Forum:New GW2 info/The Gameplay

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the section of the New GW2 info forum dedicated to new Gameplay releases and discussion. To read the entire forum, please visit Forum:New GW2 info

Combat part 1: Skills[edit source]

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/part-one/

Sounds very similar to GW1's skill system, with one big difference: The skillbar has 10 slots.

  • 5 skills are determined by your profession and equipped weapon, you can't pick them directly.
  • 1 skill slot is reserved for a healing skill.
  • 1 skill slot is reserved for an elite skill.
  • 3 skill slots are completely open.

If every character has a healing skill, will there be a dedicated healer profession? Guess we'll find out over the next couple weeks. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 03:58, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I read the one healing skill as saying meaning that everyone gets one skill like Lion's Comfort, Troll Unguent, Ether Feast, etc., but cannot have more than one such skill. Presumably a dedicated healer class would have other healing skills, perhaps among the five default skills or in the elite slot. I think they're trying to still give a lot of freedom in designing a build, while blocking the extreme gimmick builds like 55, 600, or perma-shadow form.
I also didn't see any mention of secondary professions. I'm hoping that Guild Wars 2 abolishes the concept of secondary professions entirely, as I didn't like them. At the very least, it looks like they'll restrict it somewhat, so that you won't have necromancers not carrying a single necromancer skill.
As for depending on both the weapon and profession, I'm curious what exactly this will mean. Will there be rare weapons that give rare skills? I hope not. If it's only the type of weapon, will this mean that every class has several types of weapons available? Will they overlap? Could we end up seeing elementalists carrying swords to get access to sword skills in weird gimmick builds?
What I'm hoping for is that each class has access to a few different types of weapons, with default skills depending on which type of weapon they take, but no overlap between types of weapons among different classes. One can already see something analogous to types of weapons in the choices between a sword, axe, or hammer for warriors here, or longbow, flatbow, etc. for rangers. One could do the same for caster classes by giving an elementalist carrying an air staff different default skills from one carrying an earth staff.
I also like the part about everyone who takes part in a kill getting credit for it, whether grouped or not. I've been playing Champions Online recently, which does this for purposes of quest credit, and it works very nicely. Quizzical 04:22, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the weapon skills are by weapon type, not the specific weapon, judging by the examples they give: "a warrior wielding a mace and shield" vs. "a warrior wielding a greatsword." It also sounds like they've expanded upon the "hammer, axe, and sword" system, too, by including a one-handed hammer type (mace) and a two-handed sword type (greatsword). Wonder if there's a two-handed axe type...
Based on what was said here and on the elementalist article ("most professions can have two different weapon sets equipped and can very quickly and easily swap between the sets." ... "Rather than swap weapons to adjust to new situations, the multi-faceted Elementalist quickly adapts to new threats by attuning to different elements as needed."), eles are one of the professions that don't get weapon-swapping, having attunement-swapping instead, so you don't have to worry about finding a different weapon for each element. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:30, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully Monks get the ability to do that by switching up gods or something. Preferably with a knockback effect of some sort when they switch to smiting. GTFO /kill --Gimmethegepgun 16:29, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Skills can be swapped out whenever a character is not in combat o_O, plus predefined skills from weapons. I think these remove quite a bit of strategic decisions from the game. --Evenfall 17:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully each one gets a list of a bunch of skills and you get to pick 5 specific ones. For weapon+shield, maybe weapon gets 3, shield gets 2. Hopefully, also, there will be dual-wielded weapons for warriors, for that I'd say I guess both need to be the same type, you get the 3 that the weapon would give with weapon+shield, but the other 2 would be a pick among dual-wielded stuff Would be nice to see a person able to change up their weapon so they get a different approach to combat, though. IN combat. Hmm.... douche is doing direct-damage protting... GREATSWORD! Needs to be pressured... 2 swords! OSHITRANGER! Sword and board! --Gimmethegepgun 18:56, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well, seems I was right after reading part 2: yay dual wielding! --Gimmethegepgun 19:10, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

here says that ele get's shorter range spells when using a scepter, and longer range ones with a staff. so it looks like our skills will be defined both by weapon, and attunement.Akbaroth 11:15, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first 5 skills are determined by your equipped weapon and your profession (or are chosen from a pool determined by weapon/prof). I noted that in my initial post up above. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
i meant that eles first 5 also change depending on attunement, not just my weapon and the simple fact that i'm an eleAkbaroth 15:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
"An elementalist can summon a fiery sword from the heavens that others in their party can use" Looks like thankfully the only way to get the FDS is to have an ele summon it. THANK YOU! --Gimmethegepgun 15:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Where's the "D" in that, again? What's if it's the fiery gladius instead? :P RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 16:29, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, because they're SURE to summon a sword, that's on fire. Yep. Or, maybe, they summon the sword that is essentially a torch with flames held in place magically. Which one sounds more magical? :P --Gimmethegepgun 16:33, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
One that doesn't exist in GW1? RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 19:02, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Elementalists - Beating up monsters with Djinni since 2012. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 19:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear...[edit source]

The "One healing skill slot" is not exclusively healing. I'm seeing a lot of people bitch and complain about that. It's not "Just healing only"(I know he said "replenish health, blah blah", read a bit past that), it's meant for support/utility. Support can vary a lot, one example on the gw2 site is a skill that increases damage of allies, and another example was the new "Frenzy", which instantly charges your adren bar. To put it simply, that slot is reserved for crap that doesn't directly affect the enemy.--99.225.28.182 21:13, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

^maybe
I imagine that's one detail which hasn't been fully sorted yet. I greatly appreciate your sharing of information as it's interesting and quite possible (lolCompanions).
However, is it possible you were viewing old material? Either way, stuff's likely to change before I'm online buying it. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 21:45, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I've never read anything that linked that sort of stuff to that slot. There were things that weren't direct healing (Water ele life regen to all around them) but I don't recall anything like Frenzy being in there. Got a link? 00:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)-----
[1] just below the last comic, toward the end. not very old info.Akbaroth 00:29, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
You'd think me saying "gw2 site" would prompt people to, you know, check the site for that info.--99.225.28.182 01:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Read a few lines just above the last comic: "One of these slots is dedicated to healing skills that replenish the health of the character and his allies". The examples after the comic are talking about the last-5 skills in general, not specifically about the healing slot - i.e. Frenzy and Banner of Courage do not go in the "healing" slot. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 03:39, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
I can definitely see where you could get the impression that Frenzy is a skill to go in that slot, especially the way they say "A healing slot and an elite slot. Here are some ele healing skills. Here are some warrior skills. Here are some elite skills". But given that it also says "A way to ensure every character has someway to heal themselves or their allies" says straight up that Frenzy isn't included.
I am 110% sure that "Fear me"(Which is between Frenzy and Banner of Courage without changing context) isn't going to be an elite that just inflicts weakness. Unless weakness becomes some kind of horrible, disastrous, insta-kill condition in GW2. It's not exclusively healing. Pretty sure Frenzy and Banner of Courage won't be elite either. Maybe Banner.--99.225.28.182 00:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and context is changed in the next paragraph to elite skills. He is talking about the "healing slot".--99.225.28.182 00:36, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Clarification / Traits[edit source]

Just found some clarification from Martin Kerstein about the first-5 skills:

"The skills available when a particular weapon is equipped only vary based on the weapon type and profession. To further clarify, these skills cannot be changed out."

So: a) all characters of the same profession wielding weapons of the same type get the exact same weapon skills, as I noted above, and b) the skills go directly onto your skillbar and can't be selected manually, as I had initially speculated. Although a) isn't 100% correct, because then he goes on to talk about a new mechanic called "traits":

"The first five skills may also be affected by traits. Traits are passive abilities that are earned and then equipped by the character. Traits can have a pretty dramatic effect on how two characters of the same profession and using the same weapon set will play. We’ll be going into more depth on the trait system in a future update."

So to revise: a) all characters of the same profession, wielding weapons of the same type, and with the same traits equipped, get the exact same weapon skills. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I do hope they can be tossed around at least. So yeah, waiting for the traits treat. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:33, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Combat part 2: Weapons, Professions, and Races[edit source]

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/part-two/

Interesting, no secondaries - and class archetypes (scholar, adventurer, soldier). Guessing: Scholar = backline mage, adventuer = ranger/rogue type character front/backline, soldier = fighter/paladin fontline. RandomTime 17:25, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
One could argue that we effectively have the same archetypes in Guild Wars already, as determined by armor level.
Soldier = warrior and paragon
Adventurer = ranger, assassin, and dervish
Scholar = necromancer, elementalist, monk, mesmer, and ritualist
I'm very happy to see the concept of secondary professions dropped. I never liked secondary professions in this game. Quizzical 19:02, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


So... guesses on what the 8 professions ill be? Warrior, Ranger, Elementalist obvious, Monk most likely, but what about the others? There's still 1 more heavy, 2 more mediums, and a light. I saw a picture of what looked like a mesmer skill being cast, though that could be in the Medium by some means, as not having a necro would be incredibly unusual. I sincerely hope that they don't go rogue/assassin on us, those are impossible to balance. Also, could entertain the possibility that the Monk might be a Heavy, a la Cleric from D&D, or a medium, like Favored Soul, also from D&D.
My guess: Heavy: Warrior, Paladin/Cleric/whatever (pick your name)
Medium: Ranger, Rogue/Assassin (unfortunately), Golemancer? We've seen golems in gameplay videos, no clue if that's a profession or if it's just an Asura thing
Light: Elementalist, Necromancer, Illusionist
I'd also entertain the possibility of a race-specific caster in there somewhere, such as Golemancer for Asura, Chronomancer for human, something to do with plants for Sylvari, tank driver (lol) for Charr, beastmaster/dedicated shapechanger for Norn, though that one would be at least Medium --Gimmethegepgun 19:28, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they've already said (a long time ago) that there won't be any race-specific professions in GW2 (actually, IIRC, there won't be any race-specific anything beyond a few skills). So if there is a Golemancer profession, you'd better look out for those Norn Golemancers. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

How about Plant golems for sylvari, char effigy for char golenm, beast golems using a system simlar to beast mastery....The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.141.184.3 (contribs) .

I'm not sure if you're using "archetype" correctly there (when I think "class archetypes" I think healer, tank, rogue, spellcaster, etc.). Anyway, those are basically just fancy names for the typical light/medium/heavy armor proficiencies originating from D&D. Unlike D&D, where characters can learn additional proficiencies, GW profs are limited to a single armor type.
You can even apply it to GW1, where scholars are the profs that have max 60 armor, adventurers have 70, and soldiers have 80. Thinking of it that way...
  • GW1 has 5 scholars (Mo, Me, N, E, Rt), where GW2 will only have 3. If I had to guess, since we already know Elementalist is returning pretty much as-is, I'd say Monk and Necromancer are also returning, with Ritualist getting rolled up into both of those. Mesmer... I dunno. Possibly getting overhauled and returning as an adventurer class?
  • Both have 3 adventurers (R, A, D). Ranger is probably also coming back with small changes (did you notice, there's only 2 types of bow now - short and long). Assassin has always been one of the more problematic profs to balance, so if it's not going away completely, I'd expect it to be revamped into a more general rogue-type class. Dervish has always seemed kind of an oddball, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was replaced.
  • Both have 2 soldiers (W, P). A medieval RPG wouldn't be a medieval RPG without a Warrior class. Paragon, though, is more than likely being replaced or at least reworked.
Since GW2 is initially set only on the Tyrian continent, it would make sense for them to leave out the Canthan/Elonian professions in any case. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yay for crazy Wikia - somehow I posted that over Quiz's comment without getting a conflict. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:17, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
It could be possible that they are rolling the Mo and A into the same class. Monks themselves are disciplined and trained in martial arts. Although, I hope they do not go this way as it appears D3 has gone this way already. Venom20 19:24, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I placed my comment despite what should have been 3 edit conflicts. Zomg Wikia did something right! --Gimmethegepgun 19:30, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, the combat monk. I had one of those in a 3rd Ed D&D campaign a while back, and he ended up being able to deal 200+ damage over 8 attacks in a single round, or something like that. As much fun as that was, I honestly wouldn't expect to see any sort of unarmed-combat class in GW2. The overall world-feel just isn't right for it, I think. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:30, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

@Quizzical: I disagree. I like the flexibility of the secondary profession and the range of character and group builds it affords. Unfortunately, what was lost is the notion that it is truely a SECONDARY profession. One simple example is a elementalist that is really a monk, carries no or few elementalist skills and can be quite effective - although Devine Favor makes primary monks more effective in most places where sheer energy is not the driving concern. Forcing five slots to be related to the PRIMARY profession and how the character is equiped makes sense to me in terms of a true primary and secondary profession. I don't like what I'm hearing about one slot must be reserved for healing and one for an elite. I have more than a few builds where I don't want either, but then I would be fine if these were optional for healing or elite or from the primary as the character was equipped. I have 10 chars through the game most through a couple of chapters, and guess what, I have usually found that the best build is centered around the primary and his/her weapon sometimes with a secondary. That said the leader of my guild has very strong effective builds where a dervish carries a staff, and has no dervish skills on the build - not really a dervish though.

One of the things I like about GW is the flexibility and the creativity of various character and team builds. Losing those would make me less interested in the game - my wife too. For this reason I really dislike the Worm transformation and any of the "skills" that essentially give you a prefabricated build in GW1. If 1/2 or more of my skills are set and prefabricated I don't think I'll like GW2 very much, but we'll see.


I really like heros, since with my wife and I we can create effective character and team builds and go on a moments notice..... We do like playing with our guild and sometimes pick up groups, but as busy people - sometimes it is great to just the two of us get on and play but be able to customize our builds and party.

I/we like a dedicated healer profession. Although it is possible to understand that everyone should heal a little themselves and .... At the end of the day though, with heros and etc you can simply not have any healers, have only a medic or two type of healer or have a fully powered magical healer. Again the flexibilty is great and a part of the game I hope not to lose.

Hopefully the beta trials will give better clarification to the game and the charm of the current game will not be lost, but instead we'll have a new rich set of stories and characters to enjoy. At the minimum though I hope the current game will remain. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.138.57.219 (contribs) .

So, what about the scythe and spear?[edit source]

In the list of weapons, they never mentioned scythes and spears. So...if we're putting them in our HoM, and our Charr warrior pulls out the scythe, does he just salvage it for some onyx gemstones or something? I'm curious to see what Anet will do with them, since atm they seem like they've been cut from the game. Maybe we light our spear on fire and call it a torch? 151.196.179.103 01:15, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

According to the FAQ here the developers will reveal how the HoM will work as the launch date comes closer (whenever that will be). Chibi Moon Shadow 01:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Scythes and spears didn't make an entrance into the game until Nightfall (yes, I know, obvious), perhaps they are weapons that will make it into an expansion Venom20 01:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Why do people still assume that the HoM is going to be a "put X in, take X out" kind of deal? Anet has NEVER said that. You will get some unique rewards based on the achievements you displayed in your HoM, yes, but it's not a frikkin' Xunlai Chest. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:07, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I thought I remembered reading in an interview someplace (quite awhile ago, so its entirely possible they decided to change it) that GW2 characters would be able to take out and use the weapons that the original GW1 characters put into the HoM. I knew that it wouldn't function like this for "put minipets/armor/heroes in, take minipets/armor/heroes out" since all of that is being reworked/changed but I could've sworn that I read someplace that GW2 characters would be able to take out and use the HoM weapons. 151.196.179.103 04:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
I remember that interview, too. It's very, very old. It's possible that it was the intended functionality, but they've changed quite a few "intended" things since then, like getting rid of secondary professions, for example, so don't look at any interviews prior to 2010 for any kind of semi-reliable information. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 05:43, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
I was actually trying to find it and found a couple articles where Anet staff said beta testing was 2008 and the game would be out by spring 2009 :) Oh, wait. Anet lied? Unthinkable :P But thanks, Rose, it does make sense. And I suppose its one of those things no one will really know until it gets a)posted on the blog or b)the actual game comes out. And they even said in the article that they'll change stuff around if its not working, so who knows? They may decide yet to scrap the HoM all together :) Anyways, they're doing a good job of hyping it up. Lets hope it lasts, looks like a great game so far. 151.196.179.103 06:15, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Scythes->Greataxes. They haven't specifically stated that there are greataxes, but they've said greatswords and they noted Devastating Hammer, which would be a Maul (Since they've stated there will be maces, would be more accurate to say maul than hammer here), so I'd say it's a valid assumption that there will be greataxes. Especially if the combat heavily encourages weapon swapping, then they could do Hammer, Axe, and Sword (and Dagger? for wars, I mean, I know there are daggers) stat lines rather than W&S(S&B), DW, or TH. And if you don't get those acronyms, you suck. And I really do hope that they have a set of skills for just using ONE single-handed weapon, rather than basically being forced to W&S or DW. You suck even more severely if you still don't get those acronyms, and I will NOT dignify it with a response.
Spears->Pistols. Way better anyway, and now they won't have to make that spear magically reappear in your hand in mid flight --Gimmethegepgun 07:32, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
"The full (!) list of standard wieldable weapons in Guild Wars 2 is as follows:
One-Handed: Axe, dagger, mace, pistol, scepter, and sword.
Two-Handed: Greatsword, hammer, longbow, rifle, shortbow, and staff.
Offhand only: Focus, shield, torch, and warhorn."
So, no greataxes for you..
Also, me sux :P EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 13:20, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
You were somewhat right before you edited out "or daggers," since the new one-handed dagger will probably play very differently from the dual-wield daggers we're used to. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:38, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps (I sure as hell hope so. That's one change I pretty much demand ;o ). You can likely still DW daggers though. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:52, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Dual wield scepters!
In A Tale in the Desert, which doesn't have combat at all (or weapons, for that matter), one player circulated a petition to add dual-wielding to the game anyway. Quizzical 21:20, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
How could they be dumb enough to have a greatsword and a maul and yet NOT have a greataxe? When someone says "two-handed melee weapon", the FIRST weapon I think of is the greataxe/poleaxe. Quite frankly, they're much more practical than the other 2 anyway, since they're typically designed to be able to grab an enemy's weapon or shield or whatnot with the jutting out blade. A massive sword really doesn't seem that useful except if you can run the ENTIRE BLADE across them while swinging. A hammer... well, at least a hammer doesn't really get affected by armor that much, since it's just blunt force trauma, not a slice --Gimmethegepgun 00:42, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Gimme, with a bigger sword comes more mass, and thus more force when you hit your enemy. You just gotta be strong enough to wield it.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 06:36, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Axes and hammers have more mass (Axes generally have a larger and/or wider blade and a larger haft). The difference between 2h axes and swords isn't that big compared to hammer vs. sword, but it's there. Weight stuff aside: Greataxes can be more detailed without being unwieldy (Bramble Blade), due to the larger surface :D All for the pretties. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 09:40, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
So any guesses on what the torch and warhorn are for, exactly? I personally doubt that the torch is entirely for fire elementalists, I'd put a guess at it being for the monk. Or it being a universal lighting source that probably gives some navigation related skills. Warhorn, if there is a Paragon, obviously it will use it, if not, I'd guess Warriors get it, maybe one of those medium armor professions --Gimmethegepgun 01:07, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
The torch might be an actual lighting source needed in places like dungeons and caves, with a possible effect of scaring off beast type monsters in a D2-esque "causes monster to flee" fashion, so that they attack, run off, come back and attack some more, etc. This lets you keep your main weapon equipped with it, as opposed to having a torch as one of the "environmental weapons that you can pick up," which will probably replace the whole weapon set while held. The warhorn could also be used as exactly that - make a loud call all across the land for people to hear and come help with a siege or something (also drawing NPC guards from the area?), but this does sound more like a one-use-and-drop thing you'd pick up somewhere, so it could just have more caster-like bonuses than a shield, but not quite a focus yet. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 08:49, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the torch and horn were profession-specific offhands. Like you have shields for physicals, foci for casters, the torch and warhorn would be the offhand for two specific professions, and would probably provide some kind of bonus of their own, instead of extra protection or casting boosts(shield and focus, respectively). I'm thinking the warhorn increases the range/power of certain party buffs, kind of like Paragons using shouts, but using the horn for extra boost. No idea what the torch will do. But I hope they make some badass torch skins.--99.225.28.182 02:26, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
You're forgetting that weapons affect skills in GW2, the warhorn will probably give you access to shouts skills and maybe different warhorns will give you different shouts instead of bonuses.65.94.17.201 19:33, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic Events Overview[edit source]

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/dynamic-events/dynamic-events-overview/

Any thoughts yet? Personally, I really like the way they put it and the examples they give (hehehe, ogres picking daisies) For the rest, it sounds extremely cool. They do like to brag though, don't they? ;-) --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 19:49, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the ogres picking daises is one of the things I hated about EQ2 (where the low end game was basically "get a quest, kill people at this location, level up, gain access to a higher area grind location with different quests, etc), crucially, it's one of the things that have set GW1 away from it's predecessors. Due to the fact that a lot of GW is instanced, the mobs can be more controlled, and you have ballanced group encounters, similar to what a GM will be giving you in a PnP setting, as opposed to what has to be given to you in a non-instanced world - mobs that sit there picking Daises. Some games do this better than others. EQ2 was bad in this respect, EVE is better as the mobs are in instanced missions, or in asteroid belts, but I digress. The Instanced quests seem to be better than what Warhammer online were promoting on their launch (I've never played it, so don't really know to what extent Warhammer online have made this a reality, but they were quoting quests that were much more like this). Not sure how many of such events Anet have programmed, but it seems like they are saying that they've got a lot up (hopefully, otherwise constant repetition will make this just the same, and not something new and innovative, like we hope for). Replayablity +3 if this happens, as new alts hopefully won't have to grind through exactly the same content and zones, just using new spells. .
To sum up, I think Anet are trying to bring what's fun about PnP into MMOs, with PnP, your actions can effect the gameplay a lot more, as you have someone making up the content on the spot, a good GM can change the game dynamically with what the players did in that session. If you can get this into an MMO, by programming more and more dynamic events, you have yourself set up for a really cool system, one that encourages players to explore and find every little secret. You do have the disadvantage of having to code more events than you think are necessary (because we, as players are going to find them all, and get bored). If Anet can code more than necessary, and make it so that, every time we go into a zone, something new can happen - then it will be excellent. RandomTime 22:07, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
You call that a wall of text? Ha! Dynamic events won't work. Quizzical 05:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, and yes - that does sound potentially true (as I mentioned before, I haven't played WAR). From Anet's article, it seems like they won't include the "traditional" quest system at all, which may well be a mistake. I'm going to be more optimistic and see, hoping that Anet has coded more content than we think, and there will be other things to do in a zone aside from a dynamic quest. RandomTime 05:40, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

In response to Quizzical: In your piece on why the system won't work you mention "draconian" measures that would be required to prevent under-leveled players from under-contributing to a team for zany experience and item rewards. These measures include awarding no experience or items to these under-leveled players, but the awarding of zero experience to under-leveled players in neither draconian, nor is it unprecedented. As any character who has attempted to reach a high level in the Pre-Searing will tell you leveling up is really hard when the monsters are very much lower than you, I see no reason why a similar system could not be put in place to deny experience to persons of a significantly lower level. Besides this minor quibble (and it really is quite minor) your piece raises some interesting points that A-Net will need to deal with if GW2 is to work out as planned. 66.49.142.193 00:36, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

well, quiz said no exp from mobs above you in level. witch is astonishingly restrictive (though i have played mmos with it-_-), in the unlikely event something like that is implemented in gw2 odds on it would be you get less exp the wider the gap between you and your foe. in cabal online you get little no exp from enemies whos names are in grey (lowest level color), and while you get good exp off red named foes (highest level color) if the foe is too high, you gain only a tiny bit of exp from it, so even mooching off the high-levs would be terribly ineffective.and to RT saying they are dropping normal quests, no they are not, they are just adding another kind of quest, and some normal quests will branch into these events, and possibly vice versa.Akbaroth 02:14, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they are dropping normal quests. "The dynamic event system in Guild Wars 2 replaces the old concept of the static quest you find in a traditional MMO." —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are ways around it. But there aren't any ways around the problems that will mean you can just play the game and go wherever and it will work out.
Sure, you could block players from going to areas ten levels above them by saying you can only get experience from mobs within eight levels of you. Then players would just go to areas eight levels above them and you have the same problem. If it's diminishing returns both as mobs get higher level than you and also lower level, then you're not getting full experience and loot like ArenaNet promised, unless you map out your path to always be in the right level area.
You don't think players would find it draconian to say that if you're level 17, you must go to this area, and then the moment you hit level 18, you must leave and go to some other area to get full experience and loot? Want to group with a friend who is a couple of levels above you? Have fun with that, as one of you gets far less experience.
Another approach would be to say that all areas have a particular level, and your level is whatever it is set to for that area. So if you're in Iron Horse Mine, you're automatically level 8, for example. Go to Arid Sea, and you change to level 17. Go back to Iron Horse Mine and you're level 8 again. That would kill off any notion of player progression, which ArenaNet seems to want more of in Guild Wars 2.
You could do something similar with City of Heroes-style sidekicking, where everyone gets loot appropriate to their own level, no matter where they are. If that is done, people will figure out what area levels you the fastest, and some will go to that area and fight there all the way from level 1 (or maybe a little higher if they can't get there at level 1) to the level cap, and level much faster than normal that way. That some games encourage players to purely grind one area for a few levels, then move to the next and repeat is bad enough. To encourage players to grind one area all the way from a new character to the cap would be much, much worse.
This can mostly be avoided by letting players reach the cap of how strong they can possibly be pretty quickly, as Guild Wars (1) does. ArenaNet doesn't sound inclined to go that route. And even if they did, that wouldn't stop players from incessantly farming a particular area. You've seen what people do in this game, even when farming is pointless.
Another way to avoid it is to put diminishing returns on an event, so that each time you do an event, you get less experience and loot for it than before. And if you want to see alternate branches, then you'll have to not merely repeat the earlier parts, but get less experience and loot for them.
So yes, there are ways around the level gap problem. But all of those ways have big drawbacks. And I don't see any way around botters, except perhaps for a harsh death penalty, as they are the right level with the right gear for their area.
In ArenaNet's internal testing, the system will probably work wonderfully, save for some bugs here and there, as all of the people testing it are the right level with suitable gear and trying to do the event properly. In beta testing, it probably still works well for the same reasons. Shortly after release, it still works well, as people are excited to play the game as normal, and haven't figured out the best spots to grind and farm yet. But not long after release, it will all fall apart. Quizzical 02:41, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
How is a bot going to be able to follow these dynamic event chains, anyway? If, based on the outcome of one event, the next event could be in the same place or on the other side of the map, how will the bot know whether to stay put or to move? I'm thinking that bots won't be very effective at all in "farming" these events. Most likely botters will keep doing what they've always done, farm static mobs that always appear in the same place. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:47, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
it's been stated that each time a-net comes up with something, another event for instance, they "ask each other 'can this be griefed?' if yes then they change the system until the answer becomes no." all of the problems you've listed so far are amazingly common or plainly odvious, i very much doubt they haven't thought of all/ nearly all of them and then found ways around them, so your internal testing argument is likely invalid. i find it very likely that they even keep a few chars on their accounts, specifically designed to be poorly equipped or setup to grief others. as to that being scarcely more than a guess, that goes both ways, how do YOU know that they are with suitable gear? yes they could easily get all the rare stuff likely for testing purposes, but they are trying to look at the game from a normal gamers perspective so likely don't use it for most of the game.
a-net also said they don't want grinding to be a part of gw2, so i doubt it this finding-the-ideal-area-to-grind-in idea would hold much weight, as they probably mean for events and quests to give us the most exp. with regard to finding the ideal area for events to give exp, meaning a low level person hardening up high level events in order to leech rewards, is it so unlikely that their scaling system cannot account for low level people? for example if we're doing an event designed for lvl 30-35 people, and it spawns 2 foes players in that level range, maybe if a lvl 15 pops up and manages to help enough for the game to think that they are contributing, it will only spawn 1 new enemy, or perhaps will only spawn a new foe if 2 low levs show up. i know they said that they would scale by the number of players present, but that doesn't mean it can't take level into account. and no, i'm not saying it will scale completely by total level of the players involved either, odds on a mix thereof, or better yet more complex factors we haven't even worked out.
oh and dr.ish, i read that article, twice (once just after it came out, and again just now), i still got the impression that side quests will still be there. so i think we'll just have to wait for the game to come out.Akbaroth 03:23, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Some of the problems I'm bringing up are things that actually happened to real, prominent games. Sure, ArenaNet carefully looks at their systems to try to prevent griefing and exploits. Do you really think that Mythic and Cryptic don't do the same thing? And yet their versions of public quests were colossal failures, in spite of being far less ambitious than what ArenaNet is trying to pull off.
If it's so easy to catch imbalances in internal testing, then why is the play balance so bad when games release? It takes a while to see what players actually do, and then you can determine what needs to be nerfed and what needs to be strengthened. And this is something that you can easily get meaningful data on in internal testing, and then mountains of feedback during beta.
Game companies are constantly trying to prevent their game mechanics from being abused, but players are constantly searching for ways to exploit the game mechanics. The game company has to go first, putting the game mechanics in place, and then letting players try to find ways to exploit them. Players only have to find ways to abuse one particular implementation of game mechanics, while the game designers have to try to account for all possible player behavior.
And dynamic events will be much harder yet the game designers. The real test is not whether the game mechanics work well on the first day of beta, when everyone wants to try things out. It's whether they still work well a year after release, so that people who pick up the game then can play through the dynamic events in the intended manner. ArenaNet can get virtually no meaningful feedback on the latter until significantly after release. Quizzical 06:00, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
If these "problems" you mention are existing problems with existing games, do you really think that nobody at ANet knows about them, and they're just blindly going the same route? So far ANet has done quite a bit to avoid mistakes made by other MMO's, and considering their staff, I think they know pretty much everything there is to know about the flaws of existing MMO's, and they're trying to address them. Don't over-analyze something that hasn't even been described in full details yet, you can't possibly know more about it than ANet does right now. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 06:50, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack that probably doesn't contain a needle. Just because you know it isn't over here and isn't over there doesn't mean that it will be in the next other place you look. And there's a huge cost to looking in a particular place, too, as you get basically no feedback until well after release, at which point, you're meddling aggressively with a live game.
Another remark on what Akbaroth said: so ArenaNet said that they're trying to avoid grinding. Don't most game designers say that? Even most designers of really grindy games say that they're trying to avoid grinding. If players of a particular game tell you that the grinding isn't that bad, it's pretty much guaranteed that the game has little else to do but grind.
So yes, ArenaNet did make Guild Wars very light on grinding compared to most of the industry. But they moved away from that with PVE-only skills that take a tremendous amount of grinding to rank up. And especially with GWEN, which is mostly about grinding and farming, with not that much real content. All indications so far have been that they're moving further in that direction with Guild Wars 2; remember the public flirtation with the idea of not having a level cap at all?
Now, I don't think that they're going to make Guild Wars 2 into Runescape or Lineage. It will probably be less grindy than most MMORPGs, for that matter. But for the game to really avoid grinding entirely would be quite an about face from their public comments so far. Even in the current Guild Wars, more than a few players try to power-level, and many will farm for things. Quizzical 16:51, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, is ArenaNet the only company that learns from the mistakes of others? Cryptic completely fixed the biggest reasons why public quests were a failure in Warhammer Online. Indeed, Mythic themselves later fixed one of them. That public quests also failed in Champions Online was for other reasons.
I fully expect that ArenaNet will fix the problems with public quests from both of those games. Dynamic events in Guild Wars 2 will be a disaster for other reasons instead. And unlike Champions Online, where one can easily ignore the public quests to do more traditional quests, that's not going to be an option in Guild Wars 2. Quizzical 17:13, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I hope ANet does something like the sidekick/lackey & exemplar/malefactor system that CoH/V had. That would solve most of these level difference issues honestly. Though to go in a substantially higher/lower area, you'd obviously need to do it with someone else, to change the level. But yeah, I would honestly suggest having a lower exp gain for things way too high a level for you, though you can "sidekick" up to a reasonable level and get good exp off them --Gimmethegepgun 08:05, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
A sidekick system has been mentioned a number of times in the past, but I don't remember seeing anything on it recently. They may have dumped it to /dev/null the way they did the Companion NPC idea, but I really hope they didn't.
@Akbaroth: They used the word "replaces," not something like "supplements." The following sentence just reinforces that for me: "We want to get rid of the old MMO paradigm where players run around looking for NPCs with bangs or question marks over their heads." —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:05, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
A sidekick system gets around the problem of people with different levels being unable to group with each other. It does not get around the problem of people intentionally going outside of their proper level areas, unless they're some hard gating mechanism or something that forcibly changes your level if you go into the "wrong" area. Quizzical 17:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that I'd worry about is that they don't want to give you a wall of text explaining an event, but rather want to show you what's happening, so that you see it, jump in, and do what needs to be done. Sometimes that will work well. But if you try to do anything complicated, then it often won't be obvious what's going on and what needs to be done. This is fixable if there's an NPC standing there who can explain things to you. But there better be an explanation available, or else there are going to be more than a few places where it's unclear what you're supposed to do, and players will likely revert to killing things at random. Even with a written explanation, it took me several tries to figure out what I was supposed to do in Dzagonur Bastion. Quizzical 23:12, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

i thought a sidekick system would be designed to ALLOW low lvl players to go to high level areas, without being a crutch to the locals, so if they DO stick with the old plan of having a sidekick system then most ppl coming in at to low of a level would prolly be very eager to side-up with some one so they they wont die as often/would raise the chance of success, so even if a low-lev shows up it'd probably only take a moment to side with some1. after that it's gain all around, the low-lev would have a better chance of getting exp off mobs, and every1 in the event would have higher chance of success. sure some people will still refuse to side with ppl for whatever reason, but since it'd be all loss for them, most/nearly-all would side with somebody. as to over-complex directives, since voicing will be more prevalent, most ppl i know would have a much easier time understanding what to do. and, overall it sounds like a pretty small problem.
P.S. i have not played any games with a sidekick system in it, so i only have what a-net has talked about, and vague hints from talk pages about any problems with it; most ppl tell it worked out reasonably well, not excellent, but very nice.
P.P.S.Quiz, i COMPLETELY agree with you on dzagonur bastion. that was a pain.Akbaroth 00:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Personal story overview[edit source]

ZOMG content! If the home instance becomes too useful, it might discourage grouping (everyone hangs around in instances). Interesting concepts. I'll digest and post more. RandomTime 20:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the biography sounds like a great idea, but they run the danger of making the character creator too complex, a balance is needed - especially for altaholics (random selection may help this). I'm reminded of the old Eve online character creator, that had so many choices (which impacted future gameplay, in the skills that you trained) that you feel like you'd been plunged into the deep end at the start. This needs to be avoided. Backgrounds are a great idea, another PnP feature that doesn't appear in MMOs (or computer RPGs, for the most part, Dragon Age origins (and a few other notable exceptions) excluded). I wonder exactly how many questions they'll ask how many answers there are, 10 questions with 3-5 answers seems a good number. Not sure how anet came up with "thousands" of combinations for just that, though, and how relevent this all will really be to the actual game. Oh look, the order of whispers are back (do they have a new trick?). Can they pull off what they tried to do in GW1 (put a story in an MMO) even better (by adding genuine personal choices, not just a choice of one or two missions). Let's find out! RandomTime 20:57, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
"10 questions with 3-5 answers seems a good number. Not sure how anet came up with "thousands" of combinations for just that, though,": 10 questions with 4 possible answers each results in 4^10=1,048,576 possible combinations. Only 1 in 500 combinations need to be distinct enough to matter to for there to be thousands of meaningful combinations. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnoscourger (contribs) .
Same thing as builds, probably. There's kertrillions of builds theoretically, but 95% make absolutely no sense at all. Although I guess it can be fun having a bipolar Asura. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 19:55, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Right, but storylines can be more flexible. Even 5 races * 8 professions * 3 lesser race allies * (4 answers * 3 important questions) = 7,680 options. Even if some of those are fairly uncompelling, that seems reasonable considering we're ignoring 7 other questions, organization affiliation, and other in-game choices. Presumably there'll be extra content for the big combinations (race + lesser race; race + origin), but if they do things right there will be small home instance options or minor interactions now and then for some of the more obscure ones as well (e.g. Charr who answered #2 to question 6 will be befriended by a minor NPC in town). Gnoscourger 20:37, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

← Moved from Forum:New GW2 info/Miscellaneous discussion#Personal Story
There are two big questions that they're really unable to answer now. First, how much content in total will there be? And second, how much of that will a single character play through? There are a variety of mutually exclusive quests in Guild Wars already, for example. The choice between Master of Whispers and Margrid in Nightfall is probably the most consequential such choice.

Pirates of the Burning Sea tried to have something of a personal story with their roleplaying missions, for example. There were various points at which you had to make a choice, and that would kill off one character or another, and determine which quests were available to you in the future. But with only a few dozen such quests in total, it wasn't that substantial of a feature. The game's real focus on content was in the more traditional quests (which unfortunately often turned into a bunch of copies of the same quest, with different level mobs and different quest text, but that's a different problem).

But ArenaNet isn't going to have any such traditional quests. All content has to be either dynamic events, personal story, or the missions along the line of Guild Wars 1. Hopefully that means that they put enough resources into all of them to have something pretty substantial. With the success that they've had in this game, they've surely earned the opportunity to try to make a fairly big budget game.

But I'd also hope that a given character gets to play through a large fraction of the personal story quests, perhaps sometimes doing the same event from different sides depending on previous choices. If there are 500 personal story quests in total, but a given character can only do 20 of them, with the rest blocked off by previous choices, then that's not a terribly substantial feature, in spite of 500 quests being quite a lot.

I'd like to see a lot of quests where a lot of different combinations of choices will lead you to do a particular quest, but sometimes from different sides. Perhaps one could implicitly team with and/or fight against other hypothetical NPC characters who made different choices that led to the same place at the same time. I liked how Uncharted Waters: New Horizons had a storyline that basically said, there are a number of events out there, and you play as one of six characters, and will go through some of those events--but which ones depend on which characters, and you'll sometimes meet other main characters along the way. Trying to write the story for that can get complicated, though, and Guild Wars 2 would surely want a lot more content out there than an old SNES game that probably had about 1-2 MB of space to work with. Quizzical 02:57, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Having a personal story and a unique character sounds like a lot of fun. As opposed to, say, every person in the world liking the same people and saying the same lines, like happened in the first game. Not that that was bad, but it could be better. I just hope there's a way to link new characters to your old ones. I want GW2 characters to be able to be related to GW1 people, so there can be a little continuity between the games.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 07:37, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
Strangely similar to Just Cause 2 (which is a third-person shooter sandbox with zero rpg...). You can go on a number of side-quests/go on a rampage, which will be dynamic events in GW2, and there's a whopping seven main quests. I currently have over 30 game hours, which excludes time spent staring at the menu, but I completed four or five of the story missions. They're large, quite different from regular gameplay (sometimes), and thus pretty memorable. The game is bite-sized otherwise, and death is pretty much meaningless. The main reason to play it for a good long time is the bizarre physics (suspend a scooter to your helicopter with a rope and sling it overhead. Why not), and/or OCD collectibles scattered across a pretty massive and varied landscape.
It works for those who don't mind the story being paper thin, but I wonder how it will (fail to) work with a story-heavy game like GW. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 08:22, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
If there are ten questions with three answers each, that's 3^10 = 59049 combinations. Make it five answers each and it's 5^10 = 9765625 combinations. Quizzical 17:29, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Traits overview[edit source]

Anet dropped a load of news today. There's the warrior class, and Traits. You can read about Traits here.

I may well be mistaken, but this looks like it's overriding the attribute point system. Instead you put traits into trait lines. I'm thinking Traits may well be like a feat style system (D&D) - but elaboration may be needed on this front. I'll need to see this in action or get more info to understand better how it works, but it looks like a good system, very versitile RandomTime 19:36, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Reminded me of Fallout's perks. Small bonuses that pretty much define your character.
re Attribute overriding: Depends on what attributes do, and inhowfar the trait modifies them. In Fallout 3, your perks can increase certain skills (attributes), such as skill in Small Guns. Nice and all, but if you have 10 Small Guns base, and get a bonus of 5 from the Gun Nut perk, you still only have 15 (the cap is 100). That gets you terrible damage and a huge spread. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 19:52, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
This seems like: "k, you got your skills, got your attributes sorted out, now you get a set number of X slots to fill with some cool traits that give you a passive bonus". And that sounds great. I think this will increase the fun of making builds even more, as for example, you can use the same build, but focus more on the condition inflicting with your traits, or on inflicting raw damage.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 20:12, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you can switch up traits and skills out of combat in PvP? Because that would probably be retarded --Gimmethegepgun 20:08, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Probably depends on what kind of PvP. In WvW it probably wouldn't be too bad, because it's on such a massive scale, but in the smaller PvP's I doubt it would be possible, because as you said, it would be retarded.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 06:47, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that being able to start a battle, technically break combat, and change your build totally, and then finish what is essentially the same battle as before would be rather dumb. That strikes me as way too exploitable--and also an obnoxious game mechanic if having to do so is essentially required in order to be competitive.
But at the other extreme, I don't like it when games make your build too permanent. Just because I picked some skills a month ago, I don't want to still be stuck with exactly those same skills today. If my first goal for the day is to change my build to something quite different, I want to be able to do so, and with a minimum of fuss. I think Guild Wars strikes the right balance with skills and attribute points. You can't change stuff around on the fly in the middle of a mission, but you can freely change it however you like and as often as you like in any town or outpost. It sounds like Guild Wars 2 will avoid the latter. While the former is perhaps the open question, it's not as bad as the latter. Quizzical 07:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
They'll probably consider you "in combat" until the monster is dead or you've completely broken aggro by running a full compass away from the monster or something. That would greatly reduce the feasibility of respec-ing in the middle of a fight. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:00, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Player, Heal Thyself - Healing and Death in GW2[edit source]

Guild Wars 2 will challenge the way you think about healing and death in an MMO. Game designer Jon Peters shows how we break the mold with dedicated healing slots for all professions, new "downed" skills, decreased death penalties, and more! Learn more in Jon's in-depth article right here!

Summary:
  • When a player reaches what would comonly be death, they are "downed" - they get a limited number of skills.
  • A player can come back by "rallying" this can be done
    • By an ally's skills
    • By killing an enimy whilst down
    • By another player taking some time (which increases due to the number of times you've been downed) to bring you back up.
  • There is no dedicated healer in GW2.
    • But it sounds like there will be "leader" or "protector" style characters, that give buffs to players, instead of just healing.
  • Goes into "basic 3" roles (I'd say it's more like 4, but hey, anet says DPS, support, control) - explains their role in GW2.

Discuss -- RandomTime 17:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Death mechanics are a direct rip from Borderlands, pretty much. I liked it in BL. It's like having infinite Res Sigs that you can also use on yourself after killing something. Damage/support/(crowd )control is a concept that existed in GWO as well, but never flourished in mainstream builds because they made Shadow Form and suchlike tank skills. All in all, an 'okay' interview that to me could be summed up by just having someone say "we ripped Borderlands' death mechanic, and we try to emphasise crowd control so we can phase out dedicated healers". --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 17:59, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
yeah, i barely started reading about how downed works and i thought 'wasn't i just playing that?' yup borderlands. not that i'm complaining, overall i liked everything they said. i'm still a bit iffy about no direct healer, but i trust anet to do a good job. sounds like there will be much more damage prevention, than damage reduction, i really can't see windborne speed being any use unless they REALLY buffed/reworked it in gw2, i never played much pvp so i wouldn't know there.Akbaroth 20:06, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
No pure healers but lots of support? So the rumors were correct. To that I say, good. No more taking half an hour to find a healer, like in some other games. Guild Wars 1 avoided that only because you could grab henchmen or heroes.
I do hope that you regenerate health quickly outside of combat, though, as having to sit and wait two minutes after every single battle would be a major nuisance.
I'm curious about how this death mechanic will work, as I haven't played Borderlands. It sounds like when you're downed, you take one more hit to die. Or is it a big long lifebar that it takes to finish you off once downed?
Also, what happens when you revive? Do you come back with a tiny sliver of life so one hit and you're downed again? Or do you come back with full life, so that you can try to get a free heal by getting downed slightly before killing a mob? There are obvious reasons why either one could be an annoying mechanic.
And what about mobs? Do they get downed and try to kill you from there, too? That could be as annoying as the bugs in Charr Homelands, which is to say, very.
Finally, to go to a respawn point costs gold. What if you don't have any gold? Quizzical 21:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that. I'd suppose that it costs gold to respawn at a zone, but you can map back to other places, and get a full heal there, or something. I doubt Anet directly copied Boarderlands, as GW2 has been in development a lot longer than Boarderlands has been out, but they could have drawn up the "down" system after the fact. The loss of a cleric? I don't think that's a problem if Anet plays it correctly. A lot of monks in GW complain that they're not getting credit for saving everyone, if everyone is feeling like they're taking part - it flows better (this is something that wizards tried to do in 4th ed D&D, with moderate success, I think Anet can do better). I'm sure HP regen after combat will be in play, the system in GW was perfect, meaning that - most likely, by the time you were at the next encounter, you had time to heal, or at least a safe spot where you could regen your health for a few seconds. -- RandomTime 21:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Guild Wars 1 had very little downtime because once a battle was nearly won, you weren't taking much damage, so you could stop casting and regenerate energy. Healers would regenerate energy for healing faster than mobs would dish out damage, so when the battle ended, you'd have close to full health and energy, and could quickly move on to the next battle. Without dedicated healers, there won't be healers regenerating energy for healing faster than you take damage late in a battle.
This shouldn't be that hard of an issue to work around. Just make players regenerate health and energy very quickly when out of combat. To prevent this from being exploitable, make killing everything you had aggroed put you out of combat immediately, but make it take quite a while to break combat by running away.
The reason I bring it up is that lots of games have had severe problems that shouldn't have been very hard to work around. In particular, lots of games have had lots of downtime between battles, in some cases to the degree that you spent more time waiting to heal out of combat than actually fighting in combat itself.
ArenaNet has demonstrated that they're pretty good about figuring out what the problems with other games are, and then avoiding them. Their workarounds may introduce problems of their own at times, but at least it's not copying the same stupid things that other games do. If you're going to screw up, at least do it in a creative manner. Quizzical 23:13, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

No Real Monks

I don't really care but I know lots of people do.

No Death penalty

It seems like they replacing lots of stuff for fun stuff. But are they keeping in mind that fun stuff isn't fun without a challenge. I basically mean: Why should I bother trying to stay a live if there is no death penalty. Sure you need to respawn and walk a bit. Maybe even giving a small amount of money but no real penalty, so why should I care. This will mean a lose of challenges and thus meaning a lose of fun. Sure a death penalty sucks ass sometimes but that's what you get from dying, next time try harder, change skills or get help. You pay, you learn and thus getting wisher and advance.

-- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 09:21, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

"That is why Guild Wars 2 does not have a dedicated healing class". I grinned a most evil grin when I read this. It's set in stone, in writing, undeniable, and I love it. I like what they're doing with the "downed" thing, and everyone being able to res everyone, but I don't like that the death penalty is going to be much weaker. When I first started GW, I got death penalty all the time and, somehow, liked it. I felt it was a fair price to pay for being a reckless idiot.--Darksyde 13:18, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, utter lack of Death Penalty was good for Borderlands (fast paced first person shoot'n'loot), but it was a nice concept that worked well for GuildWars.
So anyways, how it works in Borderlands is that when you're down, you have a pseudo-lifebar. It degenerates automatically fairly slowly, but any hit you take increases the rate of degeneration. If you score a kill, you get a Second Wind. Full health, but no shield. Shields always regenerate after you avoid damage for a defined amount of time (time to recharge a shield depends on skills and the shield you have). Health does not regenerate naturally, but you have life steal grenades, healing kits, and monsters and lootbags can drop Insta-Heal Vials (gives a low-moderate amount of health) if you're low on health. Also, if you're downed and an ally stands next to you to pull you together, your unlifebar freezes.
Monsters do not go in a 'downed' state, ever. They die, bleed ammo, weapons and money, and then vanish.
If you don't have enough money to be resurrected via a waypoint, you just lose all the money you have. In BLands, money has little value (I am ~thrice over the display cap of, like, 9 million).
Also, they could have implemented Downed just a few months ago, or even less than that. That GW2 has been in development for three years (or w/e) doesn't mean all concepts they use now are that old as well :) I find it unlikely that two completely separate devs that make entirely different games come up with the same death system around the same time. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 13:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Funny, it reminded me of Borderlands too. Lยкץ๒๏ץ talk 17:33, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
It may be similar to the concept in Borderlands, but I doubt it's a rip from Borderlands. >__> Often two people who have never met nor heard of each other can come to the same conclusion, and the same is true for ideas/inventions. Plus, I remember a game that had something like this long before Borderlands(Don't remember the name, though). And ModernWarfare 2 has "Final Stand", which is essentially the same thing. Near dead, on the ground for awhile, get back up if you survive.--Darksyde 21:36, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
As I said. losing death penalty means losing challenge. Losing challenge means losing fun. You need the DP... A person can't learn without the pain. It makes you stronger and think about things: Hey what should I do so I won't die next time. Instead of: Hey, I died again. Who cares doesn't hurt me. Rush in again! -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 06:33, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
Considering it largely isn't an instanced world any more, shit probably respawns, and I think they did say there's SOME DP, just not nearly as bad as in GW1. So, now you have to deal with respawns AND a bit of DP instead of crashing your marginally effective party against the same enemies until they all die --Gimmethegepgun 17:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
They said the death penalty is taking longer to resurrect, no actual health reduction as far as we know.--Darksyde 17:51, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
I've long held that the more important death penalty in missions is that if you wipe, you fail the mission. That, and not the 15% death penalty, is what provided the challenge. Death penalty is more of a factor on vanquishes, and it's perhaps a more appropriate approach than having to restart because vanquishes are longer.
But Guild Wars 2 doesn't necessarily have either of those. In GW1, you reset death penalty when you zone. But what's the equivalent thing in Guild Wars 2? They've said that it would be a lot easier to run around and dodge mobs. If they stuck you with a 15% death penalty when you died, you could clear it by warping to town and running back. Without having your own separate instance, that's just a stupid hassle, and doesn't add challenge, so I'm glad that they did away with it.
Some games try to impose a big permanent death penalty like losing a bunch of experience, in hopes of making a challenge. But that actually makes gameplay less challenging, as what it does is to encourage players to stick to easier content. If trying a mission where you think you have an 80% chance of success means that on average, you get no net experience gain, then players are pushed to stick to easy things. That's not a challenge. That's grinding, and I'm glad that Guild Wars 2 isn't going that route.
I do hope that for instanced missions, Guild Wars 2 retains the mechanic of, if you wipe, you fail, and have to start over. And I hope that the instanced missions aren't that long, so that having to start over isn't that bad. Quizzical 07:58, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it very likely is a "rip" from Borderlands: To be fair, our major influence was found in team based shooters. (source) I'm not really into the FPS genre, but the only game I can think of that really fits the label of "team based shooter" would be Borderlands. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:34, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Many modern team based shooters have a downed state (e.g. Battlefield and Left 4 Dead) and existed before Borderlands - Borderlands main add was fighting from the downed state for a second wind. A (notoriously tight-lipped) acquaintance of mine at ANet claims the knockdown state was actually an outgrowth of Kilroy's Punch Out Challenge (which itself was based on Punch Out!) and "evolved from there" (which doesn't really tell me if they copped the fight from downed state from Borderlands, but a bone is a bone). As for DP, if you think about it, it doesn't really work in a persistent world, and ANet has repeatedly stated running back to your corpse is out because it is "not fun," as is being penalized by losing equipment or money. Shooters don't have DP and are still challenging and fun - basically, your penalty for dying is time and maybe a cut of the loot if you don't get back to the challenge in time. As for monks, I imagine they would be hard to implement for world PvE - you don't really have parties in the same sense as Guild Wars, so how would you select someone to heal? --Falseprophet 19:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

My main char is a monk and I am pretty bummed that there is no dedicated healer in GW2. I enjoy making the red bars go up or casting Seed of Life on the tank and watching the entire parties health hit the limit. It sounds like the support might be okay in GW2 but I don't know. We shall see I guess. --- WGreg 11:15 July 15 2010 (EST)

It will be something like protection prayers, and the things you find in communing, tactics, and command. Not direct healing most of the time, but there's room to help.--Darksyde 02:44, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Personally I dont mind having no healing class as long as there is a monk. Also i like the no death penalty idea because I remember when I was new I would always get down to 60% dp and then be pissed. I would just run from the res shrine and try to kill one enemy before my whole party died. It doesnt really happen to me anymore cause i'm pretty experienced, but i do get death penalty every now and again and it gets me mad. Especially when you get to a place where you just cant fight through, and instead of having a chance to change your strategy next time you just go and die again, but even quicker this time because of your death penalty. then you have to zone back and fight your way to that same place again to possibly lose again. So thats my two cents anyways... ~Captain Joe