Feedback talk:John Stumme/Archive 2

Captian Langmar
She still appears in Grothmar Wardowns after WiK :O, maybe u guys could replace her with an Ebon Vanguard Officer with the same dialogue and quests as Langmar for the people who finished Mustering a Response (I think thats when we lose her). Victor6267  02:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can still find Kormir after she ascends to Godhood. And she has both eyes too! It seems like events don't "back propagate". Cheapy 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need, tbh. Each area is "stuck in time" more or less - there may be progression shown, but it's always limited. All EN areas, with the exclusion of things directly related to GW:B, are stuck in the year of 1078 - a year prior to the War in Kryta. It would be like removing Gwen from the Hall of Monuments once she and the Ebon Vanguard go to Ascalon for Ebonhawke - it just wouldn't make sense with all of the vanguard in the next location over, and it's unnecessary. Besides, it wouldn't make sense to have an unnamed Ebon Vanguard Officer for all the quests Langmar gives and not to mention that all of those quests would need altering, if for nothing more than the objective of "See Langmar for a reward" - though the entire Vael and Anton quest chain wouldn't make much sense without a lot more altering.
 * Edit: @Cheapy: Where can Kormir be found outside of missions and quests? -- Konig / talk 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New Hero and HoM
Right now, we have exactly as many available heroes as we need to get all 8 points in the "Fellowship" part of the HoM. Will we be able to display the "new hero" in the HoM, just like M.O.X. ? By the way, will there be another new hero available in the Winds of Change arc ?88.139.247.163 20:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * well if this new hero is coming with winds of change it would be a nightfall or eotn+factions (needing either nightfall or eotn for the ability to have heroes) only hero i think they should just add a "rare" drop just like the other Challenge missions. that would make people play things like Dragon's Throat ect... but who knows...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 04:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The new hero will be part of Hearts of the North. Stumme has said this multiple times in interviews. We may get a hero in Winds of Change though... -- Konig / talk 04:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the OP's original question, I don't see why you would not be able to display the new hero. There is no rule saying you can't have more of something than the HoM requires for max points, I mean, there are 11 of each of the weapon families on the Valor monument, but you don't need 33 weapons to max points... Also, you only actually display 5 statues on the Fellowship monument regardless of how many you have added. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant Keiran Thackeray
can you make something clear for us is he now a paragon or is he still a ranger who used para like skills? there has been a huge discussion as to if he is still a ranger or now indeed a paragon. thanks in advance!- Zesbeer 07:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Zesbeer is asking for clarification on Keiran's secondary - the debate here is the one he's referring to, which is discussing whether his two new skills are considered paragon skills or ranger skills, and as such has led to a debate on whether Keiran's a R/ or a R/P during those missions. -- Konig / talk 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Full Hero Party
After reading the results of the polls you did in the ArenaNet blog I cannot wait for the day that we get our full Hero party. My question is when can we expect that to happen? After I heard the news I pretty much lost all my interest in playing the game until that happens. It's only the way I feel but it's just the method that finding a full human party for some of the harder areas in the game is becoming more and more of a chore.

Just last week I waited for about an hour and a half just to get enough people to go into The Deep. That's just forming the group we still had to coordinate strategies and split the group into the first 4 rooms. This is of course all with PUGs. The game is essentially dead except for the daily Zaishen flares and WiK/Beyond stuff. I would really like to know when this dead game will finally be turned into a single player experience. I have all my heroes fully equipped and ready to go.

So is there any word on when we can expect the patch for full hero teams? I would imagine it would be an easy thing to do... Change a value or two in a few lines of coding eh? eh? eh? --MangyForestCat 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd actually have to redesign the UI a bit, mostly to accommodate for the flagging of the remaining heroes, not to mention adjusting the inventory and skill windows. Then, you'd also need to add lines to the key assignment menu, but that won't be nearly as tricky as adjusting the UI. At least, that's what my programmer senses are telling me. There's probably more to it, though.--Zetta 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just being facetious. All of that could come over time though. For now, they could just let us add as many heroes as we want without letting us see their inventory or having personal flags for them. They would essentially be Henchmen with custom skill sets, and weapons, and runes, and insignias, and armor... Provided you equipped them beforehand. --MangyForestCat 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering: "Why now?". Full heroes parties have been called for... well, for ages now.  Just like a minion menu.  Considering Guild Wars remaining life-span, why now?  203.173.158.250 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the head of the Live Team has changed. Linsey was very against this idea, but John replaced her and realized that listening to the fans might be a good idea. And that's what he's done.  --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Stumme remained uncommitted - that the team was exploring player reception to the idea, rather than declaring their intent to implement it. In any case, that's a weird question.  The timeframe is irrelevant, unless you feel Guild Wars should cease developing simply because Guild Wars 2 is on the horizon. With the passage of time, team members change and people profit from experience.  Their vision for the game may have changed, or simply the means to achieve it.  I mean, long ago, I remember a strong resistance to and allowing player to completely separate their PvE and PvP experiences.  Today, you can get PvP-only accounts, you can unlock everything through PvP alone, and GW2 PvP seems slated to be essentially UAX.  It would have been nice if they'd acted while Guild Wars was still in its Beta, but I don't think you can fault them for being willing to change.  Progress should be welcomed, even if it doesn't meet your expected timeframe. MA Anathe 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is talking about Guild Wars ceasing development? I'm asking if we can expect it anytime soon. I'm tired of waiting for ages for other people. The game is dead as dead can be. You don't see anybody anywhere unless it's a Zaishen quest or the new Beyond stuff. Oh, lets not underestimate the fact that Kamadan is full of sell spammers, real money traders, and racists. That's full everyday of the week at all hours of the day.

Oh, and who cares about what other players' reception to the idea is? Their experience isn't going to change. If they don't want to play with a full team of heroes they can feel free to limit themselves to the previous number. If they want to wait for hours lookin for a full party of players they can go right ahead. I'll be playing with my heroes and the occasional Guildie/Ally/1 or 2 random strangers. I'm tired of waiting for other people. This game is dead. The game as a whole has been developed in such a way that it encourages a few hotspots with large swaths of deserted outposts. --MangyForestCat 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Because the game is "dying" (not true, but there's fewer people and more locations, thus people are not localized into smaller areas). "Linsey was very against this idea" During the Halloween event, I talked with Linsey in game and she said that she wasn't against the idea, but rather against it this soon. She told me she intended to eventually add 7 heroes, but there was not enough need for it due to the still well sized amount of players and she even said she thinks Stumme's jumping the gun a bit. :P "Their experience isn't going to change." Actually, it will. People are more likely to pug now, even if it is with one other person, because of the hero limit. Sure, they can take henchmen, but in areas like the War in Kryta, those guys just don't cut it... so they pug or go with a friend/guildie - usually just one, maybe a couple - but with full hero parties, those who party with others to avoid having henchmen won't need to do so anymore, so the number of people partying will get reduced, even if not by much. -- Konig / talk 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm still wondering: "Why now?"."
 * No offense intended - the comment wasn't directed at you, MangyForestCat. I assumed it was clear that it was in reference to the "Why Now?", because, as you said yourself, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. MA Anathe 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question - the early part of next year. There's something pretty awesome going into that build in addition to the Hero / Embark Beach stuff along with some other improvements to the game. We'll probably be talking about it more as we get closer to it being released, for now the focus is on Wedding/Wintersday. John Stumme 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Increasing the number of heroes is a horrible idea. We need less heroes so people will group more often not more heroes so they group even less often. Ramei Arashi 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be nice if we had enough willing and/or good players in GW to PUG with. Unfortunately we do not have this luxury anymore. --92.30.159.193 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @92, that's just ridiculous, and elitist. Every player started somewhere that probably wasn't very "good", and got better by playing with and learning from better players as they progressed through the game. The fact that so many now experienced players are pretty universally (I'm not saying everyone, so those this doesn't apply to need not crucify me) unwilling to play with newer less experienced players is a large symptom of what is wrong with this player base. I wholeheartedly agree that making full hero parties available game wide is a giant error. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is more to do in the game than ever, and less people to do it than back in GW's heyday (both in terms of raw number of players, and number of players who actually still need to do any given particular thing). Full-hero parties will make people more likely to play alone, yes, but it will make people more likely to play, period. Many times it's not a choice between PUGging or H/H, but rather a choice between H/H or logging off. For the friendlier types, since they are in the game, maybe they'll stop by Embark Beach to see if they can help someone with something, or maybe they'll catch someone asking for help on guild/alliance chat, or be online for a friend to whisper for help. So no, this isn't the end of group play as we know it. It's just making what often really is the only option (how often do you see a group forming to vanquish the Southern Shiverpeaks? Or to do random Realm of Torment secondary quests?) less annoying.
 * Besides, have you met the people who PUG only because it's better than henches? They tend to be jerks. Not exactly much fun to PUG with anyway. - Tanetris 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Wyn: This. ^^ Myself, along with many of my friends, if we're not H/Hing or pulling together a group from amongst ourselves, we're just not playing. It's gotten to the point where we H/H mostly everything, and what we can't H/H we simply just don't do. Tanetris has a point. Full hero parties aren't going to change how many people there are grouping up with a PuG to do stuff, it's just going to give people that H/H everything better and more viable options. Heck, it might even bring some people back to the game. I know I'd be a lot more inclined to help random strangers if I could pick up one or two and fill the entire rest of the party with my own heroes that I know are well built and well equipped. &mdash; Jon  [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]]  Lupen  16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Wyn:  We formed an ad-hoc group with Raine and some die-hard guild wars players to do some UW in a non-sc fashion. Unfortunately, not everyone came on the day planned, and we attempted to find players in the busy Temple of the Ages. Apparently, 0 people wanted to sign up on something non-sc. Btw the 7 hero update can't fuck the game up much more. It's worse than henchmen only (pre-NF) period, but it is much better than the current H/H mix. As a good resource of 8 hero parties, with the ability to gain direct control of any hero is Dungeon Siege, which implemented the system in 2003. So I'm anxiously waiting to play Dungeon Wars, or Guild Siege... or whatever. --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 20:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be great to be able to split heroes in groups and to flag each single group. Another cool feature would be to allow the player to temporarily leave the PG AI-controlled and to play impersonating an hero.--85.18.195.26 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer why we don't do it right now, there are things that we can do that will make this a better experience to go along with it. If you release something early, no matter how much you message "Hey, it will get better down the line," that seldom gets through. What you end up with is initially "This sucks," and then the improvements feel reactive, rather than proactive. It was an intentional choice on my part to let people know "Hey, we're going to be doing this," because I feel like it's better to let people know what's going on, and to give them something to look forward to. The price I pay is of course is "Why isn't this out yet?" (or my personal favorite that I've seen so far: I only care about costumes. Lulz.) But I would rather that people have something to want than to wonder what's even going on at all. John Stumme 22:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I applaud that strategy (and your answer here). I'd rather wait for a better update/game, then suffer through post-early-release issues and bug fixes. I'd rather hear about upcoming changes than hear nothing. I'm willing to wait out the rants of the vocal minority (that, by the way, includes some who won't like anything that ANet does). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its always possible to get a pug it just takes time. Heroes can't think, they can't understand a how a mission or quest is done. Seven heroes just means 7 characters instead of 3 that agroo everything in sight and don't attack the targets you call. More heroes will make it worse not better. It's a very bad idea. They got it right when they dropped heroes from GW2. Just because some people are anti social is no reason to expand the number of heroes. Ramei Arashi 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ZQuests take care of PUGs well enough, I've been making ZQuests almost daily for a while, and not a single day I had any problem to find a party, and I've been in parties with all professions, and even parties with a warrior, a dervish and an assassin at the same time, and no problems at all to complete things. In the same way that is easier to catch a bus than to learn how to drive, but you are limited by a bus schedule, it's easier to make the daily Zquests than to make other players do what you want. So, when there's no 'ZQuests' bus for the thing you want to do, you must pick your heroes, or convince some people to join you, and drive yourself there, but don't expect others to do what you want, because that's just selfish. I think it's the best solution right now, since it allows both playing solo and forming parties. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tbh, the only thing i've ever had issues with that agro'ed everything was Stephan, then i realised warrior hench suck. -- Neil • User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Back in Kryta!
It's never explained why exactly Keiran is back in Kryta. He told Miku he was on the run from the White Mantle - did the White Mantle chase him back down south, did he return then become on the run, or what? If this will be explained in the next content update, feel free to ignore, but it's just one of the loopholes I'd like to see closed. -- Konig / talk 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the second to last quest there is a item that explains it, behind the last mob also the dialog there is rather clear imho...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The second to last one... do you mean the Mantle's Guise or are you talking about the missions (in which case, Shadows in the Jungle)? I looked through both, neither gave hints as to why he returned to Kryta after having been north of the Giant's Basin. I think you've mistaken my question of why he returns after burying Langmar for why he returns to Kryta with Miku. -- Konig / talk 01:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * i was talking about the item you find at the end of Shadows in the Jungle, and i though he was just out on a stroll... and ran into miku or he could have been on his way back to the battle for la why he would be up there i dont know though...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 02:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes well, that's why I'm asking. Keiran says that he was on the run when he met Miku, after Langmar died, but Langmar's buried north of the Lesser Giant's Basin (rather unnecessarily far to swim, at that). So why go back to Kryta, and western Kryta at that is what I'm asking. Why not along the western coast to LA, on the other side of it than the White Mantle. -- Konig / talk 03:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. I was going to ask the very same thing, but I see you've beaten me to it. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just assumed it was another of those inconsistencies caused by writers switching over during a project. Maybe Murdock intended to do something different (thus Keiran was north of Lesser Gian't Basin and we know she was going to tell an Evennia plot but that was put on the back burner in favour of Cantha love) but Stumme wanted to tell a story in Kryta (the assets already exist). It doesn't make sense for him to swim back across to where the White Mantle are when he could just go home to Gwen unless he swam back to see what happened in Lion's Arch (and the Ebon Falcons) and ran into Miku along the way. 122.104.165.248 05:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Costume maker locations
Is there any chance of getting costume makers added to guild halls and Ascalon City (post)? The festival hat makers were added to the guild services list when they became available. And I've heard a lot of complaints about Prophecies characters having to reach LA or join a guild to use a hat or costume. Darcy 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that permapres can't ever use costumes or hats since there are no hat or costume makers in pre. Just saying. --Nathe 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually curious why Shing Jea is the only non-port city with a costume/hat maker... and why Kaineng Center doesn't have them... Maybe it's set up the way it is to link up with the main festival areas+1 core area... -- Konig / talk 20:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shing Jea is a festival town, so it gests costumes and festival hats. I think it would have been quite fun having the festivals in Kaineng Center. Most people don't even know they can go to a back alley by the docks. It's quite big. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 04:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But my main point is that you cannot add a costume-maker to your guild hall. Darcy 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd like one in there too. Another gold sink please! And add in a cinematic NPC while you're at it. ;) -- Konig / talk 21:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dervish Update
I would just like to inquire about the Dervish update? It seems you have new priorities (full hero teams) and its been months since we've heard ANYTHING regarding the status of this skill balance. Could we get any sort of time frame or a preview of skills or changes anytime soon? Are you putting off the Dervish update in favor of other things? Thanks Shoyon 05:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around, actually. I've put off the Embark build until the Dervish stuff is out, that way there's no conflicts of programming resources for Robert. So, Dervish update will be out before then. John Stumme 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great news, can we expect a skill update preview, just as with the mesmer update? Reaper of Scythes ** User Reaper of ScythesJuggernaut1.png 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with a polite discussion of what direction the profession is going and the design goals of the update, but a skill preview would also be nice. On that subject, when can we expect to see the health effects of so many Dervishes exposed to ionizing radiation? –Jette 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, the effects will be a new cross-continent monster, of course! Afflicted Dervishes! (Afflicted because like Shiro's minions, these guys are heavily influenced by deathly powers). -- Konig / talk 21:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that half of them would die of radiation poisoning, and the other half would gain super powers, the likes of which we have never, and I repeat, never, seen before. But tumorous Dervishes would work, I suppose.--Zetta 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ironic to me... My guild required every melee who did UW with us to wield a scythe and we'd always have atleast 3 melees, yet not one of us ever popped that damn "UP-AND-ATOM"™ Scythe. I think I actually got the closest when I popped a Mini-Crawler. Regarding the class: I think what always bugged me the most about them is how they never actually lived up to the role of "Paladin" in a game that seemed more obsessed with keeping Wammos relevant when THOSE shoulda been killed with fire long ago.  It really gives Pause for Concern for this new "Blue Mace Lady" everyone was buzzing about in GW2.  I think a defined Role is the LAST thing we can honestly expect at this point... -- ilr [[image:User_ilr_deprav.png]] 17:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're planning to release something about it, yeah. I don't have a specific date for it since skill balance is Robert's domain, but I do think people will be surprised when they see just how much went into the update. Hint: it's not just a bunch of number changes. John Stumme 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Idk why but you all just began making good updates, I hope it was not an exception. --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 08:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Smiting Prayers
It's just my opinion, but I think that many of the skills in the monk's smiting prayers line are long overdue for an overhaul. It would be nice to make them more useful and have some of them have recharges that aren't horrendously long (which vastly reduces a skill's usefulness), so that pure smiting could finally be a truly viable alternative playstyle for monks as opposed to an afterthought in a class where the bulk of the attention is given to all the other attribute lines. Do you think this is something you guys could look into sometime after the dervish and hero updates? --Nathe 04:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (from the summary) - I don't believe you, and I have reason to disbelieve. Shouldn't go spreading rumors. As to Nathe's comment: such a change would require PvE/PvP splitting for about every skill, as they're "not useful" (I disagree, I quite like my smiting monk and find even smiting WiK mobs annoying) for PvP reasons. Whether they're useful or not really depends on opinion and situation. Smiting is really used in a few places even without undead. It's just that people would prefer healing or protecting monks over smiting monks when there are no "double damage from holy damage" enemies. It's the same as for why people don't prefer restoration ritualists - it's just more preferred to have monks as the healers and protters... for some reason. -- Konig / talk 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Not really in PvE context, which is what I was talking about, mainly. I actually prefer rit healers over monk healers... rits aren't meant for only protting imo. Would be interesting to see Communing to be reworked into a prot-only/mostly focus rather than having the rit protting skills split between communing and restoration. Hell, I'd love to see rits getting a healing effeciency boost overall - or monks knocked down to on par with rits (and add in paragons there as well - make all three equal!). -- Konig / talk 10:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They're currently looking at the smiting line. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  4:41, 5 Dec 2010 (UTC)
 * "No source; find it yourself, if you don't believe me."
 * Cos rits are terrible at it unless they're in one of those few situations where they can abuse broken mechanics. Outside of some niche roles, they're flat-out worse than monks at backline duties (without getting too specific, look at: complete lack of hex removal, unreliable condi removal, expensive & short duration prots, requirement of spirits for many spells to be useful while spirits are expensive in both energy cost and cast time, and lack of divine favor).
 * Regardless of that, I agree that smiting isn't anywhere near the top of the list of shit to fix. It's honestly better than ele nuking already, and quite on par with what mesmers can put out. I'd say air/earth/water magic and rangers in general are both higher up on the fix list than smiting, and I doubt ANet will tweak those for PvE :p - Auron 10:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "spirits are expensive in both energy cost and cast time"
 * Ok guys... first off, Nathe... suggestions go in Feedback... not on staff talk pages... do you remember what happened to Linsey, and before that Izzy? You know better. If you have suggestions for skill changes submit them properly or don't submit them at all. As for the rest of you, you also all know better than to continue this "discussion" on John's page. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * *gets technical* This *is* a Feedback page though. :P And technically, it wasn't a suggestion but rather his opinion and if it would be likely for it to get looked at soon. A suggestion would be "This is how you should alter Smiting Prayers" not "I think Smiting Prayers needs work, do you think it can be looked at in the near future?" ;) -- Konig / talk 12:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not illegal, but it's still cluttering up the page and wasting time. Let's try not to drive the only remaining ArenaNet staff member off the wiki, k? [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 12:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it here because here I actually have a chance at getting an official answer to my question, is all. That's not true if I put it in the feedback space. --Nathe 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ^^is exactly WHY suggestions don't belong on staff talk pages. Please stop with these tactics Nathe. Make your suggestions the proper way and live with the fact you won't get an official answer, stop trying to bypass the process. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to search through Feedback:Game updates and Feedback:Developer updates, you're welcome to. I'm not going to do your homework for you, though.
 * I specifically recall a bit saying, "Major reworks to dervishes, non-imbagon paragons, and the smiting prayers line will be coming later", but you're free to disbelieve me and/or arenanet; that's your prerogative. However, I do wish you'd've done said homework before coming to bug John with it, and I think that others would echo that sentiment.  Moreover, in the event that you do eventually get an answer from John, it'll likely be the same answer that arenanet has already given elsewhere, so you're not accomplishing anything here.  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  16:27, 5 Dec 2010 (UTC)
 * As Konig pointed out, I made no specific suggestion, so there was nothing to put in the feedback space. And why should a person be required to do hours of research just to ask a simple question? John's been more polite than most of you wiki staff people, so maybe you should work on that. Catching more flies with honey, as it were. But thanks for the info about smiting. --Nathe 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tanetris is more generous than I am. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  21:13, 5 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Script question: 'Bonded' skills and maintained enchantments

 * Do Parasitic Bond and Symbiotic Bond set an effect identical to any maintained enchantment on the caster in that they end the skill on their recipient when removed, although they're normally invisible? And if so, is the only functional difference between such skills that maintained enchantments also apply a -1 energy regen debuff and it can be ended manually, rather than just on death/removal?  I'm inferring this from reports that Parasitic Bond and Symbiotic Bond sometimes show up in the maintained enchantments monitor after a reconnect.
 * If so, does this mean that there is no technical barrier in the Guild Wars engine to have individual skills that do one or more of the following;
 * Have a non-infinite duration, but can be ended manually by the caster
 * Apply asymmetrical bonded effects to the caster and target.
 * Apply at least 2 independent batches of effects to the caster
 * On a related tangent, is it currently feasible to bond a location-based spell, like Maelstrom, to the caster? To be able to end it prematurely, and/or when the caster dies, and/or to cause a positive/negative effect to be applied to the caster while it's maintained.
 * Moving even further from the initial topic, is it currently possible to add an effect that only occurs while activating the skill? (Other than the 'easily interrupted' property, anyway.)
 * Finally, and completely off-topic, was the script for modifying energy costs entirely rewritten for the release of Factions? Testing prior to Factions suggested that the modifiers were applied in the order their sources were applied to the player.  More recent testing suggests the function was greatly streamlined.  The modifiers currently appear to be handled in pre-ordered batches.
 * Thanks for looking, whether or not you can take the time to respond. The joy is in creating something new within the constraints of a fixed system, whether it's defined by a rigid scripting engine or set rhyme and meter.  The likelihood of application is less important . MA Anathe 00:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this set of questions would be better directed to Joe Kimmes, the Live Team's programmer. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can probably answer some of these questions too if Joe's busy, I've screwed around with the game in almost every possible way by now. However, your prose is wooden and beyond the capacity of my attention span; please reduce the volume of your message to approximately 1/3 its current value to receive an answer. –Jette 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First - Bah, I knew I something was up. The references to the programming in the interview got me.  I'll repost it elsewhere, and yes, work on the wording.  As to a concise version of the main question:
 * Symbiotic Bond and Parasitic Bond appear to be scripted the same way as maintained enchantments. If so, it suggests that skills can apply at least two separate effects, one to the caster, and one to the target.  (The target might be the caster as well).  If that's the case, it seems like you can produce a lot of interesting effects within the current engine.  To quote Frye, "What if ... that?" MA Anathe 03:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most ideas are possible. For instance, a version of parasitic bond with an infinite duration that could be ended at any time, like a malignant Mending, is perfectly possible but could require some scripting work; duplicating or inverting resources is much faster and easier than creating original ones. As far as I know, most anything can be done with the engine involving skills and such. If you want to get into, say, the way 3-D environments work, how collision happens, the way projectiles are calculated, etc. then you'd probably have to go past the scripting language that controls skills and delve into the byzantine C++ code, which is much more prone to breaking after being modified and (generally) requires the binaries to be rebuilt, which can... take awhile. –Jette 03:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, anything should be possible when you have the source code at your disposal. That was a bad word.  I did mean "possible to produce by recycling existing resources". MA Anathe 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: Actually, no. I was asking if that particular function had already been scavenged for use by Parasitic Bond and Symbiotic Bond. If so, contributors to the feedback space should feel free to exploit the function themselves without considerations of practicality.  MA Anathe 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the system doesn't apply effects to the target and caster in the case of Parasitic Bond/Symbiotic Bond. If they did the bug with those showing up on the effects monitor would make more sense, unfortunately.  Buffs know who their caster was, so there's no real trickery needed for something like Parasitic Bond. - Joe Kimmes [[Image:User Joe Kimmes Avatar.png|19px|Talk Page‎]] 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What does "FB" stand for?
When you mentioned the schedule for content (and by schedule you mentioned the order of things being done), you mentioned something like FB. What is that supposed to be? February update? Embark Beach mistyped (but twice?!)? --Boro 11:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In a later comment on the same page he stated that FB means "Feature Build" which includes things like Embark Beach, 7 heroes, and other goodies. It doesn't have a "cool name" and it's all just features. -- Konig / talk 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hero Thackeray
You made it! You made a third paragon hero!!! Thanks.  --Boro 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You should make an elementalist hero whenever you need to introduce another one. Each character has to pick an element to ignore, or keep salvaging a hero's armor and exchanging their equipment each time they change their mind. Preferably one a little easier on the eyes than the current three; I'm forced to choose between some sort of cacodaemonical naked mole rat or gigantic horse arse shoved in my face at all times. How about Aziure? Pretty please? –Jette 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe vekk should be ditched. Sometimes I feel like driving a chainsaw through him. But Zerg Shadowhoof is pretty funny. --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 20:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Jette, you forgot about Sousuke. Nice and human. And I'd prefer they concentrate on adding heroes for the profs that don't already have 3, when they do add more. --Nathe 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thier original plan was 3 of the core profs. and 2 of each expantion prof.- that was scrapped, clearly. -- Neil • User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everybody says that, Nathe, but for some reason, people don't seem to get it. Sure heroes are fun to collect and having equal numbers of heroes would even out your collection, but for those of us who try to get the most utility out of our heroes with the least amount of rune swapping, a 4th ele is the best option. THEN we can worry about evening out your collection. Also, it would be nice to have a female ele hero. PS. I have submitted this suggestion a while back... it can be found here.  --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 18:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Female ele hero... Yes! --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we have Cynn as an ele hero (heroine) pretty please. Partly for the snarky dialog. --82.226.191.237 23:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * i think the next hero is going to be awesome....-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 23:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who say's there will be another hero? I was under the assumption Thackeray was the last one before GW2 comes out? [[Image:Dervish-tango-icon-20.png|19px]] Devi Talk 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what gave that impression? --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * john has said that there will be more and they are confirmed to be awesome.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 03:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mini Polar Bear Drop Rate
Hi John. Is there any way you can confirm the drop rate of this little guy? --Musha 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that Joe Kimmes would know that answer more than Stumme. -- Konig / talk 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lore Question
Just thought you might be able to clear something up for me that's been somewhat debated of late. A while back, I asked Regina here on wiki if it was our character, lorewise, that did the missions in the different campaigns (either the same PC in each campaign or a different one in each campaign, but a PC nonetheless) or if it was Devona and co. as some people speculate. She told me that it was, in fact, our character, but people still refuse to believe that fact, who would rather the role of our character didn't even exist in the lore at all. So I was hoping you could reconfirm it here. Thanks! --Nathe 16:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC) - I was merely stating that the Young Heroes of Tyria in-game book explicitly mentions at least three nameless heroes which each do the beginner mission of the each campaign implying that over the course of the four games there's no fewer than three "PCs" that do the work - meaning that in lore, there was not likely to be a single person who claims the credit of killing those four... with the possible exception of Devona and co. in the form of Zehtuka's credit claiming. Other campaigns have mentions of "small groups" or individuals - if it were like that, Mithran, then it would be groups of thousands. Don't think that's the case. -- Konig / talk 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note: I'm that "people" Nathe talks about however what he says I want is completely incorrect. I merely stated that there is in-game evidence which contradicts the second-hand information that we were given, therefore I was questioning the possibility in the form of "another alternative" when someone stated on guru2 "In the end it was us players who killed the Lich, Shiro, Abaddon, and The Great Destroyer."
 * No where did I ever say that I refused to believe Regina, just that there was evidence for alternatives and/or contradiction, and no where did I state that I didn't want the "role of our character" to not exist in lore at all.
 * I've kept a completely neutral stance on this topic. (and it's very rude, Nathe, to twist someone's words). -- Konig / talk 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as the player being the one that does it, but the players. That is, not just you, but everyone. Your party, your guildies, your friends, the strangers you meet in PUGs, even the henchmen, all of them. You get to see just 8 people in fights because of gameplay limitations, but all of them were there, sometimes splitting between Kurzick and Luxon sides, sometimes going to help Margrid while the rest goes to help the Master of Whispers, and sometimes skipping part of Maguuma and directly joining those that fought until Sanctum Cay. What each player does is different, what they as a whole do is the same, and Devona and the other Henchmen would be there too, joining the fight like all players. That's how I see it. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ""Sounds like a plan. The Great Destroyer's chamber is not far. A small group can slip through the lines.""
 * This is due to the effects of what I have dubbed the Variable Continuity Time Fluctuation Principle, or VCTFP. The purpose of the VCTFP can be summed up as "don't look at this too hard." It is a mysterious effect upon fictional time and space that allows unusual things to happen — for instance, in science fiction universes, it's possible (and even easy!) to move much faster than the speed of light without violating causality. The VCTFP seems most strongly gathered around fan-fiction archives and similar places, where many thousands of authors collaborate to bend the plot of various fictional settings without breaching the willing suspension of disbelief, though it hardly originated with the modern concept of fan fiction. This concept applies to Guild Wars in the sense that every player knows there are thousands (millions at some points, but who knows how many are left now) of other players who have done all the things they have, but their character is still regarded as "the hero." In essence, the canon splits into millions of tiny branches to accommodate each player, then merges with no noticeable side effects. It's a sort of consensual reality. –Jette 21:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * just shunnnn the non believers....-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, each player's character is the "hero" in their run through the story, but separate from other players in lore, because in lore there is only one PC "hero" per campaign. Every character created in GW starts with one of the same three beginnings regardless of how you play, which means it's not so much the story of an army of heroes mingling and meeting but rather that of one hero per campaign seen through thousands upon thousands of different eyes. I tend to believe that the lore PC "hero" of each campaign is a native of that campaign and the same young hero spoken of in that particular campaign's section in the Young Heroes of Tyria book - Tyrian hero for Proph, Canthan for Factions, and Elonian for Nightfall. And that the EotN PC "hero" is one of the previous three, most likely the Tyrian one given how much closer EotN is in story to Proph than to the other campaigns. The same goes for WiK and HotN. They were not alone in the story, obviously, I was just referring to that particular role, is all. And from that, it can be deduced that the PC, in fact, is the one who in lore does all the missions. Not one PC for all four campaigns, but one each for the first three and one of them for EotN, WiK, and HotN together. And I apologize for misunderstanding you, Konig, it's just what I got from the things you've said. --Nathe 07:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * YHoT has some confusing wording, specifically this line: "Some of these tales may sound familiar to you, for they lead into the larger stories of heroes such as you" which I believe was put in there because you might have done later missions in a campaign, for example everything on mainland Cantha, but not the Shing Jea missions. But you also could have done them, if you were a Canthan born character. So it kind of has to be ambiguous. It has been my belief that each character created is the "hero" of their respective campaign, and the story assumes the player is the hero. Some suspension of disbelief is needed to ignore the thousands of other heroes running around, but this is a problem that most MMOs run into. John Stumme 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. But is there an official stance on whether it's a PC or Devona and co. who does the missions lorewise, or has that never actually been cleared up in that regard? --Nathe 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Devona and co" is made up of 5 people (Devona, Mhenlo, Cynn, Aidan, and Eve). The end missions are all done with parties of 8. Math would suggest that it is not a simple "or" question. - Tanetris 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The part of eight thing is mechanical only, as the NF and EN heroes are implied to always be with the hero during their respective campaigns. Especially so on the later. -- Konig / talk 23:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Blog Suggestion
Since the game is about skills (and being a soccer team manager), it would be interesting to have a topic on them. Me personally, I'm interested more in how you constrain power by limiting the number of good skills within an attribute. For example, how Ritualist healing is severely limited, with Mend Body and Soul being the only lump heal that works very well at the cost of only one skill slot, why Mending Weapon must be 1/6th as strong as Dismiss Condition. Why Jagged Strike > Fox Fangs > Death Blossom are the only optimal Dagger choices for PvE Assassins (I'd assume that one's from what it costs you to split skills), etc. But, anything with skills and philosphy would be nice. Maybe even a peak of a preview of a thing. -- 08:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll pass this suggestion along to Robert. As far as a preview of a thing, I've confirmed we are going to do a Dervish update preview. John Stumme 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would really like to see a blog entry suggesting good animes, I haven't found anything to watch since Eden of the East finished : D. If it really really has to be about GW, I would love to know about the day to day routine of the Live Team, about the process of actually implementing this stuff in the game, about what is your day to day; and long explanations about why each part of the game was designed as it was (why make Keiran a paragon, why make it a norn wedding, why Keiran skills were what they were at his mini missions, and other things that the community did not question or disput, but which were designed the way they were for a reason, and it would be interesting to learn those reasons so we understand more about game design). Erasculio  20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rewatching Clannad at the moment, my fiance hasn't seen it yet, and we're also waiting for the final episode of Amagami SS. As for the questions that some people disputed, let's see: Keiran became a Paragon because they are the profession iconic with leadership in Guild Wars, and it was a very tangible way to show his growth. Text itself can only go so far - actually, I'm kind of surprised that some people still had as much vitriol toward Gwen that they did, in my head, the voice that I heard for her while writing was someone that was starting to let her guard down, but was not immediately going to be a different person. The lack of actual voice, or a better means to convey inflection can really hurt in that regard - but showing a character actually changing is a very visceral way to back up the story. His different character models were also a part of that. It was an interesting experiment, and I think by and large it was a success. Within our room, we were kind of marveling at the sudden influx of "Keiran is pro!" and similar comments, especially considering his previous (general) standing with the community.
 * Why a norn wedding: I didn't want to do an Ascalonian wedding, just because I feel like we've already covered the "Gwen goes back to Ascalon" angle. There's nothing left for her there now, and the north has become her home. The norn connection was an important aspect of Keiran's story that didn't really come across before, and this was a good way to tie it in as well. Besides, it's a new bit of lore to work into the world - what are weddings like for other cultures? And the answer that we came up with for the norn was to have it be a ceremony where people share stories about the greatness of the betrothed, to prove that they are truly worthy of each other. I hope that part came across well, I actually haven't seen much commentary on the wedding itself (aside from Rubi really liking it) I tried not to overdo it. As much as a certain amount of writing is needed to get stories across, sitting through long scenes is also not the most engaging thing to do.
 * Keiran's skills: were designed from a story aspect first. Like Keiran's Paragon change, I was looking for game mechanics to compliment the story I wanted to tell - in this case, that Keiran and Miku work very well together. So I approached it from the angle that the two were highly symbiotic, which manifested best in the Mark / Sniper Shot combo. That was also to get a feeling out of Guild Wars that you don't normally get - it's a frustration of mine at times that the game is always 8 vs X, and at times, that makes it hard to feel heroic. So within Keiran's missions, it became a pacing mechanic and a high point to have this instant kill that you could pull off. It just feels really satisfying. Granted, there are always people that will never like the BMP mechanic because it's not their character, but done well, I like having them in the game for the sake of offering experiences that we otherwise couldn't. I think more people than not enjoyed it, and apparently some of the mentality that I took away from my years on GW2 is making it back to the live game. That being said, people aren't even going to know what hit them when they hear about some of the other things we're doing next year.
 * Part of me is mulling over the idea of doing a blog post about Winds of Change, and why some things about it are the way that they are. John Stumme 05:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * blog post about winds of change....DO IT NOW ZOMG....-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd never be able to write for a video game, myself. I like sometimes enjoy playing  tolerate for the plot play video games on occasion, and I love video games with good stories that are conveyed well — the kind of thing you would expect to see in fantasy (or scifi, or horror, or N) novels by competent or even good authors, or the rare games that come along with dialogue that wouldn't sound out of place in Shakespeare (only cooler, since they have glowing swords and stuff). But the attempt to convey an interesting story without the benefit of conventional narrative is utterly alien to me, unless you cop out and do an amalgamation of multiple methods, like some of the Neverwinter Nights games did, Hordes of the Underdark in particular. Sometimes it works (HotU did pretty good with it), sometimes it doesn't (most RPGs are crap).  The Final Fantasy games in particular have a tendency to portray interesting characters and stories, but they fail to do it as video games because the story and the gameplay are entirely divorced, to the point that you can watch the YouTube videos of the dialogue and cinematics and miss nothing of what the game is about; it's more of a movie than a video game story.
 * The bonus missions where you play as famous figures are one of the best things to happen to the game in years, in my opinion. It allows for a more interactive storytelling mode as well as involving the player in the process, something that I felt a number of other game elements were missing. In the writing business there's a pretty common saying, "show don't tell," that essentially means you should let the reader know about something by demonstrating it rather than informing them of it objectively. The video game business has (or should have, if not) a similar saying, "play don't show," which implies that the designers should let the player feel like they're a part of the action rather than having big events go on behind them. This is particularly important for things that go on in the present, like that whole fiasco with Ascalon City being captured. I seem to remember being upset about a very good example of this not happening in Guild Wars some months back, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.
 * Just as importantly, they also let you introduce fun new skills without having to worry about balance or PvP or hard mode or any of that stuff. I'd like to comment on the most recent ones, but I'm afraid I haven't gotten around to them. My chronic apathy has reached a level where I can't get out of my chair until I'm nearly atrophic. –Jette 06:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that was a very comprehensive answer. Thanks John! Erasculio  11:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thackeray and HoM
Hi John. Just wondering if you have any plans to make our new Thackeray hero addable to the HoM? Thank you. --Musha 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He'll go in there at some point. Technically, the Thackenator already has alternate armor sets ready to go (Groom, Battle Damaged) but the limitation is that we don't have art for him to appear as a statue, and the HoM calculator/site would need to be updated to account for him being there. John Stumme 04:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance we could get the original version for those who liked that tail of his? And Gwen's wedding dress of course. -- Konig / talk 05:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you risk awakening the rage of The Goremonger...? Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 11:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. >> -- [[Image:User_Elveh_sig.png|15px]] Elv 15:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Festival Musics
So, I own all the Guild Wars soundtracks, but 2 of my favorite Guild Wars music pieces are not on the soundtracks. Is there any way we can get the Halloween and Wintersday theme music? --Musha 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked about it before, since I own all Direct Song content, but it seems that's unlikely. I'd love to get a festival music pack, though. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 11:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to buy a "complete collection of Guild Wars soundtracks" - even if it contains soundtracks I have (I have those which came with Factions and Nightfall CE), I'd still buy it just to get EN, Proph and any other soundtracks that I don't have. Same goes for a "complete collection of Guild Wars artwork" (that is, GW1 artwork - though a second GW2 artbook sometime in the distant future would be lovely). -- Konig / talk 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on the internet. you only need to find it. --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 08:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

: (
I'm sorry for you : ( Isn't it possible to get another plane? Erasculio  21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in any reasonable way, no. The plane would fly from Seattle to Chicago Midway, and from there to Islip - the flight from Midway to Islip is what got canceled. The following two days of flights out were booked solid, and they don't set aside any room to honor previous tickets aside from waiting on standby. That's a risky proposition when traveling with two people instead of just one, and I didn't want us to get stuck in an airport for three days. I had even considered taking a bus from Chicago once we got there, but it would be almost $400! The only sane thing to do was to call it off, and at least the airline refunded our tickets. I'm a little bummed as I've got no idea when I'll be able to go out and see them again, but I'm going to try and put this week that I've got free to good use. There's a backlog of gaming that I need to get caught up on. John Stumme 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New content is great, but how about fixing what's already there?
This is the first time I've done anything on any wiki, so forgive me any mistakes I make please. My question is pretty much summed up in the title. I've been playing GW since a few days after original release, and while I enjoy the new (and free!) content, I really would like to know why some problems that have been lingering for YEARS have still not been addressed. Things like the bugged Yellow Shrine Luxon caravan guards, Luxon turtles still getting stuck in Fort Aspenwood, syncing still a problem in Random Arena, etc. are only some of the problems that I've encountered in PVP alone, and since I only started PVPing within the last 2 years, the various bugs and exploits that haven't been addressed in PVP (and to a lesser degree, PVE) have really started dampening my attitude towards PVP, Guild Wars, and Anet in general. Even things like armor clipping issues that were reported years ago and haven't received any attention, despite the release of numerous new costumes (which you have to pay for). I could go on, but really what I would like to know is: Will these issues be addressed sooner rather than later? Shouldn't they be? 173.198.37.87 04:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Larbar
 * Regarding the clipping... I don't think Anet's really worried about those, since they're impossible to fix without altering the armor in many cases (assassin armor comes to mind). Also, sign your comments with 4 tilde's (like so: ~ ). I would like to see older content getting fixed... I find it humorous that someone laughed at me when I suggest in-game that there should be a focus on revamping/fixing old content, with them saying that it wouldn't be appreciated as much... -- Konig / talk 02:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't work for ArenaNet, but I imagine that the skeleton crew working on GW1 has prioritized adding new content over fixing old content. I say this because I believe they're trying to bridge the 250 year gap between GW1 and 2 as much as they can before GW2's release. Also, since ArenaNet has scrapped the "6 months, new campaign" business model, they need a means of getting money to run the servers. Little bits of new content with optional cash-shop goodies seems to be doing the trick, AFAIK.
 * Sadly, this means that fixing some of the older stuff gets put on the back burner. I imagine if they were to prioritize fixing older stuff before adding new content, they would run out of the resources to keep the servers running. This isn't to say that ArenaNet doesn't fix old issues, but fixing older content doesn't net a profit for ArenaNet. -- R i ddle 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I hope I'm editing this correctly. @Riddle: Adding new free content doesn't generate a profit for Anet, either. I don't see why it would be terribly difficult to fix at least one outstanding bug or exploit with each new content update. Just one at a time, until there aren't any more. ::@Konig: I understand that armor clipping is a relatively minor issue, I was just throwing it out there. I guess this is my major point, which I didn't really express too well with my original post: I originally was a PVE-only player. I eventually got bored of it, and started playing GW only occasionally. Then I decided to give Random Arenas a try, and I was hooked. It renewed my interest in GW, and I was motivated to start capturing/buying new skills and elites to maximize my potential build pool. After I had been playing for a while, I started noticing the issue with sync teams and how they would steamroll truly random teams (namely, the team I was on). This really started discouraging me from PVPing, and my interest in GW began waning again. Then I started doing the Zaishen Missions and Bounties, which renewed my interest in PVE. And as those started getting a bit stale, I tried Jade Quarry for the first time, mostly because it was the Zaishen Combat for the day. I was hooked again. But now, having, played JQ for a while, I've noticed how that particular PVP format is frustrating because of the various bugs, syncing, botting, etc. It's especially bad because I play on the Luxon side.
 * After doing JQ for some time, I decided to give Fort Aspenwood a try. Again, I was hooked. And again, the same issues are killing my enjoyment of that PVP format. Ultimately, I guess what I'm trying to say is that content that has already existed in GW is what has kept me playing the game, but that content, because of the lack of attention given to bugs and exploits, is causing me a great deal of frustration. PVP basically kept me playing GW, but since PVP has so many bugs/exploits I am now not only losing my interest in GW1, but it is making me think that investing in GW2 will only lead to the same cycle of intial enjoyment followed by incredible disappointment and frustration. I hope what I'm feeling/thinking is coming across with what I'm writing. EDIT: Forgot to mention leavers, and the broken Dishonor system in general. The Dishonor system has already been implemented, wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to toughen it up a little? By making the punishment harsh enough that leaving a game before it even starts is truly discouraging?173.198.37.87 04:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Larbar
 * Again, I am going to assume ArenaNet is going to doing whatever they can to keep the money coming. Since spending time fixing bugs generates less money (i.e. no money) than designing buyable costumes to wear with new, thematically similar content, I am going to assume that the Live Team is going to focus on the latter. And since ArenaNet has been selling costumes for about a year now, I want to think that the business model is working well enough to keep it.
 * Would it be nice if the Live Team fixed RA's syncing or the Dishonor system? Yeah. Will it happen prior to GW2's release? Probably not. It would be bad business to leave all the old bugs and issues alone, but realistically they can only fix a small amount. -- R i ddle 05:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * i believe that this years costume brawl was a potential fix for syncing but i also think that there were so many qq'ers that it never got implemented into the game for ra. as for clipping issues i believe to remember one anet staffer telling me that every game has them and fixing them all is near to impossible. i also believe that a lot of the code for guild wars 1 was either very poorly written or something along those lines, and thus is why we dont see many bug fixes because they are not easy to fix. and that is why they switched to making guild wars2. yes i hope they are able to fix as many bugs as they can. and i know of a few that would be in my mind "easy things to fix" the the reality of the situation most of the time with this game at least is that they are not easy to fix. but feel free to make a list and keep it on your user page and submit it to arenanet support. i would love to see a part of the live team that was deicated to going back and fix up old content and just make it flow and work together better... *cough stopping the charr to the staff of orr cough*...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fix that we had for syncing worked for what it was intended to do, it just brought to light greater issues with the problem. Why are people syncing? To get a team that they feel is guaranteed to win. Why is that so important? Because most people are playing for title points, not for fun - thus losing is seen as inefficient, and generates resentment to whoever is the "source" of your loss. So playing on truly random teams was fantastic for people that are either more casual, or just interested in playing for playings sake - it's like just joining in to a random TF2 server. You can go in, shoot some guys, help your team with your objectives, and probably have fun regardless of the outcome. Titles (and related things, like Fame) in GW have been a double edged sword: they're a terrific motivation for people to play, but as we've seen, sometimes they come with some consequences. So while we can implement the syncing fix, I don't think it's in our interests to do so until it's coming along with something that's part of fixing the bigger problem. Generally I'm not a fan of band-aid solutions unless there's no other choice, I like to get at the real problem where we can. And for what it's worth, bug fixes for old stuff do make it into the builds that we're putting out when we've got time for them. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that with the size of the team, we're only able to do so much, and new stuff has to be a priority. It's not our job to be making money first (although it is always a concern; we are a business after all, and we need to show that our team is valuable and worth keeping around) rather, it's to keep people excited for and engaged with the game. New content is always going to be more compelling in that regard - it gives people something to look forward to, speculate about, argue over, and eventually play (or play with, in the case of features.) I have to prioritize doing the things that buy us the most positive returns, and hope that we'll be able to work toward the resources to better include maintenance as well. John Stumme 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you pretty much summed up that the major problem is the titles for RA and/or other areas meant for casual/fun gameplay instead of hardcore competitive grinding, which pretty much kills said areas of play for everyone else interested in less-than-the-fastest/grindiest methods of "playing" it. Dungeon runs (or UW runs) for titles and goodies (both rewarding the quickest playthrough, aka 8 shadow form assassins) pretty much ban actual balanced team play from these areas. So the fix would be removing the gladiator title from RA, maybe reintroducing TA, or merging the title with codex. Then Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood would need reduced faction rewards along with the obligatory fixes for the format. And we still have the issues of Speed Clears and Dungeon Runs for titles and goods, which are popular because some dungeons being incredily crazy and also easily farmed because of the mobs' and bosses' reliance on spells. There both the issues of rare items and/or titles need to be addressed, and also the issue of shadow form still being crazy powerful. (and a party of 8 assassins totally immune to spells) --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fix that we had for syncing worked for what it was intended to do, it just brought to light greater issues with the problem. Why are people syncing? To get a team that they feel is guaranteed to win. Why is that so important? Because most people are playing for title points, not for fun - thus losing is seen as inefficient, and generates resentment to whoever is the "source" of your loss. So playing on truly random teams was fantastic for people that are either more casual, or just interested in playing for playings sake - it's like just joining in to a random TF2 server. You can go in, shoot some guys, help your team with your objectives, and probably have fun regardless of the outcome. Titles (and related things, like Fame) in GW have been a double edged sword: they're a terrific motivation for people to play, but as we've seen, sometimes they come with some consequences. So while we can implement the syncing fix, I don't think it's in our interests to do so until it's coming along with something that's part of fixing the bigger problem. Generally I'm not a fan of band-aid solutions unless there's no other choice, I like to get at the real problem where we can. And for what it's worth, bug fixes for old stuff do make it into the builds that we're putting out when we've got time for them. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that with the size of the team, we're only able to do so much, and new stuff has to be a priority. It's not our job to be making money first (although it is always a concern; we are a business after all, and we need to show that our team is valuable and worth keeping around) rather, it's to keep people excited for and engaged with the game. New content is always going to be more compelling in that regard - it gives people something to look forward to, speculate about, argue over, and eventually play (or play with, in the case of features.) I have to prioritize doing the things that buy us the most positive returns, and hope that we'll be able to work toward the resources to better include maintenance as well. John Stumme 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you pretty much summed up that the major problem is the titles for RA and/or other areas meant for casual/fun gameplay instead of hardcore competitive grinding, which pretty much kills said areas of play for everyone else interested in less-than-the-fastest/grindiest methods of "playing" it. Dungeon runs (or UW runs) for titles and goodies (both rewarding the quickest playthrough, aka 8 shadow form assassins) pretty much ban actual balanced team play from these areas. So the fix would be removing the gladiator title from RA, maybe reintroducing TA, or merging the title with codex. Then Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood would need reduced faction rewards along with the obligatory fixes for the format. And we still have the issues of Speed Clears and Dungeon Runs for titles and goods, which are popular because some dungeons being incredily crazy and also easily farmed because of the mobs' and bosses' reliance on spells. There both the issues of rare items and/or titles need to be addressed, and also the issue of shadow form still being crazy powerful. (and a party of 8 assassins totally immune to spells) --Boro [[image:User_Borotvaltgandalf_Sig.jpg|10px‎]] 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * *nods* ...really good answer there. Have to pardon me if I'm a little surprised by the source.  ...no intent to patronize is intended, it's just that I've never seen it layed out quite that honestly before.  For what it's worth, I think this year's costume brawl did a perfect job of mimicking a random TF2 server... maybe too well when it came to that one cluster-map that played like WatchTower on a Clan-Lotus server. >.>  -- ilr [[image:User_ilr_deprav.png]] 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for GW Beyond
Hey, I know you must get suggestions like every day for the follow-ups of GWB but I just wanted to bring up the fact that it would be absolutely awesome to get a Order of Whispers Costume if we ever get to play a Elona-themed addition of Beyond. =) See ya, Meliana 12:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * please post in the feedback area about suggestions or a more likely place were it will be seen is in a forum.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)