User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/January 2008 Page 1

Archives

Guild Wars 2 Suggestions Armor Character Communication Game Mechanics Guilds Interface Items Professions PvE PvP Races Skills Story Weapons World Ideas Archives by Month July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 - Page 1 January 2008 - Page 2 February 2008 - Page 1 February 2008 - Page 2 March 2008 - Page 1 March 2008 - Page 2 April 2008 - Page 1 April 2008 - Page 2

Tree Worlds

I heard that we would be able to climb trees so I thought it would be fun to actually get IN the tree and walk around with leaves and stuff inside it. I also thought it would be cool to have a monkey pet for rangers.

I have heard the same thing about trees...but then in another in-game visit Gaile said that as of now there are no plans for tree climbing :-/. ~Big Foot Bob

Guild

In guild wwars2 there shud bbe in guilds leadderrs like crez guild have to have 5. leadders ho well be leadders for players in that guild and when thaz do PvP evry leader call hes best player and do PvP nad GvG I think that is cool --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

I don't mean this in any demeaning way whatsoever, but could you please make your suggestions coherent? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above... Kokuou 05:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means, In Guildwars 2, there should be in guilds, Leaders (Emhpasis on S meaning Multiple) like (Crewz?), Each guild would have 5. Leaders who will be leaders to certain groups of players, Such as a PvP leader that would lead Pvp (GvG and such). Crazy 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means let guild have the ability to have multiple leaders like they can have multiple officers now. --Hawk Skeer 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea some like that(sorry)

luxon/kurzick replacements

I heard that we would not be able to be luxon or kurzicks anymore so I thought it would be fun to be ninja/shinobi or pirates, both of which would have unique skills, weapons and armor. weapons could be like shuriken (throwing stars) this link'll get u to naruto episode 1 part 2 - mizuki (the one with white hair) he's got a giant shuriken on his back at about 3:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzdujBgX8SA). i think we should have these too. and the kunai knives too this link'll get u to naruto intro or haruka kanata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phLDHAjI1X4) where he takes one out. for pirates i think could get pistols or guns and could charm a parot for a pet (unique to pirates?) and also (a shinobis secret weapon) they could choose a bloodline or clan to join (uchiha hyuuga and kaguya)sorry but im obssessed by shinobi!! and skills could be rasengan or chidori (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTyPpNkVXTs&feature=related) and for pirates it could be power shot or marked man.

No. --24.9.234.253 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure those videos are copyright violations. --24.9.234.253 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea.. I'm sure the assassin is staying and maybe pirates are a new profession under a different name though. 68.20.183.12 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and how about we rename the game to Pirates of the Leaf Village afterwards :P --MageMontu 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Music System

I would love to be able to play an instrument in game, I find it would entertain some for hours, Just sitting in town having a Jam session with other people.. or playing and getting tips for it.

i dont know about getting tips but Lord Of the Rings online does a fantastic job of this me my brother and my friend all play different instruments and weve gotten a crowd going in bree several times and once somewhere in Gondor.

Heh, it could be like it is now, except instead of playing air instrements that aren't there they could be actual models that make sound. --Hawk Skeer 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be used to grief and a large group would/could be annoying to some people. Drago 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then a "mute player" feature would be nice, but then again, we don't have mics or anything, so it'd be useless. Cute suggestion, though. Lol griefing. Vael Victus 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be awesome if you could actually play the instrument. Guild Hero anyone? 68.204.223.84 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout some "vP" in PvP?

I'm sick of capping, I'm sick of wipes, I'm sick of getting collapsed on and camped for minutes at a time by entire mobs. How about this: That perpetual PvP thing you're planning? Take a page out of the FPS book. Scattered rez points you don't have to cap or flag to or any of that shit. Short or no respawn timers (and by short, I mean 3 seconds, max.) Big-ass maps. So there's always somewhere to go. If your entire team wiped and is getting camped at a rez point, no worries, in fifteen seconds they're going to start respawning somewhere else, and then there's another round of search-and-destroy before the groups start to congeal again and the cycle repeats. Give a morale boost to each person for each kill they get and cap the DP at ten or so, or something. This way, people who care enough to be good get rewarded, and people who just want to do some mindless fighting (that's me) don't get actively punished for being bad.

Sorry for the whiny tone and lack of clarity, it's one thirty and I've gotten about six hours of sleep in the last two days. --24.9.234.253 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You DO know that 10% DP is nothing right? And that PvP stands for Player vs PLAYER...you seem to be talking about PvE (the campaign side of the game). And if they gave a morale boost for every kill they get it's way to easy of a game...its already made so that DP can easily be removed. If you want to be stupid and aggro all these different groups and then get your team wiped thats your own fault and you should play with heroes/henchmen that don't care what you do IMO.

LOL Whoever started this AB's wayyyy to much. Learn to GvG imo 24.141.45.72 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is interested in serious hardcore competitive PvP. Frankly, I think casual PvP is a great idea, and I do hope that they keep it casual. Caps are a fun thing to do, but it should not be necessary. Moral boost for every kill is also nice, especially if capped low. Fast re-spawn is also nice. -- Alaris 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Trailer

i think that arenanet should make a trailer if they can about guild wars2 because other people have already started making them like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDrs4b6qWs u gotta admit its crap taking footage of the other 3 games like that oh yeah i forgot isnt that violation of copyright? or did arenanet not place guild wars under it?

'Course GW is copyrighted, but there's this thing called Fair Use. Also, why the hell would they go after a couple of fans? Bad business practice. --71.208.141.117 09:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never been excited at the sight of old stuff with the number "2" sticked on it. Yseron

[1] The real trailer :p 24.141.45.72 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New Foods

I was thinking like Ramen (japanese noodles) and Grans Fresh cookies, or something cookies could give a sugar rush and ramen could heal health?

What I think this person means, is health restoring food items similar to potions, and the usual sugar rush items. Drago 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Themes

I know that when you make a character and choose its profession you get the theme for that profession I was thinking character themes you get to chose the song by uploading it from youtube or something. the song comes up on character selection and when you select a character but not log on.

Would result in an insane amount of bandwidth use and upload space. Unfeasible. Drago 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than uploading a file, you could set a file location already on your own system that would play when the character was selected in the selection screen. Wouldn't carry over to other computers, though. --Valentein 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Titles in Guild Wars 2

Titles in Guild Wars nearing the end of production we're a good idea. Having skills that scaled on these titles was also good, but, as a suggestion for Guild Wars 2, perhaps introduce special skills available only to those who have maxed a certain title. Examples could be:

• Clearview: An anti blind enchantment that is unlocked via the cartography title.
• Profession linked mission/PvE title skills: Earned through PvE missions and achievements.

Things of this nature would be helpful and give titles a meaning other than the words underneath my name. Drago 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I could swear the Prophecies box said Guild Wars was designed so skill is more important than the amount of time you've been playing. But I could be wrong. --71.208.141.117 10:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We saw that with ursan blessing. Yseron

Only skill-based is fine for PvP, but I think there need to be more compelling reasons to keep playing the PvE game other than getting different-looking armor and basically useless titles that nobody else even usually sees anyway. -- Amazing Goat 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally disagree with titles, but that's just me. It makes the game closer to it's, shal we say, half-brothers, and adds that ever-not-so-needed grind aspect. Just that if you make titles, please don't let them influence PvP (That means no Gladiatior muck in RA and no positive benefits of titles in PvP) and keep grinding to a minimum. Oh, and the need to play PvE should be an excellent dtoryline, and that's just basicly it. Get a good story, and people will play it.

GUILD WARS 2

I wach some movies guys made on youtube and they say that guild wars 2 geting out in 2009-2010 is it posible I cant belave it it just to far!!!!!!!!!!I thoght it getin in 2008!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XemnasX (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

If I remember correctly, beta will be sometime in late 2008, with the actual game being released in 2009/10. -- Brains12 • Talk • 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OmG,so far till I can be Sylvari :(:(:( :'(

If that's the time they need to make a cool product I dont mind. Yseron

Everyone gets to play Beta? or just a % of the million?--Evil Party Girl 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If they follow their modus operandi for GW and its installments, there will be a closed beta that a select few participate in, then an open beta where everyone can (ie. the pvp/pve weekends), then retail release and it's game on. IIRC, somewhere Anet said beta testing is late this year (see what Brains said), but who knows? Mesodreth Blackwing 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

if a guy is reported for scamming force him to wear scammer title

ARMOR

In guild wars ther shud be hundrets of armors cind nather looking and those stuf.IN guild wars nowyou can get cool armor only in the end and tah is boring in guild wars 2 there shud be lot of armor thru thr game!!!

I luvxs u's spelinz :-D

and in case you didn't know its a b**** to make armor apparently in gamesDark X 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

^. Gotta make it scalable to jive with different character heights. A hundred skins, maybe. A hundred sets? Not gonna happen. --71.208.157.35 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guild Themed armor.armor that the Guild leader themes and only members of the guild can get it.maxed armor based on profession,& free

Dr Zlur

How about you buy the skin instead of the armour? The armour rating progresses and "grows" with your characters' progress, not unlike the way that hero armour works in Guild Wars now. So when buying armour, you buy the skin instead of the actual pieces. I think this would be beneficial because I don't like to be level 20 with low armour, and not being rich enough to buy the PvP acceptable stuff. You may have problems with switching armour types though eg. survivor's, radiant, 55 armour... This is the only problem I see with this idea. -- Sinny 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but really, it would remove too big of a gold sink from the game. I SUPPOSE it would sort of serve as an armor storage tho :-/. Another problem is switching armors like you said.

DEFINATELY more armour sets required, and DEFINATELY need to remove the class restrictions on wearing armour. Even if I am an elementalist, I still might want to wear that helmet or breast plate. I don't want my character's appearance to be defined by my profession. /nazz, 218.228.247.142 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross profession armour might be nice. Seeing a armour-clad elementalists would be interesting to see. I would expect, if it wasn't purely visual, that energy regen would be decreased (from 4 to 2) to make up for it in some respects. House Of Furyan 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MORE SKIMPY FEMALE ELLY ARMOR!

Wear and tear

Wear and tear on armor and weapons because eventually everything breaks down. Depending on the material the armor or weapon was made of and the environment, like snow, lava, water, dirt, etc, there could be different rates of wear and tear. Eventually it would affect your armor rating or damage output and you would have to buy a restoration kit. Maybe other stuff like coffee stain could contribute. This idea is probably good for now, but really annoying in the long run. Laserblasto! 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree,as harsh as it sounds, GW(2) needs more goldsinks to preserve the "value" of gold. And i mean gold disapearing from the economy, not just traded to other players. 89.80.162.91 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. It would add frustration to players, rather than a challenge. Like Laserblasto says, it may be really annoying in the long run. May I sugguest weapons that age like wine, that is become more powerful as your character grows? And even change their skin as they do. --People of Antioch talk 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Auction commissions would be a much less annoying gold sink. -- Gordon Ecker 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most MMORPGS and alot of single player RPG's utilise the fact that armor and weapons are going to suffer from 'wear and tear', it nakes perfect sense to me that armor is going to get damaged after its been pummelled a fair amount, it also makes sense that weapons are going to suffer damage after prolonged use, that sword is going to get chipped or blunted after its been hitting heavy armor over a period of time, it all adds up to more 'realism' for me, I like the idea. Evil Geek 12:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Most MMORPGs also ignore the fact that running across lava is a painful way to die, or that you are supposed to get wet when running across water, or that it's actually difficult to effectively move and fight in water. They also ignore the fact that your character should be eating, drinking, and sleeping periodically. "Realism" is trivial. A "nice-to-have" feature at best. Gameplay and fun trumps realism every single time. It is not fun to have only one hour to play but I have to spend 5 to 10 minutes of it buying a restoration kit and then applying it to all my equipment. It's not fun to have to restart a mission when I have only one hour to play simply because I forgot to "repair" my equipment and it broke. -- ab.er.rant 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I found having to repare weapons and armors was only boring in D2, but i liked we had to buy arrows or anything we throw. lussh 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope they don't put in wear and tear in, other games a weapon could wear down to useless before it could help you to get what was needed to keep it in shape. If they want to consider wear and tear... have it affect the Requirements of an object. So say the weapons natural status is Req 9 but after using it for 2 weeks 2 hours a day each day it is now Req 11 or whatever... take it to a smithy to clean it up a bit.. But you could still use it just had to focus more to get the same effect with a sharper edge etc. (Alter your attributes to continue to use that weapon just as effectively) So the Requirement would show 9/12 meaning 9 is the best it can actually ever be and 12 is current shape and it would also be good to limit it to 3 max variation from natural status of X Chik En 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this as it would just be boring and repetetive. Imagine being beaten by a noob team in heroes ascent simply because your warriors armor took too many hits and broke...this idea really isn't that great as the gameplay style wouldn't support it imo. It would just be an extra annoyance.

One solution would be to have no durability loss in PvP, and that's probably not the only one. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this would be a major pain to players that have obtained a max weapon, and buffed it to the best it can be, only to have it break and have to make it all over again. Or maybe, lets say, you got a 1 time only weapon, like at the end of Nightfall and Factions. What would you do when it broke? Nothing! - Something Unimportsnt

Why would the item break? It could just become unusable. Mesodreth Blackwing 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, am not opposed to the system of wear and tear I'm not for it really either. Would add 'another layer' to the game, and obviously a gold sink, but I only see this in games like Oblivio, where having it doesnt take away from the structure of the game 203.173.225.42 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't do this. GW has a huge casual playerbase, and having yet another goldsink is a bad, horrible, malignant, and cruel idea. By introducing more gold sinks, you are effectivly weakening the casuals (Which don't farm or earn too much money to begin with) and not only that, but a wear and tear system would be an unavoidable sink. Certainly not like 15k armour or kewl weps. So casuals will not be able to aviod it, and thus become poorer. Rich people won't care, but casuals... not so much. Nobody likes it when the government increases taxes, but only the rich 'farmers' (work with me here..) can not care about it. If this dangerous idea crosses your mind, remember the attrib refund systema nd be very very afraid.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above comment. I love that GW is much more friendly to casual players than competing MMOs, and that any grind is optional. (Aside -- I'm sick of hearing people complaining about grind in GW. The fact that you want r10 Ursan so you can PuG DoA with minimal effort is your own problem; be thankful you don't have to put in that amount of grind just to get out of Ascalon, like you would in other games.) I also love the DP in system in GW, which adds challenge without being punishing; adding "wear and tear" to gear would completely go against that principle. --Mme. Donelle 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they have to find SOME way to combat people who buy everything then up the price just to make money, like on rare minis. Darksong Knight 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Making items susceptible to wear and tear won't affect those people in the slightest. If you were planning to sell something, why on earth would you use it and risk damage? Indeed, since you're upping the price anyway, if it's already damaged, why not get it fixed and then charge extra for a "mint condition" weapon? You'd be punishing poor players for the behaviour of rich ones. Bad call. --Mme. Donelle 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you think that creating more gold sinks will affect these super-rich grinders? All it'll affect are the casual players. A group of users who can corner a market to raise prices is more an economical matter. No buyers = no sellers. And thing is, all the things that your character absolutely needs can never be influenced by manipulations like that. -- ab.er.rant 02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of gold sinks for the poor. They need equipment, upgrades for heroes, and skills. People who keep making new characters, and people who don't actively farm, are usually poor. However, you need more gold sinks for the rich. One suggestion is a scroll of luck, who temporarily increases your chances of getting good drops. Make it expensive enough that it saves you farming time, but overall does not really improve your cash gains / hour spent playing. And elite lockpicks that provide more points to luck/unlucky titles, but cost more. So title grinders can get their titles faster but at increased costs. And open up the boardwalk all the time for gambling. -- Alaris 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally strongly disagree with the above comment, especially the bolded part. I believe that rich need to be PUNISHED for accumulating gianormous amounts of gold - and by punishing I mean "make it useless". Why should we even value gold so much? Wasn't GW based on the idea that girnd meant nothing, and skill decided the outcome? Just nuke gold already.

i also strongly OPPOSE to wear and tear i mean a destroyer sword costs 100k then it breaks i means a waste of 100k or what

Less assassin Blade covered Insane no sense makeing armor

Support

Probably goes without saying, but give 'em complete control over all accounts and characters. I heard it wasn't like that right now, which explains why so little can be done about scamming/duping/etc. You don't have to use the powers, but they can be very handy at times. Just don't use them stupidly (as should be exceedingly obvious).

Also, let's give the unban and chat log functions a test before the final release this time, hmm? Armond 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Duping and scamming is dealt with, properly and promptly. If you are asking us to institute a way to "refund" items, or have support personnel get involved in individual roll-backs or restorations, that will not be put in place, for reasons that have been explained in detail many times in the past. Unbar is working fine. Chat lots are clear as a bell. I truly don't see what you have to say, but I'm quite sure this isn't the place for you to say it. -- Gaile 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Henchies Interaction

I'd like to see more interaction, background development, actual dialogues, with our Henchies. Sure this is/will be a MMO, but henchies still are a big part of the game. And even for people only playing with other players, the henchies still are major NPC story-wise. Things like light romances or flirting (see Baldur's gate sage for exemple), more quests requiring a particular hero/henchie would do alot in character developement and add suspense and tension to the story. Doesn't it bother anyone that we traveled through snow, tropical forests, deserts, even hell (and came back!) and we hardly ever talk to or about our NPC companions ? The odd warcry hardly counts on this matter XD How about dialogues that trigger with H/H of the same profetion as yourself? I for one would love to have my Necromancer have a talk about the best way to animate skeletons with Eve! 89.80.162.91 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol it this would be fun, seeing my elementalist arguing with Cynn which is the correct temperature to burn an Ettin to ashes, or something like "Mage Montu, stop fiddling with meteors and cast a fireball here." -MageMontu 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

War between Kurzicks and Luxons

id like to see the war between the Kurzicks and the Luxons be in Gws2.or if they dont like the idea a War between some races like the Kurzicks and Luxons u can choose a side and fight with them. bein able to choose to be Kurzick or Luxon and fight in the war with them owning a town and takin over the others if uv pushed the other back was the big reson factions was a good campain and worth buying.i know alot of people are tired of the players always fighting about wut ones better but its liek that with WoW to between the Horde and Alliance.

If I recall correctly, the "Future sight" lore of GW2 has the successor to Emperor Kisu (the Emperor during the events of Factions) going all totalitarian regime and crushing the Luxon and Kurzick beneath the iron heel of the Empire of the Dragon. He also cut off ties to other nations. Then, of course, the Orrian Dragon has essentially choked off travel by sea; only compounding the problem.

As for a similar idea for GW2, I'd like to a LOT more versatility for controlling things, so that even small, Alliance-less guilds like my own can feel like we're making a difference without somehow getting the millions of faction points needed for a town. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

well then id say the kurzicks and luxons join forces and TRY to take over the empire. and divide the empire into two sides Kurzick Emperor and Luxon Emperor if they take it over. or have them be called the Rebels and fight against the Evil empire lmao >:P

or for Gws2 atleast have a War between a few races and be able to join a side its wut made factions fun. and wut makes WoW fun wen u fighting in warsong gultch or other places with the Horde and alliance some good PvP game right there.

and also i know its a pain in the ass to get small guilds and alliances to own towns How do u thing the hated [any]Guild and Alliance stil ownes cavalon theres millions of guilds not all of em can own a town.

Given the lore provided thus far, I think it more likely that we could see a constant battle betwen the humans and the charr, with the charr trying to push into Kryta (or maybe just simply trying to finally take Ebon Hawke), and the humans trying to take back Ascalon, this lore easily provides for the kind of AB's we have today. The only real issue that could come up would be if you have a Charr char that you want to fight alongside the humans, or vice versa. Though I suppose every regime has its fair share of traitors, so whatever I'm sure that could be worked out. (Satanael 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

The large scale pvp that has been mentioned also sounds a lot like what you are talking about. It takes place beween "worlds" (servers) in the mists, and they say that it will have battles much bigger in scale than what we have had in GW1, with people being able to drop in or out when they want. Ashes Of Doom 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Away Messages

Customized away messages and off-line messages would be a great thing to have. Something like <100 character limit would be a good idea for both, or something around that. It would make meeting a lot more easier, thus increasing players online.
Examples: Playername: (Away) Just went to go get some food! BRB. -or- Playername:(off-line) I'll be back on in a couple of hours from this (2:45 PM PST). Different colors for each would also distinguish them further. Like gray for off-line, and another color for away. Just an idea. --People of Antioch talk 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice to be able to "tag" and "untag" friends in your list so that you get a message and a little beep if they log in/on. Stu 22/1/2008.

Oh and Can you add something to put notes beside friends list names?? cause i cant remember people by their character names.. 24.141.45.72 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Linked Emotes

/example action <player name you want to link emotes with>

I think these would brighten up the emotes we currently have! A box, much like the trade one, comes up to accept or decline the action made by the other player. You can also ignore said actions from a particular who bothers you. Some examples...

• /handshake1 /handshake2 /handshake3 /secrethandshake (mix and match of other forms)
• /peck /kiss /makeout
• /pat /hug
• /pose1 (additional poses maybe thought of)
• /grouppose <guild/alliance tag/name> (great for guilds)
• /challenge (warps to a special arena for 1 on 1, would be wonderful if it was announced in chat somewhere... [Playername] has challenged [Playername2] to a duel!)
• /groupchallenge (for multiple players, 2 on 2... etc)
• /pattycake (lol)

Any others you can think of? --People of Antioch talk 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"/makeout" will never be implemented, but why bother zoning somewhere for your /challenge? why not right there where the players are? Mesodreth Blackwing 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha. As for the zoning, that would be more viable if it was outside a town. In a town, I suppose we could take a page from Diablo, and have the characters attack each other outside of town. Sure, make little trophies when you kill said player.--People of Antioch talk 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my girlfriend and I would have so much fun with /makeout that I'm sure she'd buy gw2 just for that. (She's currently iffy.) Armond 09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

lol she is probably wondering why you seem more excited about watching fake polygons on the screen make out than you actually doing that with her -.-

Well, the distance between Davis and San Francisco is kinda prohibitive. :P But then we get into the joys of /makeout * irl :P -- Armond Warblade 09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not /StripOffandGetItOn - but the animations only appear to the accounts in question?--Evil Party Girl 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sarcasm with my breakfast. Less than three, Evil Party Girl! Mesodreth Blackwing 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes lets turn GW2 into an AO rated game and then they wont get as many sales. 24.195.189.28 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have a /shrug command. There is often times when people asks a question and no one in the team has the answer. --SK 07:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

/cry pl0x 24.141.45.72 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

/dance like a chicken /dancelikeyourmommataughtyou

New Monk skills

I was playing Tales of Symphonia earlier, and thought of more monk spells...

• An AoE spell that effects aggro bubble range (like shout) but heals for more than a party wide heal, less than an individual one. (reminds me of Revitalize, from Tales)
• A hex spell that takes 3 seconds to take effect, much like Lightning Surge, for holy damage.
• A smite that inflicts various conditions (weakness sounds like a good idea, now, just need a suitable name for it.)
• Smite enchantment that when target ally dies, foes in the area/adjacent to that ally take damage.
• An enchantment or skill that provides with an Illusionary Weaponry type effect for holy damage. I'd like to see more Mo/W,A,D out there. Though strangely, I can see this being a big Random Arena thing.

That's all I can think of right now... --People of Antioch talk 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could call the condition afflictor "Smite the Unworthy" or something. I dunno. But I'd certainly like to see some life brought back into the smiting line after all the bludgeoning nerf-bat deaths. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Monk = heal... Smite = noob, unless its supportive smite.. kthxbai 24.141.45.72 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Transfer Friends List

It would be nice if our fl would make the transfer to GW2 with us so we could easily find our friends that we have made in the last game.Thanks for GW btw

I think that might be sort of impossible. What if they end up not playing GW2 (Gods forbid), or use a different character name? Mesodreth Blackwing 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GW2 is a separate game entirely, right? So that means a different account, therefore a possible (likely) different account name. As much as I would like to have that happen, it doesn't seem quite feasible. --People of Antioch talk 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm new game different account, im not so sure thats correct, with the HoM it seems as though (this is the way i picture it happening) they are going to make the account with the same Email Address that you made your GW account on, and this way it will recognise you as GW(1) player. I can see this working, especially if friends list worked off account (or does it already, i cant quite remember). my rant for the day :) 58.168.33.226 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that u should have the same account on gw2 u just press down and it switches to gw2 then up and it switches to gw1 again :)

Take Your Time

Make a game that does not contradict itself on many aspects like GW1. From the moment you let exceptions get into your game code you open the door to compromises and specific cases wich will clutter the game engine later, leaving no options but to offer festival hats instead of needed updates. Think twice, debug once, mature audience will never be mad at you for taking your time to make the things well. Yseron

I second that. If you get to release week and realize you still need another 2 months, please don't try to launch anyway and fix it as you go along. Too many MMORPG's have failed because of this, and I wouldn't want GW2 to go the same way. Ashes Of Doom 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2 FRIGGIN WORDS ALTERNATE ENDINGS! Good and Evil points like in fable changes apearence skill dmg effects

Weapon Mod and Weapon Inscription Merchant(s)

GW2 should have merchants that sell weapon mods and inscriptions for weapons. That way we don't have to hunt to the ends of the earth for the right mod/inscrip or buy it at an outrageous price (7k for a +30hp fortitude mod? Please.) from some person who has found one. --Hawk Skeer 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um dude you DO know that 7k really isn't that much? You really shouldn't complain about being able to get a +30hp sword mod for 7k because they used to be at LEAST 20-25k easy. Besides, it wouldn't make that big of a difference in price as the merchant would still be driven by supply and demand (black dye is still about the same price even though more keep spawning)Dark X 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of 7k is that that is too much for a +30hp mod when you can get a +41hp rune for like 2.5k. --Hawk Skeer 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapon mods are harder to come by BECAUSE they don't have a merchant, so the price is going to be higher compared to a place that has an unlimited supply of the runes. 7k is NOTHING for a +30hp mod...you also failed to mention that a +50hp rune is way more than 7k...+30hp mod is a MAX mod and a +41 isnt, so of course its going to be cheaper.Dark X 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a mod / inscription merchant, even if they work on the same system as runes and materials etc. I dislike how these things don't have an official price and price is determined only by players. Or, if they're going to keep mods out of ANET control, make some new trade system so you don't have to sit around all day waiting for what you want. House Of Furyan 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merchants for everything! I like the convenience, as opposed to spamming WTB in every city. -- Alaris 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Auction system ftw? 24.141.45.72 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

7k, i lol'd... hard.. --Lou-Saydus 19:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Viability of Playing with No Monks

Monks are almost always necessary for every aspect of Guild Wars (not including those that use random selection). I would really like to see GW2 have more possibilities for playing without Monks. Of course, there have been specialized team builds in GW with no Monks, but they are rare, have little flexibility, and more often than not they come from the abuse of overpowered skills (which usually get patched). I hope to see a GW2 with no single essential profession.

Actually, areas with random selection tend to need monks often too. But what they'll probably do in GW2 is have more viable self-heals for classes or other ways to heal yourself Mesodreth Blackwing 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're expecting to go an entire game without bringing healers? gfg -- Armond Warblade 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This whole MMO "must have heal0rx" mindset really needs to change, IMO. There are a lot of ways people can accomplish damage mitigation already in the game, and dedicated healing is only one of them. Here we are with an extremely flexible and customizable set of characters and skills, and people get lockstepped into just a few types of builds, "required" skills, unwillingness to try anything but "tank, healer, dps" party makeup, etc. Having a few heals, self- or otherwise, is a good thing, particularly as backup or an emergency button. Absolutely requiring a particular class with a particular build is not. If you can prevent enemies from hitting you or lower their damage, for instance, what do you need a dedicated healer for? One reason I liked City of Heroes and go back to it from time to time is that it's quite possible to have a really weak heal or even no heal at all but be able to do so much damage mitigation from other sources that it doesn't matter. Ultimately, the request to tweak things so that it's more possible to make that work well will make it possible for players and parties to be more flexible, which in turn would presumably make it more fun for a lot of people (it would for me, and I say that as someone who LIKES playing support characters). Xylia 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not sure yet what the professions will be if i remember correctly, so talking about monks or other "jobs" is still hypothetical about what they really will be. lussh 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, lussh. My point was (which Armond clearly seems to think is retarded) is that I loved Ascalon. I could solo it. I didn't have to rely on the inherently unreliable (viz. other players) but as soon as you hit Yaks, soloing gets blown out of the water. I liked that about WoW when I played it for a while. You could solo much of hte game but occasionally there were quests designed for a team that you just COULDN'T solo until the XP and/or drops were chump change. I'd rather see that in GW2 than the current methodology. Or maybe some Epic mix of both! Mesodreth Blackwing 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're not expecting to go an entire game without bringing healers, but there's a difference between monks and healers, and I don't think that some professions should be virtually mandatory while others are completely optional. I think that important party roles should be distributed evenly among the professions. If one profession such as monk gets a monopoly on something useful, every profession should get a monopoly on something useful, and if not bringing a member of one specific profession such as Assassin is generally a viable option then not bringing a member of any specific profession should generally be a viable choice. -- Gordon Ecker 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so warriors can do good damage with a sword and have lots of armor. Lets give monks lots of armor and make them REALLY good at swords so that they will be like a warrior in every way? When you do something like that your just going to have the same profession as everyone else only with different armor and a different name -.- . Guild Wars made monks good at healing, warriors good at melee pressure and knockdowns, rangers good for interrupting, mesmers good for shutting things down, and even some professions/ combinations can be useful at several things (ritualists good at healing in certain cases and also being able to do damage). Monks can also do damage by smiting prayers but their MAIN focus is on healing/protection. Its all about balances, ritualists have more powerful normal healing skills but at the cost of certain conditions having to be met. I think the system is fine the way it is right now, all professions have a sort of self heal for them, but the fact of the matter is some professions are just better at certain things than others. (warriors trying to be a monk anyone? X-D)Dark X 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodsir Ecker's comment was not that every profession be good at everything, just to not have every profession totally constrained by what people think the class "should" do. Softies will never tank, true, but in the current system, no one even considers a dervish or paragon for tanking. Monks should be viable DPS too, but the entire smiting prayers line was nerfed into an early grave LONG before factions was around because of UW soloing by monks. (Aside: How I loved Shadow priests in WoW as a main healer myself [infinite mana woo!]) Anyway, the point is, classes should have more than one option open to them. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that niches should be evenly distributed. That could mean that every one of the professions has an important role which they can perform better than anyone else, or it could mean that every role has two or three professions which can perform it well. The problem isn't professions overlapping or not overlapping, the problem is some professions overlapping far more than others. -- Gordon Ecker 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see dervishes being used as tanks? They can have really good health regen and use spellbreaker :-S. My point was that we shouldn't try to make a game where one profession can do 50 million things. Ritualists can spike heal and do damage, and thats a pretty good combination right there. I understand what you mean about certain groups only wanting a certain profession because of their ideas of what they should do, but the fact of the matter is that some professions are just flat out better for certain things. Not every profession can do everything, a warrior/elementalist can't use monk skills, so it stops warriors from farming certain things that elementalists can. It's all about balance in the game. Some groups only want a certain profession so that they can run a specific build, if I can't run it that doesn't bother me. Dark X 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[reset indent] Monks aren't necessary as much as you can play through Half Life 2 with just a pistol (and a rocket launcher). This was something I brought up back in early beta, and I totally agree. Ritualist is a perfect profession, for when heals are needed. Monks are just too embedded in the gameplay... the whole challenges, PvE, PvP balance, everything is built around them. If you take out any other profession... I do not think the hole will be 1/5th of what it would be if you took Monks out. And THAT is the problem. I sincerely hope that A.Net learned their lesson about having such a dominant profession. --Ravious 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to take a henchman (as in computer ai) monk in?

Or alternatively create an item that obviates both need and usefulness of monks in a certain radius, like a totem that auto-heals the team at the expense of disallowing typical monk spells?

A trend I have noticed a lot is that a lot of players became totally reliant on monks. You go into a group of players and they ping their skills, a lot of times I never see one single self / ally heal skill. That always strikes me as odd. As I principally play D/M I generally run with regen / healing skills as I try to not be reliant on my monks too much, still great to have a healer nearby just in case but, in some style of gameplay, never like, whether dervish or any other profession, being totally reliant on monks to cover my butt!. Perhaps instead of trying to play without a monk people try and find ways of not being reliant on them for all of their healing. House Of Furyan 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, if you can't rely on your team you are going to fail anyways. In PvE you have to have some sort of self heal/defense to help you..but if you get into anything major like HA or GvG, you typically have the HEALERS focus on healing. Dervishes have nice defensive buffs, but I dont see any warriors trying to heal themselves in the middle of the high rated GvG matches with healing sig; you gotta stick to your part and the team plan in order to succeed. Dark X 71.10.143.89 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this. Monks are too embedded in gameplay. IN PvE, you can probly get away with it using psudomonks, consumables, etc. but in GVG, monks are.. mandatory. 2 monks, bamn, you gotta have it or u r dead. I don't like this, neither do I like that perhaps most of the protline is sheersupapowa that has not been nerfed becouse it keeps so many other skills in check. Ruins diversity. Please, focus on more other kinds of support in GW2 and stop the 2 monks 4 sure backline. On another note, show me a couple of decent self heal skills from, let's say... elementalists, assasins, warriors even, rangers got bad heal skills but excellent defense so moot point on those.

Ok so we should go w/o monks. Does this mean we should go w/o any healing and/or protection or would all professions have some self heals? Healing and protecting is one part of the game, going w/o them is like going w/o damage. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguement here is that monks should not have a monopoly on support, instead of the current 2 monks or die. Nowhere did we suggest that support was bad.

New Skill Targeting Mechanic

I have been toying with an idea for a new skill targeting mechanic that I thought might work well for GW2. People have requested at various points that some skills are able to target ground instead of a foe or ally, such as AOE damage spells to control a point where no one is standing yet. A good way of implementing this would be to put it on a handful of long casting time spells such that when you start casting the spell the camera flips to a birds eye view to allow you to accurately place one or more targets which will be targeted once the cast time is complete. This would be disorientating, but would not be a real disadvantage as there is little else you can do while waiting for a spell to cast. I could envisage this being used on spells such as a fire wall skill which allows you to draw the path of the flaming wall during cast time leading to more control and hopefully interesting tactics.

Quick! He's running, make lava around him so he can't escape. Drago 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus a long cast time, if he turns while you're in the middle of casting the spell's worthless unless it's got a huge enough area that you can make it so no matter where he goes he'll run into your allies or your wall (which would obviously be overpowered). -- Armond Warblade 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I do wish skills could target terrain, but that would probably create something like the boring "pre-cast" of Ragnarök Online. If casting in a empty area was allowed, probably there would be a way to do so the enemies could never reach your group withouth running into a AoE spell. As Armond Warblade stated, that would be quite overpowered (and boring).--Drake of Storms 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Therein lies the challenge. Having a reasonably small area of effect that doesn't necessarily target a foe means you can strategically place it while that foe is moving and still hit them. If it doesn't, you mad a bad judgment call and wasted some mana. This isn't like mining a zone with fireballs then watching some poor sot rush in and die. Drago's original idea is I think that you can dynamically change the target location while casting, which for some spells means it's not a waste (MS on an empty field by the henchies, anyone?) or for others means you can cast a wall of fire and modify the angle and spread. I think. Probably wrong. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i love this idea!!!!!.mini frog.

More Flexible Keybinding

Just what it says: the ability to bind key combos (shift+key and maybe ctrl+key) as well as simple keystrokes to commands.(This probably would be a good thing for GW1 too, obviously.)

Different Comportments

Something i would have liked is not to have to kill everything again when i travel in ascalon just for the like of the travel. The ennemys already reacts on aoe or other events in battle, making them flee the players. My suggestion would be, what about differents way of engaging the battle, upon the kind of the ennemy ? It has start a little with the charr of eye of the north, who position themselves with acuracy, i found this really great and think it should be expanded.

So, most of the wild beasts with the lowest "inteligence" would still attack everything in range, but the others kind could have different ways of act.

The "gangsters" like the renegats of the old ascalon, could for exemple be friendly when the player arrive, letting him walk into their territory, and. . . follow them. And when the player has reach an area, they shout and all attack at the same time, when they surround the player.

Bosses like galrath could asks the players for duels ? They start talking, asks for a duel against a specific player, and attack him only ( as long as the other players respect it, a troop of soldiers could wait like Master Riyo's students, and attack if the others players get involve in the duel ).

And more in that way, i thought as battle like in japanimation ; what i mean is, if they are 6 allied players, they have to fight 6 ennemys, and they make each of them a different duel ( and most of the time W vs W, N vs N, et cetera ). It is somekind found with the four first aspects of kanaxai where the team must separate, my point is, the ennemy his intelligent, and ASK for it. As long as the players respects the rules, they do too.

For my first point about getting frustrated to have to kill all the devourers on my way when i walk again in ascalon, my point is, can't they learn i'm stronger ? The game make they never "learn". What if they do ? they would flee when they recognize me and we would be both in peace. Maybe sometime they try to get their revenge for all their losts ( like an army could wait at a path they know i usually take, and block the exit by a way or another.

I don't know yet what will be the "allegiance titles" in gw2, but more that way, if we for example activate the title "White Mantle Zealot", a high white mantle allegiance title, most of them won't attack you when you meet them ( but the Shining blade will be more agressive )

To continue about the formations of the charrs in eye of the north, wich is really really great, every armies could have theirs. Back line: rangers casters, a defensive line who stay to protect them, and an offensive line who walk forward at the same right, keeping the line.

What i would love to see the charrs use is a spreading and circling tactic : the charrs fighter goes on the players casters ( so the fighters goes to them, regrouping the all team on them ) and the charrs ranger position themselves at every "corner" around the mass, circling them and exterminating them under a rain of arrows. ( casters could use slowing magics, fighter cripple only when their ennemy are all together ).

Something you must have already thought about during the creation of guild wars is the aggro bubble. The foes knows you're there when they "see you". But even when you come from behind, can be somehow sad for the assassins. So, maybe, the creatures with eyes could maybe have more somekind of cone of sight ( i think about the soldiers in metal gear solid ). I would indeed love to see most of the human likes creatures act somehow like that. That would open to a lot of possibilities about positionning before and during battles, for ennemys and players. but i know this would be a quite hard work.

To get back on the ennemys comportments ; If my team attacks a troup of the white mantle, and kills quite quickly most of them, could the lasts either try to flee for their life or surrender and beg for mercy ? The interesting thing is that white mantle would pray for their unseens gods to help them ( and why not ? ) Shining blade would just surrender, norns would never surrender, and charrs could be vicious, and make believe they surrender, to get the ennemy guard down, and the strike again to the death.

A pair of bandits could try to kill a player if he's alone, but flee on sight if they are more than two.

I'd love to see a troup of soldiers surrounding the players and asking them to surrender. The leader would ask for a duel with the leader of the party ( or any player in it ). If the duel is won by the player, they leave them, other wise, they kill them all. ( and the duel could be like in the norn fighting tournament, not to the death )

So in conclusion and to resume : when we cross path with any foe, they rush and attack till death with their party, why not get more differents comportments upon the kind of the ennemy, the environment and what are their strength ? lussh 08:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While some of those ideas might be hard to implement, I agree that having different ways for enemies to react to players might be nice. Ashes Of Doom 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sword

Hello There,I drawed this sword,I would very much like for it to be in Guild wars 2 =),nothing much of an artwork,was just quick. It's name is Dragonslayer Blade-or Dragonslayer Sword

Are the pointy parts of the sword turned toward the user so he can harm himself more easely ? Yseron

I couldn't tell you why they're angled towards the wielder, but I think what they are is like the sub-guard what you see on an actual flamberge or a zweihander... it allows the wielder to grip the blade above the hilt (it's not sharpened there, obviously) to shorten the blade for more precision while still protecting their hands. Here, however, they seem to have been heavily "fantasied".

Got it ! There are pointy bits on the grip so you can nail your hand on it and cant be disarmed. Yseron

lol! Not really though, you hold the blade between the hilt and the spines >.> Mesodreth Blackwing 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then empaling is forbiden with this kind of sword where you cant hold the grip near the cross-guard ( wich is also pointy with points turned toward the user ). It must be a perfect fit for necros who need to self-inflict conditions like bleeding :) ? Yseron

These pointy things on sword aren't made from metal,they are flexible,when you hold the sword they will fold.

how bout this = no 24.141.45.72 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would like to offer a fan art section someday. I do work with weapon contests in the here and now. I have changed the link to a redirect, as I feel images may slow down the load time. Thank you for understanding. -- Gaile 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Instances, Grouping, Casual Playing and Grinding

Yes, the title includes too many topics, but sadly they are all related somehow.

I have read that GW2 will include non-instanced maps, but i would guess that instances are still going to be implemented in some way. As such, i think there is an issue and should be adressed in GW2, and that is the relation between casual playing, grouping and instances.

• Instances, grouping and casual playing: The current instance system on GW1 is not casual-player friendly, since if a player needs to leave for any reason, the rest of the group is just out of luck, and will have to play with one player less or lose all their progress in the current zone, go back to a city, and restart again. I am sure those few players that venture to group instead of just h/h know how much it hurts when your partners start dropping out in the third level of the ToPK, or after 30 minutes in the Underworld, or in the middle of a mission because they need to go to the store, or they mom told them to shut the computer down, or their house is burning. I would really like to see a instance system in GW2 simmilar to that of EQ, where even in the middle of the instance you can still modify your group, with people leaving and joining as needed.

• Grouping, casual playing and grinding: Currently, the game doesn't offer many opportunities to casual players. Let's assume i have 30 minutes, what can i do? I can't join a group going anywhere, because the chances of it taking more than 30 minutes are high (and with the current instance system people would not be happy if i leave in the middle of something). And so, we come to grinding. As much as we can hate it, grinding allows single players to "play" when they have little time. On GW1 we can grind money, faction or titles, but not something that can actually make the character better. I would like to see in GW2 more options for grinding, something that could actually make those 30 minutes sessions useful for the development of the character. I don't think it would be bad having a few sets of class restricted skills, whose power is not related to the attributes of the character or a ceratin level of "faction", but to a "experience points" or "skill points" the player assigns to them individually as he becomes able to do it.
  --Fighterdoken 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both the problem statement and the proposed solution. I assert that:

• GW1 offers reasonable opportunities to casual players already: Most quests and many missions can be completed with henchmen in under 30 minutes. The ability to progress through most of the main arc of the game without having to wait on other players makes it very amenable to casual play for me. From a character development perspective, faction grinding in the GW1 expansions Nightfall and Eye of the North does make the characters more powerful already. The suggestion that experience or skill points should to be assignable on a per skill basis only serves to increase the amount of grinding a player needs to do, unless evenly distributed between the skills in a set. (e.g. 3000 faction to get from rank 1 to 2 in a 12 skill title track is 250 faction to get each skill from rank 1 to 2.)
• Casual players do not care for grinding as an end in itself: Grinding, invariably, is labeled as such because it is a tax on the player's time before he/she is rewarded in some way. Leveling is the obvious example, and in many games, it gates what game content (story progression, skills, gear, quests, places, enemies) that the player has access to. As stated, casual players tend to be defined by having less time to invest in a game and grinding tends to be a flat tax which penalizes them more (although some games have tried to deal with this in innovative ways, such as WoW's system experience bonuses for playing short sessions.) I would also assert that promoting more grind breeds elitism, since in many cases, the subcultural prestige of achieving a high level/rank is one of the few inherent rewards of grinding. Even when the actual in-game advantages may be minor, such elitism only serves to further alienate casual players by making it harder to find groups, and by decreasing their satisfaction with their perceived progress in the game.

67.170.110.233 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree with being able to change your group in the middle of the level but i think that you should not be able to kick people out of the party in the middle of the level only if they leave as their house is burning down!!! :).mini frog.

Archive?

Shouldn't the threads still active on this page not be archived yet? -- Frozzen 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this only inasmuch as anything started in January should still be here. Mesodreth Blackwing 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January threads De-Archived. --Hawk Skeer 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

when's a fresh page going to start, this page is getting long. House Of Furyan 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HoM Info (no, it's not what you think...)

I was just wondering if the dev team is intending to let us continually gain stuff on our GW1 account for our HoM even after GW2 comes out or if they will let us know what the rewards for certain HoM statues would be before we are not able to add anything else... Edit: I know that you are not able to give specifics but I was just wondering if they had a plan as to this at this time. -- Frozzen 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a little info on this too before I commit too much of my admittedly little resources into decking the place out >.> Mesodreth Blackwing 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine so. After all, some wealthier new GW2 players would go back and buy a GW1 campaign and GW:EN just to get hold of whatever unlocks are available they like the look of. Daelin Blackleaf 11:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanded World

I would like to see what's beyond Tyria, and expand Elona and Cantha regions through campaigns/expansions. Like how Tyria grew when GW:EotN came out, I would also like to see that happen to Elona and Cantha. I've always wonder what's in east of the current elona or south of current Cantha.

It would also be wonderful to see beyond the continents of Tyria, Elona and Cantha. I'm sure that those three continents aren't the only ones in the GWuniverse! It would also be great if current (assuming GW2 is released) that there will be hints here and there around the released continent that points towards other continents. Renin 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what's going to be expandable is only within the Mist. Constant expanding an open world would require you to draw bigger and bigger maps. It really becomes a problem. Since the Mist is really another dimension and have no physical shape, adding stuff here and there is much easier. Lightblade 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From a PvE perspective I wouldn't mind exploring more and more continents as time passes by. Look at what we currently have, we get new places to explore (at the time) every six months. I'm sure other PvE-ers would love to see different continents as well. and Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the mist supposed to be the PvP area? :) Renin 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

space travel imo, just to see tyria from the outside -- Armond Warblade 07:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[[2]]imo 24.141.45.72 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My partner and I spent about 30mins in photoshop discussing where we think the worldspaces would be. Looked like that too, but didn't have Tyria and Elona so close together, but more of a desert expanse between them and Cantha wasn't directly below. House Of Furyan 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see the continent that Guild Wars Utopia was going to take place in(seeing the game was canceled)...BUT it is still possible to bring the land back in. Also cotinents to resemble the current cntinents on Planet Earth also ones to resemble cultures and etc. --72.178.138.105 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Armor and Clothing

I had a thought. One of the more common complaints I’ve heard about GW1 is that there are not enough armors for people to easily have that ultra-customized character that looks unique. And one of the most common responses to this that it just takes too much time to rend an armor art and make sure it works correctly. Although, this can’t be entirely true if you look at the plethora of armor options in games like WoW, etc.

I realized why this might be. The armor in GW1 is magnificently intricate and detailed (with things sticking off the player and stuff), while much of the armor in other games with many armors is more simple looking (just re-draws over the same skeleton). I guess I’m not entirely sure if this is true, but it’s my gut feeling.

In any case, regardless of the above, this is my proposal: There can be two kinds of wearable items, armor and clothing. Armor would be more like what we all know and love now, that which we wear into battle and provides us with different kinds of defense and protection. The art for armor would be intricate and beautiful, and there would be the possibility of getting that crazy expensive prestige armor that only the best players have, but there would be less variety.

Clothing, on the other hand, would provide no or negligible protection, and would be purely aesthetic, and worn primarily in town (or in our house/guild hall). The designs for clothing would range from the simple to the intricate, and would cost accordingly, but the key is there would be a huge variety of it so people can gain that customized/unique feel for their character.

This would assist in role-playing as well, and you could even make a clothing designer be a non-combat profession, so people could make their own clothing. Although A-Net would have to find some way of making sure people created clothing that still fit the world, I would not want to run around in Lion’s Arch and see some dude wearing a Von Dutch shirt, that would suck. (Satanael 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

I'd say and this is what I have proposed before, is to let them create a an armor design contest. Let the fans/users reskin the existing armor models then, let the winners design be used (even with alterations by the dev) in game and released another armor. More gold sink for them, less work of trying to see if the "clippings" are correct. Sure there will be tons of people who'll complain that it's just a really reskinned armor but then again having more armor is better than having none. Yey! Renin 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i think what u say is true and this is a brilliant idea .mini frog.

REMOVE the limitation on wearable armour by class. This alone will increase customization, allowing players to mix and match armour pieces. From a development point of view, less work required for modelling. It shat me to tears that I could not wear a helmet or mask on my elementalist. Even if I had to sacrifice the benefits the armour provided, I'd still want to wear it for aesthetic reasons. /nazz, 218.228.247.142 06:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore Service in case of "Hacked" accounts!

No matter how carefull someone is, hacking game accounts seems to be the order of the day. In order for me to feel a bit saver i would strongly suggest a "Restore of Character" possibility option. Mind you..not Armor, Gold, items or weapons restore. Just the possibility to restore the Character as it was before it was "intentionally deleted by a third party" and only after "Proof Of Ownership".

This way would comfort me if i was hacked and lost the hard-worked-and-cared-for characters and there is nothing to gain in "valuable game items". -- Silverleaf

You are actually worried about having your account hacked ?

ok seriously if your that worried put a super strong password on.. and dont tell people the password and dont download you know what or illegal programs.. and you will be just fine. 58.165.137.154 07:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am actually worried. We have two (2) cases in our alliance where ;

1. Characters where deleted (means your complete HoM is lost, including titles, armors and bag content)

2. The account was completely emptied of minipets, weapons and gold.

In both instances a Superstrong Password, being the only one knowing the account acces data and/or the non-use of illegal programs didn't do ..... If character restore was possible it would "soften the blow". In GW1 your HoM would still exist with all that was dedicated there. The look & feel of your main character would still be there. Aquired skills will still be usable. The current system is "what-do-i-care-just-start-completly-anew". My suggestion is for every Gamer in GW that this will (hopefully never) happen to that kept to the advice of account use. -- Silverleaf

I think, in my opinion, account hacking is done through individual Guild websites. People are creatures of habit, they'll use the same password, and for the general person, probably use the same password multiple times. And, considering a lot of people might leave guilds, leaving their information (email / passwords, which could very well be the same as their GW account) on multiple guild sites. House Of Furyan 10:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's often done through scamming. Mostly done through scamming. People get greedy and visit questionable sites claiming to have dupe/skill hacks and the moment they visit... BAM! Keylogger. Or they get scammed into trying to sell a second or third account in-game (which is against the TOS and EULA, btw) and as soon as they give the information, it's GG. As an aside, this is where probably 90% of GW gold on eBay or w/e comes from: hacked accounts. Darksong Knight 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am actually worried. We have two (2) cases in our alliance where ;

1. Characters where deleted (means your complete HoM is lost, including titles, armors and bag content)

2. The account was completely emptied of minipets, weapons and gold.

In both instances a Superstrong Password, being the only one knowing the account acces data and/or the non-use of illegal programs didn't do ..... If character restore was possible it would "soften the blow". In GW1 your HoM would still exist with all that was dedicated there. The look & feel of your main character would still be there. Aquired skills will still be usable. The current system is "what-do-i-care-just-start-completly-anew". My suggestion is for every Gamer in GW that this will (hopefully never) happen to that kept to the advice of account use. Please read before venting opinions of "how it might be possible". -- Silverleaf

I think this should happen.... my account has been hacked before, i had a superstrong password and never used it before in anything else... never written it down .. and i NEVER downloaded illegal stuff

LAG

Recently you yourself Gaile, during one of the winterfest finales in LA, experienced LAG in one of the most extremer forms for (at least most) European players.

While every LAG issue has been explained as incidents the general LAG issue experienced during weekend events and GMT evening hours has never been answered satisfactory (atleast not to my knowledge). Granted, it is possible to send in diagnostics files to solve "local" problems. That has nothing to do with the general experiance by large groups (more than 500 payers at the same time) that get a disconnect, 007, 013 error or are unable to move & play. These collective players are from different European country's, have different Operating systems, different ISP's and Computer Configurations with one common irritation. Reduced acces to GW-service(s).

For now and for GW2 it is the best suggestion ever imho (in my humble opinion) that those connectivity issues are addressed as a first priority to ensure prolonged game-joy. -- Silverleaf

FYI, lag isn't an acronym or anything. -- Armond Warblade 20:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Latency Against Games (as in general play or fun), FTW. BTW, WTF is FYI? --Bob 08:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI = for your information. And no, lag it is not an acronym. Lag, by definition, is to fall behind, or become skewed with normal time in an area. A common use outside of technology is jetlag: after a long flight where even though you're operating at local time, your internal clock is still tuned to your "home" local time and you feel tired or exhausted for a while. Or if time slows down a specific AoE, then that place lags behind the normal timestream. All this garbage aside, there really is no way to deal with lag caused by a billion and three people crowding every district of LA and Kamadan every three hours on the hour. Well, there is, I guess... but it requires even more efficient data transfer, something that doesn't exist outside cleanroom laboratories yet. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not answered! -- Silverleaf

i suffer from great lag - whenever i move to a town or outpost i think that GW2 should have smaller disticts so less ppl will be in them and noone will suffer lag

Make Bows Have Bowstrings!

Bows should have strings. Gw1's do not. Which brings some puzzling logic on how they launch arrows with naught but air. And also, makes you wonder where the twang sound comes from. --Hawk Skeer 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Magic." -Auron 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... the game has bowstrings, but not strings on the bows. It does seem like a strange idea >< Ashes Of Doom 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you like matrices, bones, and anims tracks events that tell when to snap / un-snap different groups of a same object on another object' bone whithout loosing hardware accelerations ? Yseron

Do you realize just how much hardware systems will improve in the next two or three years? -- Armond Warblade 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the not-low-end computers with old graphic cards on wich GW must perform fine ? Yseron

Um, bowstrings don't take up that much power. I have plenty of low end games where the bows have pshyical bowstrings. --Hawk Skeer 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You said it: low end games, not low end computer and alliance battles with 24 folks wielding items and rushing at the rez shrine with 20 necro minions per faction (they hence are all in the frustrum), each triggering fxs etc. on an old computer. Last time I saw something approaching this ( not mentioning the work load for cpu to deal with network snapshots and sync with the game and reduce latency issues ) on a low end computer, yes they had bow strings and other cool stufs but the game was running at 2 fps. Yseron

"Magic" is the best answer. Someone would probably soon raise the "suggestion" that we should have flint to sharpen all our metallic weapons. Another "puzzling" logic on how our swords, axes, spears, daggers, and scythes stay sharp. How about an NPC to help us change the wooden or metal hilts/handles too? :/ -- ab.er.rant 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting for different bows to have different styles of bowstrings and arrows. For example, a regular wooden bow might have a mundane bowstring and wooden arrows, while a dead bow might have a red bowstring and fire bone arrows, and a storm bow might have a strand of sparkles (or no strand at all) and fire glowing white arrows. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowstrings on bows != forever sharpened weapons in my mind. I mean, what if the swords didn't have hilts or blades? The bowstring is like 50% of the whole bow, and without it, well, it's just a bent stick. Also Gordon's idea rocks --Hawk Skeer 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowstrings? What about quivers? You noticed that a fishing-line-thin string was missing, but not the fact the arrows are being summoned out of thin air. If GW2 is planning on expanding armor options and capabilities, a quiver is a definite must. I dont think you should have to buy arrows, but it still seems unrealistic to have the arrows appear magically in your hand. 63.225.111.44 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, ever watched the D&D cartoon :) The bowstring appears magically when you try to pull it :D so yea, just as the string magically appears, blades magically stay sharp :) -- ab.er.rant 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... 63.225.111.44 have you ever seen a bowstring in real life? If you tried to use something with the tensile strength and diameter of fishing line under the tension of a bowstring, it would slice your fingers off. Bow strings are really obvious and comparatively thick - I'd have to go measure mine, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere between a 16th and an 8th of an inch in diameter. Doesn't seem like much, but because bowstrings come in pretty much just black, they're visually distinctive even from a distance. Ergo, I am all for seeing bowstrings in GW; even if it's only when you get close to your char with the camera. Mesodreth Blackwing 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument that BOWSTRINGS would take up too much proccessing power when you have all of the sparkly animations for in-game animation and effects from spells and character movement and armor movement and all these other things is a REALLY bad argument...and the fact that something is wrong graphically with something that makes up 50% of an item is a bit different than your swords not getting dull. What if, as stated earlier, you didn't have a hilt for your sword? And the quiver thing is a bit different because that deals with armor and the clipping of the quiver and then you got all the different character sizes that u would have to work out and all the different armor...like Anet said its harder to add armor to the game than weapons. Dark X 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It consume cpu power to compute 4x4 matrices ( 16 multiplications minimum depending on what transformations you achieve, multiplied by the number of concerned bones of a hierarchy ( skeleton ) if the matrix stack cant be saved ) unless shaders and hardware accelerations are involved ( that's where graphic card can speed up things depending on what shaders versions they support ). Low end computers with old cpus ( like mine ) have little cpu power left for such calculations once collisions and particle engine have finished their stuff. And i am already at 15 fps in alliance battles. Yseron ( 90.29.50.126 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) )

I can keep track of a 4x4 matrix in my head, so I doubt a CPU can't handle it. But DarkX does raise an interesting point about half of the bow being non-existent. For more mundane bows I'd like to see strings, but more magically inclined (or cruelly powerful ones) I think the string could be a little more magical in nature. That would be neat. Mesodreth Blackwing 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is so obvious that 4x4 matrices in an animation system does not take time that companies did hire enginers to rewrite the micro-code of vectors units for the PS2 just to gain a 15% performance. Yseron

Yseron your argument is that because YOU have a bad computer that can hardly play the game as it is, it would be just crazy for Anet to add bowstrings to a game thats going to come out in 1.5+ years because its going to be much more graphics intensive by adding that one BOWSTRING compared to anything else in the game? Do you have any idea how much more content is going to be added into GW2 and how much better the graphics are going to be? The BOWSTRING should be the least of your concerns.

Anet shouldn't hold back on making something truely extraordinary just because someones computer now isnt going to be able to keep up with the future. Honestly dude, you try and sound like you know everything about the game and how it was made, yet you make it sound like such a big deal when if you really think about it, right now its easiest to add weapons to the game compared to armor, if they wanted to take the easy route on it, it's a simple matter of adding a little string to all the bows in the game.

It isn't going to make a difference on performance, and please don't start getting into all of your technical detail because honestly, it really isn't that good of an argument...and speaking of bowstrings, I really liked the idea Mesodreth Blackwing had. I think it would be very cool to have simple strings for some bows, but possibly effects such as lightning going down the bowstring when you are firing a stormbow or something of the like. Dark X 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just ask yourself why in the first place this sort of thing have not been dealt with from the begining by ANet. For the rest I dont care about what you say because I work in the video game industry and should I one day say to any one in my team "matrices operations, even with fixed point values, are negligible" I am sure I would not work any more on game engines. Yseron

As bad as your compter is, Yseron dear, you probably won't be able to play GW2 period, since they said they are improving the graphics tremedously. My advice to you would be get a decent computer instead of attemping to hold games back because your wimpy comp can't handle it.

And yea I'm sure you work with high powered game engines in the industry. After all, you wouldn't be displaying your tremendous knowledge of processing power if you didn't. --Hawk Skeer 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on Nintendo DS projects, we can discuss how hardware is put to contribution when it comes to matrices operations if you want ? For your knowledge we already handle scenes made of over 15000 polygons at nearly 60 fps on a console where you are restricted to 2000 polys per frame. I also finished today the replays management with 5400 keys per track at 15fps and ...179Ko per replay for a duration of more than 5 minutes. That's not today that you will get my moral down, friend. Yseron

Well then, seeing as how you go from talking about working on the Nindendo DS (which has a lot of 2D games or barely 3D games mind you) you go from rambeling about how "we already handle 15000 polygons at nearly 60fps on a console" yet you STILL complain about something that could use as few as THREE polygons...and by the way if you were a 12 year old that sat down and did nothing but play a crappy beta of some crappy 2D video game, thats still considered being in the gaming industry. With all this talk about work that you haven't done and what consoles can do, PC's can potentially do much more, yet you still compare and try to hold back a game just because your computer can't even play the first guild wars? Thats sad Dark X 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dare not to understand: the whole point was that you thought I was saying that matrices transformations had something to do with the poly count ? Ok, let me explain things calmly and slowly for you: when you attach an object to a bone you traditionaly have to perform matrices transformations so that the attached object appear at the position of the bone it is attached to. Depending on what method you choose it becomes time consuming. The devs themselves have stated that in the first place they did not intend to add bows in the early versions of GW. When they did so it was too late to modify in depth the game engine so that bow strings could be correctely added. Now, if you have something more to say, tell them how you would do, I am sure it would be interesting. Yseron

I think its hilarious that you act like you know so much about video game stuff...when in reality nobody would ever hire you because of how terrible your grammar is :-/. If you could read you would know that I'm talking about you complaining that your piece of crap system wouldn't be able to handle a simple bowstring, yet you obviously don't have a good enough graphics card to see all of the other detail in the game. Bowstrings wouldn't make a difference in performance. The devs obviously added bows to the game, this isn't some beta version of guild wars. For that matter we are talking about GW2, that's going to have way better graphics...so your point about not being able to correctly add bowstrings at this point in time to GW1 (if it is correct) is pointless...we don't need to know about HOW its made we all simply want bowstrings because it IS a fairly large part of a bow. Dark X 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowstrings = neat. Harm to performance = Depends on CPU. Whatever. Now, this page is User talk;Gaile Gray/Guild Wars 2 Suggestions, not User talk:Gaile Gray/Bitch about industries and CPU's here. Both of you settle down, and take a look at how trivial the argument really is. Both of you are allowed to hold your own beliefs about the effects of adding a bowstring. Calor (t) 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, calm down. You've both made your points, and I'm sure Gaile and the designers will keep both sides in mind when considering the suggestion. Things here are getting dangerously close to breaking GWW:NPA, so let's just relax and move on to other things before it gets there, kay? Thanks. - Tanetris 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just adding that I never let myself be disarmed by people attacking me on multiple fronts. I answered some attacks and ignored others ( like my crappy computer cause what I said is relevant since I was refering to GW1 engine ). Yseron

But the point is that this is Guild Wars TWO not GW1. I'm just saying its really not a good argument to say you don't want bowstrings because your computer (for some reason) couldn't handle them when there is already so many other things that would cause lag...and this is GW1 that it's happening, if they are talking about implementing things like jumping and swimming and updating the graphics engine, I'm sure they are more than capable enough to add something like a bowstring to a bow -.-. Overall I don't see why they shouldn't do it, plus the idea mentioned earlier with different kinds of bows having special strings or w/e is a cool idea imo. Dark X 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like bow strings for GW2. I explained why there wasnt bow strings for GW1 until now and probably until other updates in the futur. Yseron

Mounts

Well,Guild Wars is just a perfect game and I believe Guild Wars 2 will be too,but it would be great to put mounts in game-for excample to ride on Kirin,snow beasts,drakes and so.That would make game experience more interesting and players could explore faster and travel faster to outposts when doing quests.Map travel can always be used.Those who don't like mounts can take a walk XD and always use map travel :). Kristina

No offense, but mounts would do nothing but make running through an area easier. There is no practical use for them, as we have map travel, which is much better anyway. This is GW, not WoW, and mounts would just not fit with most of the game and combat mechanics, assuming they stay remotely similar to GW1. Ashes Of Doom 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you pls read before posting. There are like 7 posts asking for Mounts in GW2. Everyone knows that its 1 of the most wanted features and I'm sure Anet knows about this. --MageMontu 08:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

as said its useless and this won't be wow2 and im happy without gay animals to ride on. --Cursed Angel 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe to put mounts such as siege devourers and junundu wurms,but to use them almost in every area-when you're in forest to use gigantic bugs,when you're on snow to use ice dragons or so and so on and so on... Who doesen't like mounts can use map travel.I bet Guild Wars 2 won't be like WoW,-Guild Wars has perfect graphic-WoW doesen't,it uses cartoon-like characters and environment and it doesen't mean if Guild Wars 2 gets mounts that that will be WoW,every MMO that has mounts is WoW?So,you don't want to have mounts because it will be WoW lol! I can only say one thing,Guild Wars can't be messured with WOW!And if they put mounts in GW2 it won't be WoW.Kristina

Maybe there are 7 posts saying that ppl want mounts, but anet should also know that some people think that they would ruin the game. Wurms and devourers are one thing, but giving everyone and his mother a mount would really be a pain in the ass. We don't want WoW here, no matter how sucessful it might have been. I like to think that we have a higher quality kind of noob in guild wars, but there are still people who would cause trouble with mounts, IMHO. Ashes Of Doom 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust ArenaNet,they have never dissapointed us,I believe they won't dissapoint us with Guild Wars 2 and they can't ruin the game,they can only make it better.Kristina

Just a thought... but how do you cause trouble with mounts, Ashes? Mesodreth Blackwing 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the mounts will have to be sucessfully integrated with combat in some way (even if it is just a way to dismount realistically - without just clicking and the mount just dissapearing for example), and if Anet is not careful, complete noobs will have mounts and clutter up the persisant areas. And if you want to say, then, lke WoW, we only let the really experienced people have mounts, then that goes against everything that GW stands for (aka max weapons and armor are cheap, only the skins are expensive). There is no reason to add mounts, and I feel that maybe Anet could be more creative than that. However, as Anon said, Anet seems to know what we want pretty well, and if they do implement mounts, I'm sure they will be able to do it in a way that fits with what people want. We saw that much with the junundu and siege devourers. That would be an acceptable type of mount for me, one that is used only in certain stuatons,and is more than just a cool looking speed boost. I just get tired of the "I WANT IT TO BE MORE LIKE WOW" posts everywhere...Ashes Of Doom 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe mounts are a good idea. What people are forgetting I think is the fact that yes, Guild Wars 2 is going to have persistent areas (like the towns where you see other people in Guild Wars). From my understanding its impossible to have 4 million people in 1 spot at the same time, so Anet is probably going to make different "worlds" or districts, so that there can only be so many people at a time in the persistent areas. I dont get why people say that mounts are so unrealistic and that they would cause trouble, does Guild Wars not have the Junundu Wurm and siege devourers? These are mounts too yet do I hear people complaining? The fact of the matter is that mounts are a good idea overall and that implementing them doesn't mean that map travel is going to be taken away.

If you really hate mounts then you can just run to the areas that you want to get to in explorable areas and skip riding them, it doesn't really matter its just your personal preference. What we should all keep in mind tho is that we don't know EXACTLY how Guild Wars 2 will work as far as how creatures appear in areas that aren't instanced (it has been said that things like mission will be) but we still don't know all the basic concepts as the game is still in the beginnign of development. (we got 1.5+ years until it comes out)Dark X 17:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If the diffarence between GW2 and WoW becomes graphics only, I'll play wow simply because they have a longer established game. On another note, I won't play WoW cause grinding is bad, boring, repetitive, and paying work is the most absurd thing a man can do.

Well see, I think that mounts wouldn't have to be only used for going places faster, because if you've ever played any of those old knight games then you eventually get a horse and you're going around on it but you're fighting WHILE on the horse. So the mounts wouldn't be completely useless, because if you, say, bought a mount for a ride, but you came upon a group of monsters, you would just take out your weapons, ride around and kill them just like you normally would on foot, but a little faster, because of the mount. Xerir

Keyword here is 'bought'. Repeat after me: WE DON'T NEED NO GOLDSINKS! Introduce mounts, and people will be literaly forced to buy them, simply becosue they provide an advantage for real. You do not have to buy ascended armour, per se, but you HAVE to buy 1.5k armour, simply because that without them, you cannot possibly hope to survive. Imagine that, for a moment, if 15k protected more than 1.5k... and that FoW increased that protection further. I don't think I need to continue.

personaly i think mounts would be a great idea if you get on low health your mount could spit/ throw u off him/her it would be a great idea and each mount could have different skills /abilities

So, i herd u liek mind control?

just found a deathmetal hex in wow where u control someone else like making him run down a cliff and die, plx make it be in illusion magic for mesmers so i can taunt people with it --Cursed Angel 08:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it would make more sense if its in Domination Magic :P --MageMontu 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Illusion magic would be more like you make the cliff appear to be flat ground... until they fall off... hehehe Ashes Of Doom 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the mind control is a Shadow priest ability (has to do with perceptions of faith or some weird thing, I think) But in GW it would definitely be domination magic - crushing someone's will beneath your own? Mesodreth Blackwing 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would enjoy Taking over a foe and kill our enemies until the effect lasts. and make him commit suicide in d last few seconds. Mesmers has a gr8 Potential in GW2. --MageMontu 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

heh, didn't think of domination magic there, but i'd like moar skills that actually creates illusions too, some great aoe illusion to confuse or something, maybe so u can make 5 mirrors of urself that dies after first hit. or maybe something that cause the drunk effect on the targets screen. --Cursed Angel 22:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Skill would at least need a recharge time of at least 2 minutes to be remotely balanced lol. --Hawk Skeer 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with overpowered skills like this is that when you assign a long recharge to them, people simply wait in some neutral area, then pk once, and then return to that area, so it really does cause imbalance... -- Frozzen 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe: 2-3min recharge, 40 energy to use, 5-7 seconds to cast, and lasts about 40sec-1 min on the target. Think thats too much or too little? --Hawk Skeer 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I never played a Priest in WoW, but I know it constantly drains mana when activated and you have a VERY limited skillset for whoever you "take over" - something to the tune of 2-3 skills. Since there's no versatility to this skill I don't think it would be overpowered. Take the Magic card Epic Proportions (too lazy to find a link). Sure it gives a creature a HUGE boost, but you can just destroy the enchanted creature and the boost is no longer a threat. I failed to mention earlier that a priest can't do ANYTHING while mind controlling someone. They can't even move their character! Literally everything, even camera view, is poured into dominating the target. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did play Priest in WoW and I can confirm that it does not drain mana when activated, and if you mind control a player you don't get access to any skills at all. You can pretty much only run around and attack. It's useful as crowd control in higher level instances though. I had my DPS trippled at times simply by mind controlling (you CAN use their skills if you mind control mobs), and the additional effect that we'd have one less enemy to worry about is a bonus. It's also fun for making players of the other faction jump off the boat. :D — Galil 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see something like this at GW2, but maybe lasts 20..40secs, 15e 3 sec cast etc, can be used on animals only ( I herd in wow it applies only humanoids) and it's pve only skill, not usable in pvp..

HELLLOOOO! Wake-up call! This is GW! İmagine: 8Vs8, 8 mindcontollers with nukes vs balanced. Gfg.

You didn't read how Mind Control would work, did you? Attacking =/= a way to kill someone and of course, WoW has the ability to resist spells, something GW doesn't. But a team of 8 people mind controlling will lose. No one perfectly lines up and there's max ranges for this in addition to max duration. And a recharge. Darksong Knight 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto-attack dps is high in GW, amirite?

Strategy

One thing I miss a bit in GW is strategy. Many times it's just a matter of rushing in, do your thing, gather the drops, rinse and repeat. Let me state an example; Vizunah Square. The most strategic I've ever been in GW was back in the days of 5-man SF runs, and even that wasn't very strategic. There's not even a real reason to use a tank. I completed the entire GW:EN storyline using purely caster heroes and henches (except one, which was a ranger). Speaking of tanks, it leads me to a side-point. Bare with me now, while I ask a ridiculous question; why do warriors have so much armor? And what about all the defensive stances, not to mention the attributes required for all shields pre-Nightfall. Normally, you'd think it's to tank, considering that's what you'd think those kind of skills would be used for, but seeing as aggro seems very random — especially on hard mode — tanking is a difficult feat, if not impossible. Also, excuse the comparison but if you look at WoW for example, aggro is half a science. Making a long story short, in WoW a tank is very much needed in end-game dungeons (aka instances) and it's crucial for the entire party to mind their aggro so they don't over-aggro the tank. Most guilds that do end-game content wouldn't even accept a member that didn't have some sort of aggro-management mod that compares the "hate" the enemy has to you with the tank's. Please note here that not having tanks is my point here. It's merely the strategy this scenario produces. You need to do as much damage as possible if you're a damage-dealer, without dealing too much damage.

With that said, I just want to add that The Elusive Golemancer definitely is a step in the right direction. Was the funniest mission I've done in GW ever I think. :D Also, excuse any oddities. It's 6 am and I pulled an all-nighter. — Galil 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tactics and strategies would have to be implimented/changed if creatures have secondary professions and actively used them. I think, still gotta check it, that creatures in the games only use a primary (although I could have sworn I've seen non-boss creatures in GWEN using secondaries). If creatures were more like the player, having secondaries and having a more indepth AI, it would make it a lot more challenging. Right now the AI seems to follow the same schedule 24/7 so the player becomes familiar with it, it never changes.

Tanks are very much alive. Again, these kinds of things come down to players. Some people just run in, swords etc swinging. Other people are more exact, moving with more of a purpose.

Aggro-management mod? I don't play WoW so I didn't know there was a way of making specific enemies dislike you. House Of Furyan 21:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What Galil means by tanking isn't possible in GW is that enemies attack whoever has low/health armor REGARDLESS of the actual battle topology itself. As for aggro mods... yep, it's called "Threat" for the most part in WoW. Basically, in WoW, any enemy will attack you. Until someone has a higher DPS towards it; hurt more - more dangerous. It's possible even to draw aggro off a tank if you heal too zealously... apparently enemies aren't too keen on what they're trying to stab/incinerate/eat being healed. Darksong Knight 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AoE Spells

I was just playing some D&D (hear me out before throwing rocks please!) and I was thinking to myself why AoE spells in GW have a "circular" range? It would also serve to diversify spells to have differently shaped area of effect, such as cone shaped AoE spells (cone of cold!!) that hit a number of targets directly in front of you, or a spell that hits all enemies in a line (lightning bolt!!). Conscript 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Less than three Cone of Cold. Still, my favorite D&D spell of all time has to be the 7th level Cleric spell Destruction. To the point! There certainly is precedent for this if we're going to be fighting dragons at all in GW2. I can't see a dragon's breath weapon affecting a circular area, even in this logic-defying game we know and love. Mesodreth Blackwing 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Definately. It'd be great to see something akin to the Wall of X spells too. About the dragon's breath weapon -- I think The Great Destroyer uses a cone shaped breath attack (at least, according to the description). I'd like to see the player have "non-circular" spells at their command, as well. LatticeG 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some kind of earth type spell that deals damage in a line, like fissure or something like that, very useful in tight spaces. Also, how about stuff affecting the area? Like if I used fissure (or whatever the name) in a lava pit, it deals fire damage in a cone shape shotgun like quality. Or used an air spell (lightning) at an enemy in water or soaked in water for more damage and the particular "toaster in the bathtub" effect. It would be cool to see the area react. Such as if I launched an ice wave at an opponent, the rock behind them if it so misses freezes over. It would make the game more dynamic, but it would also be a performance issue... Hmm... --People of Antioch talk 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please no... (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please yes, this will truly set us to think what to take. and please limu, tell us why not.Rhydeble 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to have variations on area of effect spells. House Of Furyan 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let the Sylvari Look Like plants/trees, But Not Humans

In other words, please do not make copycat elves. Make them look like ents, like Ibogas, like the maguuma druids or completely different. Just not the pointy-eared nature lovers we know from 1000 other RPGs. --Xeeron 15:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We've seen concept art for the Sylvari, though, and based on that and the manner in which they came to exist, they'll be like dryads, not elves. So be just and fear not. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they appear to be dryads, not elves. However, this in itself seems a little too simplistic for my tastes. They describe them as have leafy hair..... is that it? Is that all the plant like features they express? So their slight green humans, with leaves in their hair? Really, I hope they decide to dig a little deeper on this one. I mean there are millions of plants out there, many of which a very beautiful I might add, so why not express more of that with this race. Such as having flowers growing out of parts of their body, like out of the shoulders or wrists. Or have whole limbs plant like, such as having a right arm made of thorny vines, or legs made of oak/tree trunks. There's a lot they can do ascetically with this race, and I hope they do, otherwise I'm going to be so disappointed. Like I was with the Norn. 9 ft tall humans that can shapeshift... yeah, lame guys, real lame. If they were 15 ft tall, and had partial animal characteristics, then I would have been happier. But really, dig a little deeper please.--Yoh 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're hating on ANet for taking Norn from the pages of Norse legend. That's very... educated of you. As for the Sylvari, they can't make them too inhuman, or all the people who want a "pretty" race won't play them. (kind of like how 90% of immature people are part of the Alliance in wow). Anyway, since they've showed us what? one or two concept art from a year ahead, that gives them plenty of maneuvering room with the design. Mesodreth Blackwing 17:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea of the Sylvari being very plant-like. In fact, given that the Sylvari are, in a way, the children of Ventari, I can also see them having centaur-esque features. Perhaps Avatar of Melandru-like bodies with centaur faces? Horns, hooves? A mane and tail made of flowers? --Mme. Donelle 01:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PvE Insignias for Armours

In GW1 there are weapon and shield upgrades, that give benefit against certain type of enemies, like for example bowstring, that gives 20% against undead or shield mod that gives +10 armor against trolls.

How about adding second insignia slot(or even several slots), PvE-insignia slot(s), for all armours in GW2. Players could customise their armors to give more protection towards certain type of enemies. And since insignias are removable parts, re-customizing would also be possible.

Other choice could be that this would work like infuse works in GW1, meaning that once armor is "infused" against certain type of enemies, the bonus is permanent.

Thats a great idea! Rather than our normal "Infused" against mursaat, we could have effects like that which work aganst other races. I like the idea of having to earn these rather than buy them though too. Maybe having a system which is some sort of hybrid of the current title buffs and infusion would be cool. Ashes Of Doom 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (edit: fixed spelling)

Not a bad idea at all. Good thinking. LatticeG 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.. Have a title that works of killing a certain number of race (For reference purposes Heket), for every heket you kill you get 1 point towards Heket Hunter, after 10,000 points you gain rank 1 heket hunter, you take X% less dmg from Heket. That way it could either be only when the title was activated or somehow work it out so that it could be a permanent thing. 58.165.137.154 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure would have made farming Minotaurs, Hydra & Griffons easier and faster. --Evil Party Girl 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea but in such a case I wouldn't imagine the boost from the armour being too great, maybe a 10+ in armour. Having a charr slayer weapon and increased armour to a charr would be interesting. Question would come down to making it balanced. House Of Furyan 08:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to be able to use insignias and runes from both professions (primary and secondary). This would give soooo much more flexability and variation in the use of different builds. Stu. 22/1/2008.

Since players in Guild Wars are given secondaries I don't see why people couldn't have access to runes and insignias of the non-primary attribute of their secondary profession. Perhaps even limiting it to minor and major runes. So many times I've wanted to use one just to boost from secondaries' attributes over a certain threshold and haven't been able to. Why give us a secondary if we can't use it properly? I can understand not accessing the main attribute of it but not the ones which you can access to when its your secondary.House Of Furyan 08:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dye

There's a lot of armor out there that when you dye it, most of it is still gray. This makes the armor look ugly and its unbelivably annoying. We should be able to have to choose which areas of armor we could dye. Maybe something like area1_color = red; area2_color = black. Something like that since I have no idea what the actual color script is. And not to sound perverted but dyeable underwear isn't a bad idea either. Laserblasto! 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree!! Dying should be more customisable. Armour should have 2-3 places that it can be died. Like the cape, i.e a background dye a foreground dye and an emblem dye. This would stop 300 people all having identical armour!. Stu 16/01/2008.

I would love to see magic scintilating dyes which glow and change colour. Some weapon & shield skins have this. Something rarer than black... --Evil Party Girl 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another intersting possibility: how about being able to preview what a piece will look like after being dyed, even if you don't have a given particular color on hand? (just a preview) --Jack 1-30-08

Expounding on that, I'd like to be able to preview entire pieces of armor or weapons without having to craft them. Darksong Knight 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think like Emphemeral or Ghostly dye would be cool, like the ghostly hero texture. =D SweetEscape 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe a bottle of dye has a certain amount of dye in it and you could spray it across the armour in patterns YOU like for example in MS paint the spray can thing

GW2 Weapons

This is an idea i have had for a while that i think would work great for GW2. Let me start by saying that the weapon modding and customization was one of the things that really drew me into playing GW and that i think GW2 could make this even better. In GW2 i think that weapons should be compleatly made by the player. Let me explain this useing a sword as an example. Instead of getting a scimitar, with a fixed skin and mostly fixed stats you would get a sword kit. this kit would contain the screws and tools needed to hold various sword parts together and make a weapon. now that you have your sword kit you need at least a handle, blade and hilt before you can use you sword in a fight. so you go to a merchant and buy a blade that you like, it has a damage range of 10-20 damage and a blackis skin that looks rather good. you also buy a hilt which has not inherent bonuses but it is shining white which makes a cool contrast with your blade. you also buy a midrange leather handle witch will give your sword an attack interval of 1.5 seconds. now you decide that although you have enough parts to build a useable blade you want this sword to deal elemental damage, so you find a flame edge to attatch to your blade. then you build your weapon, the kit does not affect how it looks at all, the mods you attached all appear as them selves. so now it is time to test this new weapon out, you walk outside and admire the flaming black blade that sprouts out of a shining hilt. you kill a handfull of skale and, low and behold, one of the greedy little buggers drops a ruby pommel, which you pick up and find gives an extra 28 health, since you sword has no pommle you attach it to the end of the handle and now your sword pommel has a red glint to it as it swings through the air. also monsters instead of dropping full weapons just drop mods which can be used to improve your weapon. the weapon skins in the game would be entirely made of the pieces that the players attach to them. also there could be high lvl mods that require a special base to attack them to you weapon. so there would be a poisonous sword edge which lenthens poison duration by 33%, and there could be a toxic sword edge that lengthens the duration by 33% and randomly inflicts poison 1% of the time for x seconds, but can only be attached to a condition type sword base. the flame edge changes dmg to fire dmg, the inferno edge does the same and adds 3 fire dmg to each of your attacks, but can only be attached to an elemental type sword base. This would make weapons truly customizable, because you could change the look and effect of any portion of the weapon, also then weapons placeding the hall of monuments could give a unique mod to add to your weapon in GW2. I hope someone at anet actually reads and considers this. thx Kraken 00:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's not a bad idea, actually. Apart from the fact that that's not how swords are constructed, this sounds pretty cool. It would certainly give a unique feel to weapons if you upgrade and make them better as your character levels. Mesodreth Blackwing 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see non-combat professions alchemy, so you'd be able to poison your sword (or arrow or spear or whatever) and it would always inflict poison, atleast for some time. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea too, and it's kinda similar to something I and some others had come up with before, which is the make the weapon mods not just change the stats of the weapon, but the appearance also, e.g. a fiery bow string is actually fiery, a shocking sword hilt makes electricity move up and down the blade of your sword, etc. Though, to be honest, I don't think this should be the only way to get weapons, but just one of the possibilities. In other words, some people maybe too lazy to make their own, and would rather just buy a full one, while others may prefer the prestige of finding that really rare weapon. Otherwise, I would love to see something like this implemented. (Satanael 10:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Well instead of haveing a really rare weapon what you would find is a really rare weapon piece, and this would give the weapon you built a unique feel, because now it hase a huge blade, or some other look. Kraken 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple idea but, I think the "unique" weapons should have slightliy different damage to the max damage standard weapons. e.g. maxage wand or staff 11-22 damage as we all know, then you find Droknaars really really really rare staff for example, and oh it does 11- 22 damage also!! Would it have hurt to make the really rare items do say 13-25 damage or something? That way you feel as though your special item is at the very least a little bit special!! Stu 17/01/08

That is another benifit to haveing this weapon form, In GW2 anet has said that there will be a very high lvl cap, and that players of all lvls will be able to compeat in pvp, so i think that there should also be almost no Max for weapons, you would just find better and better parts. also there would be a point where finding a better sword blade would be almost impossible, but like you said, you might find Droks blade and that would be even better still.Kraken 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, having a nice rare skin and perfect stats should be enough to make unique items special, it's good enough for prestige armor. If they had better stats, I think that would actually make them less special by forcing everyone who can afford them to use them, as well as putting casual or poor players at a disadvantage. I don't like the idea of rare upgrade components either. -- Gordon Ecker 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is weapons and armour are different. Armour is in a set place all the time. You only need to get to a certain point to buy the prestige armour. Weapons have to be "dropped" and are therefore harder to get. If armour components were dropped as well then you could have slightly higher stats on them too as they wouldn't be guranteed. Of course drop rates would have to very low to ensure that there wasn't a plethora of them. Stu. 22/1/2008.

Well since there will be a very high level cap in GW2, and also since there will be no pvp only weapons because pve chars will cover both types of gameplay, dosen't it make sence that the weapons would have a very high "max" as well? also what rare items have a unique skin? last time i checked there were almost no unique greens except for the end of game ones. Kraken 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Skill: Berzerk

Spell, 15 Energy, 1/4 Casting Time 12 Recharge. For 7...12 seconds, attack 33%-50% faster, all skills disabled, and randomly attacks friends or foe. Enough said. Renin 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminded me of Confusion. — Galil 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pets!

We all know and love the little critters in GW1 called pets right? :P The current GW1 pets feel ALMOST PERFECT because the fact their base attributes are totally equal to a player's, the only thing missing was the amount of pet controls necessary to make them flexible as well, and for looks, they never appeared to be anything impressive or threatening unless they were REALLY BIG, but even then, they appeared to be a clone of one another, regardless of how awesome your Beast Mastery build was in GW1. I've several suggestions for the pets that'll appear in GW2. (VERY LONG, do not read this if you absolutely despise walls of text.)

Concept 1- Gear.

Armor: Weird, bizzare, yes. How it will work? Here's what I have in mind; pet stats would not be alterable in anyway, shape, or form, even the old concepts of dire and hearty and even elder would no longer be existant and relevant terms to pet customization in GW2. (Elder mostly because the term would be redundant, since originally, Elder meant the pet's stats were not modified at all.) If left naturally well developed stats, and evolution playing in as well, pets would be very much so outdoing a warrior's health and armor, and no decent warrior wants to find himself competing with a piece of AI for tanking positions in a group. This 'gear' system has no restrictions in my mind, and is no different from normal gear earned by players, asides from the names of only a select few pieces of gear. (Ex; how could a Melandru's Stalker be a beast-master when the cat itself lacks the intelligence to tame?!?!) When it all boils down to visuals, pets will actually receive a change in their looks to fit their new armor. (How could a completely undressed rat be equally tough as a muscular norn in platemail?!?!) The amount of armor pieces that could be worn and the types of gear available wouild be no different from what player's can wear and are available to them, except, of course, the names, or if there is 'Monk only' and 'Warrior only' type gear, pets would be able to wear 'Warrrior only' gear. If rings or some armor piece were to be implemented, and were to conflict with the anatomy of a beast, the item would be changed to a 'collar' or something else that would be compatible with a beast's anatomy. To ensure that you can customize pet's armor coloration so that it doesn't look exactly like some other Melandru's Stalker or Dune Lizard (provided the lizards are far north enough to be tamed) with the gear your pet has, the gear would be able to be dyed. (Provided dye is still around in GW2.) http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armoredpetjpgib9.jpg Here's an example of 'pets in armor.' I used the WoW Modelviewer to take the picture of the armored boar, and I added the text with Microsoft Paint.

Weapons/Shields: 'Gear' does not apply to strictly armor in the case of a pet, with this concept in mind, pets would no longer be able to do as much damage as a hammer can with their claws/teeth alone, if any, now the damage they would do would be tottally determined by whatever weapon the pet is weilding. When it comes to the visuals, it would work overall like armor would. I'm thinking of using tattoos to show whatever weapon or shield a pet would be weilding, but in an admittedly bizzare place... on their armor! The reason being for tattoos on their armor specifically because of the fact that pets don't exactly have opposable thumbs, nor have the proper anatomy to wield a sword comfortably in anyway. The only place where you wouldn't see a tattoo would be their helm, since there are too many types of face-designs beasts have to have a tattoo on their helm as well without doing loads of unnecessary work. As for the color of the tattoo, if a pet were to be weilding both a 1 handed weapon and a shield at the same time, you could either choose the shield's coloration to show up on the tattoo areas, or the 1 handed weapon's coloration to show up on the tattoo areas. If a pet were to be weilding a 2 handed weapon, however, the tattoo colors would simply appear on all tattoo locations. If there were to be conflicting colors of the tattoo and armor, the tattoo's color would change appropriately to fix the issue on its own. For example, if your pet had a dark blue weapon/shield tattoo, and dark blue armor, then the weapon/shield tattoo would appear very light blue instead. Or if the armor was light blue, and the weapon/shield tattoo light blue, then the weapon/shield tattoo would appear dark blue. If dye is still around in GW2, the weapon/shield tattoo would be able to be dyed, just as you would be able to dye the pet's armor. http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armoredpet2ip6.jpg Again, the WoW Modelviewer was used to produce the image of the boar, and Microsoft Paint was used to produce the text.

Concept 2- Controls and Skills.

Controls were something GW1 oh so lacked for the pets! Here's a list of suggested features to allow you more understanding and control over what the pet does, and how to track their stats.

Arsenal and Alignments: The control concept brings a pet-menu, which shows all of its stats, the armor and weapons/shields it would be wearing, what guild, faction it belongs to, etc, and works exactly like the player's character-menu. The factors such as guild and faction of the pet would be entirely dependent on what the player's guild and factions and so on.

Teleportation: To overcome the mobility issues such as jumping, climbing, etc, I suggest giving a 'teleport' feature upon receiving charm/tame animal, the control would be designed to automatically teleport the pet to your location, in case something happens or a situation is present that physically separates you from your pet. The feature would seem to be easily exploitable, but notice how the suggestion involves teleporting the pet to your location, rather than some random place, to prevent exploitations of it, and the teleport feature cannot be used in combat either, to prevent it from being exploited so that it's simply a free way of keeping your pet from taking damage, if the pet gets stuck in a place that it can't get out of in combat, that's your problem, nobody should rely on their pet to deal damage to the point where you don't even bring a staff or something to grind with.

Control Menu.: Pets are beasts, and beasts have a level of sentience, cunning, and brain to body ratio, not the undead minions necromancers created in GW1, so why is it mentally incapable to perform a set of commands? The idea for this is basically what you recently installed when a GW1 patch came out, such as allowing you to tell your pet to target a foe mercilessly, guard you and itself without fear, or heel when a foe comes, fleeing if the enemy decides to target the pet. I've 2 other behavior types in mind. (Yes, the ideas originate from WoW, but who cares, those controls are not WoW property, and they're a concept, not a title.) One is a mode which the pet automatically attacks adversaries, without second thought. (Main use of this would be to be able to attack foes without having to tell your pet to attack after every enemy the pet kills, again, and again, and again... when there's 5 or 6 enemies to defeat.) The second basically being 'stay here' command, so that the pet sits perfectly still, only moving to respond to a threat that's attacking either you or itself.

Skills: We all remember how black bears were totally useless because of the fact that 'brutal mauling' did absolutely no affect whatsoever, and slowed the pet's attack speed down dramatically. That is not what I have in mind. What I do have in mind is allowing pets to use their own skills, you're supposed to become a beast master, not a beast wannabe. Their skill bar would work exactly the same as a player's, and their skills would be skills only from the beast mastery tree. The only beast-mastery abilities pets would be restricted from use would be spells dedicated to resurrection of the pet, and the GW2 version of charm animal if you still have to be able to visibly see your skills outside of towns/outposts. If the ability has multiple effects, like the Elite ability 'Heal as One' or your average 'Comfort Animal', then the pet will be able to use it, but the resurrection effect wouldn't even show up in the description. The only other thing that would be edited when a skill is used by a pet would be the wording of the skill, so that it fits the pet in a logical manner. Each type of pet would have one spell unique to their own type as well. As an Example; a Melandru's Stalker would have an ability that allows it to 'pounce' on an enemy, knocking it down, with a corresponding animation as well. If skills cannot be changed outside of towns and outposts, the ability would take up a skill slot. Does this seem overpowered? Yes! But that can be fixed by player made designs that are made to function as an anti-melee character, or utilize the fact that melee cannot magically strike enemies from 20 feet away. Or simply kill the pet faster than they can heal/be healed, and only allow players to use pet-ressurection spells that would take a while to cast (I recommend a casting time of somewhere between 6-10 seconds.) Pets would also have energy, to correspond to the fact that all beast mastery skills cost energy.

Concept 3- Pet Specific abilities.

Here's the list of pet families I have in mind for special abilities, most of the effects of the skills, such as duration, or damage/armor bonus, would become more and more powerful as the pet gains levels, while other effects would stay unchanged throughout all stages of development, such as bonuses to attack speed or bonuses to movement speed, all of the effects would be equal to player's skills, neither weaker nor stronger than skills players use.

---

Felines. Special Ability Name: Pounce. (Pet Attack) If Pounce hits, your target is knocked down. (Animation: Self-Explanatory Animation.) Costs 5 Energy. 10 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Canines. Special Ability Name: Howl. (Shout) For 25 seconds, all allies within earshot move 33% faster. (Animation: Self-Explanatory Animation.) Costs 10 Energy. 30 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Flightless Birds. Special Ability Name: Screech. (Shout.) For 25 seconds, all allies within earshot attack 33% faster. (Animation: Self-Explanatory Animation.) Costs 10 Energy. 30 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Boars/Warthogs. Special Ability Name: Slash. (Pet Attack.) If Slash hits, the opponent begins Bleeding for 26 seconds. (Animation: Self-Explanatory Animation.) Costs 5 Energy. 10 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Reptiles. Special Ability Name: Scales. (Stance.) For 26 seconds, your pet gains +24 armor against physical damage. (Animation: No animation.) Costs 5 Energy. 30 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Bears. Special Ability Name: Brutal Mauling. (Pet Attack.) If Brutal Mauling hits, target foe is Crippled for 16 seconds. (Animation: Same as the animation was for Brutal Mauling in GW1.) Costs 5 Energy. 10 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Spiders. Special Ability Name: Venom. (Pet attack.) If Venom hits, target foe is Poisoned for 21 seconds. (Animation: Tries to bite the throat.) Costs 5 Energy. 10 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Rats. Special Ability Name: Lightning Reflexes. (Stance.) For 21 seconds, you have 75% chance to block attacks. (Animation: No animation.) Costs 10 Energy. 60 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Crabs. Special Ability Name: Shell. (Stance.) For 26 seconds, your pet gains +24 armor against elemental damage. (Animation: No animation.) Costs 5 Energy. 30 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Flighted Birds. Special Ability Name: Swoop. (Pet Attack.) If Swoop hits, target foe is interrupted. (Animation: The pet attempts to strike the enemy's head.) Costs 15 Energy. 20 Second recharge. No Casting Time.

---

Beastmastery, item requirements, and other stuff.

Since the system in mind would seem to allow your pet to do maximum damage at merely level 0 beastmastery, the weapons' requirements would be 100% the same as player's, but if an attribute level is required for use, swap said attribute level for beast-mastery level, i.e., if a sword/shield demands 9 tactics/swordmanship, change the attribute type to beastmastery instead. (Provided that GW 2 weapons/shields have the same basic demands to get the full effect of the item.) Also, beast-mastery would never affect the pet-abilities that belong to rats, flighted birds, etc, so you don't get these overly powerful skills that already work in the first place. Bit like the phrase "Don't fix what isn't broken." :P

Also, last but not least; PLEASE do not force us to sacrifice a skill bar just to have our pet to follow us! I find it was one of the worst ideas possible to force you to keep a skill you would never use until you abandoned your pet again to... just to have your pet. Be as WoWophobic as you want, but I liked how the pets in WoW traveled with you regardless of your skills on the skill-bar that allowed you to use a number to activate. :O

Sorry for the bizarre amount of text folks. :P (4 pages on MS word.) But anyways, yeah, here's my idea, I'll try to fix any text that appears very confusing or just plain crummy if you point it out to me. I'm pleased with my work though, even if it doesn't make it into GW2. :o --Dragon's Moon 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Some good suggestions though. Nice Job -- Silverleaf

Some pretty interesting ideas, not all of which have been discussed before. I kinda like the pet armor idea, although I think the armor should totally unconnected to the character armor, and from a development standpoint it would be easier to make armor for pets because it wouldn't have to be scaled like character armor is, because pet sizes are fixed. However, you totally lost me on the pet weapon thing. Also, I do think it is important to make sure a pet remains a beast, so from that perspective things like armor and weapons will just make them a slightly dumber charr. Having said that, I totally agree that more customization of pets and more control over pets would be really cool.

If it were me I would model the level of control over a pet on the level of control modern day hunters exhibit over the pets that assist them, such as dogs and falcons, which is to say, not really that much. When hunting with dogs, arguably the most trainable (i.e., controllable) pets out there, there's not much more a hunter can specifically command the dog to do other than point the dog in the right direction (translated into gaming language, give it waypoints like the GW1 heroes), order it to return to you, and tell it to stay put. With falcons one has even less control than that. However, almost all pets do understand the idea of loyalty to the owner/master, and defending one's owner is common amongst almost all pets. In this respect, I would actually like to see pets receive a buff when attacking a foe that is attacking its owner. I would also like to see pets go berserk if their owner dies, hounding the one that killed its owner without mercy (no pun intended).

To summarize, the pet commands I can imagine being accurate would be "woe" (stay at current location), "heel" (stay by my side), "Over there" (tell pet to go to a certain location), and some sort of attack command, although this could just as easily be the inherent command used whenever the master attacks, like it is now. For added "realism", the ability to use these commands, and their chance for success, would be contingent on a certain level of beast mastery (i.e., training) that the master has invested. Furthermore, the pet's level and the owner's level in beast mastery could influence the pet's "loyalty" to the master, which would define the level of boost a pet gets for attacking a foe that is attacking or has killed its master. Furthermore, a pet will not stop attacking a foe that has killed its master until either that foe or the pet is dead. If the foe dies, the pet returns to the corpse of its master and attacks any foe that comes near it.(Satanael 11:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Hey Satanael... I like your ideas for pet-behavior and controls, I was originally thinking of something along those lines, but I thought for a moment and figured it would be really hard for the developers to get that into the game without running into technical difficulties. Also, basically 'tattoos' is the pet's weapons and/or shields. A bit more on the tattoos... I originally did serious work on the weapons/shield section with the tattoos being on the face, rather than something inscribed onto the plate-mail or whatever the pet's wearing. I changed the idea of tattoos from being on the face to being inscribed onto the armor because a 'face' for a beast could be a bird's face, a cat's face, a spider's face, etc... because of that fact, I realized it'd add a lot of unnecessary coding for the developers to do, compared to just simply adding some fancy colors to the armor a pet would be wearing. The pet's armor is in no way connected to the player's armor, actually beyond visuals, I think I messed something up there as well. I'll look at my armor and weapon/shield page again to see if there's any contradictory and/or illogically placed text. --Dragon's Moon 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the armor and weapon ideas. But instead of tattoos, how about augmenting what's already there? Like giant steel talons on a Moa bird, or modified jaws for others? As for the armor, it reminds me a little of Okami or Oblivion's horse armor. I think this idea has some force behind it. Nice work on the documentation by the way. --People of Antioch talk 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I originally had in mind for the pet's natural weapons such as claws/teeth to be modified, but when you're talking about giving the pet a weapon made out of fire, that'd be awfully hard on the devs since they'd have to make the claws/teeth not simply look like little balls of flame, so I scratched that idea. Tattoos for weapons I decided would be a nice way to get some really cool lookin' pet armor. :D --Dragon's Moon 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

'Fusion'

Pardon me if this looks odd,(New to Wiki), but I've been thinking, what if there was a skill that would allow your character to fuse with your pet? The armor and weapons of your character would be applied in the same way as above, but it would be a pet adaptation of your own armor!. I also thought, forms like avatars are such a pain to maintain, so what if the skill was kept active like a monk's retribution or mending, being dismissed by dieing, or cinematics, etc. Yor name would appear where your pet's name normally is, your pet would would grow, but still run the same way it did without fusion. There could be some menu associated with the skill, telling the game to use your skill bar, or player customized skill bar when in fused form. O.o --Lord Zepherr-- Febuary 4th,2008, 5:56 pm

There's a small problem with that, however, even though it's a good idea. What would make it a hard idea to get in game is because unless pets are no longer restricted to warriors with AI, and move up to roles like healing or nuking as well as warrior roles, then it'd be a complicated question to answer as to how that cat spat a fireball out of its mouth, or how that bird just struck you for holy damage. Plus, the developers would have to spend a lot of their time trying to give pet the ability to use healing spells, area of effect spells, life-stealing spells and so on properly, and not trying to use it like a melee attack. And unfortunately, to wrap it all up, if you could still control your self as well as your new clone with 4 limbs and a tail, that would be absurdly overpowered. >_< --Dragon's Moon 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, but for the idea of weapons, you would just deal whatever type damage your weapon did, in whatever way the pet normaly did out of fused form. Spells that required some sort of motion to cast could just be changed to a growl, howl, crouch, etc. so the game designers would jsut assign a random mostion to any spell being used by the fused character, which would be easy since they will most likely be adding those very motions to teh pets like they already do in guild wars. Now for ranged skills, if pets are normally just warriors with AI what would be the point of even having ranged skills in a fused skill bar? it would be completley simple to add a block saying, "Your pet isn't a raged attacker", and who knows if they are operating on a new level, pets might be able to use ranged attacks. As for being over powered, I meant to say that your normal armor rating would be added to your fusion form, giving you the same armor to damage ratio as your character. And for movign teh same way, sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that in fused form you would run the same way your pet did, i.e. if you were to fuse with a Moa bird, you'd run like a moa bird, at the same speed of a regular character, giving no ridiculous speed boosts, or strength additions, or defense additions. One more thing that came to me: titles that could be earned by completing accomplishments while in fused form, like how the survivor title works, gaining a certain amount of XP while in fused form. --Lord Zepherr-- February 4, 2008, 4:35pm.

Roleplaying Districts/Shards/Whatever!

This is Dragon's Moon, finishing up suggestions for GW2, no, this will not be a big flipping wall of text, promise! Back when I played WoW, I absolutely L.O.V.E.D. the roleplaying servers they hosted there, and I've always wished GW could officially have and represent those. :3 This suggestion isn't complicated, but only 1 request: Enforced Roleplaying upon anyone who enters those shards. Roleplaying is a wonderful concept indeed, but it was overall destroyed when they considered roleplaying 'community driven only,' thus allowing the anti-RP activists and people who don't even realize that they're in an roleplaying server to mess it up, along with the people who just didn't care. Ok here's where it gets a little longer. Character development. I've 2 features to support in mind, all fairly simple, which are Biographies (Appears to be a paper, the format of the paper and background being, and Personality Portraits (Presents a picture of your character, with a list of things to the left, showing their professions, race, age, etc.) When it comes to moving a character from roleplaying districts to normal districts, there would be no mechanic changes at all, as even if you're not a serious roleplayer, biographies and personality portraits are still fun to do, just off the roleplaying servers, you just simply wouldn't take em' seriously like you would on a roleplaying server. :) All of which organized into 3 little tabs in your character menu: 'Arsenal and Alignments', 'Biography', and 'Self Portrait.' What these do will be explained soon. (This tab system would also apply to pets, so they would get a Biography Page and a modified Self Portrait too, lol.)

Concept 1- Arsenal and Alignments.: This one would be a little obvious, but nonetheless, deserves a mention. It would show more technicial information, such as what guild you're in, what armor you're wearing, weapons you're weilding, etc. For pets, this would merely show what its health, energy, and damage is. (Or, if my previous suggestion is taken up for pets and gear, showing what items it's wearing as well.)

Concept 2- Biography.: No serious roleplayer goes without one, be it in auto-biography format or third person format. The biography page would pretty much be a fancy looking paper with fancy text you scroll up and down to read what you can't see automatically. (The text format, font, color and so on would all be customizable, as would be the paper shape, size, etc.) All of which would be 100% customizable. For pets, it would be no different than a player's.

Concept 3- Self Portrait.: This one is definitely the least obvious of the 3 tab ideas out there, so I'll do my best to give a basic idea of what I have in mind. The Self Portrait would look like this for players... http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exampleselfportraitmw6.png, (The WoW modelviewer was used to demonstrate.) All of which customizable, just like the Biography Tab would be. For pets, this is what it would look like. (Again, using the WoW modelviewer to demonstrate.) http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exampleselfportraitpetfq3.png Now by 'species' I mean what the name of it was before being tamed, not the family the pet belongs to. I.E., Melandru's Stalker, Lynx, etc, not Feline, Canine, and so on.

Well, I hope this one isn't quite as confusing as my previous idea was, and even if this idea doesn't get into the game, I'm still happy with my writng. :) If anyone is confused and/or can point out faulty text, let me know, and I'll fix it. --Dragon's Moon 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of roleplaying districts. The Guild Wars Roleplayers Association tried to do that, it sort of worked, sort of didn't. But I think you go too far with the rest of it. MiraLantis 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a lot worse. First, I've roleplayed myself on the WoW roleplaying servers, and it was poorly desinged. If you rely on the community to enforce roleplaying, it's gonna end up looking like a regular server and the 'RP' tag would essentially become worthless. Second, gameplay mechanics supporting roleplaying would be quite a new trait for roleplaying servers in general, along with the bonuses of having an immediate reason to most people to roleplay, with the added bonus of easing up the troubles of making a text document of said character's biography, making a reference sheet file for personality, etc. All of which immediately accessible in-game conveniently. --Dragon's Moon 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Get a good story going, with epic turns and twists, lose all teh grind possible, make farming unnecessary for casual players, and

Make runs unnecesssary by making somes and missions easy to accomplish and things will be gold. Take care of the little things, ley bigs take care of themselves thing.

First part was on-topic, but what do you mean by the rest of it??? o_O --Dragon's Moon 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Material Cost

I'd like to see less spamable spells in Guild Wars 2 which would need some materials or ingredients or something like that to use. Of course there would still be spamable spells which only cost energy. I'm not sure if these spells should be included in combat or non-combat gameplay or both. All caster professions should have some and non-casting professions should have something like that also. Rangers need arrows, paragons spears etc. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Guild Wars is already too item-dependant. -- Gordon Ecker 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there'd be specialized vendors for minor reagents and stuff, and you could have to imbue minor ones with spells and whatnot to make the more powerful ones. For instance, you could take a piece of basalt and it would be a reagent to throw a meteor at someone, but use a fireball on the basalt turning it into obsidian glass prior to casting the meteor would cause a meteor shower instead. Or you could just have the more powerful reagent vendors in more remote locations. Like "beyond the mountain of fire and over the bridge of doom and guarded by the dragons of eternity" or something similarly over the top. Mesodreth Blackwing 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds too complicated. I rather they keep the game real simple. Jump, throw fireball, eat bbq, /excited. Renin 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like all the other "bows use arrows" ideas, this will ultimately ends up as two things: (1) wasting time doing re-stocking when I could be playing; and (2) players with more time and/or money have an unnecessary advantage over casual players. -- ab.er.rant 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been playing Runescape too much - the spells there require "runestones" to cast and the idea is stupid and boring as unless you can afford runestones there is no point to playing a caster. BAD IDEA imo. FirstSunspear 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've played Runescape maybe 2 hours 3 years ago. That wasnt was i meant. Maybe i've read too much fantasy books. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Slightly disagree, this would make casting tedious, and it would also be another money sink. Though, I suppose it would be okay for use in non-combat, but what kind of spells were you thinking of? I can see a spell being used in battle materializing arrows/spears, though. Like "Create Arrows"- skill, 2 second cast, needs 10 Wood Planks and 10 Iron Ingots, creates x arrows" -or- "Create Greater Arrows"- skill, 2 second cast, needs 15 Wood Planks and 5 Steel Ingots, creates x arrows which strike for +y piercing damage and have a z% chance to penetrate armor. Just have the materials in a seperate bag/backpack from the rest. --People of Antioch talk 21:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only see this working in an "optional" sense. If there were crafters where you could buy oil-coated arrows which burn for longer (click on it and damage by flaming arrows is increased by 2x for 20 seconds), or maybe a one use boost to spell casting or strength (steroids ftw?), that would be a nice addition to the game. The current setup with consumables would lend itself nicely to that, though I do feel the consumables' powers to be too much for GW1. However, I do not want to see something that requires me to purchase arrows for my ranger to be able to attack, or to have to buy runes so my ele can cast firestorm. And the crafting of stuff mid-battle is both unrealistic and impractical with (the current) system of inventory (something I hope Anet will work on in GW2 anyway). Ashes Of Doom 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck no! Please don't make GW2 like Runescape! If you want this kind of system play that --Hawk Skeer 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 13:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Support gordon, not support idea. MONEY SINKS ARE BAD. Rinse,and repeat that a few times.

One House Instead of Several "Hall Of Monuments" (HoM)

Instead of having (I have 11 character slots) 11 Hall Of Monuments I would like to suggest 1 House for all my Characters.

1. Storage for Armors and weapons like the current Xunlai in a kind of Character "Closet" concept.

2. Mergeable and Demergable with Other Players Houses. (For the married couples out there)

3. Your House Placed in a Guild makes it a village, town or Metropole depending on how many players are in a guild/alliance.

4. Friend can be invited to your House and in a Historic Room can be shown the accomplishments of Characters in GW1 and the new system for accomplishments.

5. Friends can not access your storage but armors are displayable like today's HoM.

6. You can Upgrade your house according to taste.

-- Silverleaf

That would be awesome.--‎FireTock 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be SOO nice. And plus it puts a nice spin to GW2...just imagine all of the options! O.o 68.151.27.108 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For the housing idea, I suggest having to make a monthly payment of in-game gold. The better the house, the more gold per month. If you don't pay that month, you don't get access to the house (all items that were in the house would be put in a chest that you could access). This would have a positive benefit of balancing the economy because people who wanted the really cool houses would have to fork over a lot of money every month, but people who aren't as rich with gold could still have a decent house proportional to the amount of gold they are willing to pay. You could even set up a system were the gold was automatically deducted from your current supply so you wouldn't have to worry about missing a payment due being on vacation. Once you logged on, you would receive a message notifying you how much you payed. Chocobo 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No payment..... it would be an amazing idea

Chats

I would really like it if GW2 would come with a recruit chat, next to the trade, aliance, guild & team, wich could be turned off aswell. If you are in a guild and you like it there, then watching all those recruit messages coming by is quite annoying.

When you aren't in a Guild and like it there, then watching all those recruit messages coming by is quite annoying. - HeWhoIsPale 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, Pale! I'll second this. There could even be an option to have it automatically turn off while you're in a guild. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea!! How about a "Idiots who want to stand in the corner and shout rude things" filter!. Last night I was playing and if I could have applied the filter to remove nonsense such as that the chat bar would have been nearly empty!! I know I'm being petty or picky but on a realistic point of view what about some way of having a private conversation that you "invite" people to in much the same way that you invite them to join your party. That way the kids could shout "boobs" and "lol" as much as they want. Stu. 22/1/2008

Hard reses

Just for flavor, it'd be neat if every profession had a hard res, even if it were really bad. Signet of Return is a good example from GW1; there's a contest on PvX to make a full team for either GvG or HA composed entire of one primary profession, and it made me realize, for example, how awesome an assassin hard res would be. -- Armond Warblade 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea, but the res skills must be centred around the persona of the class, such as a

• Necro would sacrifice their health to res a dead ally (which is kinda like rit... hmm)
• Warrior would be a touch skill and would use adrenaline maybe (something like.. Helping Hand, Target touched ally is ressurected with 25% hp and 0 Energy, you lose all adrenaline and Energy) ?
• Elementalist, Invigorating Charge.. Target ally is ressurected with Xhp and Xenergy (Air magic spell, gives more energy then HP, Animation, say.. charges hands up, and uses them like defribulators?)

Im sure you understand my point by now, so post some feedback and hopefully something along these lines can be implemented in GW2, i cant wait for it (and just remember these suggestions are based on the assumption that GW2 will use the same class system) 210.185.92.41 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, some classes it doesn't make sense for them to raise the dead. But I think in GW2 if any class can heal others they should have a hard rez (in the current GW, this would mean Dervish would get one as well) or even one class having a self-rez. Mesodreth Blackwing 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Elementalist (hard res) Phoenix Rebirth / Rise from the Ashes - fire spell that resses target ally and damages nearby foes. Would have it that all your energy is drained with exhaustion maybe, and character is ressed with health amount lost x 2 or some such.

Dervish: By the Grace of the Gods (or something)

House Of Furyan 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Player Housing/New HoM/Armor Storage

Here is my idea for new player housing. I loved it when titles were implemented into GW1, and I found the idea of the Hall of Monuments very cool. What houses could be is like a place to feel like its "your space" (like the HoM) and store your acheivements as well as your armor. Here are some of my core ideas for player housing.

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). This makes it so instead of having a server with 15,000 homes (and there only being a set amount of homes).

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 series of quests 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.

7) Your titles and acheivements could be displayed here. Possibly some head of a creature as a trophy for getting the vanquisher title?

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. 71.10.143.89 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So... guild halls, but 1-player only (allowing visitors), and placed on different zones instead of just in the battle isles? :)--Fighterdoken 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was talking about how you have the person that you can talk to in order to tour the different places where you can buy a guild hall. But yeah, like a homestead in the shiverpeaks if you have good reputation or have done the quest for Norn for example, or a house in whats left of ascalon, that sort of a thing. Dark X 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a guild storage area (like Xunlai chest) would be cool. Certain items would need to stack such as runes insignias and weapons with the same base damage. It would have two affects:

1. It would force Guilds to only have "Trustworthy" players and therefore increase the community spirit and stop people spamming for Guild recruitment as they could end up recruiting someone who clears the chest out and leaves.

2. It would increase the power of a guild. i.e. How much "arsenal" they could provide their members.

One way around thievery could be to limit access to chest with a certain ranking or higher e.g:

Probationary member.

Junior Member.

Member (Has chest access).

Senior Member.

Deputy Guild Leader.

Guild Leader.

Posted by Stu. 22/1/2008

Getting flashes of Oblivion. You can buy a house, house in itself is a gold sink. You can by displays or stands? Act as a gold sink. You can place things on the stand, similar to the Destroyer weapons are displayed. No one can steal your stuff as its owned by you and can't be picked up. You have Xunlai chest access (perhaps) or that is left to towns and guild halls so it doesn't take away from their functionality. I'd like to have a house, it'd be fun. You could have purchase tapestries etc. A place that hold your armour, that would be cool. The house is essence is storage, but it'd be more of player enviromental storage. May take up too much space on servers if there one for every character so maybe make such a thing account based and just have larger houses that can be purchased as time goes by.

Items in storage should stack, I don't see the reason why runes and insignias don't stack, well, that's not true I suppose its got to do with affecting the NPC traders prices or something, but then again dyes stack, I dislike how they can't stack, stacking for exact runes, insignias, weapons etc would be good. House Of Furyan 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the housing idea, I suggest having to make a monthly payment of in-game gold. The better the house, the more gold per month. If you don't pay that month, you don't get access to the house (all items that were in the house would be put in a chest that you could access). This would have a positive benefit of balancing the economy because people who wanted the really cool houses would have to fork over a lot of money every month, but people who aren't as rich with gold could still have a decent house proportional to the amount of gold they are willing to pay. You could even set up a system were the gold was automatically deducted from your current supply so you wouldn't have to worry about missing a payment due being on vacation. Once you logged on, you would receive a message notifying you how much you payed. Chocobo 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)