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

From Guild Wars Wiki

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.

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

Tree Worlds

I heard that we would be able to climb trees so I thought it would be fun to actually get IN the tree and walk around with leaves and stuff inside it. I also thought it would be cool to have a monkey pet for rangers.

I have heard the same thing about trees...but then in another in-game visit Gaile said that as of now there are no plans for tree climbing :-/. ~Big Foot Bob

Guild

In guild wwars2 there shud bbe in guilds leadderrs like crez guild have to have 5. leadders ho well be leadders for players in that guild and when thaz do PvP evry leader call hes best player and do PvP nad GvG I think that is cool --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

I don't mean this in any demeaning way whatsoever, but could you please make your suggestions coherent? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above... Kokuou 05:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means, In Guildwars 2, there should be in guilds, Leaders (Emhpasis on S meaning Multiple) like (Crewz?), Each guild would have 5. Leaders who will be leaders to certain groups of players, Such as a PvP leader that would lead Pvp (GvG and such). Crazy 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means let guild have the ability to have multiple leaders like they can have multiple officers now. --Hawk Skeer

22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea some like that(sorry)

luxon/kurzick replacements

I heard that we would not be able to be luxon or kurzicks anymore so I thought it would be fun to be ninja/shinobi or pirates, both of which would have unique skills, weapons and armor. weapons could be like shuriken (throwing stars) this link'll get u to naruto episode 1 part 2 - mizuki (the one with white hair) he's got a giant shuriken on his back at about 3:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzdujBgX8SA). i think we should have these too. and the kunai knives too this link'll get u to naruto intro or haruka kanata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phLDHAjI1X4) where he takes one out. for pirates i think could get pistols or guns and could charm a parot for a pet (unique to pirates?) and also (a shinobis secret weapon) they could choose a bloodline or clan to join (uchiha hyuuga and kaguya)sorry but im obssessed by shinobi!! and skills could be rasengan or chidori (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTyPpNkVXTs&feature=related) and for pirates it could be power shot or marked man.

No. --24.9.234.253 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure those videos are copyright violations. --24.9.234.253 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea.. I'm sure the assassin is staying and maybe pirates are a new profession under a different name though. 68.20.183.12 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and how about we rename the game to Pirates of the Leaf Village afterwards :P --MageMontu 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Music System

I would love to be able to play an instrument in game, I find it would entertain some for hours, Just sitting in town having a Jam session with other people.. or playing and getting tips for it.

i dont know about getting tips but Lord Of the Rings online does a fantastic job of this me my brother and my friend all play different instruments and weve gotten a crowd going in bree several times and once somewhere in Gondor.

Heh, it could be like it is now, except instead of playing air instrements that aren't there they could be actual models that make sound. --Hawk Skeer

22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be used to grief and a large group would/could be annoying to some people.

Drago 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then a "mute player" feature would be nice, but then again, we don't have mics or anything, so it'd be useless. Cute suggestion, though. Lol griefing. Vael Victus 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be awesome if you could actually play the instrument. Guild Hero anyone? 68.204.223.84 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout some "vP" in PvP?

I'm sick of capping, I'm sick of wipes, I'm sick of getting collapsed on and camped for minutes at a time by entire mobs. How about this: That perpetual PvP thing you're planning? Take a page out of the FPS book. Scattered rez points you don't have to cap or flag to or any of that shit. Short or no respawn timers (and by short, I mean 3 seconds, max.) Big-ass maps. So there's always somewhere to go. If your entire team wiped and is getting camped at a rez point, no worries, in fifteen seconds they're going to start respawning somewhere else, and then there's another round of search-and-destroy before the groups start to congeal again and the cycle repeats. Give a morale boost to each person for each kill they get and cap the DP at ten or so, or something. This way, people who care enough to be good get rewarded, and people who just want to do some mindless fighting (that's me) don't get actively punished for being bad.

Sorry for the whiny tone and lack of clarity, it's one thirty and I've gotten about six hours of sleep in the last two days. --24.9.234.253 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You DO know that 10% DP is nothing right? And that PvP stands for Player vs PLAYER...you seem to be talking about PvE (the campaign side of the game). And if they gave a morale boost for every kill they get it's way to easy of a game...its already made so that DP can easily be removed. If you want to be stupid and aggro all these different groups and then get your team wiped thats your own fault and you should play with heroes/henchmen that don't care what you do IMO.

LOL Whoever started this AB's wayyyy to much. Learn to GvG imo 24.141.45.72 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is interested in serious hardcore competitive PvP. Frankly, I think casual PvP is a great idea, and I do hope that they keep it casual. Caps are a fun thing to do, but it should not be necessary. Moral boost for every kill is also nice, especially if capped low. Fast re-spawn is also nice. --

Alaris 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Trailer

i think that arenanet should make a trailer if they can about guild wars2 because other people have already started making them like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDrs4b6qWs u gotta admit its crap taking footage of the other 3 games like that oh yeah i forgot isnt that violation of copyright? or did arenanet not place guild wars under it?

'Course GW is copyrighted, but there's this thing called Fair Use. Also, why the hell would they go after a couple of fans? Bad business practice. --71.208.141.117 09:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never been excited at the sight of old stuff with the number "2" sticked on it. Yseron

[1] The real trailer :p 24.141.45.72 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New Foods

I was thinking like Ramen (japanese noodles) and Grans Fresh cookies, or something cookies could give a sugar rush and ramen could heal health?

What I think this person means, is health restoring food items similar to potions, and the usual sugar rush items.

Drago 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Themes

I know that when you make a character and choose its profession you get the theme for that profession I was thinking character themes you get to chose the song by uploading it from youtube or something. the song comes up on character selection and when you select a character but not log on.

Would result in an insane amount of bandwidth use and upload space. Unfeasible.

Drago 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than uploading a file, you could set a file location already on your own system that would play when the character was selected in the selection screen. Wouldn't carry over to other computers, though. --Valentein 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Titles in Guild Wars 2

Titles in Guild Wars nearing the end of production we're a good idea. Having skills that scaled on these titles was also good, but, as a suggestion for Guild Wars 2, perhaps introduce special skills available only to those who have maxed a certain title. Examples could be:

Clearview: An anti blind enchantment that is unlocked via the cartography title.
Profession linked mission/PvE title skills: Earned through PvE missions and achievements.

Things of this nature would be helpful and give titles a meaning other than the words underneath my name. Drago 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I could swear the Prophecies box said Guild Wars was designed so skill is more important than the amount of time you've been playing. But I could be wrong. --71.208.141.117 10:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We saw that with ursan blessing. Yseron

Only skill-based is fine for PvP, but I think there need to be more compelling reasons to keep playing the PvE game other than getting different-looking armor and basically useless titles that nobody else even usually sees anyway. -- Amazing Goat 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally disagree with titles, but that's just me. It makes the game closer to it's, shal we say, half-brothers, and adds that ever-not-so-needed grind aspect. Just that if you make titles, please don't let them influence PvP (That means no Gladiatior muck in RA and no positive benefits of titles in PvP) and keep grinding to a minimum. Oh, and the need to play PvE should be an excellent dtoryline, and that's just basicly it. Get a good story, and people will play it.

GUILD WARS 2

I wach some movies guys made on youtube and they say that guild wars 2 geting out in 2009-2010 is it posible I cant belave it it just to far!!!!!!!!!!I thoght it getin in 2008!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XemnasX (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

If I remember correctly, beta will be sometime in late 2008, with the actual game being released in 2009/10. -- Brains12 • Talk • 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OmG,so far till I can be Sylvari :(:(:( :'(

If that's the time they need to make a cool product I dont mind. Yseron

Everyone gets to play Beta? or just a % of the million?--Evil Party Girl 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If they follow their modus operandi for GW and its installments, there will be a closed beta that a select few participate in, then an open beta where everyone can (ie. the pvp/pve weekends), then retail release and it's game on. IIRC, somewhere Anet said beta testing is late this year (see what Brains said), but who knows? Mesodreth Blackwing 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

if a guy is reported for scamming force him to wear scammer title

ARMOR

In guild wars ther shud be hundrets of armors cind nather looking and those stuf.IN guild wars nowyou can get cool armor only in the end and tah is boring in guild wars 2 there shud be lot of armor thru thr game!!!

I luvxs u's spelinz :-D

and in case you didn't know its a b**** to make armor apparently in gamesDark X 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

^. Gotta make it scalable to jive with different character heights. A hundred skins, maybe. A hundred sets? Not gonna happen. --71.208.157.35 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guild Themed armor.armor that the Guild leader themes and only members of the guild can get it.maxed armor based on profession,& free

Dr Zlur

How about you buy the skin instead of the armour? The armour rating progresses and "grows" with your characters' progress, not unlike the way that hero armour works in Guild Wars now. So when buying armour, you buy the skin instead of the actual pieces. I think this would be beneficial because I don't like to be level 20 with low armour, and not being rich enough to buy the PvP acceptable stuff. You may have problems with switching armour types though eg. survivor's, radiant, 55 armour... This is the only problem I see with this idea. -- Sinny 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but really, it would remove too big of a gold sink from the game. I SUPPOSE it would sort of serve as an armor storage tho :-/. Another problem is switching armors like you said.

DEFINATELY more armour sets required, and DEFINATELY need to remove the class restrictions on wearing armour. Even if I am an elementalist, I still might want to wear that helmet or breast plate. I don't want my character's appearance to be defined by my profession. /nazz, 218.228.247.142 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross profession armour might be nice. Seeing a armour-clad elementalists would be interesting to see. I would expect, if it wasn't purely visual, that energy regen would be decreased (from 4 to 2) to make up for it in some respects. House Of Furyan 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MORE SKIMPY FEMALE ELLY ARMOR!

Wear and tear

Wear and tear on armor and weapons because eventually everything breaks down. Depending on the material the armor or weapon was made of and the environment, like snow, lava, water, dirt, etc, there could be different rates of wear and tear. Eventually it would affect your armor rating or damage output and you would have to buy a restoration kit. Maybe other stuff like coffee stain could contribute. This idea is probably good for now, but really annoying in the long run. Laserblasto! 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree,as harsh as it sounds, GW(2) needs more goldsinks to preserve the "value" of gold. And i mean gold disapearing from the economy, not just traded to other players. 89.80.162.91 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. It would add frustration to players, rather than a challenge. Like Laserblasto says, it may be really annoying in the long run. May I sugguest weapons that age like wine, that is become more powerful as your character grows? And even change their skin as they do. --People of Antioch talk 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Auction commissions would be a much less annoying gold sink. -- Gordon Ecker 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most MMORPGS and alot of single player RPG's utilise the fact that armor and weapons are going to suffer from 'wear and tear', it nakes perfect sense to me that armor is going to get damaged after its been pummelled a fair amount, it also makes sense that weapons are going to suffer damage after prolonged use, that sword is going to get chipped or blunted after its been hitting heavy armor over a period of time, it all adds up to more 'realism' for me, I like the idea. Evil Geek 12:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Most MMORPGs also ignore the fact that running across lava is a painful way to die, or that you are supposed to get wet when running across water, or that it's actually difficult to effectively move and fight in water. They also ignore the fact that your character should be eating, drinking, and sleeping periodically. "Realism" is trivial. A "nice-to-have" feature at best. Gameplay and fun trumps realism every single time. It is not fun to have only one hour to play but I have to spend 5 to 10 minutes of it buying a restoration kit and then applying it to all my equipment. It's not fun to have to restart a mission when I have only one hour to play simply because I forgot to "repair" my equipment and it broke. -- ab.er.rant

12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I found having to repare weapons and armors was only boring in D2, but i liked we had to buy arrows or anything we throw. lussh 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope they don't put in wear and tear in, other games a weapon could wear down to useless before it could help you to get what was needed to keep it in shape. If they want to consider wear and tear... have it affect the Requirements of an object. So say the weapons natural status is Req 9 but after using it for 2 weeks 2 hours a day each day it is now Req 11 or whatever... take it to a smithy to clean it up a bit.. But you could still use it just had to focus more to get the same effect with a sharper edge etc. (Alter your attributes to continue to use that weapon just as effectively) So the Requirement would show 9/12 meaning 9 is the best it can actually ever be and 12 is current shape and it would also be good to limit it to 3 max variation from natural status of X Chik En 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this as it would just be boring and repetetive. Imagine being beaten by a noob team in heroes ascent simply because your warriors armor took too many hits and broke...this idea really isn't that great as the gameplay style wouldn't support it imo. It would just be an extra annoyance.

One solution would be to have no durability loss in PvP, and that's probably not the only one. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this would be a major pain to players that have obtained a max weapon, and buffed it to the best it can be, only to have it break and have to make it all over again. Or maybe, lets say, you got a 1 time only weapon, like at the end of Nightfall and Factions. What would you do when it broke? Nothing! - Something Unimportsnt

Why would the item break? It could just become unusable. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, am not opposed to the system of wear and tear I'm not for it really either. Would add 'another layer' to the game, and obviously a gold sink, but I only see this in games like Oblivio, where having it doesnt take away from the structure of the game 203.173.225.42 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't do this. GW has a huge casual playerbase, and having yet another goldsink is a bad, horrible, malignant, and cruel idea. By introducing more gold sinks, you are effectivly weakening the casuals (Which don't farm or earn too much money to begin with) and not only that, but a wear and tear system would be an unavoidable sink. Certainly not like 15k armour or kewl weps. So casuals will not be able to aviod it, and thus become poorer. Rich people won't care, but casuals... not so much. Nobody likes it when the government increases taxes, but only the rich 'farmers' (work with me here..) can not care about it. If this dangerous idea crosses your mind, remember the attrib refund systema nd be very very afraid.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above comment. I love that GW is much more friendly to casual players than competing MMOs, and that any grind is optional. (Aside -- I'm sick of hearing people complaining about grind in GW. The fact that you want r10 Ursan so you can PuG DoA with minimal effort is your own problem; be thankful you don't have to put in that amount of grind just to get out of Ascalon, like you would in other games.) I also love the DP in system in GW, which adds challenge without being punishing; adding "wear and tear" to gear would completely go against that principle. --Mme. Donelle 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they have to find SOME way to combat people who buy everything then up the price just to make money, like on rare minis. Darksong Knight 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Making items susceptible to wear and tear won't affect those people in the slightest. If you were planning to sell something, why on earth would you use it and risk damage? Indeed, since you're upping the price anyway, if it's already damaged, why not get it fixed and then charge extra for a "mint condition" weapon? You'd be punishing poor players for the behaviour of rich ones. Bad call. --Mme. Donelle 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you think that creating more gold sinks will affect these super-rich grinders? All it'll affect are the casual players. A group of users who can corner a market to raise prices is more an economical matter. No buyers = no sellers. And thing is, all the things that your character absolutely needs can never be influenced by manipulations like that. -- ab.er.rant

02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of gold sinks for the poor. They need equipment, upgrades for heroes, and skills. People who keep making new characters, and people who don't actively farm, are usually poor. However, you need more gold sinks for the rich. One suggestion is a scroll of luck, who temporarily increases your chances of getting good drops. Make it expensive enough that it saves you farming time, but overall does not really improve your cash gains / hour spent playing. And elite lockpicks that provide more points to luck/unlucky titles, but cost more. So title grinders can get their titles faster but at increased costs. And open up the boardwalk all the time for gambling. --

Alaris 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally strongly disagree with the above comment, especially the bolded part. I believe that rich need to be PUNISHED for accumulating gianormous amounts of gold - and by punishing I mean "make it useless". Why should we even value gold so much? Wasn't GW based on the idea that girnd meant nothing, and skill decided the outcome? Just nuke gold already.

i also strongly OPPOSE to wear and tear i mean a destroyer sword costs 100k then it breaks i means a waste of 100k or what

Less assassin Blade covered Insane no sense makeing armor

Support

Probably goes without saying, but give 'em complete control over all accounts and characters. I heard it wasn't like that right now, which explains why so little can be done about scamming/duping/etc. You don't have to use the powers, but they can be very handy at times. Just don't use them stupidly (as should be exceedingly obvious).

Also, let's give the unban and chat log functions a test before the final release this time, hmm? Armond 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Duping and scamming is dealt with, properly and promptly. If you are asking us to institute a way to "refund" items, or have support personnel get involved in individual roll-backs or restorations, that will not be put in place, for reasons that have been explained in detail many times in the past. Unbar is working fine. Chat lots are clear as a bell. I truly don't see what you have to say, but I'm quite sure this isn't the place for you to say it. -- Gaile

01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Henchies Interaction

I'd like to see more interaction, background development, actual dialogues, with our Henchies. Sure this is/will be a MMO, but henchies still are a big part of the game. And even for people only playing with other players, the henchies still are major NPC story-wise. Things like light romances or flirting (see Baldur's gate sage for exemple), more quests requiring a particular hero/henchie would do alot in character developement and add suspense and tension to the story. Doesn't it bother anyone that we traveled through snow, tropical forests, deserts, even hell (and came back!) and we hardly ever talk to or about our NPC companions ? The odd warcry hardly counts on this matter XD How about dialogues that trigger with H/H of the same profetion as yourself? I for one would love to have my Necromancer have a talk about the best way to animate skeletons with Eve! 89.80.162.91 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol it this would be fun, seeing my elementalist arguing with Cynn which is the correct temperature to burn an Ettin to ashes, or something like "Mage Montu, stop fiddling with meteors and cast a fireball here." -MageMontu 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

War between Kurzicks and Luxons

id like to see the war between the Kurzicks and the Luxons be in Gws2.or if they dont like the idea a War between some races like the Kurzicks and Luxons u can choose a side and fight with them. bein able to choose to be Kurzick or Luxon and fight in the war with them owning a town and takin over the others if uv pushed the other back was the big reson factions was a good campain and worth buying.i know alot of people are tired of the players always fighting about wut ones better but its liek that with WoW to between the Horde and Alliance.

If I recall correctly, the "Future sight" lore of GW2 has the successor to Emperor Kisu (the Emperor during the events of Factions) going all totalitarian regime and crushing the Luxon and Kurzick beneath the iron heel of the Empire of the Dragon. He also cut off ties to other nations. Then, of course, the Orrian Dragon has essentially choked off travel by sea; only compounding the problem.

As for a similar idea for GW2, I'd like to a LOT more versatility for controlling things, so that even small, Alliance-less guilds like my own can feel like we're making a difference without somehow getting the millions of faction points needed for a town. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

well then id say the kurzicks and luxons join forces and TRY to take over the empire. and divide the empire into two sides Kurzick Emperor and Luxon Emperor if they take it over. or have them be called the Rebels and fight against the Evil empire lmao >:P

or for Gws2 atleast have a War between a few races and be able to join a side its wut made factions fun. and wut makes WoW fun wen u fighting in warsong gultch or other places with the Horde and alliance some good PvP game right there.

and also i know its a pain in the ass to get small guilds and alliances to own towns How do u thing the hated [any]Guild and Alliance stil ownes cavalon theres millions of guilds not all of em can own a town.

Given the lore provided thus far, I think it more likely that we could see a constant battle betwen the humans and the charr, with the charr trying to push into Kryta (or maybe just simply trying to finally take Ebon Hawke), and the humans trying to take back Ascalon, this lore easily provides for the kind of AB's we have today. The only real issue that could come up would be if you have a Charr char that you want to fight alongside the humans, or vice versa. Though I suppose every regime has its fair share of traitors, so whatever I'm sure that could be worked out. (Satanael 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

The large scale pvp that has been mentioned also sounds a lot like what you are talking about. It takes place beween "worlds" (servers) in the mists, and they say that it will have battles much bigger in scale than what we have had in GW1, with people being able to drop in or out when they want. Ashes Of Doom 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Away Messages

Customized away messages and off-line messages would be a great thing to have. Something like <100 character limit would be a good idea for both, or something around that. It would make meeting a lot more easier, thus increasing players online.
Examples: Playername: (Away) Just went to go get some food! BRB. -or- Playername:(off-line) I'll be back on in a couple of hours from this (2:45 PM PST). Different colors for each would also distinguish them further. Like gray for off-line, and another color for away. Just an idea. --People of Antioch talk 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice to be able to "tag" and "untag" friends in your list so that you get a message and a little beep if they log in/on. Stu 22/1/2008.

Oh and Can you add something to put notes beside friends list names?? cause i cant remember people by their character names.. 24.141.45.72 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Linked Emotes

/example action <player name you want to link emotes with>

I think these would brighten up the emotes we currently have! A box, much like the trade one, comes up to accept or decline the action made by the other player. You can also ignore said actions from a particular who bothers you. Some examples...

/handshake1 /handshake2 /handshake3 /secrethandshake (mix and match of other forms)
/peck /kiss /makeout
/pat /hug
/pose1 (additional poses maybe thought of)
/grouppose <guild/alliance tag/name> (great for guilds)
/challenge (warps to a special arena for 1 on 1, would be wonderful if it was announced in chat somewhere... [Playername] has challenged [Playername2] to a duel!)
/groupchallenge (for multiple players, 2 on 2... etc)
/pattycake (lol)

Any others you can think of? --People of Antioch talk 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"/makeout" will never be implemented, but why bother zoning somewhere for your /challenge? why not right there where the players are? Mesodreth Blackwing 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha. As for the zoning, that would be more viable if it was outside a town. In a town, I suppose we could take a page from Diablo, and have the characters attack each other outside of town. Sure, make little trophies when you kill said player.--People of Antioch talk 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my girlfriend and I would have so much fun with /makeout that I'm sure she'd buy gw2 just for that. (She's currently iffy.) Armond 09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

lol she is probably wondering why you seem more excited about watching fake polygons on the screen make out than you actually doing that with her -.-

Well, the distance between Davis and San Francisco is kinda prohibitive. :P But then we get into the joys of /makeout * irl :P -- Armond Warblade

09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not /StripOffandGetItOn - but the animations only appear to the accounts in question?--Evil Party Girl 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sarcasm with my breakfast. Less than three, Evil Party Girl! Mesodreth Blackwing 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes lets turn GW2 into an AO rated game and then they wont get as many sales. 24.195.189.28 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have a /shrug command. There is often times when people asks a question and no one in the team has the answer. --SK 07:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

/cry pl0x 24.141.45.72 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

/dance like a chicken /dancelikeyourmommataughtyou

New Monk skills

I was playing Tales of Symphonia earlier, and thought of more monk spells...

An AoE spell that effects aggro bubble range (like shout) but heals for more than a party wide heal, less than an individual one. (reminds me of Revitalize, from Tales)
A hex spell that takes 3 seconds to take effect, much like Lightning Surge, for holy damage.
A smite that inflicts various conditions (weakness sounds like a good idea, now, just need a suitable name for it.)
Smite enchantment that when target ally dies, foes in the area/adjacent to that ally take damage.
An enchantment or skill that provides with an Illusionary Weaponry type effect for holy damage. I'd like to see more Mo/W,A,D out there. Though strangely, I can see this being a big Random Arena thing.

That's all I can think of right now... --People of Antioch talk 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could call the condition afflictor "Smite the Unworthy" or something. I dunno. But I'd certainly like to see some life brought back into the smiting line after all the bludgeoning nerf-bat deaths. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Monk = heal... Smite = noob, unless its supportive smite.. kthxbai 24.141.45.72 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Transfer Friends List

It would be nice if our fl would make the transfer to GW2 with us so we could easily find our friends that we have made in the last game.Thanks for GW btw

I think that might be sort of impossible. What if they end up not playing GW2 (Gods forbid), or use a different character name? Mesodreth Blackwing 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GW2 is a separate game entirely, right? So that means a different account, therefore a possible (likely) different account name. As much as I would like to have that happen, it doesn't seem quite feasible. --People of Antioch talk 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm new game different account, im not so sure thats correct, with the HoM it seems as though (this is the way i picture it happening) they are going to make the account with the same Email Address that you made your GW account on, and this way it will recognise you as GW(1) player. I can see this working, especially if friends list worked off account (or does it already, i cant quite remember). my rant for the day :) 58.168.33.226 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that u should have the same account on gw2 u just press down and it switches to gw2 then up and it switches to gw1 again :)

Take Your Time

Make a game that does not contradict itself on many aspects like GW1. From the moment you let exceptions get into your game code you open the door to compromises and specific cases wich will clutter the game engine later, leaving no options but to offer festival hats instead of needed updates. Think twice, debug once, mature audience will never be mad at you for taking your time to make the things well. Yseron

I second that. If you get to release week and realize you still need another 2 months, please don't try to launch anyway and fix it as you go along. Too many MMORPG's have failed because of this, and I wouldn't want GW2 to go the same way. Ashes Of Doom 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2 FRIGGIN WORDS ALTERNATE ENDINGS! Good and Evil points like in fable changes apearence skill dmg effects

Weapon Mod and Weapon Inscription Merchant(s)

GW2 should have merchants that sell weapon mods and inscriptions for weapons. That way we don't have to hunt to the ends of the earth for the right mod/inscrip or buy it at an outrageous price (7k for a +30hp fortitude mod? Please.) from some person who has found one. --Hawk Skeer 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um dude you DO know that 7k really isn't that much? You really shouldn't complain about being able to get a +30hp sword mod for 7k because they used to be at LEAST 20-25k easy. Besides, it wouldn't make that big of a difference in price as the merchant would still be driven by supply and demand (black dye is still about the same price even though more keep spawning)Dark X 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of 7k is that that is too much for a +30hp mod when you can get a +41hp rune for like 2.5k. --Hawk Skeer

15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapon mods are harder to come by BECAUSE they don't have a merchant, so the price is going to be higher compared to a place that has an unlimited supply of the runes. 7k is NOTHING for a +30hp mod...you also failed to mention that a +50hp rune is way more than 7k...+30hp mod is a MAX mod and a +41 isnt, so of course its going to be cheaper.Dark X 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a mod / inscription merchant, even if they work on the same system as runes and materials etc. I dislike how these things don't have an official price and price is determined only by players. Or, if they're going to keep mods out of ANET control, make some new trade system so you don't have to sit around all day waiting for what you want. House Of Furyan 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merchants for everything! I like the convenience, as opposed to spamming WTB in every city. --

Alaris 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Auction system ftw? 24.141.45.72 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

7k, i lol'd... hard.. --Lou-Saydus

19:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Viability of Playing with No Monks

Monks are almost always necessary for every aspect of Guild Wars (not including those that use random selection). I would really like to see GW2 have more possibilities for playing without Monks. Of course, there have been specialized team builds in GW with no Monks, but they are rare, have little flexibility, and more often than not they come from the abuse of overpowered skills (which usually get patched). I hope to see a GW2 with no single essential profession.

Actually, areas with random selection tend to need monks often too. But what they'll probably do in GW2 is have more viable self-heals for classes or other ways to heal yourself Mesodreth Blackwing 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're expecting to go an entire game without bringing healers? gfg -- Armond Warblade

09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This whole MMO "must have heal0rx" mindset really needs to change, IMO. There are a lot of ways people can accomplish damage mitigation already in the game, and dedicated healing is only one of them. Here we are with an extremely flexible and customizable set of characters and skills, and people get lockstepped into just a few types of builds, "required" skills, unwillingness to try anything but "tank, healer, dps" party makeup, etc. Having a few heals, self- or otherwise, is a good thing, particularly as backup or an emergency button. Absolutely requiring a particular class with a particular build is not. If you can prevent enemies from hitting you or lower their damage, for instance, what do you need a dedicated healer for? One reason I liked City of Heroes and go back to it from time to time is that it's quite possible to have a really weak heal or even no heal at all but be able to do so much damage mitigation from other sources that it doesn't matter. Ultimately, the request to tweak things so that it's more possible to make that work well will make it possible for players and parties to be more flexible, which in turn would presumably make it more fun for a lot of people (it would for me, and I say that as someone who LIKES playing support characters). Xylia 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not sure yet what the professions will be if i remember correctly, so talking about monks or other "jobs" is still hypothetical about what they really will be. lussh 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, lussh. My point was (which Armond clearly seems to think is retarded) is that I loved Ascalon. I could solo it. I didn't have to rely on the inherently unreliable (viz. other players) but as soon as you hit Yaks, soloing gets blown out of the water. I liked that about WoW when I played it for a while. You could solo much of hte game but occasionally there were quests designed for a team that you just COULDN'T solo until the XP and/or drops were chump change. I'd rather see that in GW2 than the current methodology. Or maybe some Epic mix of both! Mesodreth Blackwing 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're not expecting to go an entire game without bringing healers, but there's a difference between monks and healers, and I don't think that some professions should be virtually mandatory while others are completely optional. I think that important party roles should be distributed evenly among the professions. If one profession such as monk gets a monopoly on something useful, every profession should get a monopoly on something useful, and if not bringing a member of one specific profession such as Assassin is generally a viable option then not bringing a member of any specific profession should generally be a viable choice. -- Gordon Ecker 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so warriors can do good damage with a sword and have lots of armor. Lets give monks lots of armor and make them REALLY good at swords so that they will be like a warrior in every way? When you do something like that your just going to have the same profession as everyone else only with different armor and a different name -.- . Guild Wars made monks good at healing, warriors good at melee pressure and knockdowns, rangers good for interrupting, mesmers good for shutting things down, and even some professions/ combinations can be useful at several things (ritualists good at healing in certain cases and also being able to do damage). Monks can also do damage by smiting prayers but their MAIN focus is on healing/protection. Its all about balances, ritualists have more powerful normal healing skills but at the cost of certain conditions having to be met. I think the system is fine the way it is right now, all professions have a sort of self heal for them, but the fact of the matter is some professions are just better at certain things than others. (warriors trying to be a monk anyone? X-D)Dark X 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodsir Ecker's comment was not that every profession be good at everything, just to not have every profession totally constrained by what people think the class "should" do. Softies will never tank, true, but in the current system, no one even considers a dervish or paragon for tanking. Monks should be viable DPS too, but the entire smiting prayers line was nerfed into an early grave LONG before factions was around because of UW soloing by monks. (Aside: How I loved Shadow priests in WoW as a main healer myself [infinite mana woo!]) Anyway, the point is, classes should have more than one option open to them. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that niches should be evenly distributed. That could mean that every one of the professions has an important role which they can perform better than anyone else, or it could mean that every role has two or three professions which can perform it well. The problem isn't professions overlapping or not overlapping, the problem is some professions overlapping far more than others. -- Gordon Ecker 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see dervishes being used as tanks? They can have really good health regen and use spellbreaker :-S. My point was that we shouldn't try to make a game where one profession can do 50 million things. Ritualists can spike heal and do damage, and thats a pretty good combination right there. I understand what you mean about certain groups only wanting a certain profession because of their ideas of what they should do, but the fact of the matter is that some professions are just flat out better for certain things. Not every profession can do everything, a warrior/elementalist can't use monk skills, so it stops warriors from farming certain things that elementalists can. It's all about balance in the game. Some groups only want a certain profession so that they can run a specific build, if I can't run it that doesn't bother me. Dark X 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[reset indent] Monks aren't necessary as much as you can play through Half Life 2 with just a pistol (and a rocket launcher). This was something I brought up back in early beta, and I totally agree. Ritualist is a perfect profession, for when heals are needed. Monks are just too embedded in the gameplay... the whole challenges, PvE, PvP balance, everything is built around them. If you take out any other profession... I do not think the hole will be 1/5th of what it would be if you took Monks out. And THAT is the problem. I sincerely hope that A.Net learned their lesson about having such a dominant profession. --Ravious 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to take a henchman (as in computer ai) monk in?

Or alternatively create an item that obviates both need and usefulness of monks in a certain radius, like a totem that auto-heals the team at the expense of disallowing typical monk spells?

A trend I have noticed a lot is that a lot of players became totally reliant on monks. You go into a group of players and they ping their skills, a lot of times I never see one single self / ally heal skill. That always strikes me as odd. As I principally play D/M I generally run with regen / healing skills as I try to not be reliant on my monks too much, still great to have a healer nearby just in case but, in some style of gameplay, never like, whether dervish or any other profession, being totally reliant on monks to cover my butt!. Perhaps instead of trying to play without a monk people try and find ways of not being reliant on them for all of their healing. House Of Furyan 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, if you can't rely on your team you are going to fail anyways. In PvE you have to have some sort of self heal/defense to help you..but if you get into anything major like HA or GvG, you typically have the HEALERS focus on healing. Dervishes have nice defensive buffs, but I dont see any warriors trying to heal themselves in the middle of the high rated GvG matches with healing sig; you gotta stick to your part and the team plan in order to succeed. Dark X 71.10.143.89 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this. Monks are too embedded in gameplay. IN PvE, you can probly get away with it using psudomonks, consumables, etc. but in GVG, monks are.. mandatory. 2 monks, bamn, you gotta have it or u r dead. I don't like this, neither do I like that perhaps most of the protline is sheersupapowa that has not been nerfed becouse it keeps so many other skills in check. Ruins diversity. Please, focus on more other kinds of support in GW2 and stop the 2 monks 4 sure backline. On another note, show me a couple of decent self heal skills from, let's say... elementalists, assasins, warriors even, rangers got bad heal skills but excellent defense so moot point on those.

Ok so we should go w/o monks. Does this mean we should go w/o any healing and/or protection or would all professions have some self heals? Healing and protecting is one part of the game, going w/o them is like going w/o damage. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguement here is that monks should not have a monopoly on support, instead of the current 2 monks or die. Nowhere did we suggest that support was bad.

New Skill Targeting Mechanic

I have been toying with an idea for a new skill targeting mechanic that I thought might work well for GW2. People have requested at various points that some skills are able to target ground instead of a foe or ally, such as AOE damage spells to control a point where no one is standing yet. A good way of implementing this would be to put it on a handful of long casting time spells such that when you start casting the spell the camera flips to a birds eye view to allow you to accurately place one or more targets which will be targeted once the cast time is complete. This would be disorientating, but would not be a real disadvantage as there is little else you can do while waiting for a spell to cast. I could envisage this being used on spells such as a fire wall skill which allows you to draw the path of the flaming wall during cast time leading to more control and hopefully interesting tactics.

Quick! He's running, make lava around him so he can't escape.

Drago 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus a long cast time, if he turns while you're in the middle of casting the spell's worthless unless it's got a huge enough area that you can make it so no matter where he goes he'll run into your allies or your wall (which would obviously be overpowered). -- Armond Warblade

01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I do wish skills could target terrain, but that would probably create something like the boring "pre-cast" of Ragnarök Online. If casting in a empty area was allowed, probably there would be a way to do so the enemies could never reach your group withouth running into a AoE spell. As Armond Warblade stated, that would be quite overpowered (and boring).--Drake of Storms 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Therein lies the challenge. Having a reasonably small area of effect that doesn't necessarily target a foe means you can strategically place it while that foe is moving and still hit them. If it doesn't, you mad a bad judgment call and wasted some mana. This isn't like mining a zone with fireballs then watching some poor sot rush in and die. Drago's original idea is I think that you can dynamically change the target location while casting, which for some spells means it's not a waste (MS on an empty field by the henchies, anyone?) or for others means you can cast a wall of fire and modify the angle and spread. I think. Probably wrong. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i love this idea!!!!!.mini frog.

More Flexible Keybinding

Just what it says: the ability to bind key combos (shift+key and maybe ctrl+key) as well as simple keystrokes to commands.(This probably would be a good thing for GW1 too, obviously.)

Different Comportments

Something i would have liked is not to have to kill everything again when i travel in ascalon just for the like of the travel. The ennemys already reacts on aoe or other events in battle, making them flee the players. My suggestion would be, what about differents way of engaging the battle, upon the kind of the ennemy ? It has start a little with the charr of eye of the north, who position themselves with acuracy, i found this really great and think it should be expanded.

So, most of the wild beasts with the lowest "inteligence" would still attack everything in range, but the others kind could have different ways of act.

The "gangsters" like the renegats of the old ascalon, could for exemple be friendly when the player arrive, letting him walk into their territory, and. . . follow them. And when the player has reach an area, they shout and all attack at the same time, when they surround the player.

Bosses like galrath could asks the players for duels ? They start talking, asks for a duel against a specific player, and attack him only ( as long as the other players respect it, a troop of soldiers could wait like Master Riyo's students, and attack if the others players get involve in the duel ).

And more in that way, i thought as battle like in japanimation ; what i mean is, if they are 6 allied players, they have to fight 6 ennemys, and they make each of them a different duel ( and most of the time W vs W, N vs N, et cetera ). It is somekind found with the four first aspects of kanaxai where the team must separate, my point is, the ennemy his intelligent, and ASK for it. As long as the players respects the rules, they do too.

For my first point about getting frustrated to have to kill all the devourers on my way when i walk again in ascalon, my point is, can't they learn i'm stronger ? The game make they never "learn". What if they do ? they would flee when they recognize me and we would be both in peace. Maybe sometime they try to get their revenge for all their losts ( like an army could wait at a path they know i usually take, and block the exit by a way or another.

I don't know yet what will be the "allegiance titles" in gw2, but more that way, if we for example activate the title "White Mantle Zealot", a high white mantle allegiance title, most of them won't attack you when you meet them ( but the Shining blade will be more agressive )

To continue about the formations of the charrs in eye of the north, wich is really really great, every armies could have theirs. Back line: rangers casters, a defensive line who stay to protect them, and an offensive line who walk forward at the same right, keeping the line.

What i would love to see the charrs use is a spreading and circling tactic : the charrs fighter goes on the players casters ( so the fighters goes to them, regrouping the all team on them ) and the charrs ranger position themselves at every "corner" around the mass, circling them and exterminating them under a rain of arrows. ( casters could use slowing magics, fighter cripple only when their ennemy are all together ).

Something you must have already thought about during the creation of guild wars is the aggro bubble. The foes knows you're there when they "see you". But even when you come from behind, can be somehow sad for the assassins. So, maybe, the creatures with eyes could maybe have more somekind of cone of sight ( i think about the soldiers in metal gear solid ). I would indeed love to see most of the human likes creatures act somehow like that. That would open to a lot of possibilities about positionning before and during battles, for ennemys and players. but i know this would be a quite hard work.

To get back on the ennemys comportments ; If my team attacks a troup of the white mantle, and kills quite quickly most of them, could the lasts either try to flee for their life or surrender and beg for mercy ? The interesting thing is that white mantle would pray for their unseens gods to help them ( and why not ? ) Shining blade would just surrender, norns would never surrender, and charrs could be vicious, and make believe they surrender, to get the ennemy guard down, and the strike again to the death.

A pair of bandits could try to kill a player if he's alone, but flee on sight if they are more than two.

I'd love to see a troup of soldiers surrounding the players and asking them to surrender. The leader would ask for a duel with the leader of the party ( or any player in it ). If the duel is won by the player, they leave them, other wise, they kill them all. ( and the duel could be like in the norn fighting tournament, not to the death )

So in conclusion and to resume : when we cross path with any foe, they rush and attack till death with their party, why not get more differents comportments upon the kind of the ennemy, the environment and what are their strength ? lussh 08:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While some of those ideas might be hard to implement, I agree that having different ways for enemies to react to players might be nice. Ashes Of Doom 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sword

Hello There,I drawed this sword,I would very much like for it to be in Guild wars 2 =),nothing much of an artwork,was just quick. It's name is Dragonslayer Blade-or Dragonslayer Sword

Are the pointy parts of the sword turned toward the user so he can harm himself more easely ? Yseron

I couldn't tell you why they're angled towards the wielder, but I think what they are is like the sub-guard what you see on an actual flamberge or a zweihander... it allows the wielder to grip the blade above the hilt (it's not sharpened there, obviously) to shorten the blade for more precision while still protecting their hands. Here, however, they seem to have been heavily "fantasied".

Got it ! There are pointy bits on the grip so you can nail your hand on it and cant be disarmed. Yseron

lol! Not really though, you hold the blade between the hilt and the spines >.> Mesodreth Blackwing 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then empaling is forbiden with this kind of sword where you cant hold the grip near the cross-guard ( wich is also pointy with points turned toward the user ). It must be a perfect fit for necros who need to self-inflict conditions like bleeding :) ? Yseron

These pointy things on sword aren't made from metal,they are flexible,when you hold the sword they will fold.

how bout this = no 24.141.45.72 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would like to offer a fan art section someday. I do work with weapon contests in the here and now. I have changed the link to a redirect, as I feel images may slow down the load time. Thank you for understanding. -- Gaile 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Instances, Grouping, Casual Playing and Grinding

Yes, the title includes too many topics, but sadly they are all related somehow.

I have read that GW2 will include non-instanced maps, but i would guess that instances are still going to be implemented in some way. As such, i think there is an issue and should be adressed in GW2, and that is the relation between casual playing, grouping and instances.

Instances, grouping and casual playing: The current instance system on GW1 is not casual-player friendly, since if a player needs to leave for any reason, the rest of the group is just out of luck, and will have to play with one player less or lose all their progress in the current zone, go back to a city, and restart again. I am sure those few players that venture to group instead of just h/h know how much it hurts when your partners start dropping out in the third level of the ToPK, or after 30 minutes in the Underworld, or in the middle of a mission because they need to go to the store, or they mom told them to shut the computer down, or their house is burning. I would really like to see a instance system in GW2 simmilar to that of EQ, where even in the middle of the instance you can still modify your group, with people leaving and joining as needed.

Grouping, casual playing and grinding: Currently, the game doesn't offer many opportunities to casual players. Let's assume i have 30 minutes, what can i do? I can't join a group going anywhere, because the chances of it taking more than 30 minutes are high (and with the current instance system people would not be happy if i leave in the middle of something). And so, we come to grinding. As much as we can hate it, grinding allows single players to "play" when they have little time. On GW1 we can grind money, faction or titles, but not something that can actually make the character better. I would like to see in GW2 more options for grinding, something that could actually make those 30 minutes sessions useful for the development of the character. I don't think it would be bad having a few sets of class restricted skills, whose power is not related to the attributes of the character or a ceratin level of "faction", but to a "experience points" or "skill points" the player assigns to them individually as he becomes able to do it.
--Fighterdoken 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both the problem statement and the proposed solution. I assert that:

GW1 offers reasonable opportunities to casual players already: Most quests and many missions can be completed with henchmen in under 30 minutes. The ability to progress through most of the main arc of the game without having to wait on other players makes it very amenable to casual play for me. From a character development perspective, faction grinding in the GW1 expansions Nightfall and Eye of the North does make the characters more powerful already. The suggestion that experience or skill points should to be assignable on a per skill basis only serves to increase the amount of grinding a player needs to do, unless evenly distributed between the skills in a set. (e.g. 3000 faction to get from rank 1 to 2 in a 12 skill title track is 250 faction to get each skill from rank 1 to 2.)
Casual players do not care for grinding as an end in itself: Grinding, invariably, is labeled as such because it is a tax on the player's time before he/she is rewarded in some way. Leveling is the obvious example, and in many games, it gates what game content (story progression, skills, gear, quests, places, enemies) that the player has access to. As stated, casual players tend to be defined by having less time to invest in a game and grinding tends to be a flat tax which penalizes them more (although some games have tried to deal with this in innovative ways, such as WoW's system experience bonuses for playing short sessions.) I would also assert that promoting more grind breeds elitism, since in many cases, the subcultural prestige of achieving a high level/rank is one of the few inherent rewards of grinding. Even when the actual in-game advantages may be minor, such elitism only serves to further alienate casual players by making it harder to find groups, and by decreasing their satisfaction with their perceived progress in the game.

67.170.110.233 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree with being able to change your group in the middle of the level but i think that you should not be able to kick people out of the party in the middle of the level only if they leave as their house is burning down!!! :).mini frog.

Archive?

Shouldn't the threads still active on this page not be archived yet? -- Frozzen 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this only inasmuch as anything started in January should still be here. Mesodreth Blackwing 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January threads De-Archived. --Hawk Skeer

15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

when's a fresh page going to start, this page is getting long. House Of Furyan 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HoM Info (no, it's not what you think...)

I was just wondering if the dev team is intending to let us continually gain stuff on our GW1 account for our HoM even after GW2 comes out or if they will let us know what the rewards for certain HoM statues would be before we are not able to add anything else... Edit: I know that you are not able to give specifics but I was just wondering if they had a plan as to this at this time. -- Frozzen 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a little info on this too before I commit too much of my admittedly little resources into decking the place out >.> Mesodreth Blackwing 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine so. After all, some wealthier new GW2 players would go back and buy a GW1 campaign and GW:EN just to get hold of whatever unlocks are available they like the look of. Daelin Blackleaf 11:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanded World

I would like to see what's beyond Tyria, and expand Elona and Cantha regions through campaigns/expansions. Like how Tyria grew when GW:EotN came out, I would also like to see that happen to Elona and Cantha. I've always wonder what's in east of the current elona or south of current Cantha.

It would also be wonderful to see beyond the continents of Tyria, Elona and Cantha. I'm sure that those three continents aren't the only ones in the GWuniverse! It would also be great if current (assuming GW2 is released) that there will be hints here and there around the released continent that points towards other continents. Renin 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what's going to be expandable is only within the Mist. Constant expanding an open world would require you to draw bigger and bigger maps. It really becomes a problem. Since the Mist is really another dimension and have no physical shape, adding stuff here and there is much easier. Lightblade 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From a PvE perspective I wouldn't mind exploring more and more continents as time passes by. Look at what we currently have, we get new places to explore (at the time) every six months. I'm sure other PvE-ers would love to see different continents as well. and Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the mist supposed to be the PvP area? :) Renin 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

space travel imo, just to see tyria from the outside -- Armond Warblade

07:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[[2]]imo 24.141.45.72 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My partner and I spent about 30mins in photoshop discussing where we think the worldspaces would be. Looked like that too, but didn't have Tyria and Elona so close together, but more of a desert expanse between them and Cantha wasn't directly below. House Of Furyan 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see the continent that Guild Wars Utopia was going to take place in(seeing the game was canceled)...BUT it is still possible to bring the land back in. Also cotinents to resemble the current cntinents on Planet Earth also ones to resemble cultures and etc. --72.178.138.105 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Armor and Clothing

I had a thought. One of the more common complaints I’ve heard about GW1 is that there are not enough armors for people to easily have that ultra-customized character that looks unique. And one of the most common responses to this that it just takes too much time to rend an armor art and make sure it works correctly. Although, this can’t be entirely true if you look at the plethora of armor options in games like WoW, etc.

I realized why this might be. The armor in GW1 is magnificently intricate and detailed (with things sticking off the player and stuff), while much of the armor in other games with many armors is more simple looking (just re-draws over the same skeleton). I guess I’m not entirely sure if this is true, but it’s my gut feeling.

In any case, regardless of the above, this is my proposal: There can be two kinds of wearable items, armor and clothing. Armor would be more like what we all know and love now, that which we wear into battle and provides us with different kinds of defense and protection. The art for armor would be intricate and beautiful, and there would be the possibility of getting that crazy expensive prestige armor that only the best players have, but there would be less variety.

Clothing, on the other hand, would provide no or negligible protection, and would be purely aesthetic, and worn primarily in town (or in our house/guild hall). The designs for clothing would range from the simple to the intricate, and would cost accordingly, but the key is there would be a huge variety of it so people can gain that customized/unique feel for their character.

This would assist in role-playing as well, and you could even make a clothing designer be a non-combat profession, so people could make their own clothing. Although A-Net would have to find some way of making sure people created clothing that still fit the world, I would not want to run around in Lion’s Arch and see some dude wearing a Von Dutch shirt, that would suck. (Satanael 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

I'd say and this is what I have proposed before, is to let them create a an armor design contest. Let the fans/users reskin the existing armor models then, let the winners design be used (even with alterations by the dev) in game and released another armor. More gold sink for them, less work of trying to see if the "clippings" are correct. Sure there will be tons of people who'll complain that it's just a really reskinned armor but then again having more armor is better than having none. Yey! Renin 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i think what u say is true and this is a brilliant idea .mini frog.

REMOVE the limitation on wearable armour by class. This alone will increase customization, allowing players to mix and match armour pieces. From a development point of view, less work required for modelling. It shat me to tears that I could not wear a helmet or mask on my elementalist. Even if I had to sacrifice the benefits the armour provided, I'd still want to wear it for aesthetic reasons. /nazz, 218.228.247.142 06:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore Service in case of "Hacked" accounts!

No matter how carefull someone is, hacking game accounts seems to be the order of the day. In order for me to feel a bit saver i would strongly suggest a "Restore of Character" possibility option. Mind you..not Armor, Gold, items or weapons restore. Just the possibility to restore the Character as it was before it was "intentionally deleted by a third party" and only after "Proof Of Ownership".

This way would comfort me if i was hacked and lost the hard-worked-and-cared-for characters and there is nothing to gain in "valuable game items". -- Silverleaf

You are actually worried about having your account hacked ?

ok seriously if your that worried put a super strong password on.. and dont tell people the password and dont download you know what or illegal programs.. and you will be just fine. 58.165.137.154 07:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am actually worried. We have two (2) cases in our alliance where ;

1. Characters where deleted (means your complete HoM is lost, including titles, armors and bag content)

2. The account was completely emptied of minipets, weapons and gold.

In both instances a Superstrong Password, being the only one knowing the account acces data and/or the non-use of illegal programs didn't do ..... If character restore was possible it would "soften the blow". In GW1 your HoM would still exist with all that was dedicated there. The look & feel of your main character would still be there. Aquired skills will still be usable. The current system is "what-do-i-care-just-start-completly-anew". My suggestion is for every Gamer in GW that this will (hopefully never) happen to that kept to the advice of account use. -- Silverleaf

I think, in my opinion, account hacking is done through individual Guild websites. People are creatures of habit, they'll use the same password, and for the general person, probably use the same password multiple times. And, considering a lot of people might leave guilds, leaving their information (email / passwords, which could very well be the same as their GW account) on multiple guild sites. House Of Furyan 10:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's often done through scamming. Mostly done through scamming. People get greedy and visit questionable sites claiming to have dupe/skill hacks and the moment they visit... BAM! Keylogger. Or they get scammed into trying to sell a second or third account in-game (which is against the TOS and EULA, btw) and as soon as they give the information, it's GG. As an aside, this is where probably 90% of GW gold on eBay or w/e comes from: hacked accounts. Darksong Knight 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am actually worried. We have two (2) cases in our alliance where ;

1. Characters where deleted (means your complete HoM is lost, including titles, armors and bag content)

2. The account was completely emptied of minipets, weapons and gold.

In both instances a Superstrong Password, being the only one knowing the account acces data and/or the non-use of illegal programs didn't do ..... If character restore was possible it would "soften the blow". In GW1 your HoM would still exist with all that was dedicated there. The look & feel of your main character would still be there. Aquired skills will still be usable. The current system is "what-do-i-care-just-start-completly-anew". My suggestion is for every Gamer in GW that this will (hopefully never) happen to that kept to the advice of account use. Please read before venting opinions of "how it might be possible". -- Silverleaf

I think this should happen.... my account has been hacked before, i had a superstrong password and never used it before in anything else... never written it down .. and i NEVER downloaded illegal stuff

LAG

Recently you yourself Gaile, during one of the winterfest finales in LA, experienced LAG in one of the most extremer forms for (at least most) European players.

While every LAG issue has been explained as incidents the general LAG issue experienced during weekend events and GMT evening hours has never been answered satisfactory (atleast not to my knowledge). Granted, it is possible to send in diagnostics files to solve "local" problems. That has nothing to do with the general experiance by large groups (more than 500 payers at the same time) that get a disconnect, 007, 013 error or are unable to move & play. These collective players are from different European country's, have different Operating systems, different ISP's and Computer Configurations with one common irritation. Reduced acces to GW-service(s).

For now and for GW2 it is the best suggestion ever imho (in my humble opinion) that those connectivity issues are addressed as a first priority to ensure prolonged game-joy. -- Silverleaf

FYI, lag isn't an acronym or anything. -- Armond Warblade

20:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Latency Against Games (as in general play or fun), FTW. BTW, WTF is FYI? --Bob 08:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI = for your information. And no, lag it is not an acronym. Lag, by definition, is to fall behind, or become skewed with normal time in an area. A common use outside of technology is jetlag: after a long flight where even though you're operating at local time, your internal clock is still tuned to your "home" local time and you feel tired or exhausted for a while. Or if time slows down a specific AoE, then that place lags behind the normal timestream. All this garbage aside, there really is no way to deal with lag caused by a billion and three people crowding every district of LA and Kamadan every three hours on the hour. Well, there is, I guess... but it requires even more efficient data transfer, something that doesn't exist outside cleanroom laboratories yet. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not answered! -- Silverleaf

i suffer from great lag - whenever i move to a town or outpost i think that GW2 should have smaller disticts so less ppl will be in them and noone will suffer lag

Make Bows Have Bowstrings!

Bows should have strings. Gw1's do not. Which brings some puzzling logic on how they launch arrows with naught but air. And also, makes you wonder where the twang sound comes from. --Hawk Skeer 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Magic." -Auron 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... the game has bowstrings, but not strings on the bows. It does seem like a strange idea >< Ashes Of Doom 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you like matrices, bones, and anims tracks events that tell when to snap / un-snap different groups of a same object on another object' bone whithout loosing hardware accelerations ? Yseron

Do you realize just how much hardware systems will improve in the next two or three years? -- Armond Warblade

20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the not-low-end computers with old graphic cards on wich GW must perform fine ? Yseron

Um, bowstrings don't take up that much power. I have plenty of low end games where the bows have pshyical bowstrings. --Hawk Skeer

00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You said it: low end games, not low end computer and alliance battles with 24 folks wielding items and rushing at the rez shrine with 20 necro minions per faction (they hence are all in the frustrum), each triggering fxs etc. on an old computer. Last time I saw something approaching this ( not mentioning the work load for cpu to deal with network snapshots and sync with the game and reduce latency issues ) on a low end computer, yes they had bow strings and other cool stufs but the game was running at 2 fps. Yseron

"Magic" is the best answer. Someone would probably soon raise the "suggestion" that we should have flint to sharpen all our metallic weapons. Another "puzzling" logic on how our swords, axes, spears, daggers, and scythes stay sharp. How about an NPC to help us change the wooden or metal hilts/handles too? :/ -- ab.er.rant

02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting for different bows to have different styles of bowstrings and arrows. For example, a regular wooden bow might have a mundane bowstring and wooden arrows, while a dead bow might have a red bowstring and fire bone arrows, and a storm bow might have a strand of sparkles (or no strand at all) and fire glowing white arrows. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowstrings on bows != forever sharpened weapons in my mind. I mean, what if the swords didn't have hilts or blades? The bowstring is like 50% of the whole bow, and without it, well, it's just a bent stick. Also Gordon's idea rocks --Hawk Skeer

03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowstrings? What about quivers? You noticed that a fishing-line-thin string was missing, but not the fact the arrows are being summoned out of thin air. If GW2 is planning on expanding armor options and capabilities, a quiver is a definite must. I dont think you should have to buy arrows, but it still seems unrealistic to have the arrows appear magically in your hand. 63.225.111.44 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, ever watched the D&D cartoon :) The bowstring appears magically when you try to pull it :D so yea, just as the string magically appears, blades magically stay sharp :) -- ab.er.rant

13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... 63.225.111.44 have you ever seen a bowstring in real life? If you tried to use something with the tensile strength and diameter of fishing line under the tension of a bowstring, it would slice your fingers off. Bow strings are really obvious and comparatively thick - I'd have to go measure mine, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere between a 16th and an 8th of an inch in diameter. Doesn't seem like much, but because bowstrings come in pretty much just black, they're visually distinctive even from a distance. Ergo, I am all for seeing bowstrings in GW; even if it's only when you get close to your char with the camera. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument that BOWSTRINGS would take up too much proccessing power when you have all of the sparkly animations for in-game animation and effects from spells and character movement and armor movement and all these other things is a REALLY bad argument...and the fact that something is wrong graphically with something that makes up 50% of an item is a bit different than your swords not getting dull. What if, as stated earlier, you didn't have a hilt for your sword? And the quiver thing is a bit different because that deals with armor and the clipping of the quiver and then you got all the different character sizes that u would have to work out and all the different armor...like Anet said its harder to add armor to the game than weapons. Dark X 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It consume cpu power to compute 4x4 matrices ( 16 multiplications minimum depending on what transformations you achieve, multiplied by the number of concerned bones of a hierarchy ( skeleton ) if the matrix stack cant be saved ) unless shaders and hardware accelerations are involved ( that's where graphic card can speed up things depending on what shaders versions they support ). Low end computers with old cpus ( like mine ) have little cpu power left for such calculations once collisions and particle engine have finished their stuff. And i am already at 15 fps in alliance battles. Yseron ( 90.29.50.126 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) )

I can keep track of a 4x4 matrix in my head, so I doubt a CPU can't handle it. But DarkX does raise an interesting point about half of the bow being non-existent. For more mundane bows I'd like to see strings, but more magically inclined (or cruelly powerful ones) I think the string could be a little more magical in nature. That would be neat. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is so obvious that 4x4 matrices in an animation system does not take time that companies did hire enginers to rewrite the micro-code of vectors units for the PS2 just to gain a 15% performance. Yseron

Yseron your argument is that because YOU have a bad computer that can hardly play the game as it is, it would be just crazy for Anet to add bowstrings to a game thats going to come out in 1.5+ years because its going to be much more graphics intensive by adding that one BOWSTRING compared to anything else in the game? Do you have any idea how much more content is going to be added into GW2 and how much better the graphics are going to be? The BOWSTRING should be the least of your concerns.

Anet shouldn't hold back on making something truely extraordinary just because someones computer now isnt going to be able to keep up with the future. Honestly dude, you try and sound like you know everything about the game and how it was made, yet you make it sound like such a big deal when if you really think about it, right now its easiest to add weapons to the game compared to armor, if they wanted to take the easy route on it, it's a simple matter of adding a little string to all the bows in the game.

It isn't going to make a difference on performance, and please don't start getting into all of your technical detail because honestly, it really isn't that good of an argument...and speaking of bowstrings, I really liked the idea Mesodreth Blackwing had. I think it would be very cool to have simple strings for some bows, but possibly effects such as lightning going down the bowstring when you are firing a stormbow or something of the like. Dark X 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just ask yourself why in the first place this sort of thing have not been dealt with from the begining by ANet. For the rest I dont care about what you say because I work in the video game industry and should I one day say to any one in my team "matrices operations, even with fixed point values, are negligible" I am sure I would not work any more on game engines. Yseron

As bad as your compter is, Yseron dear, you probably won't be able to play GW2 period, since they said they are improving the graphics tremedously. My advice to you would be get a decent computer instead of attemping to hold games back because your wimpy comp can't handle it.

And yea I'm sure you work with high powered game engines in the industry. After all, you wouldn't be displaying your tremendous knowledge of processing power if you didn't. --Hawk Skeer