What press told me about GW2 that I didn't already know

[BladeDVD]

Regarding naming characters.

I wonder if we will be able to attach our account, and transfer the achievements to characters named differently, and not use any names from GW1, or if we will have to use a name from GW1 to unlock them in GW2 through the HoM. I would assume the aforementioned.

And whether names will be case sensitive. i.e., being able to have: jinny, jiNNy, Jinny, etc.

I know they have said that if you earn GWAMM on a character in GW1, any GW2 character on the account you tie to your GW1 account can display the title. I think it's safe to assume that the the HOM stuff will work similarly. Also, using your character names from GW1 is optional.

[raspberry jam]

This is why I quit WoW before I even got close to endgame. Everything was wasted time, wasted gold, so awful.

Even the dual spec would sap all my energy when used. And wtf is with traveling on a bird's back taking 5 minutes? I got better things to do than watch a bird zigzagging through a forest, like oh I don't know, actually playing?

I still wonder what kind of special person needs to train 85 levels so they can use 4 skills properly.

-----

There's a huge difference between that and paying coppers to use map travel, paying for skill unlocks and having free respecs, or repairing armor that gets no damage not even a scratch unless you die.

Skill unlocks - sure. Paying for map travel, respecs, armor repairs - no, there's no real difference. In the first case it encourages wasting time on walking, in the second and third case it discourages experimentation.

@Rasp
The problem was that it was it was a fee for every time, and coupled with your exp to boot. So it was virtually impossible to swap many times in a short time period, forcing you to grind out exp to test a build. A one time fee to "unlock" a new spec does not do this. As long as you can afford the respec (which's cost should be low, comparative to the cost of gaining skills in GW1), you can always swap back without additional cost. I would be fine with that.

Oh, and tiny gold sinks do a lot when added up over the entire population (there should be minimal hassle though, like fee for map travel does not mean an extra mouse click, it is automatic). Just as picking up junk drops really makes a difference in your xunlai.

I hate the expression "be fine", it sounds like "oh they are only slightly *******ing me, I'm fine with that". But, sure. Are you talking about a one-time fee per combination of skills/attributes? Like, you can load a skill template for free, but you have to pay to set up a brand new one? Or do you mean two setups which you can load/save as you like, but have to pay to change?

That is horrible compared to what we had in GW1.

[Sagelikeone]

Ok, allow me to offer an example of skill unlocking. Hopefully it will clarify some things.
Note that this is true for every weapon, including aquatic ones, based on the beta that was just held.

You start with one skill (1) unlocked when you pick up the weapon for the first time.
By killing enemies you gain 20% unlock in your next skill (2). This repeats until you unlock your next skill (2). y using your now known skills (1 and 2) you gain 20% per kill in unlocking your next one (3).
If you have a onehanded weapn and no offhand - this is where it stops. Once you unlock your third skill you are done with that weapon.
If you pick up a new weapon you are back at square (1) as it were.
If you pick up a twohanded weapon you keep unlocking as above for skill 4 & 5 as well.
If you pick up an offhand-weapon before unlocking skill 3 it does nothing but look cool in your offhand.
Once you have unlocked skill 3 in your mainhand your next kill gives 20% towards unlocking offhand skill 1 (4) and then once unlocked it will start towards offhand 2 (5).

At least that is the way the game ran in the press beta.

[raspberry jam]

Ok, allow me to offer an example of skill unlocking. Hopefully it will clarify some things.
Note that this is true for every weapon, including aquatic ones, based on the beta that was just held.

You start with one skill (1) unlocked when you pick up the weapon for the first time.
By killing enemies you gain 20% unlock in your next skill (2). This repeats until you unlock your next skill (2). y using your now known skills (1 and 2) you gain 20% per kill in unlocking your next one (3).
If you have a onehanded weapn and no offhand - this is where it stops. Once you unlock your third skill you are done with that weapon.
If you pick up a new weapon you are back at square (1) as it were.
If you pick up a twohanded weapon you keep unlocking as above for skill 4 & 5 as well.
If you pick up an offhand-weapon before unlocking skill 3 it does nothing but look cool in your offhand.
Once you have unlocked skill 3 in your mainhand your next kill gives 20% towards unlocking offhand skill 1 (4) and then once unlocked it will start towards offhand 2 (5).

At least that is the way the game ran in the press beta.

Hmm, thanks for the info. It's a bit confusing though - am I correct in reading this as that you will unlock one skill every five kills, and only for whatever you currently have equipped?

[Lensor]

I think that is correct, yes, you train what you use.

And I have not thought it through in detail, I am just saying that some system where respeccing was an un-annoying gold sink is, imo, a good substitute for paying for skills (which we do in GW1, but is free in GW2). Maybe a one-time fee to add a trait to an "respec pool" (i.e. a one-time fee per trait, not per "trait combination").

About the "I'm fine with x", well of course I do not love paying for stuff, either in game or afk. But I also know that if people are not getting rid of gold it will soon lose all meaning in the player-to-player market. And I really do want a new player being able to take his 100 gold and actually get something for it.

[Simply Kedde]

Speaking of which, we can have one word names now. Yay.

Really? ****ing finally. That actually makes me really happy.

[Alaris]

Skill unlocks - sure.

As long as they don't waste my playing time, I don't mind small fees. If fees start getting large, we'll talk.

I hate the expression "be fine"

That expression means exactly that. It's annoying, but not game-breaking. I'd rather free map travel etc, but I understand we need gold sinks.

I think that is correct, yes, you train what you use.

Am I wrong in thinking that unused weapons get a bit of training too, so eventually you have all 5 skills even on untrained weapons?

[raspberry jam]

I think that is correct, yes, you train what you use.

And I have not thought it through in detail, I am just saying that some system where respeccing was an un-annoying gold sink is, imo, a good substitute for paying for skills (which we do in GW1, but is free in GW2). Maybe a one-time fee to add a trait to an "respec pool" (i.e. a one-time fee per trait, not per "trait combination").

About the "I'm fine with x", well of course I do not love paying for stuff, either in game or afk. But I also know that if people are not getting rid of gold it will soon lose all meaning in the player-to-player market. And I really do want a new player being able to take his 100 gold and actually get something for it.

Ok, sure - but I meant, is it 5 kills per skill?

That expression means exactly that. It's annoying, but not game-breaking. I'd rather free map travel etc, but I understand we need gold sinks.

No - we need an economy that works. That's not done by artificial gold sinks. GW1 had gold sinks, but no inflation, right? WoW have gold sinks, but no inflation, right?

...rrrrright. Gold sinks do nothing for (or against) inflation. Consider instead the goals of an economy (both actual goals, and goals for when designing a game) and work from that.

Actual goals: Well, if we could eliminate all "money sinks" from the real world, we sure as hell would. The goal of a real-world economy is to get people what they need with as little strain on/loss to the society/participants as possible. Of course, if you look at real world economies, you see that the only "money sinks" that exist are there when people can force them in order to make money for themselves (e.g. bank fees), in which case they are not actual money sinks, which would destroy money (there are currency sinks, but that is a quite different things and are related to the fact that physical coins and notes wear out and needs to be replaced from time to time).

In-game goals: Same as above, getting people what they need. Though, in a game you often want to separate what they need from what they want. Thus, they should be allowed to very easily get hold of basic tools for playing (need), such as max-stats weapons (for their level), but things such as high-prestige gear (for cosmetic qualities) should be a goal that people can aim at.

A trader house (anonymized, spotted auction house) completely fulfills the "in-game" as well as "actual" components of the goals of an economy. It's not a perfect system, but it offers more advantages than any other: compartmentalization of players' gold reserves slows down inflation while the ability to regulate the buy/sell spread allows for actual control of it. Price transparency and fairness becomes complete. Availability on all levels (both for purchases and sales) reach the theoretical maximum. The downside is not that you won't be able to "play the market" (because you will be able to play it, of course, by speculating on goods - all goods of the same type would have the same price), but that gifting becomes impossible.

[Alaris]

Gifting would still be possible in your system.

The complication I could see would be how to evaluate properly the worth of items, especially rare ones, and especially an item with a bunch of characteristics attached to it.

[Simply Kedde]

Supply/demand completely takes care of that. Once a rare skin or item is discovered and word is spread, people will start wanting that particular item. How much people are willing to pay is how the proper price is regulated nothing more, nothing less.