User talk:Linsey Murdock/Questions11

Something we have all been waiting for!

Please please if you get a minute it'd be nice to add some quick little things I've always missed. One, a NOTICE when you whisper someone on DND, you should get a message back saying "(play name) will not be able to respond because your status is set to Do Not Disturb". It's really annoying having friends pm me and they forget their dnd is on >.<. Another one, the "ignore" list equivalent. If someone if on your ignore list, you shouldn't be able to whisper them. This justs promoted abuse. Change it so if you message a person on your ignore the message fails.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that'll only take a minute... - Linsey talk 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It will Linsey. In Valve Time! ;) This is definitely something that needs to be done imo. It just plain makes sense...ESPECIALLY the ignore thing. The ignore thing is very annoying, and people will use it to just annoy you to no end because they know you can't msg them back! This wouldn't be so bad except you're only allowed 10 people to ignore, and that fills up rather quickly. Being forced to juggle ignores is really annoying...especially considering there's a way to hide your Ignore List...this totally isn't a hint for a bigger ignore list either..not at all..nope...DarkNecrid 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

lol linsey, i didnt mean it will take a minute to code, i meant if you could take a minute to read that :P i know itt'l take a lil longer than a minute. shouldnt be anywhere near as difficult as MOX lol.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

@ the basic thought; If they are annoying you that way, why not add them to your ignore? imo the GWteam is doing enough work already =]. -- WoB 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated, the ignore list is very limited. Both my friends list and my ignore list are full, so that makes it all a little tricky. And I do agree, if people are on your ignore list, you shouldn't be able to PM them either. Even just a single message can contain a lot of abuse. I've had it happen to me once, it wasn't pretty. I couldn't even PM this person (coward, rather) back to tell them I couldn't care less about their opinion of me, so it was frustrating too. And that DND notification would be mighty handy indeed. I've had friends yell at me for ignoring them, when I was trying desperately to answer, but had no way of telling them DND was on. Not sure how doable it is to implement, or how much time it would take, but it's definitely something I would love to see. -- Elv 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion. --Cancer Angel 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

don't include player name and only allow one such notification per session of DND or someone could spam blank messages and still disturb the player on DND. --24.214.236.85 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would *really* appreciate if this was updated. But don't forget about Offline status, it needs this small notification even more! I've been getting countless whispers from people who simply forgot to switch back to Online or who had their status changed to Offline because of the way the Reconnect feature works. And they were always friends or people wanting to just buy/sell something, not any abusers. Just display a clearly visible message to any person who sends a whisper while being in DND or Offline status. Something similar to the current notice you get when you whisp a person that's Away. --Yawg 23:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

0 people are on my ignore list. i think its fine i would rather see more work be done on more storage or something like a hair stylist.75.165.117.51 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with showing them a message when they send as DND, and blocking it when sent to an ignored person. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They already gave us more storage before, if you really need more buy another account! We get 4 windows + materials, than each character can hold like 40 (i dont know exactly how many) x 10 chars = 400 spots + storage. -_- This feature would be simple and nice. And they already said before that a hair stylist is an interesting idea but they don't know if they will ever add one or not.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be ever so much simpler if whispering someone just removed your DnD status and set you as Online? No messages required. If you're DnD, and you speak in whisper, trade or district chat, you're now Online and so can see the response. End of problem. -- MrSmiles 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I talked with Joe about this and we are going to see what we can do, but it may be a server issue which makes it more difficult to fix (server programmers are in high demand). No promises of course but it is on our radar. Thanks! - Linsey talk 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lore Question

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Plikkup Works reference

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Armor Box

Hi Linsey, I just got back into Guild Wars after a few months off, and was wondering if there is any word on some improved armor storage. Elementalists, for example, have about 27 armor sets, which would take 4 characters to store it all. I would love a little item like the Incubator Kit which would hold 5 items, one of each armor position. This has probably been brought up before, but if it hasn't been a while, maybe you could float the idea around. I know lots of people would likely enjoy it. Thanks! - Lord Ehzed 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) PS - Thanks for the forthcoming title updates!

I think this is a really cool idea, but I don't think that the class of item you are talking about (we call them "book items" internally) could handle storing information like runes or insignias with their current implementation. It would require either a big overhaul of the existing code or to completely design and code an armor storage feature from scratch. Either way it would mean more work than the Live Team could handle at this point in time. I don't even know if we will ever be able to handle that huge of a feature but here's hoping! - Linsey talk 13:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Linsey. I can understand the problem. I wasn't sure if on the backend the incubator actually stored the items that you put into it, or if it just had flags to keep track of what had and had not yet been added. If it is the latter, it would take a significant amount of modification. Well, I'll keep wishing in the meantime! - Lord Ehzed 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing being discussed on GWO right now is a system like the Hat Makers NPCs, that would store armor and weapons without insignia, runes, dyes or inscriptions. It would just store a weapon or a piece of armor and give it back without anything, hopefully avoiding the complexity in coding if armor has runes or not, which runes it has, etc. Today, with the Perfect Salvage Kits allowing easy transfer of mods between items, that system could be useful. But then again, no one in the discussion is a programmer, and of course no one has worked on GW, so we have no idea if this is remotely viable or not. Erasculio 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't say for sure if this is doable or not but I suppose it would be one way to relieve inventory pressure from players. Of course there are still all the runes and insignias to store that accompany the armors in between uses. I suppose it would be hard to come up with an alternative system to a fully developed armor storage feature that doesn't have downsides. But these two ideas are virtually the same and share the same major flaw in that they wouldn't be able to store the runes and insignias on the armor which means you end up trading the storing of those instead of the storing of the armor but this way you lose your dye job too and are holding twice as many things (one rune, one insignia for every armor piece). Then we start talking about making Runes and Insignias stack and John has been against that for a long time. I might be able to change his mind, but you get what I am saying, right? I've been up all night writing text so I'm can't tell if I am making sense anymore lol - Linsey talk 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it does make sense (and get some sleep, we can't have you in zombie mode when working on the next big build : D) Erasculio 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, with the mention the hat maker, I'd love to see a pet maker that can do it for mini-pets. I like my mini's, but they take up WAAAAAY too much space. Just add a flag to any mini's created that makes them non-tradable and keeps any flags on them (dedicated) and that would be very nice. Dargon 15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really very interested in what the maximum possible capacity of the Book Items are. Could they allow storing 1 of every Minipet in game? Or a complete collection of clean unmodded undyed armor sets for a profession? What if it was only 1 bit of data per entire armor set (4 pieces)? That would be more than AWESOME. Armor sets and minipets take the most storage (outside weapons, which are too complicated) and they could be reduced to single bits in a specialized slot. Storing the armors unmodded and undyed is not a problem at all, there's already a fantastic way to store insignia and runes - I put them on Heroes! So many of them and cheap salvaging with zero risk. I've never felt a need for runes and insignia to stack, I don't keep even single ones in my inventory. Also having stackable Runes would have 1 minor disadvantage - they would need fixed Merchant values. Now identifying Major and Superior runes before merching makes quite a big difference - up to double! Insignias however have so small values and are used in multiples so often that they could benefit from this change. Same for identical weapon mods and inscriptions.--Yawg 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Linsey, can you explain why John is against the idea of runes/insignias stacking? I'm not saying they should (although I wouldn't mind it at all) but I'm curious about arguments against (link to an existing discussion on the wiki also perfectly acceptable, of course).

On topic of the armor "book" -- you wouldn't really need double the inventory space to store runes and insignias. You could use a Perfect Salvage kit and have only one "active" armor set at a time. Alternatively, you could invest in very cheap starter armor and put the runes/insignias on those armor pieces, then Perfect Salvage when you wanted to put the runes/insignias on a new set of armor. So I could see this as taking up a mere six inventory slots (five for armor, one for the "book") which would be a huge improvement for those of us with a large wardrobe. --Nkuvu 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Books can hold 18 items or pages. That isn't a limit we have the option to change (I already asked). Here's John reason for being against making runes and insignias stackable: Since they are a player controlled market John feels that it would be a bad thing to allow players the opportunity to horde, control, or otherwise manipulate the supplies for monetary gain. Unlike ecto or black dye, the availability of runes and insignias greatly affects gameplay. If the cost of Superior Vigors shot through the roof because it became legal tender for traders, that would suck for people just playing the game. See what I means? - Linsey talk 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So basically runes. matter to gameplay, materials and dyes do not? I get that, makes sense. 000.00.00.00 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Space needs to be taken into consideration more know, I went through buying Dervish armor for my character's HoM, spending a lot of time and effort to get it but it takes up 10 extra slots somewhere, either on a mule or storage. I don't mind getting rid of the cheap sets, they didn't really cost me anything but the elite sets required so much more. Yes, we can delete them but it kinda defeats the purpose, I for one buy armor to use it. Identifying issues and coming up with solutions to even the armor storage, let alone storage in general, would be swell.

Also, books would still require the same space on the server as 19 single items, correct? So if you had a character with 18 runes, you could put the runes into one of these book items but in sheer space its still the same as before? 000.00.00.00 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well...One way of solving the problem with runes and mods would be by making a NPC like the Hat Maker, but making copies of armor pieces, and, once a piece is created, players would be able to add any insignia and/or rune they had unlocked in their account (being impossible to be salvaged, of course, like the mods that come with bonus items). This would prevent people from keeping runes in their inventory, but it would decrease considerably the demand for runes in PvE and so screw the economy a bit. Maybe it would be possible to use the same interface of the equipment panel from PvP, but even then this would likely be too time consuming to be implemented. Erasculio 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What if runes, insignias and dye were bound to the armour slot and not the actual armour? Lets expand that and say what if each armour slot could have 5 different runes/insignias/dyes, but only 1 could be active and selected at one time. Each of these slots could be salvaged/overwritten as armour is currently, but it would allow a player to have a selection of options they could switch when needed.

Combine this idea with the festival hat type setup, which only stores armour and not the additions. Integrating the armour storage into the Xunlai chest as a new tab, you could have a list box with campaign then armour set name. Once selected the 5 armour parts are shown, you can then drag the armour part to your character to equip.

Of course armour would only show in the armour tab once purchased/unlocked; For current armour, simply drag into the armour tab. The net result being no armour sets would take up precious inventory space. --Just One More Thing 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Without a major recoding like that, if Arenanet wanted to allow people to keep their sets of armor in one book item, one could call it an Armor Locker or something, it would require a book item to either have 5 spaces designated for (5 unmodded versions piece of armor) or 15 spaces (5 pieces of armor, 5 runes, 5 insignias), right? Wait, how would dyes count. Ahhh, my head, it hurts.

In its simpliest form, a solution I wouldn't mind, would be a book item to hold each complete unmodifed set of armor at cost. You know, Arenanet could make a bit of money out of this to offset server space. Allow people to buy "armor lockers" from the ingame store, specific items that hold unmodded armor sets (well, modified only with dye at max). I'm tired of buying a new character slot just because I'm running out of space, give me an item that lets me storage my armor instead. Give us something else to buy from the store that still is an option of address storage issues with it having to be either a new campaign or character. 000.00.00.00 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pricing would be a problem, though. People would argue that a character slot may be used to store armor and a lot of other things; for something that acts only as armor storage, they would likely complain that the price would have to be proportionally smaller. But between having to pay a bit for this feature and never being able to have it, IMO paying is better. Erasculio 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, each piece of armor needs to store the identifier of the piece, the insignia, the rune, up to 4 dye colours, and the character for whom the item is customized. Now, if each of these things took up a page on their own, you could need almost half the book for a single item. That would be less useful....

However, there are 14 miniatures in an annual series. If each book could only hold either dedicated or undedicated miniatures, could there be a book with a spot for each miniature of a given year? (One page to keep track of if it is a dedicated or undedicated collection, 14 pages for the different miniatures.) It could be like the coin collections the mint sells! -- Lord Ehzed 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing with the dye, wouldn't the combination because 1, just thinking about when I walked to the shop. Each combination makes a colour, but each resulting colour would have its own unique reference. [Scratches head] So much game mechanics, my little knowledge of such things. Its fun though, the discussion ^_^ 000.00.00.00 18:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to above note, in response to Linsey's explanation of John's reasoning for rune/insignia stacking: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I do recall when Superior Vigor runes were 100 platinum at the trader, and it was eeebil. (Although it did make me very happy to get one as a drop) And I could see people hoarding these and driving up the price. I can't personally say whether it would actually happen, so I'm still undecided on the issue (as if that matters to ArenaNet :P ). But at least I understand the pros/cons better. Thanks for the explanation. --Nkuvu 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "festival hat"-like armor recrafter would be a brilliant way to implement it. Show him, "Hey, I have this set!" and he'll recreate it for you later for free/very cheap. It wouldn't preserve dyes, inscriptions or runes -- but that's still a heck of a lot better than what we have now. I've been wanting to try out some other armors on various characters, but I only tend to stick with the first max armor I ever buy because of the cost (both gold and material). I'd definitely buy more original sets if I knew I could easily re-create them without having to spend the gold and material AGAIN to get them back later. Five slots for one set of armor is a lot. --136.142.214.19 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see people heredon't understand how those 'book items' work. There's no way they could remember an item's variable stats like mods or dye combinations. Think of them as of a list with checkboxes, checked if you have that item and unchecked if you don't. The list has to be fixed, so if there was for example a box that could hold 12 Minipets they would need to be specific 12 (for example all 2nd year Birthday pets) not any 12. If the limit is only 18 it could still allow holding for example all Elite or all Nonelite armor sets for 1 character, if 4 pieces they were treated as 1 item (like in purpose of HoM unlock).

And the reasoning for not stacking runes surprises me - it's the same as it was in 2005, when it actually mattered. Nowadays there are much better storage possibilities for runes - Heroes - I use them all the time. I know a trader who had many heroes with 5 sup vigors on them at some point, but that investment failed. But that doesn't matter, they don't need to be stackable, anyone can use heroes.--Yawg 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawg, we gathered the book-item are specifics like a check list: "In its simpliest form, a solution I wouldn't mind, would be a book item to hold each complete unmodifed set of armor at cost." With everyone else I'm more thinking aloud, rambling about the possibility of the variable. I have a lot of wishful thinking and ramble, a lot ^_^.

My ideal for a book-item for the armor would be to keep the armor itself, using 1 slot of character/storage ... eh, storage instead 5. Would make me want to go out and buy more sets if I had a more effective way of storage. Plus, I for one, have a regular supply of Perfect Salvage Kits to deal with the installation and removal of Runes and Insignias. Dyes aren't too hard to come by but, even if the dye is lost if you put it in the book-item it would probably prompt trying new dye jobs. Sacrificing dyes to have more reason to go out and actually invest time and effort into getting the Elite Armors would be an acceptable trade off. 000.00.00.00 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's one simple solution to all this storage woes... Make a Super Rune of Holding! Bonus: Increase the size of a bag from 10 slots to 20 slots (now, naturally, I've no idea if it's simple to execute, but still... I think that would solve a lot of storage stress...) --Lady Rhonwyn 07:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not a good solution, as that extra space would just get filled up quickly again. What we need is dedicated storage space for certain items like tomes, dyes, minipets and armor, so those no longer take up precious storage space instead. Sjeng 09:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sjeng, but as Linsey already mentioned, that might not be possible, because of runes, dye, insignias, etc. While I do agree that adding storage space isn't the answer, I think adding inventory space (notice the distinction) might work better. I actually don't care how, but I would love to have more space for my armour (first, making that HoM take 5 armours to fill and then not offering the player a way to store that armour is torture!) --Lady Rhonwyn 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cranking this back to just having a new storage NPC whose purpose is to storage only armor, surely that might be more realistic than some of the idea that have been kicked around such as using the Armor Monument store armor. I have every suit of armor and every common armor (which requires 4 and a half character slots to store it all) for my warrior and like swapping it out often. A specialized npc for it would be greatly welcomed if possible. 24.188.207.20 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of all the variables discussed here, it is difficult to store armor on an NPC or in a Book item. Like Yawg said, the Book items just CAN NOT store this kind of variable data. PERIOD. We could have book items or an NPC that can hold clean, unmodded armor but data like runes, insignia and dye would not be stored. We could have an NPC that takes armor and spits back out that armor with the runes separated but the dye is still an issue. We could have a book that can only store dedicated minis or one that stores only undedicated minis. Bottom line, I promise you all that storage is top priority for the Live Team. - Linsey talk 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a "book/NPC" to store minis would be something I would consider making. In my case, I could free a lot of slots in my inventory. Like: Show NPC a dedicated mini > He stores it like the festival hat maker > any character on the account can make a mini stored that way in the major cities at the NPC. Dedicated minis are hardly worth anything right now, so it would not hurt the "economy" Gorani 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarafication and a Few Questions

Some people seem to think that when people are blocked out in there party windows that it still adds extra drops. Can we finally get an official word that it doesnt work that way. That it works just like if they were soloing when the other members in the party list are blackend out(ie out of radar range). Pretty Please Linsey. Another question is why is reputation points still awarded when outside of range even though drops and exp isnt.Manitoba1073 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know related to the latter that Sunspear points can be awarded even if you're out of radar range. I would imagine it works with reputation points as well. EDIT: And, yes, you get reputation points from kills even if you're outside of of radar range and grayed out. And also the kill bonus at each 25 kills. Sorry, away with the fairies. 000.00.00.00 05:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ZERO-We already know we get them. The question is why we do when we dont get exp and drops when out of range.Manitoba1073 05:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you haven't helped killing the monsters. Also, this way someone would just get outside the area, go afk and do nothing and still get experience and drops. This could be considered cheating and moreso, griefing. Edit: in case of the rep, I think that the reputation buff works for every monster killed by the party, not the party member. BlazeRick 07:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is also the same as leeching.Works both ways. IE as some ppl got powered leveled vs getting rep points its basically the same thing.Manitoba1073 08:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Experience and loot are local mechanics where as Reputation is a global mechanic. Treating experience and loot as global mechanics would just be unbalanced for the game. Anyway, looking forward to hearing what Linsey has to say on the matter. 000.00.00.00 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that the rep point gains were coded to work like PvP faction which is zone wide, but this would be more of a question for Joe than for me. - Linsey talk 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean John because last time I checked there wasnt a talk page for Joe here ;)Manitoba1073 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kimmes. No he doesn't have a talk page, he's a programmer. He probably doesn't have the time to actually talk to people on Wiki, but most likely reads it. DarkNecrid 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that Dark, I was being funny. Notice the wink at the end of my post. Still would like the first part answered from Linsey or is that Johns department since its a loot question.Manitoba1073 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose John MIGHT now, but he didn't program the loot system, he just works with it. - Linsey talk 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Joe if he knows anything about the loot system and he doesn't so tracking down an answer would mean seeking out and nailing down either our lead programmer or one of the founders as it was likely one of them that programmed the loot system. Needless to say, they are busy men so I'm not sure if I will get an answer any time soon. - Linsey talk 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Recruiting

Is it possible to add new channels in the Chat Window or is it purely limited to what is currently programmed?

Why I ask?

Currently Guilds recruit by post in Local (post, boarding on spamming). Is it possible to add another chat channel for Recruiting instead of using the Local. Can be hard to follow conversations when people are posting "hey, come to our guild blah blah blah". 000.00.00.00 21:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

YES PLEASE. i try and report those people who are siting there spamming. i find it to be annoying. especially in AB seeing as you have to be in a guild to be able to ab.75.172.47.176 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubt anyone would use it, it was hard enough to get people to trade in the trade chat. 74.235.234.76 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that new chat channels is not possible. From my understanding, the chat stuff is a little funky. - Linsey talk 18:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What about forceing people to use the trade chat and then adding another tab something like recruiting to the party window? along with that request is it posible to split the trade tab into to parts wts, wtb, and wtt?75.172.47.176 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already technically there-- the dropdown menu atop the Party Search window has a tab for 'Guild'. It's just a bitch and a half trying to get people to use it.--Trailsong 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Storage Tabs

Has anyone floated around the possibility of having storage tabs buyable in the online store? I woudk MUCH rather buy a storage tab than another character slot for storage and stuff. Storing stuff off-site on a character is juts not imediate enough for the vast majority of the stuff I hold in my storage, and 16 sets of floating around across 9 characters (some more thna others) and all the items they carry has eliminated my on-character storage for drops to down to my backpack, which isn't quite enough...... I digress. Anyway, has anyone considered making storage tabs available for purchase in the online store? — Wolf 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

if i were to pay for something like that it would need to give me 2 times the storage i have now or be like $3.50. i wouldnt mind if they made it so you could upgrade your belt pouch with a rune of holding.75.172.47.176 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Storage slots over Character Slots FTW ^_^ 000.00.00.00 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

@IP: Most people willingly buy character slots for the price they are now. price is not an issue, as I'm sure if this did go through, Anet would find a fair price or not. I'm just wondering if the idea is an option, or even possible. — Wolf 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Extra slots take up serious server space. I'd be surprised if something like this was introduced (I remember a similar conversation about this with Gaile a few months back, and that's the answer we got, i think). calor (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, I'd perfer stroage slots over character slots. Plus, characters take up more space on the server than extra storage tabs would, Calor. I think the limitation with extra storage tabs would be grounded in the account blob. But, storage can obviously be added. I'd perfer storage tabs over character slots, even if it works out for less space. 000.00.00.00 22:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly pay $10 for a single storage tab. The overarching question for linsey is: Is this possible? If so, to what extent? — Wolf 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i would pay for more storage as well but i dont think one more tab is worth $10 maybe 2 more. though i am wondering where my 5th storage slot is from buying eye of the north.75.172.47.176 02:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

EOTN is not a campaign, its an expansion. You don't get extra storage from it. 000.00.00.00 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why pay $10 for a storage tab when you can just get a character slot and get double the storage offered for a single tab? (And an extra character, to boot!) Kokuou 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

i dont want another character i want more storage. i already have 2 mules (toons that i didnt want to delete but got tired of eather there hair style or name)i know eotn isnt a campaign i was just stating that because it was a new release. and i think some sort of storage up grade is needed. even if it was just mini pet storage or armor storage, or even dye storage.75.172.47.176 20:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kokuou, storage with the Xunlai Chest is perferred by many over character slots being used as storage because of its accessibility, not needing to log in and out of characters to shift things around. Also, storage space with the Xunlai Chest, by best guess, requires less physical space on the server; a character has titles, heroes, its own storage, its appearance, individual references to skills etc to take into consideration, a storage tab (at best guess) purely only has its storage slots.

Also, I have 12 characters, and I don't personally want to have to b~uy another character slot just to use it as storage mule, especially when a tab in storage would do just as good for my needs. I know a character has more but I'm willing, as a consumer, to pay the same for less space but far superior accessibility. That and I don't think Arenanet would charge $10 for a storage tab 000.00.00.00 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested this many times before:

I'd really like an option to manage ALL my characters inventories plus my storage all at once.

Imagine a window or a full screen display if you will with all of your characters' inventories next to eachother, say up to 10 inventories in one screen (2 rows of 5 inventories) and all your Xunlai tabs on the bottom (tabs 1 through 4 and the materials tab next to eachother.) So you'd have 3 rows of 5 tabs in total.

In this window you can easily drag and drop all of your stuff to whatever spot you like.

If you have more than 10 characters, you can simply scroll through tabs with a "left" and "right" arrow button on the left and right side of the window/screen (kind of like the character selection screen, only you inventories just swap 1 place instead of "sliding" along like your characters).

I'd make a photoshop image of this if I weren't at work atm. Perhaps I'll do it later. [1]R.Shayne made a screenie that sort of shows what I'm thinking of.

Reason: this would shave off SO much time managing your items, logging in with character A, placing stuff in your already brimming xunlai storage, logging out, selecting character B, wait for another loading screen of wherever you left that character, map to the GH, wait again, etc. etc. etc.

that would be my idea for the /storage command.

Also, I'd love options to store -tomes, -runes, -minipets, -dye, -keys -500 materials instead of 250, -token credits (quartermasters) and -[u]armor for each individual character[/u]. And yes dear lord make runes, insignia's and inscriptions (with the same stats) and [u]charr battle plans[/u] stackable too!Sjeng 12:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The coding that would require is making my head spin. Don't get me wrong, it's a good and likeable idea, but I don't think it's feasable with the current live team atm. The ability to buy storage tabs would be enough for the moment, and solve 95% of my storage blunders and woes. — Wolf 21:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any word on this Linsey? — Wolf 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The price of a character slot isnt an issue to me but, I see a lot of value in purchasable storage tabs. I have 28 character slots. Of these 28 slots, at least 12 of them are storage mules for my primary character (5 for armor, 1 for weapons, 1 for minipets, 1 for... well, you get the point). While I quite enjoy being able to sell the extra minipets for extra gold, not having more things readily available has been an issue for me in the past and I would gladly fork over more money to double or triple the amount of storage I have available to me. Right now, you get 4 tabs with 20 slots per tab and it really isnt enough at times. 24.188.207.20 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything on this Linsey? — Wolf 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Linsey is likely taking a couple days off after the big update last week. But I keep making polls about this on GWO, and so far polls one, two and three haven't been very receptive to the idea. Erasculio 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just makin sure this doesn't die before it gets a look. — Wolf 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like this idea. Ya know, Anet has always reasoned their lack of changing things because "we don't have enough resources for that". Well, I guarantee you that at least thousands of players (myself included), will purchase more than one storage tab for real $$ in the online-store. This will help fuel Anet for being able to afford more resources. Same rule of thumb goes for being able to purchase in the online-store features like changing character names/hairstyle/etc for a $fee. That way, players are happier with more storage and more character options, and Anet will be reeling in a good income of money for resources...Right Lindsey? Anyone else agree or thought about what I'm saying? Wetwillyhip 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Storage has been a massive issue for a while now, Arenanet has had ample time to come up with a solution yet instead they throw out more and more crap - just look at the new set of books. I will chalk this one down to Arenanet's inexperience as it seems to show as this, again. They haven't implimented and effective system though one has been called for for Hell knows when, they just throw out more and more crap seemingly ignoring any possible solution. Throwing out more difficult to manage stuff when people are asking for more manageable setup is stupid, plain and simple.

To say "we're looking into it" is as effective as when they said it with Ursan, the more true statement with Arenanet is that "we don't have enough staff assigned, a pure fault of management, and we don't have enough people (possibly 1-2) able to set aside time to actually look at the situation correctly. Arenanet seems to need months, if not years to come up with viable options (though I don't think they're got some of the core mechanics of their own game down yet, which is odd), but just look at Ursan. When they themselves go on about the economy and when Ursan is seen as a 'bad gameplay element and a bad economy-item" and it takes them as long as it takes something in seriously wrong. But, this is something that I as a gamer am coming to expect from Arenanet. Now, that in my mind atleast, I consider them more of an semi-professional/amatuer company I can tolerate their inabilities as a consumer, just as I would when dealing with game-modders.

As for the polls Erasculio mentioned back in November, yes its clear the population of the player base aren't receptive of the idea, as I'm sure the hundred of thousands of players have all registered with incgamers.com and all taken part in your polls. Until they do your polls are as notable as people say "well I hear people want this".

Well, I hear people want Arenanet to come up with something, anything, just stand around any large population centre in the game and bring it up, I don't think you'll find anyone say "No, Mr Random player, I think having to switch between character slots for storage is the best option, and Arenanet doesn't have the space to come up with a more effective manner, even though we can get as many character slots as we want". 118.92.180.68 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure it took them a while to fix Ursan, but they fixed it. And they fixed permasins. Go to WoW forums, a supposedly non-amateur gaming company, and you'll see plenty of balance complaints. And it's worth noting that WoW does not offer nearly the amount of versatility of viable builds that GW offers. So pardon me if I get a bit offended at you calling ANet an amateurish game developer. In my opinion, they have taken the MMORPG genre and went a long way towards systematically fixing everything that was wrong about it. Did they succeed? Well, there's still work to be done. But they're a lot closer to any ideal than any other game company out there.

Polls may be biased, but they are far more informative than randomly talking to 1-2 persons. Conduct a poll in the large centers, get enough votes, and then we'll speak. Also, keep in mind to make your poll questions unbiased. In forums, we can discuss the facts that added storage space come with costs and such. Forum-goers are aware that if they get additional storage, this may come at a cost in delays for GW2, or fewer other features for GW1 that they might have had otherwise. Management or not, I'd also vote that they have only a minimum of staff to work on GW1, and assign as many as they can to GW2. That's me, standing in Kamadan, telling you Mr Random player that switching between characters is the best option.

Besides, we're comparing (1) paying for char slots or buying new accounts which are already implemented, vs (2) paying for storage, which would need to be implemented. As the functions served by (2) are mostly redundant with (1), I'd rather ANet work on GW2 instead. -- Alaris 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to the GW forums and you'll see plenty of balance complaints. Christ, just look at the mess that was Izzy's page just on the Wiki. Your point? "And it's worth noting that WoW does not offer nearly the amount of versatility of viable builds that GW offers.", yes and its worth noting that comparing the two skill systems is like comparing an apple with an orange. They're not the same at their core (they're designed this way for a variety of reasons) so comparing the two is just a truly weak point to try and make.

You're trying to put a gap between forum-goers and non-forum-users - so non-forum-users, why? I think most people can accept that implying a new storage system would cost, at some level, don't try and put forum-users "ZOMG I'm a forum-users woot for me" above anyone else, again, another point that I consider to be weak.

Its also a point I'd like to ehh... point out, that you are saying what's avaliable is the best option, ie switching between characters, its not the best option its the only one avaliable which you yourself point out, there's a massive difference between best and what's avaliable.

I'm happy they're working on Guild Wars 2, what would make me sad is if they keep repeating the same mistakes, but since word about Guild Wars 2 is few and far between I just have to go on what's before me, and though its a nice picture to look at there are still lots of smudges that didn't need to be there.

Also, more of a personal note: if I offended you to any point then hurray for you! Your views could offend me yet it doesn't; you are expressing yourself as I am doing, your approach can be different but I don't believe I'll sit here at my monitor and go "oh, I'm offended by his comments.". Expressing different points of view, even if you or I may not agree with the other, is what makes discussions enjoyable.  :) 118.92.180.68 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we are just ignoring this huge request is unfair. We are not ignoring this. We have actually been working on it for months but you have no idea how many different obstacles come up on this issue. It really isn't as easy as just adding the option in the store and throwing in a couple new tabs. For instance, we need to consider server space for keeping back ups of all the game and character data in case something goes wrong and requires a rollback. Say we decide to purchase more servers to accommodate, well it's not that easy either. It then takes server programmers to set up the servers which takes time. Even adding the option to the online store isn't easy and requires multiple programmers with different specialties to implement. There are a lot of things to consider and a lot of problems to solve when working on something like this. I know that it's a big problem effecting a huge amount of players (myself included, I have 12 mules all paid for with my own money) and has been an issue for a long time so there is frustration there but please be patient. We didn't have a dedicated team before and I promise you that storage is the number one item on our list. Think about how soon after the Live Team assembled that we addressed Ursan. We are able to be more responsive now that we have a team for this stuff so it's not the same kind of answer when we say "we are working on it". It just takes time. - Linsey talk 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am patient: I'm still with Guild Wars after all this time - it is my favored MMO currently and has been for years now - hoping to see changes as so many people (note 1) are as well, yet patience can only be pushed so far as I'm sure you well and truly understand. Yes, Ursan was changed at a greater pace once a dedicated team was established, yet its pure neglect, from my point of view at least that Arenanet allowed a period where it didn't have a dedicated team in place. We will never get a true scope as to why but, from my point of view at least, this shouldn't have happened - yet I acknowledge it can't be changed now yet it does create a history, as I'm sure you understand.

1) For Petes sake I've brought multiple accounts since your last product came out though admittedly primarily for storage of customized armor and weapons, additional rune and insignia setups for armor, mods, minipets (those I have not deleted and other such items that current storage doesn't/hasn't addressed.

118.92.180.68 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get a word or two in edge wise before this hit's the archives. Would I be correct in assuming that the issues are as follows:

• Server Space
• Programing time

I would like to preface this next question by saying that I have a pretty fair amount of programing knowledge and things of that nature, so please, feel free to be as specific as possible,(actualy I would prefer it) as it will help shift my ideas in the right direction. What consumes more server space, character slots or storage tabs? Does adding the option to buy storage tabs face the same difficulties as adding character slots did? — Jon Lupen 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon Lupen, information provided in this may be some of what you're after - Additional Storage topic 118.92.180.68 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that topic, and it does not contain the information I'm after. Thanks anyway. — Jon Lupen 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't really say any more than I already have. Sorry. - Linsey talk 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. — Jon Lupen 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monument of Valor

With such a massive, and I do mean massive value difference between Destroyer Weapons and Tormented Weapons are Destroyer Weapons as prestigious as they once were? 000.00.00.00 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they were any prestigeous ever. They were simply the HoM weapons - craft, put in HoM, put on hero, wear something good looking on youself. They weren't any expensive to get in the past either, thanks to some exploits and easy overfarm of Onyx/Diamonds. My take is they were simply designed to be affordable by the masses, while Tormenteds were designed to be somewhat elite. But now the interesting part is whether they will be treated as equal in terms of GW2 rewards, or some are superior. Same applies to armors and minipets.--Yawg 13:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the 11 Destroyer Weapons I needed to be affordable by any stretch of the imagination. Adding the costs of the materials and the gold requirement for each weapon together, I remember estimating the 11 weapons to have cost me an approximate grand total of 760k. Of course I'm sure that the material prices for these items went down significantly since then, it doesn't change the fact that the Destroyer weapons required for this monument were a tremendous expense both in terms of gold and time. Unfortunately, I also feel that this monument accepting only Destroyer weapons completely missed the convention established with the other monuments - all of which accepted items that came from all of the other chapters of the game. I still remain completely convinced that special items attainable throughout the game should have been allowed in this monument such as: 1 Factions endgame item, 1 Prophecies Endgame item, 1 NF endgame item, 1 EOTN Endgame item as well as items implicitly related to the storyline such as the green offhand "Zehtuka's Horn", the "Gwens Flute" offhand, etc - items whose aquisition is based on ingame accomplishment as opposed to player willingness to farm materials and gold. If all other monuments are a testament to the characters/players commitment to the entire storyline, then why was this monument different? 24.188.207.20 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to what James was thinking when he designed the HoM but I can understand why there were restrictions imposed. I think that prestige is always in the eye of the beholder. - Linsey talk 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an open-ended way of looking at it. 118.92.163.234 10:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Damage

it's only used in prophesies with 2 duplicates and the concise descriptions never mentions it. so, is it just a wording for normal armor-ignoring damage or is there rly a damage called "Shadow Damage"? --Cancer Angel 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate to spoil the question but 3 of the skills listed Here are core while A Duplicate Desecrate is Factions.I would extend the question and ask what Shadow damage relates to? Much like Holy Water(read Holy Damage) would kill a vampire(read undead) and Cold Damage relates to frost/water and thus water element/elementalists.Curious :) BlackBlood - talk 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

oh god wiki ppl are so annoying, and start unrelated questions. i mentioned the duplicate^ and the core skills are from prophesies in case u didn't know. and since then anet dropped the Shadow Damage naming thing, I just want clarification that's all. --Cancer Angel 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a wording then oh well.But if there is an actual damage type,then going by other damage types there would be some reason behind it.Thats why I asked a related question,which I won't do again. jeez(i figured it out anyway) BlackBlood - talk 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Damage is .000000034% more effective against Monks, true story. --Riddle 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

screen shot or it never happened. --Uchiha Lena 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) i'm also quite interested in this. what Cursed said appears to make sense. and when taking a look at certain (non-concise) prophecies skill descriptions like that from Phoenix for example, i start to think that it's even more likely that shadow damage was in fact only invented to create some special atmosphere for the players when reading the description, and actually never existed functionally. —ZerphaThe Improver 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to James there was such a thing as Shadow Damage but like Chaos damage nothing checks for it (unlike Holy) so it's basically just generic Magic damage. - Linsey talk 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Summon Mursaat

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Design-A-Weapon Contest

Hello, I was just wondering if there will be another Design-A-Weapon contest, because I would like to take part this time, thanks :)--Volken Blade 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh ohhh Or a Design-An-Armor Reskin contest or something. ^_^ 000.00.00.00 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an armor.reanor 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Its too early here to have my spelling mistakes pointed out to me ^_^ 000.00.00.00 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully.

Gaile Said that they would never do a armor contest cuz it takes too much time. though i think if the had the right proamiters to it could be done. i would love to see a Design a Armor Contest Kuzick/Luxon For Male/Female Para and Derv.75.172.45.32 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an armor design contest could be fairly simple if kept to reskins. It would also be easy for people to create their entries by using texmod. Heck, they could even lessen the dev work by submitting their modified textures. The only thing needed would be to add in the dyable areas.--Pyron Sy 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Linsey, have you found any information on this yet? Or should we ask Regina or Emily instead? --Shadowphoenix 04:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be a question for Regina as these contests are always run by Community. - Linsey talk 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A question on updates

When updates (like the one today) are scheduled to be released, is there a specific time that the team try's to get them out by? (1pm, 3pm, 5pm... etc.(PST))--Mashav 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's usually hoped they're released by noon. But complications and such do often arise. Secksy 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually we shoot for starting the build process after lunch around 2pm PST. Sometimes we are able to start in the morning, but that is rare. The build process can take anywhere between an hour to many hours depending on a number of factors. - Linsey talk 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Door in Barborous Shore

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Dead Teleporter in The Scar, Crystal Desert

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Great update, but....

May i start by saying that this is an absolutely excellent update and my many thanks for all your hard work in what you've done. All the changes were much needed and really make those titles much more enjoyable. However one wee gripe in regards to the Kurz/Lux thingy is that due to the update i now have roughly 40k luxon and 40k kurzick faction. However I cant cash in one without losing the other. Is their no way that you can please remove the rather annoying faction forfeit for cashing in allied faction. As it's somewhat counter intuitive as it prevents people from just playing as and where they wish without wasting faction. -- Salome 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

=/ If they do it becomes less realistic, but less annoying too. Realism or annoyingness hmmm....--The Gates Assassin 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having two sides if you don't have to pick one?

May be a little annoying, but mostly it'll just be a big issue this one time with all the new "free" points. -- Inspired to ____ 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just thought of a compromise here... remove the mechanism temporarily. Say, a week or a month. This way, everyone gets a chance to cash the unexpected faction gains received with this update without losing any of it. Then, after giving everyone a chance to cash it all, return the system to the way it was. I'm not sure how easily this can be implemented, but I do know that allowing us to actually get the benefit of ALL faction we earned would make a lot of people very happy. -- Elv 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your points but personally I don't see how it adds to realism. How do the luxons know that I've traded faction with the kurzicks and vica versa? It just seems like a very odd and tiring game mechanic. In regards to choosing sides, I was always a proponent of them adding a third option to not ally with either and just be a mercenary to both as and when you wish. As I've always found it somewhat distasteful to have to ally myself with either religous zealots or barbaric nomads both hell bent on each others destruction when I'm supposed to be this noble hero type person. However not counting the faction penalty their would still be mechanics that operated based on whom you were allied with. Take for example the ability to AB for Lux/Kur, or the ability to trade in your earned faction properly (as you can not donate it to your guild if its not the same faction as that which you are donating). So even if they took this rather annoying sanction out of the game their would still be a whole host of things which would indicate your allegiance. Personally I've always felt that these sanctions are rather restrictive. If I started doing kurzick quests, I couldnt then help my mates if they wanted to do a luxon quest without forfeiting a big chunk of the kurzick faction I had earned and vice versa. IMHO if you earn the faction, then it's yours to do with as you wish. It shouldnt be taken off you as a penalty. Especially now that jade and amber have been upped to 5 times its previous cost. So their is no way that removing the sanction could imbalance the economy by flooding it with amber and jade. -- Salome 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I did look into what it would take to disable this and it was not good. Not good at all. Just not a feasible thing for the amount of work required. - Linsey talk 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for books.

I would like to make the suggestion of adding some kind of belt, backpack or bag with 10 slots (or a slot for each book in the game (17 including the Bonus Mission books)) that only is able to hold books (but only one of the same kind, NM and HM books are a different kind so for example you would be able to have a "Master Dungeon Guide" and a "Master Dungeon Guide Hard Mode" but not 2 normal "Master Dungeon Guide's") because books take up inventory/storage space and we already have so little space. Qaletaqa 06:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually you don't have to have more than one book in your inventory at the same time (you can't clear a dungeon on Eye of the North while playing Bonus Mission Pack and beating a mission in Prophecies).

So, even though, like you and many other players, I usually find my inventory/vault box full due to large amount of non-key items I have (seriously, who needs max weapon on every attribute available with max upgrades and some cool skins? who needs to store Alcohol/Candies/Party items? who needs to collect mini-pets? who needs Runes/Insignias to customize their heroes per mission? No one needs these items; I just keep them cause I want to have flexibility over the game), I don't think a book-dedicated storage/container would be that useful. Sure, since new items (that are customized, so you'll probably want to get 1 of them for each character you play with) are being added to the game (and players are somehow encouraged to get them to take better benefit from the game (getting some extra gold/experience/reputation for turning in filled books is really neat), I too think that having a way to increase our storage capacity (without having to get new character slots - that would have the same problem) would be nice. But, meh, complaining about something free (the books) we're getting is somehow weird and might sound as unpolite... like, you do not have to get all books at once, so you can take 1 campaign at a time so you'll only have 1 extra book instead of 17; you don't even need the book to beat the game. :P --NIN37 11:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you Nin37, I sometimes like to do other areas and having to remove book(s) to make a little space or forgetting a book halfway through a Mission/Dungeon is pain too. So I think a Book Bag is a viable item to be considered, say 10 book capacity and only books.

btw Linsey, Great Job on the Update, Thank you!!!! ^_^ MystiLefemEle 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion NIN73, it's a suggestion to make the game more enjoyable. It's not a complaint.Qaletaqa 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you don't need to have the book for a mission to be registered in it. As the update says, "If you forget to bring a book with you on a mission, the corresponding NPC can fill in the missed page for you for a small fee", with said fee being 10 gold. So it would be possible for someone to play through an entire campaign without the book, then get the book and imediately turn it in for the reward, effectively removing the need to keep the book stored while you play. The only circunstance in which I could see someone needing to have the book would be when filling more than one of the same book at the same time, but that's more likely the exception than the rule (and something easy to avoid, anyway). Erasculio 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't rely on that for filling a book. I've been burned by EotN book fillers several times. --JonTheMon 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tried that this morning on my Legendary Guardian Mesmer. Could get the book all right, but couldn't get a single page filled. If she can't get her book filled, then it stands to reason that none of my other characters can. Apparently it works like in EotN, where you need the book to be at least half full before pages can be added. I'm not about to do all those missions again on all my characters- they have the max rewards and I have too many characters to be able to enjoy that. This could really do with some tweaking. It's been 3+ years since GW came out, honestly the vast majority of the GW playerbase has completed everything several times by now... -- Elv 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add pages to the book if it's empty, but only for missions done after the update. Erasculio 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this just falls under the heading of needing to fix storage issues, period. Like I've said a few times before, storage is a top priority for the Live Team right now. - Linsey talk 06:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive Storybook Rewards

This applies to everyone who has been playing Guild Wars longer than 2 days. Why aren't the storybook rewards retroactive? Is this a bug or on purpose?

to prevent an economy collapse I'm sure. — Wolf 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've been under the impression that the economy has been fundamentally broken for some time now and wouldn't be much better or worse for this... but hey, that's just me. The drawback right now is that a lot of people won't likely get the rewards mentioned in the update at all because I'm sure that I can't be the only person who doesn't feel like doing half of all missions again on all her characters just to re-establish something I've already achieved. It took a lot of time and effort to get everything done, so facing the "oh well, just do it again" feeling isn't exactly my idea of fun. Besides, when EotN came out, a lot of people went around and finished their books in the first few days and cashing them in as well... did that crash the economy? Is that why they don't want a repeat? If so, that would feel like they're hoping that a lot of people who deserve the rewards as much as newer players will simply not bother to go and get the added cash rewards. I don't know, maybe it's just an oversight or something. I would guess that the filling up of a book would be a once-off like it was in EotN, so it can't be that bad... Will keep patrolling for dev answers. I'm really interested in the reasoning behind this. (Sorry, Linsey, I'll stop going on about my two pet peeves for now!) -- Elv 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I'd rather have my gold and go do other things. — Wolf 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The small amount of cash you would gain from getting a once off cash benefit for Hero/Guardian retro payment would be absolutely negligable to the GW economy. It was an absolute pain in the butt doing many HM missions with H/H means I very much doubt if i'll bother having to redo all 3 campaigns. Hell, if they were that bothered about the economy then remove the cash for retro books or charge an equivalent amout to fill them in, im not too bothered , its only the faction that im bothered about.80.195.132.244

The comment about it hurting the economy is and was pure BS. The real reason is they want to force players to go back(albiet stealthly)and do the missions and that thus given a false impression that the game is still alive. The only ones that screwed the economy was anet themselves.Manitoba1073 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, players do the skrrewing-up of the economy in their own. — Wolf 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No the players didnt screw up the economy.Since the economy on items except mats work on a flea market based ecomony. The lack of an alternative coinage for amounts of 5k lead to the use by players to use a material as a coinage. Which created and artificial demand on certain materials which is Anets fault. Saying there was inflation on anything besides mats is nothing more than blowing rotten egg smoke in peoples faces. If Anet really wanted to fix the high prices on such items as rare wepons they only had to increase there drop rate slightly thus removing the false scarity of items.Manitoba1073 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

you dont get that much gold from the books.75.165.123.205 07:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

just do the missions again. you dont need bonus/masters. It wont take long Tahl 08:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Way to completely miss the point.....I have 9 other characters im trying to progress and going back to my main character and redoing the 40ish missions in HM and 58 in NM is just a pain in the ass with H/H. Even not using H/H its still annoying to find a HM group in many missions. Overall all a good update , this particular point however was badly thought out.80.195.132.244

Signed for retroactive books. My main character is going for GWAMM (it's about the only thing left for me to do in GW), and he's pre-survivor, so he cannot gai this title. That means that I have to get either treasure/wisdom, which, dispite the account wide update which is great, still is WAY too much to achieve for a casual player such as myself. The last option is Kurzick title, because lucky/unlucky is just not doable. But now I have to do missions, vanquishes and more quests for faction, whereas HFFF was a good, fast and steady income of faction for me. I have 8 characters that are protector of Cantha, plus 1 Guardian. That would have netted me 9 times a NM book and 1 time a HM book worth of faction. But I'm not getting it because of potential damage to the economy. The economy??? Don't make me laugh... Way to screw older players over. No option for survivor, no option for Fast faction gain anymore, no retroactive rewards. I just don't see how I'm supposed to gain GWAMM anymore. I'm sure as hell not going to play through Factions over and over and over, since I've already done that 10 times. Don't get me wrong, I love the updates, but it's not the first time rewards are introduced into the game too late, leaving players who've finished something already in the cold. That's just not fair. So please make books retroactive. Please. Sjeng 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Dear Linsey, could you please clarify something for us? I'm told Regina's been answering questions on the update (wonder where though, not on the wiki it seems) and I've heard idiotic lines of reasoning like "damage to the economy" and that there was never meant to be a retroactive reward for older players. Damage to the economy as an argument is an insult. We're not stupid. We know it's already fundamentally broken. Overly rare minipets from handouts, item duping, artificial ecto prices and centuries of bot activity at Lutgardis are a few causes that spring to mind. I cannot imagine that loyal players recieving a 4k or 6k reward for their hard work would seriously be considered harmful to the economy. Some people would claim this update was only for new players. I can't imagine that either. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended this huge update to be about. So I went and looked at the update notes again and read them through carefully. Two bullet points I'd like to highlight...

• Once you have filled in half the pages of a Storybook you can take it to an NPC who collects copies of that particular book in exchange for rewards such as gold, experience, and title points. The more complete your storybook is, the better the reward you will get.
• If you forget to bring a book with you on a mission, the corresponding NPC can fill in the missed page for you for a small fee. Missions don't have to be done in chronological order for you to get credit.
  

When I read these this led me to believe that since I had completed all campaigns, I would be able to get one book and get the pages filled. It wasn't mentioned anywhere, but since it was a once-off in EotN I assumed it would be the same for these new books. However, I couldn't get a single page filled at all despite my Legendary Guardian status. So either the update notes are incomplete / poorly phrased (in EotN you need a certain amount of pages before you can buy more, if I recall correctly, would that be the same for these then, and if so why was this not mentioned?) or the mechanism isn't working as it should be. The update notes clearly mention some form of credit for missions already done and many of us interpreted that as once-off retroactive.
That's how it was done in EotN, after people complained about not getting credit for doing missions in the Sneak Preview weekend. There were no books available during the Sneak Preview and we were given the option to get extra credit for it through a retroactive reward system as compensation.
Can we get some clarity? Is the system not working in game as it should be, or are the update notes incomplete on this point? As it is I don't think players can be blamed for getting upset here, because there is definitely something wrong with the book system right now. -- Elv 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres Regina's quote about this, leading me to believe the update is working as intended. Saying the economy is broken isn't really a good argument, since that's the same thing as saying that Guild Wars is dead so investing more in it is pointless - both are not in such a bad shape that Arena Net would be willing to just give up on them. Better arguments have been made, anyway - make the gold cost of filling the pages for missions done before the update to be exactly the amount of golding given by turning in a full book, or just endure the economy damage given how this is more important than the economy, etc. Erasculio 13:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't consider the economy a good argument from either side really, so my snarky take on it was supposed to demonstrate that. I just can't imagine that the relatively small gold reward would be the reason behind how things are working, and looking at the update notes there is either something unclear about them, or something is broken. The way they stand they're ambiguous and open to (mis)interpretation, so I'm hoping to get an answer from the person who actually did the work on the update rather than from Regina, because in this case I really think Linsey is the only ANet employee who can give a complete answer about this. Not that I don't trust Regina (she'sdoing a good job with lotsof things), but Linsey actually worked on it, so she would know better.

I like your suggestion, though. It's a good way of negating the "economy effect" while still rewarding players with faction, experience and title points I really do feel they earned and deserve. Overall, the good points of this update still far outweight the badones and I can't stress that enough. I just think that given the size of the update, some small points were overlooked and could use some clarification.

And sorry, but reading Regina's reply there only made me feel that she hasn't got a clue what's in the actual update notes. She seems to contradict them- according to her they don't want people to pay for pages, but it's clearly mentioned. And if it's a once-off it's not that bad. So please Linsey, would you mind elaborating on these points? I can live with having misinterpreted, but I'd like to be told by someone who knows what's going on. :( -- Elv 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not making them retroactive is nothing more than forcing replay into the game, keeping people playing that little bit longer. Subtle, Arenanet... >.< --118.92.131.35 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, Books have now made every entire campaign world into one big repeatable quest! --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about repeatable quests is you can choose not to do them. That's the funny thing about all this: So many people are complaining about how they are now "forced" to carry around a library and "forced" to grind. I'm looking at the same situation and thinking to myself that they have incentives to do such things, but there is no requirement to do them. -- WarBlade 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is about the missions though, not repeatable quests. If you don't do the missions, you're effectively not playing the game at all... Crucial difference there. -- Elv 00:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, the BOOKS are what make the "repeatable quest," not the missions. Therefore, the BOOKS are not required, missions are. And those who have done them already, did the requirement to be called "playing the game" - which, mind you, is opinionated, I can do all the quests and no missions in Prophecies and still "play the game." Azazel The Assassin 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arenanet introduced the titles, and break the flow of the game, turning large aspect of it into a job/grind/labor. Games are supposed to be fun and not a job, but it isn't much of a leap to say that a massive amount of the player base will say its more jobbish than fun.

Had a big post, then remember most people don't read past two sentences. Titles have screwed the game, this in itself shows that. Titles are achievements, achievements are based on playing the game, seems stupid not rewarding people for the achievement when a reward for the title is introduced. But hey, its just a game, we shouldn't take it seriously. Which is funny cos Arenanet gets all serious when they create something and people use it to do more than it should. --118.92.205.164 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So... when will LINSEY, whose talk page I almost forgot I was on, actually respond to this? As much as I appreciate the walls of text and the company puppet - I'm sorry, 'community rep' Regina's ""response"", I'd like to hear something from the one who actually had something to DO with this. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:99.140.177.236 (talk).

I think after this update she has deserved at least a month off ~ Kurd

Not like working on the Guild Wars Live team is like... you know, her job. Her wiki page, however, is completely a personal choice. --000.00.00.00 03:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I like how the game was updated today and they failed to fix this - again. 99.140.192.51 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Linsey's answer... which may take a while because I suspect the pre-update stress has given her a wiki overdose. I'm sure she'll be back soon enough, and given her track record I have good faith that she'll take the time to explain exactly what was intended. As it stands most of us are confused about how things were intended, and the one-line responses I've seen from Regina haven't helped to solve that particular problem. A little more patience shouldn't hurt. Let's not forget that the largest part of the update was in fact overwhelmingly awesome. :) -- Elv 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I needed a break from work stuff for a few days plus dealing from the fallout is taking a bit of time as well. We are working on something to try to explain things a bit better, so I'll wait until that gets posted to see if that answers your questions. Expect that coming out in a few days. - Linsey talk 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn it. [jumps to own conclusions] Noticed the word "explain" not "rethinking" ^_^ [on a personal note] Might hold off playing until hearing the explaination, whether this is temporary or premanent is another question which is odd considering I just forked out another handful of cash for another account and seems wasteful, though the latest update shows a lot of wastage for my time with the game currently. Excuse ye old rambling here. Was there much fallout? Or more than you guys were preparing for even? --000.00.00.00 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Linsey, now we know you're alive! On a more serious note, I'll be looking forward to the explanation. I may or may not like it, but I expect that whichever way it goes things will at least make sense to me. Now I can go hide in my little Corner of Patience(tm) while I wait for that to be posted. :) -- Elv 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't mean to be a jerk, but WHAT the hell? The only explaination needed is; yes, or no. How is it going to take a few days to type a two - POSSIBLY three letter answer? Are we going to get retroactive storybook rewards? Yes? No? 99.147.124.73 07:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally I asked for a clarification (see above), not a yes or no answer. I appreciate that Linsey will take the time to write up an explanation that will be more than one or two sentences. You may only be after a simple answer yourself, IP, but I'm not the only person who would be more interested in answers to the How and Why questions involved in this matter. If you want a monosyllabic answer, ask Regina, who has been trying to explain the whole thing in a handful of sentences over the past few days (and I think those have a trend to that two-letter word you used above). Unfortunately for her, to most of us her answers are unsatisfactory and/or unclear, so we'd rather have a more detailed explanation from the person behind the update, and that will take some time to phrase well. -- Elv 11:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what Regina posted, I don't think it can get any clearer than that. Besides, if one person in Arenanet is saying one thing, and another is saying something else, what does that say about the organisation within the team? We've been told why its not going retroactive; the inflation. I think thats enough. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to finishing doing the missions again [sighs] and using the words in the book to describe how I feel about Arenanet's choice not to make them retroactive and how I think the deflation in the game is such a thumbs up thing. Don't look at me like that, everyone needs a hobby. ^_^ --000.00.00.00 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste my time posting an answer from Regina, or large walls of text, or what you specifically want. If I cared what you thought, or what you wanted, you would notice me on YOUR talk pages - for CLARIFICATION; I am not on either of your talk pages. I started this new section in the pursuit of getting a simple answer from one person - and was greeted by drivel from people who are incapable of answering it. So, again, TO LINSEY MURDOCK: are we going to get retroactive storybook rewards? Yes? No? Maybe so? 99.147.124.73 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually this section begins with the question, "Why aren't the storybook rewards retroactive? Is this a bug or on purpose?", which has been answered by the link Zero posted above. The replies to the other questions that have appeared through this section (such as yours) will be answered later, as Linsey mentioned. Why do you believe she has to answer your question before answering anyone else's? Erasculio 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting the same question to different Arenanet employees isn't going to get too much of a different result. Regina summed it up, Linsey is going to give something, but in general it will be the same, otherwise they run the risk of poor public relations: no company wants to have staff saying different things especially on a hot topic such as this.

Also, welcome to the wiki. People asks questions, especially on pages like this, and other people join in, either providing information or their own two cents. If you want a more direct conversation with Linsey perhaps you could PM her in-game or email her. --000.00.00.00 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Again with the boring walls of text I won't read. How hard can it be for somebody to get on their own userpage and give me a yes or no answer? How hard can it be for wikinerds to stop being anally retentive? Terribly difficult on both fronts, I'm sure. I'm not sure, however, if you just lack the ability to read, or lack the ability to comprehend simple ideas like "I'd like an answer from somebody useful", so on your behalf, I'll say this again. If I wanted answers from you people, I'd be trolling your talk pages. So, I shall ask, again, Linsey Murdock; will we get our retroactive storybook rewards? Yes? No? Maybe so? Now when I say Linsey Murdock, I don't mean people that aren't Linsey Murdock. I can only HOPE that people reading this sentence can wrap their heads around such a simple concept. 99.147.124.73 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Insulting other people usually don't help getting a better/faster answer. :) --NIN37 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I lol'ed... I lol'ed so hard ^_^ --000.00.00.00 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My kid would get a time-out if she gave me that attitude. I'd laugh so hard if Linsey would say "I won't answer until you learn to be more polite". -- Alaris 03:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He got a time out as well. Since we have a thing here called GWW:NPA -- Wyn 04:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is he even the original poster? I can't tell, because the original one-line entry was not signed, and the comment I responded to was in fact signed, if only as an IP. So was it so horrible to assume that this was a different person? Pretty sure none of us deserved the insults we got for simply adding our own on topic questions and thoughts to the discussion. :/ Also, I lol'd at IP managing to call himself a troll. I'll just sit here and wait a little longer for Linsey to address all concerns stated, and I'm fully confident that she's willing to do so and capable of doing so in unambiguous language. Sorry Linsey, this must be hell on your nerves, but we have faith in you and most of us are patient. :) -- Elv 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well reading the Developer notes from today was pretty much a waste of time. So basically some bits of faction are okay to be awarded retroactively and some aren't, some books can be filled in retroactively but some can't.Oh and Anet care alot about the economy - except when it comes to fixing Ursan/Shadow Form or when it comes to free money each month for every character you own ???? All of my characters are at various stages through campaigns but I'm not about to start redoing all the HM missions that i've done. I don't know who thought making people repeat missions was a good idea to keep things tickig over till GW2 but have you tried to get a PuG together for most HM missions?80.195.132.244

(Reset indent) So the books aren't going to go retroactive, period. Reasoning, the money is bad. I have a question after reading the Developer Update and scratching my head: You guys are using the MOX questline as an example, MOX quest gives 10K but I find the choice of comparsion flawed since the MOX reward is a once off (non-repeatable as far as I know) yet your new books are repeatable. And maybe I'm just not playing enough to notice but even when the MOX quests were brought into the game, and for weeks after, I haven't really noticed that much of a change in the economy. Which parts of it where effected by the introduction of MOX since it can be used as a viable comparsion to the projected issues of making the books retroactive? In the update notes it mention inflation, but I hardly noticed any inflation in the game with MOX, if there was it must have been on things I don't give a hoot about, yet I would be interested to know what prices were inflated. Yet, I really have to ask, is a bit of inflation a terrible bad thing? The constant deflation isn't a good thing either. --000.00.00.00 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning we planned to have the Storybooks be retroactive but during testing it was brought up that the amount of gold becoming available for players to pick up within a couple minutes (should they be retroactive) was so large that we may want to research the possible economic effect such an influx of gold would cause. So that's what John "Master of Items" Hargrove did, ultimately feeling uncomfortable enough to strongly recommend pulling retroactivity off the Storybooks. An example of a large influx of gold at faster than normal speeds is the MOX quests which rewarded 10 plat on completion. When those quests went Live, the average platinum per account went up by an uncomfortably large amount but like you said, the quests aren't repeatable beyond once per character so we were ok with it. The amount of gold which could potentially be picked up faster than it takes to do any quests was (I don't have the figure in front of me, and I'm too lazy right now to add it up again) around 50-60 plat per character having completed all three games AND they are repeatable on top of that. At least the repeatable part will take players a decent chunk of time so the repeatable gold influx will be reasonably gradual enough to not worry about as much but that initial chunk was just too much. Yes it is true that most people didn't notice a difference with the MOX quests, but we are talking about a significantly larger amount of gold. Plus this is the kind of thing that we couldn't take back once it was out there. John felt it was just too risky and that it was better to be conservative. Conservative isn't fun and I didn't like having to make the call, but I trust John's judgment when it comes to this stuff. He has rarely been outright wrong about something important in the seven years I have known him. Since we did not move forward with retroactivity in the first place and because the way retroactive rewards work is by making the changes on the fly without needing to gather data, we don't really have the option to retroactively add retroactive rewards. Like I said, there was no taking back this one. So, in the choice between A) doing something that could potentially swing the in game economy into an acute state, pissing off the players and requiring us to do something to correct the flaw (which will also likely piss off the players) or B) remove the cool thing, leaving an obvious hole aching for outraged demands to be filled and never risk damaging a MAJOR element of gameplay... we chose B. Was it the right fix for the problem? I'm not sure I know the answer to that, but was it the right decision to make under the circumstances? I honestly believe it was and I would not take it back. So, that is the only answer I have to give on the matter, take it or leave it but I hope people can at least try to understand it. :) - Linsey talk 08:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)