User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/February 2008 Page 1

From Guild Wars Wiki

Archives

Guild Wars 2 Suggestions Armor Character Communication Game Mechanics Guilds Interface Items Professions PvE PvP Races Skills Story Weapons World Ideas Archives by Month July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 - Page 1 January 2008 - Page 2 February 2008 - Page 1 February 2008 - Page 2 March 2008 - Page 1 March 2008 - Page 2 April 2008 - Page 1 April 2008 - Page 2

Contents 1 Titles & Accomplishments 2 Less variation in trophies (collectable drops) 3 Companions and Henchies in the Continuous World 4 New Attack System 5 Ideas for New Weapons 6 Runner's Agency 7 Claymores, crossbows and little sickles 8 Historical Hero Armor 9 Archive 10 Rare weapon skins 11 My One Cent Suggestion 12 Distances of npcs in towns 13 Click to Move 14 Controls 15 Golemancers (or something like that) 16 Any News yet?! 17 Pay to Play 18 Pets revisited 19 Changing Skills in Battle 20 Name of Continent/World 21 Combat Role Reinterpretation 22 Elemental Skills Strengthenin other elemental skills + More Conditions 23 PvP Titles 24 new emotes 24.1 Emotes 24.2 Conditional Emotes or Status Effected Emotes 24.2.1 Sugar Rush 24.2.2 Drunk 24.3 PvE Title Track Emotes 25 Dual Linked Skills 26 Mursaat as a playable race in GW2? 27 Ungood 28 Damage Type 29 damage done 30 guilds and houses 31 Hunting and Stealth 32 NOT WoW!!! 33 Profession Synergies, rather than more classes 34 Humans vs. Charr 35 Keep maximum party size above profession count 36 Pets as companions 37 My Suggestions 37.1 Monster Populations and Farming 37.1.1 Weather 37.2 Bosses 37.3 Species Title(s) 37.4 Customizing 37.5 Holiday Events as of NPC's 37.6 Character Customization 37.7 Traveling 38 Question 39 Charming Pets 40 new armor and god wars 41 Recruiting/Guild rankings 42 Seasons 43 Arenas 44 Make other races more appealing. 45 No Magic Appearing NPC's 46 Professions 47 surviving in wilderness and using it.

Titles & Accomplishments

Some of us enjoy playing several different professions but, under the current system, must realistically pile their prestige into just the one.

I would like to see titles and/or accomplishments carry between characters. If you can do it once you can do it again for each character on your account, doing so is really just an unnecessary grind.

Alternatively allow switching of primaries so that there is no real need for multiple characters. This would tie in nicely for a unlimited-level system but would have the drawback of lost income from the purchase of extra slots. Daelin Blackleaf 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with being able to change your primary, I'd only expect to see that kind of thing in a Level Boss. Giving the player the opportunity to change primaries takes away the role of the secondary profession. Secondaries are there to pick up the slack the player has in their primary, in my opinion. House Of Furyan 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have only certain, more difficult, titles carry across characters. Perhaps there could be two different classes of titles.--Shai Halud 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How could it be possible to change your primary? you would need new armor, weapons etc. And your appereance should change too and that's impossible because they didn't have plastic surgerie known like ours in those time.

umm lezze, Gladiator = aacount title, hero = acct title, champion =acct. title, must i go on? 24.141.45.72 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Survivor and LDoA to that list and a lot of people would be happy, as for the rest many don't see the fun/challenge in grinding out a title several times over. In regard to changing primary, yes it's a little out-there as an idea, but we have no idea how the appearances and level system will work in GW2. For example, if each new level allowed the addition of another skill then changing primary would make the level cap pretty high and allow it to grow significantly with every expansion. Appearance wise I doubt we'll see it tied to class as it is now. Can you imagine creating 10 or so variants for 8 or more classes over 5 races? That'd be 400 new faces alone. Daelin Blackleaf 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're referencing PvP titles. Which have ceiling so high they're virtually unmaxable. As for lucky/unlucky, they're a crapshoot to raise (you either need millions of $$ to break/retain lockpicks or to festival games like mad). What I'd like to see is that GW2 rewards you for putting more effort into ONE character, instead of some effort into several. Darksong Knight 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind playing only one character. But I really enjoying playing many professions. This is my conflict! Either (1)the rewards should be account-based or (2)one character should be able to play many professions or (3)the rewards should become meaningless (atleast to me). Cameronl | talk 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Less variation in trophies (collectable drops)

Currently, every variation of a species, for example, Tengu, has it's own unique tropy which shares the same design and (mostly) salvage. This is annoying, when you want to collect them for future use, but soon run out of space.

I think special storage has been suggested before, and I'm sure this suggestion isn't all new either. Instead of having, for example: Feathered Caromi Scalp and Feathered Avicara Scalp, why not have all Tengus drop a "Feather scalp fragment". Adjust drop rate to difficulty, and have collectors in higher levels ask for more trophies. Quantity, instead of quality, so to speak. Cp 09:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively you could add the ability to make or craft drops by combining certain things. For example feathered Avicara scalp need 5 for 7-11 damage bow. Then you need 5 shiny feathered Avicara scalps for bow 13-19 damage. Shiny Avicara scalps = 1 avicara scalp and 1 pile of glittering dust. Double click to add them together and bingo you have a new trophy. You could then create lots of different trophies like they have now but you only need to store the base trophie in storage (which is stackable) and make the combination trophies as and when you need it. This would get rid of the problem of having lote and lots of trophies that you don't always need. Stu. 26/02/08.

Companions and Henchies in the Continuous World

Alright, now think about it, can we really have 3,000 Dunkoros running around in a continuous world even if every character is only allowed to bring one? Obviously not, so, unless there is some huge and unimaginable piece of information we’\re missing here, the continuous world makes prefab companions a nigh-impossibility. So where do our companions come from? A process similar to player character creation would probably be the simplest answer, but I’m looking forward to hearing some alternatives.

The next problem is henchies. We can’t have 3,000 Devonas any more than we can have that many Dunkoros, but henchies lack customizability by nature, so, how do we solve this problem? The simplest answer here is the very opposite of the answer to the companion problem: anonymity. Rather than bringing named henchies with us, we simply hire “Human warrior”, “Human elementalist”, and “Asura monk” to accompany us on our journey. It is rather distasteful to consider, but that’s why I’m looking forward to even more alternative solutions to this problem.

How about the ability to name your Companion/henchies in much the same way you can name your pet? --fraught · (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, get this...It's an MMO, encourage playing with other people than yourself, pun intended...

New Attack System

Dual-Wielding: In GW1, I believe that the only weapon which was dual-wielded was the dagger. I’m not sure if should be allowed to dual-wield any two swords we pick up or if duel-wielded swords (and axes and whatnot) should come in pre prepared sets, but I definitely think dual-wielding should be in GW2.

Off-Hand Weapons: If you read the “New Weapons” article, you know I have some odd ideas on how off-hand weapons should work in GW2. Perhaps, rather than doing any damage on their own, certain skills would require a certain type of off-hand weapon and/or the effect of the skill would change depending on exactly what your off-hand weapon is. For example, the same skill which causes skulls to breathe fire could allow a bone idol to generate a fire burst around the character (this is just an example).

Secondary Weapon Sets: One of the most annoying things about playing a ranger (or any ranged profession) in GW1 was that, in the end, you usually ended up fighting a lot of your enemies at melee distance anyway, regardless of your ranged abilities. It would be nice if professions which use ranged weapons in GW2 could equip certain types of weapons in a sort of secondary weapons slot, and they would automatically whip out these weapons as soon as the enemy they’re attacking gets a little too close. Rangers could have knives; monks might break out the kung-fu; sorcerers might equip magical rings and shoot short bolts of elemental power.

Anyway, this would be optional, and a system would have to be configured so that they would not need to, for instance, equip both bow and knife skills, but, rather, a skill which is used with the bow might also have a similar function with the knives. This would be one simple way for A-net the deliver on the promise of skills having “different effects under different circumstances”. Short-range is definitely different from long-range.

I like this. A ranger able to interrupt/condition in melee, a warrior able to dps with a bow, more caster touch spells. Added variety is always good as is making the professions more flexible so long as they don't stray into each others roles. As implied above all of these could be skills and spells that operate differently depending upon distance to target or equipped weapon. Daelin Blackleaf 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was starting to write some similar notes for this type of thing last night before bed. I would like to see either a pre-programmed function or a new attribute linked to an actual secondary or dual-functionality weapon. Think of it like when you watched the opening video of Proph. where Cynn is clearly ranged, using a staff, but (in the video clip at least, clearly kicking butt in melee with her staff. That's what I'd like to see. Also, Assassin's could have two or so styles of dagger, throwable for short or long ranged attacks and melee style, as per usual. This way if an assassin can't execute its skill chains properly (like being interrupted) it can back away and hit at range without having to invest points in an additional attribute House Of Furyan 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Dual Wield note, dual wielding almost always involves a primary weapon and a smaller offhand weapon, such as a Rapier and Main Gauche (Literally, "Left Hand") which is a long dagger. Therefore, a dual wield weapon would in essence be a single handed sword, then an offhand dagger, or if you're wielding a double bladed weapon, a longer blade and a shorter on the other end (This would make it so that no one could pick up two longswords and start swinging - they'd have to be designed for it). Then, there would be more skill chains like the Assassin Lead/Offhand/Dual that we see, only instead of having to land a lead to start a chain on a new target, what about making it so that your offhand merely has to follow the lead, not necessarily on the same target.

If we were to make this more expansive, holding up to the idea that skills are doing different things in different situations, then we have a (generic) skill labeled "Attack X". which (generic) states "...If this skill is used as a lead attack, it does X (condition/damage/enchant strip, etc.)...If it is used as an offhand attack, it does Y." Have the combat system keep track of what hand is being used for each attack, and have attacks follow a set pattern even when auto attacking. So, instead of leading with a skill that is specifically a Lead attack, maybe all auto attacks that are dual wield follow a set attack chain, such as Lead/Offhand or maybe add in a third such as Lead/Offhand/Dual. the graphic image would be unique for each attack, then when you activate an attack skill, it is substituted for the next attack in the sequence. So if you lead with auto attack, and waited for the sequence to finish and start back up at Lead, then hit Attack X, you would get that result. This would solve the problem of "I killed the enemy half way though my skill chain, and now I have to wait 8 seconds before my lead recharges because I didn't get Moebius strike off" that I seem to be getting so often with my assassin.

Moving on to secondary sets, I like the idea of long range weapons being switched for melee when distance is closed. Heck, we have Bo Staves (plural) dropping in Factions, why not let your caster start using them to whack people over the heads when they get to close, instead of wanding and using them as a spear to shoot little balls of light like we do now. Sure, the staves could keep that for long range attacks, but I'd like to see some skull cracking, bone shattering whacks with that damn Zodiac staff of mine. Shen 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Skills that enhances staff and wand damage

Ideas for New Weapons

I originally proposed the “Firearms and Explosives” article last month, but the sentimentalist outrage which characterized the responses, though it lacked both sense and reason, was probably heated and monotonous enough to send the developers into such a fright as they might even consider excluding powder kegs (if not renaming them “magical powder kegs”) from GW2 altogether.

I would mope, but instead I decided to console myself with considering what sort of other new weapons might be added to GW2 to spice up the experience in the absence of my beloved flintlock. Also, I went ahead and included a part on gunpowder weapons since I found I could not exclude them without imbuing my list with a feeling of unnatural absence.

Melee Weapons

• Two-Handed Swords and Axes: Pretty straight forward Idea. They should have slower attack rates probably have a damage range about twice that of their one-handed counterparts but otherwise they should be just what their name says.

• Maces and Mallets: I’d rather consider these “one-handed hammers”, and that pretty much sums up how I’d like to see them handled.

• Staffs (Melee): One of the great disadvantages of having staffs as magical weapons in GW1 was that we didn’t get to see them put to use in melee combat. They should inflict blunt damage and have a higher attack speed than the hammer but do less damage. I’d really like to see one of these in the hands of an Asura. I’ve also read that staffs, historically, had an advantage in combat against swords though I don’t know how that would figure into the game.

• Pikes: I’ve long wanted to use one of these. They should be two-handed, about three meters long, and inflict piecing damage. Their damage range could be similar to that of the scythe, though they would not be able to strike at more than one target. They should probably get an advantage against mounts and mounted enemies as well.

• Halberd and Naginata: Both could be alternative or additional forms of the pike.

• Macahuitl: These are basically those Aztec swords you always see. They’re actually wooden clubs with sharpened obsidian shards for blades. They could make a good addition as an Asuran sword style.

• Brass Knuckles: They made an appearance in GW:EN. Why not pass them down to the next generation? They could really help monks looking to get involved with some kung-fu action.

• The New Look: Since most of the technologies seen in GW1 place it between the 11th-14th century AD, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for GW2 to have a Renaissance look and feel to it. This would mean including later editions of previously seen weapons. This new look, however should not force us to exclude styles we liked from the old game but, rather, allow us to incorporate new styles that might look good in the new one.

Ranged Weapons

• War Boomerangs: Though we usually think of them as Australian, evidence indicates similar weapons were once used in Egypt, Ethiopia, India, and the Southwestern U.S.[1]. They might not return to our hand after throwing, but if we can throw infinite spears, why not infinite boomerangs? I thought it would make an interesting ranged weapon for the Asura, but I’m not sure how to balance it with the rest of the ranged arsenal. They’d be pretty darn big and would probably inflict blunt damage.

• Crossbows: Historically, crossbows have come in numerous styles, and they would help add some variety to GW2’s arsenal of non-magical ranged weapons. They should probably generally do less damage than a traditional bow but have a faster rate of fire. The rate of fire and damage could vary widely according to the style of crossbow. Arbalests would do more damage, and the chu-ko-nu (being the first semi-automatic weapon) would fire in bursts.

• Muskets: (Please, shorten all objections to "I don't want to see muskets in GW2", then contunue with the the rest of your commentary. Chances of them being inmcluded are none at best anyway) The weapons collections of Europe abound with ornately decorated muskets with numerous variations on the firing mechanism. This would be the opposite of the crossbow, with a slower firing rate and higher damage capacity. These, however, could vary depending on what firing mechanism you equip. Skills may allow you to inflict cracked armor and bleeding as well. Special innovations would obviously have to be made to preserve the fantasy atmosphere of GW, but I think they coult help with adding the feeling that the players are in a new age.

• Grenades: Early grenades predate the musket and were basically round iron or clay balls stuffed with gunpowder and a fuse (an example of these can be seen in the movie 300). These would probably function as an off-hand weapon which would simply allow you to use grenade-based weapon skills. If duel-wielding them is possible, then they would probably have an unusually slow rate of fire and inflict AoE damage comparable to (but lower than) that of the fire-ball skill in GW1. Certain grenade skills could also inflict status effects. (Might make an interesting weapon for an elementalist.)

• Rockets/Mortars If anyone’s seen the movie Mulan, they have a pretty good idea what I’m thinking. This might be a good way to offer some AoE power to a profession other than the elementalist. Still, I’m a little stumped on how exactly it should work. I guess you’d just target some guy and blow him away. The base reload time would be phenomenal, but so would the damage. I can’t imagine it as a primary weapon, but I’m sure A-net could think of a good and balanced way to incorporate it.

• Siege Engines (Bombards, Ballistae, Catapults) : I honestly hope no one gets to use these as primary weapons (you’d probably just get slaughtered anyway) but they might be interesting to include if sieges are in GW2 (also might help in big-monster slaying).

Magical Weapons and Focus Items

• Elemental Orbs: I love this idea (my primary is a nuker). These are basically glass or crystal orbs that contain the essences of one of the four (or seven, including dark, chaos, and holy) elements. They are easy to imagine as focus items, but they could also be primary, perhaps duel wielded weapons, similar to wands. Alternatively, if grenades are not included, then these orbs could take their place. Rather than simply exploding, however, these would have elemental effects (earth=fissures, water=ice, air=lightning, fire=magical Molotov cocktail) upon impact. This might also allow elementalists to have weapon based skills and make it a more viable secondary profession.

• Skulls: I don’t recall seeing a single human skull in GW that wasn’t on top of a reanimated corpse. This would make a good focus item, but I’d also be interested in making it an off hand weapon as well. Perhaps it could spit fire…

• Magical Swords (Gandalf had one; why can’t I?): It would be nice to see some elegant and decorative swords in GW2 which are imbued with elemental power and designed for magical use. If staffs can make the transition to melee, why can’t some swords make the transition to magical? They could have ranged attacks or be focus items, I don’t care. I just think they’d look really cool.

• Magical Rings or Bracelets: These too are as likely to be magical weapons as they are to be focus items. Still, as the magical arsenal could use some variety, these might enable you to throw energy bolts or to shoot fireballs from your hands. Might be good for elementalists and mesmers.

• Enchanted Hand or Arm Tattoos: Similar to the rings and bracelets only, probably for a different profession, such as the ritualist or necromancer.

Some nice ideas but, as a player, I would like Anet to stay away from giving the player things like muskets and gun. I think muskets or hand weapons like that would take away from the fantasy theme of the game. Grenades could be instituted without taking away from the current theme by introducing them as magical orbs that non-elementalists can throw. House Of Furyan 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering what I said about the orbs, I really dont think they should go to a non-magical profession. Perhaps mesmers, rits, or necros, but certainly not warriors, assassins, or rangers.Players could still use them if thier character has one of these as a secondary profesion, but I intended the grenades and mortars to offer some AoE power to the non-magical professions as well.--Shai Halud 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, D&D has things like alchemist's fire, acid flasks or blastglobes (which are absolutely hilarious). Anyone can use them since they're a grenade-like item and thus have no weapon requirements, but I think Furyan's idea is that if ele or w/e can blow shit up with magic anyway, why would they need them? Personally, I think anyone should be allowed to use such trinkets. Darksong Knight 01:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to nitpick, but you already can have a sword designed for magical use. Rajazan's Fervor, or stick a Pommel of Enchanting and "I Have the Power" inscription to have a magical sword. Sure, you won't be able to do much damage with it (unless you're a /W), but I can't recall seeing a sword shooting energy or being used for the base purpose of spilling blood in fantasy literature, unless the caster was already a skilled swordsman (i.e. a /W) --Valentein 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about sword which woul look magical (shiny/glowy) and could not be used for melee combat. While it may be a somewhat ridiculousd idea, one cannot deny, it woud look cool (ex. Callandor[2] from the Wheel of Time Series by Robert Jordon). And while it would make sense for anyone to use someting like a grenade or magic orb, I'd like for weapons in GW2 to remain somewhat profession specific with attribut requirments and whatnot--Shai Halud 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

When talking about dual wield and two handed weapons, I think the idea of 50% damage increase for the two handers would be better. For one, most dual wields include a main weapon and a smaller offhand (Because it's easier to use a lighter weapon in your non dominant hand). That way, a sword and a main gauche would not be at a disadvantage to a claymore. Also, I'm going to object to gunpowder weapons. I'd rather this not turn into a Steam-punk game. I like the fantasy approach more than the tech approach, though I admit that my Wizard has thrown about his fair share of Alchemist's fire in DnD. I absolutely love the idea of crossbows, but let's think about this one real quick - Crossbows require mechanical winches to cock the weapon because the pull is so great. They were invented to pierce plate armor and be used with minimal training. So, increase damage, decrease range (compared to a longbow) and increase cooldown. Maybe remove hornbows and give crossbows some armor penetration. This would make them more accurate. The Britons had world renown longbows that had an unbelievable range... but it's a crossbow that's going to take that mounted knight off of that charging horse. Shen 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There could besomething to that "Main Gauch" idea you had shen. One of us should probably post something suggesting a class of offhand melee weapons. I'll do it pretty soon if you don't. Also, please shorten gun objections as requested above. I honestly can't see why everyone on this site hates the idea (no one I've met in real life does! Why?) but over the months I've come to accept it, so the extra proding really has no effect. I really think the dev might hasve gotten the message by now, okay? Thx--Shai Halud 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

erm...i'd like to see some gunpowder themed weapons ^^ guns and grenades! but keep the fantasy side strong, with mechanical weapons making up only a fraction of the GW2 weapons. I found that in GW1, even though there were loads of weapons, most were just reskins of others. I may be wrong, but i'd like to see a more diverse weapon section and weapon design :) -- grandma

I also think guns muskets and what not should be involved but not be like end game if you get hit by one and keep the medievil ones going strong so its not just snother shot em up and more of a chop/blow em up

SPEARS: Give Spears different range... Heavy spears with closer range, and lighter with longer... simple... like bows.

Runner's Agency

Since we’re creating the auction house to try get rid of the hawkers/spammers, maybe there should be a similar establishment to try and coordinate the business of running. People could go to central running agencies to sign up as runners and they could get a running license by completing certain runs within an allotted amount of time or something like that.

Runner’s agents would wait outside of each town and outpost and offer a list of courses which could be made to nearby outposts or distant towns. These would probably be solo missions or only a companion could be brought along. Gaining a party member at any time would disqualify you from the run. That said, each course would have a specific difficulty level.

You would begin the run by selecting your course from the agent outside your point of origin and complete the run by talking to the agent outside your destination. You would be timed on each run, and your best times would appear alongside the course names as well as how many times you’ve completed that course and your average time. More experienced runners could, obviously, charge higher premiums for reliability.

Completing each course within certain time frames gains you point which add up to determine your grade. Grade may be course-specific or character-specific. I’m not sure yet which would be better.

As for price and runner coordination, if you’re interested in making runs, then you could list yourself as available to do certain runs at the local Runner’s Agency. A certain price is suggested by the agency for what you should charge depending on the course and your experience grade, but you get to set your own rates. People who are interested could view your rates and your license and, purchase tickets for a place in your party. I’m still a bit unsure on how this would work, so, if some experienced runners would leave suggestions, that would be nice.

Also, registered runs would probably appear on your license as well.

A less formal system would still be used for unofficial runs. You should be able to show your license to whomever you chose. Perhaps Runner’s Agencies would exist only in the major cities and outposts would be covered by unofficial runs.

I think A-Net looks down on running, so I can't see this as being implemented. --People of Antioch talk 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archived article and Gaile has stated that they view Running as acceptable part of the game but this is not to say that they will actively support it by giving us "runners box." Renin 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They could at least offer us runner's licenses and courses.--Shai Halud 19:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's to stop a Guild to gain popularity and do this? If such a Guild becomes famous for it, then on good faith people will come to them for runs. --People of Antioch talk 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ANet may not officially look down on running, in other words they may not actively discourage it, but I don't think it was an intended aspect, or even a welcome development, of the game. My evidence for this is that runners are far more prevalent in Prophecies areas than anywhere else, because it's easier and more relevant to do there than anywhere else. Furthermore, ANet has introduced ways of limiting the usefulness of runners, such as making max armor and such available sooner in the game (Factions max armor is available way sooner than in Prophecies, if you do things in order. My guess is that this will be continued in GW2. Personally, I'm glad, I hate all the begging and advertising for runners that's found in the Prophecies areas. If you want to progress in the game, try playing it. (Satanael 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Anet has said in an interview that they will not incorperate any elements from the previous games which would prohibit exploration, such as the blocks that prevented running in Factions and Nightfall. Now, if they made there be no need for running, I'd be just as satisfied, but if tthey can't get running to go away in the beta, then I'd reccomend Anet take anoother look at suggestions like these.--Shai Halud 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that running will be possible. If party members change zones individually, running would be impossible, although it woud be possible to get an escourt. -- Gordon Ecker 07:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Claymores, crossbows and little sickles

One of the things I would really like to see is some sort of difference between swords except for the skin. What i'm thinking of is That a Warrior can use a normal sword just like in the original games, but also swap to a much stronger, bigger, heavyer and slower CLAYMORE, With HUGE RUNES on it or something, and making it a two-handed variant of a normal sword, using the same skills and attributes, but attacking slower, dealing WAY more damage and being two-handed. Another thing would be to do this kind of stuff for Rangers and Dervishes, giving them a weaker 1handed weapon so they can also get an offhand. for rangers a crossbow, and for the Dervish a little sickle. If you think a sickle isn't very dangerous, ever imagined hooking it behind somebody's throat and slitting?Rhydeble 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for moar crossbowz in gw2, moar variety of weapons in general. --Cursed Angel 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhydeble, even I made a redendunt suggestion for two-handed swords, so that's okay even if it is a bit over-enthusiastic. As for crossbows, I think even the pope declared those cowardly back in the day, but I don't really care. I just think they look stupid in other games, but I won't try and stop other people from using them in GW2 the way you people do with me and my muskets. But the sickles? I mean, not only are they already in the game (as an axe) but assuming the Dervish is in GW2, how would he hold an off-hand weapon along with a scythe? And as if dervishes weren't powerful enough at close range already. I guess a warrior or dervish could dual-wield sickles in GW2 but that's as far as I'd go.--Shai Halud 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pope declared them cowardly because you could take a peasant, train him for ten hours, send him onto a battlefield, and he'll be able to take down a knight that's trained his whole life and wearing armor that's more valuable than the peasant's entire village. Tried to do the same thing with flails, IIRC. Just a little history lesson. :) --71.229.204.25 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Hero Armor

It got me thinking, why not offer "Historical Hero Armor" as either an in-game 15k armor, pay with real money (ala character slots) or part of a bonus (like how BMP was initially).

Historical Hero Armor are armor set of popular henchie/hero/NPC throughout GW1. Assuming that all (which I know is highly unlikely) profession survives the timeskip here are the armor sets I'd suggest.

Warrior - Devona

Monk - Mhenlo

Ranger - Aidan

Elementalist - Cynn

Mesmer - Gwen

Necromancer - Eve

Assassin - Vizu

Ritualist - Master Togo

Dervish - Varesh Ossa

Paragon - Sogolon

of course part of the problem will be that the armor sets will have to be modified for the opposite sex. It would be fun seeing someone who tailored their toon to look as much as Devona or Cynn with their armor. Have fun butchering my idea! Renin 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, hmm. Varesh for Dervish? Can I have Melonni's Sunspear armour instead? >_> In seriousness though, this is a good idea. I've always loved Cynn, Eve and Gwen's armour. --Mme. Donelle 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we get Cynn's thong too? ;-) (Satanael 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

You just blew your chance. You should have kept it. Now they'll know, they'll give her granny panties. Renin 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, I mean the Krytan women go commando, so what's a little thong between friends? (Satanael 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Bleh, why Sologon for paragon? I'd much rather have Morghan's armour, considering it's completely different from EVERY type of paragon armour in the game at the moment. And which Master Togo? The old fart from the Factions Campain, or the younger version from the BMP? Silavor 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was rethinking this one. NPC, Heroes and Henchmen!

Archive

It's February 1st here in California, is it time for an archival for this January edition? I don't want to be the one to move it, lest I screw it up. --People of Antioch talk 06:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been asked. Gaile likes to archive herself, so hold on for a bit until she's got time and a mood for archiving. --Aspectacle 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. Should have done a check. --People of Antioch talk 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rare weapon skins

I think in Guild Wars 2 there should be rare and very expensive skin weapons and off-hands for other professions than just warriors and paras. Atm theres eternal blades, eternal shields, crystalline swords, voltaic spears and more such stuff. Ok ok theres caster weapons and such, but mainly these weapons are for warriors and paras. Of course theres some rare and expensive weapons for other professions but nothing compared to these. So i would see rare and nice looking staves, wands, focus items, bows and so on in GW2. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if im wrong, but isnt something made expensive by demand... how do you make something in demand, i am unaware of any way to MAKE a weapon Rare and wanted. Just my thought, You could make things harder to get but then again we dont even know how the GW2 system is going to work yet. 58.168.44.216 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rare = expensive. Cool skin = wanted. Rare and cool skin = very expensive, very wanted. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Anon is trying to make is that "cool skin" is really subjective. Early in the game, FDS was by far the most expensive and in demand sword out there, much later it became the IDS. Both weapons were apart of the same original game, and yet each went through their own phase of expensiveness and "coolness", specifically not at the same time. Why? Who knows. Our crazy whims.

My theory is that staves, wands, and foci are not as expensive because they are not really as useful for casters as they are for melee chars. For casters, it's all about the skills, and not about the weapon. (Satanael 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

My One Cent Suggestion

Wow lots of great suggestions for GW2 so far. Here is my one cent suggestions :

• Different looks for different grades of weapons e.g. Ancient Scythe has different numbers of claws depending on Purple or Gold
• Completed Quest Log I don't know it is really usefull for other players, but I would like to look up what quests I have done so far.
• A bar in big town. Just give the toons a break after long day of adventuring and fighting. No under 21 !!!. Or a place/building in town/outpost for players to hang out and duel outside that place.
• Perception!!!! What I mean is I would like to be able to zoom in/out very far to see to a place as a whole. GW haves many great looking and gigantic buildings/temples/dungeons; however, I don't feel the giganticness when you enterand/or stand in front of those places. Check these concept arts for GW then you will see what I really mean. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Onlinegamingworld (talk).

It's a crime that GW doesn't already have bars... we have an incorrigible ale hound title and no establishments to drink in. More importantly the completed quest log is a must have for obsessive people like me who like to do just about everything there is to be done in a game they enjoy. Daelin Blackleaf 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Distances of npcs in towns

← moved to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions#Distances of npcs in towns

Click to Move

In one GW2 article someone said Click to Move would go the way of the dodo. Please dead Dwayna do not get rid of Click to Move altogether. I understand that making an algorithm for players to click to move with a 3d environment might be troubling, but please keep simple click to move. I think I will miss it most in towns (if GW2 keeps such things) where I press alt, find the merchant, and click, then surf the wiki for 30 seconds. --Ravious 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also very handy during lag spikes or times when your ISP is playing up and your ping drops. Daelin Blackleaf 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I 3rd that motion. I was hitting about 8,000+ on the ping charts.. :-( thankfully a friend was on teamspeak and i let him know what was going on, so he could help guard me. I would just click on the ground to move to what I thought would be a few steps forward and since we had 8 or so minions (or rather Olias had them) .. we were able to keep the minion army alive until the next battle. and yes I know going near a battle with that high of lag is not good .. but .. ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Varuuth 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing this could be an effort to minimize bots in game. House Of Furyan 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And would also just save time of the devs. People, your computers are going to eventually die and you'll get a new one with better hardware. You're eventually going to get a better ISP if you're actually lagging on GW. It's only a matter of time. Vael Victus 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about clicking the outpost entrance and instantly exiting from outpost (confirm windows can be added). Or even map travel directly to area.

Controls

This is a question for the Anet staff which I wouldn’t mind seeing answered here or in their next interview. You've mentioned a few things about the control system, but have given us literally no useful information on it. Saying that the "point and click" system will not be there seems to indicate that the mouse will play no part in the controls. Will there be better compatibility with eight-button controllers? I'm terrible at playing with just the keyboard, so I hope that won't be the only option. Also, the ability to rock-climb and dive would help bring a feeling of exploration to the game, which is something you've said you wanted to include, so mentioning those in your next interview would be of great help to those of us that make suggestions. Also, I can't imagine controlling diving mechanics with just the keyboard so please give us a second option.

To be honest, I can't imagine ANet removing the mouse from movement controls entirely. Nearly every modern computer game I can think of uses either a joystick or the mouse as an integral part of its movement controls, the reason for this being that 3D games require fluid movement controls, and hitting a button to turn does not provide for that fluidity.

Also, how do we get "useful" information about a game that does not yet exist? What do we use it for? This is nothing against this particular user above, it's just something I've seen a lot of people say, and I've always wondered why... (Satanael 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

I meant information which would be useful in imagining what the controls will be like. Telling us what there will not be, for instance, may not be very useful in imagining what will be. Still, you're right, it;s not a very illustrative term in this case.--Shai Halud 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Golemancers (or something like that)

Image:Uno018.jpg is a concept art for GW:EN/Utopia I gathered from here [[3]] Looking at it, I can definitely see how a golemancer profession could be a viable part of GW2.

On the other hand, I was just reading how the devs want to give certain abilities to each race. The Norn to nornbear transformation is the only example that has been listed, but I would like to propose that the ability to summon golems be the ability of every Asura. This could compensate for their predicted physical weakness, but care must be taken so that this ability benefits every profession relatively equally.

The number of golems each Asura could control along with their strength could be linked to a race-specific attribute, and various golems could influence the summoner's stats (I think I heard something like this was in Diablo 2 or something like that). Or, conversely, basic golems could be bought from golemancers (perhaps at the cost of certain golem parts) and only a certain number would be allowed. They could be customized to accommodate whatever kind of character you're trying to build. They would heal on their own in this case and be reactivated after death as they were in GW:EN, perhaps with some sort of start-up delay. Anyway I'm, looking forward to suggestions indicating which of these possibilities people would prefer. In any case, I reccomend that characters aquire golems early on in the game (no later tham level 10) so thet we can really see them as part of our character and involve them in our builds from an early stage.

Actually, this kind of gave me an idea, maybe Golem making could be an Asura-only non-combat profession. You spend time and attributes to gain the ability to build different aspects of a golem (and which also affect the effectiveness of these aspects). For example, early on you can only build a basic bipedal Golem with basic arms that do relatively low blunt damage. Later, you gain the skills to make one of the arms have a blade and the other have a shield. Once a Golem is built it can become one of your Companions, and in this way you could even have more than one Golem at your disposal, but only be able to bring one at a time.

You could also have materials be a factor in this, such as buying deldrimor steel to create a stronger armor for the Golem. And even high level drops such as the stones you use for the power plants, which could help define the amount of health and energy for magic the golem has. Some of these stones may give the golem a certain boost in certains types of abilities, such as a stone found in the Fire Islands could boost a golem's fire magic. Maybe some special parts of a golem are dropped in high level areas, such as special sensors that make it immune to blinding, or super fast legs that make it faster than normal.

Another possibility is to make it so that the Asura can sell their Golems to other characters of other races, that way all characters can have a truly customizable companion. This might put the economy in favor of the asuras, but 1) that would kinda fit their position in the story anyway as the neutral ones that control the major means of transportation; and 2) there's nothing (that we yet know of) stopping anyone from having their own asura character, so maybe their could be a special option to make a golem for another char on your account, like leaving it in a special storage or something (maybe in your house?). Furthermore, from an economic perspective, have an asura to make Golems won't be much different than a 55 monk to farm UW.

In any case, if we do get the ability to build our own golems, I hope they are customizable not just in their abilities, but in their aesthetic too. Just like the Golems in the picture above, I want to choose quadropedal golems or bipedal, or even tripedal. I want some with no arms but a big mouth, or maybe even one that flies or hovers, I want to be able to make them different colors, different shapes, different sizes. Maybe that's too tall an order, but some say that if you aim for the sun and hit the moon, then you still just shot the moon (or whatever Confucius' quote is). (Satanael 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

On my own suggestions page I thought maybe an asuran warrior would be inside a golem, wear it like armour. House Of Furyan 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the graphic to a link, as I think graphics may slow this busy page. -- 24.16.236.131 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any News yet?!

I've been waiting for quite a long time, and ANet Should have atleast some or just a liltle news about GW2, or atleast a teaser trailer, or even just a screenshot to look at for hours trying to figure out whats that and that. TY for your time.

AGREE! When is the Beta weekend? Hunger for news, facts, images. -- Silverleaf

I just want to know what professions are going to be there, or at least which ones they can confirm so far. Even a "we're definitely keeping the warrior, ranger, elementalist, and monk, they will likeley see some major changes." would make my day. Daelin Blackleaf 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on HoM information for Guild Wars 2. Professions would be nice, be disappointed if Dervish is taken out or altered too much though. House Of Furyan 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The core proffesions will probally stay and the rest will be kicked out I think and if I am correct beta will be in the end of 2008 and GW 2 will release in begin 2009

I'd say Dervish is probably more popular than Mesmer (as in hours played over the last month) these days, even given Nightfalls far later release date. Though of course I have no idea of the true statistics. Daelin Blackleaf 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

if u >< out mesmers im outa here --Cursed Angel 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like we'll be getting information any time soon. See this. --fraught · (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my dervish's scythe swinging dervish (primary) relative is inheriting his HoM! I'd hate think Guild Wars 2.1 is just going to be Guild Wars Proph redressed with asuran and hairy Norns. I don't think, in my opinion, that any of the human professions already established should be removed (whether from the original, factions or nightfall) but I wouldn't expect to see a Norn, Charr or Asuran running around with a dervish primary. I mean, if dervish (because I love it so) isn't going to be in the first Guild Wars 2 campaign (if we have to wait for Guild Wars 2.3 for that) or if its not there at all I probably won't buy Guild Wars 2. Options, give us options, don't take them away. House Of Furyan 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, i love playing as my derv, gives me a very different perspective from my Ele. But think of the things we already know: You can add Dervish weaposn and armor to your HoM. There are 2 dervish primary heroes, who, if i understand the inheretince correctly, will have dervish descendants as heroes. So it would be completely pointless to have all that, yet >< out any of the proffesoins, even dervishes. Lord Zepherr 04:24, February 21, 2008 (UTC)

Pay to Play

Now, before you immediatly flame me for this, hear me out. I've been thinking about it, and have come up with one of the biggest problems, imo, with Guild Wars; The few elite with infinite gold (probably not infinite but very close) who basically control the market. So, my suggestion is to have an monthly fee of in-game gold for certain extravagant things. I have already suggested this for the house idea, but it could be applied to more, such as the Guild Hall (if the Guild Hall is separate from the house), mounts (I really hope these aren't put in the game), and other things that are not necessary to play the game but are nice to look at. The "better" or "cooler" something is, the more the monthly tax is compared to the not so cool looking versions. This would attempt to balance the economy because those with lots of gold would want the really cool house or mount but would be forced to pay every month. And if someone does not pay that monthly amount, they would not get access to their house, Guild Hall, mount, etc. until they made the all payments they missed. Of course if they bought something that they could not afford the monthly payments for, they could sell it back for a percentage of what they payed. If they failed to make a payment, I feel that ANet would have to still give them the option to access any items that might have been say in their house, just not the option to view, show off, or use their house, Guild Hall, etc. If my ideas are unclear, please tell me and I will try to explain them better. Chocobo 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of gold sinks, but I think most gold sinks that don't become annoying are those that you pay once to get X. Items needing repairs, or "renting" stuff, just means that you need to grind just to maintain what you have already paid for. I think if instead there were more services offered, those could work as gold sinks. For example, you could have a marketplace, with NPCs you pay so they try to sell your items. Or you could have all sorts of NPCs that accept payment to improve your titles, like a cartographer to increase your % explored, a kruzick/luxon to improve your standing with these factions, a mystic to increase your luck/unluck, etc. You could also have some that will buy some of these from you, e.g. faction, rep, and skill points, but much cheaper than what you'd have to pay for to get them. -- Alaris 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gold sinks, by definition, is bad. No. Don't argue. Rich with infinite gold are not hampered, and casuals who just want a bit glitter get hammered. WE DO NOT NEED MORE GOLD SINKS! Why would YOU care about the flithy rich? You should pity them for the amount of time they waste on GW. Looking for someone to admire? Look for those with tough to get and not buyable titles (So no drunkard- but vanquisher and such) or those who have a prestigious guild tag - Rank means zilch these days, and this began IWAY was born. So obviously making title vendors further diminishes their value. What we need to balance economy is very simple: Nuke it. From a pve-prestige-perspective, getting 'cool' stuff is insane for a casual, whom we are concerned about. (Speaking purely pve here) Accomplishents, not goldgrindz, should bring glamour. So, for instance, to get something like FoW armour, you'd have to complete a chain of difficult quests, and wth, at the end solve a rubic cube :P. That'll prevent runners. This will actually help the casual, who LOVES a good, MEANINGFUL quest, and hurt the grinder, who prefers farming. I'd very much prefer EXP and Gold be nuked to oblivion, but we shall see...

fuck this idea --Cursed Angel 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just please no. I get money, spend it, and taxed more? And taxed even more for spending more because of earning more? Please, it happens enough in reality. And this would force players to regularly play Guild Wars, without the option of taking a long break, unless you had caches of money. CA summed it up nicely, if not rudely. Calor (t) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gold sinks control the inflation by removing money from the game, thus making sure that money has a trading value. Otherwise you get inflation, and the 100k trading limit becomes grossly insufficient. Finally, as seen in many other games, money becomes meaningless to trade. I like a game where money is actually used for trading. -- Alaris 21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to want to encourage people to play not push them away. This idea would only push a larger wedge between the casual player and the farming player. Farming players could come up with fees easy, there's no challenge there for them. Although, telling a casual gamer "Oh, we've got this in the game but if you want this you're going to have to pay a monthly fee of in-game gold or we're going to put an eviction notice on your door" is counter-productive. You're idea doesn't balance anything, this idea only gives farming players even more stuff. If there are going to be houses, you should just buy them with a once off fee, not multiple fees. For casual players it would mean they could still get stuff, like with the armour sets in Guild Wars, but it would take time to do so but more importantly not force them/or make them feel stink about not having it. Making houses and stuff fee based just alienates them from this kind of thing and rewards farmers, and thats not a good thing. House Of Furyan 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the tax for a typical house wouldn't be anything too noticeable, maybe 1-5k a month (which can easily be attained in 1 sitting). But, if you want to go all out and get the best possible house, you have to pay more regularly to keep it up (maybe 10-20k a month or more, not sure what number would help to balance the economy). People who would go for these types of houses could easily afford 10k a month. Of course I know that casual players might want these houses, so they can save up there money, maybe implementing a banking system with interest to help those who are gone for a long time. You could even have the low end houses or whatever not have a fee, to help the casual players. Gold, imo, should be the GW2 currency, not "100k + 30 ecto" or whatever. The way it is now, the casual player will never be able to afford something priced at 100k + 30 ecto. Chocobo 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself FLAMED!! It's bad enough having tax in real life. Faction tax is already annoying, don't start with more. Next you'll want us to fill in forms in triplicate ;)Lithane 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, this ain't real life. Screw the economy, as another suer said, we get enough of it in real life. WE DO NOT NEED MORE GOLD SINKS. How can I emphasize this? Do you want to hurt the XXX-rich? MAKE THEM DO QUESTS. make runs impossible, make quests nigh mandatory ( Good quest rewards, enjoyable dialogue) And, most importantly, CUT DROPS OF MONSTERS. If quests became the major contributor to a game's economy, with nothing repeatable, inflation goes out the window. I'd (and I know many casuals) prefer a system where gold did not drive a game's economy, and ultimately pve balance.

If gold doesn't drive the economy, what will? Sunshine and unicorns? There are three ways an economy can go: money, barter, and none at all. Gold and barter, guess what, supply and demand exist, and those with the most supply get what they want. The last option isn't even viable - it'd require every mob dropping every item and an obscenely high rate, or else there'll still be a few items that are more valuable because they're rarer. Also, there's a problem with your version: Say I do every quest in the game so I'm at the effective gold cap, and then I buy an expensive weapon with it. Suddenly ANet flips a switch and the weapon is worthless. Now I'm out of gold and I have no way of getting more (lol no repeatable quests, amirite?) short of creating a new character. And, guess what, the devoted people are going to be doing exactly that, but faster and better than I am, so they'll be rich anyway. --71.229.204.25 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pay2play is so stupid runescape-ish that I have to throw over only thinking about it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever!!! If you punish a daily player who works hard and strip all their hard earned gains from them to put them on a parr with a casual gamer who plays once a month, then what is the motivation for us to play? Communism doesn't work!!! The reason that the elite have so much cash is because they work hard and earn it. Pay to play? Ha!--Sir Grockalot 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)== Reporting a cheater == Make it easier to report a botter.. I just tried to type /report <name> and it said the player must be in the same district as you ... what?? i get a private message of 'go to www.url.com and buy some gold' and i can't report him/her? . in Guild Wars 2 make it easier.. or at least better. just in case anyone knows where to put this info at .. the players name is ( Asdh Aksd Adl ) Varuuth 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this!! I entered into a tournament the other day and our team lost. Although it was not completely my fault I lost my concentration and did not do as well as I normally do. After we lost one of the memebrs of the team let loose a whole torrent of insults using absolutely dispicable and offensive language. As a scouser I have to admit that the language was quite offensive and obscene (and THAT's saying something coming from Liverpool). As it happens I am a mature adult and let it brush over me, but I hate to think what would have happened had I been a young child!! I tried to report him/her but ran into the same problem as the user above, because we had been transported back to the outpost separately. THET NEED TO UPDATE THE REPORT FEATURE IN BOTH GW2 AND GW1 ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stu. 13/02/08

Well i have a problem with this "reporting". People seem to be using it when a player is not up to their standards in PvP. It really is annoying. I might not be one of the best, or even good, but i deserve a chance to learn PvP. I would say stop this reporting the way it is implemented today. Because you could be punished without being guilty...

To be honest I don't think that would be to much of a problem.. because when you get reported.. ANET will watch you, then punish you if needed. If you aren't doing anything wrong, (against the terms of agreement) then you don't have anything to worry about. Varuuth 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i would like a specific sensor to stop adverstising for those stupid web-sites that offer powerlvling and purchase of gold, i mean if your gonna use those sites, whats the point of even ownign the game cause all your doin is letting some random stranger play for you. And besides i got this PM from a guy advertising soem site called www.ugamegold.com or something of the like, and i told him to stop PMing me, well he does it again, i tell him to shut up, not rudely, i was still asking, not demanding, well he then floods my talk box with his stupid advertisements, i don't liek using my ignore list alot, so i turned off my pm reciever, i ended up missing pms form at leas thalf of my freinds. So i would liek a ban of those types of advertisements. Lord Zepherr, 10:11, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you called it, UGAMEGOLD, thats the offender! Got pounded as soon as i zoned into the great temple. Very annoying72.128.107.131 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pets revisited

It is my opinion that GW2 needs a new pet system Yes, I know that there are some very adamant and occasionally hostile views on the whole mount idea. As a compromise,

1. Have the ability to ride your pet into battle using only pet skills (because that is what I had thought having a pet and pet skills were for) or a combination of special, class restricted, mounted attacks. Therefore your pet now has more presence and it is more useful.

2. Have the ability to lodge your pet or have a customized totem or such in inventory allowing you to charm and keep multiple pets at the expense of gold or inventory slots. I really have grown attached to my pet, and it would sadden me to have to get rid of her, but occasionally I might want to play with a different evolution or skin just for a change.

3. Have the ability to purchase your pet armor or like hero’s have an upgrade item to customize your pet’s appearance to suit your style. (and yes I do realize that this idea was stated in an earlier post but it is an awesome idea!)

4. Be able to make them a Party member (like a hero) and give them their own skill bar but as a consolation still require you to carry charm animal and a pet rez in your own skill bar.

5. Mix it up a bit. Make some breeds faster but weaker and some stronger but slower or even ranged, giving you the ability to tailor them to your play style.

And as an after thought give minis a purpose, perhaps, when you bring one out, allow them to attack with like one really lousy skill for a short amount of time……..Hey kinda like Asuran summons! Hagarr 07:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1st of all I don't like the idea that pets get there own skill bar, but it would be awesome to mount them :D . But I don't likt your 4th suggestion; pets are part of a player and are not like a hero. And about that mini thing, they're like trophies not at all like summoned creatures. In other words they CAN'T attack.

Make minis able to pick up items for the party.Prokiller88 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest for the suggestions!!! Especially #2, as the current GW pet system made it so pets aren't these collectibles to hoard and rip out at some random time, so you might wanna change it to make it a very difficult task to change from 1 pet to another. #1 Would be making pets less useful, actually, as there'd be a million secondary rangers getting a pet for the mounting factor and not making them a plausible battle companion when not mounted, so you might wanna consider making mounted combat very limited in when you can actually use it. #3 There's nothing wrong with it, what's better than coming into battle with some stalker in platemail and fancy designs all over its gear?!?! #4 I agree with, but is roughly the same to my previous suggestion and what you said about the armor suggestion being stated in a previous post, and I'd say actually combine charm+pet rez, so you don't wonder why you're hauling around this useless skill (Did that earlier as well in previous post). #5 Is entirely up to you, as pets are so untouched in RPGs any way to improve them is a thumbs up from the beast-masters, but be careful about makin' one species overly powerful and making players fall over each other to get that better pet. (WoW screwed up there a lot, some pets could use different abilities while others couldn't and so EVERYONE who had a pet had a big-cat, boar, or an alien-type creature called a 'ravager' simply because of a single ability each of them possessed.)

Changing Skills in Battle

It would be so cool if you could change skills in battle. Imagine in your templates you have say W/R and W/E and W/Mo set up.

Imagine this scenario: (For example)

There is a large group of mainly melee monsters so you can pick them off with ranger skills and absorb a bit of damage with warrior buffs.

You then walk around the corner and there are a lot of healers amongst the next group. Picking one off at a time with a ranger won't cut it. You bring up your skills and attribute box by pressing k click on load from template and boom your a W/E. Perfect for area damage spells to take out multiple healers at the same time.

The next group has a lot of necromancers all draining health and are spread out. Area damage won't do it this time. Another quick change to W/Mo using healing and health regeneration to counter the health drain and a HUGE big axe to bring the nasty necro's down to size.

This would open the game up for all sorts of stratergies!!! This type of playing would have to be later on in the game when a player has accessed sufficient skills from other professions. After all you couldn't expect a level 8 Warrior to be able to switch between 3 secondary professions.

I just think it would add a depth of stratergy and tactics later in the game rather than: just pick one build, run in, kill, rest, run in, kill, rest, - repeat as necessary. Stu. 06/02/08.

Not to mention the farming of everything in the game, all in one run, and the total collapse of the economy.....Hagarr 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this would belong in a game where you have access to all your skills anyway. One of GW's strengths is that you only have access to 8 skills for the entire mission / task. That means that you need to put a lot of thought into which skills you bring. It puts limitations as to what you can do. The game would have to be much harder if you could switch builds at will. -- Alaris 15:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably want a different game altogether then. Limited skills is one of the signatures of GW. It's one of the reason why I love GW. Renin 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. I always found the fact that you have to go back to town to change skills to be a bit cheesy, like D&D's rule that you have to rest for 8 hours to prepare spells. If you're worried about people exploiting this by changing their skillset every few seconds, you could put in some restrictions, eg a swapped-in skill remains inactive for X seconds/minutes. That would ensure that skills only get changed when it's absolutely necessary (or the player is very paranoid). Similarly, balancing activities like farming etc certainly shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. -- Hong 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resting in D&D was just a bad implementation of recharge rules, IMO. I worked in pen & paper games, but was impractical for computer gaming. However, changing skills in outposts works very well for GW. Personally, I think that build system is a highlight of GW, and I hope it stays in GW2 untouched.

It also encourages balanced builds. If your build is too customized to fight Kournans, then you might die off easy against Djinns that roam the same area, or vice-versa. So you need to plan for the range of challenges you will encounter.

If people can switch builds at will, they will be much stronger than those who don't. That means that balance will have to be adapted, and that people will have to switch builds to be succesful. And for me, that spells disaster for our game: complexity will increase, but fun will decrease. -- Alaris 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally balance would have to be adapted. It would have to be adapted anyway, since they're removing henchies from the game and making it viable to adventure by yourself (or with 1 companion). And your "encouragement" for balanced builds touches on one reason why I dislike the current setup. What happens is that because of the hassle of having to refight everything you've already killed, you're encouraged to try to tough it out, even if your current build doesn't work. Stopping somewhere in the area itself would remove this incentive to keep bashing your head against the brick wall. Furthermore, IME it doesn't encourage balanced builds anyway. It just encourages different specialist builds for different areas.

Also, from an RP perspective I find the idea that you have to retreat all the way back to town to change skills to be just... not very plausible. Why can't you stop in the middle of an area? Places like Kaineng City and Ronjok village show that explorable areas don't have to be 100% filled with monsters that want to eat you. That said, I wouldn't mind at all if this was limited to skill changes, while profession changes or attribute point reallocation had to be done in town. That would provide another way of limiting just how much you can do outside: yes, you can respec from one sword skill to another, but not from (say) monk secondary to ele, or from 12 Strength to 12 Tactics. -- Hong 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also don't like having to start over just because I am hitting a brick wall, especially if doing a vanquish which is time-consuming to begin with. But if I'm not doing well, it's either because my build has flaws, or I am not adapting my tactics to the foe. With current balance, the game becomes trivial if you can respec your skills. There is enough variety of skills within each attribute that even your proposed "limitations" are not that limiting. So you'd be caught in a balance nightmare, where you either balance it to be difficult enough for those who change builds (hence too difficult for everyone else) or you make it easy enough for those who don't change skills (hence way too easy for those who do). Also, I'd hate to have to respec my whole team every time I run into a new mob. With the current balance, I do this only once at the beginning of a task, and that's time-consuming enough with H&H and even more difficult with PUGs.

The problem with RP perspectives, is that the concept is vague enough to provide support for just about any concept. And that it is often brought up to support flawed designs. Show me how the design makes the game fun, balanced, and challenging, and I'll find you a RP perspective that supports it. -- Alaris 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Build system of GW is practically the best, the most balanced system there is. Don't touch it. Touch skills, but not the 8 skills per person thing. One of the bad things about WoW (Here we go again, reefrencing this infernal game jsut because it has attracted more attention..) was the problem taht you could do a bajjilion things by yourself, which meant, essentially, there was no teamwork. 8 skills per bar system ENFORCES teamwork. On a similar note, teamwork is good.

If my memory serves me right, they DID have something similar to the suggestion back when Prophecies was released. After a few kills you were given some points so you can change your attribute points on the fly. If I remember correctly (correct me, just don't flame) that their reason for giving us the current system was to decrease botters/hardcore farmers that made it easy to farm and play with other people. Renin 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

yUP, it was called the attrib refund system and it was teh ONLY way to change your atribs (So you were stuck with your sttribs unless you grinded exp). It was nuked to oblivion, and rightfully so.

Wow! Did I start something here. Sorry. Just to add further chaos to the mix. How about this?

You know how you can have four weapon sets equipped and switch between them in battle by pressing F1-F4, what about if the same worked for builds. You choose four different, (but well thought out builds) in a city or outpost. Then head of into battle. You can switch between these four builds as often as you want in battle, but the builds still have to be pre-determined in an outpost or city in much the same way that they are now.

This seems to me to be one possible solution. Stu. 11/02/08.

It would be really cool to be able to switch between two (and only two) skill templates outside of towns. Lets say if your profession is N/E then you can hotkey switch between two N/E builds of your choice, but changing your primary and secondary profession woulnd't be allowed. It would open up more possibilities without imbalancing the game. Zealous 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of Continent/World

I have heard the world of Guildwars Described as tyria. is this what is correctly refered to as ? and if it is, is there going to be a name change of it or the Continent of Tyria to avoid confusion ? Crazy 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I doubt it, as it would likely confuse things even more. They initially called the world "Tyria" because they hadn't planned on any additional installments. So we had the world being Tyria. Then came Cantha. Now we need a name for the first continent. The only name we really have for it is Tyria. So the continent was Tyria, and the world was referred to as Tyria. It took me some time to adjust to that also. Calor 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me actually. Before discovering Cantha and Elonia the continent of Tyria was the world as far as it's inhabitants were concerned. There was no difference between the world and the continent, they didn't know what a continent was, there was only Tyria and the waters around it. Daelin Blackleaf 19:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's because Tyria is the best continent duuh xD --Alien 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yes, both the continent and the world itself are called Tyria. -- Gaile 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Combat Role Reinterpretation

I really hated how weak mages felt. To me it didn't feel anything like a mage, because not only did the graphic effects look weak, but the damage and its use was weak too. I loved playing mages because they felt powerful, but in Guild Wars there aren't any classes like that. Obviously, it can still be balanced (because I want feel powerful, not be stronger than others). My suggestion is to balance this by making a class with stronger attacks to have weaker defense. To rememdy the problem that a monk/healer/protective class pose, since these classes tend to make another completely protected regardless of their defense alone, I suggest that the power of the monk's ability to heal and protect another character is directly proportional to that character's natural defense. (For example, if a mage has weak defenses, then the monk's protective spell with also be weaker when acting on that mage) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:AnonymousSpectator (talk).

The monks ability to heal or protect, or smite, is direction proportional to their skill, a protection monk may have little to know healing capabilities (enchantments that they use also pose a potential downside as well). elementalists are also mages, and wouldn't consider them weak either. It just comes down to how you use the primary and secondary professions. House Of Furyan 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh on rethink, do you want their defense (I'm guessing armour rating) put up higher and by doing this their monk abilities and/or energy drop? Kinda like a Combat Mage. Isn't Paragon basically that? House Of Furyan 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should healing and defensive skills be weaker when they target casters? Lightly armored characters already take more damage, so they need more healing, and a heavily armored character with any defensive enchantment other than Mark of Protection, Reversal of Fortune or Spirit Bond will always be more durable than a lightly armored character with the same defensive enchantment. As for those three exceptions, they could be altered to take effect before armor. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's 2 things I'm talking about here. First, the spell effects 'look' and 'feels' weak, especially compared to the mages that I've played in other games (such as Ragnarok Online, final fantasy, and youtube videos of Warhammer online mages show better effects too). IMO, a mage (offensively) is about casting well placed/timed powerful/massive/destructive spells (what I imagine is during a typical play, time between casts are generally somewhere around 2-3 seconds, that includes taking into account not only cooldowns, but everything that's going on in battle, like waiting for the right moment to strike); and Guild Wars does not give me that impression in the least bit (I'm implying that this is one reason why I love to play mages). Secondly, the attacks of mages (elementalists and other spell casters to some extent) are weak in the amount of damage that they deal. This is due to spells like protective spirit and such, where they protect the percentage of max health; other things like the lack of mcuh difference in elemental/physical defense among the classes contribute to this result as well. The result is, even though I'm a mage, with a monk protecting me, I'm just about as survivable as a warrior. And to clarify about defense proportionality, I said to solve it that way, but there's really several ways to solve the issue (assuming you see it as an issue, of course), like changing hp ratio and whatnot. Anyways, it's just a bit my thoughts... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:AnonymousSpectator (talk).

A fire ele can dish out more damage than any other character, you just have to set up the correct combination of skills. It's not uncommon for me to do several hrundred points of damage to multiple targets in just a few seconds, as well as some degen condtions. Or a air ele, I can rapidly drop a single target before they have time to react. Using Earth, I can outlast any warrior sitting in the midist of a large group, and shrug off their attacks. You can customize your skills to reflect your play style. As well as combine spells, freeze a foe in place and hit him with multiple metor showers, as well as other spell, no wait time, it all depends on your setup. Med Luvin 19:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not every creature or player has protective spirt, and enchantments can be a bad thing. I've run with Protective Spirit on my dervish and had max health regen and still got nailed by eles. A skilled player can find ways around things like Protective Spirit, health stealing doesn't trigger its effect, neither does degen through conditions. A fire ele with some burning effect spells bypass Protective Spirit and render it useless, burning plus meteor shower and fire storm can take most opponents down.

If mages were so underpowered / weak as you're trying to say people wouldn't play them, but they do, and a lot of them. Enchantments can be used against your enemy. I find that in same cases mages can be to overpowered. When you're in Ab and the such and five people are in battle with 1 Ele/d with massive armor and health regen and it doesnt look like they're goin to be going down anytime soon thats just ... whoa. House Of Furyan 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protective Spirit only prevents damage over the cap. An elementalist enchanted with Protective Spirit will generally take a lot more damage than a paragon or non-Frenzying warrior enchanted with Protective Spirit. I generally agree with you about spell visuals, there are quite a few good ones like Fire Storm, Breath of Fire, Ice Spikes, Churning Earth, Spirit Rift and Death Nova, but there are quite a few spells which look quite disappointing compared to their icons, some of the most glaring examples are Fireball and Energy Blast. As for offensive caster power, I've heard that this is the case in PvP, but Elementalists are one of the most powerful professions in PvE. -- Gordon Ecker 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A balanced game will ALWAYS make elementalist/mages SEEM weak, even though they really aren't. Visually, what more could you expect from a start-up name? Remember how Final Fantasy first looked like? I'm sure they'll do something about it. Renin 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness and feelings thereof are entirely based upon your skillbar. When I was playing my Ele with only factions content available. I felt completely ineffective doing 30-40 points of damage with my fireball against Jade Brotherhood (who have obscene elemental armor, btw). Then I get my Me/Mo title character (Yes, mesmer) and now have all the games. I'm dealing close to 300 damage + five pip degen to all enemies in the area in a matter of 3 seconds, plus the obscene damage that Empathy causes in hard mode. Now -that- is what I consider effective... and people tell me that Mesmer is a bad choice for PVE... Shen 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Elemental Skills Strengthenin other elemental skills + More Conditions

In GW2 I was thinking about a new way of powering up elemental skills. Like say an Elementalist casts a water orb and then quickly casts a lightning orb into it could do 1.5x the damage? Or maybe a boulder with a fireball. Another system could be the player holds down a button to combine two spells/or three? Example: "Rain Shower" + "Lightning Bolt" = Could create a thunderstorm. Another system perhaps conditions like the following could also affect damage dealt:

Water: "Wet" - Player recieves 1.5x more damage from lightning but recieves half damage from fire. Once hit by fire this condition is removed.

Water: "Frozen" - Player moves 90% slower and activates skills 100% slower. Fire reduces the duration of this condition.

Fire: "Burning" - Player recieves ?x degeneration and spreads to adjacent players. Once hit by water this condition is removed.

Lightning: "Spasmodic" - Player has a 50% chance of failing to activate skills but has 50% chance of dodging attacks and projectiles.

Earth: "Hardened Skin" - Player recieves 1.5x more damage from fire magic but recieves 30% less damage from all other sources except holy and dark damage. Water reduces the duration of this condition.

Friendly fire could be introduced to help allies suffering from conditions but friendly fire should not deal damage to the ally. This is just a new idea so criticism/better ideas are to be expected. :) 61.69.44.25 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) aza1989

Aren't there already seemly ways of doing this with hexes etc? Get to be careful to not overpower the ele. 1.5x more damage... ouch! I would like to see visual effects for some kind of AOE effects, like a ward, that mists up the area - an environmental effect ele can conjure up suppose that would be the "rain shower" thing you were thinking of but I wouldn't expect any kind of boost to be 50% higher than original.

Some variations on the way we can do things are always fun. House Of Furyan 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, especially the part about using "Damage Spells" to have beneficial effects for your party. Crazy 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds too complex, and as far as what I've read, they want to simplify skills in game. Renin 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PvP Titles

In GW1 PvP Titles have actually made pvp into a grind. Constantly forcing me to play PvP just to get points incase I was to be ‘left behind’ and therefore never invited into groups. Anyone who joined GW late would never get a group in HA for being too ‘noob’ It was ridiculous, that is why HA got less and less people and forced people to play IWAY in order to grind the points.

PvP titles wreck the whole PvP groupings, people should be reconised for their skill, not the amount of time they grind. If you actually let people ‘transfer their achievements’ (ie, fame) you will wreck it all from the outset. PvP should never have been given titles and this is one thing that made me quit in the (after second expansion) because I took a couple of months break and lost my rank 8 groups since they had all gone to level 9 and I was now a ‘noob’.

PvP Titles wreck PvP. Destroy all memory of them. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:89.243.251.218 (talk).

Seconded 100%. While it would be cruel to erase rank in guild wars 1, as so many people have worked hard to get their rank up, I agree that Anet shouldn't repeat the mistake of adding rank into gw2. It started as a cool idea, but people started using it the wrong way, and now if you're under R3, good luck finding a group. I posted on Andrew Patrick's page a few weeks back, and if you're struggling to get a group, he said to find a PvP guild (without a rank requirement obviously), to get you up to the point where your not immediately labeled as a n00b because you have a life and can't play HA 8 hours a day.-Warior kronos 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with this strongly. The PvP titles reward grind over skill and leads to the above mentioned class system. If PvP is to be directly rewarded perhaps introduce uniquely skinned items available to PvP'ers, pets, collectibles, armor, etc. Make such items non-customized so that PvE'ers aren't locked out from the items and people can't /rank you by having you parade all your PvP shop gear. I would much rather see far more inventive rewards alongside such an idea and what I've heard so far has my hopes up. The best reward for PvP is for the PvP itself to be fun and rewarding. Anything else is just icing. Daelin Blackleaf 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We can keep the titles no prob in pv, but with a tiny adjustment: make them undisplayable, problem solved. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:78.176.238.20 (talk).

You all forget 1 thing. HA, RA, TA, HB and Zaishen will be all gone in GW2. It will be replaced with World vs World because of the reason above. Only real PvP will be GvG and I doubt your guild will look only at your title and els your guild is stupid and you should leave it. So correct me if I'm wrong but there will probally barely be a pvp title left.

It's too early to jump into conclusion that HA, RA, TA, Zaishen and HB may not be in GW2. Just like when Factions came, with it came bunch of PvP plays. Unless you're an insider and can guarantee that they will never have their own version in GW2. Renin 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate the Zaishen islands are under water. Al PvP areas on the continent of tyria are closed and the arenas that are left are in Cantha and Elona which are isolated; so there will be no PvP except GvG. If I'm correct the devs have stated that in one of there interviews, so please read those first before you doubt any conclusions. =) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.82.252.129 (talk).

From what i've read, all those PvP oriented stuff will be hosted in the Mist instead of their GW1 regular island. So seriously, for you to say that there's not ABSOLUTE proof that any incarnations of previous GW1 PvP games is absolutely unfounded. Again, I'm not saying there WILL be BUT there is a CHANCE that some other form of HA/RA/AB/HB may exist. Remember, the dev team of GW2 has NOT stated anything solid/concrete as to what will be happening so everything is still in speculation. Renin 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so far we only have two confirmed PvP formats, the serious GvG-like "structured PvP" and the casual "wold PvP", there could be other formats they haven't announced, and even if those are the only two PvP formats at release, they could still add more in an update or expansion. -- Gordon Ecker 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Lion's Arch become the new Battle Isles The_Movement_of_the_World H