User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Guild Wars 2 suggestions/November 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

Different Pets

I think different pets should be, well, different. I mean, I know that under the current system there are some slight differences between pets (attack speed, slashing v. piercing damage, etc.), but in the end the only real difference between most pets is simply aesthetic. I think it would be cool if the different pets had more character to them by making them more different. These differences could be kind of equally balanced such that they would be designed more for the player's play preferences. For example, if you want the pet to act as a kind of tank, then you could get a bear that would have greater health, though slower attack speed, or if you wanted an assasin, you could get a spider, dealing high damage at a fast pace, but with lower health.

Another possibility would be to have species specific skills that trigger at random intervals (a bear could cause deep wound, wolf bleeding, spider poison, etc.). This idea comes in part from the pre-searing bears. I never understood how they knew to use their skills (mauling, etc.) when fighting you, but not once they became your pet.

The idea is that these pets are different, but there is no clear advantage of one over the other, rather a different pet for a different play style.

Also, I want to be able to make an imp my pet. This is purely wishful thinking, but I think it would be so freaking cool... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Satanael .

How can you still want no clear advantage over one another when you're suggesting they be different? When pets have different attributes, obviously, some will be more advantageous over others in certain situations. And then it'll become a case of having to constantly (for some type of players) switch pets because they want to maximize a certain build. Such a system would need to be careful to prevent an elitism creep. As for pet skills, the reason why uncharmed bears use mauling and not after being charmed is being before being charmed, they are just a normal "charmable" animal. After getting charmed, they are now pets. It's just the coding. -- ab.er.rant 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If pets use the companion system then they will be about as customizable as heroes, and bringing a pet will tie up your companion slot, which would allow pets to have their own attributes and skill bars without the huge balance issues that this would involve in GW1. -- Gordon Ecker 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another solution might be a 'Signet of Capture' style charm process, where you gain a skill for each pet you charm and you can equip one of you pet skills to bring that pet. These skills should most likely be capped at one, although bringing multiple pets might be fun. If a system where you can have more than one pet is introduced then different abilities should be introduced imho to make pets more fun. This could also be used to encourage using pets more if their new abilitied make them more useful. -- (gem / talk) 02:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that having some pets be better for some situations was exactly what I want. I realize this could be cumbersome for some players who like to switch builds a lot, so this would have to be worked out. I think the idea of being able to own more than one pet could be a good solution. Maybe you're only allowed to bring one at a time (that way pet owners don't become psuedo minion masters), but you could choose which one you want just like you choose a hero. I know that bears who are charmable animals have different coding than those who are pets, I was speaking more from an in-story perspective. An animal should not forget its abilities just because it decides it likes a human. -- Satanael 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

HoM weaps

Only me who thinks that the destroyer weapons shuld be "Dedicated" to the char that put it in his/hers HoM instead of being customized to that char. i mean, Derv's has only one weapon they use and that the scythe, but my "main" char is a derv so i want full HoM, but i "cant" cuz if i buy (example) a sword its going to be customized, and a derv with sword isnt so good right -.- but if we look at Warriors or monks and other casters they can hav an off-hand, a staff, a wand, sword, axe etc = more weaps in HoM. so i good idea shuld be to do like Anet did with the minipets, "dedicate" to a chars HoM but another char can use AND customize it (20% more dmg). with weaps it shuld be the same thing.

this is maybe wrong section if it is, plz move it. sry for bad english^^

81.226.17.85 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You can still fill your Derv's hall with swords and staffs and bow's customized. Let your hero's wield the destroyer weapons dedicated to that hall. --Silverleaf 11:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Hourglass-style map annotations

An excellent feature, as i'm sure any PHG fans will attest to :D

Allow notes to be jotted on the map, so we can draw routes for quest, draw Xs to remind of good treasure locations, mark on boss spawns of elites we want to cap, etc.

Example: http://n-europe.com/games/4swordsds/1.jpg

— Skuld 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Gaile_Gray/Guild_Wars_2_suggestions#Map Notes (Suggestion)?reanor 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Diversity

I'd like to see player diversity in GW2! What do I mean? Well...

Diversity in characters would be a start. It's FANTASTIC that we get to play as other races, so let's take it one step further than that. I believe that each of the races get different racial abilities/traits, but what I like to see most is that an Asuran elementalist differs from a Sylvari elementalist by, perhaps, having spells which are only available to a set race and profession combination (eg. Asuran eles can summon a golem, while Sylvari eles can summon a tree... along the same lines, Asuran warriors have a low kick skill, while Norn warriors have a head smashing skill) :P -- makes for great diversity, adding uniqueness to characters of the same profession but differing races.

Diversity via trade professions is something that fits in perfecting in an MMO game. It gives something *rewarding* to do without fighting monsters all day (!). I'd love to see a whole skew of trade professions available but only allowing players to choose only a couple to excel at. The trade professions may or may not have synergy with each other, such as herb gathering to concoct potions with, or make specialised dye that shimmers/glitters so that you can use it on clothing that yourself have tailored. By adding this type of synergy between trade skills, and limiting how many trade skills you can be proficient in, this also encourages player-player interaction, whether it be "trading glowy blue dye for tailored beret" or having players saying "Asuran warrior looking for guild (Need sweet tooth title? Experienced cook!)". Some of the example trade professions I provided also add diversity to how players look (differing clothes/colors) -- FANTASTIC!

Diversity in how guilds look and are represented. Capes are nice. But this is also one of the things that has irked me in GW1. Everyone is running around with capes. I like how the current cape system in GW1 works. You can have a broken cape, checkered, plain... etc... in a number of different colors with great guild emblems. We should have different options though! Currently, the only options we have are cape or no cape. I'd love to see bandanas as a way of representing your guild. Perhaps it could be a coastal/pirate guild. How about those forehead wraps (I've forgotten the name of those, but I'm sure you know what I mean)? A guild could have their emblem on that, instead of having to wear a cape. Or some kind of belt. A wrap around the player's left leg, or something. Even the bibs GW used to have! Add the customisation that we can do to capes to these kinds, and I'll be extremely happy.

Diversity in how players look. I've mentioned before in the trade professions section that adding something like a tailoring or specialist dying trade into the game would make characters stand out from one another. If that doesn't come into fruition (which is likely but I can only hope), I'd like to see lots of different, unique, and perhaps rare (!) armor. Don't get me wrong, GW1 armor are beautiful, but there's only an X number of sets (where X is not large enough, IMHO). What I really like about the rather famous WoW is that there are OH SO MANY different armors (literally hundreds), each with their own unique appearance -- from crafted items to exquisite looking rares -- and little benefits such as mana regeneration, which I doubt will be in as GW is focused on balance. I think Anet should have their "give materials to traders and this amount of gold for this piece of armor" approach while also turning armor crafting into a trade profession, as well as part of loot that you might be able to obtain. Rare types of armor can also be obtained this way, which should only differ in looks (to preserve balance), but can be upgraded with insignias GW1 style. Aside from armor, I sincerely hope that character customisation will allow for many choices. The amount of choices we could choose from in prophecies was limited, and even disappointing in factions (no black hair??). It wasn't until nightfall came out, and I had the other two campaigns, did I start to feel I have enough choices.

I'm pretty sure I had something else but I can't quite remember as I'm getting quite tired... I want to be different to everyone else in GW2. I want to look different to everyone else in GW2. I want to play different to everyone else in GW2. I want to make choices! Latticeg 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree, though. For example, giving different races different skills depending on their profession would eventually lead to players thinking that one race is better than other at any given role. We would end with "Group looking for Norn warrior and Asuran elementalist" scenarios in which players of different "cookie cutter" combinations would not be accepted in groups...And so we would have an incentive to remove diversity from the game, as everyone would want to follow specific "race/profession" combinations. In other hand, if the difference is just an aesthetic matter...Then it would make no difference in a group, and everyone would be able to play as whatever they want without having to conform to a specific combination in order to be effective. That, there, is diversity.

Giving players control over armor crafting is bad, IMO. The player-to-player aspect is one of the most problematic things in GW, as players always try to get as much gold as possible, regardless of how many they exclude with their prices. Imagine what it would be if someone, in order to craft FoW armor, had to farm all those ectos, then go find someone willing (and able to) craft Obsidian Armor, and then learn that no, the crafter wants more ectos than he has farmed. The problem of making an armor not because you enjoy its look, but rather because it's "prestigious", would become even more prevalent under those conditions, and so we would end with less variety, not more.

Also, given many choices about what kind of "trade profession" to follow, players would eventually think of some way to make one of those better than all the others (easier to make stuff/easier to sell things/able to sell things by higher prices/etc), and thus players would be expected to follow it in order to be effective. Between all those ideas together, we would end in a game in which the question "How do I make gold?" would be replied by "Make an Asuran Elementalist who is an Armor Crafter, as that's the combination that can farm easier and get gold more quickly"; effectively reducing diversity, not increasing it. Erasculio 11:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response! My discussion before was assuming that Anet stays true to GW1 by making "balance" a priority (which isn't an outrageous assumption, methinks). That said, I believe that unique profession skills attributed to races will be balanced such that there won't be a dominant class+profession combination, hence promoting diversity. Rather than choosing a Norn warrior over an Asuran warrior, why not have BOTH warriors who can essentially perform the same tanking role, but can perform a few basic tasks differently?

On armor, I suggested there be armor you can craft, along with armor pieces you can find, and armor that you can get crafted for you by NPCs (GW1 style). I do agree to a certain extent about what you said about armor prestige will lead to prevalence (see ranger Norn armor). This is somewhat unavoidable in GW1, but by implementing more ways to get said armor (I suggested armor crafting and armor via loot), there will be more, and different, prestigious armor thereby lowering the prevalence of any one type of armor. And while there will be more prestigious armor, there will also be much more "common" armor to choose from -- great for those who wear armor for style, rather than prestige.

Regarding the trade professions, again, I have faith in Anet to make them perfectly balanced such that players won't lean towards any one type. If they do, however, that is one of my reason for suggesting synergy between trade professions and limiting

the number of extracurricular professions a character might be able to take. If armor crafting and um... ore mining.. become "the" trades to have, and everyone flocks to that combination, they'll realise that as they progress in armor crafting, they'll need more than just ore. They might also need leather from a skinner, or thread from a tailor, or an enchanter to magicfy (?) the ore, or an artificer to inscribe runes onto their armor crafting hammer. This way, no combination of trade professions can be a self-sufficient economic unit, and promotes player interaction/guild activity.

A lot of suggestions I made depends on Anet being able to make GW2 into a balanced game. Latticeg 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

hey my sugesstion is to put some creatures where we can fly on them.Plz do it its gono be so coool or you can put some creatures we can ride on them plz do itttt!!!!!it wel be muich better and selled much better.GAME OF THE YEAR GUILD WARS 2Italic text

Flying Steeds

hey my sugesstion is to put some creatures where we can fly on them.Plz do it its gono be so coool or you can put some creatures we can ride on them plz do itttt!!!!!it wel be muich better and selled much better.GAME OF THE YEAR GUILD WARS 2Italic text

While not the words I would have chosen this brings to mind something I love in certain games and would be absolutely thrilled to see included on my most anticipated game (probably of all time) - flight! Specifically quick, personal, and free flight; that is you have complete control over direction, altitude, and speed. Perhaps certain professions could have skills that project them into the air, or as OP suggested creatures/objects that can be ridden for similar effect, maybe even potions or some such item. Just a thought :) - DelvingAngel 11-03-2007

Changed name so it matches suggestion. Wisteria 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it after you changed it to fix spelling error. -- 24.159.32.34

I really like this idea, perhaps a Saltspray dragon Unlikely Hero 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing i like abot Ruenscape is the gian t rats. They should mak them fot GW2, but maybe flying?

Flying is one of the coolest things in games. Remember we play games because we cannot always be in those sort of situations. ;) Vael Victus 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1v1 a real form of PvP(not hero battles)

ok i know this isnt considered a real form of pvp but i know several guilds includeing my own who hold 1v1 tournaments of 1v1 scrimmages in theyre hall i myself personally have even excelled in this so what i am perposing is a pvp arena for 1v1s just like 1v1 scrimmage you come out first person to die 4 times loses simple as that, and tournaments like the celestial championship aswell. i know i speak for meny people when i say this should be a valid form of pvp. so plz and thank you ~SnowKingGamer ingame name Avatar O Reaping

TBH i think a norn fighting tournament style would work better. Crazy 09:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Each of the GW2 professions is supposed to be viable in both solo and group play, so it could happen. -- Gordon Ecker 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

weapons and armor and beastery dropped weapons

i know the armor has ben mentioned before about charicters makeing theyre own and iwas thinking that too but i was thinking we should get a base design and be able to put designs(aka skulls flames gems spikes and studs) on armor and have it cost more materials to make per thing you add on also same goes for weapons start with a base and be able to tweak it at cost of more mateials. as for the beastery dropped weapons i think we should keep that in effect but also make it possible at the weapons person to tweak them. ~SnowKingGamer ingame name Avatar O Reaping

Professions

although i would love to see professions like assassin dervish paragon(ditch the thriller dance XD different point sry) and warrior in guildwars 2 it would be so cool if the game had more of a center around spellcasters or atleast be able to use spellcasters to take the front lines without haveing to t ake like shadowform or some huge buffer skill. so make the spellcasters more combat ready and i think there should be more kinds of spellcasters....(also off topic i think the monk staff should be a blunt weapon like in baldurs gate) i would also like to see battlemages or something like shaolin monks you know where they can fight and do theyre monk thing. ~SnowKingGamer ingame name Avatar O Reaping

---

I wouldn't mind seeing crafting proffesions where you can be an armorsmith or something along those lines instead of having to go to a crafter yourself and have to pay for armor and supply the materials. Whether it would be a sub proffesion like in many other mmorpgs or not doesn't matter yet I think it would be cool if it was a stand alone proffesion where you can be a Warrior/Armorcrafter or something like that and the crafting proffesion wouldn't only give you the ability to craft an item but all be able to add a temorary buff your armor or weapon or a teammate's in battle. ~Nixon4Prez

Domination

I love mesmers, but one thing has always made me wonder - if they're the masters of domination magic, why do they not have any real dominating spells/skills? So that is the root of my suggestion; if mesmers are to return it would be really cool if they had one or two skills that literally controlled the enemy. Perhaps a powerful elit spell that left you vulnerable while you possessed the target, or things as simple as making an enemy flee in terror. Just another idea. :) DelvingAngel 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I really like this idea, even from a pvp standpoint. Even if it doesn't actually do much in pvp somehow, I think the frustration factor of having your character possessed would provide an interesting element of psychological strategy that only exists in a much more suttle way now. I think the weakness of possession could be easily more mechanical than leaving you "vulnerable". Plainly, if you possess another character you can not move yourself (as you'll be controlling the other character), which would be a huge weakness in itself. Satanael 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC+7)

Don't get me wrong, i like the idea, but given that GW is balanced mainly for PvP, such skills could cause serious problems during a match, think about game breaking. I wouldn't care if such skills were made PvE only too. But games that has it makes it look silly to say the least, and some others (such as WoW) uses what they call "diminishing returns", which works but with a diminished effect/duration etc. Also, think about a necromancer's spell that could kill your enemy outright, after all he's the one who deals with deaths isn't it? Zsig 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't really look at it from a PvP standpoint to be honest, I never do it. 100% PvE player here. While taking control of another player may be a bit much in a PvP match I don't see how inflicting fear would be a bad thing. As far as necromancers instant killing, my understanding of necromancy is that it manipulates the dead - not actively causing it to occur. DelvingAngel 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a PVE only spell. It would probably make mesmers a lot more useful in PvE as well, however judging by what happened to Coercers in EQ2 I wouldn't be surprised if it was quickly nerfed into a gimmick. :( --Redfeather 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Preperations

Not sure if they will be included in guildwars 2 but i think a new preperation system could be added using materials to begin with no skills for preperations but using materials like "vial of poison" each vial would poison 1 arrow ofcourse they would be cheap like 10g per vial but it could add a bit more realism into the game anyway heres a few other preperations:

Small spikes (or other name) these would cause bleeding Flint/kindle (or lighter not sure when this sort of thing was invented though) these would be a replacement for kindle arrows small firework or explosive for ignite arrows certain "preperations" just dont make sense logicly for example how does one prepare his/her arrows to read the wind? so insted of this make preperations like that a ranger unique trait like when you are in an outpost or whatever they will be in gw2 you can choose 1 ranger "preperation" to take with you such as arrows flying faster,more accurate,quicker attacks etc these could make rangers more unique.

Another idea i had is to make some of the preperation materials usable together such as the spikes and vials of poison to cause poison and bleeding with one arrow ofcourse this would make rangrs stronger but at the cost of more materials.

A few people will probably think this is stupid because pvp players may not have money so when in a pvp outpost all your preperation materials would be unlimited (retuning to normal numbers after matches etc) this way pvpers could use them as much as they like too but to prevent pvpers using millions of preperations together with unlimited matrials no more then 2 preperations could be used together in pvp.

sorry if some of this doesnt make much sense im a little too lazy to re-read it all

well thats my suggestion anyway

I am too lazy to read it all :) but on the first few lines i can say that i disagree with the use of items for preparation. There is no need to reduce the alrea^H^H^Hways low storage. Read the wind should have been a stance from the begining; It make much more sence this way... --Bob 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I aso disagree with this. I hate the addition of PvE one use items that give boosts and this is effectively the same thing. -- (gem / talk) 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For a reason we don't have to load a stock of arrows like in Diablo, it's grindy.reanor 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Sometimes, realism gets in the way of fun. It is not fun to force all rangers who use preparations to waste time buying or acquiring these "preparation items", no matter how realistic it might be. It's like forcing all casters to go and acquire spellcasting components, or warriors forced to repair their armor and weapons. -- ab.er.rant 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Luckily ANet has only introduced one use only items but not armor/item durability and quivers etc. That stuff belongs in the past (and sadly Blizzards games :( ). -- (gem / talk) 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Enviromental Effects

I'd love to see some dynamic effects in the enviroments of GW2, perhaps something along the lines of -- When something explodes close to your character, your character is thrown backward, and takes damage. Snowstorms could carry your character away, and do significant damage, Earthquakes could knock down characters, blind would black out your screen. Drago 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm yes that would be nice. and add things like when you bleed you actually see blood dripping from your arms. or possibly when its cold out and u have over exposing armor u get an environmental effect of "cold" and u lose health or energy over time. in the desert with armor that covers to much should cause exhaustion. trudging through the swamps should cause slown movement because of mud. or using extensive running skills should cause exhaustion. stuff that would normally happen in real life. i think these should be taken into mind as wellFumetsu 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I always was for an enviromental effect on female eles w/ sunspear armor tromping around in the shiverpeaks. But like the post below, I agree alot of complications would occur depending on armor styles which, at the same time, would add back in the element of different effects of different styles of armor which prophicies has pre-inscription. But at the same time it would add a lot of unnecissary and frankly annoying complications.

What about magic? If the armourers can make armour that looks like this and protects against physical attacks as well as platemail, they can make lightweight armour that protects against frostbite and heatstroke. -- Gordon Ecker 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Armor

I kinda like the system in GW1 where some unique weapons (i.e., green ones) are dropped by specific bosses. In that way, using one of these weapons is a way of announcing to the world that you killed that boss (unless you bought it, of course, but that's not the point). I think it would be cool to be able to do this with armor as well. For example, if a human warrior kills a big charr boss, wouldn't it be cool if you had a chance to be able to wear that charr boss's hide from then on? And in that way you could taunt the charr players.

And the armor doesn't have to be a part of the actual boss (like the hide), it could also just be the armor of the boss, like a warrior boss's helmet, or you could also steal the design of a necro/monk boss's tattoos. These designs would be unique to the boss, just like green weapons and off-hands almost are now. Satanael 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In-game Guild tools

• Recruitment

I think a major problem for players in Guildwars is finding a good guild. I do not think the current method of "spamming distrcts" with text and word of mouth is enough.

What we really need a world spanning party search like interface, where prospective guilds are listed, with information about them and what they are looking for. This interface could be split by game type (PvP/PvE) and/or region and show relavent guild information (numbers of (active) players/officers) rank, ladder placement, focus of play, and what players they want like certain professions.

Especially as the game progresses and users stop playing, we're left with many small inactive guilds with no real way to bring active players together.

• Scheduler

An ingame calendar that officers can add events to so they can schedule guild activities.

--Just One More Thing 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, i think word of mouth and Websites are great for this (sorry for a shamless plug but) an alliance member has just recently started up a website (augw.net) to list alot of the Aus/NZ guilds, i think using websites such as these to recruit members, or find guilds works very well. (although i have only been in two guilds, the first merging into the current one)

Anyway that is just what i think, others may disagree. Crazy 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(Shameless plug indeed ;p) and while those methods are good suppliments, its still rather limited in scope. With a system that spans the whole game, the potential to get more players is greater, and more importantly, gives players more choices as to what they can join. Guilds are important to players and players to guilds, it shouldnt be down to chance to find a good union. --Just One More Thing 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would give purpose to the Guild page when your not in a guild. It could actually list guilds that are Recruiting and sorted by Region/Long Name/Tag Chik En 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the calendar idea, and I think a game-wide Guild Recruitment board would be really good too. What would be extremely helpful would be an in-game forum for every alliance. I think that's stretching it, but it would make Guild Wars awesome. One last cool thing would be to add the option for groups within guilds. A groups tab could be added so people could join up almost like mini-mini-guilds that would just be there to organize people according to regular activities and interests. For example: Heroes' Ascent group 1,2,3 etc or AB group one. Each group would have a leader and the Guild Leader would decide what members have permission to do what. (For example only officers would be allowed to make groups etc.) Only problem with this is that in a less stable guild, this may cause tension. --Alreajk

"Programmable" Hero and/or Henchie AI

I was wondering if it was at all possible if there could be an option so we could program the ways that the AI uses certain skills. For example, in GW1 heroes will use Zealous Benediction regardless of the energy gained when the target is under 50%; if we were abel to "program" the conditions of the skill usage with a special "GW Programming Language", something that is easy to understand and use like Visual Basic:

if target.hp <= 45% then ZealousBenediction.Cast()

Zakek Xek talk 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Not everyone knows how to do visual basic nor any basic programming. It will just alienate those casual players who play the game as it is. Renin 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII's gambit system uses logical operators with a simple, menu-based interface. It should be fine as long as AI setups can be saved as part of companion builds, the interface is simple and heroes / companions have decent default AI. -- Gordon Ecker 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that will definitely work since we'll be "controlling" only one hero/henchie who will probably be a monk. hahaha Renin 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reason why I would want this would be to have heroes use builds in certain ways or use a set of skills in a certain order. It doesn't have to be hard coding either, you could have a visual elements to compliment it. Perhaps the user could be able to save the build's "programming" like a template. Zakek Xek talk 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think I'm with Renin's original comment on this one. I mean, I agree that sometimes the current Hero AI is not up to snuff (MM Heroes and Flesh Golem a prime example), and that can be frustrating, but we have to bear in mind that it's not just us "kids-with-no-life" that play this game. While many of us may fondly remember programming our own games into our graphing calculators in highschool, if you're going to include the forty-year-old house moms that are coming into the market, or even the ten and twelve year-old kids, you can't have programming be at all a major aspect of the game. Even Final Fantasy XII was too complicated for a lot of newbies out there, and given ANets commitment to making the game simple and accessible for new players...

Also from a programming perspective, this would pose immense problems, as the developers would have to make sure that all POSSIBLE programmable commands (or even command entries that are not viable commands) would not disrupt the game, allow for exploits, cheats, scams, etc. Personally, I think the developers could find betters ways of spending their time and effort, like making the Hero/Companion AI better. (Satanael 06:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

more Cinematic Trailers

The cinematic trailers for prophecies and factions were astoundingly great. it was disappointing that there weren't any of these for nightfall and eotn. to have more of these in preparation for gw2 would be great. also if some could be worked into the game it would be even better. Mashav 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are quite expensive to make. Morgoth Bauglyr 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive October Please

Sorry, I wish I had the wiki wherewithall to do it, but I'm a wiki newb I guess. In any case, could someone please archive the October entries? This page is getting huge... (Satanael 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Merchants on high-level PvE areas

Would have liked to see it implemented in GW1 but since they're concentrating on GW2 I might as well suggest it here. There should be merchants on high-level PvE areas or areas with tons of monsters, of course the items that they sell are higher than the one in outposts/towns and would buy stuff at a smaller rate. Renin 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ride on pets

Hello.Wath I thing you shod put in GW2 is a probability to ride on our pets like a tiger or horse and it will be muchhhh more cooler and more selled game.If the man ho build diablo and warcraft 3 working on design on GW2 then he can esy make it. P.S:OR TO RIDE ON DRAGUNS

       That would be far to restricted to rangers or their GW2 equivilent. Mounts are better for this  
       function. Also, don't do drugs.            
       OJ Blu

yea but I didnt say they can atack or shut when they ride or fly just to ride no to atack from them xemnasX sorry Im noth so good at english(xemnasX)

Let me guess: you'r a barage/pet ranger !

I think it would be awesome to bring in the option of skills only usable when mounted on an animal, like trampling the opponent or charging at him 

with a high speed. And for multiple mounts to be added depending on their profession and/or race, for example; humans ride a horse or warriors ride a rhino. Something similar to this would be rad

Underwear Options

Let's face it, a pretty large number of Guild Wars players really like the way their characters look in their skivvies. For better or worse, almost all of us have the guilty pleasure of the occasional naked conga.

In this light, I think some options for underwear would be great. I mean, I love the underwear provided already, but when you have a character that is two years old, and all other profs have the same exact underwear, the novelty of it tends to fade a little. I think we should be able to change/customize/trade our underwear in some way. Maybe this is an option upon creation of the char, or maybe through an NPC in-game. I think this something almost all Guild Wars fans would really appreciate. (Satanael 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

This has got to be the weirdest suggestion yet. -- ab.er.rant 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

hahaha I would love for this to be implemented. You could have loads of options listing from looks such as polka dot all the way to cave man styled leopard skin. :D Although I think it would be more fun if you had to earn them through funny quests. I have always been a big fan of games that have too much pointless stuff to do. The tiny things are always the great things that stand out in a game and make it wonderful. They add a sense of realizm, joy and most often quite a bit of humor. ;) --Alien 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd totally support having to quest to get heart covered boxers. - HeWhoIsPale 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool! But who said we should limit it to boxers? How about a pair of socks that have a smelly green aura that follows your feet when you run about! xD --Alien 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be cool, just lame--Cursed Angel 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Angel, don't be such a party pooper, the quests giving underwear could proove a great holiday gift, one quest line gives you a cool jackolantern helm, another gives you a a pumpkin bra or green glowing boxers. In this way, new skivvies could be introduced throughout the game without having to wait for an expansion. Some underwear could also be dye-able! (Satanael 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

In before obligatory thong comment. Vael Victus 17:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

hahaha. Never did encounter "Naked Conga's". Nice, funny, changeable skivvies would be "nice to have".--Silverleaf 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we allready had a quest like those before, the "Unwashed Socks" item which where stolen from the villager Gessel by Dreier Dane, and we have to chase him down for the conveted prize, during A Very Grentchie Wintersday quest. So we have a precedent we might has well have them for real x) --Cake and Waffles 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Cake and Waffles

lol /signed this is a great idea xD even if it is a bit weird. --Lou-Saydus 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Movement in Towns/Outposts

Needs some assistance/feedback (especially with the classes missing them and the names of effects) A nice unique... odd addition would be unique abilities each profession has to speed up movement in towns (activating it with a certain key perhaps.), giving the game a much more fast-paced feeling. These boosts will be based on the character's energy and will be classified as environment effects (the ones that don't have an immediate effect) in the skill effect area of the screen.

• Warrior - "Coming through!" - You move 50% faster, drains 5 energy per second
• Ranger - Jog - You move 25% faster, drains 3 energy per second
• Monk - Blessed Speed - You and all adjacent players move 33% faster for 7 seconds, drains all energy
• Elementalist - Storm's Speed - Move 33% faster, drains 10 energy per second
• Necromancer - ...No clue yet
• Mesmer - Illusion of precipitancy - for 10 seconds you move 50% faster and lose 5% of that speed after each second, drains all energy
• Assassin - Shadowstep to target NPC/Character, drains all energy
• Ritualist - Places a spirit of speed for 20 seconds, all players within its range move 10% faster, drains all energy
• Paragon - "Green light go!" - For 10 seconds everyone within earshot moves 10% faster, the paragon moves 25% faster, drains all energy
• Dervish - ...I got nothing...
  • These abilities are disabled during certain celebrations in an environment effect, so there are no advantages during things such as the celestial orb gathering during the dragon festival.
  • Sugar rush will have an increased movement speed that does not stack. 25% increases will be 50%, 50% will be 100%, now that's a rush!
  • These abilities cannot be reactivated until the character regains all energy.
  • There is no activation time for these skills

--97.100.141.74 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since GW2 is less instance based and more of an open world most outposts/towns wont be separate instances but instead part of the world, so implementing this wouldn't be too easy. And I don't like the idea anyway. -- (gem / talk) 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if towns and outposts will be separate zones yet. -- Gordon Ecker 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Necromancer skill: "Quick and the Dead" or "Quicken the Dead"? It's a pretty common phrase in the military ("there are two kinds of soldiers, the quick and the dead"). Dervish skill: Avatar of the Rollerbeetle! :) --Mystisteel 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what if people don't want to move faster ? Every skill mentionned would only be applicable to you and not to the area...and then, the environnement effect would be disabled.Life is already too fast.Some kind of NPC could give it simply by talking to him--Christix 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I.... strangely like the idea. As long as its easy to implement, Im with it :P --Alreajk

Highly customizable characters and race idea for an expansion

First off i would like to see a wide range of selections for making your character, much like in say..oblivion, or something, where you can pick every little detail about your characters appearence from hundreds of options. That way people can feel their charactersare much more unique. And second since im sure character development is in the works too far now to add a race to the initial launch, in an expansion i think it would be cool to see a form of angel or something as a choice, the paragons came close with some of their skills making wings show up but i think it would be awesome to have an actual race resembling angels. with customization as to the type of wings (from noral angel to like demonic bat wings) to the color of wings and such.Nox Shadowserpent 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Nox Shadowserpent

i agree that we should have new races and i think that when the next campaign comes out ( in far future) they should ( and probably will) use the Tengu for factions ( i can so see a bird rit!!!) just a slight addition. I also agree that angels will be cool ( see cancelled campaign 4 (EOTN was made instead) but maybe in the campaign 4 for GW2 which is supposed to ( at least for GW 1) have an Aztec theme and the proffesions were supposed to be like a mace dude and a Chronomancer ( time-mage) i can definitly see a winged angel like guy for the Chronomancer. but again mb we wont even need fying profession because we will have mounts to take that place. --83.65.70.130 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat logging

Some online games allow players to automatically log in-game chat. I'd love to see a feature like this in Guild Wars 2 (and, if possible, the original Guild Wars). -- Gordon Ecker 06:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like te following chat improvements:

• Chat log
• Message time stamps (turn on/off)
• A separate channel that you can turn off for game messages such as drops and HA win messages

-- (gem / talk) 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to see implemented to the Chat system is more options when clicking on a person's name, eg. inviting them to your party, go to the trade window, and 'Go to' - where you go to the person in question (saves time having to look up a person's name in a busy town or adding them to your party). br12 • 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I add my support to this wish c.q. suggestions on chat. Maybe even an "I am in a mission" mode as to where friends cannot wisp you in personal messages? --Silverleaf 13:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, chat logging and timestamps would be a good feature --Just One More Thing 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Areas

Is It just me or am I the only one who doesn't like persistent areas? I just want to state that this could ruin some things such as

1. Running(people will distract you)
2. Farming(higher levels will kill the monster(s) before or when you get there)
3. The Storyline (since explorable areas have no districts it will be overcrowded where the NPC is or the path to your next destination)
4. Hard Quests(I doubt people will help you because some people just wait till the person dies and then go for the kill)

Pros

1. You might meet some new people(That is if they're not acting completely ridoculous)
2. Elite capping from bosses(If that mechanic is the same)

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:64.230.68.175 .

My thoughts:

1. Running probably won't be possible as I'm sure there won't be a 'party jumps through portal' mechanic. Shame, since I make my money with running, not farming. However, I guess I'll still be able to sell 'mercanery' services for quests/missions/skill caps/what ever, so it's not as big of a deal as it could be.
2. Farming will most likely move to the instanced areas which the game is going to have.
3. Storyline will most likely partially be in the instanced areas. The persistent areas have public quests like the sudden appearance of a dragon etc. I think the system will work well in the hands of the ANet team.
4. Quest difficulty will most likely be balanced well. Spawn camping is a well known MMO problem and I hope they are going to adress that problem somehow.
5. Meeting others randomly is great, as long as there isn't a PK mechanism which afaik GW2 wont have.

-- (gem / talk) 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there could be some pseudo-running scenarios in which a high level character helps a low level character get to an outpost where they can craft better armour, or a bunch of low level characters team up to help eachother. As for spawn camping, I think the best solution would be to have spawn rate / interval scale with the number of players in the zone and give each boss a huge spawn zone, as well as making boss loot scale with the number of players fighting it. -- Gordon Ecker 10:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that might work for spawn campign. And yeah, I think that some sort of mercanery service will work well. I wouldn't enjoy playing if I had to farm, but I'm not giving away hope yet. :) -- (gem / talk) 10:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Better PvE Mechanics

Firstly, I apologise profusely if this has already been mentioned, but here are my thoughts on what i'd like to see in GW2.

Spice up the PvE, Improve the game mechanics! You guys can do it I know!!

Here is an example: Most missions in GW1 require very simple tasks: Go to X and Kill Y or Defend X from invader Y

Many of them are pretty much the same, just slightly different, and I can understand why.

However you've done some great things such as the first solo mission (Tihark Orchard) where there is more of a focus doing things like teaching kids how to dance than actually HACK-SLASH-HACK-SLASH.

Or how about The Deep? Players are forced to split up at several points in the mission, either by the teleporters, or by the panels.

This is the kind of PvE Diversity I'm talking about.

Of course, the technicalities come with heroes and henches... How do you make those suckers react accordingly with the mission especially if you're playing on your own? I would suspect it would require some serious NPC management sytem.

However, I have enjoyed missions which require actual thought rather than just stacking your party with whatever the latest imbalanced build may be in order to proceed, and I feel more design along these kind of lines could make for a far more interesting and exciting PvE experience in the next game.
Yu Takami 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but that also that's all it is. I loved the need to actually think about what you were doing, but it made it virtually impossible to pug the Deep (unlike Urgoz Warren where you could grab a few rangers and a couple monks and go). My guild is small and we have no Alliance, so getting 12 of us online at once, let alone in the same place can be markedly difficult. While this won't be true for everyone, it sure took a lot of the fun out of it having groups fall apart at the first teleporter (to use your example). Mesodreth Blackwing 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I run an incredibly small alliance myself and understand your points. However, missions like the deep are inherantly difficult. For instance: If all the enemies in the deep were level 1, I'm sure it'dd be vastly easier despite containing the exact same mechanics, and most certainly easily puggable.

But I'm sure better gameplay mechanics can make for a far more entertaining play, provided it is balanced. As it stands most of these kinds of mechanics can only be found in the hardest areas of the game, which is a shame because people like you and I cannot fully enjoy such areas. Yu Takami 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

no no... give pve monsters wiki builds. That would make it very interesting.68.20.17.16 15:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki builds maybe not, but if devs have the ability to easily change monster builds to compensate for newly discovered exploits, it would make the game a lot more balanced. They can and have been known to do this in GW 1, but it has been rare, and is obviously not an easy thing to do. Ashes Of Doom 17:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

races

Hey I just wana to suggest reaces wath is wErry cool and what i think you shud put in guild wars 2 is races like: 1.ORC HO CAN BE GOOD AS WARROR OR SOME ELS BUT YOU CAN CHOSE EVRY PROFESION WITH THE ORC BUT IT WILL NOT BE SO GOOD LIKE IF YOU CHOSE ELEMENTALSIT WITH ORC IT WILL BE WEAK. 2.ELF HO IS GOOD WITH RANGE AND BAD WITH WARIOR AND SOME LIKE THAT AND ONE MORE THING IF I MAKE SUGGESTION WHY DO YOU NEVER COMMENT IT 3.... 4.... 5.... 6....

Let me introduce you to the comma... br12 • 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

and non-caps.reanor 19:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what these peoples' faces look like when they type this stuff. Vael Victus 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly proof reading or maybe a little spell check is in order too. Unlikely Hero 19:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said there be Orcs and Elves in GW2? MageMontu 07:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sylvani are somewhat elfen, and norn are orcish in manner, if not appearance. as for the "x race is only good for y class" scrap that PULEASE. -TehBuG-

Classes / Attributes

I checked and I do not believe anyone has actually suggested this. This is just attempt at putting words to a much bigger picture in my head on paper here.

Could we simply remove classes? For the sake of explaining I will refer to Attributes as "Art"

A character should not be defined by a class but what "Arts" they have choosen to study.

A sub class of Arts would be defined as follows (not complete or accurate, just an example)

Weapons
 Single
  Sword
  Axe
  Wand
 Two Handed
  Staff
  Bow
  Hammer
  Daggers
Armor Proficiency
  Heavy
  Medium
  Light
Shield Proficiency
  Heavy
  Medium
  Light
Mana
  Life
  Protection
  Sprits
  Death
  Protection
  Hex

A character can be diverse by putting points into any ART they like. However each Art they must master or at least increase the level of mastery first.

So the Character levels give you Points for the Art's BUT you can not raise the maximum level of the ART unless you learn it from a master of the art.

Lets assume 1 point raises 1 point no matter the level of the ART unlike the current system that progressively costs you more to raise the level.

I will use the following pattern

Art / Point Level / Maximum Mastery Level

But my character has only 14 points to allocate to his Arts

Sword / 7 / 12
Armor - Heavy / 5 / 10
Life / 2 / 4

Which would allow me to use a little Healing Strong Armor and good sword skills.

Another example if I had 20 points (for a tank)

Armor - Heavy / 10 / 10
Sword / 10 / 12

Another example if I had 25 points (for a healer)

Armor - Light / 5 / 6
Wand / 10 / 10
Healing / 10 / 12

The maximum level mastery of each ART prevents you from raising the point level that affects the skills. In order to raise it you would have to go learn from a Master of that ART.

Optionally we could put in place the ability to Grand Master only one Art per character. Which would let you raise the Maximum level of that focused ART higher then the others.

I would also say that you chould change your Grand Master Art but not to make it so easy with some expense at least.

I would even go as far to say if you don't use that high of a level of Mastery within a ART for a extended period of time that would start to lower (being not logged in would not count against you, only active playing counts) and resulting in you having to go raise it up again by studying the ART once again from a master to raise the maximum level back to where you like it.

This I think should be something like playing without using that level over the course of 72 hours of constant game play would lower it one point. And you would have to play for at least 1 hour with that level to keep it that high. I believe this concept would work better.

I realize this is probably similar to other games, my idea is simply a reflection of what I played and seen in GW1.

So playing the role defines your character instead of the role defines you. Chik En 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that last sentence stealing from fury? Lord of all tyria 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "fury"? That phrase (and variations of it) have been around forever. I don't think anyone truly is creator or owner of it. Chik En 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

there is a game called "fury" Mashav 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, this reminds me a lot to Oblvion IV, let the classes stay the way they are, since I like it being an elementalist or dervish or monk or whatever... I hope the attribute-system stays the way it is, that you can keep on changing it.--Lotho 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think either I was not clear or you did not catch what I was trying to explain. I was not suggesting you can not change roles. I was suggestiong something different and not be bound by a primary class. Chik En 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea! It may need more fleshing out though. And I'm not sure if we should penalize people for not using a particular art for a while... but I do like the idea. Armond 07:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that aspect I did say would be optional. But if you don't use it you lose it applies in the real world... If you speak french but then don't do it for 5 years... do you think you will speak it as well? Perhaps not you would need to refresh somewhat. Perhaps the trickle down can not trickle below a certain mark. Like rounded down to the next multiple of 4 so if you had 10 it can't lower to below 8 if you had 7 it can't lower below 4. This of course is just the max. It would not affect your over all points you can move around from ART to ART at will. But if you wish to pull off a certain role once in a while you would have to use them or go to Art Master from time to time to do a challenge to learn that level again Chik En 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea, I agree, but there is the character appearance to think about with this one. At the moment, a warrior is always the big guy with the huge chest and bulging muscles, while the necromancer is a skinny, creepy looking guy who doesn't look like he could even lift a hammer, let alone use it. The system you propose would allow people to choose whatever appearance they wanted for their character (which isn't a bad thing, but it needs some thought, and they would ahve to ditch the stereotypes) , and it also brings armor into question. If you put points into heavy armor most of the time, but you want to heal today, does that mean you have to get some lower level armor if you want to take points out of the armor art? I would object to having to do something like that, and would probably just stay in the same few arts all the time. Primary profession anyone? Ashes Of Doom 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a really cool idea and I would like to add my own idea. I would like it if as you get more points in a certain attribute you can unlock different spells techniques and have an ultimate spell when you hit the highest if there even is a limit. The only problem to the idea of making you character how you want is that I dont think it will work for this game. I feel that the proffesions make Guild Wars the game it is and taking them away would be changing a huge part of the game that all of the Guild Wars fans like. This idea would have to have its own game so someone go make it :) ~Nixon4Prez

People change, so can dye!

Hi, I have this idea, I think it's great, and yes, I know the downsides from it: instead of just using black dye, or green dye or mix some dyes and add it to the armor, let us just choose what parts of the armor we can dye! Say, the armor consists 50% out of metal, 10% out of leather and 40% out of something else, let us dye the parts we like to, instead of GW itself, I know, it will mess up some armor and it requires some work to work it out.

Here's another idea: let us upload pictures so we can add 'em to our armor, like the 1k knights armor, he has a nice piece of metal from what we can put a picture or an emblem on, maybe not uploading, but something like making a cape, choosing an emblem, dying it, partialy or something...

As far as I understand in GW the armor set is only coded with 1 color set variable. And would be conciderable work to add an addtional variable to each armor set. In GW2 starting from scratch, it has potential, and would be rather cool to have differnt color set variables to the armor.

Oh yes, could see it now. Along the crotch of some troll is an emblem of a penis. While fun, it's simply improbable.

Your leather/metal material idea requires too much manual effort on the part of the GW team. Bad enough they have to model them, now they have to add seperate dye zones? Loved your title, though. Vael Victus 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you guys. I understand that the idea of dying each seperate part may be a pain, but to add 3 dye zones instead of 1 would increase the difference in player appearance drastically. And the emblem idea has some potential too. Giving players a choice of 3-5 different emblems on one piece of armor in a set would be popular, tho I agree that giving players the ability to add their own emblems would not turn out too well. However, this would work better for some professions than others. Assuming we still have professions... Ashes Of Doom 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Trading/Selling

IMO, there should be a seperate WTB and WTS tab that provides seperate pages for each catagory if the trade window remains the same for GW2. Taking it further, there should be a better way to sell items rather than having to be in town wasting hours pinging "WTS" or "WTB". A "Trading Post" where all of the sales can take place. Perhaps an Auction house where real time auctioning can take place. Unlikely Hero 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the trading system found under GW1 needs to be reworked. Looking at the Gaile Talk logs, it seems like there's an auction house request every time she's on, there's no way ANet hasn't heard this plea. I'm not sure what ANet should do to fix the problem, an auction house seems like an obvious solution, though I get the feeling ANet would like a more original solution (if possible/viable). Personally, I think more judicious use of NPC traders could help some. For example I see no reason why there can't be a green item trader, the items are static (non-modifiable) and farmable, not unlike rare materials, dyes, runes, etc. And at this stage in the game, so common that the premise that they are supposed to be prestige items is a bit silly (especially with the advent of non-max green weapons that can be obtained in low-level areas). (Satanael 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

The idea of the WTB, WTT, WTS tabs were more directed towards how the trade window runs now, a possible update. For GW2, a centralized trading area, a dedicated town to just trade so that towns are not congested with trading spam would be nice, but this could be alleviated with again, a better trading system. I understand the uniqueness idea, and setting GW2 apart from other popular games. It will be nice to see what they come up with because this game is one of the best ones I've played so far. Unlikely Hero 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea to add an auction house or even a trading "marketplace" area to ech town would be good. Even if there wasn't an auction, a window could be set up much like the current party search, but divided into tabs for Materials, Minipets, weapons, modifiers, etc...and further split into buying and selling. The reason the current system doesn't work so well is the amount of congestion in the towns with all the people. It is not really worth it to scroll through a window with ~200 people constantly changing their offers to buy a few materials in the current system. Ashes Of Doom 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a trading town or market place, though this could be difficult to implement, because there would be soooo many people trying to sell their stuff at the same time. One possible way to cut down on the number of posts would be for the NPCs in the market to be kinda snobby about what they're willing to post, e.g., they'll only put max items up for sale or items of a certain rarity. Another way would be to make it cost a certain amount of gold just to post an item up for auction, say, 500g or something. That way, one would have to be reasonably sure the item is worth something before posting it for sale. (Satanael 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

we never got it in GW1 so plz, add in GW2. AUCTION HOUSE. -TehBuG-

map

my idea is to build so big map THAT we will not be EABLE to diScovere it may stupid but if you want world PvP THEN YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT CUZ IT WILL BE SO MUCH PLEYERS.IS YOU MAKE LITEL MAP OR MAPS LIKE ELONA AND THOSE MAP WORLD PvP WILL SUCKS AND WE GONO ALWAYS DAY SOEM OF US.SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

Not only bad English, but bad attitude too. Lightblade 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation: My idea is to build a big map, that we will not be able to discover. It may be stupid, but if you want world PvP, then you have to build it because there will be so much players. If you make little map or maps like Elona, then those world PvP will be bad and we go.....(wtf) Lightblade 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to that: Maps doesn't have to be big. Areas can be instanced. This way, the area is scalable to the actual population. Building a large map require more level designing personnels, and if the map becomes so big that the place is unpopulated, it will seem empty and boring. Lightblade 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

-Thet is not bad idea but then they have to make towns like when you made guild hall it will show on the map and thet is your town and some one if gets a lot of pleyers can attack and get it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

Minions Based on Monsters

This may be another one of those "impossible to implement" ideas, and I don't know if GW2 will have anything like minion masters (though given their popularity in GW1, I think it would be a shame for ANet to get rid of them). Anyway, I think it would be really cool if there were some interaction between the size/type of the corpse an the resulting minion(s) from that corpse. For example, in today's game, you can raise a Flesh Golem from an imp as easily as from a huge wurm, and they look the same, furthermore, you raise a little minion frmo a wurm and that's it, the entire corpse is now useless. In my perfect dream, the minion raised from a wurm looks totally different from that which is raised from an imp (functionality may or may not be different, this hightens the complexity of the idea, so may not be feasible/necessary, but could be really cool). Or another idea is that you can only raise one minion from an imp, whereas you could raise four or five from a wurm.

Also, I would love it if ANet could bring us back to the days when there was no limit on the number of minions, it was so cool having 25 bone fiends to dessimate entire armies. But I suppose that's not really likely... (Satanael 09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Currently the size of the minions correlates to their level which is sort of helpful, but I agree that basing the size on the enemy size would bee cool. It's unlikely that they'd implement this, but it would be cool. :)

Yeah, massive armies were very cool. I remember my lvl 20 MM in some of the low level missions raising dozens of minions. The new limit is very balancing though and I think it's better not to remove the limit. -- (gem / talk) 12:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the limit should go. It was only implemented in the first place because of the minion factory pvp build to prevent it from working. At all. So why not for GW2, limit the minions only in pvp, like an environmental effect? Mesodreth Blackwing 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MMs were also way too good in PvE. They could even solo missions. So no, the limit shouldn't be removed, or atleast not unless they are downgraded in some other way. Imho the current balance is great. -- (gem / talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Minions could be based on the monster it was created from. Obviously a smaller version, with the same basic shape and fleshy texture, instead of just 1 model for all.

Looking at Diablo 2, which has much more extensive summons for necromancers, the "Revive" spell would be great to have, maybe something for GW2 --Just One More Thing 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very cool if Necromancers got a PvE only spell that allowed them to ressurect monsters to fight for them. Go kill a mesmer boss, then ressurect it and use it as a minion against a monk boss. XD

Also it would be interesting if it were a maintained enchantment with an energy regen cost. Then you can cancel it on the fly and the monster will just drop dead again. It sounds like fun! --Redfeather 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of it being an enchantment, but I do like the idea of a maintained high-end minion skill. -- Gordon Ecker 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Casting level bonus for exploiting larger, extramagical or otherwise special monsters, bosses etc... ie: Well of Blood at +1 Blood, Animate Bonefiend or Consume corpse at +1 Death and etc... Also maybe Golem should only spawn off a larger creature so if only and imp corspe is available, then you just get the "no target in range" message.--Evil Party Girl 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes & Companions

Companions are the GW2 equivalent of Heroes. There has been some contraversy over the addition of Heroes in GW1. Some people blame them for promoting solo play over pick-up groups. Others feel that Heroes gave people the freedom to play when they can't find a decent group (or can't get accepted by such a group).

It's been said that, in GW2, we would be allowed to take 1 companion who won't count against the party size limit. I think this works well for persistant areas, but I feel we are taking a step backwards for instanced areas.

There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to play in an instanced area (e.g., mission) because your character's profession is not popular, or because there are not enough people to form a group. I suggest a 1 companion limit be maintained in persistant areas to promote social play, but allow multiple companions in instanced areas.

The perfect balance has been demonstrated with dungeons like Slaver's Exile. The elite dungeon can be completed much faster with real people, but it's still possible for a person to do with heroes/henchmen. This gives people incentive to team up, but still allows you to go it alone if no one else believes in you :P

A separate suggestion: allow your other characters on your account to be used as Companions (maybe even give them experience while in Companion mode). --Ctran 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your ideas.reanor 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be perfect, but with some limitations. --Silverleaf 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that if my company EVER gets to make an MMO, we'd do this:

"A separate suggestion: allow your other characters on your account to be used as Companions (maybe even give them experience while in Companion mode)."

That idea reaks of pure awesome to me. I know ANet will never do it, the coding would be just a mess. But that would be amazing if they did. The icing on the cake for this idea is that people who enjoy alting - that is, using more than one character - can finally be rewarded. Vael Victus 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like The Sims to me. But it would be cool.Ashes Of Doom 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Combat Professions/Advanced Graphic Effects

First off, I would like to suggest something that I feel would have been nice in gw1, Non combat professions. Basically we have "professions" where you can do such things as armor crafting, carpentry, or (some sort of food provider type thing here). These can be "leveled up" by use or attribute point type things (my suggestions but I think Anet can do better). These could provide gold-sinks (a new market w/ new materials to buy) and similar economy controllers. Now I'll list a few professions I have thought of.

Armor Crafter- Instead of the standard pick a skin and from this crafter it has such and such armor level, instead or parallel to, we could have player crafters. These players could make armor that has a certain armor level or perhaps decorative armor similar to holiday hats (yule cap, scarecrow mask etc.) That are customizable to the extent of the general shape of the armor and the color of it (customizable down to the last inch) In this way not only would people gain a new level of uniqueness but also be able to make appropriate armor/clothing for roleplaying.

Carpentry- To create/decorate player owned houses. This skill would also be a huge goldsink since I know there are quite a few people who pay thousands to get a certain skin and I'm sure they would also pay to have decorative items added to their home. And I do not think that guild halls should be decoratable using this skill since a box or two in front of the enemy gate results in unbalanced pvp matches.

Food Provider- Basically they "manufacture" consumable items that can not be used in pvp but are similar to items we have in gw right now. (Pumpkin Cookie, spiked eggnog etc)

If I could think of any more non-combat professions I would add them, but alas I cannot.

My second idea is not "Make graphics better" or anything of the sort. Instead I am suggesting that certain skills will trigger certain effects. This would be an option for more powerful computers I suppose but it would offer a more epic battle type feel. For example: An elementalist uses mist form. However, in gw1 he looks the exact same, but he has an enchantment circle around him. My idea is that he would actually be altered to appear that he had turned into mist. Also, the same could be done to the environment. Another example: A ranger summons an Equinox spirit. In gw1 a spirit identical to other nature ritual spirits pops out of the ground. My idea is just taking it a bit further. Instead of just the spirit the appropriate environmental response should also happen. There should actually be an equinox in the sky.

Thank you for reading my post, constructive criticism is appreciated, flaming is not.--208.191.38.245 11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the non-combat profession stuff is the grind involved. They don't contribute anything useful to the game, just more things that you need to level up. I'd not be happy to see those introduced in GW2. -- (gem / talk) 11:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a profession not based around damage at all (No not a healer). You know one focused soley on magic and misdirection (Yes, that is a mesmers speal but mesmers can do damage). Jigoku 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gem on the first issue but a possible way to remedy this is having these be "crafts" instead of professions and have characters with the regular professions be able to pick up one, two, or maybe switch between all of them. In order to help prevent the monotony of grind, and due to the raised level cap, perhaps your ability to craft would be based purely on your level as well, thereby increasing along with everything else (with the same diminishing returns idea as well) or perhaps on something else like your exploration to various parts of the world to meet masters of your profession... I do like the second idea, (I'm a graffics afficionado) not just with skills, but also perhaps with visual ways to show your titles (some auras like the divine aura in GW1 perhaps?) and I think it might be more possible now that they have a lower number of more situationally complex skills (it might also be not just possible but necesitated by this if, say, you were jumping and the spell you cast was still supposed to hit the ground at your enemies' feet; the animation would have to be different, and then this idea would be even more viable). Any suggestions/criticism/approval? Frozzen 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You two misunderstood the original post and my post. Yes, we were taling about this as an additional thing to professions, the confusion comes from the fact that the crafters or what ever are called 'professions' in WoW. So we aren't talking about something that would be introduced as an alterntive to the current professions, but something in addition. For example a necromancer could be a fisher or farmer.

And I still think it's either A) unnecessary additional grind B) unnecessary additional complexity if it affects our combat somehow. They said that they want to keep the game friendly to new players and additional complexity doesn't help with that. Imo let's stay away from WoW things and keep concentrating on what is best at GW. -- (gem / talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a persistent world in GW2 (and I know someone's said it up there somewhere) we do need at least one thing WoW has: The ability to travel at speed... not mounts, but flightpaths, or some kind of GW analog (which would honestly probably Asura gates).

Don't we already have map travel, and confirmation that it will be in GW2, making "flightpaths" irrelevant? --Valentein 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Outpost to outpost flightpaths are irrelevant. Flight paths from towns to dungeon entrances would be useful and could serve as a gold sink. -- Gordon Ecker 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just on your comment about "Advanced graphic effects": I think that effects like "Shapeshift" were really neglected in GW. "Mist form" (even though mist would be easy to code) could use the Djinn skin & etc... Give Necro's "Wraith form", Rangers & Norn "Bear Form" etc... "Polymorph Foe to Rabbit" would be fun (although I cant think of a profession for it (maybe mesmer with their illusions). Give Necro's a "Raise Dead" like "Vengence" that let's the actual player control "a minion". Omg, there's just so much. The precedent is there with that NF quest where you become pirates, so it must be doable.--Evil Party Girl 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

arrows

hey.I think you shud put in guild wars 2 is arrows like when ranged shut he spend arrows and there have to be lot classes like iron arrows or steel or rune or ....ty.lol

Grind.reanor 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I always hated that in other games. Especially, since arrows are not that much better (or worse) than other weapons and aren't worth the additional pain they give. Jigoku 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No more D2 plz. -- (gem / talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More D2, theres a areason why it sold awsomly much.--Cursed Angel 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in the latter aspect, Angel, but arrows... eh. I would imagine it more like you would "upgrade" your arrow set like an attribute would be. So you'd start with wooden arrows, then iron-tipped arrows, then you work your way up to SUPER SAIYAN ARR- well okay. But you get the picture. Vael Victus 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ride on pets

I think ride on pets is great idea but you dont put prohability to shut from them just to ride for beter speed and to look much cooler.ty

Ride on a Pet Horselike creature or Fly with a Pet Dragon? --Silverleaf 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-yea same idea I think its great

User Interface

Windows

When you play in a really dark area the interface overwhelms the actual graphics because of its brightness and can be hard on the eyes. Quick experiment so see what I mean... At night time go to a dark dungeon/area, put your hand with your palm facing the screen and toggle the interface using shift+ctrl+H. I sometimes toggle the interface when exploring because it makes you appreciate all the graphics so much more.

I have two main suggestions to get around this:

1) Allow all interface elements to have a battle/explore flag.

Battle: element only visible during battle. (party window, hero commander)

Explore: element only visible during exploration (u-map)

2) Have 3 preset “HUD” setting you can easily cycle with a mouse button or shortcut key depending on the situation. That means every UI element will have a checkbox per “HUD” setting so it can be made visible or hidden based of the active “HUD”. This would make it easy to switch from explore UI to battle UI. And like the Weapon Sets allow us to only cycle the “in-use” “HUD” presets so you can flip between preset 1 and 2 using one button without having to cycle through the whole 1,2,3 sequence.

In addition to the above suggestions allow us to customize the transparency of each window. This can even be combined with the first suggestion so rather than having an on/off for different situations you can have a battle/explore transparency setting.

Keyboard

Allow us to combine shift combinations. That means that even though alt/ctrl/shift has been assigned GW will still allow me to assign alt-w or ctrl-f to other actions. This will give us heaps more shortcut combinations at our fingertips. If there’s a problem with your custom combination, e.g. alt-w then it’s up to the player to reassign alt or use another combination. Also allow us to use the shift modifier keys in combination with the mouse buttons. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:JohnQA .

I definitely agree with those suggestions; I especially like the idea of the user interface changes. Ashes Of Doom 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic PvP World and Faction Points

I understand from the various press releases and whatever about GW2 that it will have a kind of separate “PvP world” with people being able to come in and out of battles/campaigns, which will last a long time (maybe forever-ish?), and will more than likely be centered around certain control points such as a castle.

My idea hinges on the implementation of a kind of GW: Factions style point reward system. I assume these PvP worlds in GW2 will put different people on different sides, much like Factions does now with AB. So I have an idea about what to do with these faction points, and I’ll borrow some terminology from Factions and other GW1 campaigns to make things clearer. I think Guilds/Alliances should be able to contribute faction points to create in-game assets for the PvP world. For example, a guild/alliance contributes 50k faction points to purchase a trebuchet they can place around a control point to assist in its defense, or the same to purchase a siege turtle to assist in an attack. Of course there would be certain rules about this, such as caps on the number of turtles/trebuchets purchased for from each control point, that way there aren’t 50 trebuchets guarding one gate. Or maybe there’s a requirement that the turtles be “driven” by actual players (maybe a siege devourer-type system would be more appropriate in this case) so that way a guild can purchase as many as they want, but trying to find a way to get 100 players to all be online at the same time and all in the same pvp battle would be downright impossible.

This could be expanded beyond as well, smaller faction contributions could be used to purchase smaller things: 5k faction for an NPC warrior, 10k for a monk, 100 faction for a temporary environmental effect, etc.

Bigger things: Maybe certain guilds/alliances could “own” a control point (like towns in Factions) by buying it with faction points, and then could upgrade it with more faction. For example: 5 million faction to purchase Fort A, then a further 10 million the upgrade it from a fort (wooden walls, smaller, etc.) to a castle (stone walls, tougher gate, bigger, etc.). The Upgrade process could even include a build time during which the relevant faction would have to defend the construction workers from attacks by monsters, the other faction(s), etc.

Other options would be to contribute factions to buff certain key NPCs, such as the modern day Guild Lord, Ghostly Hero, or resurrection priest.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think you get the idea. This would be a highly expandable aspect of the game, allowing for more features that could be included with subsequent expansions, special events (purchase a snowman army!) etc. (Satanael 09:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

guild wars 2

When is guild wars 2 coming.Eny one.... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

See Guild Wars 2. Everything we know is listed there. (PS: it's "anyone") -- ab.er.rant 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Armor and Weapon Depreciation and ratings

Sorry if this repeats someone elses idea, i didnt see it listed. But for GW2, it would be nice if armor and weapons could take on some damage that would be reflected through some sort of rating. Players would then have to maintain the armor or weapons by visiting a weaponsmith or armor NPC who you could pay to repair or upgrade. Details like that would help in the "realness" of the game. I have always liked that about the REAL DnD, intricate details. Unlikely Hero 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be constantly wasting my savings on armour repairs. :( (204.174.36.33 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

A strict no for this. There's a reason why many games are getting out of the 'repair your armor and weapons' mechanic. It's unnecessary and doesn't make the game more fun at all. -- (gem / talk) 07:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this idea either, but a strictly graphical component to this wouldn't hurt. It could be tied to death penalty or something similar, and cause your armor to look more worn and damaged after a long, hard battle. This would simply be resent wehn entering a town or outpost. It would make the game seem more realistic, without the burden and cost of actually having to repair armor. Ashes Of Doom 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reward for maxing out Titles

IF GW2 has titles like in GW1, those that have maxed out titles deserves to ride around IN TOWN on a Dragon that shoots fire and makes a really loud obnoxious screech OR some other bad azz creature, basically to announce your arrival and make everyone envious. But to get this, you need to pretty much be GOD of the game and it is extremely difficult to achieve. Unlikely Hero 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm.... perhaps something more subtle, considering the Devs have stated that they like the game in part because it lacks grind, and something like that would majorly promote it in order to get this "amazing" reward... In addition, I'd like to mention the HOM rewards as something that would be released before the game comes out, since I'd like to know what is worth it (to me) spending time on... Frozzen 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

o ya nd tehn we culd join a 40 mang instasnce nd kill an other big dragn for liek tolly l33t gear mirite ^-^ Vael Victus 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GW2

Hey do we have to pay guild wars 2 per mouth like wold of warcraft or its free???? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:XemnasX .

There will be no monthly fee associated with Guild Wars 2 to keep up the tradition of Guild Wars. Mike O'Brien has stated that expansions or mini-expansions are more likely than standalone campaigns, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. See Guild Wars 2 for details. --Bob 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Guild Wars 2 article has information about GW2. You may find it helpful to read that page. Sorry, didn't read the top answer properly. br12 • (talk) • 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

lol noobreanor 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I got it handled now, see my talk page. br12 • (talk) • 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

*laughs* you've completely lost it. :D --Aspectacle 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversed HoM

Will the GW Hall Of Monuments be present in GW2. Not only as a specific inheritance for the Characters but also as a remembrance to GW1 for the account holder? The Hall of Monuments would become Hall of History?

My grand son/daughter could walk into her GW2 hall of accomplishments and have a small section or door dedicated to his/her ancesters accomplishments? --Silverleaf 11:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that would be how it went, yes. But I don't think there will be another Guild Wars (GW3), so I don't see how the HoH could be used except for physical representation of what you've done. Vael Victus 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

. "Physical representation of what you've done". Thats spot on. --Silverleaf

I want to keep my favourite characters' names in gw2. They should let current gw players lay claim to names if they peorder. That also let's your legacy continue, if only in namesake.--Evil Party Girl 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More of Gaile

More in-game assistants for Gaile. I alway's look foreward to visits from Gaile. And while she is uniquely suited for all she is i think some assistants for her that interact with the ever growing community in GW1 and GW2 would be welcome to make the community and connection to the game a bit more personal?--Silverleaf 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They can be called Gailians. And they will slowly take over and enslave us for our own protection. It could happen. --Redfeather 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol..not what i had in mind though. Just a more personal interaction with the game and its players. Ever since GW there are more than 4 million (possible) players and it still is only one communications representative. Gaile is alway's welcome to in-game events but not many get to meet or see her? ?--Silverleaf 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Redfeathers idea.--Cursed Angel 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally I can voice my ideas for Gaile's own non-instanced outpost for herself. Imagine it - stone walls, beautiful ivory growing everywhere, and a statue of Gaile's ranger in the middle. People would wait there for days on end, just waiting to be graced by her mere presence. I vote "yes"! Vael Victus 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

/Sigh...way out of context. :)--Silverleaf

Insert a number of " : "s for an indent, Silverleaf, depending on how far you want it :) br12 • (talk) • 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please no outpost, so much pink and pruple...no ty.reanor 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree on not creating an Outpost. But still..the suggestion is..added help for Gaile.--Silverleaf

PvE only skills

Assuming both PVE and PvP have different skillsets, please do not link PvE skills to titles that we have have to grind endlessly to increase proficiency. Link these skills like normal skills to profession attributes --Just One More Thing 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or to character level for skills which you don't want to be tied to a specific attribute. -- Gordon Ecker 02:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- br12 • (talk) • 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I want a rewarding experience. What you call "grind" I call "putting on a 25-minute song and playing". If you want a unique experience every time, play an FPS game. Vael Victus 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, I could tell you to go play WoW if you wanted grind. Regardless, it is terrible logic, and thus I won't use it on you. But at least don't use it on anyone else. -Auron 09:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Skills specific to Primary/Secondary combinations

I would like to play N/W(or N/W) that has a vampiric sword attack (for example, 10E 1CS 10RC for seconds, if your next attack hits, you steal x-xx Health in addition to sword damage). x-xx being based on Blood mastery. Ahh, but then I think why make it a special N/W spell when it could just be a Necro spell that can be cast on self or other? Or why not just Vampiric Touch if the x-xx is comparable? Variety and character difference. Plus W/N more likely to invest in Necro masteries if it ties in with his max'd out primaries. It'd be easy to cook up fluff for all the other profession combos. I'm just talking one or two skills for each combination. Make them quest rewards or hard to get locations for prestige. --Evil Party Girl 09:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Minion UI Control

Since i doubt we'll be getting such a thing for GW1, I'd like to add my suggestion of a Minion window with UI concept image for GW2 --Just One More Thing 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Freedom

Make it so we dont have to spend 2 hours when we got a full time job in order to find a group to go with, unless we smack them on the arse and say they are the most beautyfull and skillfull players we ever seen, unless we take the build we are told to take even if we dont like to play it, unless we accept to deal with unpleasant kiddie jokes, unless we accept to see the party to get dismembered after someone get mad at another player and you were only 1 foot away of the forge in the fow, etc... A player.

Since online games like GuildWars are aimed at the kind of players you just described I'm affraid you are screwed my friend. Just throw away your copy of GW and welcome back in the real life. 90.48.4.202 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, first guy who posted, you do have the freedom not to do that, if you dont want to PUG then dont... Anet provided you with henchies for that, and heroes to extend that. Crazy 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, welcome to the concept of "weekends" and "after you eat supper on weekdays". Don't give me that social life bull, because I maintain my social life fine and I play games many hours a week + 40 hours of job. Vael Victus 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember the day that father learned at the same time that his children had failed at school and his wife was seeing someone else because he was maintaining his social life fine. I forgot: you are the most beautyfull and skillfull player i ever seen, i smakc you on the arse.

I Know I'm Going To Get Shot For This, But...

lulz caps. Anyway! As the title says, I'm sure 90% of everyone is going to hate this idea, but I would ask that the titles we put into the HoM actually give us something. I'm assuming the armor sets will carry on somehow, and the heroes... and I'm still coping with the fact that my 13 miniatures I have will just mean that instead of gaining any character bonus, I'll just be able to transport them into GW2. But I would ask that since these titles require QUITE a bit of work, we get some sort of physical bonus for this. I'm not asking big, but I just want something. Maybe I get a medal I can apply to my armor or something, Emblem of The Luxons, and it gives me cute little bonuses versus whatever is replacing the Oni. Then I simply would just remove the emblem for a better one when I'm not in an oni-infested area.

I just can't honestly look at titles like "Defender of Ascalon" which is reported to take like 30 hours or something, and do it just for the fun of it. I mean don't get me wrong - I play games to have fun. I'm sure leveling to 20 would be quite fun indeed, but it's not ENOUGH fun that I would spend that much time doing it for a little card in GW2 that says, "o hi, thx for leveling to 20 in ascalon. It was pretty hard work, here: have a fruit roll up!" Y'see what I'm sayin'? I think Guild Wars should evolve more in that it has a rewarding experience beyond "I think I will Hard Mode a mission for fun now!". Kudos to those that caught my Barenaked Ladies reference. ;)

Also: I'd like to request that whatever reward we get, it would be dependant upon what rank the title was. For example, the Lucky and Unlucky title tracks can be entered at Rank 2, but are really Rank 5 max'd. If you did it this way, you could also remove absolutely silly things like only being able to put the Treasure Hunter and Wisdom title tracks at Rank 7. You could, instead, choose Rank 3. Rank 3 is great for treasure hunter because I'd understand if 250 wasn't enough treasure boxes to be considered honorable, but 500 treasure boxes (750k at most in gold) is quite enough.Vael Victus 17:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*bang* No more rewards for grinding titles please, we have enough. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

is he shot already? i was just loading my gun lol --Cursed Angel 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your barrel must've got a case of the editconflictitis -- br12 • (talk) • 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer that the titles give us something cosmetic, because anything that they give us otherwise would probably fade in its usability over time, and cosmetic stuff doesn't affect gameplay, but does reward those who spent the time for titles (as the bonus they provide in GW1 is almost always cosmetic as well). Frozzen 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And how many cosmetics can you have on one character? What about people that REALLY got into Guild Wars and have like 4+ maxed titles, what are you going to do, give them 4 little hats?

As for the item quality fading with time, yes - that is the idea. That the items given would only help you so much, so that your ancestor's achievements weren't like the most amazing thing ever. There's many titles, weapons, heroes, miniatures, and armor sets out there. You really want them to create cosmetic-only things for all that? Well, actually, you probably do. Not for nothing, but if it's any indication for rewarding gameplay, WoW has twice as many people as us. I've had friends simply not finish the Prophecies campaign because there is, quite literally, no point in doing it. Sure, it's a little fun, if you're into the story.Vael Victus 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually do fall into the category of people with more than 4 titles (9 actually -- going for 10) As to your above point, I believe that the heroes, weapons, and armor placed into monuments should give something related, or even the equivalent in GW2. As for titles however, I would prefer something cosmetic (although they could have multiple types of rewards so as to make more of them displayable at once), and as a bonus the reward would still be displayable and have use in higher levels... Frozzen 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wings ! I want WINGS for my character. Starting little and growing with your KoaBD title rank (+1 for full Hall), Angel/bird wings, demonic/bat wings! (an option instead of the guild cape?) WINGS !89.80.162.91 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles

I suppose this could be a request for both/either GW1 and GW2, but I really like the title system, and I hope there's something similar in GW2. In any case, I want to see more self-deprecating titles like drunkard or hapless. I'm not really sure the best way to obtain this, I thought about number of deaths but that would be too easy to fake, but I think a "stupid" title track would be really funny. Maybe rank 2 could be "rake handle", rank 3 "doorknob", rank 4 "Sylvester Stalone", and then rank 7 could be something like "I maik peeple a round me stoopider". Another option would be "lazy", which would be targeted to people who get run through the game by someone else, this could be calculated by their mere presence in places like the fire islands or aurgory rock while still being only a level 3.

Another idea is to have some titles that are somehow slightly profession specific. For example, you could have a title track based on amount of HP sacrificed (the "masacist" title track) that would be a lot easier for people with necro profesions, or "bringer of pain" for number of times one has dealt more than 100 damage in a single attack (easier for eles to obtain), "shrieker" for the number of chants, anthems and shouts used, "disciplined" for the number of stances used, etc. I think the more titles the better because it adds to the customizability of a character. When titles first came out they weren't that cool because there were only like 5 of them, and if you got one that just meant you were now one of 500,000 people rather than one of 1,000,000. Things are better now, but they could be even better if more titles get added.

You could even have unlockable titles that could be unlocked with specific quests like "Feeder of Joe" or "Savior of Prince Bokka", things like that. I don't know, just something to make titles more fun, and maybe a little easier to get in some cases, especially since the more difficult titles will still be known (everyone knows the "People Know Me" title is damn hard to get, and even if they don't, they will find out quickly). (Satanael 07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

*wants death count title* -- Gordon Ecker 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

my ideas of (useless) titles ( the amounts are very large, but it can be the last rank, there are just ideas ) :

wanderer/lost soul : has played 1000 hours without partying any other player.
destructor : 1000 more damage dealt than damages received.
masochist : 1000 more damage received than dealt.
Narcissicistic : 5 000 000 exp without wearing any armor.
mind is power : 5 000 000 exp without using any weapon.
Fresh meat : has a minimal ratio of 100 deaths by area/mission for over 1000 instances ( 100 000 death min ).
Diplomat : has spared the lives of more than 2 000 000 ennmies encoutered ( under aggro range ) in no more than 2 000 100 enncounter.
RossoKhan/destroyer : spared no encoutered living form ; 10 000 000 kills ( in no more than 10 001 000 encounter ).
Templar : killed over 10 000 000 peoples with differant faith (white mantle/ascalonian/dwarv/asura/norn/charr/mursaat/forgotten/margonites/shining blade..).
Hunter : killes over 10 000 000 beasts.
killer : killed over 10 000 000 humans.
lightbringer ? : killed over 10 000 000 demons/undeads/evils creatures.
sunspear / ?.
kurzick / luxons.
luxon / kurzicks.
vanguard / charrs.
deldrimor / stonesummit/destroyers.
lifebringer : has resurected 1 000 000 allies.

N
blood sucking freak : 1000 hours with blood skills only.
doom augury : 1000 hours with curses skills only.
upon death i come : 1000 hours with deaths skills only.
lich/great summoner : as animated over 6 000 000 undeads servants/spirits/summons.
death harvester : 10 000 000 souls harvested by soul reaping.

G
wood cutter : 1000 hours with axe skills only.
soulrandal : 1000 hours with sword skills only.
trepanator : 1000 hours with hammer skills only.
1 muscle, 2 brains : 1000 more strength skills useds than tactic skills.
General : 1000 more tactic skills useds than strength skills.

R
Sniper : 1000 hours with long ranges bow only.
urban warfighter : 1000 hours with short ranges bow only.
Jungle camofighter : 1000 hours only using traps.
I have two hearts : : 1000 hours of fight with the sam pet.

E
Pyroman : 1000 hours with fire skills only.
raincaller : 1000 hours with water skills only.
Tesla follower : 1khw air so.
wurm : 1khw earth so.
i'm gonna burst : 1khw energy storage so.

Me
You will love me : 1khw illusion so.
make you suffer : 1khw domination so.
soul eater : 1khw inspiration so.

If titles can gives cosmetics effect it's nice. if they gives permanent effects like lightbringer or edification, it's good to keep them under a really low scale. That way, they're hunt for fun, not for interest ; i like much achieve titles i like, than titles i would need. lussh 08:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea and a good variety, but the "1000 hours" requirements are.. well, silly. Change the attribute titles to number of times a skill of that attribute is used, and a few others are just unfeasible. Also, taking the liberty of cleaning up the display a bit, it was really messy and hard to understand. --Valentein 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Masochist Title should be for sacrificing alot of health, and 1000 hours are a bit too much, i've played gw for 29 months and still have under 2000 hours played, even if its my only game. Those titles should only cause people to have their computers on through every night, also the lack of variety should kill it. --Cursed Angel 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Divine Aura

What will happen to "Devine Aura". Will we be able to get it in GW2? -- Silverleaf Corrected ur spelling error >.>

And I believe not, from what has been said, though if someone could find an actual log of Gaile saying something like that we could add this to the FAQ page as a fact... Frozzen 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would love to have a similar Aura in GW2.-- Silverleaf

GW1 is dead, long live GW2? Misc. random things I notice are "missing"...

[post-move edit: although the following comments include some that are general, they were originally addressed to Izzy, the skill balancer, on his talk page. Parts of it may seem somewhat odd if you didn't know it has been moved here. However it may read, personally I feel my reactions to GW were addressed specifically to Izzy. I want him to read them and get something out of them. But I can see how the wiki at large might categorize them as generic "suggestions" and put them here instead. YMMV. Crystalion 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]

Please forgive the implusive Andy Rooneyesque spew, as it is all meant kindly and hopefully is helpful...

I love the Master of Damage, but why isn't there a chat and skill use and damage /log to text file for general gameplay post mortem use?

Why is minion and NPC selection still so crude?

Why is loot pickup so tedious? Other games in your genre evolved in this respect years ago. But you could, for example, go them one better by making a mini-panel control for your minature (similar to the pet mini-panel perhaps) to mode them to pick up loot for you into their backpack, possibly sized according to pet rarity or money-sink equip upgrade and then transferable to you just as the unclaimed items box does post-mission.

Why are your in-game skill descriptions not bimodal: the warm fuzzy simplistic default description and the optionally available accurate auto-derived gen'ed text from game logic? BTW, if it isn't obvious, the project creating that generator would clean up a lot of the ugly kludges that have crept into the original brilliant GW game/code architecture. For that matter, if you can pop-up a preview window for dying clothing before commitment why don't you pop up a preview of a skill before you buy/commit to it? As I'm sure GW2 is trying to head mass market (WoW envy) this is the wave of the future (i.e. simple, visual interface, less mandatory to read/grok techie wordy stuff). Don't get me wrong, I love your /help tie-in to wiki and I love the wordy stuff, but there isn't a conflict. You can be a foodie or even a gourmet these days without reading lots of huge boring text-filled cookbooks. The cooking biz "interface" has grown up. Yours must also. As the brilliant skill balance guy this is going to affect you so you might as well be a shockwave rider and push the dev effort. For example the hover interface on skills at pvxwiki.com isn't ultimate but is way better than here or in game (!?!) and you can do better still in GW2.

Why are you working with an advanced deterministic replaying game model yet not demanding ever improving data-mining, regression and sandbox what-if automated tools to help you refine the gameplay?

Why aren't you running a "public" test server? (Again, long since pioneered by other games in your genre) Casual and PvE gamers never know when they log in for their relaxing sojurn if this is going to coincide with tweak days of their build and planned activity being foobar. For the same reason the weekend fun promos (like double faction or cap xp etc.) really need to be announced consistly ahead of time... the investment and pace of casual PvE gamers has built in inertia. (For example a producer at EA quit Diablo I forever in the early days when the anti-dupe Daylight Savings Time bug ate his character. Quit. Gone. Spread a lot of bad word of mouth too. I don't blame him--his leisure time was too short and precious to let it be disrespected so badly.) Unanticipated play changes can mess up my enjoyment, even though I'm not a "casual gamer" and have enough characters available to bypass most flux (two accounts with all campaigns, half chars, half mules). The fastblooded adaptability of your vocal PvP crowd is a small part of your overall revenue.

Speaking of two accounts... the online poker sites as hostile to multiple client windows as GW is all died long ago. They hate bots too (consider them cheating, actively fight against them) so I think the comparision is fair. Muling within an account is tedious, across accounts is painful. Your in game trading and market all seems so version 0.90.

You've got amazing art and gameplay in GW, so obviously GW2 will shine there. What you need, imo, is what Apple has been doing for years... streamline, quality engineering, simplify, eliminate the sh*t, keep the sexy, bag the klunky.

Thanks for all the fun, Happy Holiday to you and GW team... Crystalion 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the skill balancer's page, instead of at the Guild Wars Suggestions one? Erasculio 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because people read this page. Lord Belar 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

People read this page and not that one because this one is filled with balance and PvP issues and conversations, and the other page is full of boring shit like what you just posted. Nobody wants to read it. 69.137.78.47 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yah, Dont use the active pages to post things that doesnt belong there just because you want attention to your subject. --Cursed Angel 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't care what anyone else thinks. But, hands down GW has the worst player base ever. Is there ever a complaint left unfilled? The smallest request not shouted at the top of someone's lungs? Honestly, are these complaints really game-breaking? GW is breathtaking but when I read the forums and wiki it feels like the playerbase spends more time moaning and whining on the forums and wiki rather than actually playing. I'm not sure if this is because Anet actually listens on occasion or what but I think it's unfair to think they have unlimited time and unlimited money to spend on every player request. I have nothing against you personally it's just my 2 cents. Jigoku 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

QFT. I quit a few other games when I first played Guild Wars... the amount of support and community in the game was just such a far step from what I was used to. And that was all before I found GuildWiki, and long before GuildWarsWiki was even created. I'm constantly surprised when I hear stories from WoW-playing friends, talking about how insanely powerful particular classes are and have been, without and balancing for months on end. I used to play Battlefield 2, and later Battlefield 2142, and despite being made by EA Games AND being one of the most popular games out there, the sheer volume of unfixed glitches was astounding (at one point, there was an update allowing Commanders to call in Vehicle Drops, which dropped a Jeep via parachute to the location specified; in the following months, this later got the nickname "cartillery", because you could drop Jeeps on other players for a free kill. This was later "fixed" a number of months later). The fact that Guild Wars has never had such a major glitch for more then a few days is quite an achievement; sure, there's skill imbalance, but that's to be expected. One skill becomes popular, people use it almost all the time, the metagame shifts around it, and things start falling apart. A short while later, skill rebalance, new metagame. The other option is that the skills are done "right" the first time around; in which case, people will still pick a favorite, start using it more then others, and ruin it all again.

If you want balance, play Chess or Checkers. If you think support is bad, try playing a different game for a while and see how you miss it. I think it's nearly a job for the players to complain when one skill starts becoming broken; so long as they complain about the skill, not about how badly the developers messed up. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second especially the second paragraph above mine... I played WoW for a short while but found myself all tired out due to grind within only a couple of months and immediately returned to Guild Wars... I've never looked back... Frozzen 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In business, grievances are much more prominent than good graces for that certain product. I have learned that forever 1 unstatisfied very vocal customers, there are 10 to 100 that are happy with what they have. It is very unfortunate that most of the time, it's the grievances that are aired out and are circulated. But then again that's life, much like how a rumor is, never will you hear good things about people as much as people badmouthing one another. It's simply and most unfortunately, human nature.

It is true that there are still so many things left unchanged and wish-list left unanswered but you have give them some slack. Does anyone still remember the horrible days of hot having a pointer or the green arrow to follow where the quest is found? I remember quitting Guild Wars because of the sheer amount of information and unmapped areas at that time. They will answer some of our wishes, they will fix and nerf and buff certain skills, they will ignore so many requests and grievances. Deal with it. Renin 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)