Talk:Fort Aspenwood (mission)

Planning Competitive Missions
Okay, we need to figure out how we are going to page Competitive Missions. Right now we have this page, which seems to be a mission overview for both of the sides. We should have a location page. And then there is a quest page. IMO, Fort Aspenwood should be the strategy mission overview page as it is now. Fort Aspenwood (Luxon) and Fort Aspenwood (Kurzick) should be the location pages, because in-game that's what their names are. Otherwise we would have Fort Aspenwood (Luxon)(Location). The quests to get there, if the name of the quest is just Fort Aspenwood, should be Fort Aspenwood (Luxon Quest). What are others' thoughts? --Ravious 22:33, 28 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'm in favour of moving this page to Fort Aspenwood (Mission), putting both the quest and the location in the Fort Aspenwood (Luxon) and Fort Aspenwood (Kurzick) pages as different sections and making Fort Aspenwood a disambiguation page. -- Gordon Ecker 08:01, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Here are the policies we've followed before:
 * a) If a mission and alocation share the same name, the mission gets the unparenthesized (is this english?) name. Location gets the (Location) qualifier.
 * b) If two things have the same name, in this case, the quest and the location since they both have (Luxon) or (Kurzick), then we could eithe qualify both, or just qualify one and leave the other unqualified. This is what I did, I left the location unqualified (because I think it's what players will look for more often) while I qualified the quest. I don't care if people wish to qualify both.
 * c) With regards to the mission, it is an issue because this mission is greatly different than Jade Quarry where both sides are essentially doing the same thing. Here, each side is doing their own thing (attacking vs defending). But I thikn just having the article split into two major sections one for each side is enough.
 * --Karlos 11:15, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure what, if anything, the article naming guidelines say, but nearly every article in Category:Missions has the (Mission) qualifier. Anyway, I'm in favour of keeping both sides of a competetive mission on the same page, since most of the information, particularly strategic information, is relevant to players on both sides. -- Gordon Ecker 13:20, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 * So did we decide to leave the mission page at Fort Aspenwood and not Fort Aspenwood (Mission)? If so, I'll change the links on the Canthan mission page. --Chrono traveller 09:24, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Simple, unlike the rest of the missions in factions, Fort Aspenwood does not double as an explorable area. So it does not need a qualifier. --Draygo Korvan 09:59, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Refined Amber
What dies Refined amber do? (Not Raw amber)
 * I believe they have the same function --Chrono traveller 10:51, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Refined amber given to gunther gives a +4% progress buff instead of +2%, it however does the exact same thing when given to the gatekeepers. --Draygo Korvan 12:47, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Interesting, I had not paid much attention to it. Is there just a possibility of picking it up at anytime? or is it every nth amber piece is refined?--Chrono traveller 13:57, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The center mine always has refined and the two on the sides always have raw. --68.142.14.97 14:33, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Mission Mechanics (Kurzick side)
Since I have been mostly playing a healing rit (trying to keep the NPCs alive), can anyone clarify some specifics that would be useful to add to the article.
 * How exactly do gate locks function? After you take a gate down, must amber be taken through for the gate to be put back up?
 * Is there anyway to get between the gates, besides using a gate lock?
 * Probably should be added to the strategy section, but a monk camped out behind a gate keeping the NPCs alive is a great tactic for keeping the gate up.--Chrono traveller 09:24, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Last time I played with them, the gates can be opened and closed by the Kurzick at any time, so long as they are still functioning. Just hit the switch to open/close it.
 * The only way to get through the gates is teleporting or walking through them. Unless your team is doing amber runs, be sure to close them behind you.
 * A very good tactic is to get a ranger with a longbow up on one of the side hills, and ping away at a turtle. If you bring a few interrupts, wear the +fire armor and have some method of self healing and blind removal, you can keep a turtle from ever firing it's cannon, and with a little luck you can actually kill it. You need the longbow so that you can fire from outside of the aggro range of the warriors.
 * Another thing to mention from the Kurzick side: If you can't keep at least one turtle from firing, and preferably both, you'll never win. The map is heavily Luxon biased, so it requires a lot of teamwork from the Kurzick side to win. LordKestrel 11:25, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Apparently there is no need to close a gate behind you unless there is a real danger of some closeby enemy running through it; a gate will close automatically after a few seconds (as long as any of its NPCs are still alive, of course). --Noobus 14:59, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Redesigned Layout
I'm trying to revise the layout of the article, I'd appreciate it if anyone would give me some comments on what to change on the discussion page for User:Chrono_traveller/Fort Aspenwood. Any advice is appreciated. Implemented.--Chrono traveller 09:45, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Faction Points
Does anyone have insight into what the formula for faction you receive? For the Kurzick side, I seem to get 600 points for victory, plus some more for something (maybe the amber you turned in?). My guess is that it is determined by how much of the Vengence you build. I.e. halfway to completion will get you 1/2*(600) faction. Any one have further thoughts on this? --Chrono traveller 10:51, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've wondered this myself. Sometimes I've gotten 4*percentage for losing at Kurzick and sometimes other values which weren't integer multiples.  There might be some cutoffs like 0-25% is worth 2*percentage, and 75-99% is 4*percentage.  I don't know about points over 600 being for turning in amber.  Maybe.  --68.142.14.92 17:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Repairing the green gate
While playing on the Luxon side I've seen the green gate be repaired. I haven't tried very hard, but I couldn't figure out how to do it whenever I was playing Kurzick. I tried giving both refined and raw amber to each of the three NPCs with no luck. I think I've seen it be repaired while not all of the other four gates were up, so I don't think that's it. Asking in game never gets an answer. Anyone happen to know? --68.142.14.92 17:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Another question I'd really like an answer to. I'd like to just reiterate how, again, this shows how poorly documented this game is.  A quick little howto readme would have been nice before shoving people virtually clueless into a mission like this. --Chrono traveller 17:58, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * When you give amber to one of the gatekeepers, the innermost gate will be repaired. If the green gate is open, it will always be repaired first, then the inner orange/purple, then the outer gates. 84.145.218.61 06:48, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I have most definitely done this with all gates down and ended up repairing orange or purple. I haven't actually played Aspenwood in weeks, so either it's not that simple or it's been changed.  --68.142.13.99 07:05, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The answer is in Refined Amber Chunk. It has not been incorporated into this article yet. --Karlos 15:15, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Is that really the answer? I've only ever carried raw amber in that mission and have been able to repair green the with raw.  However this is not always the case, because, frustratingly, the green door won't always repair with raw.   Perhaps there is a bug here, or specific timing is required for the raw to be used to fix green. --Aspectacle 19:13, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * When I was trying to figure out how to do it, I handed all three people one raw and one refined each, ever handoff occuring while all the gates were down. I didn't try repeating any of the tests.  Handing amber to the architect only increased the percentage and handing it to the others only repaired a single purple or orange gate.  It's not very helpful to make conjectures about the nature of a bug, so I'll guess that perhaps you need to hand the architect enough pieces?  --68.142.14.3 04:30, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'll stop monking in the mission and try doing some more amber running instead. Your theory on the number of chunks required sounds good.  Perhaps a gate keeper will repair the green gate if their side is fully repaired first? I was able to repair green by talking to a gate keeper with the raw chunk, unfortunately I cannot recall the exact gate configuration. --Aspectacle 17:18, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Mission objectives?
It seems that there is only one essential mission objective for either side -- the completion (100%) of the Gods' Vengeance weapon (for Kurzicks) vs. assassinating Master Architect Gunther (for Luxons). The other mission objectives listed for either side are rather means of accomplishing the above goals or speeding up the process, but they are not mandatory. For example, it seems that it is not necessary to give amber to Gunther in order to have the weapon completed eventually, as there is a built-in timer that will advance the completion percentage slowly (1% every several seconds) with or without amber. Giving amber to Gunther just accelerates the process (+2% for each raw amber chunk, +4% for each refined chunk). As such, there is no need to "Capture the Luxon Positions", although it would surely help if at least one amber mine is captured. Theoretically, Kurzicks would win even if they never leave the fort but just focus on a totally passive defense, keeping Master Architect Gunther from dying long enough -- for the weapon completion to reach 100%.--Noobus 15:33, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've been intending to copy the exact wording from the game, but (at least for the Kurzick side) 3 mission objectives are listed when you start the mission are roughly what are listed on the page. The whole reason for the victory condition and defeat condition label is just that, to precisely state when victory or defeat is obtained (which is not specifically stated in game).  If you want to change the layout to reflect that, I'd be open to it.  But I strongly believe that the mission objectives stated in the game should be reflected in the article in some way, shape, or form. --Chrono traveller 09:59, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I understand your intentions and now I see that you were certainly correct in formulating those objectives as they are in the game. I guess my comments were rather trying to add to the understanding of the mechanics of this competitive mission, as it is a very complex and puzzling one for newcomers (especially on the Kurzick side).--Noobus 15:53, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, ArenaNet did a horrible job (aka none at all) preparing newcomers to this type of mission. I intended the General Mechanics section to help newcomers with what does what in this mission.  Maybe victory/defeat conditions should be moved to the General Mechanics section?  or maybe have their own section?  Noone chimed in when I was making the layout of this page, so I'm sure that the layout has room for improvement.--Chrono traveller 17:13, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The structure is fine, the content is pretty complete. Consider a lead in paragraph at the top of the page giving an overview of Aspenwood the mission. You can state the objective of both teams (like: the kurzicks must protect Gunther from the attacking Luxons so he can complete the super weapon) as the first thing someone sees coming to the page.  I'm a big fan of words and context, are you intending to flesh out some of sections to be more than just points? --Aspectacle 00:13, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * And back to the left, maybe some kind of introduction paragraph would be a good thing. Probably put it inbetween the description and general mechanics.  I am really busy with work these days, so it probably won't be me, but I'm sure one of you guys can have a go at it. --Chrono traveller 09:16, 29 June 2006 (CDT)