CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
I bought EoTN on Steam. Steam is down for a few hours with server maintenance. I'm wondering if, since the e-mail confirmation that I bought the game did not include an access key, that I can tell, and since I can't see EoTN on my library page/in any relation to Nightfall, that ethier the maintenance is screwing it up at the moment or I'm just missing something? Have to wait and see, and in the meantime, pick a new character for Nightfall.
Also, since the GW thread is like, 2 years old, and this thread is not, it may as well serve both games, at least until GW2 is actually in beta or release and we need the space. So talking about HoM and stuff is ok.
As for pets, if you don't want to play ranger, just play till you get the option to change secondary class (won't take long in Factions), then buy Charm Animal. It's hard getting them to level 20 though, even as a ranger. Takes a long time. Fortunately, standard pets, only 1 can be added to the HoM, so doing it this way isn't bad.
Eezy peezy way to level pets (since you need to level the imperial phoenix once you get it, if you choose to):
Take your pet into normal mode Gyala Hatchery (Factions Luxon Mission) alone. Put the pet on heel. Take a canister. Blow away the three juggernauts when they spawn for 230xp apiece. Then bring the canister back into the young turtles and try to place it such that you hit as many kurzicks as possible with the blasts, for 100xp apiece.
Per run you will get on average 1000 if you're not very good at it, and if you can consistently defeat the first wave before you /resign and start again, you can get something like 2000 per ruin, in only like 4-6 minutes or something like that.
[EDIT] This method works like a charm for heroes too.
If you just want a pet for the HoM, just get the black moa. Instant level 20, and you get the bonus point for it being epic or something.
Yeah, if you get black moa (which is an easy cap, just have to do a quest first) and imperial phoenix (just for beating the factions campaign) you get 2 fellowships from that. The phoenix starts at level 5, but the black moa starts at level 20 and is instantly fellowshippable, and either will count for your generic animal companion.
The third rare pet is the black widow, which can only be found in the underworld by completing quests.
Warriors are actually equal if not better (in certain situations) with the bow.
Do we know that yet? I haven't seen anything other than 2 bow skills for the warrior, both were utilitarian. Obviously they'll get a full 5 skills, but I'd be willing to be they aren't as diverse in their nature as rangers get. Warriors are better off still getting stuck in with their sword. Rangers bow skills are more varied, plus they get the shortbow (the only class to get one), meaning they can fire on the move. I'd say rangers were definitely still bow centric, they just have some additional melee ability (which they had in GW 1 anyway, hammer rangers were pretty awesome).
not to mention rangers also get utility skills which help their bow attacks, like the demoed fire trap. They can set up their own combo to ignite their arrows. Rangers will definitely still be bow centric with added weapons for more options.
Anyway, what I'm getting at, is while other classes can make use of weapons other classes focus on, they won't get the same use out of them. While daggers are available on warriors, a warrior is a brute force character. Getting stick in with 2 daggers as a hulking, plate wearing warrior is going to have different effects to someone nimbler (as they showed with how rangers are different than warriors with a sword - lower damage, but apply conditions). Having an assassin class focus on daggers would get different, possibly more varied attack types than a warrior with daggers. That's how I'm guessing they'll have different classes focus on certain weapons (since they've shown it with the ranger already).
Both warrior bow skills you saw were utilitarian? What ones have you seen? The only warrior bow skill I've seen was the long range fire AOE. The only longbow skills I've seen on ranger are AOE without fire (one of which has an arc that makes adding fire through environmental effects incredibly difficult if not impossible).
The warrior and ranger, as well every other class that can equip it, have exactly the same number of longbow skills, 5. Even though we don't necessarily know what all of those are yet, we do know that 5 is the number. I'm sure someone has seen them all in the demo, but finding a list of them is tricky.
Now the ranger does have an extra bow the warrior doesn't, but I disagree that this makes them bow centric. The ranger still has more melee weapons available to them than bows (including greatsword!), and all of those melee weapons have unique-to-ranger skills that can't be found elsewhere. The only thing that makes warriors any better than rangers in melee is that they get a passive damage bonus for the adrenaline they've built up, but this also applies to their bow skills. They'll be getting that passive damage bonus to every foe they hit in their long-range AOE too. As far as straight up direct damage dealing with weapons is concerned, it probably doesn't matter what weapon they're using, the warrior is going to have an edge over other classes.
I'm glad you brought up daggers, too, since they're a really good example of what I'm trying to say.
In GW1 daggers were the assassin's weapon. You could use them on other classes, but if you wanted them to actually be useful you had to at minimum be assassin secondary. Rangers could use daggers only if they were ranger/assassins. They could only use hammers if they were ranger warriors. It was easy to see that daggers were still assassin weapons and hammers were still warrior weapons, no matter what primary was using them.
This isn't really the case in GW2. Every class can't equip every weapon, but the weapons they can equip are all effective, if different, playstyles for that class. Your example of the dagger-weilding warrior is actually not possible in GW2. Warriors won't be able to equip daggers at all. It's not one of their weapons and they simply can't use it, not even in the "I have it but its hitting 0's" way of GW1.
On the other hand, if a necro wants to use daggers, they don't need assassin secondary to make them effective (with no secondaries... obvious statement is obvious). The necro doesn't go around stabbing things in an imitation of assassin moves but with lesser damage. The necro uses daggers in its own way, different to the assassin but equally as effective. It uses them to cast blood magic spells, often times by cutting itself to sacrifice health.
In GW2 the dagger isn't any more an assassin weapon than it is a necro weapon or an elementalist weapon. You can't say the assassin will main daggers or focus on daggers any more than you can say the necro focuses on staves. Sure the necro can use a staff or a wand or the typical caster weapons, but the dagger is just as good, if not better, than those. (IIRC from the demo, daggers are the only access to life siphon)
And that's why I don't think you will see a class that focuses on guns. Yes, we are likely to see a class that has both gun options, the same way the ranger is the only class so far that has both bow options. However, that class won't be defined by the fact that it can use both guns, because its other weapon options will be just as important to the class.
In GW2 classes are being defined by their primary mechanic. Warriors get adrenaline. Eles attune to different elements on the fly, and rangers are accompanied by a pet. Necros become more powerful when downed rather than weaker.
In this way, assassins won't be the "dagger profession." They'll be defined by a mechanic (really quite certain it will be stealth at this point), and daggers will just happen to be one weapon that works well with that mechanic from among many varied options.
In light of that, I'm expecting the final unknown class to focus on area control via stationary constructs similar to how ritualist spirits worked, only with less thematic overlap on the necro. They'll probably be the class that gets both gun types (although it could yet be assassin that does), but they won't be defined by that, and as such they won't be called "gunner."
In light of that, I'm expecting the final unknown class to focus on area control via stationary constructs similar to how ritualist spirits worked, only with less thematic overlap on the necro. They'll probably be the class that gets both gun types (although it could yet be assassin that does), but they won't be defined by that, and as such they won't be called "gunner."
I hope this is true. I expect it to be and I will play a ton of that class as an alt.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Both warrior bow skills you saw were utilitarian? What ones have you seen? The only warrior bow skill I've seen was the long range fire AOE. The only longbow skills I've seen on ranger are AOE without fire (one of which has an arc that makes adding fire through environmental effects incredibly difficult if not impossible).
Fair enough. I was pretty sure I saw a second warrior bow skill, so I'm wrong there. That is a pretty utilitarian skill though. It's purely artillery and for drawing enemies. Once it gets to actual combat, you won't want to be firing that thing off.
The warrior and ranger, as well every other class that can equip it, have exactly the same number of longbow skills, 5. Even though we don't necessarily know what all of those are yet, we do know that 5 is the number. I'm sure someone has seen them all in the demo, but finding a list of them is tricky.
For one, watch the PAX cam videos. Specifically, rangers. There's quite the variety of skills people were using. Not to mention, the warriors arcing artillery shot wasn't used. While warriors will get 5 skills for the longbow, they won't be the same 5 skills rangers will get. I'm not saying all warrior bow skills will be utilitarian in nature, but I'd be willing to bet they will be.
Now the ranger does have an extra bow the warrior doesn't, but I disagree that this makes them bow centric. The ranger still has more melee weapons available to them than bows (including greatsword!), and all of those melee weapons have unique-to-ranger skills that can't be found elsewhere. The only thing that makes warriors any better than rangers in melee is that they get a passive damage bonus for the adrenaline they've built up, but this also applies to their bow skills. They'll be getting that passive damage bonus to every foe they hit in their long-range AOE too. As far as straight up direct damage dealing with weapons is concerned, it probably doesn't matter what weapon they're using, the warrior is going to have an edge over other classes.
Again, as above, they were totally different skills the ranger was using. They were less about brute strength, in your face melee that the warrior showed. They were light, acrobatic attacks that focused on avoiding the enemy and applying conditions (serpent strike applies poison on the final hit). It's about adding options, yes. But I will bet, as I said above, that while professions can use a huge range of weapons, they're going to be better off with a particular type. Rangers - bows. Warriors - melee.
This comes from needing balance, specifically concerning armour. If warriors were as good as rangers at range, there would be no point bringing rangers as a physical, ranged damage character. You'd have someone with twice the armour providing the same service. There is, again, no reason to bring a ranger for melee, since the warrior does it with twice the armour.
Adding these weapons to other professions adds gameplay options, particularly with weapon switching. Playing a ranger with a shortbow and a melee set makes sense, since if the situation demands it, you could switch and use melee until you get back. But making everyone as effective as any other class, and relying on only the class specialty to make the difference simply doesn't work just because of armour levels. Why would you use a ranger when you can just plop a longbow on your warrior, and be just as effective as a ranger with a longbow, but with twice the armour? I can't see the pet being that huge of a deciding factor, particularly in PvP.
-Loki- on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Those skill lists don't do a whole lot, because there's aspects of gameplay missing. Like arcing shot and long range shot being dodgeable, and wether warriors have an easy way to abuse dual shot like rangers do for spread shot.
Anyway, I'm ready to drop the argument, since at this point, it's pretty meaningless. I'll just go on expecting a gunslinger class and an assassin class (I mean, they're classes that have had concept art leaked along with concept art for currently announced classes a while ago).
-Loki- on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
This comes from needing balance, specifically concerning armour. If warriors were as good as rangers at range, there would be no point bringing rangers as a physical, ranged damage character. You'd have someone with twice the armour providing the same service. There is, again, no reason to bring a ranger for melee, since the warrior does it with twice the armour.
I'd just like to comment on this that balance isn't all about damage and armor, there are countless support skills to account for too. Rangers will bring with them traps, spirits (mmm, spirits) and various pet skills, whereas warriors bring shouts and banners. There's also a few non-weapon items such as warhorn, torch and shield that bring their abilities to the table as a consideration.
As a general rule I would agree with Jenosavel that there won't be a gunslinger class that is defined by guns simply because weapons won't be as class defining as they were in Guild Wars 1, but I would imagine that there will be an adventurer class that has a very gunslingery feel to it.
reVerse on
0
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
But then, as you say, having a gunslinger class would work with different support skills.
-Loki- on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I don't really get what you're saying there.
What I'm saying is that there won't be a gun-centric gunslinger class, but there'll no doubt be a class that feels like a gunslinger. Just like a ranger isn't bow-centric, but it still feels like a ranger because of the traps and spirits and general nature-y feel and whatnot.
I can let it drop too. I've made my points and don't mind agreeing to disagree.
If you see long range AOE damage as utilitarian, then that's a point on which we disagree. Long range nuking doesn't sound like it would be used just for pulling, although I could be partly basing that on the fact that someone mentioned the ANet in-house meta for a while included long-bow warrior groups. Until we get to play it for ourselves, though, there's really no point in arguing over it.
Also, thanks for those skill links. Without being able to see how they function, it's a bit hard to judge, but I am struck by the way there seems to be a matched set here. A lot of the skills seem to have a pair that are comparable in description, with the warrior getting fire and AOE where the ranger has plain single-target arrows. But without seeing them in action its hard to know if that's actually the case.
It will be interesting to see how traits play into things, because traits are supposed to offer a lot of variation and differentiation in the way a weapon plays on one character versus another of the same class. If all of these rangers start out with plain single-target longbow attacks because they need to go find traits that make them more flavorful, but the warrior is forever locked into AOE+fire, then the ranger would definitely be more interesting to play with the bow.
I'm also surprised that pin down is a warrior skill and not a ranger skill this time around. I wonder if the ranger will also have a utility skill with that kind of function, or if they have to wait until an enemy gets in their face before they start applying position control through their melee weapons. I'd be willing to bet some pet somewhere can apply crippling... but unless they work on the AI, which it didn't look like they had in the demo, it won't be nearly as useful.
I think its worth noting that ANet really do believe that the pet is the only reason to take a ranger, not the bow, whether or not we agree with them. They've flat out said that if you don't really want a pet, you'd be better off playing a different class with a bow than playing a ranger.
If they work on the pet AI more I might be more inclined to give them room on that one, but from what I saw in the demo I felt like it was the same old pet from GW1, not even on the level of hero intelligence. The biggest problem I had was in positioning control, where it felt like my pet was either always off by itself in some remote corner fighting its own fights and ignoring me, or it was sitting at my heels ignoring the enemies that were attacking us all around. It didn't seem like there was much middle ground.
I think having some easy way to call targets for your pet, the way you could call targets for a team in GW1, would make a world of difference in the beastie's usefulness.
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Crippling Shot is a shortbow ability.
Also, I'm sure they'll make the pet less awful by release. The most common complaint I saw from people who played the demo at PAX or Gamescom was that the pet would die all the time, even when going 1v1 with a mob. I can't imagine that they'll leave it like that.
I didn't find the pet to die a lot, though that might be because most people I saw didn't realize you had to actually give it skills, it didn't come with them equipped, and the particular pet I was given had self-heal options if you actually opened up its menu and assigned things to it.
My problem was just that it never felt like the pet was reacting to what I was doing. It actually felt harder to control than my GW1 pets, though I admittedly have more experience than most with manipulating the GW1 pet AI, and therefore I might just be needing to adjust to its new behavior...
If you read the warrior page on the GW2 site, it says the rifle will be their single target long range option. So, you could conceivably have an entirely long-range warrior, which is cool to me. I'm new to the series, though.
Toothy on
0
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
So yeah. My HoM is at 19. Then I remembered that my Elementalist and Warrior haven't finished EotN and haven't added their armour, heroes or destroyer weapons. Adding them when I finish their campaigns up, brings me to 23. So a bit of grinding and adding, I should be able to get to 25 easily. Though I really do want to reach 30, mainly because it has the Black Widow pet.
Reading PC Gamers break down of a boss fight they played made me want this game so bad.
Any class can Tank? Tank dies only to be combat ressed by any other class? lots of heroic combat ressing throghout the fight? fighting giant behemoths?
It sounds to good to be true frankly, but I am happy the best MMO will be the one without a sub or paid for content AND will be on Steam.
Venkman90 on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Well, their whole business model for GW1 was selling you new content, so I doubt that'll change with GW2.
Well, their whole business model for GW1 was selling you new content, so I doubt that'll change with GW2.
Well, decent sized x-pacs every 6 months that you don't NEED > all the best kit / raids / content being in an in-game store > £8.99 a month.
At least in my mind.
Venkman90 on
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
The only way these boss fights could be better is if some bosses physically pick you up and throw your ass around and/or leave craters and destroyed environmental effects afterwards.
The only way these boss fights could be better is if some bosses physically pick you up and throw your ass around and/or leave craters and destroyed environmental effects afterwards.
There's quite the possibility that that will happen too, what with knowing dynamic events can already change the environment. One of their example events they like to talk about has a boss knocking out a bridge across a gorge that then either needs to be rebuilt or an alternate longer route needs to be used instead.
That's just invitation for my imagination to go blissfully wild, so I'm trying my hardest to stay cautious in my optimism.
There's quite the possibility that that will happen too, what with knowing dynamic events can already change the environment. One of their example events they like to talk about has a boss knocking out a bridge across a gorge that then either needs to be rebuilt or an alternate longer route needs to be used instead.
That's just invitation for my imagination to go blissfully wild, so I'm trying my hardest to stay cautious in my optimism.
I am not a fan of cautious optimism.
Let me tell you a story.
I was hyped up as Hell for Warhammer Online. My friends and I all love the Warhammer fantasy IP so much, and when we heard about it, we immediately went crazy. We went absolutely crazy for however long it was, it felt like eons. In reality it was probably like a year or something like that where we were chomping at the bits to have this game.
We spent our weekends talking about it. We looked and salivated at all of the classes. We cursed every email wave that went out for the beta in which we were not included.
In the end? The game was alright. We all had some fun with it for a couple of months, and then we stopped playing because of many reasons, including inherent imbalance in the game between the factions and some general design stuff that was pretty off. Our consensus was that it was just not that great of a game.
In essence, Warhammer Online was great because of its hype. The game didn't really deliver, but it still gave me a year of fun, just thinking about it.
Now, don't take this the wrong way. I am not saying GW2 is going to be sub-par. From what I have heard, and the fact that I played GW1, and that it is easily one of the best MMOs I have ever played, by a large margin, I have not a sliver of doubt in my mind that Guild Wars 2 will be everything we hope for.
But, I encourage you to let the hype take you over. The achievement calculator for GW1, the incremental news releases, they're to generate this hype not only to generate popularity for this game, but to generate our enthusiasm. If you release yourself in it, it's like you're already playing.
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Rend on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
Well, you know, that all depends on whether or not you can put things in perspective. It's really just my two cents. I find myself happier for it, but if you have a hard time avoiding disappointment over anxiety, then that's obviously not the route for you.
Rend on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
Well, you know, that all depends on whether or not you can put things in perspective. It's really just my two cents. I find myself happier for it, but if you have a hard time avoiding disappointment over anxiety, then that's obviously not the route for you.
I go into every game expecting it to have a slew of game breaking problems and being generally shit. I cherish the rare game that proves me wrong.
But that's just me.
reVerse on
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
Well, you know, that all depends on whether or not you can put things in perspective. It's really just my two cents. I find myself happier for it, but if you have a hard time avoiding disappointment over anxiety, then that's obviously not the route for you.
I go into every game expecting it to have a slew of game breaking problems and being generally shit. I cherish the rare game that proves me wrong.
But that's just me.
I can't wait to group up with you then, and watch you cherish throwing a beer bottle at some dude's head in a bar brawl.
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
I find both philosophies to be valid on a game to game (movie to movie, book to book, album to album) basis. I think it's based on how much they did meet in your eyes, how willing you are to accept that your expectations were unreasonable to begin with, and how much of the end result was genuinely a sham.
Me, personally, I can't wait to kill a fucking dragon again.
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
Well, you know, that all depends on whether or not you can put things in perspective. It's really just my two cents. I find myself happier for it, but if you have a hard time avoiding disappointment over anxiety, then that's obviously not the route for you.
I go into every game expecting it to have a slew of game breaking problems and being generally shit. I cherish the rare game that proves me wrong.
But that's just me.
It's just a difference of personality. I don't find myself disappointed by things I have overhyped. I find that when I expect the most out of something I end up enjoying what I find more than if I went into it expecting it to be bad.
It can go either way I suppose, but I feel like a lot of people who might enjoy things the same way as I do would be put off by fear of disappointment. Are we disagreeing right now?
Rend on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
In reality it was probably like a year or something like that where we were chomping at the bits to have this game.
In case you care, it's 'champing at the bit'.
Also, yay GW2, looks awesome, etc. ;-)
Only thing I dislike about the game is that it's not out yet.
Glal on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Also, I won't be doing the bar brawl stuff if I can avoid it. It sounds stupid. Why would I want to punch some guy in a bar when I can go out to kill centaurs and dodge their projectiles. And then dodge some more. And more. And, well you know what, they should just call it "Dodging Shit the MMO" because that's what I'll be doing whenever possible.
My definition of "caution optimism" might be a tad different than yours, Rend. I've had the most likely professions and reveal order more or less figured out as well as anyone does right now... back in July. I've been wringing every scrap of info for all its worth. I thrive on anticipation.
But to keep myself from actually ruining games for myself, I like to keep handy the dose of realism. So in this particular case, the dynamic events not only have the potential to have bosses shaping the world and wrecking things, it most certainly is going to actually happen. There's no question... but I do have a rather large imagination, so instead of letting it run completely wild and imagining thousands of events that I will later be disappointed to not find, I prefer to go crazy over the few we know actually exist in the game.
I can't wait to blow up some Krait towers, for example, or uncover the Mighty Oooh. There's so much info we do have that I don't even need to make things up to frolic in sweet sweet hype... but I still want more. I could have swore the assassin reveal would have been out by this week at the latest, but clearly that was wrong. Here's to hoping for next week!
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Yeah, they sure are taking their sweet time with the next class reveal. The people at GW2G forums had calculated it for last or this week. Maybe it's because Paris Games Week is on from 27th to 31st and they'll reveal it there like they did with Necro at Gamescom.
My definition of "caution optimism" might be a tad different than yours, Rend. I've had the most likely professions and reveal order more or less figured out as well as anyone does right now... back in July. I've been wringing every scrap of info for all its worth. I thrive on anticipation.
But to keep myself from actually ruining games for myself, I like to keep handy the dose of realism. So in this particular case, the dynamic events not only have the potential to have bosses shaping the world and wrecking things, it most certainly is going to actually happen. There's no question... but I do have a rather large imagination, so instead of letting it run completely wild and imagining thousands of events that I will later be disappointed to not find, I prefer to go crazy over the few we know actually exist in the game.
I can't wait to blow up some Krait towers, for example, or uncover the Mighty Oooh. There's so much info we do have that I don't even need to make things up to frolic in sweet sweet hype... but I still want more. I could have swore the assassin reveal would have been out by this week at the latest, but clearly that was wrong. Here's to hoping for next week!
Posts
Also, since the GW thread is like, 2 years old, and this thread is not, it may as well serve both games, at least until GW2 is actually in beta or release and we need the space. So talking about HoM and stuff is ok.
Eezy peezy way to level pets (since you need to level the imperial phoenix once you get it, if you choose to):
Take your pet into normal mode Gyala Hatchery (Factions Luxon Mission) alone. Put the pet on heel. Take a canister. Blow away the three juggernauts when they spawn for 230xp apiece. Then bring the canister back into the young turtles and try to place it such that you hit as many kurzicks as possible with the blasts, for 100xp apiece.
Per run you will get on average 1000 if you're not very good at it, and if you can consistently defeat the first wave before you /resign and start again, you can get something like 2000 per ruin, in only like 4-6 minutes or something like that.
[EDIT] This method works like a charm for heroes too.
Yeah, if you get black moa (which is an easy cap, just have to do a quest first) and imperial phoenix (just for beating the factions campaign) you get 2 fellowships from that. The phoenix starts at level 5, but the black moa starts at level 20 and is instantly fellowshippable, and either will count for your generic animal companion.
The third rare pet is the black widow, which can only be found in the underworld by completing quests.
Both warrior bow skills you saw were utilitarian? What ones have you seen? The only warrior bow skill I've seen was the long range fire AOE. The only longbow skills I've seen on ranger are AOE without fire (one of which has an arc that makes adding fire through environmental effects incredibly difficult if not impossible).
The warrior and ranger, as well every other class that can equip it, have exactly the same number of longbow skills, 5. Even though we don't necessarily know what all of those are yet, we do know that 5 is the number. I'm sure someone has seen them all in the demo, but finding a list of them is tricky.
Now the ranger does have an extra bow the warrior doesn't, but I disagree that this makes them bow centric. The ranger still has more melee weapons available to them than bows (including greatsword!), and all of those melee weapons have unique-to-ranger skills that can't be found elsewhere. The only thing that makes warriors any better than rangers in melee is that they get a passive damage bonus for the adrenaline they've built up, but this also applies to their bow skills. They'll be getting that passive damage bonus to every foe they hit in their long-range AOE too. As far as straight up direct damage dealing with weapons is concerned, it probably doesn't matter what weapon they're using, the warrior is going to have an edge over other classes.
I'm glad you brought up daggers, too, since they're a really good example of what I'm trying to say.
In GW1 daggers were the assassin's weapon. You could use them on other classes, but if you wanted them to actually be useful you had to at minimum be assassin secondary. Rangers could use daggers only if they were ranger/assassins. They could only use hammers if they were ranger warriors. It was easy to see that daggers were still assassin weapons and hammers were still warrior weapons, no matter what primary was using them.
This isn't really the case in GW2. Every class can't equip every weapon, but the weapons they can equip are all effective, if different, playstyles for that class. Your example of the dagger-weilding warrior is actually not possible in GW2. Warriors won't be able to equip daggers at all. It's not one of their weapons and they simply can't use it, not even in the "I have it but its hitting 0's" way of GW1.
On the other hand, if a necro wants to use daggers, they don't need assassin secondary to make them effective (with no secondaries... obvious statement is obvious). The necro doesn't go around stabbing things in an imitation of assassin moves but with lesser damage. The necro uses daggers in its own way, different to the assassin but equally as effective. It uses them to cast blood magic spells, often times by cutting itself to sacrifice health.
In GW2 the dagger isn't any more an assassin weapon than it is a necro weapon or an elementalist weapon. You can't say the assassin will main daggers or focus on daggers any more than you can say the necro focuses on staves. Sure the necro can use a staff or a wand or the typical caster weapons, but the dagger is just as good, if not better, than those. (IIRC from the demo, daggers are the only access to life siphon)
And that's why I don't think you will see a class that focuses on guns. Yes, we are likely to see a class that has both gun options, the same way the ranger is the only class so far that has both bow options. However, that class won't be defined by the fact that it can use both guns, because its other weapon options will be just as important to the class.
In GW2 classes are being defined by their primary mechanic. Warriors get adrenaline. Eles attune to different elements on the fly, and rangers are accompanied by a pet. Necros become more powerful when downed rather than weaker.
In this way, assassins won't be the "dagger profession." They'll be defined by a mechanic (really quite certain it will be stealth at this point), and daggers will just happen to be one weapon that works well with that mechanic from among many varied options.
In light of that, I'm expecting the final unknown class to focus on area control via stationary constructs similar to how ritualist spirits worked, only with less thematic overlap on the necro. They'll probably be the class that gets both gun types (although it could yet be assassin that does), but they won't be defined by that, and as such they won't be called "gunner."
I hope this is true. I expect it to be and I will play a ton of that class as an alt.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I guess there are a couple weapons unique to professions ATM (shortbow and 2H hammer IIRC), but it's nothing like GW1.
Fair enough. I was pretty sure I saw a second warrior bow skill, so I'm wrong there. That is a pretty utilitarian skill though. It's purely artillery and for drawing enemies. Once it gets to actual combat, you won't want to be firing that thing off.
For one, watch the PAX cam videos. Specifically, rangers. There's quite the variety of skills people were using. Not to mention, the warriors arcing artillery shot wasn't used. While warriors will get 5 skills for the longbow, they won't be the same 5 skills rangers will get. I'm not saying all warrior bow skills will be utilitarian in nature, but I'd be willing to bet they will be.
Again, as above, they were totally different skills the ranger was using. They were less about brute strength, in your face melee that the warrior showed. They were light, acrobatic attacks that focused on avoiding the enemy and applying conditions (serpent strike applies poison on the final hit). It's about adding options, yes. But I will bet, as I said above, that while professions can use a huge range of weapons, they're going to be better off with a particular type. Rangers - bows. Warriors - melee.
This comes from needing balance, specifically concerning armour. If warriors were as good as rangers at range, there would be no point bringing rangers as a physical, ranged damage character. You'd have someone with twice the armour providing the same service. There is, again, no reason to bring a ranger for melee, since the warrior does it with twice the armour.
Adding these weapons to other professions adds gameplay options, particularly with weapon switching. Playing a ranger with a shortbow and a melee set makes sense, since if the situation demands it, you could switch and use melee until you get back. But making everyone as effective as any other class, and relying on only the class specialty to make the difference simply doesn't work just because of armour levels. Why would you use a ranger when you can just plop a longbow on your warrior, and be just as effective as a ranger with a longbow, but with twice the armour? I can't see the pet being that huge of a deciding factor, particularly in PvP.
It's a longbow.
Also, here is the complete list of warrior and ranger longbow skills so you two can actually know what you're talking about rather than going all "the one skill I've seen and base an entire debate around". Ranger shortbow skills for comparison.
Anyway, I'm ready to drop the argument, since at this point, it's pretty meaningless. I'll just go on expecting a gunslinger class and an assassin class (I mean, they're classes that have had concept art leaked along with concept art for currently announced classes a while ago).
I'd just like to comment on this that balance isn't all about damage and armor, there are countless support skills to account for too. Rangers will bring with them traps, spirits (mmm, spirits) and various pet skills, whereas warriors bring shouts and banners. There's also a few non-weapon items such as warhorn, torch and shield that bring their abilities to the table as a consideration.
As a general rule I would agree with Jenosavel that there won't be a gunslinger class that is defined by guns simply because weapons won't be as class defining as they were in Guild Wars 1, but I would imagine that there will be an adventurer class that has a very gunslingery feel to it.
What I'm saying is that there won't be a gun-centric gunslinger class, but there'll no doubt be a class that feels like a gunslinger. Just like a ranger isn't bow-centric, but it still feels like a ranger because of the traps and spirits and general nature-y feel and whatnot.
If you see long range AOE damage as utilitarian, then that's a point on which we disagree. Long range nuking doesn't sound like it would be used just for pulling, although I could be partly basing that on the fact that someone mentioned the ANet in-house meta for a while included long-bow warrior groups. Until we get to play it for ourselves, though, there's really no point in arguing over it.
Also, thanks for those skill links. Without being able to see how they function, it's a bit hard to judge, but I am struck by the way there seems to be a matched set here. A lot of the skills seem to have a pair that are comparable in description, with the warrior getting fire and AOE where the ranger has plain single-target arrows. But without seeing them in action its hard to know if that's actually the case.
It will be interesting to see how traits play into things, because traits are supposed to offer a lot of variation and differentiation in the way a weapon plays on one character versus another of the same class. If all of these rangers start out with plain single-target longbow attacks because they need to go find traits that make them more flavorful, but the warrior is forever locked into AOE+fire, then the ranger would definitely be more interesting to play with the bow.
I'm also surprised that pin down is a warrior skill and not a ranger skill this time around. I wonder if the ranger will also have a utility skill with that kind of function, or if they have to wait until an enemy gets in their face before they start applying position control through their melee weapons. I'd be willing to bet some pet somewhere can apply crippling... but unless they work on the AI, which it didn't look like they had in the demo, it won't be nearly as useful.
I think its worth noting that ANet really do believe that the pet is the only reason to take a ranger, not the bow, whether or not we agree with them. They've flat out said that if you don't really want a pet, you'd be better off playing a different class with a bow than playing a ranger.
-source
If they work on the pet AI more I might be more inclined to give them room on that one, but from what I saw in the demo I felt like it was the same old pet from GW1, not even on the level of hero intelligence. The biggest problem I had was in positioning control, where it felt like my pet was either always off by itself in some remote corner fighting its own fights and ignoring me, or it was sitting at my heels ignoring the enemies that were attacking us all around. It didn't seem like there was much middle ground.
I think having some easy way to call targets for your pet, the way you could call targets for a team in GW1, would make a world of difference in the beastie's usefulness.
Also, I'm sure they'll make the pet less awful by release. The most common complaint I saw from people who played the demo at PAX or Gamescom was that the pet would die all the time, even when going 1v1 with a mob. I can't imagine that they'll leave it like that.
My problem was just that it never felt like the pet was reacting to what I was doing. It actually felt harder to control than my GW1 pets, though I admittedly have more experience than most with manipulating the GW1 pet AI, and therefore I might just be needing to adjust to its new behavior...
Any class can Tank? Tank dies only to be combat ressed by any other class? lots of heroic combat ressing throghout the fight? fighting giant behemoths?
It sounds to good to be true frankly, but I am happy the best MMO will be the one without a sub or paid for content AND will be on Steam.
Well, decent sized x-pacs every 6 months that you don't NEED > all the best kit / raids / content being in an in-game store > £8.99 a month.
At least in my mind.
You've just struck gold
That's just invitation for my imagination to go blissfully wild, so I'm trying my hardest to stay cautious in my optimism.
I am not a fan of cautious optimism.
Let me tell you a story.
I was hyped up as Hell for Warhammer Online. My friends and I all love the Warhammer fantasy IP so much, and when we heard about it, we immediately went crazy. We went absolutely crazy for however long it was, it felt like eons. In reality it was probably like a year or something like that where we were chomping at the bits to have this game.
We spent our weekends talking about it. We looked and salivated at all of the classes. We cursed every email wave that went out for the beta in which we were not included.
In the end? The game was alright. We all had some fun with it for a couple of months, and then we stopped playing because of many reasons, including inherent imbalance in the game between the factions and some general design stuff that was pretty off. Our consensus was that it was just not that great of a game.
In essence, Warhammer Online was great because of its hype. The game didn't really deliver, but it still gave me a year of fun, just thinking about it.
Now, don't take this the wrong way. I am not saying GW2 is going to be sub-par. From what I have heard, and the fact that I played GW1, and that it is easily one of the best MMOs I have ever played, by a large margin, I have not a sliver of doubt in my mind that Guild Wars 2 will be everything we hope for.
But, I encourage you to let the hype take you over. The achievement calculator for GW1, the incremental news releases, they're to generate this hype not only to generate popularity for this game, but to generate our enthusiasm. If you release yourself in it, it's like you're already playing.
And then, regardless of whether the game lives up to your impossibly high expectations of it, you can still enjoy it, because it will still be a great game, and because it's already given you so much.
Or the game will seem like a turgid pile because it couldn't meet your impossible expectations.
Well, you know, that all depends on whether or not you can put things in perspective. It's really just my two cents. I find myself happier for it, but if you have a hard time avoiding disappointment over anxiety, then that's obviously not the route for you.
I go into every game expecting it to have a slew of game breaking problems and being generally shit. I cherish the rare game that proves me wrong.
But that's just me.
I can't wait to group up with you then, and watch you cherish throwing a beer bottle at some dude's head in a bar brawl.
I find both philosophies to be valid on a game to game (movie to movie, book to book, album to album) basis. I think it's based on how much they did meet in your eyes, how willing you are to accept that your expectations were unreasonable to begin with, and how much of the end result was genuinely a sham.
Me, personally, I can't wait to kill a fucking dragon again.
It's just a difference of personality. I don't find myself disappointed by things I have overhyped. I find that when I expect the most out of something I end up enjoying what I find more than if I went into it expecting it to be bad.
It can go either way I suppose, but I feel like a lot of people who might enjoy things the same way as I do would be put off by fear of disappointment. Are we disagreeing right now?
Well, no. Different people are different.
Also, yay GW2, looks awesome, etc. ;-)
Only thing I dislike about the game is that it's not out yet.
You just taught me something!
That took a really long time to do on a cell phone.
But to keep myself from actually ruining games for myself, I like to keep handy the dose of realism. So in this particular case, the dynamic events not only have the potential to have bosses shaping the world and wrecking things, it most certainly is going to actually happen. There's no question... but I do have a rather large imagination, so instead of letting it run completely wild and imagining thousands of events that I will later be disappointed to not find, I prefer to go crazy over the few we know actually exist in the game.
I can't wait to blow up some Krait towers, for example, or uncover the Mighty Oooh. There's so much info we do have that I don't even need to make things up to frolic in sweet sweet hype... but I still want more. I could have swore the assassin reveal would have been out by this week at the latest, but clearly that was wrong. Here's to hoping for next week!
I like the way you think.