Talk:Hall of Monuments/Archive1

Guild Names

How about guild names? This should be reserved to the original Guild Leader. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.71.15.98 .

It would make sense if the guild names were saved along with maybe guild accomplishments. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:207.200.34.177 .

I guess that would all depend on how Guilds work in GW2. But yeah, being able to preserve guild names would be great; you can bet the first thing people are going to do is try and get names like "Getting High With [Koss]" and whatnot. -- Jioruji Derako.> 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then again, if they change the guild format even slightly, such as making it "[TAG] Guild Name", then most guilds won't want to be stuck with their previous names anyway. All depends. For now, I'm just going to worry about the current Guild Wars, instead of thinking about GW2 and possibly getting myself into a blind rage over something that isn't there yet. :P -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

F'in Sweet

This is an excellent idea. items and stuff would be cool to transfer, but if the item's stats are kept exactly the same, I highly doubt they'll be of much use very far into the game, since newer and more powerful weapons should be around to accomodate the higher levels. And I kinda doubt that you'll be able to transfer gold directly over, considering the massive amounts of gold some people have. Very nice idea, though. Avatarian86 15:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Collector's Edition rewards

Has anything been stated about Collector's Edition rewards being transferred to GW2 using Hall of Monuments? I for one would love seeing my Divine Aura on my chars in GW2. :) — Galil 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we should mention that on the forums. Collector's editions should get something extra in GW2, whether it's the aura or something special to "replace the loss". Plus, it encourages ppl buying GW1 collector editions even after GW2 comes out :) Alaris 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree, though (despite having the Divine Aura myself). I think it's good to reward things we may achieve in GW1, since this rewards old players and creates an incentive for new ones to get GW1 after they begin to play GW2. But the Collector's Edition (especially the Prophecies Collector's Edition) is something very hard to find - it's not a matter of a player deciding he would buy it, he would have to search a lot for it and pay an extremely high price. Adding an excluse reward in GW2 for this, something most players are not going to be able to get even if they try to, is a bit unfair to me. Erasculio 14:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind as long as they're also available from the Guild Wars 2 CE. I don't think anything in GW2 should be available exclusively through a limited edition version of GW1. -- Gordon Ecker 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You could also have the unlocks available through the in-game store. Alaris 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly agree. I recently purchased Factions Collectors addition and would hat to leave my miniature Kuunavang behind. I hope the miniature statues are actually a way to transfer mini pets. The point is, I agree that is hard to find but that it would be more unfair to have lost then to have never have gained at all. Collectors editions are very hard to find and so there should be a reward to those who persevered and searched for them. But the reward should be nothing extra, just the transfer of previous collectors edition rewards so the hard work will not be lost.

While I disagree with this suggestion it does seem in par with everything else the Hall does. Gives GW1 players stuff people new to GW in GW2 won't be able to get. What a nice way to treat your customers, "sure you can buy the game but all this cool stuff that doesn't come with GW2 will be given to these people who own a different game and you don't get anything". Sure you don't have any "play" advantage but I think this is shown to not matter to most people, after all people pay a lot more for FoW armour even if there is no actual advantage, showing a lot of people care just as much, if not more about the extra perks than actual play advantage. I remember when armour had set "insignias" and the only way fro a monk to have "radiant" energy bonus was to buy ascetic tattoos, many players who wanted the extra energy bought different armour simply because they didn't like the look of ascetic armour. Compound this with something so incredibly exclusive I would think 95% if not more of the player base don't have it, ie Divine Aura, and you have a game I simply don't want to buy. Dancing Gnome 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Information saved in Hall of Monuments

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I am wondering... Is Hall of Monuments account-based or character based? Telling it in a different way, I'm not sure if I could save my character's name (like in ATS account naming) and collect all titles and achievments from other chars in one or each character will have it's own Hall... I'm having titles on a different characters, but I'm praying to God to have possibility to save them in one... ;) Fett 18:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing character based, despite the fact that I hope for account based. It just seems to me that John Hammerfist W/Mo gets to hand his acheivments over to a GW2 Misty Pixledust E/Mo. It doesn't fit in the role playing sense. The hall of monuments is supposed to be the closest you get to tranferring characters. So only characters with the same names as their GW1 counterparts get the rewards.

Unless of course the acheivement in question is account based in GW1. Counciler 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be account-based or Anet might annoy yet more players. I personally know people (and have seen character pages on the two wikis) where people spread out their titles amongst their characters. -- ab.er.rant 03:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion would likely be more suited for the Hall of Monuments page, but anyway...I expect the HoM to be character based on GW1, and account based on GW2. I think each character in GW:EN is going to have his unique hall, with the accomplishments of that specific character and nothing else. In GW2, all characters would then have access to a central hub linked to many rooms (one for each GW1 character), being able to access the benefits of any old character. So someone who today has 10 characters but is only going to have 2 GW2 characters could use all the HoM benefits with just one of his characters, or share equally between both of them, or any other combination in between (that's my guess, though). I don't believe we are going to be limited to transferring benefits among characters with the same name - that would require us to make "clones" of our characters, something that does not make sense RP-wise. Erasculio 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is where this discussion belongs. And please, everyone, don't post questions across various pages -- it just makes the GWW more cluttered and assures that you're going to miss answers somewhere or another. (I edited your duplicate question, Fett, no harm.) --Gaile 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake with such a duplicate... Maybe You, Gaile, can tell us something about Hall of Monuments. If it isn't a secret, reveal us this information ;) Many people would be extremely happy to hear, if it's account-based and everything from GW1 would be collected in one place... Fett 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Will they support things unlocked with the Collectors Edition? That would be cool to be able to port my Divine Aura! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.239.116.218 .

Nothing revealed so far even mentioned the Divine Aura and I don't think that will have any effect. The Collector's Edition is basically just a little bonus over the Standard Edition, I'm sure Guild Wars 2 would have its own CE so it'd be logical that GW1 CE won't be treated any differently from GW1 Standard Edition. Besides. the Hall of Monuments is meant to record accomplishments and time spent in the game... not how much money you spent on buying the game. -- ab.er.rant 05:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Hall of Monuments appears account-based because (1) pictures of the Monument of Resilience show armor sets of different professions, and (2) weapon unlocks rather than ownership seems important." I'd be happy if it's true but I like evidence before I get too happy. Are there any screenshots of the Monument of Resilience other than the one already in the article? Squinting at it I can't quite tell what those figurines are supposed to be, and as for the second part of the statement is there a source for this part? Skuldnoshinpu 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to click on the picture to access the high-rez version, on which you can actually see the armors with enough detail. As for the quote that it's unlocked weapons, I tried looking for it, I remember seeing it, but I didn't find it. If I remember correctly, it's in one of the post-E3 articles. I thought that this information could be accurate, because the term "unlocked" is not so common in games to put that in by mistake. Alaris 23:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder now what they consider an unlocked 'armor set'. Personally I never show my helm/headpiece for most of my characters, so despite having numerous 15k 'armor sets' I never crafted any of the headpieces for those sets. On the other extreme, my mesmer JUST has the torso piece for Obsidian, since I mixed it with other pieces to make a more unique look, heh. Anyway, yeah, the evidence pointing to account-wide is good news. I wonder how crowded the monuments can get though. I have one character of each profession on my account, and while stuff like Heroes and weapons 'stack' with each other each one having multiple armor sets could make things very crowded. Skuldnoshinpu 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I woulden't worry to much about the hall of monuments. If Anet are fussy as to how things are done, for e.g. not allowing large quantity's of item's or not allowing things like half sets of armors to be transfered, I think that would be incredibley harsh considering the thousands of hours some players have poured there time into playing the game. --Alien 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure, but I'd bet that you need a complete set to display it. So start crafting those helms... or wait for confirmation. As for the number of displayable items, if you exceed the number allowed, you get to customize which ones show. So for example, if you can display only 5 heroes, you get to pick which ones. Alaris 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If a full set is needed, what about Elementalist and Paragon sets (other than Vabbian) that do not have unique headgear assigned to it, and use general headgear for all sets? How would that work, I wonder. --Valentein 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I shall be very disapointed if we can't transfer over our festival hats. As these are like memories of good times we had at festivals! And also there are some that seem to damn cool to say goodbye to. :( --Alien 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Alien. Those were the golden days. Especially Wintersday 2005 - I had started playing GW on Xmas and arrived in Ascalon City just in time for the festivities. I also reached Lion's Arch before the end of the celebration so I got to see where the REAL PARTY was at. :D I do hope they do not require a full ascended armor set. The only full ascended set I have is my ranger, who has 15k druid's armor. My dervish just has the torso and leggings of the primeval set - as those are the only parts where you can actually see some nice details. My warrior, she also never shows her helmet, so...yeah. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... maybe you do need a full set of armor to be allowed to put it in, but maybe it doesent necessarilly have to all be of the same type. :P --Alien 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well, you don't need a helm even for sets that do possess them (like Warrior helms), but you DO need the rest of the set. My mesmer has just Obsidian torso, and that was no good. She also has Elite Rogue torso and pants but non-elite boots and gloves, which was also not accepted by the monument. However it should also be noted that the monument seems to respond to location-crafted and not necessarily named sets. Elite Enchanter's went in as 'Marhan's Grotto armor', and then after that it didn't respond to my Elite Rogue at all, presumably because Elite Rogue is also 'Marhan's Grotto armor' and so it was already registered as being in. Skuldnoshinpu 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a really weird solution :/ Also, not even certain it will show the armor with the profession and sex of your character, but at random (reported with vabbian, for example) I'm sad it doesn't accept pieces :( - anja 16:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My warrior has all 15k marhans Glads armor apart from the helm which is a 15k marhans Ascolon helm. All this went in fine *Yay* However he also has a full set of primeval armor which it doesent even ask me if i want to put it in. I hope this is just a bug because I will be extremely disapointed if for some I can't pass it along. :( --Alien 16:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you Anja. Ancient Ranger coat and pants are awesome, but the arms and boots really bug me (pun not intended) and don't wear them. And then to have some other armor displayed instead of yours is just wrong. From what I've read/seen, the armor displayed is consistent for the set, however. Eg., Ancient armor displays male derv and female warr. --Valshia 19:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

6 monuments?

If you look carefully at the screenshot, you'll see that the 3 visible monuments take exactly one half of the room (just count the edges of the wading pool). Might it be possible that there is a 6th monument that we're not aware of? Or do you think the 6th slot is just the entrance of the room? Chriskang 84.16.226.75 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The entrance, you can see the view rotate around the room in one of the E3 videos. -- Gordon Ecker 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, in the august 10th video on ign (the interview with james phinney). It appears that the pool could be a monument aswell. It seems to have a pedastal in front of it which seems to be a feature that the other monuments have in common. --Alien 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I read on mmorpgnation that the center monument is for cinematics that your character has unlocked, but it was not functioning correctly at the time of the test. Little lazy to find the exact quote and add it up (as I'm not sure it will make it into the game), but thought I should clarify that with something I remembered! Obie Quiet 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite awesome to implement, wonder if it'll make it into the game. --Valentein 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed : At the center of the Hall is a scrying pool that allows you to re-watch cinematics from throughout the different expansions you own … I think. There were some troubles viewing that feature because some of the characters in our group didn’t have the right permissions. (source) Chriskang 09:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

hmm it doesen't seem like anything said there could mean that it might not make the game. :P --Alien 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article writer's uncertainty calls the exact function of the pool into question. It's possible that the pool was described as being used to view cinematics, without any clarification about whether it's used to view cinematics in general or only used to view specific cinematics as part of the Eye of the North plot. -- Gordon Ecker 09:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Devotion

"The Monument of Devotion shows little statues of your minipets and collectibles." What collectibles are?

It probably means things like event masks. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Marsc .

It could also include polymock pieces. -- Gordon Ecker 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding a Tengu mask and it didn't even recognize it as a possible addition. --SLeeVe 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the transfer of festival hats does not seem to be supported. Hopefully in the future they will add this feature. I too have a Tengu Mask and would love to transfer it above all things as it is my favourite mask. :) However there is also a chance that what we are seeing this weekend isn't the full version of HoM because ofcourse it a "Sneak Peak". All that we can really do is sit it out and see what Anet's planning for the future or if there is yet still more to learn about the mysterious HoM after GW:EN is released. :) --Alien 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they need to realize ppl want to display things in their hall, even if it doesn't get transfered over. I could care less if i can have my tengu mask in gw2. I would just like to see a bunch of my mask in the HoM. --SLeeVe 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Account-Wide

Account-wide does seem likely. This only makes it practical then for you to inherit all of your HoM stuff in GW2 then, instead of choosing a specific character's accomplishments, right? Also, anyone notice in the video that the hero statues are merely the heroes frozen in a certain animation? Hopefully they're just placeholders. I don't want to cryogenically freeze dear Margrid until GW2. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 01:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You want hero statues that don't look like the heroes :D? I'm hopeing you can choose the pose. -- Gordon Ecker 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Man can those Tyrian Wax Model Makes do their thing :D. They are probably just statues that will stand up, I imagine there will be a plack or something were it will show all of your heroes, as it seems on the videos you can only show a few at a time.--Andyana 08:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not account-based.[1]

Meh. The way Gaile words it it doesn't seem as bad as it does when you say it, mister no-signature. :P Have we any confirmation yet, though, on if GW2 chars choose which character to inherit things from or if they inherit your entire account's worth of achievements? If the former, can you inherit things from one GW1 character more than once? Because I really only have two characters that are full of accomplishments. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely why people are concerned about account-wide vs. character-wide, because we have no idea how the GW2 inheritance is going to take place. I've focused almost all of my accomplishments on my warrior, so it would suck if my GW2 warrior gets all the good stuff while all of my other GW2 characters get nothing. Skuldnoshinpu 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have one question. When you are talking account wide are you saying that when you add a mini pet to the HoM then in GW2 you get the Mini on every char you make or just one char gets it? I ask this because I play 10 char and want all 10 to have a few minis so for me I like it char based. -- Natalie Black 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hero Pets

Will we be able to add our hero's pets to the hall or is it just our main character's pets? I hope we can because most of my heros have their own maxed pets and I'd really love to have them in my hall. 208.104.226.180 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be nice to know. I have all charmable pets collected between chars & heroes, and it would be nice to be able to display any of them and get rewards for all of them. :) Alaris 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

After adding my level 20 Mountain Eagle [Mountain Eagle FTW!!!] to the Fellowship monument, I was more than a little disappointed. Instead of a beautiful statue of your pet you get a shoddy, generic statue with a bear, lynx and wolf attacking. Sucks to be a ranger . . . Andrik Of Ascalon 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative on that one batman. Make sure charm animal is equipped and try again. You'll be able to add your pet. -elviondale (tahlk) 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I know only few pets acctualy got their own statues. Black Widow, Black Moa and Phoenixes. Biz 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Account or Player based?

Is the hall for each player or is it for your whole Account added together?

The preview shots of the Monument of Resilience lend a lot of support for the account-based theory because they show armor sets for multiple classes. We won't know for sure until next weekend, of course. —Dr Ishmael 18:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Monument of Resilience doesn't even show your armor, just 2 random profs, one male, one female. This one's a real let down. --Valshia 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's character-based.[2]; I took the liberty to edit the article. 89.136.42.26 10:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A big let-down indeed. Two random professions? What were they thinking!? People want to show off their armour! They least they could have done is have it show male and female versions of the character's profession! Sometimes ANet's decisions just boggle the mind... --Valentein 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is only temporary. You'll probably get to show off your own armors on the 31st. Alaris 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope so, but it doesn't make much sense why you wouldn't be able to now. It's not like the skins aren't already in the game. Skuldnoshinpu 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you get to the hall?

I think they will add a tab in the Hero window that allows you to goto the hall. Or it will be a spot on the map you have to travel to. What do you guys think it will be?

Most likely the story will naturally take you there, and then you can travel there anytime you want to. There's probably a town-like area and an attached explorable area which contains the Hall itself. My guess. Alaris 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Eye of the North is a tower in the Far Shiverpeaks, which shows visions and plays a significant role in the plot of Eye of the North. The tower contains the Hall of Monuments. ... for more, check this page.--Шєвч [TALK] @ 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be an outpost and still have a button to travel there quickly. Like hero battles. Chriskang 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Customizing minipets

I just noticed, to add a minipet to your HoM, it gets customized and is only usable by you. That might sound a bit stupid ofcourse but when I thought about it it's actually pretty smart. It prevents you from buying minipets, adding them to the HoM, and then selling them again and still get recognition for it.

I havent actually added any minipets to my HoM yet so could someone just answer this question? :) So it gets customized right? but is it then customized to that character or your account? Because I switch my mini's around ALOT when i go on different charcter's so it would be a bummer to only be able to use them on certain toons. :P --Alien 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I only tried a Mini Pig, since I have a bunch of those. And it got customized to my character name.Alovich 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all character based if it is so elsewhere in the game. Backsword 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!?!?!? CUSTOMIZED PER INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER FOR MINI PETS AND NO DISPLAY FOR ELITE PVE TITLES!?!?!? I want to show all my minipets on all my characters on my primary account, but to buy 13 copies of Rurik, Shiro, the 2 dragons and a Jade Armor...???????? Maybe if there was no loot scaling I could do this farming but without it and the price for ambraces too deflated due to the duping disaster...Concerned User 1337000 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense if the minipets were treated like "bonus items" after added... so they couldn't be dropped/traded/sold/etc. --SLeeVe 04:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. Another possible solution would be to mark the item as already added to a monument, but separate and different from "Customized for xxxx", say, "Documented for xxxx", or something to that extent. In this way, trade and all other usual uses are still possible, except for adding it again in some other monument. Monuments should only allow items to be added if the item is not yet "Documented" or "Documented" already but for a character in the current account. --Altimit 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea even more. That wouldn't be hard to implement i'd imagine. --SLeeVe 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that this is what was implemented in-game, with a slight change of wording. --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very excellent idea Sleeve. -elviondale (tahlk) 07:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really to do with "customizing" the minipets, but I would like them to removed the word "Miniature" from the minis' names in the HoM itself. I've only added 4 so far and it already looks really cluttered (the names of the minis, not the minis themselves). --SLeeVe 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an easy solution to trade issues would be to have them "customized" to your character when it's in the HoM but if you are to take a miniature out it is "Uncustomized" so it can be traded or transfered between characters. --Alien 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

that had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. perhaps you responded in the wrong place. --SLeeVe 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I was just thinking in general on how to solve customization problems and sharing/trading issues i've made a minor re-worded to the comment so it makes a bit more sense. :) --Alien 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Minipets character customized it's horrible, very bad idea! Make the minipets account customized!--Phoenix File:Phoenix-sig.png 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sleeve, I just want to reiterate how amazingly awesome your idea is. This would pretty much solve the problem. Instead of /bonus, maybe type /minis and have all the minis you've saved in your HoM be added to your inventory, customized to that toon of course. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are panicking way too soon.. Ok they get customized to your character, which in my eyes is kind of obvious. Otherwise in GW2 there will be more rare mini pets than in GW1.. I mean, my guildie just got a nagash raincaller, if it wouldn't be personalized, the whole guild could register it and it would loose it's originality.. As for the fact that it can only be called upon by 1 character in GW2, I don't think that. Right now we have 10 professions and it was stated before that not every profession will be available in GW2, so there will be a way of choosing a character that gets the 'bonus' items.. Way to soon to complain about customizing mini-pets ^^ -- (Tribina / talk) 10:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow you completely missed the point. I'm not complaining about the customizing at all- Picture this: I like to 55 with a mini aatxe out. I have a Ranger with 4M+ XP which I consider my main char. I'd want to register that mini to my ranger, but then I'd like to use it on my monk. Is it a bit clearer now? being able to replicate customized minis the exact way you can replicate bonus items would be the shizzle. xD -elviondale (tahlk) 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

exactly ;-) --SLeeVe 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another solution woul be that rather than customising pets for a single character you turn the monument into a storage for the mini pets. If you store it in the monument it displays and at the same time you cannot trade it to someone else for the same advantage (since it is in the monument now), if you take it out of the monument it stops displaying and with it any single thing you might get from it in GW2 (and of course you now are able to trade it ...).

It would solve quite a few things 1)The customisation that bothers so many 2)It would still prevent people from loaning pets for free monument unlocks 3)It would free storage space that we are going to need if we are to collect polymock pieces, mini pets, custom armors and weapons ...

And if you want a mini with you on mission just take it out of the monument and put it back in again when done like the storage -- Darak 09:11 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice idea. Plausible too---it will free up space in our inventories for more needed items. --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 05:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to make a "Toymaker" similar to hat maker. you customize your pet in the hall, then have a chat with the toymaker to "unlock" the customized mini for your account similar to event hats. Then the mini has no sale value but you can grab any one you like anytime on any character. While i like the idea of using the hall as a storage, i think making a "Toymaker" makes more sense and would be easier to do. Please note, the mini must be customized before you can turn him in, and will be customized when one is made. Also a general sugestion concerning the clutter of names, I have 11 (max) mini pets stored, my sugestion would simply be to make the mini, hero and other names like anything else in guild wars, push control/alt to view names. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:204.62.23.130 .

That is actually a really interesting and novel idea! - BeX 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Remeber that the HoM isn't meant to be storage, and the customization is meant to allow you to build monuments for different characters without duplication. Sooooo.... another *simpler* idea is to let people use customized pets that were customized to any character on the account, OR, customize minipets to the account but only include it in the HoM of the character it was customized in and not let that player customize it on several HoM's even on the same account. In short, customization removes the ability to include it in other HoM's, but does not remove the ability to use it on different characters on the same account. Alaris 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: you are unwilling to add inscriptions to Prophecies/Factions weapons because that would ruin the economy. Don't you think customizing minipets will REALLY ruin the market? Nicky Silverstar 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They probably figure that the people who would add their minis to the monument are the kind of people who wouldn't put their beloved minis on the market anyway so the market wouldn't change that much. It's not an unreasonable assumption. The inability to share the minis between characters might, if people start buying up multiple minis for each character, however. --Valshia 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea more than my own regarding the subject --SLeeVe 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Honor

Lol ... if you aren't r12 hero, r9 gladiator, r9 commander, or r9 CHAMPION, you're nothing. You'r honor monument is EMPTY. From a r1 champion, r10 hero, r4 commander: go F£$"K yourself whoever has got this great idea... or, on a more civil way, maybe we could give some minor reward even to those who didn't devote thier enitre life to this game? Thanks for hearing me... --YukoIshii 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this is only the sneak peek weekend, a lot of the content is restricted and this monument is more than likely one of them.--Gummy Joe 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some people have devoted their entire lives to this game and still nobody's managed to get champ9, hero9, glad9, etc. It's a silly gesture, including only maxed titles for this thing when PvP titles are insanely hard to max. -Auron 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad way to give a "sneak peek" if you ask me, when this new feature is one of the (if not the) most anticipated additions for the expansion. --125.60.241.168 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Prior edit mine. --Altimit 04:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think is most ironic is that to get to the HoM you have to go through missions and all sorts because GW:EN is only ment for existing characters. However most solid PvP players don't care for PvE so the majority of them won't even have a character to get there with or generally may not even be bothered to go there as it is a PvE feature. --Alien 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Honour also displays each of the campaigns you've finished if you read it carefully. Unless you haven't finished any, of course. --202.78.147.176 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah sorry, i wasn't counting "finishing a campaign" as an effort. Should i? --YukoIshii 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not unless they make a difference between completing, Protector and Guardian IMO...Nicky Silverstar 07:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the achievements of PvE characters have to be "read carefully" when PvP characters have a monument that clearly displays the title. The Hall of Monuments is clearly a PvE feature since you have to make an effort in PvE to even get there. Right now the only PvE title that is recognized is Kind of a Big Deal...and it doesn't get a monument just like beating the campaigns don't get monuments. They should make it clear whether or not what is in the preview is the final version or simply a preview version. Lot's of people are disappointed (putting it lightly) in the much-hyped Hall of Monuments...and deserve answers to their concerns. Some people may decide whether or not to buy GW:EN based off of that (not me...but I'm much less excited to buy it because of HoM).--Thor79••Talk 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I really feel the same way; I just can't help it that my urge to go and get GW:EN has been dampened somewhat. It's hard to explain. --[ ALTIMIT | TALK ] 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The rank 9 Champion requirement is currently fairly obscene; you would have to have played and won six high-rated GvGs every day for the last 18 months, and since guild ratings were reset half a dozen times, getting to 1200+ is a lengthy process in the first place. Once you're there you then have to beat those top guilds. Is ANYONE rank 9 champion? Maestro Ed 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

lol i checked the guild ladder, and it seems not even the blokes from [VD] are racking up that many wins, and thats assuming its the same ppl who go GvG each game =S--WikiWu 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Resilience

Can someone help me i can seem to add any of my armor sets to this section 71.239.116.218 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be wearing a set to enter it. Wear your ascended set then choose to examine the monument. Skuldnoshinpu 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ascended or infused? im confused. i wore a set of ele armor all infused and it wouldnt do anything 71.239.116.218 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to have so called 15k armor. That's what's meant with ascended armor :) - anja 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be buying extra sets :P--Bane of Worlds 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

thats really gay 71.239.116.218 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire thing is really gay if you want to look at it from that perspective :p

It's to show off vanity items, not the cheap stuff. -Auron 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya its really stupid why cant you just show off all the MAX armor sets you have thats better then having people spend 100k for 1 set of armor. o ya how are people suppost to get more mini pets now? If all people do is put the in monuments then its gonna be impossible to buy them 71.239.116.218 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I never liked the gloves for my armor, so I deleted them...if I had known I would need them for my monument...40k down the drain :-) Nicky Silverstar 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse folks, let's say you did spend all your money on 15k armor like me in hopes of holding onto something in GW2. My warrior bought Elite Templar Armor and Elite Gladiator Armor. Imagine my shock when I discovered they both counted toward the same thing for the Monument of Resilience: Marhan's Grotto armor. Looks like I wasted 75k for nothing. --Ctran 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't NEED to put anything in there, the whole thing is purely vanity. --Lemming 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's transfer of resources to GW2. --67.164.82.7 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again i cannot do as i want, you should be able to put what you're wearing up on display. I want my mix and match Vabbian with Primeval boots up there cos she just looks leet, and i never bought the vabbian boots as i had no intention of wearing them (And they are very expensive for someone who has very little gold thanks to being a PvP player) And i obviously don't have the full primeval set...so i can't display it. As it is the hall of monuments won't be personal at all, it'll be a checklist at best. You won't need to show you're friends what you've got because they'll already know what it looks like! --ChronicinabilitY 09:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed about how this monument works, too. It should be displaying the armor my character wears because that's the armor I like. If there is no ascended armor for one of my chars that I like, why should I waste 60-75k on buying an armor which I'll never wear because it's ugly (in my eyes)? It's supposed to be a monument of a character, so why not allow people to display any armor there. Simply seperate the unlocks for GW2 from the ability to display stuff, i.e. you can display any armor, but only ascended armor counts towards GW2 unlocks.
I also don't see the reason for them displaying some generic armor sets for the unlocks. If I put an armor there, I want to see the correct type and gender displayed. They have all the 3D meshes, so they only need to take the basic texture and make it golden, shrink the whole thing to monument size and be done. Plus - with only one armor displayed per available set instead of two (male+female) - there'd be room for more armor on the monument. Xelonir 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Xelonir. I am so disappointed. I love my 1.5k Monk Kurzick, and 1.5k Monk Luxon. (I despise the 15k versions.) I'm so sad that the only armor I can display is my Monk Wanderer's from the Citadel. (Which I hardly EVER wear anymore, but still like.) Anyway. I'm very disappointed. I think it should be MAX armor, not Prestige armor... -- RavenJWolfe 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chronocobilly, allowing one personalized armor statue that you can click and make a copy (color and all) of what you are currently wearing would be awesome, it would also deal with the problems people hare having with Dwarven armor and the super expensive gloves and all the other unique armor peices.

Displaying Wrong Armor?

I just added The Granite Citadel armor while wearing my male Monk Flowing armor. But THAT is not what's being displayed... The armors I see are: male Warrior Dragon and female Necromancer Cultist. Ummm... is this a glitch? Shouldn't I be seeing my Male Monks armor? Frostty1 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is by design. I'm guessing they're displaying generic Granite Citadel armor because their intent is to allow us to transfer this armor to a character of any profession in GW2. However, from the standpoint of GW1, it would be infinitely better if the HoM displayed the armor that our characters are actually wearing. Interpret it differently in GW2, but right now, I want to see the Elite Templar Armor & Elite Gladiators Armor my warrior actually uses (even if they only count for Marhan's Grotto Armor in GW2). Every monument should be a bit more personalized than it is now. Otherwise there's no point in showing it to your friends --Ctran 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While i dont really agree with your thoughts of what displaying the armor will grant, I agree that the HoM looks very impersonal as it is. --SLeeVe 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GW:en & HoM

→ moved from Talk:Weekend_events#GW:en_.26_HoM

So very much dissapointed and frustrated in GW:en & the Hall Of Monument rules;

1. Why Charr Based? solution: Account based

2. Why Customize mini-pets to characters? No other characters can use em after placing in HoM? solution: account based

3. Why don't my PvE titles count for shrine objects? Why do only PvP Maxed titles count? How many players have a maxed PvP Title? Do PvE players don't count? Why have PvE titles at all if Maxed-Titles don't count? Just the honor of it? solution: one Hall Of Monuments for the Account. Characters have to reach and activate shrines to add PvE-titles. When i enter i see all titles from characters that reached and fought for it.

4. Why only 5 hero's on display? solution: all hero's on display just smaller.

5. Why is it that my tormented weapons don't count as High-end? for that matter..why do weapons from previous campaigns don't count as "High-end" for HoM???

6. Why do hero's only count with "upgraded armor"?

Because its for your accomplishments. obtaining a hero means absolutely jack. --SLeeVe

can go on-and-on. Nice surroundings etc...but what do i have there? after 5000 hours of PvE? Nothing? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Omega001 .

I'm assuming you didn't pve for 5000 hours just in anticipation of the hall of monuments. --Lemming 02:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And why would you care about putting Vekk or Ogden or Koss or any of the other free heroes in the HoM if every single person in the game has those heroes? If you're trying to show off, putting Koss in your altar isn't the way to do it.

I am disturbed that Tormented/other more expensive weapons (legendary sword, runic blade, elemental sword) don't count enough to put on display; surely they are more prestigious than random other weapons only available in eotn? -Auron 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, there is NOTHING more prestigious than a HOH only drop. --SLeeVe

I'd have to say Tormented item, but thats just mho -elviondale (tahlk) 04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tormented items are much more common than the HoH-only drops, but they're still quite prestigious. -Auron 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've gotten 2 HoH drops by going with a buddy of mine from XoO, but just 1 tormented. -elviondale (tahlk) 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just think about it, you can play pve and actually trade in items for a tormented weapon. its no different than an expensive version of a Collector, whereas HOH only drops, can only be obtained via chance when winning the HOH (I'm excluding the scenario of "buying" the items since that can be done with anything). Don't get me wrong though, I personally think tormented items, as well as hoh drops should all count. There's gotta be a reason you cant sell a tormented to the merchant :P --SLeeVe 13:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship

I was given the option to add my phoenix *and* a statue called "Animal Companion". I am not sure what I did to get this additional honor, but I did collect all animals in all 3 campaigns on my account, that is, using heroes and different characters. Alaris 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the exact same thing happened to me on my warrior, im not sure why but i have 2 statues up thier :/--Gummy Joe 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

/EC)Rumor is, 'prestige' animals like the Phoenix and Spider get's special statues. Don't know if there is any truth to it. Backsword 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere it's only Spider, Phoenix and Black Moa that will be given that extra monument. Maybe because they are special pets? - anja 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. that would make sense... since all I have are spiders for all my chars and all my heroes ^.^ -elviondale (tahlk) 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Which I confess puts me (and probably a lot of other players) in a bit of a crunch. I "bond" with my pet, and I don't trade in or trade up when time passes. I got the lynx instead of keeping the Menaldru's Stalker only because I thought he was cuter, but I had a hard time doing it and I have been pretty set on keeping pets ever since. Just back from PAX, another player shared with me that she's the same way -- she chooses a pet early on and sticks with it. So in order to get the special monument, I need to discharge George XVIII and move to a new pet? I'm just not sure that I want to do that so the additional monument it outside my reach. However, I'll be the first one to admit that is my choice and probably is fair in general. --Gaile 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way. I would love to get one of those new eagles for my ranger, but I just don't want to get rid om my current pet. It seems that making the monument account based, as many have suggested before, would solve a LOT of issues the players currently have. Including this one. You could make a special 'pet' farmer to get the statues you want. Nicky Silverstar 07:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's fair. Keeping an animal companion for years, since the beginning of the game, doesn't represent "fellowship", but doing a spider run does? I'd think those who still have a stalker have shown more fellowship than those who picked up a certain pet just for the prestige. It would be nice if anyone could see their pet (and hopefully its name) in their HoM. As it stands now, the fellowship monument allows you to display only what someone else has decided is worth displaying. But a player who has had their stalker since pre-searing may think that's worth displaying, even if it doesn't impress anyone. Vanity may not be the point for everyone. If players were allowed to display what they want, then the HoM would suit the players' purpose, rathen that the developers', which seems more fair to me. This is actually the first time I've ever written what could be considered a 'complaint' against GW, but it seemed to me that the HoM was going to be a player-centric feature -- display what you like. But if the only point of the HoM is to unlock something in GW2, I suppose I can see why it is the way it is. Bcstingg 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing i've noticed and im not sure if this is intended but when i add statues of my Gwen heroes they are not uniformly the same color, Jora (added with brotherhood armor) for instance is a burnt orange color, vekk i believe is almost yellow. Secondly, why require us to get the different armor upgrades to display our heroes if the displayed statues do not show the new armor, I specifically noticed this with Gwen, and maby im wrong but the armor she displays with (when i put her up with brotherhood armor) is close to default but i beleive even it is different than default armor, i dont care either way but if you intended for them all to be the same color and possibly to have the same armor they have on when added then i thought i would let you know this is not the case -evilash

A lil' Panacea from Torp

First thing first. A panacea is essentially a "cure-all," which is what I am attempting in order to solve some of the problems and complaints people have with the Hall of Monuments.

Well anyways in general, I was very pleased with the way the Hall of Monuments was set-up, but there is always room for improvement and after reading some of the posts here I considered how the monuments could be improved

• Account Based
  • I think this would solve several problems (if done correctly)
  • Currently, the "Honor" shrine showed the status of beaten campaigns, maxed titles, and r9/12+ pvp titles
    • If it were to be account based...the beaten campaigns could still be easily shown and addittionally, it could count on different characters, but not repeatedly (for example: say u have an assassin and a ranger. your ranger has beaten prophecies and nightfall, and ur assassin has only beaten factions. Once you get to the hall on you ranger, it will unlock the 2 that he's beat, and then when you bring your asassin it will unlock his. the PvP titles would remain the same, and the character based titles could be listed, but with an account based status, but only once (for example; your assasin has protector of cantha title and your ranger has legendary defender of ascalon, and holy lightbringer, the monument can just list your account name and read like this:
    • <account name> has earned the title of Legendary Survivor.
      
    • <account name> has earned the title of Protector of Elona.

This way it can still unlock the monuments features and show of the individual titles that each of your characters have earned so that you don't have to stack titles all on one character

• Resilience
  • This transition would be fairly basic. It would generally act the same, but it would combine armor sets form differen chars. So you could raise an Obsidian armor monument on one guy, go in with another, and add your elite exotic

• Fellowship
  • A lot of complaints about pets on this one...
    • I personally think each individual pet is rare and special enough to be worthy of a monument, expecially considering both moa and spider start at level 20 and dont even involve the bonding/training experience as do all og your other fluffy (or scaly) companions. I say drop the companion monument and add all of the charmable pets (excluding some repeats such as wolf and snow wolf)
    • Additionally make one or all of them "reserved" into the monument so that you can exchange between all of your captured pets (or ate least your favorite one)

• Devotion
  • Just customize minipets and collectibles to the account

• Valor
  • Not much to say here but seeing my Bison cup and Golden knuckles up there woulda been nice..

Hall of Monuments: What I would like to see

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

So as to not clutter any more pages, I've created a page with discussion and a petition regarding changes to HoM. Please take a look at it, add your thoughts, and sign if you agree. User:Elviondale/HoM Thank you -elviondale (tahlk) 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page of discussion, just a plug for your personal opinion and for whether or not people agree with you (there isn't even a place to sign if you disagree). I will be renaming this division of discussion so as to not be misleading. --SLeeVe 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've taken many people's concerns and opinions into factoring what I proposed, including your own not 5 minutes ago. Would you propose that everyone continue flaming about it in every talk page and forum instead of having an organized, coherent proposal? -elviondale (tahlk) 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to agree with SLeeve. It's not appropriate to redirect properly-placed discussions onto your personal page. They belong here, on the discussion page for the topic at hand. Further, I would like to ask that you not not call your petition "official," for the only one qualified to make an "official" poll would be, I think, an official of the development team or, perhaps, an official (staff member) of the Guild Wars Wiki. Thank you for understanding. --Gaile 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, yet I was thinking in the same vein as the Over/Underpowered skills discussion. Using the word official was a slip of the fingers, for I do not consider it endorsed by anyone, but consider it a consolidation of ideas behind a single suggestion. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

HoM suggested changes (character to account)

Make Minipets account based in HoM, and also remove need to customise them. The Monument will act like storage, only while the mini is placed in the monument will it count to its status.

So all characters on the account benefit from 1 set of minis and they can be removed (and/or traded) at any time.

Armor shrine should be account based, all elite armor sets gained viewable by all professions, not just for that professions armor. --Just One More Thing 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea re acting sort of like storage (any mini 'stored' there is part of the monument until you remove it) -- with one addition. Once you've 'claimed' a mini in GW2, the GW1 mini becomes customized to your account. (That way people can't just borrow a mini to claim it in GW2 then give it back, but it allows flexibility up until that point.) -- Tometheus (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on PvE titles...

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I am having a real problem with the Hall of Monuments titles as it stands now and the blatant disregard it portrays for PvE players and their work and achievement. The fact that the game would honor and display individual PvP titles but give lip service with a cramped up text window to PvE titles is a slap to the face of every serious PvEer.

I started a thread there and would like some sort of official insight as to what exactly is ANet's thought process in this matter. Are they working on the ability to display those titles or do they really think so lowly of what PvEers do vs what PvPers do?

I am biased in this matter and have always felt ANet greatly favors PvPers over PvEers for the majority of the past 2.5 years, but I would like to give you a chance to present ANet's views uninterpreted or misconstrued. Thanks. --Karlos 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Come share your thoughts at User:Elviondale/HoM if you so wish. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

yea they obviously dont care about pve you know with all the other 4 shrines being PVE ONLY stuff....the honor monument i all us pvpers have, get over it

No need to get hostile. Oh also, if you're going to say something like that at least spell everything right and write sentences people can understand, cause when you don't you make yourself look even stupider than before. --- Raptors

well, most of the hall is directed at PVErs and for the record, eye of the north is a PVE expansion if perhaps you might have noticed the large number of pve only skills... I believe they balance pvp and pve quite nicely. however it would be nice to display some pve titles, not that i have any... oh well.

My own opinion about ANet and PvE vs PvP was not formed overnight and precedes the whole titles thing. Now your notion that the other 4 are PvE only is incorrect, but I pointed that out on the Guru thread, I'll keep that discussion there. --Karlos 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not a matter of bias - the PvE titles count of the Kind of a Big Deal title track, and said title changes the display of the monument (as seen on the "Honor" page here). The PvP titles are outside of said parameters, as they simply cannot be maxed, so they would provide zero imput to the Hall of Monuments. In order to avoid that, Arena Net chose to reward the non-maxeable titles (that happen to be PvP only) separately, although it would take a considerable effort in order to reach the required rank in those titles to earn the HoM rewards.

In other words, do PvE titles count of the Hall of Monuments? Yes - they count through the Maxed titles rank titles, that changes both the appearance and the text of the Honor Monument. Do PvP titles count for Maxed titles rank titles? No. Do they count for the HoM? Yes, separately, given how they cannot count together with all the others at the Maxed titles rank. Could this have been done better? Yes, like plenty of other things regarding the HoM. But I see no bias between PvP and PvE (...and I don't like GWG, not to mention I can't even load it, hence my comment here, not there). Erasculio 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the whole point then, because the point was, if you max a bazillion PvE titles, you get NOTHING on display in HoM, that's right, nothing. All you get is that if you click on the Honor thingie, you see a crammed up text window that says "All hail X who did this and that and that." There is no actual trophy on display. However, if you have the required rank in PvP, you get to display trophies in the HoM. Need I explain to you how vastly inferior option A is to option B?

The reasoning you are giving (which seems like complete conjecture since you don't work inside ANet and can't see their thought process) is invalid. They could have said: "For A, B and C titles, you can only display them if you max them, and for X, Y and Z titles you can display them if you have rank N." As a programmer I can tell you it's not exceptionally hard to code that line of text, it's a simple "switch case" statement that a 7th grader can write out. So, such "implementation details" cannot be the reason. --Karlos 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"if you max a bazillion PvE titles, you get NOTHING on display in HoM, that's right, nothing" - you get this. It's stated on the "Honor" article that I have linked above. Please, read what I have said before replying to it - you ignored that article; even if it's wrong, that's information relevant to the article itself. Erasculio 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How many titles are there in Gwen by the way? because with what is currently available I can see me getting to 21 eventualy (the 19 linked to the legendaries + the Lightbringer and Sunspear) before they release GW2 but getting to the 30 needed to display the title would be daunting unless Gwen provides many more options than what we currently have -- Darak 06:15, 28 August 2007

Erasculio, while Karlos may be technically wrong about nothing from PvE titles being reflected on the monument, there's little/no indication on the monument itself that the monument's appearance reflects the max title track. I certainly didn't realize until the progression pic was posted, and don't expect anyone else to notice either. --Valshia 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's something hidden - I had no idea about it myself, and I imagine for someone who does have the title the image he/she saw on the wall would appear to be something as common as the empty wall was for me. That's why I mentioned it above and linked to the "Honor" section here, where that explanation and the corresponding images are. Erasculio 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's you who keeps missing the point, you get no "monuments" in the hall of monuments for your PvE titles but you get monuments for your PvP titles. Lame. --Karlos 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it clearer than I already did, unless you are trying to make a point of not listening. The entire aspect of the monument is under control of PvE titles, thanks to the Kind of a Big Deal title track. This is more than what happens in the other monuments, in which the tapestry itself does not change. If anything, the PvE titles have more of an impact than anything else does in the Hall of Monuments, as both the screenshot (that you apparently ignored) and the article (which you also ignored) show. If you are going to reply with the same empty "missing the point", I would like you to address those two as well. Erasculio 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset)There might be a realtively easy solution though. The Monument has a plaque, stating that: <playername> has kind of a big deal, defeated shiro, etc. What if they added a list of titles to that plaque? It would only have to be ingame dialogue text (so that should be relatively easy to implement), the monument itself wouldn't have to be changed and player can at least show all their PvE titles, even if it is only text based. Nicky Silverstar 06:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another HoM question? ;)

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Hey Gaile, I was wondering three things about the Hall of Monuments... can the devs make it so that you have to hold ALT to see the names on the minipets? It's kind of annoying to go in and see perpetually-there white text on my 8 miniatures. xD And also, not so big, but could there be a way to teleport *into* the HoM? Like you would a town or outpost. And finally, one has surprised me: there's no xunlai agent in the HoM! People need to bring miniatures and stuff there, and it would be more convenient. :P Atleast a xunlai chest? -- Spencer, 72.192.62.77 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically its not a outpost or town. Its similar to Command Post -elviondale (tahlk) 04:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

besides, the town right next to it has two xunlai chests. I do agree on the mini-pet text though. DBZVelena | (Talk page) 11:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comand post has shop npc's... it does make sense here too... at least for a single xunlai chest.--Midnight08 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall there ever being a Xunlai agent or Xunlai chest in the command post... -- Ale 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Monuments, Monument of Honor

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Sorry if its isnt the place to place this but I havent been able to find any where else to comment on this. But my comment is in GW:EN with the Hall of Monuments, the Monument of Honor so far it only displays PVP title, what I have to say about that is not everyone does PVP, there are alot of PVE player me being one of them, I do PVP as well but I'll get to that in a bit. Thing is I have worked hard on my PVE titles, and put alot of time into and I would like to see those carried over to my Guild Wars 2 Toons, now some of those are not maxed out but I really like to see those carry over also, now as for me doing PVP, I do AB every now and then, I am currently at Friend of the Luxons Title, thats not much but thats still 250k+ luxon faction, ive turned in, and thats not easy to get. My question on this, is this just going to be like this for the preorder event or like this all the time. But I thought that I should let someone know this, because I am really disappointed about this, and I know for a fact that there are many more people that feel the same way I do, thank you for you time and please reply. Yuri Solvodkis

There's always here: Talk:Hall of Monuments. A bunch of other people have asked the same question there as well; my guess is that page is your best bet for an answer. But yeah, the hope is that the HoM is only half-finished; lots of people get titles like Vanquisher, and that's a big deal. No way to show that off would just be silly. Especially considering, a player who's devoted enough time into PvP to max one of those titles probably doesn't care too much about HoM, as they normally don't plan to make a PvE character in GW2. -- Jioruji Derako.> 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PvE Titles and the Hall of Monuments

1 Title? 1 Freaking Title?! Kind of a Big Deal? That's all PvE players get to display in any way in our hall of monuments (and it's not even a monument)? Please, Please, Please tell me what is in the Hall of Monuments is not the final version...please tell me the work everyone has been putting into their titles isn't going to be wasted because of the fact that they get no recognition at all in the Hall of Monuments. And what the hell is the deal with only PvP/Gamer Monuments in the Honor Monument? The Hall of Monuments is primarily PvE...most people dedicated enough to get the ranks required to display monuments there probably don't give a crap about the hall of monuments. Meanwhile PvE players who care about the titles we have get royally screwed because we can only display 1 Title there...and it's not even a monument. Gaile...is what is in the Hall of Monuments during the preview the final version set for release?--Thor79••Talk 00:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, KoaBD is EASY compared to rank 12 or rank 9 in any of the other pvp titles, you could get several KoaBDs in the time it takes to get any of those. — Skuld 09:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So it could require at least r3 or 4 in the Max Title Track...I would not mind that, even though i only have 11 max titles...it would at least encourage me to fix that part of the situation Killer Revan 12:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Skuld is right. On my warrior my only max title was protector of tyria although I decided to get KoaBD. I ended up managing to max 5 titles in 2 weeks I maxed all the cartographers giving me 3 max's + legendary and I also became protector of Cantha. ^^ --Alien 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Monuments

→ moved from User_talk:Gaile Gray

No this is not a complaint. I simply want to ask if what we see now is the fully functional version of the HoM. In other words, are there monuments that are NOT fully functional for whatever reason? Like perhaps not being finished developing, or locked due to the preview, or buggy in some way? As you know, there is a lot of hoo-blah about the monuments not 'being what players expected' for whatever reason. There are flaming posts all over Guru (as usual), and I am thinking that maybe the HoM may not be fully functional yet, and that what people are complaining about are simply undeveloped or locked features, rather than missing altogether. Counciler 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's not the latest 'version' of it yet, because it would be waaay better if HoM would be account-wide, not character-wide. --Шєвч [TALK] @ 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's inheritance from specific characters, I kinda doubt it's not account wide. Although I have to ask, what's specific complaints? ‽-(eronth) I give up 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets not devolve this into a whine thread. This is not the place for it. Counciler 23:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think since it is a sneakpeak event and not the full release. Some are locked and others are or will be tweaked before release. You really don't want people to beat the game before it is released do you?(from a business standpoint). Besides, sneakpeaks are a minor glimpse or a preview of the actual product.--Bane of Worlds 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there could be a good chance that this isn't the full version. for e.g maybe you need to do certain HoM related quests to improve certain monuments. like maybe getting the Monumental Tapestry is only the begining. :) Although if what we are seeing really is the full version of HoM then so be it. Why? because yes I was extremely disapionted when i first found out about the fact that i can't put pve titles in there, miniatures are customized and can't be uncustomized etc.. but we are forgetting that this is just the beggining, and Anet have a good 2 years or more until to improve it before GW2 is released. --Alien 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(First I don't know why but this section of the talk page appeared after mine even though I thought mine was the final one on the page, oh well) If what is in game now is indeed an incomplete version of the HoM, then why haven't we heard from Gaile confirming that? Have the responded at all to the concerns about the HoM? I haven't seen any yet. I'll tell you why...this is the complete version of the HoM and they know it...they realize a good chunk of their customers are disappointed a great deal in what they created...now they have to either come up with a patch to remedy the concerns (hope hope hope) or come up with a response to the situation that will keep people buying their product in a week. Their walking on pins and needles right now trying not to piss off their customers just before a major release.--Thor79••Talk 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think thats quite how things are. I have heard this quite often, but I'll say it myself: There's a reason why this is a sneak peek weekend. Its not just about getting ahead early, although thats a benefit. The sneak peek is a mini beta test that I'm sure they'll like feedback about in a non-flaming way.

If you're going to whine about it, move it to the Talk:Hall of Monuments page, NOT Gaile's User Talk page. Jeez. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons that Gaile isn't talking much is because she is at PAX right now and busy with other things but once PAX and Sneek-peek are over then we may hear from her. I think that if they find a ton of people want it differantly they will change it and make it so all titles or all good weapons can be added. -- Natalie Black 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I talked to James Phinney today and asked him up front if Hall of Monuments is broken or if it's what he had planned and he said that he feels that it, in its current state, is all he had meant for it to be. There's a much longer explanation as to why it is the way it is, but to clear things up I thought you should all know that it is as it was meant to be though they'll keep an eye on player requests and suggestions and keep everything in mind as they proceed. Father Grim 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be able to tell us his reasons on why he feels this way? I'm just going to take a hip-shot and assume that the rest of us want to hear this "much longer explanation" too. Counciler 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice indeed as I am myself not pleased at all with the way the hall currently works. And it's the same for my guildies and the forum I participate in. Jaxom 07:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...maybe it's redundant for me to say this after my above posts....but I also want to hear their "much longer explanation". As I've said in forum posts...I love just about everything in GW:EN so far...EXCEPT the HoM...and it seems a lot of people agree with me on that. HoM seems to be a huge disappointment...especially considering the Hype that went into it.--Thor79••Talk 08:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow james phinney really said that? This is how it is going to stay? I think im gonna cry. ;( --Alien 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dang...I would appreciate the longer explanation as the shorter isn't satisfactory for people. But thank you for letting people know this info tho--Bane of Worlds 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I will be happy to ask for more information about the Hall of Monuments and if the designers have time -- in this extremely busy week before release -- I'll share the information that I can learn from them. We've all just finished up three very full days at Penny Arcade Expo and we're moving into the final six days before launch of GW:EN, so please accept my apologies in advance if I can't get you that info right away. --Gaile 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok folks, here's the long version, or at least the way it was given to me. Hall of Monuments was built as and is meant to be the one and only player carry-over from GW1 to GW2. That being said, every character and item you take to the Hall will be reserved for a character in GW2 on a one for one basis. So, if you could put every minipet you have in the hall of every character you have, you'd be duplicating the special GW2 bonus for having had that item. I wasn't straight on what this meant so I asked if mini pets were for sure going to be in GW2 and if the ones on the monument would move over. He said that mini-pets weren't certain, but it is for sure that everything in your hall will be rewarded one for one to any character of the same name in GW2. (Note: I said rewarded one to one not moved over one to one...armor and weapons don't move over but their collection is rewarded in some way. All of this, to me, made it sound like everything in GW2 will be character based...not account based. That might just be me though) The same goes for weapons, heroes, and armors. Speaking of armor, the armor display was very complicated to create...just making the whole thing meant that they'd have to create an all new version of each armor set to display. That would have extended the time it took to make the expansion. To make it easier they went with the paper doll models of like-valued armor. But they do understand the importance of this to the players and I'm sure it will be the first thing looked at when they start to pick things to update. Titles, are just like minipets when it comes to the monument...if you could carry over every little GW1 title to GW2 then it would just be a mess of GW1 prestige that doesn't mean anything to GW2 players. If you were running around GW2 and saw someone wearing a title that said they'd drunk a ton of alchohol in GW1 would you care? Same for cartography, everyone knows that it is a very hard title to max, but every title that you max contributes to your Kind of a Big Deal title so that's what they went with. Changes will come in time...GW will never be finished. You never finish making an MMO, but if you're not happy with the function of the HoM then don't use it until GW2 comes out. It's not like using the Hall helps you be better at GW. It's SOOOO much easier to show off your titles and pet by just using them on your characters than it would be to try and get someone to join you on a trip to your personal HoM. But again, the question was, "Is Hall of Monuments broken, or is it what you had in mind when you decided to create it?" and the answer was "I think it came out just like we hoped it would. But, as with anything, you'll see some changes over time and we'll do our best keep our fans happy." I hope this answers more questions than it raises, but feel free to ask more. I had a several minutes with him at PAX but he talked about the game in a very broad way most of the time and nothing new about GW2 was released. Cheers. Father Grim 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eww, character of the same name in GW2? That's... kinda eww. I can fully understand why they'd use that method, because character names will be reserved, therefore it's the easiest way to verify it... but... kinda disappointing, I guess. Oh well, c'est la vie. I'm glad there's at least some way to represent all the time I've poured into GW1, even if it's not exactly as I envisioned. --Valentein 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have asked James to provide more complete information about the Hall of Monuments for everyone's benefit. With all due respect, information given "on the fly" in an informal chat at a trade show is less complete and certainly less clear than it will be when we can give you details in a more precise and therefore more accurate format. Thank you for reserving your questions and comments until we have had a chance to provide information first hand. --Gaile 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Valentein, that's pretty disappointing if your GW2 character has to have the same name as your GW1 character to inherit his or her stuff. If this is the only feasible way to link characters, then I suggest also having a rename option for GW2 characters. --Ctran 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally dont like my main characters name anymore so the thought of using it in guildwars2 as well doesn't sound fun. personally, I wish the forename surname restriction would be removed to allow individual words. --SLeeVe 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the hall of monument and mini pets I just tought of something you could do rather than customise pets for a single character, turn that particular monument into a storage for the mini pets. If you store it in the monument it displays and at the same time you cannot trade it to someone else for the same advantage, if you take it out of the monument it stops displaying and with it any single thing you might get from it in GW2.

It would solve quite a few things 1)The customisation that bothers so many 2)It would still prevent people from loaning pets for free monument unlocks 3)It would free storage space that we are going to need if we are to collect polymock pieces, mini pets, custom armors and weapons ... -- Darak 09:05 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that. James and the design team do not wish the Hall of Monuments to be used as storage in any sense of the word. --Gaile 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable because storage is storage and that is what it was made for, I just hope that the obvious changes will go through such as PvE Titles and miniature acount customization. :) --Alien 19:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to step back a second here, Titles and Mini's are bunch of GW1 prestige that won't make sense in GW2? What kind of people do you think will be making up most of the crowd in GW2? Thats right, GW1 players, and since when did HoM become something for new GW2 players to worry about? I thought this was being made for us, the loyal fans of several years.

Now that I have my angry fanboy rant out of the way, I never thought for a second that I would be able to display all my GW1 titles in GW2. I would just like recognition in my HoM for all of them if someone decides to visit mine on GW2. Just my 2 cents. Broodling67 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be very useful to have official confirmation of the mechanics linking GW1 and GW2 characters through HoM. In particular, these questions come to mind: (1) do we need to make the characters the same name (hopefully no) or the same profession (hopefully no) or the same race (hopefully no), (2) once linked, does deleting the character in GW2 remove all the stuff you got forever, or do you get it back with a new character than you link again, and (3), can you link a character after it is created as opposed to when it is created. Q's 2-3 are mainly relevant to people who want to link a Survivor in GW2 to their GW1 character. Q1 is relevant to everyone. In particular, if you answer yes to all parts of Q1, I'd stop playing with my titles-Paragon and start a new titles-Ranger with a different name than my current ranger (Blood Raven works for R/N, but not R/Rt).Alaris 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that questions 1 and 3 come purely out of conjecture - there has been no official announcement saying, or even hinting, that you need the same character name or profession or race, or that a character is "linked" to the Hall of Monuments. It would be nice if Arena Net could answer those questions, yes, but at the same time, given how busy they are, I don't expect them to answer to every player-created rumor just to state that they are player-created rumors. Erasculio 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But also keep in mind that a lot of players have been collecting titles and armors and whatnots for a while now in preparation for HoM, and will continue to do so until GW2 comes out. The earlier we get that info, the faster we can re-orient ourselves towards making sure we get what we want out of GW2. Of course, the more flexible we are giving the stuff to those characters we want in GW2, the less of an issue there is.

Personally, I'd be in favor of something like /bonus, so every GW2 character can benefit from GW1 accomplishments. End of story, no headache for anyone. Or if you want to link, have it so any GW2 character can link to any 1 GW1 character, independent of profession or name, and you can link multiple GW2 characters to GW1 characters. Either which way it's implemented, I'd say that people need to know as soon as possible so they can adjust.

Of course, I could wait until GW2 comes out, and we find out what we get for our efforts, and how linking works. But by that time, I'll be playing GW2 instead of GW1, so it will be way too late to do anything about it. Alaris 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I agree with you, the sooner the knew as many details as possible, the better. But keep in mind that some of the concerns here are thanks to things created by players and only by players, not by Arena Net. For example, regarding your concerns about linking - who said anything about linking? As far as we are concerned, it may as well be that the Hall of Monuments in GW2 is literally a hall, in which all our GW2 characters may walk into the different rooms for all our GW1 characters and take (or leave back there) whatever they want. The problem of asking for those details now is that I'm not sure even Arena Net knows yet how they are going to implement this system, so they don't have an answer to give, and so player driven rumors have way too much room in which to proliferate. Erasculio 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We really don't need the details, we just need to know the philosophy. If they said for example that they want to give us as much flexibility as possible as to which GW2 character can use the HoM-unlocked bonuses, and that these bonuses cannot be lost by deleting a character in GW2, then actual implementation doesn't matter much. But given the amount of time needed to get KoaBD and the various armors and whatnots, it would be a pain to find out at GW2 release that you can't use it on the GW2 character you wanted to play, or that you lost it all because you deleted that character. Especially as I suspect that those bonuses will be customized anyway, to protect the GW2 economy. Alaris 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even a general, vague idea would be better than nothing to sooth some of the general concerns right now. Erasculio 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gaile's Storage comment...big mistake imo. The Hall of Monuments is a unique oppotunity to solve several storage issues at once. How about you listen to your customers instead of picking what YOU want. People are still suffering from storage issues despite the storage upgrade...for one primary reason...you keep adding stuff to the game without adding more storage. The Hall of Monuments, if designed correctly, could help a great deal with armor, weapon, and minipet storage issues. Many people love collecting these things but have no room to store them. Should things be stored there without customization? No Customize everything that goes into the HoM. Should everything that gets some sort of display in the Hall of Monuments get something in GW2? NO!!!!!!!! Some of us just want to have an area where we can see a display our accomplishments. The Hall of Monuments should not be restricted by what Anet wants to give out as unlocks for GW2. Many of us were hoping for great things out of the HoM...not all of us care about what we get out of it for GW2...please expand it out to something that can truly be a memorial to our GW1 characters.--Thor79••Talk 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Most likely reason - database limits. Most games with this much to hold are built on databases. Every item is tied to your character through databases and increasing storage even by a bit also exponentially increases the size and complexity of that database. Problem lies really in what happens when a database fails. If you introduce too much and the filesize gets to be too much for the hardware / os, the database can corrupt. With a corrupted database - best case scenario a few items are lost... worst case full characters are corrupted. Correcting database errors with a huge database is pobably impossible at this scale. So that would mean a rollback. Rollbacks are probably the last thing an mmo (or pretty much any online game) wants to go through... Generally, a massive server crash would probably be easier to recover from. The only thing worse would be total data loss. I'm sure they have/are testing ways to get us more space... but at the oment i would have to assume its just not feasable with the way the game is made... (remember, they intended the game to be pvp mainly initially and probably didnt expect for the game to have to hold so many things). This is possibly one of the facors that lead to the change to GW2. Now that they see the demand for PvE the game has, building the engine from the ground up with that in mind would lead to greater possibilities overall. With the last big server crash (the server building hitting over 100 degrees)(and from what i remember in my 2.5+ years the only 1) they already had accounts of minor data corruption (missing items, whether any were proven true i dont know.). The last thing they want is to have the database in a state that is unstable, and the bigger or more complex it gets, the more unstable it will be. I'll leave it at that, but if it comes down to whether to add a useful feature like storage/auctions/etc... it usually comes down to a matter of whether the current game can handle it (processing/database/etc). --Midnight08 07:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You also need to know when you got too much stuff, and you need to sell some cheat to other players *hint* *hint* Alaris 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Before making a "fix" suggestion...

We have seen a lot of criticism against the current implementation of the Hall of Heroes, and many good suggestions on how to fix it. However, I would like to point - at least once - the limits of what Arena Net may do with the HoM. Many players posting here and elsewhere are assuming all problems on the HoM are thanks to design decisions, without considering how many of them may be thanks to technical limitations or not having enough time in order to make a change feasible.

For example, the Resilience monument, the one supposed to display armor sets. Currently, it does not display the armors a character has - rather, it checks if the player has one armor of that kind (like Sunspear 15k armor, and so on), and if so it displays a couple armors of the same kind, regardless of what profession the character has.

Is this a good implementation? No, of course it isn't. Ideally, the monument would display the exact armor our characters have, down to even the exact armor composition for those with mixed sets. That's not what's happening, but why? The "why" is important there, in order to fix the problem. Is it a matter of bad design, so Arena Net would have thought that players would rather have displays of random armors instead of displays of the armors they have? Or is it a matter of technical limitation, as making the monument to display exactly what we have would be too time consuming to be feasible? We do not know (although I'll leave to other players to think what is more likely among those two). And not knowing, we risk insisting on suggestions that are not feasible and simply cannot happen. Right now, there's a rumor (and only a rumor, by a player reporting what he has heard at PAX) claiming it's the second option - it was hard to create that monument, and anything other than what we currently have would have been too time consuming. Is this the truth? Again, we don't know, but this kind of limit has to be considered when making a suggestion.

We have seen this exact kind of limit before. When the PvP skin rewards were implemented, the community asked many times for an account based system, as opposed to the character-based system we currently have. Yet Isaiah mentioned, a lot later, how he and Arena Net's programmers could not find a way to make that reward system account based. Therefore, I would guess that asking for that fix was pointless, and the efforts wasted insisting on it could have been better used thinking of other ways to improve the current system. The same thing with Razah - he was supposed to be a hero with variable professions, but this had to be changed as such hero would be too complex to be created, requiring an effort that was not viable.

Adding to this, there is the problem of how much of Guild Wars 2' design time may be spent planning rewards for the Hall of Monuments. If everything were translated into a reward, literally everything...Imagine how much time Arena Net would have to spend just thinking about ways to reward those achivements, as opposed to just working to make GW2 better. Unfortunately such time and effort are not unlimited, and the time spent with the HoM rewards is less time being spent on other features the game could have.

I ask the other players to consider this kind of limitation when proposing a fix for the Hall of Monuments. I'm not saying players should not post what they want - not only I would be simply ignored if I said that, but I also think it's important for the community to let Arena Net know what it wants. However, it's perfectly possible for someone to make the best suggestion ever for the HoM...And it to not be implemented, as it may fall outside the limit of what Arena Net may do. Ideally, Arena Net would explain what said limit is (just like they did regarding the PvP skins and regarding Razah), but I don't really expect that to happen, so it's up to us to realize that a very good idea may not be so good thanks to limits beyond simple design. Erasculio 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortunately, we often don't know what can easily be changed, and what just requires too much work to be feasible, because a lot of this depends on implementation. So I guess that asking is fine, but saying that ANet is lazy is just going overboard. Alaris 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"lazy" is an empty insult, and thus violates ~GWW:NPA anyway. Backsword 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there aren't that many PvE titles that are maxable, and you could even include some but not all of those. For example, I think fewer people would complain if you included Legendary Titles (e.g. Legendary Skill Hunter) even if individual titles for each campaign was not included (e.g. Skill Hunter of Cantha). Same with Cartography, Vanquishing, etc. Alaris 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If i make some suggestions i try to post something that is not too hard to implement. I cant be sure what can be done easily, but i try to make simple suggestions. And changing some graphics in the hall to make it look better is not wasted time, the hall will be accessible in GW2 and it should look great for both, GW1 and GW2. Sir Astaroth 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I reject this notion entirely. As a software developer myself and having worked in software companies big and small as the customer, it's NOT your job or position to actually worry about what the company can and cannot do. You set out your exepctations and the service providers provide it. It is not our area to say "Should we ask for this or is it too hard for ANet to do?" We will NEVER know the answer to that question because we do not have access to the code, thus, we simply make our expectations clear and they let us know what they can and cannot do and what they will and will not do. Companies (including ANet) will be straightforward with you about things they cannot possibly incorporate (due to technical limitations) and things they refuse to incorporate (due to design decisions). Only the lowest of the low would tell you they are considering adding something which they have no ability/intention to add.

Thus, it's not our place to worry about what ANet can do, it is our place and position to request improvements and enhancements as we believe would better the product and it is their role to worry about what can and cannot be done. --Karlos 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said Karlos, if they cant do it, they'll say so. Its better to ask for the improvements that you believe would help... for all you know, the ideas you might come up with could be great, and might be easily implemented. If you never say them for fear of them being difficult, you'd never find out, and the game would suffer in the end because of it. --Midnight08 05:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, you're "missing the point" ; ) Repeating what I have stated above, we are free to ask whatever we want, but we cannot expect Arena Net to implement those ideas always, even if they appear to be very good ones. Even if they are very good ideas, they may not be implemented thanks to problems beyond what we know - and despite your "lowest of the low" statement, it is not possible for Arena Net to know what it cannot incorporate unless they consider incorporating it. Unless you want Arena Net to act without thinking, they have to consider - and the example of a better trade system, like a trade house, is an example of something they considered, yet found themselves unable to implement. That falls inside your "lowest of the low", but to me that's just being inteligent and thinking about an issue before deciding if it's possible or not.

Likewise, despite what Arena Net states or does not state, the players often demand a feature, even if said feature cannot be implemented thanks to technical problems. The issues with the PvP reward skins are a good example of that - players asked for them to be account based, a request that was denied. Instead of then ranting about how Arena Net did not listen, or ranting about how that idea is better than the current system, those efforts would have been better used by trying to think of other, alternative ways to improve the current system. Unfortunately, it was not until much later that we were told the problem with an account wide implementation was a matter of programming - something that IMO would have been better said before, but it is Arena Net's prerogative to say or not say the reasons behind what they implement or not in the game.

The point of my little text above is not to make players refrain from suggesting their ideas or saying what they want (as is already stated above) - rather for them to consider than, when said ideas are not implemented, it's not always a matter of Arena Net "not listening" or "not wanting to implement" or "not liking the idea" or whatever - it may be a very good idea, it may be better than what Arena Net had thought, it may be something that would be great for the game...But at the same time it may be something that cannot be implemented, thanks to reasons beyond those. This is true for anything on the game, but I think it's important to say so regarding the HoM discussion given how many suggestions (and many good suggestions) are asking for things that, as far as I know, would be very hard to implement, technically-wise. Erasculio 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of time-efficiency. Sure a lot of ideas proposed above sound good, but even though they may be feasible (everything is feasible), it may require too much work, which would be spent better elsewhere... for example... towards the Bonus Pack or towards GW2. You acquire a different perspective when the question is posed as a choice: do you want the Norn Tournament, OR that the HoM displays trophies for every maxed title and every prestige armor set. Do you want a better-looking HoM with more customization options, OR better rewards for it in GW2? Do you want more ways to show off (e.g. titles, armors, HoM), OR more things to achieve in the first place (e.g. quests, missions, minigames) ? As any company, ANet has a finite staff, finite resources, and they have to make the best of it. And I for one think they are doing a great job, even if some things I wish were better. Alaris 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming a limited amount of teams to work on this. Ideally, have one be put on one and others on others. I mean we did get both Paragons and Dervishes when NF came out. Oh and heroes. :P -elviondale (tahlk) 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Unlimited staff? Oh the joy of the idea! No, really, I don't understand your argument. There are trade-offs in nearly every aspect of life, including game development. They have resource, staff, and time constraints to work with. Alaris 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant. By limited, I'm talking 1 or 2. Granted, it wasn't the best word to choose, but you probably got my drift without having to get dramatic about it. What I mean is: they can work on several things concurrently. If not... yikes. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth and implying I said ANet is among the lowest of the low. This is ridiculous. ANet has handled this very well. They tried to implement those features and could not. That's different than knowing from day 1 they could not or would not and giving people lip service.

You're either saying "be mindful of their technical abilities when making a request" or you're saying "when making a request, don't expect it to come true because they might simply not have the ability to do it." This is how I understand your posts, feel free to explain if I am missing something. To the first I would say: It's not a user's job to be mindful of the software developer's abilities, it's the developer's job to be forthcoming about what they can and cannot do, and to the second I'd say: It paints ANet as being not so capable. I would say to users go ahead and ask for the moon and the stars exepct honest responses from your game maker as to what can and cannot be done. Believe, as software developers, the business side of ANet should be drooling over the prospect of users voicing their requests and demands. This is a GOOD thing, even if their demands cannot be met immediately or entirely. --Karlos 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"It paints ANet as being not so capable" - however, if you assume that "being capable" means being able to do anything, then yes, Arena Net is not so capable. For the third time, "the prospect of users voicing their requests and demands. This is a GOOD thing" - yes, that is a good thing. However, Arena Net has their own limits, just as everything else does, and they cannot implement all things that are asked for. You claim it's a matter of honesty, but it's actually a matter of more (including, in your own words, something that "paints ANet as being not so capable") - how many times has Arena Net stopped to point why a suggestion cannot be implemented, and how many times have they said that something is outside their limits? How much time would Arena Net have to waste if they replied in so many details to each and every suggestion, and how would it "paint" Arena Net if they kept stating "we don't know how to implement that"? I don't expect Arena Net to do either. Apparently, that would qualify as a lack of honesty from your point of view, but I think that's a matter of being reasonable. And that's exactly what I'm asking players - to be reasonable in what they expect when they ask for a feature or let Arena Net know of an idea. Erasculio 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To Elviondale: the thing is, I'm not sure that 1 or 2 people working on it is going to accomplish much. Assuming that this requires much more resources than you'd think, and that ANet's response is to put their efforts elsewhere, then I respect their decision. Alaris 14:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote to wipe this article, or move it elsewhere(grave yard) =P, gawd damn if ppl had to read this crap "before making a 'fix' suggestion" I'd b surprised if any happened to surface, and really.. in an article titled "Talk:Hall of Monuments"? cmon

Update on Hall of Monuments

Hi. I grabbed a couple of minutes of James Phinney's time just now and he would like you to know that we are still working on the Hall of Monuments. Some of the concerns that players have voiced have been or are being addressed, although obviously not every change that players have requested will be made.

Adding to that a bit, I think it's important to remember that Guild Wars is a constantly-evolving game. What you saw in the Sneak Peek Weekend is not what you will see upon release this Friday. And what you see upon release may be different than the HoM a few weeks or months down the line. Your thoughtful and constructive comments are welcome, and you know that we do listen to feedback and suggestions. There are certain core design objectives -- "visions," if you will -- that I sense will not be changing, even if there are a number of players who wish it so. However, there are other elements that may very well change, although I do not have specific information about that right now.

I hope this info is helpful, and that you are reassured to know that you are being heard and that your input is being considered. --Gaile 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Worx for me... pretty much all i wanted to hear - more to come and "we'll listen and see what we can do" - I dont expect everything (and neither do most) - but we just expected... more. That answer is plenty for me for a while and i'll watch and see if i like the improvements. Thx Gaile--Midnight08 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know his thought process on why they made it that way though. As a PvEer, I cannot help but feel insulted that the hall of monuments only has monuments for PvP titles, not PvE ones. Can you explain to me why I should not view that as bias or preferential treatment?

This is not about you guys listening and updating/changing... This is about, why did you guys CHOOSE to make it that way to begin with? Is it, as I feel, bias, or is there a deeper wisdom evading me? --Karlos 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I think thats one of the changes Gaile is referring to. If not, I'll eat crow -elviondale (tahlk) 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*starts warming up the crow...* >:) --Karlos 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... West Nile! -elviondale (tahlk) 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather be listened to and told it cannot be done, than not be listened to at all. Thank you Gaile, you've done us a huge favor.Nicky Silverstar 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does this irrational hate for PvP come from? Of course we all would like to have our PvE titles in the HoM, but why does this have to be combined with PvP bashing? There are 5 monuments in the hall and only 1 out of five deals with PvP. Moreover, the monuments dealing with PvE stuff are incredibly easy to achieve compared to the insane PvP monument requirement. So let me count: 4 easy to obtain monuments for PvE, one hard to obtain monument for PvP. How can you stand here and say that ANet gives preference to PvP, that is insane. --Xeeron 10:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is silly. People have been complaining that PvP is getting some "undeserved" table scraps, when in fact PvP is getting absolutely nothing at all HoM related as far as 99.9% of players are capable/willing to accomplish. I'm sure every last single player in the game could grind out rank 12 given enough time. But really, who wants to? That kind of extreme grind is insanely boring by any reasonable standard. (not Progress Quest boring. Rolling a rock up a steep hill as a form of eternal punishment boring.) If it weren't for rank inflation from ranger spirit spam back in Tombs I wonder if anyone would have achieved it.

FTW: Give some kind of Honor trophy to every level of PvP titles. For example, a trophy that gets bigger with more sparkle effects as you acquire more farm-grown PvP-leetness. Alternate: have both a journeyman trophy for a reasonable title level (r9 in HA, r4 in glads, for example), and a master trophy for the current unreasonable title levels. I'm sure the casuals would appreciate apprentice trophies at the lowest rank for each PvP title. (r1 glad, r3 HA, for example).

Reserve honor for only PvP accomplishments. Have a statue appear next to the scrying pool instead -- just a block of stone with PvE accomplishments listed (campaigns beat). As Big Deal advances, the block of stone gets fancier. So, PvE titles carry forth in a very visible, perhaps satisfying way (as Big Deal is entirely a reflection of PvE titles earned.) Well bloody, hell. It already does more or less exactly what I've suggested here. Don't understand why people are complaining then (at least from the PvE aspect) -- maybe it need to made more explicit somehow. --Drekmonger 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, that monument has 4 for PvP titles, 3 for the campaigns, and 1 for KoaBD, which is mostly PvE titles. So that one's 'bout 50 50. Backsword 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more like 75/25 for PvE/PvP. Some players have not noticed, but the looks of the entire monument is a reflection of the "Kind of a Big Deal" title track - the more titles you have (5/10/15...), the more complete the statue looks, as seen here. So the monument does reward, and greatly, PvE accomplishments (and the PvP titles have to be considered separately as they cannot be maxed, so they cannot count for the KoaBD titles). I would have liked it more if the "big" PvE titles were rewarded separately, or if the monuments were account-based, but the current monument does reward PvE (more than PvP, IMO). Erasculio 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen PvP-bashing so much as disappointment that the monument displays only PvP titles. I don't think any PvE players would be offended if it could just display any maxed titled you like, PvP included (well, with the PvP titles, not maxed, but you get the point). Although I will admit that displaying "Incorrigible Ale-Hound" on the monument to "honor" wouldn't make much sense to me. I think if PvE titles were added, it would make sense to only add the ones that seem to belong on a monument to honor. Bcstingg 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But why are PvP titles displayed like they are? Right now we have the main display for the "Kind of a Big Deal" title, and then individual, minor displays for the PvP titles. Why? This is my guess, but I think that's because, while the KoaBD title is the main display on the monument, the PvP titles cannot be part of it simply because, like you said, they cannot be maxed. As far as I can see, Arena Net had two choices: either ignore the PvP titles that cannot be maxed (which means all of them) or to display them separately from the main, PvE-based display that is the KoaBD title track. Erasculio 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, Erasculio. I'm looking forward to seeing in more details how the different monuments work within the next few weeks. However, there's a few questions I would like addressed, and I am asking everywhere... What determines who gets what rewards in GW2. Independently of implementation, and of what the rewards are, this would really help us figure out if we want to focus our efforts. Some questions are: (1) does the rewards work on a one-to-one basis (e.g. link 1 GW1 char to 1 GW2 char) or does it spread to all characters in GW2 (e.g. as would /bonus)? (2) If we delete a character in GW2, does that delete the bonuses? (3) If linked, do GW2 characters need to be the same name and/or profession as our GW1 character? Alaris 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In short, Gaile, would be nice to get official confirmation of the mechanics linking GW1 and GW2 characters through HoM (see above). I know things may change, especially with regards to what the rewards are, but it would be important to know ASAP about those things that won't change that will significantly affect the way we spend our time until GW2. Alaris 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, I wouldn't be surprised if gaile, nor any of the designers for that matter, would be able to answer that question in its entirety. Its more or less two separate systems. Just b/c the HoM has been made doesn't necessarily mean the linking portions in GW2 exist at this time. I would give them more time before wanting to know the little details. --SLeeVe 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely by now they have decided whether bonuses will (A) be inherited by all GW2 characters, or (B) passed down from one GW1 character to one GW2 character. Afterall, they already made the decision to make the HoM character-based rather than account based, which suggests (B). Also, assuming (B) is true, surely they already know whether they intend to restrict linking to the same profession and/or the same name. That info by itself would be of great help in planning, and I don't think it's too much to ask, if asked nicely - pretty pls with sugar on top. Alaris 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PvP titles only?

The title monument says it will only work for PvP titles. Anyone else find this a complete rip-off? I have spent MONTHS getting certain titles, and now they don't count for anything. Why do PvP players get to transfer their titles, when they don't even CARE about PvE play anyway...Nicky Silverstar 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

lolz that would suck. BADLY ~ Kurd 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They said that the HoM might be disabled from use during the preview event. Alaris 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least they still count towards Kind of a Big Deal, which IS noted on the monument... Skuldnoshinpu 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All that work just for Kind of a Big Deal...then I'd rather have NO title display. Nicky Silverstar 20:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be ignorant in your comments. Most (80+%) PvPers do PvE (vanquish areas, complete Protector/Guardian of ____ titles, and cap skills to get UAX faster). I wouldn't mind if only PvP titles made it in, because they are about fifty times harder to achieve (and nearly impossible to max) compared to... every single PvE title, so they'd mean more. But... who cares, really? This vanity chamber is not that important. -Auron 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PvP titles and completed campaigns, it looks like. --202.78.147.176 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you must remember that this one one of the "Amazing" things everyone in GWEN was supposed to want according to the previews... To just leave out (visually) so much including all the PVE titles like legionary vanquisher, cartog and guardian? COME ON! Concerned User 1337000 23:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You last comment is exactly what I mean Auron. And I don't know how many PvE titles you have so far, but most of them are NOT easy to get. Even the ones you just have to pay gold for, take a LOT of gold (and so a LOT of time and effort) to get. I understand why PvP titles should be transferrable, but to say they're more important than PvE titles...THAT'S REDICULOUS! I could care less if you have played 5 hours a day in random arenas for the past 2 years. Having a HA title simply means you had a rank early on (and now discriminate those who don't, making it harder to get than it should be).

Bottom line: I'd rather take my Legendary Survivor Title with me, then all the PvP titles this game has. It took ME, without heroes or any exp farming, a LOT of effort to gain. Nicky Silverstar 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of Nicky, above. I cannot help but feel demotivated, and that putting only the "Kind of a Big Deal" title track to represent all PvE achievements (discounting completion of a campaign) undermines the difficulty of many (if not most) PvE titles such as the Survivor or the Allegiance series. --[Altimit|talk] 12:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

imo the 25 maxed titles one is worthy of HoM, all the rest aren't. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 07:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you farmed them then I agree. However, I got the Legendary Survivor title without farming experience, 75% of while playing with henchmen, before the control your henchmen system was implemented. Try repeating that and see if it isn't worth the it...Nicky Silverstar 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

no offense but survivor is really easy compared to vanquishing 3 continents or something of the sort. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 07:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put alot of time and gold into getting my PVE titles, I hardly PVP, I'll AB every now and then, but the title isnt even displayed, the titles that are i don't even bother doing those types of PVP due to the fact that (more aimed at the GVG and HA titles) I can hardly ever get into good groups because, either not enough good players on in the guild, or because i dont have rank/fame. But i would like to see every title you have in the HoM and not just maxed titles, but I'm really disappointed about this, because I've work hard for my Survivor, Vanquisher, Seeker, Tressure, Sweet-Tooth, Lightbring, Sunspear titles, and once EotN goes live I'm going to start working on those titles as well, but I really want to see them get handed down to my Guild Wars 2 Toons. Yuri Solvodkis

It may be so Skakid, when you farm and cower in the back, but when you have to fight, take aggro as an elementalist and do NOT use a special tank build (i.e. play the game normally), then it is a GREAT achievement. Vanquishing on the other hand is easy, because you get as many tries as you want. Survivor you only have to fail once. But what this shows, is that no player will agree on what title is easy to get and which one isn't, so that would be even more reason to add ALL titles. Nicky Silverstar 07:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter whether a title is easy or hard. The HoM is supposed to represent devotion to the original franchise. Vanquisher and Guardian (and all the rest of the PVE titles) obviously demonstrate that you played the hell out of the original GW. Let GW2 players decide whether your Legendary Guardian Plate, your Fiery Vanquisher Sword, and your Zealous Tankard of Inebriation signify anything worthwhile.--Semantic 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, but I am kinda annoyed that some titles are farmed easily. Takes the fame away for those that do not farm...

Hall of Monuments, make it personal.

I'm not going to repeat the complaints that can be seen above, about the implementation of the HoM we saw in the preview event. Everything that's currently in there could stay as it is, and although I wouldn't be 100% happy about it, I could accept it.

What I am concerned about, is what is currently NOT in there ie. "Something personal". Something that, as a player, lets me feel some kind of continuity between GW1 and GW2.

The HoM is currently just a glorified checklist of "stuff". Generic stuff. And since I am not a "hardcore" player or trader, my HoM will look exactly the same as a bazillion others. When I play GW2, my character's descendant will see a handful of items and achievements, and some of those may confer in-game benefits. That's cool, but the one thing they would EXPECT to see - what their ancestor actually looked like - will not be there. In a "family monument" that seems a completely bizarre omission. What they will see is a monument that really, could belong to "anybody".

What I would most like to see in HoM is not fixes to what's already there... rather, something extra: The ability to create a "snapshot" of my actual GW1 character. A snapshot with the right face and hair, her favourite armour with the right dyes applied (even if it's cheap or mixed armour), her favourite weapon. The stuff she actually USED for most of her three campigns and two and half years of real time rather than stuff she collected or traded and kept in her stash for 99.9% of the time.

Ideally the snapshot would be a statue, but perhaps a movie in the Scrying Pool, or even a 2D portrait on the wall would be something. This is the only thing that would distinguish my HoM from a million others, and provide a feeling of "belonging" and "continuity" for my GW2 characters. And above all, a little personal nostalgia for myself to see when playing GW2. --Hissy Fit

Two words: Yes. Please. I love this idea. A statue (which would be the most fitting), or even the picture on the wall or the ability to look into the scrying pool and see that character. The model (or even just an image) could be tied to character name, like the rest of the Hall. Since the HoM won't go static when playing in GW2 (they will have to be recommunicating all the time, to account for new GW2 players picking up GW1 to obtain benefits for their new GW2 characters), the image could even be changed. Of course, all this is only speculation, but some kind of link to the original character would be nice. --Valentein 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG they did it! I am so happy! The other improvements are great too. Thank you A-Net! --Hissy Fit 08:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So glad that you like them! I do agree with you, the designers who worked on these changes are really top-notch!! --Gaile 08:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THANKS!!

Thanks for listening to players suggestions! Great to see HoM updated so much! Love the way it displays your own character on armor stage and to see the PvE titles displayed, and to hide the names until you select them (mini-pets mainly)I just LOVE HoM now! =)) -- (Tribina / talk) 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, kudos for the changes! They're very nice and take assuage most of my misgivings about it. The interface that shuffles the statues on the monuments still needs reworking, but hopefully that can be worked on later. --Valshia 07:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The designers are the best! Even in a week that was fraught with challenges, and filled with the last-minute issues that always arise in a release, they still took the time to consider your requests and come up with some great updates. I'm glad that you're happy with what they've done and I join you in a celebration of the evolution of the Hall of Monuments! --Gaile 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank you as well. Not that I had any doubt Anet wouldn't fix it. You guys have made one of the best games ever, made so many cool things...no tiny explorable area was gonna stand in your way. MANY, MANY THANKS, not just for this fix, but also for listening to your customers and for creating a great game in general. Nicky Silverstar 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree with the above posters: This one is a demonstration of Gaile excelling at her job. Every company is bound to get stuff wrong at times, but ANet listens to its customers and changes unliked features withhin days. That is Customer Relations people doing their job perfectly. So since Gaile has to take a lot of abuse when things go wrong as well, some thank you thread is well deserved. --Xeeron 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I had my doubts but you guys impressed me. I love 1) the fact that the Monument of Honor now shows PvE titles, 2) that the Monument of Resilience shows my character in his or her own armor, and 3) it even recognizes the difference between Elite Templar Armor (Marhan's Grotto Ascended Armor) and Elite Gladiators Armor (Marhan's Grotto Exclusive Armor). A really wonderful job! Anomaly: when my mesmer rearranges her armor while wearing red-dyed armor, the statue's armor turns red, but when she rearranges her armor while wearing black-dyed armor the statue's armor turns green!? Suggestion: a friend and I both thought too many trophies at the Monument of Honor had maps attached to them. Since Protector of Tyria is one step above completing the campaign, and Guardian of Tyria is one step above Protector, I thought the Hero of Tyria should show the Lich, Protector of Tyria should show the Lich with a sword through him (sort of like if you beat a mission) and Guardian of Tyria should show the Lich with two swords through him (ala mission & bonus). Anyways, the HoM is 100 times better than it was during the preview, thank you so much! --Ctran 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the changes are great, you guys did an awesome job. But, I still find it sorta silly that to display heroes they have to have their armour upgraded... yet they're displayed with their starter armour. I think it would make a bit more sense (to me anyways :3) if they were displayed with their ascended armour. Doll 12:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Quick and not bad changes. Good work. I agree with the above idea of "upgradable" statues. Like, if you're ally of the luxon level 1 you got a little flag, if you're level 11 you got a HUGE flag, and so on. We hope to see more improvement in the future, but very good work so far. --YukoIshii 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback guys! I have to say I hope everyone is pleased with the new PvE/PvP title trophies in the HoM, but naturally it's tough to please everyone. I tried my best in a very short amount of time to come up with appropriate visuals for each statue based my instincts as a player, but I realize there might be a few where I might have missed the mark. If you can think of a better suggestion for any of these trophies, feel free to visit my "Talk" page [3] and leave feedback for me there. I can't promise suggestions will always get implemented but if I get enough comments on specific trophies, I'm sure it will get looked at. --Matthew Medina 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gamer display req

if the current req for displaying the gamer title is kept, i think there should be a gamer event every month at the very least. otherwise, getting to r9 would take years. if more events aren't held, i think the designers should implement an emote for r9 b/c it would be the most drawn out title ever. --VVong|BA 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have r3 and a display... -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 00:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

in the HoM? --VVong|BA 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting, salvaging?

Has anyone tried to delete things they store into the Monuments? What I mean is, say, you put in one of your 15k armors. You wish to get the Superior Vigor rune off a piece, so you desperately try for it with an expert kit, but alas, the piece was ruined. In frustration, you salvage the best runes off all the other pieces. You go into your Hall of Monuments to check if your armor is still there........well, is it?! I can't find an answer anywhere, and I can't afford to try myself. I want to check with miniatures, as well, but again, no money. Every penny I have for this, goes towards Obsidian armor, at the moment. Answers? --Lady Raenef 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes... I don't know if anyone will test for you, but the best bet is to pull off stuff with a perfect salvage kit. -elviondale (tahlk) 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for concern number one you have perfect salvage kits, might cost some more but you will never ruin anything, as for second, not sure you actually have to keep the items after you displayed them, not gonna test it, but try moving your armor over to some secondary character and see then. Biz 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing I did was to place part of an armor on storage (and then the full armor) and see what happened - the statue of the armor was still there on the HoM. I haven't tried salvaging an armor, as I don't have a reason to do that now (I will once my Ritualist reaches the HoM, but that's going to take a while). If anyone is going to test this, I suggest first destroying one piece and then checking if the statue is still at the Hall - if it isn't, you would have wasted only 15k (or 10k), something easy to get back. Erasculio 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that deleting will have any effect. Once you add it your HoM, I think it just adds a permanent flag there. Since there is no way to manually remove items, my guess is that anything added is permanent. Something like, if you create a character, and someone adds that character to thier friend list (or guild list), that name remains in the list even if you delete it. -- Alesain 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I know people who destroyed 1st year white mini pets after they put them in and they are still there. --Lemming 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While I can't speak for armor, I've gotten rid of my Imperial Phoenix and then Black Moa after putting them up on Fellowship, and their statues are still there. I'd imagine armor is the same way, but I'm not planning on testing it. - Tanetris 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i've thrown away a few miniature pigs since adding them and it had no affect. i can only assume armor is the same. --SLeeVe 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)