User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Community and Website/Jan 2009

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives by Topic


Just curious as to why Guildwiki is not listed as a fansite while similar sites such as the Spanish Guildwiki is. Is this because of the direct competition between this wiki and Guildwiki? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)ui

The way I understand it it is because Guildwiki has gold ads. Since selling gold is against the EULA, sites with gold ads are not eligible for listing on the official Guild Wars page. --Lensor (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Add Block Plus and noscript ftw. (What is advertising anyways?) But anyways, guildwiki is now owned by wikia, a for profit organization. Don't recall if anet refuses to give out fansite status to sites generating profit from their traffic. There is also the fact the way that the guildwiki domain name was acquired was shall we say...less than honest. Basically gravewit sold the wiki out from under everyone. Nobody had any say, and he didn't tell anyone until it was effectively done. He never was a major contributor, and never did anything but hide from people when shit hit the fan. On top of that wikia was giving out hush money to keep people from complaining. While from what I know nothing was truly illegal, the whole thing is very shady. Many people including myself abandoned guildwiki for various reasons after the wikia acquisition. There is some content there that doesn't exist here, but that has become very scarce in the past year or so.
I'll leave with a little message box that I found there right before I left
Inspirational Speech.jpg This user contributed to GuildWiki before it sold out.

code is {{userbox|float=left|border-width=2|border-color=black|logo-background=black|logo=[[Image:Inspirational Speech.jpg]]|info-background=#eee|info-color=#222|info='''This user contributed to GuildWiki before it sold out.'''}} {{clear}}
Kelvin Greyheart 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That does not detract from the fact that Guildwiki was the first and largest wiki before GWW came about, and many of GWW's contributors came from Guildwiki. And while the issues involving Gravewit and the acquisition by Wikia are not all clear, it did not significantly hinder the quality and quantity of the information on Guildwiki. --JonTheMon 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason for ANet to list us as a fansite. Why would you help your enemies? We don't deign to reference them in any way, and sometimes we put "official" in quotes; this in addition to the continued undercurrent of emnity between the two wikis is reason enough, in my mind, for ANet to never grant GuildWiki fansite status again. (Yes, we had it at one time.)
I wasn't aware that "hush money" could refer to reparations made for donations which were given in good faith on the assumption that GuildWiki was not being run for profit.
We do not have gold ads, or we shouldn't. The ad filters are supposed to catch them by default... I have not seen one for a long time. Of course, that does not mean that clever advertisements won't slip through. Since the filters only work on keywords (e.g. text), a graphical image "Gold Selling" would get through. But, we have been continuously working on removing and reporting such ads since day one, and Wikia has dealt with all of them. No, I believe it is the "profit" issue and the "competition" aspect.
Lastly, some glaring gaps still exist, so I wouldn't say that the content differences are "very scarce". I won't make any claims that one wiki is clearly more complete than the other, or that one has better quality of such-and-such, etc., especially because GWW always has the "access to official stuff" advantage. Rather I want to say that both wikis are "mostly complete" for all the major articles, and that past that the rest is stylistic differences. Vili User talk:Vili 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In my time here and my time spent lurking GuildWiki, I find the "enmity between the two wikis" to be one-sided - many GuildWiki contributors, whether understandably or not, seem to have a problem with GWW (content/policy/community, whatever). I don't think many, if any, GWW contributors have that same 'hatred' for GuildWiki as vice versa. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Tbh most people hate GWW because it's run so piss poorly. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
If we had fewer of the above, this might not be the case. @Vili: I don't find it the slightest bit excessive. Lord Belar 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
who cares, both wikis are pretty bad anyway, because if you try to have a discussion over something, your posts will just get deleted by idiots and pve scrubs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I apologize if I have made undue implications. You're right, the hatred is largely ours to enjoy, and we thank you for it. It gives us a reason for many of our editors to keep contributing.
@82.34 etc - Lies and slander. We don't delete any posts on GuildWiki. Well, I might, if I don't like you, but that's just me. Vili User talk:Vili 01:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was moreso on about gww --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk).
That's just you. Lord Belar 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. I was actually curious on what Arenanet's position was, hence asking the community relations liason, but thanks for the pile of theories. See, I see people bandying around theories all the time, but you never know, Arenanet may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. I don't really see competition as a valid reason as this wiki links directly from the game which will always give it a massive advantage that adding a link at the bottom of the fansites would not overcome. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 15:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

@Vili, I think describing the relationship between the two wikis as that of enemies isn't accurate and the use of the word hatred is again not entirely accurate, i wouldn't say there are no feelings of intense dislike for a wiki in a general sense (maybe small personal conflicts), just maybe a sense of loyalty to one and thus a feeling of competition[1] between two wikis trying to reach the same goal. (:.
Personally I use the official wiki simply because its easier on the eye, though i'll use GuildWiki if this one doesn't have the information i need. Though i could be wrong i tend to avoid the 'mini-internal-political-issues' that weave through both. (: --Lava spider.jpgSpider 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe the original plan was to make the Guildwiki the official wiki that would be directly linked to from within the game (and there were talks to that effect), but due to legal issues, ANet decided instead to start their own wiki. Also, I'd like to point out that the theories and speculations of the vocal few do not necessarily represent the views of the masses or the views of the officials. -- Alaris_sig Alaris 23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point you to Guild Wars Wiki:Why Guild Wars Wiki? which was written by Anet (previously part of GWW:ABOUT) when GWW was first created. It may answer some if not all of your questions. As to the enmity that exists between the two communities, I personally see it fostered more by the GWiki users than here on GWW.
@82.34 if your conversations were on topic, and not violating our policies, they would not be deleted by anyone. Quite simply this is a wiki, if you wish to debate the issues there are many dedicated forums for that purpose. A wiki is for encyclopedic documentation, in this case of an online game. It is not a place for venting, debate (other than the validity of the content), social style communication, or other forms of self expression. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn/talk 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Wyn, while that page is informative on the "backstory" for those who weren't around at the time, it does not directly address the fansite issue, so I am still curious for ANet's answer here. I also don't like its repeated insinuations about gold-selling ads, since we (this includes Wikia - they do not endorse such things either) have worked hard and still do to constantly purge the site of all such material.
SpideR, semantics is semantics; there are varying levels of dislike. Also, figures of speech are not meant to be taken literally.
I like how you describe the two wikis as "working towards the same goal". It's my personal belief that the two wikis ought not to be enemies, because they are (still) intertwined communities which have grown and prospered off of each other, and the success of the one aids in the success of the other. It is simply counterproductive to everyone to divide the communities. However, there is a lot of loyalty and pride involved too, which sometimes makes this difficult for us.
Alaris, I assume you largely refer to GWW with your last comment, since...I *am* "the officials" of GuildWiki. I also usually speak for the masses. :\ Vili User talk:Vili 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's funny how two GWW sysops are saying all the enmity comes from GuildWiki. Just an observation. ;D 13:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is that funny? Find negative references to GWiki anywhere here on GWW... then find negative references to GWW on GWiki, and you decide where the enmity comes from. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn/talk 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I would consider officials pointing fingers at GuildWiki users a negative reference in and of itself, hence the irony. But I suppose that's the nature of competition. 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, for my part, there is no competition, and my comments are made as a user who visits many pages on both wikis and sees the types of comments made on both, not as a sysop. I'm not pointing fingers I'm just stating the fact (because it is a fact imo) as Brains did that there is very little GWiki hate coming from the GWW community. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn/talk 13:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Misery: GuildWik is not listed as a fansite because they displayed advertising that offered to sell gold for real money on the site. For more information, please check this article. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I understand they have gone to great pains to remove the gold advertising, but conspiracy theories (see above) have lead people to wild conclusions. If they are truly gold ad free I suppose that means they can re-apply for fansite status, assuming they wouldn't rather continue with conspiracy theories. Misery 01:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Once a crook, always a crook? Vili User talk:Vili 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you better remove Guild Wars Online and Guild Wars Guru since they have had gold selling ads at some point in the past too. Nevermind that they got removed immediately, the fact there were there at all is apparently enough to permanently scar them. --Macros 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So, seeing as last I checked, GuildWiki is gold-ad free (Wikia has ad filters that keep such advertisements out, and promptly blocks any gold ads that do sneak through), what do we (GuildWiki) do to re-apply for fansite status? I don't see how GuildWiki's situation is currently any different from GWO and Guru, by those standards, and as such, I see no reason why GuildWiki should be randomly picked out of the bunch to get the short end of the stick. --User Jioruji Derako logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fake GW2 Beta Scams

It's come to our attention once again that websites are offering players access to the Guild Wars 2 beta, and players are visiting these sites, not knowing that these sites play host to Trojans that could compromise their computers. A few weeks ago, there was also the case of videos created by scammers who claimed that they would show players how to hack into GW or give them early access to the GW2 beta if players gave the scammers their account information. Do folks think it would make sense to add a note to the GW2 wiki FAQ to let people know that the official website is the place to find out information about the GW2 beta? Our messages of the day in the login screen seem to be deterring players from giving their account info away, but we always worry that people don't read it. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this warning should be made more visible by being added to the news points available on the client login page? 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a question about beta sign-ups on the wiki FAQ. I don't think the page is especially high traffic so I'm not sure it will be the preventative you want but it can't hurt. --Aspectacle 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of these scam sites are hilarious. They are so full of it. I mean if they could photoshop better than MS paint it would be interesting, but come on. Regardless a warning might be in order. Kelvin Greyheart 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Aspectacle. I agree that a warning couldn't hurt. We're currently drafting a new note for the login screen. We posted one when the video scam emerged as a potential issue, and this seemed to work, but with this new scam, we wondered whether it was worth also putting a note in the wiki. I'll see whether the team thinks it's also worth putting on the GW2 FAQ on the website as well. Cheers. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Regina! 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
anything this importaint should be on the main site imo. its part of anets job to make sure your players are safe from threats like this. 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

More plagiarism in the art contest :(

It's happened again. This piece has most likely been stolen from here. The piece is signed "HC '07"; the deviantart was put up in 2007 by a female artist named Heather, whereas the person who submitted the contest entry is called "Brad Roberts". --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, and I just noticed that the original artist also happened to submit an entry to the contest, and won: [2]. So either she was ripped off by this Brad guy, or she used a psuedonym to submit two entries. :/ --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not enough proof it was plagiarism.--Final Abomination 13:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, consdidering that there are fully two pieces by this artist in the contest, something rule-breaking is going on anyway. And even if there wasn't, I feel it was worth pointing out on the off-chance it was plagiarism -- if my art was being ripped off to win contests I'd sure as hell want to know about it, and I bet ANet would, too. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
They are both winners or honorable mentions, you would think maki would know about it, nothing is going on here... it could be her husbands drawing. --Final Abomination 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, why are you defending this? Genuine plagiarism or not, this looks very suspicious and it's worth pointing out. End of story. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
PS, marrying someone does not magically grant them your drawing ability. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, all: I was already in contact with both of the parties involved on Friday afternoon. The web team will pull Brad Roberts' entry as soon as they can. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to know. Sucks for Brad the lady he was ripping off entered the contest too, heheh. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wintersday art contest?!

what was the result to this? 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) never mind didnt see "Winners will be announced on or around January 23, 2009" 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Developer blog

One of the ideas brought up on GWO was the notion of a dev blog. I'm a big proponent of blogging, so I support this idea. I'd be interested in hearing what others think of this, and what they would like to see in a dev blog. Extending this idea a bit further, does anyone have thoughts on a blog written by the community managers? If you think this is a good idea, what would you like to see from it? - From Regina's Journal entry

I, for one, support this idea, since I'm always curious about what Devs do. Please put some ideas on what the blog could focus on here, felow wikiers.-- 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I have a lot of ideas of what I would want from a Developer Blog, but I'd like to see yours. There are no guarantees on getting a Developer Blog. I've long been advocating for this internally, but as you know it often takes discussion and time to implement. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this and I have some ideas. I know the quote above is from an old entry and there's a very long list of suggestions in the journal's talk page already, which I haven't read, so forgive me if I'm repeating old stuff:
  • Info on how things work at ANet. I've seen quite a few folks get really worked up over some bug/imbalance/desired feature/etc they want fixed, and feel would be really quick and easy to fix, and thus get angry because they don't understand why ANet won't fix it quickly. So I think folks would benefit from -- not to mention enjoy -- learning how things are actually done at ANet.The long comment Linsey wrote regarding the effort that goes into making a new area is a good example of what I'd like to see.
  • Personal stories from various ANet employees. Maybe it's a funny story about something that happened at a con, or how they go about their workday, or just their thoughts on the game and game development. I, for one, am eager to see photos of the ANet building and people's cubicles (assuming you have cubicles), in particular the walls. I bet there's all kinds of awesome GW-related artwork stuck on the walls there, both official and fan-made. :D
  • Info on Guild Wars 2. Now, bear with me here. I understand that we're not yet allowed and new information on GW2 -- that's fair enough. But what about elaboration on the info we do have? For instance, we know there will be more persistence in GW2. Okay, why did you guys decide to do that? How about the decision to add more playable races, and why you chose new races instead of established ones such as the Tengu? What are your thoughts on claims that GW2 will be a WoW ripoff? Is there anything from Utopia you can share? Etc...
  • GW lore. There's so much depth to the world of Tyria, and so much that hasn't been fully explored yet. I'm sure many of the gaps will be filled in in GW2, so that's ok, but if there's any extra lore you can share right now, that'd be awesome. This kind of ties in with my previous idea, of giving meta-info such as where that lore comes from, etc. Example: I read somewhere that the concept of the Charr started with a pair of feral eyes in the dark, and how much that frightens humans. That kind of thing is really interesting to learn about.
That's all I can think of for now. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
An example of the kind of thing that could be on the blog is the story told on the YouTube video about how Katamari inspired rollerbeetle racing. That kind of funny behind the scene story is something rather interesting (although I am hoping you people make a full "The Making of Guild Wars 2" DVD). Erasculio 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi, I would like to ask some questions if you dont mind and besides that just give a personal opinion.If you Don't want to answer them fine as long as you just think 1 second about them ill be happy.

  1. Does Anet still believe in the wiki as a community portal ?
  2. Most of the time suggestions get "ignored" however shard said that in his chat with izzy, izzy stated they reduced his power. Is this true ?

TBH I find it quite strange actually,I no longer think izzy is a bad balancer.Many rumors are that he just has to balance GW I mainly in his spare time.When I heard that I actually pitied him.I mean I've never played prophecies (like it used to be) and Every time I play the game or watch this wiki I feel sad for not being able to get the experience of playing potentially the greatest game.If players still discuss the balance and talk about this game 3 YEARS 3 YEARS thats right 3 !!! YEARS after they quit the game, you just know this isn't just a ordinary game.

  1. IF anet did not give up on this wiki as a community portal did izzy ? (if he did I actually understand but atleast tell us).
  2. Does Anet actually believe the game is +- balanced as it is ?
  3. Anet has clearly given a pve direction to a pvp game there just is no doubt but does anet actually prefer to make it easy for people above making it balanced ?
  4. Do you believe beating very powerfull monsters with very powerfull skills is fun ?
  5. Dont you think that people will actually stop QQ'ing after a while and just keep playing if you nerf a lot of overpowered skills ?
  6. Did you notice the inredible decrease in playerbasis ? It is clear there is one and Xfire is a great example.Whereas Guildwars used to hold the 4th - 5 th place easely it is almost out of the top 10 !
  7. What is you're greates concern at the moment for GW I to attract more people (mainly pve) or to keep more people and to get some old players back (mainly pvp) ?
  8. What do you think should be buffed/nerfed Utility or damage ?

And to finish off a perhaps stupid question :

  1. Can you check if EVIL actually is still a living guild because I haven't seen any matches of them lately and I love there way of playing it actually touches me in a way.

I know most of these questions should be pointed towards izzy but I want to ask them to Anet as a whole not to 1 person (most of the time).If you don't want to answer these questions it's ok thx for youre time Lilondra User Lilondra Eviscerate.jpg*gale* 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, using a lot of bold just makes your comments a lot harder to read - it should only be used to highlight and emphasise important words, not whole sentences or sections. Lack of paragraphing doesn't help either. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right like usual will change it was actually to bold the questions but will change it Lilondra User Lilondra Eviscerate.jpg*gale* 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better :) --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Brains smiled Oo wow this day is full of miracles xD ^^.Can everyone pls not answer these questions I would like to leave them to Regina and Regina ONLY thx.If this post doesnt get deleted then I rly hope the needless discussion does.Lilondra User Lilondra Eviscerate.jpg*gale* 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Wiki is one of many, many places, in one of several language communities that we look at to gauge player sentiment. Just because suggestions are not taken on board doesn't mean they are "ignored". It simply means that the design team has decided not to go with a particular suggestion for whatever reason (whether it be limited resources or philosophical disagreement with the suggestion).
Isaiah is working on GW2 full-time, but he advises on GW1 as needed. Linsey Murdock and Joe Kimmes are two of the main people responsible for the direction of GW1. Isaiah has very limited time to participate in the wiki, and since most questions on the wiki are related to GW1, which he doesn't work on full time, I think it's understandable that he does not have a lot of time to devote to participating here. I think it's important to keep in mind that the full time job of game designers is to work on game design. Any time that they spend posting on the wiki is on their own free time from their primary responsibilities. I participate in and read so many communities that my attention is divided amongst at least a dozen or more different channels, as well as the rest of my workload that takes place out of the public eye.
We believe there is room for improvement in the game, which is why we continue to have regular updates to skills.
The team is aware of the status of the player population.
The team believes that the needs of the PvE and PvP players are not necessarily mutually exclusive, which is how you seemed to phrase your question (please correct me if I am wrong). They are trying to improve the game on both fronts, and I have regularly brought PvE and PvP concerns to them. I have particularly stressed the dissatisfaction that players have for GvG/HA as well as the synching issues in RA. I continue to bring these concerns to them.
The utility versus damage question is more of a question for the designers, so I will pass that along to them. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Regina - On the topic of "suggestions", I don't think player's are frustrated with the possibility that their ideas wont be implemented, it's the fact that they're not sure if their suggestion has even been considered (or is a good idea, etc). This is what I was trying to help with earlier. I don't mean to be annoying, but did you receive my earlier emails about this issue on the 6th of Nov and 9th of Dec? If you need me to quit bugging you, please just say so. =) --Brokunn 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear regina,thx for answering in the first place.If I even gave you the impression I blame you for the "problems" or atleast what I see as problems then I'm sry. First of all i think everyone is a PvX player but see pve and low lvl pvp players as pve players to be honest just because they think and react as pve players.And pve and pvp love often are mutually exclusive wich is what i want to say.Because in pve monsters are overbuffed to a lvl where just autoattacking barely deals damage and where utility doesnt rly matter that much untill it is overbuffed to a moment where even the worst players can see its very powerfull (aka save yourselves).Pve was modded in a way that eveyrthing is about damage.Giving plenty (CoP,ursan,...) and reducing plenty (SY).While in PvP the concept is skill > skills or atleast I hope it still is.As utility promotes skill utility therefore bypasses damage in priority unless the damage is buffed to a lvl where this is no longer the case (Dervish builds,SF spike,...).The thing is the reason all low lvl pvp players and even high lvl pvp players still think as pve players is because they never got the propper beating.They never had to adjust there strategy to win.They had to adjust there builds to w/e gimmick was meta and press 3 2 1. A rly good example is when a r5 HB player that claims to be decent joins my guild. Now I train everyone before I allow them to participate in GvG.It was very intresting to see how they played when you put them in a situation where everything depends on them.A scrimmage with a build using +- only utility and 3 hench vs me with the same hench.It might look stupid but when you play these scrimmages they are the most intense of all.Because you play with +- equal builds and equil npc's and rules.This automaticly means the best player wins.Now back to the point I wanted to prove and explain.Because skils have been buffed or not nerfed for the pve alike public (those who rely on skills) he never had to change he never had to learn how to time his knocks he never HAD to do anything that requires him to be good shortly.So the first 3 times the battle was over within 4 minutes (cleaned him and all his npc's with same build as him).So in that way they ARE mutually exclusive because utility has become more and more a pvp buisiness (and even there it is declining) and damage just reigns pve.If you hex them and Cop them all to death in 2 seconds do you actually need lots of defense/utility/anythin else ? I know this is just a reply to 1 of youre segments but I fear its already to long.If you find the time read it and perhaps respond youll see what fits you best.Thx for youre time Lilondra User Lilondra Eviscerate.jpg*gale* 11:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I didn't get the impression that you were blaming me for anything, but thank you for clarifying. I apologize if I came across like that. I understand what you're saying regarding damage versus utility, and skill versus Skills. It's an interesting question, because the players who advocate one or the other may have different things they want from the game. It's the designer's task to try and keep the needs of the players in mind, even if those needs may be different. I think in the end the question of what should be buffed, damage or utility, may be one to ask on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's necessarily something a game designer can say in broad terms, but I have passed your questions along to the team nonetheless. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thx alot,A reason I forgot to mention is that many many players bought guildwars a by heart pvp game for its pve.Because it was cheaper then wow.I believe PvE is the main reason they buy guildwars actually because they have no idea what guildwars actually is.This means many people that never even got to enjoy 1 second of (balanced or not) pvp start saying "Wow is better blablablabla" or anything thus if you want to attract a lot of NEW people I think obviously pve is the way to go.However if the game gets a propper balance somebody rly looking only for gw I then I firmly believe lots of old players that stopped at factions and nightfall because they believed the new mechanics could not be balanced properly would come back.I'm 110 % shure that there are people out there that still love this game and the only thing holding them back from playing the game once again is getting beat my a cheap gimmick (for example herosmite) and then see some players ranking you and saying "HAHAHA YOU IDIOT ROFL YOU'RE NOOB" I know the problem actually lies with the players but gimmicks are giving them the illusion they can actually play the game very good while with all respect I'm better then them but If you would compare me to bloodlight I would still suck.Anyway thx for youre time :) Lilondra User Lilondra Eviscerate.jpg*gale* 06:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

moved to User talk:Lilondra