User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Misplaced Topics/Feb 2009

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

Quick GW 2 race question.

Ok so I was playing some factions the other day and I thought, in GW 2 we will get to play the norn, charr, asura, sylvari, and humans, but what about the tengu? It would seem only logical to me that the tengu would be a playable race as well. So I was just wondering if I had managed to guess one of the Unannounced races that a couple of the articles implied might exist. Thanks Kraken 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

*hands Kraken a brick with an NDA attached* Hit yourself with that, you'd get more information out of it than Regina. User Aba Malatu sig.png Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure anyone would even bother playing as an overgrown chicken. Biz 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What Guild Wars 2 info we have now is the only info that's confirmed, and if they had more to tell us, we would know it already. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, nothing's really confirmed at this stage, Regina can't confirm that anything we know is actually still valid at all. User Aba Malatu sig.png Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope there aren't any unannounced races at all. and if there would be any more races in any expansion the wardens would be much better (tengu just look very very lame). --Cursed Angel Q.Q 02:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
pish i would much rather play a naga then a warden or tengu any day also tengu are not unique to factions they are also in proh. 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Only reason I asked is because outside of eotn the tengu and weird keeper dudes at the end of nightfall are the only friendly races you encounter in any real numbers. I mean yeah there is the odd naga or yeti or some such but mostly it is tengu and those other dudes, so it just seemed that they would be the sort of race that would be playable in GW2. Kraken 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If they're in the original then they'll probably make an appearance, Gw2 sounds like it'll be a redo of the original. User Aba Malatu sig.png Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
By weird keeper dudes, im assuming you mean the forgotten? -- Salome User salome sig2.png 11:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget centaurs! I actually have a hunch that the Sylvari will look like centaurs. They're almost certainly going to be humanoid, but I won't be surprised if they have cute sheep-faces and hooves. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 13:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
no game should ever have worm like creatures as a playable race, neither anything four legged or flying/levitating, neither anything three times as high as everything else. a playable race have to be able to build towns, society, have a languish and have an important role in gw lore, or at least be able to, they also doesn't have to be allied to the humans. I could see an altered version of the tengu as a playable race, but not the tengu we have in gw1. --Cursed Angel Q.Q 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If they go with an expansion based model for GW2 (it worked well for GW1, so why not?), I wouldn't be surprised if we saw tengu added as a playable race for factions and centaurs added for nightfall. As of now, there is no reason to assume we would get them for GW2 part one. Although they appear in prophecies, thy don't really play an important role, unlike factions. Ashes Of Doom Talk 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Arenanet could have just stuck with races that they have already established to some extent, but they decided to bring in 3 entirely new races with EoTN to bring into GW2, so I doubt they'll add other playable races.
On a minor note: Hopes to hell and back GW2 isn't just a redo of each original campaign just with a 2 attached... "Prepare yourselves for our ultimate MMO "Guild Wars 2 Prophecies 2.0" o.o and coming next Fall "Guild Wars 2 Factions 2.0" followed by, you guessed it folks "Guild Wars 2 Nightfall 2.0" " o.o *crosses fingers* Hope Arenanet is more original... User Aba Malatu sig.png Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I acctually hope for a prophecies, faction, nightfall 2.0 ^^ --Cursed Angel Q.Q 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cursed, you old stick-in-the-mud. I challenge you to explain why Tengu, Mursaat, Forgotten or Centaurs can't be playable races according to your own definition of what a playable race should be. It seems to me that all of them are intelligent and capable of building cities and organised societies, and all of them play a significant enough role in GW lore. (And don't forget there's a 250-year gap between the two games.) The reason I would have given against having them as races is that a four-legged or serpine race might be unfeasible to design, etc, but not being an ANet employee, I'm only guessing there and could well be wrong. I certainly hope so. :D --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
centaurs and serpine races doesn't work by design, that's all, they really, really just don't. levitating/flying races gets unfair advantages over basic game mechanics like earth magic, snares and melee professions. --Cursed Angel Q.Q 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but how do you know they'll get unfair advantages? GW2 will be a new game with its own mechanics, so you can't really say with any degree of certainty yet what is or isn't unfair. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but I can't confirm or deny anything. :-P They won't let me say a word. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh Not anything? That makes me want to cry *sniff* Kraken 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Branching off here

"it worked well for GW1, so why not?" Actualy no, it didn't. Guild Wars' expansion/business model is one of the main reasons behind why the are making Guild Wars 2. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars' expansion/business model is one of the main reasons behind why the are making Guild Wars 2. Exactly. If the business model had not worked, they would not have had the funds or the basis for making GW2. They decided to make a new game, GW2, because after several years, they realized that there were some things that the old engine couldn't handle. They could have continued churning out expansions for a few more years, but they would have slowly lost players as people stopped wanting to buy what is for all practical purposes a game developed in 2005. Ashes Of Doom Talk 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Because they didn't want to continue reinventing the game every 6 months. You saw what that did to PvP. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"The problem was that after two years we also saw a lot of ways in which the core gameplay could be improved. These weren't things that could be addressed by adding new layers on top of the original game, though. They involved going in and making upgrades and improvements to the fundamental gameplay systems. In the end we made the decision that in order to truly make the ultimate version of Guild Wars we were going to have to make Guild Wars 2." said Mike O'Brian in the GameSpy: Guild Wars 2 Preview. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 12:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
They didn't want to continue reinventing the game. The first 2 and a half times worked pretty well and got them a lot of money. The campaign based design can't go on forever, but it lets them milk the game engine for a lot more than just one game. As far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as working.Ashes Of Doom Talk 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Boy now I'm eating my words. I WORKED then, but it has since ceased to work. Dashface hit it right on the nose. I think the realized the many things that were wrong as the were making factions, if not before. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that it was still a fully functional system that they should keep using to expand on GW1. All I meant was that the system was a lot more successful than simply developing an entire new game after Prophecies came out. The idea of using several more campaigns to expand the content without having to spend as much time developing the engine appeals to me, as the Guild Wars engine worked fine in most cases, and it is only relatively recently as gamers' standards have gone up that we have really started to see the limitations of the GW1 engine. Ashes Of Doom Talk 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I seemed the have missunderstood what you where getting at. I thought you where refering to how they basically rebuilt the game for each "expansion" and having each act as a stand-alone game rather than a true expansion. THAT exspansion model was what I was refering to. If they do make a Factions 2 or Nightfall 2, making it stand-alone like Factions and Nightfall would NOT be advisable. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WTB a Y key for Lupen. The=definite article. They=plural pronoun.
WTS common typo. --Mme. User Mme. Donelle sig.jpgDonelle 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I make lots of typos :P — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 16:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally liked the fact that the standalone format meant we got a ton of new content. As far as making them actually standalone, I don't actually care, I simply want the content. If Anet can give us that, I'd be happy. Ashes Of Doom Talk 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Herald and Login announcements.

ok so first of why are these things not used more offten? and secondly i think that both of these places would be a good spot to inform people of a new update, and stuff like the dragon fest. i feel like at least for the Login announcements that they should be very close to the same as what is on guild wars.com75.165.125.117 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% about the login announcements. There's no built-in way to port content from feeds to populate the login screen information. Also, the login screen has very specific character limits. We're actually very limited as to how much we can put there. Linking to stuff is also a little tricky, too. For this to happen, and to do it really well, I've been told that there would need to be some serious programming time to overhaul it. They would need to pull a programmer working on GW2 to do it, so it wouldn't have an impact on our GW1 live updates, and this is not something they're willing to do. Time and staffing are precious resources that they want to go to GW2. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 05:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

will we see the update this Thursday or next?

should we expect to see the balance/skill update this Thursday or next? 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We will know by tomorrow :) --Arduinna talk 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Guess so ;-) (Satanael 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
i was only asking to try and get an answer before the up date so i could sell my zkeys at 5k instead of the cheeped 4.4k like everyone else. Also where the hell is the change to roj and nerff to palm strike ps needs 1 more second of recharge and roj needs to make foes/npcs to scatter so stuff like jq isnt one hit and the shrine is recapped. 11:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Acquiring Gold

I'm getting bored of guild wars lately, Don't get me wrong it's a great game but when you've done as much as I have in game you tend to get bored and just want to make gold to buy items in game that you have always wanted or other things for the Hall of Monuments. Lately I've noticed that there are only a few ways now to make any gold, these are as follows, 1) MAKE A SIN AND DO UWSC (where you have to team with real people all the time and be experienced) 2)Make monthly predictions and buy a boat load of accounts 3) 600/Smite a Dungeon and hope to get a rare item such as a BDS, Dryad Bow, Silverwing or whatever else. Why oh Why can't I just kill a load of monsters and make some profit seriously It's annoying that I can kill nearly 400 enemies in a Vanquish and not make any profit other than the 1.9k I get for completing the Vanquish, Which takes an Hour or so, when someone else can do a UWSC or Get a dungeon run and make 50k+ for half hour to 1 hour time scale in which someone can do NOTHING AT ALL and be awarded big time. Just seems like lately the entire game is revolved around Eye of The North & Underworld / PVP. 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually play (not: get ran through) dungeons. It's not as rewarding in terms of gold, but I get fun in return. 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are more ways than that to make gold, but they aren't as fast as the ones you mentioned. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Development

Guild Wars 2 development won’t be affected by the changes at NCsoft West, and in the long term it will mean good things for the quality and support we’re able to give Guild Wars 2.

You say it won't be affected. Then in the second half of the same sentence you say it will mean good things, in other words, it will be affected.

Stop the marketing, if you have nothing important to say, please refrain from saying it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk).

Why do people always assume the worst when Anet does something? Can't she mean something like: "unaffected negatively but affected positively"? Maybe we should post a note on the front page of the wiki that says that Anet bashing does not make you look smart or popular. 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Learn to differentiate between short-term and long-term (changes won't affect GW2, but in the long run, we can use them to our advantage). King Neoterikos 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe the IP could just read the sentence normally? English skills FTW guys. (I know thats odd for me to say that, as I'm dyslexic and my typing sucks) Just reading that sentence though, she makes it clear that GW2 DEVELOPMENT wont be affected, but that the changes will affect SUPPORT given to GW2. One is a dev cycle the other is a community relations issue. Thus both are equally exclusive. Really not that hard to understand. Thus I think I have to echo Mr IP's advice back to him, "if you have nothing important to say, please refrain from saying it'" -- Salome User salome sig2.png 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) '10 or '11 apparently.......-- Shew 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
WTH is everyone talking about? If there's new News about NC-West... Scratch that, this was all about dissolving the EU branch which doesn't "affect" most of us anyway. But could I make one request to our U.S. overlords? Tell us WHY the Sequel's date has slipped from 2008, to 2009, and now to '10/11, please? We don't need concrete features, but it would be great to hear answers like "Feature Creep", or "A broader focus beyond GW1", or even just more technophile tidbits that ultimately guarantee more future content. Would that be too much to ask for? --ilr 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The date hasn't "slipped" because there was never an announced release date to begin with. Yes, the beta was planned for 2008, because we've decided on a new approach to the beta, and we haven't announced a date for that either. Again, there is no release date for GW2. Anything you see is just a general estimate, but no release date has been locked down. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Regina. Hearing that you have a "new approach" rather than just having to delay the old approach makes me feel better. Ashes Of Doom Talk 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree! If the company that brought us "Preview Events" has found a better way to Pwn the whole Beta process too, then that's something we can all feel good about waiting for! :D (Now Run-->Tell them Nubs in NC marketing how easy it is to just be up-front with people about this stuff b/c they seem to have some kind of "touched by their Uncles" Issues with it that they need to get ovah!) --ilr 21:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For people who have been following the fortunes of MMOs, they might have seen that beta events are different now than what they were like just before GW was released. When GW was released, it was an unproven, totally new franchise, not based on an existing IP. It was in our interest get as many people playing early so they could start buzzing about it, in addition to helping with QA and feedback. The MMOG industry as changed a lot since then. As you've probably noted by other beta events, betas are not necessarily being used only for QA and working the bugs out. Most players these days are looking at betas like they are demos. A disastrous beta event can have a negative impact on the full release of a game. That is the environment that we have to work within now. And it's with that knowledge that the team decided it would be in our best interest to have a beta when we can deliver a more polished product that will leave the best impression possible. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
They should change the names of that kind of bets to 'pre-release free to play demo' or something like that, then. The word 'free' makes wonders to gather people around. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, "beta" is a magic word in itself; a lot of betas are (or were) difficult to get into, so folks like being able to boast that they were in beta, and were thus one of the privelaged few who got to play the game first. Not to mention it appeals to the "I've been playing longer than you, therefore I'm better than you" mentality. I still lol at the time I saw a guy trying to get a team together for HA during the second birthday celebration: "LFP, account must be over 24 months." --Mme. Donelle 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was gonna hold back, but yeah... it's all BullCrap. I never expect to be in Betas, all the entitlement, marketing/BetaTrial, e-Peen validation, it's all unnecessary. Betas should only be about 1 thing: Fixing gameplay/bugs. --ilr 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If the meaning behind Beta has changed then I agree with Mith (the wise) and the name should be changed. You, as in the industry, may have changed what you're actually doing, but people are still seeing betas as, as you can see by Ilr's post, for troubleshooting/gameplay/bug identify. It's save more time using "Preview Event" or "Demo" rather than Beta as 'Beta' has it's own meaning. Industry sees it as one thing, consumers see it as another = bad for business. 20:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"unaffected negatively but affected positively"

That is a good statement...since everyone is affected by the economic crisis one way or the other the news of NCWest is unsettling. As long as you (Regina) can keep reassure us that GW2 (Company, jobs, people) is still going strong I am a happy camper. For all involved. --Silverleaf Special:Contributions/SilverleafDon't assume, Know! 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

*well, I tried to be as positive as I could under all that's going on. --Silverleaf Special:Contributions/SilverleafDon't assume, Know! 14:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize beforehand for some slight derailment here, but Evidence says otherwise... 4thQr reports are out and stated that GW's sales actually increased which was witnessed in other sectors as well. The real hurt put on Game Developers seems to be the Credit Crunch rather than a slow down in Sales. (which won't be addressed until Tim Geitner releases MOAR QQ BAILOUT NFO, LuLz) --ilr 21:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sales are still going up quite nicely for Guild Wars when you look at that report that is out from NCsoft, considering the age of the game having 200,000 plus sales over the last quarter (even a few quarters before that) is pretty good, that's a fair amount. Guild Wars is still going strong, I'd love Arenanet to expand they're Live Team more since Guild Wars is still selling nicely, not going to happen but still, would be nice. 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GW is sinking

Hi, On xfire you can check what games people play the most and stuff.I noticed GW used to be rank 4 and now is struggling to get the rank 10 (it gets beaten by silkroad wich IMO proves some people need to get a life but w/e).Are you planning to do something special for GW I to get back some old players or have you given up on GW I and are just looking forward to GW II ? Lilondra User Lilondra Disrupting Dagger.jpg*Poke* 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lilondra, with the recent layoffs, company consolidation, live team updates being pushed farther and farther back, lagging sales of GW trilogy, etc. I don't think ArenaNet will be doing anything about our rank on xfire. I think the corporate model for GW has become, "let it the old dog die". They've gotten almost all the cash they're going to out of GW and the only reason they continue to promise us updates is so we will hang on for GW2. In short, don't hold your breath for any new promotions. This last big, magical update in April will be the end of any larger content updates we have, the end of promotion, and (for the most part) the end of quality support. Karate User Karate Jesus sig.png Jesus 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Silly people. – User Barinthus Magical Compass.png Barinthus 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol wut. Karate, I suggest you read the Jan 15th dev update before you go around telling people this is "the end of larger content updates". --Mme. Donelle 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have read it, and when was the last time one of the promises of the Live Team came true (account based HoM for example. It has been promised for months and hopefully we'll see it in the April update). Don't believe everything a Public Relations team tells you. PR teams have an agenda before they ever start to write or say anything. Believing everything they say is just ignorant. Karate User Karate Jesus sig.png Jesus 01:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Scepticism for the sake of scepticism is ignorant. I can't think of a single thing the Live Team has promised that they haven't followed through on -- to use your example, the HoM update was originally announced as being "some time in the future, we can't say exactly when, but we'll let you know when we are able to do it". And that is exactly what's happened. They took a long time to get around to it, sure, but they didn't do anything contrary to their announcements. Go reread old dev updates if you don't believe me. So if they say we're getting better updates in the future, beginning with HoM and storage improvements in April, you can rest assured that's what's going to happen. --Mme. Donelle 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I was never a skeptic before I started playing GW, lol. And my point is just this: NCSoft, and per extension ANet, is going through a lot right now and I just can't see them doing any big promotions. I am skeptical about the future support of GW and of the quality of future content, but that was not my main point. And there's nothing wrong with being skeptical. I understand anyone's need to defend Regina, but her job is to defend GW (even if she doesn't approve of something that's happened in the GW community, read:the resent layoffs). She doesn't need defending and neither does GW. I would go so far as to say that the community at large benefits from public scrutiny. It holds all of us accountable. Karate User Karate Jesus sig.png Jesus 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No, there isn't anything wrong with being skeptical. But there's a difference between healthy skepticism and paranoia. ANet have never given me reason to doubt what they say, because they've always been smart enough to only make promises they can follow through on. There's certainly reason to believe their financial situation is dire, given the state of the economy and NCsoft's various issues, but should we assume they're lying about GW's future based on that? Of course not: making promises they know they're likely to break would be very damaging to ANet, and would only make a bad situation worse. So I see no logical reason not to trust them. --Mme. Donelle 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, "paranoia" is probably too strong a word, but my point is that of maintaining a balance between trust and skepticism vs pure skepticism. --Mme. Donelle 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There's also a thing called realism. Linsey being on the live team is the best thing that happened to GW in a long while, and she has done a lot for the game, more than she promised. 08:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with 145 here, cept for one thing: Balance wasn't truly improved. Xhata 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"because they've always been smart enough to only make promises they can follow through on" >Recently.< IIRC, a short time after Sorrow's Furnace came out, they said they'd do another core god's domain. --TalkRiddle 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you show me the exact quote? I'm wondering if this is anything like the GW2 beta -- some folks are pissed off that ANet "lied" about the beta being in 2008, when in fact they never promised that: they merely said they anticipated beta in 2008.[1] It was probably a bad move for them to mention it, but they still didn't break any promises. --Mme. Donelle 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said my quote was concrete. I heard this months ago. --TalkRiddle 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol, then why'd you mention it? It needs to be concrete in order to justify your point. :p --Mme. Donelle 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To specifically address the HoM announcement: The reason we made the announcement long in advance of making the changes live was to allow players to modify their play style accordingly. It was to allow players to switch over to whatever single character they preferred, to start working on achievements, so by the time the HoM changes arrived, they'd be in a better place. We didn't want to spring the HoM changes on you without giving you advance warning. I can understand the skepticism. We have tried hard to deliver on the stuff we've announced, and we are better placed to give slightly larger updates to the game after switching to this less frequent release schedule. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 19:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I just checked Xfire. GW is rank 8, Warhammer Online is 18. Oh, and Diablo 2 was not far behind... Mind you, a lot of those games listed were FPS, so cut those out, and GW rises way up the ladder.
As for HoM changes being announced ahead of time, I was one of many that was pushing for more info so we could plan our playstyle accordingly, and I am very happy that they did. A big thank you to the ANet team for releasing that info well ahead of time. -- Alaris_sig Alaris 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
agree w/ alaris. the HoM announcement changed my playstyle in a deep way. i'm glad they did so even if the changes weren't to be implemented for a long time b/c i could plan ahead. hell, if they never get implemented in gw1 but are simply imported account-wide into gw2 as they say they're planning, i'd be just as satisfied. --VVong|BA 20:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with VVong... since I'm working on HoM mainly for GW2, I'd be happy if the account-wide thing was only in GW2. BTW, checked XFire again... GW2 is 2nd place in the RPG games. -- Alaris_sig Alaris 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
With the announcement about the change to the HoM a while ago I've noticed my playstyle hasn't changed simply because it doesn't truly effect it. Nothing with the HoM changes has been confirmed therefore what I'm willing to invest in over multiple character is restrictive, also people's main character generally have more started than newer character (not a rule, mind you). There are many questions about the HoM and the changes being made that have never been answered, so I know I can't change my gameplay too much because of that.
The recent changes to the titles has been a good start to changing my playstyle, I can do more with treasure chests and Id'ing now, which is nice, but the drunkard, party animal, sweet-tooth titles are still restrictive as they're wasteful to spread over multiple character, Drunkard especially, so it's still main character focused for a lot of people.
Personally I can't change my playstyle based on little to nothing but a few words especially when the words "Things change" are echoed by Regina every time someone ask for confirmation on something. Until things are confirmed I personally can't change my playstyle too much, personally, I'd rather wait to change my playstyle. Actions speak louder than words ,and when it comes to the HoM Arenanet has only whispered sweet nothings. 02:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Additional, speaking of the changes to the HoM when I hear this kind of thing, so late in the day (so to speak) I am concerned:
"We still don't know what will be done to the HoM so we can't talk about it. Joe is going to look into the feasibility of adding sorting in the HoM. We'll see... - Linsey talk 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"
Ouch! 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
All I understood was: "The decision was made". And then I started waiting. Of course waiting is annoying, specially when there are other games out there and GW2 may be comming. People always will want things now. As always, all the truth and knowledge is in Queen's songs: "I Want It Now", but since having it all it's impossible, I'm fine with getting things sooner or later, as long as we get them. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Silkroad is higher every now and then.TBH they were the rank 4 bypassing the FPS some time ago and they had more hours If i'm not mistakin aswell Lilondra User Lilondra Disrupting Dagger.jpg*Poke* 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow players to use more heroes in Heroes' Ascent

Hi Regina, I was sorely disappointed when ArenaNet decided to limit the amount of heroes we could use in Heroes' Ascent. I want to be able to use at least 4 heroes! As you know, Heroes' Ascent previously allowed you to use 4 henchmen and it was like that when the game began. I think the only reason why there are so many complaints against heroes is because there are so many bad players in the game that have horrible gaming skills, poor reflexes, and just whine too much when they can't defeat AI opponents. Really Regina, Heroes' Ascent was a lot more fun when more henchmen and more heroes were allowed. Loves to Sync 14:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No way! Remove them COMPLETELY from PvP format. IT's PvP not PvAI. --Boro 10px‎ 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
ZOMG ofcourse we should allow more heroe's after all its called HERO's ascent :o (no seriously the thing is henchmen always are a downside heroes are not) Lilondra User Lilondra Disrupting Dagger.jpg*Poke* 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This coming from someone called 'Loves to Sync' makes the sarcasm even better. Also, does anyone remember what HA looked like when Nightfall was just released? Koda Kumi User Koda Kumi UT.jpeg talk 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I think that having heroes in Heroes' Ascent is great because I have them in my party anytime I want instead of waiting forever to find other players. Heroes are consistent, reliable, and always available. Players on the other hand have varying skill levels, can rage quit on you on a dime, and often add unpleasant/obscene behavior to the party. Less heroes, more players? No thanks! Loves to Sync 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
PvE. calor (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with LoS, we should be allowed to bring more heroes. Why? Every team in HA refuses to accept unranked people like me. Also, I really want to break play HA with my tease and smite heroes because I <3 norgu, gwen, tahlkora, dunkoro, and fat lil' ogden. Pika Fan 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You talk about how we used to be able to use four AI partners in HA "when the game began". Last I checked, when the game began, there was no such thing as Heroes' Ascent.
You also claim that "bad players" complain "when they can't defeat AI opponents", and claim that they have "poor reflexes". I'm sorry, but some of the game's best have argued against heroes since their introduction, and in truth, everyone has poor reflexes compared to the reaction time of a hero (approximately two hundred steps). If you didn't know, modern computers can go through a few hundred thousand steps per second on a low estimate. 01:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In before margin reset... Oh wait. Mango 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Auron may be an ok player, but that doesn't mean he's always right. 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
the problem with heroes that they do replace humans and they usually do a better job then humans. and besides that making more heroes avaible will result in an bigger version of hero's battle. Fox007 User:Fox007 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
They could always try to match parties so both sides have the same number of heroes. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Which still doesn't solve the problem of heroes fulfilling certain roles 10000000 times better than humans. Game balance isn't a simple matter of having the same amount of apples on each side of the scale. Pika Fan 12:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that when you run npc's it should be a DOWNSIDE in ANY aspect.Now in GvG there already are problems with hero's but there is more to do then just a stand battle.In HA you dont have that so when the objective is "kick their ass" then a huge downside hero's had just fades.Then you have the upside called "broken reflexes".You know People even take saccers to HB to instantly ress them ? or Roll ? Lilondra User Lilondra Disrupting Dagger.jpg*Poke* 16:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
@IP69, Heroe's Ascent was too in the game at its beggining, you accessed it through Tombs. HA used to be how regions gained access to UW and FOW by getting the favor of the gods. The change from tombs to Battle Isle was made shortly before Factions so you didn't HAVE to own Prophecies to go to the HoH. I remember sitting in ToA waiting to get favor and everyone getting really angry that Korea always had favor, and others telling people to stop bitching and go to Tombs to get favor. I also walked uphill both ways to get there, so all you whippersnappers have it easy now. (Satanael 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
Those "AI partners" were henchmen who didn't run broken bars. Enormous difference. User Raine R.gif Raine - talk 17:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
They were still broken, it was just in the other direction. ...Meanwhile there's certain Paragon, Assn, and Rit builds that the AI will always be terrible at, so it all averages out in the long run --ilr 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And tell me who in the right mind would run heroes that suck at those builds?Pika Fan 07:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Except that people will only run the builds that heroes excel at, not those they can't use at all. So when it comes down to it, heroes are pretty balanced (they can do things great and they suck at other things) but it's the players that abuse them to the max. So it's not Anet's fault, but they probably should fix it anyway. 06:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Heroes... the reason why I quit Heroes Ascent. I love competitive games, but only when I face people. I never played HA for fame, once upon a time it was fun. ( 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)).

map editor program.

I think it would be good to have a GW map editor program, so it could be easier to make new content Boro 10px‎ 09:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What where you smo... This isn't an FPS or RTS to have extra maps -_- — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o 09:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Nuts to that, if they should release anything for the community to try a hand at modding, it should be the Armors. --ilr 10:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
wow, no. --Cursed Angel Q.Q 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, that would go a long way to keep GvG interesting. Playing the same maps for 3 years makes them really damn old. -Auron 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
For guild wars, however, it's probably impossible. Anet should have "design-a-guild-hall" contests occasionally though. -Auron 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
random/team arenas would also need new maps, it has like 13, it get's pretty repeating... and adding the hero battle maps didn't work. idk how much time it'd take to create a map but maybe it's something linsey could do? --Cursed Angel Q.Q 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
GW, old and repeating. Yes, it is... Players interactions and content creation limited to the strict minimum ? Absolutely. But it's the same for every mmos, and to bodly go where no one has gone before only works in movies. Yseron - 12:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Old and repeating ,boring and unbalanced my ass tbh.Its not stopping me from still having those zomg moments in gw.Ofcourse its sad that they let the greatest game ever produced rot like this but w/e I guess we can only learn to live with it.Then again on topic : design a X contests would be awesome way to both improve game with few resources AND keep connection with players.Lilondra User Lilondra Disrupting Dagger.jpg*Poke* 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The greatest game would not be linear. You are missing out on so much just from not being able to jump and aim your AoE. Vael Victus Pancakes. 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What's the deal with the negativity? The game isn't nearly that bad, but you make it sound as if it consisted of nothing but Prophecies. Instead of complaining and feeling mierable, why not try to enjoy it? I don't want you to feel this sad, when you're still so young. 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Crossing

What i want to know is when do you plan to do something about this very glitched map for hero battles. nothing has been done to change the hero ai so they stay at the shrines they are flagged at, i mean you have even removed the map from at's due to the bugs but it still remains in general play.Lodgeinator 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since updates to the map seem to be out of the question, the map should be removed altogether. It's simply unplayable at the moment. --Draikin 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

to quote some one in an earlier topic on this same exact page "who cares about hero battles" 06:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I let the team know that you want this fixed. I'll bet this is in their queue, but they just have so much other work to do, that it's not been put on the high priority list. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Enableing the Abandon button on EoTN Quests

Enabling the Abandon button on the primary EoTN Quests when you first go up there.I would like to see this as I have a few chars I just went up there to get skills for. and don't plan on fineshing EoTN with them.I wouldn't mind seeing this I was going to ask Lindsay but that page is locked so please can you implement this so I don't see green dots.I would like to see my log empty of quests.It would be much appreciated Thanks.Age 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the first EotN primary quest getting to the Eye of the North? You are there to get the skills anyway so just finish the quest and don't accept further quests. poke | talk 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Against the Destroyers quest can't be removed, since there is no way to ever get it again. If you were allowed to abandon it, and later decide you wanted to do the quests, you'd be out of luck. That's the reason the abandon button is disabled. From what Linsey has already said on her talk about this, it's doubtful it's going to change.--Pyron Sy 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Linsey Murdock/TempArchive#Abandoning "Against the Destoryers" - Tanetris 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely they could simply have the Scrying Pool, Vekk or Ogden offer the quest to those who have abandoned it? :/ --Mme. Donelle 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The pool already gives repeatable quests. But I will see better to rework the Quest Log so it stops being such a mess to deal with. Things like Tabs for campaigns or a way to filter quests or hiding all quests but one should be added. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixing AB / FA / JQ Queues

Ahoy. I tried to use the last double AB weekend to start work on the Kurzick title, but noticed way more people waiting to play than on the Luxon side, causing queues of more than 5 minutes. This has the extra effect of AFK players who queue up and then surf the net while they wait, not being notified of their game starting. Not only are you waiting 10x longer for a game, but you also lose more than half of the time. I'm sure it's been suggested before to pair up waiting teams on the same side and call it a "training exercise", and give the appropriate amount of faction. Now, I know that suggestion would take too much work to implement, so I have one better: Add a "Faction Scavenger" NPC where you can exchange Kurzick and Luxon faction 1:1, at the cost of some gold (say, 250g for every 5k faction exchanged). This will let players join AB / FA / JQ games on whatever side has the lower queue, and would help even up any faction farming imbalances that exist. Adding AB as an option for the Factions NPCs in GtoB would also help this along. --Skye Marin 02:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the title, I thought this was another pointless compaint about more people playing Kurzick than Luxon, but the idea with the Faction Scavenger is brilliant. Solves the problem with a minimum of effort. --Xeeron 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tornement Reward points still broken?

Hi I was awarded 5 trp this month i know this is the wrong amount I saw your message on guildwar guru will this be fixed in a build this month or in another build next month , would just like to know ^^

Thanks ¬¬¬¬Conski

Hi there. Please contact customer support and they will help you with your account. Thanks. --Regina Buenaobra User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-New Aspen Leeching

The report system's flaws become more apparent when dealing with these kinds of players; (Jade Quarry) (same person different day)
The players run off to the back of the map, behind the Luxon command points, which makes them almost constantly party-menu untargetable, and hard to find. Because they leave the starting area, most people don't notice them, and because they're not targetable, most people won't report them. As in the first one, several of the players have painfully difficult to type names, especially when you're trying to play.
Even aside from these leechers, I've had dishonorable status twice from report penalties because insufficient team members reported the leecher as well - and I've tried drawing players' attention to the leecher in the chat as best as possible.
What drives me crazy the most is that Arena Net has taken a firm stance against farm-botting, which "harms" other players only theoretically, and indirectly, through market effects. This kind of player behavior directly impacts other people's enjoyment of the game, and contributes to the flooding of Z-Keys and Jade/Amber to the game, yet prior to the report system, it was "not inappropriate" player behavior, and even with the report system, repeating leechers remain untouched.
I understand that Arena Net has diverted most resources to the development of Guild Wars 2, but you must understand - this issue has gone on since the release of Factions. It has since been close to 3 years, and 25% leecher teams are still common. You'll have to pardon me if I don't accept that reasoning as valid, because I see no reason to expect Guild Wars 2 to be any more prompt in addressing these issue if there's always another project on the way.
Will ArenaNet please consider some token temporary suspensions for this behavior? If people are intimidated enough to cut this down to about 1 leecher every 4 battles, I'll be more than happy. MA Anathe 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What annoys me about leechers is most people dont seem bothered so if u report them and noone else does after a while u will get dishonor, So basically your getting punished for doing the right thing. --TalkWild 09:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest a system already used in other MMO's (like Runescape). Set up a network of trustable Player Moderators. Players that have a priority on reporting issues and have improved resources to do so. Of course all reports have to be checked in the logs - but if you chose the right people you know they won't abuse the system. This should allow 1. no drawbacks for reports 2. able to report in a way you don't have to type the name (to support other language and gibberish) 3. able to report even offline-players, if their ACCOUNT has been recently online 4. perhaps be able to dishonor/warn a person for a small period of time . It's a minimum you can do. Sadly enough teams are usually small and you'd need about one in eight to have trust status for this to work. =/ --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What really bothers me isn't the fact that the /report system doesn't work (people don't report; I used to tell people to report and explain why and how to do it, but no one else ever did), but rather that using the slower Support section of the GW site for this doesn't work. I have tried reporting through that system players which I have seen leeching multiple times (ironically one of those is on the screenshots above), but the answer Support sent me is that the leeching penalties are automatized, so they were not going to do anything to those leechers (regardless of how they were not reported in the first place). If the /report system doesn't work and reporting through Support also doesn't work, there isn't anything we could do against leechers. But to say the truth, I think this is more a matter for Gaile than for Regina, given how it's a Support issue. Erasculio 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
At it's root, I'd say it's more of a fundamental policy decision. Arena Net only hesitantly opted to deal with leeching, after over a year of indicating that it was essentially a "playstyle" and that they can't/won't force players to "play a certain way". If I remember correctly, Gaile herself backed this position on the GWG forums in one of the many leecher complaint threads. I've played in teams with W/Mo healers, A/Mo healers, W/E casters, and so on without complaint - people can run what they want. As long as they're out there trying with me, that's all I ask. MA Anathe 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added 2 new leeching picture of Jade Quarry, of one player, this person don't have shame at all, one time they just sits there at the starting point, one time they hide inside a npc, aligning the blue dots so people don't see them. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pumpkin pie (talk).

Okay, if you think this is bad, I think you should take a look at this: There are so many leechers and bots in Jade Quarry (now that FFF sucks), that it's essentially become unplayable for anyone who isn't botting/leeching. It's ridiculous that entire guilds of bots (namely the one with the [GoPK] tag) can flood JQ with bots running PvP elementalists with the default elementalist build (I'm not kidding--literally the one that's on your bar when you make a PvP elementalist) and no secondary just farm Balthazar faction for z-keys to sell, ebay, or whatever else they're doing. Winning and losing in JQ is no longer "which team has better players and/or better builds" but "which team has less leechers and bots". Honestly, it's basically unplayable now. As for a solution? Well, I can't think of a perfect one. Making players go in teams might help, but unless the team is 8 players, leechers/bots could still band together to hopefully get faction. Or perhaps the reporting system could start getting botting accounts banned much more quickly for ToS violations. --Seventh 07:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)