Curse

lacasner · Apr 01, 2007, 07:48 PM // 19:48

No one is getting an unfair ad.vantage by transfering skins

Hyprodimus Prime · Apr 01, 2007, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

JEFF STRAIN drom a different interview.

Quote:

So the team started creating a wishlist of all of the things they'd love to see added to Guild Wars and when they were done they realized it was too much to stuff into the existing game.
Instead it was a master plan for how to build the "ultimate Guild Wars game," Strain said.
But the plan required something to transition current players from the original campaigns into the new experience and, in many ways, that's where Eye of the North comes in.
Most central to that idea is the Eye's Hall of Monuments.
In the hall you can store achievements that can then be transferred to a Guild Wars 2 account.
This hall will be located in a sort of base of operations you can establish in Eye of the North. The instanced base will allow you to store not only the Eye of the North achievements in the form of monuments but the achievements earned in all three campaigns.
Every monument earned will unlock something, from heroes and pets to weapons, clothes and miniatures, in Guild Wars 2.
When you create your character in Guild Wars 2 you can choose a character from Guild War to inherit these unlocks from.

I guess it's like real inheritance, only one person can take the old couch, or picture or w/e monument it is. So if Hyprodimus Prime from GW1 got 15k Aeromancer, only one from GW2 can get that. I wonder if it stacks though. For example, can you stock up on scar eaters and transfer them to the new game?

I wonder how the new economy is going to function. We veterans may control it if enough GW1 can be transfered into GW2.

As for titles, I think its more like a name for yourself rather than an object one person can inherit. If my last name is *insert GW account name here* then all of my new GW2 characters will be remembered for their forefather's deeds.

And what about cross char-slot transfers? Can I give my new char my old monk scars and warrior armors? That would mean GW2 is more like Runescape and similar games where anyone can wear any type of armor.

Rurik Jangeer · Apr 02, 2007, 12:49 AM // 00:49

I'm going to go back and read it again, but from my interpretation of the above poster's quote, I believe our accomplishments in the three campaigns will unlock GW2 items rather than our own old ones. Hmm...

LadyNilene · Apr 02, 2007, 05:44 AM // 05:44

After reading the article, I'm just still not convinced that Guild Wars 2 is great. Who's to say that anet is going to say oh darn, we feel guild wars 2 is "bloated" now, we need to cancel it and make guild wars 3... Maybe it is just me being nitpicky, but unless Anet can genuinely say that they wont abbandon gw2 like they did with gw...im just not too thrilled about gw2's release, i wont say i wont get it, cause chances are, i will, but it better be good, and worth my time...so help me if they cancel it as well because its "bloated".

Knightsaber Sith · Apr 02, 2007, 05:48 AM // 05:48

Latest Gaile talk says more official word on Hall of Monuments coming later this week.

Stay tuned for more information.

bodyboarder · Apr 02, 2007, 07:20 AM // 07:20

If we can carry over fow armour that would be gr8 but if we cant its going to be disappointing but ill still get GW2 in any case

Frostlight · Apr 02, 2007, 07:50 AM // 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Close, but those follow the universal D&D rules, making them rather different--and very easy to transfer characters over.

There are no universal GW rules. They've already said the classes in their current forms won't all continue to exist--how could you transfer your Assassin when they drop Assassins entirely?

Phantasie, Dungeon Master, Bard's Tale, Wizardry...?

And according to available information, some verions of Bard's Tale allowed character imports from Ultima and Wizardry, while Wizardry II actually required character import from Wizardry I. Legend of Faerghail also allowed import from the Phantasie series.

Character import is a pretty standard feature from a long time ago.

artay · Apr 02, 2007, 08:25 AM // 08:25

I hope GW:2 Gives everyone a fresh start, you know, evens the playing field. So no one will have a "head start". I enjoy early stages of games where everyone is a "newbie"

Heres hoping

Artay, of the Frozen Wastes

TheLichMonky · Apr 02, 2007, 09:43 AM // 09:43

Lol u all have to realize something, by the time this comes out 90% of you all will have quit and wont care about half this, and rank will mean less than it currently does.. theres not really a point to caring about this stuff.

Bryant Again · Apr 02, 2007, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frostlight

Phantasie, Dungeon Master, Bard's Tale, Wizardry...?

And according to available information, some verions of Bard's Tale allowed character imports from Ultima and Wizardry, while Wizardry II actually required character import from Wizardry I. Legend of Faerghail also allowed import from the Phantasie series.

Character import is a pretty standard feature from a long time ago.

Hm. Lookin' these up...

Phantisie I and II use the same engine, until it got to the third one, where it states "graphics was improved", so I dunno how different the engine is there.

Didn't find a whole lot about Dungeon Master.

The Bard's Tale series looks pretty similar, but I've only seen I and II screenshots, but the mechanics sound the same.

Wizardy all looks the same, using the same neon colors (until it got to the larger console platforms, but there wasn't much of a way for character transfer).

Guild Wars is actually following a formula very similiar to these games. In these games, you use your character from the first campaign and story through another campaign and story, just like Guild Wars. Guild Wars 2 will be different since it's 100 years into the future.

---

In order for there to be logical character transfer between GW I and II, it's gonna need to have a similar engine. While the GWII article said that they're going to use the GWI engine as a base, they're going to be revamping things from there on.

It's also going to be a hundred years in the future, so that still goes against the character transfer logic.

Fact is, character transfer shouldn't matter. If they allowed character transfer, it would have to be logical to the story. If they don't have character transfer, because it conflicts with the story, so what? It's still going to be a fun game. The fact people are upset about it and saying they've "wasted their time" with GW I ("so all the fun you've had is wasted?") is very upsetting.

Lonesamurai · Apr 02, 2007, 01:08 PM // 13:08

honestly, i don't want character transfer as i fully intend to carry on making and playing characters in GW1 and then carrying on thier family line in GW2

MrTickle · Apr 02, 2007, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

...They've already said the classes in their current forms won't all continue to exist--how could you transfer your Assassin when they drop Assassins entirely?

I suppose there will be a need for extra merchants

clawofcrimson · Apr 02, 2007, 04:27 PM // 16:27

[QUOTE=Loviatar]

Quote:

from the PCGamer on hall of monuments

i quote
[/B].

you put the wrong words in bold... it says weapons that you've 'earned'... obviously this is something we have'nt seen yet. I did not 'earn' my weapons i found them on dead bodies or in chests...

but as this (semantics) is impossible to argue... I'll just say that I'd be willing to bet that your wrong. we will see in the coming weeks

you should read the rest of my post though, I still dont see why people would want to take over their weapons when they will be visually inferior to the new ones.

not to mention the weapon stats will most likely change (we already know the armour system is) so how do you expect A-net will accomplish all this?

~visually update all the GW1 weapons to make their game graphically impressive instead of old old old school?

~change the stats on all GW1 weapons to match the stats on GW2? even the non max ones?

~Fit all the new races with every armour type in GW1

.......um....no... do you even expect new content with this kind of wish list?

Mordakai · Apr 02, 2007, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Bah, I was ignoring this thread, but now feel compelled to join in.

My two cents:

I still think Titles will be the only thing totally transferable from Guild Wars 1 to Guild Wars 2, it sounds like everything else will be a new item that will be unlocked. (And, titles probably won't even show up on your new Character. They might just be immortalized in some way in a Persistant or Instanced part of the world).

Who really knows? The information so far is so incomplete and vague it can obviously be interpreted in many ways. Just wait until we hear more info, and then we can really start discussing.

Frostlight · Apr 02, 2007, 04:50 PM // 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Hm. Lookin' these up...

Phantisie I and II use the same engine, until it got to the third one, where it states "graphics was improved", so I dunno how different the engine is there.

Didn't find a whole lot about Dungeon Master.

The Bard's Tale series looks pretty similar, but I've only seen I and II screenshots, but the mechanics sound the same.

Wizardy all looks the same, using the same neon colors (until it got to the larger console platforms, but there wasn't much of a way for character transfer).

Guild Wars is actually following a formula very similiar to these games. In these games, you use your character from the first campaign and story through another campaign and story, just like Guild Wars. Guild Wars 2 will be different since it's 100 years into the future.

---

In order for there to be logical character transfer between GW I and II, it's gonna need to have a similar engine. While the GWII article said that they're going to use the GWI engine as a base, they're going to be revamping things from there on.

It's also going to be a hundred years in the future, so that still goes against the character transfer logic.

Fact is, character transfer shouldn't matter. If they allowed character transfer, it would have to be logical to the story. If they don't have character transfer, because it conflicts with the story, so what? It's still going to be a fun game. The fact people are upset about it and saying they've "wasted their time" with GW I ("so all the fun you've had is wasted?") is very upsetting.

My point was to refute the claims that character transfer is impractical, ridiculous, or even non-existent. And to answer the challenge earlier in the thread to name any game that allows this.

A developer who truly intends to allow partial or total character import can find many ways to make it happen, in terms of lore, game mechanics and technical solutions. Clearly, this is not going to happen with GW2, but it's certainly not because character transfer is somehow an outlandish idea in and of itself.

Mordakai · Apr 02, 2007, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frostlight

A developer who truly intends to allow partial or total character import can find many ways to make it happen, in terms of lore, game mechanics and technical solutions. Clearly, this is not going to happen with GW2, but it's certainly not because character transfer is somehow an outlandish idea in and of itself.

You're correct. Anet could spend hundreds of hours (or more!) figuring out how to transfer millions of old characters from old mechanics to the new, giving the "equivalent" skills and abilities, and for all their trouble will be flamed for "not doing it right."

Or, they could start fresh, with no millionaires destroying a game that's supposed to appeal to new players, and no level 20 characters running around at the beginning.

It's a choice, and IMO, Anet made the right one. Start over FTW.

clawofcrimson · Apr 02, 2007, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Bah, I was ignoring this thread, but now feel compelled to join in.
Just wait until we hear more info, and then we can really start discussing.

yeah... then the poop will really hit the fan

Sir Skullcrasher · Apr 02, 2007, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Why can't we just leave A-Net alone and let them do what they must for GW2?

HawkofStorms · Apr 02, 2007, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyNilene

After reading the article, I'm just still not convinced that Guild Wars 2 is great. Who's to say that anet is going to say oh darn, we feel guild wars 2 is "bloated" now, we need to cancel it and make guild wars 3... Maybe it is just me being nitpicky, but unless Anet can genuinely say that they wont abbandon gw2 like they did with gw...im just not too thrilled about gw2's release, i wont say i wont get it, cause chances are, i will, but it better be good, and worth my time...so help me if they cancel it as well because its "bloated".

Ummm.. they already said they are not abandoning GW1. They are keeping the servers up and a development team will keep working on it to bring us events. Just because there is something new (GW2) doesn't mean GW will be going anywhere. Get your facts straight first.

And also, get over it. Sequels happen. All good things come to an end, etc.

Frostlight · Apr 03, 2007, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

You're correct. Anet could spend hundreds of hours (or more!) figuring out how to transfer millions of old characters from old mechanics to the new, giving the "equivalent" skills and abilities, and for all their trouble will be flamed for "not doing it right."

Or, they could start fresh, with no millionaires destroying a game that's supposed to appeal to new players, and no level 20 characters running around at the beginning.

It's a choice, and IMO, Anet made the right one. Start over FTW.

Or, they could do a transfer like what other RPGs have done: make the story fit, strip all items from the transferred characters, and make all new and imported characters start at the same level.

Anet certainly would be making the right choice if it's between what they said they were going to do, and what you suggested (which is by no means the only way to go about it).