Talk:Soldier

the warrior is not "currently confirmed" yet. --174.130.8.142 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it pretty much is. Especially with the newly emphasized quote by ANet. 173.190.17.186 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else feeling the second Soldier class will be a type of bombardier or grenadier? Those guns will have to play a role soon.

IP is correct. The Warrior used in the interview could likely be a place holder for spoiler prevention.--Knighthonor 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

im thinking your paladin (mabey paragon) class may make it in.as much as a hate their concept (Healing tanks? Wtf?) --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They've described warrior/elementalist interaction in some detail, so yes, we can consider it confirmed, or all the other facts we got about elementalists aren't confirmed. If they were trying to placeholderize or talk around it, they'd be a bit more vague and not just use the word 'warrior' all the time. And yes, they used an uncapitalized w for warrior- but they also used an uncapitalized e for elementalist. Either way, this issue is raised in multiple different pages, so perhaps it's a good idea to keep the discussion limited to, say, the professions talk page? NilePenguin 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Warrior, Ranger, and Necromancer have all been mentioned. But this doesn't mean they are confirmed. They are implied and the use of said names could easily be placeholders as to avoid spoiling the unveiling, carefully chosen examples which uses professions that relate very closely to the GW1 professions. It's not like that is impossible to do. I say have any mention of these three as possible professions or implied professions in such articles where they are mentioned. -- Konig/talk 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The warrior has been confirmed: The elementalist has a mechanic where he atunes to different elements – we had a hard time reconciling this with the warrior, who’s another one of our professions[...]"(source).-- Shew ♠♠♠ 23:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Shew, that article has been used in the discussion previously. I would not consider the warrior confirmed until I see the warrior on the Guild Wars 2 website... We all know it is going to be a profession, but not the less it is not officially confirmed. Until then, we should stick with it being a possibility. As I said before "pretty much confirmed doesn't cut it". --hnzdvn 23:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That quote is coming straight from an ANet employee's mouth. Doesn't get much better than that. Just because there isn't a page on the site doesn't mean it's not confirmed.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't like using interviews as verbatim sources, I have nothing against the Warrior being mentioned now. -- Konig/talk 01:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering Arenanet has been re-using most of the old names so far, (IE. Meteor Shower, Elementalist) I wouldn't be surprised if they keep the name as Warrior. Can we also then say that Necromancer and Ranger have been confirmed, or should we wait until the next article which hints at that. I'm speculating that they kept mentioning warrior combinations so that they can reveal the warrior next, and mention their combined power with another class and unveil that class next, and so on. Taros 02:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to add them, it just means they'll have to be deleted later if we're wrong. People are excited over this, let them have their fun. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shew - caution is fine, but this is overly and unnecessarily cautious. The official voice of ArenaNet has confirmed it - it just isn't on the website yet. A lot of our information has been from websites other than the official website, yet we still document that information because it's from an official source. -- pling 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that the professions nav is now categorized by profession type (soldier, etc.), I guess we can't do anything about it, since we don't know which type the warrior is (obviously, it's a soldier, but that's an assumption).-- Shew ♠♠♠ 16:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Neil, My Paladin idea isnt a Healer. I put that in the comments. I dont like the idea of a Paladin Healer. Paladins are Tanks, like DnD. Melee Support fighters, and 2hander damage fighters. With Healing effects, but not nearly a healing class.Anyway, IMO my Cleric class idea may be used as the new healer.--Knighthonor 03:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If Other Soldier is a Paladin/HolyWarrior will you play it

Just wondering, how many others been waiting for a Crusader profession, and how many people would be interested in a Holy Soldier profession--Knighthonor 23:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, paladins are overplayed in MMOs already. I seriously doubt they'll make a profession that basically becomes a Warrior/Monk. --Kyoshi (Talk) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet it will be a paragon-esque profession. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I look forward to--Knighthonor 02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just a picture that could be of anything, given the color scaling. It doesn't specify alignment or profession or even race. You can look forward to it because it's concept art which inspired some part of the game. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Still its a Soldier from the armor.--Knighthonor 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's concept art. It could be of anything. Even nothing, or rather something that will not be included in the game at all. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Every mmorpg has an warrior and in 95% from them it calls warrior becouse is more simple like u to understand when it calls "Warrior" or "warrior" so its 100% sure (almost 100%) that g2 will have an warr and it has been confirmed in three interviews so more evidence isnt needed we know even skills of the warrior now what do we need to know to play with it???? no, its enough for me and i think its enough for u too ,or????

1. , Sign your comments.
2. , See Warrior --Neil2250 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever the other solider class is I hope that its some type of magically inclined soldier type.... otherwise, I won't touch it :P --hnzdvn 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely play it if it's some kind of battlemage. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As would I, I hope its is something similar to the Arcane Warrior from Dragon Age... those were fun to play. --hnzdvn 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will absolutely play it. I have always loved the paladin archetype. as for the cliche paladin, i doubt it will be the classic holy warrior. I think it'll be heavily influenced by the Paragon, and may even be named as such. But i doubt it will be magical, but more like how the paragon uses chants and sounts, it'll have non-high arcane magic, and more of the party buff, singing aura thing, which i think is unique to GW and is awesome! 99.99.204.188 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pally or holly warrior no i would not play it. we are allready getting scary close to haveing Elves in this game i think they should pull back before we get too gay. also ONE OF TWO...TWOO 2-OOOH soldier professions. come on give us a third stop being lazy!72.57.186.231 14:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a stretch to say we even need two, apart from just stopping players from whining that they only get one option if they want to be a heavy class. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminology?

Shouldn't that be "Either" not "Any?" Zolann The Irreverent 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminology 2

I may be being a bit anal, but from this bit of the combat developer notes 2

"Each of these professions is roughly categorized by the type of armor they wear: scholars wear light armor, adventurers wear medium armor, and soldiers wear heavy armor. Currently there are three scholar professions, three adventurer professions and two soldier professions."

it seems to me that a soldier is someone who wears heavy armor, not someone who is a soldier profession, so the page should be something like;

A soldier is a character who wears heavy armor

Soldier Professions

There are two soldier professions. Only the warrior has been confirmed.

The pages on scholars and adventurers would also need to be changed similarly. I'll go ahead and do it if some people agree.Thering 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"a soldier is someone who wears heavy armor, not someone who is a soldier profession" A soldier wears heavy armor, and a soldier profession wears heavy armor, so a soldier is a soldier profession. I don't see what gives you the idea there's a distinction between such similar terms. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way it is now defines soldiers by their class, not by the armor they wear. Atm a soldier is someone who is a warrior or an unknown other heavy armor wearing class. My way above makes it so's a soldier is someone who wears heavy armor. They are very similar, but i did start with "I may be being a bit anal". I do think that the way it's written at the moment makes the page a bit clumsy - the page starts by saying a soldier *profession*, not a soldier, is... also i just realised (again anal) but a soldier profession doesn't wear anything cos its an abstract thing; A soldier profession contains people who wear heavy armor Thering 00:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's anal, I'll give you that. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sets of Armor

We need to have a sub-category for player armor. Each "type" of armor (IE: Black Citadel human armor vs Black Citadel Charr armor or something) should be pictured and listed just like Guild Wars 1 Armor was ex: [1] Just a necessary suggestion.--174.101.255.217 03:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't have the time to do it. "Heavy Armor" Redirects here, I think there needs to be a page like Light armor, at least. Direpinnacle 00:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)