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

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 Trading 2 Level Cap 3 Monster AI 4 NikiWiki 5 Dual Wield 6 Skill Names and Storyline 7 Attacking 8 Greater Skill Depth 9 PvP Shards/Player Killing/Dueling 10 New Race Ideas 11 Necromancer Ressurrect 12 Monk Weapons 13 Skill Sets 14 Death Penalty 15 Multiple Paths 16 'Finishers' - Super Skills 17 Just a Few Skill Suggestions 18 User Content 19 Skill Slots and the Skill Bar 20 Energy Regeneration and "Pips" 21 Interface Suggestions. 22 Don't 'Stereotype' the Races in GW2. 23 Ranged Special Thing 24 Requirements 25 Pick Your Characters Voice 26 Day and Night 27 Pirate Ships 28 Equilibrium for Weapons 29 Firearms and Explosives 30 Environmental Requirements for Elemental skills 31 Playable characters 32 World Changing Events 33 More open 34 Warlord Type Thing 35 Don't Limit the Worldspace to Just Tryia 36 Profiles 37 Suggestions from a Guild 38 World Time Function 39 Randomized Dungeon(s) 40 Profiles 41 Suggestions from a Guild 42 World Time function

Trading

Sorry if this suggestion was already thought of and stuff. I wasn't to find one that did. Anyway my suggestion is that if you have stuff to sell to other players why not have this box set up and when they go to your character they can click on you and see what stuff your selling then buy it with out you having to deal with the whole...finding the person then getting your hopes up if they decide not to buy your item. You could actually leave the trade box up and go afk if you need to. Yeah I know your going to have ALOT of people afk and so much lag in the area so maybe there could be like a town where it's for trading only?

I don't know it's a thought...would be easier if you asked me. --Adiana 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Adiana

Sorry to flog a dead horse but.. TRADING POSTS ! :D, im all for them (or some near variant of the idea) in Guildwars2 , Thankyou 121.217.193.110 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I want also, an area for trading. an outpost or something. Renin 08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup this would be awsome, something like Kal Online did. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Kal; what they did was alow players to set up a sort of shop window once they had reached level 20 that could be accessed by other players when they clicked on them. I thought that it was a great idea! Ashame about the rest of the game though (imo) ^^ --Alien 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the numerous requests for an auction house (or something like it), I'd be very surprised if GW2's trading system wasn't a significant improvement over what we currently have :P. The Kal Online thing sounds a lot like it's done in Kingdom of Loathing too, except they have a central shopping area ("The Mall of Loathing") where players can set up their own stores once they reach a certain level. I'd really like to see something like that in GW2. --fraught · (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, I hated those in all of the MMOs they're in. Running around the whole town looking at what each player has to offer. Finding something at the lowest price takes forever, especially since you have to keep in mind new players pop in every now and then. I'd rather have a categorized auction house. — Galil 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loathing does it differently from Kal Online (which I don't know -- at all. Name doesn't ring any bells whatsoever); in KoL, you have player-owned stores and an excellent search engine, that shows results starting with the lowest price. The method in Kal Online does sound a bit convuluted to me, yes. --fraught · (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would better than sitting in town for like hours or hopping from each huge town trying to find the item you want. Regardless your still running around trying to find the lowest price. I thought trade shops would be easier because instead of pming that person then actually LOOKING for that person who's in another district then pull up the trading box only to have them say..."no thanks". I hate it when that happens. But just a thought ya know? --Adiana 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Adiana

(Reset indent) Consider this then; an NPC where you can leave your valuables you want to sell, and set a price. The same NPC would then offer to display the auction-house, listing all stuff currently on sale by anyone. You would be able to filter this list according to a fixed set of categories and properties, or you could search in it. This would give you a list of all items matching your criteria, and would allow you to see the items' full stats, and if you wanted the item, you would just have to click it and then "Buy item". The seller who put it up for sale would then get money sent to his storage, and a note would open the next time he opened the storage saying that his item sold and his money has been stashed in his storage. Wouldn't that be something? No need to run around, you could do other things while your items are selling and there would be one single window where you could display all the items available to buy from other players. — Galil 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like WoW. Considering your other comments I'm not surprised. I also agree with this. I loved the AH in WoW. It was Efficient. And effciency is key. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an idea that a friend of mine and I worked on, and would love it if it was implemented in Guild Wars 2. A true auction house. Put your item there. And go about your business.

That is very correct, it would be just about what they have in WoW, which I played while on a break from GW. I had the thought of an auction house before I played it though, about the same time I found GuildWarsGuru's auction page, and there are only so many ways you can run an auction house with. ;) — Galil 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Level Cap

I think the level cap should be raised. Level 20 is a particularly low level considering how vast the game is, (for GW1 and GW2). It don't take much to get up to level 20 and then some of the fun is lost. Maybe put the level cap at 50 or so. You could even do staggered level cap based on how many expansions are installed. 50 for main game, 75 for main game and 1 expansion, 100 for all the expansions. Stu 16/01/2008.

Low level cap makes the game more fun. I can spend more time innovating on builds and enjoying missions and areas and not waste time grinding to level 50. --Hawk Skeer 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet has announced that the level cap will definatly be raised, as most people thought that level 20 was too low. They also said that they are toying around with the idea of having no level cap at all! Hope this helps you. :) --Alien 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea here is that if the level cap is 50, you'll have to play through most of the game to reach it anyway. I hated how in Diablo2 characters would go through the first 10-15 levels in an hour or two, then you could spend a day playing and not level. For my part, however, I didn't think 20 was too low (D&D veteran) but I found that you hit it way too soon in terms of gameplay (in GW, that is)... levels should be move evenly spaced if the game has a storyline. It just makes more sense from a lore perspective. Indeed also, if there's going to be higher levels, I think some quests/items shouldn't be available/equippable until certain levels. This would prevent running much more efficiently than simply blocking the door would. O! How I loathed factions for that. Ergo, I'm sure that Anet thought of all this and will have a smoother leveling curve or something. Mesodreth Blackwing 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the way the levels will be implemented would be with a theoretically high level cap, but with no performance difference after a certain level. For example, in GW1, they could have had a similar type of system after lvl 20, bringing the number up every time you got a skill point, but not actually awarding attribute points after lvl 20. This would just be a reflection of the experience of the player, not thier physical capabilities. I strongly disagree with changing the level cap for people with more expansions, this isn't WoW! Ashes Of Doom 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of levels anyway. I wouldn't want to play a game where the point of it is to see that one number increase as much as possible. The only real point of it would be so you see how much time a player have spent on his/her char and hopefully it would give you an idea of how used he/she is to his/her class of choise, but that brings a lot of negative aspects as well. Bottom line is, I couldn't care less about the level cap, as long as it isn't the sole purpose of the game, and if it ends up being so that you're not max level once you finish the storyline, I'd want to have loads of interresting quests to "finish it all up" cause, grinding sucks. ::::Preferrably, if that is the case, one should be able to enjoy end-game content without being max level. Just make the character stop progressing power-wise after XX levels, and for those of who the level actually matters, keep the counter going. — Galil 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Why do ppl think that higher lvl cap means grinding? And yes, anet has said there will be higher lvl cap. Max lvl 20 is just too low, no point that you can master your character in 10hours. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I merely said that I don't want any grinding when they raise the level cap in GW2, no assumptions at all on my side. Also, as I don't think I was clear enough (I can barely understand my own points, myself); what I mean is that the level doesn't matter in the end. The max level could be set to level one for all I care. It's what has to be done to get to the fun, high-end stuff that matters. Let's assume they raise the level cap to 50, and you pretty much always end up at 50 after doing the full storyline. What difference would it make to play through the storyline while leveling from level 1 to 50, or to ignore the level completely and simply play the storyline? I do know many people want to level though, and that's why I said that after a while (say around when you finish the storyline?), the additional levels should stop mattering and not make your character any more powerful to appeal to the majority of players. That way, both the ones that want the levels can get them, and the ones who simply don't care as long as the game is fun can play the way they want to, too. Win/win. Lastly, I just want to point out, GW1 was never about the levels and as such, you didn't "master your character" simply by reaching level 20. That's just basically where the fun began, as with all MMOs. — Galil 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So you'd like to get all lvl 20 (or lvl 50, max lvl however) benefits, right when you start the game, like pvp chars. That would make the start of the game way too easy. Gaining lvls is way to keep the game challenging all the way from start to end. When i first time played the game through with my first character, i actually found it pretty challenging, all the way. But playing the storyline after that, with new character, after lvl 20 there was no challenges, until few final missions and some ones here and there. So basically you'd gain lvl while playing further in the storyline, just like now, but it would take longer to get max lvl, atm you get it in first 4 missions. After max lvl you would not gain benefits from leveling, not sure if you would still gain more lvl. Maybe its the best as its now, just gain xp and skill points after max lvl. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking benefits. In fact, I'm not even considering levels, just stating my opinion in that I couldn't care less about the levels. Also, obviously if there were no levels, there missions at the start would've been more difficult to compensate for this. If you think about it closely, you could even remove the levels entirely from the game, and still get the same challenge one way or another. I'm not going that far though, to say that levels shouldn't be included, I'm merely saying that the game shouldn't be a game where it all comes down to the levels. I imagine stuff like "OMG UR TOO LOW LVL, GTFO!" and such, making one have to go grind to gain the couple of levels people require you to, to join their teams. The only thing I'm really saying is that I don't care what level is the max level, or even levels all together, as long as leveling doesn't keep me from playing the way I want. That's why I suggested keeping the levels, but making you hit "max level" about the same time you've ought to have finished the storyline, even if the max level could be higher to allow for people that want it to keep leveling. Subsequent levels would be just about what they are now though; just a skill point or something of the likes, and an increase of the level counter.

The most major reason I have that one should hit "max level" around the end of the storyline is so you can start on high-end stuff just about instantly. That way everybody would be happy. Those who wish to gain higher levels, and those who don't. — Galil 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sympathize with galil on this one, where the levels should not be the focus of the game, but should remain skill based instead. You must keep in mind that the leveling topic is a double edge sword, having it too low or too high will have their own share of problems. With GW1 low level cap, you had the benefit of next to no requirement to grind for power, eg levels, and instead spent the majority of your time on skills and builds. The downside to this however, is the cap on your overall power doesn't reward experienced, long term players in any sense of the word. Your chances of survival never truly increased, regardless how long your have been playing. All it takes is more foes that you don't have the exact right build to fight against to kill you. Eg, it becomes more about numbers. (As a individualist, I prefer to fight by my lonesome.)

On the other hand, a high level cap can be even worse. If a high level cap means more power, then the higher the level cap, the more the game tends to revolve around grinding (not necessarily), and begins to separate the players in terms of those with time, and those without. The game should absolutely not reflect power with time spent. eg, one player is only stronger because they can spend more time playing per day. Not saying there shouldn't be some degree of power via leveling, but it should never overshadow skill. The trick is to find a balanced middle ground, where players can compete in the short term, yet gain some level of reward for long term play, yet predominantly revolve around skill, rather than shear power.

For example, if the level cap were unlimited, the bulk of your power you gain in the first 20 levels, with a minor increase over time. Such as at level 20 you have your 200 attribute points, 550 health, x energy, max weapon strength, etc. Then from there you would gain about 5 health per level, and 5 attribute points. Maxing heath at about 750 or something. (its hardly going to make you much stronger) And the attribute rank cap should remain at 12, so your not becoming more powerful, but rather you have more options. Options would be an better alternative for higher levels, rather than just out right more power, esp in a skill based game such as this. One major gripe I had with GW1 was that while it was skills based, there were so many restrictions on skills, that you couldn't capitalize on them. (eg, you could know every skill in the game, yet you can only use 8 at a time.... yeah) What I'd prefer to see is that through leveling, you gain more skill slots, maybe even a higher elite cap. Where this doesn't make you necessarily more powerful, it certainly gives you more options, which in turn favors experienced, long term, or just plain more skilled players rather than just thous with a lot of time on their hands. Basically, I just don't care how the high the level cap is, I'm more interesting in knowing whether the result of which will be a time based game, or a skill based game. I hope its skill based.--Yoh 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the level cap could easily be raised and made so that monsters don't die in 1 hit no matter where you are (level formula I mentioned in earlier discussions). A system for PvP could be simple: Max out the level at something like 100 for a PvP only character, and make your character either have to be level 100 or a PvP only character in order to do things such as Heroes Ascent or Arenas. The World PvP (which is going to be huge with lots of battles and people coming and going by the sounds of it) can be open for any level. Diminishing returns and the fact that a swarm of level 20 blind bots could kill a warrior thats level 1353 due to perma-blind would keep things even IMO. Dark X 71.10.143.89 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PvP-wise: If keeping the current system of PvP chars, sure, go for it. The level can be a gazillion and no pvpers would care.

PvE wise, ehhh... limitless cap is probably a bad idea. Gold sinks are bad enough, and now time sinks moar? Aieeee! but, if questing and missions gave XP and MONSTERS DID NOT (Or maybe a little)no problem for most players, especially casual ones- which tbh should be the ones Anet should be considering most intensely. Would actually give people some reason to do quests. ALso, LMFAO at the guy who thought getting to level 20 = mastery. Elites, skills, PLAY SKILL etc. obviously are fictional.

Monster AI

It would be handy if the monster AI was sensible. If the monsters are more than 4 or 5 levels below you (can't remember which), then you don't get any experience for killing them. The AI should kick in and make sure these monsters don't attack unless attacked first. There's nothing worse than wanting to do something like explore a little corner of the map you may have missed and level 3 monsters come and attack your level 20 character. Why? I wouldn't attack a level 20 monster with my level 3 character!! (Regardless of how many of us there where). Also on the subject of AI if your hero/avatar started attacking once he was attacked instead of looking at the flowers and picking his nose, while getting slapped by a cheeky Charr, that would be great too!! Stu. 17/01/08

There could be different AI archetypes, something like this:

• Assassin: Focuses on weaker opponents, uses hit and run tactics.
• Berserker: Aggressive, chases nearest foes, will not flee.
• Champion: Aggressive, does not flee, focuses on stronger opponents, calls target they are not attacking, high priority for allies to protect, common on bosses.
• Commander: Calls targets, allies will respond to the call, high priority for allies to protect, common on bosses.
• Defender: Guards a location or NPC, will not chase enemies, aggressive if it guards a location, if it guards an NPC or party, it aggroes when that NPC or party aggroes or takes damage.
• Herbivore, passive: Only attacks if cornered, flees from large groups and nearby combat, also flees if attacked.
• Herbivore, herd: Generally passive, if attacked or approached too closely, may stampede, with an equal chance of fleeing or aggroing.
• Hunter, magical: Aggressive, will pursue the target until it or the target dies, it loses the target or it is attacked by someone else.
• Hunter, predator: Aggressive to weaker foes, avoid stronger foes, will flee if wounded or outmatched.
• Raider: Attacks quickly and then flees, doesn't attack when clearly outmatched.
• Scavenger: Attacks weakened foes, flees if wounded.
• Scout: Patrols around, runs back and alerts main group when it spots someone.
• Soldier: Stays with the group, co-ordinates with allies, particularly other soldiers, is more likely to respond to target calls.

There could also be custom AI for certain NPCs, and some kind of morale mechanic to make fleeing less predictable. -- Gordon Ecker 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a new level cap would be great.. C'mon, reaching level 20 in 5 hours by yourself (farm xp until level 10, then run to Gunnar's and repeat Kilroy's Dungeon over and over) isn't that much fun, and you even do it quicker if a friend helps you, I would like to see a very high level cap (maybe 100) for PvE, and for a low level char entering PvP you could just give then a boost like when you advanture in the north under level 20 to make things fair, and if GW keeps the same style (wich I hope it does) you should be able to use skills early aquired in the game on a higher level whit more power. So sure, go on, make our chars level as they progress through the campagnes until you reach the final (c'mon guys reaching the highest level 10-20% into the campagne really isn't that much fun).

NikiWiki

To be honest, when I first looked at this suggestion page, I was a bit disappointed, really. There is nothing that I'd call structure, most people don't care about their spelling, and the ideas are not worked out at all. Because of that, I'd like to refer to a (in my opinion) very good suggestion page, called www.nikiwiki.com . Here you can find finished ideas about features in guild wars 2. Also, I'd like to refer to my favorite 'idea creator' : Bahamut Kaiser (BahamutKaiser Series) Janssens 20.53 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh~ I visit Gaile's page occasionally, enjoy the read and sometimes throw my 2 cents in too. Though I would like to know how these ideas are treated by the company. A comment from Gaile, perhaps? Btw, NikiWiki (i just visited) is a nice orderly site, Gaile's is just more fun. --Evil Party Girl 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

im sorry did u say spelling - nobody CARES about spelling

Dual Wield

I think everyone basically know what this is. This is mainly for warrior weapons (maybe also assassin) but of course all character would be able to dual wield. So your character would be able to hold weapons in both main and offhand, eg you could wield two one hand swords at same time, but instead you could also wield a sword and shield or both hands sword. There would be specific skills for dual wield, and naturally two swords do more dmg than one with shield, but shield gives you extra armor. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 21:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the current GW system, I think dual wielding could be construed as an attribute: the more points you feed in, the more damage/higher hit chance your offhand does or has. Don't know how it would work in GW2, though. It would be really odd without some kind of ingrained %to hit chance mechanic or something, though. Otherwise it would mean that you're instantly proficient with using two weapons at once, something I know from experience takes an insane amount of practice and time invested to do. Ranting and raving aside, I think it's a great idea (and would like to see 2H weapons besides hammers as well). Mesodreth Blackwing 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that would work for some weapons. I can see how 2 swords might work, but that seems like something an assassin would (and does) use. As for double axes, you would (imho) look like some kind of chef doing that. I do like the idea of maybe having 2 wands and waving them about each other in funny ways though. And two handed swords and axes are not only a good idea, its unrealistic to not have them. Then again, whats the difference between a 2 handed axe and a scythe? Not too much tbh. Maybe the GW2 classes need messing with a bit? Just having a melee-like class, and dividing it into a sword/shield category (like a warrior), a 2 weapon category (like a sin), and a 2 handed category (like a derv). There is no reason these 3 cannot be combined. Maybe having the weapon choice you use define what kind of skills you get? Just some ideas, the profession system has probably been worked out already by Anet, but who knows, right? Ashes Of Doom 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A two handed axe and a scythe are quite different, actually. In the real world, a scythe would allow for trip attempts and do far more damage on a crit; an axe could be double-headed. -- Armond Warblade 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ADD dual wielding! At very least, a two handed weapon animation is a MUST! It looks absolutely ridiculous holding a massive long sword or axe -in one hand-, and wielding it that way. /nazz, 218.228.247.142 06:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Skill Names and Storyline

Not sure how this will really apply in GW2, but in GW1 there are a lot of skills with the names of individuals involved (e.g. the various "ashes" skills for ritualists, many of the factions skills in general, rodgort, tenai and other such skills for the elementalists, etc.) In some cases we kind of know who these individual's are, like we all know who Dwayna, Balthazar, Melandru, and the other gods are, and some of the Factions skills can be referenced to some of the spirits discussed in the temple in Cantha. But all in all, we don't really know any of these individuals. I think it would be really cool if these skills, especially the elite ones, could be tied to characters we actually know in the story. For example from GW1, after we defeat Rurik in the fire islands (sorry for the spoiler, but I'm guessing most of us have been there already), we could learn "Rurik's Revenge" rather than "hundred blades". Maybe Rodgort is an ele boss that we defeat at some time to learn his skills. This really isn't a mechanics shange, it's simply a storyline thing that could really help to link our learning of skills with the world around us.

Also in this line, maybe we could even have PVE-only skills named after ourselves. I mean, for example, let's say we accomplish some amazing feat within a certain profession (such as learning all the skills, including elites, for that particular profession), then we get to create (within certain parameters, of course) our own elite pve skill that we can name ourselves. For example, I learn all the elementalist skills, then I get to create some skill using some very basic skill parameters, such as check boxes for certain things like AOE, knockdown, interrupt, nature of damage (fire, earth, etc.), a damage scale with maximum allowable damage which would change depending on what other checks you choose (e.g., a knockdown spell can cause a lesser maximum damage than a pure damage spell), etc. Furthermore, things like energy cost, casting time, recharge time, even exhaustion will be calculated using some algarithm based on your choices with the check boxes above. In other words, it could be possible to get an AOE spell that knocks down foes and does maximum damage (a la Meteor Shower), but that would cause the spell to cost a lot of energy, take a long time to cast, have a long recharge time, and cause exhaustion, While a spell that simply does maximum damage to one targeted foe costs less energy, with a quicker casting time and a faster recharge time (a la Mind Burn). (Satanael 07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea of creating our own skill. Requiring you to learn all skills first seems to be a good idea. Perhaps add that you have to have used them to unlock their potential, for the new skill. I.e. you have to have used "sever artery" before you can create a skill that'll cause bleeding.

I'd use something like the Heros Handbook for that - a special book that you have to carry with you, where uses of a skill are recorded - once you have used it for X times, you can apply your knowledge to your own skill.

Of course, a skill like that will cause problems in PVP, so it'll probably not be allowed there...

Cp 10:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The skill creation thing isn't a bad idea, and it's not like it can't be tuned to other classes, either. I wouldn't mind them being PvE only, something you build as you progress through the storyline, with a name that involved your character but with a limited choice of naming conventions per class (so you don't get ridiculous or poorly-spelled names). For example, my sig here is also the name of my Necromancer, so the skill would be named "Mesodreth's [insert adjective/noun/verb here]" or "[Insert adjective/noun/verb here] of Mesodreth".

That being said, I like also your first idea about having skill names based on creatures, etc. Instead of current system, the skills should be named for people/places/enemies from the history of GW - that is to say, GW1 which we currently enjoy. Like Cynn's Fury or Eve's Depravation (instant kill spell, anyone?). And as for Rodgort, I would hazard a guess that he was probably either some sort of demon or a fire-loving archmage. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea too, but we do have some of that already in GW1. Anyone remember Verata? And btw, Rodgort = Trogdor backwards. Wiki it if you don't get the pop culture reference. Ashes Of Doom 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit: linked to Trogdor's wiki article)

the verata idea was fine, the storyline was something that he wanted to have more knowledge about minions but used ways that was forbidden and became an outcast that u had to kill, later on u learn the skills he had created. but Galrath doesn't use galrath slash, he even use an axe and no Dryder use dryder's defenses --Cursed Angel 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming own skills? You want to let 13 year old kids do that? and call it everytime - eg: I'm casting "Take it up the Butt!" on Undead Rurik; or "WTF my Lazer Beems" or "XXVVVTSMMOO". --Evil Party Girl 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested that the naming convention would have to involve the character name and then the player would choose from a limited pool of affectations that the GAME offers you. Mind you, there would still be violently bad character names out there, but at least it would curtail the "surprize buttsecks" and "chargin mah lazers". Mesodreth Blackwing 18:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to shout "I'm using Surprise Buttsecks on Undead Rurik!", that would be like the best thing in whole gw, or like a shout named "So i herd u liek mudkipzz?" --Cursed Angel 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I totally missed the trogdor reference with rodgort! That's awesome, I suddenly love those skills just that much more, thanks Ashes! My asteam of ANet's cultural awareness is now almost as high as when I first did the first Kilroy Stonekin mission (Kilrooooooooy!).

Anyway, yeah, I totally agree with the limitations on naming of skills, although it would be almost impossible to TOTALLY keep the skill names clean, as character names themselves are not always that clean. Although, ANet has developed a pretty good system for preventing character names from being too super dirty, I see no reason why the same system could not be used for skill naming. That would at least keep the "Bich Slap" insanity away. (Satanael 06:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

'I'm using CHARGING MAH LAZORS on Big Dragon!' Funny, but let's keep a fraction of dignity in PvE. We need sturdier storylines, so story specific skills are good. But.. C'mon now. Mudkipz shout? Eh, save it for comics. Also, I'd find it quite funny is some player made the following skill: Big nuka: Elite spell cost 99 energy, 10 sec cast, reloads on morale boost. You lose all you energy bar to exhaustion, sacrifice 99% health and are KDed for 5 seconds. Everything on the map dies. Balanced? Suuree...

Attacking

i think when fighting your should attack faster and have more options while fighting like attack the legs our head when its vunerable and do more damage and more larger pvp battles like 25vs25 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.238.249 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

A Greater variety of attack animations would be nice, especially showing the location hit. Seeing the same animation over and over again gets very tiresome. But auto-attack options? No thanks. Proper skill use, mana/health management, and battlefield awareness take up enough of my concentration. Daelin Blackleaf 11:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Skill Depth

Resurrecting the skill topic for yet another round, I'm going to advocate that what we need is not just more skill slots (but a few more would be nice), but skills that inhiritly have more depth to them. Perhaps even going so far as having player created skills, or some level of adjustable settings.

As of late, guild wars has been become increasingly more grinding orientated. Eg, titles, faction rewards. Which doesn't bold well with the future prospect a of higher/no level cap. I'm pretty certain that would lead to a time based, rather than our much loved skill based gameplay. As far as that is concerned, I don't care how its done, but I would like to see GW2 being a skill based game, not time/grinding/level based. (but thats a whole different argument) But to do that, I believe the current skill system needs to evolve a little bit.

Currently, we have 8 skill slots, and each skill basically does one thing, one thing only. Theres no room for change, no room to adapt. And once you have it equipped, your stuck with it throughout the battle. So basically, its restricting and rigid. Where the restricting part has its uses, you doesn't really gain anything for having rigid skills that can only do one thing. As far as skill slots go, I found I both loved and hated it. It was great for getting players to think outside the box, and not allow anyone to become too powerful. But more often than not, you found yourself just lacking that one or two other skills that would smoothen out your build. So I would be incline to have about 10 skill slots over 8, as it enough to get the job done and not have to sacrifice too much, but not having everything for every occasion. The skills themselves thou, need more to them than just active x skill, and it does x, each and every time.

Such as having skills that can charge up, giving more potent, if not just plain different effects, depending on how long you charge skill for, which would require a greater cost of course. Eg, like Flare, if you just tap the key, you shoot a standard 5 cost Flare, but if you hold it for 2 seconds, it turns into something like Fireball, a second longer, and it turns into a rapid fire directed Firestorm. Each part of the skill is like a whole new skill roller into one. Or some may just equate power with time charged. Eg, this skill deals X damage to target foe for each second it is charged. It costs x energy per second it is charging.

Another possibility, is have skills with up to three different variations which can be cycled though at any given moment, each having their own cost, recharge, and functionality. Such as Deep Freeze could have a single target, small AOE, and large AOE versions. Each with their own cost and such, but generally work the same. Eg, cold damage plus fixed snare duration. Another is skills that change when certain conditions are meet. And I don't mean just an additional function of some kind, but an entirely new version of the skill. Say like Ward Against Malee. First version work just as it does now, but if you are nearby x or more foes, it changes so that the size for the ward is 3 times larger, with a new description. All foes within the ward miss 20%-66% with malee attacks, and allies within the ward gain +20 AL. (cost of 25, 30 sec recharge, 20 sec duration)

Lastly, and entirely different pathway, would be skills that could to some degree be customized by players. Either being entirely made within certain confines, or having alterable parts to the skill. Such a the standard Flare does as does now. The player can choose to add some degree of AOE, or burning, or multiple projectiles, or homing projectiles, or they could use several at once. Each addition or enhancement comes with an equal cost. Then it would be up to the player to determine how much, and what they want. If then they could also cycle between up to 3 versions of the skill mid battle, then this would allow players to adapt to battle as required.

Perhaps this could also somehow be rolled in with leveling. Eg, higher level equals more options, not more power. Either way, I'd like to see skills that a more than this rather boring 'this skill does x, period. deal with it' attitude/structure. A little more intuitive perhaps. --Yoh 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You really hate Izzy's team, don't you? --71.229.204.25 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC) by which I mean that would make the game so ridiculously fucking hard to balance the game wouldn't be out until 2015.

PvP Shards/Player Killing/Dueling

Now, I know this may sound like an idea from another game...but there's nothing wrong with having good features. Guild Wars is known for its awesome and fair PvP. I suggest that, on some shards, PvP is a constant reality. Some people like the feeling of playing a world with the chance that someone, somewhere, can jump out of the bushes and start fighting you. Split who fights who into two or three factions, so you don't have to hide from everyone (and there would be a greater sense of RPing and camaraderie among the factions.) I think World PvP is a step in the right direction to this end, but combat should be able to take place almost anywhere (except perhaps sanctuary/neutral areas for ease of trade and sociability). If you find out your friend is of another faction, you should be allowed to change your faction every 30 days or have it cost a lot of gold somehow (perhaps a good gold sink). Remember, some shards would not have this mode always on for people who prefer not to mix their PvP and PvE. Finally, since our characters are going to be more self-sufficient in GW2, dueling could be an option, to take place anywhere, consensually. Other games have implemented this system quite well, and I am by no means saying GW2 should be like those other games...but these features add more excitement to gameplay, and are totally consensual for the benefit of anyone against the features. Xapheus 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While it does sound like a good idea, we would need to consider whether it woudl fit with the plotline of the story of GW2. The World Pvp will be in the "mists", but will have an appearance more like the current "explorable area" rather than an AB map, although I'm sure we will have control point capping to deal with. The idea of instant, on the spot pvp duels is a nice idea too, if say you are having an arguement with a part member who is annoying you, you both agree to engage in a duel, and it is possible for you two to attack each other without being healed by others, and the battle ends when one person gets to 5% health or so. While not critical to the game, it would make a nice feature.Ashes Of Doom 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New Race Ideas

I think these races should be implemented, there bipeds(except centaurs) But they act like Humans

• Tyrian Tengu
• Tyrian Centaur
• Undead?

GW Ninja 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts they're saving tengu PCs for the Canthan expansion. -- Hong 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the succesor to Emperor Kisu banished all non-human races? GW Ninja 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they still don't exist. More playable races would be nice, can be a challenge with workload etc, but a huge variety of races could be awesome. House Of Furyan 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was thinking, what about the:

• Forgotten
• or even descendants of the few dwarves that didn't get changed into stone, I mean some still have to be alive, and they have to have had some descendants right? --Lord Zepherr-- Februaruy 4, 2008, 4:19pm.

Id like to see the harpies and heket maybe the djinn too.

It would make much sense (hearing there are 3 worlds) That each world contains a different set of race. IF there is a world set in the Relm of Torment u can make (the race Razah is) as of other creatures found in the Relm of Torment. Also as of knowing dwarfs wont be playable as of Elfs seeing that they been over used in MMO game. Also imo I would Love to see

• Centaur
• Tengu (seeing Cantha got rid of the Tengu)
• Undead (as they play a big Role with Joko and the Desolation)
• The Afflicted (Though Shiro is dead idk how they can be in GW2)
• Giants (seeing they were involved in Tyria being populated after the gods left)
• Orges (can put most monsters in here like trolls ettins and etc.)
• Mursaat (similar to Sylvari or Asura- magic users)

--72.178.138.105 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Necromancer Ressurrect

Necro should have the following rez skill -

Essentially the character becomes a player controlled undead. Your corspe dissappears. When you die in this state your corpse reappears (exploited). If you are properly ressurrected you reappear as yourself.

Maybe the skin is based of your character in a zombified state (hard work for devs?), a ghost or like a boss minion (coloured). Maybe even have a few undead or necro skillz like the jujundu (spelling?), norn wolf and bear ones etc...

Your stats are dependent on the necro's death magic level. Dieing in this state doesnt affect your DP. Like a necro specific version of "Vengence" --Evil Party Girl 15:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So like zombify or something? I'm in. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i've always wanted to control the bone fiend the necro creates from me if i die, to have zombie skills and be healed with blood of the master, until i rez for real tho but it would be awesome --Cursed Angel 05:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Like the question of how the Priest in WoW controls people, how would you propose you control this zombie? You'd (the Necromancer) would be just as vulnerable as the Priest with Mind Control in that you are standing completely still. Also, shouldn't your party be able to res you while you're zombified? That way, you do damage while un/dead, then come back with health/energy etc. It would be like casting Life on a Zombie from a Final Fantasy game, the Zombie dies, but in this case you rise from the zombie instead of the other way around! --People of Antioch talk 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

no, it should be like a rez on an ally and then the dead ally controls the minion --Cursed Angel 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Treat it like the Create Undead spell from D&D... you can have only one undead minion at a time, but you have about as much control over it as you would the heroes we have now. And since this messes with a player, I think it would be probably elite, have a short duration and prevent rez during its effect. Darksong Knight 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah and how about the bigger the corpse the bigger the minion or if a boss has been exploited the minion is more powerful?

Monk Weapons

I come from Ragnarok Online. In there, the monks are more warrior like. When I first saw the monks on the back cover, it looked like the monk was palming an enemy in the chest knocking him to the floor. I was like.. Sweet.. Warrior monks. Shaolin Monks if you will. A martial arts master!

Then I got on and found out I was stuck as a healer, expected to be a healer. I want to be a warrior monk. Not a priest. Please make fist weaponry for monks!

Actually making a martial arts user (dependable only on his fists and kicks) is not a bad idea. The closest we have atm is d assassin but it still require daggers to attack. --MageMontu 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow normal attack without any equiped weapon for any profession (Fist dmg 5-10!.. maybe scale with lvl). Then a simple smitings prayers self enchant that deal extra dmg if you are not weilding weapon will do the trick. I always whanted to do that in gw1. :P --Bob 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the wackier parts of GW that I noticed is that GW monks rip off Shaolin monks for their spellcasting moves. Thought that was pretty funny. -- Hong 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Skill Sets

After reading the post above (Monk Weapons) I thought why wouldn't Martial Arts be available to Assassins and Warriors too. I don't want my assassin to have to take Monk secondary just to kick and punch stuff. btw, I dont recall ever seeing a Mo/Wa (except for skill capping for heroes)...

Perhaps the whole secondary profession thing could be replaced with access to one or two non-primary profession skill sets from any profession. Cap non-primary skill sets at level 9 and primary at 12.

Racial Skill sets, eg: all Asura have access to the Asura skill set no matter their profession. --Evil Party Girl 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with letting all professions using hands and fists also i think that if u are asura u have something that lets u acsess the asura skills like in GWEN when u get the wolf/bear/raven spirit blessing

Death Penalty

Off with its head! I freely admit that GW is unique in that it has this system. That doesn't make it a good one. Death penalty punishes you for failing; that's like adding insult to injury. First you die and now you aren't as good... it makes things harder if you die once, and it means henchies that die are basically dead men (or women) walking. There's nothing I've found that ruins the play experience in GW more than having henchies torn to pieces in against a mob than to have it happen faster the second time around, ad nauseam.

That being said, - here it comes all you haters - when you die in WoW, you lose 10% durability in your equipment. It doesn't seem like a lot, but every non-other-player-induced death causes it, in addition to normal wear and tear from hitting/getting hit. Even something so mundane as falling off a cliff (which happens more often than I'd like >.>) will invoke the durability loss. Anecdotal evidence aside, I'd much rather see the gold sink of durability and its loss over DP any day, every day, and even yesterday. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For the last freaking time, this will not be a wow clone. So please shut up with the WoW clone suggestions.Prokiller88 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

oh...k... *brushes off your breach of GWW:NPA* I used WoW as a comparison to GW because I've played both. I could have used Diablo, Diablo 2, D&D, etc. but since WoW is something more people are familiar with, I made the logical choice and used it. My point was that Death penalty made hard situations unnecessarily harder if the party wipes, so I'd like to see it abolished for GW2. Darksong Knight 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like the death penalty since it does not cause me to constantly grind for gold. Sure it makes henchies seem more idiotic than before but they do now have consumables. Some may or may not like consumables but I really do like them. I once anguished over DP on my nooby days when I never knew how to pull, aggro 1 group at a time and so on but nowadays DP is merely a reminder that I have to better. I don't want to grind for gold just because I died, which is constant. I have racked about 5000 deaths on my main character and if I'm spending 1k per death then I rather not play the game since I will almost always be out of gold nor time to enjoy whatever else GW has to offer Renin 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, over time repair costs would be expensive (and/or the stronger or rare an item is the higher the cost) but for each individual instance of repairs it would be say 250-500g for equipment that's completely out of comission (in the current GW system, that is). Which would be ever 4-5 hours of playing or so. Even the person who is VERY bad at saving their money could afford that price. But repairs wasn't my point, it was only an example of the kind of replacement there could be for DP. There's a suggestion about repair costs up closer to the top of the page somewhere. Darksong Knight 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So punishing me for dying 10 times on 1 run should be okay? not only will my armor weaken (assuming i already have the lowest possible), you also want me to shell out 2.5k just to get my armor fixed? This is hypothetical but you see the gist. I really dislike paying for things like that. Keep the DP system. GW is mostly about skill (we have more than 1000) and not about who can pay what or save gold for an XX amount of time. Renin 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You misread. I said 250-500g for armor that is completely out of commission. Means broken. And if I recall correctly, you have to pay for those thousand skills (of which about 900 are mostly useless) and pay for those consumables. My point about the poor saver wasn't that people could or could not afford repairs, it was that the repair cost was trivial in the short term but amounts to a fair gold sink in the long term. If you pay 500g a day for years, that's a LOT of gold leaving the economy instead of being concentrated into ecto and the pockets of the violently rich (note also that the violently rich with their rare items and skins would be paying a lot more than 500g/day for repairs). Again, the repairs was NOT meant as the soltuoin, it was a solution. I just want something in the place of DP so that if I'm trying to do something and having the henchies spiked and die in 2 seconds because they all stand in the same place and there's nothing I can do about it. Then failing horribly because the henchies (or a pug) gets progressively weaker. And TBH, I'd rather lose gold than ability in this game of "skill". Darksong Knight 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So punishing me with let's say 40(or 50) armor when i've died 20 times (assuming there's more 'punishment' when your armor has maxed its wear-and-tear) in one area means that I have to run back to town before ever finishing what I set out to do? and then, upon entering the town I did not save enough gold to get my armor fixed? Assuming that the new hero buddy system will be intact, I'm also forced to pay for his/her armor? I really dislike the idea because it hinders beginners and casual gamers and quite frankly just kills the fun out of playing. Fail in a mission, you go back repair armor, you fail several more times and you repair armor and then bye bye gold for them. I like DP because you can try anything and not really get punished. Renin 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm going to have to agree with Renin, hatred for repair costs aside (just see all those denouncements of the wear and tear on weapons suggestions), I like the DP because it requires people to think more about the game to prevent dying. For example, if there is no reduction in one's effectiveness as a result of death, then there really is no skill required in playing, so long as you can kill one of the monsters before you die, then you can progress. That is much less on option with DP. Furthermore, in most of the high end areas, where DP is more of a problem, it is easier to get rid of DP.

As for the Henchies, we all wish they could be smarter. One thing you can do is try using the flag system to spread them out a little before pulling in a MOB. If one of your heroes is a monk, place their flag in back a little so they don't get hit with the main barrage. If one of your heroes is a War or MM, place them in front a little so they absorb the fire. I find this tactic, albeit a little bit slower than just rushing in, can do wonders for your henchie's survivability even in high end areas like Slaver's Exile. (Satanael 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

I agree that while DP can be annoying, its the best system Ive seen in a game like this yet. I really don't like the idea of having what you do in an explorable area affect you once you leave it. The on-a-whim attempts to fight through areas for which you are not really prepared would disappear completely, and it would be possible to fight hough any area in he game, as long as you were willing to shell out the cash. I think the DP sstem or something similar is what would be best for GW2. Ashes Of Doom 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with whoever wants DP to be removed in favor of durability/EXP/whatever loss... no, this is not because I am WoWophobic, losing durability or experience points is too meaningless. I've played WoW, and punishment for death is a little too forgiving, as I never took dying very seriously in WoW, or any game that makes me lose EXP or something that you will earn back without any penalty to your ability to defeat enemies. In GW it's a totally different situation, as while it is unforgiving, that makes you at least consider a bad aggro or pull much more than you would in a traditional MMORPG like EQ or WoW.

I think that there should only be a death penalty if your party is raised via a resurrection shrine or some such. I don't think there should be one if you are brought back via a party member. Under the current system, at 30% DP in hard mode, you might as well give up basically, at least in certain areas, since soon enough you're just going to end up with 45%. At least they DID add the Powerstone of Courage in Eye of the North which lets you clear all of it. Actually, if they have something like that that you can purchase early on in the game, it might not be so bad, and would basically have the same effect of having to repair gear as in the above suggestion. I don't think DP should be in PvP though. It's already difficult to resurrect people in PvP; I don't know why they have to have DP on top of that. -- Amazing Goat 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find DP very annoying, not having it would make the game a lot less challenging, in my opinion and also take away the consequence for poor gameplay by the player. Many times I have become heavily DP'ed because of poor moves by me or someone in my group by poor co-ordination and/or over-aggroing. It is bad doing that and DP makes it worse, but you're most likely to refrain from doing it again too, ie learn from it.

Its not like the DP affects your attributes as well as energy and health. Losing 15-60% of your health and energy isn't so bad (quite frankly I've manage to 55-ish with my Dervish through the later parts of Destruction Depths with it which was an unexpected and fun side effect) House Of Furyan 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said in the other durability section, I think it comes down to what sort of game GW is. Death Penalty is the kind of system I would expect to see in a skill-based game that's friendly to casual players -- it gives an incentive to avoid death and use strategy to avoid it, is temporary and free to remove, and doesn't punish casual players for being casual players. Item durability is the kind of system I'd expect to see in a grind-based game that only wants hardcore players who continually pay subscription fees -- it adds another layer of grind to the game, thereby making it take longer to achieve your goals. While that may not be as immediately "punishing" as DP is, it adds up, and definitely punishes in the long run. Guild Wars is not a long-term punishment kind of game -- it's all about the here and now (I mean, it's made up of things called instances, ffs), and so a durability system in this game would be unbelievably out of place. --Mme. Donelle 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the death penalty it works well. What doesn't work quite as well is the ratio between aquiring the DP and getting rid of it!!! 15% for dieing once!! Then 2% for killing a boss. Then kill another 500 monsters or so for another 2-3%??? Please!!! Would it hurt to have say 5% for a boss and maybe 2% for every 50 monsters slain? That way if you get down to 60% you don't feel like giving up as you will never work of your 60% debt! With this system you can at least work of your debt!! The problem then occurs with positive bonuses!! As you could quickly end up with an uber character by killing a few bosses and his minions. If there was someway to then half the ratio for positive bonuses, (say 2% per boss and 2% for every 100 monsters slain). I don't know about you but if I'd just killed a big boss and 100 of his minions my morale would actually be quite high!! Stu. 13/02/08.

It might be a sad thing but I can't just shell out a couple of plat for something as stupid as fixing armor. I like the DP system. I hate GETTING DP, but I know it's part of the game and shrug it off. Either rezone or just live with it. Work around it.- Vanguard 13:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Paths

I know all the races are going to have somewhat of their own storyline, but I'm hoping for the possiblity for a choice in ,say, being the hero or the villian, maybe different motives for the same outcome or something. I like the stories of the campeigns, but it almost kind of sickened me playing through the nightfall campeign. I really didn't like Kormir. I think it would have been funner if your character had a choice to do what he did in the own self interest of his survival instead of for the glory and self-rightous reasons in the storyFarwind

It wasn't. Recent suggestions go to the bottom. I'd love this idea. Imagine a character who went to the Dark side, or Fable even. Instead of some little word rank, I want people to see it! If I'm to be called a Lightbringer, I wanna see light pouring over me, or a halo... Same goes for evil. I can see this almost becoming an evolving PvP thing, ala City of Heroes/Villains, with contested territories much like WoW. But, I digress... Would it be difficult to implement this? I think so, especially if it was the center of the story... --People of Antioch talk 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should be able to be hero's/villains and also i didnt like komir, you should have an option to kill her and live a life as an renengade villain meetiong with others in safe houses and special villain villages!!!

'Finishers' - Super Skills

Yeah, maybe a tad over the top, but all through GW, I've been expecting that amazing fire move I can unlock for Ele.. It hasn't come. If anyone's ever played Rappelz, you'll know what I'm thinking. Most players have a special move they can do, like Lightning Storm - Within a certain area, lightning clouds appear and strike foes. And I mean strike. HEAVY damage. In this, we get something like it. We get Meteor or something of the sorts. But for meteor, it doesn't even look appealing. Some skills look amazing. Maybe in GW2, skills should look a hell lot more over-emphasised. Something to make the game prettier :D

Aren't the Elite skills, super skills? Sure they may seem as good as ordinary skills but used carefully they are quite powerful. Until they get nerfed. Renin 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what this Anon is getting at is better animations for skills, which I actually might agree with. Lightning attacks should be emphasized a bit more I think, something more like what we see in KOTOR or other similar Star Wars games. I still get chills remembering my Jedi run into the middle of a group of stormtroopers (or equivalent), putting her palm to the sky and beautiful lightning arcs coming out of her palm and spreading to the fifteen or twenty troopers around her, enveloping each trooper in the bright blue light of electricity. No "Father! Please!" coming from any of those guys, just instant, smoldering death. Simple and beautiful.

The same could go for a lot of the spells and effects currently in GW1, people/Mobs on fire should do a much better job of looking like they are on fire, and Fireball should really explode around people. Bleeding could look better, although I understand there are rating considerations involved with anything that shows blood, so I have no real complaint there. Maybe Steam should actually produce steam, so that way it has the hidden benefit/downside of making it hard to see what is going on in its AOE. Anyway, all kinds of things could be added in along this line. (Satanael 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Yeah... I was kinda thinking of some kind of attack that is a once every now and then attack which basically wins you a battle.. With exceptions to bosses... That'd make the game a little dull to have to wait for this super move to defeat a boss ;) Many spells do live up to expectations personally (Tenai's heat is alright, churning earth is ok.. Firestorm, fine, but Stoning isn't too good. Like a small piece of rock can cause more damage than a meteor.. Yeah). Some skills need to be improved graphically, while newer ones implementing this new graphical content would be awesome. [Once more, Anon ;)]

I don't like "finishing moves" as it will always be unbalanced, unless what you meant are moves/skills found in FFXI; where your class is given 1 special move that has a recharge rate of 1 hour. Better animation I can live with, I mean FFS I blame Final Fantasy and their ultra fancy spells/summons for it though I really don't blame GW that it does not have fancy animation. They do have over 1000 skills and having unique/outstanding animation for each can be quite staggering to the PC and maybe that's also the reason why they're cutting down on skill selection. Renin 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With how fast the gaming world is moving these days, Guild Wars have gotta really impress with GW2, and I think 'ultra fancy spells' would get them there. Sure, they have promised better graphics, but why improve one area of graphics when they can improve two? Think about it... Lets say, Call of Duty 4. If anyone's ever played it, imagine the grenade explosions. Imagine if they stole something from another game like Halo 3... Maybe a Spike Grenade. The Spike grenade is a grenade that sends out lots of little spikes when it explodes. The graphics are more out of place in CoD4 because of the realism in CoD4's graphics. I'm thinking that a breathtaking game shouldn't be let down by poor skill animations. I'm not insulting GW's skill system in any way, I think it's amazing. But better animation's for the skills may improve on an element that to me is slightly lacking in some area's of the game. I'll admit, many a time I've been in a battle with my party and seeing all the wards and clashes of swords is pretty cool. It's like a big fireworks show on your screen ;) [Anon]

I have to agree with you on that Anon. I was really dissappointed when I first saw meteor shower, especially the size of the AoE and damage output. As for having a super skill, I would think that the main difference between super skills and elite skills is that supers have to meet a certain requirement in order to perform, such as a long power build-up process (but nowhere along the lines of grinding) and you can have multiple supers, while elites just have energy cost and cooldown time just like regular skills and you can only have one at a time before you go into the instance. I liked the Overdrive bar from FFX. You couldn't use it in every battle but it would be nearly ready to go when it was time to face a boss. Laserblasto! 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's also the reason why they're scaling down the available skills, because with the current system they won't be able to really get super flashy animation for each and every single skill. GW1 has too many skills for uber fancy animation. I don't mind super skills as long as they're PvE only, imagine all the QQ PvP-ers will rant about. Renin 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if the person is on low health you can use a finisher for example on fire magic u jump at the opponent and a fire blade comes out your hand and u stab them in the neck or sumin

Just a Few Skill Suggestions

See my user page for a few skills; I'll be putting more on there as time passes. NeonCrusader 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps this should be moved to the GW1 suggestion page, we're not really sure if any of these professions will even exist in GW2... (Satanael 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Guess so >_> NeonCrusader 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User Content

I propose a following scheme to allow players to contribute content to GW2:

Any respectable (1) guild (2) can petition game moderators (3) to include artifacts (4) in the game.

Guild creates artwork, models, textures, music sheets, sound files and such.

Then game moderators approve the submitted material, possibly making necessary changes to keep in line with the game, such as normalizing sizes of items, reducing model complexity, converting formats, sensoring unacceptable or annoying content and create these artifacts in the game world.

Then the guild is free (5) to give out these artifacts or recipes to make these artifacts to its members.

I think these artifacts cannot be functional, because that would give an unfair advantage. Purely decorational artifacts should be ok. In exceptional circumstances, perhaps an artifact binding together function of two preexisting game artifacts may be allowed. These scheme would be beneficial to GW2 in the following ways:

It would provide an outlet for creativity and make GW2 community better;

It would make GW2 better than other MMORPGs out there;

It would act as a gold sink.

• (1) arenanet/ncsoft decides what that means - perhaps completion of a massive quest, or simply N members.
• (2) guild is the only kind of player-run organization in GW (afaik)
• (3) arenanet/ncsoft personnel
• (4) artifacts such as banners, guild houses, fancy clothing, item (weapons, armor, pets, potions, etc) decoration, music, etc
  • (4.1, 4.4, 4.5) a guild army going to war needs a guild banner, and a guild musician, like a drummer or a flutist
  • (4.2, 4.3) a guild is entitled to presence in persistent areas, especially in role-playing domain
• (5) checks will be needed to prevent a flood of artifacts throughout the game, such as instancing limit, price, skill requirements, customized for requirements

Like you idea, I'd like to see Guild Armor crafter, or something to that effect, so Guild can, from the database of armor components, mix and match a set of armor unique to the Guild, so members can truly represent their Guild in PVP or PVE more than just a cap. And, to not make it too easy to get max level armor make it that you can only get when it you reach the attribute max (like in Guild wars when you get to level 20) House Of Furyan 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Skill Slots and the Skill Bar

Admittedly, I don't even know exactly how the skill system in Guild Wars 2 is going to work. I know that the devs have said something to the effect that certain skills will do different things depending on the situation you use them in. Since I don't know all of the details, however, I am going to treat it as though the skill system will work as it does in the first one.

One of the things that has bothered me is just how super-narrow some skills are. For example, there is at least one skill that only has a function if you are knocked down. I often feel like this game, for some of the classes anyway, is simply a matter of using the same skills in the exact same sequence over and over again, regardless of the circumstances. The only actual thought goes into the setup of your character, with the actual game play itself being just to do the exact same sequence of skills over and over again based on that setup. The assassin is probably the worst offender here since assassin weapon attacks were actually deliberately designed to be used in a certain order, but I dare say all of the classes suffer from this to some degree.

Now we have added to this the PvE-only skills which were added into the game with the later campaigns. For the most part, these skills are generally just better than similar skills, hence the reason that they are PvE only. So now you are kind of forced into even more narrow builds for PvE as - unless you want to intentionally make the game more difficult for some reason - these skills are often "must-haves" and leave you with even fewer open skill slots to actually customize your character.

I think that perhaps 12 slots would have been a better number of skills. It just seems like characters would be a little bit less of one-trick ponies while still not being able to do anything and everything. Perhaps a good way of doing it would even be to have exactly 8 skills from the primary profession and 4 from the secondary, with profession-neutral skills, if they still exist, able to take up spots in either one. That would also make the primary profession a little more meaningful than simply the armor type and primary attribute.

Other things:

- I think making the pet take up a skill slot for the ranger was a terrible idea. It could have been at least combined with the pet resurrection skill so it wouldn't have felt quite so limiting.

- Everyone in Random Arenas expects you to have a resurrection signet or another quick resurrection, and rightfully so. Now I don't even know if Random Arenas are going to be in GW2, but this is again the kind of thing that makes customization feel rather limited. Maybe such all-important skills should simply have their own special slots dedicated to them. This goes for PvE-only skills, if there are to be any, as well. -- Amazing Goat 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess when I think about it, I'm not really sure how to comment on 8 slots versus 12, exactly. Obviously I know what the difference would kinda be, but I'm not really sure how to argue it one way or the other in that detail. However, I will say that I think there are a lot of builds out there that are certainly not one-trick ponies, and definitely do not do the same thing over and over again. Just look at almost any flag runner build as an example, or most pve ranger builds for that matter. Take the Barrage/pet builds out there, sure, a majority of the time you are just simply spamming barrage all over the place and occasionally rezing your pet, but you also have very important interrupt skills that have to be used at a very particular point in time, and even after these three tricks (pet, barrage, and interrupt) you still have room for hard rez, and a couple other skills of your choice such as a spirit like FW, some secondary profession skills such as rit weapon enchants or spirits, or even some traps if you like. If you really want to diversify, you could easily create a five or six trick horse with 8 slots, and still be a pretty powerful build.

This is not limited to the ranger either, on my ele I typically use 4-5 skills for offense and 3-4 for defense or other purposes such as energy saving enchants like Fire Attunement or the like, or maybe a few wards if the build allows. Even in my damage dealing skills it's not just spamming them over and over, placement of aoe spells is key, and so is timing of them. Casting Meteor Shower at the right time and place can make or break a battle with a big tough group.

Personally, I kind of like the limited skill set approach. I like picking my 2-3 tricks and trying to make them work against foes that may have the perfect skill set to counter mine. I'm not really into the "Inspector Gadget" approach to skills, where I need only watch my enemy for a few seconds before I know and have that perfect skill which will make the fight easy. I like being the underdog mesmer with the illusion build that can still take out the big tough melee foe because I'm a better fighter than him. To put it simply, I like more skill in a game, not more skills. (Satanael 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

This is what I mean though. There is really nothing much to things like Fire Attunement other than "always cast it when it wears off," as long as you don't think you're being targetted for an interrupt or something anyway. Most of the skills you mention are generally useful also. Like I said, one of my peeves is all of the extremely narrow skills that could be neat...except for the fact that they take up precious space usually better reserved for something that will almost always be useful. Then you have skills like Soul Barbs. Obviously you are going to cast this before your other hexes. Another thing is using a necromancer, I never want to waste a slot on a second ability that utilizes corpses, and there are quite a few abilities that do that. If there were more slots, I think it would encourage a little more variety.

Also, like I said, the PvE-only abilities are usually very good, so if you use a couple of those (and there is not much variety in that regard), then you are already down to 6 slots for your normal abilities just from that alone. If you want to take a signet of capture, well, now you have 5 left, 4 if you actually used 3 PvE abilities (which is the limit). And are you actually going to use any abilities from your secondary at this point? Probably not. Are you a ranger using a pet? Well, now you're down to 4. Want to be able to actually revive that pet? Now you have 3 slots left. Yes, that might be one of the more extreme examples, but that is indicitave of the kind of situation I often seem to find myself facing in the game.

As you said, however, they did say that the abilities will have more uses in Guild Wars 2. They also did say there won't be as many skills and they will be "less complex," which hopefully means "less absurdly narrow and requiring very specific builds or even very specific team builds to even consider using." They also seemed to indicate that all of the races will have unique abilities as well, so I guess it remains to be seen exactly what direction they are taking things in. -- Amazing Goat 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 10 would be a sensible number for the amount of skills as they could be mapped to the numbers 1-0 accross the top of the keyboard (or on the keypad to the right if you so wish). Maybe even have the limit set at 8 but then if you ascend (or whatever the GW2 equivalent is) then you get the extra 2 slots. Stu 22/1/2008.

I like that idea, but perhaps instead of when we Ascend, a character could gain more skillslots as they level, starting with somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the total slots, depending on the level cap and max skillslots available. Darksong Knight 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy Regeneration and "Pips"

I think that the energy regeneration system is in a rather large need of an overhaul. The thing that got me thinking about this originally was maintained enchantmnets, and the fact that they all have the exact same maintenance cost regardless of how useful they are. (Incidentally, that further got me wondering why every ability in the game has an energy cost that is a multiple of 5, but I'm not going to worry about that here.)

I think that the energy bar should have a larger capacity, similar to that of the health bar. The costs of abilities would be adjusted accordingly of course. I think that perhaps the whole "pips" system of regeneration should even be done away with, with there instead simply being a number. In any case, I think that there needs to be a larger baseline than 4 "pips," particularly if maintained enchantments make a return, so that maintenance costs can be something other than multiples of 25% (or 33% in the case of the ranger) of the base energy regeneration. Consider how many of the various maintained enchantments are typically used by players and you will hopefully see my point.

Also, the fact that a pip of health regeneration is 2 per second while a pip of energy regeneration is 1/3 per second is very misleading. I did not even realize that they were different until I looked it up one day, long after I had purchased the game. -- Amazing Goat 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a similar subject, the warrior skills need a littel tweaking as well. The adrenalin is not that useful. The amount you get for being hit and for hitting do not add up enough to use many of the skills. (Not before all the monsters are dead). Either Base adrenaline gain needs to be increased, adrenalin requirement for adrenalin skills lowered, or have runes and insignias that increase base adrenaline gains. Maybe have them unique to Paragon and Knight. Stu. 29/01/2008.

Personally, I don't really feel like there is anything wrong with the current adrenaline mechanic, especially given certain skills that boost adrenaline gain. I agree that some of the skills are a little impractical for their cost compared to other skills, but I can say the same thing about quite a few energy based skills. Maybe I'm sounding contradictory here with regards to my earlier comments about maintained enchantments, but in that case the vast majority of maintained enchantments are not even bothered with by most players as far as I can tell. To be honest, I kind of hope they don't even bother with maintained enchantments in the sequel, as I find them a bit unnecessarily cumbersome, especially for monks who are already under a lot of pressure to pay close attention to everything going on.

Anyway, getting back to adrenaline, I also think some of the skills are clearly more geared towards PvP while others are more geared towards PvE, just as is the case with other kinds of skills. Yes, there are some that make me say, "Why would I ever use this?" but I think maybe that is a problem of either my own perception or merely a needed cost adjustment, rather than an inherent problem with the system itself. At any rate, I won't be too surprised if they are already planning on using a different adrenaline system in the sequel, and maybe they already have considered the energy "problem" that I have mentioned, but with how hush-hush they've been for the most part, one can only speculate. -- Amazing Goat 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interface Suggestions.

I posted these in the suggestions for the first game, but they are probably not likely to be implemented at this point, so I figured perhaps I should post them here as well, in slightly revised form. I know some of these, and perhaps all of these, have been suggested before:

1. Ability to see party members' buffs / debuffs and energy. They could be options that you can toggle on or off, so that people who don't want all of that clutter don't have to see it. Even better would be the ability to set it so that you only see certain types, such as only hexes and weapon spells, or only enchantments.

2. An option so that hexes that are cast on you don't immediately disappear off of your status bar. For example, maybe show them as faded for five seconds or so once they wear off; it's really annoying when you have hexes cast on you and you try to see what they are but you can't because they are gone right away. Let's face it: there's a lot of abilities in this game and not all of us have all of them memorized, especially not by the visual icons.

3. Ability to set specific heroes to ignore your target calling. This could be really handy for characters that you don't necessarily want going after whatever you are killing, particularly mesmers. (I would like to see it for normal henchmen as well, but I figure that probably would never happen.) I guess in the second game, this would actually be your "sidekick" rather than "heroes," and it is unclear as to whether henchmen will even exist.

4. An option for minions to appear as allies, with the further option to see only your minions or minions for the entire party.

5. An option to see the abilities that all enemies are using (over their heads maybe), and not just your target. Maybe you aren't supposed to in the interest of game play though, so I'm not too sure on this one.

6. A combat log option for the chat window, with skills highlighted so that you can see what they are. (Actually, this would probably negate the need for suggestion number 2 above.)

7. If salvaging still exists, show what materials items can be salvaged for after double clicking a salvage kit and hovering over them.

-- Amazing Goat 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you know how you can resize health and energy bars? I like to make them vertical. But this doesn't work for enemy/target bars. I'd even like to see that implemented in GW normally. I agree about the hex spells that disappear quickly. I'd like to see what in the world happened to my health. On that note, the damage monitor I would like to see as a customizable fade time and not just only be persistent when I die. Speaking of dieing, I'd like to see what player killed me with what skill. Makes it handy when ID'ing a type of enemy or in PvE when you're trying to adjust accordingly. You know what would also be awesome, to have the HUD disappear automatically after combat, but leave the little chat bubbles and automatically fading words alone. This way, we can enjoy the graphics and environments, and as an added bonus, see the HUD come back when we have intentionally/accidentally aggro'ed an enemy. --People of Antioch talk 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see here...

1) I'd like this, especially as when I play as a healer/support class. Turning the health bar purple tells me basically nothing.

2) GW2 will have less skills or less varied skills or something. I forget, so I'm still on the fence about this.

3) Holy hell would I like this. In addition, there should be a way to disable attacking (mostly for casters) without having to set them to "avoid" because then they run around like idiots and don't do anything.

4) As a Necromancer, I would love to see this. Keep track of me pretties.

5) I don't think any game to date has implemented this, it would take some crazy real-time modifications to the GUI on the game's part to show this. Personally, if the spells in GW2 have more than 2-3 different animations per class - total - it would be a moot point since it would be OBVIOUS what's being cast/attacked with.

6) I can see how it would, possibly. I know NWN 1 and 2 has this (but blecch @ Spellcraft checks) and I can't recall about WoW since it's been about 8 months since I last played, but I think it has a separate chat log entirely, composed of "PC/NPC attacks/casts spell/ability on PC/NPC" and "X effect occurs" (by which I mean health/mana gain/loss).

7) I think this would be a good idea, but make it based on character experience: it'll only tell you after you've already salvaged the same item type or after a tradesperson tells you. That sort of thing.

Darksong Knight 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like where Darksong is going with that. All of that was a great point. Good job. --People of Antioch talk 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea for the guild menu (and assuming there's still alliances), each guild has an announcement section, so why not have an announcement section for the alliance (ie, all guilds could see this message, but only the guild leaders could edit it) Jack 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Options to save interface settings. Stuff like templates. Please? -- Armond Warblade 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't 'Stereotype' the Races in GW2.

One of the biggest things that have bugged me in every RPG is that EVERY race was immediately defined by some stereotype (Be it some crazy accent, some bizarre state of mind, etc) and that any other state of mind or accent was a miracle to come across. So if you would... don't make 99.9% of all Asura think that they're the only decent minded race, and/or just plain insulting, 99.9% of all Norn babble about their latest successful hunt, etc. I suggest don't even give them some accent that is sharply different from your average European-ish human in RPGs. Their history and culture I don't really care about, I just see it in the same manner as Native American vs European culure/history, but the accent and mentality is what I really tend to note. Now it's not like I'm asking for no Asura to be ignorant or insulting, or no Norn to mention their hunts or duels, but at least not it be what I immediately see about the races in GW2. I'm not sure if anyone else cares, but it's an idea to consider. --Dragon's Moon 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not stereotypes, they're more like archetypes. And to be honest, a LOT of humans, even in real life, could have the arrogance of the Asura or the boastfulness of the Norn applied to them, or even entire cultures (Black people as former second-class citizens in the US, anyone?). Ergo, because a culture having a specific mindset has been repeated since time immemorial in human history, I can't argue with its use. Besides, they say to write what you know. Darksong Knight 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, yeah, these are more akin archetypes, and there is what is mentioned above in real life too, though I don't care if a lot of Asura are arrogant or Norn boastful, but what I don't like to see is that it is the only mindset you ever see out of an NPC, and makes you begin to wonder if there's anything else that's sharply different and does not seem to equal a heretic in said race's eyes, and is not hidden away as something you'll only see in a quest or in some outpost that receives poor attention from the player base. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Dragon's Moon (talk).

Archetype plus culture plus simplification. I believe the reason RPGs do that is mostly the latter. They want to introduce additional ways for players to differentiate themselves - the easiest way is to create a race that looks entirely different and has an archetype to define it. For most RPGs, if you replace all the race names with "human of so-and-so nation", it'll work perfectly fine. So a "race" in an RPG is really nothing more than a culture. GW essentailly does the same thing, although I disagree that it was overly done, since I find all the named NPCs of the various races nicely enough fleshed out, conforming to their respective archetypes at degrees that are varied enough. I think what you're asking for is essentially a civilization rather than a race. Compared to pen-and-paper RPG worlds, it's a lot more difficult to juggle lore, implementation, and content all right from the start. But I agree that it would certainly be lovely if Anet could pull it off, like having the "versions" in GW1 be the dominant subculture within that race, and then as you create characters for each, you're exposed to the various other subcultures within the "standard" culture. But I wouldn't want them to spend too much effort on it, since whatever they can come up with is going to be limited by implementation and how much content they can put in, plus the fact that there's a large number of players who are mostly unappreciative of lore, and background. What you're also missing is that given you can't control where players access, if you make a race too varied and not typical enough, then casual players will actually get the wrong impression that this particular race is not different enough from humans, since they have just the same amount of varied personality. And that is likely more damaging flavor-wise than having too much lore that no one knows about. -- ab.er.rant 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ranged Special Thing

Like warrior ho can get shield,mage guys ho can get that stuff for bigger energy RANGERS shud have better arrows for bigger demage!.ty

they can uppgrade their bow?

The "arrows for bows" argument has been gone over many times, look up. And we can already upgrade our bows in 3 ways.Ashes Of Doom 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if rangers got offhand items. -- Gordon Ecker 09:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

offhand item for rangers should be the type of arrow. --Evil Party Girl 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, "offhand" for bow should be a harmguard or a quiver(eg: Sundering Flat bow, Quiver of Vigor). Personaly i prefere to have all mod on same item, that use less space in backpack when switching set(all staff, no wand/offhand when posible). --Bob 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with evil party girl the offhand item should be the type of arrow for example bronze tipped arrows

Requirements

Something that's always bugged me about GW is that the requirement on an item means absolutely nothing but the damage output. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but seeing casters left right and center with melee weapons is irritating. Of course, it doesn't help that staves are virtually optional since their modifiers are basically garbage. So what I would like to see in GW2 is two things:

• Being able to equip an item at all hinges on meeting the requirement.
• Caster weaponry that is an obvious benefit having it and an obvious loss without it.

Darksong Knight 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if caster weapons affected all abilities tied to an attribute and not just specifically spells, but I wouldn't call the current gear worthless. If you see casters in PvP using a non-caster weapon with a shield and they are not using some kind of build which necessitates it, chances are what they are doing is energy hiding, which also has the added benefit of having increased armor while those items are equipped.

Having a chance to have half of their recharge time is pretty useful for certain abilities, and so is halved casting time, although I'm not too sold on 20% chance to get +1 to an ability mods. I only wish they worked with things like binding rituals, but those are not "spells", so it sometimes feels like certain classes get shafted in that regard. -- Amazing Goat 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither talking about energy hiding nor PvP. I'm talking about how I can spend a whole day partying with actual people and MAYBE one human-controlled caster has actual caster equipment. In GW2 I want to see staves/wands/whatever the obvious choice for casters.

"I don't agree with Being able to equip an item at all hinges on meeting the requirement. Anet made it good as it is, you can equip any item even if you don't meet the requirement, but you suffer by not taking full benefit of it. I mean I'm not a swordsman in rl but that doesn't stop me from badly wielding a sword and swing it around without doing any serious dmg. --MageMontu 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I put that as a brutally efficient way of stopping every monk, mesmer, ritualist, elementalist and necromancer and their uncles from running around with swords, axes or spears just because it's no real detriment if they DON'T use caster equipment. Anyway, D&D is pretty lax on requirements, too... as long as you have the weapon proficiency that the weapon falls under (martial, exotic, etc) you can use the weapon to its maximum effect, but the damage you do will be determined by your strength (or dexterity depending on certain things). Darksong Knight 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I usually use caster equipment in PvE myself, and most of the PvP builds I've seen for casters advise primarily using caster equipment. Maybe I am just clueless. You don't get the benefit of adding much of any real weapon damage if you have improper gear equipped at any rate. I know weapon damage isn't usually a lot to begin with, but every little bit helps. -- Amazing Goat 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One way to encourage caster weapons would be to give casters attack skills which they can use with them. -- Gordon Ecker 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Like "Wand of Chain lightning", etc? I'm in. Darksong Knight 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What about mods that can only be found on caster equips? a 30% enchant on staves?