dos Asuras, Superioridade que servem como self buffs ao Asura e que o ajudam nos spells e o protejem (tipo Mental Block tás a ver) e Golemantes que basicamente funcionam como minnions. Tás a ver, tipo o engenier do team fortress 2.


That's the gist of it regarding that topic. I'll be asking them tomorrow for more info. I'll handle the details one I get on to this.

[Balan Makki]

Okay, here's what I hope for in GW2: WoW-like dungeons. The ones in GW:EN are cool and all, but seriously, not even close to stuff like Stratholme/Scholomance/Scarlet Monastery. I LOVED those dungeons, they were epic win....


I agree, they need to push a bit harder with indoor environments, outdoor environments are incredible in GW, and will likely be amazing in GW2 . I'm guessing there are some limitations to the GW1 game engine that makes the camera and small indoor zones problematic. . . Oh, you forgot Blackrock Mountain.

[Jono Mozza]

Well babelfish portugese to english says:

Well, it is thus, the race that exists in the Guild Wars 2 functions as the classrooms in the Prophecies. Five races Core and them are to think to launch one for campanhã [campaign?] and two classrooms to follow. The Asuras, that is my preferred ones, goes to have these attributos: Engineering, that functions as the Spawning Power of rits for diverse skills of the Asuras, Superiority that serves as self buffs to the Asura and that they help it in spells and it they protejem (Mental type Block tás to see) and Golemantes that basically functions as minnions. Tás[means 'as' according to wikipedia] to see, type engenier of it team fortress 2.

[QtheMuse]

I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Everyone talks like GW2 is coming out next month when in reality it is coming out in 2009-early 2010.

The only thing they probably really have out at the moment is the Art Department is getting to work on the world, and idea's are probably on document in the office and they are programming a new engine.

Everything else is speculation and will remain speculation until we are told otherwise.

[De Daniel]

Next month thats really stupid...

[Kailden Jera]

Next month thats really stupid...

Specially when not a single soul in this thread/forum/fansite ever mentioned that.

[twilight dragon]

Specially when not a single soul in this thread/forum/fansite ever mentioned that.

Also consider the title of this thread. :laugh:

[Erasculio]

They said this from mouth to mouth. I have absolutely no Idea where they heard this. But I can write exactly what they say, it's easier in Portuguese.

Sorry, I didn't realize you knew Portuguese as well; the first time I read your post I confused a "to" with a "from" and though your friend had translated it from Portuguese, not you.

Don't worry with the Babelfish translation. The only interesting thing there that Kailden forgot to mention was one phrase: "Cinco raças core e eles estão a pensar lançar uma por campanhã e duas classes a acompanhar", which translates into "5 core races, and they're thinking about adding one per campaign, with two new classes as well".

I actually liked most of what was said, but I don't think it's true. Because...

1) Character progression would be more limited, in the new leveling system, than what I think Arena Net wants. A level 100 character, when playing as a Warrior/Ranger with 20 at both professions, would not be more powerful, in that moment, as someone at level 40 playing as a Warrior/Ranger with 20 at both those professions. The character at level 100 would be more powerful thanks to having more choices; but then again, the same may be said about a character with access to skills from all chapters being more powerful than the same character but with access to only Prophecies skills. This is something too subtle to be noticed; and while I like it, I have the feeling Arena Net is aiming at something that more obviously makes a higher level character more powerful.

2) It would be too complex. Between a primary profession, a secondary (even if limited) profession and racial atributes with racial skills, it would be almost the same as if we had one character with 3 professions today. The nightmare it would be to balance would be just waaaay too much work, and learning all possible combinations and strategies would be too complex for players. Worse, by adding one new race and two new professions per expansion, Arena Net would be making the same mistake they did with GW1: we would soon end with thousands of skills, making the game impossible to balance, and eventually impossible to play.

So while that kind of leveling system would be very cool (something that does not really add that much power), I don't think it's true.

Erasculio

[fishy go moo]

gw2 better have a mount i mean it

[Kailden Jera]

gw2 better have a mount i mean it

Thank you for your words of Wisdom fishy. Mount would be nice as well... I don't know exactly at what extent.

Anyways, I asked my friends where exactly they heard this... It seems this was a summary of a Brainstorm session in Anet's Headquarters held by the Development team. Proving further more that this info is bogus. Thank god...

[Mister Smartypants]

Though I would agree that there should not be a dominant healing profession, I hope there would not be healing potions or "sit" functions that are used to replensih health, which almost every other mmo possess..

Oh please god no, no sitting and resting and waiting on health to get back up to full, or spending cash on potions, before carrying on! :sad: I tried Dark Age of Camelot out at about the same time as I tried GW for the first time, and simply couldn't stand the between-combat waiting of DAoC. I really like the way you can just get up and carry straight on after a fight in GW - even energy doesn't take very long to come back, and it's always free. It's an excellent system and definitely needs to be carried over to GW2. Hint hint. :wink:

[Manwithtwohands]

What if GW2 had pokemon fishy? :laugh:

[spawnofthesith]

Please do have a healing class GW2

[Bazompora]

But please.... no monk profession. I would hope there would be a way to have healing without having one profession be the healer.I second that, but with a tweak towards accuracy:
there should absolutely be no heavy-healer profession (as in"Healer Monk" or "Restoration Ritualist") in GW2: they put too many restrictions on group formations, because in 99% of the cases they impose themselves as the only indispensible profession.

Please, no more "GLF healer (till the end of days)"! :sad:

Jumping will be for annoying assassins in PvP, can't see much use for this other than some neat jumping/climbing puzzles ala Tomb Raider/Prince of Persia. . . or maybe some fun attack animations when combined with a jump. Context based attacks -- JediKnight2, Conan.Oh, I could think of more. Imagine necro bombs jumping from ramparts into an attacking mass.
Instancing is truely amazingNice for you! To me, instancing always has been the main downside of GW1.
I'm eager to see a persistent GW2.

[allinuff]

Hell no to pots. Speed up regen while doing a certain emote is fine but it will kill an aspect of the game so that would suck.

Jumping is fine as well. But... only if latency can be properly maintained and proper syncing is done, which is hard as hell so I guess we'll see. Jumping will open up new possibilities in PVP and possible new condition like entangle where you cannot jump.

Most importantly is a working Z-axis. Vertical plane is non-existent... alleviation is artificially derived. Get this and the ability to slide off certain inclines or drop off planes of differing heights (currently blocked off).

Differing skill functionality for PVE and PVP.

Infinite level cap but no additional benefits beyond a certain point.

Oh and non battle abilities like advance material crafting, weapon crafting, PVE consumable brewing.

[raspberry jam]

Oh and non battle abilities like advance material crafting, weapon crafting, PVE consumable brewing.I always wondered why people want this. Instead of simply finding an NPC artisan/weaponsmith/etc. and pay him to craft for you, you have to either spend time on leveling up some trade skill, or find a player who already did, convince him to work for you, try to guess a fair price etc. etc.

= time sink

[Erasculio]

Please, no more "GLF healer (till the end of days)"! :sad:


Too late, IMO. I would guess that a large number of GW2 players (at least in the beginning) will be GW1 players; and I think we have seen how often players we meet in the game are willing to adapt.

I would actually expect players to try to play GW2 as if it were GW1; and when that fails (because it should fail; if Arena Net is making a new game, it better be different from the previous one), for players to complain against Arena Net instead of trying to adapt. We still get Assassin players complaining that they cannot play as if they were Warriors, for example.

Erasculio

[Aiiane]

On another note, to those saying "don't make a healer class" - what about those of us who like playing healers?

[Bazompora]

On another note, to those saying "don't make a healer class" - what about those of us who like playing healers?Admittedly, quite about everything devs could choose has a downside to it, so it's weighing the advantages versus the disadvantages. If there's one thing GW has shown us, it is that healers can be considered far more doingbad than good. Despite there being a small amount of players gladly picking up this role, the healer works anti-democratically: the healer role strongly imposes itself on the gameplay of every other non-healer player, wether they like it or not. Alot more players are contrainted by healers than actually being fond of it; the difficulty to find healers is further testimony to this.
Where's my freedom to not be depending on a healer and still have equal chances at victory?

On the other hand, I do not advocate the deletion of Monks altogether, but rather have them reconverted into a more versatile warrior-monk style class, by replacing their heavy-healing by offensive skills.

[allinuff]

I always wondered why people want this. Instead of simply finding an NPC artisan/weaponsmith/etc. and pay him to craft for you, you have to either spend time on leveling up some trade skill, or find a player who already did, convince him to work for you, try to guess a fair price etc. etc.

= time sink

It's really something to do other than kill kill kill. Guilds will have a house crafter, house armorer et cetera. It adds to the immersion. Of course being the game GWs is the crafting NPC must still be around but you can save yourself a chunk crafting yourself. Something like the artisans minus the gold cost.

[raspberry jam]

It's really something to do other than kill kill kill. Guilds will have a house crafter, house armorer et cetera. It adds to the immersion. Of course being the game GWs is the crafting NPC must still be around but you can save yourself a chunk crafting yourself. Something like the artisans minus the gold cost.Yes, I guess so. Personally I think it adds to the immersion that players are not crafters etc... If I play an elementalist, I have studied and gotten good at magic, not blacksmithing. Then again, it would make some kind of sense, if monks could brew healing potions, elementalists could create magical weapons, warriors could forge armor... or something like that.

[JayyDestroyer]

On another note, to those saying "don't make a healer class" - what about those of us who like playing healers?

It would be good to broaden the healer class, making them similar to paragons (protection), and give much stronger selfheals to the other classes.

[Mister Smartypants]

It would be good to broaden the healer class, making them similar to paragons (protection), and give much stronger selfheals to the other classes.

Agreed.

*

Where the crafting stuff is concerned, it would be nice if that was an option. Not for anything game-dependent, just a little on the side for fun to save money or make money. Beats standing around getting drunk or getting fat whilst chatting to people on days when you don't have the time or the inclination to quest. :smiley:

[Aiiane]

It would be good to broaden the healer class, making them similar to paragons (protection), and give much stronger selfheals to the other classes.

The thing is, either you make that protection worth it (in which case, everyone will end up running that class in their cookie cutter builds anyways), or you don't make it worth it (in which case no one will run the class).

Consider Ritualist restoration heals - a clear example of where (at least currently) it's simply not worth it. Do you see many restoration-based ritualists in your groups?

[aspboy]

Making healing independent of profession is good for solo play, it does detract from the idea of the team unit with strong individual roles.

While im glad GW doesnt have the burden of healing potions/medkits, im not exactly sure the dependence on a healer profession is good.

[twilight dragon]

maybe have both? Like a still have a healer class(es) but also have some kind of healing potion item too?

[Erasculio]

Making healing independent of profession is good for solo play, it does detract from the idea of the team unit with strong individual roles.

But then again, we don't know if that team unit is coming back for GW2. Arena Net mentioned how we won't have heroes or henchmen in GW2; rather a system in which each character may have a single companion, nothing more. Given how Arena Net has always supported solo play, I have the feeling we are going to be able to solo in GW2 as well, but unlike the soloing we do today (with the AI), that we would be able to solo literally alone.

This would lead to less specialized professions, able to pack offense and defense in the same skill bar. Less like mesmers and more like dervishes and paragons.

Erasculio

[Giggles]

Oh please no potions. That'll make the outcome of fights based on how much crap you have in your stash, rather then how to out-think whatever you're doing and bring in more thoughtless gameplay.

[Zatsume]

maybe have both? Like a still have a healer class(es) but also have some kind of healing potion item too?

I havent encountered any good way of using potions in online game as a base of healing IMO its just bad idea, because it usually leads to: money-->survival/success. One thing I like about GW is that we dont have those ... and hopefully wont have in GW 2

[spawnofthesith]

But then again, we don't know if that team unit is coming back for GW2. Arena Net mentioned how we won't have heroes or henchmen in GW2; rather a system in which each character may have a single companion, nothing more. Given how Arena Net has always supported solo play, I have the feeling we are going to be able to solo in GW2 as well, but unlike the soloing we do today (with the AI), that we would be able to solo literally alone.

This would lead to less specialized professions, able to pack offense and defense in the same skill bar. Less like mesmers and more like dervishes and paragons.

Erasculio

Yah, but how far would it go? Because as cool as it sounds, I don't want a warrior that causes area of effect damage when he swings his sword in addition to him already absorbing damage, and at the same time uber healing himself.

[Giggles]

That would be a real shame if they took out the team design we have now. It's one of the things that I like most about the game, having to rely on other people in the group. Even if it's AI a lot of the time.

[Kailden Jera]

Who needs potions? We have the Signet of Healing.

Imagine a version of that signet linked to all professions.

[Sir Jack]

Who needs potions? We have the Signet of Healing.

Imagine a version of that signet linked to all professions.

I think Healing Signet used to be a classwide skill back in the beta...


Anyway, on the subject of gone with the team design, I highly dout Anet would remove that from the game. Like it or not, PvP is still a big part of this game, and I can't really see Anet making GW2's PvP not based on the system we currently have.

[GhostXL]

Or you know...they could just leave Monks with healing...and ADD hand to hand or a bo staff type weaponry deal.

You know..smite with weaponry instead???

Make smiting require a weapon so it cant be used and abused. Maybe even add smiting skills that boost armor so you can go hand to hand or w/e.

You may say...well hand to hand does not need a weapon?? Im sure they could add knuckles for hand to hand.

Or just leave smiting to a Bo Staff user.

[Willow O Whisper]

Why make any class obligatory? That was what caused doa,urgoz and deep to suck like they did to any non gimmick class. Thats why they need to give all classes a way stronger self heal, so they can be independant and give every single class a chance to join the fun aspects of the game. Not like the damn trinity we have now...

Thats why i hope races only will be a cosmetic diffrence, i imagine charrs being the best warriors, thats why we might end up with ppl doing missions spamming lf charr tank. :angry: And so on with Asuras being best casters ect.

[spawnofthesith]

But having one super human class that can do all is retarded.

And I honestly hope that their are certain stat differences in the species.

[chriswck]

Why make any class obligatory? That was what caused doa,urgoz and deep to suck like they did to any non gimmick class. Thats why they need to give all classes a way stronger self heal, so they can be independant and give every single class a chance to join the fun aspects of the game. Not like the damn trinity we have now...

Thats why i hope races only will be a cosmetic diffrence, i imagine charrs being the best warriors, thats why we might end up with ppl doing missions spamming lf charr tank. :angry: And so on with Asuras being best casters ect.

If what the "boost", such as edification and heart of the norn, that comes with titles is what is going to be the intrinsic feature of each race in GW2, that would be sad. What you mention such as Norn tank, Asuran nuker would acutally really happen..

I know this might be off-topic, but how did WoW define each race so as to maintain a balance; there would not be things such as glf tauren paladin/dwarven warlock? [I've only played a 14-day trail on WoW, and got bored of it due to how much one has to farm to level and buy new skills; barely played for 2 or 3 days so I didn't get much from it]

[Kailden Jera]

Why make any class obligatory? That was what caused doa,urgoz and deep to suck like they did to any non gimmick class. Thats why they need to give all classes a way stronger self heal, so they can be independant and give every single class a chance to join the fun aspects of the game. Not like the damn trinity we have now...

Think of it this way. In Ragnarok Online, you can solo a dungeon with any character you want. All you need to do is find ways of self-healing and damage, and be at a decent level and most important patience.

I imagine a system in Guild Wars 2 where you can chose which type of gameplay that you enjoy the most. "Monks" in Guild Wars 2 could chose if their builds would reflect a solo experience (a few heals, buff and a lot of damage) or a group oriented experience (full heal, awesome buffs, no damage at all). It all depends on the person.

Thats why i hope races only will be a cosmetic diffrence, i imagine charrs being the best warriors, thats why we might end up with ppl doing missions spamming lf charr tank. :angry: And so on with Asuras being best casters ect.

If the game can be played mostly solo and just the fact that Norns can turn into bears, what would be the point of races if there was no particular difference between them? Not that you dictate anything though.

People already do that by the way... By limiting the skills a character can use, some discriminate players to have skills from all Campaigns in order to accept them into parties.

[chriswck]

^But the problem remains that the "Monks" will still be a dominant profession in almost every party; they are still indispensible

If I did not interpret incorrectly, that would mean a GW2 Monk could deal a decent amount of damage or provide excellent party heals/buffs; then who needs other professions?

I agree that that there should be differences among races. But I've been wondering how they would make it so that one would not have a strong preference to which profession should go with which race. I went to the WoW comm site; the racial traits are quite subtle. However, would that be enough, in your terms, to define the races in GW2?

[Bazompora]

The thing is, either you make that protection worth it (in which case, everyone will end up running that class in their cookie cutter builds anyways), or you don't make it worth it (in which case no one will run the class).How about making every profession equal in worth (and by extention: equal in offense and preservation), instead of making only one or two the the center spill of every competition-worthy build?
Consider Ritualist restoration heals - a clear example of where (at least currently) it's simply not worth it. Do you see many restoration-based ritualists in your groups?Restoration Ritualists are often excluded in favor of the slightly heavier healing Monk; a good example how profession-tied role-distribution is often ground for exclusion.
How often did I (back in the days of PUGs) not hear "we nead one more healer, kick someone". The accent of GW1 laid so much on interdependance that cold business-director attitudes became key for succes, also leading up to almost nobody wanting to play with strangers anymore today.

While im glad GW doesnt have the burden of healing potions/medkits, im not exactly sure the dependence on a healer profession is good.Y'know ... that reminds me ... I once said in an open conversation in Lion's Arch that the GW gameplay deserved credit for the absence of healing potions. One response from a bystander came to me like a wake-up call: "Of course GW has potions; they're just called Monks".

Yah, but how far would it go? Because as cool as it sounds, I don't want a warrior that causes area of effect damage when he swings his sword in addition to him already absorbing damage, and at the same time uber healing himself.How about moderate healing for every profession? I'm sure Arenanet can keep it balanced.

That would be a real shame if they took out the team design we have now. It's one of the things that I like most about the game, having to rely on other people in the group. Even if it's AI a lot of the time.The team design failed, in terms of freedom and fun: forced to rely on other "people" (as in positions, not individuals), peer pressure and exclusion inevitably turned the playerbase sour (leading up to the addition of heroes). Henchmen & heroes only serve as levers to reduce peer pressure in favor of more exclusion.

Anyway, on the subject of gone with the team design, I highly dout Anet would remove that from the game. Like it or not, PvP is still a big part of this game, and I can't really see Anet making GW2's PvP not based on the system we currently have.GW2 will also have World PvP; I don't see that working out well with the system we currently have.
While it is clear that there's little place for individuality (limited to the profession-limited choice of skins) in GW1, every individual would matter in GW2 (atleast ... that's what I deduced from the many GW2-related interviews).

[Giggles]

The team design failed, in terms of freedom and fun: forced to rely on other "people" (as in positions, not individuals), peer pressure and exclusion inevitably turned the playerbase sour (leading up to the addition of heroes). Henchmen & heroes only serve as levers to reduce peer pressure in favor of more exclusion.

I disagree. Sure, you can call it a failure regarding closed minded pugs. I usually run strange builds with characters that probably shouldn't be doing what they're doing, but I do it for fun. I did this twice last night with two different guild/alliance groups. One of them was a dungeon the other was a just a mission. That's freedom and it was fine. No one died.

Things got scewy for people because they see the war, ele and monk as the traditional archetype that they understand and can't get their head around doing something else. Necros were useless until someone discovered SS. Assassins were useless until people stopped trying to tank. As long as your team has some synergy, you can do pretty much whatever you want in almost all areas of the game. The only places that get into the stupid land are the "elite" areas. Try doing a mission without monks or wars. It's pretty fun. The team design works well to me.

[Aiiane]

How about making every profession equal in worth (and by extention: equal in offense and preservation), instead of making only one or two the the center spill of every competition-worthy build?

Restoration Ritualists are often excluded in favor of the slightly heavier healing Monk; a good example how profession-tied role-distribution is often ground for exclusion.

It's a lot more difficult than it sounds to do that, without making them effectively carbon copies of one another - and then what's the point of having professions?


How often did I (back in the days of PUGs) not hear "we nead one more healer, kick someone". The accent of GW1 laid so much on interdependance that cold business-director attitudes became key for succes, also leading up to almost nobody wanting to play with strangers anymore today.

If you want to eliminate that, you'll have to make everyone able to perform any role (in which case, again, what's the point of professions), or eliminate roles entirely - which is effectively the same thing.


Y'know ... that reminds me ... I once said in an open conversation in Lion's Arch that the GW gameplay deserved credit for the absence of healing potions. One response from a bystander came to me like a wake-up call: "Of course GW has potions; they're just called Monks".

If you really want me to address this, PM me, but for now I'm just going to say that the two differ by a mile.


How about moderate healing for every profession? I'm sure Arenanet can keep it balanced.

One profession would inevitably come out on top, and be run to at least partial exclusion of others for healing. The alternative being to make them carbon copies, see above.


The team design failed, in terms of freedom and fun: forced to rely on other "people" (as in positions, not individuals), peer pressure and exclusion inevitably turned the playerbase sour (leading up to the addition of heroes).

The only classes that're really excluded from pugs today are Mesmers and Ritualists, and to a lesser extent Assassins. M's and A's are excluded because, quite simply, most of their concept revolves around PvP. Sure, ArenaNet has tried to tweak it (more than acknowledged for mesmers, somewhat), but the mindset persists so they continue to be excluded. Ritualists are mainly excluded because monks outdo them for healing, and most of the other things they do can be done by someone else either via their own profession or via secondary /Rt.

[Bazompora]

I usually run strange builds with characters that probably shouldn't be doing what they're doing, but I do it for fun. I did this twice last night with two different guild/alliance groups. One of them was a dungeon the other was a just a mission. That's freedom and it was fine. No one died.No, that's luck and people would envy you for that. But the game shouldn't allow them to be in that position.
And for such success stories, there are hundreds more of failure, as most groups will inevitably fail if they have less than 2 healers or 1 healer & 1 protector.
Things got scewy for people because they see the war, ele and monk as the traditional archetype that they understand and can't get their head around doing something else. Necros were useless until someone discovered SS. Assassins were useless until people stopped trying to tank. As long as your team has some synergy, you can do pretty much whatever you want in almost all areas of the game.Synergy, a condition that mostly doesn't allow everyone to run his favorite build. I have too often been asked to go BiP, SS or MM, because a Blood Spiker <as strong as he may be> doesn't add well to group synergy.
Try doing a mission without monks or wars. It's pretty fun. The team design works well to me.I did treasure runs with lvl 20 guildies on Istan (and no Monks on the team), in places where mobs are lvl 15; my necro was too often last man standing. Apparently, for average-to-below-average skill, the survivability of non-healers without healer support is just too slim.

It's a lot more difficult than it sounds to do that, without making them effectively carbon copies of one another - and then what's the point of having professions?.They would still have different playstyles, one for everyone's guise, without tying them to a specific selection of roles.
Rangers would still shoot arrows, Warriors would still wield swords, Elementalists would still manipulate the elements, etc., but they all would also be equal and adequate in survivability.
If you want to eliminate that, you'll have to make everyone able to perform any role (in which case, again, what's the point of professions), or eliminate roles entirely - which is effectively the same thing.Yes ... and would that be a bad thing?
I think not; it would allow players to pick professions freely in function of taste and background, and to have completely polyvalent characters that aren't fit or unfit for one or the other position.
the two differ by a mile.Healers & potions are both a must to have, because you won't get far without and because your opponents will also have them.
One profession would inevitably come out on top, and be run to at least partial exclusion of others for healing. The alternative being to make them carbon copies, see above.None of both has to be. As explained above, professions can be equal but still distinct.
However, distinction is undefendable, if it comes from interdependance with specific role patterns.
The only classes that're really excluded from pugs today are Mesmers and Ritualists, and to a lesser extent Assassins. M's and A's are excluded because, quite simply, most of their concept revolves around PvP. Sure, ArenaNet has tried to tweak it (more than acknowledged for mesmers, somewhat), but the mindset persists so they continue to be excluded. Ritualists are mainly excluded because monks outdo them for healing, and most of the other things they do can be done by someone else either via their own profession or via secondary /Rt.Shows that nomatter how hard Arenanet tries to correct it, the problem will persist, as the whole "team position" system itself is root for exclusion (just try to tackle the game with a group composed of only wammos and fire Elementalists, for example). However, I do believe Arenanet's intention was the opposite of the current result and I hope this is one of the reasons that lead to GW2.

[Aiiane]

The thing is that many players want to play a specific role. Some players want to be healers, and when you eliminate such roles, you effectively make the game less enjoyable for those players, because they can't as effectively do what they wanted to do. (By the way, notice that an RPG is a role playing game? There's a reason the terminology came about.)


They would still have different playstyles, one for everyone's guise, without tying them to a specific selection of roles.
Rangers would still shoot arrows, Warriors would still wield swords, Elementalists would still manipulate the elements, etc., but they all would also be equal and adequate in survivability.

Again, that's easy to say, but hard to do. For the most superficial players, it might be enough to have one profession with a 100 point heal "from nature's regeneration" and another to have a 100 point heal "from holy light", but for most players, it's just going to be "oh, they both have 100 point heals, how are they different"?

Either you have different skills (in which case, you get into even more balance issues, and it's a near-certainly that any such skillset is never perfectly balanced), or you have skills that are identical in function but simply not in appearance, in which case they're not really different.

[Bazompora]

The thing is that many players want to play a specific role. Some players want to be healers, and when you eliminate such roles, you effectively make the game less enjoyable for those players, because they can't as effectively do what they wanted to do.But now, those that do not want to be subjected to the team system cannot do what they like at all. What about them?
(By the way, notice that an RPG is a role playing game? There's a reason the terminology came about.)"Roles" as in Role Playing Games designate story characters, which is not the same as team functions, which better translates what you describe under that same word.
Again, that's easy to say, but hard to do. For the most superficial players, it might be enough to have one profession with a 100 point heal "from nature's regeneration" and another to have a 100 point heal "from holy light", but for most players, it's just going to be "oh, they both have 100 point heals, how are they different"?They will be different, because they will be played differently: you do not expect every player to run the same skills bar, with the same balance in offense and destruction, do you? Individuality should prevail as the differing factor, in absence of "healing for 50 more points than another profession".
Either you have different skills (in which case, you get into even more balance issues, and it's a near-certainly that any such skillset is never perfectly balanced), or you have skills that are identical in function but simply not in appearance, in which case they're not really different.Different skills are not the issue; having one profession dominate another in said function is. Professions can still be equal (unlike in GW1) and have different skills (like in GW1).

[Aiiane]

But now, those that do not want to be subjected to the team system cannot do what they like at all. What about them?

Heroes and henchmen. If you don't want to play with a team mentality, then don't play with teams.


"Roles" as in Role Playing Games designate story characters, which is not the same as team functions, which better translates what you describe under that same word.

I'd argue that even most story characters have their functions - would stories be nearly as interesting if everyone did every role? If the priest who had taken a vow of nonviolence were just as capable of smiting a creature into the ground as the warrior who has no idea what magic is but can somehow heal their wounds just as effectively as someone who has dedicated their life to healing arts?

Even if the professions themselves aren't biased towards a particular role, people will still end up playing particular roles most of the time - multitasking is not a skill the majority of people have.


They will be different, because they will be played differently: you do not expect every player to run the same skills bar, with the same balance in offense and destruction, do you? Individuality should prevail as the differing factor, in absence of "healing for 50 more points than another profession".

Different skills are not the issue; having one profession dominate another in said function is. Professions can still be equal (unlike in GW1) and have different skills (like in GW1).
Again, easy to say, not nearly as easy to implement.

It's like saying "balance in Guild Wars is not an issue, just make all of the builds equally powerful" - okay, thanks for the advice, but how exactly would you recommend doing that? It's not a trivial exercise, and arguably something not possible to entirely accomplish.

[Tru Reptile]

Oh please no potions. That'll make the outcome of fights based on how much crap you have in your stash, rather then how to out-think whatever you're doing and bring in more thoughtless gameplay.

No, not really. Potions could have a casting time, or get interrupted etc. The downside to using them of course is that they are consumeable. I'm not suggesting that GW2 should have potions, but saying that using healing spells is less thoughtless gameplay over potions is f'ing laughable.

I would also like to see that the professions in GW2 are more self-sufficient, thus making parties more flexible and not making it a profession dependant game.

[PulseReaction]

So, will there finally be fire arms in GW 2 ? lawl

[Tru Reptile]

It wouldn't really surprise me to see Blunderbuss' (sp?) and flintlock pistols.

The only gun I'd want though is the GAU-8 Avenger!

[tawainai daemon]

Given that Dwarf is not a playable race in GW2.
Also that it seems they are the only one who makes/use gunpowders...
I would say unlikely.

[Tru Reptile]

Given that Dwarf is not a playable race in GW2.
Also that it seems they are the only one who makes/use gunpowders...
I would say unlikely.

Well, that doesn't mean that Dwarves are the only ones that know how to make it. Remember that Seige Turtles have cannons on their backs.

[tawainai daemon]

Well, that doesn't mean that Dwarves are the only ones that know how to make it. Remember that Seige Turtles have cannons on their backs.

Sorry ^^" I should really buy and play Faction before commenting on these "world-wide" type of question.
But maybe they bought it off the dawrves :rolleyes:
Ok ...then the rest can do so as well.

[Zaxares]

Well, that doesn't mean that Dwarves are the only ones that know how to make it. Remember that Seige Turtles have cannons on their backs.

True, but we don't know if the Luxons know the secret of making blasting powder, or whether it was purchased from the Dwarves (or from merchants who traded with the Dwarves).

[oakwine]

Devs could put in firearms. Bet they would have exactly same DPS as bows, though.

[Tru Reptile]

True, but we don't know if the Luxons know the secret of making blasting powder, or whether it was purchased from the Dwarves (or from merchants who traded with the Dwarves).

That's true as well. Or perhaps the Seige Turtles invented it in their plot to rule the world!

Either way I'm sure they could spin it in their story.

[Manwithtwohands]

Asuras will have lasers.

We come in peace Bookah...
and leave you in pieces!

PEW! PEW! PEW! :laugh:

[CMEPTb]

We also currently have the Ascalonian Catapults (or maybe those are Charr ?).

[Juff Spufalufagus]

We don't need the dwarves for explosives, that's what we have the Asura for!

[Bazompora]

Heroes and henchmen. If you don't want to play with a team mentality, then don't play with teams.Gah ... not H/H again! As if everyone wants an AI squad taking the action away from them; the MM allready fits the purpose of AI hearding. Also ... since when does not wanting to fit into a team pattern equates not wanting to play with other players?
What if a fire Elementalist wants to party with a bunch of friendly fire Elementalists? With the current interdependance, they can't survive by only them together, lest one or two give up their trade.
I'd argue that even most story characters have their functions - would stories be nearly as interesting if everyone did every role? If the priest who had taken a vow of nonviolence were just as capable of smiting a creature into the ground as the warrior who has no idea what magic is but can somehow heal their wounds just as effectively as someone who has dedicated their life to healing arts?Traditional setups have been tried allready: it's what GW1's team build system is (which lead to social disaster). Also, smithing and melee combat are both offenses, which can be restricted to individual classes, without causing one to be more powerfull than the other.
Even if the professions themselves aren't biased towards a particular role, people will still end up playing particular roles most of the timeYes, but then these would be the natural result of how players decide to take part in their micro-community, rather than being carved into specific professions.
multitasking is not a skill the majority of people have.I wouldn't call adding decent self-healing to dealing damage "multitasking".
Again, easy to say, not nearly as easy to implement.

It's like saying "balance in Guild Wars is not an issue, just make all of the builds equally powerful" - okay, thanks for the advice, but how exactly would you recommend doing that? It's not a trivial exercise, and arguably something not possible to entirely accomplish.Oh, I deem Arenanet completely capable of managing it. Allready have they announced GW2 will have fewer professions and skills; so I take it they resolved themselves to not letting the gameplay outgrow them anymore.

[Zsig]

Why would you want firearms when you got wands and staves that shoots sparkling magic thingies from it and has unlimited ammo, and doesn't even need batteries?

[Tru Reptile]

Why would you want firearms when you got wands and staves that shoots sparkling magic thingies from it and has unlimited ammo, and doesn't even need batteries?

Because wands and staves don't have skills linked to them?

[Skyy High]

They used to..../points to Smite.

Seriously, no firearms. Siege weaponry, sure. Crude explosives, sure. Actual guns? No.

[Sipiath]

If you want guns, there is alway Tabula Rasa...

[De Daniel]

WOOT a AK 47 on my charr sounds awsome. Then implent some grenade launchers aswell...

[Manwithtwohands]

Hey the idea of linking a few skills to wands and staves seems neat.

[Kailden Jera]

I love guns and I would love they could be added to Guild Wars at some extent as long as our entire weaponry doesn't revolve on Firearms.

Guns are much more elegant and as honorable as any sword. It's better attacking from a distance, way from any harm those big armored "Echo-Mending" Warriors can do to ME.

I play d20 Modern with the Urban Arcana varation rules and my character has a 5-slot feeder 35mm Revolverine MagiGun as his main weapon though nothing compares in power a the edge of a Cold Steel Sword (mainly because you can't aply you personal strenght to a gun).

I wouldn't be suprised if the Asuras had a Gunmage type as Final Fantasy Tactics that has guns as his main weapon. But we just have to wait to see...

And for those that think guns are stupid, if they are added then just don't use them. But don't come and complain if your massacrated by a Ranger "Sniper Interruptor" or something in the lines of those.

[Giggles]

Bazompora, it sounds like you want a game that enables people to run around alone to accomplish things. People would all be pretty much equal in their ability to dish out and take damage. If that were the case, then you're in danger of making a game that lets people run around alone to do things, rather than needing other people or a couple of henchmen in none are avail. That sound like a social disaster to me, not the current team design. The only "disaster" that I've seen was when they introduced heroes. More people were able to get things done alone with them. Before then, just about everywhere you went, there were people looking for groups.

I'd rather play a game where people in a team all had different capabilities that you would have to exploit to defeat them. Knowing your enemy and then having to out-think them seems to be a far more interesting kind of combat then if everyone did pretty much the same thing with just a different name for it. The whole idea of having to protect the backline and they in turn will protect you is something I enjoy a great deal. Without varied abilities you loose a lot of depth.

No, not really. Potions could have a casting time, or get interrupted etc. The downside to using them of course is that they are consumeable. I'm not suggesting that GW2 should have potions, but saying that using healing spells is less thoughtless gameplay over potions is f'ing laughable.

I was saying having potions would bring in mindless gameplay, not healing people as a character. As the outcome of a fight would be who had the most consumables as apposed to who had the better skills.

[Aiiane]

No, not really. Potions could have a casting time, or get interrupted etc. The downside to using them of course is that they are consumeable. I'm not suggesting that GW2 should have potions, but saying that using healing spells is less thoughtless gameplay over potions is f'ing laughable.

No, it's really not - unless you consider the only monk healing spells to be Heal Other and/or Orison of Healing.

Monk healing has different skills that deal with different situations, so unless you're suggesting implementing 5+ different types of healing potions, each with unique effects similar to Healing Seed, Heal Party, et cetera, it's not "laughable" to say that monk healing is more versatile and adaptable.

[allinuff]

One thing to ponder about support classes...

In games that design them in a way that they are totally optional, they become subpar and people just go with full spec damage types. Typically frontliner meleers or nuke mages. Basically everyone for themselves and the bigger the pretty numbers popping up over a mob's head the better.

Like it or not, if you want a game with organized tactics, support classes have to be at a level of power to turn the tide of battle with defensive maneuvers as much as an offensive unit can with a well executed blow.

At this point of time, I agree that defense classes wield a tad too much influence as the whole meta revolves around them. But that doesn't mean support play is a bad thing and should be totally eliminated in the future.

Also another thing about pots...

Human controlled healing/support unit means the ability to heal/support is finite and efficiency is dependent upon the player. With pots, it's about quantity which is tied to wealth and inventory space. I would rather go with a healing/support unit than a pot-fest TYVM.

[Bazompora]

Bazompora, it sounds like you want a game that enables people to run around alone to accomplish things.Absolutely! And not only I; the interviews adressing GW2 indicate the future product is heading that way.
People would all be pretty much equal in their ability to dish out and take damage. If that were the case, then you're in danger of making a game that lets people run around alone to do things, rather than needing other people or a couple of henchmen in none are avail.Talk about a danger: the danger to have autonomy and freedom!
That sound like a social disaster to me, not the current team design. The only "disaster" that I've seen was when they introduced heroes. More people were able to get things done alone with them. Before then, just about everywhere you went, there were people looking for groups.You want PUGs to become mandatory? :shocked: No offense, but you should look up "disaster" in a dictionary.I'd rather play a game where people in a team all had different capabilities that you would have to exploit to defeat them. Knowing your enemy and then having to out-think them seems to be a far more interesting kind of combat then if everyone did pretty much the same thing with just a different name for it.Oh, I wouldn't call rangers shooting from ramparts and warriors, having to rush through the gate to reach the enemy, "the same things with a different name".
The only things that would be the same, would be the survivability, the importance and the resulting autonomy.
The whole idea of having to protect the backline and they in turn will protect you is something I enjoy a great deal. Without varied abilities you loose a lot of depth.Not a loss, but a trade-off: someone elses sword will protect you, because <for example> warriors could fit more behaviours than running after a target; a freedom of decision, equal for every profession.

In games that design them in a way that they are totally optional, they become subpar and people just go with full spec damage types.I don't think so. People would run more balanced skill bars, adequately combining offense and preservation, lest be the first to go down.
Like it or not, if you want a game with organized tactics, support classes have to be at a level of power to turn the tide of battle with defensive maneuvers as much as an offensive unit can with a well executed blow.The problem is that such function defined system is too restrictive to allow groups to meat minimally required team configurations: imagine a group of only Warriors and fire Elementalists, both popular archetypes; they wouldn't be balanced together, because they are all leaning towards offense and lacking in preservation.
If every profession were equal in offense and preservation, everyone could play together, nomatter what combination they form.
No more "GLF <specified function>", but "LF friendly players" and the freedom to solo (which could lead to friendly encounters and groups of players that get along well) instead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and I definitely agree that potions are the absolute bane of casual-friendly gameplay: I've played an MMO with "PotsVsPots" and even with a cooldown on their use, we ended up alterating potions with self heals, to survive till the next potion can be used. Battles between equal levels always ended with the defeat of the one that runs out of potions first (usually the one with the lowest economy) and "ganking" was the most cost-efficient way to defeat a fellow-level in "PVP".

[Tru Reptile]

No, it's really not - unless you consider the only monk healing spells to be Heal Other and/or Orison of Healing.

Monk healing has different skills that deal with different situations, so unless you're suggesting implementing 5+ different types of healing potions, each with unique effects similar to Healing Seed, Heal Party, et cetera, it's not "laughable" to say that monk healing is more versatile and adaptable.

I was talking about how the skill involved between pressing a button to use a healing spell is no different than pressing a button to use a potion. Obviously the Monk spells would be more versatile. Giggles then stated the outcome of a fight would be who had the most consumables, which I have to agree with.

Side note for future reference: I'm not saying potions should be added. I still stand by what I say about professions being more self-sufficient.

[Aiiane]

The thing is, professions can already be self-sufficient. Secondary professions exist for a reason. Yet you don't see a team made up of all W/Mo's and E/Mo's very often, why? Because people prefer to play a role. Because people min/max. Because people realize that it's more efficient to have one person focus their attention on making the friendly red bars go up, while another focuses their attention on making the enemy's red bars go down.

[Katy K]

Jack of all trades, master of none.

[Tru Reptile]

The thing is, professions can already be self-sufficient. Secondary professions exist for a reason. Yet you don't see a team made up of all W/Mo's and E/Mo's very often, why? Because people prefer to play a role. Because people min/max. Because people realize that it's more efficient to have one person focus their attention on making the friendly red bars go up, while another focuses their attention on making the enemy's red bars go down.

/facepalm

When was the last time you were in a group waiting for Monks to show up, but your group said "Screw it, we don't need Monks, we're self-sufficient!"

The point, I believe, that Bazompora was trying to make, is that a party shouldn't depend so much on a profession. A Monk should be nice to have, not a requirement. By making characters more sulf-sufficient the game becomes less profession dependant, which makes forming parties less of a hassle, and gives people more flexibility. People can still play their precious roles.

[Bazompora]

The thing is, professions can already be self-sufficient. Secondary professions exist for a reason. Yet you don't see a team made up of all W/Mo's and E/Mo's very often, why?Because it has been tried and, because of the way GW1's "cooperative/competitive" system is designed, it has failed.
Because people prefer to play a role. Because people min/max. Because people realize that it's more efficient to have one person focus their attention on making the friendly red bars go up, while another focuses their attention on making the enemy's red bars go down.I highly doubt that's the case for everyone.
Why is it <in GW1> better to make a healer heal you? Because the system allows him to be twice the healer you could ever be as a non-healer profession.
Monks and Ritualists can use profession-restricted runes to reach higher restorative & protective attribute levels and a monk has a primary attribute that adds an additional healing bonus to his healings.
In GW1, people are forced into functions, because <in the way professions have been designed for the game> "there's no healer like a primary healer".

[Ugly Betty]

The thing is, professions can already be self-sufficient. Secondary professions exist for a reason. Yet you don't see a team made up of all W/Mo's and E/Mo's very often, why? Because people prefer to play a role. Because people min/max. Because people realize that it's more efficient to have one person focus their attention on making the friendly red bars go up, while another focuses their attention on making the enemy's red bars go down.

more efficient maybe but a lot less fun. focusing so much time and energy on some bald-assed **** just so you can gg. bah, there's got to be a better way.

[Aiiane]

/facepalm

When was the last time you were in a group waiting for Monks to show up, but your group said "Screw it, we don't need Monks, we're self-sufficient!"

The point, I believe, that Bazompora was trying to make, is that a party shouldn't depend so much on a profession. A Monk should be nice to have, not a requirement. By making characters more sulf-sufficient the game becomes less profession dependant, which makes forming parties less of a hassle, and gives people more flexibility. People can still play their precious roles.

Actually, I used to run groups like that all the time in the earlier periods of Guild Wars' history, before "common knowledge" of "how the game works" became common. The thing is, as people become more knowledgeable of the game, they tend to want to optimize their chances of success, and when they do realize that focusing individuals on individual roles is more efficient, they tend to run with that.

[raspberry jam]

Regarding teams of all W/Mo.Because it has been tried and, because of the way GW1's "cooperative/competitive" system is designed, it has failed.I direct you to the second post of this thread (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467176).

Truth be told, I think that the "requirement" of having certain positions in a team is one of the things that sets GW apart from other similiar games, and while I don't expect them to stick to the current design, I secretly hope that they will.

I also fear that if they do make every profession self-sufficient, they will either have to give up the idea of skill-rewarding play, or face the fact that the ugliest cookie cutter scenario ever will appear. It will be nearly impossible to balance things so that one specific profession combination/build/setup/whatever won't be quite a lot better than any other in the hands of skilled players while at the same time keeping most other setups roughly the same. GW1 does this by making sure that no matter how skilled you are as a warrior, it'll always be better to have a dedicated monk to heal you. No matter how skilled you are as a monk, it'll always be better to let a ranger doing the interrupting. Etcetera. Thus, all (or most) professions have roles to fulfil, and they will all have places in the game. If you let all professions be self-sufficient, one of them will almost by necessity rise above the others, at least when played by more skilled and experienced players.
Well, either that, or you make the gameplay based on something else than player skill. In that case, the same situation will still develop, but a lot slower.

[Bazompora]

Regarding teams of all W/Mo. I direct you to the second post of this thread (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467176).Quite an uncommon sight, indeed.
But, I have my doubts about those 2 Rangers on the team being extendable; I know that with 2 trappers on your team, you can fill up the rest of your team with anything and make progress. In this case, it is not the healer Monk, but the trapper Ranger that is the function required for the duty.
Truth be told, I think that the "requirement" of having certain positions in a team is one of the things that sets GW apart from other similiar gamesOh alot of thing set GW1 apart from other games, simply because there were no "similar" games.
However, what once was a unicum, is now a franchise with its own universe, and no longer has to focus on setting itself apart with aspects, that <face it> backfire in the long run, to stand out.
I also fear that if they do make every profession self-sufficient, they will either have to give up the idea of skill-rewarding play, or face the fact that the ugliest cookie cutter scenario ever will appear. It will be nearly impossible to balance things so that one specific profession combination/build/setup/whatever won't be quite a lot better than any other in the hands of skilled players while at the same time keeping most other setups roughly the same.Ah, yes ... the abominable cookie-cutter monster. It didn't spare the "cooperative/competitive system of interdependance" either, didn't it?
However, GW2 has been announced to have the condition/position under which a skill is used influence its results. In extention of this, one could predict builds (and thus also cookie cutter builds) would become less or more effective, depending of the environment. As such, universal cookie cutter builds would be excluded, because environment-specialised builds would offer environment-dependant tactical advantages.
If you let all professions be self-sufficient, one of them will almost by necessity rise above the others, at least when played by more skilled and experienced players.But the extraordinary actions of a few players do not make the involved professions themselves better than the others.
Player skill will never be equal and shouldn't be corrected, or we'd be tampering with the fundaments of fair gaming.
Well, either that, or you make the gameplay based on something else than player skill. In that case, the same situation will still develop, but a lot slower.No ... no ... I think "skill>time" is one of the most important vestigial trademarks of GW. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

[JayyDestroyer]

I hope in GW2 that all the attribute lines are completely balanced, and actually have a viable purpose. For example, in GW, if you want to go smiting in PvE, you'll get a lot of hatred coming towards you, whereas in PvP it's generally out of the question. In GW2, give each race and profession formidable offensive and defensive powers, but neither can be maxed at once.

So, if you want to be a Norn Monk, good for you, because the Norn defensive primary attribute gives the target +10 armor for X seconds if you heal/buff them. On top of that, the skills in that attribute could adapt to what your profession is - "Cry of the Norn" could speed you up if you're a warrior, or buff your team mates if you're a Monk.

Alternatively, A Sylvari Ranger would be a natural choice, given that your Sylvari weapon spells will buff the bow, but how about going with an Asura Ranger, where each attack hits for less physical damage, but allows you to "hex" the arrows and cause chaos? Maybe you want to be a master Marksman, you could go with a Charr Ranger, which gives you Armor Penetration and range to your bow attacks. However, you could just as easily go with a Human Ranger, allowing you to call in CPU allies to help you.

GW2 should be about endless choices, each as viable as the last, and each one can be useful for any situation. In the Monk example I have above, there wouldn't be just 1 healing profession/race combo, there would be 5, and each one would be radically different - Sylvari could heal like ritualists do, whilst the Warrior races would probably function like the Paragon does now. Either way, whilst the monk profession would still be needed in most of the game, there are many, many ways to play it.

[raspberry jam]

I hope in GW2 that all the attribute lines are completely balanced, and actually have a viable purpose.The thing is that you can't do that, and still have a game that is fun to play. If it doesn't matter what you choose, you'd end up with a game where you just mash buttons and win - if there would be no penalty for making the wrong choice, there would be no reward for making the correct choices (in the sense of the game).

[Giggles]

There already are and have been lots of choices avail to players. I've read about all monk, mesmer, and rit outings for a while now. The rit and mesmer runs have been going on for ages. Those two groups go off and do HM mission, UW/FoW and Vanquish. They get along quite well. As long as you know how to play the game you can do all kinds of silly thing with classes that "shouldn't" be doing what they're doing.

You can mess around all you want in about 90-95% of the game. The only places that there really are any walls are the "elite" missions. They've been set up to need some skills to be to complete. Other than that, i