Talk:Zaishen Bounty

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hard mode bug?[edit]

If you kill a boss in hard mode, then kill him again in normal mode, I only got zcoins for normal mode. Can anyone confirm? 19:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


It should probably be noted that the stated dialogue only occurs after the quest has already been accepted, otherwise the dialogue is the details of the quest. Also, this should probably be formatted differently (not sure exactly how, otherwise I would change it), since the quest will change daily. Freedom Bound 12:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Umn, that is how the game have always worked... Backsword 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(month later, oops!)Right, but there are other pages that note the specific dialog and the follow-up dialogue. Usually says something like, "when asked about the quest" or something to that effect. Freedom Bound 21:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard mode...[edit]

If you kill the boss in hard mode does it also count for the first part of it, or do you have to do the quest in NM and then HM? 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you "Kill Molotov Rocktail in Hard Mode," are you somehow not killing "Molotov Rocktail in the Dalada Uplands?" -Auron 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
GGTalk page Drogo Boffin 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Occam's Razor "The simplest answer is often the best one" therefore If you kill a boss in hard mode you satisfy all the requirements for the mission including the bonuses and will not have to repeat. or in short "Yes, it counts" MrPaladin 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quest bounty list should be reversed imo[edit]

so you don't have to scroll all the way to the end to see who it is if ur on the page. --adrin User Adrin ecto sig.png 09:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

where is this sign located ? - unsigned

Great Temple of Balthazar in the Battle Isles. - Maskeus

Add required campaign[edit]

This would be quite helpful on the page. Area would be nice too.

So these are it?[edit]

I thought there would be more different quests after the repeats from the update that first rolled them back, but it seems we've seen the extent of the bounty list (and maybe missions?). Only ~66 possible bounties out of the entire list of bosses in the game?? 05:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be great if there was more randomization and lots of different bosses to hunt. When they started recycling missions I lost interest in this. They aren't changing how the AI for the bosses works, just assigning a reward to them, so it shouldn't be too hard to automate right? Catbus 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


One of the things that I'd really like to see and could do if needed (it's very easy) is to list each bounty's associated Elite, which is the main thing by which I choose whether or not each character will do the bounty. Obviously, many will have a little bit in italics saying, This is a boss-like foe, and its Elite cannot be captured, whereas for example today's Mohby would say (Echo) or something. Like they do for bosses on mission and explorable pages. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that to a couple of the "walkthrough" sections, never really got around to doing it to the rest. It seems that we've reached the end of the cycle, so it wouldn't take much (besides time) to go back and add it to them all. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

proposition: see above section[edit]

I propose by the reasoning above that we add, under each Zbounty's quest page in the walkthrough section, two subsubsections:

Associated Elite: Lyssa's Aura[edit]

Associated Unique: Rotwing Recurve Bow[edit]

for example. I don't actually look for elites, but I saw (during my rampage of editing) someone had added some bosses' unique drops, so maybe it's a common interest.

I began this but was confronted for a concensus - see my talk page (link in sig). Thanks! - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, that information is already included in the relevant boss articles. Adding those 2 sections serves little purpose and clutters the page needlessly. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe the information is necessary on the Zaishen page. There are already links to the boss pages, as well as corresponding quest pages. If it is added, I dislike the proposed format, it's messy. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the presentation is unnecessarily intrusive, but I wouldn't mind the information being included as notes in the Notes section, for example. - Tanetris 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If we need information on the elites or elite skills each bounty/boss carries, the boss article (which should already be linked on the relavent page) is plenty, in my opinion. It'd be kind of redundant if the page is only a click away. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The quest link is on the main page; when I check the updated Zaishen Challenges, I click my bookmark and simply open the mission and bounty in new tabs. To have thaty information within one click from the Main Page would be nice. After all, we also give you the boss's location map on the quest page, and sometimes we have a line or two on how to kill it, information that could be obtained by going to the boss's page. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The quest should be about the quest. The "boss" page should be about the "boss". End of story. King Neoterikos 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The map and a guide how to kill the boss in question are clearly associated to the quest itself. - J.P.ContributionsTalk 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Capping an elite and farming a green are considerably less associated with the actual quest. :/ – Emmett 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
On a technical level, I can't deny that, but on a more practical level, I do think characters without Skill Hunter and looking to get it would find that information as important to the quest - especially whether or not they do it - as any of the rest. Many of our pages dedicate notes to things like "Do alongside such-and-such" or "You may as well pick up this on the way"; why if not simply to facilitate the actual players' efficiency? Is quest A, near quest B, more related to it than the associated elite is to a page about its boss which exists to send people to kill that boss?
I'm pretty sure anything you add to those pages that saves navigating to another page than the one you'll be reading for the map and walkthrough notes will be more read, than, say, the dialogue :P - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with adding things to articles in order to save users some navigating is that the articles could easily become so full of "related" information that the relevant information itself would be hidden in a wall of text which random_user_01 would not read because he has the attention span of a lemming.
I would prefer to keep the articles as simple as possible, dealing only with what the article is about.--Fighterdoken 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he's referring to this one, and another one I did. I (of course) like it the way I did it, and don't see any reason why it would have to be in different sections like that, but I really hate seeing completely blank sections. The example here is simple, clean, and effective, and I don't think it detracts too much from the overall quest page. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 23:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If the information needs to be there, I would prefer it in the infobox. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No Wyn, changing the infobox just so that special information for Zaishen quests-only is a bad idea. I agree with Tanetris, if you really want to put the information somewhere, use the notes section, or do it as Freedom said (it's not a bad solution either..). However using headers is a very wrong way to go for information. We should at least try to stick to our overall formatting. poke | talk 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If we would add more and more related content on pages we would ultimately end up having the whole wiki on main page. And no one wants that, right?
I'm just speculating (which i always love) here, so don't take it too seriously. - J.P.ContributionsTalk 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's acceptable if a concession is to be made. Honestly I didn't realize it was such an unpopular idea, but I still think ça vaut la peine. I think a sentence about it as Freedom Bound did should be under Notes perhaps - I think it'd be self-defeatingly obscure to find set into the middle of the walkthrough section.
As for having the whole wiki on every page, take a look at the Dialogue section on the Zaishen Bounty page and then a close look at the dialogue printed on each individual quest page... yeah. That could easily be replaced by "See [ [Zaishen Bounty#/dialogue] ]" (while we're here...)
@ J.P. and in general: Fear not, I think we're supposed to always assume good bearings toward each other; a discussion about the good of the wiki may be engaging but it doesn't set bad impressions, I hope... in fact, it ought to earn some mutual respect for caring about the good of the wiki. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(ignore reset indent...)Also, my bad, when I said up there that my talk page was in my signature it wasn't--that's been remedied. - 72[evolved] {U/S/T/C} - 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From the quests formatting page: Provide a walkthrough for the quest. ... Try to integrate notes or tips into this section rather than creating a separate "Notes" or "Tips" section. Given that my example is so short, I don't really think it needs to be separated into a different section. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 00:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, k :) Perhaps a line under the main paragraph, as in this one. Also, as I was doing, I'd volunteer to implement whatever do if we agree to do anything, of course. - 72[evolved] {U/S/T/C} - 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That referes to walkthrough relates info. It simply means not to split info on how to complete the quest into two different sections of the article. It has no relation to walktrough unrelated info. Backsword 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On a somewhat related topic, the discussion Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/General#Underlinking_in_Zaishen_quests provided for a slight change in the formatting guideline, however, I don't feel that it justifies the 5 links to Admirial Kantoh on Admiral Kantoh (Zaishen quest) or the 4 links to every other boss on every other zbounty page. If the initial link is being lost because it is above the TOC, and people just don't see it, I would propose removing the TOC, since these pages are short enough to not really justify the need for a TOC, and bolding the first link. I would rather see that than departing from the way the rest of the wiki deals with linkages (the first instance on a page). I do not have a problem with adding the skill and unique information the way Freedom has done it, though I do not like icon inclusions in the middle of text and would prefer simply the skill name. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely just the skill name, was there one with an icon somewhere? Re: links, I'll chime in over there. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 02:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
BauBao Wavewrath (Zaishen quest) -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 03:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wyn, that's a little disruptive to the text surrounding it, and doesn't really help, because even if you can recognize the skill by its icon, it's kind of small to be of much use in that regards. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea where anyone brought up the skill icon being in the text, but yes, having pictures in text generally ruins the spacing...
Continuing in this theme, why not word it uniformly (and precisely to the purpose of its being mentioned at all), something like
"The elite [ [Skillname] ] can be captured from this boss. Its unique drop is [ [Uniquename] ]."
versus "No elite skill can be captured from this boss-like foe. Its reward is a [ [Dungeonchestname] ]."
Or something similar. - 72[evolved] {U|S|T|C} - 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Consistency would be nice, and the language is fine with me. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally still don't think the information is needed on that page. The page should be concise and it is at the moment. If you want to find out about the boss itself then click the boss link on the page for a wealth of information. The quest itself however should be limited to information directly pertinent to the quest. Their are many quests where one must confront a boss as part of it, just in the normal course of it, we don't however include the green drops and elite of that boss in the quest article. However if the general consensus does swing towards this information being included, which I'm not sure it is doing, I think the information should be included within the notes section and not in the walkthrough section, as freedom bounds example is currently. As the green and the elite captured are not directly helping the walkthrough itself, thus the information is more fitting under notes. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read my posts, and the formatting guidelines for quests. Basically, they say that skill capture is a valid component of a quest article, and that notes and tips should be in the walkthrough section, if it is feasible to place them there. There's no need to create another section when the walkthrough on most of these quests will be, at most, one line. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Freedom I dont agree. The walkthroughs on these quests seem tacked on and pointless with little to no valid information. The actual boss articles contain much mroe pertinent info. Also in reference to adding elite skills etc to the walkthrough for the simple sake of adding them please see Fire_and_Pain for an exmaple of a quest of this nature. To finish this quest you have to kill the relevant boss however, at no point is the elite listed in the walkthrough, instead a normal skill is listed due to its problematic nature in the quest. As i said before many quests have bosses that need killed in it and we just dont list that info in the quest. We have it in the boss article. Thus I must disagree with your stance freedom. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why make someone click through to a different article when they could get all the needed info from the Zaishen quest article: nearest outpost, unique drop, elite skill? I'd rather see that information on the zquest article, in one or two lines, than have to click to the boss page. If you want more information, you can always go get it. Think of it this way, the explorable areas have lists of bosses, those lists of bosses list the boss's elite skill and their green, why not on the zquest page as well? -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As its completely pointless and clutters the page needlessly thus making them less useful to a great variety of people. I, like many others, click those pages for a brief overview of the quest. If I am then interested in doing the quest I click the boss link and go about completing it. Half of the information you want added is NOT directly pertinent to the quest at hand. Thus I don't think the information should be there. The game has many facets which are inter-related, we have to be concise with the limits of each page, otherwise they will become big, unwieldy and no longer user friendly. The boss info pages are now only 2 clicks away from the main page or 1 click if using the f10 key from ingame. Further to this the elite is only handy to those wanting to cap that elite, while many people simply just wont care. We should not start adapting every page to include vaguely related info so as to facilitate simple title hunting. All the information one could ever need about gw is here and very easy to attain. We do not need to try and cram all possible info onto 1 page. So as i said before, no i don't think this info should be included. We don't include it on other quest pages, we shouldn't include it on these. If the wiki community at large feels that they would prefer the info to be included then again I would put forward that it should be in the notes section and not in the walkthrough as once again the information is not directly pertinent to the completion of the quest at hand. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I brought up the skill image because I had seen one that had it, and I would like to see consistency. I don't have a problem adding the skill and unique information in a text note if that is what it will take to settle this, whether as part of the walkthrough or as a separate note. I don't like adding a 3rd lvl heading as it is intrusive and as stated before messy. I do believe as Salome does, that all the information is readily available through the linkages to the boss pages and/or associated quest pages in much greater detail and the argument that having to click your mouse to go to another page is too much trouble is, imo lame. That being said however, if it's done properly, the way Freedom has demonstrated in his example, it is not a detractor from the page. I do not believe however that these need to be as detailed as the full quest/dungeon/boss pages since they are only active one day at a time. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to Salome, I'd like to note that Fire and Pain and other inside-the-lore quests aren't quite "kill a boss/gain benefits by direct correlation" (heck, it even has a story). Please refrain from going into superlatives ("completely pointless,... needless") to dismiss a reply... Also, you say "if I am interested, I click", but the essence of this addition's usefulness is in deciding on interest; currently I'm sure many users would put it "I click to see if I am interested, and then..." etc. This info is not so vaguely related, as Freedom said concerning explorable areas. In those cases, people would otherwiser have to go to each boss's page to check its elite; surely that info isn't "more directly related" to an explorable area, or even a list of its contents, than this -- rather it's just there for convenience?
As for clutter, I'll state it a third time for amusing effect, that we for some reason have 10x this proposed addition in exact duplicate on every one of the affected pages, under Dialogue. That's not more necessary than a quick look-up feature. I appreciate your comments. - 72[evolved] {U|S|T|C} - 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is 72 that you are seeing this from a skill hunter's point of view. A great many people just dont care what elite the boss has. The information is not pertinent to them and including the info in the walkthrough is clumsy and unneeded. As i said before and as said by Wyn, I feel the argument that clicking 1 link is too much work is rather lame. However if one wants to add that information I still don't think its pertinent to the walkthrough. The walkthrough should specify how to complete the quest objectives, not the possible bonuses one can get if so interested from doing the quest. Again I say that if this infor is to included, then it should be in the notes and even then I don't think its needed. As for the debate on how area articles work in comparison with quest articles, they are both completely different things. Our area articles are more general in nature due to the range of reasons people use them. They denote a certain area, the high end bosses that can be found in those places and the general title progression which can be made in those areas. This is because these areas do not have a SET purpose, their very existence is general and thus the article needs to be more general to accommodate this. It is not a quest, it does not have a set aim, with set criterion on what should be done to complete it. A quest however has a beginning, middle and end and thus can be summed up in a more finite manner, with links made available to those who wish to see what else that quest may have to offer. Following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, what do you suggest we do in instances where to get to one of the boss bounties, one must first clear several levels of a dungeon and thus have the option of killing several other bosses before that point? Should we also list their relevant elites on the quest page or should we leave it as a link to the actual dungeon which allows people to choose to peruse this information if they want it and allow people who don't want the page bulked down with this extra info, to get the short and succinct information that they are looking for? Surely with your reasoning this would still be pertinent information as it could help someone decide if they wanted to do the quest? However you must see that it would turn these articles into set replicas of boss pages and dungeon pages which we already have. In my opinion Z bounty pages and all Z pages in general, should serve as a link to the relevant pages rather than reiterating information and bogging down the wiki with duplicate pages just because it happens to be a z quest that day. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Though I respectfully disagree with your idea that the information has little relevance, and with what "bogs down a wiki", I can see that I'm not going to convince you peacefully so I'll set the matter to rest. Now, on to complaining about the dialogue...

For the record, however, it does seem by the Wiki guidelines as though information of this sort, if included at all, does go under Walkthrough and not Notes for quest pages. Well, whatever. | 72 {U|S|T|C} - 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
In closing please understand that I do respect your opinion and I can see the logic of your stance and the possible merits of it, however I just don't agree with them in this instance. I tend to argue in quite a forceful manner and if that's given you the impression that I do not welcome your discourse, then please accept my apologies, as that was not my intention. :) -- Salome User salome sig2.png 21:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Repeating the same thing over and over isn't arguing in a forceful manner, it's being stubborn and ignorant. I tried to provide different examples of similar situations, and actually using the policies as they're in place today, you just walked over it and did what you wanted. Don't try to apologize now and say this was anything other than that. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 21:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Freedom truly no offence intended. I did read your posts. I could only find where you provided 1 example (your own edit on a zbounty quest) and a quote from a policy page (one which I personally don't think is relevant in this instance, as it is referencing information which is directly pertinent to the walk through itself and asking people not to note format that information in separate sections). I'm trying hard to see where you cited other policies or the places in which you provided other examples to be considered, I must just be missing it. My apologies for this, please direct me to where you mentioned these other examples and policies, so that I can further my understanding of your opinion. Regards -- Salome User salome sig2.png 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In addendum I would just like to add, that it is not I that you have to convince. This is a wiki built by the community for the community. Just because I am not in agreement with you in this instance, doesn't mean the rest of the community will see it the same way. We are all users here with the same weight to our opinions. If the community wishes this information added to the pages, in whatever format they wish, I will gladly help update the pages to reflect that. regards -- Salome User salome sig2.png 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting thought which is not entirely true, because there are a number of "tiers of notice" in any large community (prepare for a severe digression):
  1. Registered (i.e. eligible) users to whom an issue has been brought to attention.
  2. Registered (i.e. eligible) users to whom that issue has NOT been brought to their attention. Still a valid vote, and still affected by the change, but by chance didn't notice the discussion. (Consider anyone who registers after a decision has been made. If they had known about it then, mightn't their vote have altered the outcome?)
  3. Unregistered (i.e. ineligible) users who are aware of and affected by the issue but, for any reason, have no say. (Consider those who are too shy to venture an opinion or IPs who can't vote in bureaucrat elections.)
  4. Users who are unaware of the issue but are affected by it. (Consider the massive number of Guild Wars players who might be affected by someone posting a suggestion to Arenanet to nerf a popular skill, but who never knew there was a wiki.)
  5. Users who are unaffected by the issue. (Consider the issue above for anyone who doesn't know about the wiki.)
The trouble is, you affect the first four when you make a decision; you address the first three; you listen to the first two; you only actually hear from the first one.) So how can you ever be sure a decision is unanimous, even if everyone who commented on it was for it? You can't really. Interesting problem in any political vote... | 72 {U|S|T|C} - 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The fortunate thing in our model however is that we do not need a unanimous decision, we can settle for a majority and that majority is only of the people who partook in the discussion, however the discussion is open to all inclusive of IP's (if people know the discussion is ongoing however is a different story). Our decisions here rarely effects outside the wiki and by extension, the wider GW community who don't partake in the wiki and any suggestion made here which is then utilised by anet in game, has normally been made numerous times throughout the community on various sites. However as you said, I think we are digressing somewhat. :) -- Salome User salome sig2.png 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not[edit]

a Today's Bounty box, much like the notice template. That way, the historical data is preserved, but you don't have to scroll all the way down for the answer. And you can't miss it. Moo Kitty 21:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the order should be reversed then --72 {U|S|T|C} - 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Today's" bounty is already listed on the main page, broadcast through the twitter feed, and highlighted on the Zaishen Challenge Quest page, the Zaishen Bounty page is more for the documentation aspect of it. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Updated[edit]

Not that this is very important or that this is being posted properly (very sorry if I post this incorrectly) but I was wondering at what time of the quests are updated, ig. what time do the quests offered change from one quest to the next. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk). 23:25, 8 September 2009

See the top of the Zaishen Challenge Quest page. --Silver Edge 08:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What About Mallyx?[edit]

What about Mallyx (Nightfall)? --Itay Alon 06:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no Mallyx bounty because the devs thought it would be "too hard". Vili 点 User talk:Vili 06:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it was not that it would be "too hard" but it would be difficult to find parties who had completed all the others. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
True - the intricate requirements of killing Mallyx, both in time and organization, are much more than, say, Urgoz/Kanaxai, and even Duncan.
Gate of Anguish... "Running Mallyx archquest: 100K, only 3.5 hours, no afk please" | 72 {U|T|C} - 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice commentary up here hahahaha but sadly as hard it seems to find a group to kill him for my statue on hall of monuments i definetily would pay for it if the run assure me the victory hahaha sad isnt it :(-- Ivy Thunder Goddess 15:55 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If there was a Mallyx bounty, people would flock to DoA the day the quest comes out. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a group to kill Mallyx, as in Urgoz/Kanaxai's case, people rush to the outpost to kill the bounty the day that quest pops up. 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I found the preview of upcoming Z-Bounty, Z-Mission and Z-Combat on the German Wiki [1] ( this is the Bounty example) very helpful in the past to plan events with the other guild members of our alliance. Would be nice if you could implement such a feature here too. They also update the front page about the newest Z's immediately at 6:00 MEZ automatically. I nice feature to save some time to do other things instead.-- 12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? And the quests are updated automatically. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 12:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I just found this too. Thanks. The link (on the page) was hard to see. I would recommend to put the important information anybody will be interested in ( the prediction) on the first page ( at least 10 or so) and the list of first appearance, which will hardly interest anybody, on a sub-page. This would give this main page the value it deserves.-- 12:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag Location(s)[edit]

Don't know if these suggestions have been made yet, but it would be nice if the Flags were in the major city of each campaign so you didn't have to continually skip in & out of Temple of Balth. Also, an Asura Gate on Battle Isles would be helpful period, or much better yet simply allow Guilds to buy the Flags for our Halls like any other NPC. 03:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Time[edit]

So I live in a state (South Dakota) that observes DST. We just switched over. Before the switch, the [Zaishen Vanquish], [Zaishen Bounty], [Zaishen Mission] all switched to the new day's cycle at 9am. Now due to DST I have to wait an extra hour till 10am? This doesn't seem very cool. I do not approve. Dervish-tango-icon-20.pngDevi Talk 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubled Bounties[edit]

Seems that if you wait for the cycle to complete with the quest still in your log, you can only get the bounty once. I had Duncan left over from last cycle and didn't try to accept the bounty this time. Completed Duncan and handed the original bounty in and the board is empty for today. Worth a footnote/trivia or too obscure? --Bramblefeet 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)