User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Misplaced Topics/June 2008

From Guild Wars Wiki

< User talk:Regina Buenaobra | Archive Misplaced Topics

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 by Topic
Random Chatter Wiki Topics Game Related Topics Community & Website Product Information Misplaced Topics, Etc.

Possible 10 parameter solution for Character Restore (GW2?)

The recent events, RAWR and an increase in Account "trouble" made us think.

There are 10 Parameters that define a GW Character;

0. Born in (GW1 =P/F/NF, Might not apply for GW2?)
1. Race
2. Profession
3. Gender
4. Hair
5. Hair colour
6. Face
7. Skin Colour
8. Height
9. Character name
10. Account owner

All the other accesoires (titles, armor, weapons, gold, runes, minipets) are secondairy to the first Parameters.
To be able to restore a character;

These Parameters can be saved securely in a clients .dat file or the client software.
An interface could be created to "restore" the first 10 Parameters by choosing the Name

-- (Result would be having the exact character restored that was lost/deleted)--

Only secondairy Parameters that are stored in HoM are activated and restored with the restore of the Character.

-- (Result would be your Character standing in his/her underwear in LA/Kamaden/Shing Jea, able to travel to Eye of the North & HoM and enter HoM. All accomplishments that character did would still be there) --

No restore of weapons, gold, armor, minipets, items in bags!

-- (Result would be having to work for them to regain what was lost and pay for access to your Xunlai even) --

Restore of Character is only possible for lvl20 Characters
Deleting a character means 1 death. (No Legendary Survivor Possible due to restore)

We have contemplated more detailed "steps" but this is the main idea.
A contemplation from a bussiness point of view would be appreciated. No doubt many Players would be less grieved if it happened to them and this was a Back-up.

Sadness & --Silverleaf 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with those metrics is that there isn't currently an easy or sure way to figure out what they all were for an already created character. You can't even GET a value for height ... ^_^. Don't really get the point of adding a death. Random extra punshiment if it happenes to a survivor aspirant?

Random thought though ... if backups aren't possible or whatever, how about a several-day deletion queue, where your character becomes unplayable until you cancel the deletion. Any character made in a slot freed by this would need to be deleted before restoring. -- It could at least work like this on the backend for support.

There really needs to be something, though. I don't know if i'd be bothered to continue playing if I lost significant title work, HoM, and minis I went and paid real money for (e.g., buying collectors editions later just to get them.)--Star Weaver 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just what part of: "If you've got suggestions for the game, check out the boxes to the right. There are a bunch of links there which will lead you to the appropriate places to post your feedback." is so hard to follow? -- Inspired to ____ 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Random Suggestion for the Game but a translation for the many thoughts floating around that players ventilate in-game or random brainstorming. I have seen and read enough to feel unsecured in my account use and allthough i abide fully to the "Protect your account" advice cannot help but feel the need to get an additional technical feature from the game itself. I would be content with having my character restored and fight for all i need to play it to the fullest again. Just cannot bear the thought to loose it like others have.

This is a request for an active voice in the decision making proces. Not stopping at just "complaining about it". And to me Regina is that voice, and so are you! -- Silverleaf

17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why there's a dedicated subpage for these sort of feedback. Those pages aren't limited to content suggestions and they aren't limited to "random suggestions". -- ab.er.rant

17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope account hack/trouble doesn't happen to you(reader) or a close friend of yours(reader). I strongly request an answer (solid) to this suggestion. All those wonderfull sub-pages and "Portals" do not add anything to a communication chains and create more dis-information. People loose stuff. They care. So I req. the CC and try to add a direction of thought hopefully on the way to a solution. Stop making this about other subjects. -- Silverleaf

07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither does this section. ArenaNet has already made a statement regarding account theft, anything beyond that is a suggestion and belongs in the suggestion areas. You are implying that your suggestion has more value than those who place theirs in the proper location, and quite honestly it doesn't. Please respect the other people who are making suggestions and don't try to imply that you are somehow superior to them.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way "Bureaucrat". Guess my opinion doesn't count either and all the fragmented way's of community concerns ain't important anyway's. Signing off. -- Silverleaf

18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion counts just as much as any other user's, which is why we ask you to do the same as any other user. It's not anything personal against you, nor is it intended as disrespect for your opinion; rather, it's like asking someone to wait their turn in line rather than pushing to the front.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. You want me to "bury" a serious security question from the community that we 2 formulated into 1 of the POSSIBLE solutions on a page no-one but wiki people read. If you have suggestions or advice for me to place issue's elsewhere please do so on my talk page. -- Silverleaf

09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And no insightfull remark about this before archiving :(. --Silverleaf

18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the "Valor" Monument

So it can be used to enter other weapons than Destroyer Weapons. MarioDX 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While, I agree, I think this belongs in GW1 Suggestions-Warior Kronos

14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it dose. and it was said somewhere that they are thinking about adding more weapons to that monument i personally think the destroyer weapons and greens.75.165.102.213 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this so far as adding the "unique weapons" but i also think that they definately have to add tormented weapons as well. -- Infamous Darkness 15:12 3 June 2008

Whispering while showing offline

Hey,

It turns out you can whisper while your status is set to offline, but you can't be whispered. That caused quite some trouble when a guy tried to trade with someone else trough an auction site. He whispered, but he forgot he had his status set to offline. The poor guy couldn't reply and the whisperer got quite mad and even started cussing 0.o

I tested it to, it's not just a story I heard.

I think it should be changed so you can't whisper while your status is set to offline.

My $0.02 :] HeavenMonkey 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or at the least, display a warning when you whisper while set to offline, along the lines of "Note: You are currently set to offline, so <NameHere> will be unable to reply to you."

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i hate that. Another thing would be to do is make it say something similir (for the first three times) if you are ignoring them. Example:I was in a really long an annoying trade with someone, when it was over, they asked if i wanted another item, yet they had me on ignore. This person was either annoyed at me, lazy, or stupid, im assuming the latter and the latter latter--

Raph Talky 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're marked as offline you shouldn't be able to whisper people, similarly you shouldn't be able to whisper people on your ignore list. It just leads to abuse Sadie2k 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An annoying abuse, by the way, that can only be avoided with another ignore. Mith

Talk 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's best they are not able to whisper at all when set to Offline. I think some people wouldn't even notice the message stating that the person they're whispering won't be able to reply. Heck when I'm set to "Away" I still get pms from people thinking I'm there and never notice the message saying I'm away. lol Verix 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The same problem occurs while you're set to Do Not Disturb, actually. I had a friend yell at me once because I couldn't reply to her- she was set to DND and thought I was ignoring her. Some kind of warning when you whisper while Offline or DND would definitely be good. --

Elv 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO there should be no "offline" option in the first place. After all this is a community game.

Lag

today and yesterday have been really lagy and man it was really bad today in ToA for some reason,And i was woundering if u could look at in the update?--Gar the tank 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Login, click test my computer and send the file to support. This is the wrong place. Dominator Matrix 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No im not the only one lagging its lagging in ab,LA ToA UW/FOW everywhere everyone is lagging and it is getting old...--Gar the tank 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They can still use the info, to help them determine where the slowdown is occurring.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i get lag spikes, and i mean HUGE ones, every now and then. When i get on gw again, i oughta check out the problem (probably my graphics card, its an old pice of crap inside a wonderful computer)--Raph Talky 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RA

I love it. I do not love noobs. Please help. I feel like RA should have a title system, or even AB, where you are paired with other players of your "rank" instead of it soley being random.--CRφssFIRE© 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You get a R/any with Power shot, warrior with frenzy and no elite, and an assassin with 4 lead attacks is outright ridiculous when you are a r4 monk with leet armor and skills. There should be more of a (rated) RA match. A title system mabye for Random arenas solely to show the amount of experience you have, so when being paired in Random arenas, the new players will learn the game with other new players while versing other new players, while the 1337 players can fight. I dont find it fair to always be teamed with new players when I am not. TBH what is really IMBA is having noobs vs. pros who sync RA, for they will not understand what guildwars is about. They will get the idea that Thay are better than me because they are a dervish or something outright riduculous like that. If new players learn the game with other new players, they will begin to learn how to have an advantage over a foe instead of why the cool guy with full black armor is killing me. Thank-you :)--CRφss

FIRE© 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now come on. Noone likes an elitist. RA is where newbs start to learn PvP. I'm sure you were a newb once too. And how did you learn? By watching other players who were better than you, and learning from them. If you make a newb fight a newb, they won't learn stuff very fast. Throw a newb into a match with other skilled players, and that newb will learn much faster. If you just want exp players, play TA. -Warior Kronos

01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RA taught me Healing Breeze was a good Warrior skill. It took getting into GvG to learn that no, I'm a fucking moron. RA as it stands doesn't teach anyone anything - the good players will decimate you in a heartbeat (or lose savagely because of build wars), the bad players crumble like crusty sand (or win savagely because of build wars), and the average players can't really tell which is which or even how good they are (because of build wars). People become so convinced that bad stuff is good (because of build wars) that the phrase "It works in RA" has literally become a punchline. +1 to Crossfire's suggestion. --71.237.30.4 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

thats like taking the most gay parts of ha, the elitists and their nerdranks, and pairing them together, so noone else can win or get anywhere, just as in ha. --Cursed Angel

02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ha is hardly full of elitists. i think if they made it so the wipe your opponent maps had a one time only rez i think the game would make it a lot easier for alot of people because then people would not have to bring a rez sig and you wouldn't get raged be cause some nub war didn't bring a rez. also i the thing the game relay needs is a closed skill arena like the custom brawl, but have a smaller pull of skills, and have the skills change every month or so. and that way people can learn the very basics of the game. and also get conferable with skills.75.165.102.213 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every form of unorganized PvP needs to be split according to skill. It's no fun to get random shits on your team and then find yourself up against Langola and crew (true story). It's not just Guild Wars, every MMO seems to have this... but Guild Wars has the advantage of not also needing places to be split according to gear as well. (J is a wonderful thing.) -- Armond Warblade 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A better way to word the first post would be this. I love random arenas, but I hate random arenas. I demand you make random arenas non-random.--Yankeefan984 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Random arenas. I DO NOT LIKE being paired with noobs. Especially the monks with healing breeze and the elementalists with flare. Plz regina help :( RA should be just a litttttleee more organized. Like more of a chance of being paired with a player r1 glad or somthing. Its sooooo imba when elitists vs noobs and the noobs think its becuause ohh yeah they beat me because they are a dervish and dervishes are soooooo overpowered when really everything is balanced and they are just spamming power shot.--CRφss

FIRE© 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Crit sycthe pwns faces in RA wai to hard Fox007

20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think RA should have a title system like.... +1 point for every RA win. 1000 points to each rank. IT doesnt have to be (only being paired with your rank) but just more of a chance to have a team according to your rank. Thanks :) and also...+1 to Crossfire's suggestion.--CRφss FIRE© 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOO WAIT I HAVE A BETTER IDEA. ORGANIZED UPON THE AMOUNT OF BALTHAZAR FACTION OBTAINED.--CRφss

FIRE© 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesnt that sort of make it less of a random arena and more of a play at ur level arena? to me that just sounds like a lesser version of Team arena's but you dont know who u will be with,--

Wild 10:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that better than the usual RA. Based on Balthy faction is a great way to sort out teams accordingly.--crosskipFIRE© 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RA is one of the first pvp arenas (not counting the low level pve arenas) where ppl start to learn how to play. Maybe if people like you help them and "teach them" some basics you would get better partys, or maybe its time for yo to move to a another arena full of ppl of the same "level" or "leet-ness" you have. Random is that.. jsut random.. probe your skills and win in a 1 veteran 3 newbs team vs 3 veteran, thats the best achivement you can have XD. Kioga 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If Random Arenas paired you up based on titles, it wouldn't be Random. ~Shard (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Now allow 7 heroes in PvE?

I know I've brought up the seven heroes thing before, asking the reasons there are only four, but this time I am bringing up more reasoning to allow seven heroes.

I, personally, dislike Ursan a lot. I also dislike playing with people who use it. However, in Elite PvE areas, your basically limited to using only Ursan. PuGs: 99% of them require Ursan. Large PvE focused guilds: 90% of them use Ursan. Even if you do find a guild that doesn't use Ursan, it requires you to leave your current guild, which means you may have to leave your good friends. With seemingly no nerf coming to Ursan, there is currently only two real solutions to entering Elite PvE areas without using Ursan: 1) just dont, or 2) seach forums and do it a week later.

Allowing players to use seven heroes would mostly remedy this, and would likely make a lot of players happy.

So I ask you this, would ANet be willing to change their stance about the seven heroes suggestion? Thanks, — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An argument about player interaction will likely soon happen. If your a player who prefers to H/H, take this poll so we can tell whether allowing seven heroes will make much of an impact on player interaction. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But but but... interaction with people! What would Guild Wars be without hours of silence beyond "show title", "got cons?", and "use cons"?! --76.25.197.215 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I brought this up somewhere else, too. This would remedy a lot of the problems we have right now. A big problem right now is that there's almost no reward for spending time over completing the game. 76.64.184.135 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would indeed be cool to have the ability to use more Heros then 3. Would've liked it several times too as some Missions require Heros you normally dont take or coz Henchmen are just even more stupid then Heroes are. However after all GuildWars is a Team Game where you play together with other people and not just with yourself. I very well understand you as I hate Ursan myself more like anything else and leave any Party where I see it and most likely end up not doing Elite Areas (havent done DoA since uhm ages did it every day b4 Ursan became the "only" way) but well I cant imagine doing DoA with Heros / Henchmen... Where would all the Fun go? All the little Mistakes, the nice Talking in Teamspeak / Vent while fighting and having Fun? It would just be farming. And it might just be me but I dont go DoA or any other Elite Area just to farm stuff/money there. I do them to have some fun and maybe some challenge (even though I have to admit thats not the case anymore as they become way too easy even in HM). The Money/Items you get there are just a nice gimmick. So after all I am against increasing the amount of heros you can take or at least not to 7... Maybe make it you can take 4 Heros so there's a place for the Hero required by the Missions in NF but nothing more. Better remove Ursan Shit from the Game or restrict it to EotN I dont really care but it totally ruined PvE in the 3 Campaigns. --Silent Storm

00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On the notion of player interaction that is both a good and a bad. Sure, you can be encouraged to go with a PUG, but without Ursan most PUGS end in hair pulling frustations or just failing what you want to do. Player interaction isn't a creditable part of the argument as you can easily H/H, and there's no external player interaction. Having the option of having 7 heroes just means you have more control over your AI companions. But, even without Ursan, more effective builds could make the game less challenging.

As much as I don't want to agree with Ursan haters I like this idea. Henchmen are generic throughout all areas generally, they have the same builds. Why bother giving us so many heroes and only limiting them to 3 per person? Heroes can be mircomanaged better and you can do far more - like change their builds to actually be effective with, say using Cynn in the Ring of Fire island chain and she only knows "I'm going to go burn the burning things" spells. And there is times I just want to do kill stuff with Heroes and Henchmen, but could easily love the idea of just my hero companions :) 118.92.105.239 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In elite areas, there are no henchmen, only heroes. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much has changed from when I wrote this article on the topic.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As Aiiane said, nothing has changed. Before Ursan, you could not find a reliable PUG to do the Domain of Anguish. After Ursan, you still cannot find a reliable PUG to do the Domain of Anguish, unless you're a grinder who has grinded yourself to a high rank of the Norn title (what happened to "skill > time spent"?). If Arena Net was not willing to allow a full Hero party before, I see no reason to do it now. Erasculio 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, you only have to find one extra player to get a full team of heroes. Is that really so hard? I like it the way it is. 203.213.7.130 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you are not supposed to do Elite(!!!) Areas with just yourself and a bunch of Heros? --Silent Storm

15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's way easier. The minimum party size (exceptin in pre-Searing) is 4 players. By the time you get to 8-player areas, you should have met people to join. Hm... I see nothing against adding the 7 'missing' heroes (2W, 1E, 1A, 1Rt, 1D and 1P) to Prophecies and Factions so people can get them there too, but there is no need to increase the Hero size to 7. Mith Talk 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@SilentStorm: but completely unskilled players are supposed to be able to do Elite(!!!) Areas just fine? It would take infinitely more skill to beat an elite area with heroes with no PvE skills and one player with three than it would to Ursanrape the area.

@Mith: read my first post, there's a reason to raise the cap to 7.

@Regina, will I get an answer to my question any time soon? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ursanrape"? That kind of language is not cool, Teh Uber Pwnzer. Using a violent sexual crime to describe tactics in a computer game is pretty digusting and not acceptable. See below for on-topic response to your question. --Regina Buenaobra

23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, meeting a player doesn't mean you should be forced to party with them, or resolve to using Henchmen. Again, I intend to use the 24 or 25 heroes you get from ANet. 76.64.184.27 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, your 'problem' is with Ursan, because you are unlucky and can't find people that play without it. So far I've only used it in the Torment to quickly finish the elite mission, but I've never had ned for it anywhere else.Mith

Talk 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing new that ANet limits the players. I guess they thought that consumables were going to be the way to counter-act this. I personally already do 3 heroes and 4 henchmen, and little ole me. GW is huge and losing players which means it's constantly getting harder to find a PuG. Do you know how I beat Duncan? It wasn't with skill. Some warrior runs up to duncan, dies, and some monk stands next to my necro as I hit the Signet of Souls or w/e that skill was. That's it. We downed him in 5 minutes. During that group, we had one guy that didn't even speak english and kept ruining our spirit-moving. Along the way of doing the elite missions, I got into a fight with some ignorant person who didn't know what goth was, and failed two PuGs due to just genuine noobocity. So you can understand my wanting to use my other heroes. Also, it's really cute how all the people against this think it's going to make the game SO much easier. People can barely afford their three heroes now, and you think they're going to just up and drop 10k on top of skills to have so they can own the game harder? I spent 1,200 hours of my life in Guild Wars, Balthazar forbid I actually get some recognition for it, right? Vael Victus

03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

~~PS: ANet isn't going to do this.~~ They're focused on GW2, here's to hoping that's a rewarding experience. :/ Vael Victus

03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be discussing this with one of the designers tomorrow and I'll give you an update if there's any new information I can provide. --Regina Buenaobra

23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope there will be. --Lytel 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Especially with an update that benefits all sides with little or no downsides, there's no point in not implementing this (for both players and ANet itself). 76.10.141.105 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some questions on the programming side as to the technical feasibility of implementing a seven Hero party. We don't currently have dedicated resources to expand on existing GW1 features such as this. However, there is good news in that GW1 will be getting a game designer and a programmer who will be completely dedicated to working on GW1. We don't have a timeframe on when this will happen, because it all depends on when we can find replacements for them so they can move from the GW2 team without impacting GW2 development. I will raise this issue again when there is the possibility of actually implementing it (or at least looking seriously at implementing it) with regard to staff resources. --Regina Buenaobra

00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

=O Who are you, and what have you done with the A.Net CM? IOW, thanks a ton for the update, Regina. Lots of info is good. Reminds me of the D2 route Blizzard went for post "we-r-officially hands off dis game," and those 2 devs made awesome updates. --Ravious 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vael Victus crosses out a previous statement with a :D face but not a smile because smiles are just upsidedown frowns. Vael Victus 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a ton Regina. I was not expecting such a positive response. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! A single codemonkey just for GW1! What an encouraging prospect! Mith

Talk 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

7 heroes are completely not needed and could have a bad effect on the game, turning it further into a single player online game. Instead they should provide an improved centralized LFG solution, not restricted to a single outpost and region. Encourage playing with other people and help those who want to play a multiplayer game, improve the game instead of degenerating it. --Yawg 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those people who refuse to ply with Ursans but still want to do elite areas? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or those people that want to make use of the 24 heroes? 76.10.141.105 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the fact people need to actually be playing in order to use the LFG system? You should be a scientist, you're just full of theory! <3 Vael Victus

15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

dishonorable

can we please limit the amount of times you get this, everyone knows if your team doesn't have a healer in RA it will fail,and since must people like me, dont have all day to sit around wasting 10 minutes each match for a runner or a hh wammo to die i would like rage quitting to not give dishonorable...as well as the fact many retards report you for leeching if you dc..like i can really control that and im doing it on purpose.plz put some limit into this thing, its very annoying for people who want to win pvp and not get stuck with a frenzy monk.Snipey lizard 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate frenzy monks. I just generally hate frenzy, though. I've often spent time lamenting the lack of healing in Random Arenas, but instead of ragequitting, I one day fired up a new character as a PvP monk. Sure, dealing with lag was frustrating at first, but it's manueverable. That's what I do on the days when no intelligent monks show their faces, and if I can't get anyone who's not playing from a mental ward, I go up to Team Arenas. If TA is an option, I always suggest it, and I adore when, after 10 rounds, my RA team goes up to there. Disconnecting, though, is really a pain, moreso when it's you and not someone else. However, you should check with the new "Test my Computer" to see if there are any things which would cause consistent problems with that. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a few instances when I won a Glad point in RA without a dedicated healer in the party. You newer know how it will turn out, really. If you DC once in a while you may get a Dis point. So what? You need another for it to actually block you. You can also do some PvE. Everything is fine as it is, since leavers and AFKers are practically nonexistent in RA now, and before they where a serious plague. — Poki#3 Image:User Poki Signature.jpg 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the OP... you kinda are giving the reason why the Dishonorable status exists: to avoid exactly what you are asking to be allowed to do. It's RA, you don't need a monk (or a balanced team...) to reach at least the 5-wins mark (a rit can do the job, and you may not even need a healer with good dps and team coordination). Besides, there is already a limit to the amount of dishonor you get (1 hour if i remember right, which is the time it takes for points to expire).--Fighterdoken 08:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You wanna fix ra? EASY SOLUTION: REMOVE GLAD POINTS FROM RA. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the limitation of the dishonorable system as suggested here. If you do not want dishonor points. Don't leave! Play with the party's you are given. They might surprise you. I am offended by the terms used here to point out inexperianced players (and in-game) though and on rare occurances even leave my party if the language used is getting unacceptable to me. I take the dishonor points for granted. Remembering everyone started as a beginner here is a usefull reminder. --Silverleaf

09:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... what? Dishonorable system is pretty trash. It managed to ruin RA more than it already was by design. -Auron 10:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How? -- Silverleaf

10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IF your team does not have a healer in RA, you stay and die with honor. IF the enemy just keeps running around and annoy you, you stay and follow him with honor. If you are the last alive member of the party and do not have resurrections left, you stay and fight with honor. If you don't, you are dishonorable. That's how the Battle Isles work, because Balthazar wants so. If you leave, you make Balthazar angry. And Dishonorable is what happens when you make Balthazar angry. Mith

Talk 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If you don't like the 'Random' part of Random Arenas, go play Team Arenas, but don't waste the dev's time please. 145.94.74.23 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done the RA myself, and even with monks on the other time my team(s) have still managed to work. Its only when the other players on your teams don't have any decent self healers. As a dervish I have enchantments and Signet of Pious Light, I can work offensively or as a healer. Go into RA with multiple roles in mind and you do fine. [thumbs up] 118.92.235.229 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, if your facing a runner or clearly are going to lose, just suicide / go afk and do something else until the match ends...its shorter than the 10 minute wait for leaving-Warior Kronos

22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also /resign. Acepting defeat is honorable. Leaving you teammates behind is not. Mith

Talk 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is accepting defeat but your stubborn teammates do not.--crosskipFIRE© 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, just accept it. It's a such minor inconvenience to you to just wait for the match to end. The problem here is people don't realize their actions can and do have ripple effect upon others in the community so be considerable and mature and wait it out. –

Barinthus 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily a PvE player and I, quite frankly, suck at PvP. But I won a streak of 10 in a group without a healer on the first day I played PvP. Quitters who moan about dishonourable are missing the whole point of RA - it's there to dive in, roll the dice, and see what happens.Cassie 09:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In RA, you can't choose allies. You'll have to deal with what you get. If teammates stay, you stay. Mith

Talk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A team without a monk is NOT destined to fail. Just a couple of days ago I made it to 13 wins wth a team made up of an Ele, a Ranger, a Mesmer, and a Dervish. I was the Ele. I didn't even bring a self Heal and I managed not to die. I think that people should stop blaming their lose on monks and start blaming themselves. It honestly doesn't matter if the group has or doesn't have a monk, when they lose it's the monk's fault. "Awe, we didn't have a monk.", or, "Stupid noob Monk!" Also, don;t change the way dishonorable works. It would only give more people like him a chance to quit when no monk is around.

Blackie ewilson92 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If monks are so needed in RA, then play one. That will guarantee that you have one on your side! That's what I did for HA, and I have no difficulty getting into groups. Winning is another story. --

Alaris 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even comparing HA to RA is fail. Thanks for playing. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You failed to see where the comparison was valid. gg --

Alaris 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit about bring a monk in HA? Wow. I guess I charge headlong into every battle with no backline. Or was that supposed to mean you play a monk to get teams. Even more Wow. Winning is another story? Wowzer. If you don't aim to win, what do you do? And don't give me the sad excuse of "I play for fun". We both know that is a shit argument used by people who can't win (Every self-respecting person on the internet used that excuse once) because winning is so damn awesome. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I said that I'd play monk in RA to guarantee having a monk on my side (if I played RA), and I play one in HA in part because it helps me get into groups. I also said that having enough monks on your side does not guarantee winning (I play for fun and to win, btw). Everything else you thought I said was of your own construction. Be careful not to let "your interpretation of what people say" speak louder than "what they actually said", it's downwards spiral from there onwards. --

Alaris 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That part of my post was sarcasm, I guess you need the tags. My bad. Playing a monk jsut to get groups is bad. It just is.

Be careful not to give condescending advice to people who didn't ask for it, it's downwards spiral from there onwards. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Sarcasm in forums and website fails. It's misinterpreted all the time. As for playing monk to get into groups, why not? No worse than playing SF/SH ele or scythe ranger to get into teams, is it? Or perhaps we should all play balanced? If you say something is bad, at least offer a better alternative. As for the advice, take it or leave it, but it's a good advice either way. I've learned a lot listening to advice, even from advice that I didn't ask for. --

Alaris 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Playing R/D's just to get teams and fame is called playing gimmicks and fame farming. Yes, everyone who can't play well should play balanced, because balanced is the only way to learn. You don't play gimmicks to learn, you play gimmicks to farm fame. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that balanced play teaches you more about the game, but it's impractical. Someone trying to get into a good balanced team will spend far more trying to get into a team than actually practicing the skills in the field. Besides, seems you agree with me now... playing a monk to get into a team is a good idea. Especially if the team is balanced. --

Alaris 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True, balanced is the best way to learn, but how do you get into the balanced groups? Through fame farming...-Warior Kronos

13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or running HA with your guild. You don't need a good rank for that. In most cases, guild teams win because they are able to put people in their best positions and are alot more comfortable with each other.Blackie ewilson92 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True. But they also win more often if they are in PvP-Guilds, thus most members spend more time in PvP than PvE, or will go an train new recruits in how to use vent, how to time spikes, etc. --

Alaris 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason we're trying to kill gimmicks. You can join the crusade. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as gimmicks<=balanced, I see no reason why they can't exist. They are fun ways to play, different from balanced, and have their strengths and weaknesses. They are one reason why HA is fun, because you don't know what you'll run against. Again, as long as gimmicks<=balanced. If gimmicks>balanced, then there needs to be some adjustment. I won't go as far as suggesting that gimmicks be killed. --

Alaris 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My one comment to the whole concept: They might not have a monk EITHER! --Star Weaver 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh,I know what I'm always up against in HA. It's either SWAY or balanced. Fighting balanced is fun. Fighting sway is not. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I read some, not all of these comments. People should not leave if they think their team wont do well, whether its too many healers or none at all. Leaving at the start or any time during the fight i would consider dishonourable. BUT, often times if the fight is dragging on 3-1 cause someone is running a build with amazing survivability res has been used by everyone on your team and the battle just isnt going anywhere, people should be able to /resign to remove themselves from the arena. suppose if 2 people use /resign it would then be ok for everyone to map travel out OR the command itself could do a check for an available res and then teleport you itself. Last thing i'd like to mention is that getting dishon when the timer has just started to send you back really sucks, sometimes i dont wanna wait the 15sec i might miss the queue.99.228.244.31 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chat Timestamp

It would be nice to be able to turn on timestamp for chat, to see when messages were sent. Often I come back to see a conversation, and have no idea whether it is over or going on. I know GW keeps track of what time messages are sent, because admins are able to check chat logs to see what had been said in the past. Sorry if this seems like a suggestion, its really more in the 'idea' stage right now. Of course, if a timestamp feature is added, it is very important that it be possible to turn it off or on. Also, a hotkey for it would be nice as most people will just turn it on to see when something was said, then immediately turn it off again. -- VegaObscura 08:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That would have the extra of being able to see the time just by inputing any string. Mith

Talk 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, pretty much EVERY Instant Messanger out there has a toggleable timestamp. Would be a great thing to have in GW and GW2. I know i would use it. It's always a great thing to have. --Wolf 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any update on the Ursan/Anet situation?

Very important note: I do not want this to degenerate into a finger waving contest for or against Ursan, this is directed at Regina.

A little while ago you said "opinion at ArenaNet is divided on Ursan Blessing" and I was wondering if there was any new information about what was going to be happening with Ursan. Its been something like a month since that time and a lot can happen in a month, considering that its s big thing at the moment when a lot of people think of Guild Wars it would be nice to know if there is anything constructive to add. 118.92.98.226 10:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I second this request. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will say that I have very good reason to believe they are considering something positive but cannot give an official response nor will I give an official response because I am not official. Vael Victus

12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

dont nerf ursan i am wery strong in domein of enguish and i can kill enyting so your al just bad end want to stop it becuse your not as good as me and i have much gold becuse i are wery strong and brave. --Frozen Archer 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what is this good reason, Vael? --Ravious 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Because out of the currently 7 active people I am, one of us has heard from an anonymous source that has placed a convincing argument that Ursan will be fixed. Vael Victus

02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the major problems with Anet is their "wait and see" attitude when it comes to dealing with these kind of problems, so I hope they can finally make up their mind about what they're going to do with Ursan (and balance in PvE in general). --Draikin 18:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, take your concerns about Ursan to the Ursan Blessing talk page. This is a question about the situation, not your opinion on what they should do. -- Mini Me 19:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less about "wait and see" and more about prioritizing between GW1 and GW2 responsibilities. The design team has to split their responsibilities between the two games, and right now GW2 is the priority. We're looking at getting more resources on the GW1 side, so we hope to see more movement on GW1 features that folks have requested. --Regina Buenaobra

20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just put a blanket statement here. Thanks for the update across your talk page, Regina. I think you saying stuff like "I talked to Phinney" really helps... even if some people disagree. Also, kudos on trying to get us more dev updates, I think that and the devblog (/pray) are going to really destroy the "communication bottleneck." --Ravious 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely good to hear an honest answer, but the problem with Ursan doesn't have anything to do with getting more features for GW 1. I think for the moment the biggest problem is that the community doesn't know what direction you're taking GW 1 in. Hearing how the people at ArenaNet are also divided on the topic of Ursan doesn't exactly help resolve the situation either. Is the lack of communication on the Ursan (and PvE balance) problem also caused by the fact that the devs simply don't have time to work on GW 1? Or are the opinions at Anet still so divided that they simply can't agree on the matter? --Draikin 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Ursan does have something to do with the current lack of resources for GW1. The PvE/PvP split gives me the impression that Arena Net is aiming at buffing split skills first (so everyone would have viable skills to play as, in all professions), maybe so, when Ursan is nerfed, PvE players would be left with many powerful skills and therefore would not get the feeling that all their characters suddenly became far less powerful. But if that's what Arena Net plans to do (and this is just a guess), they have to first balance skills, and that's always slow. For example, Shadow Form was overbuffed, IMO; if Arena Net just buffs skills without being careful, they may just create a second Ursan, but limited to one profession. Balance is something that takes a lot of time, between having ideas for proper buffs, all the internal testing that must be done, etc... Erasculio 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be rathe rof topic, but, I amazes me how many people it takes to make an maintain a game these days. Halo 1 was made with around 10-20 people, Halo2 with over 50, Halo 3 broke 100 members easy, and this is just the core of Bungie. Regina, might you have any numbers on the number of people on each team for GW1 and GW2 so I can oogle more over the sheer amount of man power it takes to make and maintain a game like GW? Perhaps it would make people think twice about saying, "oh, it would be easy to do this, and why can;t they do that, and why does it take so long to do this?" I don't know, I just find myself curious about how many people it takes to do such, and some of the steps involved. Maybe post a section on behind Anet? --Wolf 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are about 100 people at work here at ArenaNet. We're divided into about 20 different teams. The size of each team varies. Some teams have about half a dozen people, other teams have twice that number. The vast majority of staff is working on GW2. We currently do not have one person exclusively devoted to working on GW1 -- we have multiple people dividing their responsibilities between GW1 and GW2. GW2 is the priority for new content and changes. One of the issues GW1 faces today is getting programmer time to make changes to the existing game or to implement new features. To give you some insight, yesterday we received emails that asked us to work around programmer productivity periods by not disturbing them after lunch so that they have a big solid block of time to work on their coding. Most changes in the game require multiple people to discuss and come to a decision. Sometimes discussions take a while, becuase there is other work going on at the same time, too. From the outside, it seems that changes to the game take a long time, but behind the scenes the case is that games are not made by one person, and decisions are discussed as a team. --Regina Buenaobra

17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In Mexico they call that programmer time a "siesta." I kid, I kid. Thanks, Regina. --Ravious 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight Regina, hopefully this will server to ease some people and give them some patience. I have to oopportunity to have an Internship for a major prgramming firm, and quickly came to understand exactly how much time and effort is invested inot programming seemingly simple things, and often into very little code, and how much debugging and testing goes on to make sure it all WORKS. But then again, not everyone has had the chance to expeirence this tho, so they might not have the same insight, I hope this servers to alleviate some of that. Still rootin for the devs! --Wolf 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less about "wait and see" and more about prioritizing between GW1 and GW2 responsibilities.

I would have thought skill/game balance was a priority for Guild Wars regardless with people like Izzy keeping track of such things. Its very concerning to see Arenanet is struggling, it may be a little harsh of me, but it does seem Arenanet has given too much to Guild Wars 2, responsibility for Guild Wars seem to be a little bit lacking. I hope you guys overcome this issue quickly and in a solid manner. 118.92.98.226 04:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just "oh, it would be easy to do this," its "why hasn't this been solved for the months it has been a problem?" You would think that the entirety of PvE would have a little higher priority. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor management on Arenanet's part, I would so. Although, its understandable that the workers want to work on the 'new' thing. I would have thought a small team would have been assigned to maintain Guild Wars, since no new stuff is being added its just getting it going, throwing out the monthly skill updates and fixing bugs. I would have liked to have seen little quest/mission packs released in this time, running out of things to do in Guild Wars. 118.92.98.226 06:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any of oyu have ANY idea on how long or how hard it is to balance a skill without breaking it? I'm pretty sure you all want Ursan dumbed down but still useful? Well, any of you have any idea where that "still useful" point is? I didn;t think so. After-all how long did 55ing go on after Anet knew about it before it was FINALLY stopped? It wouldn't suprise me if Anet does nothing to Ursan and just powers up a lot of other skills (which would take even more time), but keep this in mind, you may think beafing up skills for the players will unbalance the game even more, but for any one skill you have, any HM creature can use it to over twice the power you can. Ursan parties also still have to play smart and are not invincible, I have seen them easily go down, in The Deep on NM too of all places. --Wolf 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues GW1 faces today is getting programmer time to make changes to the existing game or to implement new features. Are you guy struggling, the question comes to mind "How is Arenanet going to handle two games when Guild Wars 2 comes out if they're appearing to struggle now? From what I've read Arenanet is going to keep Guild Wars up and running when the new model is out, is this what we are to continue to accept from Arenanet?

Lets be a little realistic here, Guild Wars 2 is still, for want of a better term, way off and Guild Wars is still in the here and now, and still quite a place to visit for many, but it is discouraging when I think of Arenanet now, it seems you guys are spreading yourself too thin and starting to neglect the process. I hope you guys make some solid moves in getting programmer time for Guild Wars, things happen slowly even in the ideal situation, they happen even slower when a company admits it isn't really trying either. Wolf, also, I did ask this no degenerate into finger waging at Ursan. Stop encouraging. 118.92.98.226 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just pick it out as an example because it is an easy one and on top of everyone's mind. Also, it takes a lot more resources to develope a game than to maintain it, plus they are rebuilding it from the ground up, everything, even the game engine. Maintaining tow games at once is easier than rebuilding a game engine from the ground up, maintaining a game and making more models/textures and building area's ect is also easy. the key problem is that EVERYONE that could be looking into the problems wiht GW1 is working on pretty much the same thing for GW2. I imagine a short while after GW2 is out, or once it nears completion, GW1 will be making leaps and bounds. Say you have two computer's both wiht a virus, You focus all your efforts on computer 1 becuase its just an OS, no protection, no nothing, its very sensitive, so you spend gobs of time getting it clenaed up and protected, and then go to comp 2, while comp 2 is in worse shape, its still not too far gone, but already has protective software in place, so it clenas up fast and you patch in the newest version just to be safe. You decide it will hold out on its own for a while longer, so you go check out comp 1.

It my not be a 100% accurate analogy to Anet and development, and its not 100% on the mark either for computers and viruses, but I think its a good description. Also, once GW2 does make it out, I imagine most of the GW1 players will be playing it, so that will give Anet some more time to work things out. After-all, they always managed to make the next expansion AND balance and maintain all the games before it at the same time. Still rootin for the devs. --Wolf 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your perception from the outsider's perspective is that we're "struggling" but you don't have the full picture, otherwise you would not have that opinion. There are resource demands, yes. We are addressing those with recruiting efforts. Despite that, the priority is on building GW2. Maintaining GW1 is a priority as well, but creating lots of brand new content for GW1 is not. Wolf seems to have more insight into how much work goes into the game production process, but it seems evident from your comments that you don't have a similar level of insight. I have been trying to widen your knowledge a bit by explaining a little bit of what time and human constraints there are on the team here and how this works with the priorities we have set. I'm sorry that the way we prioritize here doesn't agree with your wants and needs. I do convey the community's concerns to the developers and I have been bringing up issues that I believe are important to the community (such as UB), but at the end of the day, they have to decide how to prioritize their daily and weekly tasks in keeping with our overall long term goals. --Regina Buenaobra

22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we compare how long it took to make Prophecies and how long Arena Net has to make Guild Wars 2, it will be a wonder if they make it in time for a playable beta on 2008 (seriously, Prophecies was announced on the beginning of 2003, and released at the beginning of 2005; now that they're making GW2 while also having to maintain GW1, I would expect Arena Net to take at least that long in order to finish the new game). IMO they're expected to be more stretched now than after the release of GW2 (creating a brand new game is more consuming than just maintaining two games and creating an expansion), and I think Regina has made clear that right now they don't have enough resources to tackle everything the community is thinking about (not to mention to create new content, that's not something I expect to be viable anytime soon). We also know Arena Net is hiring more people, we know they are going to assign a designer and a programmer exclusively to work on GW1 - that's almost everything I expect them to do. Given how right now PvP needs urgent attention, the other things I expect Arena Net to do are to make a big balance update for PvP, and later make balance changes for PvE (including the UB nerf). Asking for anything more (especially more content like quests or other features, and especially free stuff) is, IMO, simply not viable or reasonable right now. Erasculio 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you convey the concerns from the community to the developers, Regina, but again the issue here is that the community often doesn't get to hear the reason behind changes made to the game. There is definitely a lack of communication on important issues like Ursan, so obviously that means we can only guess what's going on at ArenaNet. So no, we don't have the full picture, but is that our fault? --Draikin 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dev to player sharing, much needed. I, as well as everyone els eim sure, would very much appreciate it if maybe once a week we could get a update from you Regina, on what the devs are working on, and if it is GW1 related, and a fix, different appoaches they can take or what their plans at the moment are to fix it. It kinda sucks that we give them all this input, and we ourselves are left in the dark and have no imput from them..... I would prefer some dev feedback over game fixes in priority. Plus, I imagine it wouldn;t take NEARLY as much time to collect and post up on the wiki. --''Wolf'' 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The (hopefully) upcoming dev blog would really help give customers that missing insight by making us feel more like "insiders". It would, no doubt, also be a lot of fun for everyone involved. A dev blog is quite possibly the best idea ever. Can't wait for some piccys of the novelty crap Anet staff are hoarding on their desks. :P 218.214.126.215 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Draikin: I have been working with the developers on posting more frequent Dev Updates, which explain the reasoniungs behind skill balance changes. What more would you like to see?

Darkwolf: The devs are working on multiple projects simultaneously, mostly related to GW2, especially team leads, who have to oversee a variety of different projects all at once.

Regarding Ursan Blessing. We just had an informal meeting and the designers are currently evaluating what options they have to change the skill, whether to change it, and how much to change it. Why is there a question on whether to change Ursan Blessing, given the amount of vocal player hate of the skill? Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number. If the skill is changed, it will affect a huge number of players. The main issue being debated with regard to Ursan Blessing is the massive impact this will have on the playerbase. Sure, there are a lot of people on the wiki and on the forums decrying Ursan Blessing, but the designers have to weigh this feedback against hard numbers. Any change to this skill, no matter how small, will affect a large number of players. Having said that, they know this is an issue, and they are going to run some tests starting tomorrow. --Regina Buenaobra

00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From the groups I've ran in, almost 75% of the peeps in elite areas are ursan users. So i agree with Regina, ALOT of people are going to be upset if ursan gets changed. -- Salome

00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some people use the latest superspecial skill/build just because it's available, not because they're emotionally attached to it. Other people are forced to use Ursan Blessing because they simply can't get another party otherwise. It's usually the case among such people that once that skill, build or item is less powerful (or removed altogether :D), they go on to the next best thing. The only people who will be "upset" with the change are those that don't have the capabilities to use anything else. One can't look at only the numbers when looking upon a situation in order to fully comprehend its effects. --

Brains12 \ talk 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While some people may feel "forced" to use the skill, I am sure there are many people who use it becase they like it and enjoy what it provides to the playing experience. (Please don't tear the previous statement apart, thats already been done enough at Talk: Ursan Blessing.) I for one play with ursan because I want to, and "nerfing" it would probably change my gameplay significantly. I might be less annoyed with it if there was a viable alternative (I'm a warior, so not yet, but I'm hoping). And when I say viable alternative, I mean something that is just as powerful in its own way. (PVE imbagon, perma SF, etc). Ashes Of Doom

00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with changing your gameplay once in a while. That's why there are over a thousand skills and ten professions, not to mention different areas where one must use different skills in order to beat it. There are lots of "viable alternative[s]", and none of them should be breaking the game by being so ridiculously imbalanced. --

Brains12 \ talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Ashes Of Doom

and

Brains12 \ talk There is a difference between nerf and tone down. And I hope I can say this wihtout starting anything or getting flamed, but, I dont thing a nerf should happen, I'm for a tone down, which would be doing something to the skill so that it is still as versitile as it is now, but not some all-mighty god-like destroy everything skill. Maybe down to the point that when taken to an elite area, an average player would be rather challanged, but would be able to pull through with good monking, smart agro, and teamwork. They should not be able to just clean house peice of cake in no-time at all just by agroing half the map. Nerfed would imply that Ursan would cease to be usefull, and that should not be the case. Anyway, thats my 2 cents. The devs are a smart bunch, they will think of a way to take care of it and keep enough people happy. Who was it that said, "A good compromise leaves everyone angry."? In the meantime, I'm still rootin for the devs, are you? --''Wolf'' 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Within the context of Guild Wars, a Nerf describes a game mechanic change made by ArenaNet which lessens the effectiveness of anything within the game, this includes skills and extends to builds, or tactics. A nerf is effectively the same as "toning down"; people's perception, however, is that a nerf is the complete destroying of something. (Perhaps that's due to previous nerfs we've seen that have not actually balanced something, but ruined it altogether.) --

Brains12 \ talk 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

True, by Anet's given definition, my suggestion would consitute a nerf, but I was trying to avoid using it to describe what they should do, as most would jump to the conclusion that Ursan would be completely broken once the devs were done with it. In that light, balanced seemed to say the same thing as nerfed, so I decided toned down seemed like an accurate description. --Wolf 01:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Erasculio, I'm gunna hash out some time constraints here. GW1 was announce april 2003 and went on release 6 months after it's beta in october 2004. Thats 18 months between announcement and Beta for GW1 and about 2 years from announcement to release. I imagine they aren't writing the game from complete scratch. You still have all the broadcasting end (getting it installed and running on the end-user's computer and those connected back to the server, ect), your updating software, and several other base game mechanics that are essencial to pretty much any game. So, I do not believe "starting from scratch" is entirely correct. GW2 was announced in May 2007. Thats 13 months from now. I would say it would be fair to see GW2 in beta by November, 19 months after announcemnet, but have the game take until about November of 09, and see it go through another beta mid 2009. Also, Regina, would I be correct in assuming that Anet's staff has noticable increased in size since the release of GW prophacies?? With an increased staff, something like mostly re-engineering shouldn't take quite as long as it did before, but, GW2 sounds like its going to be bigger wiht much more complicated game mechanics and features, you you add some time for that. I think my estimate of November next year at absolute latest is fair. Also, Regina, if I'm wrong about anything I'm saying here, please, by all means, correct me.

@Regina: Thats pretty much the kind of stuff I was wanting to get more of. Something about what in general is being done and a general idea of their course of action that has been decided on. Thanks for sharing Regina =D! Still rootin for the devs! --''Wolf'' 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be interesting to test changes for Ursan Blessing during one weekend (or one week), letting players know that said changes will be reverted after the specified time period. It would allow Arena Net to see how the playerbase deals with a nerf to Ursan, at the same time those players would be reassured that the skill would go back to its previous status after a few days. Erasculio 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable option, It would reassure those who wanted it delt with that something is indeed being done, and it would act to reassure those that use it that Anet isn't gunna break Ursan, and that it will still be useful and a viable option for most things, but at the same time, ease them into the fact that it will no-long be quite as cushy and easy as before, if that is the route the devs decide to take. --Wolf 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number." That sort of statistic would make for a very interesting read in developer updates, should you feel it is suitable to release that kind of information. (Which you should :D) Klassy 05:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regina, your comments on Ursan just now is basically what I'd like to see more. I haven't seen a Developers update for the latest skill balance update (yet), which had some questionable changes. Izzy saying that he thinks mindless button-mashing builds like Escape rangers are "fun and interesting builds" doesn't help restore the confidence of the PvP community either. We'd like to hear if that's really the view of the developers and if future skill balance updates will reflect that. Concerning Ursan, of course a lot of people are using it. ArenaNet's inaction despite the fact that Ursan was blatantly overpowered means that more and more people started using it simply because it's that good and that easy to play. It would take a very substantial nerf to at least Ursan Strike to bring it back in line with other skills. This situation could have been avoided if Anet had just nerfed the skill as soon as they noticed how ridiculous it was, instead of letting it impact PvE gameplay for months. --Draikin 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, ANet's "wait and see what happens" stance really screws things up some times. Most of the damage Ursan has caused cannot be fixed anymore due to the huge duration the skill has been in effect. Still, it would be better that some of the problems are fixed than it would be for none of the problems to be fixed. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am very disappointed with what I've read here. I am tired of waiting. I am tired of being left in the dark. And most of all, I am tired of ignorance.

Regina, I'm going to say the as bluntly as possible: Your input here was worthless. It did not contain anything we didn't know.Yes, you guys are working on GW2, yes, you may be having staff issues, yes, you have a lot to deal with. Anyone with half a brain knows all of this. What we want to know is what do you want this game to be?

If you look around a bit, you'll see (and this is directed mainly at wolf) many suggestions to change ursan without breaking it. You'll see many possible and viable fixes, laid out and supported by smart people. So I no longer buy "we are thinking". You, to be quite honest, do not need to. We, and I'm speaking for the community here, have already laid out many changes. All you need to do is just implement them.

But I am way past that. I am past the whole "Game is broken, pls fix" mantra. I am way, way past "Anet is doing their best" ideal. Now, I am at "Where is this game going?".

Since way back, (A little history - the dumbing down of pve has begun at Sorrow's Furnace, with the gear trick. Then came Factions with elite missions, nightfall, and today) it has became easy to observe changes, both in the game and in the community. I'm noticing less good people, more gimmicks, hell, I'm seeing myself getting worse. Now that izzy has openly acknowledged that he favours gimmicky play, I have to wonder - is this Anet's new game plan? What the hell happened to "Skill over time"? When I bought this game, It didn't matter how long I've played - but it matters today. And I don't mean in pve, I mean that if I don't grind rank glads, or some other bullshit, I don't get to pvp. What the hell is up with that? Hall of monuments was the final drop in the bucket - virtually saying "We will reward you if you grind!"

What further freaks me out is, believe it or not, the GW2 suggestion pages. Anet has a bad record of listening too much to fanbois and implementing badly thought fanservice that really doesn't go anywhere. Coupled with the teasers and pre-release info on GW2, and I dread that we may have a WoW clone.

Except, If I wanted WoW, I'd play WoW.

Going back on topic, I'll restate the ultimate question: Where is this game going? I'm not the only one asking this question, regina. The guru letter, to which your answer was also unsatisfactory, openly asks this. And not only I, but pretty much all of us ask the same question.

It wouldn't be off to say that we demand an answer. -- NUKLEAR

IIV 09:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wanting an answer to that same question. Where is this game going? --Wolf 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But you'll get the same answer you always get, Anet saying "our game our way."

Old principals don't seem to mean much, Skill over time is a very nice concept but its no longer the case, but then again when was it every the case? Regina really isn't that much of an insight into anything or a help to anything either, I question if she's actually listening, even more if she's actually voicing anything, there's a reason the same things are brought up time and time again, because they're not being addressed by the developers or if they are its not in a solid way that the community can grasp. Communication is lacking. I mean people learn through repetation, if the developers are having the same things told to them week in week out it would start to sink in, but I doubt that. We, as the community, as these who invest our time and money into your game, have concerns and feel you aren't really giving a toss about them. So to this I have to ask, "If you don't seem to care, which is what we are seeing from our POV, then why should we?". Its the role of any company to make a product that people want to buy, but to be honest if this was a subscription service I wouldn't have renowed. Guild Wars 2, sounds interesting but the sour taste in my mouth at how Guild Wars is at the moment seriously puts doubts in my mind if I want to invest any more of my money and time into you guys.

I see the answer for that as: "A game for all". And that's impossible. IF you make things harder, some will whine because it's hard. If you make it easier, some will whine because it's too easy. Whatever you do, people will always complain. The only way to make a game 'for all' is making it different for each person when they are alone and each party when they are toghether. Currently we have a hard mode switch. Maybe what is needed is a slider:

Harder <--------------------> Easier

More rewards <--------------------> Less Rewards.

Something I currentyl see almost impossible in GW1. Mith

Talk 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, the more important question is one we have to ask ourselves, not the developers, "Why are we continuing to bother?". We have been going over the same things for months now, getting the same bland answers from people like Gaile and now Regina, those who are our link to the developers, but are we really being heard? 118.92.66.7 09:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have spent several hours a day for several days now giving suggestions, asking questions, giving input, and over-all trying to help the situation on both sides, but so far, all of my efforts were in vain. With that I take my leave of the wiki for a while until something else happens, I will be checking my talk page from time to time tho. Best of luck to you all and Goodbye. --Wolf out. 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't fully agree. I have been reading constantly this wiki and, agreed, there are many issues to be addressed. Yet there is a big diffrence between listening and results. I am a professional programmer myself, and currently working as an outsource to a company with many many programming needs and only 3 programmers. So yeah, some things do take even months to get to. Specially when you are migrating your main system into a new one. And many times, the results that are viable are not necessarilly what the user wants even if it is what he/she needs. Regina has constantly replied that they are reading, and listening to the maybe hundreds of requests on both PVP & PVE sides, and I truly beleive her, and I do beleive they care not just for the game, but for the community. Remember that many people working there now were once players of GW. The answers or end results aren't necessarily what we would want due to the many factors Regina has already stated (since they have statistics and a more global view of all the players). So sure, I would like more updates on GW2, and I would like rewards to represent "hard work" vs. easy runs... and many other things, but I also understand the amount of pressure A-Net must be going through. AND most importantly, All ANETs work depends heavily on Budget, which comes mostly from people buying the games (I'd assume). And since there is no monthly suscription (which is what other companies use to sustain, maintain, update and create new content on their games), that would mean that (I think) between Games Sold + Loans + others (stocks?) is what currently finances GW1, GW2 and the pizza's they eat every now and then. I'm not saying A-Net is poor, just that I don't think they rely on as much financial resources as other suscription based games.

And yeah, I have thought "Well, maybe IF they released another expansion, that would get some cash in, and keep players interested in the game". Sounds very logical, but I don't have all the information needed to assure this is best due to X impact it would have on GW2 (decision analysis anyone?). And I don't want to delay GW2. Hopefully we will have a dedicated team (of 2?) dedicated to GW1, and we'll see more updates (like the Dev Update released today) which I thank very much.

So Regina and the rest of the team, keep up the hard work and try not to get abosorbed by the pressure. Peace. --Nekki 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think vain was poor word choice on my part. But even with that, I have said pretty much everything I have to say. If anything is going to happen now, it's up to Anet to do it. When I first started posting in these threads, I think I realy mixed some things up. For example, look at my huge post in An open letter to Anet, and then Regina's Journal, and notice that pretty much every single one of my suggestions was addressed, and realy none of anyone elses. I'm trying to avoid stirring up something I am not capable of handling. I'm done fighting the storm, time to ride it out. --Wolf out. 14:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, development is slow. Also, most hyper-opinionated and over-spoken gamers are rarely satisfied and even slower to change their minds. Stepping back a bit is never a bad thing. A watched pot never bubbles and all that. :) --Star Weaver 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many ways to approach issues and projects, including stepping back a bit. GW is ment to please everyone (which as some useres have stated is impossible) as much as possible. Yet you have so many diffrent player "types" (?), due to culture, race, sex and age (where you have people around ages 8, 12, 16 to who knows, I'm 30). So I "woot" with Wolf to the devs, and just trust A-Net, with all the information available to them (including what people suggest in this wiki and other mediums) that they will make the best decisions possible, and they will correct any mistakes they make along the way, giving time to analyze and study current issues while progressing on other projects like GW2. Peace. --Nekki 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@Nekki Perhaps you ment *root*? --68.226.78.185 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

uhm yeah :P thanks, spanish is my primary language, althoug I was raised with english. --Nekki 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can woot for them too, just probably best done in response to things. :) --Star Weaver 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@Wolf I think now would be an excelent time to sit back and ride it out. It's gunna take some time for things to get any better, but I don't think they will get any worse.

@Nekki No Proble, just passing through.

@Star Weaver Yeah, or that would seem a little weird. =D --68.226.78.185 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue with GW trying to cater to everyone is that it dumbs down aspects of the game where it excelled at. Ursan is the best example of that evolution: playing GW used to be a matter of choosing