ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions

From Guild Wars Wiki

Guild Wars 2 Suggestions
Home Art Armor Character Communication Combat mechanics Guilds Interface Items Professions PvE PvP Races Skills Story Weapons World Miscellaneous Personal ideas Archives Imported from Gaile's userspace

Welcome to the Guild Wars 2 suggestions pages. This is the place where you get to let ArenaNet know what you want to happen with their upcoming game. They might listen, they might not - but that's all part of the fun.

The suggestions pages

Users familiar with how this all works or are interested enough to read this far are encouraged to directly add their suggestions into the pages listed to the right. Each idea or group of similar ideas are given a separate page along with a separate discussion page. Like any page on the wiki ideas are put up to be collaboratively edited to be easily read and understood by ArenaNet. If you add a page here it must use the provided template, have a somewhat sensible name and not be duplicated with any other idea. Suggestions that do not comply may be subject to deletion to keep the pages tidy.

[edit] Important, please read!

Think of a precise name for the title of your suggestion, and then add it to the most relevant category based on the box to the right. Make a new page if none exist on the topic.

This area is not for asking questions. Questions about Guild Wars 2 can be asked on the this wiki's Guild Wars 2 talk page, the Guild Wars 2 wiki's Guild Wars 2 talk page or the Guild Wars 2 wiki's Guild Wars 2 FAQ talk page.

If you are here to suggest something that can better effect GW1 than GW2, then add your suggestion on this page here

[edit] Common suggestions

There have been a lot of suggestions. Some of the popular ones which come up frequently are listed here. ArenaNet probably already knows about these ones!

• Mounts • Housing • Hairstylist • Auction House •

[edit] General suggestions

These suggestions contain no original ideas, but covers opinions on what should stay and what should go from Guild Wars 1.

Keep certain aspects from GW1 • Add more stuff for GW2 • Don't repeat these mistakes

Contents 1 Important, please read! 2 Common suggestions 3 General suggestions 4 DPS 5 The scratch pad 5.1 Ideal Norn Bear 5.2 My ideas... 5.3 Let Chars Exhibit Scars from Battles 5.4 "Wild" Open Spaces 5.5 Expansion Bridges 5.6 Guildwars 2 on playstation3 5.7 Support for multi screens 5.8 Guild Bard 5.9 God Blessed Armor 5.10 Fun Ideas 5.11 Hack and Slash 5.12 Unfinished Stories 5.13 Titles 5.14 Voice Actors 5.15 Unified Traders 5.16 Better Cutscences 5.17 More Pets 5.18 Character Customization 5.19 Possible expansions 5.20 Inside of Buildings 5.21 New Profession: Extraxi

[edit] DPS

I really think that ANet should keep the idea of having a "Max dmg" on weapons like in GW1. (7-17 for daggers, 19-35 for hammers etc..) But by introducing DPS - Damage Per Second, and state a max DPS for all weapons ANet could have perfect weapons of the same type with different max damage and different attack speed.

[edit] The scratch pad

Please note that suggestions which were posted into the space in Gaile Gray's userspace can be found at /Scratchpad - help moving them to proper categories with be appreciated!

Simply add your suggestion to this page, sign it using ~~~~ and join in the discussion about your idea. It's best if you put different ideas into into different headings. Once the discussion has ended about your suggestion it will be moved off to one of two places;

1. A new page all of its own in one of the sections to the right because nothing like it has been suggested before.
2. Archived into a talk page of an existing suggestion which it adds to. A link will be left here for a little while to show where the idea has been moved to.

[edit] Ideal Norn Bear

In my opinion, the current bears the norn transform into look too scrawny, especially their legs. I believe in GW2, Norn bears should look more like the original concept art depiction (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Image:Concept-036-page.jpg). The bears should be more ferocious, with armor, and armored claws like in the picture. I would like to emphasize the use of claws rather than the current weapons the bears use in EotN. It just looks awkward having a bear hold a shield and sword. Instead, there could be different types of clawlike gloves or gauntlets that you can buy (like a weapon). Maybe add an option of fur color and patterns as well.

GW2 will have an updated graphics engine (not that I know anything about technical stuff), so we'd expect improvements to all of the current concept arts, hopefully :) (Terra Xin 02:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

You know, I'd hope to see nothing of the Norn in GW2. The glorification of relying on an animal entity for strength... that was a horrible idea to begin with and I DO NOT want to see the current Norn related skill dramas carry on into the next generation. It'd be darn right stupid of ANet to include them.. Unless of course, they were all dying and you had to go save their dumb asses. I'd never have to hear my character cry 'Great Raven, save us all!' ever again and that would make me very happy. Spawnlegacy 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Norn are already announced as a playable race.

In my personal opinion, the entirety of the EotN campaign and all within it should be retconned. Remove Asura, Norn, and Sylvari. Say we killed the Destroyers the same way we killed all the others... by teaming up together and going through a bunch of weird quests, rather than asking a bunch of pseudointellectual midgets and no-wit giants for help. But then all the players of IQ less than about 15 (aka the majority) will go BAAAAAWWWWW BUT MOM, YOU SAID WE COULD PLAY AS THOSE AWESOME SEVEN-FOOT-TALL GUYS! and ANet will lose 99% of their business. Wait, where's the negative here? --Jette 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (p.s., more on topic, the Norn are ugly as all hell anyway, so no matter how bad they look in bear form, it's still an improvement.)

I like this kid ^ Spawnlegacy 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

lol dude, the norn rule^^Nilzardo 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hai. In case you couldn't tell, you were the majority I was referring to. --Jette 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it sounded like YOU Jette personally have a problem with the norn style and no1 else? So insecure about ure feelings you try to insult the majority of the GW population with a comment like "IQ of less than 15"? You are actually sounding like the child here, its fine to have your opinion of characters/races but if you dont like them tough, either grow up and accept it or Don't play gw2 Quazark Zeklar 08:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am merely expressing my opinion on the norn appearance. The rest of your comments are sweeping, baseless assumptions. My reply is that yes, I am an ass, If this bothers you, go whine to an admin like everyone else. --Jette 09:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah, this is worse than youtube commenters, I stress to think of people that act the way you do as their natural response. I guess little kiddies finding their way onto sites like these and even onto guild wars itself is inevitable. A man that prides himself on being an ass may feel like he is superior but all I know is I'm not the ass. Quazark Zeklar 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a suggestion area entitled Ideal Norn Bear. The Ideal Norn Bear, for Jette and I, is a inexistent Norn Bear. Please try and keep on subject Quazark/Jette and don't let your personal pride fill this page with banter. Quazark does have a point, however. If we don't like it, we probably shouldn't buy Guild Wars 2. This will not only be good for him but good for ANet as a whole. Sarcasm aside, severely limiting bear form is the way to go. Thankyou for not getting aggressive in advance. Spawnlegacy 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Visual appearances are -- from my point of view, in this regard at least -- completely irrelevant. It needs to be balanced. Bonus health, like Avatar of Melandru, would be fine. 250 bonus health? If the numbers are the same as they are in GW1 (480 is about max health, that is) then that's going to be imbalanced. As for bonus damage... well, I think that any bonus damage is going to be a serious issue. 25% boost + 20% weapon customization + 15% conditional = wtfh4x! Even with prot, that's a significant boost when the damage does get through. sigh You give players superpowers and it's hell to balance by default, and we already know how well ANet is handling GW1. --Jette 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are assuming too much anyhow, yes there will most probably be npcs using bear form and there is a good chance there will be some sort of skill like that for players but it being the same strength or even based on title are things that we have yet to see. The likeilhood is that the bear will be much less powerful because of all the complaints about it. So not buying GW2 just because of this overpowered thing at the end of GW1 seems a bit extreme. I take the veiw that the Ursan was overpowered simply to sell more eotn copies as this is the last GW installments. Also if you do not like the norn "style" there are 3 other races to play. Ofcourse I do not mind whether you buy GW2 or not but atleast realise that the bear probably wont be "overpowered" and the norn wont be the dominant feature of the game Quazark Zeklar 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[reset]I'm buying the game regardless of ANet's balance choices, I'm not sure why you and Spawn seem to think I won't. I agree that EotN played exactly like what it was, an advertisement for GW2, but that doesn't change the fact that the next game must be properly balanced. And other than their obviously somewhat lower intelligence, I'm not seeing any disadvantage a Norn might have over a human, and intelligence is controlled by the player, not the character. We've all seen how well ANet has been handling GW since EotN came out, and it's something of a grim omen. If GW2 is released and it turns out to be on the razor's edge of balance, hell, I'll send a sincere letter of apology to ANet's development team for all the, um, "unkind comments" I've made about them since September. Until then, I'm just trying to point out things that I don't think will work. Or something, I think this originally had something to do with a model. Not bothering to re-read the section. --Jette 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your over-the-top reaction to cool looking norn was what suggested to me you did not want gw2 if you can get so worked up about it. Besides that changing into a bear will probably just mean more hp and thats it, basic stuff like that. Making them look good while in this form (which is what this section is all about) is only really a good thing, I'm up for new norn weapons like metal claws etc. And back to your comment off "not seeing a disadvantage of a norn to that of a human" obviously shows you have not played that much of a wide variety of games. The most comon thing done when a person has good hp and melee is that they cannot cast spells fast or to the best affect. Humans, from what i gather, will be balanced and not great but not bad at everything. Many games have adopted this strategy and you have to look outside of guild wars perhaps to realise this. Then again guild wars already simulates this, it would be like saying "since warriors have so much armour how are they worse than a monk?". Less Norn hate more thinking and research. This place is not supposed to be a place to arguement but to discuss ideas and as we know the norn is not an "idea" it is already in place and their signiture move is bear form there is no point disputing it, just accept it and accept it will have a high chance of working completely different to the current "ursan" Quazark Zeklar 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, Anet did say there would be "buffs/benefits" when playing solo, this could mean that seperate races will have seperate versions of these "benefits". The ideal norn, in my opinion, could be more visually enhanced than their GW1 counterparts, as previously suggested, but I don't want my damage type having to be changed because I'm now wielding claws. Whisperer 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression the idea was that the norn would have these claws as a standard weapon, sort of like daggers? Faster attack speed or something? Much more interesting than the shield/sword combo which every rpg and its mother uses. Quazark Zeklar 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

← moved to ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Sky environment

[edit] My ideas...

Not quite sure if I'm supposed post this here, but I have an idea page of my own. I kind of discuss some things already on here, but yeah... az :D 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let Chars Exhibit Scars from Battles

I think it would be great if each character could display battle scars--perhaps from critical hits, or maybe linked to the number of deathes they have "experienced" Nairb 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Kind of like "Fable", right? Man, if they had that in GW, my characters would be so scarred up, you can't make out their faces. lol az :D 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice idea if you could heal the scars, so they woudn't be always in your characters face.--Rated Five 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted an ugly character, I'd make an ugly character. IMO getting scars should be strictly voluntary, maybe they could have an NPC who can add (and remove) tattoos, piercings and scars. -- Gordon Ecker 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, especially if it's applied to the charr. I mean, I can see how too many scars on a human or a sylvari could make the character fugly, but on a norn or a charr I think even a lot of scars could look good. I mean, to be honest, I would much rather my charr look battle-ridden with scars all over than for it to look like some newborn pup with perfectly flowing golden fur. Charr are meant to be ugly, they'd be proud of it, there are no primadonas in the charr. (Satanael 08:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Necromancers and Ritualists have this to a degree (its their armor) but it would be cool to branch out on this and give it more freedom across the board. (Terra Xin 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Satanel, when he said "chars," he meant "Characters." Also, I agree that characters should be able to get scars, but from a TRADER or MERCHANT, not from battle. As Gordon has so kindly stated, if I wanted an ugly character, I'd make one. --Jette 21:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok...how about offering a medic service where you could pay an NPC to remove the scars your character has "earned" or rather, "Received" as a result of battle? Nairb 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When you go out and fight monsters you'd expect to make loot, not so that some medic npc can take their cut so you can look pretty again. Battle scars should be optional (and to respect any realism they should be non-permanent). (Terra Xin 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Infusing a small bit of realism wouldn't hurt. Scars should be linked to number of deaths...characters that die more show it by their scars. If you wanna keep a character "perfect" then take fewer risks...or pay an NPC to perform digital plastic surgery. Nairb 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Realism is bad. It always has been. Scars, like all other character facets, should be optional or simply not present. And by the way, "taking fewer risks" means "dropping out of the group when you're about to die." --Jette 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jette, but I actually knew what the OP meant, and I was still referring to the charr seperately. In any case, I agree, scars are great, but they should be optional, and having to pay an NPC to get rid of them would introduce a grind element similar to the armor fatigue/chinking that has been suggested several times before. We should not have to pay to repair ourselves in any way, that makes the game like too much work. (Satanael 04:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Here's my two cents on this situation. When you are in an explorable area, as you are hurt you obtain scarring. After you return to an outpost or town, you are clean again. That way the character can be all bloodied up and look more realistic when in combat and such, but when you return to the outpost you are as good as new. I think it would add some intensity to the game without it being permanent or having to pay for costly removal surgery.

All that will do is force me to run earth magic to protect my pretty face.  :( --Jette 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of getting worn, bloodied, and dirtied up as an effect from battle, and automatically "cleaning up" completely when you reach an outpost, adds a purely graphical element of realism without any grind or permanent markings. Elven Chaos 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After taking damage you'll get bruised and scarred and if they include natural regeneration your characters could get less bloddied and bruised the higher your health is, so if you died your char would look just horrible, but after getting up to 50% hp the char would be less bruised and scarred and when your at full health all of the scars are gone. User:Diescumbag 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I love the idea of scarring. It would be much like a title, but clearly visible. To work, it needs a few considerations. First, the scars would have to be hard to get in the first place, if for no other reason than to appease all those people who think they look ugly. I don't know the specifics on the game mechanics, but if it's similar to GW1, then award one "scar point" every time a character reaches the maximum death penalty. For every 100 points accumulated, a scar appears on one part of the body up to a maximum number. These could be slash marks, burn scars, a missing eye or fingers, there are lots of possibilities. They must also be easily removable. Equip merchants with a "potion of renewal" or some such thing, keep it cheap and easy to find. Each use removes a single scar. Thus if you wanted one scar but not more, you could shave off only the necessary points to keep your appearance the way you want it. - Countess Dramethia

How about,u get scars from battle and your armor gets bloddied up and when you get back to the outpost,you chose wether or not you get cleaned up or not.Or perhaps at the Guild Hall,or i don't know.

I like the idea of da countess......Nilzardo 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC

The showing of scars should be more of a title, better the title the more mangled your character would look. That way the scars can be shown if you choose them to show. So its basically a visual title.

I'm not fond of Countess Dramethia's idea. I say you should be able to customize the scars on the face. Any other way sounds more like necromancer scar patterns with the option to hide or show them. az :D 00:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If some people want to make their characters riddled with scars, fine by me... necromancers do it. But it really needs to be optional. That's my only concern. --Jette 01:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Wild" Open Spaces

I suggest offering wild areas in GW2 where teams can combat or cooperate with each other--not like AB where you have three teams of 4...just one team of 4 or 6 interacting with many other teams of 4 or 6. Make deaths in these areas mean something--maybe a character lock out time each time you die, or loss of gold (you could have each character put up 1k gold to enter, teams share the gold for each kill, team members lose their gold if they are killed). This would be a better alternative than Runescape, where characters can lose hard earned items in the Wilds. Nairb 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We already get World PvP, with the rewards, but without the losses. Please read something about GW2 before making suggestions which are already going to be used in some sort of way. --Sir Bertrand 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have read up on GW2 and believe that my sugestion of making deaths mean something is still valid. There should be an element of risk introduced that mimics real life...the simple formula is: Higher Risk = Greater Rewards. Nairb 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deaths do mean something - You "die". How is that not straight forward? If you die in real life, you don't get a lock out or a loss of gold, and your suggestion doesn't make it any more realistic, instead it makes it slower for peopple to get back into fighting. The effect that dying has on a player is that they cannot help their teammates at all - that's a massive penalty. I just dont see where you're going with this. Runescape is less successful than guildwars, and its no surprise when they have such high penalties for dying. This is a casual player's game, let's keep it that way. (Terra Xin 07:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

ofcorse it is a casual game. BUT in real life your body WOULD be looted b someone, hence loosing some form of item would be more realistic. i think that the loss of some form would be good. And you could work level into it, or the higher the money/item you bring in , you will be matched against other people with the same kind of loot.

I don't like that idea, we already have Death Penalty, and plus, you waste your teammates time by making them have to heal you.

[edit] Expansion Bridges

So I was contemplating a way for the expansions that will open up Cantha and Elona to work and this is what I got. First, let's deal with Cantha. According to the Movement of the World article, the new emperor conquered/ forced out both the luxon and kurzick fations. So one ambassador form each faction comes to you saying that they've decided to to unite against a common foe( the emperor) just like our GW2 characters ancestors from GW1 taught them to with Shiro, and becasue of that they've come to ask your help. Now I think those of us that actually beat factions in GW1 deserve it a littel easier. So I say that if you have that monument in your hall, you get to go to Cantha no problem, no questions asked. But i fyou didn't beat in in GW1 you have to do a quest to prove your usefullness to the ambassadors, wherein you hide them from a canthan patrol that managed to escape the undead ships while pursuing them. Now, for Elona. In the movement of the world it stated that Palawa Joko either killed off, captured, or recruited nearly all the sunspears. So what if you find a sunspear escapee in tyria saying he traveled here to ask your help to get rid of Palawa because your ancestor in GW1 helped the sunspears defeat Abbadon. Now once again if you beat Nightfall in GW1 then it should be a bit easier to get along. And the players who didn't would have to help the sunspear ward of some of his undead pursuers to prove that you can fight. Lord Zepherr 04:09 June 19, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guildwars 2 on playstation3

← moved to Help:Ask a game question

← moved to ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Sentient Plants

[edit] Support for multi screens

I use two screens on my PC and would like it to be possible to have some windows (like Guild menu, Storage,...) to be on the second screen or at least be able to move my mouse to the second screen while in full screen mode (to open wiki for instance). I know it's not a gameplay suggestion but I hope it belongs here. (Astrael 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Guild wars currently supports multi-screen configurations. I run it spanned across 3 monitors just fine. two screens is technically possible, but your character appears in the middle regardless, so they'd be between the screens, in an obstructive position. In a two screen configuration, I'd use the second screen for Vent/TeamSpeak, wiki or guru pages etc. If your mouse can't move beyond the boundaries of the guild wars Main window, run in windowed mode instead of full screen. There are a number of freeware apps and some video cards that will enable you to strip the border off a windowed game. You just resize it to fill the screen and turn off the window with a hotkey.

As long as we're making display suggestions, I have a very nice 3d headset I'd love to use, but Guildwars support for stereoscopic interlacing is terrible. GUI items become huge as the resolution is halved during interlacing. It wouldn't take much work to create a 3D friendly GUI when working from scratch, so I'll have my fingers crossed and hope some consideration is taken in the matter. Countess Dramethia

[edit] Guild Bard

This may be a bit much to ask of the devs, but i think it would be insanley cool. What if there was some sort of bard guy that you could buy for your guidl hall like all the other upgrades, and when you talked to him you would be able to search through your files on your computer and find a song to play in your guild hall, this would make the idea fo a celebration or holiday or dance party in a guidl hall much more inviting. Lord Zepherr 11:59, June 27, 2008 (UTC)

Completely out of the question. While the idea may have some merit to small casual guilds, it would come at a huge cost. First, the security issues brought on by having the client search for and broadcast files from your computer to others, that alone kills the idea. Second, your client would basically be running as a server as well, not only exposing your IP address and open ports to anyone who chooses to look, but you'd also have to support the literally millions of people using ISPs that filter out personal servers, so support costs would be significantly increased, even though many could never use the system due to limitations on their internet service. Third, bandwidth consumption would increase 10 fold if they used their servers as an intermediary, which is the only way to truly secure such a system. This could be done on a subscription game that can afford the additional overhead in bandwidth, but trying to pay for that kind of service with a free online play scheme would simply not work from a cost standpoint. Fourth, Guildwars serves many countries with many various copyright laws. There is to date NO legal service that serves all the locations this game will. What works in the US won't fly in Canada, is taxable in much of Europe and impossible in China. The legal complexities brought on by this would hinder game support and development, and leave many of their customers whining and complaining, blaming AreaNet for not providing them the same service, even though it is forbidden by THEIR laws. Fifth, who gets to pick the music? I don't want guilds to be formed and based solely upon a preferred musical style. That should not impact people's decision about which guild to join. Sixth, Guild wars has a phenomenal soundtrack created by an award-winning composer. For many people, that is an essential part of the game's experience and unique among most MMOs. I would hate to see that value lost and have the game completely inundated with low quality MP3s for idiots who listen to cookie-cutter top 100 pop charts music. Seventh, Music served in this manner would be separate from the sounds natively in the game and would be played over the background effects in a different process thread, taxing the hell out of generic on-board audio devices, especially those trying to use environmental directional audio. Many people would have to disable the feature if they wanted to run any type of voice chat service.

What you want can be accomplished by Teamspeak or Ventrilo or X-Fire, or your favorite IM client, or your web browser, or Skype, or any of the thousands of standalone web radio broadcasters or... it's a long list. Sharing music while playing a game is easy. There are already so many options for those wishing to do this, Areanet could not produce a system of equal quality that would fit the needs of everyone. Many guilds have functioning "Guild Radios" already that work perfectly fine and are tailored to their specific needs. If the current system ain't broke, don't fix it. And certainly don't encourage the devs to reinvent the wheel, they have plenty of work on their hands as it is. - Countess Dramethia

That might be the most thorough owning I have ever seen on the internet. --76.25.197.215 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you could very well have just said,"NO, This won't work". I mean woah, you just typed up an impenatrable wall of text, but you definatley drew your point home, lol. Lord Zepherr 03:01, June 27, 2008 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but a response should be qualified with a reason. I could say "That won't work", but without explaining why it leaves the door open for other suggestions that fall into the same traps as the above. It isn't that I object to the idea it's self, I just don't see it as plausible. By listing the reasons for my objections, I'm giving others the opportunity to address them with further suggestion and possible solutions. Even if those solutions don't ever manifest themselves in this specific scenario, they may be useful in other areas of development. - Countess Dramethia

Yes, I understand that, but GW2 is set to come out in what, mid/late 2009? If so, then i'm sure this idea will resurface multiple times no matter what is in one post. So when you say it won't work, then you're really only silencing this idea to me and that one other person who posted here. So when you write a huge thing like that you're still only silencing me and that other person, you're just doing it in a longer fasion. Lord Zepherr 08:43, June 28, 2008 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to give a *concise* reason why the idea won't work. We can always ask for details or explanations if the concise explanation isn't clear. -- Alaris 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Don't really want to get too involved in this conversation, but I thought I would just shamelessly plug the company I work for. Countess, Baker & McKenzie [1] is the probably the only law firm in the world that could service all of the jurisdictions covered by Guild Wars, we have 70 offices in 38 countries, and considered to be the best firm in the world for overall IP services (among other stuff, but you were talking specifically about copyright issues). Of course, that doesn't change your central point there, which is correct, that different countries have different copyright laws, and precious few of them really address Web 2.0 copyright issues with anything resembling adequate regulation. (Satanael 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Oh yeh isn't that the firm that sacked Geoffrey Bowers because he had aids? EDIT: just re-read what I wrote and it sounded snippy and trolling, wasn't meant like that, as only knew it due to the film Philadelphia being based on it. As a side note the firm is now recognised internationally for its positive outlook towards diversity of it's employees in all areas. -- Salome 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a Guild Bard who you could talk to to change the current Guild Wars song you're listening to, but I think it would be easier to implement that as an in-game playlist, like many other games have done. Some of the GW songs are really good, while a lot are "meh" at best. --Jette 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God Blessed Armor

Maybe i'm missing something, but did anything happen when we ascended in GW1 adn claimed "True Sight"? I say that if we have a ritual like that in GW2, i'd liek some sort of upgrade. LIke maybe once you beat the ritual your armor and weapons become "God Blessed" versions of themselves. So they'ed morph to look a little more "advanced" or cooler, adn they'd just get a little better, but they also become specific to you to prevent farming. Lord Zepherr 05:29, June 30, 2008 (UTC)

You got 50K XP and unlocked another 15 attribute points. If it were up to me, I'd say just make us invincible and let us plod through enemies with abandon after the trial, but of course, if it were up to me, I'd own ANet and run around banning people for perceived slights and trolling the player base. If, however, you're suggesting weapons and armor get cool special effects, I'm afraid it's already been done. New ones would be nice though. --Jette 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And dont forget gaining access to UW and FoW. As you can't enter them if you're not ascended. -- Salome 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i'm thinking our armor and currently equipped weapons would just morph a little bit, you know, like get spikier for assasins or get more intricate designs on our armor, plus a little boost. But maybe there'd be a limit to how many you can bless. Lord Zepherr 08:28 July 01, 2008 (UTC)

If you want spikes, go obsidian. --Jette 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate the sin's spikey armor. It's totally ridiculous to me, and there's only a couple sets which aren't covered in 9000 spikes/blades/stalagtites. But about weapons and armor morphing, ehhhh why when you ascend? Most people wouldn't have as prestigeous weapons, and their armor wouldn't even be max armor level (in Prophecies) since that's not available until Droks. If such an idea were to be used, which is very,very,very unlikely, Infusion would make more sense, since it deals directly with your armor, and does change it anyways. 75.146.48.190 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes Sense. I didn't say that infusion wouldn't work, i was just using ascension as an example. But since it's pretty likley that Mursaat will be in GW2, then infusion seems much more likely to be there as well.Lord Zepherr 03:56, July 2, 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the Mursaat were friendlier in GW2, and that would save us the trouble of infusing, too. Everybody wins. --Jette 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Go back and replay prophecies - the Flameseeker Prophecies foretell the demise of the Mursaat at the hands of the Titans. If you play EotN, a bit more info is revealed on this quest thread. Few if any Mursaat will still exist in GW2. --Falseprophet 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fun Ideas

Customizable Dances so every character can have a unique dance, thought that would be a fun idea XD, another one would be At the end o a PVP match to show a score board on of who got what kills and to create a title which goes along with it =) --Dobo

Customizable dances would require every player who wanted to do it to learn how to animate 3D models, which isn't exactly a 30-minute tutorial. Not to mention that the dance information would need to be passed along through each and every GW player who met the unique dancer, which is a lot of info. Now, if you just mean you want to let characters select from a list of pre-made dances, that I would agree with. As for the title... meh, we have enough people running around like a bunch of idiots seeing how many people they can try to kill. PvP is supposed to be about skill, not a head count. --Jette 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hack and Slash

It would be really fun if GW is a hack and slash game. I really hate the auto attacking and hack and slash makes the game feel more realistic.

Buy Diablo 3, it should use that system. Or, if you really want to, you can just click the target over and over anyway, it'll do the same thing. --Jette 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

why wouldn't hack and slash be a good idea? I love everything about guild wars. Just not the fighting system. If Guild Wars 2 is a hack and slash game it would reallly be great! and please tell me why wouldn't it work, please.

Because it pointlessly creates more work for players, and it's completely different from the way it works now. I'll admit it is, to an extent, a personal choice, but the current system is likely already implemented, so I must ask you this: what advantage would be given by changing it? I can see no reason why your clickspam system would be better, as opposed to equal or worse. --Jette

And It might be harder to hit your enermy so I don't like the idea it doesn't feel right. Also if your enermy is jumpping around It would be realy hard to hit it.--Rated Five 23:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

so we're using the same system? So, jumping or other things will not be used in battles?

Jumping is presumably going to implemented, they said there'll be a Z-axis. As for how much you can use it in combat, I dunno, but it would make sense that there will be ways to utilize it. Regardless, auto-attacking would work the same way. --Jette 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know,Anet did mention that while fighting,you can jump,etc. and that this will affect your damage and skills.They also mentioned that the fighting system will be like in a normal PvE Game(hope its hack and slash).I would really like it to be a hack and slash game because players get bored easily from just walking around an area and "Oh!look there's a monster,time to sit back and relax!",you have all forgotten about the fun of the game.Besides,what hard work would they do,push the finger on the mouse button?Be serious,it's a great idea.(clax1x)

How is wearing out your mouse a great idea? And you've still yet to give a reason why this system would be better than auto-attack. If you want to click over and over, go ahead, no one is stopping you. I think the rest of us enjoy not having to. --Jette 11:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If GW 2 doesn't use the auto-attack then the game will be about who's finger is the fastest vs. who actually has a good build and put time into their character. But still hack and slash would add a small amount of excitement until people start getting cheap.

Auto-attacking is boring. GW2 can still have the DPS thing. Hack and Slash doesnt have to be all about spamming and clicking ur mouse like crazy. you people are misunderstanding. DPS+H&S will be a great idea. And if z-axis is not going to be used in battles alot.. i mean, its going to be pointless than. Jumping will be great in GW2, but if its not hack and slash, then you're character will be auto attacking the monster and when they use shockwave or somethin like that u press some key to jump and dodge it. how fun? If GW2 is not going to be hack and slash, atleast change the current battle system. GW battles never get intense.

If Damage per second or Attack per second and Hack and Slash are going to be used in GW2 then it would be AWESOME!!! GREAT IDEA!!!!--70.247.43.176 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AWFUL IDEA. Hack n Slash is dull and monotonous. I don't want to click endlessly, standing still, occasionally leaping foward and screwing up combat when I miss click. The fun in the current combat system comes from careful and well timed use of skills, and, of course, you are able to dodge attacks! And what is this drivel about 'not intense' fighting? I find a lot of intense GW battles, picking targets, dodging attacks, maintaining balanced healing, correct interrupts. Is it only Warriors who want Hack and Slash?

I hope they don't use the auto attack system, it bores me to death, seriously I almost died from watching my character and it's the main reason I stopped playing GW1, I still love the game and the setting, but the fighting is so boring it pains me. I think they should move to H&S or something more twitch based. Like you need to nail your timing and combo's to pull off an awesome move, that way it would still be skill based, which really means just how much experience you have playing the game. I mean really, just anything that's different and intuitive would be awesome, not the tired same old auto attack and click your skill that every MMO's has overused to a ridiculous degree.

It's a completely unnecessary change to the entire system GW uses. If they implement this, it will be so different in terms of gameplay that it will barely qualify as a sequel. Not to mention that clicking over and over ≠ skill. If enough people want to, then I suppose ANet can implement a checkbox in the "gameplay" options section to turn auto-attack off, but I really think it's a tremendous waste of developer time and energy. --Jette 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but making a game that plays exactly like the one before it, is extremely stupid. I think ANet can do better than autoattack when it comes to originality of attacking and using skills. Autoattacking outdated, and I'm sure ANet knows this.

keep auto attack but add something like this like if you move your mouse around your enemey's right shuolder click the left mouse button and swipe your mouse over to around its left hip your caracter will slash him from his right shoulder to left hip and the faster its done with the mouse the faster in the game which would be cool cuz then if someone and low health and you swiped your mouse across their neck the would be decapitated if you wanted to stab something during comat you would quickly click its stomach causing your sword to go through its stomache and then you would hold down the left mouse button and swipe your mouse to the left causing the sword to be thrust to the left were would be removed frome the body doing damage Cabbagepatchman 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)cabbagepatchman

Decapitate, Hamstring, Axe Twist, Sever Artery, etc... those are all skill descriptions, which should be caused by actual skills, not the way your mouse moves. Besides, GW's questionable control system isn't accurate enough for that kind of thing anyway. --Jette 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tbh I like the concept because it means the player actually have to do something other than click one skill in order to achieve different effects ie. requiring more skill. Good concept but I'm not sure it could be implemented well, then again im not a programer or games designer. If they could do it well it would make this game much better but if it's just going to mess with the flow of gameplay it is probably best left out Quazark Zeklar 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW!!!! GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

I really don't like this idea, I've had plenty of hack 'n' slash games in the past, and the thing I hated most about them was the amount of money I had to spend on buyign a new mouse every week. To be honest, I like Guild Wars the way it is, and what isn't broken doens't need fixing. Stokoe 05:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

^Agree, it would take hell alot money to but new Raze Deathadder every week. Also all Hack and slash games are failed - players will quit cuz of the girnd + Spikes in pvp would be harder to make. Auto Attack is Great and what stokoe said.

I said I'd like to see skill used more in guild wars other than 1 person out of 8 calling tactics/spikes and the rest following like drones. Although I do agree with a mouse and keyboard it is difficult to see how it would work well, it would be best if used with controllers instead imo. but then again everyone would need to buy computer controllers and so is not really the most practicle of ideas. Unless Guild wars gave one free with each game? I dunno I'm just speculating here, but pressing "B" for a one secound block seems much more fun then casting a spell that has a 50% chance to block for 10 secounds. I know it sounds like I'm going for a fighting game moreso than an rpg but with more than just melee and better movement I beleive it could make for an outstanding game. Then again A-net is much more likely to stick to what it knows already works. A free mmo does not need to push game boundires and do something new until it's unique selling point is rivalled Quazark Zeklar 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think they should put some basic hack and slash because it will add some extra tactic usage for PvP, Such as moving to the side and hitting them on the side or putting your shield up in a timely manner, but they will still just do the same basic attacks, and then you can press your other buttons to activate skills when they are vulnerable. Kinda like in fable. Also it would be nice if marksmen can strife side to side while still shooting their bows, and you should do the aiming. If others are gonna complain about that being to hard then they are just lazy then. I would like a pvp system thats basded on tactic skills and build and not just leveling up or who can spike the fastest. Also be awesome if they could add blood in the game. If it was me I would put gore everywhere but I know then it wouldnt be "T" for teens then, but cant you add alittle blood and get away with it? Shadow Wolf1990 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats what Im trying to get at, you know actually using skill not skills? Sure hamstring can already cripple opponents, but even a cat can press 1-8 on a keyboard (I know mine does all the time xP). People just prefer static skills that require little skill so they can play heroes ascent while half asleep playing powerful builds. Then the losers or the people bored complain about the strength of them because of the lack of skill required. A vicous circle but it happens. But Ive already said it would be difficult to implement because of the practicality issue, ranger is one of the easier classes, its the melee thats the main issue. Oh well I can always hope and cross my fingers Quazark Zeklar 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To me, the warrior proffession is pretty boring and hitting tab and spacebar doesn't seem like the way to go about chasing someone down and stabbing them through the heart. I'd like to play this game where I could actively dodge and strike when the defenses are down but, as much as I think its a fun idea, it would definitely get a bit hectic, especially for melee-casters. Its unneccessary programming-wise and makes people, already struggling to maintain a tactical head, work harder just to do 30 damage. Spawnlegacy 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One word - latency. I mean, how would you expect things to be dealt with if you have a sudden lag spike? You, on your machine, would be hitting the poor guy in the guts while he'd moved a bit and you would have missed in his view. Who is right? The one where you hit or the one where you missed? It could make the difference between a win and a lose, and I don't think that's really acceptable. Plus, that system would have to work everywhere, not just in arenas with 8-16 guys, where it's actually feasible (FPS games work a bit this way). And that means things like Alliance Battles, with 32 guys each side as well as grander events. KazDoran 11:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about you Kaz but I'd prefer to play a game that you couldnt play as well in the middle of a lag spike than in perfect latency. Your basically saying you want a game that requires little skill because of lag threat? And spawn raised a good point about tactics. I would love to see people thinking about their own tactics moreso one person calling tactics for 8 people. I would hope this gameplay type would force people to coordinate well and rely on their own skill to get through the game Quazark Zeklar 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't want a game that required skill, I wouldn't be playing GW for almost 3 years. :) (although I admit it became too gimmicky in the last year or so. Oh well!) It's not so much about technical constraints, but if you make the game too hard to play for some people, it would drive away some of the user base. If that is good or not community-wise, it remains to be seen. I was just saying there are some issues about implementing such a system, and decisions like those are hard to make, because if you go down the wrong way (where "wrong" could be either of the ways we're discussing) it becomes too hard to change it after the game is launched. Surely ANet won't rewrite the whole game from the ground up (or we shouldn't be expecting it so soon), so I believe they'll stick with the traditional attack+skills system, adapted for extra freedom (swimming, jumping, etc). They must consider stuff that must be scalable, after all I guess I remember reading that one of the reasons for making GW2 and dropping new campaigns was the fact that the current system was already being overstretched and they couldn't make some new features, and we don't really want that to happen again so soon I guess. :) KazDoran 12:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well theyre already adding an extra axis so we should be greatful for that, the extra axis in itself (provided done well) will mean the player will have to use much more skill than in GW1 as is anyway. The alleged different affects depending on situation would also play a part in players using more of their own skill. So maybe what I'm getting at is that GW2 does NOT need hack and slash to require more skill to play and make the game better. And it is highly unlikely, kaz, that people would not play the game because it is too challenging they would more likely adapt and become more used to it. Is it not the overall objective of guild wars to reward those with skill not those that grind? By trying to make the game dulled down and easier it is going against that objective and means the company does not really have a proper aim. Unless they are more concerned with the simple fact that GW is free but it is getting more competition nowadays on that front and I beleive skill > grind will sell the game much better. Anyhow back to the subject, I agree with kaz that hack and slash is too far, and I would prefer to see what the extra axis has to show before asking for a whole new gametype Quazark Zeklar 22:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want this now? Seems like too much work and really boring and motonous. Sounds kinda like grind too... Also, realism=bad.The Cabal 23:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished Stories

OK, from what I can gather, there seems to be alot of power resonating through Tyria in GW2. That seems like the perfect casue for things from GW1 to "rise" again, it also seems like the perfect excuse to have them do so. Here is a list of things i think should have their stories expanded upon:

• ALL and spirits in The Tomb of Primeval Kings, and the tomb itself, I mean Nightfall's been out for a while, and they haven't shown any insentive to change the tomb back, or at least clean out abbadons remnants(i'm talking about game updates, not the actual in-game battle), so it must have a story in GW2.
• Those Big stone warriors in the Crystal Desert, supposedly they used to be able to walk, and talk and help adventureers on their quest, i'd liek to see mor of them in GW2.
• The Realm of Torment, eventually Kormir has to clean it out, I mean, how long can a race of goddless beings liek the margonites last against the Goddess of Truth?
• What Livia did with the Scepter at the end of EotN --Kristoferjm 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's basically all i can think of now, please feel free to add your own ideas. Lord Zepherr 04:39, July 6, 2008 (UTC)

• New idea: What happened to all those Thousands of baby dragons we saved during Glints Challenge in EotN? Lord Zepherr 08:33, July 7, 2008 (UTC)
• Shiny, should be 253 years old by now, since he hatched 3 years before EotN, so what will he be doing? Lord Zepherr 04:57, July 8, 2008

These ideas would be nice, although not possible, to explore in BMPs while we wait for GW2. Peace --Nekki 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

I didn't see anyone posting about titles so I thought I'd mention them. To me, title collecting has been a big part of GW1 and I wouldn't want to see this part of the game removed in GW2. I'm sure they'll still have titles in GW2 but one title which I wish was in GW1 that I hope they put in GW2 is a title for completing all available quests (not missions, but quests given out by NPCs). Currently the only incentive for completing most quests is experience, some gold and a skill (maybe). There are a few quests that give out low end items, however, this isn't very appealing to me. There are many quests that I know I haven't finished simply because I have no reason to. Anyways, that's my suggestion. - 07/07/08 XPGAMER2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.172.84 (talk • contribs) at 11:54, July 7, 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Voice Actors

How about the voice actors DON'T suck? A little investment and we'd never have to groan to listen to five minutes of GROAAAAAN-worthy acting by Togo or anyone else. We might actually enjoy listening to cutscenes were they well-acted, but I generally ended up turning off sound and reading them, as it didn't distract from the story. Nightfall was a bit better; Morgahn was quite good.

Yes, you have a point, I think rurik and King Adelbern from prph did reasonably well along with gwen and vekk from EotN. What i wouldn't mind is more voices for the characters, i mean of all my eight characters, i've been able do discern 2 voices. all you have to do is maybe hire a few more voice actors and ahve them do more voices. I understand that maybe in the beggining GW was a little more scrap for cash and couldn't bother with the voices, but now tht they've made much more money, they should be able to get more voice-overs. Lord Zepherr 07:56, July 9, 2008 (UTC)

Competent voice actors are expensive. Very expensive. I still think ANet could do much better considering the number of games they've sold to fund this whole mess, but even voice actors from the crappiest of TV shows are more expensive than some of the best ones willing to work in a video game. Sad, really. --Jette 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice but not essential, I'd prefer a more reasonably challenging dungeon with bad voice acted scenes than an overpowered or easy mission with good voiced acted cut scenes. Then again good voice acting can set a mission up well for the role play part of guild wars, I guess it is just down to personal opinion, but I would lke to see the budget better spent elsewhere Quazark Zeklar 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They got Maurice LaMarche to do the voice of Vekk (and probably the voice of Lork, as he sounds almost exactly like Kif Kroker). IMO all the voice acting in Eye of the North was appropriate and well done. As for earlier games, Varesh Ossa's voice was disappointing, and it was odd that King Jalis Ironhammer, Vizier Khilbron had pretty much the same voice and accent, particularly when they share a scene at the end of the Thunderhead Keep mission, and I think Glint and Kuunavang's voices could've used some post-processing to make them sound deep and inhuman. But overall, I think the voice acting has been fairly good, Master Togo sounds like a character in a dubbed martial arts film from the 70s, which I believe is intentional and appropriate, although I understand that not everyone likes that kind of campiness, and I think Danika's "perky goth" voice is appropriate since she's rich and rebellious. The only bad voice acting I can think of is Jalis in Prophecies (which is only bad because he sounds so much like Khilbron) and Varesh in Nightfall. -- Gordon Ecker 06:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tbh I did not find much of the current voice acting very bad at all, the problem is the movement and flow of the scenes are bad. There are no movie scenematics and they use only the gameplay system to actually do anything. This means people are starting and stopping sentances inappropriately because they need to turn around etc. If GW2 used proper scenematics the voices would not matter as much and epic deaths such as togo would be much more dramatic and the atmosphere would be better. Quazark Zeklar 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Although cinematics have a big disadvantage. They don't generally allow to tell the story from the players' point of view, because everyone has a different character, and thus a different look. Unless you want the cinematics to be sort of "in your face" I don't really think it's feasible. So far I actually like the kind of cutscenes in the current game, maybe they could try to add skeletal animations out of the usual emotes players can use, being more flexible that way, instead of having everyone use thing like /moan which look ridiculous in some scenes. KazDoran 11:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it is all well and good saying you want your character to be in the scenes and using the real gameplay is the best way to do that, but do I really want to see togo and my ele wanding a zombie to death? Maybe if they made them more realistic to a proper ingame battle buy making them use skills and such would work better. Even then it still isnt that good the scenes are so restricted and they do not really get the point across. Maybe scenes that do not requires the user's character could use proper movie scenes? Or you idea of having unique skeletal motions to make them do more things like falling over without looking pushed over etc. Quazark Zeklar 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Your idea of using true cinematics in situations where your character is not required to show up is a good one. I guess we'll have to wait and see! :) KazDoran 12:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unified Traders

Hey there, I was thinking about this the other day, and I think this could be an improvement for GW2. How about, instead of having 5 or 6 different types of traders scattered around a city, not having some of them (think rune traders and stuff) on some other towns, etc, having one single trader for every item type, with items sorted by tabs or something? One of the things I currently find more tiresome is to have to map travel to some major city to sell some runes or materials (or to even just check the prices and find out I'd be better off selling the identified armor to a merchant), or having to go all the way through some towns just to go to a different type of merchant. Wouldn't it be great if we could have some 5 or 6 "omni-traders" scattered around a city, each providing every benefit all current traders currently do? I know it kind of takes away the immersiveness for some people (I'm one of them), but after 3 years of gameplay I just don't feel it's that important right now. So, to summarize: instead of a different trader for different stuff (generic merchand, material trader, rare material trader, etc) have a single type of merchant that does all of these roles. KazDoran 13:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

with the concept of having to run around to get to traders in mind, why not have a Merchant district, where basically all the traders are, you oucld have 2 in each town if need be (one on each side i mean)... ~PheNaxKian Talk 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would that be the same as it is now? You'd have to move all the way to the traders anyway. Well, it wouldn't be so bad if storage was included in those "districts" I guess. KazDoran 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well your saying that traders are all over the place, i'm saying have all traders in one area, but with you spawning in random locations you'd probably have 2 areas with all traders so you dont' have to go all the way over town (and yes you'd probably have storage there as well)~PheNaxKian Talk 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My Suggestion would be, stop being lazy and run from merchant to merchant :P, but seriously, how do you expect them to fill a town if all merchants will be merged in 1? --MageMontu 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing, they wouldn't have only one of those merchants, they could have several scattered throughout the cities just like now, but they could all have everything. I see your point though. *mumbles and runs to another trader* ;) KazDoran 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better Cutscences

Play Guild Wars and once a cutscence goes on, watch how the characters talk. They mouth seems to move up and down, but the rest of the body seems the same. They should put more emotion in them.

BMP cutscenes have insured that they have pretty much perfected cutscenes, I'm sooooooo excited n.n

They did? Horray! Lord Snealon 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BMP? --Wolf 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Think he's talking about this.[2]The Cabal 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Pets

← moved to ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Animal companions

[edit] Character Customization

← moved to ArenaNet_talk:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Face_and_body_shape_should_be_highly_customizable

[edit] Possible expansions

I think that if the expansions for GW2 are seperate campeigns like GW1 (excluding eotn), instead of only adding even more new proffesion, add new races. Currently the story focuses around tryia. Say an expansion giving access someway or another is released for elona. The current races would still be required to start in tyria, but say the margonites are a new race. they would start in elona, and have a totally unique story line following a margonite civil war, perhaps a large rebellion witch has grown over the centurys, leaded by the apostate, agianst the main margonite faction, leaded by mallyx. As for cantha, prehaps the tengu could be a race, and you could choose either sensali, or angchu. both would have a seperate, but closely related storylines. Is that an insult or a compliment ^ Spawnlegacy 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inside of Buildings

← moved to ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Housing

[edit] New Profession: Extraxi

← moved to ArenaNet_talk:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Extraxi#Moved_from_.2Fscratchpad