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

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.

Show Items

Like Halo 3 I would like to see items u have on u...ACTUALLY on the Character. What I mean is, if u have a shield secondary and a sword(F2), u can actually see it on the waist of your character or on the back. If you buy a Bag to hold more stuff on u...U actually can see the bag on your character u're showing. Also the more stuff in putt in your back the Bigger it gets if you know what I mean. --Mithos Agar 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the bags (everyone would look like a hiker, I imagine), but it would be nice to have my F2 sword in its scabbard on my waist, and my F3 bow slung across the torso. → BROWNSPANK 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The one problem I can see with this is that if I have 4 weapon sets of swords and shields... thats 8 large items on my back O.o

They could make it a disguise named Traveling Merchant, since almost everyone would be carrying their bags and weapons and look to loaded down to fight. Yukiko

19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

it looks good aswell for if ppl RP just adds more feel to a Chr

i like this idea about showing your iteams it would be sweet to see everythang that you are carring on you in pve and in pvp envierments it would add more relisum to the game. Also thank of puting in a hide option for the ones that dont want to see bags or weapons on there cricter showing. like how in GW 1 we did with the head pices. same diffrents here. it would be a little bit mroe programing but well worth it for the huge grafical of everyones caricter. remmber everyone has difrent wants and needs but they are over 4 mill. people playing this would bing more uniqeness to everyones caricter so no one is 100% the same.

ps/ sorry about spelling kinda late. -- Scencerly --II E V I L II

More Advanced Trade

I would like to see the ability to post items on a searchable trade board, maybe game-wide to make it easy to find items.

sound realy good like grand exchange (rs) ,auction house (wow)

More Advanced Friend Options

I would like to see the ability to see where friends and/or guildies are on the map (maybe including original guild wars?) and the ability to teleport to that location (would be able to block certain players and setting yourself to offline would also hide location).

I agree with this idea. One of the things that I'd wanna see in GW2 is being able to talk to your whole friends list at once instead of having to whisper to individuals. Another popular MMO at the moment, Maple Story, is big mainly because of how easy it is to communicate to other players. MS uses that "All friends chatroom" sort of approach, which makes players being able to relate to each other easier. I always got the sense that player to player communication in GW was a little stilted, and I think it would be nice to see a bit more development in the communication area.(69.128.138.105 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

PK system

i would love to see a PK system introduced in to GW2. I think it would bring a new element into GW, I dont believe that all areas should be PK areas. However in the higher end areas i believe this would be both a fun and a learning experience. this would also help cut down any future botting issues, most adamant GW player would love to kill a bot or a dozen. --Midnight De Blood 07:10 11 April 2008(UTC)

I Agree if 5 or more people say someones a bot we should get to PK them :P, on a more serious note, being able to challenge someone to a Duel would be a pretty cool thing to do. Crazy 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO allowing PKing would be fine as long as it's restricted to PvP servers, this is what PvP servers are for, players on regular servers who aren't interested in this kind of thing shouldn't have to deal with it. -- Gordon Ecker 08:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The last time I did GvG, I PK'd a lot ... and I don't ever want to be bothered by PKers in missions and general PvE. --Xeeron 09:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the good part is that we'll never see PKing in missions since those should still be instanced. As for PKing in the general explorable PvE world... I put my hopes down on it being to something similar to a PvP server system. That way people who want to be hard core can be, and the rest of us can stay out of their way in the normal servers/districts/worlds/whatevertheyaregoingtocallthem.--Ryan Galen 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signed. 69.119.121.133 22

07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PvP is PvP, PK is PvP&PvE Thats 2 entirely different things. When u make a character though there could be 3 options:

PvP Character
PvE Character
PK Character (in PvE but can kill others and be killed by others)

I Say a Yes to This as people have a choice of what gameplay they want then go in game and play it yanno signed and SIGNED

I read somewhere that there won't be PvP or PvE characters in GW2. Instead, you'll step into a PvP area and have access to all unlocked skills. As for PK, it's already "planned" in casual world PvP. Basically, it's areas where you fight against others and/or against NPCs, a bit of an expanded and improved AB. I'm all for diversity in gaming choices, as long as those choices are not imposed on us. I also want to add, I like PvE and PvP, but PK'ing is usually best represented by back-stabbing people who wait until you're in a weak position to make their surprise move. Not a fan of that. Realistic? Maybe. But if I wanted realism, why would I play a fantasy game? --

Alaris 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you imagine the frustration of, as an example, you go all the way out to Mineral springs, finally found the bird that has your elite, and just as you kill it after a tough battle... someone jumps you from behind, the world fades to grey, and you can't capture your elite because of a PK in a bone mask and deathrobe. PKing outside of restricted areas or consensual duels is not something I want to see in an MMO. --Valentein 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to consider that the skill system in Guild Wars wont be the exact same in guild wars 2. We have to deal with the info that we have right now. There is no definite fact that EVEN the professions from Guild Wars will be in Guild Wars 2 again. PK system like I said can be a choice and if the player picks that game play mode then its his or hers choice. Anyway Like in WoW (i dont play it but assuming) u can only kill the enemy alliance. So if ur a newbie then u can not be killed until u choose a alliance or etc. If you see what i mean. Cross the Alliance territory then u KNOW FOR A FACT u have a risk being back stabed BUT I can assume that if ur in the enemies territory (like AB) u get a bonus. --

რiɫՒ¤§ 03:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I never been a great supporter of PK i played some games where they did it "It was funny tho trying to grind you way up and some ass killing me in the back" *Sarcasm. I realy wish that they don't put in that PK/assa crap. Cult Mephisto Allow a "flag" that lasts for 5 minutes or so, so if a player wants to go PK'ing, they can put up a flag, or make an areana, or something that offers a prize, and anyone can go get it, but you are PK flagged if you go in. Med Luvin 14:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PKing invites abuse. PvP on the other hand invites duelers and competitiveness. --

Alaris 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PKing sounds stupid, the only game I've played that gave you the option of battling another player (in a town or explorable area) in such a manner a challenge was sent to the player you wanted to fight, they had the chance to accept the challenge and the two of you would fight right then and there, or decline and you couldn't. And, I would hate having some bastard wipe me out when I was weak after doing something... . I like duels, but I like the fact you and your opponent can decide on this and can go to a guild hall and 1vs1, it isn't forced upon anyone. PK may seem more realistic, and can be achieved through having its own area in the game, but not in the main game (like a PvE environment... but this is a game, nothing in it is realistic ... 203.109.186.49 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Being an A-hole to family and friends isn't enough? You want to force your impatent personality on others? How about they stop assigning drops, then you can steal that too. Maybe they could make the game completly unenjoyable for everybody, instead of the few that would have to put up with you and your bros. Go play Rappelz you'll fit right in.

O HAIL yezzz. This is what made runescape back in the day ledgit. There would have to be a designated pk'ing area. You would have to lose every item you started the fight with UNLESS you have a certain spell equipped so you get to keep an item (helm, cuirass, weapon, shield ect.). The dueling part would be awesome and you could stake things like: faction, gold, platinum, weapons, armor, rank (dueling rank?). PK factor would definately make this game killer.---azure mist- deaf bringer (in gw) 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PK=newb hunting. A PK player is a player that can´t win a match in pvp or duel (cause he is not so good) and want to kill someone.. and the easyst one is a low level char or a PVE equipped char. Skills combinations for pve are not same as for pvp, putting that ppl in disadvantage. So a PK guy is a wannabe and hunger bad PVP player that needs to kill someone Kioga 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Charge Up Skill Type for Assassins

credits for the idea The assassins (or whatever the GW2 equivalent is, if any) could have a new type of attack, called a "Charge attack". Basically, this new skill type can be used at any time in the lead > offhand > dual sequence, and it has these effects: 1) add 1 to the skill sequence (i.e. lead > offhand > dual) 2) each step of the sequence has a different effect. For example, if you use that skill as lead it does +damage, as an offhand it does +damage & applies a condition, and finally as a dual it might do +damage & KD. 3) if used as a dual, it also resets the chain. The advantages are numerous here. First, it allows you to use your skill change in different orders to get different effects. So using three charging attacks in the order 1>2>3 might be a good spike, but then switch to the order 1>3>2 for a more defensive / interrupting role, or to 2>3>1 for life leech. Second, it gives the assassins a more active gameplay style where they have to decide the sequence of attacks to get their desired effect. Third, it allows for more flexibility, which will be important in solo areas. -- Alaris 16:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, it would free up room on a skill bar... though how good it was would heavily depend on its recharge time. IMO, if it was possible to use it three consecutive times... it would be unbalanced, unless the effects it applied, all together, would be good as another single attack skill. Otherwise everyone would use it as their skill combo, cause with only one skill, you would to the same damage as with three other skills. The effect would be similar to... having 10 skill slots then?

I think the way this could be balanced were if these versatile skills were slightly less powerful in each effect than single attack skills, thus making a tradeoff -- power vs. versatility. 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC) -- Frozzen

18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I love this idea, but make it bolder! For every profession! Chargable Flares ^^ Or a heal-chain lol. As already said above, this like system will make gameplay more active, so why not making this activity all professions-wide?Ratys 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Elementalists

Okay. Lets keep this simple.. and awesome.

Bonds, for more than monk skills? (Say for instance.. Possibly the ones mentioned below? Keep in mind that they might drain more than -1 like all bonds in GW1..)

Air Magic: flight and mobility.. and/or flight bonuses.(Probably as an elite..) Maybe just self. Maybe cast on others. Maybe maintainable. Who knows? I am not a dev..

Water Magic: The ability to gain bonuses while underwater? Swim faster.. stay underwater longer? Manipulation of these things.

Earth Magic: Ability to slowly burrow arround..? Through hills, maybe? Under the ground..As an elite? Or maybe stationary as a non-elite. Like.. say.. a zergling.. for instance. :D *cough*

Fire magic: Big dammage. Like Chop Chop.

Energy Storage: Possibly a more heavy reliance on energy storage elites for energy management in high dammage builds. Make high dammage skills low cooldown, and viable. (like say rodgorts invocation when it was 5 second cooldown, 25 energy..) and make alternatives like this with expensive, powerful elemental forms of each. (Earthquake.. Deep freeze.. Lightning hammer.)

I can see flight as being an esquisite, and fun idea! please consider it! ^.^;

If you like my ideas.. message me and tell me so! ;o "Sunshine of ur love" I've got many more! :3 or MuthSera @yahoo.com - (Fixt. -- Sunshine)

I dont thing anyone is going to contact you, cause you havent signed mate :) or is "Sunshine of ur Love" your ign? :p Ulkiges Ding 08:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

.....That sounds.....AWESOME --higgin3 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a form of shadow step ability for the ele theat works kind of like GW1 Ride the LIghtning, cept it woudl be for a short time flying ability, lett me explain it as a skill: Elite Skill: Become The Lightning(would change for other elements, I.Ee become the flame) You assume the form of a bolt of lighting and can fly through all substances but earth. You have -2 energy degeneration. This skill ends when you run out of energy or when you remain stationary for 10 seconds. Lord Zepherr 07:40, April 12, 2008 (UTC)

on water magic i think there should be more skills besides ice spells. maybe tidal wave or tsunami as elites. besides that i think the other ideas u mentioned are great.

- Environmental bonuses for eles is a good idea, they could be like the benders in Avatar, able to manipulate the elements around them (earth, water, fire, air). And you could have negative conditioning, like a fire ele in a water environment is less effective. or have day/night environment affects, the sun increases fire/earth, the moon water/air. ^^ (neko138-no sig)

View Your Weapons in 1st-Person Mode

see title... Twiggie 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty cool actually, kinda like oblivion then. i fully support the idea :D (Zyko Wolfven 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

This would mean that you need to do high res models of hands in all armor sets as well as all weapons and shields. That for a feature only few people will use. Biz 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, alot of development time for a little used feature... It would be nice though, i admit.

Nice idea, but it really is only an accessory, not a need. And yes, only a few people would use it cause really, do you really want to be in first person mode and be fighting one guy and kill him, then you r still taking damage. OK ok, just turn around and kill the dumb enemy. But he aint there, you look around, still takin damage while the enemy is in bushes and you can't see him. But while in 3rd person you would be able to see a wide view and find the enemy in less seconds. Nice idea though, and personally I would use it.--Zole Thzarr 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons in GW2

I liked the idea of brass knuckles in EotN, however I think in GW2 they should be brought forward with their own skill arsenal and attributes. I would also like to see a chain & ball weapon line, variations on chain weapons could consist on standard chains, chains & ball, chains & sticks and chains & daggers. Also one handed and two handed variations could use 1 or 2 chains. There could also be many different designs like the contrasts between chaos axes and shadow axes. - Skeletor Il 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I mean, I've been waiting FOREVER to get to use a chain ball thing(or whatever its called).User:MoasRule

FYI, it's called a Flail [1]. (Satanael 06:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Nothing gets you to see stars like a Morning Star. You can just as well make it Ranged weapon if you seen KillBill movies =) but then again what difference does it make? Whole new weapon type just for sake of it looking different, Flails need different combat animations, their own faked physics and chain animations, a lot of effort for something you can just as well get out of one handed mace or war hammer. Biz 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I love they Idea of more weapons. It would add more possibility's to GW2. Like one think I didn't like in GW1 one was the fact that only One weapon used blunt damage. But if they add knuckles, flails, and maces that could add more in to that form of damage. Also some weapons I would like to see are Katars aka punch daggers(as a skin for a dagger), long spear(for melee combat), crossbow, one handed hammer, a sling(more or less a old fashion slingshot), graves(leg armor used for both defense and offense) Cat claws, and a whip. Some of these might not be the best idea's but at least i'm trying. ^_^ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Yozuk (talk).

(Flying) as an Enchantment/Stance Combo

Consider using a theoretical skill.

"While you maintain this Effect, target ally Hovers. While hovering, target ally has 50% chance to dodge, +10% chance to critical attack, and +25% movement speed."

"For x seconds, all allies within earshot Hover. Caster is not affected."

Then the hover effect essentially has the player float off the ground, using an animation like a mursaat or anyother hovering classes. You could also split the kinds of pets/summons up. For example, summon wolf (or pet wolf) could not attack Hovering foes, but phoenix's, eagles, and ravens can. Or Hovering units vs. other Hovering units would negate bonuses or even trigger other skills. Or AI Bots can selectively choose to attack or ignore certain hovering targets, etc.

It would be very neat to have parties with a mixture of ground and air units; casters hovering about like ruby djinns.

Then you could have counters: ranged skill: "Shoot arrow that deals x damage to target foe. If foe is Hovering, target foe is knocked down for x seconds"

"Strike target foe for x lightning damage. If foe is Hovering, target foe is knocked down, and all skills are disabled for x seconds"

Just one of MANY ideas. All of which add to, or modify the original game mechanics that already work extremely well. Balancing is the most important thing

24.60.66.74 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) User:P3hndrx

-- I think this sounds would be a great Idea! It would definitely add diversity and dimension to the game! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.41.147.195 (talk).

On the note of No Team-based combat

What about battle-royal combat. Only 1 player per team, 4 teams in a stock or percentage match. Only 1 player, his/her pets, summons, etc. 24.60.66.74 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Richard Phung (User:P3hndrx)

Crafting Professions...

One thing I think would be very interesting and engaging would be the implementation of crafting professions as are featured in other MMOs. The gear crafted by players would be superior to vendor items, and would allow further economic interaction (as well as offering a new challenge).

...no. Just no. The crafting system with the vendors works well with Guild Wars. Our characters are adventurers, not tailors and blacksmiths. The idea that our characters would be able to make better stuff as a hobby then those who do that stuff as a career is really not realistic. Besides, some of us try to avoid the trade channels. Being forced to go there for my top grade armor just doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, it would probally clash with Guild Wars main goal of keeping PvP skill over grind: giving people an advantage in PvP because they could shell out the 200 plat it took to get their top grade armor.--Ryan Galen 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested before in various different forms. I agree with Ryan that this should not be the only way to get the best versions of basic things like armor or rare, high-end weapons, but it could be fun for other features such as upgrades or consumables. I also wouldn't mind if players could make weapons, but they should not be able to make the best weapons in the game, just be able to make weapons that are ugly but useful. Like the weapons you can buy at weapons crafters, not the most amazing skins in the world, but useful nonetheless. That way, if I had the ability and the materials, it might be nice to be able to save the 5k and make it myself. (Satanael 06:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Another suggestion in the regards of crafting professions would be to make it to where player crafters have to learn to craft particular things. Like through instruction manuals, design plans, or something liek that.

Suggestions v1

Try before you buy - Armor System - So we can see what armor looks like before buying. Barber - So we can change hairstyle after creating. Sex Change - So we can change sex's.

I agree with Try before you buy and Barber, but idk about sex change haha. That'd just be weird. -Warior Kronos

01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, I would just add a name change aswell -Brabbel 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your whole appearance could be changed, as though you edited it as when you started your character. Would be nice if it tallied a cost, and offered new hairdoes, faces, etc (at higher costs) to choose from. Some might even be based on achievements. --

Alaris 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New faces? No..... I mean, that just doesnt make sense... A barber though? Hell yeah! Changing hair styles and or colors is completley logical.

Weather System

I think that it would add more element to the game if there was weather. But not just to look cool, but to effect the play of the game. For example, lets say its raining where you are and you happen to be a fire elementalist. The rain could lessen the fire damage. Like say the spell you use does 40 damage but because its raining it will only do 35. Another thing it could do is effect maybe your energy you have. Like if you try trudging through snow you will move slower. It could also effect the visibility.-Saruki Jeitai

Nice idea. I think that would be a fun aspect of the game. — ク Eloc 貢 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would be glad with a day & night cycle..i find it one of the charming aspects of gw that it doesn't rain, just snows.--Silverleaf

07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It rains in some Tarnished Coast zones. -- Gordon Ecker 07:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea but then water elementalists wouldn't have a weak spot, it would kind of be cheap. --higgin3 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would add an element of unfairness to the game for weather to modify damage and etc. It is somewhat like adding a touch more of grind when our fire elementalists can't push out the damage they optimally can. However, I'm all for adding random weather for the visuality of it, and even have aspects of explorable areas and missions and etc. that we can interact with in new ways under the conditions of specific weather. --Elven Chaos 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

well you can have bonuses for fire elementalists too like the plains in nightfall. but there doesnt always have to be an effect, you can have places that are just normal and arent effected by the weather.-Saruki Jeitai

I think it would add an interesting elemnt of realism to the game. It would make any fight just a bit more unpredictable... just like fights in reality are. Though the question is... would it be fun?

I don't know about effecting the elementalist's magic (even though cool and realistic, could be annoying[but then again, the eles could just know to choose a different magic, read ahead]), but I think this is an awesome idea. What if, eventually, you did a quest that allowed you to have a second map that showed weather, and had a moving thing that predicted where it would move to, and how fast. (just like modern day weather-map forcasts on the news) I think this could be a very cool feature, and along with day and night (which could also have a map, for where the day/night line is) would add a lot of cool and interesting experiences to the game. It would be awesome to have many different types of weather, depending on seasons and areas, like snow in the mountains, rain, thunder storms, hail, ect. Underated Skill 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hate that because I dont get to play 24/7 and if im on my fire elementalist and it rains ill be mad.And would elementalist be the only ones with weaknesses? No one would be them anymore. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.52.224.27 (talk).

If there is also power boosts like on hot day your fire damage is higher then it could balance itself out. On a rainy day = water is more powerful. Windy day = air magic is more powerful. Hard to figure out one for earth tho.. Small earthquakes? :P would be a bit unrealistic. Well either way elementalists are my favourite profession. Gengetsu 5:32, 18th of April 2008 (GMT)

I like the idea.I think,it should rain,snow(or at least drop some snowflakes),earthquakes should also happen,avalanches,fogs from time to time and these should influence the world.For example if your fighting a monster in the shiverpeaks and avalanche appears u shuld try and avoid the avalanche but use it to help kill the monster you are fighting),the same with the others.Active volcanos would also be cool,to be able to climb them and a minidragon should hide in each one.The volcano should be able to errupt and meteors should fall on nearby areas.I think it would be pretty realistic and fun!

water and wind could be stronger on stormy day and fire and earth stronger during heat wave and vicaversa for weaknesses124.149.113.139 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

your terrific ideas! Thanks! :)

Welcome to the Guild Wars 2 Suggestions Pages

You asked for it and here it is. Please share your ideas for Guild Wars 2 on these pages. I'm sure that this section will grow by leaps and bounds, but we'll do our best to archive to keep things neat and tidy, and we'd truly love to hear from you and learn what you'd like to see, do, and experience in our next game! --Gaile 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

Please, please sign your comments. Go here to find out how to do that -- it's easy! (And you have several choices, too.)
Put new comments at the bottom.
Look for an existing topic rather than starting a new thread on the same topic. Putting our thoughts together makes a great suggestions page!
If you are adding a comment to an existing topic, use the appropriate number of colons to indent.
Read the archives. There are tons of great ideas there. Because all comments are forward-looking and are actively reviewed, you may add to suggestions in the archives, as well.
Please be brief. If you have a lot to say, place your comments on your talk page and make a brief note pointing there from this page. But please don't put up large lists or pages of thoughts here, as the page quickly fills and slows with so many excellent ideas, and I want to make sure that people can read them.

Thanks for your attention to these requests. -- Gaile

18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this page be arcived and then have the topics that are in the arciveing section be added so there can be better organization.75.172.43.176 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the question, you'd like the archives to be reorganized? Is that by month, and then by category? Or by category over the last many months? In either sense, as I have said before, I do not object to a reorganization effort as long as I know about it in advance so we're not working at cross-purposes. For instance, I'm archiving GW2 Suggestions today, and I'd rather not get that muddled with a recategorization going on at the same time. :) If the GWW community desires a reorganization of the suggestions page archives, let's discuss that and come to some sort of concensus about how to go about doing that so that we can do it fluidly and well. I think talking about it, which I've tried to start a few times, is better than just randomly going in and re-sorting things. As a starting point, I'll start a discussion on my talk page. -- Gaile

17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, now you have left the Guild Wars team, is anyone even watching this page anymore? --Neyon 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, I have not left the Guild Wars Team. It's for Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 that I am serving as Support Liaison. Secondly, well, the Suggestions Pages were not intended for my use but rather for the community's use to communicate with the Dev Team, and for the Dev Team's use to see the latest thinking by GW players on a variety of subjects. So yes, I think the pages will be as useful as they have been in the past, you bet! -- Gaile

17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dual Wielding

how about dual weilding i think it would be pimp to carry two swords or something but it would decrease your chance of blocking.-Saruki Jeitai

Oooo ya thats a great idea! how about we make a class that can only do that! what should we call it hmmm ahhh No.... grrr... I GOT IT!!! lets call it an....an...*whispering tone* an assasin... =O

---azure mist- deaf bringer (in gw) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have Factions or not!!!!!????? This not ony steals the idea but,*yelling with all might* THERE IS ALREADY A PROFESSION CALED ASSASIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See link:Assasin.... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*stomps off*rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. User:MoasRule

Actually, sins don't carry 2 swords, they carry 1 set of daggers. It's not only a different weapon, but also instead of choosing which one you have in right or left hand, you always have a matching pair. You also can't weild one axe and one sword for example. If you want an example of what real dual weilding is like, check out the Barbarian in Diablo 2. And people, learn to be nice to each other. --

Alaris 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual-wielding should be fine as long as the attack rate advantage is low enough to make shields competitive with dual-wielding. -- Gordon Ecker 04:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also balance it out further by making the offhand weapon deal less damage (than if it was in your other hand), and/or give it a small miss percentage. Of course, like wielding 2H weapons, not having a shield is a balance in itself. → BROWNSPANK 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply NO... because thats what gave assassins there uniqueness and if you give dual wield to all classes it will deal more damage (take swords for example) there damage is much more than daggers.

Uniqueness of assassins is high quick damage and mobility. That can be maintained in GW2 (assuming sins remain one of the classes) by making their dual-wield more effective at spike damage than that of other classes. I personally think that any weapon type should be give a choice between dual wield, weapon + offhand (shield or focus), or 2-handed weapon. As long as those options are balanced between them, and between classes, to make the different options viable and fun. --

Alaris 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If they implement dual weilding it should give you less defense than a normal warrior, having a shield should lower your attack, and having just one weapon should be 'normal'. Additionally, not just two swords, but axe+sword and such. So you can have more offense-oriented warriors (str/axe/sword) and such. Mother2Fan

GW 2 Economy (Hall of Monument idea too)

GW2 should have an actually working economy, things like ursan, duping etc. has made gw1 economy fail badly. About hom, things you can put there in gw1 should not be tradeable in gw2. That would make gw2 economy fail right away. I mean minipets, destroyer weapons, hero armors and stuff. NOT tradeable! (Limu Tolkki - talk) 09:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was already mentioned that getting any GW1 stuff in GW2 will only be possible for some one who owns his own Hall, so nothing will be tradable either way. Only reason why you would think economy is bad is becouse all the people who use to play the game are long gone doing something else before GW2, while people who stayed are either rookies or hardcore farmers who farm just for sake of farming. Biz 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

...or people like me who left the game for a year or two only to come back and have two years worth of gameplay to catch up on. But I avoid trade channels like a plague, no matter the game, so I'm not affecting the parts of this discussion about the Guild War "1" economy anyway.

Concerning the Guild Wars 2 economy... we know that it has been said that the rewards from the Hall of Monuments are going to not affect actual gameplay. That in itself means you'll get your wish since it means they'll be designed that they won't allow people to get a gold reward for their items. It will probally be along the lines of everything you get will be customized for the character, bound to the character, or the ability to craft things equal to the stuff they can craft otherwise but with cool special skins.--Ryan Galen 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rangers,Weapons and transport

Rangers need some changes, some of my suggestions are:

1) Having a quiver possibly 2 types a hip quiver and a back one this would add to the realism

2) Having 1 handed bows, with the shield/focus slot filled with an arrow tpye e.g silver tipped or deldrimor steel tipped, the bow wouldnt have the current damage of 15-28 for max damage bows have it at 10-23 however give the arrows some more damage

3) Give the rangers a close combat weapon, a hunting knife for example this will be longer than the current daggar but slightly shorter than the short sword

4) Give rangers and all professions their own cloaks which give the character extra abilities like added armour for warriors or concealment for ranger

Transportation

Horses however not all boring normal ones but different types for each proffession like a large warhorse for warriors a skeleton one for necromancers, a elemental one for elementalists or a winged one for monks.

(1) Cool and much requested idea. (2) I like the idea of bow in one hand and arrow in the other. Arrow could determine damage type. Have it that you can't shoot if you have any other type of focus item. (3) I don't think that Rangers should get close-range weapons, especially if you have to switch to it and use melee-ranged skills. You can use a secondary profession for that. (5) For transportation, if mounts are used, I'd rather not have profession-restricted mounts. In fact, I prefer less restrictions on character customizations. Different horses (or other animals altogether) is great, but let me choose which one I use pls. --

Alaris 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would combine 1 and 4, make the cloak an armor slot for the back and give the rangers the ability to have a quiver there.-Brabbel 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I also feel that a quiver would add to the realism of the ranger. I also wouldn't mind having to provide ammo for my bow, as it seems kind of silly to have an infinite supply of arrows for no reason... Several games have this as part of their play, and it's not terrible. It evens out when it comes to not having to repair damage to the bow, as it doesn't take damage from being thrown around as a melee weapon. (2) Having the arrow determine the type of damage in conjunction with the bow (as many bows will probably have their own magical properties) or instead of the bow, is a good idea. (3) A close combat weapon is a great idea that I know has been lobbied for extensively by players. Rangers typically are defined as guardians of the forest/nature/animals, and things like that. They are not defined as 'those who wield bows.' It seems unlikely that they would be unable to use anything other than a bow, considering the lifestyles they endure... Giving them something like a walking stick, or some sort of sword/claws/dagger would be fantastic. People may hate me for saying it, but I think that the weapons system in WoW works quite well, with certain classes being able to learn certain weapon types, and having to train those weapons. Perhaps something similar can be done in GW2. (4) This is an interesting idea, but how about making the cloaks not being profession specific? And what's keeping that property from being applied to other armors? Say I'm an elementalist, and I've decided I would like that cloak of concealment so I catch less agro, or that cloak of armour for the plus armor, deciding I have enough mana to not require the cloak of energy, as I have boots of energy, or something. Just a thought.WillowsGuardian 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not too happy about having to spend on arrows or repairs. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere. Otherwise, good ideas. --

Alaris 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Us rangers are a proud people... to bad we max at like a 100.. rangers are far too underpowered that will most likely be fixed. =) trapper ftw---azure mist- deaf bringer (in gw) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranger here. Definately not underpowered. Maybe not the best 1vs1 DPS in the game, but definately not underpowered. --

Alaris 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the cloak idea. Cloaks as part of the armor would add some posibilities to customisation. They probably wouldnt grant an armor bonus like armor parts do now, but an overall one. And they could still default to showing the guild emblem, maybe color, but we could pick the shape for ourselves?

What cloak? If monsters wont see you camouflaged, you will not see camouflaged monsters, that kind of thing cuts bouth ways, so better not mess around with poor warriors who will always be stepping into ambushes. You think pulling pikes out of your boots is painful, try determining where the 10 arrows that are now sticking from your back came from. Biz 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1-handed bow sounds alot like a crossbow to me :P well why not, it doesn't have the original ranger feeling to it but could be an option for players to choose. If the arrows are added as a separate equipment, I think they should remove the string upgrade from bows which currently adds the element types and longer condition times and add it to arrows as arrow heads. Think about this, fiery arrow head or dazing arrow head. Would be so much more realistic than fiery bow string. And I'm in for the idea about a visible quiver, I find it ridiculous that rangers pull arrows out of thin air :P. Gengetsu 5:44, 18th of April 2008 (GMT)

Alaris stops douzing his bow's string with gasoline. "Say what?" --

Alaris 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah instead of bow string doing as described above you could upgrade with a string like eg taut bowstring for power and less range or elastic for higher range and less dmg well im for the quiver i dont like my ranger just pulling arrows out of his back and i think concealment should be added i mean being a ranger who is raised in wilderness i should be able to hit a creatre b4 it knows im there not the other way around --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:124.149.113.139 (talk).

That doesn't really make sense. Realistically, tighter bows (which is mainly the bow itself rather than the string) would have better range and damage, while looser bows would have a greater rate of fire. -- Gordon Ecker 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clothes & Common Armor

Sure, armor is useful and all, but I think it would be neat to be able to just wear regular, everyday clothes (similar to Mesmer armor if you catch my drift). Oblivion does this rather well, and I think WoW too :>

Also, common armor art. I think it would be very neat if we still had certain profession-specific armor, but I believe it would be nice to have common armor as well. EG: I despise the Ritualist armor in GW, mainly because it looks like Scouts armor. Keychains and feathers? Sure it adds effects, but it looks childish :| I think it would be nice to have a common style of armor so that I could have something like Elementalist Krytan or Elite Luxon (Both godly) on my Ritualist. Right now we have bandannas and chaos gloves and whatnot, but I think taking it a step further would prove to be a nice change. 70.48.38.146 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I really have to start logging in. Euphoracle 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What? No i happen to like the ritualists armor, it fits what they are very well. And if you think about it the rit is more or less a shomen. which do have feathery cloths. but yes i do think common armor is a good idea. you could also have Joke armor Like a bear, ninja, Samurai, Super hero, or ever a pirate costume. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Yozuk (talk).

Sounds like a cool idea, like how you can turn off your helmet in outposts, but taken to the next level. - 144.226.230.37 16:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

I would mind talking into a mic and have it print in the chat window. --Delswel 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice, but I don't think it would be feasible, particularly for a game that supports over half a dozen languages, however they could make the game compatible with third-party speech recognition programs. -- Gordon Ecker 05:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Its possible, but you would have to have it based off of your computer and conmfigured to your voice. But it could have problems too, such as if the person has a speach impediment, or just gets exctied in the moment, it would mess the text up. It could work, but is it necessary? Not in particular. It IS an interesting option, but it actually could be already implemented in GW 1, if you have the knowhow.Neithan Diniem 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are free chat servers available via Teamspeak and Ventrilo. Most real guilds use them. If you build voice support into the game it will cause lag just as it has for every other game. Third part chat programs are preferred. Let us decide what chat server to use and keep it out of GW2.

Imagining Companions

Just going to take a quick moment to consider/brainstorm what companions might look like and be handled. Well, it’s quick here. Full thoughts are on my own ~~talk page~~ archive, following the suggestion at the top of this talk page.

Companions should have a small specialized inventory (think belt pouch) for holding alternate weapons and possibly alternate runes to make it easier to customize companions as needed.
Companions should not have secondary professions. They aren’t a powerful as player characters, otherwise they wouldn’t be following us around.
Companions should be separated into two different pools: optional companions and starter companions.
- Starter companions would be the companions that a character gains during the early training period of the game.
  - No option should be given with the starter companion’s type, giving the character a companion that should work well with the base roles the character’s primary profession.
  - In direct contrast, primary companions should also be the most diverse, expanding beyond the playable races. Asura get their golems, necromancers get minions, rangers get pets, ect.
  - Also, since every character only gets one starter companion, it wouldn’t be too hard on the data storage to allow a greater degree of visual customization with the starter companions.
- Optional companions are just that, optional companions that a character doesn’t need to recruit if they don’t want to.
  - Optional companions should have more story attached to them then primary companions. After all, the story of primary companions are directly connected to the player character.
  - There should be a diverse array of optional companions, letting each profession having one of each available race. But each character should only be able to recruit one optional character of each profession, effectively making each optional character of a certain profession mutually exclusive to the optional characters of the other professions.
  - Since they are mutually exclusive to each other, the quests to obtain optional companions should expose us to all our options for one profession before letting us make our critical choice, even if the choice is just for flavor.
- Logistically this would limit a character to having one of every single profession as a companion, plus one. A good thing considering resources and the limits of the companion system. --Ryan Galen 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While reading this I started thinking about passive companions. Or semi-passive. Such as having a companion which is a flesh golem (thinking the Hell version) as a companion to a Necromancer, which allows the player to control more minions then normally possible, or as a Semi-passive, the companion will heal the minions, but not attack anything directly. Just a thought I figured I'd throw out there. --Kairu 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and Staying On-Topic

This page is for suggestions, not speculation. -- Gordon Ecker 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And, in the WHOLE page... I see no speculation? Especially in this post, i see alot of interesting suggestions for the companion system. 82.149.1.199 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it was all speculation, but it does contain speculation. "Just going to take a quick moment to consider/brainstorm what companions might look like and be handled." is a clear statement of intent to speculate, and "They aren’t a powerful as player characters, otherwise they wouldn’t be following us around." is speculation stated as fact, we don't know if a palyer character with a companion will be more individually powerful than their companion, we just know that a player character and a companion will be roughly as powerful together as a player charcater without a companion. -- Gordon Ecker 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I should clarify my position. I don't think that statements along the lines of "Speculation X is true, therefore ArenaNet should implement suggestion Y." belong on this page. I think that statements along the lines of "If speculation X is true then ArenaNet should implement suggestion Y." or "If speculation X is true then suggestion Y would be unnecessary." are okay. One problem with speculation is that what people expect doesn't always line up with what they actually want, another problem is that, when speculation is stated as fact, it's misleading to people who haven't been following all the news on Guild Wars 2. -- Gordon Ecker 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've split this off into its' own section, since it's really about the suggestions page in general rather than any particular entry. -- Gordon Ecker 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New Ranged Weapons?

I would love to have new types of ranged weapons,

Throwing Axes like the ones trolls use :)
Flying Daggers (like those guys in the green dresses use in House of the Flying Daggers)
Tridents would be cool
Glaives would be exellent
Slingshots (caveman :DDDD)
Rocks maybe
Harpoons
Crossbow
Blow dart (stealth rangers?)
Throw Hammer(like in the Olympics?

Obviously different weapons would suit to different backgrounds but the above are some ideas I thought of, tell me what you think please. Skeletor Il 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas! I'd like to see crossbows and flails (the spiked ball on chain mace) and perhaps even early guns, such as an arqubus or blunderbuss. (General Snag) 9:25, 16 April 2008 (ACST)

Oh, so THATS what its called. Ty General Snag!! [MoasRule]

I LOLed at rocks, and would definitely enjoy whichever profession had that for a weapon! → BROWNSPANK 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whole weapon types based around them? Nah. But it would be a lot of fun to have them(rocks and slingshots specifically) as sort of joke weapons, or weapons all of the same "Ranged" type. Though I had thought Glaives were a melee weapon. (Gar, Wikipedia serves me wrong again!) Seriously, Spears should have been melee range, in my opinion, and about 2 feet longer, and...well, then they'd be just scythes in essence, wouldn't they? -- Kite 02:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Glavies ARE a melee weapons. Consists of stick and two knife-like blades on it's ends, roughly ^^ Ratys 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The gun part isn't cool,we're in the past,no use of bringin modern weapons into it.Weapon jokes would be nice,somthin like this:grab a chicken by the neck and begin to smack enemies with is or grab a pig by the tail and throw it as if you would throw a bludgeoner.New weapons and fighting styles should be made.

I don't think he was talking about the modern kind of guns; rather, he was referring to primitive muskets and the like. → BROWNSPANK 10:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Merchants

Anyone that farms knows that it sometimes can be a hassel to sell the items you have, so maybe a merchant that is updated to keep up with an average price on items that are popular. So it is kind of like an auction house but one in which you do not have to be there to auction it, so the auction buys it off of you for a lower than average price and sells it back to people for a higher price more than the average price of the item. Meaning that there would have to be tabs on how much items are selling for by farmers/people. In the idea that you could only put like 2-3 items up for auction in a given amount of time or until your item is sold, which would also mean that older items sell first--Ineviditable Death 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be practical to implement due to upgrade components. What about more storage space and an auction house which lets you check recent sales? -- Gordon Ecker 05:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With people Farming the good items the only good way to do this would be to do it like the rune trader and the dye trader, but have it so after a while of over farming it and it being like at 100g or less remove it from the list let it go back up in price i nthe GW trade market then add it again --Wild 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are literally millions of possible weapons in Guild Wars. Do you have any idea how complicated it would be to program a system which can analyze trades and accurately determine the trade values of millions of possible items? What you're proposing would only be feasible if Guild Wars 2 had greatly reduced item complexity, or if base items and upgrade components were sold separately and the analysis was restricted to cash for base item or upgrade component trades. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Minis and Combat

This is probably not what you would think, but my suggestion combines collecting minipets and the Asuran Polymock game. Sort of... If minipets could be used in a similar manner to polymock pieces or conversely if the polymock pieces were animated like minitatures, it could open a new PVP tournament play option. Imagine a PVP arena where your selected piece/mini would combat with a fixed skillbar, or one that could be improved with victory points. It would give the mini collectors something to do othert than populate districts at festival time. It could move Polymock (or maybe a more open arena setting) into a PVP environment. Devs could determine if the fixed polymock style would be better, or an open arena could be supported. think of a PVP minipet arena... matches based on color white through green, which represent skill unlock levels as well as rarity. I imagine that with victories new skills would open up. Let's take a whiptail devourer, for example, definitley ranger based skill set. By securing victories the mini is upgraded with the option of using more and different skills, in essence, a limited build. Rarer minis would come with better skill options in place, and the elusive green would be maxed out making them the most valuable out of the box. This keeps the economy stable, but allows the possibility of that lowly whiptail to gain sufficient skills to become a purple mini. SInce colors are based on rarity, how many fungal wallows would someone compete with to max them out? that would be rare, a maxed green fungal wallow. what am i thinking? still it allows minipet owners to improve the random birthday drop improving the value of a favorite (but common) mini. Ok, ok i know this sounds like pokemon a bit. but still how cool would it be to knock heads around with your Kunni, or better yet, spawn into and arena with your unremarkable whiptail devourer and lay waste to your opponent. who wouldn't want a place to fire those siege turtle cannons?--129.19.92.218 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

aplouds* Bravo :D Most interesting idea on whole page, so unpredictable :) Ratys 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Will there be a GW3??

Simple. Probably but im not sure . User: MoasRule

Its Quite Possible. But all depends on the success of GW2. 121.218.65.74 10:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would only consider this a possibility if the developers again found that they had plans for the game that were not implementable with the current game structure and were to drastic to change via an expansion or new campaign (the stated reason for the beginning of GW2). Otherwise, I think they will simply add to GW2 via updates, expansions, and new campaigns (that is, if they follow the same business model as GW1). -- Frozzen

01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My oppinion on a GW3 is that depending if GW2 is AWSOME and verry sucsusfull, we shouldn't. we should just have add ons or expansions. But if it SUCKS, then yeah, there should have a GW3 and make up for the loss XD.--Zole Thzarr 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Emotes

Just a simple suggestion. A thanks/thank you emote would be nice. I'm sure you guys can think of more ^ ^ LucyLythia 13:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

/punch would be sweet - Skeletor Il 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

not really an emote, but i'd like a / command that lets you see where a specific character is at any given time. Course, you'd have to give their ign or something to be able to use the feature.(69.128.138.105 05:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Punching should be made a combat type.If we don't have weapons we should be able to use our fists and feet(a martial arts sort of thing lol)

A shrug emote. We need that in GW1 also. I would use it all the time.206.72.49.46 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Customisable Pets/Chars

(you may edit this to make spelling better, and for comments about the text remember to write your name)

Well it would be nice to have barbers (those guys that cut you're hair) and pet stores, where you can make you're pet special for you. Maybe some normal clothes and normal things like jobs, etc. That's all from me. 17:07, 16 April 2008 From Hungub (thats not my real name)

You can already make your own pet names --higgin3 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

sure you can name your pets but that is it...nothing different except their name, which someone could already be using.

A Vampire Empire

(you may edit this to make spelling better, and for comments about the text remember to write your name)

It could be cool to have a big empire with vampires that sometimes could attack cities, but they should not me immortal and only show up at night, and that include some quests about killing the king and his minions and they could have pets.(maybe bats). I think it's nice. 17:46, 16 April From Hungub (thats not my real name)

Maybe incorporate the idea so that it's up to the more experianced/leveled players to protect the villages/tows by standing together against a NPC threat .. Maybe on a permanent basis or maybe only with weekend events --NeMiSiS

I like the idea and ANet mentioned they would make some special events now and then near cities and outposts.A nice ideea would be that at night some sort of creature would terrorize it(destroy building and kill villagers).Players near it should try finding it and put an end to it's misery.It would be fun

Just WTF? 71.31.149.63 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're gonna write 'just WTF' then just shut up

I would like those that make the suggestions deserving of a 'just WTF' comment to do the same. I was going to explain what I saw that was silly/ridiculous/stupid with this, but I quickly realized that my explaination could not capture the amazement that I feel about this(more shock amazement than impressed amazement, in case anyone possibly managed to misinterpret my opinion) suggestion, and would end up being more than borderline NPA. So, I wrote 'just WTF,' which is much more concise and effectively sums up my initial reaction and opinion on this. If you want a longer version, here you go-'What madness could possibly inspire such a suggestion? And what greater madness could compel others to agree with it?' There you go. Exactly the same idea that should have been easily recognizable in the first statement, but takes many more words to say it. While, as you can see, I am prepared to communicate something in many words, not all people are inclined to read the longer statements I make, so I comply with shorter attention spans when I deem it necessary. 71.31.149.63 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vampires have NOTHING to do with GW. Seriously. This is possibly the most irrelevant idea on the page. maybe TROLL attacks or UNDEAD attacks, but there aren't even vampires in GW. --Mother2Fan

Fighting Makes Your Armor Weaker Systems And Combining

(you may edit this to make spelling better, and for comments about the text remember to write your name)

When you fight it would be realistic if you could get hurt in the leg and have to walk slower. And if you wear some armor that only protects in front then if you got attacked from behind then it would couse more damage. The armor sytem has too be more advanced so that it is says in the description:Front Plate....strong in front medium in the side weak from behind.You could combine the armor like: Front Plate + Back Plate = Full Plate. -- 18:05 April 16 2008 From Hungub (thats not my real name)

That idia sounds too WoW but it's a great idea, make it realistic and have to repair it every i dont know 200 battles. just my oppinion. :D--Zole Thzarr 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

can you bind things in wow and are there a damage system???? Hungub 14:45 May 1'st

This is one more thing I hope they dont add to GW2. They are already adding a persistent world, which means there are going to be millions of people for the lack of a better word (raping) lowbies, just like wow. Also you sit there fighting this incredibly hard boss and when you have him almost finished somebody come up deals the final blow and runns off with the credit for the kill and the loot. It is this reason alone I cannot guarantee that I will get GW2. Anet you dont have to try to be better than WoW. In my books and many others you already are, or we wouldnt play 100+ hours a week. Now lets say your armor weakens and you have to get it repaired. It isnt going to be every 200 battles. You will go through a mob and guess what, they ruined your armor now you can barely get through the rest of the area. Also im pretty sure were going to have to buy ALL of our skills AGAIN so having to repair armor every hour or so is going to drain our wallets. Drogo Boffin 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt mean it like that of course NO-ONE should be able to steal kills and loots where did i say that ??? And i didnt say anything about repairing armor so think before you speak and READ WHAT I HAVE SAID thank you.. Hungub 18:33 May 3

Additional Playable Races W/Expansions

Maybe there couyld be an expansion for cantha where you could play as the tengu in their fight against the canthan Empire. Maybe there could also be one for Elona w/ centaurs as a playable race.

Add Orr with undead to that list-195.3.179.206 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it might have been announced that there will be 4 new playable creature races, but just becouse they announced 4 does not neccesarilly meen there will be only 4. In fact, i'm thinking it possible that there might be more then human, asura, norn, charr and sylvari when guild wars 2 gets released. (All still speculation though)

And i think a lot of players might have some good idea's of creature races of their own that they would like to play. As a matter of fact, there has been some talk about it in my guild and alliance and there were a lot of good propositions over there. Perhaps it might be a good thing for a-net to do something similar to the "design-a-weapon contest", something like a "design-a-creature-race contest".

I feel they would get a lot of good responses-213.118.169.151 20:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They could, but races are harder to design than weapons. Generally they have to fit into the story and the rest of the world; furthermore, there isn't really too much space for radical alterations in Tyria, Cantha and Elona. We already know what is (or was) there; new monsters are not out of the question, but I'd wager new sentient races are. Anything new would probably have to wait for areas not explored in GW1 (e.g. "Utopia", whether or not it'd be called that), and even then there's the issue of getting something that fits in to the artists' ideas for the region.

I feel the addition of new races with future episodes of GW2 is practically inevitable though. Races like the Tengu and Centaurs have had too much work sunk into them to be ignored, IMHO. -- Sirius (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been stated many times by Anet that there will be more then 4 races. The ones that havn't been announced yet, you can find them trough the story line of EotN. And Anet alrdy knows which races more they will put in but they havn't announced this yet, Just be patient and you'll see them around summer time :)

Midget hammer wammos Ftw

Drogo Boffin 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hekhet and the mole people, yah! They're way too cool to not be playable. Oh yeah, tengu too. Kappa are nice too, but I guess they can't carry weapons. :( - 144.226.230.37 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

as concisely as possible. If your suggestion is lengthy, post a brief overview here and link to a more-detailed suggestion on your own user talk page. Please add your thoughts to an existing thread, when possible. Lastly, newest threads begin at the bottom, please! Let's make this a great place for the devs to visit to read

In-Game Auction House

I would like to see GW2 have an Auction house of some kind where we can sell our goods even if we are off line. They have this in Final Fantasy online and it worked well, also you could leave your character online and sell directly from your inventory. All you would do is set a selling price and once the buyer submitted an offer equal too or above your set selling price they get to buy item. There was one huge problem with this thought....INFLATION...everyone wanted to sell for more than they bought for so you get this massive inflation effect happing which is the main reason I stopped playing FF online - I could not afford anything! Imagine being a level 40 with level 12 armor and weapons becauase you are too poor to afford anything better. lol it was a bit depressing and very embarassing when you would try and join groups and then they would kick you out because you had "welfare" armor. I am sure there is a way to counter act this kind of inflation though.... any suggestions? --64.16.18.36 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) MEGATON MUNG

Been suggested before... many times. -

FirstSunspear /// Talk 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont exactly want an auction house. I want the same trading system Lineage 2 has. And that is another Anet game. You can set yourself to sit in a town and auto sell/buy for no more or less than what you want to pay. Zero scam rate. And a perfect way to spend your afk time. The auction house is going to keep part of what you make. You sell something for 1k which is close to not making a profit and the auction house keeps 200g. Not worth it. Its not going to get rid of the people spamming to sell because you can make more money avoiding the auction house all together. Why it needs to keep money I have no idea Its an NPC in a building.

Drogo Boffin 13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Final fantasy 11 and WoW both have good features about their auction houses. GW shoudl encorporate them. Final fantasy had a limit of 7 items that you could auction and each different city had a different auction house with different items. With WoW the Auction houses were only in specific locations and not accesible until later in the game unless you have someone run you. This is also bad. Both had items that were "basic" things were always for sale whether they were put up by a player or not. These things are bad. GW 2 should have a persistent auction house in every moderate or major village (to avoid crowding and lagging like WoW), They should all be linked together (to avoid having to travel to different auction houses like FF11), and only items that people put up for auction should appear and the prices should be market driven not decided by the game. This will reflect the difficulty it is to obtain and the demand of the item to set the price. Now I know some of you are going to say "well poeple will set their own prices then." You are right. Laziness costs money. If it is worth it to you then buy it. If it is too much then go farm for it like everyone else. This system works very, very well in a few other mmorpgs and with an open market system like even if there is Botting and gold sellers the market will be setup by the majority and Gold sellers will actually not have any effect on the economy as no one will pay their high prices for items. Keep in mind that if people were not lazy then their would be no Gold sellers as no one would buy gold. This market will reduce this or make it have no impact even if it does go on. Eve-online does this perfectly.

In-Game Mail Service

It would be nice to have an Mail service to mail times to other players.

--64.16.18.36 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) MEGATON MUNG

You mean like sending a pm to someone who is offline so that they recieve it when they log on? I like that idea :D I could see it being very useful as there have been several times in GW so far that I have wanted to be able to send a message to someone that's offline, e.g. telling a guild leader that you will be on holiday so not to be kicked because of inactivity and stuff like that. -

FirstSunspear /// Talk 20:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this ideal also it will be nice if they put it in GW1 as well. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Benjaminp (talk).

It would be nice to have a mail service cause some of my friends have devorced parents and they live at each parents house for like 2 months then go to the others house for 2 months. and one parent dosn't have internet so my friends can't play GW in that timeframe. so in GW2 it be nice to have a mail system so if they arnt on for those 2 months you could just mail them the stuff you need to give em. so then it just sits in their mail box till they get back.--Zole Thzarr 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most guilds that will kick for inactivity have some way to contact the guild leader via email or IM so that you can let them know the situation. In addition serious guilds use free or paid for forums to prevent things like this from happening. This does not need to be built into the game. If you are being kicked be cause you have no way to contact the guild leader or other members then you should think about a more organized serious guild. This clutters up the servers and is not necessary just a resource waste on the Devs.

Ban Anim

Just a quick idea. If you get suspended, an animation of a God's hand comes down and grabs you (for all to see), then takes you up to a holding place. Awk34 talk 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do enough people really get banned while they are online and with enough people around to notice for it to even be worth making the animations and graphics for?

Lol imagine that some guy standing in kamadan yelling F**k this adn F**k that lots of people report him/her they gat banned then BAM down come the hand of some god every one /cheer --Wild 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people would then start to abuse the banning system just to see people get man handled by gods, but I like the idea, maybe just associate it with something other than being banned

In Game Lottery

In game lottery... pretty simple. --Megaton Mung 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)MEGATON MUNG

nice idea, with prices like rare weapons and armor pieces or even skills or emotes!

My guild Army of Lightness, does that. Just something to keep in mind.

Good idea. And the can call it the Zaishen Chest or something cool like that. -- 71.31.149.63 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Voice Chat

It would be nice for GW2 to have its own voice chat. I hate waiting for people to download VEnt or TS and figure out the settings. They could include a Guild Wars 2 talk station on one of the channels to interview players and people from ANET. --Megaton Mung 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC) MEGATON MUNG

Sounds like a good idea to me. It might make Guild Wars lag more and stuff though too.

Obviously the thing would be P2P. Player click to be avaible to talk, it's ip address get send to all party members that are also avaible to talk and the game client negociate the conection method between each of them. --Bob 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

P2P like that only works on a one on one basis. You would need a server in order to talk to more then one person at once. Be it within a game client or not. But it would require a rather fast internet connection and a rather large upload rate for the user designated as the server. Not to mention the resources needed for it. --Kairu 08:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think someone said before that this could work using GW as the Vent/TS client, and just using the same servers. 71.31.149.63 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats easier said then done, but still possible. Except they would most likely choose one, and people that use the other would complain. In fact, it would most likely be Team Speak, because that is what came with the original Collectors Edition. It's a great idea, just being realistic. --Kairu 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are free Ventrilo and Teamspeak servers available and they are NOT hard to setup. As fot he waiting, DON'T. Walk them through setting it up as soon as you let them into the guild. Sounds as if you are a procrastinator and want to be lazy. Anyone with a US education of a 6th grade level can easily setup one of these servers. This should NOT be built into the game as it causes server slowdown, lag, and would render some dial-up users unable to play the game in certain instances. This is a bad Idea and is only being introduced by players who are lazy and do not want to do the research and setup a free chat server. Please do NOT add this feature to GW2 as serious guild such as my own have their own free forums and chat server avaialable for this purpose and do not want the entire game slowed down by people unwilling to make the effort. Bad Idea.

Twist in GW/Games

1. Show the bow string, i doubt thats too hard, i mean the Source Engine was able to do it.

2. Allow people to design their own weapons looks for a price (real money) so that Arena net will gain some $$$ for the severs, and the designer to be able to sell cool looking weapons that no one else have This can be done much like Garry's Mod for half-life2, where you have this built in Editor, that has a pallet of say jewels to choose from, and allows uncliping of objects so you could fuse them with the item.

3. Allowing a say Unanimous vote on kicking the inactive guild leader who hasn't been on for like 3 months, while sending an Email to him, telling him to click a link or he will be kicked from the guild or as the leader's position. Then placing say the most experienced guy as the leader.

4. Massive battles, similar to Alliance battles, but maybe with 30-60 on each side(like battlefield)? Joining players from All over the world, so you'd have enough

5. Have the weapon Mods to effect appearances! You know, like a fiery sword grip that makes the sword go on flames? This way, it also allows the user to see what kind of weapon he/she is using, and switch to the corresponding defenses. An example of this is Dungeon Siege.

6. Ingame help, i like the attempt in GW, but i would like the game to have its own browser so you dont have to minimize it.

7. Randomize team after each Random arena battle

1. hell yeah

2. No. Just no. Only usable way to make new weapon skins may be like collecting loooooads of stuff in croos-canpaign(literally) hunt and then forging it somewhere. BUT you won't be able nor to sell it, nor transfer between characters, thats how I think

3. Maybe worth a shot

4. Read existing official info on GW2 more carefully, please

5. Yes, that will make sense

6. /agree

7. Make this like arena a different one ;) like Random Random arena lol

Ratys 15:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. yes. this needs added

2. No. this is useless and unbalanced

3. Definitely something along those lines needs done.

4. World battles will exist

5. Yes. this needs added

6. No. In-game browser would slow the servers down. Run in windowed mode, with 2 screens, or just minimize. Stop being lazy. It is selfish of you to want everyones game experience to be cahnged because you just "don't want minimize" (waaaahhh!)

Reply: No Offense, but I don't see how an Ingame Browser would slow the internet down? I mean, How would a say Firefox plugin slowdown Guild Wars? I am only suggesting that Guild Wars to put say firefox as one of its window, The only thing that would slow down, is maybe slightly hinders the performance, but I doubt its going to be as bad as minimizing would.

7. If this feature is added to GW2 then No. If your team wins you keep the team and keep going. That is why it is called PUG. the winning group keeps playing.

More/Customizable Guild Ranks

I would like to see more guild ranks in GW2 guilds. For example, I have two really good friends that would get a rank right under me. But I want them to have more power than anyone except me. But then I want more people under them that have power over the members. In GW1 I can only make them an officer, which doesn't give them power over other officers, but I still want a lot of people to be able to invite members. Another improvement would be having the ability to customize them. For example having a tab on the guild page (for leader only) that has check boxes next to each rank that read: Invite members, Kick members of ranks below -this rank-, Promote to -rank before this one- OR Promote to -this rank-, Change announcement.

More ranks for the guilds should be allowed (eg):

Recruit
Private
Lieutenant
Captain
Leader

Event Organiser

One of the great things about online RPGs is being able to have a party. The Arenanet-hosted events like Wintersday and Halloween always go down well, but equally, some big player-hosted events are really good too. For GW2, imagine an “Event Organiser” NPC. For vast amounts of gold you could ‘book’ certain outposts, hire NPCs to serve food and drinks, maybe choose from a few different decorations, hire entertainers, fireworks, games, and all sorts of other things. Maybe you’d need a certain number of people to sign up before your even became confirmed, maybe you could organise it and sell tickets... imagine if the stage in Henge of Denravi was bookable, with a backdrop chosen from a selection; waiters, dancers, and more options you could organise all sorts of good great events. 79.67.76.78 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really cool idea! <( '.' )d Underated Skill 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All-Guild Roster for Alliance

It would be nice to be able to see who is connected in the other guilds part of an Alliance as well as the ranks. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:195.207.139.54 (talk).

Guild Membership Character Based not Account Based

The title says it all. i have not read anything about this before an thought someone should say it at least for consideration. (forgive me if i missed it somewhere else, i try to keep up) Lets say i want to join a guild, I have a Mesmer, how about an all Mesmer guild? oh, too bad for my W/R or my E/Mo. Guilds have many functions not only PVP and not only PVE but a a social network. For a while i was a member of a Ranger focused Guild and learned a lot from the other members about the profession/builds/PVE hero & skill combos. But i left without passing that same info on because my Monk, my Necro and my Ritualist didn't fit. Each Char in an account should be able to align with a different Guild. That is play choice. You can build one PVP char and be active in a PVP Guild and another PVX in a profession based guild, and yet another in an Alliance heavy Guild. they you could try different things to find out what you like. without quitting what you have.--129.19.92.250 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Monkenstien

I agree with the general concept, but I think a broader implementation should be better. I think account should be allowed membership to up to X Guilds (like 3 Guilds), and then you can decide which characters are part of which Guilds (with characters being able to belong to multiple Guilds). As is, I have my home Guild, but I would also have liked membership to a PvP Guild as well as a titles hunt Guild. --

Alaris 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I want multiple guilds myself. That's all I can really say.- Vanguard

16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple completely stupid ideas. An all mesmer guild. I like mesmers but if that is all your supposed to have in the guild how are you going to go through the game together. That is the purpose of guilds, so you dont have to sit and spam LFG. You have a list of potential party mates at hand all the time.

Drogo Boffin 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You should not be allowed in multiple guilds. This would be unfair as you can "spy" on guilds to get their strategies, builds and such. As it stands now you can be a guest in any guild if invited and participate in their guild events that way. In the current system is better as it you do not have to worry if you are letting someone in your guild who may be there to spy or even the fact that you may end up fighting against your other guildmates in other guilds. This is counterproductive and a horrible idea that will not get any attention from the devs. Guilds are setup with PvP in mind. An all "anything" guild is horrible and whomever is running it has no ambition for PvP and it is a waste of his or other peoples times. If you want it for learning then join it, use it for what you want, and then leave to go to a "real" guild.

1 vs 1 Mode! FIGHT!

1 vs 1 Fight Mode almost like Soul Caliber! Probably asking too much with this idea but it still would be cool. I know there is a few people I would love to challenge :) --Megaton Mung 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC) MEGATON MUNG

Scrimmage.- Vanguard

16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A scrimmage doesn't really cut 1v1. I'm pretty sure what he's asking for it like a 1v1 arena that doesn't shackle you to a bunch of retarded NPCs. =\ It'd pretty much be like the Norn Fighting Tournament - only both sides would be human. RitualDoll 08:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already some demand for this kind of thing in GW1, although it's not a game one could consider well-designed for 1v1. I do think an actual dueling PvP mode would be a great addition to GW2, especially considering characters might be more self-sufficient now. -- Sirius (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Long live this idea! Add a few options like "Random opponent", "Selected opponent" and "Tournament" and you'll get awesome new PvP mode. Ratys 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Only way 1 v 1 could be viable is if professions had a set skill bar, and maybe even only 7 of them set. The last skill you get to choose.--The Gates Assassin 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get you point. Why? There just no build that can't be countered, if you mean this. Interrupters can be easily mocked with mantra of resolve, KD spammers with fleeting stability or ward of stability, or even balanced stance, high damage spikes - protective spirit or spirit bond, degereration pressure - melandru's resilence and heals... Even if you don't have those on your skillbar right now you still can win by killing your opponent faster that he/she will deal with you. I don't see any disbalance here. Ratys 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem isn't with unbeatable builds, it's that people would just run boring tank gimmicks. 1v1 with 2 of the same builds so you can (kinda) see skill? Ok, that's good, even if luck would still be a huge factor. 1v1 where everyone can take their favorite 55 or SF sin...? Not so good. That is about half of why 1v1 fails in GW1, the other half being that the game is designed for team play. But if they can find a good way to implement this, I'm all for it. Thing is, that may involve a special arena with standard skillsets that are unique to the arena, or something like that. 71.31.149.63 19:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a class specific 1 vs 1 so only sins could fight sins and wars can fight wars. That way it is more even. Congratulations you are now .....KING OF THE WARRIORS!! Would be kinda cool I think --64.16.18.36 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that there should be at least a "duel" system other than members of your own guild or friends and that you can do strait PvP without flag running or king of the hill. Just strait fighting. I am not saying remove the GvG aspect and these options but a good "duel" or 1v1 should be implemented without special conditions or arena. WoW duel system is pretty good as you can chalk it up with anyone, anywhere to "test" a build or prove you are a "pwnz0r"(I am not a fan of WoW but will give credit where it is due). Accepting a duel or 1v1 must be the way it is done as ganking and nooblet slaying deters a lot of good players from playing a game. Mutual consent should be required for any PvP. Period.

Weapon Switching, Scabards, Bowstrings and Quivers

Weapon Switching: Just think how cool it would be if as you were running around with your proffered weapon the other weapons you are carrying would be displayed for all to see as you are not using them. That and well frankly it makes quite a bit more sense than just randomly making weapons appear and disappear into and out of mystical bags that happen to be somewhere on your person and seem to have mini-black hole-esque storing ability. It would take some thinking to figure how to successfully do this without it either looking stupid or not making any sense again. Such as scabbards/sheaths for swords and axes, holders for your shields, bows, staffs and other weapons. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.226.103.206 (talk).

Bows and Quivers: How is it that in Guild Wars the bows shoot arrows that appear from no where AND with no strings attached to the bow. Since Ranger is my first and favorite class, I've often taken notice at the disturbing absence of strings on the bows that I so love to kill with. The mystery arrows are an easy fix, quivers, I'm not saying that GW has to add an ammo system to make the arrows make sense (heavens no, please don't) I'm just asking for it to look like the Ranger doesn't have to ability to make arrows from the palm their hands. The strings would be harder, involving animating the string motion, both while pulling back and after release, and I understand why they haven't previously. Just thinking that since GW2 will be a semi-fresh start, why not improve on what you couldn't/wouldn't/didn't have time for last time. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.226.103.206 (talk).

So basically, you want people to have 3-4 swords,axes, bows or staffs hanging on their backs while running around? And then when they are attacking something they will have 10 second animation of them pulling out the shields and axes or what ever, tieng their shoes and eating shrooms before going berserk in realistic weaponry. Reality and games do not mix, I'm glad I can hold 30+ items of any physical size in my inventory, becouse Ive seen more enough games don't allow you this. Biz 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a full suit of plate armor in my belt pouch. That is all. 71.31.149.63 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Make it optional: if you want, you can tick one or more of your weapon sets to hang and where to hang on your character. Imagine "Weapon sets" window with more tick- and radio-boxes Ratys 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PvP Creation and Extreme Conditions

If the pvp creation system is the same in GW2, I would prefer it if players were given of the option of being created in their GH or some kind of predesignated outpost, as opposed to a highly populated area, such as Island of Balthazar. I think it would help some players with lag issues, including myself. Also, this is just a thought, but i thought about having harsher forms of conditions, such as a harsher form of bleeding being, for example, hemorrhage, and doing more degeneration. I don't think stacking conditions is a good way to achieve these. but perhaps a select few skills that can trigger these? and for very brief periods of time. 68.187.16.3 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Gabe

first of all.. i think this game will erradicate the pvp chars.. and all chars would be pvpve or something like that XD Kioga 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, they are just going to give access to all PvP priviledges when characters enter these areas. Kinda like the GW:EN buff for characters lower than level 20. --

Alaris 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'd have to make a shitty PvE in order to play PvP? And be at the mercy of some glitchy "buff" in order to PvP? Ai, I don't think I'll be buying GW2 anytime ever. RitualDoll 08:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are rushing in speculations RitualDoll, i think they add pvp as a arena or coliseum way, you enter the arena/coliseum/wetever and you get the [same stats]+[your unlocks skills/equipment/etc]. I think that would be the best way to implement that kind of pvpve gameplay withou falling in pk or separated pvp and pve enviroments as GW1. Kioga 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rushing into wrong speculations. ANet already knows that most players either PvP or PvE. They have learned quickly from Prophecies to separate the two. You don't make a PvE character, you just make a character. Walk into PvP area, you have access to all unlocked content, and your character is max level. Walk into PvE areas, and those things become locked, and you return to your original level. Easy, and much better than the present system. --

Alaris 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about armor and weapon creations? Such a system would have much difficulty dealing with these, unless you have a PvP and a PvE inventory seperately. 71.31.149.63 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, just make it that those PvP items become locked outside PvE, and you get a warning that you've lost the benefits they provide if you're still wearing them. --

Alaris 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine a big arena, where you go to figth, you enter the briefing room and prepare yourself for batle (change armor with those unlocked, change skills, put some badass weap), go to figth the tournament or wetever, and when finish, go out with the armor, skills, atributes and weaps you have when you enter the arena. Simple as that. An enable system like today equipment menu, and an skills menu that dinamically change when enter the arena area would do the trick. (soorry for my bad english..)Kioga 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bannable Skills

One balance option which I think it would be nice to include the ability to ban specific skills from specific PvP formats in the same way that PvE skills are banned from all PvP in GW1. For example, if a skill is fine in PvE and most PvP formats, but extremely overpowered in a single PvP format, they could lock out the skill for that specific format rather than nerfing it. I know that banning a skill is far from ideal, but I think that having a skill banned from one PvP format while leaving it viable for PvE and other PvP formats would be better than having it nerfed to death for every other format. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps even having the skill have a slightly different ability or ability strength in certain PvP zones would be even more ideal over banning if possible. --Elven Chaos 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but there have been numerous developer comments about not wanting to separate skill functionality in PvE and PvP (mostly in the context of GW1), and about wanting to simplify skills in GW2. I'd like them to have as many options as possible. -- Gordon Ecker 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, all skills should be same for pvp and pve, pve only skill should be removed. It would be too difficulte to leurn both description, it will be like twice as much skill to leurn. Either that or player will do only pve or only pvp. Keeping the same effect for each type of play greatly help and encourage player to enjoy both pvp and pve. Personaly i see skill as "real" character ability, i dont see why it should affect the target creature or the environement diferently because some tournement rules has been added. (you dont skate slower then normal because you play hockey vs a other team) --Bob 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it depends on what the differences are. For example, in GW1 holy damage is twice as effective against undead and disease only spreads between creatures of the same family. If a skill has an additional effect against specific creature types (a fire spell inflicting burning on plants, an attack skill knocking down giants, a smiting spell dazing undead etc.), I don't think it would cause much confusion. -- Gordon Ecker 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Style Continent?

PLEEEEEEEEEESE?????? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE???????????? I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy want more places lke the Charr Homelands an Ascalon(Pre-Searing0!!!!!!!!! [MoasRule]

Why do people make these posts? Do they REALLY think this is a good way to present their idea? More at 6. Vael Victus

22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

TRANSLATION:

"I think it would be nice to see more places that resemble Pre-Searing Ascalon and the Charr Homelands in Guild Wars 2."

[Just for those of us who find it hard to read illegitimate messes like that above]

And yes, I completely agree. Pre-searing was a really nice looking place, and I missed that when I went through the rest of Guild Wars. - Quinn. 22:32, 24 April 2008.

Sorry.[MoasRule]

Pres-earing Ascalon and most the starter area of Factions were in my opinion the best looking areas of the game. Now that is not to take away from the alleys of Factions or the Torment zone in nightfall but having a wide open green area is very inviting to most players and more than what was included in GW1 should be included in GW2 in my opinion.

Automated Skill Balance

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but what would be the possibility of having the skill balance being automated, so that if a skill was being used far too much(if it were a staple skill, it would need a much different nerf-threshold), it would automatically have its effect nerfed, and if a skill wasn't used much at all, it would be auto-buffed? Plus, since it would be built into the game, it would have the most over-seeing view of skill usage possible, wouldn't it? Of course, each skill would be have its buff/nerf handles in different places. Anyway, what's everyone's thought on it? -- Kite 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I love the idea of replacing the current system of skill "balancing", I don't think an automated machine would be the best choice. The AI used in GW is good at some things, not so good at others. I have a feeling that this would be one of those others. As the amount of a skill being used wouldn't really entail the type of nerf; and when I skill needs a functionality change...the AI wouldn't know what to do. RitualDoll 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. However, this system would supplement Izzy's work, not replace him. He would still need to do much of the work on the system itself.

If anything, I think Izzy should at least be able to collect skill usage data directly from the game, if he can't already. -- Kite 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then GW2 is doomed to the same unbalanced fate GW1 was... >.> RitualDoll 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, they're had a lot of time to learn from their mistakes. As for this particular suggestion, it seems like a really bad idea. ArenaNet already collects detailed skill usage statistics for tournaments, and I'm pretty sure they take those statistics into account when making balance decisions. More data collection, for example monitoring skill usage in The Mists and high-end areas, would be useful to add more perspectives, but I think that actual people need to make the calls. -- Gordon Ecker 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who changed the indent on the second paragraph of my last post? >.< I suppose I'll just have to change it back. =P Anyway, yes, I do see your point. Hopefully the skills in GW2 will be simpler enough to actually keep skill balance as a manageable job. As it is, GW1 has so many skills that do exactly the same thing at different magnitudes, that it's way too difficult to balance them. Seriously, GW2 should(in my opinion) have a max of 100 skills or so for each profession, with about 30 of those being elite or the equivalent. That should keep Izzy's job possible. -- Kite 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Under this system, Mending would be nerfed. Just thought I'd point that out. 71.31.149.63 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt that, unless the thresholds were set improperly. Mending isn't used much in high-end PvP, which would be weighted a lot heavier than everyday Wammos running about in Old Ascalon. Plus, if done properly, it would also buff/nerf skills in much smaller quantities -- the top three most unused/overused skills in each profession, for example. However, it would do so at much faster rates -- from once every three days to once a week. -- Kite 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How bout we leave the skill balancing to enthusiastic, experienced PvPers if we want frequent updates based on PvP? Most top GvGers, or even just regular players, can tell what is not as it should be, and would be willing to change the skills as fast as exploits are found, if they had the tools to do so. So why not simply give a few players that everyone can agree is knowlegable the ability to suggest skill changes that would, barring disapproval from ANet, automatically be included in the next game update? I personally would feel much safer with the game balancing being influenced by someone like Ensign than an automated system that would inevitably cause anger and imbalance. This sounds cool in theory, but would create coding and practical issues that would almost certainly be impossible to overcome. 71.31.149.63 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

do not just listen to just PvPers and if you were being sarcastic still do NOT listen to just PvPers.

Tenri 05:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because PvE needs more balance, amirite? GW is balanced around PvP, like it or not. Why else would they add in PvE skills? Why else would they not nerf imbagons or ursans? ANet doesn't care about PvE, their balances are based on PvP anyway, so why not leave those balances to the people more experienced in the area? 71.31.149.63 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Make Guild Wars 2 Work on Dialup

Hello make Guild Wars to work over dialup because there are allot of people stuck with it because it not available where we live. I have every com-pain and the expansion pack I love Guild wars and will hate not being able to play Guild Wars to because I can not get High speed Internet because where I live at. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:172.132.145.118 (talk).

They may try to make it more dial-up friendly, but these days theres not much that can be done about dial-up problems. Are you sure you can't get high speed? Most phone companies these days offer at least some type of high speed service. --Kairu 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If they do keep dial-up support for GW2 then it should be held on a different server than DSL, Satellite, and High speed internet users. Let Dial-up users play together as their loading times and speeds are more to match then letting them play with the HSI users and slow the server down. I do believe that dial-up users have a right to play but HSI users should not have to "wait" for them or suffer lag when PvPing just because a person in their group has dialup. This would also include guilds as well. Guilds for dial-up and for HSI. If a person does get High speed internet then they can chose to remain on the dial-up server as it will not affect it and they can have th eoption to migrate to a High speed server which tests their connection speed before allowing the migration. This will put everyone on the same level and reduce many many issues in PvP and in a persistent world opposed to not much of an issue for instancing everything. And no this is not elitism (think what you want it doesn't matter)just a more fair way to make sure that everyone is treated equally for their connections speed so that people that pay for HSI do not get dragged down to dial-up speed for matches with dial-up users.

DVD Backup and Restore

It will be nice to guild wars would be able to make a DVD backups for me of itself so if for some reason I have to restore Guild Wars I will not have to download allot of patch that I had before. This will make it easier of people how have dial-up and could save bandwidth on the server if people keep regular backups. It will make it easier to ass Guild Wars to another PC also so what have to download so Meany patches. (also a ideal for GW1) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Benjaminp (talk).

For know thats the eotn DvD give or take a few 100mb (6000 files) Dominator Matrix 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If i need i usually just put the .dat file onto a network location (or in your case you could simply put it on a disc) and then copy it back over when your done. it works roughly the same. Crazy 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just copy the gw.exe and gw.dat to the dvd run the gw.exe on a new format and it will bring up a question where the dat is then install all the reg keys for you its exactly what you want and it was how the beta ran with all there changes and im still using the same dat and exe from the bta period which was over 2 years ago with many formats in between.122.109.43.82 11:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is useless. Once you install the game just edit the shortcut and put "-image" at the end of the command line then run the program. It will download all of the current content and updates to the current version. It may take more time on dial-up but will get it up to date even more current then the methods above.

The method of backing up the dat and exe works with the -image dude so so yes it works and with that method above and is the recommended way of backing the game up. I even backed up Guildwars to a flash drive and ran it from another pc perfect without re-install so yes you can run the game from a flash on any pc you want having the most up to date version using the -image as a extra shortcut on the flash. 122.109.43.82 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dual Wielding Continued

I saw somewhere where there was someone saying something about hold like two swords at once (and i dont want any stupid comments telling me about assassins. FYI assassins arent holding 2 SWORDS) But what i was saying is that i like that idea.And I think i have a better idea. Like every character would have a power attribute and the attribute only powers up when gain levels it doesnt cost attribute points it just goes up when you gain levels.(once every lvl) Example 1-5 sword two hands 5-10 sword one hand 10-15 (im gonna go ahead and throw this in, i want bigger swords that make more damage) Big sword two hands 15-20 two swords ; hammer two hands 20-30 Big sword one hand 35-45 Big sword and normal sword 45-60 2 big swords ; hammer one hand 60-80 Hammer one hand and sword 80-90 hammer and big sword 90-100 2 hammers

and the higher lvl you are the faster you attack Example your have power boosted to lvl 100 and you holding a sword. you'll attack faster than a person with power lvl 5 holding a sword This is just an idea i thought would be cool --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.134.172.48 (talk).

i dont think so tbh because assassins have to use daggers and the damage is really low so the speed makes up for it but five 2 swords with the same speed the damage will be highrer and assassins still with daggers

I get your point, but actually I would like to see alot more freedom with weapons. not maybe as loose as whats described above, considering how unbalanced it could make the game, but just more possibilities than what there is already. Farwind 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Health

make an option to show healt bars better because im a monk and in AB its really hard to see who's hurt and whos at max health because you cant see the healt bar well enough (srry for the fauts) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:81.164.35.83 (talk).

Dutch

please make a dutch district it would be nice if possible --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:81.164.35.83 (talk).

Your talking GW1 this is GW2 which is going to be persistent on servers for each region. 122.109.43.82 11:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

no im not, i dont think putting French, German and English people together is such a great idea because English people only speek English, French people only french (altough the younger generation isnt that chauvenistic anymore so its definitly improving) and German people only german. And i know what im talking about because i live in Belgium and 35% speak French 5% German and 60% Dutch. and just to let you now i speak Dutch but i also speak French, English, German and some of the people in my class whant to learn Spanish next Year. so don't lecture me about being lazzy and not learning any other languages Rhonin Soren 16:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your post but you have to remember that in guildwars 2 there won't be any districts anymore as it is persistent and all 1 world and not segregated into districts/regions anymore but instead it will have multiple servers where anyone can go to any server. In guildwars 2 your request would come down as 'Please make a Dutch language only server so only people that speak Dutch are on there own server. as this is the only way its going to be happen if it does, Also being able to change language while in game will not make a perfect Dutch language only server as people are obviously going to change there language no mater what and unlocked server transfer means anyone from any language could load there character up on that server. 122.109.43.82 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GW2 is written in English and will be made primarily for English. If everyone just learned to speak English then none of this would be a problem. I know that all of your schools teach English and it is not very hard to learn. GW2 should have no districts and the language should be English with optional language packs that you can install for your self just like MicroSoft Windows. (enter flaming of me because I am correct here =>)

WASD

i think removing the clik system wont be a good idea because many people have an azerty board and yes you can change the hotkeys but thats so complicated its not because you americans all have an querty board that we, Europeans should be punished and just to let jou now there are more european guilds than american and azian guilds together. i think that means something and yes i know my english sucks --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rhonin Soren (talk).

They could use different default keymapping for non-English versions of the game. -- Gordon Ecker 07:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Already a big post on this above read through before making a new post please. 122.109.43.82 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

then cleane up the page a bit if your so concerned about it anyway Rhonin Soren 16:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Staff notice at the top then > Look for an existing topic rather than starting a new thread on the same topic. Putting our thoughts together makes a great suggestions page! Gaile

Use a Qwerty keyboard (they cost 5-10$ American, very cheap) or change the hotkeys (takes about 3-5 minutes) and stop being lazy. This does not require a programing change and for you to ask as such is pretty selfish when all you will need to do is make a couple of clicks in the interface to change it. Stop being lazy and lets give the devs and programmers something real to suggest for the game and stop wasting their time.

Races

why not take the forgotten as a race? they are pretty cool. 81.164.35.83 09:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Already a post above on this read though before making a new post please. 122.109.43.82 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

then cleane up the page a bit if your so concerned about it anyway Rhonin Soren 16:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Staff notice at the top then > Look for an existing topic rather than starting a new thread on the same topic. Putting our thoughts together makes a great suggestions page! Gaile

yes but i have read this entire page and it toke me not long to finish it because i can read very fast but people who don't read very fast will be discouraged also when i came to the bottom i already forgot what stood on the top because its so long so please clean this page up a bit, i cant do it because i dont have enough time, im not payed for it and i do have a life besides GW Rhonin Soren 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a more organized way of posting suggestions. Be alot better to see whats already suggested when you click on a link and simply see whats been posted in the targeted area. Farwind 06:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DirectX 10

just if you want good graphics then you will need DerectX 10 14:48 April 20 Hungub

You do realize that would mean that GW2 would only be able to run on Vista right? DirectX 10 is only available on Vista.Kairu 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They already said they will "support" it, doesn't mean they will use any dx10 part of it, over dx9 backwards compatible and fully sufficent features. Biz 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Um do you guys realize that games can use both dx10 and 9 together aka crysis and many other games that some effects are only with 10 like on crysis Very High and above is only available on dx10 and Vista but all other levels are available on dx 9 XP and 10 Vista. Just because a game company implements dx10 features into the game doesn't mean its automatically locked to Vista and dx10 only. 122.109.43.82 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1 thing yes dx9 and 10 can both be supported.

I'd much rather them just use DX9 until Vista becomes a little more widespread. DX10 support I have nothing against, but features only available in DX10 seems a little unfair. Kairu 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't make the game unfair and Vista is getting widespread already it would mean better shiny water and polygon effects and shadows and that doesn't effect gameplay at all and if everyone didn't change systems because they thought it was unfair to the players then we would still be stuck with games that only use dx8 on 98 Games push people to update there hardware and without cutting edge games no-one would get better hardware. Crisis was one the first to support both at the same time and that went down well the Elder Scrolls series is always supporting the latest and future tech but a scalable game so people in 3 years can still be playing and loving the game as the graphics scales upwards instead of max graphics for a low end system that is dated within 6 months.122.109.43.82 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see many misunderstandings about DirectX here, and as a programmer, I'll try to clarify some things. One, Crysis was NOT the first game to have DX10 and DX9 modes shipped with the game. The person who said just because a developer goes DX10 doesn't mean they are locked on to DX10, unfortunately, yes they are. DX10 and DX9 are not compatible with each other as the prior, COM-based, DX versions were. Those companies who released games that run in DX9 and DX10 had to make two different versions of the build, which is not just a matter of recompiling with different libraries. They have to write two versions of much of the graphical parts of the code and maintain them both simultaneously. Granted, the main meat of the code is exactly the same, as the logic of the AI, the scripting, audio, input, etc. is obviously the same. Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that going DX10 is not the matter of flipping a switch or compiling with a different library. You have to invest a lot of time and money, and hire extra programmers to maintain two codebases and to make sure the DX10 client actually has content that warrants the use of DX10 while making sure that good content also exists for DX9, so then you put more work on the artists, or more often than not, have to hire more artists. More artists = more expensive = somebody's going to have to feel that extra expense, and if GW2 is $60/box instead of $50/box, then that is what it'd have to be. You might say "So what? I'm willing to pay an extra $10. However, marketing shows that $50 games sell easier than $60 games. Systems like the XBox360 where all the games are basically $60 get away with it because the customers are used to it as most of their new games are $60. New PC games range anywhere from $30 for low-budget independent stuff through $60 (and higher for "collector's editions"). 198.146.50.138 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Houses

it would be nice with our own houses that can be bought just gotta find out how too get all the houses inside the game without doing it in a silly way -- 14:54 April 20 Hungub

I would think this would be an interesting idea, with ability to customizing it to some extent with house and surrounding area. But to incorporate it would be rather difficult from a design stand point so I would say a section of a guildhall thats meant for houses/village, or a guildhall option to create small customizable villages in the surrounding area. Or if nothing else a small island that player can buy and have a customizable house and make a section in it similar to the hall of monuments. April 20 Tog

Seems too much like runescape........i think we should stick with customizable guild halls (for GW2, the customization we have now isnt good enough)--

Raph Talky 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that instanced housing similar to guild halls in Guild Wars or mog houses in Final Fantasy Online would be okay, as would housing within or attached to guild halls. Housing outside in the non-instanced areas would be problematic. -- Gordon Ecker 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree. If anyone's played Ultima Online, they have a non-instanced world with player housing. Needless to say, any space that can have a house, does. Not only does this make it nigh-impossible to enjoy scenery, but there are cases of a specific area being "closed off" by a guild setting up a blocking ring of houses. --Valentein 07:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did'nt like the way they do it in runescape so thats why i

said it should'nt be in a silly way. now i have an idea it could be in small villages like 50-70 houses each and there could also be soo people could choose sepreately in about a range of 30-80 houses diplayed in each village and all who chooses 30 will be in same until there is over 30 in the village then a new would begin and so on with 40 50 60.... AND there abselutely should be different house sizes so all players could buy one. Hungub 16:04 April 21

Personally, I find that houses are simply a waste of space on the game. It's just one giant thing that has really no value. And for what? So my computer can go that much slower when I'm trying to play the game? I'd like to see them focusing their time on more practical things rather than things like this. - Quinn. April 24, 22:40 2008 (CDT)

I think houses could be a nice thing to have in GW2. It could be like a Guild hall, but more of a charracter based custimization. You could have any thing you want there ranging from merchants (armor, wepons, etc.) to your own bedroom to store your extra armors. It might sound a little runescapy but it would be way beter. Like heres an example of a house. take a map area like lets just say a theme like "The Shiverpeak Mountains" and you would build your "house" on that map, adding merchants, bank chests, maybe even quest givers for like doing quests you have already done over again. And with the whole taking up memory space, you could sell the house thing as like an add on pack, like EoTn, so those like Quinn's computer wont have to suffer slow computers. the house could also be used to meet up with friends and all go to like a hard mission and all do it together. And adding onto that village thing Hungub, you could have like, I don't know something like a kingdom or a village sorounded by a wall and then you could do like a Village vs. Village. Somethin like a GvG.----Zole Thzarr 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild hall customization should be added not your own house. Silly. If you have a guild hall then there is not need to have a house with merchants and such. Anyway you already have access to the "hall of monuments" which is instanced for you anyway. That is close enough to a house and is accessible in GW2 as well. Suggestion is for customizable guild halls and hall of monuments. That is all.

Weapons

instead of making the weapons standard let us design or own weapons, a bit like the design-a-weapon contest but on a bigger scale and available for everyone Rhonin Soren 16:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

would most likely require too much coding....would probably be ok on the beta tests, but, when GW2 goes live.....--Raph Talky 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this could become interesting unequal feature there are far more problems with it then benefits.

1- you will have to make some kind of low polygon weapon building interface, something in a style of milkshape, its not exactly easy to do, Not a lot of people will even produce something comparable to ingame art. Creating this interface will take time away from main game, making overall game worse.

2- you need to download all the custom weapons that are visible, if they ever make weapons visible in outposts that means you need to potentially download hundreds of weapon models of as good as any size.

3- There is nothing that stops people from making visual copies of "rare" weapons, so the demand on any new weapon will be always low becouse after one screen shot you can make your own, or download the file from somewhere else.

and thats just 3 reasons not to do it I could think of before drinking coffee in the morning.Biz 09:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Explorable Areas

i think the explorible areas should hold every one that wants to go not have your own private one so this way you can have bigger parties but if you do do this there will have to be stronger and harder enemies ---69.134.172.48 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)ichiban knight

Persistant non-instanced areas have been confirmed for Guild Wars 2. -- Gordon Ecker 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have have a option where you can make a zone that you are in an instant's so if there is allot of people there and you party wants to set and kill thing or what ever you can do so without deserving everyone else with a invite option to allow other people what what in you intense can come and join.

voice chat

when using a chat system you have to use ventrillo and set up everything but everything could be much easier if you could hold down a button (e.g. Z for all, X for guild, C for team and so on) and have a choice to disable the chat. this could also disable it anyone on the ignore list. this would also be with the normal chat from GW1. 20:58 (GMT) 80.4.32.6 Chaos Beserker

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

Show Items

More Advanced Trade

More Advanced Friend Options

PK system

Charge Up Skill Type for Assassins

Elementalists

View Your Weapons in 1st-Person Mode

Weapons in GW2

(Flying) as an Enchantment/Stance Combo

On the note of No Team-based combat

Crafting Professions...

Suggestions v1

Weather System

Welcome to the Guild Wars 2 Suggestions Pages

Dual Wielding

GW 2 Economy (Hall of Monument idea too)

Rangers,Weapons and transport

Clothes & Common Armor

Communication

Imagining Companions

Speculation and Staying On-Topic

New Ranged Weapons?

Merchants

Minis and Combat

Will there be a GW3??

New Emotes

Customisable Pets/Chars

A Vampire Empire

Fighting Makes Your Armor Weaker Systems And Combining

Additional Playable Races W/Expansions

In-Game Auction House

In-Game Mail Service

Ban Anim

In Game Lottery

Guild Wars Voice Chat

Twist in GW/Games

More/Customizable Guild Ranks

Event Organiser

All-Guild Roster for Alliance

Guild Membership Character Based not Account Based

1 vs 1 Mode! FIGHT!

Weapon Switching, Scabards, Bowstrings and Quivers

PvP Creation and Extreme Conditions

Bannable Skills

Canadian Style Continent?

Automated Skill Balance

Make Guild Wars 2 Work on Dialup

DVD Backup and Restore

Dual Wielding Continued

Health

Dutch

WASD

Races

DirectX 10

Houses

Weapons

Explorable Areas

voice chat

Navigation menu

Search