User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/July 2007

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

Xfire

Hy, if it's not to much trouble, could you please find out if the: Xfire Game SDK is going to be added to the game? (Yes i used support page and they gave me the standard copy pasted response, and that was it). --Phoenix File:Phoenix-sig.png 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, been looking for something like that for GW. I hate it when WoW players show of their characters and i cant :( ~ Kurd 14:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I use Xfire as well. I really dont find much problem in finding out where my friends are in-game, but it would help cut a lot of corners.Blackie ewilson92 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

xfire is ftw, and tons of gamers use it -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurd You are right about the signature that wow players can use from Xfire, It would be great if we could do something similar. But that would be later after they add the sdk. Hope we hear about it soon.--Phoenix File:Phoenix-sig.png 08:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope is going to be used in GW2, but i would still like an answer if is going to be added to GW! --Phoenix File:Phoenix-sig.png 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NikiWiki

Seems appropriate to mention this here, the GW2 NikiWiki has quite a few such ideas/concepts that may be interesting. --Dirigible 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many places that have suggestions. But a page with links isn't as good as a page with ideas. The cool thing is, discussions can take place on the fan forums or other sites, and from those hundreds of locations and thousands of threads, this section can be built, to house clear and concise distillations of lengthy threads or those broader discussions. That's a synergy that we think will be very useful and helpful as we look towards the future. --Gaile 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut the heroes

No more heroes. It destroyed PvE (making guild wars the only single-player MMORPG on the market) and PvP (quirky AI led to easily abused builds). -Auron 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about henchmen? --Gaile 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The companion system, as described, looks fine. It should solve the problem of profession ratios by allowing the members of professions with a high popularity to demand ratio to fill out the holes in the party makeup with high demand to popularity ratio professions. The main issue I have is that, without heroes, it would take ages to get PUGs for hard, unpopular quests. There are other solutions, such as making most quests soloable with effort, making most of the explorable area quests repeatable with desirable rewards in order to increase the number of people doing the quests or adding a global party search channel for each quest. -- Gordon Ecker 06:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(To Gaile) I'm fine with Henchies. I remember reading that henchies were merely meant to act as a filler to a human party; if said party couldn't find a monk, they can pick up Alesia. That was useful and hard to abuse; Henchmen did not have the best bars available (thus people would prefer to party with humans, if possible), and were generally one or two levels behind the player (and monsters in the area), so you couldn't just clean the map of enemies without trying. Heroes are easy to level and have potentially the best bars in each area; some missions that would normally be a challenge are made easy with the right hero builds (i.e., sticking a Broad Head Arrow hero on Kormab, Burning Heart made the battle ridiculously easy). I think the Henchman have been well implemented; if such a concept carried over to GW2, I wouldn't have any issues with Henchman as they are now. -Auron 07:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with that argument is that for those who can find a human controlled ranger with Broad Head Arrow, Kormab, Burning Heart would still be ridiculously easy. Heroes allow the rest of us to take on Kormab without having to stand in town shouting for hours for the party we want (there is nothing more frustrating in GW). I don't think you can say Heroes destroyed PvE if so many people enjoy playing with them. I would personally like to see full parties of Heroes allowed in instanced areas. That would allow me to play how *I* want to play, and there's still nothing preventing people from joining a PUG if they want to. --Ctran 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Heroes are the number one thing I like about GW currently. >:( Capcom 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm very fond of them myself. They give me more options, and I really like having choices. I understand concerns about their being "too powerful" or creating a disincentive to party with players, but I think the designers have taken great steps to prevent either being a reality. Concerns about PvP, AI, and heroes' influence on the outcome of competitive matches are things I'll pass along, to be sure. --Gaile 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hero's really disappointed me, nobody does missions with other people anymore, which I thought was the point of a multi-player game. ALSO, heroes are screwing with PVP, they need to be gotten rid of in that area of gameplay, I wouldn't care if I didn't see them in GW 2.--TheLordOfBlah 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of GW is to play how you want to play, within reason (obviously some gameplay types such as GvG require more players than say exploring an area with H/H). I think Heroes were an excellent addition, and from the hints of Hero quirkiness and specialties in GWEN, I am all the more excited. I think though that with the companion system in GW2, they will not be sorely missed. I still do hope that henchmen are available in missions and areas made for parties of more than 2. --70.246.139.29 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Heroes, more specifically henchmen, were one of the things that interested me in purchasing Guild Wars in the first place. I came from EQ2 and often found, that even though I was a healer, I couldn't finish many quests, due to there being very few people in that area at the time. If there was a low population in an entire zone, I often was stuck doing the solo encounters, which was incredibly boring. :( --Redfeather 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see why people have a problem with heroes, but i think they actually blame the wrong part of the game here. Heroes are a great addition for both easing gameplay (don't have to wait for 2h for that stupid monk that is never there when you need one) and offering one of very few long term goals in GW (my 8 pve slots are all lvl 20 and equipped, my 80 heroes though are not yet :). The reason why they are overused in pve is not because they are to good but because the average player just sucks badly. GW is a game where the discrepancy between a good player and a bad player is so big like in no other game i know of. I played in pugs with monks who only used resurrect and heal area and with minion masters who were only able to keep up 2 bone minions at max. So if i just want to finish a mission fast i stick to heroes (or pre nightfall henchmen) because at least they are reliably bad :). But that doesn't change the fact that with a good group those missions are both easier and more fun and in high level areas like doa you really don't want to have a single hero/henchman over a human player. 134.130.183.235 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support heroes. My life is such that I don't have a whole lot of time to stand at an outpost spamming LFG hoping to land in a decent party. I was happy with henchmen, but the lack of variety made it difficult to do some missions and quests without other players. Heroes filled those gaps, allow those of us who prefer to play solo the ability to accompish almost anything a full party of players could do (with exceptions of DoA, UW, and FoW of course). I realize some people like the social aspect of doing the missions with other players, but I would hope the would find other players who feel the same way. I enjoy the ability to run through missions without a dependence on others (although I acknowledge that some people want that dependence), and so I do hope there is a similar hero system in GW2. --Thervold 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for GW2

i know this may sound a bit odd, but could A-net add the naga or the forgotten as a playable race, i think it would be cool to play as a lizard and stuff =P--Lokre 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a topic in GWGuru where you can post your suggestions... atleast AN know that the naga could be nice race --Gret 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the feeling that Gaile's page is not the best place for suggestions about the game...I think that kind of thing would be better at one of the fansite forums, given how we know Arena Net reads them and they have sections dedicated to suggestions. I think this page is more for "Hi, Gaile!" and things like that. Erasculio 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

right - read on upper Paws to Consider: Are you on the right page? --Gret 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tengu > Forgotten > Naga 66.214.173.22 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quivers

You've probably been asked this before but are rangers ever going to get quivers. I just think this would make them far more realistic instead of pulling arrows out of nowhere. --S474N1C 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here and also mentioned in a Gaile log if that helps you out at all. - BeX 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --S474N1C 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a point to be brought up though that quivers would have graphical issues with the capes.Blackie ewilson92 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you read that discussion I mention that quivers weren't always worn on the back. :P And besides, there are so many armor sets that have clipping issues with cape/weapons. - BeX 17:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't anticipate quivers for GW:EN. I think you may see them in Guild Wars 2, but I cannot say for sure -- it's early yet and armour and elements of that nature are not designed or will undergo many iterations before final. If memory servers, we never had quivers in Guild Wars at any time, even early in development. The bow-shooting animation did involve the Ranger reaching over her back as if to take an arrow out of a quiver, but I don't think I remember ever having an actual quiver back there. Could be the animation was put in place with the anticipation that we'd have quivers, and then the practicalities (yes, clipping could be one -- with armour, hair, or limbs) resulted in the non-addition of the quiver after all. That's all just pondering, though. After all, this would have been about 4+ years ago. :) --Gaile 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What would they do for spears if quivers existed? --Chiaro 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of quivers as something can be shown or hidden, like capes and headgear. -- Gordon Ecker 07:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think that Quiver's should be a offhand item for the standard bow which provides perhaps a minor boost boost such as dmg+1 or dmg+2 or dmg+3 vs enchanted. Perhaps also preperations 5% longer 10% longer with appropriate negative effects if balancing says it is needed. And to give a ranger a true two handed weapon such as a cross bow, that has a slightly shorter range then the short bow but higher upper dmg limit and with some natural armor penetration based on how close you are to the target and of course a slower attack rate after all it takes time to load one. And finally a cross bow would not allow for the quiver offhand. Just my thoughts I would like to see the ranger get. That relates to Weapons. Chik En 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quivers aren't always worn on your back - hip quivers would be just as cool. ₪₪ JOSəPH ₪₪ 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rangers in general

I think rangers are really missing something. They can set traps and such... but how about some tracking skllls that allow you to find existing traps? Spot those set by others and with say a elite that lets you shout them out loud so that others in your party can see them temporarily as red circles for a few seconds, if they are in ear shot. Let them track and find secrets etc. Chik En 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Light

My last suggestion for the day.. Perhaps this is done in GW:EN or not I do not know... but the "need for light" does not exist... How great would it be to have the need for illumination... if the candle goes out... your fighting in the dark type thing. Which would make those without natural abilities for dark vision have some trouble such as miss more often with some type of attacks. Simple skill a monk can bring or a elem or even mesmer can bring all can have some type of light skill and a warrior can bring a latern or torch as a offhand if they want to give up the shield and also drop one on the ground to light the area so they can fight properly. Just me and my crazy ideas :) Chik En 20:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you thinking of a on/off thing as in penalty if off, no-penalty if on... or is it more of a brightest to darkest thing? So you get a 25%, 50%, 75% miss chance depending on how dark it is. Are you just expecting some penalties or are you thinking of actual darkness? Kinda like your screen going all black in 100% darkness... -- ab.er.rant 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think penalty based on amount of darkness, but with some relative but not absolute screen darkness would be good so you can see the faded area but its harder to see things like chests and such. basicly make the radius for seeing things in the distance less. But you could even go as far as LIGHT creates a new agro circle ... it can attract the enemy... so sometimes you might wish darkness :) Chik En 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A page like this was talked about before

We had a rather long discussion a while back regarding whether suggestions would fit into what this wiki is meant for. It can be found here. As far as I can tell, such a page or pages were met with some opposition. I'd like to ask if ArenaNet is taking a stance that such suggestions pages would be fine, or would be it just confined to this talk page? The reason I'm asking is because there had also been proposals for how to organise such suggestions to reduce repeated suggestions and allow for better searching. -- ab.er.rant 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought since the page existed that this was welcomed. If it is or is not that should be finalized quickly. It would also be good to have it organized as you had suggested. Chik En 12:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, I sure didn't start this article/section to formalize a suggestions practice or policy. My talk pages, and those of others, often get suggestions, so my thought was, why not offer a very casual GWW-based Suggestions article? I envisioned archiving into broad categories that would be read to avoid redundancy. Now, I concede this page could become a target for silliness or a repository of redundancy -- there are no guarantees. The same idea could crop up weekly across 15 forums in 9 languages, and Dwayna knows, I'd rather not find myself archiving daily requests for hairdressers. :)

I appreciate that GWW is more about giving information than proposing it, that its purpose is intended more to be factual than conjectural. Of course, conjecture and suggestions are served daily. If the best course is to keep with a policy that 'Suggestions belong on the fan forums," and if that's what the GWW membership desires, absolutely no problem! It's early days and this project easily can be amended or aborted without any rancour whatsoever.

In answer to the question, the objective was to offer a single, casual suggestions discussion page, not suggestion subpages for a large number of GWW topic. At this point, I feel that the best and easiest thing is simply to move this to become a subcategory of my talk pages, which will accomplish several objectives, including likely keeping it informal and smaller in scale. How does that sound? --Gaile 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that managed pages would be work well. I have a idea and if nobody objects I will design a simple page within my user pages to help show what I am thinking. Chik En 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear of this "sandbox" thingie... ? ;) --Gaile 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a sandbox already actually... but it is already holding something for me :) Chik En 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think moving it into a subpage of your userspace would be good (that's what you mean, right?). If it ever goes large scale, we might want to consider using a wiki forum format (example: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Help_desk) (is this what is meant by managed pages?). --Rezyk 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same, Rezyk; thanks for the feedback. Chik En, why don't you post your ideas for the page, rather than taking the time to construct a page design? I think we can discuss without spending that amount of effort, perhaps? --Gaile 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not gonna go to far with it. Just a basic outline to give the idea of what I visualize for a idea. You know what they say. A picture is worth a thousand words. So thought easier to paint a picture :) Chik En 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a forum format, although you may have to get permission from Wikia first, as I believe it was either this guy or this guy who developed it. The trouble is with having a single wiki page, it soon grows too long, is too prone to vandalism and you get edit conflict madness. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can say that we (ArenaNet) will not be going towards or supporting an official forum format of any kind. I understand the concerns about page length, vandalism, and edit conflicts. I am more than willing to close this section and return to pointing players in the direction of our fan forums if that is the best course. Thanks for the feedback. --Gaile 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok just a rough example of what I was thinking and now that I have put pen to paper a little I can basicly explain what I would like to suggest which I am sure most would have already thought of. User:Chik_En/Suggestions Basicly creating a tree of simple pages that share resources and discussion pages to help reduce duplicates. If you follow the links that are enabled to monk skills you will find that there is a common shared page because it makes sense to keep somethings together. Also it would be good to include perhaps certain pages within others. Typical persons like myself should Suggest via the discussion pages on the appropriate page before that suggestion migrates over to article page. I only did a small tree and well I am sure it could be worked out better then what I threw together in a few mins. I would go as far to say those that suggest duplicates get warned and then the duplicate gets archived to a duplicate archive and ones that are placed on the Article get just archived Chik En 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be seperated into five or six subpages for suggestions pertaining to different areas of the game... like design, lore/background, mechanics, documentation and features or something - off the top of my head. For now we want to keep this for GW2 only, imo. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you feel works best I was just going with the obvious reuse of pages to link together things to help avoid duplicates and a graduation system for suggestions and such. You could go as far as if someone suggests to many duplicate suggestions and has been warned that basicly any suggestion by them would be ignored for 6 months or something. Chik En 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A couple of issues I'd like to point out, off the top of my head:

1. Community consensus against GW suggestion pages in the discussion to which Aberrant linked was mainly based on two ideas:
   • That ANet had explicitly (up to that time) redirected players to the forums to share their suggestions. This is obviously not true any longer, so this point is invalid.
   • That wikis are unsuitable mediums for these kinds of uses. Maybe it's time for us to reevaluate whether this is really true? Take a peek at the GW2 NikiWiki and Izzy's talkpage and its subpages. Suggestions abound, and I'm honestly not seeing any particularly major issues, both of them seem to be working just grand. Maybe this kind of project could actually work on a wiki setting and we were worried needlessly?
2. The idea of moving this to a subpage in userspace isn't necessarily even a bad thing at all (even though I personally don't mind the page staying where it is right now):
   • On the non-negative side, since this page would be in Gaile's userspace, I doubt the target audience would decrease; if anything, it'd grow larger, wikians will all know it's there anyways and there's a huge number of players out there who only check the wiki talk pages of Gaile, Izzy, and the update notes, with no clue what goes on elsewhere. And of course, there's no reason why it can't be linked to from key spots such as the main page or the sidebar.
   • On the positive side, the entire project would start sounding more like "lets give Gaile suggestions that she can pass on to the devs", rather than "the devs want to know what to put in the next game for us".
3. Even though it's likely that this would be overkill right now, there's always the possibility to go nuts and make a separate site completely, (http://suggestions.guildwars.com, maybe?). The cool thing about this is that it'd let us use the wiki to its fullest extent, providing features that forums cannot offer, or that would be (in my opinion) out of place on this main wiki. Take a look at the NikiWiki I mentioned above, spend a bit of time clicking around; they've customized their site for this particular purpose, custom extensions and all, and I think it looks great. They've even licensed their stuff as GFDL, so if ANet is interested we can contact them and see if we can get them aboard and start a new official suggestions wiki. Or we can just have our own go at it, doesn't really matter much. The point is that it does seem to me like a potentially worthwhile idea to consider. --Dirigible 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea about moving this to Gaile's Talk Page, mostly thanks to this: "On the positive side, the entire project would start sounding more like 'lets give Gaile suggestions that she can pass on to the devs', rather than 'the devs want to know what to put in the next game for us'." I would like to avoid as much as possible a feeling of entitlement that someone could get by posting on the "Official" suggestion page on the "Official" wiki (I know the wiki isn't run by Arena Net, but I still see players who think that anything said in any page here came directly from Arena Net so it's "official"). Making it clear that it's just a very casual way of posting ideas on Gaile's Talk page would lesser that problem, while still giving players somewhere where to add feedback. Erasculio 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some how I would feel bad for a possible flood of suggestions that Gaile would have to sift through. I just made that example page and was able to just make up some skills that I had never thought about prior to making those pages. Granted it shows not much thought was put into them :) Chik En 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be tagging my example pages for deletion on Monday or Tuesday if nobody objects, I think I have conveyed my suggestion and they are nolonger needed. Chik En 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reading through the discussion about whether or not to have a suggestion page in the official wiki pretty much clips any brief readers from contributing fresh ideas after reading beforehand to check and see if it has been suggested before. I find it a bit silly to design a new system of wiki suggestion for GW2 as well since NikiWiki is doing a fair job of it already. It would be far easier to graft Nikiwiki as the tool to organize suggestions for GW2 from the GWW. And if it is not organized and catagorized to satisfactory, than it can be adjusted and customized to better fit the public.

That all said, if you still intend to cataloge all the ideas here, and you need some semblance of organization, I suggest a few educated and rational people be allowed to cataloge popular, developed and facinating ideas on the article section of this page, with brief descriptions, and links to further discussion on the topic. But again I will repeat that it is pretty silly to design an entirely devoted system of suggestion on the GWW which is ment to be an official GW information page, when we have a fully operational suggestion page with good organization and catagorization at NikiWiki already. You may as well invite NikiWiki as a sub wiki or simply offer a link to it as an acceptable place to cataloge ideas. And if others can do the same and better, because we know forums are a harbor for repeats and nonsense, than you can offer all of those links as well.--BahamutKaiser 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt read all of this but has anyone suggested it be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Guild Wars 2 suggestions? - BeX 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think GWW Projects are meant to be more focused on directly improving the wiki. --Rezyk 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did add a "Game-related projects" subsection to the Projects page though... so it might be fine to expand the scope of "Projects" to also involve game-related stuffs? But then again, suggestions isn't exactly my idea of a project idea, unless we're all for attempting to organise the suggestions. -- ab.er.rant 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that expanding the projects to include game related or community related projects wouldn't be too bad an idea. Maybe a namespace for it? We still don't have a mission statement so there's nothing saying we can't encompass these sorts of things (and if that isn't a good reason for a mission statement I dont know what it). - BeX 06:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio's Suggestions

They're not mine, but I've read through them all (and there is a LOT to read through) and there really are a few gems in there. They can be found through the link in the section header, or here. Just take a look when you have a bit of spare time :D --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Woohooo! Thanks for posting it here, Santax : D I just found this section (I didn't even know it existed until now), and I was wondering if I could place a link to those suggestions somewhere around here. Thank you : ) Erasculio 21:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. That's a lot to read, but very well done. I will go so far as to call it a GW2 Suggestion Treatise. =P - Thulsey - talk 03:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Foxy's Suggestions

This is basically what I have suggested before, but placing it here as well. Thanks for taking a look and consideration into what people want who play the game! I greatly love that fact that GW is actually involved with their players (so many MMOs could care less). <3 GW! I am taking them off this page since I am being flamed for my thoughts. If you would like to view them please look over at my userpage, which has ideas for both games. Thanks. Foxysheri 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Foxy, this talk page is for suggestion for Guild Wars 2. While some of yours might apply to GW2, what we know of GW2 is too little, so I just get the feeling that you thought it was for GW1. -- ab.er.rant 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still a GW game, so I am under the thinking that quite a bit of it will be similar. Therefore, I think that these ideas still apply to GW2. If they want to look at it for GW1 as well that is great, if not that is fine. Foxysheri 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think storage size is the kind of suggestion ANet are looking for, tbh :P

Heroes will be replaced in GW2 anyway, so the one about hero pets isn't needed. We need to go into this with the mentality that we know nothing about the game, instead of that it'll be like GW1. If they wanted another GW1 they would have just produced another campaign. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude Santax. Would you prefer if I just deleted all of my suggestions then? These are my suggestions, not yours. I did not know there wouldn't be heros in GW2 and how do you know for sure by 100% there will not be? Who knows if the "companions" are really just like heros but a different name? Foxysheri 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ArenaNet have stated that heroes and pets will be replaced by "companions", that we don't know much about yet. And I apologise if I appeared rude, I just thought I'd share my thoughts. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, dont take it off Foxy, those were good suggestions ~ Kurd 19:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions are still up on my userpage, and I'm sure I'll add more as I think of them. I just took it off here (but still linking to it) due to the fact that I play GW and contribute on Wiki for FUN - not to be flamed. Foxysheri 20:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A better trading system

Hi Gaile, I would much like to see a better trading system in place. This could be in any number of forms that would make me happy:

• In game auction house (similar to wow)
• Character based market stall set up in town with items available for sale (similar to silk road)
• Player owned NPC vendors, based at a player house, guild hall, or any other locations you wish. (similar to daoc)

The current system in GW of spamming your wares until you find a buyer is truly the thing that bugs me most about GW. Think of it this way, you are a new player and you want a sword, people in towns are only selling top end expensive ones that you can not afford, and no one is selling a cheap semi decent one for while you level. I know you get this request a lot when you are in Kamadan etc, but I thought I would record it here :) --Lemming64 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Town suggestions

Um... this isn't overly lengthy suggestion, but I'd like to see the ability to go indoors in GW2. There's so much potential for indoor areas like taverns, shops and houses that was missed out in GW1, especially in places like the Echovald Forest. I also think it'd be important for stuff like roleplaying and the general feel of the game. In GW1 it feels like all you do is run around and kill stuff, which is more or less all you can do. It'd be nice to wander around a town, socialise with others while sitting at a table in the tavern, or defend the town from monsters as a community, rather than in an instance. Although, this could cause some server issues... --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Attributes

Have attributes affect more than their own class. What I mean is, an elementalist with water attribute should be able to have that attribute apply (either fully or partially) to any skill that causes cold damage. It should either act as that skills attrib (even if the skill is a necro blood skill) or it should at least give a buff of some sort to the cold damage that is dealt from the skill. ‽-(eronth) I give up 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm... we don't even know if they're keeping with the same professions and atributes... or even the the whole profession system. -- ab.er.rant 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of switching to more traditional RPG attributes, such as strength and agility, which aren't tied to any specific profession, allowing better synergy between primary and secondary profession skills, with only the primary attributes remaining tied to professions. -- Gordon Ecker 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we don't know how they're gonna do it, why can't i suggest that anyways? ‽-(eronth) I give up 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Run/Walk and Voice-Overs

I hope that in GW2 you will give us the option to toggle running on and off at the touch of a button, rather than constantly running around all the time, and also when you talk to a NPC, we can hear them saying what it is they say, and read along with it on the screen, it may might just make quests a bit more fun for players :) --Gummy Joe 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I'd rather speech be kept to cinematics and such. Audio files can get quite big and will pointlessly eat up my bandwith or download time. -- ab.er.rant 13:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think the way voiced emotes would work was all the sounds would be saved and then when you type something like /laugh it would just play the files already on your computer, not using any extra bandwidth, just hard drive space.--TheLordOfBlah 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be fine with emotes with sound, but this suggestion was for voiceovers for NPCs and their dialogue. Which is what I'm opposed. Not only are the audio going to take up needless bandwidth or space, it'd be a waste of Anet resources as well to spend them recording them. -- ab.er.rant 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think EoTN will have a small greeting voice over for certain NPCs. In a recent EoTN video, I swore heard a Norn and Asura verbally greet a player when they clicked on them for a quest/minigame. So, you never know. It might stick, but I doubt it would be full length word for word voice-overs.--Seth Crimsonflare 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ministories

Something like a monthly or weekly miniplot would be nice - I rarely play guild wars now because I consider NF boring, and I've already beaten prophecies and factions multiple times. BLASTEDT 14:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, could maybe even take place of weekend events. (without destroying the Wintersday event as it could be considered a MiniPlot) ‽-(eronth) I give up 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course don't drop holidays, but the quests in holidays are exactly what I mean. Freshen up the game a bit with some new content. It doesn't have to be big. BLASTEDT 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Keep PvP and PvE skills together. Don't make PvE only skills etc. Giving players PvE only skills tends to separate them from the world of PvP. Im no PvP player but I like the fact skills change in PvP which has its side effect on PvE. It helps keep people thinking about their builds.

Drop the non-fleshy enemies in PvE. Tyria was pretty much pointless for a bladed warrior with sever artery.

Keep the lovely easy to use interface. I didn't realise how nice this interface really is until I played a few other RPG games.

Allow us to see who's online in our alliances.

Make more areas like FoW, UW and Tombs. They make great places for guild trips. They arn't too hard and allow players to play a variety of builds rather than strict ones to even survive.

Statistical information maybe like total monster, boss kills etc? /stats

Can't think of anything else right now --SK 15:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it cheeper to upgrade insignias and runes (maybe more expensive for armor levels or something). That way a PvE player can more easily mod (him/her)self to PvP standards. ‽-(eronth) I give up 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They are separating PvE and e-competition PvP, so I think PvE skills are very likely and disagree with the suggestion. --70.230.164.246 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In Game Voice Communication.

A System of push to talk VOIP would help greatly in all areas of the game, from PvE where people wouldn't normally be bothered to get on Vent or such, and in PvP where it is essential! This wouldn't necerserilly replace all other VOIP programs, as i know a lot of guilds who like to hang out on Vent while doing other things, but would make it a lot easier. A few other games i play have this in-built VOIP and it is very helpfull. Even players without a Mic can hear what is being said and overall just creates more of a 'Team' atmosphere. --ChronicinabilitY 16:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That would mean a whole lot of traffic / bandwidth to hit Anet which might put a dent in the pricing model of no monthly fee's just my thoughts... and it is really not required. Some ppl in a PUG I just would not want to hear after seeing what they type. Chik En 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The option's would obviously be available to toggle on/off etc. I'm not sure how it would work with the bandwidth nut it obviously wouldnt be an issue from the consumer end of things as we are used to running GW alongside Vent or whatevery else you use. I just think it would make for a more co-operative enviroment, which is what i hope GW2 will be. And from my side of things being a PvPer it would just make things a lot simpler. --ChronicinabilitY 00:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the servers are only used as trackers, with the clients sending voice data directly between eachother? -- Gordon Ecker 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you have firewall headache's and connection issues with people trying to send data to other IP's and such and you also end up with a player getting another players IP address and that is a security issue if you ask me. I would not want everyone in a PUG getting my IP address personally. Also I was refering to Anet's bandwidth bill, it would go up and that would affect the pricing model. Chik En 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can only think of two options for integrated voice chat, ANet using their own servers to relay voice data and covering the bandwidth costs, or the servers merely acting as trackers, with the game clients communicating directly with eachother and the same security issues as third-party voice chat programs. If they do use integrated peer to peer voice chat, I think it should be disabled by default, show a warning before you enable it, and require a button to manually turn it on for a given party once it's enabled. -- Gordon Ecker 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some ppl in a PUG I just would not want to hear after seeing what they type Totally agreed!!! I don't even want to imagine what people who like to draw body parts on the compass would say... -- ab.er.rant 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I don't want to hear people talk, and I don't want other people to hear me talk. I like the distance and anonymity of typed text. Arshay Duskbrow 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply don't use it then! There could spimply be a checkbox in the party window. If you don't wish to hear people then don't use it. But there are instances (more and more now) where VoiP is needed. I don't know about the costs to A-Net but the main other game i'm thinking of that uses in-game VoiP doesn't have monthly fee's either. Can no-one see the advantages of this?? The disadvantages are clear but can be clearly avoided by having to enable the VoiP manually. --ChronicinabilitY 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote let ANET worry about the game and leave VOIP technology to those that already are focusing on it. I would rather have those hours spent fixing a bug in the game not in some chat room software when there are already many low cost or FREE solutions already. I think they should not spend time re-inventing the wheel. Imagine Voip in GW and your the only one who has it enabled... you would get a wave file played back to you "no one hears you" each time you speak ;) Chik En 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Koreans already get it, so why cant the rest of the populace?? http://www.guildwars.co.kr/pds/gwGVDownload.asp

(RI) You are right it does appear they have a SEPERATE program available, just like Teamspeak and Vent are seperate programs. So far being a seperate program it might be offered by a third party in partnership with ANet. I have no idea to be honest. The translation is horrible of that webpage. Perhaps Gaile can tell us. Chik En 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

World v. World and Leveling

My only real suggestion as of the current information is to allow viable leveling/advancement/loot via WvW combat. From the current information it sounds like in WvW we will be fighting with our PvE characters. This is totally cool, and I totally agree with the separation between PvP-like games and the competition portion of PvP. What I want though is significant rewards for playing in WvW. Please do not try to just do a "well your world wins if you win" like was tried with Hall of Heroes. I would like unique weapons/armor/titles and experience comparable to farming mobs so that a PvE-character could advance *solely* through WvW combat. I expect WvW to be that cool. :) --Ravious 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Melee Attacks

Once again, without being sure how GW2 works. I think certain melee attacks should trigger weapon's "Special" and each weapon should have a special. Such as dagger's are associated with double strike and critical, other weapons would have other associations. That way melee attack skills would change depending on which weapon is used. ‽-(eronth) I give up 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of "specials" do you have in mind? I can see having a percentage for hammers, but swords, axes, and scythes? Aside from criticals, what else? -- ab.er.rant 07:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about briefly inflicting conditions? Short-duration conditions could also work for wands, staves and martial weapons, as could longer lasting conditions with a low enough proc rate. -- Gordon Ecker 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't actually have any in mind. Scyths could lose the ability to hit multiple foes at all times. And it becomes a "for each level in scyth mastery, you have a X% chance of hitting 2 adjacent foes to the target." Axe could just be the high end damage? Sword... adren gain? bleeding? IDK. I made those all up on the spot. Give me time, I might come up with something. ‽-(eronth) I give up 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to write "stun or daze" as part of my previous comment regarding hammers :P anyway, this does sound interesting. So we can actually have much more variety with weapons of the same type rather than just a different skin. So maybe say Charr swords give a greater bonus to bleeding chance, and Norn swords have a much lower bonus but has a slightly higher damage range, that sort of thing. Interesting... -- ab.er.rant 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So the game will end up with one item that everyone gets/wants? No thanks --SK 07:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Charr sword 2 strong, nerf plx. ‽-(eronth) I give up 07:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And how is that different from a skill everyone gets/wants? Or a rune everyone gets/wants? Or an insignia everyone gets/wants? -- ab.er.rant 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Skills/Rune's/Insignia's can be bought from NPC's, Weapons (of the stats that are being mentioned) can't! Would cause a total imbalance in the market. --ChronicinabilitY 01:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Weapon mods? -- ab.er.rant 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"So maybe say Charr swords give a greater bonus to bleeding chance, and Norn swords have a much lower bonus but has a slightly higher damage range" It didn't seem that that was what was being suggested, it seems that teh weapon's themselves had the attributes. Currently there is already an imbalance in the market for Mods, but it is kep reasonable by the fact that the 'perfect' mod's are too difficult to attain. --ChronicinabilitY 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Eronth suggested "each weapon should have a special". You mean my idea of what is a "special" is wrong because he didn't actually suggest anything? He uses daggers and doublestrike as an example. I proposed swords and bleeding. How is that "not what he suggested"?

And your point about weapon mods being too difficult to obtain... the same can be made for weapons with perfect "specials" be "too difficult to obtain" as well. This is just a balance issue. If we can have mods that improve the duration of bleeding, or mods that has a chance of shortening cast time and recharge time, why is it ridiculous to have a weapon that has a chance of causing some "special"? That does mean daggers are currently overpowered because they can cause double strike? -- ab.er.rant

(Reset indent)

We seem to have drawn different conclusions from what is meant by the word 'Weaopon'. If you are talking as general as weapon classes, swords, daggers axes etc. then no there is no problem, there are already mod's for increasing bleeding duration etc. However I was under the impression that you were refferring to specific weapon's (or skins) that would have these mods. That would then be very different, they would then be the only Skin that people would wan't, and this would create a stupidly high demand for said weapons. Leading to either stupidly high prices, or a flooding of the market. Sorry if i misunderstood.--ChronicinabilitY 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you misunderstood, not wholly anyway. I was the one who probably misunderstood the objection. I was talking about both actually. I first made suggestions regarding the "specials" that each weapon type. Then I further suggested that within each type, different individual skins could have slightly varying stats. I suppose it's the latter that you and SK were objecting to. -- ab.er.rant 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why 5 different sword types with different inherent stats would be any more of a problem than the 5 different bow types. -- Gordon Ecker 02:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but what would the 5 types for any weapon be? Daggers could be faster attack, higher double strike chance, higher crit chance, armor piercing chance and.... dunno. ‽-(eronth) I give up 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just an extreme example of how weapon type variants could work without any single variant being universally preferred or unaffordable. -- Gordon Ecker 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The creeping introduction of grind

To sum my suggestion up in one sentence: Do not introduce in-game advantages for grind in GW2.

When GW1 started out, it was unique for two reasons: There was the very well designed PvP part, superior to all other MMORPGs out there and there was the PvE, which was tailored for casual playing, NOT rewarding the amount of time played with advanced skills or equipment.

The first feature is still with us, but there has been a disturbing move away from the second one, which began after the introduction of titles. Now, titles (just like prestige armor) alone are a great idea: They give hard core players something to work for and something to show off with, but, importantly, no advantage over casual players. Unfortunately this has changed and the changes are even speeding up:

The first "real grind based" reward was the sunspear res signet. I am sure no one minded that one, because it was such a minor point. You get to lvl 6 just by playing through the campaign anyway and getting 40% more energy is not a big deal. Anyway, this was just one skill.

There also was the lightbringer signet/immunity. This is already more bothersome: There are people in the Domain of Anguish posting stuff like "Group for Foundry LB5+" in general chat. Meaning: If you didnt spend the time to farm lightbringer rank 5 (which is already non-trivial), you will be excluded here.

Then there came the sunspear title and luxon/kurzick title skills. These are now really worrying. They are meant to be the super-skills given to PvE players that can not be introduced into PvP, because they are too overpowered. Yet to get the full advantage, you have to be sunspear rank 10 and luxon or kurzick rank 12. Simply playing through the factions story line with one character, you will not even reach rank 1 on the luxon/kurzick title, meaning here true grind is introduced. If you think all this doesn't matter: There are the first ideas for mallyx beating builds based on maxed out kurzick title skills and many PvE players use the skills in their usual builds.

All this does not yet amount to a world altering change, but the direction and speed of those changes is disturbing: For GW:EN, we are supposed to get 50 new PvE skills. I assume they will all be based on (Norn/Asura/...) titles again, thus multiplying the grind. Please do not go down that lane for GW2! Guildwars exists in a niche filled by those PvE players who dislike grind. The other type has been choosing Warcraft and they wont desert that. Stay true to your concept and restrict rewards for playing time to the kind which grands good looks, but not better abilities. --Xeeron 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron, and I have no doubt that rewarding grind with real advantages would hurt more than help the game. But I think it's important to understand why Arena Net has decided to do so - and this is something in which I really wish we got feedback from Arena Net, so we could understand the problem and find ways around it. As far as I have understood, I think the problem is that some players have asked for more ways to improve their characters past level 20, and the game did not offer ways to do so before the introduction of the grind Xeeron mentioned above. If that's the main issue behind Arena Net's decision to offer real advantages for grind, I would suggest adding just aesthetic benefits for grind - but aesthetic benefits much more visible than just titles. A simple way to accomplish this would be, for example, to increase the level cap in a purely cosmetic fashion - no more attribute points, no other difference, but players would see the number increasing, and that's something players cannot not see - in town, outside town or anywhere else, the level of a character is very easily seen. I understand this is something hard to do in GW1 (as level is not just a matter of more attribute points, it also changes the chance of landing a critical strikes and etc, things that maybe would be hard to split from the the visual representation of the level increase), but it's a way to add character development in GW2 without granting in-game advantages.

However, if the players have been demanding for ways to become more powerful (and not just improve their characters), the idea above would not work, as it would not solve the problem. That's why I wish Arena Net mentioned what is their main intention behind those changes, so we could think of a way to deal with it without adding in game benefits to grind. Erasculio 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed totally with Xeeron. The first time I found out about Kurzick/Luxon skills, I was like, "ok, so it's something like Sunspear skills..." and then I saw the amount of faction I needed to farm and donate to even get the skill, and I was like "What the?! I have to farm faction for this!"

But to ArenaNet's credit, they did try to introduce a little more ways to get those faction and a little easier to earn faction, but all the same, this all boils down to giving tangible rewards to people who have more free time to burn away. -- ab.er.rant 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the grind for Sunspear skills. Reaching Legendary Sunspear takes significantly less time than, say, completing Nightfall, but the amount of grind needed to max out the Kurzick or Luxon title is ridiculous. One solution I can think of is compressing the progression over roughly the first half of the title track, so that rank 6 would do what rank 12 does right now, and the last six ranks would be purely for show, although it may not be practical to implement. -- Gordon Ecker 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ecker's view. The grind for Sunspear was bearable. I haven't pushed it up to Legendary, but it's at a level I feel comfortable with, and was (mostly) gained from me just playing the game normally. The level of grind of the Luxon/Kurzick titles isn't comfortable -- it's shear grind for the sake of grind.--Drekmonger 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I partially disagree. While i don't like grind either, i do like long term achievements in pve. And you can't only make them over looks. Because not everyone likes the expansive stuff best. And i see the added title track boni more of a fix for the lack of long term goals than a force to grind. The important pve only skills are all on sunspear track, which means you get them automagically with playing nightfall, like any other nf skill too. The faction skills are nice to have at best, but surely not required for any type of pve content. And they scale badly so there is really no need to grind if you are not into it. The other title boni are just minor goodies, with lb surely having the greatest impact, but even that one is very specific (outside doa it won't help you much) and again really not necessary. You can easily do doa with lb2 chars (and lb2 you get just by doing pq and not ignoring the blessings on the way) and lb ranks come fast while doing doa (and with doing doa i do not mean farming lb there but doing the quests). The reason why some people ask for lb8+ for doa is not because of the bonus but because they suck to much to explain newbies their job there and need some "pros" to run them through the missions. You can see that very good when they ask for lb8 bips. Its surely not because of the awesome dmg bonus they get with lb8... :).

But the long term advancements over titles have a very big downside. They limit you to very specific regions to "level" the title, which leads to grinding. That is why i hope they will have level and experience based long term advancements in GW2, this way you get them by just playing the game and not just by killing that guy in front of outpost XY over and over again. I hope for a more or less open level cap with diminishing returns after a certain level softcap. Those past softcap level boni would be hardcapped in PVP Arenas (or they are only accessible by dedicated pvp chars), but not in pve and world pvp. 134.130.183.235 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to get real about what an RPG means, and why it is important to have good character development in GW2. Anet already featured the next to no character development scheme in GW1, keeping it short ment that GW1 is basicly a strategy game, with some superficial RPG elements added into it, it takes less than a day to gain level 20 in the subsiquent chapters, and it tolk less than a week to gain max level even in Prophecies.

Players like character development, that is why so much of RPG elements are finding their way into almost every single gaming genre, from Madden to God of War, games are incorperating more character development elements which allow players to build their characters abilities and features to greatness.

Here is the part where it gets honest, high levels are not grind. Grind is when your spending time pursuing levels, through boring and monotinous activities. Now lets review GW1, on the path to lvl 20, did you grind one second? How much higher would your level be if it was not capped at 20? If the game was designed with a level cap of 50, at the rate you gain levels in GW1, how long would it have taken you, and would you have stopped once to fight pointless battles simply to gain levels during that time if the game continued to expand to level 50?

You don't have to answer any questions because they are rhetorical, denying would be pointless. It is obvious that even had the level cap been lvl 50, you would still have pursued the games missions and quests, and enjoyable gameplay instead of grinding even for a minute. Anet obviously realizes this, which is why they are considering higher levels, anyone who imagines Anet is thinking about additional levels so players will have cosmetic achievement now smack yourself in the back of the head, this is an irrational personal interest, not a rational conculsion.

Now lets recognize some of the additional measures being designed for the game, Esport arenas which can be used by your Roleplaying characters, which include level alteration so all players play at the same level, and even weapon selections so noone has any advantages in competative arenas. World Vs World is being intentionally designed so players with different levels can compete "indirectly" with eachother with different influences for fair combat. And we already established that Anet is smart enough to design missions, quests and general game progression which rewards experience for character development so players are not spending time grinding, but actually pursuing the game. Does anyone think Anet will do a better job this time than last time, or are you all too jaded by whatever game you abandon before to realize that higher levels do not mean you will be doing the same boring, hasslesome, unenjoyable activities you did elsewhere which do not initially apply here?

If you don't like grind, than you should be more open minded as to how additional levels can be added without grinding activities, obviously, Anet is. If you simply don't like high levels, start supporting low level caps again for GW2, not some joke of a suggestion like cosmetic levels. If you think pure action and strategy gameplay is better for GW2, you should suggest that GW forego the mantle of RPG. And if your really creative, you should suggest non-level oriented character development, like Zelda and God of War. Personally, I hope we have a level cap of 100 for GW2. No matter what the numerical value of the level, I would suggest the time it take to gain max level should take no more than a month or two, with accelorated growth, easily accessible development pursuit, and complete solo activity alternatives which ensure you will be able to develop your character at any time.

At some point the level should stop, because it is natural for mortal creatures to reach a pinnacle which is hard to overcome, and because mortal creatures should not rival Gods in power because it damages the realism of the game enviroment. But the actual numeric value of the level should be higher since it is fun to achieve advancement, real advancement not a mockery. And since GW2 is going to be an MMO which will likely grow and involve play well into 3 and 5 years, a month or two of solid uninterupted character development is a definate appeal, as I do not want to start the game with maximum values and than play through for years without actually improving my character. And if Anet is intending to increase the level with expansions, the level should start out somewhere below 100, and finish at a maximum value of 100.

But these are all obvious suggestions, and I don't think Anet overlooked them before considering higher to even unlimited levels, so here is a real suggestion to the players. Try to come up with creative and enjoyable ways for players to achieve higher levels. Consider what it truely is that you do not wish to endure and make accurate suggestions to cut out activities you don't want to participate in rather than trying to cut out the character development which can be achieved other ways. And most of all, make suggestions on how long you feel a player should spend leveling a character, because how fast those levels are gained can be set at any value, we could have 1000 levels and gain that in a week, it isnt realy more character development, it is just a numeric value.... Be rational.

In the end, even a character development period of a very long time is not actually grind if you do not end up spending time pursuing activities you do not enjoy, not a year, not even forevermore, it is only grind when you have to do unenjoyable activities to gain levels, and good game design naturally incorperates enjoyable activities for their players whether they are gaining levels, or simply completing objectives, that is simply proper game development.--BahamutKaiser 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

RPGs don't really have anything to do with leveling. That's a flaw seen in the more popular computer versions of RPGs, but when you look at the original thing - pen & paper RPGs - you will see that levels are usually absent. This is thanks to how "character development" isn't a number increasing, it's everything but that - levels are merely a way to express how your character is supposed to be growing and learning from past experiences, but the ideal ways to portray this are through changes on how the character is played. Again using a pen & paper RPG as an example, character development comes from the new characters you meet, from the new alliances you make, from the new things your character learn and the new things you learn about your character.

That is something GW has plenty of. Not only our characters change through the game as they play a different role in the story, but they also grow as we learn how to play them better, how to make better skill combinations, and so on. Unlike leveling, character progression does not rely on some mindless activity that may be repeated over and over again - it requires skill, making Arena Net's old quote "skill > time spent" as true as it could possibly be.

Is leveling going to help that? No. Leveling is something easier for players to understand, it's a grind for those who like to grind, and it's a dream made true for power gamers, who are more interested in becoming "better" than the other players (despite not having more skill) than in anything else. Is a higher level cap going to hurt the game? Definitely. It limits exploration, by creating "level walls" - a low level character is not going to be able to explore a higher level area. It reduces replayability - today people don't take their level 20 caracters to Ascalon City and go kill level 2 enemies as that's simply not fun; taking high level characters to low level areas is pointless, so you remove those parts of the game from high level characters. Today, with most of GW being made for characters at level 20, those are problems that don't exist. A higher level cap is also going to hurt PUGs, as it creates elitism (someone with a higher level will be better than someone with a lower level, so groups will aim for players at the highest level possible) and therefore favors grind (regardless of what level a character reaches through normal play, if all PUGs are looking for people at a higher level, players will have to chose between not PUGing or grinding), and so on.

So no, I don't think it's a choice that would help the game. I also don't think it's polite to say that this opinion is "irrational". Erasculio 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)

Yet it is irrational. For all the reasons stated above which cannot be initially applied to a game, you cannot assume that GW2 with a higher level cap will include these elements. It is irrational because you assume features in other games with a high level cap and even longer periods of character development automatically create grind.

Firstly, whether you accept it or not, the Role Playing Game Genre is directly and solely defined by it's character development elements in video games, taking them out of context is misinformation. All video games have elements of fantasy, almost always playing as a character in a fictional situation. This does not seperate the Role Playing Genre from Action, Adventure, Exploration, Strategy, Shooter, and Many others, Each has a set element which catagorizes them as a certain type of game. Playing the role of a character is not a Role Playing catagory, it is a natural feature to all video games, the Role Playing catagory is character development. And the simplest way to offer character development is levels, because loose stats are much harder to calculate and communicate. Bringing up Pen and Paper games as an exception, when even the most popular pen and paper games involve levels and gaining abilities, isn't a valid explaination of how RPG is not defined by character development. Even if Pen and Paper examples did exemplify a process of role playing outside of levels, it is obviously not legitimate as video games are concerned, since this is not a free form story telling session. All studies in modern gaming definition and review will show that character development is defined as the role playing game aspect, and that role playing game aspects are character development. Character interaction on any game does not make it role playing game. And misrepresentation is a poor arguement to refute an obvious and irrefutable definition.

As I said, GW1 is really a strategy game, with role playing elements. Control and use of a character is real time strategy, without enhanced control of your character it lacks action qualities, it could fall into an adventure catagory wile this is usually tied to more platform type elements, it has minor exploration elements, no shooting elements, and moderate role playing elements. Trying to qualify a game by private views upheld beyond the actual cannons of gaming definition is pretty silly.

Guild Wars is ment to be a game which grants more success to talent over pursuit, that does not mean that time played does not get to be rewarding, it only means skill, or talent, is a more powerful feature. In a game with a very brief character development period, talent obviously pays more dividens in the end, and if the end is less than a month or two of playing, any gamer can reach it, and since competative arenas WILL incorperate new Esport level alteration to make all characters equal during PvP, advantages between players are minimal concern.

Players like character development, whether you accept it or not. You can hate grind, but you cannot prove that higher levels require grind, grind is not the time spent developing your character, it is undesired time spent doing unenjoyable activities to develop your character. And it is irrational to imagine that Anet feels like adding consmetic levels will satisfy gamers, if you haven't noticed, the only people who want cosmetic levels are the people who don't want more levels and are afraid of Anets interest in adding more levels. It is irrational to a maximum, no sane person would think that having a low level cap is better and try to introduce a bunch of cosmetic levels thinking it will make more gamers happy. Anet only said they were CONSIDERING a high or unlimited level cap, they did not say they would not keep a low level cap, and like I said, if that is what you want, than ask for it, not some superficial manipulation of what you don't want which will retain a low character development wile allowing a "high level" value.

Strengthening yourself is a concept understood by all people. It is a real process that real people have to go through in order to achieve anything. Basic training for a military combatant is typically 3 months, additional training is neccessary to perform in special fields of operation. When you work out, it takes time to reach results, when you learn a sport, it takes time to develop the skill and strength to be good at it. This is a natural human experience people understand, and it is an intristic value people appreciate in video games. I'm not soliciting any opinions, I am observing the most popular game titles, it isn't an debate.

I hate grind as well as anyone, as a poor game design feature which does not incorperate enjoyable play during any process, this includes farming, looting, character development and leveling, gaining equipment, crafting, or any process that involves unenjoyable, monotinous activities. My outstanding MMO experience is FFXI, where the level cap is 75, and the time it takes to gain maximum development takes well up to 6 months for a single job, withstanding a much greater period of inactivity brought about by poor team matching, and team dependancy. Even worse, the general activity pursued to gain those levels are simply finding a place in a dungeon, and hacking away at one enemy at a time in extremely dry, uncreative, very unexciting battles. This is grind. Yet, I always though the level should be higher. Why? Because it was not the 75 levels that bothered me, no matter how low the level was, the fact was that the battle system was unsatisfactory, and the time it tolk to find people that were neccessary to play with was unreasonable.

So examining this, what needs to be changed? The level cap? No, it is the activities and requirements. If the battles were more fun and dynamic, the leveling process would be fun, if it was easy to find a group to play with, or if functional solo alternatives existed, or if group dependancy was reduced, the time spent waiting to find a group would also have been eliminated. The issue wasn't the character development, which by all accounts is an enjoyable feature, it is the grind, the actual grind, and not some misassociation and misrepresentation of the levels available in the game.

Now we can pretend that classic role playing features apply, but it doesn't take proof to realize that GW is a computer game, and it falls into the Computer Role Playing Game genre, and misassociation and denial isn't really amounting to anything, because the truth can only be discovered in proper context, just as cosmetic levels are a gimmic to disguise your lack of interest in additional levels, bringing up classic RPG is a disguise to misassociate GW with the Role Playing Game genre which it is and is ment to be in. And we can get any professional video game programmer or reviewer to back my statements, or simply research video game review as a whole for realistic association. This is the definition. Computer Role Playing Game

Again I will point out that if you want GW2 to be totally designed around strategy (the "skill" element) and lacking in RPG (the "time played" element), than support what you really want, a low level cap. Not some mockery of a level which only people who don't even want increased levels will appreciate. Obviously, anyone who wants higher levels is not asking for additional cosmetic levels, they are asking for some form of reward for their effort and pursuit of their character, and offering cosmetic levels is not a solution, it is a deception. And there are plenty of people who want additional levels, they just arn't here to represent opinions for a game they woln't even play without it. Anet knows this, and pretending that they are thinking of cosmetic higher levels really is irrational. And even if they are, it is still highly irrational, it doesn't matter who thinks otherwise.

I can really only repeate myself at this point, because I made sure I described the truth (and not some distortion) about role playing games to begin with, character development is an intristic element, Anet knows this and is considering more of it because people do want it. Grind is not higher levels, levels at any numeric value do not determine the time it will take to reach them, if you don't like certain activities than come up with creative ways to eliminate them and replace them, instead of assuming and blaming high levels for unenjoyable play. And of course, recognize all the precautions Anet has already proposed, like Esport, SideKick features and Story involved development activities, as well as other features which reduce grind, like fast character development, interesting combat, easier team matching, complete solo alternatives, and any others you can discover. You can learn and start tackling the real issues to reach useful conclusions, or you can keep misguiding yourself and others into making irrational ideas which will inevitiablly be useless since they are inaccurate.--BahamutKaiser 02:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)