User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/September 2007

old idea...but its a good point.
i did not notice this so i thought id put it up. some way of trading that does not require standing around spamming till you finally find some1 who wants what you're selling (but this can take days... and nobody wants that). i don't really care what it is, an auction house, player shops, a message board, afk player selling or even some strange idea that i cannot even comprehend. By forcing players to directly find their customer through the millions of people playing, the act of selling an item to another becomes incredibly grueling. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.69.179.206.
 * True. And you can find a similar section in the archive ;) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Cleanup / August Archive
Hi,

Can all August entries be Archived, please (like the one done for July)? This page is getting quite lengthy; I'd do it myself if someone would be so kind enough to instruct me.

Thanks! --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the purpose of this page has already been defeated. It is probably the worst format ever for presenting and perserving ideas, and instead of becoming a center for gathering the best ideas developed around the net, it is basically a collaboration of bias interests which are not relavent enough to accept, half of this isn't even rational, let alone benificial.


 * They can bury each months progress into an archive so the same dated topics can be brought up over and over again without development because people are just coming here to suggest their ideas since it is popular, or they can let it stagnate under the weight of so many undeveloped topics that arn't even relavent. This is really sad since there already is a strong format for wiking suggestions, and the only reason this is being used is because Gaile is promoting it.


 * If suggestions are going to continue on this wiki, than the format needs to be totally reworked that way it can retain and display organized discussion and development of useful topics, and a group of educated responders need to regularly preen and explain the rationality behind topics that way players can actually work toward useful endevors instead of bleeding their prejudice and assumptions on the developers.--BahamutKaiser 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this doesn't work. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I'm thinking if a (sub)subpage per suggestion would work, with a Category page serving as an index. There would still be the danger of duplicate/overlapping entries though, but the discussion pages would be clearer at the very least. --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NikiWiki already has an oustanding Wiki Function for suggestions, and if they can't accept that, than they should copy it, if that is within their capabilities.--BahamutKaiser 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A wiki function that allows votes, nice. I should point Tanaric that way, hehe. --Xeeron 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bahamut - Thanks man, I appreciate the support for NikiWiki. In fact I just noticed (because of this post) that there is a July 2007 archive of this page, and I realized that several folks have already brought up NikiWiki as an alternative to this...  mess.  I wish I would have read all that sooner and I might not have submitted my post above given Gaile's apparent stance on the issue.


 * I was very interested to read this post in particular where Gaile states ... a page with links isn't as good as a page with ideas... OMG - is she serious?  She's saying that she would rather use a bloated, unorganized blog of random ideas rather than a tool that was originally designed for this exact purpose?  This page is such a perfect example of what I'm trying to improve with NikiWiki.  For example:  Which suggestions on this page are the most popular with the players?  Which ones are specifically related to armor?  What if I wanted to search these ideas for a certain keyword – would I use the 'search' box on the left?  Ooops, nope...  that searches the whole site...   etc. etc.


 * I can't help but think that everyone from ArenaNet that has visited NikiWiki has merely glanced at the main page and then gone about their business without a second thought. I can only assume they  don't understand what a powerful tool it is, or they're so concerned about the bottom dollar that they're too afraid to use a non-affiliated site for some reason (even though it could greatly benefit them and in the long-run, the players).


 * Seriously, if they would just ask me, I'd be happy to work with them (I'd even give them the site if they really wanted), but the only correspondence I've receive was one terse response from my fansite request. I simply can't fathom how they can be so obtuse when I'm trying to hand them such a great tool - for FREE!!!


 * So, I gotta ask all you thinkers out there this question: Do you really like seeing your ideas get lost in "archives" of gigantic, unsortable, unorganized discussion forums?  Or would you rather they exist in a categorized, searchable environment where each suggestion has it's own page with a separate discussion section, and users can easily vote on your ideas?  If you agree that NikiWiki is a better medium than this endless suggestion page, please post a note here saying so and maybe we can get ArenaNet to do something.  They don't even have to use NikiWiki if they don't want to, they can copy it for all I care – I'm just trying to put an end to blogs/forums like this page. --Broken 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I don't want to see is my discussion page, or the Official Guild Wars Wiki, used constantly to promote someone's website. And that is what is happening here, in this thread and in many others. We have no interest in moving the discussion from the GWW to somebody's site. Certainly we can discuss better means of presenting ideas -- this was intended as a starter concept, not final release. :) We made the GWW to work in concordance with other sites, but not as a redirect to them, or, excuse me if this is harsh, as a place for constant other-site promotion. Let's keep on topic, which is Guild Wars 2 suggestions. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it boils down to simply avoiding favoratism, and catering to high traffic fan sites, reguardless of function or general topic relavence.... Would you know that GWG still maintains a subtopic for profession suggestion even though Anet hasn't declared intentions of even continuing GW let alone adding new profession which they avoided in EotN. I would be happy if they at least listed NikiWiki as a fansite at the official site, simply for being the best tool so far to record and maintain organized ideas, but I'm not depending on them to consider our ideas, if they do it is their benifit, if they don't, I'll have more original material of my own if I ever get an opportunity, or if I even care after I have followed through with my own business.

We have to tolerate their sluggish responses though, because their primary objective isn't to gather player imput and accept it, especially when most of it is like this, with 3 or 4 repeats about the same prejudice against leveling with different solutions, when it was already crushed to begin with. You never know, maybe some of them do read the NikiWiki, and arn't interested in introducing it to more people because they don't expect better content by a larger sum of discussions rather than better quality, but there is no knowing, and therefore less belief that relavent opinions will influence the game.

I will say I am impressed with Jeffs statements about the genre recently posted on the site, wile I would also say that any professional in the business should have easily realized those qualities as they are painstakingly obvious by even slight observation, it is still rare to see someone articulate rational thought. I have confidence that GW2 will be an inovation in gaming, but I'm not confident Anet will support the game as much as it needs to be, because I honestly feel GW1 isn't supported nearly enough, or they would be addressing the widespread suppression and underdevelopment of many skills and build options in our existing game.

I still thing GW is a good game, maybe even a better game in comparisons, but I honestly desire more out of a game, alot more, I want a great, a fabulous game, and I think GW1 has yet to be refined to its great potential. I'm actually alot more concerned about the adjustment of skills in GW1 lately, because I would like for the game to be richer in diversity and alternatives, as well as skill and profession opportunity and functionality. The hope and see approach to GW2 is really wasteful and Anet needs to do a little bit of communicating if they value the invention of their fanbase, and also support rational and relavent development of ideas.

There is something a bit troubling about what Jeff said, in a round about way, he seemed to imply that there is a limitation to what can be done with a subscriptionless game, and that their mode of game support is relavent to their means. Wile that would make plenty of sense, I really want more out of the game, and I wish a slight compromise could take place so the game could benifit from more development, yet they have already committed to subscriptionless again, and it would hurt their integrity to retract that......--BahamutKaiser 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Multi platform
Since the begining it been told that support multiples platforms including Linux and Apple was considered but the faq page never updated on this matter. My suggestion for GW2? Develope it multi platform from the ground up so it can be ported to any system with ease.

I am willing to test a linux port over my usual play-time.

--Bob 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is more important to make it console compatable, since a vast number of players turn to their console as their primary or only source for game involvement, and spected performance, it would open the door to many more players, especially with a subscription free model which woln't presure players to sacrifice time on other games and pay out continoually.


 * Wile investing in Mac OS would be a good choice for development, I think linux is unreasonable. Games are widely developed on windows for a simple reason, the simplicity and availability of it's use.  Game companies have little to gain from designing on additional OS when they know basically everyone has windows available, and only a select few computer savy players can benifit from the stability of a less mainstream OS.  This is no different then aiming for the 3 high penetration consoles instead of obscure and rare alternatives, they have to make it for the windows OS, and making it for additional OS when windows is almost certain to be available to those consumers as well is almost counter productive.--BahamutKaiser 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not but Linux is a more viable platform then MacOS for games, there is much more gamer due to it 10 years of dual boot habit to play games. And i would not call Window simple or easy to use, it more troublesome then anything else compared to Linux or MacOS... Multi platform developement result in portable code that can, with little work, build binary for any plantform avaible that suit the basic requirment; In GW case, networking, keyboard/mice input, 3d graphics and sound. Any modern pc OS and game console meet those requirment.


 * Game companies have much to gain from writing portable software. Not been tie to a single vendor, developers are free to jump ship if any thing break. What if Microsoft screw pc-gaming to favor xbox? (Vista pointing this direction). Also portable software tend to be less buggy, bugs become obvious and easy to remove. A bug on platform X show faillure not visible on others. Cross platform pc-game get you acces to console nearly for free, a modern console is basicly a small pc with it own OS. Beside any market, as small as it could be, worth taking adventage of.


 * (pc-gaming market keep shrinking to consoles, what you think if GW2 been for console only? after all, it would be counter productive to develope on a shrinking market. ;)


 * My point is the more options the better. I dont care if Mac and Linux benifit only limited support. This option should be avaible for the good of both developers and customers. --Bob 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Making Guild Wars 2 exclusively for consoles would be counterproductive, because it would shut out all the existing Guild Wars players who don't own the right next-gen console. They would also be permanently restricted by the console's hardware. The overall PC game market is shrinking, but the PC MMORPG market is growing, and I'm not aware of a single console-exclusive MMORPG. -- Gordon Ecker 07:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It humor! :) --Bob 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing up something completely off topic? Did anyone mention switching it off computers?  I said console compatable, do I have to spell out as well?  And people get mad at me when I spell out every detail, if you can't use a little bit of insight and rational than that's what you get.  The topic is multiplatform, not switching platform, and I brang up consoles as a more significant ADDITIONAL platform instead of obscure OS like Linux.--BahamutKaiser 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] Actually, with the advent of the Cider porting system for Intel Macs, there's a much more viable way for ANet to create Mac-based client (take a look at some of the newer EA games like Tiberium Wars for example). This does mean sacrificing some performance, but hell, I'd give up a little perfomance any day than have to reboot into XP to play GW! :) - Torpy 09:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the guy who said "Obscure OS like Linux" is completely ignoring all about the Linux world. Just to give an example, check out one of the latest distributions, Ubuntu. That OS is made for my grandma to use. Of course she don't play GW, but i mean, once you know what Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or other distros (user friendly, like those i've mentioned) you will know that Windows turns to be the Obscure OS compared to MacOS and those Linux Distros. I'm one of the thousand of dual booting player. Played non-stop since Anet launched the game back in April, 2005. Since then, i've been dual booting Win/Lin, useng windows only to play GW and Photoshop. Like me there are thousands of other players. You should open your eyes. In fact, i believe there are more Linux users dual booting, than Mac users dual booting to play GW. Gratz for awesome game! Alex.

Proper care for the PvP community
Don't ignore PvP in GW2. Don't snap and say that you're going to stop reading the forums either(although that bit's not necessarily PvP-exclusive, but more just a matter of the CR people doing their job properly or not). Also, don't destroy the PvP midgame in GW2(hi, HA). To expand on the CR point, hire some good PvP player or players(by PvP, I mean whatever the top-level is in GW2, not the RA-equivalent) to communicate with the PvP community(if GW2 manages to convince anyone to come back, of course). --Edru viransu 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that vocal PvP players complain that ArenaNet ignores PvP and vocal PvE players complain that ArenaNet ignores PvE? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that the claim of one person/group of people being wrong doesn't make someone claiming quite nearly the opposite thing wrong? --Edru viransu 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, regardless of whether they're ignoring PvP in GW, my initial point remains the same: they shouldn't ignore it in GW2. --Edru viransu 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that your implications of ArenaNet's track record regarding PvP is being echoed by many in the PvE camp regarding PvE. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I actually don't think they've done much better concerning PvE, either, although they've not been ignoring it per se, just as they've not been ignoring PvP per se, as it's mostly a boring skill-less grindfest. EotN was a step in the right direction with some enemies with decent bars but too little, too late. --Edru viransu 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was probably due to their need to cater for new players, so it was probably a design decision not to dump EotN level stuff onto the 3 campaigns. EotN was specifically for existing players, so it was much more acceptable I guess. And you're right, GW2 really needs to one-up their PvP attraction with new PvP-centric games on the horizon. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do me a favor Anet, and add some good PvP modes equal to HA, GvG and maybe a new pvp mode. Then make a nice balancing and everything is fine >,< 87.123.6.162 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Drrt

You may not be aware, but I'm incredibly happy to be able to tell you that ArenaNet has appointed a very ardent and committed PvP player to serve the PvP community. Your are not only free to, but encouraged to, discuss your thoughts with him, to express your concerns, share your compliments, and to ask for his advocacy of any issues that you feel would best serve this very important part of our community. Make no mistake: The Guild Wars Team is committed to supporting, nurturing, and enhancing PvP, and to addressing issues that the PvP players feel are important to the continued health and growth of that specific community. We cannot agree to every request. We cannot satisfy every demand. That is the reality of a game with an enormous player base of individuals who have specific thoughts and desires about the game. But with someone whose sole function is watching out for PvPers, worldwide, I think you'll agree that we have expanded your ability to make a difference, and that we've responded (positively) to an oft-asked request... even one that I myself have voiced! Get to know Andrew Patrick; I think you'll be happy that you did. --Gaile 04:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of Andrew Patrick, and I don't doubt that he probably is a fairly good PvPer, and he does seem to be doing a pretty good job of interacting with the PvP community, but he has expressed in the past that sometimes the desires of the PvP community are unclear to him. Having a well-known, universally-respected member(s) of the PvP community in charge of PvP relations would help with that problem. I don't think I was aware of that when I first posted this, and I think he's doing a pretty good job. This wiki has, itself, somewhat helped with the problem itself, by making it more easy for players to contact the devs directly(although the more PvP-related devs(Izzy, etc.) have always been fairly closely involved with the PvP community). --Edru viransu 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is nice to know that someone is on the task of balancing the game for PvP and PvE, but simply reading about Izzy and other developers divide their time between GW1 and GW2, when they don't seem to have enough time to address the one, makes me wonder if the game is getting the support it needs. It would be great if the skill development priority was raised so discussion and development happen faster.  It is also nice to know that there are a few different viewpoints being represented in the skill balance, because the bias of one, or a few like minded individiuals can limit the options supported in the game. I'm not talking about a dozen individuals, because you can have an army of developers who think the same, I'm talking about deliberation between different interests so a combination of interests are pursued in the game.  I understand that the game has to stay within a certain cannon, but when many skills already in the game are suppressed out of personal distaste and simplicity, it makes me wonder if the mandate to entertain a variety of play styles is being addressed.  Gameplay opportunity isn't being able to do the same thing 18 different ways, it is being able to do something different effectively, I need only submit Ritualist to make my point.--BahamutKaiser 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Make PvE Require Sentient Thought
Have enemies with random spawns of good bars. Have enemies in groups with builds that synergize with one another. Make the AI less bad. --Edru viransu 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two are fine, but "make the AI less bad" is an unworkable suggestion I see repeated on forums and wikis over and over. Computers are not capable of sentient thought, and beating AI in any game is always a matter of figuring out how it functions and taking advantage of it. Nearly every game in the world where you play against AI has bad AI. Even the ones that seem to have good AI do so with tricks that don't work anymore once you figure them out. Game AI is simply not at the point where it can analyze your tactics and adjust its tactics accordingly. The best they can do is leverage what AI is good at -- spamming skills and reacting quickly. And they make things harder by making the enemies stronger than you and throwing more of them at you. They could add more tricks, like making enemies who are losing run toward another group of enemies, but these are just tricks and would be figured out and overcome. Computer AI is just not good at tactics. ArenaNet is no exception in this regard to the rest of the game industry. -- bcstingg (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah uh, have you ever played any FPS game? Because you'd know that humans make the same predictable errors as your "bad AI" you're talking about. In TF2, sniping is all about knowing where you're opponent's going to move. Honestly, it's like that in every game. If you know your opponent is good, you can fake a flank and own 'im. It's all about prediction, and you'll never get over that. Vael Victus 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that AI, espcially in a strategy game, is very predictable, and no matter how developed they are, players will eventually learn how they work, and exploit its weaknesses. But there are simple things that can be done to make battle more realistic and fun.  Things like fear factor, where foes will try to avoid confrontations with a larger group, and flee from a failed encounter.  Simple things like this would allow solo players to take on one or a few foes at a time without having to skirt around foes in far to great a number to compete with, wile teams of players would find foes searching for assistance before engaging a developed force, and try to flee in order to survive.


 * That little bit of realism and self preservation makes the foes seem like more than moving targets, and I'm sure lots of little behaviors can be developed to make battles more interesting and fun.--BahamutKaiser 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Has any 1 played puzzle pirates? lol not while u have guild wars i guess.. anyway, I thought they had an interesting game play concept that REQUIRES SENTIENT THOUGHT, not that gw1 is void of it =P. The concept is that, basically, any task that would involve grind in any other mmo, like wine making in runescape or mining in wow ( not that i've played wow, runescape was insanely boring...) was carried out via the solving of puzzles. I don't actually play the game =P, mainly cos it's puzzles kinda.. well.. suck ( they're not that puzzling =.= ). But I like the idea of puzzle solving taking over grind (wink wink, gives AN dev team an eye) and given that theres "unlimited levels", I was thinking that these levels could be obtained through the solution of more and more difficult puzzles, subject to tighter and tighter time constraints, that allowed users to create better and better PVE only items ( cakes, maybe armour/weapons? ). Of course given that GW2 is meant to be a fantasy adventure game, you'd have to put it into the context of Pulverizing some sort of unfortunate nefarious creature. Anyway, just a thought.--WikiWu 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about PvE combat AI, what are you talking about?--BahamutKaiser 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * heh, the idea wasn't abt pve monster ai, but the title "make pve require sentient thought" seemed like an appropriate place to put the idea. Did i do wrong? If u didn't get it, basically the idea was to have a character development component, which involved the creation of consumables/items, for an in game economy, by essentially testing your meddle every time you wanted something done, or to gain levels in that component. sorry if it looked like an ad lol.--WikiWu 07:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reward diverse, balanced parties, not lopsided parties
In the original Guild Wars, there's a number of skills such as Anthems, Arias, Finales and Orders which favour lopsided party setups. -- Gordon Ecker 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think highly synergized builds are owed a level of advantage. And I have to disagree with overpowered Shout and related skills because, it is too widespread, these abilities require proximity, and that tactic can be punished, shout related abilities need better opposition from AoE damage.  As for Orders, I think Group Enchantments should have their own counter, and an the ability to strip several units, or target group enchantments should be developed more, but not overdone.--BahamutKaiser 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By balanced and lopsided, I wasn't referring to game balance, I was referring to party composition. I don't have a problem with rewarding synergized team setups, but I think that synergy should mean party members from most or all of the professions co-ordinating their builds, not a party in which half the members have the same profession and identical or nearly identical builds (barrage / pet rangers, searing flames nukers etc.). I'm thinking mainly of PvE, although there are some PvP examples, such as paraway and the original spirit spam. I have two issues. First, I believe that party buffs should be designed so that their effectiveness is largely independant of party composition, like Aegis and Recuperation, rather than disproportionately favouring a few professions like Anthem of Fury, Energizing Chorus or Orders. Second, I believe that each profession shold have at least one primary role which is important in both PvE and PvP (not necessarily the same role), and that any professions which share a primary role should be set up so that bringing one member of each of the two professions would be better than bringing two members of one of the professions. I don't have any problem with single-target buffs which favour certain professions, such as Inspirational Speech, Judge's Insight, Weapon of Fury or Withering Aura. I'd be okay with a party buff which favours certain professions as long as it has a limited numbers of "charges", and the "charge pool" is shared by the entire party. -- Gordon Ecker 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with certain professions like Paragon is that they cannot have the same effect on some groups as compared to other groups, and what they do in different compositions can be gimped in one and extremely synergized in another. But as long as there are effective counters to overcome even the best Paragon Synergy, that it is alright for the skills to be universally effective, because wile the synergy will be advantagious to a paragon party, they will be utterly defeated by a small pool of counters making it an extreme liability.  That is enough to force diversity into the team, keeping them from overusing team functions.


 * Yet it is also important to recognize simular build teams as an option and interest to pursue, some people want to utilize an all ranger team with 8 pets and different secondaries to provide the neccessities. All different styles of play should be promoted, all we need is effective counters to address overly synergized builds like mass beast taming and mass paraway (whatever it's called).  Sadly both could be addressed fairly well by AoE damage which doesn't get the attention it deserves, but that is a skill balance discussion.


 * The point is that diverse and simular build plays should be supported, and for paragon, I would suggest that it is designed to work with other paragons, since that is what it accels at, and than give it enough effect solo or singularly used to be effective.


 * Also, by broadening the functions and abilities used by each profession, it makes it easier for a group of the same professions to bring different options to the team, and allows each profession to address more role options in a diverse team. But there is really too much information to go over on this topic, and repeating all of it would drown this topic.--BahamutKaiser 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree that similar build plays should be supported. Strong lopsided teams leads to some very un-fun play, and it would be nice if in GW2 synergy actually involved different classes coming together to make a team build that's more valuable than stacking particular classes to maximise the use of very narrow group buffs. Mostly, this issue comes from the fact that GW locks the skill bar, and that buffing skills in GW do not have diverse effects on different classes. It would be nice to see buffs in GW2 encourage you to group with a diverse combination of classes. --Ari 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually like alternate playing mechanics for different professions. Some offer great synergy through diversity, wile others offer great synergy though simularity and coordination.  I am most interested in the solicited use of paragon type professions as a profession which is ment to benifit primarily from coordianted use with other paragons.  This idea comes from the organization of real feudal battles, and the power of flanking in feudal combat.  I'm sure we can all recall "300".  The idea is that a profession like paragon specifically, have all the facilities to offer useful advantages to a diverse team, but accel intentionally in use with other paragons using new special techniques like formations, as well as their typical group shout use and such.  Developement of this feature would be designed to offer superior crowd defense in large scale battles, with body blocking and coordinated formation action benifits.  But like I said, it is far to complicated to explain here.


 * My point is, gameplay diversity also means that not all professions are specifically designed to work best in a mix of professions, but some are actually designed to take advantage of simular builds and the power of coordination and synergy. When you have the choice of using 4 to 6 physical combat units in a team, of which some are great melee combatants, and some are great ranged combatants, and some are great defensive combatans, or you can choose to use 4 to 6 paragons which have a moderate amount of melee, ranged and defensive combat, and synergize together in order to provide a powerful mix of all of them together, your actually supporting more forms of gameplay.  On the one side, a "soilders flank" will create an indominable force which makes it very difficult to penetrate and defeat, on the other, strategic sabatoge of that flank can bring it down, and use of seperate specialized units may provide more advantage.  It comes down to how surreal an experience you can create in combat, and strictly advantagious diversity is just as limiting as highly advantagious simularity, neither should be supported as the only way to accel.--BahamutKaiser 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indent reset! Well, I agree that making diversity the only choice is limiting, for sure. What I'm trying to say is that there should be incentives to bring a variety of melee professions with different skills on a melee-heavy team, and a variety of different caster builds on a caster-heavy team, and a variety of different healer or protector builds on a defense-heavy team. And also that professions like paragons, while they should certainly be able to make builds that benefit stacking similar professions, shouldn't be able to make builds that either benefit stacking near-identical builds, nor should they be able to make builds that get a significantly better return from unbalanced professions in group makeup compared to balanced professions. Does that make sense? Synergy should ideally build from similar but distinct builds coming together, not from virtually identical builds stacking around one or two buffing skills. --Ari 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We Don't Need the Stat Cap (Waaagh)!
Hail! Regarding to Gaile's suggestion, I'd like to add my... suggestion. Add it here, I mean :).

In GW1 there is an item system that uses stat limits. Max dmg for bows is 15-28, armors for rangers can have up to 70+30 Armor Class, item upgrades of fortitude can add no more than 30 HP and so on... I'd like to know, can we expect this type of restrictions in GW2? I detest grind and farming, but I love gathering items that are better and better (system present in WoW or any other typical MMORPG). Of course, there are some very rare (and expensive) item skins in GW1, that we can look for and wish we were able to afford, but... you know, what I mean :) . Knowing that there are always items with better stats than ours is much, much more mobilizing!

The same thing about the characters. I know that decision about level cap in GW2 hasn't been made yet (100 lvls? no limits?). Anyway, I remember the statement saying that levelling will affect the stats until the particular point, at which lvl stops making any special difference (something like in GW1, where reaching lvl 20 and 200 APs means an end of developing our hero this way and all we can do in this matter is collecting Skill Points, increasing reputation, getting titles etc.). Are there any really interesting possibilities for our characters after reaching that specific level XX? Like in the case of item "stat cap" - knowing that our hero can't be developed in any interesting and noticeable way is one of these few things in GW1 that I don't like too much. MonkOfWar 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole idea behind the stat cap is that it puts players on equal footing. It doesn't matter if you have 10 hours a day to grind for items -- a player who only plays an hour a day can have equipment equal to yours, and your skill is what's going to make the difference in how well you do. If the casual player could only hope to ever find a +30hp mod, but the 10-hour-per-day farmer could get a +50hp mod, that would give you an advantage only because of time spent -- skill would mean less, equipment stats would mean more, and the "good" players would be the ones who had the most time to search for items, not the ones with the most skill. The stat caps are fundamental to the Guild Wars experience IMO. -- bcstingg (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more with bcstingg. --Xeeron 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with bcstingg, the game should not be about getting equipment, it should be about enjoying it. It is nice to have a diversity of equipment with many different looks and functions, so many different ways to battle and build your character can be enjoyed, but creating advantagious and obscure equipment for players who accept grind is a real failure IMO.  I woln't say that prized equipment should not be available and made for GW2, but I will say the typical system of grinding for the next great items is dated, and also unrealistic.  If you defeat a boss, it should drop the weapon, first time, or get items from completing quest or reaching locations.  The whole system of fight monotinous battles over and over again for better objects is really just an extention of fighting lame monotinous battles over and over again for levels, a dated and unenjoyable practice.  Other limitations can be applies to make it difficult to aquire and salvage equipment, like trying not to break the object your trying to receive from a foe, forcing you to fight a difficult way, or more strenuous carrying capacity where all foes drop a full set of equipment, but you can only afford to take another half load of equipment with you no matter how much is dropped.


 * The general and natural practices in every aspect of an MMORPG need to be heavily evaluated and designed for fun, crafting should be a minigame, not a grind+investment system, character development should be an adventure, not a hack and slash monotinousathon, and looting gear should be a hunt, not a "season" of "harvest".


 * Granted that all players will have access to equally powerful equipment in PvP, it is alright to have advantagious equipment in PvE for players to covet and aspire to, but they better be fun to get, not a chore.--BahamutKaiser 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea. I think anything in GW2 that involves competition rather than co-operation with other players should have some balancing system to make success exclusively dependent to skill. Thats not to say that in PvE you wouldn't have to do an endlessly boring task to obtain superior items. For example, there might be a minigame, where you have to solve a sudoku puzzle/rubik's cube asap. The faster you solve it the greater the rewards. And perhaps grow lvls, where the puzzles increase in difficulty -eg 4 dimensional rubikscube -5, then 6 etc.. and so do the rewards. See in this case your progression would actually represent a self improvement. I don't want to see GW2 turn into a festival of minigames, but if any task to obtain an item is meant to be difficult, i would like to see something test my meddle rather than my schedule to obtain it. I think that way it would be a greater symbol of pride than if it required purely grind, as you can say "Hah i can solve a six dimensional rubiks cube in 3 mins can YOU?".
 * You've read my other post Kaiser, I hope you get it better now =P--WikiWu 07:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The concepts you're talking about are fine as long as the reward doesn't have better stats than those that can be obtained elsewhere. Otherwise you're running into the same situation of an unrelated activity giving you an advatange you shouldn't have. If you're better at me than solving a Rubik's Cube than I am, but I have more skill at Guild Wars than you, doing the former shouldn't give you an equipment advantage over me. If the rewards you're talking about are along the lines of what we've already seen from mini-games -- reputation points, PvE skills, a crown -- I'd be fine with that. I have no problem with optional rewards that don't give any tangible advantage. -- bcstingg (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In some cases I would suggest some sort of puzzle, or minigame activity to obtain or complete objectives, perhaps on a crafting system, but as far as typical rewards and replacing grind type gameplay, I suggest the difficulty be obscuring it, not chance and repeats. If I can beat a much harder for in one try, than that is fine, give me the weapon now, if I fail to beat him and it takes 20 times, at least I didn't repeat the same boss 20 times because I beat it and it didn't drop, I did it 20 times because I got whooped by a hard foe that I need to learn to beat.

Ideally you want to have a gameplay system that is repeated for one reason, because it was fun. Players should not be saying to themselves, "gee, lets go take on some minotaurs so we can get a rare sword", they should be saying, "Hey, we are about to take on Minotaurs, wanna join us?" It doesn't sound much different, but when the motive is simply to take on foes and enjoy the dynamics and challenge of the game, than your really enjoying the game. This is also why I suggest more action based combat systems, because when you play a fighting game or something of an action nature, you can take on the same foes over and over simply for the challenge, without justifying it with a reward. Rewards are a bonus, and asset, some recognition, they should never be the goal of your pursuit, this isn't real, fake objects should not be an objective, we are playing a game and gameplay should be our interest.--BahamutKaiser 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stay on topic, Kaiser. This thread is about the stat cap on weapons, not grind nor difficulity levels nor rewards.
 * As mentioned above, bcstingg said it. The stat cap is the only sensible solution to overall balance. And I think it's working out just fine in PvE, too. ~ dragon legacy  16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stat caps are a good thing. They make perfect gear an attainable and lasting achievement instead of having to grind raids for a small chance at obtaining gear which will be rendered obsolete by the next patch. I don't think they should kill balance to satisfy a small fraction of the player base. -- Gordon Ecker 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Skill Progression, diversity as level rewards
I tried to think of ways that levels could be rewarded without providing more attribute points and thereby avoiding massive in balance between low level and high level players. The opportunity to modify and diversify a skill as a level marker also allows the player more choices which all helps to create that feeling of being unique and make our favorite toon that bit more 'special'.

I'm not sure if GW2 will contain classes and professions or if it will follow the current profession model, either way there are opportunities to create some simple skill modification opportunities.

Using the current profession only model, a user could diversify a skill along a secondary profession route. Life Siphon currently reduces foes life and provides the caster with life, to diversify this skill as a level reward could mean choosing between one of the GW2 available profession tracks (to reduce the amount of skill creation required a single level of modification along each profession could suffice), the result could be that using the Elementalist track: Life Siphon not only steals health but reduces resistance to elemental damage, along a Monk track the added 'bonus' could be a steady reduction in hex/condition length on the caster.

Using a Class/Profession model the diversification would be along the profession route, Life Siphon for a Tailor could not only steal health but have a degenerative effect on the foes armor and steal raw materials.

It's just a quick thought on a complex, but I feel engaging route for using skill modification as level reward to create something more unique. IMO Advantages shouldn't be overpowered but still be a definite advantage. Disclaimer: My examples are not well thought out, I just wanted to get the idea out there. --Evil Geek 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very good thought, and it is more interesting for higher level players to have more abilities and effects rather than flat out more strength.


 * I was thinking that Characters could have a substantial base value, and increased levels only added small amounts of extra power per level. That way a characters power would be a value of something like 105 at lvl 1, and only go up by a value of 5 every level, so at level 20 your only twice as potent as a level 1 character.  Instead, at certain levels characters would access some unique abilities, like the ability to dodge attacks, run faster or utilize a mount in combat, or wear heavier armor on certain professions or gain more energy restoration on others.  This would ensure that the difference in actual survival statisitics and attacking statistics only offer 3 or 5 times more potency with much higher levels, keeping effects comparable, wile offering special functions and abilities exclusive to certain levels, allowing high level players to operate better to give them a comparable advantage which requires effective use instead of simply being 100 times stronger than an opponent and totally immune to their attacks just because of development.--BahamutKaiser 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that adding such details to character development will have players more interested in character development. It makes sense that players who achieve higher levels should have some advantage over lower level players. The real trick is to come up with ideas that will have players experiencing a unique character development model every time they play. Just like the idea proposed above. Such a character development model can be interesting if it could allow skill points (or whatever Anet decides to use) to be exchanged towards sword mastery, shield mastery, healing mastery, Illusion mastery, fire mastery, critical hit mastery, or any category of skills. This can allow players not only get achieve skills in such categories, but to have faster regeneration of mana or a swifter speed of Bow use (as examples) in that category of character development. It would be nice to see a difference in the speed and agility of a level 50 assassin to stand out over a level 1 assassin: for example the speed of climbing walls, cliffs or assassination attempts would be swifter and more accurate in a level 50 assassin compared to a level 10 assassin. Where a level 10 assassin would have a chance to fumble a step as he climbs or miss a critical death blow of a dagger strike. The same concepts can be applied to any profession such as monks, mesmers, etc: just think of how far character development would go such details were added. Here is another example to add on to the imagination: a necro specializing in his minions to make them more powerful such as giving them increased life or some sort of life regeneration due to investing skill points in the appropriate magic category; or the creation of different mutated minions at level 60 (for example)that will add taste to that area of gaming allowing minions to have unique abilities (increased speed,magic,life,). In addition, I thought it would be nice to add some sort of fear factor to monsters or players that allows such an opponent or player to drop the morale of the opposing force: such an event would cause a decrease in mana, life, or skill usage (slightly) (sorta like a temporary cripple or as long as you want for higher level creatures or players). This may make higher characters or creatures to stand out: a higher level creature or character can influence the opposing force towards its advantage: you may also apply a range to this fear factor like the current spirit ranges in GW; also certain races may have some sort of greater reduction on the fear factor penalty (as compared to another race) the higher levels they reach> here is one example of such an idea in action... a level 100 creature faces a level 20 player. The creature's presence (within a specific range) brings terror to the heart and soul of that player...as a result the player suffers from an additional 20% penalty (or whatever penalty range would be fare) in life, mana regeneration, etc due to the presence of such a creature or player. The fear factor penalty could be reduced if a 100 level creature faces a group of 8 level 30's for example. Assuming a level 100 creature or player has more powerful set of skills/skill mastery. This way such creatures (that are wicked) or players (that have some outstanding deeds) can be respected as a powerful foe or challenge.
 * GASP*! my fingers are on fire!! help help!! *sorry for making this long* It's just that for some strange reason my head began to spin with ideas right after I finished studying the pharmacology of anxiolytic drugs. :) [user: Angel Of The Lord]1:26am 9/16/07

Player Developed Elite Armor
Hello everyone, I made a suggestion about a new way to develop your characters appearance on the fansite forums, but it was in a non-suggestion topic and more than likely got buried rather fast! So I'm just posting it here to see what others who frequent this area think.

It's an idea to replace Elite Armor sets with the ability to accessorize regular armor instead. Rather than buying Elite Armor, you slowly develop your regular armor styles into fancy looking armor. If you look at the game Soul Calibur 3, and it's character creation system, you can quickly get an idea of what I mean. Players start out in the world with the ability to buy regular looking armor pieces just like in GW. However, as that player obtains titles, completes quest chains and unlocks access to armorsmiths they are given the option of crafting accessories to add to their armor. The regular armor pieces are the base and these special accessories are what slowly transform that piece into a personalized elite version of that armor.

It does involve carefully creating base pieces and accessories that can fit cleanly onto those base pieces, however the results of such effort to setup that system will pay off in the future as making small adjustments to existing accessories and base peices to create new ones will exponentially increase the variety in armor appearance available. I think it'll offer a great deal of longevity to character development equal to GW's skill system, as when each new piece is introduced players can explore all the combos of pieces to get a certain armor build. Go play SC3 to see what I mean. I've spent countless hours simply designing characters. :D --Redfeather 00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't played SC3, but the system that you described sounds very nice. I would dupport a mix of the current system and the SC3 system. I think there should be armor sets that are ready and ultra cool when bought and sets that can be built from scratch. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very fun Gem. You have base parts and then accessory slots to add to the base parts with. So in GW you can still have the 5 base pieces, only you have additional slots for accessories if you want to fancy up and customize your appearance. I think SC3's creation mode has 16 slots of items to add to your character. That might be overkill, but the endless combinations are still keeping people occupied despite the game coming out 2 years ago with no updates. I wish I could capture a video of myself messing around with the creation mode. I still play with it often and I'm having fun with it right now. :D --Redfeather 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can imagine how fun it is, that's why I support adding something similiar to GW2. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From a developers point of view it might be a worthwhile long-term goal that can make things so much easier for future expansions. They only need to worry about adding a couple of new sets and then have more time to work on accessories. Each armor style in Guild Wars is 5 pieces x 2 genders x 10 professions. That's a lot of pieces needed just to add a new looks to the game. :O --Redfeather 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I haven't played SC3, but from the descriptions sounds like fun. Playing paperdoll dress-up is ftw.--Drekmonger 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current guild wars client doesn't even fully render 5 armor pieces on characters other than your self outside instances. You cant even wield a weapon in towns! Personally I want to see this happen, with full renders and all in GW2 but Im not getting my hopes up...--WikiWu 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One way to do this type of thing could be to make weapon/armor upgrades also change the appearance of the weapon/armor. For example, a fiery sword hilt could cause a flame to run up and down the blade like a fiery gladius or FDS. A rune would be placed at a specific location on the armor itself and each rune would have a different appearance (say, its own glowing color) in that location. I don't think this would be terribly difficult to do, and really add to the customizability of your weapons/armor. I mean, wouldn't it be cool to have a chaos axe with flames wrapped around it? 203.162.35.78
 * ^ That's very neat and totally possible. The game Oblivion has particle and shader effects which can be applied to skins. A piece of armour or weapon could have customizable parts:
 * 1)Material Texture/Normal Map - for Bone, metal, gemstone variations of the weapon or armour.
 * 2)Glow Map/Light source/Specular Map - for glowing runes, a faint light or shininess of the weapon or amour.
 * 3)Shader Effect/Particle Effect - For making the armour or weapon ripple with lightning or emit flames/smoke.
 * Could adds tons of variety to every weapon or armour skin in the game.
 * A player could get a Knight's chest plate armour and through questing or purchasing upgrade it to a Knight's Bone Plate armour pieces with red runes that emits red smoke. :O --Redfeather 08:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Different body types
I'd like to see body type choices. Since there's going to be at least five playable races, I'm guessing that Guild Wars 2 will use "stretchy" armor which shapes to fit the character based on a serious of "anchor points" so that each armour set won't need separate models for every race, so I'm guessing it wouldn't be much of a problem to allow all members of the same race and sex to draw from the same body type, face and hairstyle pools regardless of profession. -- Gordon Ecker 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically you are asking for a 'fat-slim' slider? I would like one. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a number of fixed body shapes (as well as a return of the height slider). I don't think a slider would be able to cover things like muscles, bust size or the dramatic variations in Charr postures. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hehe i was thinking maybe the fat/slim should be based on titles. For example,Connoisseur of confectioneries makes you all nice and jolly, and maybe other titles change other aspects. Maybe you start off fat until you get the explorer title? Maybe u get a bit fatter if you play for over 3 hrs straight? lol.. just sime ideas--WikiWu 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really thing the character editor needs to be more freeforming and not restircted to profession, that way players can have a caster which looks like a basketball player, and a warrior which looks like an Asuran.... or is one :P


 * But I do not think different Races should share body types, it is almost impossible in some cases, and I think having different styles of armor helps seperate their identity. I can understand if Humans and Sylvari shared armors since they are simularly built, but Char have horns and snouts, and Norn are almost twice as big and typically wear loose armor with room to shapeshift.  Armors are going to have to be different, and tailoring them should be designed to a races uniqueness.


 * I don't like the idea of fat characters participating on combat through, in reality, different types of people have different advantages based on fitness, since we are already excersising race differences, that isn't neccessary, and fat, elderly, or children participants are unrealistic, and take away from the realism of the game. I can understand if they made a beer belly human model, but catering all those armors just so some players can have a goof ball look instead of doing more work on attractive features for all the different races seems like a waste.--BahamutKaiser 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. I like how in wow the armor looks noticably different on different races, but is still obviously the same armor. Might be a good idea for GWII Mesodreth Blackwing 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of differently shaped bodies, but what I find intrigueing is not to leave the choice to the player directly. I support WikiWu on the idea of adjusting the shape based on their playstyle. That's awesome! And it would give another reason for bringing your PvE-character into PvP! ~ dragon legacy  08:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the idea of "wearing" some your earned titles, and having added visual cues for your accomplishments. Though having the appearance change optional would be good to include. (Just because you've earned a lot of battle scars, doesn't mean you want to have them showing.) Yukiko [[Image:User_Yukiko_Sig.png]] 10:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A system like that is present in Phantasy Star Online/Universe. Two/Three sliders allow you to scale your character in height and proportions freely. I think that any system that reduced the amount of look-alikes is a good thing. Technically it is not that a big problem to adjust any armor to fit characters morphed in this way. It is more or less just a series of scale multipliers that affect the model. Morgoth Bauglyr 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More multi-profession armor
The common headgear and gloves in Eye of the North are nice, and I'd like to see the trend continue. Some armor styles are only really thematically appropriate for one profession, but other styles would work for several professions as long as they all have the same pool of body types. -- Gordon Ecker 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the prettiest armor is mesmer only armor, some more class generic items are ok by me. Yukiko [[Image:User_Yukiko_Sig.png]] 10:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I care more about Necromancer armor not looking like he's an ancient hermit from across the seas. For 5 sets of armor. Vael Victus 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary thought!
Blood! Oh goodness, imagine, blood! You strike bleeding on something, and it bleeds! I know this pushes the T-for-teen rating, but man, that'd be so cool! WoW doesn't, FFXI doesn't, I'm quite certain LOTR doesn't - I think it'd be really interesting. I was like ":D" in the domain of anguish, 'cuz of all the bodyparts and all that. Imagine a discussion, if you will... "Hey man, I heard the new Guild Wars has blood!" (the next user is into FPS stuff) "ong kewl blood D:". I'm tellin' ya, this will be super smash box office hit! Vael Victus 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think I can answer that with certainty. Because Guild Wars is a global game, and because Guild Wars 2 will be the same, we want to be very sensitive to the desires and expectations of the many people who play our game, and we also need to respect the laws of various countries in which our game is available. I believe that we could not offer graphical blood in the game without eliminating our ability to distribute the game to certain countries. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gaile on this one. Though I honestly could care less about blood and gore(American, Go figure), from ANet's stand-point it would be financially harmful to add it. Different countries are squimesh about different things. Like in America we are all for Blood & Gore but as soon as something has nudity in it it gets an "R" slapped all over it. It is completely the opposite in Europe. They find nudity more a lot more natural than Blood & Gore. While it would be cool to have it, it would be harder for ANet to get GW2 accepted in other countries. Hope that helps a bit :D AndersTheBloody 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be pink sparkles instead. --Redfeather 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pink sparkles instead of blood and gore or pink sparkles instead of nudity XD? Seriously though, I'd like to see some kind of particle effect for successful hits as long as it won't mess with the ratings (such as plant sap, insect hemolymph and glowing non-red demon blood). -- Gordon Ecker 07:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with parent post, bleeding condition should drop some red pixels. Just like blind show black cloud. Many skills work when foe suffer some condition, it hard to tell if you didnt cause it yourself. For the censor burreau, just made it disabled by default. It a war game afterall, it already violent with death animation, battle cry, and other violant dialog. The option to enable could read as: "Not blood! But visual signal for bleeding condition" :) --Bob 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, precisely. Why can't you just add a disable feature? (parents will want it in anyway, maybe...) And then for the countries that don't allow it, have it auto-disabled. Isn't this possible? Vael Victus 14:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is showing blood "revolutionary"....? In fact, it's quite old and overused. I certainly wouldn't buy a game just because it has blood in it. And I'm sure you won't not buy a game just because it doesn't have blood. -- ab.er. rant  14:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a merit in adding blood either. There is a certain happy-happy-joy-joy nature in the game due to not having blood. A visual effect for bleeding would be helpful, but it can be showed in a way that doesn't harm anyones feelings and doesn't ruin the feeling of the game. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm not interested in blood for blood's sake, I would say that on the whole the combat in Guild Wars (by which I mean the actual appearance of fighting on the screen, not your participation in it via skills etc) isn't very immediate or exciting. I've seen several reviews that say it's too "floaty", and I think they have a point. Being hit with a wand shouldn't have the same impact animation as being hit with a hammer - there should be an obvious difference in force. Similarly ranged attacks look a little odd, especially arrows from a flatbow (they're just too slow in the air). Really visceral combat with obvious cause and effect can hugely elevate the excitement of a game (here I'm thinking of things like Ninja Gaiden and the sync kills in Dawn of War). I think that's one area that Guild Wars could easily improve on. --NieA7 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, parent seem over excited. I belive he mean "Revolutionary" for GW as it obvious something is missing. The way i see it, it just some red partitle falling from the creature to mid air and disapear. Not blood splating every where a-la Quake3arena. --Bob 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Better than blood: A different texture for a beat-up character or mob (or piece of armor on a character). Show off some battle damage -- scraps, bruises, dirt, ash. The armor could stay scoffed until you zone (or otherwise clean-up).--Drekmonger 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is very silly to hide blood in a game that involves combat, war and death. Wile the policies of other countries have to be recognized, it is simply irrational to hide the blood when the actions are stabbing in the chest and shooting eachother with arrows.  If some sort of removable options can be added to the game so blood can be shown in our games, but not overseas, than it would be nice.  That being said, I have no interest in seeing blood spilling all over the place, or even driping off characters.  Some sort of representation of bleeding would impact the realism, whether it's favoring a wound or holding your side between actions, it does not even have to be blood shown, but a wound recognized, and it can even share an animation with deep wound.  Part of what sells this game is its more visceral realistic art, part of the reason I didn't buy WoW is because it was cartoony, so we are talking about a significant asset to the appeal of GW.--BahamutKaiser 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean some countries won't let you show blood but they will let you show people bludgeoning each other to death with hammers and Decapitateing people? 58.110.139.72 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no actual decapitation animation, you know. Blood is not allowed in many countries (or the rating would go up) and in a game like GW it's pretty hard to have different versions for different countries. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn;t seem hard, just prevent the content from being loaded onto their computer if the ip starts with the ip of that country. Plenty of games have similair features. I recently started using a blood mod for GW (simply to show critical hits, blood was an added feature) and I was suprised how much more enojoyable pve is with it. I find the word decapitate far more grusome and offenseive than blood would be. 58.110.140.189 09:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No shit games have blood. oo; General MMOs don't, which is why I say it'd be revolutionary. ;) Vael Victus 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a separate EULA about the blood / gorefest. A simple box menu at the options much like other games (most console games i.e: God of War) that can include blood in their game play and not necessarily that everyone would see. That way, everyone's happy. heh Or a different color of blood, say green or yellow. Renin 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was sort of dissapointed, diablo II, my first game ever, had loads of blood and guildwars only shows something that looks like a star around your chest when youre hit. i will probably play age of conan only for the blood and carnage but i will still buy gw2 to become a mesmer charr. I think that bleeding should at least show blood, also deep wound should show some blood. I know that Age of conan will be 18+, and that guildwars will stay 12+ i guess and therefore cant invlolve blood but it would be so much cooler. My vote goes for more blood. And also Renins idea could stay as an option please? like the chat filter you can change however u like it, just switch blood-no blood-blood-no blood. --Cursed Angel 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Every one knows that demons have copper based blood so who cares if they squirt blue viscous liquid out of their wounds =D ? Biz 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good point, Biz. ANet will just say they're simply bleeding cranberry juice. I was with the notion we were in the first place, anyway. Vael Victus 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Saveable Character Armor and Weapon Setups
It would be great to have Saveable Setups for armor and weapons in GW2. Perhaps linking to Skill templates, at present it takes me a while to change all the required armor (yes I am slow ;D)For example: when going from fire ele to water ele, or from 55hp monk to UW smiter a change of armor and weapons is required at the same time as skills.Lithane 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent idea and I was a little surprised that it wasn't added to GW1 when PvP equipment updates were added. Friar Khan 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

you can also try to make your own skills but you need to have much stuf like amber or something like that.

This could be expanded into a setup slot in the Storage that will allow you to put your armour and weapons with your skillset all in one place to switch around between missions/quest/etc. This will of course be accessable only outside of combat zones for obvious reasons. bain 12:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this Idea and to carry it one step further I would add a crew build template as well. Here is what I mean, I am mostly a solo player, I play with Hero's and Henchmen I find I do much better that way. There are certain combinations of hero's and hench that work well in one area but not so well in another. If I could save a crew build I just select and go as I may have forgotten what worked well in a certain area as I have been in another for a time. Elven fyr

PvE/PvP Split
I know this suggestion will probably never come true, and i may get yelled at for even saying it,BUT I THINK PVE AND PVP SHOULD BE SPLIT UP! Not in the way we have it now but split completely as in a skill from pvp does this while the same skill in pve does something else,also this could aply to attributes/ and weapon stats.This would be kind of hard to adjust to for characters often switching between pve and pvp but think of all the problems we could solve pve would not get angry at nerfs because it was to strong in pvp and pvp would not get angry at a skill made stronger for pve. Just take a time to think about this situation im with my team in this really hard dungeon in gw2 (say im lvl 20) and theres 100 lvl 30 monsters rushing at memy tank is all set up to take damage and my monks are primed on the clicking fest and my elementalist is ready to nuke, the monsters quickly overthrow the tank and my nuker is all that is going to take them down, and i cast my super spell hoping to do so much damage and then poof, I do 5 damage... the monsters kill the tank then they run us down like a stampeding bull. And while the monks and tanks yell profanity at me for my choice of skills I just happened to have forgotten that my favorite super damage skill was nerfed the week before in pvp cause it just killed to quickly or was to strong ect... I'm not saying to make different games for each side I'm just saying while in in pve let my skills do what they need to do to take out the large,tough mobs I'll be fighting, And if its to strong ,let me go to pvp and see that same skill just a bit weaker or just a bit different to curve to the pve style. This way pve won't affect pvp and pvp wont affect pve. We will have the same skills and the same character but while in pve my super skills may do 100 damage a second, when I come to pvp I can take pride in knowing I still have that skill and its usable in pvp with out worry of nerf. Atrix 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All we really need is a more strategically difficult PvE so the skills are relavent to both instead of vastly different. And there should be powerful counters and skill types that penalize the use of vast numbers, or over excersising one skill so abnormal odds and overly synergized build can be defeated by proper preperation.--BahamutKaiser 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I always say that all those calling for a split of PvP and PvE are being too naive and that it is a knee-jerk reaction. The follow-up issues of maintenance and the fact that you're splitting the market always gets ignored. Being that skills are the core of GW, you might as well suggest that ArenaNet create two different games instead and likely put a dent in their profit because now they need to bring in more resources to handle two slightly different games. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a slight PvE / PvP split. A few PvE-only skills (less than 20% of the total skill count) including both common and attribute-linked profession-specific skills, as well as conditional effects on PvP-legal skills which only affect non-humanoid non-animals (with humanoid covering all the playable races) or bosses. Yes, non-humanoid triggers would also affect minions and spirits, but there's a significant number of PvP-legal skills in the original Guild Wars with additional effects against minions, spirits or summoned creatures in general, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. -- Gordon Ecker 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Skill/Condition -> Environment" Synergy
I'm not sure if this is already something being considered for GW2 with the Emergent skill system, but I thought it was worth suggesting regardless.

I really love the skill synergy in Guild Wars. It really adds to the longevity of the game when your character upon learning a new skill is encouraged to explore all the possible combinations with skills they already have. It would be even more interesting if skills and conditions could interact with the environment and offer another level of synergy.

Take for example water. If an entity is bleeding while in water their aggro radius can triple to attract the water monsters nearby. It can even force certain monsters, like sharks, to attack other sea creatures in a strategic way. Using fire magic on creatures in water can blind them similar to the Steam spell. Using lighting can damage all friends and foes in the water too. Skills, that in GW1 would have been considered basically offensive abilities, would have a whole utility side to them when used while exploring the PVE world.

Warrior's hammer attacks can break away obstacles, like rocks blocking a secret path or wooden planks. Ranger's long range bow attacks can be used to trigger switches/buttons, to secret routes, that are too far for other players to interect with. A blinding skill can be used on a sentry statue or mechanism to allow players to sneak by undetected. Slow spells can be used on rolling boulders to slow them down to make areas easier to navigate. A monk's healing spell can be used to heal a plant that grows tall enough to climb up to another path.

There are probably tons of environment interactions skills can have! But I'm sure it requires a whole lot of brainstorming to think of neat ways they can. What does everyone else think about these type of interactions in the game world? And does anyone have some neat suggestions on types of interactions that can take place by using skills on the environment?

Also I like how in Guild Wars there are some quests where player emotes can trigger certain events! It would be very cool if player emotes continued to be useful for interacting with other characters and the environment in GW2. --Redfeather 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've thought about that, too. And I think it'd be great. As a PvE player I'd love to go around looking for hidden effects that trigger when I use some of my skills in certain situations. In the same line, I'd also like environmental/weather effects interacting with character actions. As you said, It'd be a good idea to use a lightning spell on wet enemies, my idea is to increase the power of electric skills when it's raining, or having additional effects from fire magic spells when fighting in a desert or during summer. Another similar effect could be related with skills like shadow stepping and dodging attacks, wich might get buffed by night, and debuffed during day.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 05:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's so many cool little possibilities. The main strength I thought it would have would be to add more incentive to finding/learning new skills and adding longevity to exploration/experimentation with those skills. I often see people in PVE with 100+ skill points and hear them say there is not much left to do with their character. I think skill collecting and experimentation is a very fun and time consuming aspect of the game and should be encouraged some more. --Redfeather 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I Love this idea!!! Best Idea ever. It will keep players playing Guild Wars for decades. Seriously, A+. Anet, are you listening?? 65.24.106.106 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I'd like to see this put in as well! AtraAstrum 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mailing System
It would be nice to be able to mail items to other people, or just messages. Sometimes people you want to contact aren't online for a while, or you keep missing them and because this is a game often the only way to contact a person you met in the game is through the game. It would be great if I could mail an item I sold in an auction on guru to someone in game and request a payment, if they don't pay the requested amount I get my item returned to me and I can relist it. This avoids problems with international time zones etc and different play times. So to make it clear, two key functions provided by the mailing system, 1) Contact people you frequently miss while they are online and 2) Send items to people without having to meet them, with a function requesting payment. 58.110.139.72 21:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great addition, the text part of that mail should also be send to the acount email if the player chose to enable this on his acount. Maybe also replay back from the email system to the ingame system. --Bob 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An eMail system in game thats a great idea! - Chrisworld 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, a nice addition to the current Friends system is an offline messaging functionality that gets delivered once your friend goes on, and a customizable notification once a friend goes online or offline, pretty similar to MSN or YM instant messaging. Additionally, the ability to automatically archive timestamped chat logs in a text file that would be in some directory (similar to Screenshots or Templates) is incredibly useful. --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 08:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual Character Storage
Current storage system is a joke, I expected when I created a new character to have storage for each character, especially considering how small storage was. When it was upgraded I was given storage for each campaign I owned and not each character - the characters determine how much loot I keep (armour, green weapons, gold weapons etc) not the number of campaigns. GW has comparably far less storage than other games on the market and I would like to see more storage in GW2 - for each character not each account. 58.110.139.72 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Xunlais storage is also use for exchanging item betwen character. For character storage there is bags. You can use other character as mule for extra loot and hero to store weapons....
 * I think bag should be larger because armor and weapon for different build take lots of space. A second armor set and headgear for all attribute already fill one. Maybe armor could have a pop-up menu that let select any insignia/rune that was previously added to the armor. this would resolve the short space problem for me at least. --Bob 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of (or in addition to) making the bags larger, there should be less stuff to carry.--24.206.111.186 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution is to make bags savable in the main storage. this could plssibly work in the current GW as well. That way you have to buy additional bags .. use runes on them stock them and keep them in xunlai storage. This gives the benefits of having extra storage while not giving the individual character bag of holding syndrome to the extreme. 12:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ive always thought of one thing, as of recently. YOur storage account works like this, 3 Pages to the character that access it all to that character and 1 networked Page for all charas as well as keeping material storage newtorked but going up to maybe 1000 instead of 250 per material just a thought.. - Chrisworld 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum Threads on the Lore from PCGamer Ultimate GW Guide
Noteworthy threads discussing the GW2 spoilers from that particular edition of PCGamer. (anyone who's seen more feel free to update)--Drekmonger 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=221
 * 2) http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5110958

Better Beast Mastery Control and Synergy
Sure beast masters are viable but controling a pet is incredibly difficult and awkward and a lot of the time leads to an incredibly frustrating experience, which is not what playing games is about. Maybe pets should have their own skill bar, but make them less powerful due to it. This would allow for some synergy between ranger bow skills and the pet itself. The idea would be kind of similair to companions - rangers than bring a pet lose something but the pet has it's own skill bar and the ranger can bring their own skills. A lot of GW atm is really cool but the pet system is seriously lacking in comparison to other mmorpgs. Multiple pets would also be cool. 58.110.142.117 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that GW2 uses the same professions and the same set of attributes... which is highly unlikely. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No I'm not I'm assuming GW2 will have pets and a pet control class/system which is highly likely. Anyone who has experienced the pet system from GW should know how disappointing and frustrating it is, this suggestion is to avoid the same problems current beast mastery builds have. 58.110.142.117 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the serious issue with Beast Mastery is the lack of original effects it has, besides the fact that an extra unit is on the field it is basically just another attacker, pets should offer unique uses and effects that make them a strategic advantage in more than just expendability and corpse supplies. Likely it would be better if they offered less viceral damage and more hinderance in order to put a constant distraction on a foe instead of utilizing them primarily for attacks.  This is also a very significant improvement since moderate investment into such a feature would still prove very useful if the added hinderance effects were viable even if the creature isn't offering significant damage, like interuption.


 * Lastly, I think Pets are a perfect way to offer interruption and disabling abilities to players who lack the talent to catch an opponents next action. Instead, certain interrupt, intercept, and related abilities can be offered as commands to a pet which will activate on the opponents next related action, it will not offer the discrimination a player has to choose which spell to interrupt if done manually, but it will offer the scathing accuracy of an interupt activation by an AI which will certainly catch the next action, reguardless of significance.  The simple matter of offering a significant unique advantage with a pet makes all the difference, and significantly justifies the split in investment and use of the feature.--BahamutKaiser 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be neat if beasts had their own base skill set and you supplement it with your build by bringing beast mastery skills. A hawk pet would have quick recharging piercing/interruption skills, a bat would have life stealing skills, a bear would have slow recharging power knockdowns, ect. You could still bring beast mastery skills to give them more attacks too though. I think it would be neat, but then you'd need to have pet storage so you could have the option to choose the right pet for the right job. Go pets! --Redfeather 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Under the current system, that idea is totally and irrevocably broken. Your allowing someone with pet use to utilize an entirely additional set of beast attacks and abilities on top of whatever they are already using, at the cost of a single skill slot most likely.  Under a new system, with different skill limitations and such, it may be different.  If everyone had the option of a pet, if players without pets have alternative advantages or additional skill slots, that may be fine, but without some serious alternatives for all the other professions, it is totally unacceptable.  Even dubing the Charm Animal ability with additional pet healing abilities would be broken for GW1, in perspective, it is highly unbalanced.  A limited skill slot is the ultimate cost.--BahamutKaiser 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I hate to compare to other game but I think WoW has an excellent pet system. All the pets in WoW differ from each other in how they work, some are faster etc. They also have their own unique skill bars. One of the amazing things about wow pets which differed them from GW pets is that you can use them to hold aggro and then heal your pet and use skills like Concussion Shot to "cripple" the foe and prevent them from moving away. Combine this with skills like a pet's "taunt" which helped control aggro by forcing the target to attack the bear, the pet system worked A LOT better than the current one. Sure it's more geared towards solo play but pets have a purpose to that class, in GW they are just a different way to do damage, and ultimately less efficient because their targeting Ai sucks horrendesly. Seriously, try a pet build and try switching targets which you often need to do in PvP and PvE, or try running behind a wall or object to avoid attack, the pet won't switch targets unless you waste time telling it to, and it won't stay on your target if you run away making them almost uselss, and definitly frustrating. Combine this with their slow attack speed and inability to function a little more independantly, pets are just a less efficient way fo doing what rangers can do better solo. Pet's should be able to keep aggro off of the ranger aswell as work with ranger skills to take down foes, not the current bad system. I think the pet system in GW is very poorly done, while they look amazing, they are a pain to use.GW2 is an opportunity to make pets a truley viable and better element in the game and I hope it works out that way. 58.110.140.189 08:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The taking agro on pet thing just won't work in GW for a simple cause, there's an actual AI on the enemy, while in WoW most enemy's just attack the closest thing. pets aren't that much of a pain to use, just use the pet control panel. In addition its very useful to be able to attack a different target then your pet. With some skill (okay, a lot) you can interrupt two entirely different targets.Rhydeble 15:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've played wow, it has a MUCH more sophisticated aggro system than GW, which strongly supports essential party set ups. Each action a character performs creates aggro; throwing a fireball, swinging a sword, shooting a bow or even healing. Some actions cause more aggro than others, swinging a sword will not cause a lot of aggro, casting a BIG heal on the tank will create aggro. To counter this, skills like taunts and aggro attacks are created for tanks, such as the warrior and the hunter's pet, which focus aggro on the tank instead of the healer and nukers. This sounds easy but it is a VERY delicate balance and requires player skill to pull off. Current tanking doesn't really exhist in GW outside of gimmicky strategies like wall blocking and slow hexes. This leaves pve with a limited use for tanking characters to actually tank, especially when it's needed. Dancing Gnome 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Self Targetting with skills!
It would be cool if you could use many of your skills on yourself as well as enemies too. But why would we do that, you ask? :D Like petrifying yourself instead of an enemy so that you can mitigate a lightning spell the baddie is about to cast. Or setting yourself on fire with a burning spell right before being hit by a freezing spell so it won't freeze you in place. Or using Sever Artery on yourself to cause bleeding to set up a necromancer combo. That's really morbid though.

You could also use skills you'd normally use on yourself on enemies. An enchantment that boosts fire resistance, but lowers ice resistance could be used on an enemy to set up a ice spike. Healing spells could be used to damage undead baddies. Yeah, that last one is from Final Fantasy games. :D

Oh, the craziness. It would add more options to creative skill use! --Redfeather 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be funny to have Heal Area deal damage to undead instead of healing them. All those N/Mo MM's that think they'll just remake the same thing in GW2 would be in for quite a surprise! Now if only there were a Phoenix Down you could throw on foes... --Thervold 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * or use a targeted aoe on yourself while haveing a triggered effect on you like if this was in gw1 useing on yourself while haveing a mantra on you or smiting yourself while you have Reversal of fortune on you. If there are trigger on effect skills in GW2 this might make them more interesting.Mashav 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the why that makes MTG fun. There's no difference between enchantments and hex...everything is enchantment and you can cast it on enemy or yourself.  Manipulating that is fun.  Lightblade 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would certainly dice things up and add some strategy to hex removal. As hexes wouldn't exist anymore, they'd be classified as enchantments. We'd see more enchantment removal in the game as hex removal and enchantment removal would be one and the same. Hexes could be made weaker/shorter duration without much repercussion, as they could be used strategically to force your opponent to use removal on their own enchantments. Condition removal would also be cool. If you notice a necromancer doing blood spikes that rely on them to be bleeding, you could remove the bleeding from them to trip them up. :O --Redfeather 10:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of being able to target freely, primarily with AoE effects which may be more tactical, but I do not like the idea of being able to apply universal effects and intentional trade offs to enemies, particularly with enchantments, hexes and conditions. I feel the current system is more attractive.  Friendly Fire and accidental injury of allies would be a very interesting mechanic which would mix well with powerful benifits and disadvantages of projectile combat and such, but intentionally attacking and applying possibly negative effects on allies can lead to abuse of a totally new nature, like buffing foes and PKing your own members.--BahamutKaiser 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right Bahamut, in that if it were open to anything being used on anything it could easily lead to griefing. It should be more specific as to what skills could do this. If a skill has a detrimental effect it should only allow target enemy or self, such as the Sever Artery example I gave. Skills that heal or return energy, ect...would have to be self or ally only. So I guess each skill would have flags (self, foe, ally) and 1 or more could be set to active. --Redfeather 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Put a bowsting on the bows
'Nuff said lol. Current bows have no bowstring, which looks... wierd to say the least. -- Hawk Skeer  22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded hardcore. Vael Victus 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)