User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/February 2008 Page 2

Graphics
I know they probably cant do this but id like to see the game look like the movie trailers--King dude 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they can. The problem lies in with is at the user's end. Not everyone has a PC powerful enough to run constantly on such high-end graphics. It would be nice to have an option to make the game uberly beautiful but since we'll becoming a persistent world, I doubt it will be a great idea since there'll be tons of lag issue due to slow loading of other people's characters. Renin 03:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Renin, the limitations are at the user's end. Also, having such a graphics system would cost ANET more. House Of Furyan 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but way more people will buy GW 2 then and you can always buy a better graphic card am I right?
 * Anet will be aiming for mid-range computers. To get great looking graphics requires a high end graphics engine within the game and is unnecessary for a game such as Guild Wars 2.  It will look flasher than Guild Wars but don't expect Crysis level graphics House Of Furyan 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because who needs that $700 anyway, am I right? --71.229.204.25 09:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its easier marketing to mid-range systems than higher end as there's simply more computers in mid range than high end. Most store brought computers now-a-days will be able to play Guild Wars 2 when it comes out without having to add anything tremendously powerful in terms of graphics.  Keeping requirements low to mid gives Anet time to focus on other areas of the game. House Of Furyan 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mocking the other guy. Notice the indent. --71.229.204.25 10:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that but meh. Anyway, one thing I'd like to see more is the use of shaders and lighting.  Textures look ok in Guild Wars but lighting (the use of light and shadow) is also very powerful. House Of Furyan 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a steady increase in graphics over the campaigns, and I think if they keep improving, GW2 is gonna look very nice. I think Anet is gonna hit the mark on this one, aiming for middle ground computers. My pref would be options to turn detail higher and lower, a bit more options then in GW1, but thats not a huge concern. I don't mind the way GW1 looks now, and even a slight improvement is good in my book.-Warior kronos 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Xunlai Credit
Currently within Guild Wars, in terms of gold trading, its limited to 100K. Players now will advertise 100K plus 20 ectos for example. I think gold should be the trading standard regardless of amount, not a variable item, since their value can change from day to day. If Anet continues to limit the player to 100K transactions and especially if they continue to let players determine value, I would propose the introduction of Xunlai Credits.

Simply speaking, a credit is an item that represents 100K. A player could obtain one by approaching a Xunlai Representative and exchanging 100K for one Xunlai Credit. These items would be unable to be deleted or dropped (if possible) so you'd have to either trade them to a player or cash them in with the Xunlai representative. They could be stored and stacked (or unstackable) in storage. House Of Furyan 11:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say dibs on Xunlai Gold Bars! Renin 11:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Renin, why are you moving so slow?" -  "It's cos he's carrying Fort Knox around with him."  -  "Oh... "   :D  House Of Furyan 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, but there should be increments of 10, 25, 50, and 100k.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be possible, was considering that and thinking about making NPCs accept them instead of Gold for purchases, and the NPC gives gold change but didn't know how that would program exactly. Probably wouldn't involve much calculation though.  *Sits around thinking of the scripting he would use for his Oblivion mod*  House Of Furyan 19:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just keep the max 100k system and let me continuing to power trade ectos! [[Image:User Limu Tolkki sig2.jpg|Limu Tolkki]] (Limu Tolkki - talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one like the idea of credits, and having the NPC ie merchant or even a plater able to accept them is far better than the cap currently inplace. The credits should be made in 50 and 100k incraments only and be stackable.
 * I believe that the 100k limit is there to stop people from charging ridiculous prices for rare items. It's a trade upper value. How much money you can have in your stash also encourages you to spend whatever you have above - though I have a hard time seeing people exceeding that limit... Removing those limits is encouraging inflation. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--Cynderwolf1971 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly diffeent note but still connected to the Xunlai chest why is the storage limit for materials set at 250? When most pieces of armor require MUCH more to craft a full set!! The maximum amount of materials should be such that I can max out all the storage of Iron ingots and go and get my nice plate mail and still have some left. Not the other way around where I have the maximum number of iron ingots and I still do not have enough to get a full set of plate mail. Stu. 20/02/08.
 * To deter hording and to keep prices in check. Imagine someone hording all the sapphires and rubies and then in one day, decides that they want to crash the economy. bye bye prices. Renin 12:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that the storage limit should be unlimited as I can appreciate someone hording and crashing if they so wish. I was merely pointing out that the amount needed to craft a full set of armour and storage limit do not correspond and it would be nice if they did. E.G lower the amount needed to craft an armour set down to 250 or raise the storage limit of materials up to 350 (or whatever the amount is needed to craft a full set of armour). If there are concerns about craching the market then have different limits for the rare and common materials. max limit say 200 on rare stuff and 400 on common crafting materials. After all no armour requires more than that and you can max your storage out and then craft your armour. Rather than having the max number of iron ingots and you STILL cant craft a full set of armour. Stu. 26/02/08.

Titles
I think they should change the titles abit. Ive seen players with titles saying their known cause of pvp and im thinking i have no idea who that is. So Id like to see a title for an acomplishment that alot of people would know you for.--King dude 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as we don't have to constantly grind for the points. Grinding isn't THAT fun. Renin 20:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want a "You've completed all quests and missions in a campaign" title. House Of Furyan 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always wanted a quest title hehe. -Warior kronos 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I want a "you beat the game" title instead of a "you've grinded all missions possible and gotten the best bonuses ever in this particular campaign."-  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]] 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

/Allyping
Simple command that would make the Ai allies in your party (if henchman are in Guild Wars 2) ping their builds, but also work on Ai allies that join your party along the way. Would be nice to know what they're packing. Yes there are the henchman builds on the wiki but I've been in several situations where the henchman isn't using a skill its supposed to have (a monk I had didn't have a res for some stupid reason even though the wiki said it did) and would help to identify AI issues too. House Of Furyan 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This wiki lists the Henchmen builds, it would be extra and pointless coding for it to be on GW2.-  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]] 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read his post more carefully, he addresses this. Ashes Of Doom 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It just sounds like he's addressing either a glitch or AI defect (we know how "smart" those henchmen are). I understand the idea, have some kind of pop-up build like Heroes have, only without the change feature. I just think it's unnecessary.-  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]] 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the ability to have be able to see such things would be helpful, because, as we all know, Wiki isn't always right. House Of Furyan 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every GW player uses the Wiki, FYI. A good idea, implement pls. 85.107.251.198 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Party Energy
A simple idea that has almost certainlt been mentioned before, so applogies if I'm re-posting. Party energy. At the moment we get 8 little red bars showing the health of our pary members. It world be nice to have 8 litle blue bars as well so that we are able to see party members energy. Also to go one step further it would be nice to see the opponents energy as well as their health. This could help in stratergies, i.e. knowing when to time a specific attack when the energy is below a certain energy level. Perhaps some skills could be triggered by energy above/below a certain level. E.G Mesmer skills target foes next spell is interrrupted if they fall below 50% energy. Stu. 19/02/08
 * Giving an energy bar above the enemy or ally might be nice, since it seems only the AI can tell when its suitable to use such skills. House Of Furyan 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with any or all of this, so long as we can turn the different aspects of it off if we so choose (like in the options menu or something), some of us just might not like having all those bars all over the place to distract us (Satanael 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Yeah I like the idea, at least that way no one's QQing you when you're not healing! Renin 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Full support. Also, display Echoes, chats and such too, please? and Customisable interferance is good.

Titles and drops
Are tomes to be available and if so...would they count towards an elite skill title. In a way, if you did it before tomes you might feel cheated. Also, drops from a boss (let's say a monk) could be any number of green monk boss weapons.so that farming for one specific thing would be more difficult. As long as the naming convention were changed so that the greens are not called "Drago's Flatbow' but rather Furnace Flatbow with an inscription from that particular boss. This is a hard one... Book 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban the tomes!! (or at least make them so they can only be transferred between characters on the same account and not transferred to other players). I was on last night and I was trying to sell something (not a tome) and the whole trade chat was filled with an endless amount of "WTB tomes". It seemed that everyone in the whole district was wanting to buy tomes, the lines of text were scrolling SO quickly that I couldn't read them. It was infutiating to say the least. Stu 26/02/08.

Extended Social networking Features
Reason: To deal with the insults GW was not an MMO. GW2 should have the most kick-ass social featureset, since across all betas I had the misfortune of seeing the social featureset was always next to non-existent.

Basic Premise: A human real life person divides his social life into many small aspects and is member of many social groups; family, friends, workplace, sports team, church, communist party, etc. A GW player is always exclusive to his guild, even though he has many goals in the game. Lowkey PvP, RPG play, raiding, hardmode, GvG, storymode. Most guilds specialize in one of the aspects, so if I have multiple interests some will get neglected. Pugging can not always overcome this problem, as many of the mentioned activities do not start in one place. Sure, if I wanted to pug HA then there is a place, but if I am into raiding ANY hm zone or dungeon, there is really no meeting place except for some elite dungeons.

Suggestion: Let players form "clubs". Clubs are social groups that can be joined besides being in a guild. Players can join multiple (ca.20) clubs anytime they want (player has joining initiative). Make the friendslist, or some friendslist type UI object, the center of these clubs. People meet on the forums and discover they have the same interest, e.g. doing Hardmode. They then form a club, meaning that the gameengine can group them together in a similar fashion than their guild. Each club has a base, some outpost or instanced zone only members of the club can see, e.g. Beetletun "XYZ-Club" District. Clubs have their own chatwindow so players can see which of his clubs is active and talk to them. Clubs can page their members in the partysearch window ubiquitously. If I am in LA and my FoW club is having a lfg meltdown, I will see it there as well (not just in Alliance chat). Clubs should not have too much costs or maintenance attached to them. The idea is that over time small and similar clubs will merge since they are interest based and people did not invest money in some pointless GH merchant. Clubs can really help to organize how players gain their achievements time-efficiently. Fansites are the prime suspects for creating larger clubs, they could even spawn clubs for some of their sub-forums, e.g. the GWO-Lore Club, the GWG-PvP Club.

Gamespace: Clubs should be easy to get in and out of, so if people want to be in a club they should simply be able to join a club without approval of the other club members. To stop abuse the maximum number of clubs one can enter should be around 20. Still, people can hop should they feel their interest changed. Other than that clubs should follow the basic rules all guilds do. A founder can do anything, officers can promote members and administrate others, base members are in for the ride. Temp bans should also be considered as an option in case clubs get flooded with spammers and goldsellers. All clubs should have a "secret code phrase". That way some clubs could even be some sort secret society. Enter it into the "Join club"-dialoge to join a club. Get the code phrase on fanforums, the wiki (Small Club self presentation space), or sites such as Guild Café.

So next time you log onto GW, you can build an extended social structure. No more aimlessly wandering in the pursuit of pugs. If you overdo it, then it will be TMI, but players will get a far more socially connecting experience than other MMO games out there. Other players are no longer hidden away on other servers, or in far away places. Players will join clubs and find out that there are people with similar interests beyond their core guild or group of RL friends. Clubs will also need tutorial sections, so that new players learn to express their goals in the game and find the right club for that. In some roleplayish way these basic clubs could also be rebranded to reflect units and concepts from the game; i.e. Krewes, Warbands, Batallions, etc. Public social life might suffer a bit, but the clubs can be a force for socially connecting players anytime anywhere while being far more flexible than guilds are right now. Guilds are too socially rigid. The players hsould always be able to connect to other people with the same interest, even if it changes on a daily basis.

Stuff fron EQ2 that I want to see in GW2
I've been playing Everquest 2 for a month, and because i've been playing gw for ages, have seen some differences that I like, here are some:


 * 1) Good/Evil + different starting cities: Makes the game ritcher, seems like gw2 will have this
 * 2) In game mail: Please allow us to contact people who arn't offline.
 * 3) Guild bank: would help stop gold farmers, instead of buying 10plat on the market, just take a little from the guild bank if needed.
 * 4) No map travel: It realy makes the game bigger.
 * 5) A crafting system: good good good good good.
 * 6) Different races: (yes this is coming in GW2, and thank goodness)
 * 7) Broker (auction house) PLEEEEEEESE

yah, there are some bad things, like monthly fees, but these features are why i'm sticking to EQ2 atm RT | Talk  22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if i would like to just "copy" things from other games the same way they are implemented, but working over the base idea is not a bad idea:
 * In EQ1, every race/class/alignment combination had a different starting point (you started right in front of your first trainer). I don't thinkg going that far in GW would be needed, but maybe just giving each race a different starting location, so the world is not reduced to a few main hubs and dozens of empty towns.
 * Any form of in-game non-online comunication for is good, as long as it is charged or limited somehow to avoid spamming.
 * I would love a world without map traveling (as you say, it makes it look bigger), specially if the world is non-instanced, but i think this may be rough for casual players. Another option is the one used in EQ1, where they had several kinds of teleportation spells, portals, and city markers that could allow players to travel between zones they had visited, and i think it would be great if Anet could develop the Asura Gates into something simmilar, where you could travel between gates or maybe from a gate to a central hub (Central Transfer Chamber) and from there to any other gate (some kind of Stargate travel system, where you need to learn the codes by phisically going to a location first?).
 * I support a crafting system (consumibles, equipment); crafting systems are good money sinks, and a grinders best friend (plus, a casual player is not affected by it's existence).
 * A centralized market is good. I am not sure if a broker, or limiting all trade to a single location, but anything is better than having to loop from city to city until you find what you are trying to acquire.--Fighterdoken 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Innovation is the key, if aNet innovates certain aspects from other games then it will be Godly. I love my map travel BUT why not instead, of creating hundreds of outposts, why not limit the outposts/towns? I like how sacnoth valley is far from any towns/outposts. Renin 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of your suggestions seem to copy WoW, and while it does have a few neat features,and I agree with most of your suggestions. The one I oppose is the no map travel. Yes it makes the game seem larger, but it also really drags out. You spend most of your time running back and forth, and less time playing the game. Med Luvin 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good and evil, yup, all for it. In game mail, yup, as long as it is free, would greatly help a casual and I'm all for it, and guild bank is a why not idea. For sure, go for it. But map travel... Bad. This is one of the things GW has it right. Eliminating map travel will seriously hurt casuals, and a very very bad idea. Consumables are also baed, hurts pve balance ( unless the consumables you refer to are fun stuff, like alcohol). An auction house is LONG coming. We need one, always did, and they would greatly help casuals.
 * In game mail in EQ2 costs 10 copper (lowest money form - say 10g) to send, if you are adding items, it is 50 copper. Which helps stop spam mail, and isn't a big money dip for players (10c is not much at all) RT | Talk  17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heey, I know you just want to make cool suggestions but half of it is just not GW..and don't forget that GW isn't EQ and if you like EQ so much play it and don't want to make other games more like it.
 * No map travel is bad. Mail is great if costs are existent but small to control spam. There's no problem with taking ideas from other games, as long as there's no copyright infringement, and as long as you take the good ideas and not the bad ideas, and that you make them work in your own game. Persistent areas, for example, is a good idea that needs fixing, and I hope that GW2 will fix the problems where others have failed often to even address the problem. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no map travel, I will personally blame this suggestion and track down everybody who agrees, and kill them... That is all. --68.238.166.18 01:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ^ that. I'm sorry, I don't enjoy pissing away hours of my life watching my character run in a straight line.  That's why I play Guild Wars and not WoW. --71.229.204.25 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the list in RT's post. In response to the suggestions...
 * "Good" and "evil" factions don't make sense within the context of Guild Wars.
 * Great idea.
 * I don't know how they work in other games, but I don't think guild banks would be worth the abuse, scams and drama.
 * No, it doesn't really make the game bigger, it makes the game seem bigger by slowing it down, like decreasing movement speed. If you don't want map travel, don't use it.
 * Guild Wars already has a crafting system, but I'd like to see more crafting options, GW1 only has one set of craftable prestige weapons. It would make a great gold sink.
 * Already confirmed.
 * Agreed.
 * -- Gordon Ecker 04:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah!! I wanna see us get some sorta Lightning infused into us or somein, and get the ability to look pwnage after a hour or like 1 lvl (like later on after defeating a MAJOR boss can get the chance to infuse our amour eg. Air =effect= Lightning comes from the infused amour surrounding u and making you look evil, like all dark lighting and your eye glow and your power raises, effect only lasts around 1-5min because it would become to common).-- Prince Firedrake
 * COmpletely forgot - IN GAME BROWSER!!!! RT | Talk</B>  21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hostile Heroes
It'd be nice if there was an area in GW2 you could go to (Isle of the Dead or such) where you could make your heroes (or replacements thereof) hostile to you. I'm sick of having to grab a guildie or go to RA whenever I want to test a build or technique or work on interrupting or infusing or countering a strategy or timing my KDs against a monk through Aura of Stability and a nearby BSurge. Just grab a hero or three, set their build and behavior, take them to the area, and either turn them loose as a hostile NPC or a hostile you can control (same as it is now, only you can attack each other). It took me nine months to get quarterknocking down on a shock axe because I was in a small, busy guild and instances where I could afford to practice it were so rare, and that's kind of ridiculous for something that you learn through simple repetition. --24.9.234.253 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Update
There have been many posts over the last months, and looking through the archives some similar themes seem to be emerging. It would be nice for future posts if we were given an update based on the last few months archives of anything that the developers are planning/have planned. A traffic light system would be best.

Red = Ideas that will NEVER be incorporated into GW2 (so stop suggesting them).

Amber = Ideas that may be incorporated into GW2 based on feedback from the public.

Green = Ideas that will be incorported into GW2 (so stop suggesting them).

Like many others I am so hungry for news as to what will apear in GW2 I hope the developers post some news soon. Stu. 22/02/08
 * If you've read gaile's talk page lately, and to quote directly from Gaile herself "Yes, the devs are looking, or can look when a subject arises about which they want to see player ideas. The point is, asking them to participate in a poll means a form of obligation that we do not want to place on them. It's the difference between telling information to someone or telling them information while saying "There will be a test." :) If a dev team member has a comment on any particular idea, I'm sure he/she will post it on the suggestion page. Alternately, he or she may share comments with those of us who are active on the GWW, like User:Andrew Patrick and myself and we can post on the page. What I really want to avoid is a feeling that devs need (are required, are obliged) to scour the pages to submit their favourites. That forms a level of requirement that we don't want to heap on an already-busy team. I hope that makes sense, and thanks for understanding." so we may hope but it's better if we expect zero :) Renin 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're all busy, for crying out loud we are all busy, some of us have full time jobs, or courses, families etc and spend just as much time out of Guild Wars as they do with with it. Its not a question of requirement or obligation, personally I'm merely saying "We're all busy, we understand that you are to, but if we can add to a conversation you encouraged, why can't you add to it?"
 * "However, we love to hear your ideas for the future of our games! While we cannot respond to most suggestions, we do read the suggestions pages frequently." Yeah, really? Personally, I haven't seen a response on this page from Anet, bar Gaile.   What a sense of community.
 * House Of Furyan 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I love this page as well as Gaile's proffessional talent for corperate cushioning, it seems to me that the Anet staff has only suggested the possobility that thier devs might look in on this suggestions page, if they feel like it might help. In otherwords, they're as free as anyone else to look in on the page but just as free not to. More than that considering how haphazardly this page is organized, it's almost as if they're trying to discourage the devs as well as everyone else from reading it. If they really had any intention of turning these suggestions into a repository of material for the devs to draw on in times of need they'd at least attempt to organize these ideas into catagories instead of simply tossing them into a pile and then simply archiving them by month. I'm sure the archives are probably as actively looked over by the devs as the rest of this page, but I'm persuaded to think that isn't saying much. It's almost as if the Anet PR staff just don't want to put any responsibility on the devs because they don't want us to be let down when we see the devs aren't fulfilling those resposibilities. As scathing as these remarks seem, I just want the Anet staff to know (if they're reading this) that they've thus far given us no reason to beleive that our suggestions mean anything to them. As much as I respect Gaile and what she does, these suggestions weren't written for her, and it would be nice to see at least some kind of feedback from the devs that shows at least one of them skims the page every month or so just to see what's there.--Shai Halud 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some structure to this discussion, having sections for specific suggestions and ideas would be nice instead of one huge page that gets massive very quickly. Order and structure are always good. House Of Furyan 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see any problems with the dev team not replying, it's not as if we're constantly feeding money with subscription to really oblige them read and somewhat reply at this community. They have their priorities and their priority is GW2 and do follow-thru with their original vision. We're here to encourage, not twist their arms just because we don't feel like we're getting any attention. It has been discussed that GW2 will have more structure in the coming few weeks as we do all know that this section of the wiki will grow bigger as time pass by. Let's all remember to breathe deeply and just let it be. I'm just happy that they do listen, comparable to other more popular MMO games. Renin 18:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanent Recreational Activities
I'll admit that I just browsed the content headers of the archive, so forgive me if these are retread. There are times that players just want to socialize and hang-out ingame, not unlike real life. In GW some players pretend to throw parties where everyone stands around doing the /dance emote so it doesn't appear like they're afk. That's a good thing, but I'd like to get suggestions written down for actual content that's incorporated to aid in socializing and messing around that doesn't involve killing stuff. Ideas that come to mind or have been mentioned in other places:
 * 1. TAVERNS. Various things could be added to make these fun; "live" rotating bands (playing period music of course - holiday themed music when appropriate) that get up and walk offstage and are replaced every so often, dance floors, discount beverages that can't be taken out of the tavern
 * 2. PLAYS at an amphitheatre. Not unlike the NF play in Bokka Amphitheatre, but with npc voices they'd be better.  Rotating playlist that changes every week or so
 * 3. GAME HALLS. Include little mini-games that can be played vs others or AI - possible betting if desired.  Chess/checkers type games, darts, minipet racing, rock toss, etc.
 * 4. Ye Ol' Swimmin' hole (pool type environment). Okay, sounds cheesy, but with swimming ability supposedly part of GW2...
 * 5. Minstrels in outposts

Okay, the list can go on. Just wanted to throw 'em out there. Clobimon Craiggy 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Goddamn you for making me imagine a Charr performing troupe doing Romeo and Juliet . Or C'thak the Man-Gutter and Matyk Manyfangs, I guess it would be. ): --71.229@home kk? 11:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would pass the time if you really are that bored. Prokiller88 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * HA! The Charr Society of Performing Arts? I can only imagine the female Charr will sound something like a female Klingon. Imagining one saying "O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?"... could be rather hilarious. Clobimon Craiggy 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers of Negotiation
Along with Lussh's proposal last moth for more intelligent AIs, I'd like to add a more specific suggestion: that we be able to engage in negotiations with groups of more intelligent enemies in GW2. These negotiations would allow us to resolve our encounters peaceably with these groups. It may allow us to hit weaker enemies up for cash (and in return we can't kill them) as well as pay off stronger groups so that we can pass trough their territory unharmed. Perhaps we could just un-equip our weapons and all enemies of that type would become friendly with us. All of these negotiations would be determined through conversation boxes, possibly engaged by using a "negotiate" skill on any member of the enemy party.

Now there are three possible ways for this to work. The first possibility is that all races will be capable of negotiations. Alternatively, it might be profession specific, the paragon could be a good canidate for that. The last possibility, and my favorite, is that powers of negotiation will be race-specific. It could be part of a group of advantages that belong to either the Humans (as we're such a sly race) or the Sylvari (as they love peace). Preferably the humans as I have an easier time thinking up alternatives for the Sylvari. Anyway, "negotiation skills" could then be linked to a race-specific attribute (such as charisma) and along with other advantages that the devs might see fit to grant to the human race (I wrote my suggestions for those here), this should provide as good a reason to play as a human as any other race in GW2(assuming they get equally good advantages, like the Norn's ability to transform).--Shai Halud 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Characters
I think it would be fun if there were a few GM super characters running around that blend in with everyone, but could cause different things to happen, or take people on special quests. for instance, you see some random guy on the side of a road, and he tells you about some interesting treasure (in different colored text), so you go to check it out, and you get ambushed by the same guy and a group of his NPC monsters. It would add an interesting variety to the game, and would solve some of the rigidity of the the current GW. (along with all of the other things you are doing.) and you would only need a few people, (possibly volunteers) with crippled GM powers. (olny need NPC spawn, Item Spawn, teleport?, and colored text). ps: I volunteer btw :)  --Warrior Deathwisper 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but would it really be nessissary for someone to ply the characters who initiate missions?It seems like they should be able to program an NPC to do that better. It's a good idea for adding some more spice to the missions, but I think NPCs would do a better job of it. I think there was a guy in GW:EN who escorted you through certain missions in the Wardowns.--Shai Halud 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be more like people doing whatever they can think of every day, and doing a lot of different things. Imagine if all of the sudden, the stone summet take over a road and are attacking unwarry travelers, and some people have to get together and clear them out. It would depend on the abilitys of the persistant world on what would be possible.  --Warrior Deathwisper 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tower Dungeons
As we can now have multi-level dungeons, wouldn't it be nice to have some of them as large, above-ground structures which tower over the landscape rather than having them all be underground temples of doom? Naturally, such areas, being dungeons, would probably have to be instanced to prevent crowding and maintain the atmosphere.

Of course, I'm more concerned with the aesthetic than with the practicality of it. These places should truly display the creativity of their concept artists and the skill of the game designers and not be drab serieses of corridors and atriums. These areas would not all have to be towers. Palace-like structures and castles would do just as well, but these areas should take our breath away and be worth the trouble it is to explore them.

Also, enemies in these areas should not respawn until you leave, otherwise, they just get annoying and the experience is muddled. Believe me, I've been through this and it sucked to have to deal with respawning enemies in an enclosed area.--Shai Halud 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I love this idea. I can see it working really well in Guild Wars -- Charr-filled castles in Ascalon; haunted towers in Arah; Sunken ships on the Krytan coast; gigantic, hollow trees in Maguuma. (I've always wanted to explore what was behind those yellow windows in the Echovald Forest.) --Mme. Donelle 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Age title
I always thought it was a good idea to make a title that showed your age in GW. It might be to late to add this title to GW1, but it might come up in GW2. The Age(title) is to show off how long you have been playing GW(GW2). This title you can't gain by bots, nor something you really have to work for, but it is still a title that takes time to gain. Below is some examples of what the title could be

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Soccom (talk).
 * Your primary reason, that you don't have to work for this title, totally defeats the purpose of having titles in the first place. You are also forgetting that this essentially just encourages people to go AFK every day... -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to go AFK for this, it's based on account age, not hours spent on the account. Anyway, I think this would be interesting, but I can't see it being used for anything other than to show experience.  It reminds me of a weaker rank system used by people in HA.  And I don't want that. -- People of Antioch  talk [[Image:User People of Antioch sig.png]] 03:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yaeh you'll have PUGs "LFG at least 24 months old to join" kinda thing in PvE which is NOT helpful for those new ones. Renin 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would never expect to see something like that, nor would never want to see anything like that. House Of Furyan 09:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be better if the characters u made over time aged or appearanced changed or something like that to show how old the character is in game though it would go against people changing thir hairstyle and possibly sex as of facial features.--72.178.138.105 14:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a good concept, but it reminds me of Fable, playing the game ages your character, until your char is like some 80 year old geaser stil tryin to beat teh game. I personally would rather my character stayed at a relatively young age, like in GW.  Becasue really, who wants to play as some old dude who looks like he belonged on oxygen in a wheel chair years ago, it jsut throws all idea of "Young, Spry, Energetic, Hero" perspective out the window.  Lord Zepherr 08:56, February 23, 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion that I have: Transfere
My idea is to allow players to transfere items and Characters to their New Guild Wars 2 character section, but only the first time they add it to their account. This would stop players from farming and flooding the market with older items, but it would allow their favorite characters and items to make an appearance in the new game. How to limit this is giving each player a certain amount of Transfere points when they first buy Guild Wars 2.

My idea doesn't include a monetary transfere, but say they have a Level 20 character that they love, like a Level 20 with elite armor, and a compound bow. This would consume thier transfere points and let them have fun raising their new character further. The level 20 character may cost 10 points to transfere, the bow would be another 5 and the armor would be one point a piece. For a total of 20 points.

That's pretty much all I have.
 * I believe it was stated that characters cannot be transferred because it will be an entirely new game using a new program and that the timeline, GW1 should not exist as it's been two hundred something years. Renin 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Transferring a character between games could be done but I don't think starting off at level 20 with max armour/weapons would be an acceptable idea, that because the systems between the two games are totally different. Its like putting petrol in a diesel engine, not going to work.  My Guild Leader wanted to have his main character 'frozen' during a Guild Wars quest and have it transferred that way.  Wouldn't see it happening either.  Transferring could be done, but not in the way you want it. House Of Furyan 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on transferring: Character Transferring House Of Furyan 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK here's my idea: In the HoM there's that space where titles are commemorated, that space seems to have some dark passage leading into the all doesn't it? Well wha tif your GW1 cahracter got a quest to help ou tin the furure, but only one character could get the quest on an account. In the quest he/she runs through that passage, into the GW2 world.  this quest would only be accesible when your GW2 character reached the HoM, making a farther ahead goal, adn balancing it out so that your GW2 char reaches teh HoM when he/she should be about lvl 20 in teh game.  this would copy your GW1 char and put it's file in your character selecting screen, but your GW1 char would still be playable in GW1, he just couldn't get the transfer quest again.  The last thing is that it would be impossible for your GW1 copy to go back adn forth to get more items, all you had was what was in your inventory, what you were wearing, adn what you were weilding. Lord Zepherr, 06:59, February 23, 2008 (UTC)
 * Using timeline as an excuse, how can my character live for more than 250 years old if? As far as we know, we'll be getting some cosmetic bonuses for what our previous character/s has done. You ain't ever going to see your current character be transfered completely but at least via name, that name MAY be permanently binded to your account. Besides I highly doubt that weapons and their bonuses will work exactly the same with the new game nor will they make their max level 20 once again. Renin 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Renin about the weapons and bonuses comment, the ingame mechanics between the two games could be too far different to allow a straight game to game copy. In my idea on my page mentioned up a bit the character itself dies and only the name is carried over, otherwise there are too many mechanics to work out.  Transferred characters following my idea would have a different story arc available to them then the generic fresh characters we make for Guild Wars 2.  Straight copies from one game to another isn't a good thing, as they're two different games. House Of Furyan 07:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys I don't know why you are arguing because there is an wholl statement about this. Characters, items and gold CAN'T be transfered. But instead with the items you have in the HoM special features in GW 2 will be unlocked. And getting characters to GW2 with quest? It can't be done because the time line will change this way and the future of GW 2 won't excist this way. There have been arguements about this in alot of games and tv shows. So please don't work with time traveling that's just not a gift of any creature known in tyria for all I know.
 * Technically they could, Anet just won't, there is a big difference. we all know about the HoM, but thats another can of worms that already has a lot of the community up in arms.  There are always ways of doing thing, but, in the end, it comes down to what Anet wants to actually program.  Lol, don't work with time travelling, I personally wasn't.  I was working with spirits and death, but hey. House Of Furyan 10:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this comment got me thinking, though the transfer idea is a good concept, it ruins the "Descendant of the Greatest Hero of All Time" idea, which I was kinda looking forward to. Also, when I create a chracter, i like to get it far, and put it to use.  I'm afraid that if there is a transfer system, people will just play to get far enough to get thier GW1 chars, and the only people who actually play thier original GW2 chars will be people who just like to experience it a little differently, so maybe, it would just be better if there was no transfering period.  Lord Zepherr, 08:10, February 24, 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably won't anyway. Transferring could be done, Anet just won't.   Its just like the HoM's valor monument, Anet could fix it to be more pleasing to the community, putting their weapons in not destroyer, but they won't.  They announced they're no where near finishing HoM but still don't want to change.  Your comment about the line of dialogue is very true but I wrote this on my Character Transferring page: "If this is done, players don't need to do it, as the Guild Wars community so often says "its there, but you don't have to do it.". It would be a nice option, and we love options." House Of Furyan 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

syncrenized team play?pet/enemy control?
Well my idea would be somewhat like what some people above said, that u can syncrenize skills to together like if u have a water aoe skill out(meteor shower like) and use a lightning skill it deals double dmg,etc. BUT i would also like to see team abilities like that, something like a warrior can chuck an assassin at an enemy( kinda like a shadow step)or hot key reaction opportunities, such as there is a projectile flying at u, then u get the option to dodge it by pressing the "w" button but u have a 1 sec cast delay right after to balance it. Also i love the idea of being able to ride pets like the stone summit do, but maybe give them a minor buff besides that only? such as 1-2 skills for them to use only,otherwise everyone will go /r just to have an extra skill bar on a pet. Second, we need pet diversity, such as turtle pet-moves 30% slower than other pets,but has -10 dmg from all sources, or rabbit pet-moves +25% faster,but takes double dmg. And find a way to incorporate climate( if its in gw2) with it, such as reptiles move and attack 33% slower at night,but +33% faster at day time,etc etc. And allow the ability to be able to capture enemies, but not exclusive to rangers-it would require a skill in your bar, and u could capture any enemy(except shiro,abadon,etc)including bosses,but to balance it reduce the persons skill bar to only 6 skills :P.well those are my ideas,hope someone else likes em.74.186.169.130 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Compo
We want Compo! We the people of GW would really like to see Compo from "Last of the summer wine" to be added. He would be integral to any tavern/rural setting. Giving advice and a few little quests. He also enjoys doing a little farm work. There is no possible reason not to add compo. (UTC)
 * Maybe other cultures cannot relate? I don't know who that is, and at first it thought it was a thing. I thank wikipedia for a vague understanding of who Compo is. Renin 19:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you know can you explain me? :P Because I don't have a clue who or what a compo is.

One word! Copyright!! If you start puting Compo, Clegg, and Foggy in games Anet will be sued so fast for copyright. If you like last of the summer wine so much go and watch it.--Sir Grockalot 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AOE
i think in gw2 you guys should figure out a way to make it so aoe affects friendlys as well maybe just a little bit but just to be true to real life and so it makes people on your team be concus of where they stand.
 * Would be a fun idea. Make the AoE skills really have effect on the area and do just a little dmg on your allies for example Bed of Coals; which already has nice effects but if it had effects on the ground for example it would be cool.
 * Friendly fire huh? Would make things interesting, but would probably lead to too many unintended deaths.  House Of Furyan 10:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice idea, but us warriors, dervishes and assassins have a few things to say about that... its bad enough without having the "friendly" ele in the back firestorming us... =P Ashes Of Doom 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * it would be more real i know its a game but you also have to remember that there may not be the same professions that are in the game now and if done right they could have skills that would counter it. we have no idea what health and stuff like that is going to look like. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.165.119.21 (talk).
 * I highly DOUBT that we will never ever see a reincarnation of the "warrior" and "elementalist" as both are the main staple of most MMOs out there. So yes, I don't like "friendly fire" as it will definitely make GW2 incarnation of Elementalist utterly useless and as a primary Elementalist in GW1 I say boo! Renin 06:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yet again you wont know what like the asuren stuff is going to be like or the plant people so they could each easly have skills or spells that counter it the posiblitys are endless. its just whaching eles burn things and have them stand in it and not get burned is like oh so they must have some sort of magical imunity oh way no they dont. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.165.119.21 (talk).
 * Possibilities are endless, yes, but it comes down to what Anet is willing to do, and trying to find a good way of doing friendly fire isn't a simple thing, they also have to make it so the AI can use it, evade it and react to it. House Of Furyan 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and you know what anet is willing to do? what is the next skill balance going to be? yea didnt think so.
 * No we don't but I still say nay to the idea. Renin 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you have no idea what the game is going to be like and you reject an idea because of what you think its going to be like and what the game is now when have you ever seen a sequal to a game be exactly or very close to the same as the first? never it aways changes a lot thats one problem i have with this community is how quick they are to kill ideas.
 * It's only MY opinion, and it does NOT mean everyone agrees with me. So seriously, before you think that my opinion is condescending, think about what you're saying for a moment. TONS of ideas are rejected by alot of people as well as thinks it's a great idea. I PERSONALLY hate this idea which in turn does NOT permit you to attacking my opinion. Also please DO take note that the community may say one thing but the dev team will definitely do as it pleases, even if half of the community causes an uproar. Look at skill balancing for one, many complains that the such and such skill sucks or over powered yet the dev team does whatever they think is right. Sure the community will quickly kill ideas but it does NOT mean the dev team will not read it nor taking it into consideration. So don't QQ on me if I dislike the idea. It's just MY opinion, not everyone elses! Renin 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Renin, people make suggestions, people give opinions, their own opinions. Don't get upset if people don't, in their opinion, like it.  Geez, if I got haffy over every idea I made that people don't like I'd need a therapist... House Of Furyan 08:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Actually, I believe they "killed the idea" for the same reason I would've. Namely cause friendly fire never has and never will work in an RPG. Any melee class (and believe me, there will be at least one) would be totally fried by any AoE since they have to be close to the mobs. And what happens when the healer has 4 mobs hitting him/her? The "mage" (I say mage instead of ele as it's more general) wouldn't be able to nuke them cause the healer would probably get overwhelmed. Also, saying that "there could be skills that avoid this" is like saying "here you go warrior, you can play with 7 skills while the rest of us play with 8", since "A system similar to the limited 8 skill system will be used." &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea would add a level of realism, yes, but it would also add a level of complexity that is too hard to adept. Having AOE damage to allies would more than likely end your party's/group's tanks as well as the enemy, more ally spells / abilities would need to be focused on tanks than they currently do causing skill and energy issues.  An issue also comes with programming the AI, avoiding Aoe from not only the enemy but allies as well would create a lot of problems because you have to define every step for the AI, and thats a level of programming that would require far more testing than I think ANET would allow for.  Anet hasn't even got all the bugs out of the system for Guild Wars, what makes you think they can successful achieve something so much more complex if they can't get what they've got right?  Not to bag Anet but they've issues with Guild Wars and they aren't even bothering to get them fixed before starting an entirely new project.  House Of Furyan 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, one of the reasons they started on GW2 was since there were so much they wanted to do and fix with GW1 that wasn't possible with the current codebase. Expect some of those issues to be fixed in GW2. ;) &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 12:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider that entirely true. There are lots of issues that could be addressed within Guild Wars and its engine, but it comes down to further or not Anet wants to take the time to go through and do that.  AI, for one, is something, for the most part, that they could fix up quite a bit, how they use skills etc and could be fixed for Guild Wars, but they're choosing instead to fix new code for a new engine.  How about they finish what they started before starting something new?  House Of Furyan 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * first off, if its "your opinion then don't say "Anet would agree" or anything of that nature unless you are anet. for the most part i was and am trying to encourage more positive feed back because from what i read about other ideas most of them end nagitively. also the idea isnt impossible it dosnt have to be a skill it could be an insingna it could be a aura it could be any number of things we know one fact for sure and that is we don't know what the game play is going to be like in gw2 yes they said a "system similar to the limited 8" similar dosn't = same. i think it would be better if people tried to think out side of the the box when it comes to gw2 and comparing it to gw1 yea they did a lot of things right in gw1 but the also did a lot of things wrong which they plan to adress in gw2 and some of thous things that might be wrong might change how some things are done. also have a little more faith in there ability to do something its quite remarkable that they released the franchise as quickly as they did most game compainys take years to make a game. were they turned out factions and nightfall and gwen rather quickly.
 * So what if most of the suggestions ends in such negativity? It just means that most of the posters think it's a bad idea. Same goes for this one, I don't like the idea of friendly fire as it will cause Mages and other AoE nukers to be less effective than they should be. Why should my tank/friends be punished for trying to kill multiple target when it's already energy draining, as well as time consuming (recharge plus casting). Sure thinking outside the box would be great but in practice, some of those ideas either just won't work well. ASSUMING that they've simplified the skills, that means lesser or greater skill slots for us. If it means lesser skill slots for us, what kind of a tank/people wouldn't take at least a skill or more for self/party healing and deflecting/armoring themselves with friendly fire which in turn leaves a bad taste in the mouth since we'll have lesser skills to toy around with. If we're given more skill slots, around 10 or 12, it'll be plausible but still leaves a bitter after taste for those who prefer nukers. I mean who would bring someone who hurt friends and torture the healers? I can see it now, in a group of 8 (assuming party limit is 8) there will be 1 tank, 3 nukers and the rest all healers, trying to keep each other alive. Not a fun game to play where more than half of the people are constantly healing, protecting, armoring themselves and to each other. I just strongly dislike the idea. Renin 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Few comments: (1) News to date says that GW2 will keep the 8-skill system. It was a high point of GW1. (2) Simplifying the skills, I think, means that skills will generally be more useful. Some might have several functions, others might have fewer conditions to apply. That also means that we'll probably have fewer skills to choose from, but a larger proportion of them will be useful. (3) Regarding friendly fire, it's not that the idea itself is bad, is that I personally don't like how it would change my game. Friendly fire fits really well in tactical / strategy games, and in realistic FPS's. It also fits in realistic RPG's. But IMHO it doesn't work in casual team-based or casual action RPGs, where the most likely outcome is that some people will use it to kill other players. Some like that added risk, I don't. When I want to play that way, I PvP (which I also do). But PK'ing is very different from PvP, it's more like backstabbing the unsuspecting. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Throwing my two cents in: Neat idea, but I don't even like friendly fire in FPS games. And like Alaris said in (3), it would lead to immaturity "lol i kill u". "lol ur on my team, moron".-  Vanguard  14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol You could AOE yourself to death too o.O House Of Furyan 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GW2 Suggestions Organization
Hi All! Further to some discussion with Gaile (which you can find here), I've started a sandbox in an effort to try and find a better way to organize this suggestions page. The idea is to create some topic-specific pages for people to post their suggestions that will better allow all of us (and most importantly the devs, who are reading, apparently) to navigate the suggestions.

I would like anyone and everyone to please visit the sandbox here, and please let me know what you think and if there is any way to better organize it. Thanks!! (Satanael 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Zoo
Hey, I created this segment becasue it didn't really coincide with what is being discussed in the Pets Revisited up above. Here's my idea, a personal zoo type thing that would act as some sort of pet storage. I love my Melandru's Stalker, and i'm adamant on not getting rid on him, but that doesn't meen i don't want a Black Moa, and I've had so many chances at a pheonix it's maddening, so i proposed this, here's how it's work: Like in teh previous archive, there would be some sort of totem used to capture an animal, that would work like charm animal, just select the animal, and double click the totem in your invoentory, it becomes hostile, and eventually it's captured. Now you can take it back to your house/zoo type thing, in which you waould have to spend a bit of cas, and sacrafice some materials, to make a pen for that species. Ialso think there would be some sort way to double click the toem and name whatever pet was inside it so it retains it upon being put into it's pen. you could put at least 4 of each animal in a small pen, and would need to enlarge it to accomadate more. Finally there would be a way to switch your equipped pet with a pet in your zoo, lettign the equipped pet go inot it's pen, and then equipping another animal. Lastly there would be a title track for your zoo, going on size, adn amount of animals in captivity, first level woudl be something like: "Hog Keeper", adn highest would be somthing like: "Supreme Master of the Animal House". Lord Zepherr, 08:27, February 24, 2008 (UTC)

Titles
Ever since titles came out, the grind based maniacs have slowly been degrading pve. Then came titles with benefits, titles which were bought, titles that were nigh impossible for the casual to ever hope to get, and even a title for how much time and effort one has wasted! This has, both advertantly and inadvertantly created discrimination and pointless epeen contests among players. The three worst titles Anet made are as follows:


 * Gladiator: This has basicly fucked up RA. It was okay for TA, becouse grinding it or farming it was impossible (Admitedly not anymore), but it spawned multiple RA title farmers that forced anet to introduce a fucking annoying mechanic to balance it out.


 * Kurzick/Luxon: As somebody else put it, these titles should never have been made. It costs so damn much time to get them it is not even funny. And don't argue that "it is acount based". Sunspear takes about the 1/24th the time to max out for a single char. I don't have 24 pve chars. Now, I am not entirely against titles, but I am against titles that directly influence and shape PvE. The reason why most seasoned PvPers don't take pvers seriously is becouse of the incessant grind that is required to excel and have a place in the community.


 * Race reputation: The final drop. These just turned pve to a joke, along with ursan and consumables. Should never have been made.

The most radical and, quite bluntly, sensible solution would be to eliminate all titles, thus ending this shitstorm. However, I realise that this ain't gonna happen, due to titles that are being transferred over the hall. So, another simple solution is called for:

Make them undisplayable.

Make titles only personal achievements, make them benefit only your own sorry ego. Furthermore, make them not influence the game. Guild Wars was based on skill vs grind, and title influence completely screws this up. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.108.220.243 (talk).
 * I think titles sucks, except those titles that has real great benefits like treasure hunter and lucky. Of course I do hate the fact that one of them is a character based title so boo to that but much love to the lockpick bonus we get. Something along those lines where titles does not directly affect PvE gameplay should see more use. Renin 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree.. how can you state that something that is not mandatory can ruin the game, you are not forced to farm, you are not forced to get a high rank to continue the game (except in NF which you above stated takes less time, which gives me the impression you dont hate it.. or hate it as much). if you want high ranks go and get them. if you dont dont, its really as simple as that. Crazy 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but when people are not willing to play with you because you don't have such rank in a certain title that gives PvE a boost then I hate titles. It's those titles that affect PvE gameplay that sucks, or even in HA where you have to be at a certain rank to play with them. How can casual players compete with such hardcore players? So yes, I really dislike titles that have affects PvE gameplay but love them titles that doesn't. True that titles are not mandatory but when you wanna explore Underworld, Fissure of Woe, Urgoz or GoA you're forced to grind for certain titles which isn't much fun especially for those who does not have time to farm for those points constantly; or can be as dedicated in PvP as those other people. Renin 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Titles can also be started indirectly, and people have a habit of finishing what they started. I don't like players who have a 'title requirement', that kinda thing ruins for, like Renin said, for the casual players. House Of Furyan 09:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * @Lunatic. Been to ToA recently? Or DoA?  Its pretty much impossible to get a (good) group in either of those if your not A. a monk or B. Max/near max Dwarven/Lightbringer rank.

Consumables are fine imho. It takes very little work to reach r3 of a title(hell you normally hit r3 just by beating EotN) But titles just encourage "elitest attitudes"  Elitest attitudes are why I stay away from HA. Elitest attitudes are why I am 100% unable to find a good guild to let me join, despite the 2+ years of experience I have on this game. I agree...titles are something that should never have been introduced into the game. Fame should never have been introduced either, everyone with a deer emote or above thinks they are the god and ruler of anyone that stays away from high end pvp.--Ryudo 10:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consumables are not fun. They make jokes of high end pve areas. IMHO, they should never have made, it just makes more people girnd n' farm, and more players are pushed away from this metapve (lul wut?) Also, show me a title that improved the game. Rep titles spawned rep grinders, lightbringer just caused discrimination, kurzick/luxon titles are just devil-spawned jokes, thye fucked up AB to no end (see the annoying title farmers, 4-4-4 guys, etc..), Glad nuked whatever was left of RA's dignity... the list can go on and on. IMHO, titles were fan service, and just like dervish and the assasin, they fucked up the game. Remove (not gonna happen) or sterilise them pls. The point here is to push people away from ANY form of grind, guys. 85.107.251.198 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the titles, and there are several that I do not have maxed......I don't have any problems at all getting into groups. Med Luvin 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Med Luvin, I like titles. Admittedly, I'm not a PvPer so I can not comment about the gladiator title or anything like that, but the deer emote and stuff like that has been around for a long time and I've only heard people complain about it recently. As for PvE, I don't have trouble getting into guilds or pugs, and the only high rank title I have is sunspear, which happened more by accident than anything else.


 * I think the value of titles is it allows people to be recognized for nearly everything they do, and it's fun to bust out cool or silly titles.


 * To be honest, if people are discriminating against titles, then that's they're own loss. I got kicked from a group in Tombs once because my B/P ranger build had two beast mastery skills on it, it didn't matter that I did tombs runs every day and was willing to be the puller, I was obviously a noob because I didn't pick a build that exactly fit what everyone in the PUG had seen on wiki.


 * I think patience is best, eventually people realize that being too discriminating just makes it hard to put together a group, and that being a little more open minded can lead to a much easier and more fun time playing instead of just hanging around waiting for rank 50 lightbringers to show up. You have to remember, right now PvP and title grind is about all that's left for a lot of players to do, so most players right now are going to be a little obsessed with titles. But that will calm down, mark my words, in a few months or so, people won't care what title you have. (Satanael 07:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
 * If they can have titles with more subtle effects, then who wouldn't love titles, right? But affecting directly certain PvE only skills to the point that using other normal skills becomes moot then it does become a problem. aNet has to be careful with PvP titles though as it certainly causes the elitest attitude. Renin 08:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hosting your own quest
Have you ever gotten a quest and been like "I really don't want to do this right now" and wish you could have some one do it for you? It would be awesome if we could host our own mini-quest and "hire" people to do jobs that we don't want to do. Such as if a quest requested us to kill a giant cow and loot its fur for a reward, we advertise a job to go kill this giant cow and loot its fur and pay 500g in completion in a timely manner. when this "employee" returns with the fur, a special trade box could be opened and you trade 500g and that person trades the fur, like an automatic trade that can not be denied. this employee, almost like a mercenary, would not only recieve the 500g, but any other loot from other monsters kiled in the process and experience gained from killing these things (in which the employer would not receive). This could possibly lead to an assistants title or reputation with assistance.

whats wrong with this idea? people would engage in powerleveling and paying people in the real-world money to do these jobs. this could be fixed by only allowing it for quests and setting a low-price-limit for the pricing. also, a point-system could be set up to limit helping. you start out with certain amount of points to get help, and by helping others you recieve points to spend on getting help.

although it is very complex and risky (with powerleveling, etc) it would be an interesting way for people to help out other people and help people meet other people. Zack Pw


 * I was under the impression that this already happens, such as people buying Cap Son letters in Seitung Harbor. Isn't that the same thing? We're paying 1k for someone to go out and get the quest item for us to turn in. Shen 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stock Market
How about a Xunlai Stock Market where you buy shares in the Xunlai Guild. I don't know about economics much, but maybe it could work out where when you turn them in, you might get more money.. or you might lose money. Seems like fun. -- Counciler 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see more of a dramatic fluctuation in the prices of stuff from the merchants. In GW1 the prices are meant to go up and down and I've noticed it once or twice go up and down but not by much (10g) or so. A more dramatic shift would be interesting and it means people could buy things and sell things to attempt to make a profit, (and more importantly lose money if prices go down). --Sir Grockalot 11:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Force Res Sigs in RA
Lock slot 8 in RA and give everyone a res sig. Make monks QQ. --Tankity Tank 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yup. Agreed, signed in blood. 85.107.251.198 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you do that, then why not force all the skills you can use, why even give people a choice? People chose their skill layouts, if they do not bring the right skills, then they (or the team) ends up paying for it. You need to plan ahead. Med Luvin 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but really, who doesn't want to bring a res spell along, whetever thier build? Perhaps the basic ability to res should be an innate ability and not a skill at all. I'm not sure it would work, but I think it's worth considering.--67.34.238.247 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two words. Hell No!!! I hardly ever bring a res along. (I'm that good). Unless I'm partying with others and then that is only to avoid annoying other people. On my own PvE I never bring one usually because my monk hero stays alive so he can res, and if need be I order him away from the fight and kill everyone myself. Then command him to come back and let him res the party. I see the res as a wasted skill so never carry it and forcing someone to have one is stupid. (No offence meant to anyone). Stu. 26/02/08.
 * Try reading the post, you'll see he is referring to RA. That is not PvE, and it requires you to have a group. Personally I think that a forces res sig in RA would be fine, as long as it was only RA. Ashes Of Doom 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a great idea. Arguing against it increases the likelyhood that you are an idiot.
 * lol, i think they should force it for ch that arent monks or rits. who have healing maybe they could do it on a % of how many skills are support/healing.
 * Two comments: (1) instead of forcing it, add a "warning" window suggesting that you bring a rez of some sort, and (2) it doesn't have to be rez signet even though for RA it's probably a good choice. The first comment is that you shouldn't impose these choices on people, or then you might as well force them not to bring flare on their warrior. People learn by making mistakes, and trying different things. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bringing a res in RA is a mistake that directly hurts you. This is a good idea please, and what other res are you planning? Fomf? REBIRTH??!

You think forcing people to bring res sig will solve the problem? Do you know how many of those that did bring res sig but never use it? Lightblade 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Not Just make special slot just for the ressurection skills? (D-BorG)

Roleplaying and Truncate Limits
As an avid RPer and MU* er, when I came to Guild Wars, I was hoping to get some roleplaying in with my characters. Unfortunately, as I soon found out, the limit on text in the chat windows is horribly limited. I was seriously bummed, and as I know that it is unlikely that the limit will be increased in GW1 due to programming issues and spamming possibilities, I was hoping that for Guild Wars 2 we would have a Roleplaying chat tab or some other way for groups of people to RP in the world instead of simply running around and killing things. Even if it was something as simple as removing text limits in a Party-only chat, or, (seeing as some towns are limited in party size (Presearing)), an ability to designate a number of people to share a team-chat feature in-game, so that party dynamics out in the Explorable Areas are not compromised while letting a group of people carry out a RP session would be ideal. I know a bunch of people who have come from MUDs and MUSHes, who can certainly see a great deal of RP potential in a graphical MMO such as this that are bummed by the inability to send more than 1.5 lines of text through at a time. Many times, that's not even long enough to complete a single sentence, let alone the paragraphs that are sometimes required for this sort of thing.

I can see the issue with making Local free of text limits, but hopefully some sort of implementation can be added where those of us who enjoy fleshing our character personality more than "I'm an Ele who burns things/I'm a bonder monk" or "SS Necro LFG, LF Monk" can explore complex party/guild dynamics. I mean, why -would- a descendant of Ascalonian refugees find themselves in a guild that includes the great-great-great-great grandson of one of the Charr who burned Rin? We saw Gwen and Pyre fight throughout EOTN, why should we limit that sort of character development to cutscenes only?

Please give this some serious thought. This sort of feature could be what distinguishes GW2 from all the other MMOs and RPGs that already have us suspending our disbelief that as we progress further away from the starting area, monsters become proportionally and linearly tougher. An MMO that lets people interact within the forth wall as well as meta-game is something that I for one have been looking for and forward to for a long, long time. Shen 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sylvari Ability: Armor Grafting
The devs seem to be into giving "special abilities" to each race and so I've been pondering what sort of abilities the Sylvari should have. Even though we still know comparatively little about them, people have been continually suggesting ideas which had to do with magic, and so this is designed to make the warrior professions more accessible to the Sylvari race.

Basically, this would allow the Sylvari to undergo some kind of process which would bind their armor and/or weapons to their skin, adding greater toughness, speed, and power to it. This would be a lot like double customization, but once the armor is bound to the character, it cannot be removed without reducing the armor to crafting materials. Perhaps there would be some special condition for removing it safely, but you get the idea.

Also, this would likely change the appearance of the armor (especially loose-fitting armor) as it would now be like a second skin to your character. If the devs pull this off well, it will likely have an extra appeal for players who chose the Sylvari for their looks. It goes with their plant-like characteristics and allows us to customize the body of our character. Overall I'd look forward to seeing this as part of the "Sylvari Advantage Package" in GW2. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Shai Halud (talk).


 * I really don't like the idea of punishing one race for swapping gear. -- Gordon Ecker 09:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seers
Hello Gaile, I know this is all stricly classified and you can't respond to it but it is an idea lol. I think that the Seers should be a playable race in GW2. They could have psychic abilitys (such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, mind reading, future sight, pyrokinesis, and possibly even mind control). The Seers have a small part in GW and I think it would be cool if we could expand that. I think this would most certainly be a awsome thing to do, honestly I love the Necromancer profession but if there would have been some kind of psychic profession (i dont think ritualists count btw) I would have been all over that. So it may be a smart i dea to add them into GW2. Hopefully there will be people here who agree with me lol.

Thanks --Shadowphoenix 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be a playable race but you should learn more about there history IMO. Because since gwen's mystery has been solved I think the seer is the biggesy mystery atm.


 * Well if they dont make the seers a playablew race I think they should make some kind of psychic race. I think that most would agree that psychic abilities are a very cool thing.  If not the seerts then something psychic is all im saying. --Shadowphoenix [[Image:User-Shadowphoenix Shadow Phoenix Signet.jpg|19px]] 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you consider mesmers then?--Ryudo 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Asura summons and minions
Actually, there are three kind of summonings ; the undeads minions who need corpses, have no skills and less tactic than minotaurs ; the spirits summoned from the mists by ritualists who are bond and chained, limited in their actions ; and the asura summons, suspected being polymock pieces animated by magic.

It was proposed somewhere that it would be nice to have a bond linked minion who would cost a permanent energy mangement more than a health time or a health degeneration.

My idea was more about crafting our own summon. As we would choose atributes and skills of our own character depending on profession and level, we would craft one ( or more ? ) summons. How ? first we can choose if it needs a corpse or not. If a corpse is needed, the creature would maybe cost less energy than if we had to summon a complete body. I putt a joke somewhere where i said i would use an asuran signet of soul absorption on shiro to summon him latter. Why not ? the signet of capture absorbs a skill from a dead powerfull enemy. Why not a signet or equivalent to steal somekind of essence from a boss/foe of our own choice to personalise the futur summon. Even if this only changes the skin of the summon it would already be really nice. Of course i would like to expand it ; in regard to the asura summons, being abble to choose it's element or even profession linked. ANd to go even further, choosing it skills and gear ><.

So an exemple whould be : i defeat 2 Krait Necromancer bosses. I use 2 signets of soul absorption on them and get so two Krait Necromancer soul essences. Then i somehow (in town) activate it, choose it skills, and link one my first invocation skill, with the following options
 * corpse needed = yes ; Ai = 0 ; it will cost 10 energy and summon a Krait Necromancer (undead skin) who will have good health and armor and only attack till death.

I link the second essence to another summoning, corpse needed = no ; Ai = yes ; it will cost 25 energy and summon a Krait Necromancer (normal skin) who will have low health and armor (as it is harder to create a complete body in the same atrivute) but will uses the spells i gave him (maybe only one or two).

Another idea, if we have an health or energy link to our summons, it would be nice to have a choice between animating for the same or close cost one big minion or a lot of littles ones.

So to resume, instead of some different summoning skills, may only one or two, but works as pet/heroes, we can personalise it , level, skin, atributes, skills, even weapon and armor maybe. and even the health duration could be choosed between health degeneration, countdown or energy/health link.

The Lich animated rurik as a undead minion. it used his body, changed and improves his skills, strength, level, (and unslaved him). The cost of this spell is unknown, we know the lich is a powerfull mage, but doing the same (on lower degrees of course) is a nice example of what would be great.

I admit i prefer to have a summon that don't need corpse ( and don't have a undead look therefor ) but some kind of healing prayer spell could repair the body ? A combination of divine/healing spells to resurect and cure the enemy corpse, and an equivalent of necromancer hex/undead controling to have it under control.

There the only differences between pets/heroes and minions, would only be that minions are summoneds by spells and not always with us ( only when we call them ). I think the team has already some ideas of what they are make for minnions, and i'm sure it is only a really small part of the entire skill balance that there will be, i'll anyway ask all of you, beg and kneel, please, make as much possibilities on summons/minions as possible. I know it is a small part of the gameplay, but i deeply like it a lot more than throwing axes or fire balls. I found so more exciting to control the battlefield by leadings forces, lifes and hexing more than simply "fighting". I know my long speach as no guideline, i'm not good in speaches. I wish and beg there will be as many things as possible in this subject ; thanks whoever will read my bad speach till the end : ) lussh 12:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea but I think few people would do this seeming we can take a a lower lvl guy with us that works the same and he can think for himself what makes him way more powerfull then your idea and there is a reason that the summoned creatures' power was so limited because it's a part from a player and if you make it as strong as you want your character will be far to strong. For example you have as a summon a lich dragon while the other guy has a skale and you too powers are equal then you would win for sure only because you have a stronger summoned creature and this would outbalance the game IMO.
 * You didn't understood my wish. lussh 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your ideas lussh. I like this one (even if I like the idea of Asuran Golemancy better), I loved your suggestion last month, but I won't lie to you: your articles are darn-near impossible to read or follow. Not that you should stop making suggestsions, by all means please continue, but just don't be surprised when people misunderstand. Thx--Shai Halud 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ouki, thanks to tell me. lussh 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Character customization
I would like to see alot more options to customize a character than are offered in GW. You have 9 or so face styles per class, and 9 or so hair styles. I would like to see something simmilar to City of Heros, where you can spend quite a bit of time customizing your hero. The more options people have to make their character unique, the more diverse and rich the enviroment will be. I would like to see alot of character customization in GW2 Med Luvin 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I doubt they will, they'll have Sylvari, Charr and Asura to worry about. I wish they'd rethink about the Asura and make them prominent NPCs. So Here's to hoping they'll give us a really fleshed out character customization. Renin 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Might happen, especially if different professions don't have to look different. For example, they can have different postures, but they can also share a lot of face/hair art, as well as armor art. Profession-independent stuff. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Good lord, like a bald monk charr? Renin 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO! Good one, Renin! -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is much better to make professions linked to the armor you are carrying and not to the face... (D-BorG)

Another Suggestion: Monatary Gain
My first sugestion had some great feedback, it was about transfering, which people are both for and against. I understand fully why too.

Now for my Next suggestion. Guildwars, like many other MMORPGS have a problem with private sites that sell money for real world cash. It annoys me, and It killed Runescape when they tried updating in a way that stopped uneven trades. To see this is NOT done to guildwars and guildwars 2 my suggestion, which covers both, is for Guildwars to Create a "Cash Pack" that can be bought in Guildwars like an upgrade. This way Guildwars can shut off these sites that buy and sell gold, and can do it themselves. People will more than likely buy additional money from Guildwars, to make it official and legal, then to buy it from illegal off vendors.

Tell me what you think. I have a few more suggestions that i will be posting after a few days, after i iron out all the thoughts in my head.
 * The main problem with this (or any gold buying and ebay-ing) is that it puts wealthier players at a serious advantage in a game where skill (and to some extend time) should determine your success. It also unbalances the economy, because players that buy gold can afford to spend more gold to get items, thus these items become more expensive. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alaris, the problem with this idea is it will allow real-world rich players to unbalance the economy. I think there is a basic misunderstanding among many of us on how a game economy works. I'll post below to explain. (Satanael 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Hell yeah!! Best goddamn idea I've ever read!!!! I've often thought about a little cash here or there and the only thing stopping me doing it is the fact that I don't trust these dodgy sites that sell gold!! (Nothing to do with flouting the Anet terms and conditions). If Anet sold gold I'd buy some!! Although they would have to limit the amount bought per account per month. Otherwise someone with too much real money, (and too much time) could buy LOADS of in game cash and start adversely wrecking the in game economy. Alaris I salute you, hell of a good idea.--Sir Grockalot 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For God sake no. If you want in-game cash go and play the game don't buy it. Not at shady sites, not at ANet... (D-BorG)

Built In Voice Chat
It is very probable that this has already been brought up, but I want to mention it anyway. As anyone who has played PvP or more coordinated PvE knows, having a program such as teamspeak or ventrilo is essential to victory. Especially in PvP, this is not so much an assist as a requirement, it is nearly impossible to win most GvG/HA matches without this coordination. Even more so in a fast paced game like Guild Wars. This could be implemented in several ways that I see.


 * 1)By Party: This would probably be easiest, giving the needed comunication for teams, but keeping that communication to those team. Basically, you can talk to your team, but you would not be able to talk to your friend while you are doign Random Arenas and he is questing.
 * 2)By Guild: If this was implemented so each guild has one or several channels on which to speak, there would need to be a way to "guest" others into the channel(s). Perhaps simply using the guest system in Guild Wars would work, and allow anyone who is guested to use guild voice channels.  Guild leaders and officers would be able to ban others from this channel or mute them, to prevent annoyances.
 * 3)By Person: Rather impractical. This would basically allow every player to have a voice chat channel that they can allow others into/kick others out of at will.  As I said, rather impractical.
 * 4)By Person with Purchase: Basically each player can buy a 'voice chat expansion' that would allow them to have a voice chat channel that they can administer at will, inviting and kicking others. This would cover extra costs of implementation, and be very usable, and much more conveniant than exchanging of vent addresses every time a new player joins a group.  Costs could be either a single purchase, like Guild Wars (and, I hope, GW2) is, or by a monthly fee, for as long as the player uses the channel.  This method would probably be the best, preventing cost problems ANet may have with the extra technology/servers for voice, and keeping relatively the same function as the programs we are all used to using.

There are probably other ways this could be done, but these are the ones I see as most practical and functional. This implementation would greatly help party organization and overall ease of use for the game, and would be, most of all, a great boon to PvP groups, especially in any area similar to HA, requiring coordination, but frequently played in PUG's. That is all the imput I have on this issue, and I hope it will be considered and implemented, to make GW2 as great as it potentially can be. 71.31.153.138 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't make much difference. People that doesn't want to listen will not listen even if you force the info into their head. Lightblade 07:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * this idea seems pretty good, i've always wondered how this could be done. So what I see is a sort of ting that works kind of liek the Halo Online Talk funtion, where before the match starts, the leader gets the chance to configure his/her team, and each member gets a display showing thier chracters stats, weps, skills, etc. and can adjust them according to the team and enviornment.  There would also be a funtion that woudl allow the whole team to communicate with each other on strategy and the like during that waiting period, like in Halo.  Lord Zepherr, 01:43, March 01, 2008 (UTC)

This is a VERY bad idea...seeing as then groups will be spamming "...looking for monk WITH teamspeak.." and those who do not own microphones or such will be left out. The typing is a sad fact yes but still. Sometimes i just like to feel like the game is all about me and not hear Leeroy Jenkins running in and murdering himself. Keyz
 * Fact is, there are people out there using Teamspeak or Ventrilo, and looking for people who have the same technology to team up with. Making it built-in won't change how people play the game (and whether people will listen to you or not), it will just make it easier to use for everyone. I'm all for it, but there should be an option to turn it off though, both ways. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keyz, in case you didn't notice, that's how the game is. Good luck getting into a serious PvP team without Vent/TS, which is more what this proposal was intended for.  This way, it would simply be more easily available to everyone, and it simply makes sense as it is essentially a requirement that you have those programs as is, and could potentially provide additional profit for ANet, so would probably not be unreasonable(not exactly sure what technology/costs would be needed to implement this, so don't quote me on that).  As far as PvE is concerned, well, actually I really don't care about PvE at this point, as it is far too easy and boring, but if it is more interesting, tactical and difficult in GW2, you won't be able to get a PvE group without voice chat either.  Basically, the situation of mics and voice chat being required is already here in the game, my proposal was intended to streamline the process and actually provide MORE group opportunities for those who don't want to get an external speech program.  Oh, and this was not intended to replace typing, just to be clear on that point, you don't HAVE to hear the guy being Leeroy if you don't want to, but it's always nice to have a choice. 69.40.240.227 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best option would be a way for them to make it possible to launch vent inside of the client, and have the Ventrilo/Teamspeak application working in an applet within the game with the program running outside of the game, or in the background. [[Image:UserDrago-sig.gif]]  Drago  20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hero/Sidekick Customize
I think that it would be very cool if we could make our heros Customized. When I say that I mean face, skin color, hair, body structure, things like that. That way we could make a Hero/Sidekick that is made to go with us. I hope that this is a good idea :P.

Thanks --Shadowphoenix 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea and probably one of the only serious solutions to the problems of "Companions and Henchies in the Continuous World" as listed above must wonder why this wasn’t in GW1. It probably wasn't compatible with their engine and would have been hell to program, but when you think about it, all your doing is allowing players to determine how the heroes look. Nothing else changes. AIs and mechanics are still the same. So, if they can have six million customized characters playing in the same world, why not another six million or so companions that would have been their anyway but now just look differently? I understand it would probably be difficult to program, but I can't imagine it being impossible and the problem presented by the continuous world would seem to make this a necessity for GW2. That is, unless they want to alienate people who enjoy having henchies and companions altogether.--Shai Halud 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Game Economy
This is not so much a suggestion as it is a clarification for all of us who are trying to figure out how to solve the economic problems faced by GW1.

Essentially, the largest problem facing every single MMO game economy is inflation, the devaluing of the game gold. In the real world, money is a representation of the value of that country's economy, and the total amount of cash in circulation is always equal in total value to the economy of that country (in principle). Therefore, if the country prints money at a rate that increases the amount of cash in circulation, then the value of each individual note goes down, which is what we call inflation.

MMOs will always have an economy that is constantly inflating itself. This is true because the game equivalent of printing money is players killing monsters, of which there is an infinite supply, and the game equivalent of money being destroyed is spending it at an NPC (this is the only way to remove gold from circulation, in most games). Therefore, in a game economy, there are infinite (or practically so) ways for money to enter circulation, but limited (or at least far fewer) ways for money to leave circulation, and that means inflation, constant inflation. This is the opposite of the real world, in which there are infinite ways for cash to be destroyed, but only one way for it to be made (government printing).

Weapon crafters, armor crafters, merchants, dyes, traders, gold sinks, all of these are ways in which inflation can be slowed down, but none of it solves the very basic problem that there are just too many opportunities for us to make money. (Satanael 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't know. To be honest, I really didn't have a problem with the GW1 economy. Prices of most things seemed to fluctuate as much up as they did down, and the traders of the game seemed to immitate real world economies with a fair degree of accuracy. Besides, most money doesn't come from gold drops but rather from item drops, and as the values of items rose due to inflation, so did the amount of money we got from selling those items. And the more those items were sold to the traders the less they would cost. If they could maske this system work for all sellable item drops, not just for crafting items, dyes, and runes then the GW2 economy would be perfected, and I think the auction house idea will really help out in that area.--Shai Halud 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's less flawed than people think. When there aren't as many of an item, it's expensive. When there's more of them in circulation, they're cheaper. I fail to see the problem.-  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]] 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above 2 posters. It's refreshing to see someone who understands economy for a change... most ppl who complain about economy then argue that it should be easier to get gold so they can buy stuff. But for as long as I have been playing GW, which is about when NF came out, I've never felt that there was a problem with the economy. It's very well balanced. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gold is never devalued or increased in value, Gold is the one constant, its the items are suffer from increases/decreases House Of Furyan 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's like saying inflation can't exist because a $20 bill is always worth exactly $20 regardless of its' purchasing power. -- Gordon Ecker 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In many senses, $20 (or 20k) does always have the value of $20 (or 20k), it only changes compared to the price of products (or in game items) or foreign currencies (ectos?). Thats what House meant when he said that. Its all relative. Ashes Of Doom 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion
Don't change what made GW1 so good, only add new cool things but don't change the basics! GW is so much better than WoW and GW2 should be too. <font color="Black">Dark <font color="Black">Morphon <font color="Black"> (contribs)  17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(User Controlled) Variable Spell Power
One of the things I've heard A-Net is trying to do is reduce the number of skills. One way I can think of to do this and still keep variety is to have spells with variable spell power. What I mean is the longer I hold the skill key or mouse down on the skill, the more powerful the spell and the more energy it consumes. For instance, imagine Flare where a simple click might cost 2 energy and do 20 damage (with a .75s aftercast, but no chance to interrupt), but a 3s hold may do 160 damage. This would have some stepping rate, some max, and a scaling damage amount (varies by points) it may be 2e/.25s inc/20dmg/3s, for instance (I would not allow holding the spell over the max time, as that could be used for spike abuse). The strategy add of that alone is interesting to me, as it puts a lot more guesswork into interrupts. --Falseprophet 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I really hate to tell you this, but it's kind of already been suggested. More than once. Not that it's a bad idea, I actually like it is a little old.--Shai Halud 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Charr Ability: Powers of the Beast
I've been writing a number of articles suggesting what special abilities might go well with each race. Finally, the time has come for me to make my recommendations for the Charr.

System Basics

I suggest that Charr characters be able to equip special skills, abilities, and attribute upgrades to their character at the cost of a certain number of "charr points" (it's a work in progress). This system, which I call the "Powers of the Beast", would be very similar to the badge-point system from Paper Mario or the ability-point system from Kingdom Hearts I&II. Each of the skills, abilities, and upgrades would be equipped and removed in exchange for these points. The player might have to see a special NPC, such a witch-doctor or something, to change out their abilities, but you get the idea.

You would be able to gain more options as the game goes on, perhaps by purchasing them from the witch-doctor. You may start out with a certain set of abilities and skills to choose from and your list would increase from there. You would be able to view you equip-able abilities as well as which ones you currently have equipped through a special window (actually, all races would probably have a special window for managing up on their special abilities).

The number of charr points you have would probably best be determined by a race-specific attribute which might also determine some other factors included in the equip-able abilities. Naturally more useful abilities will cost more points than less useful ones. Just to make things clear, '''when you equip a skill or ability to your list, it takes up a certain number of your available charr points. When you remove this ability from your list, you regain the points which that ability took up. So it is a matter of managing limited charr points, simmilar to the attribute point system'''.

Powers of the Beast

Alright, here's some more specific information on what types of powers I'm talking about. There are really only two types of things you can equip.

The first type is the skill. These are just skills that you can add to your skill bar. There would be skills of every kind, wards, spells, buffs, melee attacks, spirit-summons, and possibly even signets. Their strength would be determined by the race-specific attribute. Melee attacks might change according to what weapon you're holding or they might utilize the Charr's peculiar physiology, as suggested in the article Playable races/Charr Advantages on NikiWiki.com.

The second type is the buff. These are like buffs which are constantly in effect on your character as long as you have them equipped. The strength of these buffs will be determined by the race-specific attribute. The buffs could influence things such as attack rate, armor penetration, armor strength, running speed, the size of the aggro bubble, health and energy levels as well as their refill speed, accuracy, evasiveness, probability of a critical hit, strength against the elements, it could even cause your weapon to steal HP - the possibilities are near endless. But, of course, there is a difference between what is possible and what is practical and fair. Extensive testing will be required during the beta to determine how to best balance the Powers of the Beast.

That all said, let us take a step back and look at this system. This basically allows Charr players to choose what sort of advantages they want their character to have rather than having it determined by any built in race-specialization. When combined with the profession system, it also allows players to combine different advantages and dispositions to create characters of particular strength and uniqueness (which, honestly, is what all special abilities should do). From another angle, though, it also makes Charr, rather than Humans into the "well-rounded" race of this game, or rather, it turns them into the "red mages" of the GW2 world. They are able to specially equip their character with unique skills and abilities so that it will specialize in whatever area they desire.

Also, I predict that some of the skills and buffs will be more popular than others and some (such as the buff for running speed) will likely become nearly ubiquitous. Charr hunting parties may become known for their speed and attack rates as well as one or two attacks that they might tend to spam. It would more or less give the Charr sort of a reputation as expert hunter-killers.

Also, as a side-note, without any of their beast-powers equipped, as well as a good rating in their race-specific attribute, Charr would probably be just a bit weaker than every other race. So as not to make playing a Charr early in the game too difficult, some fairly useful powers should be accessible right from the beginning and it might be necessary to grant Charr some extra attribute points at the beginning to invest in their race-specific attribute.--Shai Halud 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You want refund points for the Charrs? No thanks, I really enjoy the freedom of the respec-as-you-want system as currently implemented. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood what I said, but I'm not sure I understood what you said. Could you please clarify somehow? What are refund points?--Shai Halud 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the early days of GW, or so I am told, you could not change your attribute points at will. Instead, you got refund points as part of levelling up, and you could use them to reduce your attributes, so you could re-distribute the points to other attributes. Players didn't really like the work that involved, so eventually it was changed to the current system where you can freely re-distribute your attribute points. Your suggestion reminded me of that, unless I misunderstood it. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're looking for the profession/class attributes and a new attribute sub-system, the "Powers of the Beast" which handles unique Charr only abilities etc? House Of Furyan 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say that this system would not affect attribute points in any way except where you must spend attrubute points on the race-specific attribute. I think Alaris confused ability points (which are spent on abilities and skills) with attribute points (which are used to upgrade attributes). To cut a long story rather short, all this system does is allow you to equip a charr with permenent buffs and race-specific skills at the cost of ability points which are gained by increasing a race-specific attribute. However you can equip and remove these skills and buffs at will. Please see my talk page for more if you're not sure you understand.--Shai Halud 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * all this system does is allow you to equip a charr with permenent buffs and race-specific skills at the cost of ability points which are gained by increasing a race-specific attribute. So that's just race attribute points, totally different from profession/class attribute points? House Of Furyan 08:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. What? Did you think I wanted to just give more attribute points to the charr? The race specific attribute behaves mostly like any other attribute (it increases the strength of the abilities and the number of ability points), but the skills and semi-permenant buffs take up a certain numer of ability points each (they really need a different name don't they?). Did anyone read the whole article? This is all written down in there. I think I'll add in the rest of the article. If it's still that confusing, I'l just re-write it. User:Shai Halud|Shai Halud]] 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Being able to "equip" racial bonuses sounds a lot better than being stuck with one package which could be great for some professions but horrible for others. I think the systom also has potential as a replacement for fixed primary attribute effects. As for the Powers of the Beast, they seem more appropriate for the Norn. -- Gordon Ecker 12:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably, but they already announced the norn special ability. This system is designed to stand toe-to-toe with the norn transformations (and not fully surpass it).--Shai Halud 12:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you added details, I see where you're going with this. I totally missed your point earlier, sorry! You basically get to pick & choose your abilities / buffs / passives from a set (which you acquire through gaming), and each has its own cost (stronger ones cost more) thus limiting how strong you can make your character. Actually, I really like that concept, but I'd like to see it applied to all races, each with their own separate skills and buffs. I like the idea of customizing your character, it adds flexibility as well as provides a way to make different professions work. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that, to make it easier to program the interface, you could add 2-4 slots to the skill bar that will only accept passive skills / buffs. These could disappear during the mission. That way, you don't need to program a whole new interface for this. Active racial skills have to fit within the allowed 8 skills. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but it looks like your idea has managed to spark my interest, Alaris, and I'm now working on a proposal for just that. I'll post something tomorrow. Thx--Shai Halud 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Operating Systems
I have a MacBook pro and I'm getting bootcamp so that I can run Microsoft XP on my mac as well as leopard and I went to Guildwars.com and it said they didn't support guild wars running with bootcamp. I'm not seriously ticked off because I thought I had finally found a way to play guild wars with my friends. Anyone know what not supported means? Can I still do it and they just don't suggest it or will it just not work cause I don't wanna waste $150 buying all of the different games
 * "Not supported" means you can play the game fine, but you won't be able to contact support if something technicologically goes wrong.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I own a iMac installed with Windows XP on the BootCamp parition, and GW functions just fine. I've never had any problems whatsoever. Kokuou 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My ultimate suggestion - PLANNING
I want to see more planning for Guild Wars 2 than appears to have been done in Guild Wars. I would like to see Anet think before it releases stuff, lets not mention the level 5 requirement put on the quests for the last festival because Anet couldn't see when they were making the quests that players could so easily exploit it. Or how the AI can not recognise states currently, like when minions are out of battle and monks throw down absolutely useless protection spells and drain their energy in a vain attempt to heal. That kind of thing, stuff which should have been worked out from day one.. House Of Furyan 07:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this could be said about almost any game(the "god-pistol" in Halo 1). Probably, the only real solution is extensive beta-testing, but there are some things, like attack spamming, that you're just never going to get rid of. You can only try to minimize it temporarily. Still, considering the nature of game development, they probably won't spend a whole lot of time thinking about things before they add them in. Just look at refund points from early GW1 (as described by Alaris above) or thier current idea for location-specific companions. It doesn't even really take two seconds of thought to see that those are both complete crap, but they really just don't have time to think (or look at suggestion pages, apparently) as they are such hard workers. They're in a bit of a rush.--Shai Halud 12:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too busy trying to make money instead of quality you think? House Of Furyan 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if I'm altogether wrong, then we have nothing to worry about.--Shai Halud 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm okay with them fixing things later, it makes the first year or so after opening day really exciting, almost everyday there's a new build that tweaks some things. Furthermore, it can be really difficult and time consuming to test everything out, so I'm not sure it's really fare to assume they can easily find every possible exploit or issue, and Shai is right, the God-pistol from Halo 1 is a perfect example of this.


 * Personally, I'm excited enough that I really wouldn't mind getting to play a slightly rougher game that will be fixed up as we go if it means I get to play earlier. One of the things I liked most about playing GW1 when it first came out is that I kinda felt like I was part of the game's evolution and development, and we have a much closer relationship with the devs in this game than most other games, certainly closedr than any non-mmo games. The devs with this game are people that we can talk to and joke around with, whereas in the Halo community, the devs are these gods that sit up on high and tell us nothing about the game until it comes out, at which point they go home and sleep until it's time to make the sequel. I say screw perfect, gimme a work in progress (Satanael 07:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
 * some seems to forget a little that working on devellopment of videos games is a work, they have to work well to live, they have to please the maximum of players as possible, so they can keep working and living, it's not a simple and easy to say "to make money", they are not greedy, they are people working and living. and in a work, moreover whith a huge team, they are hard rules and time limits they have to obey so the work goes, planning it was, and planning as much as possible will always be. they are a lot of people working together with strong rules, it's not easy. And i'm sure you will motivate them better by thanks and recognition than by spit and taunt, you didn't thought a second about the work they did, the time and devotion they had to give, only seeing and getting angry about the small mistakes left or misunderstanding their objectif. Just try to imagine yourself working at a video game, and receiving the exact message you gaved House, you would like it ? you would be motivate to do good work after reading this ?

try to be a little more objectif in regard of the entire game, not focused on only what displeased you and couldn't manage to deal with. the team did a great job, and in regard of this so called "suggestion" here, i don't think there is anything more usefull to say than keep doing good work a net. lussh 07:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The complexities of game creation aren't lost on me, I have had a small taste with the modding I have done for other PC games, yes Anet is doing some good work, but it also has to take the good with the bad. My suggestion isn't overly bad, you can not take the suggestion of planning more as a negative.  Planning more could have given the AI scripters the chance to have seen the error in the way minions and monks react now, as per my example.  More planning could have minimised a lot of issues in the game but you'll find that many many game developers run to a deadline and, often pushes themselves too far and more often than not, that hurts the product in the long run.
 * Also to the comment below my post, with regards to the system change with attributes and refund points, a prime example that Anet didn't spend the time investigating such things. A lot can be done before models are made, textures are made, even the scripting, but it comes down to whether or not Anet wants to take this time.  Just like the HoM, the only returning feature from Guild Wars that's going to be in Guild Wars 2.  By the way Gaile describes it they haven't even thought about how that works yet, yet they introduce it into Guild Wars and players get frustrated because they want to fill their Hall, but don't know how its relationship works, what limitations there are, if deleting a linked character will destroy the rewards or make it unaccessible to a new character.  That planning should have been started before they released GWEN, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to foresee that people are going to have a lot of a questions and Anet should have had the core answers, but Anet has no answers.  I don't give a flying hoot about the rewards, I want to know the variables, the decrees of things.  Are their decrees of completion?  Will it still be there if I delete my Guild Wars character after I get Guild Wars 2 and link a character.
 * Did they not foresee this? It is unrealistic for me to think they should have?  If it were me, I would personally have established that groundwork, otherwise you're throwing players into a complete void environment, and they've done that.  For something that really draws a player to it, for the amount of time it will take some to do it, shouldn't the planning have been done?   They knew it was going to link and they should have known it would cause a landslide of question, and to which they have no answers.
 * Planning is key to everything, and yes there are a lots of examples of good planning, but there are also many examples of bad planning, or no planning. Is it unrealistic of me to ask them to minimise that bad/no planning?  Or would it be far more helpful for me to just say "Keep doing the good work"?   House Of Furyan 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that they do have answers, they have simply planned ahead, to tell us that there are no answers yet is safe. If we catch wind of any answers, we (as a gaming community) will hold them to what ever has been said. By saying we don't have answers yet, that eases the workload, as they do not have to answer all the questions we would throw their way, before they are even finished. Prior to the start, they have a plan, what they want to incoperate, and ways to acheive it. I suspect there is more planning going on than we are aware of, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Med Luvin 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that one of the real reasons why aNet decided to recreate Guild Wars was because of hastily putting together other campaigns. I think they've said it somewhere that they would not release a campaign/expansion 6 months of each other but rather 8 months to a full year or so. I suspect that they have learned some valuable lessons from their experience with GW1, on the marketing and R&D side of things as well. Renin 05:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian District!
Cmon....us canadians deserve a special district....as well you did it for poland,russia, etc... -DominatorMatrix- 05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry dude, but Russians and Poles got their own districts in part because they speak their own languages, Canadians do not. Besides, Russia is like the largest country in the world, by area, I think it's only fare they have their own district.... (Satanael 07:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I think you got a fair opinion there Satanael. But I've never seen a Russian player so was it really that nescary for them? The Poles on the other hand was a great idea the kept speaking there language in English district which was resally annoying. But why isn't there a Dutch district :P? If I'm right the amount of dutch players(Dutch+Belgium) are equal to that of the French players. But that's just what I think. =)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but we have the second largest country in the world, so size has nothing to do with it. I'm sure it's based purely on language. Kokuou 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since GW2 will have a large number of small "realms" / "shards" / "worlds", it would make sense to divide them up geographically to minimize latency. -- Gordon Ecker 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the decision has nothing to do with geographical area of the country, and everything to do with the players in the game, the comment about the size of Russia was just a joke because Canada is so big as well. I think the real point is language, my understanding is that there are rather few Canadians who do not speak any English, therefore it makes sense to have a combined US/Canada district. It's really not that different than, hypothetically, having a combined Australia/Singapore district. In fact, it makes even more sense than that, because the US and Canada are geographically much closer, and share all the same time zones. (Satanael 07:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Why not have them language based not area based. Ie, English, French, Spanish etc. House Of Furyan 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not both? It makes sense to distribute the servers between major metropolitan areas. For example, it may not make sense to have servers in both Detroit and Toronto, Seattle and Vancouver, Los Angeles and San Francisco or New York and New Jersey due to the short distance, but it would make sense to have French servers based in both Quebec and France, and it might make sense to have an English server based in Archorage, Calgary or Edmonton depending on the total number of servers and the number of Guild Wars players in the region. -- Gordon Ecker 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But the Netherlands has around 15.000.000 people and some other lands in other parts of the world that are much bigger dont have so much people. --217.121.192.42 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop requesting districts, Language specific districts are always empty. Even in the English ones its rare to see 15+ people ~ SCobra [[Image:User-SuperCobra-Sig.png]] 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the server count is high, the benefits of spreading out servers outweigh the drawbacks and Nova Scotia has a lot of Guild Wars players then Nova Scotia is going to get a local server. If it's more efficient to put several servers in the same building rather than spreading them out across the continent, the total server count is low or Nova Scotia doesn't have that many Guild Wars players then it won't get a local server. As for language, it depends on player distribution, if there's a million Guild Wars 2 players and 20 shards, with 50000 French-speaking players in the Europe and only 10000 in North America, it would make sense to have one French-language shard in Europe and none in North America, but if there are 100 shards then a North American French-language shard would make sense. As for the empty district issue, that can be mitigated through cross-server party search. They could also make towns and outposts span multiple shards, since high pings aren't a serious issue in non-combat areas. I think the server selection window should include information such as server name, region (Asia, Europe, North America etc.), language, type / theme (standard, roleplaying, low-level, high-level, PvE, PvP etc.), time zone, ping, geographic location and server population (current population, as well as median and peak populations for the last week or two and a peak hours graph), similar to the server selection screen in World of Warcraft, but more detailed. -- Gordon Ecker 06:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

World Map.
Here's a suggestion. Something that has always dissapointed me in guildwars is the world map. Firstly, I cant stand the boat icon we must click to travel between continents. I would much much much prefer it if in guildwars 2 all three continents were included on the same world map. It would be simple to do. As the game is released simply have tyria on display with two levels of zoom (the continent and then the closer zoom with the ooutposts and capitals displayed) Then, once (and if) there is an expansion that releases cantha, for instace, merge the continent of cantha to tyria and include a third level of zoom. This would make it feel much more like one world that is incoorporated together. Then obviously do the same with Elona. Who knows, it may even encourage players to buy the next expansion/mini expansion and I just feel it would simplify things. (Especially since I have always had trouble mentaly connecting the continents together) Secondly I'd love to see the map become more interactive. If there is going to be a day and night system then perhaps the map should become lighter and darker. I particularly enjoyed the hard mode maps and vanquishing and would be thrilled for another system like that in GW2, though permanent areas may affect that. Overall I agree with the idea that map traveling should be cut down. It really makes the world seem a hell of a lot smaller and ruined it for me during prophesies where the characters reach the cyrstall desert. I did not feel at all how I was meant to, that I was cut away from the world. So perhaps they should change it so that you can only map travel over a certain distance or reduce the amount of map traveleable areas. I doubt the Dv's will even read this... which is quite bad (I'd like them to be al lot more involved with their fanbase like bungie!!) But yaknow, what do you all think? Taunted Flail 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 levels of zooms sound nice. I also hope hard mode comes back, but preferable with tasks that can be done in smaller chunks. Vanquishing is fun, but it areas that have 400 monsters, it takes too long. As for map travel, I prefer it the way it is. But perhaps adding some repeatable Fedex quests (actually have a courrier system) where you have to take something from A to B without using map travel, that could be what you need? -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Story line.
I noticed in factions some interesting attempts at crossing over missions with players. Like at the harvest temple (8 Kurzic players and 8 Luxon players) This mostly failed and there were usualy bots but I can imagine it working brilliantly in guild wars 2. Using the same 'Hero's quest book' thing to encourage players to repeat missions. Here's my suggestion. Guildwars 2 has four seperate races. What if each race has it's own selection of missions to complete. I'll use the norn as an example. Very briefly, you create a norn character and throught the game your goal is to defeat the dragon which forced you out of your homelands. Once you kill it that's the end of your main campaign. Think of each race having its own story arc similar to that in Eye of the North. Once you finish that arc, you could be allowed to help out with the other missions and what not.

Now if you look at what happened a lot in factions with the missions where seperate paries joined up, that could easily be done in guildwars 2, i.e Whilst playing as a norn you are asked to come to the aid of some humans in trouble and in that mission your party of norns teams up with some humans. I think this would be so fun and a great way of interlocking the seperate arcs.

On another thought, I think it would be quite a nice idea to have to have previously completed one arc with the race assigned to it before being able to do it with other characters. So for instance, you complete the norn arc but are'nt allowed to take part in Asuran mission's with your norn untill you have completed the Asuran arc with you're Asuran character. That would encourage a healthy flow of people of the race playing the mission it is specific to, which I would prefer personally. Taunted Flail 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heey I first want to say that there are 5 playeble races in GW2. I also think you have a nice idea here. Maby the devs can create it like this: first you need to do your race story arc then you can help out other races by slaying there ancient dragon. When you finished each of these dragons maby we can kill a finall dragon which would be most likely the undead dragon seeming he threatens the entire world. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.82.252.129 (talk).
 * I think it would be better to allow characters to jump into the other races' story arcs fairly soon after they reach the capitals and get access to the gate network, as it would let people play with their friends and fellow guild members earlier. They could also throw in some independant arcs, such as a Crystal Desert arc, a centaur arc, a dwarf arc or a Dhuum and Menzies arc. -- Gordon Ecker 10:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)