ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/A1

Suggestions on Suggesting
I noticed two very irritating things about this page:

1) A lot of people are making oversimple suggestions based merely on Guild Wars 1, rather than basing their suggestions on all the (readily available) information about Guild Wars 2

2) A lot of people aren't READING this page. Mounts have been suggested several times, and it isn't even a particularly innovative idea.

..so, my suggestions? They are as follows:

1) THINK about your suggestions before making them. I doubt the devs want to hear suggestions tailored strictly to someone's Guild Wars 1 experience, when the whole point of Guild Wars 2 is to harbour a bunch of new features that couldn't feasibly make it into GW1 in the first place. I doubt ANet proceeded with the development of GW2 without considering the common features already seen in other popular MMOs - they don't need to hear it from us. On top of that, questions regarding Guild Wars don't belong here.

2) READ what has been said on this page before making a suggestion, unless you KNOW it's unique and worth putting up. At the very least, glance over the Contents, or user your browser's Search feature to search key words related to what you have in mind.

That's all. I hope this doesn't annoy anyone too much, but after scanning over the "suggestions" on this page, I got mightily annoyed myself! -- Slarynn 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, people need to think. Probably not going to happen though.
 * "WARNING: This page is 350 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections."-The wiki if you choose not to edit sections. That's a bit long to read, especially with all the archives. 71.31.149.63 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the problem is that the page isnt organized at all. and you posting about how unorganized it is isnt helping. i for one dont have the time to read though all of the stuff that has been posted nor dose any one else. so what needs to happen is Organization. and if you have the time please archive everything and add pages + links that categorize stuff so people can post there suggestions under the right category. you could even take it a step further and add a box to the top of each of thouse pages that states everything we know about the category. yet again USE YOUR BRAIN75.172.43.176 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact the page isn't properly organized is no excuse for people to post useless suggestions/suggestions that have already been made. Besides which, a lot of it seems to be down to a lack of common sense, and can't be blamed on the organization of this page directly. You said it yourself - "USE YOUR BRAIN" - I did, I just wish more of us would. -- Slarynn 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE do not add stuff that you think will benefit GW if it is from WoW. WoW is a horrible game (Flame Shield) and I would hate to see a great game like GW go the way of WoW. Dean Harper 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A pet peeve of mine: people who back up their suggestions with "I don't think this would be hard to code". Unless you have recent experience in programming games, you can't really make any judgements on what is and what isn't easy to code. Furthermore, unless you work in ANet, you can't make any judgements on what's feasible to implement into Guild Wars specifically. So just make your suggestion and let ANet worry about how technically feasible it is. --Mme. Donelle 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that when you make a suggestion that you keep the following in mind: Not that anyone actually reads... I just blew up someone because they didn't read the GFDL, claiming that I wasn't allowed to edit an article cuz they 'created' it...(Terra Xin 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Don't add personal commentaries that can otherwise go into the discussion page
 * Don't talk about another suggestion that you or another person has made, this can also go into the discussion page
 * Get to the point, right from the start! No "I would love it, if" or "I know this is from WoW, but" or anything that would turn your article into an... essay.
 * Suggest something ONCE in the article, do not continuously go back to what you have suggested.
 * You are only posting a suggestion, not God's word.
 * I am seriously going to go on an edit rampage if people keep posting like this... (Terra Xin 12:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Terra Xin, I've seen what you do. Please try to understand, the user was not complaining because he 'created' it; he comlained because you act like a pompous asshat, and you seem to think this suggestion page belongs to 'the community' (you) and it's your 'duty' to chop up other people's pages when they don't suit your taste for brevity. You don't need to be so rude about what you do. You don't even really need to do it. They can add on one or two comments if they want: it's thier suggestion, it's only right that they should argue a little in its defense. If it really belongs to the community, then let the community have its way, too. If you really want it shortened, you could at least ask the user to do it and give him some time before doing it yourself.--68.223.25.117 05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But that contributor was complaining because that person claimed ownership of the article - that was the whole argument. If people just read the guidelines beofre contributing then the suggestions wouldn't need to be edited. Its better that people not be lazy about reading than just putting in what they feel like and leaving it in a total mess. This isn't a blogspot. (Terra Xin 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Well, if you can't stop yourself from adding on to other people's articles, at least make sure you're actually adding something that wasn't there before and not just restating some part pf the article in your own words. I see that a lot, especially when people seem to feel that the disadvantages of a suggestion are not emphasized enough--Shai Halud 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ... I'm not wasting any more effort trying to clarify my edits over and over again. So simple answer - no. But thanks for the suggestion. (Terra Xin 04:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Differing Viewpoints - Take Into Account Before Posting
When it comes to making suggestions about Guild Wars 2 it appears there are three types of people posting:

'''1 = Keep Guild Wars the same! "I hate WoW..."'''

Yes all Guild Wars players want to keep Guild Wars different from the rest and keep its authenticity.

The problem with staying the same, is that everyone else is changing - if Guild Wars stood still and did nothing in 5 years time there would be no Guild Wars. Therefore, taking SOME ideas from WoW and MANY OTHER GAMES that have done the same things successfully, need to be identifed & introduced in their own unique way with Guild Wars. i.e. Race specific mounts.

2 = Copying Ideas "I love WoW"

Firstly, Guild Wars will never be the same as WoW - so don't panic about it! Although some ideas in WoW are good, hence why it is massively successful... yes we need to accumulate ideas and choose the best ones, if they happen to have been done in WoW and OTHER GAMES before then so be it.

Always consider though, that people who play Guild Wars DO NOT want it to turn into a free version of World Of Warcraft.

3 = I want to improve the game itself

Suggesting ideas is what we are doing here. There is no need for annimosity against each other, we all have ideas about how we wish to improve the game. Suggest what you want and AreaNet will pick what they find feasible themselves. New ideas are always welcome! i.e Visual efffects on screen when suffer a condition (red mist when bleeding, swayed vision when dazed, etc..)

'''PLEASE TRY AND THINK BEFORE POSTING ABOUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS BEST FOR THE GAME. AND READ EVERYTHING BEFORE POSTING OTHERWISE RE-POSTS SPAM THE PAGE UP, THANKYOU.' &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 92.232.217.195 (talk &bull; contribs) at 14:18, May 6, 2008 (UTC).


 * Totally agree about similarities and differences between other games. Many people fear that Guild Wars 2 will turn into a clone of other MMORPGS. Just to remind everyone, you can use an idea from a good game in a new game but keep the game unique. If you refuse to use any new ideas, GW2 is just going to be exactly like GW1.--Neyon 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you need mounts? Map travel...(Which I hope is continued in GW2). - Warior Kronos [[Image:User_Warior_Kronos_Sig.jpg|18px|]] 02:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of what user:92 whatever said. However, copying WoW, which so many people seem to want to do, won't work too terribly well. It would be like Roundy's making a copy of other brand's products. It would work, but people would prefer the original version of the idea. But things like the new companion is a new innovative idea that I think would make the game better, which is what people would prefer. And btw, map travel is going to be continued I think I saw somewhere. [[image: monk.png|19px]] The Cabal   Stalk Me!  [[image: mesmer.png|19px]] 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Warior Kronos mounts already exist in GW1. For example: Wurms in NF and Siege Devours in EOTN. They don't nescarly need to be like those in WoW. What the GW dev team did with the mount idea was very nice. When you mount them you have THEIR skills and not your own anymore. Which doesn't nescarly needs you to give you a speedboost and map travel still stays alive this way. But what most ppl would like if is that you could keep mounting these creatures and not only for a specific area. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.82.252.129 (talk &bull; contribs) at 16:51, May 9, 2008 (UTC).


 * here is a novel sugestion lets be the trend setter instead of the following everyone else lets make them want what we have.. truely that is the functionality of Anet taking forum sugestions.. lets come up with new ideas stop arguing well lets steal this from here or there.. truely inovative ideas Gow Czar

A race specific mount that you can use anywhere sounds like Ursan Blessing - the single worse addition to the game ever. Although, it would seem that the Norn having their bear form, the Asura having their golems and the sylvani having whatever tree people have.. I fear race specific mounts, if you will, are a thing of the future. Restricting their use via location is a very good idea. Shapeshifters, not so good. Spawnlegacy 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ursan is considered bad because it makes the game easy, not because it is inherently faulty. The idea was pretty cool, they just need to make sure that the GW2 implementation of that (and Golems etc) is properly balanced to avoid abuses of the likes of which Ursan caused in GW1. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementation
the skills link should be linked you a skill feed back page like there is on the anet portal. so the suggestions are placed on a page where its already organized. also this sort of organization should be implemented for the gw1 suggestions page.75.165.97.72 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also there should be a box that has all the old stuff archived on the side. other then that i think this page is ready to be impended.75.165.97.72 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic Page List or Watchlist
So on ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Character I've been playing with some code which automatically generates a list of the suggestions using categories on the pages. This is quite fun because it does a few interesting things for identifying newer or recently updated suggestions. You can easily add a date at the front and sort by the last edited date for instance. In combination with a createbox which automatically adds a new suggestion to the right categories the suggestion automatically appears on the list.

The downside to this amazingness? - adding the page using Dynamic stuff to your watchlist to look for new ideas will not work. The actual page will not change as people add new ideas. I think this is a pretty big downside because it means that a page visit is required to see if there's been any new ideas added.

Does anyone have any opinions on this situation or any ideas on working around being unable to get anything useful from the watched page? --Aspectacle 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With the amount of traffic the suggestions pages get, I'd prefer to avoid including DPL in them, since it's basically running server queries every time the page is viewed. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. While I'm not entirely sure about the mechanics of dpl and how the content is cached - I do note that pages far more visited use dpl to generate content so if performance was a problem would we use it on those pages?  So while the suggestions pages generate a lot of words and comments from users, I might visit List of elite warrior skills (whose content is generated with several dpl lists) more while I'm actually playing the game and not feel compelled to comment on it.  I don't have the knowledge to state whether the dpl lists on the suggestions pages would be generate more or less server load that any of the other high traffic wiki pages but I think there is precedent for the use of dpl on high traffic pages. --Aspectacle 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL PEOPLE WHO POST HERE
'THIS IS A REMINDER THAT YOU SHOULD POST A BRIEF, CONCISE'' DESCRIPTION OF YOUR SUGGESTION. IF YOUR SUGGESTION IS TL;DR MATERIAL, MAKE A SEPARATE PAGE AND LINK TO IT. FURTHERMORE, READ THE ARCHIVES, OR AT LEAST SKIM THROUGH THE TOPICS BEFORE POSTING. CHANCES ARE, YOUR UNIQUE AND GREAT IDEA IS POSTED 6 TIMES BY NOW. THAT IS ALL. '''

-- NUKLEAR   IIV  13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I greatly appreciate how you are following your own rule. You know, posting a brief concise "suggestion". I mean, you didn't just waste any of my time.[[image:ranger-icon-small.png]]Blackie ewilson92 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are FUCKING welcome. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't use inappropriate language.[[image:User_ewilson92_sig.png]]Blackie ewilson92 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot MOTHERFUCKING censor me or anyone else. Reverted, with emphasis. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol censoring the internets, gl with that.  Antiarchangel [[Image:User Antiarchangel No U Sig.png|19px]] TROLL  20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking out for the well-being of everyone on this family-friendly website. You must remember that the game IS rated T for teen. This means that 13-year-olds can legally purchase and play it. You must act as if you were in the company of people this age.Blackie ewilson92 12:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to side with anyone but 13 year olds either don't care enough to visit this discussion or already know the words & won't be bothered by them one bit.(77.70.60.92 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

The fact that most 13-year-olds know the words does not change the act that they shouldn't be exposed to them.Blackie ewilson92 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You will not win an argument to try and censor this wiki. The discussion came, the discussion went. Lord of all tyria 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have rejected censorship. You should see it, it's in a failed draft somewhere. ı know you had decent intentions, but changing my comments wasn't the way to go about it. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that doesn't give you the right to start a flame war. --Wolf 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not start a flame war. Ever seen a flame war? -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen a flame war. And also, It's very hard to summerize something that in its self is as simplified as it can get. That in it's self was a summery, and I was planning on expanding on each point sometime in the very near future, would you like me to post THAT on this page? --Wolf 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor wiki. I am requesting that people use a little more discretion. It also wasn't me who changed your comment. I thought you did it.Blackie ewilson92 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) You guys are wasting wiki space. Nuclear makes a good point, how he delivers it is beside the point. Is there any reason to be following the point that's been left aside? (Terra Xin 07:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm gonna even the table here. Do not swear for undue reasons and if you do, do not swear more when people take offense to your swearing. This article should be deleted completely and replaced by a similar one with a less flamboyant author.
 * also concerned for the public Spawnlegacy 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People talk too much
'''WARNING: This page is 843 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.'''

Add in some flashy pictures and whatnot and we've got a new archive 3 here.

Also, this page is making PvX lag for me.

-- Armond Warblade 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

you know this place is probably not needed anymore i don't think, cause with the beta coming out some time this fall,, any new feature being put into the game has been added already, and very little will be added between now and when it comes out --Metal Sazz 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the GW2 update released today on the main site, it will not enter beta in 2008 as was previously planned. There is much to be said about making suggestions, even late in development.  There are still updates to GW1 coming out that are the direct result of community suggestions, and it was launched over 3 years ago, so pre-beta ideas have merit. - Countess Dramethia

Not totaly true, a lot of the game features won't be in the Beta, The main purpose of a Beta is to make sure the game MECHANICS are working. And besides, Features can always be added. I mean, look at the whole build template thing and stuff like that. --Wolf 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The ToC is still insanely long. -- Armond Warblade 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Names of pages
Keep them as short as humanly possible. Do not enter in your suggestion in the title -- if your suggestion is to expand the HoM, don't put "ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Expand the hall of monuments by adding blah to bleh and do bleh and blah to bleah to get blaeh"; do "ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Hall of Monuments" or even "/HoM". -- Brains12 \ talk 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the titles do need to be descriptive, because how do you differentiate between HOM suggestion A and HOM suggestion A for two completely different things if they're both called /HOM? (I acknowledge this situation is impossible) However, I definitely see your point. I'll try to be more terse with the suggestions I'm moving around. --Aspectacle 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think these should be handled like the Izzy-skill-feedback pages - have one "home" page (i.e. /Hall of Monuments) and keep a short summary of the suggestion on the main page; discussion on the talk page.
 * I realise that I'm late on this discussion though, so if something else has already been discussed/established, feel free to ignore me. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|16px|]] Brains12 \ talk 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair idea, and yes it was discussed but not very much not many seemed that interested in the discussion. -_- I think that I had what you are saying in the back of my head - perhaps not quite so generic as a whole page for Hall of Monuments suggestions, but more general than my currently too specific naming would allow. :) I'm going to keep on with what I'm doing, with less specific titles, and perhaps redo some names when it is apparent there is something which should logically merge with it. --Aspectacle 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck, but I get the feeling that you're the only person having to maintain it all... -- I don't quite know exactly how it should be moulded, so if you need any help to maintain your vision of it, just shoot a message on my talk page and I'll be glad to lend a hand. Or maybe we could make a project out of this? It is a mammoth task after all, so the more contributors and task focus, the better. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|16px|]] Brains12 \ talk 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to have a vision for this? Oh dear... :) I'm hoping to simply stay on top of the new suggestions as they come in and try to group them up into related topics now and again. When I have more than 30 minutes to string together when I'm not actually supposed to be doing other stuff I'll put together a project, a good idea if I want to draw attention to this, and continue moving the  ones from Gaile's pages around. --Aspectacle 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Frequently Suggested
I think we need to make the frequently suggested pages more prominent somehow, in the current form it doesn't seem to be working. I don't think people really notice them. I say this because I'm already starting to see suggestions for housing and haristylists making their way into the sub-groups.

Also, on a related note: Aspectacle, or anyone else with an idea, any ideas on how best to move an idea that was created in one section (say World) that belongs in another section (Say, PVP). I'm mostly asking so that we can move "new" ideas added to the sub-groups into the frequently suggested pages (FSP). I'm not sure if we should just move them in full into the discussion page for the relevant FSP and then put a move marker on the page created in the sub-group, or if maybe we should move content and then delete the new page that was created for the idea? I don't know if that was clear, but for an example, look at the housing suggestion in the World page and you might start to see what I mean. (Satanael 08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Hey Satanael. I haven't seen too much trouble with repeats on the frequents - I've seen the Mount and Housing get their pages filled over the past day which is ok. I'm not heaps impressed with the text on either but they can be reworded.
 * If you want to change where a suggestion is located simply change the Categories at the bottom of the page so change Category:World suggestions to Category:PvP suggestions and it will switch lists.
 * At the moment the frequently suggested are normal suggestions with hard links to them on the main page. If you want to add another frequent suggestion just edit the main page and add a link to the page. We could add a new category for them if that's helpful.
 * I agree that the lead suggestion on the Housing one is a little ...? but as I was discussing with Brains above you could add a more coherent suggestion above it - an example of a page with two suggestions on it is ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Custom Guild Halls, or reword it a bit. There are many suggestions around different implementation of player housing - it'd be nice to have them all in the one spot.  If they really don't work together then separate pages are fine too... I'm kind of making stuff up to see what works. If you've got a specific direction you'd like to go with the FSP then please by all means go for it. --Aspectacle 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ive just gone and merged some sub-pages that already have an article elsewhere and left the delete tag things on them. I agree that there needs to be a more obvious way to put out the frequently suggested. Or at least give people a movite to... read :)(Terra Xin 07:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Shouldn't we add "Race-Specific Skills" as a frequently suggested topic? I see the idea everywhere and have written many offshoots of it myself. It's practically as guven that it will be included in GW2 in some form, so what's the point in re-suggesting it?--Shai Halud 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Project
I've set up a project for trying to keep the suggestions pages sane. Here: Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Suggestions pages. Anyone is invited to tidy up the pages without necessarily attaching their name to the project however I'd appreciate it if you could read the 'to do' list so there is a consistent approach to this thing. If you've got any ideas for how it could be done better or things you are seeing that aren't working please bring them up here or on the project talk page. --Aspectacle 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Takes too much time in why not columns
Seems the favorite thing to say in the why it cant be done section is 'It takes too much time to code'

We all know that Everything will take time to code and some of the best features that we want may take the longest time to code.

So lets not post that in every single why it cant be done section please.

Its not like they are going to look at the suggestions and be like you know there right everything will take time to code so lets code nothing at all as that's the quickest way.122.109.252.43 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Should users edit other users suggestions?
We all know it is general wiki-etiquette not to change the comments/talk that other users leave. On the other hand, it is totally accepted (and encouraged) to change text in articles written by other users. So where do these suggestions fall? Somewhere in between. What should not happen is the complete removal of a suggestion. This pages are set up to collect ideas and all users should get a chance to have their idea evaluated by ANet. It is up to ANet, not other editors to evaluate the ideas. However, as a practical matter, these pages risk becomming redundant if spammed by tons of poorly written, repetitive suggestions full of typos. ANet will simply not bother to read them. If these pages are to have any value, they need to move closer to "normal wiki style". That is, users should collect and merge similar ideas, correct typos and rewrite ideas to be more concise.

Unfortunately, this suggestion is a bad example, because it already was very well written before the edit, but there are plenty of other examples around that could be easily bettered by merging them with others or going over the spelling, formating, etc. --Xeeron 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki should act as a community, not as individual peoples. When a suggestion is posted, it is in the best intentions of all interested peoples to help make sure that the suggestion is direct and precise, so that Anet can come in, take a look, and move on. If every page was set up to incorporate an introduction; followed by historical guild wars events; personal evaluations and then a summary, it will take them longer to read through that suggestion (picking out all of that information that doesn't pertain to the suggestion), making them less likely to view as many as we'd expect them to - because let's face it, there are lots of suggestions that deserve just as much attention as any other - big or small. If one is written in length, then another could miss out. I have not seen anyone, including myself, going around and 'evaluating' other ideas - no. The contributor's role is to ensure that suggestion pages need only to contain suggestions. Any small additions are added to "why this is a good/bad idea" section - an area designed for contributions. Why present an essay towards an audience that already knows the state of their own game? Why present background information to the general public on GWW - a site designed to supply such information? Not using the proper channels makes the suggesiton inefficient and undesireable to look at. If people want a good read that acts as a one-way interaction, then it is recommended that they post their suggestion in discussion; use the /scratchpad located on the title page (that would be the best option), or go and find a blog-space with coefficient policies.


 * The misconception against edits made to suggestions arose because the original format of suggestions was set up like a stream of discussions - users would informally post their suggestions - sign them, and the article would be treated as a discussion page. There was an issue, because suggestions that had already been made were simply deleted instead of being redirected to the right section of the page [|example]. That is an example of wiki-etiquitte, because the comments were signed, and a possible discussion arose. These actions however, are still occuring through the use of delete tags. But this gives the opportunity for the creator of the article to see why it is being deleted, and they will have the opportunity to contest it - hence fulfilling the purpose of delete tags.


 * I stress the necessity for contributors to show no bias towards ideas - theirs or otherwise. This is because contributors do not have the final say as to which suggestions can go through or not (obviously) - leave that up to Anet. In effect, when pages are edited to show consistency, all ideas that were presented in the original suggestion are kept in-tact as best as they can. The history tab of this article is one example of how it was done, and the discussion page above provides further information of any missing info, or stuff that could not be best interpreted.


 * Etiquitte is not policy - you either can or you can't do it. Changing information on discussion pages that is not yours is a definite 'can't' unless the contributor violates other rules such as NPA. All other pages are subject to GNU and that is final. If we start bending the rules to match etiquitte, then the rules may as well not matter.


 * Suggestions are considered to be presented by the community, because once that user has posted it, they understand that it will be subject to change - against their will. This isn't a bad thing, because they allow the community to come in and make sure that it is worth reading and to give others the ability to share their perception of the suggestion either within the discussion page, or as an addition to the article itself. If it means a complete overhaul of the articles structure, then it can only be contested at best - discussion pages exist to discuss such changes. The suggestion is only, and I mean only removed if it is repetative, or it does not provide a suggestion, or if it is similar (but not exact) to another idea and can be merged. People who do not follow this are those who should be subject to discipline.


 * It's not easy to apply this in practice, because there are a multitude of contributors who do not read before posting, or who revert before reading its contents. Such practices take longer to perform in these cases. (Terra Xin 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't think that signed suggestion entries should be edited by others unless the signature is removed and the original signed version is moved to the talk page. As for unsigned suggestion entries, I think they should be editable by anyone. -- Gordon Ecker 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a matter of at which degree we are editing. I agree that maintenance editing (formatting) is acceptable, and i think that minimum editing (sorting, content moving, minor reword) is a good thing for keeping the pages clear. But i don't really think "full rewrites" are a good idea, specially if the editor rewriting doesn't keep the basic idea behind the suggestion.
 * Let me put you an example: i could go and edit all the suggestions about Ursan to make them readable and remove dedundancy, but i just cannot remove portions that are just "simmilar with a minor difference" because such difference may give the suggestion another meaning (and sure as hell i just cannot edit the suggestion as to match my own personal view on the issue, which luckily has not been the issue yet).
 * As long as users editing other's suggestions make sure to keep the "idea" while rewording (for easier reading), i would agree, but i don't think allowing full rewrites "just because it looks like something else" is wise.--Fighterdoken 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the original idea when we created this new set-up for the suggestions was to make ideas a collaborative effort, thus, in theory, making repeat ideas a thing of the past because they could just be merged with the pre-existing idea. Therefore, I would say the original intent was for the ideas to fall more on the article-style format than the previous discussion format. We still want people to freely discuss, hence the overt connections to the discussion page in the idea pan itself.
 * For example, one of the ways collaboration would work best is with the "why this is a good idea" and "why this may not work out", as the OP can not always think of all the reasons for each of these sections (especially the latter).
 * Of course editors should use prudence when editing the idea, as they should with editing any article, and one would assume that the OP is monitoring the page to listen to people's thoughts on their idea, and that should help limit inaccurate or unhelpful editing of suggestions. (Satanael 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Full re-writes to the point of the suggestion becoming dissimilar to what was intended is something that contributors should not be practicing. Aside, some of the contributors are in the process of moving the articles from the old scratchpad and categorising them here. Contributors pretty much have to read the entire discussion to pull out as many ideas as we can, and compile them into a single suggestion. The comments from the scratchpad are then transferred and become the new discussion page for that article. The original content is preserved in discussion, while the suggestion itself is layed out as accurately as can be. The great thing about this new system is that users can constructively contribute to the suggestions via what Stanael mentioned, while still being able to discuss the suggestion in further detail, with the hope of something even better. If we decide to start limiting this, then we would have to restrict the creation of suggestions to ensure that the wiki doesn't become trashed.(Terra Xin 04:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm mostly in agreement with Terra Xin. Suggestions on a wiki are more appropriate as summaries or an idea repository. They cannot be like forums where each little tweak or variation to a suggestion needs to be credited. If credit is preferred, as with all things on a wiki, it is best left undisclosed. Once it is contributed, it is collectively owned. A suggestion should attempt to encompass all of an idea. When variations increase, summarise and merge them as appropriate (if inappropriate, as with all wiki stuff, let someone else fix it). Exact detailed specifics are unnecessary - they're meant to be suggestions and ideas, not proposals. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't sign articles in the first place: there is no reason to reward them for doing something wrong. That said, one should never put words in other peopls mouths. Misplaced comments should be moved or deleted. Backsword 07:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If people are really that touchy about people editing their suggestions, they should pay more attention to the editing page. It says itself "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." That being said, the person editing the suggestion should probably move/copy the original version to the talk page or something... You know, just to be polite... [[Image:User_The_Cabal_Sig_pic_01.png|19px|]] The Cabal Stalk me!  02:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing typos is no problem and if its obvious the original author did not put much thought into the idea I'd grudgingly agree with adding things in. However, when editing the article because parts seem unneccissary as Terra Xin has made himself notorious for, it might help smooth the process over if you contacted them and asked them to edit the idea themselves. If they don't respond in a day, then I'd do ahead with the editing. Also, when adding things in, try not to be openly bias for or against the article, and try to immitate the article's tone. --Shai Halud 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Example please? I make a lot of edits. I try to be as unbiased as possible, but if you think that I'm not, then point out some threads that you are concerned about and I'll change them. (Terra Xin 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Removing reasons for / reasons against
Yes, no, only if the remover is right? --76.25.197.215 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page seems to have been abused due to the (unnecessary, IMO) controversiality of the seggestion. In any case, a lot of what has been added into the good idea/bad idea sections should be moved to the discussion page with an attribution to the original poster of that remark. A little bit of a pain to clean up, but can be done.
 * In general, my experience is that the good idea/bad idea sections seem to work with pretty minimal abuse or misuse. Until that changes, I think we can keep them for now. (Satanael 07:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I think he was talking about this edit in particular. --71.229.253.172 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific pro and con points should be based on talk page concensus. Without concensus, the addition and removal of pro and con points would be acceptable as long as it doesn't violate the reversion policy and isn't vandalism. -- Gordon Ecker 08:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would prefer it if "Why this is a good idea" and "Why it may not work out" were renamed to something simpler such as "pros" and "cons". -- Gordon Ecker 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The pros and cons works well because it forces contributors to think about what the idea really has to offer, instead of just adding it in. It also allows others to look at the idea and add their own two cents, so that Anet gets a better overview of the idea. The downside is that some people are treating it like a discussion page; adding things like "I don't know why it's not a good idea" or subjective statements like "It could take a while to programe/take up computer space." Personally, if people read things before making suggestions then we wouldn't need to tidy up so much in the first place. That's something that we'll have to work on. (Terra Xin 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC))
 * A third "other issues" entry might work for covering things which aren't strictly pros or cons, such as possible redundancy. If we do include an "other issues" entry, I don't think it should be mandatory. -- Gordon Ecker 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. If the idea is redundant then it shouldn't have been made in the first place, otherwise, that's up to the developers to decide (at the end, they'll be the ones who have to add it into the game.) Other issues such as "it could take time to develop" is redundant in itself, since all ideas take time.(Terra Xin 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

New subs
Going over the current material, there seems to be a need to reorder the subsections, which does not seem to have had a logical structure in mind when original done, but more a 'what it represents to me' view.

But as a start, condensing suggestions ofr presentation, art, visuals and so on to one area should be obvious. Need a good name.

Also, titles are a unified an popular topic. One page or one area? Backsword 11:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd especially like some feedback on the page or subsection for titles thing. Will a single page be enough? Backsword 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like this? User:Terra_Xin/GW2Suggestions/Sidebox2 (Terra Xin 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm thinking more radical. Most of the original ones aren't well thought out. Eg. skills, either we get lots of GW1 skill suggestions, or things that might as well go in com´bat mechanics. Backsword 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My own suggestions
I think that it would be great if Guild Wars 2 had a more interactive battle system rather just hit 1 or 2, and wait for the monsters to die, maybe one hit per tap key would be awesome because it makes the game feel more involving and realistic, perhaps you have have a switch for those who wish to keep the general system and those who don't and you can turn it on and off? Also I think more customizable character features would be great too. Something similar to "Perfect Word" or "Second Life"(not exactly like Second Life though, because Second Life sucks, but the two games are free and basically have the same system for customizing characters). I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to have hair a certain way and it was just not available to select. Well those are my suggestions, I hope that they weren't too bad, thanks for reading! -Love, me.

so a system where you can customize facial features and such? i think Aion will be doing a similar thing (Aion will be teh ownz...:P )--Ra ph  Tal ky  02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They could always do something close to what the sims 2 features for customizing your character, like where you can choose the distance of how far apart your eyes are, your eyebrow length, etc. it would make alot of the characters alot more unique so there wouldnt be people getting tired of seeing the same exact face all the time. i can tell you how annoying that gets seeing that alot of people that like the same way i have my character look. i mean just a little bit more cuztomization would be nice, even if it is just a few more cm of space between your eyes...

WoW
I think that people are overreacting about Guild Wars being like WoW. When they hear or see a new idea that's even a little bit like it the say "FUCK NO" so something similar right away

~They want things to be different from WoW, which is understandable. But in terms of having some parts of game being the same is acceptable. Those who might yell because of it, are just overreacting.

Also there are many games sharing similar ideas like persistent areas mission time cycle jumping mounts etc and WoW didn't even invent these ideas just compiled what they thought was good into 1 game. So people really need to get over the  'OMG its WoW' thing and realize there are over 500 mmo's out there sharing all the same ideas but with each doing it a different way from each other.


 * Well, I think a lot of this comes from the fact that people are unable to seperate features and mechanics in their mind. All the reasons people give me on why I should play WoW are all feature realted when I personaly think the mechanics suck. All the reasons I give people to play GW are b/c the mechanics rule, but the feature-set is nto as plentiful, which is all thats looked at. There are a good many features in WoW and other MMO's that would make GW a much better game, like jumping, swimming, persistant areas, auction houses, a more indepth character creation system, duel weilding, a barber, the list goes on. You can add TONS of features, some of them WoW specific, and in the end, if you don;t touch the mechanics, it would still play like GW and not like WoW. --[[Image:User Great Darkwolf User Image paw.png|19px| ]] Wolf [[Image:User Great Darkwolf UserImage.jpg|19px| ]] 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks =D -- [[Image:User Great Darkwolf User Image paw.png|19px| ]] Wolf [[Image:User Great Darkwolf UserImage.jpg|19px| ]] 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I liked the persistent World, dual wielding, some aspects of character creation, Dungeons, X/Y Axis, world, towns/cities, trade, crafting professions, and areas in WoW.
 * I think some of the concerns are about the good old slippery slope - that by introducing some elements seen in other MMORPGs, Arena Net would eventually keep adding them until GW felt just like a generic copy of WoW (yes, I used to laugh at that kind of argument, until this became this). One of my concerns is about how some features praised by other players would IMO be more hurtful than helpful (an auction house would be bad, IMO, while a trade house would be good). And finally, we do have some players who wish WoW were free and thus want the only thing they can afford, GW, to be only a copy of WoW. Between all those concerns, it doesn't bother me that (part of) the community keeps reminding Arena Net about the "WoW hate". Erasculio 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite guilty of the WoW hate myself (for highly personal reasons tho) but I chave learned to get past that and see that WoW does have some good features to off that would work nicely in GW, they may be few, but they are good. But yeah, I see your point about people wanting GW2 and GW to become a free copy of WoW and keep suggesting things along those line *coughmountscough* --Wolf [[Image:User Great Darkwolf User Image paw.png|19px| ]] 00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, they have twice (or more) as many players as us and they all pay $15 a month. Hum, why would we want to be anything like them. o.o; Vael Victus  [[Image:User_Vael_Victus_Sig.jpg|18px|Pancakes.]] 03:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed suggestions
What should we do with suggestions for things which are later confirmed to be in Guild Wars 2, such as ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Character name and HoM inheritance? -- Gordon Ecker 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Add another category in the suggestions box? (Terra Xin 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
 * We delete them. They are no longer needed. And no foul said by that. Backsword 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. IMO deleting every suggestion which gets confirmed for Guild Wars 2 would create the false impression that the suggestion pages are ignored. -- Gordon Ecker 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would put them in a different category. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only worry I have with putting confirmed suggestions in a special category is it will just encourage people to take credit for it, or argue senselessly over whether an idea that is similar to what ends up in GW2 should belong in this "elite" category of suggestions that actually make it into the game. For example, if changeable underwear makes it into the game, I'm totally going to post a message on every userpage bragging that my idea made it into the game. (That's just a joke devs, and should not deter you from incorporating MY idea into the game...) (Satanael 03:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I haven't seen anyone bragging about their bug fix or skill change suggestions being implemented. Also, if a feature is confirmed for GW2, there could still be room for more specific suggestions related to that feature. -- Gordon Ecker 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Better the rare few bragging (which happens rarely enough to be ignored) than the masses thinking that ANet doesn't listed (which is false and damaging to the community). IMO. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 13:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, fair comments, I'm cool with a new section for them. (Satanael 10:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Why should people give you FREE and GREAT suggestions, when YOU will be making money out of it?
Let's get this straight. YOU do not want to hire more people who CAN create excellent stories, and provide CREATIVE ideas!

YOU (ANET, in case it was not clear) will use those IDEAS, implement it into YOUR GAME for which people will pay money for. YOU are unscrupulous in taking advantage of eager young peoples willing to help, while YOU reap all the financial benefits. Does BLIZZARD(or any other prestigious video, or normal company) ask people to give them FREE suggestions when THEY make the next game? Or do they GIVE people their OWN work to BETA test, and tweak it around? DO OTHER companies do that where they SOLICITE FREE ADVICE, and IMPLEMENT IT INTO THEIR BUSINESS MODEL? Or do they pay people MONEY AND SALARIES or hire CONTRACTORS to do those jobs? YOU the company THAT WILL VIGOROUSLY DEFEND "YOUR" COPY RIGHTED MATERIAL which will be based on OTHERS peoples ideas. So will those people have the RIGHT to COPY YOUR GAME from a GAME-SHARING site because their ideas there in return? Some of the ideas here ARE BRILLIANT, and might make your game the next best thing, YOU will REAP ALL THE MONETORY BENEFITS, while some SUCKER will have a notice in the credit, and you might throw in a little bone and name a Character after them in the game as well.

You are clearly taking advantage of this situation, under thinly guised illusion of "suggestions" to 1: Not create your OWN work 2: Not to COMPENSATE OTHERS for theirs. 3: TO REAP all the FINANCIAL BENEFITS from public input, and provide NONE for those brilliant ideas. 4: Unethical plagiarism. 5: Stealing from working people in arts, writing and designers field.

After all, YOU, ANET, WILL NOT LET ANYONE HERE TO TAKE "YOUR IDEAS FROM GW" and MAKE IT INTO "THEIR IDEAS" for FREE- (available for download (the game) at any fire sharing site)? How IRONIC and HYPOCRITICAL of YOU ,without any SHAME, in doing the same here. CONTINUE ON STEALING OTHER PEOPLES IDEA UNDER THE GUISE OF SUGGESTIONS. So young people, as you think about entering the Video Game industry, and you wonder how come no one will hire you just think back to this post - because companies take advantage of people's good will, and steal their ideas, instead of paying properly - and make all the PROFIT off it - leaving you high and dry with your wonderful "story or art" portfolio that you have spent days or even weeks, perhaps month to work on. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:193.200.150.23 (talk).

-Don't suggest anything then scrub. If it matters to you so much, don't buy the game. Some people are happy just to see that their ideas are actually implemented, and if that is not satisfaction enough for you, then don't contribute. It's really quite simple.- --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:60.231.210.3 (talk).
 * Clue: Anet doesn't ask us to give them suggestions. GWW members were the ones who set up this section in the first place so that players could voice their opinions. (Terra Xin 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Because we want to see GW2 succeed and giving suggestions is the best way we have to help NCSoft reach that goal. Also, TABLOID CAPS for THE WIN. --71.229.253.172 09:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some of the ideas here ARE BRILLIANT" <Roflcopter'd. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ^ --71.229.253.172 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blech, I hate when people post stupid BS just to try and gode others into a pointless argument, this may be a wiki, but it is not Wikipedia. P.S., tons of game companies look for feedback from their fans, during the development of a game and after, including Blizzard, Ubisoft, Bungie, etc. If they didn't listen to fans they wouldn't be avery good gaming company. (Satanael 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

lol. some of the ideas in this section are so retarded not even daddy can fix them. -- Readem 04:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Face editor and voices pinch
Hi, I have been playing guild wars for a while now (more like 3 years...) and I notice that ALL male characters share the same voice, so do the females, I was thinking that it would be nice to create your own voice for ingame propose's (got the idea from soul calibur IV ^^;)

also I was thinking about creating your own face like poeple do in "perfect world online", not that is needed in the game but I would be nice to create unique characters, that nobody would be able to duplicate. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Oblivion10 (talk).
 * Yeah that's a great idea, now when my character goes "OUCH" I can replace it with "COCKS". Genius, I love it. Vael Victus  [[Image:User_Vael_Victus_Sig.jpg|18px|Pancakes.]] 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that s/he was implying that we should record our own voices, but that we can simply manipulate the voice recording available to make it slightly different than other people's characters. Personally, I don't really mind that everyone has the same voice, it doesn't really bother me at all given how rarely we actually hear our own character's voice anyway (especially if you're one of those people that skip the cutscenes all the time). (Satanael 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I think in one of the Tom Clancy games, you could in PvP select male or female, then select the pitch of your character with a slider. In some other Descent clone, you could select one of several voices for your on-board computer, each with its own accent and catch phrases. I though both of those ideas were pretty cool. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be neat. Vael Victus  [[Image:User_Vael_Victus_Sig.jpg|18px|Pancakes.]] 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Section for Companions and Henchies
Shouldn't there be a section for suggestion about AI partners? There are about five or six suggestions for them scattered around already. We could just call the section "Companions" and have it cover both companion and henchie suggestions. Perhaps another name would be better, but I think it is needed. AI partners make up a pretty big part of the current GW experience, and that there are currently few suggestions regarding companions for GW2 I think is a direct result of the fact that there is no "Companions" section. So please add it in.--68.223.25.117 05:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Great idea. I have a few Companions ideas of my own I would like to share, and it'd be nice for a more organized 'Companions' suggestion area. --Kristoferjm 00:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Having heroes is amazing! There dumb as logs but if we could assign them an auto skill order, we would be in business. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.57.129.218 (talk). ::We don't even have a topic, much less an overcrowded one, so where is the demonstrated need? Backsword 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)