If they are not natively supported, you can always GlovePIE. Even when controllers are supported, I find myself using GlovePIE anyways, that way I can macro my common command groups.

---

Originally posted by Kleir
Sort of off topic, I love aion's vast amounts of customization, but I hate their means of initiating it.  Sliders suck!  It should be options 1, 2, & 3, not a scale from 1 to 3.  There is so much room to go wrong with sliders, and I am really picky when it comes to being content with the best look I can have.

---

I think this is a relevant discussion topic, given how little we know.

I, on the other hand love sliders. I will spend hours customizing my characters to get them just right; this is the one major area where GW1 disappointed me, the presets were just so limited.

But there are ways that we can both have our cake. As I mentioned above, the sliders represent a variable; presets are basically the same thing, just that the value is predetermined. It can be done both ways; you can have a series of presets, and then give the option to go into sliders. This is the way it's handled in Sims3--very intuitive for basic changes, just pick a preset, and highly detailed for finite changes on the sliders.

As much as I would love to see the sylvari next, I doubt it will be... They will probably do asura next, followed by sylvari, and then do the controversial charr last.

But as much as I would love to see another race reveal, and given the limited time between now and PAX East... I think I would prefer a new profession reveal rather than a race reveal.

---

Originally posted by Kleir
Well now to get back to the point, face & body customization... :P
 
http://www.arena.net/blog/designing-humans
This page has several pictures but I am most concerned with the last two.
The first of last two pictures shows a medium armor (seemingly a ranger) profession wearing slightly changed armor sets.  The final picture shows a male and female heavy armor profession (seemingly a warrior) alternating between sexy armor and tough armor.
 
If we look at the body types of the "warrior" and "ranger" they are similar to how they were differentiated in GW.  The "warrior" is huge and ripped.  The "ranger" is lean and toned.  I was thinking that maybe body types will be seperated armor categories to be realistic and not let a really scrawny guy wear heavy armor.  But then I noticed the "warrior" and guardian have different body types.
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/guardian/
In the skill videos of the male guardian, he appears to be more lean than the warrior, probably because he is a hybrid.
Then when you see pictures of necromancers, their hairstyles can be punk-rock or gothic influenced.  
So it boils down to having completely different appearance customizations for each profession, just like in GW.  This change isn't as clear for other races, so we can only wait to find out.

---

I'll throw some technical details to explain what Anet could employ during character creation, which allows for customization of body shape while still providing a profession specific look:

The armors are made up of Geometry Meshes (GEOMs or mesh for short) Each mesh is made up of thousands of triangular faces and at each corner is a vertex. These vertices are then assigned by a percentage value to a series of 'bones' in the skeleton--this is called a weight, or bone-weight. Each bone represents a region of the body and allows animations.

Now when you are creating a character, you move some sliders around until you get a look you like. What these sliders are, are actually a variable in an equation--this equation is sometimes called a morph. This equation controls the ratios and scale of the bones. Changing the bones in turn changes the mesh whose proportions are dependent on the bones by the weight.

Anet tells the game the limits and presets of the variables in these equations--the presets are self-explanatory, and the limits constrain the min- and max-values; giving the presentation of a profession specific body shape.

So in truth, the weight class armors are shared (as we know), but the morph constraints (if there are any) could give the appearance of specific professions, while still presenting options of body proportion.

It could also be the case that armors could be shared across races too... In reality, most of the different body shapes are is just an advanced morph, the only exclusion would be the charr.

As for hair-styles/facial features, its anybody's guess at this point if they will be limited to specific professions. But given that hairs are also just another mesh, they could be used by any profession, so it is really up to Anet's discretion to make something profession specific or not. And even if the game launches with certain facial/hair feature profession locked, it could easily be altered post-launch if the demand is high enough.

A lot of people speculating about this are failing to see the logistics of the situation.

The GW2 demo gets the shared demo-station computers at 10:00, give about 5~10 minsfor set up of the demo, average demo runs 20mins.

Anet said in the press-release that they will unveil the surprise at 10:30. That is conspicuously close to the end of the demo time.

Now if you were Anet, what would you put at the end of the demo?

Personally (and historically Anet would too), I would end the demo by killing everyone in the demo with the most surprising baddie the game could possibly hold.

---

Originally posted by holifeet
 
Just curious. Is the Asura really a race for men? Are they too cute for men to really be playing them? Can you argue that?
Not that I care really. I played a fae in EQ2.

---

If you ever ask an asura to smile, you will see that they are far from the cuddly race--their toothy grin is more akin to the maw of a t-rex. They are also super smart, and are completely self-assured of their intellectual dominance over every other race, and most have an ego large enough to make Napoleon shy-away.

...now that i think about it, I just described my brother as well.

As for the opinion that charr magic is in some way inferior...

I give you: Charr Effigy to feast upon your eyes.

Yeah, if I saw a magic user bring that to life, all doubt would be gone, replaced by terror and the scent of burning flesh.

I just hope that it will be a racial Elite skill

Anet is really good at integrating concepts and values from other sources into their game lore... everything from Beowulf, to Firefly, to Romance of the Three Kingdoms to Invader Zimm and everything in between.

Lets see... the demo stations open at 10:00, the surprise happens at 10:30...

hrmmmm...

Maybe....

Yes...

Elder-Dragon Battle?!

I don't see how artwork showing turrets has any bearing on the profession speculation. We've already seen turrets in game in the shtterer fight, so we know they exist without regard for profession.

Gonna have to find something more compelling to support speculation of an 'engineer' profession.

As for a name of a profession that uses environmental weapons specifically... look up the word 'sapper'--much more defined as an environmental specialist than an 'engineer'.

The info I got says that the sylvari won't be re-revealed until the week after PAX. I can't reveal my source, so take it as you will. But history shows that Anet loves doing cliche themes, so revealing the green race (sylvari) the same week as St. Patrick's Day makes some sense.

We will probably see the norn starter area, and hopefully the charr starter area. Or maybe they could surprise us and give us two races that were not played in the GDC demo--norn and asura.

Sylvari ??? - I don't know what profession yet... the ele was going to be my first choice, but the attunement system has spoiled that.

Asura ranger - mostly melee/pet just to screw with people's preconceptions

??? guardian - don't know which race I will make a guardian, but I will play it only offensively, again, just to screw with people's preconceptions.

---

Originally posted by Loke666

Or uses guns.. I am pretty sure bows wouldn't work under water either.
On the plus side is the jellyfish pet cool. :)

---

Going slightly off topic... Modern guns do work underwater, you just have to remove any air-bubbles in the barrel before firing or else you could end up with a back-fire. Revolvers work best underwater. Flint-lock type... never would they work underwater.

Bows also works under water, but the range is severely impaired because of the drag on the fletching, and any curvature on the arrow would send it into an unpredictable trajectory.

Back on topic:

Given the industry's past examples of underwater/3-dimensional combat (flying), I have to have reservations about it. But given that this is Anet, I will remain cautiously optimistic.

---

Originally posted by Kleir

Definitly!  The great thing about GW2's weapon set system, is that you can change between combat types with them.  The hybrid profession, Guardian, can use a scepter and shield, and fight with wanding and summoning barriers, whild wearing the heavy suit of armor and everything.
So the mesmer could be the "squishy anti-caster/shutdown/toolbox type" while wielding a scepter+focus or staff, and it could be the duelist/rapier-slashing type while wielding a sword+focus.  
With necromancers we can see that certain weapon sets define a certain attunement in GW, like daggers for blood skills and scepters for death magic skills.  So swords could be for illusion and scepters could be for domination.  We also notice that necromancers no longer have curses... so now there would be that one defined "hexer" class in GW2, the mesmer. :)
Every profession also has that special ability, like warrior's burst skills, ranger's pets, elementalist's attuenements, necromancer's spirit form, and guardian's auras.  So another question would be what a mesmer's special ability is.

---

I completely agree with your analysis of the roles changing with weapon swaps, its the beauty of the skills being attached to the weapons. Different weapons represent different approaches to the play-style.

As for hexes, we already know that hexes don't exist, but have been replaced with the more general condition/debuff system. As we saw explained with the buffs, applying the same buff/debuff will (probably) extend the duration if it is already applied to the target so there is no waste (like there was in GW1 if you tried to snare someone with a snare already applied). As for the mesmer's use of them, I think it to be a great idea for the mesmer to be the debuff pro.

As for the mesmer's special ability, I think the mantras would be a good fit. Use mantra of arcane haste to reduce your cool-downs, or feedback mantra to gain health when you apply debuffs--just some silly examples but I think the idea is solid.

---

Originally posted by DerykCH

---

Originally posted by Diovidius

---

Originally posted by therez0

 

---

Originally posted by RameiArashi
 
Interesting that horses exist in GW2 since they didn't in GW1.

---

They don't (at least not as far we know to this point). Those artworks are portfolio entries for the Anet art team. Anet has even stated that a lot of things seen in the art book will not be in the game, it is just concept and exhibition of the artist's skills.
Until something is posted on the GW2 site, the Anet blog, seen in game, or stated by an Anet staffer, it is not factual lore.

---

Although no living horses are actually seen in GW1 there are indications that they are around (or have been anyway).
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Iron_Horse_Mine

---

actually  there are horses as mounts exit in Kryta
SEE # 89
an DON'T compare GW2 with GW1, can u see how much change between them ,an how much better GW2 is righnow?
Anet try to create a game for all player not for mounts haters
adding mounts to GW2 makes Kryta more lively and vivid , an haters no one force u to ride ,u can go anywhr on foot and by teleporting
plz don't let ur disgust kill our

---

We don't know if there are horses in GW2; please stop saying they are as if it were fact. The art book does not constitute lore. And before you go off and call me a mount hater, I actually want mounts; not as a move-speed modifiers, but as something useful that has an effect on combat.

@Diovidius
I already indicated those examples earlier in the thread when discussing horses in the GW1 lore with Meowhead. We both came to the conclusion that there may have once been horses, but there are no examples in the GW1 game time.

Back to topic: Should there be mounts?

I think yes, there should be mounts, but not necessarily as movement modifiers. I think mounts would be best as something similar to environmental weapons; where once you mount-up, it changes your skill-bar to reflect the mount. So if I used an ice-drake as a mount, one of the skills could be a tail-whip skill and another could be ice-breath. If I used a moa as a mount, skills could include a beak attack and a run-speed skill.

As to horses... they could be in GW2, they also could not be. Would I miss them if they were not? No, horses are the least dynamic of the possible mounts in the GW universe.

Finally, will there be mounts when the game releases? I doubt it. Dev time would be better spent elsewhere before release. Post-release, I can easily see mounts being added; I think a DLC pack for mounts would be perfect, but they could also be implemented in a patch or an expansion.

---

Originally posted by RameiArashi
 

Interesting that horses exist in GW2 since they didn't in GW1.

---

They don't (at least not as far we know to this point). Those artworks are portfolio entries for the Anet art team. Anet has even stated that a lot of things seen in the art book will not be in the game, it is just concept and exhibition of the artist's skills.

Until something is posted on the GW2 site, the Anet blog, seen in game, or stated by an Anet staffer, it is not factual lore.

---

Originally posted by powerbait

Why should you have to pay for bonus stuff... why not just have it already in game??? How do you know most people wouldn't want to purchase these things???  All I'm saying is... if the game concept sounds fun enough to right people... if you give the people the option again to purchase skill sets and other items there can be lazy people... getting back to the point of the matter... ArenaNet, how ever you want to look at them, want to make money just like anyone else.  You can believe that they are completely happy with just box sales alone but they were "nice enough to allow us to choose to purchase bonus items or not."  Not every game has a cash shop.

---

Its important to note that (despite your sarcastic intent) Anet was nice enough to allow us to choose to purchase bonus items or not. They never intended to include a cash shop when GW1 was initially released, and its well documented that the shop items were added due to overwhelming demand for additional character slots and storage.

And there is bonus stuff you get for free with just the box purchase of GW; they've added dungeons, PvP modes, and additional story content.

On a more subjective note, I believe that Anet is one of the last bastions of karmic game development--a studio by gamers for gamers. What I mean by this, is that they are not solely driven by the desire to earn money. Sure the money might be a secondary gain, but they truly want to deliver a good game first and foremost.

There is a lot of evidence pointing towards mounts being a possibility. From a lore perspective, (as others have pointed out already) we have Dolyaks, Aurochs, ice-drakes (THK mission), turtles, oxen, devourers, and Junundu wurms (just to name a few) are mounts--using the term loosely--in GW1. So given the time-gap, we could probably see many more beasts becoming domesticated.

As was in GW1 when you used a siege mount, they swapped your bar with different skills. And in GW2 with environmental weapons your bar would probably change too when you got on a mount; so it is in the scope of the game mechanics to have mounts.

How likely is it for the game to launch with them though... my guess would be that they won't be in the base-game at launch. I could see it being a fun DLC pack, but I have a feeling many people would object to that on the basis of 'but the DLC gives different skills, and thats not fair. q.q' So we might see mounts show up eventually in small number roaming the map with a live patch, or as a new thing for an expansion.

---

Originally posted by shere

---

Originally posted by Gennadios

---

Originally posted by Ablestron
also not to mention that there are no horses in GW lore, so unless you want your heroic charactor to be riding a moa, then your out of luck

---

Palawa Joko keeps referring to Zhed as "Horse" and makes several snide remarks about his ancestors being cavalry in the NF cutscenes. Taking into account that he was just awoken from 200+ years of banishment implies that horses at least exist and have been known to be rideable animals since then.
 
Edit:
Also, the Equine Aegis, a shield that pretty clearly depicts some sort of horse.

---

well,  then i think we all need to learn more about the  fascinating guild wars lore before taking everything for granted

---

I'd like to point out that there are no current world (GW1 era) instances of horses being used in the GW lore. There are place-name uses (Iron Horse Mine), some artistry (Equine Aegis), a religious phenom (Celestial Horse (summon)), and historical references (Palawa Joko, some Canthan history). There is no evidence of horses existing in GW1 era; for all we know they may be extinct.

Edit: ninja'd. Forgot about the necrid horsemen, but those still kinda fall into a historical kind of use... and would support the extinction theory.

My major gripes so far are with the Ele:

1) No sword, WTF! I want to play a light armor battle mage, so not having a sword on Ele diappoints me

2) Attunements. This will more than likely screw up my other favorite caster role, the lightning mage. I don't wanna swap to ice magic to control the enemy, I want to fry him with a lightning bolt and control him like he was tasered.