Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Guild Wars (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 4 >>

Contents

Builds

Should example builds be on this page, personally i don't think so since what is kosher changes frequently in guild wars, but i thought i would like to get a second opinion before i make any deletion's/reverts.--JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, no. As you said, builds fluctuate quickly in Guild Wars do to skill balances. If someone wants a build, they should check out GW Wiki. Epsoul 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
IIRC there actually used to be a GW builds page on Wikipedia but it got deleted. So yeah I can imagine the same end-result occurring if you tried. --Rambutaan 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only would it possible be deleted, but a build page does not really need to be added because it does not really belong on a wikipedia page. Guildwiki is better for that. No offense meant.

official wiki

I've noticed that all of the gw.gamewikis.org have been removed from here in favour of the currently information-slim official wiki. Could we have the two links existing together until the official one get more information. At the moment the official wiki seems to have less info than the Gwonline one. :/ --Aspectacle 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the community from the old guildwiki.org site has now moved to the official wiki site. I don't object in principle to linking both similarly named wikis, but if the older wiki site will soon be moribund then we should not link to it. — K. Chaudhuri 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the core contributors and bureaucrats from GuildWiki have started work on the official Wiki, however by no means is GuildWiki being abandoned by them. If the official Wiki will ever catch up to GuildWiki, it will be months and months from now. Having both links is fine imo, but if a choice had to be made, there would be absolutely no reason to pick the official Wiki over GuildWiki at this moment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.68.94.17 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-12T22:07:17 (UTC)
My interest in the entire family of MMOG-related articles was sparked by a group of AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameWikis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki among them, where it was decided that these game-specific wikis do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion threshold for web-sites, WP:WEB. The latter AfD was closed with an allowance of an external link to the guildwiki.org site. At that time it was the only Guild Wars related wiki, and clearly a good source of unencyclopedic detail on the game, so it was worth linking to it per the external linking policy. The situation now is different. There are at least four different Guild Wars related wikis— the original guildwiki.org one, the one run by the site called "guild wars online", the Guild Wars wikia, and now this new wiki run by ArenaNet themselves. It would be silly to link to all of them for they have identical goals and duplicate the majority of their content. I think a link to just one, or two until the official wiki matures, is the right number. — K. Chaudhuri 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link -- it isn't advertised to the general public yet and is still being set up (policies, guidelines) and worked on by the old GuildWiki crowd et cetera before ANet advertises it. It has no content and I think it ludicrous to put a fully-fledged wiki to side for an empty "official one". I will put the link back when the official one is ready, but the GuildWiki one should stay until they are comparable by any measure ~Skuld 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm not sure that I like the idea of a trivia section for this article, certainly not in the detail which is being set out by the section which was added yesterday. Yes, it is possible that Starcraft lore might feature, but there are *so many* pop and SF culture references that it would seem silly to attempt to reference them all. As just a few examples off the top of my head; Eye of Argon, Captain Planet, Babylon 5, Firefly (TV series), Thriller (music video), Napoleon Dynamite, Snakes on a Plane and dozens more. Perhaps this section should be removed or reduced (now before it starts to get out of hand) to a statement about in-game humour and the fact that they make pop culture references throughout the game and that they draw on their knowledge from other games, like starcraft. --Aspectacle 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the section should be included unless it is sourced...as you mentioned, GW does delve into a lot of pop culture. Epsoul 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just reference that pop-culture references exist, but no need or value in attempting to list them all here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As the creator of this topic, I must say that I never really saw any references to outside culture other than Starcraft, so I beg your pardon. I had just been delving a little into Starcraft, and realized some of these similarities. --nERVEcenter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.100.205 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Tyria

Is the name of the entire WORLD "Tyria" or just the continent from Guild Wars Prophecies? I was under the impression it was the latter but the article claims the entire world (including Cantha and Elona) is known as Tyria. Just wanted to confirm (and if it's false, it should be removed) --Rambutaan 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Tyria is a large continent, such as Cantha or Elonia.<>Epsoul 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
when Kaustuv posted that I had to check too. Assuming Guild Wiki is an accurate resource this page is correct. http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Tyria --Aspectacle 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds somewhat logical. I believe I remember some dialogue that said Tyria was "the world," but I dismissed it as just an error. Thanks for clearing that up.<>Epsoul 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's even more confusing when it comes to the PvP character creation screen and it has "Tyria", "Cantha" and "Elona" as different styles, considering "Tyria" is apparently the entire world lol. Plus the recent Design a Weapon contest states that you can draw influences from "Tyria, Cantha or Elona" http:// www.guildwars.com/events/contests/designaweapon07/ and also when you get the "Protector of..." titles in the game, you get "Protector of Tyria" for completing the Prophecies campaign, "Protector of Cantha" for Factions and "Protector of Elona" for Nightfall. Very confusing! Maybe ANet don't even know themselves! :( --Rambutaan 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The manual for the original campaign (Prophecies) used the name Tyria both in reference to the world and to the continent, pretty much interchangeably. My guess is that at the time, they hadn't thought out how future campaigns would link into the game-play and the confusion it would cause by having a continent named the same as the world.
There was a question once posted to Gaile Gray (Community Relations Manager for ArenaNet) on this in Feb 2006 (shortly before the release of the second campaign). The answer is about halfway down this log of her replies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm that *is* confusing! Oh well if that's the way it's gonna be then that's the way it's gonna be :P - guess it stays as is --Rambutaan 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a GW veteran and YES Tyria is the WORLD and A Continent on it

Think of America, which can both refer to a continent or to a country.--Per Abrahamsen 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. America is simply an abbreviation, not the official name of the country... same thing with Mexico, but since Mexico doesn't share its name with anything else, the name stayed. Notice how only Americans call their country America... nobody else in the entire world does.

Um most people do, well in the UK anyway, call the US America. For .. some reason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.123.89 (talk • contribs).
Tyria is both the name of the world as a whole and one of the continents on it. A better example than America would be Australia...continent and country on continent. 68.114.69.217 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyria IS both the World and the Continent. This is confirmed by Gaile Gray on Guild Wars Wiki.--Eloc 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

The following Guild Wars-related AfDs are in progress.

FYI. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof of statement

In this revision, Eric Sandholm (talk · contribs) claims that the "campaign four" has been replaced by "guild wars 2". What/who is this claim attributable to? This fact doesn't seem to appear in the Inquirer article. Perhaps ArenaNet have announced it on some of their own or fan-maintained web-sites? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No new information has been released as yet - I believe that post to be another variation of the evolving rumors based on the initial Inquirer story.
There is anticipated to be new information coming out later this week. ArenaNet has stated that articles about the next Guild Wars campaign will be in the April issue of PC Gamer magazine (they are the media partner of ArenaNet in the USA). The April issue is anticipated to begin arriving in mail boxes of subscribers on or around March 15th, and available at news stands by April 3rd. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaustuv Chaudhuri: good point- I'll remove that claim. Eric Sandholm 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Invalid information still exists, {{disputed}} tag placed in corresponding area of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.204.80 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-15T23:31:08 (UTC)

There is no need for such garish boxes. The sections already mention the dispute and are worded to reflect the source of the claims. Whether these sections should exist at all is a different question, but several people have claimed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars 2 that there will be fresh information from more reliable sources soon. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The new issue of PC Gamer stated that Campaign 4 of Guild Wars was being remade into an expansion pack, instead of a campaign of its own. Guild Wars 2 is still a separate item. Eye of the North will be an expansion, with new dungeons, etc; but will not feature a new continent. --Gobbleodobble 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why CORPG?

I'm moving the following claim by 71.63.89.37 (talk · contribs) here:

The reason ArenaNet calls Guild Wars a CORPG is because the missions within the game are either cooperative or competitive.

I find this unlikely, to put it lightly. It is true that the game has cooperative and competitive missions, but it is a stretch to claim it as the reason for the name CORPG. In this edit, this user claims that this is "correct information that has been proven by NCSoft staff". Let's see this proof. Eric Sandholm 02:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't find anything directly on Guild Wars' actual website (it may be in one of the manuals), one of the earlier Fansite Friday links said "Guild Wars is a Cooperative/Competitive Online Role Playing Game (CORPG)." If anyone has enough time on their hands, it might be prudent to see if Gaile Gray classifies it as CORPG in a chat log.<>Epsoul 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing that ArenaNet doesn't call it a CORPG. It says CORPG right there on the Prophecies retail box! The objectionable statement is that ArenaNet calls it a CORPG "because the missions .... are either cooperative or competitive". Eric Sandholm 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then. I can't think of any instance where the CORPG name is specifically referenced to only because of the missions.<>Epsoul 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not just about the missions, but the FAQ from GuildWars.com says specifically why. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's :Cooperative" because you "cooperate" with players in quests, missions, people "cooperate" with each other and join guilds. Guilds join other guilds to make alliances. The "cooperation" is more than just the missions. 24.61.22.75 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, that is my viewpoint of the situation.<>Epsoul 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The C stands for Competitive. They call it a Competitive Online RPG because it is susposed to be balanced for competitive play and a play should be able to step into PvP on even footing without having to level a character for a month. It isn't perfectly implemented, but the idea is there. It was part of the original ad campaign to differentiate Guild Wars from other MMOs where how long you level your character is more important that how you play your character in PvP. -76.48.119.130 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed for features?

"Guild Wars also has several features designed to promote casual play by reducing grind"

This sentence is marked as citation needed... How can one cite features? The primary feature in Guildwars that promotes casual play is the skill system, instead of building up a mass of stronger and stronger skills, players are giving a collection of balanced skills, but are only allowed to use 8 skills at a time. So players reach the maximum allowed of skills within hours of installing the game. They reach the maximum level, 20, shortly after. Should we add an explanation or remove the citation needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.158.187 (talk • contribs).
Find an article in IGN, GameSpot or some other reliable gaming site where it states Guild Wars promotes casual play in a way others (like WOW) don't. -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. You may as well write your own article and cite that. Besides, I've seen that phrase many times when referring to Guild Wars. Jeff Strain probably said it himself. 132.203.83.38 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're essentially proving the OP's point. While I don't think it should be sited, if JS mentioned it in an interview, that would probably qualify.<>Epsoul 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Relocate the Guild Wars 2 section

I have moved copied of the text to Guild Wars 2. The section Guild Wars#Guild Wars 2 needs to be removed; it doesn't make between the campaigns and a subsection named "Account". Not deleting it yet because the Guild Wars 2 recently perishe in an AfD and it might get deleted again as reposted content. Eric Sandholm 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed this section entirely to Guild Wars 2. Eric Sandholm 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eye of the North

Even though little is known, it is part of the storyline for the first Guild Wars. Not Guild Wars 2. --198.254.16.201 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's part of both, it connects the two. 72.144.86.230 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it is part of the original Guild Wars though it will have achievements that you can get in it that can be ported into Guild Wars 2. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Per PC Gamer, Eye of the North is Guild Wars' first expansion (its not a stand alone like the other games), and you can use it to transfer all of your titles to your character in GW 2.<>Epsoul 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics

This article does not currently include the following essential topics, in no particular order:

  1. Titles
  2. Miniatures
  3. Weekend and special events
  4. Henchmen and heroes
  5. Hard mode (unsure about this one)

Eric Sandholm 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While some of the topics are valid, I don't think miniatures deserve more than a sentence, and I've got no clue to this "Hard Mode" you're refering to. Heroes/henchmen have short blurbs in the article, weekend/special events are listed in the development section, and titles aren't listed in the article (although they may be listed in the Prophecies article, because IIRC they became available shortly before Factions was released).<>Epsoul 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hard Mode isn't even avaialbe yet - I think Anet said sometime in the next 30 days. I don't see where it deserves more than a passing reference once its introduced - but at this point, I don't see where you can cite a source that's usable in Wikipedia for it at this stage. Wait until it's official. On the others, I don't see why they would deserve more than a sentence or two at the most. This is just a general summary/introduction to the game - not an all-encompassing game guide. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard mode has just been released, but it will be hard to find any third party sources on it. Eric Sandholm 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

It seems like 99% of all edits to this article now are vandalism. Can we semi-protect it at least? Eric Sandholm 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page to here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection we'll see how it goes. It is silly that the only thing which happens to this page is vandalism and the reverts. --Aspectacle 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That was quick!  :D The protection is valid to the end of the month. We'll see what it's like after then. --Aspectacle 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the silver lock. >.> Lightblade 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Try an edit of the page, it says that it is semi-protected near the top. And there hasn't been vandalism for days. :) --Aspectacle 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Not having Factions or Nightfall, I'm not sure if this goes for them, however, in Prophecies, secondary professions can only be switched when you are trying them out. Once you decide on one to choose as a secondary profession, you're stuck with it unless you make another character. As I mentioned, I only have Prophecies, so I'm not sure if it goes for the other two, but I just thought I'd bring it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The real sandman (talk • contribs).

In prophecies once you've got to the Crystal Desert (a fair way through the game) there are a number of quests available in the outposts there you can do to change your secondary prof. Check out guild wiki's article on secondary professions for more. --Aspectacle 06:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Once you have ascended in Prophecies, you can go to the Battle Isles and talk to a proffession changer.--Eloc Jcg 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No that is not entirely correct. For Prophecies, you need to do the profession change quests and then the profession change at the Battle Isles will be able to change your profession, that that isn't really even necessary after the new updates.... Q E11even 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Eloc Jcg was correct, actually. The Prof. Changer NPC at Balth's can change your prof even if you don't do the "Path" quests in Prophecies. The only req is that your PvE char has to be be ascended. See GuildWiki. Eric Sandholm 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I have been playing for 19 months and was able to change my secondary proffession and never doing the proffession quests ever. I only just recently did the proffession quests to gain those Attribute Points but could change my secondary before that.--Eloc Jcg 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
My info is a bit dated, but the fact remains, there has always been the means to change secondary profession for PvE characters. Eloc - 19 months? I can only assume from your statement you didn't change your secondary profession at all until Factions came out. --Aspectacle 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure there is a one time fee of 500g to change secondary professions if you haven't done the path quest. - FireForEffect - 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated Tournament System updates

There's been a lot more information coming out about the specifics from ArenaNet in regards to the changes to the GvG ladder system and the upgrades to Hero Battles of a similar fashion - could someone work them into the article, rather than the current claim of lack of information that's also not cited? A few good sources that can be referenced:

http://www.guildwars.com/competitive/articles/stateofthegame/20070405-futureofcompetitive.php (5 April 2007) http://www.guildwars.com/competitive/articles/stateofthegame/20070501-futureupdate.php (1 May 2007)

I'd add it but I've far too little time at the moment to write the quality of content that would do it justice. --Aiiane 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki fansites

So are we now automatically linking every wiki related to the game, because we're missing a lot of them.

GuildWiki was allowed to stay as a compromise on its AfD for its own article. But relatively recently, ArenaNet started its own wiki which has quickly grown. Still not as all encompassing as GuildWiki, but growing fast. I would argue that GuildWiki will be no different than any other fansite and can be removed by sometime in the next 2-3 months as it will no longer be the most-visited one (in the AfD, prior ranking results were part of the argument to keep its reference someplace).

But now, a new wiki has been added to the article, PvXbuilds.org, which is a fork of a subset of the GuildWiki content - specifically the builds that were recently removed from GuildWiki. But, that community is fairly small yet, and has no notability other than being yet another fan-listing of builds which just happens to be a wiki. If we permit it, then what is the criteria for inclusion? List all fansites (many missing)? List all fansites over a certain ranking or size? List all fansites that happen to be wikis? List only official community sites? What criteria should be used? --161.88.255.139 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The normal policy is to list only the official site, plus perhaps single site that has obtained status in the community as the main/default reference. I believe GuildWiki still fulfills that criteria (but is likely to lose it to the official Wiki eventually), but PvX Builds definitely does not.--Per Abrahamsen 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi I am founder of www.PvXBuilds.com and I think its pretty fast taken step to delete link without even checking the page properly. PvXBuilds.com was created as a response to what was done on GuildWiki it was also coordinated move that was done together with administrators of GuildWiki. PvXBuilds more of a fork from GuildWiki but it takes and continues work on section that was removed from GuildWiki. Without going into details and further discussion I will just refer to World of warcraft and on huge list of fan sites there. I am sure it wont hurt anyone if it will be a link to non profit advertising free Wiki 100% related to Guild Wars Gcardinal 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Which brings up the original question - by that argument, all fansites dedicated to the game could be listed. I agree with Per Abrahamsen that only official and whatever main/default resource exists. PvXwiki is just wanting advertising to build traffic.
I also checked Alexa rankings. Currently the GuildWars.com domain is ranked 7,143 and GuildWiki is ranked 4,919 (lower numbers are ranked higher - for example, Wikipedia is ranked 10). Personally, I could support listing any fansite that outranks the official site domain at GuildWars.com.
PvXwiki may eventually deserve a spot once its established - who knows! Right now, it's too new to even have an Alexa ranking. --161.88.255.139 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And what Alexa ranking has to do with it? Must site be part of some rating to get a place on Wiki ? Thats new. 80.89.53.119 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I did some digging after my initial post above. See WP:NOT#LINK which states:
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such.
While rankings are not in themselves a requirement for being listed in Wikipedia, they are a useful means for determining which site is a "major fansite". --161.88.255.139 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I read the above and didn't see it at first, so I added bolding to get the relevant text to stand out for others. If it's against policy to modify posts in that way, I appologize - please let me know on my talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
How advertising free PvXwiki will earn from PvXwiki is just wanting advertising to build traffic. ? It's a free wiki, without any advertising, created by a community of guild wars fans and represents archive of 3000 builds, why can't wikipedia have a link to it ? And why on WoW page there is more then 10 links to fan sites ? Gcardinal 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest instead of linking to any particular site, instead add a link to the ArenaNet listing of recognized fan sites([1]), thus killing two birds with one stone, both in terms of becoming more comprehensive of fan site coverage (indirectly), but also not favoring any particular site as there are many that are now somewhat competing for any clear title on "best reference". --Aiiane 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
When I looked at the Alexa ranking, the only site to have a higher ranking that the official site was GuildWiki, so the comment on competition seems out of place, at least for now. That will likely change as their traffic is bound to drop both due to the official wiki being created, and due to their build purge. But thus far, there are no numbers to support the comment.
Despite that, I do agree with you that the official fansite listing would be better than linking to GuildWiki or any other fansite(s). Just keep links to the official site, the official wiki, and the official fansite list. --161.88.255.139 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Alexa rankings are misleading in GuildWiki's case, because Alexa rankings are for the base domain - in this case, gamewikis.org, which hosts wikis for multiple different games. Obviously, the shared main domain for a multi-game network will end up getting visited more often than an equally useful site for a single game would. That aside, quantity (traffic-wise) doesn't always equal quality, although the two often go hand in hand. But, given that we seem to agree on the main point I proposed above, that's all an aside. --Aiiane 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add my comments to this discussion ... the issue about Alexa rankings being misleading isn't true. If you check their results, they always show percentages of how traffic is distributed within the site. I just looked out of curiosity, and in the case of gamewikis.org, it shows 99% to gw.gamewikis.org, and 1% to oblivion.gamewikis.org. The GuildWiki makes up nearly all of the domain's traffic. --76.22.17.84 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GW:EN & GW2

Hi, it's maybe a bit too soon, but shall we add some information (if there is any) about GuildWars Eye of the North and/or GuildWars 2? 62.100.33.180 09:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, I read the article thorough and I saw it was noticed there already :P Don't mind me... 62.100.33.180 09:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)