User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/December 2007
From Guild Wars Wiki
| Archives |
|---|
|
Guild Hall Accessories
This was raised by an Alliance member of ours, he thought that buying other upgrades for a guild hall but also decorations for it like christams decoration and things at christmas time, and maybe message boards in the guild hall like the guild announcment but where guild members can post anything and can be viewd buy anyone. --Wild rituals
Dungeons
It would sure be nice to have some level dungeons (somewhat like zelda)that allow more than one player to join the party and try to solve many puzzles and challenges.
There should be two different types of Dungeons:
Solo Dungeons: These Dungeons can be played ONLY solo, they are filled with traps (should be destroyable,please never anymore undestroyable traps, that shoot darts like gatling guns), riddles and puzzles. In the deepest creeps of these will await an epic big sized Boss you which ou have to beet to finish the Dungeon. These Dungeons should give you realy the feeling of playing somethign similar like Zelda...when it comes to Dungeon, this game is still unbeatable....show us, that you can make dungeons, that are on the top
Party Dungeons: Party Dungeons can be played either in Party..or once your Character has become good enough for the challenge...be made solo. These Dungeons are filled with massive hordes of monsters, lesser riddles, maybe more traps..but in these dungeons you will see dramatically more monsters.. then in Solo Dungeons...real hordes will await you here.
Those Dungeons should be in both games..not only hopefuly in GW2 be "map travelable"...once you played them through. (In GW1 in HM, then you can use the Asura gate icon to warp to the 1st. Stage Entrance of any Dungeon u've finished in HM...also the Asura Gate Icon would receive then finally a sense..letting it be, as it is now let this icon look totally useless...warping us to 1 outpost..anyone can warp to by normal map traveling just on clicking the outpost icon later.)
Chests: Dungeons in GW1/2 should have..regardless of the Difficulty Mode ..have they OWN chests ..which can be opened only through kes, which also drop only in Dungeons.
Traps: When you want get more inspires on traps...then look to games like Zelda or the Prince of Persia games..they will surely offer you good ideas for traps in dungeons of GW2, but also movies like Indiana Jones have still inspired you..more of that ^^ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I personally hate any solo quests. This is an online game where the idea is people play together. If you want solo play go get a console. Whilst I liked the idea of dungeons they weren't what I was expecting. I was hoping for them to be more like FoW and UW. The game needs more places like these. DoA was a nice idea but it's just too hard to be able to have fun. The above two places are nice places to go exploring. I've been to both so many times it should be enough to bore anyone but it just doesn't. I guess it's nice that you aren't required to use a certain build just to even walk around without dying from getting hit by one spell/attack. The places still require you to be more careful, but they don't require you to be using a certain spell just to live. --SK 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I...yea. You do know that even on normal Bladed Aatxes hit for 350+ on softies, right? Anyhow. I like do ing stuff solo, because it means I can rely on me, and not people I don't even know. Besides, doing something difficult by yourself is more rewarding than with a bunch of people, imo. Mesodreth Blackwing 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Better Balanced Drop Table
Now...i do not understand the droprate for players. In party's i get white, blue and purples while others get black dye's and three to four gold drops. In (vanquish)hard mode not having much trouble at all i get lousy white Raven & Bo staffs? three or four at a time?
More people are collecting evidence to make their grievance know. Some players feel there is some kind of "Unlucky" jinx at work.
So... how does it work? How to de-jinx? And i do suggest a better balanced table for GW2.
- I do not believe so. More players cannot have a continuous stream of bad luck. This game is balanced for the most part.
--Silverleaf
- I do not believe so. More players cannot have a continuous stream of bad luck. This game is balanced for the most part.
- I didn't mention a conspiracy or anything. Not that paranoid. I simple want to understand the drop rate. For more than one player that's seems to have "lower-than-usual" drop chance. In my opinion it would prevent the scamms of these gold-seller-spammers & bots.
--Silverleaf
- The drop rate is calculated equally for all players, therefore the drops are equally distributed within the total population of people who could get them. Some people might have "bad luck", but in many cases that is just a matter of perception. In the case of being in a party of 8 players, there is a 7:1 chance that a good drop will go to someone else. It might seem rigged, but thats called probability, and thats the way it works. Ashes Of Doom 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it's a 7:1 chance, but it is annoying being in a party where one person beats those odds over and over again during the course of a vanquish or mission. Ergo, I think what Silverleaf is getting at is that perhaps GW needs to take a look not just at the 1/8 chance of giving a drop to someone, but at the drop history too, to even out the drops over a party more fairly. Darksong Knight 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know, that is something i miss from ye olde open drop system from other games. Sure, you could face ninja-looting from time on time, but more often than not having a Main Looter and a designated distribution system for loot worked great. I know the drop system in GW was intended to avoid fights over the items, but i would really like if they could give players the option to choose between "Random drop asignment system" and a "Open drop/Main Looter" system while grouping (because we all know that the random number generator is Teh Devil).--Fighterdoken 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it's a 7:1 chance, but it is annoying being in a party where one person beats those odds over and over again during the course of a vanquish or mission. Ergo, I think what Silverleaf is getting at is that perhaps GW needs to take a look not just at the 1/8 chance of giving a drop to someone, but at the drop history too, to even out the drops over a party more fairly. Darksong Knight 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The drop rate is calculated equally for all players, therefore the drops are equally distributed within the total population of people who could get them. Some people might have "bad luck", but in many cases that is just a matter of perception. In the case of being in a party of 8 players, there is a 7:1 chance that a good drop will go to someone else. It might seem rigged, but thats called probability, and thats the way it works. Ashes Of Doom 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mention a conspiracy or anything. Not that paranoid. I simple want to understand the drop rate. For more than one player that's seems to have "lower-than-usual" drop chance. In my opinion it would prevent the scamms of these gold-seller-spammers & bots.
- I wouldn't say its random, yes its 7:1 chance of a drop for the player (whether with AI or others), but the quality of the drop doesn't seem random to me. I've noticed after farming a bit on my account that loot drops across the board, for all my characters, drop in quality quite sharply. It seems to be a 3 day cycle. If I farm with my monk for a few reps I notice loot quality drops for her (thats nothing new with the anti-farming code etc). But, after doing that and going to different characters I've noticed loot drops in NM and HM drop quite sharply. Going through around 4 areas in HM, each unique not a repeat, and getting heaps and heaps of whites, maybe a dozen, if that, purples and, and if I'm lucky, a gold isn't rewarding or balanced in my eyes.
- I don't think its the player being un-lucky or the system being totally random, its 7:1 possibility of a drop but drop quality seems to be based on something else (based on calculations to activity on the account maybe). This might sound strange but before I 55'ed loot drops weren't something to bitch about for me I got quite nice drops, even if not golds but more purples etc ( I was mainly disliking the whole party sharing of gold pieces) but since I've started to 55, this seems to be a trend I've noticed. 118.92.35.136 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are all imagining it, and I don't blame you. It's human nature to search for patterns everywhere. the CIA and other intelligence communites have done whole studies to try and figure out how to prevent their cryptanlaysts (codebreakers) from going crazy. The reason they go crazy is because they spend all day every day searching for patterns in seemingly random number sequences, pretty soon they start to see patterns in everything and get paranoid (I've narrowly missed two car accidents in the past 3 months, someone is trying to kill me!).
It's the same thing here, we do a farming run or something else where we expect to get at least a few good drops, and maybe it is a particularly bad run, where we get very little or nothing. On our next run, if the run is not particularly good to unequivocally prove us wrong, then suddenly we see a pattern.
Furthermore, we are trained by Darwinism to lean towards finding patterns that are disadvantageous. In nature, finding advantageous patterns can be good in certain ways, food often shows up here, but does not garauntee our survival, whereas finding disadvantageous patterns, a lot of predators are more active at night, can prevent our death. Therefore, we will always lean towards finding disadvantageous patterns, the drop rate has gotten worse lately, than we will see good ones.
If you guys really want to figure out whether the drop rate for good quality items vs. low quality items, then get out a pen and paper and keep track of your drops in a given area. You should have at least 20 "identical" runs (finished the run, same number of party members, no area changing quests activated, etc.). Once you have your raw data, pull up Excel and start looking for patterns in the raw data. Whatever you find, proving your case or not, share it! I'm sure a lot of people would love to know about it, even ANet. But the point is, you should have evidence to back up your fears, 'cause your brain can not possibly be expected to accurately figure this type of thing out, it's just too biased by nature. (Satanael 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
- Random systems have a tendency to produce non-random results. Perhaps have the loot table store and check a list of recent drops you have received and adjust accordingly to avoid lucky/unlucky streaks. Daelin Blackleaf 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the above two posters: there are undoubtedly procese in place to scale down the quality of loot after a certain amount of farming (several devs have said so, I believe), but some questions placed by the other people posting here include if it was possible for that system to (unintentionally of course) perpetually scale back loot quality for some people. -- Frozzen
23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the above two posters: there are undoubtedly procese in place to scale down the quality of loot after a certain amount of farming (several devs have said so, I believe), but some questions placed by the other people posting here include if it was possible for that system to (unintentionally of course) perpetually scale back loot quality for some people. -- Frozzen
- Random systems have a tendency to produce non-random results. Perhaps have the loot table store and check a list of recent drops you have received and adjust accordingly to avoid lucky/unlucky streaks. Daelin Blackleaf 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Armor colours
Will have been suggested. Would love it if in GW2 the armors are the same colour when dye is used so different armor pieces mixed can make unique looks. --Silverleaf 
- Sorry to steal your Suggestion but i think in respect to armor colours all sections (if not the majority) can be dyed, and dyed different colours, i think this would be really nice, unlike now where you can get armor and only be able to Dye 1/4 of it (an exageration maybe, but it makes a point) :) Crazy 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to map on the armors themselves, Crazy. Vael Victus 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- np Crazy :). I meant that if i have a piece of Asuran armor that i want to mix with an Monument armor piece and i dye them both Red the colours do not match. Its stay's visible that the armor parts are from two different armor crafters. Same goes for other colours..even white & Black. It is not a problem with the use of different colours for top and bottum. I just like to Mix & Match to make it a little more individual & unique without overloading loading times. -- Silverleaf
- My female Elementalist wears Vabbian Armor, and it doesn't even dye the same way (even though it's the same set. The top looks way better than the rest). What might be cool too is shields with your guild's emblem on them. In addition to the cape. Nicky Silverstar 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- np Crazy :). I meant that if i have a piece of Asuran armor that i want to mix with an Monument armor piece and i dye them both Red the colours do not match. Its stay's visible that the armor parts are from two different armor crafters. Same goes for other colours..even white & Black. It is not a problem with the use of different colours for top and bottum. I just like to Mix & Match to make it a little more individual & unique without overloading loading times. -- Silverleaf
- Hard to map on the armors themselves, Crazy. Vael Victus 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Roleplaying server?
I was thinking that GW2 should have Roleplaying server. By Roleplaying, I mean like Asuran cartographer, saving Ascalon etc. That whole game is story himself and everyone would be part of it. No more WTS ECTOS LFG r3 stuff. This would make game more interesting than just boring grinding ;) ~Chilos
Me and probably Selket agree very much >:) — Skuld 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- A district or server for those who like to act would be nice for those people in theory, but with the nature of some people in mind I fear it would be like asking for griefing server. Backsword 07:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- plz, i rly ned 2 go on epic adventur. I mean, I really, really, really need. Selket 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An own Roleplaying Server will be much too expensive ... but I'm for own RP-Districts... RP should be in GW2 really more implemented, but also in the Game Rules should be more rules, which will enable RP'ers a better RP-Feeling in their own Districts...where such things like spamming and so on..all these disturbing things will have absolutely 0 tolerance and will lead first to temporal bans..and if such griefers won't stop their disturbing actions, then to perma bans... Griefers must be direct from the start on shooed by the hard rules in RP-Servers and the also hard reactions it will have, if you try to grief others on RP-Districts --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Castles
Yo sup. I want to say four words attack-fight-get it=you have guild make deal to attack neather you fight and you win and guild hall is your and put the party max 50 players. P.S. ja sam guzica(zastooooooooo)
- I do not favour this idea. This would frustrate smaller guilds and make a lot of guilds "homeless". I am fond of the Guild-format and think it needs to stay a base for connected players. --Silverleaf
- I think that this idea would be much better if used in "World PvP". When I thought of the first guild wars I hoped for large battles between guilds that could be epic. Sadly this never happend, but I think that it should be implemented in Guild Wars 2. World PvP should have huge areas that allow people to come and go (as stated in previous news releases) but the main thing is to allow you to enter this area with your guild. I'm going by released information, but I think it would be awesome to be able to go into a large area with your guild and siege a castle and take it over. Possibly have something like a ghostly hero that can use "claim resource" to take over the castle, which then allows your guilds own npc's to be set up. I have so many more ideas but I dont think they are meant for this area so let me know what you guys think!
I personally hope..that the PvP in GW2 will be much more advanced and improved then in GW2...the PvP in GW1 let it look more like "Guild Sports" then Guild Wars...the Guild Fights missed really the War Aspect...nothign in PvP looks anyhow in GW1 like a real war battle...only the battle at Fort Aspenwood has a rweal little touch of looking like a war battle..everythign else ...is far away from being anyhow "war"...that must be changed in GW2. I hope personally GW2 will also have somethign similar like Ragnarok Online's "War of Emperium" Thats the way how you introduce war between guilds...let guilds get first Guild Halls, then, when the Guilds become mightier and bigger..sao that the Hall alone can't hold the members anymore..that the Guild Hall can be upgraded to a Guild Castle and when the Guild reaches its maximum members..it can be upgraded once and last time more to a Guild Fortress. Each time the Guild expanses and upgrades their territory...new NPC's will become avaiable and the original Guild can recruit more and more NPC-Guardians and Siege Weapons/Traps ect. to upgrade the guild for Guild Wars...where other guilds try to conquer the Halls(Castles/Fortesses) of other Guilds to claim for their mightiest treasures in their Treasure Chambers each Guild has to defend.
Under these Guild Treasure are then 25 powerful magical Artefacts..which will only hold the 25 mightiest Guilds. Guilds which hold one of these 25 Artefacts will have 1 of 25 randomous special Bonus Buffs, which can either be active or passive Buffs for either Guilds Wars, or for the Territory itself, so the Guild itself, like lesser cost for NPC-Recruits...or Guirdians will have 20% increased Attack Power and so on. It will be naturally clear..that every guild will want to have these magical Artefact..so guilds which have one..will be really busy defending it. Holders will get also other benefits from having 1 or more of these Artefacts...like being able to rule over Towns act. and the Guild..which will eventually reach the goal of holdign all 25 Artefacts will become an Empire... But that would be imo only something for strictly RP...it would destroy the Roleplay-Flair..when now Guilds will total idiotic names become an Empire...so I'd say.. the guiuld which becomes an Empire has to start an official POLL with say 5 different suggestions of wel thought out RP fitting names for their Empire and the name that wins the poll will becoem then the name of the new Empire. That would be somethign similar working to RO's War of Emperium ..there are battling Guilds for Catlses and have to destroy a magical Artfact of the others Guild's Castle..the so called Emperium Crystal to claim for the Castles and to become so owner of the Castle..its a big All vs. All PvP that makes very much fun, because Guilds have to make Strategies. how to defend best their Territory and that is WAR --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I don't like how you keep referring to an elite few guilds. Yes, there will be some - there always will be. However, Guild Wars has always been about a level playing field (actual GvG or HA topography notwithstanding) and giving bonuses to better pvp Guilds in-game kills the spirit of that. Mesodreth Blackwing 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Guild Taxes
Guildmaster should be able to set a tithe ranging from 0% to 5% of the players share of money pickups (not merchant or trade sales), which goes to the guild treasury for buying guild upgrades and stuff. It can always to be set to free... Make choosing a guild more fun too.--Evil Party Girl 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a very good idea..no good idea at all ...much people could abuse this feature to steal massive amounts of money from other players, while these don't recognize even that they get scammed. Because nobody else then the Leader will know..what happens with the Money... There is also absolutely no need for such a feature.. when members want help their guild to upgrade it..anyone can freely go to the Guild Lord NPC and buy for the guild the Stuff...after that done can still give other members the member which bought the stuff give back some money so that this 1 member had not 100% of the cost to carry. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- Correction: Much people WILL abuse this. Simple way to get around the abuse would be to instead of having it pure gold in the GUild Master's pocket, give him/her credits which can ONLY be used to upgrade the GW2 equivalent of the Hall.
From other hand, could be created a Guild Bank ingame, god, ANet gave us our own space (guild halls) but forgot a common storage? This way everyone, could donate to guild, items, gold etc, and then the officers, and ppl with GL permission would use it to the end the players of the guild agreed. If not, there is allways kick, leave options. BTW, my guild use that, but one of my characters... Well, there seems to be no problem trusting your guild leader, i mean, if you cant trust your Guildies....why play with those? Sharpshooter 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Skill Bar and Towns
Wat's up. I think that in Guild Wars 2 the skill bar should be larger than 8-spots. This would allow for people to do more things without having to return to town to rearrange skills and attribute points. I think it would be helpful if you could change these skills while not in a town. Elite skills should be dropped and as you gain levels you gain better skills. This would make changing skills while not in town a lot fairer because nobody could just keep changing elites. I don't think that the GW Team would do this but i hate loading different areas and loading towns. When you go to a larger area (Prophecies - Ascalon, Shiverpeaks, Maguuma Jungle, Etc.)there should be one load and then you can walk through that area without loads (exception of missions). I say again that it probably won't happen but it would be great if they took some of my ideas! ty for listening ~Mhenlo
- Actually your last idea might be what we are getting in GW2 since the world is goig to be less instanced than in GW1. --
(gem / talk) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. ANet has put out quite a bit of general info about Guild Wars II. While they've said basically nothing about how skills/races/professions will work, it WILL be a persistent world, so no pesky loading :) Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you certain about this??? I could have sworn that I heard them say something about at this point (subject to change) still intending to have a similar limited skills system... I'll look around for the interview... -- Frozzen 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you certain about this??? I could have sworn that I heard them say something about at this point (subject to change) still intending to have a similar limited skills system... I'll look around for the interview... -- Frozzen
- Indeed. ANet has put out quite a bit of general info about Guild Wars II. While they've said basically nothing about how skills/races/professions will work, it WILL be a persistent world, so no pesky loading :) Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first topic. I HATED having only 8 slots to work with. I would like it if you had at least 15 slots if you must have a limit ~Nixon4Prez
- Truthfully, I like the eight skill system because then you can't just knock-down, knock-down... etc. It provides a balance between the classes that is rather striking when compared with WoW (I speak from experience here), where some classes are guaranteed to win out against others. -- Frozzen 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a bit more space on the skill bar for counters and utility / support skills. -- Gordon Ecker 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Mhenlo. The 8 skills in skillbar is just too less. Mainly spamming 8 skills is just boring. And of course there would be a lot more different builds etc. if you had more skills. I would suggest maybe 14 or 16 skills, maybe even 20, depends on the game nature really. And these would of course be "fighting skills". For secondary professions (crafting, enchanting etc.) you would have another skill bar, which you probably could use only in outposts. Limu Tolkki 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think 20 is way too many...if we are talking about actual combat skills like the first Guild Wars, then maybe like 10. But possibly have extra skills or options for things such as climbing a tree or something to that extent? (not real combat skills but just options to do things) ~Big Foot Bob
- 15 Slots for Skills is way too much ..it would be ok. if they increase it from 8 Slots to 10 Slots for Skills..thats way enough then and it should be..no it must be able hopefully in GW2 to change the Skills in your bar, whenever you want...where is please the sense in having hundreds over hundreds of Skills when you get forced to travel back to outposts and towns just to be able to change some of your learned Skills in your Bar...only because I put x Skills into my Bar doesn't mean, that my Character forgets all of its other learned Skills and has to go to a town just to remember what skills he has learned and to rearrange my Skill Bar XD....in games like Ragnarok Online you were(are) also able to change your Skill Bar..whenever you want...so the player was able to change strategics.. and players could be much more flexible..if they so..that Skill X,Y and Z are not so good in effect..example you fight a fire elemental monster and your whole build is fire based..ten you sure say to you "crap..my skills have no effect.. let me try skills of an other element...hopefully they have more effect vs. this monster"
When you espcially see. that enemies are absolute immune vs your Skills..then you especially wish you to change your Skills instantly !!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Threat and mailboxes
I've played Guild Wars since day one, and I absolutely love it. I've also played WoW, and while I find raiding a waste of time, I think some things they've done over there could be of benefit to GW2, viz, threat management and mailboxes.
What I would like to see in GW2 is a way (or ways) to better control how the party engages mobs in PvE. While no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy, at least having something a little more advanced than all the enemies rushing the character with the lowest health/armor would be nice. It is kind of odd and unrealistic. In WoW, a monster attacks whoever does the most damage to it or (pardon the expression) pisses it off the most, which, in my experience and opinion, is rather realistic; especially in a fantasy setting. For instance, a melee monster will attack a mage who just threw a fireball at it. That sort of thing.
Also, the mailbox system in WoW allows people to contact others when they're offline. As it is in Guild Wars, the best you can do is say something through whatever passes for a built in messaging system in the Guild's forum (if they even have one). And through experience, 90+% of a guild doesn't use the forum with anything approaching regularity. Ergo, mailboxes are an efficient and effective way with communicating with people if you can't reach them.
Thus, while there has been and will be much comparison of the WoW we know and hate with the Guild wars 2 that we think sounds awesome, and while I have no doubt that my arguments have been said before... They are nonetheless what I feel GW2 shall need. Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I don't really have an opinion on the mailbox idea, I see nothing wrong with it, but personally have never really felt the need for such a thing.
- As for the AI, actually the behavior you describe for WoW mobs is a quite common AI model, I've seen it in RTSs, RPGs and even FPS (Halo has it, for example). To be honest, I find that AI model to be too easy for me now, in such a case all you have to do is make sure the tanks attack first, then drop a spike bomb on them with the casters, and don't have to worry about the mobs attacking your monks, well, ever. Under the current system in GW1, I think it's more challenging because the mobs are "smarter" by attacking your weakest points first. Remember, an ele or a warrior with even 60% dp can still get off a few good hits if no one attacks him/her, whereas if they're the first target, they're taken out of the equation too fast to be useful at all. And as for realism, I think the two systems are equally realistic, remember, predators always seek the easy kill first, the young, the old, the sick, the wounded. DP is just a GW way of making you that target, and it's not just natural, it's a good tactic, we do it too, the smart PVE player saves the Boss kill for last, and kills his minions first.
- Nonetheless, maybe a greater variety of tactics would be a good way to go. For example, the "smarter" enemies like Mursaat or Tengu could exploit your team's weaknesses by attacking high DP chars and casters first, while more "grunt"-like monsters such as trolls and minotaurs could just go after whoever is pissing them off the most. (Satanael 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
- I was thinking while 600 farming Cathedral of Flames today... it would be nice if in GW2 we can play off enemies' hatreds of each other, like the undead and the charr in Cath, but on a grander scale. I see territorial enemies like the heket in GWEN or NF just wandering around, mingling with other enemies, even Kournans! (blecch... kournans) Which doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense to me. Mesodreth Blackwing 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, GW2 should have an own Ingame Mail System...I would find it really funny...if little Birds, Fairies or Mini Dragons..somethign of that sort that loooks somehow cute would come flying to us, if someone sends to us an Ingame Message over the Mail System... when this happens..the Character which gets the Message will receive a Letter in his/her Inventory and when you double click it then...then pops up a Window which shows then the Player the text Message of the Letter with 2 Buttons then below. One for closing the Window and one for answering to that Mail.
- And everytime a player uses this Feature.. it will cost for example a very little fee of Gold..for example 10 Gold.
- PS: To avoid Mail Spams...the player which receives the Mails should be also able to block Mails from certain People --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
16 - 20 skills? that would just be stupid EG.. mesmer with 20 interuppts. how easy farming would be. how hard it would be for novices to play it, you should have to go through ranks to get more slots i think
Animation
I kinda talked about this before, but I love animation so much, I want to talk about it again. Previously I had discussed trying to get two creatures that are fighting each other to have animations that interact, like actually blocking the swing with your weapon or shield when you block, or actually dodging when you dodge, or actually hitting when you hit, rather than just swinging at each other's locations. Anyway, that's a difficult thing to implement, I know, so I don't hold out much hope for it, but I was thinking about things like knock-downs and realized that could be a good place for better animations.
For example, in GW1 when a char gets knocked down for a 1 sec knock-down he goes down and gets right back up. Fine. But when he gets knocked down for a 3 sec knock-down he goes down and just sits on his butt for 2 secs and then gets up. Maybe the 3 sec knock-down could have a slightly different animation. Maybe he gets knocked on his face, lifts to his knees, shakes his head, and then gets up kinda wobbly-like.
Oh, and distractions can work the same way. For example, someone gets shot with a distracting arrow, he gets angry and tears the arrow out of him, or a mesmer interrupt could cause him to shake his head to push away the nightmarish images in his mind.
And I still like the idea of arrows actually appearing where they land, whether that's in a wall or through your arm, at least for a little while. (Satanael 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
- I did me some thinking today, and I think this could be applied to spells too, so they they all don't have the same animation/visual effect (for an attribute line, anyway). Also this could be made to distinguish signets from spells, since a signet is a ring, it would make sense (if there are such things in GW2) for the character to actually touch the signet on their finger or something prior to all the magical visuals and whatnot. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope seriously..that GW2 will hopefully get better animated at all kinds of thigns..especially for the battle system...battles in GW1 looks totally boring and ugly, as if 2 childs are playing with toy soldiers with ever doign the same borign fast paced repeating moves over and over and over again..
Every Profession in GW1 has only 1-2 Attack Moves they use, while attacking ..how silly is that please.. battles in GW2 should hopefully look much more dramaturgic and with more action.. like Characters firght in the trailers of Line Age 2. Search in YouTube for Yuki Kajiura..there is a LineAge 2 trailer with a Song of her in Background called "mezame" ..look this...then you will understand how i want to have GW2's Battle System look like..how battles in GW2 should look and how battles in MMO's at all woold look awesome. also imo the Character Design of LA2 is much better, then that of GW1...hopefully the Design in GW2 wil be more similar to LA2 and GW2 should hopefully have too some CG Trailers of the same high end quality like those of LA2 and WoW ...still the finest CG's of MMO's I know. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I was really thinking about this for a long time so excuse my level of detail!
Animations as they are now are just particle effects, 1 player is the only person affected by any animation. A dynamic animation, where characters engaged in combat have co-ordinated actions(more than the slash --> hit reaction), would provide so much more depth and immersion. Say for instance, 2 warriors(I am assuming we have warriors in GW2) are fighting in GW2 when one warrior hits the other, the contact animation would be accurate to the actual hitbox(chest,head,feet, etc)and would leave a mark there. Similar to bullet holes in other games, the mark would stay until healed away(a dynamic response from healing). Therefore it would be visually easy to tell which warrior is winning a battle by looking at the battle scars. And if any other character became engaged in the fight, the scars from that particular source of damage would be displayed on the warrior. So if a ranger comes and shoots some arrows and hits the warrior in the back before flare spamming, the warrior would have arrows in his back, and burn marks on his armor.(arrows not only staying where they land, but disappearing when healed!) Hexes (right now only a ring effect) would also have dynamic responses, say oozing from underneath the armor. This is a really complicated, and realistic combat animation model that would just blow my mind to see implemented. And as I know the engine for GW2 is already established, and combat doesn't work like above. This is just my dream... that i posted for your enjoyment... Obie Quiet 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds suitably Epic! And are you sure about the engine? They aren't going to be beta testing for a year at least... and that's a preliminary figure. So bring't! Mesodreth Blackwing 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Design an Armor contest
If the equips had a design contest, why not the armors? I would have posted this with GW1 but since they're concentrating on GW2 I might as well post it here. Basically, they should give us the basic set and design around the given armor set or just let people draw/design armors for the incoming races. It could be part of the normal types of set not the elite ones Renin 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a really neat idea! Probably won't happen for a while, though, but still... awesome. Mesodreth Blackwing 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan.--Silverleaf 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're not full sets of armour, but they just had a contest to design the Wintersday 2007 hats. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but a full set of armor contest would be great, which is what I meant. Renin 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been asked many many times during the past year and Gaile has answered that making new weapons for the game is a lot more simple than making new armor. New armor needs to be designed around the profession and gender in question and also needs to work with all emotes etc, and that's why they have not considered holding armor design contests. -- (gem / talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's why it's here in GW2 suggestion page. No one still knows the details of GW2 so who are we to actually know as to what can and cannot be done? Besides, like what I've originally said, They should give us the basic set and we design around it. Let's say a design contest specific for the Elementalist, people will design for the existing "15k Luxon / Brotherhood" or the "15k kurzick" armor set. Since that way, the basic set has already been introduced therefore there will be less work (or if any works should ever be done) for emotes etc. This way, when they release new armors with different skins, there'll be less players that will feel less slighted with such act by aNet. Renin 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am truly sorry for mistaking this one as the GW1 suggestions page. It's true that we don't know the specifics of GW2 at all yet so everything is possible.
- I agree that releasing a couple of the real models used by the game would make a competition like this possible. -- (gem / talk) 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's why it's here in GW2 suggestion page. No one still knows the details of GW2 so who are we to actually know as to what can and cannot be done? Besides, like what I've originally said, They should give us the basic set and we design around it. Let's say a design contest specific for the Elementalist, people will design for the existing "15k Luxon / Brotherhood" or the "15k kurzick" armor set. Since that way, the basic set has already been introduced therefore there will be less work (or if any works should ever be done) for emotes etc. This way, when they release new armors with different skins, there'll be less players that will feel less slighted with such act by aNet. Renin 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been asked many many times during the past year and Gaile has answered that making new weapons for the game is a lot more simple than making new armor. New armor needs to be designed around the profession and gender in question and also needs to work with all emotes etc, and that's why they have not considered holding armor design contests. --
- Yes but a full set of armor contest would be great, which is what I meant. Renin 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're not full sets of armour, but they just had a contest to design the Wintersday 2007 hats. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan.--Silverleaf 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[Indent reset] Even if the implementation problems that Gem brought up persist in GW2, another option for the Design an Armor Contest would be to make a caviat that the armor design will be considered more as a "concept" than an actual design. What I mean is, say a contest winner provides a design with some sort of spike or something coming off the shoulder, and that particular aspect of the armor poses problems with the emotes, this would give the GW artists license to "amend" the designs and remove that spike, but keep the basic concept of the armor design. All in all, I think the importance of this suggestion is that it provides the GW artists with an easy way to get new armor ideas. IMO, this is greatly needed, I mean, I love the GW armors, but some of the newer armors do seem like just a re-hash of older ones, and I find that unfortunate. (Satanael 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
- One of the reasons why I had suggested that they use a certain "set/s" of armors other than to give us players access to more armors and have a contest for is to lessen the gripe about rehashed armors. I mean if the gw:en armors were released with a bunch of player-designed armors let's say 2 new versions of the 15k Luxon (1 from the contestant one from the game designer) wouldn't you be a little less irked since you're given more armor options to mix and match? But sure, why not let aNet edit the player's design if it means newer sets of armors as I'm sure some of the weapon designs were taken from the contest and have been edited. In the end, it all benefits anyone. Renin 10:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
at all first off a YES ... why ever only Design Weapon Contests...let us have Contests too for Armors, Head Gears and so on.
Other Point:
Armor System itself ...
I pesonally really hope.. the Armor System will get improved for GW2 ...Characters should have more parts of equipable Armor and especially be able to quip some ACCESSOIRIES..for example max 3.
Equipable Armor System should look like this:
Head Gear: Helms, Hats, Tiaras ect. Head Accessoire: Earrings, Amulets (Neclaces)
Upper Torso: Armors, Robes, Clothes ect. Shoulders: Shoulder Protectors, Capes (Personal Capes)
Under Torso: Belts, Tunics/Trousers (not when the Upper Torso is a Full Body Armor)
Arms: Armbraces, Gloves, Shields Arm Accessoires: Rings for the Fingers
Legs: Boots, Shoes
General Accessoires: Magical Artefacts, Mighty Rune Stones, Mystical Gemstones
Support Accessoires: Bags for Storage, Quiver (Rangers only) In that can be put different types of Arrows ..over the equiped quiver the ranger will equip the arrows..he will use...over the arrows the ranger should do different types of damage..not with the bow over strigns ... the arrows do the damage..not the strings oO
Final note: With the System GW1 has atm.. it are imo too less armor parts, that can be equipped..and especially the ability to equip powerful accessoiries is missing..hopefully in GW2 not .. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- i think capes should count toward the armour rating. like if an assassin shadowsteps behind you and stabs you in the back you want as much protection there as possible dont u?
Skills
Dont make only 8 skills per time if you can use them all then is harder when they are 8 you press only one skill and that is bored and esy when they are all free then its harder you push wrong skill and you are dead I think you shud put thet in guild wars2
- Actually the 8 skill system is one of the things that made GW so attractive for me--so long as the skills are properly balanced, you must struggle to come up with new and innovative builds and/or you can greatly modify your builds depending on the situation. In addition, this leads to more strategy than just giving someone all their skills to carry around. When I experienced this in WoW (not to bash on it in particular, but I played for a couple months so I speak out of experience, and I also assume most other MMOs out there are similar) it quickly became tiresome as certain professions were virtually guaranteed to beat certain other professions because their entire skill set was good at defeating that other profession's entire skill set... Having the 8 skill system mixes it up... I could go on, but you get the idea. Feel free to respond with your opinions about why it should be changed... -- Frozzen 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me it depends on what the skills, and how they work (as opposed to proffessions/classes/races go)what they do. You can't just say to keep it or change it until you know EXACTLY how everything will work. I play WoW too with the many skills, and you do tend to use only around 9 at most at a time. But the thing with WoW is you technically had an unlimeted skillbar, called your spellbook, and you didn't really need to equip anything, which in some games would make it overpowered. In Guild wars, the 8 limit was set so there werent overly powered builds, like say, a minion master that can effectivly create, keep alive minions, while all the while, pressuring the opponent with curses, or blood spiking. So before I say whether to keep it this way or not, I'll need to know the exact layout of everything, ya know? Ajc2123
yea but if you make 8 skills you press only few skills and that is bored but if you put like there dosent have to be all free skills maybe only 15 of them so it will be funner and it will be harder you like press 1 skill wrong and you are death
- I HATED having only 8 slots because I felt like it hindered the game play. I too used to play World of Warcraft and yes i did only use about 9-10 skills yet that is because it worked for WoW. I think that guildwars needs more because you can have two proffesions and it seemed that only 8 slots was barely enough for just one proffesion. I never could put the secondary proffesion to use because of the limitation. Also in WoW you could quickly alternate your skills anywhere and not just only in a town like in GW. I cant see having too many skill slots ever hurting the gameplay but i do see having too few as very constricting. If you disagree on that last part i would like to hear why. ~Nixon4Prez
-YEA they have to put like 15 skills per timE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to have 15-25 skills that I can use at any time, that would make things less tactical, and more, one build covers all situations. I like the aspect of creating new combinations, and taking differnt approaches, each skill set up is a differnt play style, it keeps things fresh. Med Luvin 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like the 8-skill bars and I would really love it if they had the same limit in GW2. Maybe add a ninth skill, where you could add one race-specific skill or something, but no more than that. Nicky Silverstar 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I love the limited skill bars. It's really all about skills and not how powerful your skills are. Renin 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem I have with the 8 skill limit is that you often stop making meaningful decisions about skill use as soon as you leave the outpost, particularly in PvE. 15 skills would be crazy, but I don't see any problem with 10 or 12 skills. Due to the trimmed skill count, I doubt there will be many redundant skills (at least in the same attribute), so bringing several nearly identical skills to get around recharge times shouldn't be an issue. -- Gordon Ecker 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They've mentioned that the skills will not be as complicated as they are now (lol) and then ill guess it will be as mindless as wow as u dont have to think anymore which makes me consider not buying it as i love complicated things. Its to make it easier to balance btw... anyway if the skills will be as uncomplicated as in wow i see no problem in having like 50 skills, but 10-12 wouldn't make much difference from what it is now anyway. --Cursed Angel
03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They seem to contradict themselves about skill complexity. I think what they intend to do is make individual skills significantly more complicated, but decrease the skill count so that players won't have to memorize as many skills and the balance team won't have to balance as many skills. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, having read about what they are calling the "emergent" skill system they plan to implement in GW2, each skill becomes much more situational and complex, but there will be a lower total number of skills... In my opinion this has great potential, and does not necessarily lead to the "dumbing down" of the system, though I would still advocate for keeping the 8-skill limit (keep in mind there will still be many more than 4 skills per profession and if you have a primary and a secondary, there will still be numerous combinations) -- Frozzen 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, having read about what they are calling the "emergent" skill system they plan to implement in GW2, each skill becomes much more situational and complex, but there will be a lower total number of skills... In my opinion this has great potential, and does not necessarily lead to the "dumbing down" of the system, though I would still advocate for keeping the 8-skill limit (keep in mind there will still be many more than 4 skills per profession and if you have a primary and a secondary, there will still be numerous combinations) -- Frozzen
- They seem to contradict themselves about skill complexity. I think what they intend to do is make individual skills significantly more complicated, but decrease the skill count so that players won't have to memorize as many skills and the balance team won't have to balance as many skills. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They've mentioned that the skills will not be as complicated as they are now (lol) and then ill guess it will be as mindless as wow as u dont have to think anymore which makes me consider not buying it as i love complicated things. Its to make it easier to balance btw... anyway if the skills will be as uncomplicated as in wow i see no problem in having like 50 skills, but 10-12 wouldn't make much difference from what it is now anyway. --Cursed Angel
- The problem I have with the 8 skill limit is that you often stop making meaningful decisions about skill use as soon as you leave the outpost, particularly in PvE. 15 skills would be crazy, but I don't see any problem with 10 or 12 skills. Due to the trimmed skill count, I doubt there will be many redundant skills (at least in the same attribute), so bringing several nearly identical skills to get around recharge times shouldn't be an issue. -- Gordon Ecker 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I love the limited skill bars. It's really all about skills and not how powerful your skills are. Renin 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The 8 skills in skillbar is just too less. Mainly spamming 8 skills is just boring. And of course there would be a lot more different builds etc. if you had more skills. I would suggest maybe 14 or 16 skills, maybe even 20, depends on the game nature really. And these would of course be "fighting skills". For secondary professions (crafting, enchanting etc.) you would have another skill bar, which you probably could use only in outposts. Limu Tolkki 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-FINALE:TEHY SHUD PUT MORE THEN 8 SKILS MY 15 IN GUILD WARS 2....BUT HO IS LISING US???..NOWONE!!!!WHY???CUZ TEHY DONT CARE.....
- The thing i like about guildwars is u can only use ur 8 skills. i don 't want to spend 7 minutes looking for my skill before i can use it or memorising my skillbar in order to play good. The 8 skills u can use is basicly what makes guildwars difrent from a "rock-paper-scizors" MMORPG (ie: mage screws warrior because warrior is slow, ranger screws mage cause is better against elements. its basicly ur that class i'm that class so i/you win). Guildwars lets this depend on the skills, for instance of a warrior has dwarven battle stance he can easily shut down the mage. Changing this would change the entire concept of guildwars. if you want more skills then go play WoW. Guildwars is an mmorpg relying on skill rather then classes and equipment, and its what made this MMORPG one of the best ones. The skill system should stay. If GW2 becomes WoW will not play it thats for sure. 84.192.112.59 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then don't play GW2. Dwarven battle stance does basically nothing to stop a good Elementalist (I assume that's your "mage" - Who's talking about WoW NOW?!) because of skill. You basically ruined your own argument by bring that into the equation. You happen to be right about that when you get right down to it, classes don't matter, only the skills do. If you've even played WoW to any real degree, you'd know that out of the twenty or thirty skills a class has access to at any given time, only about five get used regularly. The rest are so specialized it's not funny (Aura of Shadow Resistance, anyone?). So what happens in GW? You have a secondary class so anyone can do anything with a little effort. Now it's "I'm that skillbar, you're that skillbar You/I win". Exactly the same as your example. Face it, there's is always a bigger fish; someone somewhere is going to be better than you no matter how good you think you are. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify for Mesodreth: a "mage" is equivalent to a "caster", so he was simply talking about any caster in that situation... And dwarven battle stance definately does shut down casters (note the interrupt effect). And lastly you made a very good point at the end... the idea is that no one can win all situations with the same build (another one of the reasons for the 8-skill bar)... Most of what I've seen about increasing the size of the skillbar has come from people who probably haven't played the game (see Limu Tolkki, a couple of posts above who talks about using crafting skills in outposts), or simply doesn't address the fact that the limit of skills forces players to think and strategize more, giving more skillful and intelligent players better chances of success. -- Frozzen 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify for Mesodreth: a "mage" is equivalent to a "caster", so he was simply talking about any caster in that situation... And dwarven battle stance definately does shut down casters (note the interrupt effect). And lastly you made a very good point at the end... the idea is that no one can win all situations with the same build (another one of the reasons for the 8-skill bar)... Most of what I've seen about increasing the size of the skillbar has come from people who probably haven't played the game (see Limu Tolkki, a couple of posts above who talks about using crafting skills in outposts), or simply doesn't address the fact that the limit of skills forces players to think and strategize more, giving more skillful and intelligent players better chances of success. -- Frozzen
- Then don't play GW2. Dwarven battle stance does basically nothing to stop a good Elementalist (I assume that's your "mage" - Who's talking about WoW NOW?!) because of skill. You basically ruined your own argument by bring that into the equation. You happen to be right about that when you get right down to it, classes don't matter, only the skills do. If you've even played WoW to any real degree, you'd know that out of the twenty or thirty skills a class has access to at any given time, only about five get used regularly. The rest are so specialized it's not funny (Aura of Shadow Resistance, anyone?). So what happens in GW? You have a secondary class so anyone can do anything with a little effort. Now it's "I'm that skillbar, you're that skillbar You/I win". Exactly the same as your example. Face it, there's is always a bigger fish; someone somewhere is going to be better than you no matter how good you think you are. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Five Gods
I was reading over someone's synopsis of all the info that has been given about GW2 at this point and I noticed a point mentioning that it has been said that the 5 gods have remained silent for over 2 centuries and are therefore probably going to have a diminishing role. I'd just like to make my plug for their continued incorporation here--they really do add a lot to the back-story of the game, even if they do not often have a direct influence. In addition, it would be kind of disappointing to see a God come into existence only to fade almost immediately back into oblivion (trying not to be too specific so as not to spoil plot). -- Frozzen 
01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- ACtually arent there more now? So....keep the six gods!!!!Ajc2123
- If I were the story board writer, I would have done the same and make the Gods has initial diminished role during the 2 century lull. Then upon the start of GW2 play, that's when you'll see them becoming more active, the upheaval and the renewed support by the Gods. Of course, that's just my point of view. Hehehe. What I would honestly wanna see are other God's realm. Melandru's Deep Jungle, Lyssa's Labyrinth, Dwayna's Dream and Komir's Realm since I can't think of any good names. At least in successive GW2 expansion. I'm sure this has been suggested over and over again. Renin 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem with the 5(6) gods is they seem - well - pretty human race specific, which is part of the reason I think they could be a bit less influencial. Perhaps they're still around for the humans, but what/who do the Charr, Asura and Norn worship? Perhaps there could be some cool new gods on the scene. :) --Aspectacle 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with the introduction of new deities/belief systems, but I would also like to see the 5 gods remain as aspects of lore, which was the point of my original post... -- Frozzen 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- yea aspectacle but even if thats the reason, they are the "true" gods. The unseen ones obviously weren't, the Charr gods, we all know weren't, basically any other "god" introduced was destroyed or proven to be false. So therefore, the human gods must remain!!.....besides, I don't see what is so human about lyssa, and grenth lol. cept for being two legged and standing upright, which charr, tengu, norn, almost everything else does. Ajc2123
- Ah... forgive my blasphemy. :) It is said they're still around answering the occasional prayer even if they are pretty quiet. Maybe you are right and they start to take action for the start of the new game. --Aspectacle 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Movement of the World, Balthazar appeared in the ruins of Lion's Arch and opened up a portal into the Rift, and the Asura, Charr, Dwarves and Norn have been established to aknowledge some or all of the gods of Tyria, although different races have different views on them. I suspect that the gods aren't more active because they're glass cannons who don't stand a chance in a direct confrontation with the ancient dragons. -- Gordon Ecker 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for the idea of keeping the 5(6) (what ever it is at this moment..) gods but as the point was raised about different races not accepting/believing in the human gods, i would like to see the idea of 5(6) gods all around, but they reveal themselves to the humans as humanlike, norn as nornlike, tengu as tengulike and Asura as rats... :P Crazy 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't really make a lot of sense, since the human gods are human gods. Every race has their own version of a divine being or power, be it the Great Dwarf, the Eternal Alchemy, or the animal spirits of the Norn. The Path to Revelations quest line implies that the Eternal Alchemy and the divine power of the Six Gods are at least similar or related. Up until now, we've had no reason to believe that anything but the Five Gods possessed divine power, now it seems we're learning that's not the case. --Valentein 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Forgotten worship them much like the humans. The Asura view them as aspects of the Eternal Alchemy. The Norn view them as distant and pay far more respect to the more immediate animal totems. The Dwarves view them as the human gods, while viewith the Great Dwarf as their god, but a few of them worship Dwayna or Grenth. and the Charr consider them powerful rivals, and generally regard worship as shameful and a sign of weakness (with a few exceptions, such as the remnants of the shaman caste). The Naga include followers of Dwayna, and might include followers of the other gods. I also suspect that the Veldrunner Centaurs worship Melandru, but there's no conclusive evidence of it. -- Gordon Ecker 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense if you see them as aspects or perceptions. They are depicted as they are because that's how the humans perceive them (note also that Tyrian and Canthan and Elonian depictions are slightly different). The other races simply have a different concept of what divinity is. The Asura could view them as different aspects of one single entity. The Norn's animal spirits could be concepted as different facets of Melandru. The Great Dwarf of the gods is probably not a divinity but something more akin to a very powerful entity, perhaps a demi-god, such as the Great Destroyer. The same divine being could be represented differently amongst different societies simply because different societies place emphasis on different aspects of life. It's all a perception thing. -- ab.er.rant
09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the stone dwarf rally cutscene, jalis says something like "we are all the great dwarf now". I don't know what that's meant to mean. — Skuld 10:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't really make a lot of sense, since the human gods are human gods. Every race has their own version of a divine being or power, be it the Great Dwarf, the Eternal Alchemy, or the animal spirits of the Norn. The Path to Revelations quest line implies that the Eternal Alchemy and the divine power of the Six Gods are at least similar or related. Up until now, we've had no reason to believe that anything but the Five Gods possessed divine power, now it seems we're learning that's not the case. --Valentein 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for the idea of keeping the 5(6) (what ever it is at this moment..) gods but as the point was raised about different races not accepting/believing in the human gods, i would like to see the idea of 5(6) gods all around, but they reveal themselves to the humans as humanlike, norn as nornlike, tengu as tengulike and Asura as rats... :P Crazy 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Movement of the World, Balthazar appeared in the ruins of Lion's Arch and opened up a portal into the Rift, and the Asura, Charr, Dwarves and Norn have been established to aknowledge some or all of the gods of Tyria, although different races have different views on them. I suspect that the gods aren't more active because they're glass cannons who don't stand a chance in a direct confrontation with the ancient dragons. -- Gordon Ecker 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah... forgive my blasphemy. :) It is said they're still around answering the occasional prayer even if they are pretty quiet. Maybe you are right and they start to take action for the start of the new game. --Aspectacle 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- yea aspectacle but even if thats the reason, they are the "true" gods. The unseen ones obviously weren't, the Charr gods, we all know weren't, basically any other "god" introduced was destroyed or proven to be false. So therefore, the human gods must remain!!.....besides, I don't see what is so human about lyssa, and grenth lol. cept for being two legged and standing upright, which charr, tengu, norn, almost everything else does. Ajc2123
- I'd be fine with the introduction of new deities/belief systems, but I would also like to see the 5 gods remain as aspects of lore, which was the point of my original post... -- Frozzen
- I think the problem with the 5(6) gods is they seem - well - pretty human race specific, which is part of the reason I think they could be a bit less influencial. Perhaps they're still around for the humans, but what/who do the Charr, Asura and Norn worship? Perhaps there could be some cool new gods on the scene. :) --Aspectacle 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If I were the story board writer, I would have done the same and make the Gods has initial diminished role during the 2 century lull. Then upon the start of GW2 play, that's when you'll see them becoming more active, the upheaval and the renewed support by the Gods. Of course, that's just my point of view. Hehehe. What I would honestly wanna see are other God's realm. Melandru's Deep Jungle, Lyssa's Labyrinth, Dwayna's Dream and Komir's Realm since I can't think of any good names. At least in successive GW2 expansion. I'm sure this has been suggested over and over again. Renin 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
i want to remind you all that the asura belive in eternal alchemy like said above ( BTW really good job describing gods and worshipping of the diffrent cultures) so they dont have or belive in any gods they are kind of atheists (spelling?)
- I want my charr to worship menzies or the titans, but doesn't seem like thats gonna happen with all these "charr not being evil anymore" things and the titans are long dead? --Cursed Angel 09:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Skuld will replace the goddess of truth by becoming the god of troll.
reanor 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- that would be awsome lol, wish i had wow so i could make a troll and troll people --Cursed Angel 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The shaman caste's still around, and I suspect that a lot of them would be willing to worship nearly anything in exchange for power. -- Gordon Ecker 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- that would be awsome lol, wish i had wow so i could make a troll and troll people --Cursed Angel
- Skuld will replace the goddess of truth by becoming the god of troll.
The Sylvari look like they'd be followers of Melandru...which I hope since I'm basing my OGW character on Melandru so that it will be similar to the Sylvari I create in GW2.
Uhm..I say no to this... Abaddon should get his revival imo and claim back his power as God of Wisdom and Water...he was no evil god at all...Abaddon got only manipulated XD Kormir is only a Wanabe Goddess, that absolutely don't deserves it to be a Goddess..this blind useless dumb thing.
Also I really think..the world of Tyria needs more Gods and Goddesses ...
When we compare Tyrias mythology with mythologies of our real world..for example the roman/greek mythology or the persian mythology or asian/japanese mythology ect pp.. there are so much...then you will see.. that GW has way too less gods and goddesses...
Tyria has absolutely no gods yet for any Emotions or anything that has to to with festivals ect... all the Elements could have theoretically their own gods and goddesses....that would be 8 gods more for each own element and each element could alto take in than 1 emotion..for example 1 goddess for Fire and Passion...and god for Water and Sorrow..one for Earth and Luck...then one for Thunder and Anger..one for Shadow and Fear....one for Light and Hope...one for Wind and Mourning ..one for Ice and Revenge...
Melandru is still the one for Nature and Fertility... Dwayna is still the one for Life and Peace..Lyssa is still the one of Chaos, Beauty and Justice, balthazar is still the one of War, Courage and Honour, Grenth is the one for Death and is the keeper and Ruler of the Underworld..
but what is also of Gods and Goddesses for Music, Love, Wine and other Alcohol,Commerce, Smithery, Poesy, Hunt, Time, Seas, Mountains, Day, Night, Youth, Protection and and and ...
imo the mythology of tyria can be much improved...who says, that these gods we know yet are all gods of the world of tyria known yet ... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- Maybe they purposely didn't have more Gods? Who says that some game has to go with REAL mythology? The lore about the Guild Wars gods is perfectly fine with me...why not complain about other games not having a God for EVERY single little thing? It would sort of be pointless for Anet to put more gods into the game imo. ~Big Foot Bob
Competitive Areas
No Jade Quarry. Thanks. Yseron
- Actually have people playing the Jade Quarry would be fun. I think it may be fun, but I have yet to be able to play a single game inside the JQ. Maybe a promotion weekend and added Faction will help it's popularity? Nicky Silverstar 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
uhm, I really hope for GW2.. if this game should have again something like factions and such competitive areas, like Fort Espenwood and the Jade quarry.. then..then make from the start on MUCH more of them ..
Only 2 Factions.. only 2 competitive missions oo sry.. but that was really stupid.. much ..really much too less and got therefore much too quick way too boring...especially when one of the 2 competitive areas is so bad and boring concepted.. that 99% of the community plays only 1 of those 2 aras and that was(is) in GW1 Fort Aspenwood..because its the only ara of the 2 existing, that makes actually at least a bit FUN
Its much better, when you give the game when then like 5 different factions and like 10 different competitive missions (so 2 different for each factions).. then you have a good basis for a well running factions system, that gets not so fast too boring (as long all those 10 areas are naturally good concepted and make all nearly the same fun..or better said.. make naturally so much fun.. that the places get flooded by players and none has nowhere to wait for ages, until groups on both sides are ready.) This was also the most bad lack in the concept of Factions....simple too much people in the places to be able to start the missions and not being able to take just Henchmen or Heroes... to compensate the lack of people to get the mission started ...please make never this failure again !!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Party
PUT no limit party!!! May just 20 players max! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .
- added a small spelling correction.-- Silverleaf 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well there has to be some limit, I just want them to make it more then 8. I'm not sure if 20 would be too much but if they do make it that many they have to increse the difficulty or it would be too boring. ~Nixon4Prez
- Unlimited has no idea, but bigger could be ideal. Maybe 10 for normal areas and 12+ for elite areas. Limu Tolkki 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- PUT no limit party!!! = Make this game WoW. please note were talking guildwars. Lets clear an area with 15 elementalists and 5 monks shall we??? Srsly Guildwars party system is what makes Guildwars an MMORPg that seperates itself from others. I do not want Guildwars 2 to become a generic MMORPG like ... well look at any other mmorpg. Guildwars is great due to the fact it does difrent stuff( no grinding, no monthly fees, only 8 skills, no potions, no solo-ing to level up, no lvl 724 cap to just keep ppl grinding, need i continue?) Do not let GW2 become WoW 2 thats all i'm asking for. 84.192.112.59 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Atm, we dont know how the party system is going to work. Keep in mind that in GW2, there are mostly persistent areas, where "party" numbers wont matter so much. Ashes Of Doom 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is no party size limit equal to WoW? In WoW, it is FIVE, or in raids, FORTY. But to even have forty people, you have to switch your party to "raid" mode, meaning you get no xp or drops from anything that isn't in a raid instance. Not really "no limit". Mesodreth Blackwing 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm at the opinion.. that GW2 shold have imo a max party size.. just to go sure to keep the lag down... a max of say 25 people is imo enough ..think only these 25 take their Companions with them..then you have a party of actually 50... 25 Players with their 25 Companions ..thats really ENOUGH ..and then for big War battles between guilds the party size can be imo increased to 50 max --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- How is no party size limit equal to WoW? In WoW, it is FIVE, or in raids, FORTY. But to even have forty people, you have to switch your party to "raid" mode, meaning you get no xp or drops from anything that isn't in a raid instance. Not really "no limit". Mesodreth Blackwing 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Atm, we dont know how the party system is going to work. Keep in mind that in GW2, there are mostly persistent areas, where "party" numbers wont matter so much. Ashes Of Doom 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- how abot more spaes in hardmode or hardmode districts?
Alliance like Battles for Guilds
Many have stated the wish for an Alliance Battle team setup for Guilds. 12(3x4) men teams from one guild.-- Silverleaf 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- yah, i also hope this will happen. as for now its only 8 from a guild that fight vs 8 from some other guild which isnt even all of the officers, but 12 vs 12 seems too less so want like 20 vs 20, that would reduce the tactics and reduce the waiting time although it would require alot of people active at the same time, therefore reducing the small guilds. But as this wouldn't affect the ordinary gvg and just be for fun it wouldn't matter. --Cursed Angel 01:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Gods
Hey, i know in GW there isn't much about gods, so what about in gw two there is different races for different gods. I was bored and just reading the GW Prophecies page and read about The proffesions. I noticed it said Elementalists may follow Balthazar (Fire), Melandru (Earth), Grenth (Water) or Dwayna (Air). But you don't really get to choose. So what if in GW 2 Whatever you choose for your proffesion and God, is the place you start and/or homeworld or something.--
FireTock 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that the Gods are too universal to have something as specific as starting location identified with them. It will probably be determined by race (in addition, most other professions only identify with one god)... -- Frozzen 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Animal companions (Pets) equal for every class
A thing that always bothered me in GW1 is that only Rangers can use a Pet at full potential. Anet took care with so many diffrent Pet types in GW1, with evolution and stuff, and its a pity that only PrimaRies can enjoy this big feature useful. I propose that every class in GW2 should be able to handle with pets equally. (e.g. making Beast Mastery to a common attribute, or also adding skills of other classes that act with pets...all adjusted for GW2, for sure) —Zerpha
The Improver 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they kind of do. Here's a list of non pet companions. Mini Pets Ebon Vanguard Assassin Support Asura Summoning Skills, Minions, Spirits + Summon Spirits. Missions (NPCs). Allies, Party Members.--FireTock 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, FireTock. In addition, other professions can work just as well with pets, since beast mastery is not a primary attribute. I have a dire black widow on my ele character and I still use it occasionally. -- Frozzen 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can er go back to my suggestion about the Gods thing. I want to know ppl think about that.--FireTock 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep your talk about that suggestion to its individual topic area... -- Frozzen 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not speaking about several PvE only summon skills, i'm speaking right about pets. as ranger, all pet skills cost less due to expertise (ok, thats the minor problem, but melee classes like Warriors are also not really able to use expensive pet skills like that, e.g the PvE skill) and mainly as it's a secondary, but not a "common attribute", only rangers can use runes to increase the attribute rank. This can also save a bunch of Attribute points. —Zerpha
The Improver 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like pets to actually mean something ingame, and not just have a different skin. My Elementalist can get a Rainbow Phoenix, but she won't be able to use it often due the ineffectiveness of Beast Mastery, and it doesn't do anything a pet Warthog can't do just as well. And well, I don't like the huge choice of pets without having the option to get multiples at the same time -> they're all so cool, it's hard to pick just 1. Also, the evolution system should be looked at. It has too many flaws atm. Nicky Silverstar 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not speaking about several PvE only summon skills, i'm speaking right about pets. as ranger, all pet skills cost less due to expertise (ok, thats the minor problem, but melee classes like Warriors are also not really able to use expensive pet skills like that, e.g the PvE skill) and mainly as it's a secondary, but not a "common attribute", only rangers can use runes to increase the attribute rank. This can also save a bunch of Attribute points. —Zerpha
- I am not for the use of pets, imho a ranger should run cripshot, broad head or burning arrow with interupts etc. Putting this thing asside pets are something making ranger unique. Why don 't we give warriors point blank aoe 's doing 250 fire damage as we do for ele 's? The answer is simple, because it would be unbalanced or change the whole meaning of a class. A ranger is dammage support a monk doesn 't need to look after, as a ranger is behind the backline in most cases. it supports the team with a fair ammount of dammage and may even be preventing some with interupts. The classes are well balanced as it is and there can be said no class is better then anotherone, they are just diffrent. Why would u want a pet on a Monk or a Warrior anyway? To die and disable ur skills when u need to heal or to run in your way as you are trying to give the final hit on their monk 's ass? 84.192.112.59 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that having them equal for each class is kind of dumb... it would mean that there would BE no classes, everyone would be the same. I also think it's BS that a ranger "has to" run Cripplin' Shot or BHA or BA. The only reason for that is that all pet skills are useless and underpowered for PvE or the reasonably useful and synergistic ones are elite. A pet just isn't a viable option for a ranger in the current system of Guild Wars: You can either try to use a pet, or use a bow, not both. I think with a little work and a little tweaking, balance can be found for GW2. Or Hell, instate a "druid-ish" class in GW2: a class designed around the use of animals as a modus operandi. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Less Drops, More Money
The title basically says it all. In GW, most of the time you get really bad drops just worth a few Gps. But it would be so much better if most of the drops were cash.--FireTock 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, I think this is a good idea. Get rid of all those worthless white drops, and increase the amount of gold being dropped.--Ryudo 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the drops I get are worth more in total than the total money I get... -- Frozzen 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, duh, thats why we want the amount of gold thats dropped to increase to cover that, and then some.--Ryudo 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Identify and then sell! more money! weee Renin 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or just sell the items you get.... Seems pretty logical to me but apparently not... -- Frozzen 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably too lazy to identify the whites, blues, or purples he/she got. That's where bulk of the gold is anyway. Renin 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - in fact, I hope we see the opposite, for the same reasons behind loot scalling: a huge influx of raw gold just creates inflation and atracts gold sellers, while a low income of gold (with a big income of items, preferably "rarer" ones) cause deflation and make gold sellers to be less important. Erasculio 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably too lazy to identify the whites, blues, or purples he/she got. That's where bulk of the gold is anyway. Renin 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or just sell the items you get.... Seems pretty logical to me but apparently not... -- Frozzen
- Identify and then sell! more money! weee Renin 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, duh, thats why we want the amount of gold thats dropped to increase to cover that, and then some.--Ryudo 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the drops I get are worth more in total than the total money I get... -- Frozzen
I refute your statement. Inflation is caused by demand and buying/spending power. It doesn't matter how things are valuable (either lots of gold in the market or items that people want) but if there is any demand at all... inflation will occur. The only way to prevent it is to prevent the ability to trade every item and its uncle. The customized stuff from the Bonus Mission Pack is a step in the right direction in that regard.
I hate to compare GW to WoW yet again, but a lot of the STUPIDLY powerful or awesome items in WoW are bind on pickup - that is, the character who receives the item has it bound forever to them. "Soulbound", is the precise term used, and it prevents people from jacking up the price of popular items simply because they are just that. The Soulbound modifier prevents a person from using or trading the item in question. To some degree, yes, I will allow that people can ninja items (the simple explanation is that a method of loot distribution in parties in WoW is through a lottery system: people who "need" and item are automatically given a high roll and priority on an item whereas those who only want ["greed"] the item get low priority and rolls for loot and a ninja is someone who rolls "need" when they clearly do not need the item at all) but for the most part in my experience is that this is a much rarer occurrence than one would expect. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- How would not being able to buy an item because it's not tradeable be any better than not being able to buy the same item because it's too expensive? If I get an extremely rare and valuable item I don't want, I'd like to be able to sell, trade or auction it to someone who actually wants it so that I can get a rare and valuable item I actually want. I think that auction comissions should be enough to control inflation on high-end items, and customization and auctions should be able to slow down deflation on mid-range items. As for gold drops vs. vendor trash drops, I don't think there's much of a difference as vendor trash is will just get converted into cash. -- Gordon Ecker 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Inflation is caused by demand, true. But inflation is checked by the amount of gold available. When you increase the amount of available gold, the overall value of gold will drop. -- ab.er.rant 06:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- well, if it would not grant more money, but only simply cash instead of "crap drops", i don't object as it would not speed up inflation (btw, we really need to find a constant gold sink for gw2). —ZerphaThe Improver 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, I'm still poor.reanor 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are forgeting drops can be salvaged to crafting materials too..,not just sold for gold. I never minded spending 2 mins identifying and selling at the merchant anyway. --Evil Party Girl 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, I'm still poor.
- Changing this would change the entire econmy of guildwars. Noobs will have to buy their weapons or get them crafted. So this way crafters must be edited as noobs will have more money and we don 't want noobs havving a weapon from yanks they got by buying a run there to get one, or by random sellers at ascalon. Or we could fix this by making monsters stronger. But wait then end-game the skills would need to be better as monsters are stronger. Changing one seemingly small thing in a game will upset the whole balance of it as you see. Guildwars economy is fine as it is. besaids who plays Guildwars to farm money anyway. If i wanted to grind i'd go play a grind MMORPG like WoW. I play for fun so if i can afford my weapons, armor, and some stuff i want, i'm more then happy. With maybe a 15 K set or an expensive green on the side. 84.192.112.59 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it won't break the game. Half of what you said is a reasonable progression of mobs and skills, that while GW doesn't have it NOW, a lot of role-playing or even first person shooter games do. If noobs get lots of money, they will still spend it badly. Gods, I remember how bad my spending habits were when the farthest I'd ever gotten was the Henge of Denravi. Oh, and your "we don't want noobs havving [sic] a weapon they got from yanks buying a run or by random sellers" is really discriminatory; Who are YOU to say what someone can or cannot have based solely on their experience or lack thereof? I've been playing Guild Wars since the prophecies beta and I can tell you, 99% of people who get runs are people who've already done something the hard way before anyway. It's an efficiency issue. It is MUCH easier to get a run to Drok's from beacons, or get Ruins of Morah ran by a Mo/D on Hard Mode than it is to spend a week or hours failing it (respectively) getting there normally. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about drops that aren't vendor trash, such as trophies, crafting materials and salvage items? Replacing vendor trash with gold wouldn't affect the drop rate of any of those. -- Gordon Ecker 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it won't break the game. Half of what you said is a reasonable progression of mobs and skills, that while GW doesn't have it NOW, a lot of role-playing or even first person shooter games do. If noobs get lots of money, they will still spend it badly. Gods, I remember how bad my spending habits were when the farthest I'd ever gotten was the Henge of Denravi. Oh, and your "we don't want noobs havving [sic] a weapon they got from yanks buying a run or by random sellers" is really discriminatory; Who are YOU to say what someone can or cannot have based solely on their experience or lack thereof? I've been playing Guild Wars since the prophecies beta and I can tell you, 99% of people who get runs are people who've already done something the hard way before anyway. It's an efficiency issue. It is MUCH easier to get a run to Drok's from beacons, or get Ruins of Morah ran by a Mo/D on Hard Mode than it is to spend a week or hours failing it (respectively) getting there normally. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Connection to OGW
I'm wondering if it would be possible to, like a character name, flag the name of the OGW character linked to that account/character in GW2. This would allow reference to the events of OGW while including the name of the legendary hero that performed these deeds. Another suggestion, though I highly doubt it would happen, would be to render a transparent "ghostly" version of the OGW character within the HoM which appears after a number of achievements are met, likely including the completion of the storyline(s). A third idea would be to include a brief challenge mission within the Realm of Torment (similar to Glint's Challenge in EotN) where the player must defeat the damned Khilbron, Shiro, and Varesh. My last suggestion of this bunch really has nothing to do with OGW connections, but if you are planning to do the "new playable races with new expansions (rather than new professions)" route and if there is an expansion that opens exploration of Elona, mummified undead (similar to Joko's army, possibly rogue) would make an interesting race. Just a few ideas that I've thought of that I wouldn't mind seeing. --Valentein 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to the "future sight" lore given about GW2, undead aren't a playable race so much as NPC's. Palawa Joko, corrupting what he cannot kill, turned many Sunspears into a living army (the Mordant Crescent) to match his shambling and rotted one. These, more likely than the animated dead would be the playable class/race from Elona. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like the ghostly version of the former self in the HoM a lot... It would give a nice continuity to the game.-- Frozzen 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a true Canthan, and a fan of the Thannakai Temple and ancestors lore, I really, really support the suggestion of a GW1 ancestor in your Hall of Monuments. It sounds very cool. Nicky Silverstar 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like the ghostly version of the former self in the HoM a lot... It would give a nice continuity to the game.-- Frozzen
Flying Pets
I'm not talking about flying steeds, like so many WoW converts are begging for. I just thought that since ANet is introducing a z-axis into GW2, then that means the flying pets should, well, fly. For example, today's mountain eagle and pheonix just kind of flap and float, which is a little lame. I would much prefer flying pets in GW2 to be like Olaf's bird, like it actually takes of and swoops around. For example, you could have a big ol' falcon that doesn't attack very often, but when it does it dive-bombs in like a real falcon and hits like a meteor. Or, anyway, I just thought the birds should actually fly, but now that I think about it I see a lot of problems with it when it comes to how exactly these things would attack... (Satanael 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
-that is great idea and your pet can be near you not just to fly on it or ride on it he can olso be your usuly pet like in GW but in GW2 they shud put that.
- What would be really cool is if a flying pet like a hawk could land on your shoulder but I doubt if many of the flying pets are small enough to do that. ~Nixon4Prez
- Lets change something that is well balanced again and change it. Ever thought about the fact that if we would change a pet its spike dammage would increase. Lets say we want a pet to do the same ammount of dps, but let it only attack every 13 seconds (13 for obviious easy calculation) if a pet averanges 30 damage per hit that would mean when your falcon attacked he should do 300 dammage. Lets say you use a burning arrow on the same moment ur pet attacks. Burning arrow is like 100 clean. That would be a spike of 400 damage if u timed it well every time. If ur playing team arnea, and u just have a warrior thats training a rit or something, and just do him some dammage to keep hom from being full of hp. That would mean u alone can spike a player dead with no option for the monk of catching the spike. Okay pet animations can be edited, pets can fly anywhere they want for me, but think before u say something tinkering with game mechanics. Cuz the idea of a pet that attacks slower but does more dammage is an idea that just can 't be used.84.192.112.59 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You must have failed grade three math. 13x30 =/= 300. it's 390. And second, OP's idea is that it hits hard every once in a while. Thirty flat damage is HARD for a pet, especially against lvl 20+ mobs. ANd one hundred damage for burning arrow? at 12 Marks, it only burns for 5 seconds. that's 35 extra damage, over 5 seconds. Not a spike in any way, shape or form. Hell, hitting for the 65 additional damage your wildly skewed calculations require would be the spike. And even if your example did come to pass, what warrior worth their salt dies to 400 dmg? At minimum they've got eighty more than that, and most have ~140 more with dual fortitudes. Also, OP's idea (what I probably erroneously gathered) is that if it hits like a meteor, maybe it doesn't even do any appreciable damage... maybe it just KD's and bleeds like an real hit from a raptor would do. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- why not have a skil that says mind to mind or sumthing so u can controle your pet and yes fly it too i was also thinking of equiping skills for your pets like flare or something but making it weaker since then everyone would fly off and kill everything quickly then just walk to the next town.
- Actually burning is -7 degen which is 14 damage/second. So 5 seconds of burning is really 70 damge X-D. Dark X 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Quest Creator
Now, I know this is going to sound a little broken and shallow, but I think a nice feature in Guild Wars 2 would be player quest creation. Now, before you say "People will just make easy quests with huge rewards", let me state the rules (as they are now) of player quest creation.
- Players can only create quests for other players; they cannot accept quests they make.
- Once a player has created a quest, they submit it to a global database of quests; players can access this database of quests from a central town or pub of some sort and see if there is a quest they want to accept. The global database keeps all quests made on that day, at the end of the day the global database deletes all quests until the following day when players will submit new quests. However, I can see an exception to this. A-Net could run a event where they choose a "Quest of the Week" based on quality and so forth and display it at the top of the global database for a full week. The creator of the chosen quest would be awarded a small sum of money or an item.
- Players can only create ONE quest a week.
- The rewards for quests are only in faction/gold/exp; no item rewards of any kind.
- To create a quest, players would talk to an NPC of some sort in a central town. The NPC would allow them to choose a quest type: "Item Quest" (Accepter of quest has to search for a certain amount of items/materials from a certain common monster or area), "Slayer Quest" (Accepter of quest has to kill a boss), "Defense Quest" (Accepter of quest has to fight customizable waves of enemies), and "Achievement Quest". (Accepter of quest has to accomplish an in-game achievment such as completing a mission, etc.) The creator of the quest CANNOT CHOOSE THE REWARD; there is an in-game system that evaluates the difficulty of the quest and derives a faction/gold/exp reward for the quest. If the quest creator wishes, they may write text for the quest. After these steps, the quest creator can submit their finished quest to the quest database.
Of course, more rules need to be added to make this propsed feature somewhat scam-proof and fun for GW 2. But I think this feature would allow people to really feel like they are part of the game by directly contributing to the content and it would be a lot of fun for people who come up with a great quest idea. Plus, you would (concievably) always have new content to experience every day in GW 2.
Please comment on this idea, this is something I would love to have implemented in GW 2. -AyaStowar
- The idea is good. But this will probably be complicated to program, and your restrictions won't be enough i think. The reward calculation program would have to be very complex to work without having any "farming gasps". If two players create this quest for each other, your restriction could also be avoided. I would propose that if such a thing is invented, oneself could also accept his quest. If all would work, i think this would be quite fun. —ZerphaThe Improver 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- What's the point of not being able to do your own quest? Coran Ironclaw 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you could just reward yourself for having a certain amount of items or for completing a mission over and over if you could accept the quests you create. -AyaStowar
- But you said you can't choose reward for your quest. Coran Ironclaw 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, but you would still get a gold/exp reward from the quest; you just can't decide how much you get from it. A program would calculate the d
- But you said you can't choose reward for your quest. Coran Ironclaw 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you could just reward yourself for having a certain amount of items or for completing a mission over and over if you could accept the quests you create. -AyaStowar
- What's the point of not being able to do your own quest? Coran Ironclaw 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)