Talk:Trait/Archive 1

Yet another thing that adds to customization. XD-- Shew 01:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If a trait is a passive thing, is it still "activated" to be put into effect? I mean, surely an elementalist wouldn't permanently be immune to being knocked back... would they? I guess it could be cool, but still, I'm curious. xD 75.90.149.4 03:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got a lot of questions about these traits - how many active at once? Can you change them easily? How do you "build them up"? What on earth do you mean by intrinsic? -> is passive a correct interpretation of this? Are they only a part of the profession or are there traits you can get from your race or generic ones you can get from story progression? One additional fact leaves 100 additional questions! :) -- Aspectacle  03:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also wonder if traits can benefit teams, guilds, etc. Is there a limit to traits? Do you use some sort of skill point or something to "obtain" a trait? So many questions :P You almost wish you could have an hour or something to sit down and ask all the questions on your mind... though I suppose that could ruin some of the surprises ;) Nonetheless, it would be fun. Oooh I hope they reveal more stuff sooon!! >_< Like maybe another profession tomorrow, or... or... Something! Lol 75.90.149.4 03:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

They need to get specific about these things so that we can plan out our characters!-- Shew 04:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Inorite? --Naoroji 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess (for at least Stone Boot) is that after traits will be disabled after they take effect (after preventing a throw in this case) and will recharge before helping you again. And "building traits up" will make them recharge faster and have a stronger effect (preventing more powerful throws). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is just theorycrafting, but it could be some type of tradoff on the stone boots trait. Such as if someone would've knocked you down, you aren't, but all of your skills are disabled for 2 seconds (but your not on your butt and not interupted). That could either be good or bad, and so it would fit that you could turn on/off the passive trait. --Xerelin 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this says traits only affect the first five skills (it doesn't say ONLY but it implies it), obviously traits do more than affect the first fives skills on your bar, things like weapon swapping faster isn't intrinsicaly only your first fives skill, better example, stone boots has nothing to do with your first five skills, and to go further banners and shouts (even in the example the gave on the MAIN SITE have nothing to do with the first five skills except the final thrust example.) --71.55.47.43 05:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is really necessary gather all known traits on this page. Because in that case list is gonna be very long. AoshimaMichio 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So im just thinking how many traits we can have? Cause some of them give + 75 to some stat's so it sounds over power to me ih you can have more than 10--Azertah 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's 3 in both the main lines, 1 major in each, 2 for main hands with 1 major I think, 1 for offhands, and 3 for two-handed with 1 major I think. So if you do the math it's 12 for everyone but ele who has 18. Of course the weapon traits only apply to the weapon and elemental traits to the element (I think, I'm not sure about elemental ones, probably though). Shadowed Ritualist 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New Traits

On the official Guild Wars 2 website on the ele page the last sentence of each paragraph on the different element (air,earth,fire,water) says what trait you get for just attuning to that element. - Giant Nuker 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a trait, that's a buff. Traits are going to be like "talents" in other MMO games, as best I can tell. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds cool--Knighthonor 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Traits can be built up?

Which interview said so? Also, what does it mean really? Traits gain EXP as well? --Naoroji 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[1]. 4th paragraph under the "Rethinking combat" section. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

agin sound like a system similar to Talent trees--Knighthonor 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else notice this? from [2] "A player has many ways of progressing in Guild Wars 2 and events are only one of the many ways he or she has of experiencing the world. A player who doesn’t have an event occurring near them has many choices of things to do (including exploring a little and probably finding an event fairly quickly) such as following their personal storyline, earning achievements, discovering and earning traits, or completing collections. There is no end to the variety and amount of content available to players." It's nice to know that you'll be able to get more traits as you progress in the story. Lysander Ducor 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Class Based Traits

I got to thinking about why did they seperate the professions into three groups. imo this is more than formalizing the armor groupings. I think that there may be some connection to Traits. So an Elementalist and a 'necromancer' have a few shared traits. Just a few musings.--Corsair 01:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

if the different armor groups get shared traits at the most i think it'd be something like: heavy armor gets a -% damage taken trait, while light armor increase's movement skill duration %. but at i just think they put them into different armor groups so all light armor user's can wear all types of light armor and heavy can only where heavy armor etc. --AlbinoAce 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Traits Overview

New info http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/traits-overview/ --_{I Am}Legion talk 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

~Does this mean norn don't have traits that they can only have at being a swordsman, that another race can never have, thus making the norn better swordsman/women~ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.167.21 (talk).

No racial bonuses?

"There are no racial traits because of the effect they had on game balance. This means that a particular race cannot get traits which make them better than another at a profession. For example, an asura will be as good as a norn at combat which might require focus on strength."

This is really disappointing to me. It makes no sense to have some puny asura with a greatsword twice as heavy as him hitting for as much as a nine-foot-tall Norn who could crush him with one finger. I was really hoping to see something like the racial bonuses in the Elder Scrolls games, but now it seems as if there will be little reason to choose between something like an Asura warrior and a Norn warrior aside from racial skills. ~ Bow 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It also pigeonholes races into certain professions. Who would want to play an Asura Warrior when a Norn does it twice as well? Vice versa for an Asura Elementalist. Racial bonuses aren't and never will be a good idea. --Odal talk 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Honestly, in elder scrolls, everyone made a Breton caster. And if you said "not me" then congratulations, you're the type to make an asuran warrior. Without these bonuses, we are free to make anything we want. I really can't say it better than Odal Venom20 12:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bleh. ~ Bow 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more the type to make just about everything, personallly. I'm glad anything can be proficient as anything... it may help tone down my altoholism, and make it less damaging. In TES3, I've played just about every combination of race and archetype I can think of over the years >.< 24.89.47.33 05:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who prefers to make maverick characters that don't fit cultural molds, I too am very glad the devs had the sense to omit this kind of thing. Arshay Duskbrow 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

/War stomp --Neil • 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is just a lazy way to balance the game, by making everyone equal. They could've made Asura much weaker physically as a trait, but having a different trait, allowing you to summon a golem to jump into and be a better warrior for a duration of time than say the Norn. This would add more variety, while keeping some form of balance. Instead, we are going to see Vekk wielding a sword 4 times taller than he is running around killing Norns by gashing at their feet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.223.136 (talk • contribs).

I'd say that sort of thing offers a heck of a lot more "variety" than what you're talking about... Arshay Duskbrow 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm also disappointed that there aren't racial traits, although I can understand why ANet did it. I would have preferred a system whereby each race's trait can be fine-tuned into an advantage for their particular profession (e.g. an Asuran Warrior may not have the sheer size and brute strength of a Norn or even a Human Warrior, but they could make up for it by incorporating Asuran technology into their weapons, such as using magical flame-swords, or having a 'battle-golem' that they ride around in like a mech. Human Warriors may place more emphasis on finesse and parrying in combat, allowing them access to skills like Riposte.

But I understand that this would create an inordinate amount of work for ANet as far as balance and maintenance going forward was concerned, so I'll just shrug and try to get used to the idea of an Asuran Warrior hacking at one of Zhaitan's toes until he dies. :P - 210.18.195.129 07:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to sign in. >.< - Zaxares 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) tl;dr Asura Warrior still deals equal damage to Norn Warrior as Norn would the other way 'round. They also get the same traits. Realistic no. Balanced yes.- Infinite - talk 12:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest...

a split (separate pages for each professions traits.) This is getting unwieldy and is (currently) the longest page on the wiki... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, especially if there are going to be over 100 traits for each profession. ~ Bow | 21:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah its like...BAM 400 Lines just to document things (and ur probs only looking for a couple...) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Split them into pages, it will only get longer the more we find out, and the more classes that get announced. --Damarus 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...800 traits all on the same page would be bad, even in table form. I'm also working on traits by class navbars (i.e. Necromancer: Major Blood Rituals, Minor Blood Rituals, Major Soul Reaping, Minor Soul Reaping, Major Mainhand Axe, etc...)Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this page makes me want to vomit on a small armadillo. Eive 23:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I detect animal cruelty... anyway...still working on nav templates... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, and, in fact, I can start moving them now, if that is the consensus. - ThatOneGuy 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What colors should the Necro table be (ideally five different colors SR/BR major, SR/BR Minor, Weapons Major, Weapons MInor and title) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 03:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

SO um...how should I format this? Cuz currently, the navbar would be the size of several individual trait pages...I could make it collapsible...or we could do it by line...I need a second opinion Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well to start you probably ought to add horizontal lines to help people find exactly what they're looking for and to shrink the horizontal size of it (it's a little bigger than necessary). As for colors, I say yellow for warrior, light green for rangers, red for elementalists, dark green for necromancers, and purple for mesmers once they're confirmed. If assassins ever come, go for a gray. I'm sure you can figure out the correct tints yourself ;). Also, to be honest once the icons for these traits are released (I assume they will have icons), turn it into a grid-table thing. Or, you could do it like the skill tables are laid out in the GW1 wiki. - ThatOneGuy 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I support splitting this, it'd be much cleaner with seperate lists. Shadowed Ritualist 01:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the split - this is is already messy and going to get worse as we learn more. Lillium 09:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

done. With 100 (or so) traits per class and 8 classes, I can just imagine what the page would look like with 800 (or so) traits on it Venom20 04:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Really like the look of the page now, especially as we get the final 4 professions. Konvay the Conveyer 07:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Common traits

The attribute-boosting traits seem to be available to several professions. Since they're pretty standard and fairly self-explanatory, maybe combine all of those pages and make a chart of which professions have access to which attribute-boosting traits? Manifold 23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For the attribute-boosting traits, does it go Minor->Normal->Superior? If it does, then the links to the 'normal' attribute-boosting traits are actually linking to the attributes themselves. And I don't know how to get the values for the normal boost traits to make new pages for them. (Xu Davella 04:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

I couldn't find any trait link that didn't go to "Name (trait)". Normals give +25, though. Manifold 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Sorry to bother, but can anyone explain to me if the traits system will be similar to the trinkets in the Sin Mark online flash game on Armor Games? So far, it seems like they are, and I like the idea. Lysander Ducor 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda similar, but I'm not sure because I just went and played sin mark for all of five minutes, you have a couple for each weapon set/attunement for eles, and 1-2 general lines. 1 major trait for each, and I think 3 minors, maybe 4. But yeah, pretty much. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Shadowed Ritualist (talk).

Redistribution

Anyone know how redistribution might work here? I hope it is possible. Venom20 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You will be able to respec trait slots every time you want to by simply drag-dropping the traits you already unlocked on the correspondant slot while not involved in a fight action. Source: Guild Wars 2 official site, Traits overview. The same will be for the last 5 skill slots, while there s no confirmation on a similar mechanic speaking about stats respec. By the way, here is the quote from Ben Miller, Game Designer on Guild Wars 2 : "We want experimentation with traits to be fun and engaging, so we've made the rules for changing traits extremely flexible. With no in-game cost, you can respec at will, outside of combat."CaiusTheBig 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Caius, I was hoping it would be like that Venom20 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Trait Navs

(/resurrects-long-dead-discussion) I wanted to get people's opinions on collapsing profession trait navs. shown here. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Again with the colours. I'm icky about the colour set-up. Maybe stick to the Ranger version but start with a bg colour line and then do a blank line -so opposite of the current bg's per line-. - Infinite - talk 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Colors are a whole different can of worms. I just used my personal color choices, we can use the typical colors until we finish that lengthy discussion. I just wanted to see the opinions on the navs themselves. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The navs are fine, imo. :) - Infinite - talk 11:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So I was thinking about how the navs I have proposed are 4 to 5 times bigger than the pages themselves, and then I came to the idea, why not just have a single trait page for each profession (instead of one page per trait). Trait names could be redirected to their respective sections. Thoughts? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 06:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That may not be practical once the game is out. Each trait is acquired in a different way (or possibly multiple ways), which could be more than just a short sentence per trait on an already long list of traits. Not guaranteed to require separate pages, though. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 06:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can see a single article for all traits (per profession) work. You'd end up with something like this:

== Elementalist traits ==
<whatever intro to put here>

=== Trait line ===
==== Trait #1 ====
*Acquisition

*List of skills + description of how they are altered.

==== Trait #2 ====
*Acquisition

*List of skills + description of how they are altered.

==== Trait #3 ====

And then just expand as necessary. We could create a giant article nav at the top for faster browsing, like:

== Elementalist traits ==
<intro again>

{{Elementalist traits nav
<table for the trait lines,
alphabetic listing accordingly>
}}

With every trait in the nav linked with a [[#Trait]], maybe? - Infinite - talk 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh... NoooooOOOooooOOOOooo (Padme!). Seriously, I'm not too fond of the navbars (I could get used to the ones per trait line, I guess), I really wouldn't like if all traits were in the same article, and I'm definitely not fond of giant article navs. IMO, we should deal with traits like we deal with skills: we could have a list of traits per profession (showing icon, description, trait line and if minor or major) linking to individual trait articles going on details about the traits (acquisition, notes on how the trait works, trivia about the trait's name, and so on). Erasculio 14:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Or that. :) - Infinite - talk 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Trait Infobox

Presented here (everything above the black line is my suggested formatting. Thoughts; opinions? (Note: don't bother discussing color, that is its own batch of trouble). Aqua (T|C) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There are probably going to be more traits than skills and we don't make navs listing all skills. So no. -- aspectacle  22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not me bringing up navs again, everything above the black line means infobox (not nav). Aqua (T|C) 22:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I removed everything except what I want to discuss. Aqua (T|C) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the misunderstanding. I don't think you need the lead paragraph for the page when the infobox lists everything. I think these are less complex than skills so you have most of an agreement from me. It just really bugs me that it looks like the gww skills nav. It'd be good if we could have a unique look. -- aspectacle  23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just a typical infobox set up. It looks like any other page with an infobox. Aqua (T|C) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[[User:Cirdan/template_traitbox|Here is my try]] at trait info box Cirdan 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) See this. New format. Colors to be added shortly. Aqua (T|C) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We won't need a trait infobox. Traits are much like runes (GW), except that every viable bit of information from those doesn't apply here. For instance, a trait is minor or major, has no rarity, has no value, can not be stacked, is not tied to a campaign, has no fixed, listable bonusses for the infobox, and are not always restricted to profession. In fact, the infobox would only take up space to point out that it's a trait, for what professions. One or two lines of text can also point this out. - Infinite - talk 19:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: V2 works on FF, but breaks on Chrome. - Infinite - talk 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic Infi, we wouldn't need skill infoboxes either. Trait infoboxes are designed to provide a small amount of easily findable essential. I am also well aware that traits extend to more than one profession, but all traits have a line, a type and (at least one) profession to which they are available too. A trait infobox also, if nothing else, provides a place to display the icon of the trait without something like a thumbnail (which looks very "we are working on a solution"-ish IMO.) Aqua (T|C) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the reason it breaks on Chrome is because I never changed the "rowspan" on the icon from three to two. It does not break when I Show-Preview tested it. Aqua (T|C) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Both look good. To my mind those infoboxes are a good idea because they sum up the most important informations briefly and clearly arrangedly. Corvus 20:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone knows

How many traits can be active at once in total and how many of them are major/minor/whatever? I can't seem to find info about that but maybe it could be deduced from trait screenshots? We would need a screenie of the traits hero panel for every profession however, as I think it varies depending on the profession. Bitter 17:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2 minors and 1 major per line on the (old) trait panel (as per article). As for main-hand weapons it's major + minor and off-hand it's minor alone, I believe. - Infinite - talk 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Infinite! Can someone please add the information above in the "Selection" section of the article? I was trying to write it but I couldn't find a proper way to do it because of my english level, sorry. Bitter 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the info, if you could look it over, I feel that I've worded it awkwardly. -- aspectacle  23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Elementalists seem to have 5 traits per weapon set 1 major and 4 minor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW4sGjWJK_0 Is my source. Look around 3:09. I am new to this wiki so i wont edit. Fleshgolemz 07:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DPL

About 120 edits later, and a DPL that lists all traits is ready. Please let me know what everyone thinks of this. Aqua (T|C) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go get the med kit and give the recent changes a chance to recover. --Xu Davella 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What does "DPL" mean? | Corvus 10:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DPL is black magic that can list everything in a category. It's short for "dynamic page list". Manifold 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And example would be gw1:List of necromancer skills... Aqua (T|C) 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, new and improved with fixed width columns (cept for description.) What do people think of it (and voicing opinions would be nice...)? Aqua (T|C) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the core concept is fine and aesthetics can be debated. Perhaps sorting could be added. - Infinite - talk 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting Traits

Someone mentioned that they noticed trait unlock messages during combat in some of the demos, should that be listed here at all? ~Ao Allusir 02:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It was during a recording of an ele during the PAX East demo. When I get home I'll see if I can find the video and provide a screenshot so we can see what we're talking about. The unlock occurred without any context so I'm not sure that we can draw any good conclusions about trait unlocks from it. -- aspectacle  03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

didn't that one previous talk about traits (now in anet's gw2 blog? or in the news page?) say that traits are unlocked by various activities; either stuff you do, places you visit, things you kill... it's possible the trait was given naturally, but would probably need testing to prove that's the source of it unless it specifically states it (like as obvious as "The magical energy in this area has filled you with knowledge of the Earth arts. Unlocked new trait! Stone boots") ~~ Kiomadoushi 04:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that is what was said. We can't know what circumstances caused the traits to unlock here - only that they unlocked during what looked like ordinary combat. -- aspectacle  04:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe rewording the Acquisition paragraph, the way it reads now I thought that getting any trait required going to a specific area and preforming some kind of set task in that area to get the trait. Although, it might just be me. ~Ao Allusir 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Without context the player might have completed something which we weren't aware they'd picked up - though I think all or most of this players demo time was uploaded. But yes I think we should open up the wording a bit. [[:File:User_Aspectacle_trait_discovery.png|Here]] is the image of traits unlocking. It is from this youtube video @2:55. -- aspectacle  01:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Underwater weapons and traits

If it's confirmed that each weapon has a trait line per each profession, maybe the profession trait pages should be addited to have underwater weapons as confirmed lines? sreuiajur

Yeah I've been wondering about this as well. --Xu Davella 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sample Trait Screen (Necro) Leaked from the Beta

As per the title. --Messenger 09:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Leaked beta information should under no circumstances be documented. Only officially released content that is not under NDA can and should be documented. 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC) " on the community portal - Zesbeer 10:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

...Which, unless it has been discussed somewhere, is just someone sharing his opinion and holds no value to the rest of the wiki. Erasculio 12:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So now there's runes instead of Talismans/marks/crests? Looks like that to me, and it would make more sense anyways. Mediggo 12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinions, the leaks we're talking about won't be leaks in a day or so, which means we can talk about these upcoming contents, just not be able to document them for now. Glastium | talk 15:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So the embargo's up now, does that mean we can use it, or should we use something else as it's considered a 'dirty' picture? 129.12.142.150 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaks are leaks, curated images or not. The official status of this wiki should not be abused to justify documenting leaked information, with all due respect. - Infinite - talk 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

20 bonus trait points

i was reading the gw2guru forums when i came across this[3]

i opened the link and google-translated it to this:

It takes a second to realize that the possibilities are many, above all considering that a total of 70 points are not spendable, as suggested by the acquisition time for an eleventh eightieth level, but about 90, since there is been explained, you can acquire through certain extra books. So there will be enough to fill three sections, fortunately with the respec always possible and "free".[4]

think we should add it to the article or wait for something a little clearer?Akbaroth 13:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is this source? I have never seen this mentioned before so it may be a mistake, I'm not sure it should be on the wiki as it currently is. --Chalky (t) 22:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

in fact, the pvp videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18z7lKQvaOw&feature=player_embedded#!) show it as 70 max so I'm going to remove this, assuming it is incorrect. --Chalky (t) 22:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help since I don't understand any Italian...but this it where is supposedly came from. Source I looked on guru again and saw a thread about it. ---BlakDoxa 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Trait re-spec

is it possible, does anyone know? After the recent update to the trait system (no longer being based on weapons), is it still possible to respec your traits, so your choices aren't set in stone? (also, is it possible to save these trait specs like GW1 attributes/skills?) ~~ Kiomadoushi 17:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I have no direct references at the ready; yes, you can respec traits and the trait lines as you see fit outside of combat still. - Infinite - talk 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Any word of saving trait allocation setup, like GW1 attributes? ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No word on that yet, nor any indications on the traits panel to point out. It might still be a planned feature, though. :) - Infinite - talk 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/traits-overview/

"We want experimentation with traits to be fun and engaging, so we've made the rules for changing traits extremely flexible. With no in-game cost, you can respec at will, outside of combat. " You guys need to eat more yoghurt! 84.48.54.253 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, nice try. that's not updated. it still says you obtain your traits from skill challenges, mentioning nothing about trait points that are allocated into trait lines, unlocking minor traits and opening up a major trait slot to select from a pool. "after the recent update [...] is it still possible"... unless you forgot that traits were overhauled and official pages are still lacking updated info ~~ Kiomadoushi 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"After a character has spent their trait points, they can visit a trainer to reset their traits and refund their previously spent points for a small fee." -Jon Peters in Play Your Way http://www.arena.net/blog/play-your-way-jon-peters-on-traits-and-attributes. Is this in game money or in real money? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.18.0.17 (talk). 05:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

well obviously it's in-game coin... a while back they stated that there won't be any in-game effects/features that aren't available to be obtained in-game... purchasing with real money is just faster/easier. like transmutation stones, the things everybody is getting worked up over being a cash item... you can get it using Karma from events. ~~ Kiomadoushi 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Respec system goes against my understanding of ANets core philosophy. The philosophy of allowing you to change skills out of combat for fun, stress-free, permanence-free experamentation is unnecessarily stifled by not being able to do the same with Traits. Remember how Attributes (effectively the old, toned down version of traits) worked originally in GW1? It was an extra hassle above going to town to change skills. How did they improve this? They removed the attribute refund point system, and let you change them with the same convenience as changing skills. So...

• not being able to play/experament/enjoy the flexibility of changing traits like you can skills: bad
• having to pay a fee: bad (causes a sense of reservation about changing them... even it it is free, experamentation should be encouraged not imparting the sense of reservation)
• having to travel to a town: bad (see bullet 1)
• having to travel within a town to a specific trainer location: worse
• loosing a sense of permanence: not really lost by making trait changing more flexible. You already are restricted to a single profession/race. You have a persistent personal story. If anything, we should be receiving less permanence, not more. Personal story is the only thing that should have a sense of permanence. If another thing has permanence, then character size/face/race/physiological features. I don't even feel class should have permanence seeing as they removed changing secondary professions (I guess you'd count race as the new secondary profession, but that would be silly to change). I'm OK with crafting having the sense of permanence it has. But traits not having permanence is much preferred.
• tedious nature of changing because of this permanence: bad. There are so many points of GW2 that try to remove tedious pitfalls of MMO's in the past. Why take the backwards step with traits?

Last bullet bolded, because bottom line: TEDIOUS is a big deal, and counter-philosophy to this game. This stifling system was removed from the original GW for good reason. Don't repeat the same mistakes please. --Mooseyfate 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

With the old GW1 attributes, you had to keep gaining experience with your current build before you could switch and experiment with a new build which could take a while to get the reset points you need to change. It has been said that by both ANet and testers that it doesn't take much money at all to switch traits. You can still switch your major traits anywhere out of combat, it is just switching entire trait lines that needs to be reset. I agree with you on having to travel to a specific npc within a town is a bit annoying. As for just traveling to a town, they had it where you could change out of combat anywhere and they said people would change their traits before every new mob they faced so that their were best equipped to win against that specific mob. The town and fee fight that but don't really fight any experimenting. If you don't have the money to try out a new experimentation you probably did not spend long enough giving your current experiment a try. Maybe it is just me, but I don't see this system as tedious, but then maybe that is because I have played MMOs with very tedious reset requirements (like one mmo I played you needed this item to reset that had like a 0.001% chance of dropping from mobs).

I see what you are saying and are looking at how having an open trait changing can be used in a good way. I don't think you are looking at how it can be abused which from what I have read it part of the reason they changed from the open change-anywhere setup they had with the old trait system. 17:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse

I'll give you credit that it would be tiresome to wait for teammates to change traits between fights. But that can be abused with the skill and major trait swapping too. Ultimately, with it as it is, I bet there will be people looking to group with others who don't change much on the fly. Most people will be too lazy to change their build before every single fight. Unless it's ungodly hard content. Then I don't see a problem with waiting for the team to fully prep anyways. Not like there couldn't be a template system to relieve this wait time too (like GW1). If there are other potential abuses with this, I'd hear them out. But this one already exists to a certain degree anyways, and this is a game where you can certainly team with like minded friends that play at the tempo you enjoy.

Different refund system

Correct. The attribute refund cost was different than the trait refund cost. But the point is the additional hassle on top of skill changing. The build should be able to be changed as a whole together. Whatever that time is deemed appropriate, so be it. I'm not as concerned with the cost. I don't approve of cost as it encourages less experimentation (even if that encouragement is light). If it's a low cost, then why bother anyways? What I am more concerned with is playing with a new build, but not being able to fully play with it because you don't want to go to town. Maybe the skill combination you try out would be interesting enough if you'd have specked traits differently. I can think of many examples where the trait could push it over the edge of "cool" for you. What I'm equally more concerned with is the inconvenience cost. The travel time and the taking you out of the moment of what you were doing.

Comparison to other MMO's

Yeah, this is way better than most MMO's either way. But there's only ONE MMO I've every been able to stand for over 3 months. GW 1, which I played for years. To the point I'm too scared to type /age. When I played WoW, I didn't even want to spec traits (or whatever they're called) when I hit lv10/11 (whatever it was). I think I was lever 20 before bothering. And I know the first trait change is cheap in WoW, just the idea of permanence turned me off. Though not an MMO, I could never play Diablo more than once through because of how that system of permanence was far far worse. Here's what I'm saying though. GW2 is marketing itself as a game that removes these hassles, so why pepper these hassles back in unnecessarily? I just don't think the pros of this permanence outweighs the cons.--Mooseyfate 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is way better than most MMO's either way. But there's only ONE MMO I've every been able to stand for over 3 months. GW 1. When I played WoW, I didn't even want to spec traits (or whatever they're called) when I hit lv10/11 (whatever it was). I think I was lever 20 before bothering. And I know the first trait change is cheap in WoW, just the idea of permanence turned me off. And I could never play Diablo more than once through because of how that system of permanence was far far worse. Here's what I'm saying though. GW2 is marketing itself as a game that removes these hassles, so why pepper these hassles back in unnecessarily? I just don't think the pros of this permanence outweighs the cons.--Mooseyfate 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The biggest difference to attribute refund/respec of GW1 and trait respec in GW2 is that traits will in no way restrict or modify your character potential in a critical way. In GW1 you just couldn't deal attack damage if you didn't meet requirement, or you couldn't reach important breaking points for skills with short duration (Guardian) or other bonuses (Aura of Restoration energy return). In GW2, you may want to reroll your fighting style while in the "wilderness," and still be effective even if your trait spec isn't entirely up to date. For instance, explosives engineer will still retain usefulness of his or her minor traits, and most of the major traits in that line are dependant on types of utility skills, which are still freely selectable out of combat. Another good example would be elementalist; they can freely switch attunement in combat, adapting to majority of situations very easily regardless of their traits. Perhaps only case where your character would suffer from the "hassle" of not being able to immediately respec traits would be switching from melee to ranged role or vice versa, or when going from very offensive to very defensive style of play.

Furthermore, when it comes to money, MMOs need gold sinks, or everyone will be sitting on top of huge sums of money and economy will go down the toilet. Mediggo 00:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Mediggo. Major traits don't seem necessary in the way that GW1 and WoW systems have it. In addition, minor traits seem to be useful no matter what you do (like reviving-centered Tactics and general health regen & toughness in Defense for warriors), so it's not as bad that you can't respec them as easily. What Anet does need to be careful about is making these things necessary to fill a role - in vanilla WoW, hybrid classes could, in a pinch, heal/tank/DPS for a while if needed. Now, a class that supposedly can do all three is restricted to one at a time because of talents, glyphs and gear. This is even more imperative in GW2 if they hope people to change between fights or even mid-fight to fill changing needs. And yes, gold sinks are gold sinks. Thunderduck 02:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Major and Minor Traits

I'm trying to figure out how exactly this trait system works.

So currently there are only 3 minor traits per line(adapt, master and grand master), which once unlocked are always all active? Which means all professions at level 60 always have 15 minor traits active?

Additionally once trait tiers are unlocked a player can have a major trait per tier per trait line? Meaning at level 60 a player can also have 15 major traits active at once?

Is this correct? If not can someone please break down traits in further detail? -- Blue Phoenix 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Characters earn up to a maximum of 70 trait points. Then the characters use the points to increase each trait line:

• Every point gives 2 passive buffs to attributes and other skill altering effects (recharge boosts for profession mechanics).
• Every 5 points in a specific trait line, a minor or major slot is unlocked (minor at 5, 15, and 25 and major at 10, 20, 30). Minor traits cannot be changed, but major traits are chosen by the player.

So, with 70 points max (level 80), characters can fully max 2 trait lines and 10 extra in another. That gives 7 minor traits and 7 major traits active at a time. •••Mora 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Traits like it says on the page, you gain points from 11 to 80 for a total of 70 points. The maximum points you can put into any one trait line is 30. You put points into a trait line and at intervals (5 adept, 15 master, 25 grand master)you unlock the fixed minor traits for JUST the trait line you put points into. At intervals 10, 20 and 30 you unlock the major traits but you get a choice oh which major trait to put in at each time. Maxing out one trait line (30 points) will give you 6 traits: 3 fixed minor traits and 3 major traits of your choosing. Trait tiers will only unlock if you invest points into them. You won't have 15 minor traits active because there are not enough points. Same with the major traits you won't have 15 active because there are not enough points. EDIT: Totally ninja'd D: BlakDoxa 22:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to trait system?

I think this would better allow us to document traits and trait lines/points in the same article. --Eerie Moss 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. But perhaps we need two articles because skill is to skill bar as trait is to trait system. Or perhaps a new page "skill system" should be created with skill + skill bar? Or is comparison to the skill system a false similarity? More questions than answers sorry. :) -- aspectacle  20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)