Talk:Warrior/Archive 1

Eric Flannum: We place no restrictions on professions based on race. We are working hard to ensure that the races feel very different from each other while still allowing an asura warrior to be just as effective as a norn warrior.-- Shew 23:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of old profession names could be to allow people to relate to the professions. We have use of Necromancer, Mesmer, and Warrior. Seeing how they were not talking about game mechanics this year, I think it is a bit too early to take Anet's word for flat out truth and not truth with a little twisting (in order to, as I said, allow people to relate the professions to what they do, which could be confused if they decided to make any original profession names - such as Mesmer - or use unusual profession names). -- Konig/talk 01:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But there's also the image called "Centaur_warrior," though I realize that "warrior" can be used generically.-- Shew 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I got ahead of myself again...-- Shew 01:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just delete this; we have no reason to think professions will correspond 1:1, if they are applicable at all, and anyway try looking up the names of every other profession on this wiki. 72.38.32.223 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

More evidence: Guildwars2_concept_art_female_warrior001.jpg-- Shew 21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's official now?: [1] Manifold 18:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have an issue with this article, the Warrior profession is not confirmed yet. While I have little doubt that this will not be a profession, I do not think the article should state that it is confirmed... until we have a Warrior page on the GW2 website, I would dub this as speculation. Yes they say "warrior" in several articles, but it could simply be used as a placeholder for the solider professions. -- Phnzdvn 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is confirmed by this interview: "...we had a hard time reconciling this with the warrior, who’s another one of our professions..." · LOQUAY · 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but pretty much doesn't cut it imo. Can we compromise by modeling the article like the Necromancer article? Stating that it is "likely" to return. -- Phnzdvn 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Warrior has been confirmed in the 10tonhammer interview: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/83947/page/2 Biz 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Warrior Stances

IMO<--- The Stances will be a new system similar to Elemental's Attunements. to allow the Warrior to switch the effect of the Weapon skill, depending on current stance. but this just speculation.--Knighthonor 07:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WoW style Stances for Warriors would have been mentioned by devs when talking about Attunements(as basically being exact same thing), instead if you are "berserking" or "defensive" is determined by your weapons, if you have a shield or not (higher def, block chance, shield skills), if you dual wield or not (lower def, higher dmg, +2 dmg skills). Biz 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They say every profession will have it's own "unique system." Combos and/or adrenaline are probably the warrior's. -Maskeus 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Abilities Null

Hey why is their a ability option there and a Skill option?--Knighthonor 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just keeping Ele page's format... --Itay Alon 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dual Wield

Wielding Maces in offhand was mentioned before, but here: http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/nine-gw2-follow-up-questions-t3864.html?p=151745#post151745 we have Martin mentioning dual wielding of Axes - apparently resulting in hight damage output. Biz 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats correct The Holy Dragons 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons Confirmation?

Has this weapons list been confirmed anywhere? If not, it should be removed. Arshay Duskbrow 05:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are the ones that have been stated in interviews that the warrior uses. If we find out more we'll just add them to the list. Maybe add something in saying the list may be incomplete? --hexal 07:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, as long as it came out of an interview and not people speculating, that's fine for the moment. Obviously it may be subject to change, but there's no harm in leaving it for now. Arshay Duskbrow 09:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found 2 references for the weapon list:

This one is an interview of Eric Flannum where he talks about playing a warrior himself so I consider it a good confirmation of greatsword, sword and shield.

But the other source is a comment by Martin on Guru where he clearly talks about some "warriors" he was fighting in PvE. And as we know, PvE enemies don't have the same classes as human players in GW2. So it seems clear to me that he was thinking about a generic "fighter" opponent rather than real "playable warrior" class when he wrote this text (just like the guys from Durmand Priory are called "monks"). For this reason, I don't consider the source for axes, maces, hammers, rifles and longbows to be reliable. Unless you find me another source where someone plays a warrior himself (or fights against a human-controlled warrior) I'd like those 5 weapons to be removed from the list. Chriskang 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I read it as referring to the class. Here's another source for the rifle, longbow, mace, and hammer, though.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed this reference. I guess we can keep everything then :'( Chriskang 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't like the weapon choices? :P-- Shew ♠♠♠ 12:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I always found it very unfair in GW1 that one profession can wield more weapons than the others. Take the gw1:Citadel Chest for example. If you're a sin, the chances for you to get a weapon that you can wield is 1/24. If you're a warrior, it's 5 times more: 5/24. Now, I was happy to discover that eles would be able to wield daggers in GW2. I thought it would make then more on a par with warriors. I'm seriously disappointed to see that it's far from being the case. 3 weapons for an ele vs 7 -or more- for a warrior? How's that fair? Moreover, I find that too much versatility removes the personality of a profession. Chriskang 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's very fair. Elementalists don't have much dependency on weaponry, whereas warriors greatly depend on their weaponry for fighting. I think it's been balanced as to how many fighting skills they have that require particular weapons, though I may be wrong. --Amannelle 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but say goodbye to your caster swords. :( Arshay Duskbrow 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything it's more unbalanced toward the Ele; Remember they can change aunement which changes the skills from their weapon, which they can have two different combinations of. That's eight different combos ON THE FLY. A warrior has a huge amount of weaponry to choose from, but can only bring two combinations to switch between; an Ele who brings a wand/dagger and a staff ends up with 40 different skills available in-combat, while a warrior that brings two axes and a greatsword has a mere ten. He may be able to change this up outside of combat, but that doesn't really affect his performance. Zolann The Irreverent 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's said there'd be a cost, so expect something like a 10 second activation time or something similar that's far to unwieldy to be of use in combat. 145.94.74.23 08:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Seeing as how you used this picture for the Elementalist, why not use this for the warrior? It's already confirmed that he's wearing heavy armor, so he's either a warrior, or that 2nd soldier profession... and seeing as how he was revealed around the same time the warrior was confirmed, our best bet is he's a warrior. -- (Amannelle) 98.19.145.17 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's speculation. Can't do it until we're 100% sure. :p-- Shew ♠♠♠ 20:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And somehow posting this isn't at all speculation? o.o -- 98.19.145.17 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't put it up there, it certainly looks nicer than what's currently being used. Taros 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@98.19.145.17 --> We're sure that it's not speculation because the author, Xia Taptara, called it "female warrior" herself. The original image comes from here. Chriskang 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But, being concept art, it IS speculation; you're assuming that:

1. Warriors will look like this.

2. This is based on the profession, as opposed to just a random fighter.

3. This warrior style will be implemented in GW2.

4. This weaponry will be implemented in GW2.

But because it has "warrior" in the name, that eliminates all possibility of it being speculation? :( -- (Amannelle) 98.19.145.17 21:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

solved :)-- Shew ♠♠♠ 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aww, thanks Shew. ^^ I was feeling well enough to come online, so I was looking around articles and wanted to help out. :( Didn't mean to start an argument, sorry about that. -- (Amannelle) 98.19.145.17 23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologize................................btw, why don't you sign in? There's nothing wrong with questioning wiki content. :p-- Shew ♠♠♠ 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only stopping by for a moment, and I probably wont be able to be back on for a week or so, which is why I didn't bother logging in. But, to assure you it IS me, I will do that. ^^ --Amannelle 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that render is of a warrior just yet because of shared armor - it could be the other heavy-armor profession just as it could be warrior. The concept art is titled warrior so that wouldn't be speculation; warriors may not look like that but that is only because it is concept art. Kanaxai doesn't look like his concept art version but the concept art is still Kanaxai. Same with many things. In fact, if I had to say so, I'd say that only about 20% of the concept art (both what we see and don't see) look like what is put into the game; if that. -- Konig/talk 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel said that he wanted the game to look more like concept art, also it's logical to relate gladiator-looking armor to the warrior profession and not the other soldier. If we can't use that render then why does the elementalist page also have something similar? Taros 02:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, I think, because that same elementalist render was used in the teaser gameplay videos. Meanwhile we have no warrior videos to sample against. --Kyoshi (Talk) 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as Kyoshi said, however, it isn't "mostly" but "it is." The render is the one seen in the videos (where there is female elementalists and not a male one, that is). -- Konig/talk 08:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Eviscerate...Or Not?

So what happened with the supposed "evisceration?"Did it just...not happen? Please tell me I'm not the only one who's not seeing much of anything and that we can petition ANet to give us our videos with a better camerasuran. Zolann The Irreverent 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it got fixed/it loaded correctly/whatever the hell was wrong with it died. Zolann The Irreverent 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Warriors

→ moved from Talk:Main Page

lol there revealed now we knew about them ages ago.--♥Icyyy♥‎ 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

O.O I need to stop waking up late! Eive Windgrace 01:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

what lol?--♥Icyyy♥‎ 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapon descriptions

Shouldn't the descriptions of weapon effects be on each weapons page rather than on the warrior page, or maybe both? Ramei Arashi 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, weapons ARE an integral part of how the warrior works, and the weapons will work differently for each proffesion they are available to, so...yeah. Zolann The Irreverent 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What Zolann said. I put them here because I wasn't sure what to do with the weapon page because I don't know how different the weapons are going play for different professions. Also, it is nice to be able to get an overview of all warrior information here without having to click a link to get it. -- Aspectacle  21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On the profession pages, now that we know weapons are completely different in the hands of different professions. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Soldier

Where is it confirmed that it's a soldier? I think I missed it. X-) Ariyen 04:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

here http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/warrior/ The Holy Dragons 07:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I read that several times. I don't see any place mentioning the words Soldier... But since it cannot fit the other two, we'd have to do the best we can. Just trying to be fair as we wouldn't want to treat each profession (and our assumption of what they are, till completely confirmed, etc.) differently. Ariyen 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned here that soldiers wear heavy armor, and the first sentence of this article mentions that Warriors rely on heavy armor in battle. Thus, it is a soldier. - Mini Me talk 17:39, 19 July 2010

It's a logical conclusion, but still speculation. How the hell did this happen? We don't have sources for it? D: --Naoroji 17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers are the only profession class which can use heavy armor, the warrior uses heavy armor, yes it's speculation but it's speculation that is actually 100% correct unless ANet drastically changes the game, so really, discussing this makes no sense. - Mini Me talk 17:42, 19 July 2010

Only soldier professions use heavy armor. Warriors use heavy armor. Ergo, warriors are soldiers. To argue any further is to argue red pill vs blue pill, because in this "speculation" (which is actually well-grounded logic) we are working with exactly what we have been told. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Swordfighting

Or Axefighting, macefighting you get the idea. Anyway, I didn't see in any of the videos whether you could move around and slash, or just stand there. Can someone clarify for me? Kaon Frostblade talk 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the video for Eviscerate, it looks like the warrior moves a bit as he slashes the second enemy he kills. Not definitive, of course. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Kyoshi. --Kaon Frostblade talk 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A warrior is a profession??

I tried to explain this a while ago and failed miserably, but i'll try again because i still think its an odd way of saying it. This concerns the sentence "A warrior is a soldier profession...", which seems really odd to me because if you remove the adjective "soldier" it ends up as "A warrior is a profession" - but a warrior is a person not an abstract concept. "A warrior is a soldier." makes sense because a soldier is also a person. A real world example is that you would not say "An accountant is a profession", but rather "Accountancy is a profession". I get that in the context of GW profession means more like class though, and as you could say "Warriors are a class of soldiers" but not "A warrior is a class of soldier" you can instead say "Warriors are a profession of soldiers". It really boils down to "A warrior is a soldier profession..." seeming to me to mean that each individual warrior is a seperate soldier profession as each singular warrior is a singular profession, whereas """ has a plural set of people being part of a group. I'd really like some feedback on this, if anyone can understand what i'm saying Thering 01:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: soldier is simply a term we use to state that a Warrior uses heavy armor. Besides, removal of adjectives can create problems: What color is a red car? In this case, soldier is a clarifier as to the type of profession, and is a necessary, unremovable adjective. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, i guess part of what i think is wrong is that soldier isn't an adjective, its a noun; you don't have a soldier helmet; one helmet cannot be more soldier than another - you have a soldier's helmet. I think, therefore, that it should be the last version i said, "Warriors are a profession of soldiers", where soldier is used as a noun. Thering 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think i just came up with a clearer example of what i'm trying to say. Take three nouns; "duck", "bird" and "type". The following are correct sentences

"A duck is a bird"

"A duck is a type of bird" each different duck *may* be a different type (of bird)

"Ducks are birds"

"Ducks are a type of bird" all ducks are one type (of bird)

"Ducks are types of birds" each duck is a different type (of bird)

however, this is wrong

"A duck is a bird type"

because bird cannot be an adjective (you say bird-like instead).

If you replace the words so that duck -> warrior, bird -> soldier and type->profession then the correct ones are

"A warrior is a soldier"

"A warrior is a profession of soldier" each different warrior *may* be a different profession (of soldier)

"Warriors are soldiers"

"Warriors are a profession of soldier" all warriors are one profession (of soldier)

"Warriors are professions of soldiers" each warrior is a different profession (of soldier)

and this is the replaced version of the grammatically wrong one

"A warrior is a soldier profession"

which is exactly how the article puts it.

The case which fits properly above is that "all warriors are one profession(of soldier)" and so by that logic the sentence should read

"Warriors are a profession of soldier" Thering 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Any noun can be an adjective. "A duck is a bird type" is completely grammatically correct, just awkward to the ear, and you'd probably say "a duck is a type of bird" instead. "Profession of soldier" is far more awkward, though. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, firstly thanks kyoshi for replying your explanation was really helpful, its helped me a lot to see what i mean, and I know what you mean about the awkwardness (just it felt even more awkward for me before). I think it seems odd to me now because it should be a "the" instead of an "a" at the beginning of the sentence;

"The warrior is a profession of soldier" -> "The warrior is a soldier profession"

"A warrior is a profession of solder" -> "A warrior is a soldier profession"

I think the left sentence on the top line is correct, not the bottom line; even though both are grammatically correct the top one reads better than the second for me. The shift of soldier to an adjective should then leaves the preposition of warrior the same in both lines to give a (to me) better sentence

(similarly as to how "the duck is a bird type" flows better than "a duck is a bird type") Thering 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND i just confused the hell out of myself because i realised it already says "the". AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! On the other hand, it does mean i now think the article is right :) Thering 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Saying, "A warrior is a soldier profession." is no different than saying, "An Elementalist is a scholar profession." As Kyoshi is right, nouns can be used as Adjectives. Grammar can be very and easily confusing to everyone. I get confused easier with the .;', type styles used, more than I do with the words used. I prefer simplicity, but the English Language is undoubtedly the most confusing Language of them all, especially with the grammar style. 72.148.31.114 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did realise it had the same sentence structure on the other class pages - i didn't post about it on all 4 talk pages because it was unnecessary. I think i prefer to say that "an elementalist is a scholar" rather than "An elementalist is a scholar profession", but i'm fine with what the articles actually say, which is of the form "the elementalist is a scholar profession" etc. I think i would still stylistically prefer "The elementalist is a profession of scholars" because it emphasises more that each elementalist is a scholar, but as i've got it into my head finally that its a matter of style rather than grammar, i think i can live with it. Also, i'm not going to try to write long winded things late at night anymore, because i just mess up :) Thering 13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So the nervous due to waiting for professions is on the point that we have grammar discussions... hurry a-net! reveal something sweet before everybody gets crazy!! that's just the first step, later we will start seeing rickrolls and trollfaces on the wiki!! Lokheit 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)