(Question for the Community) Why dont you want a new set of classes for Guild Wars 2?

[Knighthonor]

There has been vast discussions going on over the Class direction for Guild Wars 2. Both here and on other forums fans sites.

Even me and my friends had a dispute on weather GW2 should get completely new classes or just use the same old classes we been playing with for years.


I dont want to see the old Classes return. But of course, the argument comes up, talking about how GW2 will be Easier to Balance if ANET sticks to using the Old Classes. But I told them, "How would you know what would be easier to Balance when you do not know anything mechanic wise about the new game?"

It is a NEW game after all, based on the Guild Wars universe.

Another argument that comes up, is the lore. People on this forum here for example, say things like "How can New classes be added to the game if they dont fit current lore?"
Well, this has never stopped ANET before from adding New Lore to fit New Classes back in GW1, so why would it be harder or any different?
"Come now" I say "Do New features like Gunner Class fit the lore from GW1? GW1 didnt have Gunners, yet somehow lore evolved over 250 years to develop Gunner Class, so why would any other Newly Designed Class not fit into a good lore adaption?"

The way I see it, the old classes are boring now. I want 8 new classes, not the same old classes. I want new Combat mechanics, But for mechanics I dont mind reusing some old mechanics, as long as its in a different play style and archetype or something.

[Malchior Devenholm]

Basically, this is Guild Wars 2, so it should function on the original classes of Guild Wars.

Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...(As in don't just make new classes on the spot, by all means please fix the OP aspects of the current classes )

[Maglama]

Good argument, Knighthonor. I see it as most of the classes being revamped, fused, or replaced. To add something new, it is possible that a class or two may be replaced with brand new ones. Classes that return will most likely be revamped.

[Chronologix]

The thing about balance is that the developers have control over the content, so it is not the content that is the main balance issue, it is the knowledge of the developers to balance them.

Doesn't matter if it is a new game or not, it can have all these new mechanics and whatnot but in the end, if they can't balance it, it should not be added.

[Bias]

Because GW2 is a new game, and not just an expansion, we'll hopefully see Anet spinning off in new directions and providing fresh classes and mechanics, while retaining inspiration from GW1.

Imagine how boring it would be from a dev's perspective to spend several more years re-hashing what you've already created in GW1.

[C410V1370]

I think they should reinvent the classes inspired on the first games.
I know that I dont want to see everything exactly the same that in GW1.

[Trandoshanjake]

Keep the classes the same, or nearly the same. They all work pretty well, and remain diverse and interesting, so there is no reason to change them.

[Hidden Outcast]

Originally Posted by Knighthonor

There has been vast discussions going on over the Class direction for Guild Wars 2. Both here and on other forums fans sites.

Even me and my friends had a dispute on weather GW2 should get completely new classes or just use the same old classes we been playing with for years.


I dont want to see the old Classes return. But of course, the argument comes up, talking about how GW2 will be Easier to Balance if ANET sticks to using the Old Classes. But I told them, "How would you know what would be easier to Balance when you do not know anything mechanic wise about the new game?"

It is a NEW game after all, based on the Guild Wars universe.

Another argument that comes up, is the lore. People on this forum here for example, say things like "How can New classes be added to the game if they dont fit current lore?"
Well, this has never stopped ANET before from adding New Lore to fit New Classes back in GW1, so why would it be harder or any different?
"Come now" I say "Do New features like Gunner Class fit the lore from GW1? GW1 didnt have Gunners, yet somehow lore evolved over 250 years to develop Gunner Class, so why would any other Newly Designed Class not fit into a good lore adaption?"

The way I see it, the old classes are boring now. I want 8 new classes, not the same old classes. I want new Combat mechanics, But for mechanics I dont mind reusing some old mechanics, as long as its in a different play style and archetype or something.

gunner isnt a class.. its a passive thing that anyone can use

[IDarko]

I don't want the exact classes to come back. But the same archetypes would be fine for me.
I expect them to create brand new classes. But I don't care if they use the same names.

If there is ranged class that can easily interrupt stuff. i'm happy ;D

[Arghore]

Originally Posted by Hidden Outcast

gunner isnt a class.. its a passive thing that anyone can use

Gunner might be a class, we dont know yet, it just has been said that guns can be used by all races... so all races might have a gunner class, or its a 'ranged' weapon, or weapons come with their own attribute, which are free to choose by every profession ... so, stating this as fact is wrong, because the information can be interpreted in many ways...

[Maglama]

Perhaps the range class will be able to utilize bows and guns. Maybe it won't exactly be a Ranger, but a Marksman, one profound in the use of munitions/projectiles. I don't think we will need two range classes.

[Grunntar]

Originally Posted by Hidden Outcast

gunner isnt a class.. its a passive thing that anyone can use

..as far as you know! Point is, we don't know. It could be. (But God, I hope not!)

In my humble opinion, they should use the original classes as guidelines, and build six to eight optimized classes from the ground up. There will be obvious similarities between the new classes and old classes, but I say ditch the baggage of the way it "used to work."

Make it work right, and make it balanced from the outset!

As for lore, and it's impact on class selection, that's meaningless. Did the lore of not having Assassins in Prophecies change, or have any kind of meaning for the release Factions? No! And that was the same game...

Let Guild Wars 2 have what it needs to have to be fun and successful.

[Abbadon]

Well said Knighthonor, I'm in full agreement with you.

[Konig Des Todes]

Originally Posted by Knighthonor

Another argument that comes up, is the lore. People on this forum here for example, say things like "How can New classes be added to the game if they dont fit current lore?"
Well, this has never stopped ANET before from adding New Lore to fit New Classes back in GW1, so why would it be harder or any different?

You're not entirely wrong. They made sure the professions were made to fit lore, and the new professions came with new land. The professions need to make sense in the land we already have, just given time to be made. Also, it isn't hard to fit new professions into lore, but people ignore this and go with whatever they want, which ignores the lore and in fact how it is put in doesn't work with lore.

Originally Posted by Knighthonor

I dont want to see the old Classes return. But of course, the argument comes up, talking about how GW2 will be Easier to Balance if ANET sticks to using the Old Classes. But I told them, "How would you know what would be easier to Balance when you do not know anything mechanic wise about the new game?"

It is a NEW game after all, based on the Guild Wars universe.

Originally Posted by Knighthonor

The way I see it, the old classes are boring now. I want 8 new classes, not the same old classes. I want new Combat mechanics, But for mechanics I dont mind reusing some old mechanics, as long as its in a different play style and archetype or something.

The thing is, what happened to the old classes? With things like lore, it isn't just what is added, it is what is existing. This is a concept you never seem to grasp.

But as for new professions. I see nothing against them, as long as they are not simple add ons. However, due to the "what happens to them" issue, the only professions I see being new would be merges - and a possible scientific profession, such as a Gunner or Sabre's Alchemist profession ideas.

I don't think the professions should be removed and replaced. Merged? Sure. Revamped? Definably.

Also, no adding new professions without doing something about old professions to reduce the number, as just adding onto the 10 existing professions will cause more imbalance than in GW1 after Nightfall.

I still say, reduce the number to 6 or 7 by merging the expansion professions into core professions, and if 7, one should be some technological/scientific profession.

Besides, I see no reason why to give the professions a completely new look, and such a drastic change in professions would be hard, if at all possible, to explain in lore while making sense and it not being like WoW's lore.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Mister_Smiley]

Well i think that they will revamp the classes or merged some of them into a new profession class, but i think well see some of the names return just with different options, of course this is what i think, till Anet gives them to us later in the year, we just get to speculate.

[Prince Zorkian]

Frankly, the classes used in GW1 are very similar to the standards of other games. Sometimes different names, but same basic categories. Some examples are Warrior = Paladin = Fighter = Knight, Elementatist = Mage = Wizard = Witch, Ranger = Druid = fighter, Monk = Healer and Necromancer is pretty standard name for all death casters. Anyway, the only class I can think of as being "original" is the Mesmer, but even them are pretty similar to Bard or Thieves. I understand that are differences often within those = classes, but overall they are pretty similar. - Melee, Range, Magic, control over Death, Healer, and Trickery
My point, I don;t care what the classes are called, the odds are they are going to still be within the general guidelines and I'll still enjoy the game even if they are still named the same as GW1

[Slash Beast]

I'm okay with completely new classes. In fact, i've suggested it myself several times in the past. I'm also okay with the idea of some new and some old. I'd just rather not see ALL old professions return and work the exact same way as before. That'd be bland and a bit disappointing.

[Sabre Wolf]

Professions, no matter what the game, has 4 basic professions...

~ Melee
~ Ranged
~ Healer
~ Offensive Caster

Guild Wars, broke the Offensive Caster into 3 extra roles... Ele, Necro and Mes. Which was fine, because each had its own version of "Offensive Caster".

The 4 professions after that, Sin, Rit, Dev and Para, added and revamped the above... but also, at the sametime combined them, which in-turn made the game too complex.

I don't care what the professions in GW2 are, as long as they hold the basic concept without directly combining them, outside of the dual profession concept.

[Rick Batman]

I want to see a mix - some old standards (especially unique takes on rarer archetypes, like the Mesmer and Necromancer) with some new things to mix it up. With the world changing so much in 250 years, I'd love to see a gunner/engineer/gadgeteer profession, and more diversity within medium/heavy armor archetypes (Ranger and Warrior were the only representations of this in Prophecies).

[Feathermoore]

revamp yes. Erase? heck no.

Anet has said they are keeping the good, learning from their mistakes, and making a better game. Not only that, but it is a sequel.

Would you expect starcraft 2 to get rid of zerglings? No, that would be insane as the fans all expect the unit. Instead, they changed the zerglings in SC2 to have the baneling morph, and tweaked them a bit.

Merge, tweak, embellish, twist, and rehash are all things I want, and expect anet to do. Erase and make anew is not really an option they have (realistically).