User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/December 2007
| Archives |
|---|
|
Guild Hall Accessories
This was raised by an Alliance member of ours, he thought that buying other upgrades for a guild hall but also decorations for it like christams decoration and things at christmas time, and maybe message boards in the guild hall like the guild announcment but where guild members can post anything and can be viewd buy anyone. --Wild rituals
Dungeons
It would sure be nice to have some level dungeons (somewhat like zelda)that allow more than one player to join the party and try to solve many puzzles and challenges.
There should be two different types of Dungeons:
Solo Dungeons: These Dungeons can be played ONLY solo, they are filled with traps (should be destroyable,please never anymore undestroyable traps, that shoot darts like gatling guns), riddles and puzzles. In the deepest creeps of these will await an epic big sized Boss you which ou have to beet to finish the Dungeon. These Dungeons should give you realy the feeling of playing somethign similar like Zelda...when it comes to Dungeon, this game is still unbeatable....show us, that you can make dungeons, that are on the top
Party Dungeons: Party Dungeons can be played either in Party..or once your Character has become good enough for the challenge...be made solo. These Dungeons are filled with massive hordes of monsters, lesser riddles, maybe more traps..but in these dungeons you will see dramatically more monsters.. then in Solo Dungeons...real hordes will await you here.
Those Dungeons should be in both games..not only hopefuly in GW2 be "map travelable"...once you played them through. (In GW1 in HM, then you can use the Asura gate icon to warp to the 1st. Stage Entrance of any Dungeon u've finished in HM...also the Asura Gate Icon would receive then finally a sense..letting it be, as it is now let this icon look totally useless...warping us to 1 outpost..anyone can warp to by normal map traveling just on clicking the outpost icon later.)
Chests: Dungeons in GW1/2 should have..regardless of the Difficulty Mode ..have they OWN chests ..which can be opened only through kes, which also drop only in Dungeons.
Traps: When you want get more inspires on traps...then look to games like Zelda or the Prince of Persia games..they will surely offer you good ideas for traps in dungeons of GW2, but also movies like Indiana Jones have still inspired you..more of that ^^ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I personally hate any solo quests. This is an online game where the idea is people play together. If you want solo play go get a console. Whilst I liked the idea of dungeons they weren't what I was expecting. I was hoping for them to be more like FoW and UW. The game needs more places like these. DoA was a nice idea but it's just too hard to be able to have fun. The above two places are nice places to go exploring. I've been to both so many times it should be enough to bore anyone but it just doesn't. I guess it's nice that you aren't required to use a certain build just to even walk around without dying from getting hit by one spell/attack. The places still require you to be more careful, but they don't require you to be using a certain spell just to live. --SK 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I...yea. You do know that even on normal Bladed Aatxes hit for 350+ on softies, right? Anyhow. I like do ing stuff solo, because it means I can rely on me, and not people I don't even know. Besides, doing something difficult by yourself is more rewarding than with a bunch of people, imo. Mesodreth Blackwing 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Better Balanced Drop Table
Now...i do not understand the droprate for players. In party's i get white, blue and purples while others get black dye's and three to four gold drops. In (vanquish)hard mode not having much trouble at all i get lousy white Raven & Bo staffs? three or four at a time?
More people are collecting evidence to make their grievance know. Some players feel there is some kind of "Unlucky" jinx at work.
So... how does it work? How to de-jinx? And i do suggest a better balanced table for GW2.
- I do not believe so. More players cannot have a continuous stream of bad luck. This game is balanced for the most part.
--Silverleaf
- I do not believe so. More players cannot have a continuous stream of bad luck. This game is balanced for the most part.
- I didn't mention a conspiracy or anything. Not that paranoid. I simple want to understand the drop rate. For more than one player that's seems to have "lower-than-usual" drop chance. In my opinion it would prevent the scamms of these gold-seller-spammers & bots.
--Silverleaf
- The drop rate is calculated equally for all players, therefore the drops are equally distributed within the total population of people who could get them. Some people might have "bad luck", but in many cases that is just a matter of perception. In the case of being in a party of 8 players, there is a 7:1 chance that a good drop will go to someone else. It might seem rigged, but thats called probability, and thats the way it works. Ashes Of Doom 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it's a 7:1 chance, but it is annoying being in a party where one person beats those odds over and over again during the course of a vanquish or mission. Ergo, I think what Silverleaf is getting at is that perhaps GW needs to take a look not just at the 1/8 chance of giving a drop to someone, but at the drop history too, to even out the drops over a party more fairly. Darksong Knight 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know, that is something i miss from ye olde open drop system from other games. Sure, you could face ninja-looting from time on time, but more often than not having a Main Looter and a designated distribution system for loot worked great. I know the drop system in GW was intended to avoid fights over the items, but i would really like if they could give players the option to choose between "Random drop asignment system" and a "Open drop/Main Looter" system while grouping (because we all know that the random number generator is Teh Devil).--Fighterdoken 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it's a 7:1 chance, but it is annoying being in a party where one person beats those odds over and over again during the course of a vanquish or mission. Ergo, I think what Silverleaf is getting at is that perhaps GW needs to take a look not just at the 1/8 chance of giving a drop to someone, but at the drop history too, to even out the drops over a party more fairly. Darksong Knight 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The drop rate is calculated equally for all players, therefore the drops are equally distributed within the total population of people who could get them. Some people might have "bad luck", but in many cases that is just a matter of perception. In the case of being in a party of 8 players, there is a 7:1 chance that a good drop will go to someone else. It might seem rigged, but thats called probability, and thats the way it works. Ashes Of Doom 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mention a conspiracy or anything. Not that paranoid. I simple want to understand the drop rate. For more than one player that's seems to have "lower-than-usual" drop chance. In my opinion it would prevent the scamms of these gold-seller-spammers & bots.
- I wouldn't say its random, yes its 7:1 chance of a drop for the player (whether with AI or others), but the quality of the drop doesn't seem random to me. I've noticed after farming a bit on my account that loot drops across the board, for all my characters, drop in quality quite sharply. It seems to be a 3 day cycle. If I farm with my monk for a few reps I notice loot quality drops for her (thats nothing new with the anti-farming code etc). But, after doing that and going to different characters I've noticed loot drops in NM and HM drop quite sharply. Going through around 4 areas in HM, each unique not a repeat, and getting heaps and heaps of whites, maybe a dozen, if that, purples and, and if I'm lucky, a gold isn't rewarding or balanced in my eyes.
- I don't think its the player being un-lucky or the system being totally random, its 7:1 possibility of a drop but drop quality seems to be based on something else (based on calculations to activity on the account maybe). This might sound strange but before I 55'ed loot drops weren't something to bitch about for me I got quite nice drops, even if not golds but more purples etc ( I was mainly disliking the whole party sharing of gold pieces) but since I've started to 55, this seems to be a trend I've noticed. 118.92.35.136 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys are all imagining it, and I don't blame you. It's human nature to search for patterns everywhere. the CIA and other intelligence communites have done whole studies to try and figure out how to prevent their cryptanlaysts (codebreakers) from going crazy. The reason they go crazy is because they spend all day every day searching for patterns in seemingly random number sequences, pretty soon they start to see patterns in everything and get paranoid (I've narrowly missed two car accidents in the past 3 months, someone is trying to kill me!).
It's the same thing here, we do a farming run or something else where we expect to get at least a few good drops, and maybe it is a particularly bad run, where we get very little or nothing. On our next run, if the run is not particularly good to unequivocally prove us wrong, then suddenly we see a pattern.
Furthermore, we are trained by Darwinism to lean towards finding patterns that are disadvantageous. In nature, finding advantageous patterns can be good in certain ways, food often shows up here, but does not garauntee our survival, whereas finding disadvantageous patterns, a lot of predators are more active at night, can prevent our death. Therefore, we will always lean towards finding disadvantageous patterns, the drop rate has gotten worse lately, than we will see good ones.
If you guys really want to figure out whether the drop rate for good quality items vs. low quality items, then get out a pen and paper and keep track of your drops in a given area. You should have at least 20 "identical" runs (finished the run, same number of party members, no area changing quests activated, etc.). Once you have your raw data, pull up Excel and start looking for patterns in the raw data. Whatever you find, proving your case or not, share it! I'm sure a lot of people would love to know about it, even ANet. But the point is, you should have evidence to back up your fears, 'cause your brain can not possibly be expected to accurately figure this type of thing out, it's just too biased by nature. (Satanael 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
- Random systems have a tendency to produce non-random results. Perhaps have the loot table store and check a list of recent drops you have received and adjust accordingly to avoid lucky/unlucky streaks. Daelin Blackleaf 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the above two posters: there are undoubtedly procese in place to scale down the quality of loot after a certain amount of farming (several devs have said so, I believe), but some questions placed by the other people posting here include if it was possible for that system to (unintentionally of course) perpetually scale back loot quality for some people. -- Frozzen
23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the above two posters: there are undoubtedly procese in place to scale down the quality of loot after a certain amount of farming (several devs have said so, I believe), but some questions placed by the other people posting here include if it was possible for that system to (unintentionally of course) perpetually scale back loot quality for some people. -- Frozzen
- Random systems have a tendency to produce non-random results. Perhaps have the loot table store and check a list of recent drops you have received and adjust accordingly to avoid lucky/unlucky streaks. Daelin Blackleaf 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Armor colours
Will have been suggested. Would love it if in GW2 the armors are the same colour when dye is used so different armor pieces mixed can make unique looks. --Silverleaf 
- Sorry to steal your Suggestion but i think in respect to armor colours all sections (if not the majority) can be dyed, and dyed different colours, i think this would be really nice, unlike now where you can get armor and only be able to Dye 1/4 of it (an exageration maybe, but it makes a point) :) Crazy 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to map on the armors themselves, Crazy. Vael Victus 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- np Crazy :). I meant that if i have a piece of Asuran armor that i want to mix with an Monument armor piece and i dye them both Red the colours do not match. Its stay's visible that the armor parts are from two different armor crafters. Same goes for other colours..even white & Black. It is not a problem with the use of different colours for top and bottum. I just like to Mix & Match to make it a little more individual & unique without overloading loading times. -- Silverleaf
- My female Elementalist wears Vabbian Armor, and it doesn't even dye the same way (even though it's the same set. The top looks way better than the rest). What might be cool too is shields with your guild's emblem on them. In addition to the cape. Nicky Silverstar 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- np Crazy :). I meant that if i have a piece of Asuran armor that i want to mix with an Monument armor piece and i dye them both Red the colours do not match. Its stay's visible that the armor parts are from two different armor crafters. Same goes for other colours..even white & Black. It is not a problem with the use of different colours for top and bottum. I just like to Mix & Match to make it a little more individual & unique without overloading loading times. -- Silverleaf
- Hard to map on the armors themselves, Crazy. Vael Victus 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Roleplaying server?
I was thinking that GW2 should have Roleplaying server. By Roleplaying, I mean like Asuran cartographer, saving Ascalon etc. That whole game is story himself and everyone would be part of it. No more WTS ECTOS LFG r3 stuff. This would make game more interesting than just boring grinding ;) ~Chilos
Me and probably Selket agree very much >:) — Skuld 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- A district or server for those who like to act would be nice for those people in theory, but with the nature of some people in mind I fear it would be like asking for griefing server. Backsword 07:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- plz, i rly ned 2 go on epic adventur. I mean, I really, really, really need. Selket 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An own Roleplaying Server will be much too expensive ... but I'm for own RP-Districts... RP should be in GW2 really more implemented, but also in the Game Rules should be more rules, which will enable RP'ers a better RP-Feeling in their own Districts...where such things like spamming and so on..all these disturbing things will have absolutely 0 tolerance and will lead first to temporal bans..and if such griefers won't stop their disturbing actions, then to perma bans... Griefers must be direct from the start on shooed by the hard rules in RP-Servers and the also hard reactions it will have, if you try to grief others on RP-Districts --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Castles
Yo sup. I want to say four words attack-fight-get it=you have guild make deal to attack neather you fight and you win and guild hall is your and put the party max 50 players. P.S. ja sam guzica(zastooooooooo)
- I do not favour this idea. This would frustrate smaller guilds and make a lot of guilds "homeless". I am fond of the Guild-format and think it needs to stay a base for connected players. --Silverleaf
- I think that this idea would be much better if used in "World PvP". When I thought of the first guild wars I hoped for large battles between guilds that could be epic. Sadly this never happend, but I think that it should be implemented in Guild Wars 2. World PvP should have huge areas that allow people to come and go (as stated in previous news releases) but the main thing is to allow you to enter this area with your guild. I'm going by released information, but I think it would be awesome to be able to go into a large area with your guild and siege a castle and take it over. Possibly have something like a ghostly hero that can use "claim resource" to take over the castle, which then allows your guilds own npc's to be set up. I have so many more ideas but I dont think they are meant for this area so let me know what you guys think!
I personally hope..that the PvP in GW2 will be much more advanced and improved then in GW2...the PvP in GW1 let it look more like "Guild Sports" then Guild Wars...the Guild Fights missed really the War Aspect...nothign in PvP looks anyhow in GW1 like a real war battle...only the battle at Fort Aspenwood has a rweal little touch of looking like a war battle..everythign else ...is far away from being anyhow "war"...that must be changed in GW2. I hope personally GW2 will also have somethign similar like Ragnarok Online's "War of Emperium" Thats the way how you introduce war between guilds...let guilds get first Guild Halls, then, when the Guilds become mightier and bigger..sao that the Hall alone can't hold the members anymore..that the Guild Hall can be upgraded to a Guild Castle and when the Guild reaches its maximum members..it can be upgraded once and last time more to a Guild Fortress. Each time the Guild expanses and upgrades their territory...new NPC's will become avaiable and the original Guild can recruit more and more NPC-Guardians and Siege Weapons/Traps ect. to upgrade the guild for Guild Wars...where other guilds try to conquer the Halls(Castles/Fortesses) of other Guilds to claim for their mightiest treasures in their Treasure Chambers each Guild has to defend.
Under these Guild Treasure are then 25 powerful magical Artefacts..which will only hold the 25 mightiest Guilds. Guilds which hold one of these 25 Artefacts will have 1 of 25 randomous special Bonus Buffs, which can either be active or passive Buffs for either Guilds Wars, or for the Territory itself, so the Guild itself, like lesser cost for NPC-Recruits...or Guirdians will have 20% increased Attack Power and so on. It will be naturally clear..that every guild will want to have these magical Artefact..so guilds which have one..will be really busy defending it. Holders will get also other benefits from having 1 or more of these Artefacts...like being able to rule over Towns act. and the Guild..which will eventually reach the goal of holdign all 25 Artefacts will become an Empire... But that would be imo only something for strictly RP...it would destroy the Roleplay-Flair..when now Guilds will total idiotic names become an Empire...so I'd say.. the guiuld which becomes an Empire has to start an official POLL with say 5 different suggestions of wel thought out RP fitting names for their Empire and the name that wins the poll will becoem then the name of the new Empire. That would be somethign similar working to RO's War of Emperium ..there are battling Guilds for Catlses and have to destroy a magical Artfact of the others Guild's Castle..the so called Emperium Crystal to claim for the Castles and to become so owner of the Castle..its a big All vs. All PvP that makes very much fun, because Guilds have to make Strategies. how to defend best their Territory and that is WAR --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I don't like how you keep referring to an elite few guilds. Yes, there will be some - there always will be. However, Guild Wars has always been about a level playing field (actual GvG or HA topography notwithstanding) and giving bonuses to better pvp Guilds in-game kills the spirit of that. Mesodreth Blackwing 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Guild Taxes
Guildmaster should be able to set a tithe ranging from 0% to 5% of the players share of money pickups (not merchant or trade sales), which goes to the guild treasury for buying guild upgrades and stuff. It can always to be set to free... Make choosing a guild more fun too.--Evil Party Girl 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a very good idea..no good idea at all ...much people could abuse this feature to steal massive amounts of money from other players, while these don't recognize even that they get scammed. Because nobody else then the Leader will know..what happens with the Money... There is also absolutely no need for such a feature.. when members want help their guild to upgrade it..anyone can freely go to the Guild Lord NPC and buy for the guild the Stuff...after that done can still give other members the member which bought the stuff give back some money so that this 1 member had not 100% of the cost to carry. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- Correction: Much people WILL abuse this. Simple way to get around the abuse would be to instead of having it pure gold in the GUild Master's pocket, give him/her credits which can ONLY be used to upgrade the GW2 equivalent of the Hall.
From other hand, could be created a Guild Bank ingame, god, ANet gave us our own space (guild halls) but forgot a common storage? This way everyone, could donate to guild, items, gold etc, and then the officers, and ppl with GL permission would use it to the end the players of the guild agreed. If not, there is allways kick, leave options. BTW, my guild use that, but one of my characters... Well, there seems to be no problem trusting your guild leader, i mean, if you cant trust your Guildies....why play with those? Sharpshooter 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Skill Bar and Towns
Wat's up. I think that in Guild Wars 2 the skill bar should be larger than 8-spots. This would allow for people to do more things without having to return to town to rearrange skills and attribute points. I think it would be helpful if you could change these skills while not in a town. Elite skills should be dropped and as you gain levels you gain better skills. This would make changing skills while not in town a lot fairer because nobody could just keep changing elites. I don't think that the GW Team would do this but i hate loading different areas and loading towns. When you go to a larger area (Prophecies - Ascalon, Shiverpeaks, Maguuma Jungle, Etc.)there should be one load and then you can walk through that area without loads (exception of missions). I say again that it probably won't happen but it would be great if they took some of my ideas! ty for listening ~Mhenlo
- Actually your last idea might be what we are getting in GW2 since the world is goig to be less instanced than in GW1. --
(gem / talk) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. ANet has put out quite a bit of general info about Guild Wars II. While they've said basically nothing about how skills/races/professions will work, it WILL be a persistent world, so no pesky loading :) Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you certain about this??? I could have sworn that I heard them say something about at this point (subject to change) still intending to have a similar limited skills system... I'll look around for the interview... -- Frozzen 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you certain about this??? I could have sworn that I heard them say something about at this point (subject to change) still intending to have a similar limited skills system... I'll look around for the interview... -- Frozzen
- Indeed. ANet has put out quite a bit of general info about Guild Wars II. While they've said basically nothing about how skills/races/professions will work, it WILL be a persistent world, so no pesky loading :) Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first topic. I HATED having only 8 slots to work with. I would like it if you had at least 15 slots if you must have a limit ~Nixon4Prez
- Truthfully, I like the eight skill system because then you can't just knock-down, knock-down... etc. It provides a balance between the classes that is rather striking when compared with WoW (I speak from experience here), where some classes are guaranteed to win out against others. -- Frozzen 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a bit more space on the skill bar for counters and utility / support skills. -- Gordon Ecker 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Mhenlo. The 8 skills in skillbar is just too less. Mainly spamming 8 skills is just boring. And of course there would be a lot more different builds etc. if you had more skills. I would suggest maybe 14 or 16 skills, maybe even 20, depends on the game nature really. And these would of course be "fighting skills". For secondary professions (crafting, enchanting etc.) you would have another skill bar, which you probably could use only in outposts. Limu Tolkki 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think 20 is way too many...if we are talking about actual combat skills like the first Guild Wars, then maybe like 10. But possibly have extra skills or options for things such as climbing a tree or something to that extent? (not real combat skills but just options to do things) ~Big Foot Bob
- 15 Slots for Skills is way too much ..it would be ok. if they increase it from 8 Slots to 10 Slots for Skills..thats way enough then and it should be..no it must be able hopefully in GW2 to change the Skills in your bar, whenever you want...where is please the sense in having hundreds over hundreds of Skills when you get forced to travel back to outposts and towns just to be able to change some of your learned Skills in your Bar...only because I put x Skills into my Bar doesn't mean, that my Character forgets all of its other learned Skills and has to go to a town just to remember what skills he has learned and to rearrange my Skill Bar XD....in games like Ragnarok Online you were(are) also able to change your Skill Bar..whenever you want...so the player was able to change strategics.. and players could be much more flexible..if they so..that Skill X,Y and Z are not so good in effect..example you fight a fire elemental monster and your whole build is fire based..ten you sure say to you "crap..my skills have no effect.. let me try skills of an other element...hopefully they have more effect vs. this monster"
When you espcially see. that enemies are absolute immune vs your Skills..then you especially wish you to change your Skills instantly !!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Threat and mailboxes
I've played Guild Wars since day one, and I absolutely love it. I've also played WoW, and while I find raiding a waste of time, I think some things they've done over there could be of benefit to GW2, viz, threat management and mailboxes.
What I would like to see in GW2 is a way (or ways) to better control how the party engages mobs in PvE. While no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy, at least having something a little more advanced than all the enemies rushing the character with the lowest health/armor would be nice. It is kind of odd and unrealistic. In WoW, a monster attacks whoever does the most damage to it or (pardon the expression) pisses it off the most, which, in my experience and opinion, is rather realistic; especially in a fantasy setting. For instance, a melee monster will attack a mage who just threw a fireball at it. That sort of thing.
Also, the mailbox system in WoW allows people to contact others when they're offline. As it is in Guild Wars, the best you can do is say something through whatever passes for a built in messaging system in the Guild's forum (if they even have one). And through experience, 90+% of a guild doesn't use the forum with anything approaching regularity. Ergo, mailboxes are an efficient and effective way with communicating with people if you can't reach them.
Thus, while there has been and will be much comparison of the WoW we know and hate with the Guild wars 2 that we think sounds awesome, and while I have no doubt that my arguments have been said before... They are nonetheless what I feel GW2 shall need. Mesodreth Blackwing 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I don't really have an opinion on the mailbox idea, I see nothing wrong with it, but personally have never really felt the need for such a thing.
- As for the AI, actually the behavior you describe for WoW mobs is a quite common AI model, I've seen it in RTSs, RPGs and even FPS (Halo has it, for example). To be honest, I find that AI model to be too easy for me now, in such a case all you have to do is make sure the tanks attack first, then drop a spike bomb on them with the casters, and don't have to worry about the mobs attacking your monks, well, ever. Under the current system in GW1, I think it's more challenging because the mobs are "smarter" by attacking your weakest points first. Remember, an ele or a warrior with even 60% dp can still get off a few good hits if no one attacks him/her, whereas if they're the first target, they're taken out of the equation too fast to be useful at all. And as for realism, I think the two systems are equally realistic, remember, predators always seek the easy kill first, the young, the old, the sick, the wounded. DP is just a GW way of making you that target, and it's not just natural, it's a good tactic, we do it too, the smart PVE player saves the Boss kill for last, and kills his minions first.
- Nonetheless, maybe a greater variety of tactics would be a good way to go. For example, the "smarter" enemies like Mursaat or Tengu could exploit your team's weaknesses by attacking high DP chars and casters first, while more "grunt"-like monsters such as trolls and minotaurs could just go after whoever is pissing them off the most. (Satanael 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
- I was thinking while 600 farming Cathedral of Flames today... it would be nice if in GW2 we can play off enemies' hatreds of each other, like the undead and the charr in Cath, but on a grander scale. I see territorial enemies like the heket in GWEN or NF just wandering around, mingling with other enemies, even Kournans! (blecch... kournans) Which doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense to me. Mesodreth Blackwing 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, GW2 should have an own Ingame Mail System...I would find it really funny...if little Birds, Fairies or Mini Dragons..somethign of that sort that loooks somehow cute would come flying to us, if someone sends to us an Ingame Message over the Mail System... when this happens..the Character which gets the Message will receive a Letter in his/her Inventory and when you double click it then...then pops up a Window which shows then the Player the text Message of the Letter with 2 Buttons then below. One for closing the Window and one for answering to that Mail.
- And everytime a player uses this Feature.. it will cost for example a very little fee of Gold..for example 10 Gold.
- PS: To avoid Mail Spams...the player which receives the Mails should be also able to block Mails from certain People --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
16 - 20 skills? that would just be stupid EG.. mesmer with 20 interuppts. how easy farming would be. how hard it would be for novices to play it, you should have to go through ranks to get more slots i think
Animation
I kinda talked about this before, but I love animation so much, I want to talk about it again. Previously I had discussed trying to get two creatures that are fighting each other to have animations that interact, like actually blocking the swing with your weapon or shield when you block, or actually dodging when you dodge, or actually hitting when you hit, rather than just swinging at each other's locations. Anyway, that's a difficult thing to implement, I know, so I don't hold out much hope for it, but I was thinking about things like knock-downs and realized that could be a good place for better animations.
For example, in GW1 when a char gets knocked down for a 1 sec knock-down he goes down and gets right back up. Fine. But when he gets knocked down for a 3 sec knock-down he goes down and just sits on his butt for 2 secs and then gets up. Maybe the 3 sec knock-down could have a slightly different animation. Maybe he gets knocked on his face, lifts to his knees, shakes his head, and then gets up kinda wobbly-like.
Oh, and distractions can work the same way. For example, someone gets shot with a distracting arrow, he gets angry and tears the arrow out of him, or a mesmer interrupt could cause him to shake his head to push away the nightmarish images in his mind.
And I still like the idea of arrows actually appearing where they land, whether that's in a wall or through your arm, at least for a little while. (Satanael 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
- I did me some thinking today, and I think this could be applied to spells too, so they they all don't have the same animation/visual effect (for an attribute line, anyway). Also this could be made to distinguish signets from spells, since a signet is a ring, it would make sense (if there are such things in GW2) for the character to actually touch the signet on their finger or something prior to all the magical visuals and whatnot. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope seriously..that GW2 will hopefully get better animated at all kinds of thigns..especially for the battle system...battles in GW1 looks totally boring and ugly, as if 2 childs are playing with toy soldiers with ever doign the same borign fast paced repeating moves over and over and over again..
Every Profession in GW1 has only 1-2 Attack Moves they use, while attacking ..how silly is that please.. battles in GW2 should hopefully look much more dramaturgic and with more action.. like Characters firght in the trailers of Line Age 2. Search in YouTube for Yuki Kajiura..there is a LineAge 2 trailer with a Song of her in Background called "mezame" ..look this...then you will understand how i want to have GW2's Battle System look like..how battles in GW2 should look and how battles in MMO's at all woold look awesome. also imo the Character Design of LA2 is much better, then that of GW1...hopefully the Design in GW2 wil be more similar to LA2 and GW2 should hopefully have too some CG Trailers of the same high end quality like those of LA2 and WoW ...still the finest CG's of MMO's I know. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- I was really thinking about this for a long time so excuse my level of detail!
Animations as they are now are just particle effects, 1 player is the only person affected by any animation. A dynamic animation, where characters engaged in combat have co-ordinated actions(more than the slash --> hit reaction), would provide so much more depth and immersion. Say for instance, 2 warriors(I am assuming we have warriors in GW2) are fighting in GW2 when one warrior hits the other, the contact animation would be accurate to the actual hitbox(chest,head,feet, etc)and would leave a mark there. Similar to bullet holes in other games, the mark would stay until healed away(a dynamic response from healing). Therefore it would be visually easy to tell which warrior is winning a battle by looking at the battle scars. And if any other character became engaged in the fight, the scars from that particular source of damage would be displayed on the warrior. So if a ranger comes and shoots some arrows and hits the warrior in the back before flare spamming, the warrior would have arrows in his back, and burn marks on his armor.(arrows not only staying where they land, but disappearing when healed!) Hexes (right now only a ring effect) would also have dynamic responses, say oozing from underneath the armor. This is a really complicated, and realistic combat animation model that would just blow my mind to see implemented. And as I know the engine for GW2 is already established, and combat doesn't work like above. This is just my dream... that i posted for your enjoyment... Obie Quiet 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds suitably Epic! And are you sure about the engine? They aren't going to be beta testing for a year at least... and that's a preliminary figure. So bring't! Mesodreth Blackwing 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Design an Armor contest
If the equips had a design contest, why not the armors? I would have posted this with GW1 but since they're concentrating on GW2 I might as well post it here. Basically, they should give us the basic set and design around the given armor set or just let people draw/design armors for the incoming races. It could be part of the normal types of set not the elite ones Renin 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a really neat idea! Probably won't happen for a while, though, but still... awesome. Mesodreth Blackwing 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan.--Silverleaf 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're not full sets of armour, but they just had a contest to design the Wintersday 2007 hats. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but a full set of armor contest would be great, which is what I meant. Renin 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been asked many many times during the past year and Gaile has answered that making new weapons for the game is a lot more simple than making new armor. New armor needs to be designed around the profession and gender in question and also needs to work with all emotes etc, and that's why they have not considered holding armor design contests. -- (gem / talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's why it's here in GW2 suggestion page. No one still knows the details of GW2 so who are we to actually know as to what can and cannot be done? Besides, like what I've originally said, They should give us the basic set and we design around it. Let's say a design contest specific for the Elementalist, people will design for the existing "15k Luxon / Brotherhood" or the "15k kurzick" armor set. Since that way, the basic set has already been introduced therefore there will be less work (or if any works should ever be done) for emotes etc. This way, when they release new armors with different skins, there'll be less players that will feel less slighted with such act by aNet. Renin 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am truly sorry for mistaking this one as the GW1 suggestions page. It's true that we don't know the specifics of GW2 at all yet so everything is possible.
- I agree that releasing a couple of the real models used by the game would make a competition like this possible. -- (gem / talk) 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's why it's here in GW2 suggestion page. No one still knows the details of GW2 so who are we to actually know as to what can and cannot be done? Besides, like what I've originally said, They should give us the basic set and we design around it. Let's say a design contest specific for the Elementalist, people will design for the existing "15k Luxon / Brotherhood" or the "15k kurzick" armor set. Since that way, the basic set has already been introduced therefore there will be less work (or if any works should ever be done) for emotes etc. This way, when they release new armors with different skins, there'll be less players that will feel less slighted with such act by aNet. Renin 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been asked many many times during the past year and Gaile has answered that making new weapons for the game is a lot more simple than making new armor. New armor needs to be designed around the profession and gender in question and also needs to work with all emotes etc, and that's why they have not considered holding armor design contests. --
- Yes but a full set of armor contest would be great, which is what I meant. Renin 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're not full sets of armour, but they just had a contest to design the Wintersday 2007 hats. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan.--Silverleaf 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[Indent reset] Even if the implementation problems that Gem brought up persist in GW2, another option for the Design an Armor Contest would be to make a caviat that the armor design will be considered more as a "concept" than an actual design. What I mean is, say a contest winner provides a design with some sort of spike or something coming off the shoulder, and that particular aspect of the armor poses problems with the emotes, this would give the GW artists license to "amend" the designs and remove that spike, but keep the basic concept of the armor design. All in all, I think the importance of this suggestion is that it provides the GW artists with an easy way to get new armor ideas. IMO, this is greatly needed, I mean, I love the GW armors, but some of the newer armors do seem like just a re-hash of older ones, and I find that unfortunate. (Satanael 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
- One of the reasons why I had suggested that they use a certain "set/s" of armors other than to give us players access to more armors and have a contest for is to lessen the gripe about rehashed armors. I mean if the gw:en armors were released with a bunch of player-designed armors let's say 2 new versions of the 15k Luxon (1 from the contestant one from the game designer) wouldn't you be a little less irked since you're given more armor options to mix and match? But sure, why not let aNet edit the player's design if it means newer sets of armors as I'm sure some of the weapon designs were taken from the contest and have been edited. In the end, it all benefits anyone. Renin 10:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
at all first off a YES ... why ever only Design Weapon Contests...let us have Contests too for Armors, Head Gears and so on.
Other Point:
Armor System itself ...
I pesonally really hope.. the Armor System will get improved for GW2 ...Characters should have more parts of equipable Armor and especially be able to quip some ACCESSOIRIES..for example max 3.
Equipable Armor System should look like this:
Head Gear: Helms, Hats, Tiaras ect. Head Accessoire: Earrings, Amulets (Neclaces)
Upper Torso: Armors, Robes, Clothes ect. Shoulders: Shoulder Protectors, Capes (Personal Capes)
Under Torso: Belts, Tunics/Trousers (not when the Upper Torso is a Full Body Armor)
Arms: Armbraces, Gloves, Shields Arm Accessoires: Rings for the Fingers
Legs: Boots, Shoes
General Accessoires: Magical Artefacts, Mighty Rune Stones, Mystical Gemstones
Support Accessoires: Bags for Storage, Quiver (Rangers only) In that can be put different types of Arrows ..over the equiped quiver the ranger will equip the arrows..he will use...over the arrows the ranger should do different types of damage..not with the bow over strigns ... the arrows do the damage..not the strings oO
Final note: With the System GW1 has atm.. it are imo too less armor parts, that can be equipped..and especially the ability to equip powerful accessoiries is missing..hopefully in GW2 not .. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- i think capes should count toward the armour rating. like if an assassin shadowsteps behind you and stabs you in the back you want as much protection there as possible dont u?
Skills
Dont make only 8 skills per time if you can use them all then is harder when they are 8 you press only one skill and that is bored and esy when they are all free then its harder you push wrong skill and you are dead I think you shud put thet in guild wars2
- Actually the 8 skill system is one of the things that made GW so attractive for me--so long as the skills are properly balanced, you must struggle to come up with new and innovative builds and/or you can greatly modify your builds depending on the situation. In addition, this leads to more strategy than just giving someone all their skills to carry around. When I experienced this in WoW (not to bash on it in particular, but I played for a couple months so I speak out of experience, and I also assume most other MMOs out there are similar) it quickly became tiresome as certain professions were virtually guaranteed to beat certain other professions because their entire skill set was good at defeating that other profession's entire skill set... Having the 8 skill system mixes it up... I could go on, but you get the idea. Feel free to respond with your opinions about why it should be changed... -- Frozzen 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me it depends on what the skills, and how they work (as opposed to proffessions/classes/races go)what they do. You can't just say to keep it or change it until you know EXACTLY how everything will work. I play WoW too with the many skills, and you do tend to use only around 9 at most at a time. But the thing with WoW is you technically had an unlimeted skillbar, called your spellbook, and you didn't really need to equip anything, which in some games would make it overpowered. In Guild wars, the 8 limit was set so there werent overly powered builds, like say, a minion master that can effectivly create, keep alive minions, while all the while, pressuring the opponent with curses, or blood spiking. So before I say whether to keep it this way or not, I'll need to know the exact layout of everything, ya know? Ajc2123
yea but if you make 8 skills you press only few skills and that is bored but if you put like there dosent have to be all free skills maybe only 15 of them so it will be funner and it will be harder you like press 1 skill wrong and you are death
- I HATED having only 8 slots because I felt like it hindered the game play. I too used to play World of Warcraft and yes i did only use about 9-10 skills yet that is because it worked for WoW. I think that guildwars needs more because you can have two proffesions and it seemed that only 8 slots was barely enough for just one proffesion. I never could put the secondary proffesion to use because of the limitation. Also in WoW you could quickly alternate your skills anywhere and not just only in a town like in GW. I cant see having too many skill slots ever hurting the gameplay but i do see having too few as very constricting. If you disagree on that last part i would like to hear why. ~Nixon4Prez
-YEA they have to put like 15 skills per timE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to have 15-25 skills that I can use at any time, that would make things less tactical, and more, one build covers all situations. I like the aspect of creating new combinations, and taking differnt approaches, each skill set up is a differnt play style, it keeps things fresh. Med Luvin 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like the 8-skill bars and I would really love it if they had the same limit in GW2. Maybe add a ninth skill, where you could add one race-specific skill or something, but no more than that. Nicky Silverstar 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I love the limited skill bars. It's really all about skills and not how powerful your skills are. Renin 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem I have with the 8 skill limit is that you often stop making meaningful decisions about skill use as soon as you leave the outpost, particularly in PvE. 15 skills would be crazy, but I don't see any problem with 10 or 12 skills. Due to the trimmed skill count, I doubt there will be many redundant skills (at least in the same attribute), so bringing several nearly identical skills to get around recharge times shouldn't be an issue. -- Gordon Ecker 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They've mentioned that the skills will not be as complicated as they are now (lol) and then ill guess it will be as mindless as wow as u dont have to think anymore which makes me consider not buying it as i love complicated things. Its to make it easier to balance btw... anyway if the skills will be as uncomplicated as in wow i see no problem in having like 50 skills, but 10-12 wouldn't make much difference from what it is now anyway. --Cursed Angel
03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They seem to contradict themselves about skill complexity. I think what they intend to do is make individual skills significantly more complicated, but decrease the skill count so that players won't have to memorize as many skills and the balance team won't have to balance as many skills. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, having read about what they are calling the "emergent" skill system they plan to implement in GW2, each skill becomes much more situational and complex, but there will be a lower total number of skills... In my opinion this has great potential, and does not necessarily lead to the "dumbing down" of the system, though I would still advocate for keeping the 8-skill limit (keep in mind there will still be many more than 4 skills per profession and if you have a primary and a secondary, there will still be numerous combinations) -- Frozzen 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, having read about what they are calling the "emergent" skill system they plan to implement in GW2, each skill becomes much more situational and complex, but there will be a lower total number of skills... In my opinion this has great potential, and does not necessarily lead to the "dumbing down" of the system, though I would still advocate for keeping the 8-skill limit (keep in mind there will still be many more than 4 skills per profession and if you have a primary and a secondary, there will still be numerous combinations) -- Frozzen
- They seem to contradict themselves about skill complexity. I think what they intend to do is make individual skills significantly more complicated, but decrease the skill count so that players won't have to memorize as many skills and the balance team won't have to balance as many skills. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- They've mentioned that the skills will not be as complicated as they are now (lol) and then ill guess it will be as mindless as wow as u dont have to think anymore which makes me consider not buying it as i love complicated things. Its to make it easier to balance btw... anyway if the skills will be as uncomplicated as in wow i see no problem in having like 50 skills, but 10-12 wouldn't make much difference from what it is now anyway. --Cursed Angel
- The problem I have with the 8 skill limit is that you often stop making meaningful decisions about skill use as soon as you leave the outpost, particularly in PvE. 15 skills would be crazy, but I don't see any problem with 10 or 12 skills. Due to the trimmed skill count, I doubt there will be many redundant skills (at least in the same attribute), so bringing several nearly identical skills to get around recharge times shouldn't be an issue. -- Gordon Ecker 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I love the limited skill bars. It's really all about skills and not how powerful your skills are. Renin 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The 8 skills in skillbar is just too less. Mainly spamming 8 skills is just boring. And of course there would be a lot more different builds etc. if you had more skills. I would suggest maybe 14 or 16 skills, maybe even 20, depends on the game nature really. And these would of course be "fighting skills". For secondary professions (crafting, enchanting etc.) you would have another skill bar, which you probably could use only in outposts. Limu Tolkki 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-FINALE:TEHY SHUD PUT MORE THEN 8 SKILS MY 15 IN GUILD WARS 2....BUT HO IS LISING US???..NOWONE!!!!WHY???CUZ TEHY DONT CARE.....
- The thing i like about guildwars is u can only use ur 8 skills. i don 't want to spend 7 minutes looking for my skill before i can use it or memorising my skillbar in order to play good. The 8 skills u can use is basicly what makes guildwars difrent from a "rock-paper-scizors" MMORPG (ie: mage screws warrior because warrior is slow, ranger screws mage cause is better against elements. its basicly ur that class i'm that class so i/you win). Guildwars lets this depend on the skills, for instance of a warrior has dwarven battle stance he can easily shut down the mage. Changing this would change the entire concept of guildwars. if you want more skills then go play WoW. Guildwars is an mmorpg relying on skill rather then classes and equipment, and its what made this MMORPG one of the best ones. The skill system should stay. If GW2 becomes WoW will not play it thats for sure. 84.192.112.59 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then don't play GW2. Dwarven battle stance does basically nothing to stop a good Elementalist (I assume that's your "mage" - Who's talking about WoW NOW?!) because of skill. You basically ruined your own argument by bring that into the equation. You happen to be right about that when you get right down to it, classes don't matter, only the skills do. If you've even played WoW to any real degree, you'd know that out of the twenty or thirty skills a class has access to at any given time, only about five get used regularly. The rest are so specialized it's not funny (Aura of Shadow Resistance, anyone?). So what happens in GW? You have a secondary class so anyone can do anything with a little effort. Now it's "I'm that skillbar, you're that skillbar You/I win". Exactly the same as your example. Face it, there's is always a bigger fish; someone somewhere is going to be better than you no matter how good you think you are. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify for Mesodreth: a "mage" is equivalent to a "caster", so he was simply talking about any caster in that situation... And dwarven battle stance definately does shut down casters (note the interrupt effect). And lastly you made a very good point at the end... the idea is that no one can win all situations with the same build (another one of the reasons for the 8-skill bar)... Most of what I've seen about increasing the size of the skillbar has come from people who probably haven't played the game (see Limu Tolkki, a couple of posts above who talks about using crafting skills in outposts), or simply doesn't address the fact that the limit of skills forces players to think and strategize more, giving more skillful and intelligent players better chances of success. -- Frozzen 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify for Mesodreth: a "mage" is equivalent to a "caster", so he was simply talking about any caster in that situation... And dwarven battle stance definately does shut down casters (note the interrupt effect). And lastly you made a very good point at the end... the idea is that no one can win all situations with the same build (another one of the reasons for the 8-skill bar)... Most of what I've seen about increasing the size of the skillbar has come from people who probably haven't played the game (see Limu Tolkki, a couple of posts above who talks about using crafting skills in outposts), or simply doesn't address the fact that the limit of skills forces players to think and strategize more, giving more skillful and intelligent players better chances of success. -- Frozzen
- Then don't play GW2. Dwarven battle stance does basically nothing to stop a good Elementalist (I assume that's your "mage" - Who's talking about WoW NOW?!) because of skill. You basically ruined your own argument by bring that into the equation. You happen to be right about that when you get right down to it, classes don't matter, only the skills do. If you've even played WoW to any real degree, you'd know that out of the twenty or thirty skills a class has access to at any given time, only about five get used regularly. The rest are so specialized it's not funny (Aura of Shadow Resistance, anyone?). So what happens in GW? You have a secondary class so anyone can do anything with a little effort. Now it's "I'm that skillbar, you're that skillbar You/I win". Exactly the same as your example. Face it, there's is always a bigger fish; someone somewhere is going to be better than you no matter how good you think you are. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Five Gods
I was reading over someone's synopsis of all the info that has been given about GW2 at this point and I noticed a point mentioning that it has been said that the 5 gods have remained silent for over 2 centuries and are therefore probably going to have a diminishing role. I'd just like to make my plug for their continued incorporation here--they really do add a lot to the back-story of the game, even if they do not often have a direct influence. In addition, it would be kind of disappointing to see a God come into existence only to fade almost immediately back into oblivion (trying not to be too specific so as not to spoil plot). -- Frozzen 
01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- ACtually arent there more now? So....keep the six gods!!!!Ajc2123
- If I were the story board writer, I would have done the same and make the Gods has initial diminished role during the 2 century lull. Then upon the start of GW2 play, that's when you'll see them becoming more active, the upheaval and the renewed support by the Gods. Of course, that's just my point of view. Hehehe. What I would honestly wanna see are other God's realm. Melandru's Deep Jungle, Lyssa's Labyrinth, Dwayna's Dream and Komir's Realm since I can't think of any good names. At least in successive GW2 expansion. I'm sure this has been suggested over and over again. Renin 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem with the 5(6) gods is they seem - well - pretty human race specific, which is part of the reason I think they could be a bit less influencial. Perhaps they're still around for the humans, but what/who do the Charr, Asura and Norn worship? Perhaps there could be some cool new gods on the scene. :) --Aspectacle 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with the introduction of new deities/belief systems, but I would also like to see the 5 gods remain as aspects of lore, which was the point of my original post... -- Frozzen 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- yea aspectacle but even if thats the reason, they are the "true" gods. The unseen ones obviously weren't, the Charr gods, we all know weren't, basically any other "god" introduced was destroyed or proven to be false. So therefore, the human gods must remain!!.....besides, I don't see what is so human about lyssa, and grenth lol. cept for being two legged and standing upright, which charr, tengu, norn, almost everything else does. Ajc2123
- Ah... forgive my blasphemy. :) It is said they're still around answering the occasional prayer even if they are pretty quiet. Maybe you are right and they start to take action for the start of the new game. --Aspectacle 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Movement of the World, Balthazar appeared in the ruins of Lion's Arch and opened up a portal into the Rift, and the Asura, Charr, Dwarves and Norn have been established to aknowledge some or all of the gods of Tyria, although different races have different views on them. I suspect that the gods aren't more active because they're glass cannons who don't stand a chance in a direct confrontation with the ancient dragons. -- Gordon Ecker 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for the idea of keeping the 5(6) (what ever it is at this moment..) gods but as the point was raised about different races not accepting/believing in the human gods, i would like to see the idea of 5(6) gods all around, but they reveal themselves to the humans as humanlike, norn as nornlike, tengu as tengulike and Asura as rats... :P Crazy 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't really make a lot of sense, since the human gods are human gods. Every race has their own version of a divine being or power, be it the Great Dwarf, the Eternal Alchemy, or the animal spirits of the Norn. The Path to Revelations quest line implies that the Eternal Alchemy and the divine power of the Six Gods are at least similar or related. Up until now, we've had no reason to believe that anything but the Five Gods possessed divine power, now it seems we're learning that's not the case. --Valentein 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Forgotten worship them much like the humans. The Asura view them as aspects of the Eternal Alchemy. The Norn view them as distant and pay far more respect to the more immediate animal totems. The Dwarves view them as the human gods, while viewith the Great Dwarf as their god, but a few of them worship Dwayna or Grenth. and the Charr consider them powerful rivals, and generally regard worship as shameful and a sign of weakness (with a few exceptions, such as the remnants of the shaman caste). The Naga include followers of Dwayna, and might include followers of the other gods. I also suspect that the Veldrunner Centaurs worship Melandru, but there's no conclusive evidence of it. -- Gordon Ecker 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense if you see them as aspects or perceptions. They are depicted as they are because that's how the humans perceive them (note also that Tyrian and Canthan and Elonian depictions are slightly different). The other races simply have a different concept of what divinity is. The Asura could view them as different aspects of one single entity. The Norn's animal spirits could be concepted as different facets of Melandru. The Great Dwarf of the gods is probably not a divinity but something more akin to a very powerful entity, perhaps a demi-god, such as the Great Destroyer. The same divine being could be represented differently amongst different societies simply because different societies place emphasis on different aspects of life. It's all a perception thing. -- ab.er.rant
09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the stone dwarf rally cutscene, jalis says something like "we are all the great dwarf now". I don't know what that's meant to mean. — Skuld 10:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't really make a lot of sense, since the human gods are human gods. Every race has their own version of a divine being or power, be it the Great Dwarf, the Eternal Alchemy, or the animal spirits of the Norn. The Path to Revelations quest line implies that the Eternal Alchemy and the divine power of the Six Gods are at least similar or related. Up until now, we've had no reason to believe that anything but the Five Gods possessed divine power, now it seems we're learning that's not the case. --Valentein 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for the idea of keeping the 5(6) (what ever it is at this moment..) gods but as the point was raised about different races not accepting/believing in the human gods, i would like to see the idea of 5(6) gods all around, but they reveal themselves to the humans as humanlike, norn as nornlike, tengu as tengulike and Asura as rats... :P Crazy 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Movement of the World, Balthazar appeared in the ruins of Lion's Arch and opened up a portal into the Rift, and the Asura, Charr, Dwarves and Norn have been established to aknowledge some or all of the gods of Tyria, although different races have different views on them. I suspect that the gods aren't more active because they're glass cannons who don't stand a chance in a direct confrontation with the ancient dragons. -- Gordon Ecker 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah... forgive my blasphemy. :) It is said they're still around answering the occasional prayer even if they are pretty quiet. Maybe you are right and they start to take action for the start of the new game. --Aspectacle 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- yea aspectacle but even if thats the reason, they are the "true" gods. The unseen ones obviously weren't, the Charr gods, we all know weren't, basically any other "god" introduced was destroyed or proven to be false. So therefore, the human gods must remain!!.....besides, I don't see what is so human about lyssa, and grenth lol. cept for being two legged and standing upright, which charr, tengu, norn, almost everything else does. Ajc2123
- I'd be fine with the introduction of new deities/belief systems, but I would also like to see the 5 gods remain as aspects of lore, which was the point of my original post... -- Frozzen
- I think the problem with the 5(6) gods is they seem - well - pretty human race specific, which is part of the reason I think they could be a bit less influencial. Perhaps they're still around for the humans, but what/who do the Charr, Asura and Norn worship? Perhaps there could be some cool new gods on the scene. :) --Aspectacle 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If I were the story board writer, I would have done the same and make the Gods has initial diminished role during the 2 century lull. Then upon the start of GW2 play, that's when you'll see them becoming more active, the upheaval and the renewed support by the Gods. Of course, that's just my point of view. Hehehe. What I would honestly wanna see are other God's realm. Melandru's Deep Jungle, Lyssa's Labyrinth, Dwayna's Dream and Komir's Realm since I can't think of any good names. At least in successive GW2 expansion. I'm sure this has been suggested over and over again. Renin 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
i want to remind you all that the asura belive in eternal alchemy like said above ( BTW really good job describing gods and worshipping of the diffrent cultures) so they dont have or belive in any gods they are kind of atheists (spelling?)
- I want my charr to worship menzies or the titans, but doesn't seem like thats gonna happen with all these "charr not being evil anymore" things and the titans are long dead? --Cursed Angel 09:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Skuld will replace the goddess of truth by becoming the god of troll.
reanor 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- that would be awsome lol, wish i had wow so i could make a troll and troll people --Cursed Angel 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The shaman caste's still around, and I suspect that a lot of them would be willing to worship nearly anything in exchange for power. -- Gordon Ecker 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- that would be awsome lol, wish i had wow so i could make a troll and troll people --Cursed Angel
- Skuld will replace the goddess of truth by becoming the god of troll.
The Sylvari look like they'd be followers of Melandru...which I hope since I'm basing my OGW character on Melandru so that it will be similar to the Sylvari I create in GW2.
Uhm..I say no to this... Abaddon should get his revival imo and claim back his power as God of Wisdom and Water...he was no evil god at all...Abaddon got only manipulated XD Kormir is only a Wanabe Goddess, that absolutely don't deserves it to be a Goddess..this blind useless dumb thing.
Also I really think..the world of Tyria needs more Gods and Goddesses ...
When we compare Tyrias mythology with mythologies of our real world..for example the roman/greek mythology or the persian mythology or asian/japanese mythology ect pp.. there are so much...then you will see.. that GW has way too less gods and goddesses...
Tyria has absolutely no gods yet for any Emotions or anything that has to to with festivals ect... all the Elements could have theoretically their own gods and goddesses....that would be 8 gods more for each own element and each element could alto take in than 1 emotion..for example 1 goddess for Fire and Passion...and god for Water and Sorrow..one for Earth and Luck...then one for Thunder and Anger..one for Shadow and Fear....one for Light and Hope...one for Wind and Mourning ..one for Ice and Revenge...
Melandru is still the one for Nature and Fertility... Dwayna is still the one for Life and Peace..Lyssa is still the one of Chaos, Beauty and Justice, balthazar is still the one of War, Courage and Honour, Grenth is the one for Death and is the keeper and Ruler of the Underworld..
but what is also of Gods and Goddesses for Music, Love, Wine and other Alcohol,Commerce, Smithery, Poesy, Hunt, Time, Seas, Mountains, Day, Night, Youth, Protection and and and ...
imo the mythology of tyria can be much improved...who says, that these gods we know yet are all gods of the world of tyria known yet ... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- Maybe they purposely didn't have more Gods? Who says that some game has to go with REAL mythology? The lore about the Guild Wars gods is perfectly fine with me...why not complain about other games not having a God for EVERY single little thing? It would sort of be pointless for Anet to put more gods into the game imo. ~Big Foot Bob
Competitive Areas
No Jade Quarry. Thanks. Yseron
- Actually have people playing the Jade Quarry would be fun. I think it may be fun, but I have yet to be able to play a single game inside the JQ. Maybe a promotion weekend and added Faction will help it's popularity? Nicky Silverstar 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
uhm, I really hope for GW2.. if this game should have again something like factions and such competitive areas, like Fort Espenwood and the Jade quarry.. then..then make from the start on MUCH more of them ..
Only 2 Factions.. only 2 competitive missions oo sry.. but that was really stupid.. much ..really much too less and got therefore much too quick way too boring...especially when one of the 2 competitive areas is so bad and boring concepted.. that 99% of the community plays only 1 of those 2 aras and that was(is) in GW1 Fort Aspenwood..because its the only ara of the 2 existing, that makes actually at least a bit FUN
Its much better, when you give the game when then like 5 different factions and like 10 different competitive missions (so 2 different for each factions).. then you have a good basis for a well running factions system, that gets not so fast too boring (as long all those 10 areas are naturally good concepted and make all nearly the same fun..or better said.. make naturally so much fun.. that the places get flooded by players and none has nowhere to wait for ages, until groups on both sides are ready.) This was also the most bad lack in the concept of Factions....simple too much people in the places to be able to start the missions and not being able to take just Henchmen or Heroes... to compensate the lack of people to get the mission started ...please make never this failure again !!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Party
PUT no limit party!!! May just 20 players max! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .
- added a small spelling correction.-- Silverleaf 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well there has to be some limit, I just want them to make it more then 8. I'm not sure if 20 would be too much but if they do make it that many they have to increse the difficulty or it would be too boring. ~Nixon4Prez
- Unlimited has no idea, but bigger could be ideal. Maybe 10 for normal areas and 12+ for elite areas. Limu Tolkki 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- PUT no limit party!!! = Make this game WoW. please note were talking guildwars. Lets clear an area with 15 elementalists and 5 monks shall we??? Srsly Guildwars party system is what makes Guildwars an MMORPg that seperates itself from others. I do not want Guildwars 2 to become a generic MMORPG like ... well look at any other mmorpg. Guildwars is great due to the fact it does difrent stuff( no grinding, no monthly fees, only 8 skills, no potions, no solo-ing to level up, no lvl 724 cap to just keep ppl grinding, need i continue?) Do not let GW2 become WoW 2 thats all i'm asking for. 84.192.112.59 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Atm, we dont know how the party system is going to work. Keep in mind that in GW2, there are mostly persistent areas, where "party" numbers wont matter so much. Ashes Of Doom 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is no party size limit equal to WoW? In WoW, it is FIVE, or in raids, FORTY. But to even have forty people, you have to switch your party to "raid" mode, meaning you get no xp or drops from anything that isn't in a raid instance. Not really "no limit". Mesodreth Blackwing 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm at the opinion.. that GW2 shold have imo a max party size.. just to go sure to keep the lag down... a max of say 25 people is imo enough ..think only these 25 take their Companions with them..then you have a party of actually 50... 25 Players with their 25 Companions ..thats really ENOUGH ..and then for big War battles between guilds the party size can be imo increased to 50 max --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- How is no party size limit equal to WoW? In WoW, it is FIVE, or in raids, FORTY. But to even have forty people, you have to switch your party to "raid" mode, meaning you get no xp or drops from anything that isn't in a raid instance. Not really "no limit". Mesodreth Blackwing 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Atm, we dont know how the party system is going to work. Keep in mind that in GW2, there are mostly persistent areas, where "party" numbers wont matter so much. Ashes Of Doom 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- how abot more spaes in hardmode or hardmode districts?
Alliance like Battles for Guilds
Many have stated the wish for an Alliance Battle team setup for Guilds. 12(3x4) men teams from one guild.-- Silverleaf 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- yah, i also hope this will happen. as for now its only 8 from a guild that fight vs 8 from some other guild which isnt even all of the officers, but 12 vs 12 seems too less so want like 20 vs 20, that would reduce the tactics and reduce the waiting time although it would require alot of people active at the same time, therefore reducing the small guilds. But as this wouldn't affect the ordinary gvg and just be for fun it wouldn't matter. --Cursed Angel 01:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Gods
Hey, i know in GW there isn't much about gods, so what about in gw two there is different races for different gods. I was bored and just reading the GW Prophecies page and read about The proffesions. I noticed it said Elementalists may follow Balthazar (Fire), Melandru (Earth), Grenth (Water) or Dwayna (Air). But you don't really get to choose. So what if in GW 2 Whatever you choose for your proffesion and God, is the place you start and/or homeworld or something.--
FireTock 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that the Gods are too universal to have something as specific as starting location identified with them. It will probably be determined by race (in addition, most other professions only identify with one god)... -- Frozzen 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Animal companions (Pets) equal for every class
A thing that always bothered me in GW1 is that only Rangers can use a Pet at full potential. Anet took care with so many diffrent Pet types in GW1, with evolution and stuff, and its a pity that only PrimaRies can enjoy this big feature useful. I propose that every class in GW2 should be able to handle with pets equally. (e.g. making Beast Mastery to a common attribute, or also adding skills of other classes that act with pets...all adjusted for GW2, for sure) —Zerpha
The Improver 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they kind of do. Here's a list of non pet companions. Mini Pets Ebon Vanguard Assassin Support Asura Summoning Skills, Minions, Spirits + Summon Spirits. Missions (NPCs). Allies, Party Members.--FireTock 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, FireTock. In addition, other professions can work just as well with pets, since beast mastery is not a primary attribute. I have a dire black widow on my ele character and I still use it occasionally. -- Frozzen 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can er go back to my suggestion about the Gods thing. I want to know ppl think about that.--FireTock 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep your talk about that suggestion to its individual topic area... -- Frozzen 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not speaking about several PvE only summon skills, i'm speaking right about pets. as ranger, all pet skills cost less due to expertise (ok, thats the minor problem, but melee classes like Warriors are also not really able to use expensive pet skills like that, e.g the PvE skill) and mainly as it's a secondary, but not a "common attribute", only rangers can use runes to increase the attribute rank. This can also save a bunch of Attribute points. —Zerpha
The Improver 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like pets to actually mean something ingame, and not just have a different skin. My Elementalist can get a Rainbow Phoenix, but she won't be able to use it often due the ineffectiveness of Beast Mastery, and it doesn't do anything a pet Warthog can't do just as well. And well, I don't like the huge choice of pets without having the option to get multiples at the same time -> they're all so cool, it's hard to pick just 1. Also, the evolution system should be looked at. It has too many flaws atm. Nicky Silverstar 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not speaking about several PvE only summon skills, i'm speaking right about pets. as ranger, all pet skills cost less due to expertise (ok, thats the minor problem, but melee classes like Warriors are also not really able to use expensive pet skills like that, e.g the PvE skill) and mainly as it's a secondary, but not a "common attribute", only rangers can use runes to increase the attribute rank. This can also save a bunch of Attribute points. —Zerpha
- I am not for the use of pets, imho a ranger should run cripshot, broad head or burning arrow with interupts etc. Putting this thing asside pets are something making ranger unique. Why don 't we give warriors point blank aoe 's doing 250 fire damage as we do for ele 's? The answer is simple, because it would be unbalanced or change the whole meaning of a class. A ranger is dammage support a monk doesn 't need to look after, as a ranger is behind the backline in most cases. it supports the team with a fair ammount of dammage and may even be preventing some with interupts. The classes are well balanced as it is and there can be said no class is better then anotherone, they are just diffrent. Why would u want a pet on a Monk or a Warrior anyway? To die and disable ur skills when u need to heal or to run in your way as you are trying to give the final hit on their monk 's ass? 84.192.112.59 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that having them equal for each class is kind of dumb... it would mean that there would BE no classes, everyone would be the same. I also think it's BS that a ranger "has to" run Cripplin' Shot or BHA or BA. The only reason for that is that all pet skills are useless and underpowered for PvE or the reasonably useful and synergistic ones are elite. A pet just isn't a viable option for a ranger in the current system of Guild Wars: You can either try to use a pet, or use a bow, not both. I think with a little work and a little tweaking, balance can be found for GW2. Or Hell, instate a "druid-ish" class in GW2: a class designed around the use of animals as a modus operandi. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Less Drops, More Money
The title basically says it all. In GW, most of the time you get really bad drops just worth a few Gps. But it would be so much better if most of the drops were cash.--FireTock 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, I think this is a good idea. Get rid of all those worthless white drops, and increase the amount of gold being dropped.--Ryudo 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the drops I get are worth more in total than the total money I get... -- Frozzen 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, duh, thats why we want the amount of gold thats dropped to increase to cover that, and then some.--Ryudo 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Identify and then sell! more money! weee Renin 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or just sell the items you get.... Seems pretty logical to me but apparently not... -- Frozzen 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably too lazy to identify the whites, blues, or purples he/she got. That's where bulk of the gold is anyway. Renin 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - in fact, I hope we see the opposite, for the same reasons behind loot scalling: a huge influx of raw gold just creates inflation and atracts gold sellers, while a low income of gold (with a big income of items, preferably "rarer" ones) cause deflation and make gold sellers to be less important. Erasculio 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably too lazy to identify the whites, blues, or purples he/she got. That's where bulk of the gold is anyway. Renin 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or just sell the items you get.... Seems pretty logical to me but apparently not... -- Frozzen
- Identify and then sell! more money! weee Renin 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, duh, thats why we want the amount of gold thats dropped to increase to cover that, and then some.--Ryudo 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the drops I get are worth more in total than the total money I get... -- Frozzen
I refute your statement. Inflation is caused by demand and buying/spending power. It doesn't matter how things are valuable (either lots of gold in the market or items that people want) but if there is any demand at all... inflation will occur. The only way to prevent it is to prevent the ability to trade every item and its uncle. The customized stuff from the Bonus Mission Pack is a step in the right direction in that regard.
I hate to compare GW to WoW yet again, but a lot of the STUPIDLY powerful or awesome items in WoW are bind on pickup - that is, the character who receives the item has it bound forever to them. "Soulbound", is the precise term used, and it prevents people from jacking up the price of popular items simply because they are just that. The Soulbound modifier prevents a person from using or trading the item in question. To some degree, yes, I will allow that people can ninja items (the simple explanation is that a method of loot distribution in parties in WoW is through a lottery system: people who "need" and item are automatically given a high roll and priority on an item whereas those who only want ["greed"] the item get low priority and rolls for loot and a ninja is someone who rolls "need" when they clearly do not need the item at all) but for the most part in my experience is that this is a much rarer occurrence than one would expect. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- How would not being able to buy an item because it's not tradeable be any better than not being able to buy the same item because it's too expensive? If I get an extremely rare and valuable item I don't want, I'd like to be able to sell, trade or auction it to someone who actually wants it so that I can get a rare and valuable item I actually want. I think that auction comissions should be enough to control inflation on high-end items, and customization and auctions should be able to slow down deflation on mid-range items. As for gold drops vs. vendor trash drops, I don't think there's much of a difference as vendor trash is will just get converted into cash. -- Gordon Ecker 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Inflation is caused by demand, true. But inflation is checked by the amount of gold available. When you increase the amount of available gold, the overall value of gold will drop. -- ab.er.rant 06:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- well, if it would not grant more money, but only simply cash instead of "crap drops", i don't object as it would not speed up inflation (btw, we really need to find a constant gold sink for gw2). —ZerphaThe Improver 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, I'm still poor.reanor 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are forgeting drops can be salvaged to crafting materials too..,not just sold for gold. I never minded spending 2 mins identifying and selling at the merchant anyway. --Evil Party Girl 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, I'm still poor.
- Changing this would change the entire econmy of guildwars. Noobs will have to buy their weapons or get them crafted. So this way crafters must be edited as noobs will have more money and we don 't want noobs havving a weapon from yanks they got by buying a run there to get one, or by random sellers at ascalon. Or we could fix this by making monsters stronger. But wait then end-game the skills would need to be better as monsters are stronger. Changing one seemingly small thing in a game will upset the whole balance of it as you see. Guildwars economy is fine as it is. besaids who plays Guildwars to farm money anyway. If i wanted to grind i'd go play a grind MMORPG like WoW. I play for fun so if i can afford my weapons, armor, and some stuff i want, i'm more then happy. With maybe a 15 K set or an expensive green on the side. 84.192.112.59 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it won't break the game. Half of what you said is a reasonable progression of mobs and skills, that while GW doesn't have it NOW, a lot of role-playing or even first person shooter games do. If noobs get lots of money, they will still spend it badly. Gods, I remember how bad my spending habits were when the farthest I'd ever gotten was the Henge of Denravi. Oh, and your "we don't want noobs havving [sic] a weapon they got from yanks buying a run or by random sellers" is really discriminatory; Who are YOU to say what someone can or cannot have based solely on their experience or lack thereof? I've been playing Guild Wars since the prophecies beta and I can tell you, 99% of people who get runs are people who've already done something the hard way before anyway. It's an efficiency issue. It is MUCH easier to get a run to Drok's from beacons, or get Ruins of Morah ran by a Mo/D on Hard Mode than it is to spend a week or hours failing it (respectively) getting there normally. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about drops that aren't vendor trash, such as trophies, crafting materials and salvage items? Replacing vendor trash with gold wouldn't affect the drop rate of any of those. -- Gordon Ecker 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it won't break the game. Half of what you said is a reasonable progression of mobs and skills, that while GW doesn't have it NOW, a lot of role-playing or even first person shooter games do. If noobs get lots of money, they will still spend it badly. Gods, I remember how bad my spending habits were when the farthest I'd ever gotten was the Henge of Denravi. Oh, and your "we don't want noobs havving [sic] a weapon they got from yanks buying a run or by random sellers" is really discriminatory; Who are YOU to say what someone can or cannot have based solely on their experience or lack thereof? I've been playing Guild Wars since the prophecies beta and I can tell you, 99% of people who get runs are people who've already done something the hard way before anyway. It's an efficiency issue. It is MUCH easier to get a run to Drok's from beacons, or get Ruins of Morah ran by a Mo/D on Hard Mode than it is to spend a week or hours failing it (respectively) getting there normally. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Connection to OGW
I'm wondering if it would be possible to, like a character name, flag the name of the OGW character linked to that account/character in GW2. This would allow reference to the events of OGW while including the name of the legendary hero that performed these deeds. Another suggestion, though I highly doubt it would happen, would be to render a transparent "ghostly" version of the OGW character within the HoM which appears after a number of achievements are met, likely including the completion of the storyline(s). A third idea would be to include a brief challenge mission within the Realm of Torment (similar to Glint's Challenge in EotN) where the player must defeat the damned Khilbron, Shiro, and Varesh. My last suggestion of this bunch really has nothing to do with OGW connections, but if you are planning to do the "new playable races with new expansions (rather than new professions)" route and if there is an expansion that opens exploration of Elona, mummified undead (similar to Joko's army, possibly rogue) would make an interesting race. Just a few ideas that I've thought of that I wouldn't mind seeing. --Valentein 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to the "future sight" lore given about GW2, undead aren't a playable race so much as NPC's. Palawa Joko, corrupting what he cannot kill, turned many Sunspears into a living army (the Mordant Crescent) to match his shambling and rotted one. These, more likely than the animated dead would be the playable class/race from Elona. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like the ghostly version of the former self in the HoM a lot... It would give a nice continuity to the game.-- Frozzen 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a true Canthan, and a fan of the Thannakai Temple and ancestors lore, I really, really support the suggestion of a GW1 ancestor in your Hall of Monuments. It sounds very cool. Nicky Silverstar 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like the ghostly version of the former self in the HoM a lot... It would give a nice continuity to the game.-- Frozzen
Flying Pets
I'm not talking about flying steeds, like so many WoW converts are begging for. I just thought that since ANet is introducing a z-axis into GW2, then that means the flying pets should, well, fly. For example, today's mountain eagle and pheonix just kind of flap and float, which is a little lame. I would much prefer flying pets in GW2 to be like Olaf's bird, like it actually takes of and swoops around. For example, you could have a big ol' falcon that doesn't attack very often, but when it does it dive-bombs in like a real falcon and hits like a meteor. Or, anyway, I just thought the birds should actually fly, but now that I think about it I see a lot of problems with it when it comes to how exactly these things would attack... (Satanael 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
-that is great idea and your pet can be near you not just to fly on it or ride on it he can olso be your usuly pet like in GW but in GW2 they shud put that.
- What would be really cool is if a flying pet like a hawk could land on your shoulder but I doubt if many of the flying pets are small enough to do that. ~Nixon4Prez
- Lets change something that is well balanced again and change it. Ever thought about the fact that if we would change a pet its spike dammage would increase. Lets say we want a pet to do the same ammount of dps, but let it only attack every 13 seconds (13 for obviious easy calculation) if a pet averanges 30 damage per hit that would mean when your falcon attacked he should do 300 dammage. Lets say you use a burning arrow on the same moment ur pet attacks. Burning arrow is like 100 clean. That would be a spike of 400 damage if u timed it well every time. If ur playing team arnea, and u just have a warrior thats training a rit or something, and just do him some dammage to keep hom from being full of hp. That would mean u alone can spike a player dead with no option for the monk of catching the spike. Okay pet animations can be edited, pets can fly anywhere they want for me, but think before u say something tinkering with game mechanics. Cuz the idea of a pet that attacks slower but does more dammage is an idea that just can 't be used.84.192.112.59 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You must have failed grade three math. 13x30 =/= 300. it's 390. And second, OP's idea is that it hits hard every once in a while. Thirty flat damage is HARD for a pet, especially against lvl 20+ mobs. ANd one hundred damage for burning arrow? at 12 Marks, it only burns for 5 seconds. that's 35 extra damage, over 5 seconds. Not a spike in any way, shape or form. Hell, hitting for the 65 additional damage your wildly skewed calculations require would be the spike. And even if your example did come to pass, what warrior worth their salt dies to 400 dmg? At minimum they've got eighty more than that, and most have ~140 more with dual fortitudes. Also, OP's idea (what I probably erroneously gathered) is that if it hits like a meteor, maybe it doesn't even do any appreciable damage... maybe it just KD's and bleeds like an real hit from a raptor would do. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- why not have a skil that says mind to mind or sumthing so u can controle your pet and yes fly it too i was also thinking of equiping skills for your pets like flare or something but making it weaker since then everyone would fly off and kill everything quickly then just walk to the next town.
- Actually burning is -7 degen which is 14 damage/second. So 5 seconds of burning is really 70 damge X-D. Dark X 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Quest Creator
Now, I know this is going to sound a little broken and shallow, but I think a nice feature in Guild Wars 2 would be player quest creation. Now, before you say "People will just make easy quests with huge rewards", let me state the rules (as they are now) of player quest creation.
- Players can only create quests for other players; they cannot accept quests they make.
- Once a player has created a quest, they submit it to a global database of quests; players can access this database of quests from a central town or pub of some sort and see if there is a quest they want to accept. The global database keeps all quests made on that day, at the end of the day the global database deletes all quests until the following day when players will submit new quests. However, I can see an exception to this. A-Net could run a event where they choose a "Quest of the Week" based on quality and so forth and display it at the top of the global database for a full week. The creator of the chosen quest would be awarded a small sum of money or an item.
- Players can only create ONE quest a week.
- The rewards for quests are only in faction/gold/exp; no item rewards of any kind.
- To create a quest, players would talk to an NPC of some sort in a central town. The NPC would allow them to choose a quest type: "Item Quest" (Accepter of quest has to search for a certain amount of items/materials from a certain common monster or area), "Slayer Quest" (Accepter of quest has to kill a boss), "Defense Quest" (Accepter of quest has to fight customizable waves of enemies), and "Achievement Quest". (Accepter of quest has to accomplish an in-game achievment such as completing a mission, etc.) The creator of the quest CANNOT CHOOSE THE REWARD; there is an in-game system that evaluates the difficulty of the quest and derives a faction/gold/exp reward for the quest. If the quest creator wishes, they may write text for the quest. After these steps, the quest creator can submit their finished quest to the quest database.
Of course, more rules need to be added to make this propsed feature somewhat scam-proof and fun for GW 2. But I think this feature would allow people to really feel like they are part of the game by directly contributing to the content and it would be a lot of fun for people who come up with a great quest idea. Plus, you would (concievably) always have new content to experience every day in GW 2.
Please comment on this idea, this is something I would love to have implemented in GW 2. -AyaStowar
- The idea is good. But this will probably be complicated to program, and your restrictions won't be enough i think. The reward calculation program would have to be very complex to work without having any "farming gasps". If two players create this quest for each other, your restriction could also be avoided. I would propose that if such a thing is invented, oneself could also accept his quest. If all would work, i think this would be quite fun. —ZerphaThe Improver 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- What's the point of not being able to do your own quest? Coran Ironclaw 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you could just reward yourself for having a certain amount of items or for completing a mission over and over if you could accept the quests you create. -AyaStowar
- But you said you can't choose reward for your quest. Coran Ironclaw 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, but you would still get a gold/exp reward from the quest; you just can't decide how much you get from it. A program would calculate the difficulty of the quest and give an appropriate reward. -AyaStowar
- But you said you can't choose reward for your quest. Coran Ironclaw 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you could just reward yourself for having a certain amount of items or for completing a mission over and over if you could accept the quests you create. -AyaStowar
- What's the point of not being able to do your own quest? Coran Ironclaw 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This would be great for guild specific events. Renin 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- While the potential for it to be really fun is there, depending on how complex they manage to make the quest engine, the potential for abuse of this is huge. My opinion is that if this is in place, the system gives no rewards. It is up to the quest creator to provide the rewards (gold or items). That would make it much more in line with the original intention of being able to create quests, instead of creating a potential for quest farming. -- ab.er.rant 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem with that is there's not much incentive to create a quest... -AyaStowar
- How about rewards to the creator of the quest depending on how many times that quest is taken by players? Coran Ironclaw 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea...maybe a trophy of some sort to turn into a collector? We could also make a title revolving around this..."Quest Apprentice" or "Quest Master". -AyaStowar
- Yea, I know, no rewards means no one will play it. But I was thinking of that in line with Renin's idea, which would allow the creation of community-managed quests for community-run events. It would be much better to reward the quest creator than it is to reward the quest player. The quest player will get to keep drops and experience, so it'll be kinda like just a normal run into an instance. Maybe a point system like the titles? Total number of quests your character has done. -- ab.er.rant 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that, but I think that will turn all quest to be the shortest as possible seems not interesting. Coran Ironclaw 06:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like this idea, although I agree that it would need controls. I like the idea of the creator getting rewarded (maybe just towards a title), and the ability to write a description would be nice too. However, the lroe of the game would be in danger there, and there would have to be a limit on how far things can go. Something like "That evil beast Grawp Scarclaw has stolen my boots! How am I going to get around now? I need some people to help me by going to get them back. I saw him head off towards old Ascalon City. Please be quick, those were my favorite pair!" would be fine, but having somehting like "OMG WTF! That ******* charr stole my ****ing boots! go get them back or ill shoot you with my lazer cannonz!!!!" would be unacceptable. maybe setting some way to filter the quests, and putting a limit of 1000 per server per day would work. Ashes Of Doom 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno why, but I read "Grawp" and couldn't stop laughing :) Mesodreth Blackwing 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- this would be very hard for GW 2. i read somewhere that all quests effect other things. like if a dragon attacks a village and you dont help them then the dragon destroys a house then quests comes up to help the construction of a new house. but if u succesfull kill the dragon a new quests comes up to kill her baby dragons or something like that. to generate quests and u fail to succeed them then something has happend to the envoriment and new quests will pop up. - swamp
- I like this idea, although I agree that it would need controls. I like the idea of the creator getting rewarded (maybe just towards a title), and the ability to write a description would be nice too. However, the lroe of the game would be in danger there, and there would have to be a limit on how far things can go. Something like "That evil beast Grawp Scarclaw has stolen my boots! How am I going to get around now? I need some people to help me by going to get them back. I saw him head off towards old Ascalon City. Please be quick, those were my favorite pair!" would be fine, but having somehting like "OMG WTF! That ******* charr stole my ****ing boots! go get them back or ill shoot you with my lazer cannonz!!!!" would be unacceptable. maybe setting some way to filter the quests, and putting a limit of 1000 per server per day would work. Ashes Of Doom 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about rewards to the creator of the quest depending on how many times that quest is taken by players? Coran Ironclaw 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem with that is there's not much incentive to create a quest... -AyaStowar
- While the potential for it to be really fun is there, depending on how complex they manage to make the quest engine, the potential for abuse of this is huge. My opinion is that if this is in place, the system gives no rewards. It is up to the quest creator to provide the rewards (gold or items). That would make it much more in line with the original intention of being able to create quests, instead of creating a potential for quest farming. -- ab.er.rant
- This would be great for guild specific events. Renin 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent) So? The player-made quests coule easily be constrained to one-step things (find+bring back, go kill, etc etc) and not be part of a quest chain. And I'm sure there would be other solutions available. Mesodreth Blackwing 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
More Party Weeks?
More week-long special events would be nice.-- Silverleaf
level cap
PLEASE make their a lvl cap. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.145.148.249 .
- No level cap, but stop getting stronger after a certain level. That way my future Charr Monk can have his power level OVER NINE THOUSAND!--Ryudo 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very Nice Ryudo you just made my day, I also agree with you, and as far as i can tell, my best guess is that this is the sort of thing Anet will be looking into. As it seems to me the only logical way of making your character progress whilst still keeping a level playing field. Crazy 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- i guess they'll have it like now but with max level 100 or something and then let you see how many more levels you would've had somewhere else than after your name so that others only see level 100 and nothing more. --Cursed Angel 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kinda used to the level cap. I think it does well to balance the game...I mean so would a point where you don't get stronger...but why not just have a level cap? Getting to level 20 isn't that hard, but so much more gameplay is available to you once you reach level 20 (getting into PvP matches if you aren't level 20 is not likely). A raise is good...but not too much of a raise.
- Ok right now really... there is no level cap if you think about it... you still gain exp just your level number does not increase. You can forever continue to gain exp... I never heard if there is a exp cap at all to be honest. And you continue to get a bonus for each level earned. So right now you could caculate what level you are at right now... So the fact that the 20 never changes... really we already have no level cap basicly... we just don't get the same rewards we did prior to the first time we reached level 20. So having 100 levels or unlimited levels in GW2 will not be any different then what we have now. It is simply a point of view on the data. What matters is what happens with each level. That is what matters to me... Will there be actual growth or is it just releasing the number so that it continues to rise up unlike in GW1 but give a skill point like we have now. Or will there be monsters that are your equal and worthy of your level? Will there be a barrier that protects lower levels from taking on horrible monsters that would eat them in a second... Or will it be like Pre-searing that creatures do not attack you unless provoked because of the level difference. Chik En 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that lvl cap 20 is too low. Well to gw1 its good but for gw2 i would like to see higher. Something around 50-80 sounds good, or at least this would be the highest level you actually get benefits from gaining lvl. No lvl cap doesnt sound like a good idea, even if you wont get any benefits after certain lvl. Limu Tolkki 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like that idea. If it were implemented with the current system, the really high lvl areas would be filled with 100k+ lvl people, but the end game missions would have lvl 20-30s. Both of these groups have the same stats, but the higher levels obviously have more experience with GW, and are probably (!) more capable of completing the high level missions. It would help weed out the guys who just ascended from the elite missions... though thats not to say they cant do them. Ashes Of Doom 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that lvl cap 20 is too low. Well to gw1 its good but for gw2 i would like to see higher. Something around 50-80 sounds good, or at least this would be the highest level you actually get benefits from gaining lvl. No lvl cap doesnt sound like a good idea, even if you wont get any benefits after certain lvl. Limu Tolkki 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok right now really... there is no level cap if you think about it... you still gain exp just your level number does not increase. You can forever continue to gain exp... I never heard if there is a exp cap at all to be honest. And you continue to get a bonus for each level earned. So right now you could caculate what level you are at right now... So the fact that the 20 never changes... really we already have no level cap basicly... we just don't get the same rewards we did prior to the first time we reached level 20. So having 100 levels or unlimited levels in GW2 will not be any different then what we have now. It is simply a point of view on the data. What matters is what happens with each level. That is what matters to me... Will there be actual growth or is it just releasing the number so that it continues to rise up unlike in GW1 but give a skill point like we have now. Or will there be monsters that are your equal and worthy of your level? Will there be a barrier that protects lower levels from taking on horrible monsters that would eat them in a second... Or will it be like Pre-searing that creatures do not attack you unless provoked because of the level difference. Chik En 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kinda used to the level cap. I think it does well to balance the game...I mean so would a point where you don't get stronger...but why not just have a level cap? Getting to level 20 isn't that hard, but so much more gameplay is available to you once you reach level 20 (getting into PvP matches if you aren't level 20 is not likely). A raise is good...but not too much of a raise.
- Level cap at 50 please because endless grinding sucks. Thats why I started playing this game and also why I continue to play. It takes alot of skill to play this game, and I'm sure alot of people would agree to keep it like this. Prokiller88 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think a level cap of 100 (and then no benefits from levels gained after that except for a title) or even an unlimited level cap would work. You could easily make it so there are diminishing returns that wouldn't make a huge impact at higher levels. HOWEVER something that I don't believe anyone has really talked about yet is the level of mobs. If the level cap was unlimited, whats stopping people from easily killing mobs? This can be fixed by implementing a system that has the mobs level up as your level, or uses some formula that takes the average of the levels of the people in the areas, making it fair. This shouldn't be too hard to do. World PvP would still be balanced when a really high level fights lower leveled people. Why? The diminishing gains would even it out mostly, and then the skills of the people fighting the higher level. For example: 2 level 260 blind bots fighting a level 420 warrior. Though at a much higher level, the warrior would be blinded so he couldn't do much damage allowing the lower level characters to still be competetive. I believe this is true for pve as it seems highly unlikely someone would be able to be a high enough level to kill EVERYTHING alone. Please let me know what you think!
- i guess they'll have it like now but with max level 100 or something and then let you see how many more levels you would've had somewhere else than after your name so that others only see level 100 and nothing more. --Cursed Angel
- Very Nice Ryudo you just made my day, I also agree with you, and as far as i can tell, my best guess is that this is the sort of thing Anet will be looking into. As it seems to me the only logical way of making your character progress whilst still keeping a level playing field. Crazy 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm for Max level 100..is a good number.. its the good old classical Max Level for RPG's and if the Character System is well concepted and thought and and also good balanced..then it won't take ages to reach Level 100.. as so much people are whining ad fearign for, that gettign max lvl 100 automatically means...GW2 become a WoW clone, where it needs endless tiem too reach max level... no just NO...you think wrong ..games which are so are just very bad concepted and broken... But as GW1 is now...its also bad concepted and broken, because you can reach in GW1 max level within 24hours oO...in WoW yopu needa a whole big guild that helps you to be able to reach lvl 70 in 1 day..otherwise it takes simple much longer...but i really think..to reach the max level..it can have the effort of taking for example a month or 2..then you really have something to do while you play and 1-2 months is not too much..and then have u maybe some frineds..which are further and strogner ten you, because they could play more..is that so terrible ? No it isn't ..terrible would be only.. if these guy would be bad friends and wouldn't help you then training so that you also rise a bit quicker in level... So worked old games like RO... firend of me was much stronger then me,,,then my friend too me with him on one of his training tours and tanked me monsters. I would be otherwise unable to kill and boom I raised quick in levels and were quick in the same level..as my frind ... when it works so.. or so similar in GW2..then theres absolutely no problem with having a max level of 100...
its only a problem.. if training in the higher levels needs later soo much time.. that you have to train your character for ages by killing millions of monsters..which give quite simple far too less Experience points to speed up the trainign process...that the point where scrolls of GW1 come in.. and are very handy ..they will sure be again in GW2 ...so i really think theres really no problem with a max level cap of 100.... no level cap..with unendless leveling..that would be just stupid. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
- Whoever added the paragraph after Prokiller88, your ida about taking the average level if not very good (no offense). Mathematically, if there's a bunch of ~lvl 10 people running around and a level 90 or 100 shows up, suddenly mobs are six times the level of the low lvl chars and bite them in half at the slightest provocation. An easier solution would be to have different areas with increasingly powerful monsters (as you trek deeper into the wilderness or something) and a violently steep diminishing return curve on loot/drops as your level increases above that of enemies.
- As for 87.78.44.160, Did you know that standard max level in D&D is 20 as well? And Epic levels are usually 30-40 depending on your DM? I think the problem with GW as it is now is that it relies a little too much on player skill sometimes. I've played WoW too (where the level cap is 70, not 100; even the upcoming expansion is only going to juice that to 80) and it took me only a couple of months to get a character from scratch to level 70 and I'd never played before. I think that's a good timeframe - it really gives you an appreciation for the world and effort blizz put into it, and I would love to see this in GW2, though perhaps not that high a max level. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently you read what I stated earlier wrong. You wouldn't have monsters that are level 90 or 100 fighting level 10's that just stupid. What im saying is that there would be areas in the game where the monsters are generally going to be a higher level than you (such as areas in gw where things are level 24+) and then there are the areas that are going to be of lower level creatures. This makes it so that when you get to a higher level and your say level 198, there are monsters in earlier areas that are level 150 (that are about as difficult as if you were level 20 fighting a level 15) and then things that are level 250 in other areas. The formula would have to be pretty good to stop a low level person from entering an area with a team of 200+ ppl just to lower the levels of the creatures. Since a lot of GW2 is going to be instanced however, this would probably not work, but it IS possible to make a good formula to keep the gameplay still challenging at higher levels.
Pirate Ships
This one's for you, Gaile. I think GW2 should allow players to board and fight on ships. Since we'll be able to swim, and the corsairs are already a big part of the story (some of them serve the undead dragon that raises up Orr, if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, I think it would be cool if a guild or a player or something could purchase a big sailing vessel (say 30k or something), pack it with 8 or 12 players, and set sail, attacking other ships, raiding towns, fighting gigantic sea monsters, whatever. This could be how the player gets to Orr (maybe that ship would be owned by an NPC, so you wouldn't have a mandatory 30k sink), by fighting his/her way through a fleet of evil corsairs. Added in would be siege cannons on the ships that must be manned by a player, and an ability to swing on ropes and physically board other ships (that is, if you don't want to just sink the sucker). This could be instanced for the mission(s) and/or persistant for explorable areas, and maybe even in the pvp areas. The ships owned by a guild could fly the flag of the guild, and in that way some big guilds could have fleets of ships, each one requiring a minimum number of players to sail it, with one player acting as the "captain" and steering it (to keep it simple, that would be the leader of the party). And some gvg maps could require the use of ships, and AB (if there is anything like AB in GW2, which I hope there is) could have one side defend against an invading force, the defenders having a castle on the coast, and the invaders using ships to come in. Anyway, I think it could be done and done really well, and then it would be really really cool. And then we could all actually be pirates! (Satanael 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
- I Love The Idea
- COOL IDEA, lets also ad as weapon a launcher that shoots pink flying lions and let the best vessel be in the shape of a gian mustashe. Now lets get serious, Guildwars in in an ancient setting, thats the reason an archer uses a bow and not u guns, raul guns or lazer canons. Letting vessel fly arround would just rip the whole mood in guildwars apart. Its like adding a death star as weapon in a game like Pokemon. 84.192.112.59 15:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- GW isn't an "ancient" setting. That's more like classical Greece or Rome. Guild Wars is Mediæval, which won't be ancient for another few hundred years.
- One word: Ballistae. Blows your WHOLE argument out of the water (no pun intended). If you've ever read fantasy novels, lots of times ships don't have cannons or guns for defense, they have a siege-like weapon mounted usually amidships or on the aftcastle. Long reload is LONG, but one solid hit can disable an aggressor (or some poor sot's ship being raided). It would take some MAJOR thinking on the part of GW2's Design team, but I think having shipboard combat (even without ship-to-ship combat) would be an awesome addition to the game. And where did Satanael ever mention flying? Oh, that's right. Flying colors. It means having a flag that denotes one's allegiance. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would love to see this added to the game. While we still don't know how GW2 will work, I believe this could easily be put into a mission at least. You could be on a ship and have ballistae that people on the ship need to fire at targets to help stop them from boarding (similar to how the ones in some missions can be fired to stop enemies from getting to npc's during some missions). This seems like a creative new addition to the guild wars world and seems like a good idea for a way to get to Orr. Please consider this dev team! ~Big Foot Bob
lasers
deer gale plz giv us lasers thx u much — Skuld 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- /Agree.reanor 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please Gaile don't add advanced technology to the game. MageMontu 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about a spell that shoots a ray at something, or making wands and staves fire rays rather than projectiles? -- Gordon Ecker 08:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please Gaile don't add advanced technology to the game. MageMontu 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about make all the Chain/Invok lighting-like spells coming from the character insted of from no where as it is in gw1. That should keep both the laser dude and the agaist tech dude happy. :) --Bob 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah we could have some Star Wars emperor lightning shit out of our staves.reanor 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- then why should anyone use the current weapons if there were lasers, and except for that every melee class with axes, scythes, swords would look retarded, also bows would look gay if you added lasers/shotguns/robots. Any gay starwars thing and i wouldn't buy it, this idea is gay --Cursed Angel 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Umm there's a reason some ppl prefer a sword over a bow, it's called damage. So even if there were lasers, the damage they inflict will be balanced so that it won't be overpowered. You better come up with a better argument.reanor 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- And btw we already have advanced technology, it's actually a robot and it's called G.O.L.E.M.reanor 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- lasers look gay, thats it. i want the old weapons and old weapons only, maybe crossbows and javelins and more blood. --Cursed Angel 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- lasers look gay, thats it. i want the old weapons and old weapons only, maybe crossbows and javelins and more blood. --Cursed Angel
- Umm there's a reason some ppl prefer a sword over a bow, it's called damage. So even if there were lasers, the damage they inflict will be balanced so that it won't be overpowered. You better come up with a better argument.
- then why should anyone use the current weapons if there were lasers, and except for that every melee class with axes, scythes, swords would look retarded, also bows would look gay if you added lasers/shotguns/robots. Any gay starwars thing and i wouldn't buy it, this idea is gay --Cursed Angel
- Yeah we could have some Star Wars emperor lightning shit out of our staves.
I'm sorry, but are we actually discussing lasers in GW? How about this for an argument, it makes absolutely no sense in the guild wars world. period. full stop. end of story. (Satanael 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
- But Satanael ! PEW PEW PEW !! Dont you want Pew Pew PEW ! to Stop all the Q Q ! ?! ?! ? :p Crazy 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If ANet ever does get around to lasers it will probably be in GW5 or something. Honestly I don't want to see something like that 'till then but give us mass transportation devices at least. Also I think there should be some kind of Industrial Revolution thing. I remember something in Sorrow's Furnace Summit Slaves quest, 2 Summit Dwarves referanced the Iron Forgeman creating Automation. It would be interesting for a campaign to be centered on this. -User:Laserblasto!
- Steampunk is always gud. --71.229.204.25 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Steampunk is like cowbell, you always need more. -
HeWhoIsPale 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Steampunk is like cowbell, you always need more. -
- Well, the G.O.L.E.M.'s use lasers don't they? Melee weap's would become lasers, and bows would... shoot... lightsabers...or something. come to think about it, a lightsaber-launcher would be the greatest weapon ever-160.23.244.253 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want sharks with freakin laser beams attached to their freakin heads. -FireFox 
19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about just NO -__- lol
- Lasers rofl.. this is Guild Wars(2) and not Star Wars >.> --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Hair Styler
I want to be able to change my hair. I don't care they make it 2k or 20k or on top a mountain surrounded by hungry trolls. --Evil Party Girl 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Poor hairdresser, going to work every morning will always be hell. But yes I agree I want the ability to change my hair. But pls not faces or gender, we r not playing a surgery game. MageMontu 07:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- There were talk about getting this in WOW but I stopped playing so no idea if it was ever implemented. It would be soo nice seeing this in GW2. JohnQA 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes.. there should be a Hair Styler NPC..not only for GW2..but in GW1 too finally
a NPc..which lets us change for a small fee our Hair Styles of our charsters and lets us choose from ALL possible hair Styles.. not only ones of a certain Campaign..because our Characters started in Campaign X..thats silly and totally regardless, from where our characters started...
- When i own all Campaigns in GW1..then the Hair Dresser should show me also all hairstylles of all professions..so that I can also make Canthan characters with a elonian Hair Style..or tyrian Characters with canthan hair styles ....
TZhe same problem should be solved with faces...
- GW2 should receive hopefully such a good Character Creator, like the game "Perfect World" has it..because their Character Creator is to say in no other words just PERFECT --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Faces
One thing I would like to suggest is to make a few Canthan- and Elonian-style faces available for GW2 characters. My main character is Canthanese, so it wouldn't be much fun if her decendant would look like a Tyrian. I know you will probably make an add-on with Cantha, so maybe you could even add a 'place-of-birth', for those of us who're really into roleplaying and want their characters to be either Elonian or Tyrian. (Roughly translated into GW1 terms it would mean that a character started in Tyria would have to be able to ascend and get their attribute-point-quests in Cantha). At the very least, it would mean a lot to me. Thanks for reading this. Nicky Silverstar 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- actually, this brings up a good point, if you make a character in GW2 that's a race other than human, can it still inherit from your GW1 character? That doesn't really make any sense, I mean, unless there's cross-species mating going on somehow (ew, by the way) (Satanael 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
- oh yes, hot charr-on-azura action! --Lou-Saydus
23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd assumed it wasn't neccesarily a blood relationship, but a spiritual one. "Shared destiny", or something like that. I doubt humans and Charr are compatible breeders, anyway. And don't get me started on the Sylvari... though, apparently the Norn have no compunction against marrying and mating with humans, under the right circumstances. --Valentein 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- LoL a male Norn dating a minimum hight female monk. MageMontu 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd assumed it wasn't neccesarily a blood relationship, but a spiritual one. "Shared destiny", or something like that. I doubt humans and Charr are compatible breeders, anyway. And don't get me started on the Sylvari... though, apparently the Norn have no compunction against marrying and mating with humans, under the right circumstances. --Valentein 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- oh yes, hot charr-on-azura action! --Lou-Saydus
Haha,or a female Norn dating with minimum hight male XD
Invetory!!!
OK skills are off but wath about invetory.Its stupid if you have like only armor wepen and sheald.In guild wars 2 they have to put like some thing els may neckles or some on your sholders just like in WoW adn put some specijal thing to lock cooler!!!!!!!Theyt is the firs wath they have to do with your invetory
- Second on the list of what to do is improve overall grammar isn't it? Gw2 won't be WOW, it will be GW2. Which means the second edition of perfection. Apart from that, sorry but i have no idea what you are talking about.Rhydeble 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- GW is very far from perfection, but yet it is the best game. Apart from that, sorry but i have no idea what you are talking about. Coran Ironclaw 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- He wants additional equipment slots (i.e. necklace, rings, cloak, ect). - HeWhoIsPale 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- и я не имею никакую идею также.--Evil Party Girl 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I uh...yea. can anyone read Cyrillic? In the interests of continuity, though, I shall assume it is a valid point about inventory and/or equippable item slots. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- What we don't know can't hurt us. And I cn tlk liek dis 2. Also, the armor system is quite fine as is, and the weapon/offhand system. Calor — talk 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Previet ^_^! that's the only thing i know... Coran Ironclaw 06:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- What we don't know can't hurt us. And I cn tlk liek dis 2. Also, the armor system is quite fine as is, and the weapon/offhand system. Calor — talk 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- He wants additional equipment slots (i.e. necklace, rings, cloak, ect). -
- GW is very far from perfection, but yet it is the best game. Apart from that, sorry but i have no idea what you are talking about. Coran Ironclaw 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adding more stuff like bracers and rings etc would make the game in pvp equipment dependant. The person witht he most money would win more often as his equipment will be better. Since not all people like farming 724 gazillion platina to buy a piece of armor that adds 3 more armor to their total, i suggest the armors etc would stay as it is. It would be like happened in the ascalon arenas (people being ran to droks then win every match because their armor is the best in game). Guildwars is skill dependant not equipment dependant. This is why grinding korreans on GW aren 't nesescaraly better at something then any other person is.84.192.112.59 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- And why would pvp characters not be able to create these items? Think, then post. Lord of all tyria 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I never said pvp chars wouldn 't be able to make them. but if u follow my train of thought u'll see why i wouldn 't let them be made by pvp ones. Lets say that rings and bracers are included in the game. then there are 2 options. Or they are assumed not as standard gear (like armor etc is important rings are minor details to ones armor) in wich case if pve chars would pvp they would be weaker then a pvp char, just because he has a ring that does 1 dammage less extra then the pvp char 's. Since perfect stuff costs some money, and rings are considered details like this, they would sell for alot so PvE chars will not be likely to have the best equipment.
- And why would pvp characters not be able to create these items? Think, then post. Lord of all tyria 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Option 2 is they are calculated as standard gear, economy will need to be balanced this way, and everyboddy would still have the same gear as they have now, it would only take up more space in their inventory etc. Making it only pointless. It would just be, look i have more stuff on my boddy. It wouldn 't visualy distinct u from any people as it would be calculated as standard gear. 84.192.112.59 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-OMG IF YOU HAVE MONE YOU CAN BUY BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY WORKING HARD SO YOU SHUD PUT IN GW2 SHUD PUT THET EVRY MMO HAVE THET ITS STUPID ONLY ONE ARMOR SHELD AND WEPON COMONNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!1THAT SUCKS
- I will act as if the previous comment does not exist.(I have a policy of ignoring everything in all caps and with more than 5 grammar errors in a sentence) I think that the idea of having more armor slots would be pointless to say the least. Maybe a little more armor customizations (ie, you can see the runes have a toggle-able physical effect for example) would be nice, but apart form that, what we need is an armor storage or bag. Most players have more sets of armor than characters, unless every time you switch builds you re-rune your armors. Ashes Of Doom 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lord of all Tyria, you are officially my hero for the next five minutes. *ahem* Ashes, I don't rerune my armor, I'm lazy and just use one suit for everything :P But I do have a couple friends who are like shopaholics when it comes to armor production, so I will say that specialized bags/boxes to put stuff in would be a good idea. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rings and a possible cloak could replace the use of runes and insignias, and I would like that. About storage do not worry about that yet, this is GW2 suggestions and storage has been promised to be a lot better. Coran Ironclaw 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lord of all Tyria, you are officially my hero for the next five minutes. *ahem* Ashes, I don't rerune my armor, I'm lazy and just use one suit for everything :P But I do have a couple friends who are like shopaholics when it comes to armor production, so I will say that specialized bags/boxes to put stuff in would be a good idea. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will act as if the previous comment does not exist.(I have a policy of ignoring everything in all caps and with more than 5 grammar errors in a sentence) I think that the idea of having more armor slots would be pointless to say the least. Maybe a little more armor customizations (ie, you can see the runes have a toggle-able physical effect for example) would be nice, but apart form that, what we need is an armor storage or bag. Most players have more sets of armor than characters, unless every time you switch builds you re-rune your armors. Ashes Of Doom 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW vs GW2
MAKE IT BETTER THEN WOW--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .
- ... I think they had already thought of that. - HeWhoIsPale 15:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Guild wars is already better than world of Warcraft... Guild wars is unbeattable. The best. Period. Done. The end.
- diablo 2 is always the best game ever, even if the graphic suck and i havent played it for 3 years, but right, i think wow is gay with its monthly fees, gay animation and retarded professions like that cow one, even if i would like to try wow some day gw2 will be better whatever wow does as gw has the charr and the mesmers --Cursed Angel 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really have to agree, even if WoW doesn't suck quite as badly as you say. --71.229.204.25 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- GW is already better than WoW. Atleast in terms of pvp. Because its odd to me that you can't point blank shoot someone on WoW.Prokiller88 03:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Strain's concept of 'emergent complexity', is what I think it is and they actually pull it off, they won't have to worry about 'being better'. The game will be so different from everything else ever done in an mmorpg it will set a new standard. Won't know for a while though. --Redfeather 10:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty much guaranteed to be better than World of Warcraft, a more important question is how it'll stack up against Blizzard's next MMORPG. -- Gordon Ecker 10:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Strain's concept of 'emergent complexity', is what I think it is and they actually pull it off, they won't have to worry about 'being better'. The game will be so different from everything else ever done in an mmorpg it will set a new standard. Won't know for a while though. --Redfeather 10:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- GW is already better than WoW. Atleast in terms of pvp. Because its odd to me that you can't point blank shoot someone on WoW.Prokiller88 03:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really have to agree, even if WoW doesn't suck quite as badly as you say. --71.229.204.25 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree but think on the WOW the linch king!!!!!IF GW2 have to be better then WOW they have to make like RIDE ON PETS FLY ON PETS AND MORE COOL STUFF --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XenmasX .
- Don't worry, all those thousands of huge updates on Wow kills the entire purpose if it, you get the highest tier armor and then they come around with an update, and your armor is currently shit. that's what I love so much in GW, all armor and weaps are just for looks :) Rhydeble 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I think you forget the purpose of Guild Wars. It was NEVER made to rival/compete with WoW. Period! (even though Anet was made from former Blizzard Employees)
WoW= For the EXTREME hard core gamer, "It was it all, for the one that needs and has it all".
Guild Wars= No Monthly Fees, Looser Rules, Better Way Of Putting "out" updates. Grind Free, Has Support that read/talk/come in game to chat/find new ideas. Lower Hardware Support. More realistic graphics. Its NOT a MMORPG like WoW so technically i'm wasting my breath trying to compare games that aren't on the same design stand point.
So case in point. Guild Wars is unique and will be staying that way!
P.S Keep it clean! 68.151.27.108 23:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even better: DO NOT MAKE IT LIKE WoW. 84.192.112.59 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded! Ashes Of Doom 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You guys should really stop comparing WoW to GW. I mean Grind v. Skill... I would pick grind because its alot easier and so would other people. Prokiller88 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded! Ashes Of Doom 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Player Housing
Surprised it hasn't been suggested yet, but I would like to see player housing... maybe allow upgrades to different types of houses and display trophies/weapons/art earned or bought in the game. Then maybe a guest option to allow other people to enter your house. --Sagron 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just a question, but wouldnt this make the Hall of Monuments (referring to "maybe allow upgrades to different types of houses and display trophies/weapons/art") Redundant ? Crazy 08:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It has been suggested, don't know about wiki and ingame they ask alot about it to Gaile and its 1 of the most requested. MageMontu 08:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still miss the EQ2 housing with furniture and items against the walls. It really used to give you a feeling of home inside the game.
- It has been suggested, don't know about wiki and ingame they ask alot about it to Gaile and its 1 of the most requested. MageMontu 08:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even if this is just sort of a place that gives you a feeling that its yours like the HoM, it would provide a decent place for armor storage. This can kill two birds with one stone.
Maintained hexs
There are some monk enchantments that can be kept up all the time for an energy regeneration price. I think it could be nice to have a lot more of skills that way ; like Elementalist spells ( thunder or firerain ? ) that would be kept in time, maybe for a different price, like increasing exhaustion and unnallowed to move. Necromancers hex that can be kept over time, but maybe the price could be energy drain or... life drain. And why not fighters skills like that, somekind of storm blade the warrior would keep making as long as he haves energy/life/stamina/adrenaline ? Or Summons, chosing between maintaining a powerfull single summon, or for the same cost, a dozen of weak minions. Well my point is i think it would be nice to have more way to affect the battlefield with length, (i'm not sure it means something in english) The one i would love the most would be a pain inverter/spitefull spirit that could last longer, but the cost would be a high health degeneration and 5% of maximum life lost each time the foe is striked by the maintained hex. lussh 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your example, "high health degen and 5% health lost" is IMO a too high cost for an SS-like effect. The enemy better be taking 150+dmg/hit, since SS you can get 41+ easy with no drawback. Neat idea, though. I think there's certainly merit for it and it's not like it would be difficult to implement. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The idea promotes passive gameplay which tends to do the game boring (generally speaking). Put yourself four things of these and do nothing more. so while the ideas sounds interesting I do not support it. Coran Ironclaw 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I propose a "self-maintained" hex, something a necro can thrive. Let's say "have 30% less health" and then another necro (assuming they survive the transfer) skill like an enchantment "While health is below 20%, you gain 20% maximum energy" of some sorts. Renin 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought for a while hexes would be better this way. The game would be better off with something to limit the possibility of ridiculous hex piling. Hexes shouldn't' be about blindly piling and trying to overpower hex removal. They should be about tactical debuffing. I'm in favour of this idea and I imagine hexes would have lowered recharges, and more balanced effects. --Redfeather 10:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about giving them upkeep and a "when this hex ends" effect? That would make maintained hexes more active instead of more passive. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This sound like a good idea, but making it so "This hex ends when you are attacked for more than 10...50 damage..." would make it more fair in many cases imho. that way, while the entire other team of eles is using a permanent firestorm on the ground in fornt of you, a well aimed bow shot can stop them. Then they have the recharge before they can cast again. However, being able to maintain this even while the enemy is runnign away or something like that makes it rather unbalanced for pvp. But as a pve idea, it sounds really fun. Ashes Of Doom 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about giving them upkeep and a "when this hex ends" effect? That would make maintained hexes more active instead of more passive. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought for a while hexes would be better this way. The game would be better off with something to limit the possibility of ridiculous hex piling. Hexes shouldn't' be about blindly piling and trying to overpower hex removal. They should be about tactical debuffing. I'm in favour of this idea and I imagine hexes would have lowered recharges, and more balanced effects. --Redfeather 10:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I propose a "self-maintained" hex, something a necro can thrive. Let's say "have 30% less health" and then another necro (assuming they survive the transfer) skill like an enchantment "While health is below 20%, you gain 20% maximum energy" of some sorts. Renin 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The idea promotes passive gameplay which tends to do the game boring (generally speaking). Put yourself four things of these and do nothing more. so while the ideas sounds interesting I do not support it. Coran Ironclaw 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Farming Areas - Make grind fun
I'd like to see a few special farming challenge area (like an island or something) that has a higher gold drop rate (maybe +10~25%) and perhaps chests in places. Make mobs smart and mix up the damage types, professions, resistances so it's hard to exploit. Make it no henchies or heroes. Hmmm, did I just discribe the underworld? Anyway, there should be early game ones too.
Spend lots of time developing the instance because it should be replayable for fun too. Maybe make the environment extra interactive (illusionary walls, hidden stuff, traps, lava etc..). Have different spawn modes so that each time it is played the mobs are in different places, or make ups or different monsters all together. Give it a hard mode option too. The location could change every 3 months or after 1000K has been farmed or something. Just cook up the supporting fluff.
Loot scaling makes solo farming a waste of time, and I am probably going to eventually want grind up 15k per armour piece, please, please, please make the process enjoyable.
If you build it, they will come. Make grind fun. --Evil Party Girl 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evil Party Girl, I love you ( for what you say about "fun" ). Yseron
- So all the efforts ArenaNet put into balancing out farming should go to waste? be glad u still have area 's to farm. If farming would be nerfed entirely it would be alot better. Because then drop rats in places like UW and SF would rise again and people would acualy go to places like these. Right now they are abandones like hell. And people who would play for fun and try to beat stuff like UW would actualy gain something out of it. Not i need the money or something, it would just be nice to clear UW again as back in the old days with a party as it was first inteded to. Ooh and grind != fun. 84.192.112.59 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Afaik, the reason for loot scaling was as much to prevent botting and uber-exploiting of the farming runs, rather than to prevent people from working hard for a few weeks to get that 15k armor. I like this idea for maybe one area, the special features you suggest would make it hard to farm with bots, same goes for the dynamic nature of the area. I really like this idea. Ashes Of Doom 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- This 84.192.112.59 sounds, based on previous comments above, to want GW2 to be the most bland and uninteresting game ever. But you know what? If they put even 1/100th of the cool stuff in these suggestions into the actual game, it will be so Epic that Blizzard will go bankrupt. EPIC!
- Afaik, the reason for loot scaling was as much to prevent botting and uber-exploiting of the farming runs, rather than to prevent people from working hard for a few weeks to get that 15k armor. I like this idea for maybe one area, the special features you suggest would make it hard to farm with bots, same goes for the dynamic nature of the area. I really like this idea. Ashes Of Doom 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To the point in question, I like this too. Sure as hell would have made the month and a half I farmed Temple of the Damned for 6 hours a night on my ranger to get a suit of Fissure armor for my warrior way more enjoyable, instead of mindless repetition >.< Mesodreth Blackwing 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about making areas specially to farm but I do think grinding should be more enjoyable especially since everyone that plays the game for a significant amount of time is almost guaranteed to do at some point for some extra gold. With regards to mobs, another thing I would like to see across all of GW2 is multiple spawn locations for most creatures and varying spawn for many of the groups so that when you go out and fight a group the next time you go there you could be facing a different group of creatures with different capabilities. If done right I think this would make areas funner to do and thus more replayable, as well as wrecking havoc with bots. Huntress 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Loot Scaling
I think loot scaling shouldn't kick in if your party is one or two under the max party size with actual players. A 1 man or 2 man outfit killing everything is pretty obviously farming, which it seems the company wants to avoid now, whereas a two thirds full party is just making it more of a challenge for themselves and should be rewarded thus. Yes, its a kind of Farming. 4/6 or 5/6 ppl claiming the drops for 6/6.
I think it should be players (not hench/heroes) because its rewarding teamwork not a bunch of Olias MMs and superZheds running round.
There are times in the game when I have wanted to generate lots of cash quickly (I have lovely pink armour and cape). If ppl are getting together in small partys to farm then let them. Why endgame Ectos or greens farming the only way now. Why do I have to exploit some instance to get my gold. Time dedicated to generating money should yeild more money. --Evil Party Girl 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just get the old system back to gw2. I really hate this new loot scaling. I used to play 6 hours a day before this, now its maybe 2... Wheres the reality? If you kill 8 enemies alone, you would get all the drops from those, not just from one. Limu Tolkki 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it would be to make it more of a challange drops wouldn 't mather for them, otherwise its farming. Either way your points are moot. Killing stuff for drops is farming, no mather how many ppl u are. and if it is for the challange drops don 't mather. 84.192.112.59 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think your point is moot. Spoken like someone who just complains about other people having more with no motivation to change yourself, only looking at the faults in others. Doing anything in Guild Wars on a character once you've beaten the campaign is bloody well farming. Evil Party Girl's point is realistic and applicable. If 4 people do a farming run in a zone made for six, it's difficult. But like she said, doing it with one or two people is exploiting the way the AI/environment works. Doing the same thing with four or five or whatever requires co-ordination and co-operation. Mesodreth Blackwing 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Other OS's Support
With Mac OS (finally) being the 2nd choice to some ea titles. It shows that windows is NOT the only platform needed to play games on.
(I'll get to my point)
Expand Guild Wars To The Mac and Linux (begs). Since its barley starting in development I think that this could be a great way to show that NCSOFT/Anet cares about different technology. As hey windows won't stand leader for ever. So I think this will be a good choice!
Thank you 68.151.27.108 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah could help to expand the player base a little, But Maybe windows not being the leader forever... Theres a good chance that it will be going for close to forever, nothing comes close to the Useability and familiarity of windows at this stage, hell im even considering buying Vista even though i dont completely like it, just because it has some cool stuff. Crazy 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The most sold mmorpg ever (WOW) is for Win and Mac, and it's fully playable on Linux, NWN was entirely playable on Win, Mac, Linux and sold a lot... Don't think it's only a matter of luck, the market share of Mac and Linux users is constantly growing up, and Transgaming.org with their Cedega are making easier to develop games for Mac while coding it for Win. Please, think to the milion of Mac and Linux users all over the world... PLEASE!!! 79.8.35.110 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I see only 2 replys to this :(. I think the only problem is here is that is not "poof" installer and there ya go. Its new code as linux/mac doesnt support Direct X. They all support OpenGL but the codes so different and is not even close to the quality of Direct X. But i think we still need the other OS's support as OpenGL could be the "fallback". So please consider this!
Thank You! 68.151.27.108 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
COMOn
comon Are tehy gono be new proffesions like paragon or dervis some thing new tehy shud put druid cuz is cool or templer and taht is cool
- Really, what is your concept for "Druid" and "Templar", other than the names? Make a ranger, use Nature Rituals and wear Druid armour, or go R/Mo if you really want the spells (Druid, usually a nature-themed mage). Make a warrior and be a stance tank (Templar, usually a defensive knight). I'm not seeing much of a difference between what you want and what we have, other than a spiffy name. --Valentein 08:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're missing the spirit of the classes. Rangers in GW are basically just people more adept than anyone else at shooting a bow. Druids don't just live in the wilderness; they're a part of it. In D&D a templar isn't defensive, he or she is the divine wrath facet of a paladin; the will to strike down evil no matter the price. I feel the need to note here that the Mordant Crescent mentioned in the "lore" of GW2 would be through the looking glass on this issue. instead of being on a crusade to destroy evil, they are one to destroy good. More true to history though, a templar would be more in-line to a D&D Paladin, defending those who themselves cannot defend.
Ergo, spamming nature rituals wouldn't capture the essence which is to be druidic since all it would do is modify effects. As a player class, no one would play them because they cannot do anything meaningful. Just as being a stance tank wouldn't defend the rest of the party. The only warrior skills that do that are "Save Yourselves!" from the Allegiance rank and Protector's Defense, which ends if you move. The closest thing to a templar in GW would be our resident sharp stick slinging paragons, whose defensive capabilities are very non-synergistic and embryonic. Mesodreth Blackwing 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Campaigns
I know in GW 2 there is different playable races. And in GW there is different campaigns. But what if you put those two together. Liek in GW 2 there is a different campaign for different races. Like, one may be a campaign where the time period is before GW 1 and you can play as Dwarves. Or another where you play as a devourer or worm and your cities are underground, but all of the explorables areas are above ground and you fight up there against other foes? I don't know if that's possible but to me it sounds like a good idea.--FireTock 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea of the add-ons (as we dont know what they are going to be) being a particular races story, and buying that "add-on" makes that race playable. Crazy 11:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot agree with this idea. It means that, if impemented, Anet (or NCSoft) would be bilking people out of another $40-60CDN just to play a different race. That's taking capitalism a little too far. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- If extra good stuff is put in for the particular race, would the company release all these add-ons at the same time? Or will it be better to be a Asuran Ele for several months until the Char add-on is released? I cant see either happening.--Evil Party Girl 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
GW2 Playable Races
In GW as a human you can be either a male or female. I hope this is incorporated for every race. The one race I'm worried about most is the Sylvari. The September PC Gamer magazine referred to the entire Sylvari race as "she" which doesn't mean a Sylvari character can't be male, but it does add to my concern.
- Well, in other fantasy settings (or hell, even British Isles legend) dryads and nymphs are usually unequivocally female, so having no males (or horribly androgynous ones) isn't without precedent. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- i am sure that sylvari wil be playable as a male or as a female (see concept art)the art depicts male and female forms. the only question i would be wondering about is what a female Charr is going to look like!!! --193.170.244.7 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe explained away like Dwarf Women ? Crazy 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean the concept art depicts male and female forms? I thought the only concept art was that one picture on the sylvari page...or are you referring to concept art for Guild Wars Utopia?
- Has anyone here actually seen a female dwarf on gw? Prokiller88 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- No one knows, since female dwarves look the same as male ones. Kypp Duron 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Really, they look the same? 68.20.183.12 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No one knows, since female dwarves look the same as male ones. Kypp Duron 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Has anyone here actually seen a female dwarf on gw? Prokiller88 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean the concept art depicts male and female forms? I thought the only concept art was that one picture on the sylvari page...or are you referring to concept art for Guild Wars Utopia?
- Maybe explained away like Dwarf Women ? Crazy 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Blow a Kiss and Shake Fist
This is a small one, but i'd really like to /blowkiss & /shakefist at ppl (the story of my life really). --Evil Party Girl 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- There already is a "/shakefist" in the form of /fistshake Mesodreth Blackwing 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe she means /Blowkiss (I.e. Crazy Blows a kiss to gaile ;) ) and /Shakefist (I.e. Crazy Shakes Fist at World of Warcraft )Crazy 07:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I get it, like the mote text string changes based on the target. It maketh sense! Mesodreth Blackwing 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evil Party Girl blows a kiss at Mesodreth Blackwing. Evil Party Girls shakes her fist at 84.192.112.59. And while I'm here, I'll add that I think keys should be assignable for emots. I really cant see a reason for having to type it everytime. --Evil Party Girl 13:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I get it, like the mote text string changes based on the target. It maketh sense! Mesodreth Blackwing 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe she means /Blowkiss (I.e. Crazy Blows a kiss to gaile ;) ) and /Shakefist (I.e. Crazy Shakes Fist at World of Warcraft )Crazy 07:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- <sarcasm> Oh yea...like I can do targeted fame spam now </sarcasm> Lightblade 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- hmm.. what about emotions for two ppl, like a kiss.. one of them types /kiss "someone", the "someone" obtained an message like "... wants to kiss you".. he have to type "kiss ..." to "agree".
sorry for my VERY bad english..
- I dont think people care enough about this and that its sort of...pointless and weird for you to be thinking up a whole system for 1 emote like that...by the way this isn't runescapeDark X 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
/gottago <playername> really has to go to the ladies/mens room. That would probably give lots of laughs. Laserblasto! 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
background lore with players
I was thinking that the backgroud story for guildwars2 could incorporate some players and guilds, How they bravely met there end.
something like,
Conski had let the clean up of the mursaat(home campaign) there last strong hold had been found so Conski sent out word and an army of Tyrians got ready to end the mursaat once and for all. A combined Krytan and ascalonian army prepared,It was the night before the attack that a young Ranger called Gaile brought word that the Mursaat planned to detonate the city rather than let it's secrets fall into the hands of mortals. Determined to stop this Conski and Gaile gathered a small group and made a last ditch attempt to stop them..........
long story short group of 8 players go to the city manage to stop them blowing it up but all die in the process you could do this for several groups of players and guilds maybe 5 groups(8people) for each campaign.
you could start a draw and peoples names get picked out and they get to be in the lore it would be a nice way to tie up loose ends and also give some people an idea as to what happened to ther character.
Some could even be villens?
Conski42 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Conski42
First person aiming
The first time I had this idea was when my character was enchanted with a weapon spell and I had the camera zoomed in at max. I started walking and i noticed my weapon moving back and forth
essentially the idea is this: when zoomed at first person level, give the opportunity for first person aiming, it can be quite usefull for things like AoE skills or anything that requires to be well-placed. It would offer an entirely new form of mmorpg gameplay and it would be super-cool if asked me :)
ps: I got a feeling that this idea wont be implemented in the actual game, but can it be available for things like events or Fun-mode scrimmages or somethin'? :) ShiniKami 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea or minigames during holidays, etc.!
- So it's exactly like auto-attacking, except from a different perspective and a possibility to totally fail at the most basic command at the game depending on how bad you are at aiming? Oh boy! --71.229.204.25 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- But seriously, I'd like an option to manually choose where to drop an AoE instead of it always being targeted. WoW did it pretty well if you need a reference. --71.229.204.25 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I second the idea of being able to aim aoe spells at any location you choose, and maybe the aimer lets you know where the area of effect will be (e.g., a bigger reticule for "nearby" aoe than the reticule for "adjacent" aoe spells). This could be easy to implement, such as a drag and drop of the spell with the mouse, or just hold onto the corresponding skill number and move the mouse. (Satanael 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC))
- Or a simple Click once to Select Click a second time to Cast. Crazy 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Activate skill(click or number key) big circle of some sort appears on the ground under where your cursor is and it is the size of the aoe, click again to launch attack. If where you click is out of range, move there first and then cast. Also you will need an option to be able to disable the auto move and just get an error message instead, this would also make the circle turn red when outside of max casting range. --Lou-Saydus 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like this idea, but the abilty to precisely target a mob is necessary too. Maybe if you cast a AOE spell with caps lock on or something it gives you a target thing, but if its not on it acts like GW1? Ashes Of Doom 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or an even simpler method could be, if you have an enemy targeted, the spell hits them (or the area around them) or if not you're given a targeting reticule (approximate to the size of the effect) and click again to cast the spell in that location. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like this idea, but the abilty to precisely target a mob is necessary too. Maybe if you cast a AOE spell with caps lock on or something it gives you a target thing, but if its not on it acts like GW1? Ashes Of Doom 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Activate skill(click or number key) big circle of some sort appears on the ground under where your cursor is and it is the size of the aoe, click again to launch attack. If where you click is out of range, move there first and then cast. Also you will need an option to be able to disable the auto move and just get an error message instead, this would also make the circle turn red when outside of max casting range. --Lou-Saydus
- Or a simple Click once to Select Click a second time to Cast. Crazy 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I second the idea of being able to aim aoe spells at any location you choose, and maybe the aimer lets you know where the area of effect will be (e.g., a bigger reticule for "nearby" aoe than the reticule for "adjacent" aoe spells). This could be easy to implement, such as a drag and drop of the spell with the mouse, or just hold onto the corresponding skill number and move the mouse. (Satanael 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC))
- But seriously, I'd like an option to manually choose where to drop an AoE instead of it always being targeted. WoW did it pretty well if you need a reference. --71.229.204.25 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- So it's exactly like auto-attacking, except from a different perspective and a possibility to totally fail at the most basic command at the game depending on how bad you are at aiming? Oh boy! --71.229.204.25 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What GW2 hopefully really should have is a real good made "EGO PERSPECTIVE"...that would be most awesome.. especially when you play as ranger...and then you can target your enemies manually by targeting for your self..zooming in and out playing like a sniping ranger ^^ muhahahahah that would be soo coool especially for Rp that would be awesome..playing like a Hunter on the Hunt --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.78.44.160 (talk).
Holding a spell
How about ALT + Skill (or whatever) casts a spell but does not release it for up to 2-4 seconds (depending on mastery in relevant area / or longer?)? The animation would have to be cool - like glowing hands or halo aura etc... Except for moving, of course, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything else until you release the spell.
You press the generic attack button or the skill button to release the stpred spell. Use the quick spell animation and have the release activation 1/2 second. Potency is reduced depending on how long it's held, maybe cast at -1 attribute point per second held.
Casting a new spell would interupt the held one. Timing out would lose the held spell, return 25-50% of the E back to the E pool and start the recharge cycle. Interupts would make his harder to exploit, if that is an issue also. Or give any damage a % chance to interupt while in his state. I just dont like the way I can see them coming but cant cast a 2sec casting time spell until they're in range. Or I have to run towards them when I know they're coming for me. There'd be other applications, I'm sure. Maybe I just reinvented mesmer fast casting. Just looking for different ways to play.. --Evil Party Girl 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I have until recently been mostly pve and have played mostly a necro at that. I'm guessing this might be too exploitable in pvp. i just dunno. --Evil Party Girl 15:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah in PvP there would be mad spiking with this. Everyone can already have the spell cast and then it would be even harder to stop the spike. Obsidian spikers could actually do good in PvP as the monk cant protective spirit EVERYONE in the party at once Dark X 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guild Website System Integration
Have a look at what API's has done for facebook :P ok apart from the crud surfacing everything :P
The idea thou is simple. Allow creators or Fan and Guild sites to get user information from the ANet to allow tracking of stats chars, skills etc
This can be a problem ala facebook, but can be solved having a hosting system built around it and attach the website creation to the guild creation. This will also handle login/pass per account and movement of account between guilds. This can further be extended to allow quest/mission creation tools, scavenger hunts with prizes etc etc to be handled on the website.
This will be a very intense database application, however I'm sure the clever devs will find a way to make it work :)
So a quick example would be :
- Person creates guild
- Purchases guild website (in-game)
- Select unique sitename somethingoranother.guildwars.com
- Webpage is created with "admin" being the guild owner
- Guild owner logs into site and set up site to his liking.
- Add addition "applications" to the site ala Facebook application using Anet API to allow additional
This website will have all guild members and char information accessible with all relevant information as well. This makes guild management easer. Any advanced guild system that will be included in GW2 can also be accessed via this system thereby taking the "management" functions out of the GW game application.
Possible applications could include :
- build management
- armour management
- Inventory management
this is of course just a starting point :)
I'm sure there are tons of features that can be moved to this a web system that can be done without interfering with live game data.
bain 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm an admin for my guild and I totally second this motion. I'm all for this. Right now I'm using GuildCafe and people are having trouble with it. If the website was integrated somewhat within Guild Wars itself it would make it much easier for the people who can't traverse the internet as well as others. People can follow instructions to open the help and have there problem answered by this wiki, but some people are a bit lacking in their internet skills. Having something like this would make it a breeze to those people. I would love this.
Devi Talk 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree. We can see with this wiki that game-integration to a website is possible (I heard talk of eventually making it accessable from in game...?), and while the guild roster is nice, more information would be great. Maybe not go so far as to actually take the info from the agem itself, but allow users to make a profile ala User:Ashes Of Doom from in game, and updating the website to include that. The syncing of so much data would be hell otherwise. (forgot to sign) Ashes Of Doom 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree sync is the problem, however if you sync between game DB and Web backend DB every 30min to an hour incrementally it should not be to bad. Web system uses Web DB which is up to an hour out of game time sync. That would be manageable.bain 17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree. We can see with this wiki that game-integration to a website is possible (I heard talk of eventually making it accessable from in game...?), and while the guild roster is nice, more information would be great. Maybe not go so far as to actually take the info from the agem itself, but allow users to make a profile ala User:Ashes Of Doom from in game, and updating the website to include that. The syncing of so much data would be hell otherwise. (forgot to sign) Ashes Of Doom 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The API and system would be developed by ANET, since it links into their DB's and backends. The bandwidth costs can easily be offset against adverts on guild sites. There will be more than enough traffic over the whole system. Moderation will be up to the guild owner and officers as per normal, The system would give Guild owners and officers control of the the guild websites. Creating a subdomain to guildwars.com does not cost anything. bain 08:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Houses for Sale
Houses could be introduced in GW2. Imagine if it was a number of houses all over the world, and an official auctionhouse on the internet. The houses could have a system that count how large amount of (for example m2) and how good emplacement it has, and the players decides price from there via the auctionhouse. When you enter the house, you will have to load, just as you would if you were entering an instance. Some kind of store would allow you to buy decorations for your house, such as tapestry, pictures, some place to put your armor, bookcase and maybe a bed. You could also have a personal storage placed in your house. If the case is that you can change your server whenever you want, it becomes much easier for new players with less cash to buy a little cheap house. Guild Halls could also be built in this system but it would be a weakening for the GvG. Also, if you releases a new expension, it would be cool to be the first one to buy it, when all the new houses are still fresh and cheap. There could be "Guild Houses" like big castles placed about the world, only the richests guilds can afford them, and it's only around 15 of them.
The houses could be built massively in a big city and spread around in for example Norn territories. It would also be cool with small neighborhood and houses built in abrupt mountain-walls with ladders or stepladder to get in. A house in a icy place could have an oven placed in a corner and jungle houses could be built with small rooms but multiple floors.
Thank you for reading my insane suggestion and have a nice day :D
- The trouble with making houses actually be a part of the persistant world is that GW1 already has up to 4 million players, and that's far too many houses for tyria, there wouldn't be enough room. To be honest, I'm not really a big fan of the idea of player houses, I don't really see the point.(Satanael 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
- The point is that you are proud to own something that other people can see. Just like a 15k armor, whats the point of that? I think Guild Wars 2 has the graphics and races, styles etc to make some realy good looking houses. Let us say that each server has around 1k houses each, each server has maximum 15k players, means that 1/15 can buy houses. Then it would be realy cool to be one of the owners.
- Btw, i forgot to mention a system that force you to pay a monthly fee for the house. The price depends on how big your house is. If you dont pay, your out.
- That would cause the violently rich hardcore farming people to corner the market, buying them all then selling at insanely inflated prices to the masses. IF we get housing, I believe it will be in a mode similar to the HoM, except the player could/would choose the style and location, similar to a Guild Hall now. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Anet know about farming bots and ebay, making a new game will give them a new chance to decrease hardcore farmers and make a better economy. Btw, i dont look at the houses as the guild halls in gw1. All of the accessable houses are spred around the world, other people can see the house from the outside. (if it was a misconception)
- You misunderstand my usage of the term rich. I don't mean "has a daddy that works as a neurosurgeon and makes 300 grand a year". I mean rich as in "WTB Mini Panda 100k+1000ecto+188armbraces" rich. People like that, who are adept at farming, will buy all the housing and monopolize it, preventing more casual gamers from ever getting a home for their battle-weary character. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do like the idea, but as Sataneal said, making that many houses would not be practical. For one thing, the number of players in GW2 will (hopefully) continue to increase, making houses rarer and rarer, not something Anet wants. Anet seems to have a policy that everyone can get everything with just some effort, only those that spend more time in the game get better looking versions. Notice the 15k armor has no benefit other than the looks. As far as implementing houses, I can see that happening if they were like some kind of uber-customizable guild hall. You can buy one in any of 20-30 locations across tyria (ascalon, kryta, jungle, far shivs, etc...) and the actual size of the house varies according to what you are willing to pay. Players walking by the house would see a small village for example, with 5 or 6 houses. The individual portals (say, on the front doors) would lead to one of the 5 different size houses in each village. However, more than one person can buy each "house", they get their own personal instance of it. If people wanted to enter a specific person's house, they could "knock", and choose from a drop down list of people who have given them permission to enter / are in their house at the moment. Ashes Of Doom 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- AWESOME IDEA!! Instead of the 4 million possible HoM's now just Houses where GW1 is remembered and where GW2 accomplishments are stored, where you can store clothes and items and that can be upgraded by personal taste. Even merge houses when GW-Marriages are installed and people choose to marry. One house per account. Friends can visit your house....awesome plan. Guilds could be Towns and City's..going nuts about that suggestion. :) -- Silverleaf
- AWESOME IDEA!! Instead of the 4 million possible HoM's now just Houses where GW1 is remembered and where GW2 accomplishments are stored, where you can store clothes and items and that can be upgraded by personal taste. Even merge houses when GW-Marriages are installed and people choose to marry. One house per account. Friends can visit your house....awesome plan. Guilds could be Towns and City's..going nuts about that suggestion. :) -- Silverleaf
- I do like the idea, but as Sataneal said, making that many houses would not be practical. For one thing, the number of players in GW2 will (hopefully) continue to increase, making houses rarer and rarer, not something Anet wants. Anet seems to have a policy that everyone can get everything with just some effort, only those that spend more time in the game get better looking versions. Notice the 15k armor has no benefit other than the looks. As far as implementing houses, I can see that happening if they were like some kind of uber-customizable guild hall. You can buy one in any of 20-30 locations across tyria (ascalon, kryta, jungle, far shivs, etc...) and the actual size of the house varies according to what you are willing to pay. Players walking by the house would see a small village for example, with 5 or 6 houses. The individual portals (say, on the front doors) would lead to one of the 5 different size houses in each village. However, more than one person can buy each "house", they get their own personal instance of it. If people wanted to enter a specific person's house, they could "knock", and choose from a drop down list of people who have given them permission to enter / are in their house at the moment. Ashes Of Doom 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- All interesting ideas, but please let me state my version, which I believe would be the most likely to be implemented (no offense people just trying to be logical). As stated earlier there isn't enough ROOM to have a house for each person in the manner stated. It would be more like the hall of monuments system. Here is my idea:
1) Players can purchase a house in a manner like purchasing a guild hall
2) Different houses in different INSTANCED areas (to allow everyone to have one)
3) Houses can be bought in areas (and the architecture would reflect it) in Kryta, Nornlands, Charr Homelands, and possibly whats left of Ascalon and any other places that might be inhabitable
4) If your character is say a human, most charr probably wouldn't let you buy a house in their area...in this case a quest should be done prior to being able to buy a house in the area
5) As an added bonus, if Anet decides to implement this they could also make more fancy houses to be an extra gold sink.
6) Due to the fact that people complain about armor taking up so much space, armor racks should be available for purchase for your house. Possibly make it so that if you buy a better house you can have more racks for your armor. This seems like a logical place to store them.
What this equals is a way that allows EVERYONE to be able to buy a house without having 15,000 homes in one area (as stated before there is not enough room). Players have been begging for armor storage and houses so this would kill two birds with one stone. It is much easier to implement than making thousands of separate homes, but rather maybe 20 (for varying quality of houses). This provides a good gold sink for extra money while also making it worth while for the player. Also, as with the HoM and being able to show other people, you could have people in your party and then be able to show off your house by talking to the person that takes you there. I really hope the dev team will seriously consider this even though I know they are busy with other things for Guild Wars 2. I really believe this would be a great addition and would be fun for many people and could actually work. If you have any questions or comments on this idea feel free to add to it. My in-game name that I am normally on is Big Foot Bob so give me a shout Dark X 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- To your point 4): I think a single quest would be too easy, honestly. Perhaps a quest chain or if GW2 has some sort of rep system like GWEN has, you should have to be a certain rank would make it a little more challenging.
- To your point 6): A smaller house would have like a coat rack in the corner for an extra suit, but a bigger house (dare I hope for castle-like in scope?) Could have an armory where you could store weapons, armor, etc. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I was going to go into more detail on point 4, but the overall thing I was getting at was that if charr are at war with humans...they are probably not gonna let a human waltz right in and buy a house and be their neighbor X-D. But I think your house should be like your new HoM. Being able to add people to your party and show off your HoM was a cool feature of GW:EN, and it should still be around in GW2. Anymore feedback would be awesome! I hope someone from Anet looks at this section, I know they are busy but I think this idea could add a lot of fun to GW2. Dark X 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its a real shame that I never really see any people that work at Anet like gaile leave feedback about some of the good suggestions on here. Makes me wonder if they even read them ever...Dark X 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I was going to go into more detail on point 4, but the overall thing I was getting at was that if charr are at war with humans...they are probably not gonna let a human waltz right in and buy a house and be their neighbor X-D. But I think your house should be like your new HoM. Being able to add people to your party and show off your HoM was a cool feature of GW:EN, and it should still be around in GW2. Anymore feedback would be awesome! I hope someone from Anet looks at this section, I know they are busy but I think this idea could add a lot of fun to GW2. Dark X 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
a Mad King Thorn mission
Wouldn't it be lovely to have mission where you went to Mad King Thorn's palace? So much of the artwork has already been done. I hope gw2 has more interactive environments. omg there's so much that could be done. --Evil Party Girl 13:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- REMOVE UW and FoW, and add Lair of the Mad King. that would ROCK.Rhydeble 22:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Won't it be better if they add it and leave both FoW and UW where they are?--MageMontu 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why undo all that work and remove UW and FoW? :-S
Put spells in magic items
Magic Items in gw1 are a bit boring. As far as I can see, most or all of the effects of magic items are ability buffs or just +% damage. I equip it and off I go, I never need to worry about it again.
What I'd like to see in gw2 is magic items that you activate. They give you something like a 9th skill slot that you set up when doing your skills. Owning multiple items doesn't give you more slots, just more options to select from. I like the 8 slot systems but i think this adds to the game...
I like the idea of having casting level set to bands like 5, 7 and rare uber items 9. I also feel for some reason that the recharge time should be long. Maybe it should cost E as well. Anyway, I like the casting level being set because a W/E could have a Sword with Vampiric Touch embedded into it. Much more variety. I think weapons should do damage in addition to casting "touch spells".
Here's some examples: Vampiric sword, Disease blade, Shield of protection, Boots of speed, Gem of healing, Ring of flame resistance... yeah, there's a lot.
Have all the buffs & +%s stuff too. I'm not saying change that. I'm saying add to.--Evil Party Girl 14:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I seriously don't see the difference between enchanting a weapon and enchanting yourself. Lightblade 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Enchant removal =/= viable option vs ensorcelled items. Tharr be yer difference :P Mesodreth Blackwing 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ingame Browser
Simpily, we need an ingame browser. Gekko? (firefox) to:
- Let people look at the wiki
- Let people edit the wiki
- Let people view there guild site and anythign else that they'd use.
Why: because I don't want to minimise GW and have Firefox run realy slowly.
Comments? More ideas? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I Personally prefer more an ingame MSN Messenger, like the 1 Lineage II have. MageMontu 17:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I second the motion for an in-game browser if this is possible, it would/will make it alot easier and not having to minimize when ever you want to look at the wiki would be good, as it stands i dont use the /help feature because it causes to much trouble, i just run windowed and have Firefox in the background with the Wiki.Guildwars.com search in the top right. Crazy 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this,but my thoughts would be a no. It's already the click of 2 buttons to access Wiki (F11 + Clicking on the topic you want to look at.) Sure, it will minimise your screen, but if you're looking at Wiki, youshouldn't be in an area where you need to be paying attention. I personally run GW windowed - then Ican switch as I please. --Mularc 05:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
HORSES
IN GW2 THERE SHOUD BE HORSES.LIKE WE CAN RIDE ON THEM BUT NOT SHUT FROM THEM ONLY TO RIDE SO WE CAN GET BATTER SPEED OR SOME THING BUT WE HAVE TO BUY HORSES LIKE THEIR COST IS 2K BAD ONE 5K GOD ONE 10K BEST ONE AND WE CAN TRAIN HORSES TO BE BETTER LEVEL FASTER!!I THINK ITS GOOD IDEA.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .
- Wow. Eh-hem --
br12 • (talk) • 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- At least he didn't font size 10 his text... But i agree with wanting mounts, i miss having a holy steed for my wammo. In any case, they should be expensive/rare, as in 1 inventory of money the cheaper/slower ones, 1 xunlai storage of money the more expensive/faster ones, or 1% drop rate from the end game boss (yeah, i am ripping the implementation idea right from EQ :P).--Fighterdoken 16:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- WOO YESS,ITS GOOD IDEA!! LOOK ARCHIVE,SO MANY PPL SAID THIS B4!! MUST B GOOD!! :) heh, can't help doing that. Anyway, as with all the previous mount ideas, I still feel they're pretty... mundane. They are so common these days it's kinda boring. -- ab.er.rant 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, we just need something creative for mounts. Like Dwarves, everyone would love to ride over a dwarf XD.--Fighterdoken 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, noting a conspicuous absence from the plane that guild wars resides in... there aren't horses. Anywhere. Closest thing is them dolyaks, but they're I think too selectively adapted to cold climes. If we do get mount-like beasties in GW2, they will be so Epic that everyone who plays WoW will shun the use theirs out of embarrassment. Mesodreth Blackwing 21:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thnx alot Fighterdoken, now I want to ride a dwarf D: --MageMontu 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- DER !! We have horsies.. only they talk back, ZHED ! come on is everyone forgetting centaurs ! i dont just want any mount ! i want a mount that ridicules me while i ride it */Player Mounts Mount* */Ghasp* "Come on *Player* lay off the Drake Kabobs, this isnt easy you know", :) [Sorry bout the abundance of exclamation marks, im excited] Crazy 10:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thnx alot Fighterdoken, now I want to ride a dwarf D: --MageMontu 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, noting a conspicuous absence from the plane that guild wars resides in... there aren't horses. Anywhere. Closest thing is them dolyaks, but they're I think too selectively adapted to cold climes. If we do get mount-like beasties in GW2, they will be so Epic that everyone who plays WoW will shun the use theirs out of embarrassment. Mesodreth Blackwing 21:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, we just need something creative for mounts. Like Dwarves, everyone would love to ride over a dwarf XD.--Fighterdoken 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-But horses do ride that we be cool and if they want to be better then WOW thay have to make some like that and its looks cool
- no, I don't want horses, map travel is fine. They'd just lag up the place RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 13:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Necrid Horseman Orr had horses so they are not out of the question if they do decide to do mounts.--SirFranz 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you look closely, they aren't particularly horse-like any further than they are ridden and have four legs and a tail. They have more in common with the D&D Charnel Hound golems ...I mean the hellhounds... than they do with anything from equus. But damn would it look cool to ride one! Mesodreth Blackwing 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The necrid horses form could have bin more horse-like before the "Cataclysm" and it could have mutated them a little, or because this is a fantasy game the developers may have just wanted a more Bada** looking horse.--SirFranz 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you look closely, they aren't particularly horse-like any further than they are ridden and have four legs and a tail. They have more in common with the D&D Charnel Hound golems ...I mean the hellhounds... than they do with anything from equus. But damn would it look cool to ride one! Mesodreth Blackwing 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Necrid Horseman Orr had horses so they are not out of the question if they do decide to do mounts.--SirFranz 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...I love caps lock dont you? :-) Seriously though lets try to keep on-topic people. Mounts are a good idea. I think the most use you could get out of them is in World PvP. There could be areas where you find the mounts and then you can ride them around, because this is presumably going to be in the Mists (a large area). In GWEN there is already a mount; the siege devourer in the charr homelands. The idea has already been implemented in a way, only I think mounts should be area-specific (horses maybe in Kryta, siege devourers in charr lands etc.). I could go on with more details, but until GW2 has more info I would rather not just rant about them until I know more about the gameplay. ~Big Foot Bob
I'd much rather have map travel then I would mounts. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 10:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- BUT YOU CAN USE AND MAP TRAVEL AND RIDE RIDE YOU CAN USE WHEN YOU WANT TO GET SOME WHERE IN THE MAP BUT MAP TRAVEL YOU CAN USE TO GET IN THE TOWNS --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .
- Can you please stop typing in full capital letters? It's annoying and considered rude. -- ab.er.rant 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- PLX NO GHEY MONTS WI NED MOAR MAP TRAWEL --Cursed Angel 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- PLX NO GHEY MONTS WI NED MOAR MAP TRAWEL --Cursed Angel
- Can you please stop typing in full capital letters? It's annoying and considered rude. -- ab.er.rant
Mounts would be realy great in Guild Wars 2 :(. We can always use map travel,but mounts mmmmmm,u can realy enjoy in game then-from my point of view.You Have greater speed,you look mighty. Anyone who doesen't like mounts can use map travel,but for those who want them it would be good to put them in game ;).
This discussion is very silly. Programming mounts would take a pretty hefty amount of work for a minor aesthetic improvement. And I use the word 'improvement' loosely. --71.208.141.117 12:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Then there wouldn't be siege devourers and junundu wurms in OGW if we look it from that side.
This seems to be pretty simple. They can have BOTH Mounts and Map travel in guild wars 2. They could especially use mounts in world pvp for getting around (because its supposed to be a big area). Mounts would still be nice for getting from place to place faster and exploring areas. You can also use map travel to travel to key outposts. Problem solved. Dark X 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yupp. Traveling faster,exploring faster,getting away from enemies faster,everything better :D.
I like the idea of mounts. You could have 'map spots' dotted around the map (more common than towns/outposts), obviously they would be quite frequent so map travel is still viable, but still a journey away from the nearest 'elite' area (or dungeon if you like) so you have to ride there. It would also make it more interesting having to fight to somewhere before being able to map. Hell for survivors though. 81.154.55.60 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe people are forgetting that it has been stated that a lot of GW2 is not going to be an instance for most explorable areas. Instancing would still be used for things such as missions or Random Arenas, but the fact is that the world is probably going to be much bigger in order to accomodate everyone. Mounts can be way more than just an "aesthetic improvement" but a viable way to get to where you want to go. Also stated earlier siege devourers and junundu wurms ARE technically mounts...so im sure if its possible to do in GW1 it should be completely possible in GW2Dark X 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Real Tips to get the Money Rolling In
Humans and their pride to be the omg ownage number 1 cool looking styling godlike killer
-Let us have the ability to make our own spells, for example, we can make our own elite. For a Warrior it'd be like, first I want my Warrior to slash his head, then spin around and cut his body in half, and 6 other strikes in about a seconds with that dumb japanese sign and that KO sound. And for flashy stuff, let us add our own style, maybe like your characters says something like "Is that all you got?" in a real stoned voice or something.
-Give us alot of voice to choose from. Hate it in campain when I go like, that's how my ranger sounds like? Hate how he sounds.
-Tradeskills such as making your own armor, and how it looks too in every inch of it. Some people really get deep into this kind of stuff and you might get a real game economy going on with competition.
-Let us change our hairdos with haircutters and voices but we must pay alot for them, don't you just hate it when a new expansion comes out and they get crazy good looking hairdo. This was so for me in prophecies, all rangers had long hair, I wanted shorthair untill Factions came out, instead of recreating another Ranger, let us just have a lil haircut to change hairstyle, and other stuff like that.
-I feel that guild don't define us enough, I don't feel much from any Guilds even though I hopped like 100 guilds. Give us a guild armor, guild handshake, guild tatoo, guild weapons, not just guild capes. -Have enough differnt faces, hairstyles, body style (normal-fat-bulky), so that nobody ever looks the same in the game unless intended.
Taking successful elements from Final Fantasy X and adding it 2 gw2
-The story, you have a great storyline but you aren't getting it out enough. Ask anyone who beat the prophecies campaign what a bloodstone is, I bet more than 1/2 can't answer it straight off. You you don't really show your storyline well in the campaigns, I know if you do quests and check all the descriptions for "lore", you could piece information together but barely anyone does that nor does anybody read the manual, you wanna deliver the story to them, not the other way around. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any of that lore thingy, just that you should get interesting parts of your stories to the audience, then when you grab his attention, make him hunt for lores.
-Humans love tragedy, your cinematics needs perhaps some drama, some uber cool stuff that would give us the goosebumps, get a little in depth with characters, their past, and whatnot and put some drama, that's how most anime get by, and that's a factor of how FF did too, for example, Yuna and Tidus what a sad story! Zomg. Then on youtube you'd get like 10000 fanmade videos on it. Do we have something like that on just 2 characters in the game? Don't think so.
-Make your animations better and not repetitive, how does FF suceed when it's gameplay is so boring, you go back and forth taking turns using spells 1 at a time. They have excellent animation, let me give you an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBYAqFJhXJo&feature=related Not only is it cool looking, it has style with the finger snapping, and designing the style in a skill should go hand in hand with players making their own skill if you decide to take my advice. You guys have an excellent gameplay system except for it's crappy animations. Assassins have great ones though, lot's a variety thats noticeable but still has lots of repetitive animations.
-Humans love epic stuff, for example in Final Fantasy X, we have Sin, an uber large guy who has towns built on his head from being dormant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0tPYLAgAys&feature=related What do you have that's epically proportional? Gods, I'm sure we'd be blown away if we were able to see perhaps maybe how the other gods owned abaddon, or how grenth overthrew dhuum. Having Gods also take part in your Mists game would be mind boggling. Like reach a point, and Balthazar takes a step that does an earthquake that affects the whole enemy or something?
-Music, ask anyone to compare Guild Wars music with Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts opening music, they will probably not say Guild Wars. In fact, I asked in this in RA several times and it was so. Music is very important. Can you imagine Lord of the Rings with crappy music? Probably wouldn't get far. Not trying to be offensive, but I don't really like much of GW songs. I don't think there's as much people dling the Guild Wars soundtrack compared to people downloading the Final Fantasy soundtrack.
- Dude are you on crack? This isn't mortal combat and Anet probably won't have people getting cut in 2 -,-. Have you even played guild wars and looked at how the game works? If you could make your own spells...idk how that would even work, it would be so unbalanced.
- You can make your own spells in Morrowind, actually. But to do it, you need a lot of stuff... something to write with, to write on, reagents, gold, etc etc. Then you pick effects and visuals based on existing spells to make new combos. But to make anything even remotely unbalanced, it takes INSANE amounts of resources to do. So theoretically, it's possible. But yea, eww @ mortal kombat & FF references. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I know what your talking about, but you see Morrowind is a TOTALLY different kind of game. Your not really playing with other people...so yeah I know its possible but really now, your playing with other people and you have pvp...if you could use resources to make your own spells then that would mean the rich rule the game, even the PvP side of it. It would really be unbalanced and would break away from what Anet is trying to accomplish imo. 71.10.143.89 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- hey everybody, lets remove all balance from guild wars! wooohooo! Kypp Duron 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- IF there were the ability to make spells, there would obviously be a cap to how powerful they could be, and it would be fairly cheap. Wouldn't remove balance at all. 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have the ability to discuss how imbalanced it could be or not, however one particular exemple come in my mind (amongst many others)when talking about caped skills that is more or less related to gimmick builds, and it shows that skills attributes would not be the only parameters to cap: a skill bar with 8 copies of an innocent spell that would remove 5 energy from enemy energy pool. 5 x 8 = ? I, for sure, would not want to be the one in charge of balancing the custom spells system. Yseron
- These "gimmick" builds as you call them are the result of people complaining because their build is unable to defeat someone elses build. People complained about the assasins "dancing dagger spike" build and especially the "touch ranger" build. It is VERY easy to beat these if you have the right skills, just like ANY other build in the game. Dark X 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have the ability to discuss how imbalanced it could be or not, however one particular exemple come in my mind (amongst many others)when talking about caped skills that is more or less related to gimmick builds, and it shows that skills attributes would not be the only parameters to cap: a skill bar with 8 copies of an innocent spell that would remove 5 energy from enemy energy pool. 5 x 8 = ? I, for sure, would not want to be the one in charge of balancing the custom spells system. Yseron
- IF there were the ability to make spells, there would obviously be a cap to how powerful they could be, and it would be fairly cheap. Wouldn't remove balance at all. 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- hey everybody, lets remove all balance from guild wars! wooohooo! Kypp Duron 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Loot
Make loot like more realistic. Atm you can get bows from spiders and staves from monkeys etc. I would like to animals drop something which they actually would carry, which probably would be something like crafting materials, food/drink (yeah, add them to gw2 also =D) etc. More advanced races would drop money, weapons, whatever they carry. Irl if i would get a staff which shoot fire balls i'd be like wow, but now ig im like bah, its req 11. I see that more magicial creatures would drop magic items, and some not so magicial would not. So this high lvl caster which is one of the servants of these great dragons would drop magicial staff but this ranger corsair would not. He or she would probably drop a bow. So my idea is just to mage enemies to drop what they actually carry. Limu Tolkki 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I get where your ging with that, but the problem is that people would only do certain parts of the game and farm only certain things to get what they want. Nobody would ever go and kill grawl for example or even want to do that area of the storyline until way later. If you restrict caster weapons to only certain creatures, then 1) The prices will go up a LOT for that weapon and 2) Thats like telling players "hey if your a caster you should go and do this area of guild wars 2 in order to actually get a decent weapon". It wouldn't be as open and it would be restricting people to what they can do.
- In addition I think that the loot monsters drop was also loot from something else for them... So they could have picked it up from a caster, even if they were a ranger... -- Frozzen 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- High end items shouldn't be part of monster's loot. Coran Ironclaw 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with it if perfect items can still be made with a crafted or collector item and the appropriate upgrade components, and if perfect upgrade components are easy to obtain and trade for. And for the record, although martial weapons, shields and variable attribute wands, staves and focus items drop from monsters of all professions, profession-specific wands, staves and focus items only drop off of monsters of the appropriate profession in the original Guild Wars. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reason you see something drop from a creature that he would not use... is supposed to be an item that the previous person had who failed to kill the creature and the creature killed them. And the creature just kept it as a reward for the kill. Just like you keep it yourself. Only you might actually use it. They won't. I think that is the concept. Chik En 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ofcourse that a good reason for some of the weird drops, but have all of these animal-like creatures killed someone and then picked up the loot? Limu Tolkki 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously so, because there are 200+ monsters in most areas, but only 30 or so people in the capital city of Kryta. Not to mention random piles of what looks to be the bones of at least 10+ humans X-D. Dark X 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- As well you would see items like Half Digested Armor as a drop.. this should have given you the impression it did not belong to the creature itself. Also when you kill a low level monster that is why you have such a terrible drop in concept. The monster has not had the chance to kill many others so its pickings of what it had to keep have been lower then a monster that is a much higher level who has killed far more and thus a greater selection of items to pick from of what it will keep. And the drop is only what survived your battle with the creature the rest was ruined or considered worthless entirely. Until you get to humaniod creatures which then would have its own culture and possibly its own weapons and armor etc. Just a little more food for thought. Hope that helps you to visualize the drop system :) Chik En 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously so, because there are 200+ monsters in most areas, but only 30 or so people in the capital city of Kryta. Not to mention random piles of what looks to be the bones of at least 10+ humans X-D. Dark X 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ofcourse that a good reason for some of the weird drops, but have all of these animal-like creatures killed someone and then picked up the loot? Limu Tolkki 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reason you see something drop from a creature that he would not use... is supposed to be an item that the previous person had who failed to kill the creature and the creature killed them. And the creature just kept it as a reward for the kill. Just like you keep it yourself. Only you might actually use it. They won't. I think that is the concept. Chik En 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with it if perfect items can still be made with a crafted or collector item and the appropriate upgrade components, and if perfect upgrade components are easy to obtain and trade for. And for the record, although martial weapons, shields and variable attribute wands, staves and focus items drop from monsters of all professions, profession-specific wands, staves and focus items only drop off of monsters of the appropriate profession in the original Guild Wars. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- High end items shouldn't be part of monster's loot. Coran Ironclaw 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Companion customability
Hey all,
I would like to post a few suggestions on GW2 'companions'. Heroes made Guild Wars a lot more interesting, making different team builds available for playing, but after you unlocked the professions u would regulally need such as monks or necro, the other heroes simply became another collectable thing rather than something to help you fight to stop the end of the world. Here are a few ideas that i would like to put forward for GW2:
-Having only 1-3 companions
I think that having a few companions would make it much more interesting. Halfway through Nightfall i wasn't realy interested in heroes, you were able to make good teams with the ones you had and the rest henchmen. I didn't even pay attention to heroes in GW:EN until a guildie said he needed one more to complete the set. Having just a few companions, or even just one would make it more personal and challanging than just taking one from a selection of 20 odd.
-Designing and naming companions
It would be great to be able to make and name your companin(s). With a level cap of 100, or even unlimited, i can safely say i will probably not be making more than two characters (bar PvP). It would be far two hard to try and get every character up to a decent level while trying to get in game achievements. Being able to create and name companions would mean that you are able to create other characters simular to your characters in GW1. This way rather than having to get all your current characters to the same area, you can have them as companions. Having 1 bonus from HoM on them would be good as well. This would make companions a lot more personal, making you want to take them. In my oppinion out of taking a 'pre set' companion that is able to cause agro in areas(without watching them closly) to getting buffed, getting more benifit, causing less agro and less preasure on healers, it would be 'buff' every time.
-Custom armor for companions
This has most likely already been discussed and possibly already being implemented, but being able to craft your companion their own armor rather than having pre set ones would be great. Companions would have their own identity and become something more than just a hero. You can show them off with different armor selections so each one looks different. This would again give more interest into companions rather than getting buffed.
OK, ended up writing quite a lot, but put a few ideas out :P
(PS first post so sorry in advance if i have done something wrong)
90.240.124.106 20:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with a companion cap, being constrained by early character developement choices is not part of Guild Wars, and shouldn't become part of Guild Wars. -- Gordon Ecker 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can see what you mean, but in Proph we couldn't change our 2nd profesion until we had ascended which would of limited certain builds until then. Although compaired to some other RPGs, GW is much more versitile with development, eg. not costing half of your money saved to change attribute points. It will be interesting how they can 'buff' players rather than having a healer companion constantly healing you. 86.164.15.125 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Emotes with weapons
Perhaps having emotes that make use of the weapons... like when a warrior kneels, he jams his blade into the ground in respect. Something like that... just an idea -- Counciler 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I second this. Some emotes you couldn't really do with weapons, like waving, but you could have casters throw their staff on the ground in a snit for /pout or something. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- My gf likes to use /pout on her monk (and sometimes rit), at least according to me. That would be an awesome thing to see. Armond 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I support this idea. I can see various characters pointing with their swords or other weapons with /point. Or else /roar ing with their weapons. --People of Antioch talk
23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I support this idea. I can see various characters pointing with their swords or other weapons with /point. Or else /roar ing with their weapons. --People of Antioch talk
- My gf likes to use /pout on her monk (and sometimes rit), at least according to me. That would be an awesome thing to see. Armond 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Elementalists
I really hope that you improve for GW2 the existing Standard Classes... one thing i hope by this is..that Elementalists should have Skills for really ALL Elements of Nature ... not only the 4 Main Elements.
Nature has 8 Elements.. not only 4 These eight are:
Fire - Water - Earth - Wind - Lightning - Ice - Light - Dark
Light and Dark belong to Nature..without Light there's no Life and without Light there's also no Shadow and thus beign no Dark. Without Life there's no Death...its the everlasting twilight of Nature.
Lighting is a form of Electricy and such has nothing to do with Wind..which is an own Element for itself...same for Ice...sure Ice is frozen Water..but Ice has an absolute other molecular atomic structure..then water ...its simple chemic knowledge... and when we talk about the chemic...then we talk also about Elements and Water and Ice are different Elements because of their different molecular atoms...water is fluid..ice is hard and fragile in one together...water can be cold and warm..Ice is only COLD.
all these 8 Elements could be used by an Elementalist for Attack Spells, or Defense Spells... all those Elements can be used for Single target Spells..but all can also be used for AoE Spells ..and that should be imo hopefully changed for GW2...
Necromancers and Monks *cough* Priests *cough* use the Light and the Dark in an absolutely other way..then the Elementalist would use these 2 Elements ..
Necromancers use the Dark Element only for Curses and black Condition magic..so dark elemental spells..which cause negative conditions.. while the Elementalist uses the Dark Element just to cause with it pure Destruction...
The Monk ..ahem *cough Priest *cough* uses the Light element to attack undeads and evil creatures with holy Spells..to purify souls and to heal wounds or to protect vs. evil influences While the Elementalist uses again the Light Element for mighty spells, which goal is just to destroy and to cause pure damage to the enemy...regardless of which species the enemy is ...
When GW was released.. i hoped I could create a Light Elementalist..a such called "Lumomancer"..because thats the latin name for it.. just like you call fire eles pyromancer..earth eles ..geomancer and so on ... but then everyone told me..to make a E/Mo ...but that sucks ..2 class system at all sucks... 1 Class-Way with Evolution Career-System is much better.. gives the player much more ways of individuality in character creation...
- I have to say, I see no reason to change everything this drastically... water and ice are in fact both H2O, so I don't see why they can't be in the same category (and if you want to be that technical about it, then ice is actually a combination between water and fire, because if fire is the control of temperature, then ice is water in the absence of a certain amount of heat)... Technically lighning is the transfer of electrons through the air to earth, so lightning is definately either air or earth, or even fire, as it is the heat created by the transfer that creates the white hot flash we see as visible lightning... Light and dark are already used by other professions.... and technically they are again two sides of the same coin, as dark is the absence of light... And generally light and dark are not classified as being elements, they are instead "forces" of good or evil, and not as basic as the elements... It's all up to your opinion as to how it would go but if the attributes system remains the same, I wonder how they'd manage to have 8 elements under different attributes... (Sorry for the lack of cohesion/comprehensibility, I'm a bit tired...) -- Frozzen 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. In fact, the original concept for the four elements (Earth, fire, air water) is a two and a half thousand year old idea by Aristotle himself to explain the underpinnings of this world. It is so ingrained into different cultures that only the very most foolhardy would challenge it. (Although Blizzard seems to make do without earth doing a great deal in their games, but boo at blizzard). Mesodreth Blackwing 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- the thing with water magic as it is now is that its infact ice magic, it only does cold damage and is about freezing things, although having 2 attributes for frozen and pure water wont help anything i'd like to see skills in watermagic that is about water, not frozen ice, like rain storm or something... dark and light magic is for necros and monks and not really elements, wind magic and electricity should be different attributes tho --Cursed Angel 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I would like to c in water magic is dmg spells that actually do a reasonable amount of dmg not only used for snaring. --MageMontu 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hate to break your day, but fire is just a combustion reaction, ice is just solid water, earth is just of lifeless rocks and dirt, lightning is just a form of electricity, wind is the movement of air, and light is energy the eye can see and dark is the lack of it. I need to get a life and stop reading wikipedia articles. Not that any of this matters to a game. Antiarchangel 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- What I would like to c in water magic is dmg spells that actually do a reasonable amount of dmg not only used for snaring. --MageMontu 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- the thing with water magic as it is now is that its infact ice magic, it only does cold damage and is about freezing things, although having 2 attributes for frozen and pure water wont help anything i'd like to see skills in watermagic that is about water, not frozen ice, like rain storm or something... dark and light magic is for necros and monks and not really elements, wind magic and electricity should be different attributes tho --Cursed Angel
- Indeed. In fact, the original concept for the four elements (Earth, fire, air water) is a two and a half thousand year old idea by Aristotle himself to explain the underpinnings of this world. It is so ingrained into different cultures that only the very most foolhardy would challenge it. (Although Blizzard seems to make do without earth doing a great deal in their games, but boo at blizzard). Mesodreth Blackwing 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
if any of you guys have read the book eragon i think this is what your talking about. the skill of the made/monk/elementalist/priest w/e would be determined by how you can connect point A to point B. For instance a really talented elementalist could say the word for fire and end up with a waterfall crashing on his enemy becouse he realised the connecting for fire needed to have water at all in the first place becouse if we didnt have warmth thier wouldnt be rain and therefor all wed have was ice and clouds.
In most cultures there is a presense of a fifth element called aether or void. While an elementalist by game mechanics may not be able to access this power, perhaps a time/space profession could. Laserblasto! 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. I feel like we're talking Final Fantasy Tactics when talk of Geomancers, and such. But the idea of some type of Space/Time class presents itself as a potential new class of profession, though the two maybe to jointed to be separate classes. Perhaps they'll be some type of Primary Attribute? It's an interesting idea, really... --People of Antioch talk 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Like some kind of chronomancer? That would be cool, you could slow down your enemies or speed up your allies or create slow-time or sped-up zones. And teleportation is always cool :) Mesodreth Blackwing 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
