What happens if you have no money and aren't revived? Do we wait to be killed, and respawn at a waypoint? Do we have to lie on the ground, begging people passing by to come and revive us? It seems like this could suck.
It's a valid question, and one that Jon Peters was more than willing to answer. ArenaNet released information on death and healing to eager Guild Wars 2 fans last Thursday. The community had a long list of followup questions, so the Guild Wars 2 team rounded them up and set out to answer them.
According to Community Manager Regina Buenaobra, there were so many good questions to answer that the team decided to split them into two blog posts. The first of those two was posted last night, and addresses a handful of player concerns as well as some interesting details of how the system will work.
Check out the first batch of questions on the ArenaNet blog, and keep an eye on Massively -- we'll bring you round two just as soon as it's made available!
Reader Comments (13)
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 9:58AM Radd said
Great info and wallpaper...can't wait for GW2 :(
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 9:58AM Dandmcd said
As much as I enjoyed playing a Monk, no longer requiring a dedicated healer in groups will make it a lot more fun to group up, and less stressful trying to find a healer who can keep everyone alive. I'm very happy with their attitude of no healing class, hopefully it works out as well as it sounds!
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 9:59AM HackJack said
I'm in love with ArenaNet
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 10:05AM (Unverified) said
More excited for this than I am Cataclysm, which is bizzare considering I haven't played GW for nigh on 6 years.
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 10:08AM (Unverified) said
Did anyone else get the impression that this was a not so subtle jab by hardcores about the casual elements of the game? The whole interview smacked of irritated hardcores and poses questions in a manner that show their displeasure to the developers in the hopes they might change some of the mechanics and paradigms (read: we want old school!)
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 10:23AM Bhima said
This game, if its as interesting and immersive as ArenaNet's ambitions are, will be a huge hit. Heck, just reading about it has already sold me on the initial box price and I was never a GW player, just a seasoned WoW vet that is looking for something else. The "no-healer" paradigm might simplify PVP a bit, but at least it changes the dynamic from the standard "smear the queer" we have today.
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 11:22AM DevilSei said
I wouldn't necessarily say it simplifies PvP. Every class has access to some healing abilities, and like they said other moves might have multiple functions. Instead of relying on someone whose sole specialty is healing, you instead have to rely on your team knowing how to use their abilities at the right times, on the right people or area.
Reply
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:03PM (Unverified) said
Same here- I recently jumped into GW based off my anticipation for GW2. I'm sorry I didn't start playing this game sooner!
Reply
Posted: Jul 16th 2010 12:42PM (Unverified) said
Couldn't have said it better myself! It certainly is interesting and the box price is well worth trying it out.
Reply
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 11:27AM Firebreak said
I have to say I was not looking forward to GW2 until I read about the lack of healing classes and the defeated state. I have always thought that games should be balanced away from the holy trinity towards something else. Good to see someone attempting the something else.
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:07PM Monkey D Luffy said
Ash whited out! Ash wakes up at a waypoint!
Posted: Jul 14th 2010 1:11PM Kalex716 said
Was a good article.
I tend to disagree with his design decisions on "risk" and player penalties. I believe without non-trivial penalties decisions never get made based on risk and limitations because little to nothing is at stake. If users have to constantly weight out consequences of significance, the perceptions of notions like risk and reward become much more prominent and meaningful.
I tend to disagree with his design decisions on "risk" and player penalties. I believe without non-trivial penalties decisions never get made based on risk and limitations because little to nothing is at stake. If users have to constantly weight out consequences of significance, the perceptions of notions like risk and reward become much more prominent and meaningful.







