ArenaNet talk:Developer updates/Archive Jan-June 2008

The Ice Crown

Why cant the Ice Crown by Dyeable? i wish the hair part of them was, so i could dye it like green or black like my characters actual hair--Robot 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC) and i wanna b able to wear it everywhere, make it like hero helms, add the rune, get the attribute 24.141.45.72 07:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical agility bug

← moved to User talk:Mike Zadorojny/Guild Wars Miscellaneous Bugs

Hidden Outpost and ze bans

Hey Gaile,

I was just wondering, what happened to players who were INNOCENT, but were somehow travelled there by the party leader (A.K.A. one of the hackers you banned). I'm just wondering. No, i did not be part of the hack or whatever i swear. Ill even give ya something you need for proof (<--- To Gaile only).

TitanSacranus 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"In our investigation, we took into consideration extraordinary circumstances such as players who might have been transported to the outpost unwittingly and against their will by a party leader who was hacking the game. We chose to permanently ban these accounts because it was clear that these people intentionally exploited a server vulnerability for their personal gain." That sounds ambiguous. -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

oh. ok sorry, i just couldnt understand what it meant. Thats all. TitanSacranus 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone of us can be sure, because it's worded a bit weird. :) - anja 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A Petition has been started -- Almighty Cow 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's ambiguous at all. They took that (the bolded bit) into consideration, investigated it, then discounted it as it was found not to be the case. --Snograt 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime that you change the code in a program you may find yourself in violation of something. Most of you are adults and should know this. The others that are still kids well, I won't get into how kids are brought us now a days. Something that sounds too good to be true usually is and don't fall for it. Case in point, I was helping someone yesterday with some questions that he had. Took about 20 mins re-explaining things to this person that said he had not played in awhile. He wanted to "give" me 10k. I declined. I do not wish to take that much for spending so little time to help. You never know it could have been a gold seller or something and I will not take the chance and become banned. I will contine to help people but just because I am helping does not mean that I will take 10,000 gold pieces from them - Too Good Too Be True - just won't take the chance, I enjoy the game wayyyy too much to do that. Chris 98.209.27.50 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The petition's rediculous. These are players who used a hacked game client to get to an outpost which is impossible to reach normally. The craziest part is the allegation that Duncan runs in Slavers' Exile were somehow worse even though they did not involve a hack and did not exploit any unambiguous bug (in other words, the gate opening as long as at least one party member was on the last part of the quest could have been a bug, or it could have been working as intended). -- Gordon Ecker 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually sounds like the location could have been reached by getting a "run" to them, and did not require a hacked game client. If this is true, a permanent ban may have been overkill. -- Almighty Cow 05:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a petition to unban the people who didn't use the hack and didn't know they were benefitting from the exploit, it's a petition to unban everyone who was banned for the exploit, regardless of guilt. I don't have enough information to know whether or not all of the bans were justified, but I do have enough information to know that the petition is making an unreasonable demand. -- Gordon Ecker 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever started that petition, MUST be joking. #1 - Petitions don't work. It is up to the will of the Devs and Admins, and believe you me, I know I would be pissed off at people hacking MY game. So there is no chance on this world that anyone will be unbanned. #2 - NONE of them should be unbanned anyways, because no matter how good someone's arguments may be, we don't know who were at fault. The logs would only show a certain amount of information. But, maybe the Admins know for sure, but we the community don't. So to request unbanning some or all of them is inviting another case of hackeritous. Stop being idiots. If you were banned, it's because you don't play fair. If you're supporting the ones banned, you are also supporting the people who feel the need to hack games. -- Tasiden 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The petition is idiotic and will be ignored by ANet - in this I am certain. I'm glad this was taken care of as swiftly as it was, and hopefully any armbraces produced illegitimately were destroyed (though I realize that may not be possible). -- Armond Warblade 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Once the extra gemsets and armbraces were spawned, I bet they were sold off or traded. There's a good chance that most of the ones obtained like this are still out there, floating around the higher-end trading community.--Pyron Sy 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At least the exploit was caught rather quickly, and the scale of any damage pales in comparison to the big dupe scare from last year. The high-end market in GW is fundamentally broken anyhow, a few armbraces/gemsets more or less won't matter anyway given the constant introduction of super-rare items such as promotional mini's, Eternal Blades et al. Sometimes I wonder if "COPRG" should Stand for Collectible Online Role Playng Game instead Clan Yumemiru 12:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

i was in the allaince of the guild that exploited it, in AC they we always asking ppl if they wanted to come with them, it was ebony citadel mallyx, the oupost was to test last level or something, my guild leader was banned, TCT, So the two times he came, the guild, said nothing about the hack, so he just though that the party leader had unlocked the outpost by normal gameplay, and never questioned. Annoying And Deadly 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the Xmas Card

Hi Gaile, pass on thanks to the Anet guys for the cool christmas card I received - going into the box with the rest of GW's stuff (geh, such a fan-boy ;p) --Shaia 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you liked it. :) -- Gaile 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaile what qualified people for Christmas cards? --Lytel 06:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the main requirement is being very active and well known in the Guild Wars community, ie, 4000+ posts on a fansite's forums that actually contain decent information and aren't simply intended to bump up your post count. I'm sure there are other methods of qualifying as well. Dargon 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As the Wintersday Card article (and related talk page) says, no one but Anet knows and they've said they're not going to tell. I'd imagine being in some way important to the GW community in Anet's eyes is the general test, as we know some of the cards went to staff of various fansites. - Tanetris 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kannai Canyon

← moved to User talk:Mike Zadorojny/Guild Wars Quest issues

User Agreement changes

It's a great idea to have this posted here! I've been waiting for something like this, since it's a pain to do it manually. (yes, I'm always interested in my rights and responsibilities :P) -- (gem / talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the last link in that part is leading to a 404 error, it is missing a /support before the /legal. --Xeeron 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was repaired in a more-recent update. Thanks. -- Gaile 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Minor Favor Update -- 1 February 2008

Considering the vast amount of favour we lost due to the overflow, surely we're entitled at least those 7 000 minutes (however faulty they may have ended up there). You said it yourself, we amassed nearly the limit in 24 hours (I saw myself 15k+ in less than 15 hours one of those days) and the fact that we probably lost well over 70k+ minutes (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here), surely letting us keep those 7 000 minutes would be a nice gesture? We'd still be 63k minutes down ... Kherec 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the removal of the accidental 7k is a preliminary to having all the earned minutes restored, once the system has been reprogrammed to allow for more favour minutes before the cap is reached. It sounds that way to me, at any rate. -- Smarty 12:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I have my spider! :) Ok, I admit, not a useful statement, but I'm still proud of it. -- Alaris 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So if the 7K is being removed due to the error at your end, is the amount we earned that overcame your code limitation lost forever or has that 'overflow' been added to the current total? I'm a little confused, is the current /favor total the right number now? Or are we missing some because of your code? Man, if we reset the counter how many minutes did we earn in that weekend? Love to know the figure :D Good work players :D House Of Furyan 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They can't add it now, it'll overflow again! I'd expect that if anything, they'll add it in when the current favor runs out. -- Alaris 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they just raise the ceiling for the favor code in their next update and add something that was lost then? House Of Furyan 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Favor has been somewhere around 33,000 minutes for over a week now, and I'm almost positive it has been that way thanks to something other than just player effort to earn titles. Even before the vanquishing weekend, favor was looming around the same number, so I assume that something is being done to compensate for our minutes lost, even though there hasn't been any official word. Kokuou 07:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks surpicious, yes, but it would be nice if we got an official statement. If they have indeed been adding minutes once in a while to compensate us, I'd like to thank them. - Kherec 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Had that been the case, I'd think they would gladly tell us. I mean, if they are indeed giving us back the favor, then why not get the credits for doing it? My hunch is that they are waiting for a later date to give us the favor back, and what we've been seeing is just player activity. Once you get two titles on a few characters, why stop there? Afterall, it took about 10 hours of farming to max SS/LB, so one could easily get 6 titles that weekend if he could do nothing but play. -- Alaris 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GW2 Beta-testing?

GW2 Beta-testing?

• When?
• How do you apply or qualify for it?

--- Silverleaf 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

/agree! ^Teo^ 14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

/sign--Afya 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, there's not much point signing up months in advance on a wiki page. That being said... /sign -- Alaris 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh I want to try it too :D House Of Furyan 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaile has said before they're not even at the stage yet. I'm sure they'll let people know whenever there's an opportunity for signing up for any beta that would be available in such a manner. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I seen to recall reading somewhere that the beta will be open to GW players, with the people that have been playing the longest getting in the earliest....of course, that could just be the fairies whispering lies to me again.

Damn fairies.--Ryudo 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

YOU BASTARD FAIRIES! Richi2k7 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:77.102.54.60 (talk).

District restriction?

Hi, Gaile and everyone here. Happy lunar New Year~^^ On the Taiwan Guild Wars website, it said the restriction of districts would be removed on 1/31 but we didn't see such update, did we? Just curious, is there any news about the restriction removal?--Afya 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's puzzling! We have never announced a date for the expansion of the Open Travel option to other territories such as Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, or Korea, and obviously the date wasn't January 31st. ;) I do not know why that date appeared on the website, and I am sorry for any confusion that the posting of any date may have caused. At this time, we have not set an exact date for the expanded Open Travel. As soon as we know more, I'm sure we will make some sort of official statement, and of course I will inquire about this to see if we have fresh information. -- Gaile 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet again another farm nerfed...

When something works well for the PvE community and seems to be making the game fun for people and giving them something to do Anet and and its staff some how deem it right to make the game a bunch of bull again. I enjoy farming and making some kind of money for my characters with an ele and other class. Makes the game enjoyable when you can afford different things for your account and even work on certin titles that cost IE Drunkard, sweet tooth, treasure hunter. With the jacked up prices in selling anymore i can see why new players to the game wouldnt stick around much because it is becoming harder and harder to gain to gold an plat to afford many things, you outlaw the buying of gold from 3rd party players, yet you sell skills and slots in the guild store. Different concept yes i know but on a different level not so much, but enough of this little rant and onto the simple question I wanna ask even tho im gonna get a bunch of the PvP lovers to respend to which I agree with those who say PvE and PvP should be separte the skills should have there own balance in each reality of the game. But anyways, How does Anet deem it right to change things on us the players when the game is starting to get fun? and Why do you and the support team NERF farming?

Shredder101 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nerfing farming is an unfortunate side effect of making PvP (which has real life cash prizes) more balanced. The positive side of this is that there are many more ways to farm than those that are nerfed at any one point in time. Back when Shield of Absorption's casting time was increased, people moved away from using it in interrupt-heavy areas to using Mystic Regeneration or a combination of Shielding Hands and Shield of Absorption. With Mystic Regeneration's usefulness reduced, the use of Mending and Healing Breeze will rise, as will the farming of areas without health degeneration and farming builds that utilize Spirit Bond and Vengeful Was Khanhei.

The single largest advantage to PvE (where all farming, by your definition, takes place) is that opponents do not change skills between runs. While one may farm Zaishen Keys from Hero's Ascent, one must do so keeping in mind that his opponents will bring different skills and strategies to the table every time. In PvE, enemies are "static"; one can take as much time as one likes to look at their strengths and weaknesses and learn to overcome them. -- Armond Warblade 10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Anet selling stuff and players selling gold for cash is that the funds from slots etc go to Anet where as the gold sells do not. Anet doesn't want others to profit in real life from their product. As for the jacked up prices (I'll take it from players selling goods) an easy way to fix that, stop players from determining the prices of things. Everything in game should have a more befitting value set by Anet not by farmers who are out to make a buck from the unsuspecting player as its buying stuff you can't buy from a trader thats an annoyance. Everything in game should be sold in the capacity as runes, dyes and the likes. I think I'm going off point so I'll stop typing. House Of Furyan 10:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another much more important difference is that gold selling increases inflation, whereas char slots and skills don't (in fact, they may help decrease inflation). Basically, the more gold people have, they more they are willing to spend for things they want. As for fixing prices, that would take out the whole fun of trading. I traded pigs yesterday, and I proudly can say that I netted a nice gain in items & gold. That was a lot of fun.

To answer the question, I don't think that the ANet team NERFs farming per se, but rather try to control inflation. So instead of farming generating easy gold, it generates items you can sell for gold. Same net profit from what I heard. -- Alaris 15:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean, more player-player tradable items, fewer "Sell to merchant en masse" items. Anet's been persuing this for ages. --Ckal Ktak 07:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think there is no way to quickly gain money anymore :\... either by leeching off of a CoF run, being the runner of a CoF run, finding an especially rare weapon skin and selling it for an overwhelmingly expensive price (though it really is initially just a max weapon with same damage stats as another one), investing a few hours into elite missions with little to no proper profit (Elite armor is pricey :p!). But these nerfs I suppose are understandable (thanks botters for lowering drop rates to null~ :D) ._.;

Recent Skill Changes

Hello Gaile. I'm curious if you could give us a brief overview on some of the skill changes and why they were made. I have seen you do this in the past, so thats why I'm putting it here >.< . If you could do that, that would be nice. some of the skill changes made absoulutely no sense to me. Thanks! Wandering Traveler 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollerbeetle Racing

Dear Gaile,

I was wondering if Anet looks into what goes on in the top 100 of Rollerbeetle Racing. I have a tip for next time, that might make it more fun for everyone and not a big frustration camp.

Make it so people who get into the top 100 can only appear there once. But if they reach a higher score than their previous one, it updates it in the top 100. That way one person won't occupy 40 odd places in the top 100 like right now, and it would give more people the chance of getting in there too.

I am personally a big fan of Rollerbeetle Racing, and I win many times. But I can't get into the top 100, because of 3 people who occupy most of the spots through whatever means. I don't know how they do it, so I don't want to say exploit or cheat or anything, but it smells fishy. I got so very frustrated at this, that I stopped trying to get into the top 100. I wanted that prize really bad, but I guess I have to give up on it. I am sure I'm not the only one having such a bad time with the scorelist.

Any answer would be greatly appreciated! --Akane Kiryu 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaile said on her userpage:

"I was talking to the Content Programming Team last night about this very issue. They agree that the way this is sorting out is not the best way, but there is no way to amend it in the short term. (That is, during this weekend's event.) The system is based on other in-game systems -- coding, I guess you'd say -- and I honestly don't know that we can reprogram this particular feature because it may take a considerable amount of time. I'll talk to that team later and see if there is a practical way to change this. I just wanted to mention that if it would take days of programmer time to amend, that time would not be wisely invested on what is, really, a very small element in the overall game."

I don't know how to link to that quote, so I just quoted it... sorry if I did the wrong thing. Ashes Of Doom 22:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie Minipet Giveaway???

Hi, I'm just wondering whether ArenaNet could look into having a form of Massive Minipet Giveaway in Australia. Really, all we've had is the Asura, which is kind of annoying. It would be kind of nice if we could get stuff as well =) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:124.190.211.74 (talk).

lol, as if other countries would get more stuff. - Y0_ich_halt 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Make it Austrilasia so those of us in New Zealand can join in --Wild 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage of Pics And Other Materials

Hi Gaile i am creating a program that provides users help with missions and quests without them having to access the internet. And i was wondering if i am able to use the maps and other info provided on this website. So if you could tell me that would be great. Apocalypsefu 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If they don't have internet access, how are they playing Guild Wars? -- Gordon Ecker 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Im talking about so they dont have to slow there internet down. Or they just want to access the mission info fast and easy.Apocalypsefu 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this would be good for studying maps when not online...but I agree with gordon: why not just come here? it doesnt take up too much internet space, unless they are on dial up. and it'd be a wonder to see them playing guild wars without rubberbanding a lot Wandering Traveler 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is an external program really much faster than F10 -> *click textfield* -> *type mission name*? Or even F10 -> *click mission name* if you're already in it. -- ab.er.rant 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys.. don't beat him down about this- it might see unnecessary to do, but maybe he's doing it just because he can and wants to. I would suggest just answering his question. I personally don't know much about the GFDL, so if someone more knowledgeable can help, I'm sure apocalypsefu would appreciate it. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beside it's an opportunity for him to practice his skills. If he wishes to take up the extra burden, let him... that is if Anet is fine with this idea. It's not doing any harm to our gaming experience, isn't it? – Barinthus 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are right. Sorry about that Apocalypsefu. -- ab.er.rant 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, im just doing it to learn some basic programming with Visual Basic. Apocalypsefu 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chest and Wisdom Titles Weekend

I think there should be a weekend where points from identifying golds and opening high-end chests are doubled. It would help reduce the grind/money spent going towards these 2 titles by a little. Darkling 09:43, 4 March 2007 (PST)

(moved to bottom) -- ab.er.rant 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess they sort of promoted these titles with the double gold drop chance from chests weekends. Simply getting double points would be quite welcome as well. (especially double wisdom would be welcome since Golden Eggs at Easter are a good boost for the TH title already. That is, assuming Golden Eggs wil drop again this year) Zophar 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can say merry christmas, your wish has been granted :D! ... this is very exciting ^^~

Many thanks for the weekend! – Barinthus 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

why cant anet leave pve alone

quick simple question, why cant you guys and gals at anet leave the pve skills alone when the pvp players cry about something being to good? damn just adpat and move on no need for the people in pve to suffer for those who do just pvp.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.206.147.213 (talk).

This has been answered many times. From what I understand from reading other posts about this, Guild Wars, though useful in PvE, is mainly a PvP game. there are tournaments held for large sums of money in PvP, and if there is a build that will completely own everything (excessive, but you get the point), then that would be....well, easy money. they have to balence around PvP because thats where the main aspect of the game is. I personally like what they do to Pvp. makes PvE more interesting, constantly changing tactics, skills, builds....but thats just me. correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. show no restraint. Wandering Traveler 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on many points of what you said but the way I look at it is this way, if pvp is so important to anet then maybe for the future of GW2 they should make the skill balances separte from the pve skills. Because honestly thats one of the biggest flaws in gw today. The fact that there are many people who play pvp and an equal amount of people who play pve in the game and for those who dislike pvp it sucks hardcore when they go and mess with something just because someone in pvp thinks its cheap. I love the challenges of the skill balances at times but i hate the fact that guild wars says it goes aginest the constent grnding of points but then again it makes the fact that you need to grind for gold and points with the changes. Skill balances are great but do the those who play just the pve section a favor and look at both sides see what the heck your messin with before doing it, cause honestly the games getin worse to play when pvp screws the rest of those who enjoy the game to relax and get away from things for a bit. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.206.147.213 (talk).

I think the PvP will be fixed in GW2 because of the "World PvP" they were announcing, kinda like runescapes wilderness section. that would allow better balence for both sides of the world. as for grinding for PvE things....well, thats what I've been doing since I've started the game. its not that bad to a PvE'er. all you have to do to get some reputation is grab the blessing, head out, kill things. perhaps do it during a quest or something, which makes it worthwile. plus, with the heroes handbooks and master duengon guides, getting reputation is easy. I like to repeat the bulk of the missions in EOTN anyways. (sorry, only example of reputation I could think of.) Wandering Traveler 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster: Why do you whine about some small nerfs that affect PvE when the only overpowered and PvE ruining skill still goes untouched? Who cares about other skills anymore when we have Ursan? -- (gem / talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall King's Staff of Apocalypse? It got boring quite quickly to kill mobs in Diablo with that so after the first few tries, I went back to killing the old-fashioned way. Here in GW, if I want Obsidian armor for my necromancer, and I consider only buying the materials, it would cost me (at today's price) just over 800,000 gold. Now that might seem fine for those who have the time and energy to play non-stop, but after 9 months, I've held a total of 300,000 gold (and never, a single black dye?) If I had to continue at that rate, I wouldn't play. Leave solo farming alone, it's one of the few ways most of the playerbase can afford things. Your having Obby armor only makes the normal players think, "wow, lucky bum finished their solo runs before the latest nerf..." In a nutshell, why do I have to quit my job to have Obsidian armor? Ghosst 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To OP also. why cant you guys and gals at anet leave the pve skills alone - they did. I don't see any changes to the PvE-only skills. damn just adpat and move on - very good advice; you should heed it more. I don't think skill changes make people "suffer"; it just makes them rethink their skillbar, or depending on perspective, waste more of their time because now they have to go look at forums and the wiki for the newest and latest cookie cutter builds (because apparently we in pve just can't use nothing but the best of the best). And lastly, you need to grind for gold and points - huh? why? What must you absolutely buy that you cannot play normally without? I seem to be getting along just fine doing the normal storyline stuffs. They incorporated grind into the game, but they did not make it unavoidable. -- ab.er.rant 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the fact that the skill changes affect PvE as well. It makes the PvE experience overall a little more interesting. It would have been pretty boring to have been able to run the same extremely powerful build for an excessive amount of time without ever having to change (and learn) anything. We expect PvP players to just adapt to all the skill changes and I think it isn't too much trouble to have the PvE players do the same. (btw, not only the nerfs affect PvE, the buffs also affect PvE, but you never hear anyone talking about that) Zophar 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the PvP balance changes don't have any significant positive or negative impact on PvE, but some of them, such as the recent changes to Clumsiness and Wandering Eye, do have a significant positive impact, and others have a significant negative impact, and this negative impact is generally focused on the same professions because of the way the profesison capabilities are divided and the way PvE is set up. Mesmers only started getting decent this year, assassins have been trash since release, ritualists got hit hard by the spirit nerfs and still haven't recovered and paragons only have one good, broadly applicable build (which is also extremely gimmicky, and dependant upon the grind-intensive warrior skill "Save Yourselves!"). -- Gordon Ecker 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Who cares about other skills anymore when we have Ursan?" -- (gem / talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC) lololololahahahaaaaa ursan.. good one,but personally i think ursan is weak and only for the simple minded button mashers, theres no strategy involved and it sucks severely compared to alot of the builds i use... anyhow, i think guildwars seems to be more pve than pvp, theres alot more to do on the pve side. Just because people cant find a counter(there is always counters for anything) in pvp, doesnt mean people should nerf entire skillbars, people just arent trying hard enough--24.154.188.10 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy FA question

I know you’ve posted this before, but I can’t for the life of me find it. Gaile, can you please reiterate that there is no "server" or "game" limit (max number of games that can be going on at once) set for Fort Aspenwood? Everyone and their cousin seems to think only 2 games at once can be played.--Ryudo 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. As long as there are full teams to oppose one another, another game will spawn. No limits, really! -- Gaile 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million Gaile. Amazing how net rumors can easily overwrite common sense sometimes.--Ryudo 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hall and the weapons question

Hey Gaile, Quick question on the Hall and the weapons tat can be placed in there, I know that as of now and the origanl idea behind the weapons in the hall is for destroyer weapons. Tho in Gw2 some how we will get bonuses from what we place in there why not allow us to put the items we normaly use thru out the other three campians in there aswell. I mean i have a couple destroyer weapons but i would love to put my tormented sheild in there and my q8 gothic axe. I mean if this is to represent our characters in the past why not add things we treasure for them? Shredder101 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please resume the dev updates related to skill balance?

Gaile, could you please resume the dev updates related to skill balance? We've been missing these for the past few updates and it is helpful to get the insider's view on what was changed and why. It would also give more information to people who feel left out and compelled to fantasize about what was the whole purpose of this or that skill change. Thanx. Krothal 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I posted an extensive update just this afternoon. :) Hope you and other players find it helpful! -- Gaile 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Insightful? Yup. Funny or ironic in places? Sure. I lol'd. Helpful, though? Not so much. In any case, though, I, at least, appreciate it and thank you for the time you took. I hope to see more in the future. You're awesome, Gaile! :) — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate them, since I'm not usually aware of the pvp metagame really at all, so its nice to see what the reasoning is behind them. Otherwise I just evaluate them on pve utility, which is probably not at all the way they're evaluated by Izzy et al. So thanks Gaile. :) - THARKUN 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the stated reasons are really funny:

The block component of "Shields Up!" was nullifying condition spreading and Ranger interruption far too well, so we eliminated any use it had for that, entirely. - Fixed!

Lion's Comfort was a low-risk heal that can sustain itself while the character stays in combat, until we realized that was a really dumb idea and re-nerfed it. -Fixed!

LOL — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To start with, Soul Reaping needs to be made viable. Removing that idiotic timer would certainly help with that...Hyper Cutter 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think quite a few people think that the timer is weird, from a RPG perspective. But in terms of viability, necros are still voted as one of the most versatile professions due to their constant energy flow. So I don't see why you say that it's not viable. We have N/Rt's out there taking a N primary for the constant energy afterall! -- Alaris 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gaile for your updates! Krothal 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaping is fine now, still very strong. It was basically totally imba before. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaping has always been awesome, even after nerf xD! I think all the attributes are working fine as they are now :D (Criticals yield energy gain for primary Assassins, Mesmer Primaries are ACTUALLY Machine guns, Ritualists can create more hearty spirits/longer lasting weapon spells as a primary, Elementalists can replicate seize the day (and exceed it) without the -1 energy degen, Warriors can abuse heavy armor penatration (thus making warrior weapons somewhat able to stand up to daggers/scythes/bows) etc)

Gender changing tonic?

April Fools 2007 was simple AWESOME!! I, and many, had so much fun with the surprise Gender change. :)

Gaile, you communicated; "Many people liked their new apperances, so Gaile Gray said she would ask if an NPC could be added to change players' genders as they wish. However, Gaile mentioned that we would likely be unable to choose the face or the hair style"

Can we? Will it be possible this April Fools Day??? -Silverleaf 08:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the studio does anything for April Fool's Day, it would be... well... foolish of me to talk about it in advance. ;) -- Gaile 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

grrr FOOLISH indeed. :) --Silverleaf 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it's apparent that changing gender is possible, do you think there's anyway that we could permanently change our character's appearance to that of the gender we become on April Fools Day? I'd really like to have some of my characters changed but after nearly three years of playing with them I wouldn't want the effort and time to go to waste just to start over with a different appearance. Scummy Turtle Bean 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very much would like. And please dont make it like the bettle tonics and make them really rare.--Ryudo 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good idea for an Anet money-making scheme - buy hairdressing service, facial reconstructions, and sex change operations XD -- ab.er.rant 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A temporary server-wide change doesn't mean that they can do it on a per-character scale... --24.179.151.252 09:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We all know that!! Neither is it possible too choose how a female Derv will look when using a Gender-changing-tonic. But a promise is a promise! There has been no answer to the question:

Gaile Gray said she would ask if an NPC could be added to change players' genders as they wish --Silverleaf 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Trade and Recruiting spam in Local Chat still around

← moved to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions#Trade and Recruiting spam in Local Chat still around

Why do I have to KEEP Unlocking inscriptions and skills?

Right, this is the 3rd or 4th time now! You guys do an update and I have to reopen skills and inscriptions, weapon mods, etc with balt faction for PVP usage. Not like I have anything better to do with my Balt Faction, but this is irritating. Sounds more like less of an update and an actual rollback. Can someone check this? --Shaia 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally hear about this, but as far as I know, QA has not been able to replicate the bug. Could you please post about this on the bugs page? (It doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories, so I'm heading you via that link to "Miscellaneous.") I know they would like to be able to get more details on this. Thanks. -- Gaile 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Gaile, will go to the bugs page and post there. --Shaia 07:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

did you learn anything from the past?

lot of stuff went wrong since you(anet) left blizzard. ever asked yourself why 10 million people decided to buy world of warcraft and to pay monthly fees instead of buying guild wars ? or ever asked yourself why fury died. have you ever noticed that pve keeps your game alive. don't worry, it doesn't matter anymore --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.189.214.223 (talk).

why is this brought up here? -- Wandering Traveler 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like either an anti Guild Wars troll or someone who quit Guild Wars. Guess he/she just had a surge of anger at Anet for some reason and thought he was gonna do something by complaining... --Alreajk --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.189.67.12 (talk).

Indeed. It doesn't matter at all, since it's mostly irrelevant. -- ab.er.rant 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Anet staff would have looked very closely at why blizzard is 10 million paying subscribers when guildwars is 500,000 total bought games and what they did wrong in guildwars 1 etc so they can improve but thats there internal matter to sort out and none of our business to know because if they told us then every company in opposition would know and capitalize on it.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:122.109.43.82 (talk).

Wrong? 5000000 games sold is pretty good, considering that they're starting a new company, and a new "franchise". It's doubtful that WoW would have the success it has if not for a long series of games prior to it by the same company, as well as several games developing the history and races that were then used in WoW (Warcraft 1-3 plus expansions). A game with such past history will instantly be more popular than an equally good game that has no history to back it up. Also keep in mind that a lot of players are "scared" by the low level cap, even though this turned out to be an excellent idea IMO. -- Alaris 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the amount of games sold was bad in fact it is very good. I said Anet would look at the difference between them and Blizzard being the top online mmo game and see what they did wrong or good, Why blizzard has the bigger market share and how they can improve themselves to get more of that market share. 122.109.43.82 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, how does one even compare GuildWars to WoW =), Wow is grind mmorpg of a bestselling game series that were around since 1994, GW is a fresh concept that was made some 2 years after Wow was released. Still managed to become second biggest morpg around and with 5mill units sold its a rather huge in itself. Biz 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those anon claims are ridiculous. It's like saying all new software must top Windows to be considered successful, all IT companies must top Microsoft or Google to be considered successful. Silly talk. -- ab.er.rant 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about new software must top there competition I don't see anything like that. Instead I see the question being asked 'Why does the opposition have a massive user base which are willing to pay and what are they doing to keep it' I also see the point of the op saying 'PvP is not the way its all PvE cause other PvP games have died', I don't see anything about you must be the best on your first game.

Having a massive userbase isn't the same thing as being awesome. I mean, just look at myspace. - Bex 10:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking that question ("Why does the opposition...") basically leads to "I wanna be like them!" I think the better question would be, "What don't I like about what the opposition is doing, and how can I make it better?" I'm glad GW took a different path, with business model and casual-friendly play, otherwise they'd be just another WoW clone. → BROWNSPANK 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tried WoW, and it was pretty good. But some things annoyed me. Tried WoW-clone (LOTRo), and it was pretty much the same, except for more annoying things. Tried GW, and *pooof*, annoying-things-be-gone! Sure I'd like some persistance, but I only trust GW to come up with a way to make it work. -- Alaris 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything, they should focus on what they are doing differently and keep doing it. I bet they would not have 5 million units sold if they had resembled World of Warcraft. I think part of the appeal with Guild Wars is the huge difference in both economical model and fundamendal gameplay. I mean, despite being launched after World of Warcraft, despite not having much of a history (nothing in comparison to Blizzard) Anet managed to flourish despite living in Blizzard's shadow. I'd predict a huge loss of players, if they ever tried to actually become more like World of Warcraft. I'm watching the tidbits that are released about Guild Wars 2 with both dread and awe, as it seems it's heading for a more mimic de-evolution than continuing the winning concept that got them 5 million units sold in the first place, Kherec 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

4 words: best of both worlds. GW has a unique and solid foundation, but there are enough of the MMO and even GW population that look forward to expanded features. I'm not saying "make GW more like WoW". I'm saying "add to GW that which it is missing". I love instances and missions, but I'd also enjoy persistence some of the time (if implemented well). I love the dual-profession system, but I'd also love to pick a race (if implemented well). I love playing in a party (often H&H), but I'd also love to play some balanced-for-solo content. If all these things are added to GW, as opposed to replacing GW, then GW2 will be a hit with me. -- Alaris 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot about Guild Wars 2 that has me quite concerned. Presisent areas, more of a merger between PvE and PvP.... etc and so on. Arenanet seems to think its going to able to take the issues of another games and fix it, where others can't... 118.92.12.97 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the goals of GW1, and tbh, I thnk Ant did a great job. They fixed what needed fixing in many ways. There have been so many posts and rants to the effect of "NO WoW!OMFGWTFNOWAI!!!" that surely they will pay attention. Anet did a great job with GWs, so I trust them to do well on GW2. Now all they need is a new community relations team to replace gaile and andrew patrick! Ashes Of Doom 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Guild Wars is wonderful in its setup, especially for a semi-casual, semi-hardcore player like myself (who have the option to hero/hench or play in a human party at my own leasure), it does seem like they are dropping the whole hero part for Guild Wars 2, which is alarming. They speak of a companion, but that you'd be buffed yourself if you dont' bring one, so they aren't needed. That and raising the level-cap, those are huge fundamental changes, changes to one of the top things I love about Guild Wars. The fact that I can bring my heroes and do almost everything in Guild Wars is the reason I play this game. I'm not forced to round up 7 other people to play this game. If suddenly more than half the game would be impossible to enjoy on your own, then it would be a huge step backwards. The way it superbly blends single player and multi player ... that is without a doubt the single most innovative and unique design decision they ever made (towering over and shadowing their seemingly wonderful PvP-setup too, which I personally don't like, but which shouldn't be dismissed either). I mean there are tons of MMO's that give you endless grinding for levels and huge human parties etc ... please let Guild Wars 2 follow in the footsteps of Guild Wars and keep what sets this wonderful game apart from the rest, Kherec 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about the worries, yet confident they'll solve it. I'm willing to bet that large parts of the game will still feature team play with H&H available. However, large parts will be designed to be played as solo, with companion if you want, with other players roaming about. As for the level cap, they said already that your effectiveness will not increase as steadily as in other MMO's, i.e. that higher levels will be more cosmetic than in other MMOs. -- Alaris 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys...wiki question!

Hiya everyone! We've flipped the name of the dev updates page from Gaile News to simply Developer Updates, since this is a more descriptive name of what they are/will be. I'm helping Regina with some of the wiki plumbing and moving stuff around, and I realized just how extensive the task is. My questions to you guys are:

• Should we rename all Gaile News pages to Developer Update pages? I'm realizing now that there are a lot of them, especially in archives.
• Should we start up a new section for the upcoming Developer Updates and link back to the older Gaile News ones?

Since I'm not sure what would work best for everyone, I figured I'd ask before I run in and bulldoze everything XD

Any thoughts? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*WAVES BACK IN EARNEST*

I think moving from Gaile News is a good idea (something I thought about before Gaile's "departure" - the name didn't fit with what was on the page, nor did it really go with general wiki formatting). I don't have a preference over what it should be moved to, but Aiiane had an idea about a new ArenaNet: namespace -- which is, in my opinion, a good idea. That would be easier to organise the official ArenaNet contribution -- dev updates, image contributions, other news and the like. -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to the dev update name, gaile news didn't make much sense before as they were called dev updates by her. --Lemming 00:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks guys :) And that's a really good idea about the namespace. I'll put a request in for it to be added to both wikis if that's what you guys would like. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The namespace idea is nice, could be used for game updates also perhaps, as they are mostly official gubbins? --Lemming 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, to me, too! -- Gaile 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In that context, Emily, could you then tell the IT to use identical internal IDs for both wikis? As we have a Guild and Game link namespace here, the next number here would be 104 whereas on GW2W it would be 100 - but it would be nice, especially for things like GWWT and bot setups, to have identical ids for identical namespaces. Thanks :D poke | talk 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, Poke. I'll put that note in the request email. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan to NA?

You have got to be joking... well... I guess it gives those who did not break rules and such a chance to still play. Cant imagine a government stepping in to block the retailer of their own product for policing there own product. My only worrie with this though, is that the biggest problem that has happened in Guild Wars, was the mass hacking of accounts in Taiwan... granted the servers there were rented out and not fully policed and maintained by ANET... but it is still a slight concern to be brought up... SabreWolf 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No one actually had the chance to break the rules, Arenanet nerfed the Taiwanese before anyone had the chance. So is this the reason servers are being laggy lately? Cause A Little Mayhem 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pvp and pve settings for skills?

This sounds like a cop out. While it would be nice to see a meta game change (and a drastic one at that)from a long overdue balance update, having pvp and pve parts for a single skill not only spreads confusion, it looks sloppy. I also do not agree with the idea that you do not wish to harm pve through balance updates, pve is already rediciously easy due to the ursan form horde taking precedence over all other builds. Juraigamer 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As another user said in another talk page, if they no longer have to use "ursan" for fixing all that has been screwed by pvp balancing, they may be able to actually change the bear to something more "balanced" (at least for the users who don't like it). I at least give my total support to what the devs proposed for pvp/pve balance (not that it matters anyways XD).--Fighterdoken 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I thought Arenanet was against such a thing. I can see them making a full PvE and PvP version of each skill. I think having a PvP version will really amp it up, and as my guild is starting to go more into PvP I'm quite excited.

Also, about the Ursan comment I agree with Fighterdoken, they may be able to balance Ursan out. With no real excuses for updates favoring one side of the game over the other Arenanet is actually going to have to pay more attention to both sides of the game, and I hope for PvE get out of the debating side of URsan and actually fix it. 118.92.111.241 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A cop out? are you mad? some people are never happy.--00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet finally succumbed to the players' wishes, it appears. But it seems sloppy and unprofessional to do it for only a few skills. I really hope they consider fully splitting PvE and PvP. Even though it wasn't their initial intention, it's what a lot of players want. And in the game industry, it's all about what the costumer wants. Calor 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like A.nets expermementing, maybe to keep us happy or its realted to the whole zashien thing...68.151.27.108 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting only a handful of skills is actually MORE then enough. No. Players don't want to memorize double the skills they have now, especially when half of them have the same name and icon... — Poki#3 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally ArenaNet do this, why now, and not 3 years ago? maybe GW2 will have this system? --NeHoMaR 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You really would only memorize one set as most people play only PvE or only PvP. And it's not like the Pv other counterpart would be drastically different, only a few numbers different or conditions. Calor 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bet in about a couple months there will be 10+ skills (PvE version) that are stronger then Ursan. They must be making good progress on GW2. -- Inspired to ____ 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I question the idea that "most people play only PvE or only PvP" - in fact, I don't remember ever talking to someone in game who only played PvE and never did any kind of PvP (even if just Alliance Battles), nor someone who only played PvP and never did any kind of PvE (if only to get better looking stuff for his/her character). The idea of splitting PvE skills and PvP skills is something I have always been against - not only we create a new barrier between PvE and PvP (a barrier that the community itself chose to erect a long time ago) as players have to remember different versions of different skills, but the players also forget about the positive side of skill balances on PvE. One example? Chaos Storm was buffed for the last tournament, and that buff was removed when the tournament ended - that's one skill that could have been better than it is, PvE-wise, but is still the same it has always been thanks to the split between PvE and PvP. Imagining that Arena Net will have time to fine tune both skill sets (the PvP skills and PvE skills) so both are perfectly balanced is, IMO, being extremely naive - if some players complain that GW has not been balanced ever since the release of Factions, when we had what, half of our current skills, what do people expect to happen when we have an increasing number of PvE and PvP copies of the same thing?

The only good side, IMO, is that Arena Net will be able to test those changes now, and see if it would be good or not for GW2 to have double skill sets (the PvP one and the PvE one). Hopefully, this idea will fail soon enough so Arena Net ends with enough time to balance the GW2 skills for both PvP and PvE. Erasculio 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Balanced in PvE? No such thing. Only PvE question they have is how fast do they want users to get through the campaign(s) so they're ready for the next one that's coming out. And since there are still people buying the complete GW1, they will still want them to be able to get thru all of GW1 by the time GW2 is ready so they buy. Thus, my point above. -- Inspired to ____ 02:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay, one more person who believes on "there's no balance on PvE". Despite the old nerfs to PvE only skills. Despite how Spiteful Spirit was nerfed specifically because it was considered too powerful for PvE. Despite how Isaiah already spoke about what kind of nerfs are needed to keep PvE balanced. And so on. PvE needs balance as well - nothing could make that more obvious than all the claims to nerf Ursan Blessing. Erasculio 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...not about what I want (if you only knew that would be obvious). About what ANet wants to allow them to make most money, earlier on that was more nerfing for certain reasons and going forward will be more buffing. Same reson skills kept getting stronger as they went from Prophecies to EotN. Sorry just gaming progression. Same reason cheats would get leaked on stand alone games in the past. Don't blame the messenger. -- Inspired to ____ 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Its one thing I find funny is the notion of balance in a game such as Guild Wars. People say PvE can't be 'balanced', and PvP can't be balanced because of PvE.. etc and so on. Guild Wars has two different modes of play, PvE and PvP, yet they share the same skill system. Neither side can be 'balanced' if they share the same system - whilst still making PvE a fairly challenging environment and making PvP fast paced and enjoyable - if they both share the same skills. Balance has never been achieved since skills are nerfed/buff because of variations of experience in either PvE or PvP, a skill change isn't necessarily for both sides of the game and can leave one side of the game a little sore for it. PvE and PvP are different and sharing the same skill system is kinda a weird notion. A PvP system and a PvE system gives far better of a chance of their being more of a positive experience ( balance even ) in both, since both can be monitor - PvP more closely I would assume and changes can be done more freely without impacting too greatly on the other, the problem with even some skills have variation in PvP and PvE is the interchange between the two, it has successful to not confuse people who enjoy both sides of the game.

Took them long enough to try it. It's what I thought they'd do. I don't think it will work if it becomes too much of a hassle though.--Relyk 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two different approaches you can try to have when approaching balancing an MMO with both PvP and PvE. One is to differentiate the two and have to compromise on skill balance. The other is to homogenise the two by tuning the AI to behave a lot like a player, and emphasising the same abilities and mechanics in PvE as in PvP. The advantage of homogenising the experience is that you have portability of playstyle between PvE and PvP, making it easier for new players to join in PvPing, and the advantage of differentiating is that abilities can be tooled to be more useful in PvP or PvE, and the two playstyles can largely be balanced seperately. Guild Wars leans towards homogenising- for example, Guild Wars doesn't have a threat system for enemies, just some rules to choose a target to attack. The issue is that PvP will always be a different creature to some degree because players will inevitably behave differently than AIs- we can perform complex decisions and judgements quicker than they can based on experience and learning dynamically. The AI is preset, we aren't. This new approach with different behaviour for a few skills that behave very differently in PvE and PvP under the same rules allows Arenanet a little more flexibility in their balancing, while still maintaining portability of play experience between PvE and PvP for most skills. Ultimately, the games that maintain play balance while still being accessible are going to have to mix homogenisation and differentiation- and it looks like Arenanet has realised they might have balanced the two slightly wrong in the past. --Ari  (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very pleasently surprised to read about these plans, much more so than I have been in a long time with respect to GW. This is beginning to take significant steps towards allowing the fixing of balance issues, something I once thought would never happen. Apparently I was wrong about that, so good job ANet, glad to see progress where I hadn't expected it :) At least some things never change, as I still disagree with what Erasculio has to say :P 71.31.149.63 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is nothing wrong with memorizing effects of 1.700k skills then why would dual effect be of any problem? Human brain regardless of age or intelligence(within reason) is capable of far more, plus since most of them are self explaining trough names its even easier. Having different effects in PvE and PvP is Logical and very beneficial outcome. Logical becouse if you think about it when two people Know how to perform a specific move, that move will be far less efficient then against a newby monster who wants a leg to chew on. Beneficial becouse PvE doesn't need to be hindered by PvP which is the case now, PvE skills do not need to be balanced, in no way, apart from abuse in certain situations, like completely brainless tanking or bot farming possibility. Biz 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I never saw the problem with PvP balances effecting PvE too. Actually, I can't think of any skill at the moment that got nerfed because of PvP that didn't deserve it in PvE too. I also doubt it will make much difference, since they are keeping the amount of PvP skills low. So there should still be skills nerfed in PvE because they were a problem in PvP. Not the next balanced, but the one after that will show us how it turns out. Dutchsmurf 12:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuck pve, everything basicly works in there, if you at least don't aggro 15 mobs. Oh noes; splinter gets nerf. And still it doesn't afflict pve as much, since you still have 40 other blow-this-group-up-in-5-seconds skills. Unexist 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a person that works on builds all the time, I am looking forward to this and I believe it is the right thing to do. To be honest, of the 200+ builds that I have, only 2 of them include PvE only skills, both of which is for my Necro... so that tells me that any effects on PvP greatly effects PvE... because some of my PvE skills are not effective and sometimes makes the build obsoleite. So I would welcome the change to split the PvE/PvP married skill sets that are here now... and I hope they keep it that way for GW2... My question would be, for the PvE/P portion of GW2, would the PvE skill sets be used for that type of play? But for all intensive purporses for our current game, I think a spilt is neccesary and needed. My only issue would be the fact that they are on the contengent that they will place a little (PvP) or (PvE) tag on the skills. I would rather they rename the skills totaly... but I know that would be a lot of work and long hours in the dictionary. As for Bear, frankly it ruins PvE, and even then, current people are not even using it correctly and Bear can be even more effective then it is now... How/Why? I wont say... but what I will say is that Bear will need to be changed to be more on par with Wolf and Raven... just change it so that the functionality of each is defferent but they will each beused for certian situations... like Raven fly ability to be immune to knockdown. But overall... much need spilt and I am welcoming it as a builds expert. SabreWolf 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BUILD WARS?! 91.152.191.6 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i thought it would never happen. FINALLY! *Cheers*, please kill sway ^_^ 65.34.193.183 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless, why after 3 years of the game being about do this? All this does is make the wall higher between PvP and PvE players. Thank god this can't effect what they will do in GW2, as there will be PvE, World PvP, and Organized PvP. Unless they are planning on further dividing things making skills split 3 ways. The skill set is the link between both game types, just to go down a slippery slope, lets break the two types apart and send them their separate ways.--75.185.95.59 05:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike the skill split. A common set of skills is a core part of the game to me, as a PvX player. There should be only one set of skills and they should be balanced for PvP. Then the PvE Environment should be balanced to those skills. I know it's easier to just change the skill to balance to the environment, but then you run into the problem you are in now: trying to balance to two separate gameplay types. Cameronl | talk 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The last time players had to deal with "Environmental Balance," it was called Realm of Torment, and it just got balanced for Hard Mode and Normal Mode splitting last month. Let's hope they get it right this time.--BarGamer 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind this also changes the skills for PvE foes too :3 (I think they over-nerfed the skill sets for the bots) Byakko 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

seriously though, they could have done this much more elegantly. Simply something like "if target is nonhuman they also suffer cripple for 15 seconds" for a melee attack for example. PvP players would still know the additional effects do not have any effect on PvP but there would be none of this "PvP skill" nonsense since all skills would be affecting nonhuman foes. PvE skills were pretty bad ideas to begin with, having a separate ruleset for the same skillname is worse.--Life Infusion «T» 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I eluded to the fact that they should really create new skills with new names and not the proposed tagging system mentioned in the notes. There will be a lot of confused people due to this plan. As for the comment about 3 years... PvP got skeewed after GW:N came out with its skills... and since then its been a fixing process... and the PvE skills generated by GW:EN I dont think really helpped to much either, espcially with Bear... so I am sure this proposed fix will help... but it will be hindersome adjustment piriod for a while... SabreWolf 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I highly doubt this game will ever be balanced for pvp or pve. This game was designed for fairly quick combat, not the drawn out combat that you see in many other mmo's. Because of that, they can not overly buff, or overly nerf any skill otherwise a skill will became far to useless or way to powerful. I personally enjoy the pve skills, I dont use too many, but they make the pve aspect of the game that more enjoyable. I dont see a problem with ursan, except for those that can not get help from their guild/alliance and must pug something, but most groups only want ursan and hb monks. Whatever changes are made to skills, there will someone that will come up with a build that is easy to use and will just pwn at least 70% of pvp/pve groups, and then all that will happen is that everyone that doesn't want to run that build calling for the nerf bat because they dont want to deal with a "unbalanced" build. This whole argument has been going on since the day prophecies came out (i didn't see any complaining during the betas...), and it will never be resolved, and I'm okay with that. I like having to adjust my build ever few months when one skill I enjoy using gets nerfed, or buffed (i prefer wounding strike know over reapers). 68.104.205.160 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can't help feeling this system is messy and ungainly, if it allows the developers to once more buff Paragon shouts and chants to their original level of power, I'm ALL FOR IT! -Zaxares 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This sucks imo, i'm sure a lot of PvX players feel the same. It seems like the change is being made to allow for nerfing/buffing of skills that couldn't receive them previously due to the impact on one side of the game or the other, that's not necessarily bad but the link is lost between the modes of play. What would people push for after this, Primaries having different effects depending on which mode of play? Any skills that have or currently see heavy use in both modes of play will likely have differences depending on PvE or PvP, plus there's the skills they will have fun with that don't see any usage. I hate that we will be losing so much of the link between the two parts of the game. It doesn't seem like it will be one game at all.

As a side note I want to know how exactly we can see the difference between the PvE/PvP versions in outposts, and since this is happening we better be able to in GH's at least.

Don't do this to GW2, keep it one game, not 3 depending on what you are doing.~>Sins WDB 05:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the strongest link between PvE and PvP had already been broken months ago - the favor system. Having skills function similarly in PvE and PvP is not a "link". It's just familiarity. But as with things Anet does, I think they mostly do it with good reason, so I usually don't bother judging them until after I see the whole system actually being in used first. This is just another classic example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for them :) -- ab.er.rant 05:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who think that changes in PvP does not affect PvE, you guys obviosuly don't remember ritualist skills and soul-reaping.75.9.232.33 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is soooooooooooo stupid and should NOT be done! It's bad enough we have "PvE-only" skills, now EVERY skill is going to be PvE only... This is so amazingly BAD. --136.142.214.19 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

EVERY skill? Did you even read the update? "Within the next few weeks, we'll introduce PvP versions for a handful of skills." "We will do this as sparingly as possible and start with very few skills." "PvP versions are designed to target only specific skills." -- Gordon Ecker 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Any skills that are not identical in both is just plain wrong. It truly defeats the purpose! The reason for the whole issue, of course, are the very vocal people that always complained "PvE is too easy" until they made it impossible for normal players to complete without cheesed out builds and skills... And then of course they had to introduce the debacle of the PvE-only skill to compensate for it because they ahd noticed people not being able to complete the game... And now they're not able properly to balance many skills for PvP because they'd make PvE just plain undoable. As to "as sparingly as possible"... Does anyone remember when titles were 100% aesthetics, novelty trophies? When they said they'd never affect game play, despite people (I was one of them) decrying they'd turn the game south. Which they did and have. --Emkyooess 02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Purpose? What purpose? I don't get your logic. First you complain that PvE, without PvE-only skills, is practically impossible (despite the fact that a lot of people completed EotN even before Ursan took center stage). Then you complain that the way they chose to fix it, which is to split some key skills into PvP and PvE versions, precisely so that they can balance these key skills independently of each other. So... do you want them to try to resolve the issue or not? -- ab.er.rant 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Step back for a moment and reread. The problem with PvE isn't the skills (Well it's the PvE-only skills and the existence of consumables and title grind that affects game play.) -- it is the inane difficulty that goes beyond fun to frustrating. --Emkyooess 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably pretty controversial but I think it would be better to make all the current skills PvE only, and create an entirely new (significantly smaller) set of skills just for PvP. This would be refreshing, make competitive play much more interesting and by the sound of it remove confusion among many players. Klassy 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it less confusing to start modifying just a few skills instead introducing an entirely new set of skills? And suggesting that the PvP side getting the short end of the stick is not going to sit well with primarily PvP players. -- ab.er.rant 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see:

• The main PvE balance issues are consumeables and PvE skills, and both could have been fixed (or at least tackled) ages ago without any effect on PvP whatsoever. I conclude a.net does not care about PvE balance. (They care about minimizing the effort spent on gw1.)
• PvEers have whined about PvP balance updates and cried for separation of PvP and PvE skillsets. Usually loudest when a cookie-cutter and/or farm build got hit (mystic regen, anyone?) and only rarely on truly PvE-balance-affecting updates (e.g. the rit/spirit nerfs). I conclude whiny PvE players do not care about PvE balance. (They care about preserving their favourite build unchanged.)

So this new PvP-only-skill thingy probably should be read as:

1. No efforts will be made to balance PvE.
2. Glaring PvP issues will might still get fixed.
3. PvEers are guaranteed to never again have to think up a new build for themselves.

Just to throw you off: I'm obviously whiny atm, and do care about PvE balance. Damn. 134.130.4.46 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. I admit: I whined (and continue to) when the paragon was made of very limited PvE use (remember, I refuse to use PvE-only skills) because of PvP nerfs. However, I was mostly upset because there were more elegant ways to fix it than they did; the forums and wiki discussions reverbated with "limit how many paragon skills can stack on someone at once" and other similar suggestions. Instead, they nerfed the skills themselves to oblivion because of a broken metagame involving too many paragons on one team. Lots of people even suggested PvP would be made better by a "no more than 3 of any one profession on any team" rule, that would limit future such X-way cheese. And anyone who didn't see Mystic Regen needed nerf was blind. Even in PvE: My guild asked our dervishes to stop using it because it was obviously broken. --Emkyooess 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow whoever the IP guy is--you're dumb; the update was for PvE'ers, and that's because a-net decides to nerf every damn good idea. It's not skill balancing this guy does; it's skill pwning. Nerfing every good idea people come up with; isn't balancing skills. Example could be where all those wards and spirits didn't affect the Guild Lord any more..that's PvP, though. They just own every good idea. You're saying they need to think of their own ideas, what the fuck; that's what we've been doing all this time ever since they hired the new ass-hat for skill balancing. What you're saying is; "Well, what if I pwn this skill right here...Haha! What now fuckers!!! Think of something new quick! Shit! This is even better than the last thing; LET'S NERF THIS SKILL HERE! WHAT'RE YOU GOING TO DO NOW!?!?!". That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. But, having said that, some skills like "There's nothing to fear!" were really over-powered and did need its nerf.--Ʀєʟʟɑ 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a good update. Altho it might be confusing for newer players, at least it might fix some issues. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of PvP players saying PvE-only player whine too much about PvP updates. It's because of PvP whiners that cause these problems in the first place!75.9.232.33 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to start this arguement again, it's been had enough times already. It starts as a statement like that, and takes a few pages of anger and near NPA breach to reach the conclusion that ANet balances skills around PvP, GW being primarily a competitive game by description, and that PvE already has PvE skills to compensate so any complaints by PvEers are silly.

Note: The previous statement does not really reflect my own opinions, it's just an outline of where this arguement always progresses to before reaching a logic/illogic stalemate.

In short: Just drop it, please. This has come up in enough places already, and no good ever comes from it. 71.31.149.63 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea

If they start to split PvE/PvP by slightly changing stats.. how about a new fun of PvP only zero-cast projectiles.. I'm talking about certain skills like Flare.. PvP version instant cast 1s recharge, and a few skills like that. If it's too powerful, slightly increase the recharge or decrease damage.. but the idea of chasing someone throwing fireballs is fun :) Oh alright, I'm gonna get flamed for this but hey, it was just a fun idea and it's never gonna happen anyway.. so give me your best shot and flame away :) --83.248.171.19 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting aftercast delay. With no cast time a 1/4 sec finisher spell goes from being usable in 1.00 seconds to .25 seconds. While it may seem pretty trivial because people always say things along the lines of lolflare consider the spiking potential with that. What makes spikes infusable is that with aftercast and another skill at even a quarter of a second cast, gives you enough time to react (usually) and infuse. That extra quarter, half, or whatever on the spike may not seem like much, but you are effectively taking a good quarter of the time you have to react in out of equation, by far and away favoring the spike team. Even with projectiles, there is glpyh of swiftness, as well as simple proximity to your target, and you can just gale the person so he won't dodge them. While interesting, I don't think that instant cast, esp uninterpretable is a good concept on the whole. Then again, I don't pvp much, so it could work and I just cannot see it. Kelvin Greyheart 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they say that only numeric values on skills will change not recharge or something like that? Biz 11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From their statement: "different number values (damage, healing, cost, recharge, and so on)" it would seem to imply that anything that can be quantified will by on the table; however, they are currently not planning to have functional differences exist. -- Inspired to ____ 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

/flame :D72.223.77.197 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Splinter Weapon

Hi, I strongly vote for an undo of the Splinter Weapon nerf as it was only changed for PvP. Please give back the old powerful Splinter Weapon to PvE-players. Thank you. --Tapps75 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The ability to do well over 1000 damage in a single attack isn't overpowered? Splinter deserved most of what it got I think. I suppose some of the nerf came from pvp, but the main reason was because of tombs farming. One shotting an entire group with a few rangers takes no skill, is fast, reliable, and thus massively overpowered. While a buff to the number of hits before the weapon expires maybe acceptable, I cannot see the original splinter coming back. It was about as bad as Ursan is in many ways. Mash 2-3 buttons to win against...well everything. Kelvin Greyheart 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomb farming? Who the heck does that anymore, especially old-school? The nerf was all PvP-related, SW owns VoD. - The larry 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Splinter Weapon got nerfed because it was overpowered for farming npcs. And then it doesn't matter if those npcs were archers at VoD or just any type of monster in PvE. It is still one of the most powerful skills in the game, so I see no reason at all to rebuff it again. Dutchsmurf 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

/agree Basically any multi-hit skill worked with it with Barrage Splinter being the obvious culprit. --BeeD 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are nerfing Splinter weapon purely because of farming purposes they are being stupid, If you want to nerf an overpowered farming skill how about ursan?! Flionheart 03:02, 17 May 2008 (GMT)

More like an overpowered everythinged skill like Ursan, it's used in about 60-70% of groups for PvE things :(, heck... even if you want to grind the title to LEVEL Ursan people expect you to be Ursan... -_-; but yeah B/P is more powerful anyways so... tralala~

Skill Split

Did anyone ever consider that this may be an effort to bring underused skills back into play? There have always been skills that were PvP or PvE only. Maybe not by explicit statement, but by effect. How many people took Arcane Languor or Discord on their PvE skill bars? How many people took Flesh Golem into high-end PvP? This would allow you to increase the potency of a large category of skills without breaking PvP. For example, energy management and denial is a huge part of PvP, yet it is never a major factor in PvE builds. Soul Reaping could be restored to its former power (although I honestly feel it's powerful enough now), Watch Yourself could be reverted back to an older form to provide more reliable defense for PvE teams in high-level areas... the options are limitless, and I for one cannot wait to see the changes this brings. --Phydeaux 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

E-denial is useless in PvE as: 1. monsters have tons of energy, them being lvl 23+; 2. mobs are usually dead in 5 secs or less, and casters go down first. Other than Smite Crawlers and some bosses, I don't think anyone needs it really. - The larry 06:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They did made WY suitable for pve; in the form of Save Yourselves. 82.74.131.198 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow issaih did something right, not just right ITS AMAZING PVP ONLY NUMBERS HOLY SHIT74.216.101.237 11:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse?

Do you say it is for better or for worse that the developer's are now creating PvP only skills? Or do you say there are other, better ways to solve the PvE vs PvP problem? As for me; I say this is for worse, my thought is that the developers should change PvE to make the mobs as PvP- like as possible. (That is, make mobs difficult by giving them a good build, having all 8 skills, etc, rather than having 20,000+ health and 3,000+ armor, while being swarmed by 20 of them at once.) --Relax and Play 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the best balance decision they've made since the game went live. -- Gordon Ecker 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting the part that not all PvE players are as competitive as PvP players as well as the fact that to many PvE players, combat and competition is not the heart of the game. Realise that not all PvE players want to go up against well-balanced opponents. -- ab.er.rant 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With this, they will be able to considerably change PvP, while leaving PvE untouched. This is very good news for all PvE players who are not interested in PvP. That group has always complained very loudly about having to deal with PvP inspired skill changes. --Xeeron 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the simple differences of PvE from PvP. There are just some skill changes which will not please both parties. As good a job as they have done with dealing with this, it's simply easier to split the two into skill sets. I don't think it will be that vastly different then the way skills normally are, just prenerfed (or revised) status. I simply cannot see this going wrong. Axel Zinfandel 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I've been hammered on forums and on wiki for suggesting this. I have been calling for this simple idea to be implemented forever. I know the only reason why they are doing this is because they can implement it in GW2 after testing it in GW1. But still... why don't you guys listen from the majority of people who complained about the PvE and PvP connections. No bias towards either. Keep them separate as the game play is totally different. There are no similarities except that you can die in both and also gain xP. Keeping PvP and PvE separate, some sort of auction house remedy, and excessive title ranks (especially since most PvE are character only) are the big three. As Anet can see the GW1 world has almost disappeared. All items in the big three are considered game play functions that would make the game smoother, and prevent undetermined consequences.

Keeping PvP and PvE separate is obvious in nature. The skills needed to compete in both arenas are of different taste and skill. PvP skills are used to be build specific. But this assumption of skill knowledge can not be assumed on everyone. Especially with four separate skill releases. So the generic skills need to be more powerful in general for the PvE audience. Especially defense and healing. Where in PvP skills are deemed too defensive and nerfed to create more strategic moves, active play on defense and offense. PvP is moving away from dropping a ward of melee for 30 seconds and no one getting touched for any damage. But at the same time you need that defense in PvE where 10+ enemies can crush your henchmen. The assumption should be that everyone plays PvE alone, and that playing with others greatly enhances the experience and draws people towards it. Changes in skills have been concentrated for PvP use, and caused interesting changes in the PvE world. Since the skills the monsters and players changed.

Three continents and no auction house? Did Anet really think that spreading the audience out on three different continents make sense? Saw cute with Factions, but the economic flow is altered by the fact that the marketplace is considered to be in 5 different towns; Droknar, Lion's Arch, EOTN, Keineng, Kamadan. Not including mini economies like outside the Cathedral of Flames where you can sell dungeon specific items. As a PvP audience member myself the economics of making money is easier now. Redeem balth faction for Z-Keys and sell them at the Temple of Balthazar. But PvE is like hoping that when you spam to sell something that you hope to god that the other people that need that item are there awake and logged in and own the same campaigns as you and also in the same town and also the same country districts...

SKILL GRINDING!!!! YAY!!!! ESPECIALLY TO MAKE PVE SKILLS FULFILL THEIR MAX POTENTIAL!!!! YAY!!!69.230.202.194

I asked for this update a while ago, and people called me all sorts of names. It's rather heartwarming and vindicating to see it put into play. ^.^ Counciler

I'm just surprised they didn't do it sooner... I know Arenanet had their own goals for Guild Wars but when you add players to it, a lot of them, I would think they would have been more flexible. Sad to see it took them this long though, could have solved many problems if they just adapted to the realities of Guild Wars sooner. 118.92.127.67 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts for a system of an expansion you will never make D:!

← moved to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions#A few thoughts for a system of an expansion you will never make D:!

Finally

FINALLY - PVE and PVP need to be apart. Just change the skill for PVP with out affecting PVE. I am so glad for the update... JUST WAY LATE

205.196.178.196 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)USil951

Only problem is, most of the PvE reverts are actually NOT reverts at all. Penetrating/Sundering Attack used to have 20% Armour penetration, got nerfed to 10% for PvP, still not reverted. Power Shot, the only skill used in pre-searing is still PvP nerfed. LoD, used to heal for much more but got 3 big nerf's to PvP it, but only one has been reverted. Same with Heal Party used to be 1 sec casting, and heal for more, but in the nerfage for PvP, it hasn't been PvE reverted yet. So when all the PvP nerfed skills get real PvE reverts I'll be happier. That said the split is a good thing and has been needed for a long while. Just still a bit to go yet 82.16.137.96 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EoE

Is there any chance EoE can be fixed in its PVP version? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.187.102.90 (talk).

That is why it was destroyed... look up EoE bomb... --68.102.139.94 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

u can eoe bomb pve though :D --66.45.173.98 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

EoE bomb at pve is useless, as a savannah heat + splinter is just as much guy's dead and doesn't wipe your whole own team. Unexist 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

2v1 skill D: --74.61.209.219 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see you kill things with JUST EoE then. — Poki#3 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

QZ

← moved to Talk:Game_updates

Next time

Please, observe GvG once and nerf the most spammable deep wound in the game. Deep wound itself is fine, but having it spammed every 3 seconds is just lame. Unexist 11:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Underworld Teleportation Changes Not Mentioned

Hi Underworld teleportation via Reapers seems to no longer move the entire party, despite the Reaper still warning the entire party will be moved.

1. This wasn't included in the update note and wasn't mentioned anywhere.

2. The Reaper still says the whole party will be moved. Gorefiend 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Rift Wardens in the Underworld now only teleport the player speaking to them if the Underworld Chest has appeared. Under the bug fixes section of yesterdays update notes. 2. Probably some kinda bug.--Pyron Sy 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Question About The Recent HoM Changes

I wanted start by giving my personal thanks for the latest HoM info.. I might finally finish my LDoA :)

But my main question was this: The weapons that are placed on the HoM more specifically the caster weapons and shields and such in GW2 will they be confined the the specific attribute that your current one is? (Fire Offhand for Ex.) or will it be more of a /bonus weapon feel with availability for multiple classes? also can many chars weild at once so you dont have to place back in HoM then switch characters?

Final question: Will we ever be able to arrange our monuments in the order of our preference?

Thanks in advance guys and keep up the good work! *high five* --O Frost O File:O Frost O Sig.GIF 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can answer the first question; everything you put in the HoM goes toward some sort of bonus which they haven't announced yet, likely similar in nature to /bonus weapons. You will not just get the stuff you put into the HoM.

I don't think anyone knows the answer to your other question, however I personally would welcome it. --Curse You(talk|contribs) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

His question was more of whether it would still have a single attribute or if it would be designed like the Hourglass Staff. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 09:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And my reply answers that. Bonus items are (mostly) designed so that they work with the intended professions. For all we know, they'll code it so that it gives you an item with mods appropriate for the character you request the weapons on. --Curse You(talk|contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were designed to work for the intended professions. However, thats not what he's asking. He's asking if should you put a <enter attribute here> Tormented Staff into the HoM whether you get a tormented staff with the same attribute or a multi-attribute staff when you unlock it in GW2. So far, only two /bonus items I know of had multiple attributes (Chimeric Prism and Hourglass Staff), while all others were single attribute and confined to a single profession. We can't really say whether or not whether it will be single attributed or multi-attributed. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know for sure how professions and attributes (or similar) will work in GW2 yet. My guess would be that they make the rewards from HoM viable for all types of characters, in one way or another. Otherwise people are punished for choosing the wrong type, and they know how we hate that ;) - anja 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that you can't add another weapon of the same type and a different attribute, I'd say that it's just a "Destroyer Staff" as you see it, and not a "Destroyer Fire Staff". Besides, we don't know what professions will GW2 have yet, since we got a "game with different professions" response in the FAQ. — Poki#3 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)