User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Misplaced Topics/June 2008

Archives by Topic
Random Chatter Wiki Topics Game Related Topics Community & Website Product Information Misplaced Topics, Etc.

Possible 10 parameter solution for Character Restore (GW2?)

The recent events, RAWR and an increase in Account "trouble" made us think.

There are 10 Parameters that define a GW Character;

• 0. Born in (GW1 =P/F/NF, Might not apply for GW2?)
• 1. Race
• 2. Profession
• 3. Gender
• 4. Hair
• 5. Hair colour
• 6. Face
• 7. Skin Colour
• 8. Height
• 9. Character name
• 10. Account owner

All the other accesoires (titles, armor, weapons, gold, runes, minipets) are secondairy to the first Parameters.
To be able to restore a character;

• These Parameters can be saved securely in a clients .dat file or the client software.
• An interface could be created to "restore" the first 10 Parameters by choosing the Name

-- (Result would be having the exact character restored that was lost/deleted)--

• Only secondairy Parameters that are stored in HoM are activated and restored with the restore of the Character.

-- (Result would be your Character standing in his/her underwear in LA/Kamaden/Shing Jea, able to travel to Eye of the North & HoM and enter HoM. All accomplishments that character did would still be there) --

• No restore of weapons, gold, armor, minipets, items in bags!

-- (Result would be having to work for them to regain what was lost and pay for access to your Xunlai even) --

• Restore of Character is only possible for lvl20 Characters
• Deleting a character means 1 death. (No Legendary Survivor Possible due to restore)

We have contemplated more detailed "steps" but this is the main idea.
A contemplation from a bussiness point of view would be appreciated. No doubt many Players would be less grieved if it happened to them and this was a Back-up.

Sadness & --Silverleaf 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with those metrics is that there isn't currently an easy or sure way to figure out what they all were for an already created character. You can't even GET a value for height ... ^_^. Don't really get the point of adding a death. Random extra punshiment if it happenes to a survivor aspirant?

Random thought though ... if backups aren't possible or whatever, how about a several-day deletion queue, where your character becomes unplayable until you cancel the deletion. Any character made in a slot freed by this would need to be deleted before restoring. -- It could at least work like this on the backend for support.

There really needs to be something, though. I don't know if i'd be bothered to continue playing if I lost significant title work, HoM, and minis I went and paid real money for (e.g., buying collectors editions later just to get them.)--Star Weaver 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just what part of: "If you've got suggestions for the game, check out the boxes to the right. There are a bunch of links there which will lead you to the appropriate places to post your feedback." is so hard to follow? -- Inspired to ____ 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Random Suggestion for the Game but a translation for the many thoughts floating around that players ventilate in-game or random brainstorming. I have seen and read enough to feel unsecured in my account use and allthough i abide fully to the "Protect your account" advice cannot help but feel the need to get an additional technical feature from the game itself. I would be content with having my character restored and fight for all i need to play it to the fullest again. Just cannot bear the thought to loose it like others have.

This is a request for an active voice in the decision making proces. Not stopping at just "complaining about it". And to me Regina is that voice, and so are you! -- Silverleaf 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why there's a dedicated subpage for these sort of feedback. Those pages aren't limited to content suggestions and they aren't limited to "random suggestions". -- ab.er.rant 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope account hack/trouble doesn't happen to you(reader) or a close friend of yours(reader). I strongly request an answer (solid) to this suggestion. All those wonderfull sub-pages and "Portals" do not add anything to a communication chains and create more dis-information. People loose stuff. They care. So I req. the CC and try to add a direction of thought hopefully on the way to a solution. Stop making this about other subjects. -- Silverleaf 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither does this section. ArenaNet has already made a statement regarding account theft, anything beyond that is a suggestion and belongs in the suggestion areas. You are implying that your suggestion has more value than those who place theirs in the proper location, and quite honestly it doesn't. Please respect the other people who are making suggestions and don't try to imply that you are somehow superior to them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way "Bureaucrat". Guess my opinion doesn't count either and all the fragmented way's of community concerns ain't important anyway's. Signing off. -- Silverleaf 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion counts just as much as any other user's, which is why we ask you to do the same as any other user. It's not anything personal against you, nor is it intended as disrespect for your opinion; rather, it's like asking someone to wait their turn in line rather than pushing to the front. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. You want me to "bury" a serious security question from the community that we 2 formulated into 1 of the POSSIBLE solutions on a page no-one but wiki people read. If you have suggestions or advice for me to place issue's elsewhere please do so on my talk page. -- Silverleaf 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And no insightfull remark about this before archiving :(. --Silverleaf 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the "Valor" Monument

So it can be used to enter other weapons than Destroyer Weapons. MarioDX 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While, I agree, I think this belongs in GW1 Suggestions-Warior Kronos 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it dose. and it was said somewhere that they are thinking about adding more weapons to that monument i personally think the destroyer weapons and greens.75.165.102.213 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this so far as adding the "unique weapons" but i also think that they definately have to add tormented weapons as well. -- Infamous Darkness 15:12 3 June 2008

Whispering while showing offline

Hey,

It turns out you can whisper while your status is set to offline, but you can't be whispered. That caused quite some trouble when a guy tried to trade with someone else trough an auction site. He whispered, but he forgot he had his status set to offline. The poor guy couldn't reply and the whisperer got quite mad and even started cussing 0.o

I tested it to, it's not just a story I heard.

I think it should be changed so you can't whisper while your status is set to offline.

My $0.02 :] HeavenMonkey 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or at the least, display a warning when you whisper while set to offline, along the lines of "Note: You are currently set to offline, so <NameHere> will be unable to reply to you." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i hate that. Another thing would be to do is make it say something similir (for the first three times) if you are ignoring them. Example:I was in a really long an annoying trade with someone, when it was over, they asked if i wanted another item, yet they had me on ignore. This person was either annoyed at me, lazy, or stupid, im assuming the latter and the latter latter--Raph Talky 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're marked as offline you shouldn't be able to whisper people, similarly you shouldn't be able to whisper people on your ignore list. It just leads to abuse Sadie2k 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An annoying abuse, by the way, that can only be avoided with another ignore. MithTalk 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's best they are not able to whisper at all when set to Offline. I think some people wouldn't even notice the message stating that the person they're whispering won't be able to reply. Heck when I'm set to "Away" I still get pms from people thinking I'm there and never notice the message saying I'm away. lol Verix 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The same problem occurs while you're set to Do Not Disturb, actually. I had a friend yell at me once because I couldn't reply to her- she was set to DND and thought I was ignoring her. Some kind of warning when you whisper while Offline or DND would definitely be good. -- Elv 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO there should be no "offline" option in the first place. After all this is a community game.

Lag

today and yesterday have been really lagy and man it was really bad today in ToA for some reason,And i was woundering if u could look at in the update?--Gar the tank 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Login, click test my computer and send the file to support. This is the wrong place. Dominator Matrix 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No im not the only one lagging its lagging in ab,LA ToA UW/FOW everywhere everyone is lagging and it is getting old...--Gar the tank 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They can still use the info, to help them determine where the slowdown is occurring. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i get lag spikes, and i mean HUGE ones, every now and then. When i get on gw again, i oughta check out the problem (probably my graphics card, its an old pice of crap inside a wonderful computer)--Raph Talky 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RA

I love it. I do not love noobs. Please help. I feel like RA should have a title system, or even AB, where you are paired with other players of your "rank" instead of it soley being random.--CRφssFIRE© 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You get a R/any with Power shot, warrior with frenzy and no elite, and an assassin with 4 lead attacks is outright ridiculous when you are a r4 monk with leet armor and skills. There should be more of a (rated) RA match. A title system mabye for Random arenas solely to show the amount of experience you have, so when being paired in Random arenas, the new players will learn the game with other new players while versing other new players, while the 1337 players can fight. I dont find it fair to always be teamed with new players when I am not. TBH what is really IMBA is having noobs vs. pros who sync RA, for they will not understand what guildwars is about. They will get the idea that Thay are better than me because they are a dervish or something outright riduculous like that. If new players learn the game with other new players, they will begin to learn how to have an advantage over a foe instead of why the cool guy with full black armor is killing me. Thank-you :)--CRφssFIRE© 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now come on. Noone likes an elitist. RA is where newbs start to learn PvP. I'm sure you were a newb once too. And how did you learn? By watching other players who were better than you, and learning from them. If you make a newb fight a newb, they won't learn stuff very fast. Throw a newb into a match with other skilled players, and that newb will learn much faster. If you just want exp players, play TA. -Warior Kronos 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RA taught me Healing Breeze was a good Warrior skill. It took getting into GvG to learn that no, I'm a fucking moron. RA as it stands doesn't teach anyone anything - the good players will decimate you in a heartbeat (or lose savagely because of build wars), the bad players crumble like crusty sand (or win savagely because of build wars), and the average players can't really tell which is which or even how good they are (because of build wars). People become so convinced that bad stuff is good (because of build wars) that the phrase "It works in RA" has literally become a punchline. +1 to Crossfire's suggestion. --71.237.30.4 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

thats like taking the most gay parts of ha, the elitists and their nerdranks, and pairing them together, so noone else can win or get anywhere, just as in ha. --Cursed Angel 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ha is hardly full of elitists. i think if they made it so the wipe your opponent maps had a one time only rez i think the game would make it a lot easier for alot of people because then people would not have to bring a rez sig and you wouldn't get raged be cause some nub war didn't bring a rez. also i the thing the game relay needs is a closed skill arena like the custom brawl, but have a smaller pull of skills, and have the skills change every month or so. and that way people can learn the very basics of the game. and also get conferable with skills.75.165.102.213 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every form of unorganized PvP needs to be split according to skill. It's no fun to get random shits on your team and then find yourself up against Langola and crew (true story). It's not just Guild Wars, every MMO seems to have this... but Guild Wars has the advantage of not also needing places to be split according to gear as well. (J is a wonderful thing.) -- Armond Warblade 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A better way to word the first post would be this. I love random arenas, but I hate random arenas. I demand you make random arenas non-random.--Yankeefan984 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Random arenas. I DO NOT LIKE being paired with noobs. Especially the monks with healing breeze and the elementalists with flare. Plz regina help :( RA should be just a litttttleee more organized. Like more of a chance of being paired with a player r1 glad or somthing. Its sooooo imba when elitists vs noobs and the noobs think its becuause ohh yeah they beat me because they are a dervish and dervishes are soooooo overpowered when really everything is balanced and they are just spamming power shot.--CRφssFIRE© 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Crit sycthe pwns faces in RA wai to hard Fox007 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think RA should have a title system like.... +1 point for every RA win. 1000 points to each rank. IT doesnt have to be (only being paired with your rank) but just more of a chance to have a team according to your rank. Thanks :) and also...+1 to Crossfire's suggestion.--CRφssFIRE© 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOO WAIT I HAVE A BETTER IDEA. ORGANIZED UPON THE AMOUNT OF BALTHAZAR FACTION OBTAINED.--CRφssFIRE© 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesnt that sort of make it less of a random arena and more of a play at ur level arena? to me that just sounds like a lesser version of Team arena's but you dont know who u will be with,--Wild 10:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that better than the usual RA. Based on Balthy faction is a great way to sort out teams accordingly.--crosskipFIRE© 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RA is one of the first pvp arenas (not counting the low level pve arenas) where ppl start to learn how to play. Maybe if people like you help them and "teach them" some basics you would get better partys, or maybe its time for yo to move to a another arena full of ppl of the same "level" or "leet-ness" you have. Random is that.. jsut random.. probe your skills and win in a 1 veteran 3 newbs team vs 3 veteran, thats the best achivement you can have XD. Kioga 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If Random Arenas paired you up based on titles, it wouldn't be Random. ~Shard (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Now allow 7 heroes in PvE?

I know I've brought up the seven heroes thing before, asking the reasons there are only four, but this time I am bringing up more reasoning to allow seven heroes.

I, personally, dislike Ursan a lot. I also dislike playing with people who use it. However, in Elite PvE areas, your basically limited to using only Ursan. PuGs: 99% of them require Ursan. Large PvE focused guilds: 90% of them use Ursan. Even if you do find a guild that doesn't use Ursan, it requires you to leave your current guild, which means you may have to leave your good friends. With seemingly no nerf coming to Ursan, there is currently only two real solutions to entering Elite PvE areas without using Ursan: 1) just dont, or 2) seach forums and do it a week later.

Allowing players to use seven heroes would mostly remedy this, and would likely make a lot of players happy.

So I ask you this, would ANet be willing to change their stance about the seven heroes suggestion? Thanks, — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An argument about player interaction will likely soon happen. If your a player who prefers to H/H, take this poll so we can tell whether allowing seven heroes will make much of an impact on player interaction. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But but but... interaction with people! What would Guild Wars be without hours of silence beyond "show title", "got cons?", and "use cons"?! --76.25.197.215 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I brought this up somewhere else, too. This would remedy a lot of the problems we have right now. A big problem right now is that there's almost no reward for spending time over completing the game. 76.64.184.135 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would indeed be cool to have the ability to use more Heros then 3. Would've liked it several times too as some Missions require Heros you normally dont take or coz Henchmen are just even more stupid then Heroes are. However after all GuildWars is a Team Game where you play together with other people and not just with yourself. I very well understand you as I hate Ursan myself more like anything else and leave any Party where I see it and most likely end up not doing Elite Areas (havent done DoA since uhm ages did it every day b4 Ursan became the "only" way) but well I cant imagine doing DoA with Heros / Henchmen... Where would all the Fun go? All the little Mistakes, the nice Talking in Teamspeak / Vent while fighting and having Fun? It would just be farming. And it might just be me but I dont go DoA or any other Elite Area just to farm stuff/money there. I do them to have some fun and maybe some challenge (even though I have to admit thats not the case anymore as they become way too easy even in HM). The Money/Items you get there are just a nice gimmick. So after all I am against increasing the amount of heros you can take or at least not to 7... Maybe make it you can take 4 Heros so there's a place for the Hero required by the Missions in NF but nothing more. Better remove Ursan Shit from the Game or restrict it to EotN I dont really care but it totally ruined PvE in the 3 Campaigns. --SilentStorm 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On the notion of player interaction that is both a good and a bad. Sure, you can be encouraged to go with a PUG, but without Ursan most PUGS end in hair pulling frustations or just failing what you want to do. Player interaction isn't a creditable part of the argument as you can easily H/H, and there's no external player interaction. Having the option of having 7 heroes just means you have more control over your AI companions. But, even without Ursan, more effective builds could make the game less challenging.

As much as I don't want to agree with Ursan haters I like this idea. Henchmen are generic throughout all areas generally, they have the same builds. Why bother giving us so many heroes and only limiting them to 3 per person? Heroes can be mircomanaged better and you can do far more - like change their builds to actually be effective with, say using Cynn in the Ring of Fire island chain and she only knows "I'm going to go burn the burning things" spells. And there is times I just want to do kill stuff with Heroes and Henchmen, but could easily love the idea of just my hero companions :) 118.92.105.239 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In elite areas, there are no henchmen, only heroes. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much has changed from when I wrote this article on the topic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As Aiiane said, nothing has changed. Before Ursan, you could not find a reliable PUG to do the Domain of Anguish. After Ursan, you still cannot find a reliable PUG to do the Domain of Anguish, unless you're a grinder who has grinded yourself to a high rank of the Norn title (what happened to "skill > time spent"?). If Arena Net was not willing to allow a full Hero party before, I see no reason to do it now. Erasculio 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, you only have to find one extra player to get a full team of heroes. Is that really so hard? I like it the way it is. 203.213.7.130 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you are not supposed to do Elite(!!!) Areas with just yourself and a bunch of Heros? --SilentStorm 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's way easier. The minimum party size (exceptin in pre-Searing) is 4 players. By the time you get to 8-player areas, you should have met people to join. Hm... I see nothing against adding the 7 'missing' heroes (2W, 1E, 1A, 1Rt, 1D and 1P) to Prophecies and Factions so people can get them there too, but there is no need to increase the Hero size to 7. MithTalk 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@SilentStorm: but completely unskilled players are supposed to be able to do Elite(!!!) Areas just fine? It would take infinitely more skill to beat an elite area with heroes with no PvE skills and one player with three than it would to Ursanrape the area.

@Mith: read my first post, there's a reason to raise the cap to 7.

@Regina, will I get an answer to my question any time soon? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ursanrape"? That kind of language is not cool, Teh Uber Pwnzer. Using a violent sexual crime to describe tactics in a computer game is pretty digusting and not acceptable. See below for on-topic response to your question. --Regina Buenaobra 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, meeting a player doesn't mean you should be forced to party with them, or resolve to using Henchmen. Again, I intend to use the 24 or 25 heroes you get from ANet. 76.64.184.27 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, your 'problem' is with Ursan, because you are unlucky and can't find people that play without it. So far I've only used it in the Torment to quickly finish the elite mission, but I've never had ned for it anywhere else.MithTalk 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing new that ANet limits the players. I guess they thought that consumables were going to be the way to counter-act this. I personally already do 3 heroes and 4 henchmen, and little ole me. GW is huge and losing players which means it's constantly getting harder to find a PuG. Do you know how I beat Duncan? It wasn't with skill. Some warrior runs up to duncan, dies, and some monk stands next to my necro as I hit the Signet of Souls or w/e that skill was. That's it. We downed him in 5 minutes. During that group, we had one guy that didn't even speak english and kept ruining our spirit-moving. Along the way of doing the elite missions, I got into a fight with some ignorant person who didn't know what goth was, and failed two PuGs due to just genuine noobocity. So you can understand my wanting to use my other heroes. Also, it's really cute how all the people against this think it's going to make the game SO much easier. People can barely afford their three heroes now, and you think they're going to just up and drop 10k on top of skills to have so they can own the game harder? I spent 1,200 hours of my life in Guild Wars, Balthazar forbid I actually get some recognition for it, right? Vael Victus 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: ANet isn't going to do this. They're focused on GW2, here's to hoping that's a rewarding experience. :/ Vael Victus 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be discussing this with one of the designers tomorrow and I'll give you an update if there's any new information I can provide. --Regina Buenaobra 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope there will be. --Lytel 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Especially with an update that benefits all sides with little or no downsides, there's no point in not implementing this (for both players and ANet itself). 76.10.141.105 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some questions on the programming side as to the technical feasibility of implementing a seven Hero party. We don't currently have dedicated resources to expand on existing GW1 features such as this. However, there is good news in that GW1 will be getting a game designer and a programmer who will be completely dedicated to working on GW1. We don't have a timeframe on when this will happen, because it all depends on when we can find replacements for them so they can move from the GW2 team without impacting GW2 development. I will raise this issue again when there is the possibility of actually implementing it (or at least looking seriously at implementing it) with regard to staff resources. --Regina Buenaobra 00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

=O Who are you, and what have you done with the A.Net CM? IOW, thanks a ton for the update, Regina. Lots of info is good. Reminds me of the D2 route Blizzard went for post "we-r-officially hands off dis game," and those 2 devs made awesome updates. --Ravious 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vael Victus crosses out a previous statement with a :D face but not a smile because smiles are just upsidedown frowns. Vael Victus 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a ton Regina. I was not expecting such a positive response. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! A single codemonkey just for GW1! What an encouraging prospect! MithTalk 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

7 heroes are completely not needed and could have a bad effect on the game, turning it further into a single player online game. Instead they should provide an improved centralized LFG solution, not restricted to a single outpost and region. Encourage playing with other people and help those who want to play a multiplayer game, improve the game instead of degenerating it. --Yawg 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those people who refuse to ply with Ursans but still want to do elite areas? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or those people that want to make use of the 24 heroes? 76.10.141.105 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the fact people need to actually be playing in order to use the LFG system? You should be a scientist, you're just full of theory! <3 Vael Victus 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

dishonorable

can we please limit the amount of times you get this, everyone knows if your team doesn't have a healer in RA it will fail,and since must people like me, dont have all day to sit around wasting 10 minutes each match for a runner or a hh wammo to die i would like rage quitting to not give dishonorable...as well as the fact many retards report you for leeching if you dc..like i can really control that and im doing it on purpose.plz put some limit into this thing, its very annoying for people who want to win pvp and not get stuck with a frenzy monk.Snipey lizard 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate frenzy monks. I just generally hate frenzy, though. I've often spent time lamenting the lack of healing in Random Arenas, but instead of ragequitting, I one day fired up a new character as a PvP monk. Sure, dealing with lag was frustrating at first, but it's manueverable. That's what I do on the days when no intelligent monks show their faces, and if I can't get anyone who's not playing from a mental ward, I go up to Team Arenas. If TA is an option, I always suggest it, and I adore when, after 10 rounds, my RA team goes up to there. Disconnecting, though, is really a pain, moreso when it's you and not someone else. However, you should check with the new "Test my Computer" to see if there are any things which would cause consistent problems with that. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a few instances when I won a Glad point in RA without a dedicated healer in the party. You newer know how it will turn out, really. If you DC once in a while you may get a Dis point. So what? You need another for it to actually block you. You can also do some PvE. Everything is fine as it is, since leavers and AFKers are practically nonexistent in RA now, and before they where a serious plague. — Poki#3 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the OP... you kinda are giving the reason why the Dishonorable status exists: to avoid exactly what you are asking to be allowed to do. It's RA, you don't need a monk (or a balanced team...) to reach at least the 5-wins mark (a rit can do the job, and you may not even need a healer with good dps and team coordination). Besides, there is already a limit to the amount of dishonor you get (1 hour if i remember right, which is the time it takes for points to expire).--Fighterdoken 08:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You wanna fix ra? EASY SOLUTION: REMOVE GLAD POINTS FROM RA. -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the limitation of the dishonorable system as suggested here. If you do not want dishonor points. Don't leave! Play with the party's you are given. They might surprise you. I am offended by the terms used here to point out inexperianced players (and in-game) though and on rare occurances even leave my party if the language used is getting unacceptable to me. I take the dishonor points for granted. Remembering everyone started as a beginner here is a usefull reminder. --Silverleaf 09:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... what? Dishonorable system is pretty trash. It managed to ruin RA more than it already was by design. -Auron 10:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How? -- Silverleaf 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IF your team does not have a healer in RA, you stay and die with honor. IF the enemy just keeps running around and annoy you, you stay and follow him with honor. If you are the last alive member of the party and do not have resurrections left, you stay and fight with honor. If you don't, you are dishonorable. That's how the Battle Isles work, because Balthazar wants so. If you leave, you make Balthazar angry. And Dishonorable is what happens when you make Balthazar angry. MithTalk 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If you don't like the 'Random' part of Random Arenas, go play Team Arenas, but don't waste the dev's time please. 145.94.74.23 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done the RA myself, and even with monks on the other time my team(s) have still managed to work. Its only when the other players on your teams don't have any decent self healers. As a dervish I have enchantments and Signet of Pious Light, I can work offensively or as a healer. Go into RA with multiple roles in mind and you do fine. [thumbs up] 118.92.235.229 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, if your facing a runner or clearly are going to lose, just suicide / go afk and do something else until the match ends...its shorter than the 10 minute wait for leaving-Warior Kronos 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also /resign. Acepting defeat is honorable. Leaving you teammates behind is not. MithTalk 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is accepting defeat but your stubborn teammates do not.--crosskipFIRE© 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, just accept it. It's a such minor inconvenience to you to just wait for the match to end. The problem here is people don't realize their actions can and do have ripple effect upon others in the community so be considerable and mature and wait it out. – Barinthus 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily a PvE player and I, quite frankly, suck at PvP. But I won a streak of 10 in a group without a healer on the first day I played PvP. Quitters who moan about dishonourable are missing the whole point of RA - it's there to dive in, roll the dice, and see what happens.Cassie 09:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In RA, you can't choose allies. You'll have to deal with what you get. If teammates stay, you stay. MithTalk 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A team without a monk is NOT destined to fail. Just a couple of days ago I made it to 13 wins wth a team made up of an Ele, a Ranger, a Mesmer, and a Dervish. I was the Ele. I didn't even bring a self Heal and I managed not to die. I think that people should stop blaming their lose on monks and start blaming themselves. It honestly doesn't matter if the group has or doesn't have a monk, when they lose it's the monk's fault. "Awe, we didn't have a monk.", or, "Stupid noob Monk!" Also, don;t change the way dishonorable works. It would only give more people like him a chance to quit when no monk is around.Blackie ewilson92 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If monks are so needed in RA, then play one. That will guarantee that you have one on your side! That's what I did for HA, and I have no difficulty getting into groups. Winning is another story. -- Alaris 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even comparing HA to RA is fail. Thanks for playing. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You failed to see where the comparison was valid. gg -- Alaris 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit about bring a monk in HA? Wow. I guess I charge headlong into every battle with no backline. Or was that supposed to mean you play a monk to get teams. Even more Wow. Winning is another story? Wowzer. If you don't aim to win, what do you do? And don't give me the sad excuse of "I play for fun". We both know that is a shit argument used by people who can't win (Every self-respecting person on the internet used that excuse once) because winning is so damn awesome. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I said that I'd play monk in RA to guarantee having a monk on my side (if I played RA), and I play one in HA in part because it helps me get into groups. I also said that having enough monks on your side does not guarantee winning (I play for fun and to win, btw). Everything else you thought I said was of your own construction. Be careful not to let "your interpretation of what people say" speak louder than "what they actually said", it's downwards spiral from there onwards. -- Alaris 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That part of my post was sarcasm, I guess you need the tags. My bad. Playing a monk jsut to get groups is bad. It just is.

Be careful not to give condescending advice to people who didn't ask for it, it's downwards spiral from there onwards. -- NUKLEAR IIV 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Sarcasm in forums and website fails. It's misinterpreted all the time. As for playing monk to get into groups, why not? No worse than playing SF/SH ele or scythe ranger to get into teams, is it? Or perhaps we should all play balanced? If you say something is bad, at least offer a better alternative. As for the advice, take it or leave it, but it's a good advice either way. I've learned a lot listening to advice, even from advice that I didn't ask for. -- Alaris 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Playing R/D's just to get teams and fame is called playing gimmicks and fame farming. Yes, everyone who can't play well should play balanced, because balanced is the only way to learn. You don't play gimmicks to learn, you play gimmicks to farm fame. -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that balanced play teaches you more about the game, but it's impractical. Someone trying to get into a good balanced team will spend far more trying to get into a team than actually practicing the skills in the field. Besides, seems you agree with me now... playing a monk to get into a team is a good idea. Especially if the team is balanced. -- Alaris 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True, balanced is the best way to learn, but how do you get into the balanced groups? Through fame farming...-Warior Kronos 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or running HA with your guild. You don't need a good rank for that. In most cases, guild teams win because they are able to put people in their best positions and are alot more comfortable with each other.Blackie ewilson92 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True. But they also win more often if they are in PvP-Guilds, thus most members spend more time in PvP than PvE, or will go an train new recruits in how to use vent, how to time spikes, etc. -- Alaris 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason we're trying to kill gimmicks. You can join the crusade. -- NUKLEAR IIV 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as gimmicks<=balanced, I see no reason why they can't exist. They are fun ways to play, different from balanced, and have their strengths and weaknesses. They are one reason why HA is fun, because you don't know what you'll run against. Again, as long as gimmicks<=balanced. If gimmicks>balanced, then there needs to be some adjustment. I won't go as far as suggesting that gimmicks be killed. -- Alaris 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My one comment to the whole concept: They might not have a monk EITHER! --Star Weaver 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh,I know what I'm always up against in HA. It's either SWAY or balanced. Fighting balanced is fun. Fighting sway is not. -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I read some, not all of these comments. People should not leave if they think their team wont do well, whether its too many healers or none at all. Leaving at the start or any time during the fight i would consider dishonourable. BUT, often times if the fight is dragging on 3-1 cause someone is running a build with amazing survivability res has been used by everyone on your team and the battle just isnt going anywhere, people should be able to /resign to remove themselves from the arena. suppose if 2 people use /resign it would then be ok for everyone to map travel out OR the command itself could do a check for an available res and then teleport you itself. Last thing i'd like to mention is that getting dishon when the timer has just started to send you back really sucks, sometimes i dont wanna wait the 15sec i might miss the queue.99.228.244.31 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chat Timestamp

It would be nice to be able to turn on timestamp for chat, to see when messages were sent. Often I come back to see a conversation, and have no idea whether it is over or going on. I know GW keeps track of what time messages are sent, because admins are able to check chat logs to see what had been said in the past. Sorry if this seems like a suggestion, its really more in the 'idea' stage right now. Of course, if a timestamp feature is added, it is very important that it be possible to turn it off or on. Also, a hotkey for it would be nice as most people will just turn it on to see when something was said, then immediately turn it off again. -- VegaObscura 08:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That would have the extra of being able to see the time just by inputing any string. MithTalk 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, pretty much EVERY Instant Messanger out there has a toggleable timestamp. Would be a great thing to have in GW and GW2. I know i would use it. It's always a great thing to have. --Wolf 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any update on the Ursan/Anet situation?

Very important note: I do not want this to degenerate into a finger waving contest for or against Ursan, this is directed at Regina.

A little while ago you said "opinion at ArenaNet is divided on Ursan Blessing" and I was wondering if there was any new information about what was going to be happening with Ursan. Its been something like a month since that time and a lot can happen in a month, considering that its s big thing at the moment when a lot of people think of Guild Wars it would be nice to know if there is anything constructive to add. 118.92.98.226 10:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I second this request. -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will say that I have very good reason to believe they are considering something positive but cannot give an official response nor will I give an official response because I am not official. Vael Victus 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

dont nerf ursan i am wery strong in domein of enguish and i can kill enyting so your al just bad end want to stop it becuse your not as good as me and i have much gold becuse i are wery strong and brave. --Frozen Archer 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what is this good reason, Vael? --Ravious 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Because out of the currently 7 active people I am, one of us has heard from an anonymous source that has placed a convincing argument that Ursan will be fixed. Vael Victus 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the major problems with Anet is their "wait and see" attitude when it comes to dealing with these kind of problems, so I hope they can finally make up their mind about what they're going to do with Ursan (and balance in PvE in general). --Draikin 18:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, take your concerns about Ursan to the Ursan Blessing talk page. This is a question about the situation, not your opinion on what they should do. -- Mini Me 19:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less about "wait and see" and more about prioritizing between GW1 and GW2 responsibilities. The design team has to split their responsibilities between the two games, and right now GW2 is the priority. We're looking at getting more resources on the GW1 side, so we hope to see more movement on GW1 features that folks have requested. --Regina Buenaobra 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just put a blanket statement here. Thanks for the update across your talk page, Regina. I think you saying stuff like "I talked to Phinney" really helps... even if some people disagree. Also, kudos on trying to get us more dev updates, I think that and the devblog (/pray) are going to really destroy the "communication bottleneck." --Ravious 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely good to hear an honest answer, but the problem with Ursan doesn't have anything to do with getting more features for GW 1. I think for the moment the biggest problem is that the community doesn't know what direction you're taking GW 1 in. Hearing how the people at ArenaNet are also divided on the topic of Ursan doesn't exactly help resolve the situation either. Is the lack of communication on the Ursan (and PvE balance) problem also caused by the fact that the devs simply don't have time to work on GW 1? Or are the opinions at Anet still so divided that they simply can't agree on the matter? --Draikin 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Ursan does have something to do with the current lack of resources for GW1. The PvE/PvP split gives me the impression that Arena Net is aiming at buffing split skills first (so everyone would have viable skills to play as, in all professions), maybe so, when Ursan is nerfed, PvE players would be left with many powerful skills and therefore would not get the feeling that all their characters suddenly became far less powerful. But if that's what Arena Net plans to do (and this is just a guess), they have to first balance skills, and that's always slow. For example, Shadow Form was overbuffed, IMO; if Arena Net just buffs skills without being careful, they may just create a second Ursan, but limited to one profession. Balance is something that takes a lot of time, between having ideas for proper buffs, all the internal testing that must be done, etc... Erasculio 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be rathe rof topic, but, I amazes me how many people it takes to make an maintain a game these days. Halo 1 was made with around 10-20 people, Halo2 with over 50, Halo 3 broke 100 members easy, and this is just the core of Bungie. Regina, might you have any numbers on the number of people on each team for GW1 and GW2 so I can oogle more over the sheer amount of man power it takes to make and maintain a game like GW? Perhaps it would make people think twice about saying, "oh, it would be easy to do this, and why can;t they do that, and why does it take so long to do this?" I don't know, I just find myself curious about how many people it takes to do such, and some of the steps involved. Maybe post a section on behind Anet? --Wolf 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are about 100 people at work here at ArenaNet. We're divided into about 20 different teams. The size of each team varies. Some teams have about half a dozen people, other teams have twice that number. The vast majority of staff is working on GW2. We currently do not have one person exclusively devoted to working on GW1 -- we have multiple people dividing their responsibilities between GW1 and GW2. GW2 is the priority for new content and changes. One of the issues GW1 faces today is getting programmer time to make changes to the existing game or to implement new features. To give you some insight, yesterday we received emails that asked us to work around programmer productivity periods by not disturbing them after lunch so that they have a big solid block of time to work on their coding. Most changes in the game require multiple people to discuss and come to a decision. Sometimes discussions take a while, becuase there is other work going on at the same time, too. From the outside, it seems that changes to the game take a long time, but behind the scenes the case is that games are not made by one person, and decisions are discussed as a team. --Regina Buenaobra 17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In Mexico they call that programmer time a "siesta." I kid, I kid. Thanks, Regina. --Ravious 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight Regina, hopefully this will server to ease some people and give them some patience. I have to oopportunity to have an Internship for a major prgramming firm, and quickly came to understand exactly how much time and effort is invested inot programming seemingly simple things, and often into very little code, and how much debugging and testing goes on to make sure it all WORKS. But then again, not everyone has had the chance to expeirence this tho, so they might not have the same insight, I hope this servers to alleviate some of that. Still rootin for the devs! --Wolf 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less about "wait and see" and more about prioritizing between GW1 and GW2 responsibilities.

I would have thought skill/game balance was a priority for Guild Wars regardless with people like Izzy keeping track of such things. Its very concerning to see Arenanet is struggling, it may be a little harsh of me, but it does seem Arenanet has given too much to Guild Wars 2, responsibility for Guild Wars seem to be a little bit lacking. I hope you guys overcome this issue quickly and in a solid manner. 118.92.98.226 04:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just "oh, it would be easy to do this," its "why hasn't this been solved for the months it has been a problem?" You would think that the entirety of PvE would have a little higher priority. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor management on Arenanet's part, I would so. Although, its understandable that the workers want to work on the 'new' thing. I would have thought a small team would have been assigned to maintain Guild Wars, since no new stuff is being added its just getting it going, throwing out the monthly skill updates and fixing bugs. I would have liked to have seen little quest/mission packs released in this time, running out of things to do in Guild Wars. 118.92.98.226 06:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any of oyu have ANY idea on how long or how hard it is to balance a skill without breaking it? I'm pretty sure you all want Ursan dumbed down but still useful? Well, any of you have any idea where that "still useful" point is? I didn;t think so. After-all how long did 55ing go on after Anet knew about it before it was FINALLY stopped? It wouldn't suprise me if Anet does nothing to Ursan and just powers up a lot of other skills (which would take even more time), but keep this in mind, you may think beafing up skills for the players will unbalance the game even more, but for any one skill you have, any HM creature can use it to over twice the power you can. Ursan parties also still have to play smart and are not invincible, I have seen them easily go down, in The Deep on NM too of all places. --Wolf 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues GW1 faces today is getting programmer time to make changes to the existing game or to implement new features. Are you guy struggling, the question comes to mind "How is Arenanet going to handle two games when Guild Wars 2 comes out if they're appearing to struggle now? From what I've read Arenanet is going to keep Guild Wars up and running when the new model is out, is this what we are to continue to accept from Arenanet?

Lets be a little realistic here, Guild Wars 2 is still, for want of a better term, way off and Guild Wars is still in the here and now, and still quite a place to visit for many, but it is discouraging when I think of Arenanet now, it seems you guys are spreading yourself too thin and starting to neglect the process. I hope you guys make some solid moves in getting programmer time for Guild Wars, things happen slowly even in the ideal situation, they happen even slower when a company admits it isn't really trying either. Wolf, also, I did ask this no degenerate into finger waging at Ursan. Stop encouraging. 118.92.98.226 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just pick it out as an example because it is an easy one and on top of everyone's mind. Also, it takes a lot more resources to develope a game than to maintain it, plus they are rebuilding it from the ground up, everything, even the game engine. Maintaining tow games at once is easier than rebuilding a game engine from the ground up, maintaining a game and making more models/textures and building area's ect is also easy. the key problem is that EVERYONE that could be looking into the problems wiht GW1 is working on pretty much the same thing for GW2. I imagine a short while after GW2 is out, or once it nears completion, GW1 will be making leaps and bounds. Say you have two computer's both wiht a virus, You focus all your efforts on computer 1 becuase its just an OS, no protection, no nothing, its very sensitive, so you spend gobs of time getting it clenaed up and protected, and then go to comp 2, while comp 2 is in worse shape, its still not too far gone, but already has protective software in place, so it clenas up fast and you patch in the newest version just to be safe. You decide it will hold out on its own for a while longer, so you go check out comp 1.

It my not be a 100% accurate analogy to Anet and development, and its not 100% on the mark either for computers and viruses, but I think its a good description. Also, once GW2 does make it out, I imagine most of the GW1 players will be playing it, so that will give Anet some more time to work things out. After-all, they always managed to make the next expansion AND balance and maintain all the games before it at the same time. Still rootin for the devs. --Wolf 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your perception from the outsider's perspective is that we're "struggling" but you don't have the full picture, otherwise you would not have that opinion. There are resource demands, yes. We are addressing those with recruiting efforts. Despite that, the priority is on building GW2. Maintaining GW1 is a priority as well, but creating lots of brand new content for GW1 is not. Wolf seems to have more insight into how much work goes into the game production process, but it seems evident from your comments that you don't have a similar level of insight. I have been trying to widen your knowledge a bit by explaining a little bit of what time and human constraints there are on the team here and how this works with the priorities we have set. I'm sorry that the way we prioritize here doesn't agree with your wants and needs. I do convey the community's concerns to the developers and I have been bringing up issues that I believe are important to the community (such as UB), but at the end of the day, they have to decide how to prioritize their daily and weekly tasks in keeping with our overall long term goals. --Regina Buenaobra 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we compare how long it took to make Prophecies and how long Arena Net has to make Guild Wars 2, it will be a wonder if they make it in time for a playable beta on 2008 (seriously, Prophecies was announced on the beginning of 2003, and released at the beginning of 2005; now that they're making GW2 while also having to maintain GW1, I would expect Arena Net to take at least that long in order to finish the new game). IMO they're expected to be more stretched now than after the release of GW2 (creating a brand new game is more consuming than just maintaining two games and creating an expansion), and I think Regina has made clear that right now they don't have enough resources to tackle everything the community is thinking about (not to mention to create new content, that's not something I expect to be viable anytime soon). We also know Arena Net is hiring more people, we know they are going to assign a designer and a programmer exclusively to work on GW1 - that's almost everything I expect them to do. Given how right now PvP needs urgent attention, the other things I expect Arena Net to do are to make a big balance update for PvP, and later make balance changes for PvE (including the UB nerf). Asking for anything more (especially more content like quests or other features, and especially free stuff) is, IMO, simply not viable or reasonable right now. Erasculio 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you convey the concerns from the community to the developers, Regina, but again the issue here is that the community often doesn't get to hear the reason behind changes made to the game. There is definitely a lack of communication on important issues like Ursan, so obviously that means we can only guess what's going on at ArenaNet. So no, we don't have the full picture, but is that our fault? --Draikin 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dev to player sharing, much needed. I, as well as everyone els eim sure, would very much appreciate it if maybe once a week we could get a update from you Regina, on what the devs are working on, and if it is GW1 related, and a fix, different appoaches they can take or what their plans at the moment are to fix it. It kinda sucks that we give them all this input, and we ourselves are left in the dark and have no imput from them..... I would prefer some dev feedback over game fixes in priority. Plus, I imagine it wouldn;t take NEARLY as much time to collect and post up on the wiki. --''Wolf'' 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The (hopefully) upcoming dev blog would really help give customers that missing insight by making us feel more like "insiders". It would, no doubt, also be a lot of fun for everyone involved. A dev blog is quite possibly the best idea ever. Can't wait for some piccys of the novelty crap Anet staff are hoarding on their desks. :P 218.214.126.215 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Draikin: I have been working with the developers on posting more frequent Dev Updates, which explain the reasoniungs behind skill balance changes. What more would you like to see?

Darkwolf: The devs are working on multiple projects simultaneously, mostly related to GW2, especially team leads, who have to oversee a variety of different projects all at once.

Regarding Ursan Blessing. We just had an informal meeting and the designers are currently evaluating what options they have to change the skill, whether to change it, and how much to change it. Why is there a question on whether to change Ursan Blessing, given the amount of vocal player hate of the skill? Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number. If the skill is changed, it will affect a huge number of players. The main issue being debated with regard to Ursan Blessing is the massive impact this will have on the playerbase. Sure, there are a lot of people on the wiki and on the forums decrying Ursan Blessing, but the designers have to weigh this feedback against hard numbers. Any change to this skill, no matter how small, will affect a large number of players. Having said that, they know this is an issue, and they are going to run some tests starting tomorrow. --Regina Buenaobra 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From the groups I've ran in, almost 75% of the peeps in elite areas are ursan users. So i agree with Regina, ALOT of people are going to be upset if ursan gets changed. -- Salome 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some people use the latest superspecial skill/build just because it's available, not because they're emotionally attached to it. Other people are forced to use Ursan Blessing because they simply can't get another party otherwise. It's usually the case among such people that once that skill, build or item is less powerful (or removed altogether :D), they go on to the next best thing. The only people who will be "upset" with the change are those that don't have the capabilities to use anything else. One can't look at only the numbers when looking upon a situation in order to fully comprehend its effects. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While some people may feel "forced" to use the skill, I am sure there are many people who use it becase they like it and enjoy what it provides to the playing experience. (Please don't tear the previous statement apart, thats already been done enough at Talk: Ursan Blessing.) I for one play with ursan because I want to, and "nerfing" it would probably change my gameplay significantly. I might be less annoyed with it if there was a viable alternative (I'm a warior, so not yet, but I'm hoping). And when I say viable alternative, I mean something that is just as powerful in its own way. (PVE imbagon, perma SF, etc). Ashes Of Doom 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with changing your gameplay once in a while. That's why there are over a thousand skills and ten professions, not to mention different areas where one must use different skills in order to beat it. There are lots of "viable alternative[s]", and none of them should be breaking the game by being so ridiculously imbalanced. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Ashes Of Doom and Brains12 \ talk There is a difference between nerf and tone down. And I hope I can say this wihtout starting anything or getting flamed, but, I dont thing a nerf should happen, I'm for a tone down, which would be doing something to the skill so that it is still as versitile as it is now, but not some all-mighty god-like destroy everything skill. Maybe down to the point that when taken to an elite area, an average player would be rather challanged, but would be able to pull through with good monking, smart agro, and teamwork. They should not be able to just clean house peice of cake in no-time at all just by agroing half the map. Nerfed would imply that Ursan would cease to be usefull, and that should not be the case. Anyway, thats my 2 cents. The devs are a smart bunch, they will think of a way to take care of it and keep enough people happy. Who was it that said, "A good compromise leaves everyone angry."? In the meantime, I'm still rootin for the devs, are you? --''Wolf'' 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Within the context of Guild Wars, a Nerf describes a game mechanic change made by ArenaNet which lessens the effectiveness of anything within the game, this includes skills and extends to builds, or tactics. A nerf is effectively the same as "toning down"; people's perception, however, is that a nerf is the complete destroying of something. (Perhaps that's due to previous nerfs we've seen that have not actually balanced something, but ruined it altogether.) -- Brains12 \ talk 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

True, by Anet's given definition, my suggestion would consitute a nerf, but I was trying to avoid using it to describe what they should do, as most would jump to the conclusion that Ursan would be completely broken once the devs were done with it. In that light, balanced seemed to say the same thing as nerfed, so I decided toned down seemed like an accurate description. --Wolf 01:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Erasculio, I'm gunna hash out some time constraints here. GW1 was announce april 2003 and went on release 6 months after it's beta in october 2004. Thats 18 months between announcement and Beta for GW1 and about 2 years from announcement to release. I imagine they aren't writing the game from complete scratch. You still have all the broadcasting end (getting it installed and running on the end-user's computer and those connected back to the server, ect), your updating software, and several other base game mechanics that are essencial to pretty much any game. So, I do not believe "starting from scratch" is entirely correct. GW2 was announced in May 2007. Thats 13 months from now. I would say it would be fair to see GW2 in beta by November, 19 months after announcemnet, but have the game take until about November of 09, and see it go through another beta mid 2009. Also, Regina, would I be correct in assuming that Anet's staff has noticable increased in size since the release of GW prophacies?? With an increased staff, something like mostly re-engineering shouldn't take quite as long as it did before, but, GW2 sounds like its going to be bigger wiht much more complicated game mechanics and features, you you add some time for that. I think my estimate of November next year at absolute latest is fair. Also, Regina, if I'm wrong about anything I'm saying here, please, by all means, correct me.

@Regina: Thats pretty much the kind of stuff I was wanting to get more of. Something about what in general is being done and a general idea of their course of action that has been decided on. Thanks for sharing Regina =D! Still rootin for the devs! --''Wolf'' 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be interesting to test changes for Ursan Blessing during one weekend (or one week), letting players know that said changes will be reverted after the specified time period. It would allow Arena Net to see how the playerbase deals with a nerf to Ursan, at the same time those players would be reassured that the skill would go back to its previous status after a few days. Erasculio 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable option, It would reassure those who wanted it delt with that something is indeed being done, and it would act to reassure those that use it that Anet isn't gunna break Ursan, and that it will still be useful and a viable option for most things, but at the same time, ease them into the fact that it will no-long be quite as cushy and easy as before, if that is the route the devs decide to take. --Wolf 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number." That sort of statistic would make for a very interesting read in developer updates, should you feel it is suitable to release that kind of information. (Which you should :D) Klassy 05:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regina, your comments on Ursan just now is basically what I'd like to see more. I haven't seen a Developers update for the latest skill balance update (yet), which had some questionable changes. Izzy saying that he thinks mindless button-mashing builds like Escape rangers are "fun and interesting builds" doesn't help restore the confidence of the PvP community either. We'd like to hear if that's really the view of the developers and if future skill balance updates will reflect that. Concerning Ursan, of course a lot of people are using it. ArenaNet's inaction despite the fact that Ursan was blatantly overpowered means that more and more people started using it simply because it's that good and that easy to play. It would take a very substantial nerf to at least Ursan Strike to bring it back in line with other skills. This situation could have been avoided if Anet had just nerfed the skill as soon as they noticed how ridiculous it was, instead of letting it impact PvE gameplay for months. --Draikin 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, ANet's "wait and see what happens" stance really screws things up some times. Most of the damage Ursan has caused cannot be fixed anymore due to the huge duration the skill has been in effect. Still, it would be better that some of the problems are fixed than it would be for none of the problems to be fixed. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am very disappointed with what I've read here. I am tired of waiting. I am tired of being left in the dark. And most of all, I am tired of ignorance.

Regina, I'm going to say the as bluntly as possible: Your input here was worthless. It did not contain anything we didn't know.Yes, you guys are working on GW2, yes, you may be having staff issues, yes, you have a lot to deal with. Anyone with half a brain knows all of this. What we want to know is what do you want this game to be?

If you look around a bit, you'll see (and this is directed mainly at wolf) many suggestions to change ursan without breaking it. You'll see many possible and viable fixes, laid out and supported by smart people. So I no longer buy "we are thinking". You, to be quite honest, do not need to. We, and I'm speaking for the community here, have already laid out many changes. All you need to do is just implement them.

But I am way past that. I am past the whole "Game is broken, pls fix" mantra. I am way, way past "Anet is doing their best" ideal. Now, I am at "Where is this game going?".

Since way back, (A little history - the dumbing down of pve has begun at Sorrow's Furnace, with the gear trick. Then came Factions with elite missions, nightfall, and today) it has became easy to observe changes, both in the game and in the community. I'm noticing less good people, more gimmicks, hell, I'm seeing myself getting worse. Now that izzy has openly acknowledged that he favours gimmicky play, I have to wonder - is this Anet's new game plan? What the hell happened to "Skill over time"? When I bought this game, It didn't matter how long I've played - but it matters today. And I don't mean in pve, I mean that if I don't grind rank glads, or some other bullshit, I don't get to pvp. What the hell is up with that? Hall of monuments was the final drop in the bucket - virtually saying "We will reward you if you grind!"

What further freaks me out is, believe it or not, the GW2 suggestion pages. Anet has a bad record of listening too much to fanbois and implementing badly thought fanservice that really doesn't go anywhere. Coupled with the teasers and pre-release info on GW2, and I dread that we may have a WoW clone.

Except, If I wanted WoW, I'd play WoW.

Going back on topic, I'll restate the ultimate question: Where is this game going? I'm not the only one asking this question, regina. The guru letter, to which your answer was also unsatisfactory, openly asks this. And not only I, but pretty much all of us ask the same question.

It wouldn't be off to say that we demand an answer. -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wanting an answer to that same question. Where is this game going? --Wolf 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But you'll get the same answer you always get, Anet saying "our game our way."

Old principals don't seem to mean much, Skill over time is a very nice concept but its no longer the case, but then again when was it every the case? Regina really isn't that much of an insight into anything or a help to anything either, I question if she's actually listening, even more if she's actually voicing anything, there's a reason the same things are brought up time and time again, because they're not being addressed by the developers or if they are its not in a solid way that the community can grasp. Communication is lacking. I mean people learn through repetation, if the developers are having the same things told to them week in week out it would start to sink in, but I doubt that. We, as the community, as these who invest our time and money into your game, have concerns and feel you aren't really giving a toss about them. So to this I have to ask, "If you don't seem to care, which is what we are seeing from our POV, then why should we?". Its the role of any company to make a product that people want to buy, but to be honest if this was a subscription service I wouldn't have renowed. Guild Wars 2, sounds interesting but the sour taste in my mouth at how Guild Wars is at the moment seriously puts doubts in my mind if I want to invest any more of my money and time into you guys.

I see the answer for that as: "A game for all". And that's impossible. IF you make things harder, some will whine because it's hard. If you make it easier, some will whine because it's too easy. Whatever you do, people will always complain. The only way to make a game 'for all' is making it different for each person when they are alone and each party when they are toghether. Currently we have a hard mode switch. Maybe what is needed is a slider:

Harder <--------------------> Easier

More rewards <--------------------> Less Rewards.

Something I currentyl see almost impossible in GW1. MithTalk 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, the more important question is one we have to ask ourselves, not the developers, "Why are we continuing to bother?". We have been going over the same things for months now, getting the same bland answers from people like Gaile and now Regina, those who are our link to the developers, but are we really being heard? 118.92.66.7 09:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have spent several hours a day for several days now giving suggestions, asking questions, giving input, and over-all trying to help the situation on both sides, but so far, all of my efforts were in vain. With that I take my leave of the wiki for a while until something else happens, I will be checking my talk page from time to time tho. Best of luck to you all and Goodbye. --Wolf out. 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't fully agree. I have been reading constantly this wiki and, agreed, there are many issues to be addressed. Yet there is a big diffrence between listening and results. I am a professional programmer myself, and currently working as an outsource to a company with many many programming needs and only 3 programmers. So yeah, some things do take even months to get to. Specially when you are migrating your main system into a new one. And many times, the results that are viable are not necessarilly what the user wants even if it is what he/she needs. Regina has constantly replied that they are reading, and listening to the maybe hundreds of requests on both PVP & PVE sides, and I truly beleive her, and I do beleive they care not just for the game, but for the community. Remember that many people working there now were once players of GW. The answers or end results aren't necessarily what we would want due to the many factors Regina has already stated (since they have statistics and a more global view of all the players). So sure, I would like more updates on GW2, and I would like rewards to represent "hard work" vs. easy runs... and many other things, but I also understand the amount of pressure A-Net must be going through. AND most importantly, All ANETs work depends heavily on Budget, which comes mostly from people buying the games (I'd assume). And since there is no monthly suscription (which is what other companies use to sustain, maintain, update and create new content on their games), that would mean that (I think) between Games Sold + Loans + others (stocks?) is what currently finances GW1, GW2 and the pizza's they eat every now and then. I'm not saying A-Net is poor, just that I don't think they rely on as much financial resources as other suscription based games.

And yeah, I have thought "Well, maybe IF they released another expansion, that would get some cash in, and keep players interested in the game". Sounds very logical, but I don't have all the information needed to assure this is best due to X impact it would have on GW2 (decision analysis anyone?). And I don't want to delay GW2. Hopefully we will have a dedicated team (of 2?) dedicated to GW1, and we'll see more updates (like the Dev Update released today) which I thank very much.

So Regina and the rest of the team, keep up the hard work and try not to get abosorbed by the pressure. Peace. --Nekki 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think vain was poor word choice on my part. But even with that, I have said pretty much everything I have to say. If anything is going to happen now, it's up to Anet to do it. When I first started posting in these threads, I think I realy mixed some things up. For example, look at my huge post in An open letter to Anet, and then Regina's Journal, and notice that pretty much every single one of my suggestions was addressed, and realy none of anyone elses. I'm trying to avoid stirring up something I am not capable of handling. I'm done fighting the storm, time to ride it out. --Wolf out. 14:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, development is slow. Also, most hyper-opinionated and over-spoken gamers are rarely satisfied and even slower to change their minds. Stepping back a bit is never a bad thing. A watched pot never bubbles and all that. :) --Star Weaver 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many ways to approach issues and projects, including stepping back a bit. GW is ment to please everyone (which as some useres have stated is impossible) as much as possible. Yet you have so many diffrent player "types" (?), due to culture, race, sex and age (where you have people around ages 8, 12, 16 to who knows, I'm 30). So I "woot" with Wolf to the devs, and just trust A-Net, with all the information available to them (including what people suggest in this wiki and other mediums) that they will make the best decisions possible, and they will correct any mistakes they make along the way, giving time to analyze and study current issues while progressing on other projects like GW2. Peace. --Nekki 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@Nekki Perhaps you ment *root*? --68.226.78.185 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

uhm yeah :P thanks, spanish is my primary language, althoug I was raised with english. --Nekki 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can woot for them too, just probably best done in response to things. :) --Star Weaver 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@Wolf I think now would be an excelent time to sit back and ride it out. It's gunna take some time for things to get any better, but I don't think they will get any worse.

@Nekki No Proble, just passing through.

@Star Weaver Yeah, or that would seem a little weird. =D --68.226.78.185 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue with GW trying to cater to everyone is that it dumbs down aspects of the game where it excelled at. Ursan is the best example of that evolution: playing GW used to be a matter of choosing different skills and combining different professions to create your build, and then implementing that build into a team composed of other characters running totally different builds. Ursan ruins that concept completely: it's one skill but it's basically your entire skillbar, professions don't matter anymore and your team consists of other players running the exact same thing. To make matter worse, the skill required to play it can be summarized as "repeatedly mashing your head on the keyboard". Sure there were gimmicks before and certain professions weren't popular in PvE, but instead of fixing those issues by implementing better AI and balancing PvE, ArenaNet is doing the exact opposite by removing build variety, removing PvE balance and by dumbing down the game by promoting button-mash gameplay. ArenaNet doesn't seem to understand why the community is so worried about this evolution. Perhaps they never knew how much potential GW 1 really had, or perhaps they just want to make the game more mainstream and increase sales that way. I can only hope that GW 2 reverses this trend and gets back to the basics that made GW: Prophecies work, but I fear the worst. --Draikin 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of frustration that hardcore GW players are feeling, the question of "Where is GW2 headed?" is a valid one. It's equally frustrating for me because I cannot give you specifics. I can say that the developers and I have discussed this and ArenaNet remains committed to the GW philosophy of "have fun now" and "play the way you want". We want to provide the flexibility for as many play styles as possible, whether you're into arena-style, balanced PvP or into deep, story-driven PvE style play. I can also say that what I've seen of GW2 and what I've been briefed on (the orientation meeting on GW2 is four hours long!) is incredibly exciting. The concept art plastered all over the walls is absolutely stunning and being in this environment day in and day out has me in awe of the scale of this project. Looking at GW2 from a PvE perspective, I can say as a player that what they're planning on doing has me ecstatic about what I'll be able to do with my character(s). From a PvP perspective, there are a lot of PvP ideas and features that you want and that we want to give you that are simply not possible with GW1 that will be possible with GW2, and that may be extendable outside the game. Those possibilities have me very excited, too. Right now my hands are a little tied on what I can talk about. It's company-wide. Any little bit of information released about GW2 needs approval from multiple people and requires discussion. All I can really talk about is how I'm feeling as a player, and damn if I'm not excited about everything I'm seeing. --Regina Buenaobra 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Update Regina! Any chance we could or know when we could get a glimpse of some of this awsome concept art? OH! Bring it to PAX =D! Keep us posted. Maybe after GW2 is out, or when you can tell us more, I think it would be interesting to know why some of this stuff for GW2 was not possible for GW1. On a side note, anyone know where Wolf is going and why? --63.113.14.26 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Many Colons). Re Wolf: Away from gamedev discussion for a bit I believe. --Star Weaver 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What a shame, he seemed to be one of the few that realy got it. --63.113.14.26 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As far as GW2 concept art goes, have you considered releasing a small trickle of it? Maybe posting 1 or 2 every few weeks on the website to pique people's interest? Yes, this is another plea for more GW2 info. Out of the few in-development games I'm following, Arena Net is by far the most tight-lipped developer. While I do understand the need to keep most details under wraps, I don't see the point in a complete blackout. I think a small-scale release of some concepts would go a long way with those of us waiting for more info. --Valshia 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading and gathering, this has been suggested already. It was also something Wolf brought up and pushed for on great many differen't topic discussions. So far tho, Arena Net and Regina have completely refrianed from commenting on whether or not this is possible. --63.113.14.26 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but given the ways we received the influx of GW2 info, I am guessing ANet is working on selling the information to the highest magazine bidder... with another miniature of course. Just a gut feeling because I see no reason for this deafening silence. Fluff, such as concept art, or a random screenshot (hey you gave us those ugly trolls from GW1 alpha), or a blurb from Grubb would be better than this. --Ravious 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't suprise me if thats what they are trying to do. After all, they have to make money somehow right? If they are selling it out to someone, I hope it comes around soon. Heck, I have a PC Gammer subscription, and would gladly buy any other mag for some GW2 news. --63.113.14.26 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S. someone should probably restart the indent soon.....)

@Ravious, I thought the "bribing" typically goes the other way around. --Valshia 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt right now, but it is late here, and if I don't post now, I'll forget what I want to say.

Regina, I'm no longer buying that bullshit. Your post was completely worthless, and served nothing more than a "GW2 will be so cool!!" advertisement.

I don't care about GW2. I care about now. GW. NOW. If you read the open letter above, you'll see that I'm not the only one asking this question. And the question is very simple: What are you doing to GW?

I really don't give a damn anymore about company transparency, or policies or any other political crap. I want Answers, and I want them now. It's really that simple. I'm not a greedy person, I just want a simple statement of "Yes, we are driving the game towards gimmicks, how can you tell?". Repeating Myself, I don't care about a game that hasn't been released yet. I care about a game I've invested so much time and effort, and I care about getting some answers why this game is going downhill.

Regina, I'm not only one asking this. If it matters to you, I can most surely say that if a great portion of this asking community is not satisfied, you'll only have cater to one type of gameplay in GW2. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I did read the open letter. One of the main questions in it was asking where GW2 was headed. Since I can't give you any details about GW2, I thought perhaps people would like to hear how I felt as a player. Obviously this isn't appreciated, so maybe I shouldn't reveal anything at all? Is it better to have absolutely no information, or to have the little bit of insight that I can share?

What are we doing with GW? We're maintaining an existing game while developing a brand new one. The designers made the decisions they made about the game based on the data they have access to and keeping the overall philosophy of GW in mind. Many of you disagree with their decisions, but many of you don't. I'm sorry that you don't think their decisions have improved your play experience, but not everyone feels the same way you do. That open letter thread on Guru is not representative of the entire GW player base, and in fact it may be skewed, as I have received complaints that some forum members have had their posts deleted or censored -- however, that's off topic. There are a lot of improvements that we'd like to make (which you may or may not agree with, too), but as I have said repeatedly, it is a process that involves team decision making, testing, and implementing them with limited resources. You do not have access to the same amount of information that the developers do, so their decisions don't always make sense. We're addressing this with the Developer Updates. I'm sitting here explaining what is going on on our side, with as much information as I'm able to share, but perhaps I could do a better job. How much detail would satisfy you? Would anything satisfy you at all?

To be honest, I think your mind is made up. I believe that most of what I have said here will again be viewed by you as "excuses." However this is the reality of game development: the developers are reading and listening, I am making them more aware of the changes the community wants, and they have limited resources with which to work on GW1 but are hoping to solve this with added staff.

Thank you for your time. --Regina Buenaobra 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Regina: See what I mean by people starting to sound like broken records after long enough? Some people seem to just want to complain and complain some more until they have their way this second. Nesflash everyone: If anything is going to happen it's going to take time. No amount of Whining and complaining is going to get you anything any faster. I think some of the wrong people (Wolf) have left the wiki to ride out the storm, when the people that REALY need a break are still here complaining even more. If anything is going to happen, it's going to take time, so suck it up and drive on. --68.226.78.185 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that little tidbit of GW2, Regina. Please continue down the path you have been going despite some of the other comments here... I really enjoy the dev updates and your presence here. --Ravious 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Any update on the Ursan/Anet situation? ", I think the developers answered it in todays update. Maybe not the answer many people are expecting, but at least they stated that they are aware of the concerns, they are listening and they are evaluating which way to go with it. --Nekki 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I meant when I said Anet has a "wait and see" strategy for a lot of problems in the game. The same goes for the Shadow Form buff. They're still "evaluating" it, while the effects on the economy are already noticeable. In other words ArenaNet is just going to wait and see if it really does ruin the game economy even further, instead of just realizing nothing good can come from that buff and nerfing it now to prevent future problems. That's really one of ArenaNet's greatest flaws: they're very hesitant to revert changes they made to the game, no matter how bad they are. I have no doubt that they'll eventually nerf Ursan since every day you see more and more people asking for that. It's just a shame that ArenaNet practically have to be forced to balance PvE by the community, while Izzy claimed PvE players don't care about balance. Not all PvE players may understand why balance is important, but even they'll eventually realize the negative effects that overpowered skills have on the game. --Draikin 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Fairly recently I've come to the realization (perhaps others have mentioned this in the past; I certainly haven't followed every discussion regarding Ursan) that the debate regarding whether or not Ursan should be nerfed rather closely mirrors the debate whether or not we should be allowed to use 7 heroes. In both cases it seems at first glance that it is a decision that only affects players who choose to take advantage of it. If a player chooses not to play with Ursan on their skillbar or 7 heroes in their party, how can they be affected by other players being given that option?

As Anet has mentioned a few times when the heroes topic has come up, Guild Wars is at its core a multiplayer game, and they don't want to do too much to discourage players grouping with other players. In other words, Arenanet is arguing that for every player that would go into Moddok Crevice with 7 heroes, that takes away the options of the players trying to form a group of humans for that mission. Now turn it around: (part of) the community is arguing that for every Ursanway group forming for DoA, it takes away the options of the players trying to form a balanced group there.

With heroes, Arenanet decided to strike a balance between encouraging player interaction and giving those who choose to play alone (or with few other players) greater flexibility, letting us fill half the group with heroes and the other half with either henches or another person and their heroes. Similarly with Ursan, I would expect the only solution to be striking a balance, not nerfing Ursan into oblivion. Perhaps only one member of a party can be under the affects of each aspect (Ursan/Volfen/Raven) at a time, or perhaps finding a way to make Ursan synergize with non-Ursan builds. Something to break down the supremacy of all-Ursan teams without destroying Ursan Blessing itself. Not the easiest task in the world. Food for thought, anyway. - Tanetris 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's past that, Tanetris. Ursan may be broken, but so is shadowform, so is imbagons, so is every other piece of fanservice they let into pve. The real problem remains - "What is this going to?"

PS: I'm sure we'll get 7 heroes soon enough. -- NUKLEAR IIV 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanetris, I think the most realistic nerf to Ursan is to significantly lower the damage output. That way people who simply can't play anything besides Ursan builds can still use it, but they wouldn't be storming through areas nearly as fast anymore. Make Ursan what it should have been: something everyone can play no matter how bad they are at the game, but not nearly as efficient as other (more varied) builds that require more skill. --Draikin 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Nekki, that hasn't answered anything. It just says the same thing they've said for MONTHS! Its not an update, its an echo and since its an echo its just Arenanet, or just Regina, caving to pressure by just repeating the same thing again, thinking that telling us, "We're waiting and seeing what happens" is a valid enough of an answer to make people go, "Yes, they're taking some action". Its just like someone insulting you, realising it has upset you and going "I'm waiting and seeing what happens, seeing if an apology is coming".

Im sorry, yes I understand decisions take a long time on such things, but up there Regina conforms the amount of players using of Ursan is a lot, although her backwards way of saying it "Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number. If the skill is changed, it will affect a huge number of players." "not an insignificant number" then turns around in the same sentence and says "huge number" ... I love how people do that, makes me believe they couldn't answer a question straight if their life depended on it. Ursans influence is big, they know this, I'm sorry but I will not believe the developers can just sit back and watch its influence grow. If its a concern the amount of people using it now are high, and touching it might upset people, whats it going to be like in 1 month, in 2 months, in another 6 months. When a player can LITERALLY run around using ABSOLUTELY NO ATTRIBUTES for their profession or secondary and still beat the game, what the hell does that say? 118.92.217.54 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem with Ursan isn't so much the skill itself (its damage, its DPS, etc), rather what it represents. Just like how Arena Net is against seven heroes in a party because that goes against Guild Wars' design...I would have expected Ursan Blessing to be nerfed because it goes against Guild Wars' "skill > time spent", no matter how many players use the skill. IMO, it's a bit scary to learn that player pressure may result in such a big compromise as inverting "skill > time spent" into "time spent > skill" (especially with Ursan, since it's something that literally requires grind to be effective, and literally requires grind to be accepted in a party; someone with rank 3 is not going to be accepted in place of someone who has grinded to level 10). The fact that Arena Net is taking the number of players using Ursan into consideration is good, but I would have been happier if they had been more resolute into keeping the original game design that, IMO, was one of the best features in GW. Erasculio 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the whole the skill > time spent, if the game truly is more for skill than time/grind Arenanet will change Ursan (and many other things), because its the ultimate example of time/grind over skill, it can literally be abused to the point where profession/secondary profession (the core elements of the game) can be totally ignored. I reran a whole bunch of mission recently with friends with no attributes being invested in any of the human players using Ursan with a title track from 3 to 10. We had 2 HB monks and guess what I think I played Ursan Wars instead of Guild Wars lol. We beat every challenge without needing to take the time to think of skills, builds... we just ran in and spammed Ursan skills... It literally made me feel dirty.

Basically I want to know, "Will Arenanet follow the principals which Guild Wars was supposedly built upon or just let them fall by the way side because Guild Wars 2 is coming?" .

Also Regina, I think you're getting confused people are asking "Where is this game going?" in reference to Guild Wars, we are not really asking "Where is GW2 headed?" Guild Wars 2 really isn't important, we're not playing it, we're more frustated now for Guild Wars, not Guild Wars 2. I questioned myself and my partner last night if you are actually listening or not, I don't not think you're not listening to what we're really trying to express! Or if you are not listening you're definately not reading right, then you're definately not hearing right ... though we're really not saying, we're typing... but then you're definately not reading what we're writing trying to say." lol. Eh, I think that broke my brain :P 118.92.232.128 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, kids, skill is defined as going to PvX wiki and hitting the "download build" button. Vael Victus 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Skill is defined as being able to infuse on time. Being able to use frenzy properly. Kiting properly. Tab'ing without killing too much dps. Skill, by no definition, should be dependant on your bar. -- NUKLEAR IIV 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Skill is basically how well you utilize your bar and other abilities (such as movement), not your build. Ursan requires just about none; mash the 1 button with 2 and 3 mixed in and your good to go. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could also be partly because Regina thinks "that GW1 is a three-year old game at the tail end of its lifecycle" ( taken from her post here ), maybe this is a view shared by the developers. Would explain a lot of this, they simply see as Guild Wars near death and aren't really too bothered with it. 118.92.232.128 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the devs see GW1 as pretty much dead when GW2 comes out. I'd bet pretty good money that a vast majority will be making the switch to GW2, and if not leaving GW entirely. The numbers of GW1 players after the GW2 release are going to be VERY few. And, with those low numbers, I don't see any of those people sticking around, as the only thing letf to do will be to grind for those titles. I honestly think they are setting GW1 up so that people will be able to come back to it and easily go back and do anything HoM related for GW2. How else do you explain Ursan? With it, all you would need to do anything is two good monks and 6 of anything else with that title. Then there are the grinds, you dont need other players to grind out hardly any of the titles. Vanquishing is an easy ursan group away. I think when they thought of GW2, the first thing that hit their minds was the drastic cut on players in GW1. I know its the first thing that hit me, (after "OMG GW2!!") With that in mind, I dont think they were very far of the mark and are in a sense, preparing for the day when GW1 has hardly any players at all. I can also see why they would be hesitant to change this, as it would kill all their plans so far, or tell us, as they don't want to scare us out of the water. Honestly, I think you will all thank the devs for ursan and some titles left to grind in GW1 when all is said and done. I can also see the possibility of the lights actualy going of on GW1 2-3 years after GW2 is out and underway. Anyway, thats my two cents. Regina can deny them or accept them or just not say anything, but that won't change the fact that those thoughts entered my mind as a logical explenation. --68.226.78.185 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But uh, I thought the game was dying? It's obviously not picking up new members, just kinda wittling away with what it's got. I expect another year of GW's life before being eaten by GW2. Which, really, doesn't bother me all too much. Vael Victus 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, there's still a lot of people in the towns who are asking questions which indicate that they've only been playing a short time. --Star Weaver 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I was talking with Wolf on X-Fire yesterday and he pointed something out to me. We both think that neither the devs nor the players expect GW1 to stick around for very long after GW2. the only things most players have left to do is PvP and milk out those last few titles. Wolf thinks Ursan was a deliberate attempt to make it easier so that every player will have their chance to do things that were previously out of reach, I.E. vanquishing and elite areas. Anet undoubtably saw the inevitable end of GW1 comming, and Ursan was a deliberate attempt at enabling every player with EotN to be able to get anything done that they have left. He seems to belive people may not see it yet, but He maintains Ursan was a smart move on Anet's part. My thoughts on this? I'm not 100% sure about it, but it sounds logical and I wouldn't doubt it either comming from Wolf, He's a pretty smart guy, and realy seems to get things around here. I can also see why he left when he did. People are just starting to repeat things said by others, but in different words. --68.226.78.185 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just starting to repeat stuff said by others? ;) I suppose he's probably right, though, about giving those an edge that are less skilled than others so they too have at least some chance of filling (at least partially) their HoMs. Our guild has used it (well, it wasn't a "traditional" Ursanway team; there were only three out of eight of us using UB) for one elite mission that we had never done before, only because most of us work and we didn't want to be going at it a hundred times. Nevertheless, I don't see as huge a problem as most are decrying, but I'd understand if it were hit in terms of its effectiveness. Kokuou 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

True, they have been from the beginning. Most of the people that post here sound like a broken record. When you put forth that many suggestions and nothing changes, what more can you do? I must agree with Wolf on the fact that if Anet IS gunna do anything, no amount of us complaining or flaming them is going to do anything. I think it's also about time I also say "I'm done fighting the storm, time to ride it out" (Wolf) --68.226.78.185 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, when he said Wolf I thought he menat you. Anyway, pretty much. And broken record, pretty much. The poblem with anything like this (or, say, the debates on izzy's page), is that most of the people who are reasonable only have so much to say; but the people with paranoid conspricay theories, the people who feel entitled, the people who feel self-righetous, the people who like complaining, are willing to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. So you get people talking so much that it sounds like a lot more people are really upset than really are. It probably dosn't help that a lot of people are willing to just go out and say "most of the playerbase feels like me". And you get people who say they're done with the game but hang around to continue complaining. And it really mostly just stops being useful, months ago. --Star Weaver 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you got that right. In town all the time, I see people say something like "This game sucks, WoW is better!", and then you get a massive reply of something like, "Then GTFO and go play WoW, we don't want to hear your complaints!". I guess some people just like to complain and argue. I like Wolf's sytle in the fact that he said what he had to say, and then he left. He didn't stick around to hear all the rest of the broken record complaints. Another sad fact is that the other small group of people that are genuenly concerned or care, but don't wan to complain are never heard, they never make the jump over to the wiki. My alliance seems to be pact full of these kind, and a good chunk of the player-base could also fit this mold. --68.226.78.185 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have with this kind of thinking: "Wolf thinks Ursan was a deliberate attempt to make it easier so that every player will have their chance to do things that were previously out of reach" is that it would go against not only the principal of skill but also is defeated by Arenanet itself saying they're still 'considering' what to do with it. Regina, amongst saying many other things, has said Arenanet in itself is at odds over Ursan. If Ursan was seen as a tool to let players do something why even 'consider' changing it? Why can't Arenanet just come out and say it for what it is? I mean, wouldn't it be more acceptable to everyone (for or against) if we actually knew what the point of all this actually meant? If Arenanet came out and said it brought out Ursan (deliberately going away from its skill principal) so people can do more or finish up stuff (for say the purposes of the HoM) although I would personally think they've gone completely retarded for doing it, it would at least give closure on this. But they're not really saying anything. They are, once again, throwing things out there and letting the community split over it. They are deliberately causing problems within the community Thats how I see it, doesn't mean I'm right but thats my view. They know its a very big thing, for the fors and for the againsts, but wouldn't it be so much better for everyone if we were actually told, instead of being strung along by the ' wait and see' style they have, it can only be justified so far. I mean, I personally want to know if they're abandoning their principals (not just because its nearing its end), because if thats the case I will probably abandon the game just because for me, I identified with the skill instead of time idea. That is what brought me to Guild Wars. If Arenanet has released Ursan, which is deliberately against Skill, it would shift my opinion of the company as it is not what brought me to Guild Wars. I dislike being strung along. I am a straight answers kind of guy. That is what annoys me. Guild Wars has so much going for it still, but if they're to abandon it now... so be it. 118.92.126.254 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The views and opinions of one man don't change much, no matter how logical. What Wolf thinks could very well be near the mark, and maybe what ursan is, turned out to be near the mark for what Anet wanted it to do. Several times Anet has done things with the best intentions that the community has taken in a completely different direction. I mean, look at the Assassin and Dervish, It took a couple months for poeple to start to figure out their play styles. Before that, it was everyone making one just b/c the could be a ninja or use a scythe, which does appeal to a lot of people, and so does a rather simple, strait forward build.. Ursan is a totaly viable and possible, but not overpowered solution at r4. Perhaps Anet added it thinking it could be an option, and do all that Wolf thought it was ment to do, but didn't think or didn't know the community would think of it as something you HAVE to use at max power and HAVE to grind all the way to r10 to be able to use effectively. I recently did The Deep on HM with an Ursan/way for the HoM plaque (had done it MANY times before EotN) and we were all of r4-6, wiht one guy r8, and ya know what? We did it, it wasn't a cake walk, we nearly wiped once, but we still did it without anyone hitting 45% DP. I think THAT is how Anet intended it to be used. Something anyone can pick up and jump in a group with no matter what norn rank and be good. The elitist community seems to ruin things like that. I can't get into a DoA group without r8 LB, when your fine if your r3 or above. I can't sell a weapon with near perfect mods or high req. On the high req note, what difference does it make if your bow requires 9 and you always have 16 in marksmanship? WTF? And near perfect mods, pretty much just as good as perfect ones, you won;t notice the difference, trust me. 1HP isn't a big deal. Some VERY FINE examples of the BS elitist attitude of people LIKE YOU GUYS thats HAS to have everything maxed out or its not good enough. And perhaps, even tho Anet put Ursan out there for the reason Wolf thought, whats to say they aren't going to balance (not break) it out so it's not as god-like to please the piss-offs out there that don't like it as it is? Chew on that for a little bit, and stop putting up the same BS about how Anet isn't telling us anything. We know that already, we don't need one more person to say it again. People posting on this thread are all saying the same thing and never have anything productive or even different to add to the arguement. --68.226.78.185 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental principles of GW are: profession, attribute distribution and Skills used!The way you handle your character (the skill to play) is more important then spending 100+ hours on beating a hay bush to increase some rank or attribute (time spend not important)! UB completely obliterates this principle, since this single skill represents an entire skill bar, it doesn’t require any attribute distribution NOR does the player need to make skill choices! All an UB player needs to do is kill 100 000 + something monsters in Norn territory (using UB while you do) to get mightier! UB in essence is the antithesis to GWs “skill over time” mantra since it stands for “time>skill”! THAT is what players complaining about. Regards ~Garbaron~ ; 21th Jun 2008

NO WAY! I DIDN'T KNOW THAT! Seriously, no crap, that is EXACTLY what about TEN OTHER PEOPLE have said already, we get it. Have you even READ the ENTIRE thread? Probably not, you should do that. Your not telling us anything new, but you did just somehow manage to say it without it dripping of complaints and whining, I'll give you that, but seriously. Does ANYONE have anything NEW to add to this arguement? Or have you all run out of things to say, so you think repeating yourself is going to get you somewhere, because its not.

How about this, here is some food for thought. When GW2 goes live, I garrentee or your money back, that about 99% of ALL the players of GW that are decent or better will have made the jump, you know who that leaves in GW2? The not so fortunate people who happen to not be good at the game but do enjoy grinding and will do it. So what will be left for them? An easy way to do eveything (Ursan), and plenty of grinds to keep them busy for a while until they make the jump to GW2. And even if they don't mak ethe jump, they will still have a game left that will work for them. Arena Net staff is a very intelegent bunch, and I'm sure they saw this comming inevitable end started working the game in this direction from the day they thought "Yes, infact, we are going to make GW2.". It also wouldn;t surprise me that they wouldn't tell us that this is what they were going to do, because well, (I'm with Anet on this matter) They didnlt want to risk people like you guys that are broken-record posting getting all piss-upset, having a hissy-fit come whining to then asking for change, when by the time they could have the change made, GW2 would be close to being out. And what would be the point then? All the players wanting change will have abandoned GW1 and made the Jump to GW2. Chew on that, and I swear to God Almighy, that if ANYONE posts another broken-record complaint "Oh, this goes against skill>time", I am going to loose it. Regina, Devs, keep up the awsome work, I'm with you any direction you decide to take. You shouldn't have to put up with this sort of CRAP from these people. I've been Talking with Wolf a lot lately and this is 100% his thougths and views, and I'm 100% with him on that matter. I only wish that I had the patience he has with you people. --68.99.14.229 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If its being a broken record about being annoyed that Arenanet has gone against its own fundamentals with their own game then call me retard Mcspacky pants. If people want to see Ursan as ' the way for people to get through some stuff of the game that may or may not have been able to do in within the original setup of the game ' then so be it thats your view, but then again I don't care about your view. But excuse me if some of us actually want to hear what Arenanet not you, Arenanet thinks on the situation. They are the ones who make the game, after all, they're their 'deciders'. No one in Arenanet has actually turned around and told us that Ursan was this' magically make the game easier button' its the players who are claiming that.

Once again, Arenanet creates something, sees the community getting all iffy over it, and continues not to come in and say a simple "Yes, its this way" or "No, its this way". That is what I want to hear, not what ye old players have to think. We, as players, can think what we want, I and many, many others on both the for and against want to hear what Arenanet has to say on the matter. 118.92.214.163 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's being a broken record when your stating something that has it's self been over stated by everyone else. It pisses me off when I try and shift the focus of the arguement to get people to think about something other than "Ursan goes against skill>time" that they have all been relentless about spouting off at every turn. Yes, I too would like to know what Anet's stance is on Ursan, and what their original motives were, and a few other related things, but you can't help but wonder what would happen. It seems like one way or another your going to REALY piss of A FREAKIN LOT of people. Giving their stance would either enrage either side quite easily, or maybe even both. I can't help but wonder if in the Ursan situation, that perhaps it is better to maintian silence about it until they think of some viable option to please both sides, which I'm pretty sure is being worked on right now. Are you prepared to deal with the results if it ends up being what you didn't want to hear? Funny thing is, this thread started just asking if anything has changed on Anet's side considering Ursan, and as soon as the word Ursan Pops up, everyone jumps on the chance to repeat the same old "Ursan goes against skill>time". I'm about ready to archive this thread and start it fresh. --68.99.14.229 01:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I got an idea. Hey Regina, has anything changed on the ursan front over at Anet? Are they still runnning those foremented tests or have they moved on and are taking the next step? A Situation update would be much appreciated if you can get one to us. =D --68.99.14.229 01:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect them to implement changes that fast, Wolf. Even if they decided on nerfing UB it would most likely still be a matter of weeks before we get the update, it's unlikely they're going to release a special update just for Ursan or SF. Ursan has been around since EOTN was released so the damage has been done anyway, nerfing it is more a matter of changing the direction GW 1 is going in and showing that they still care about balance, build variety and skill > time in PvE. --Draikin 12:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone notice that Regina deleted the „silence is not gold“ topic? That is a nice way to deal with problematic community issues.. ignore it first, then give some standard answers like “we cant please everyone” and delete the topic afterwards. Good job really boosts confidence in you as a CM!! Or maybe it was my criticism on her as a CM that mad her delete it?

Anyway regarding UB: Firstly, I don’t think UB was EVER designed to be used in the way it is used now. To me it seems the original intention was for it to be used for this one mission only, so players could destroy the barricades. Same with Raven etc which serve a mission based purpose. Making these skills available outside those missions is what caused all the trouble. That’s why I suggested making ALL the blessing skills “mission only” skills just like the holly bottle thingy in NF! Missions can still be played and the remaining PvE will gets rid of it.

Secondly: you don’t need UB to play GW! And if there IS a part of GW that requires players to use UB because without it the area is near to unbeatable… well then ANet did in fact screw PvE game balance while developing that area or did not test its balance at all and MUST go back to fix the quests, missions, PvE area!!

Thirdly: as I said in the, now deleted “silence is not..” topic, ANet MUST break up large areas with small outposts so players can stop there, disband and pick up later without having to repeat an Xh fight! IMO the immense time consumption some areas (realm of torment, GWEN dungeons) take to complete is a major factor why players use UB, since it can cut that time in half or more and not everyone wants to spend 6h+ in front of the PC to kill the ape.

Lastly: UB is completely against the profession, skill and attribute distribution system the whole GW world is founded on since 1) it requires no skill to play, 2) you don’t need to select 8 skills from the skill pool to get your build. UB is a complete build compressed in to one single skill. All an UB user needs to take with him/her is UB.. one skill equipped 7 slots empty! Is this GW? 3) UB needs not a single thought on attribute distribution! No it’s a skill which’s power is solely depending on kill count aka grind! Completely nullifying “skill>time” and reverting GWs philosophy to “time>skill”.

Of course if, like Regina insists on, GWs philosophy at some point has become “have fun now” and is not “skill>time” any longer UB might be intentional and GW has indeed become Grind Wars! But it that is true then I KNOW for sure that I don’t like the direction GW has taken and am NOT going to buy a GW2 that is based on the same “have fun now” principle! Regards ~Garbaron~ ; 24th Jun 2008

Um... the "Silence is not golden" topic wasn't deleted, it was archived: see here. If topics weren't archived, this page would be huge. Considering the section was started over a month ago, it was well past due for archiving on a page as active as this one, and it's not as if the same topic isn't being continued in other sections... like this. Perhaps if people didn't endlessly repeat the same things, there wouldn't be a need to archive the repetitions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh thx… am not so much into this whole Wiki style posting you know. I don’t think its user friendly with the need to use edit to post a comment and so on. As for the “repeat the same thing”.. well if ANet was to make an OPEN “that’s how it is” statements to at least the obvious important community topics, like UB rather then some “we cant please everyone” comment then we would NOT need to repeat them over and over again! Part of the reason why thinks are repeat “like a broken record” is because they are NOT addressed properly but only pushed aside with PR talk! And archiving a topic while it is still being discussed and waits for an open and honest answer, while other 3 paragraph topics remain, is just the same as deleting it, since its not going to be addressed anymore! You know that as well as I do. Regards ~Garbaron~ 24th Jun 2008

I saw the length of this and I immediatly knew it had something to do with Ursan Blessing. 145.94.74.23 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Garbaron, sections are removed into archive as large discussions, such as this can make it difficult to edit and to load. Archiving can take a bit of work but I think some of the smaller topics could go too, but this just comes down to Regina having the time to do such a thing.

I do understand the frustations people are having, both sides of the community having views on Ursan are growing tired of this discussion, the reasoning we are given just isn't cutting it. Yes, we all understand the processes of the developers, time is a big factor, prorities and so forth, but such words can only be taken so far before many start to question what, if anything, is being done with Guild Wars. Yes, Regina, you say things are happening, but this issue is becoming destructive, not only to the players but to what Guild Wars actually stands for. As you yourself has said the number of Ursan users is substancial, but you'll have to forgive me if Isaiah's system query came far too late, if this was only done recently I have to ask why such an action was months in the making. I'm not programmer but I wouldn't imagine a system query, if the systems were set up properly, would take this long to establish and process. All decisions are Arenanet's area to which we understand, but the decision making we are witnessing is very much a concern.

I say this, and I say it once: Honestly, and I direct this at all including Regina, but I see the notion of either "have fun now" and “skill>time” as wasted terms. I do see the many points for and against Ursan but it saddens me that the community is getting destructive over it, that the ideals of what drew people to this game are seemingly being thrown away. Such things are a big issue and I grow tired of seeing us - the community - going at it; getting angry and defensive at each other when all fault, all responsibility clearly sits with Arenanet.

As much as I personally love a good debate, these things aren't a debate, they may start off in a general nature and develop into a debate, but as I have read from these discussions it quickly has turn into labelling players as "bad players" for using it, or in reverse as some fellow mentioned - and forgive me if this is an assumption on my part - that the for a nerfs are displaying 'elitist attitude'.

• [In my opinion] Ursan wasn't brought out to be what it has become. Skills have started off as one thing, become to powerful, too weak or too easy to abuse and have been changed. Ursan for many falls into this category. Arenanet itself is conflicted over this skill; some for others against. Things take time, but one skill does not require this amount of time to discussion, to make suggests and to take a course of action. Reasoning for the time can only be taken so far. Arenanet is responsibily for its product.

I say this to Arenanet: fix this mess. You started it. You finish it. Action appears to be happening, but I am sure you are well aware this issue will only grow as time passes, and one doesn't have to be a developer to foresee that the number of Ursan users will increase as tempers and emotions increase. Nerfing does or does not have to happen. Addressing it does, steps are being taken but I still critise the timing. Closure must happen. We will be watching. 000.00.00.00 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DONT NERF URSAN. I LOVE THE GRINDING PVE HAS BECOME AND NOW I DONT EVEN HAVE TO THINK TO GET WHATEVER I WANT --Hades Mytia 10:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hades this is not the place to discuss whether or not you think Ursan should be nerfed. Please take it to the Ursan talk page. Also, caps lock, only nessisary when speaking to a scientologist. --Wolf 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats a bit offensive to scientologist don't you think, Wolf? And he's trolling, I find it humourous though. 000.00.00.00 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the whole scientology thing is from a motivational poster and mostly a joke. If an actual scientologist comes to me offended, I'll deal wiht it acordingly. And second, I would like this to stay on topic (or as close as it can) comments liek that are just the thing to start a topic into a arguement for or against ursan and God knows we need another one of those.... Although it does illustrate a good point. --Wolf 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, Wolf [smiles] but jokes and humour are sometimes lost on the internet. I would seriously love to see a more option discussion on the players views of this, but it just turns the same way of the Ursan talk page. 000.00.00.00 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles. People have repeated themselves multiple times and there will be no resolution to this issue in this particular discussion thread. The designers are working on Ursan Blessing when they have time to spare from working on GW2 development. We're getting a dedicated designer on GW1 very soon, and this will probably one of the first things to tackled. Until such time that I actually have something to discuss or report about this, I am not going to entertain Ursan Blessing threads here. Thanks. --Regina Buenaobra 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Spawning Power

Seriously, you've got to bring this up. This is by far the most under-powered primary attribute. Necromancers rule PvE, just look at the Sabway. Everything a Ritualist can do the other proffessions can do as good, or most times even better! Thought you balanced unbalanced stuff but I'm loosing faith now. Do I really have to make a new character that uses my Ritualist skills but better? I mean, look at Necrmoancers their primary attribute is insanly good for PvE, compare that to Spawning Power... yeah, I thought you'd understand. Comment if you think I'm wrong but I've been playing a lot of PvE on my Rit and there are only a few skills that are useful and you got to use them with OoS, otherwise your energypool is gone in seconds. Would really like a heads-up if you're not thinking about changing it becuse then I'll have to make a new character and invest another 600h in it.

It's not necessary that you play your rit as an MM, but if you are going to, you should look into the massive AoE damage you get from Explosive Growth, and the party healing you get from Spirit's Gift (both are Spawning Power), when you use them with the right animate skills. I have found my Rit MM build to be at least as effective as a necro build for most things. Pucktrapper 15:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Paragons are the real rulers of PvE. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Necroes are up there, though. And this needs to be on Izzy's page. -- NUKLEAR IIV 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

your all wrong. elementelists are best in pve becuse they do wery much more dmg then paragons. paragons suck in pve --Frozen Archer 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

XD. PAragons are good in PvE the more allies are around. Spawning power needs some fixing to affect more attribute lines. It could make some skill types last more time, not just weapon spells. Maybe... hm... skill-type skills. MithTalk 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It already makes weapon spells last for more time, but it could also cause weapon spells to last for more attacks (for stuff like splinter weapon, vengeful weapon, etc.), and help ashes last for longer.Tambora 02:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything has its place. In PvE my rit runs a minion bomber build which thrashed factions and nightfall. As for PvP the builds cycle so much that griping about underbalanced skills/stats is kinda meaningless. Its less an issue of Spawning power being underpowered and more of an issue of the fact that the current FoTM doesnt use a rit primary. Just look back to spirit spam days.--DebugAMP 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Code-215?

what was this Code=215 that delayed the hb tourny by 10 minutes and is that the cause of all this lag? - Tigercat

The area code of Pennsylvania. The server got laggy and my mom got scared, and said - no, forget it, that was too newfaggy. Vael Victus 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Code 215 is a DNS error meaning that the server is dropping connections due to massive overloads. Simpily means server was to busy and droped you. Dominator Matrix 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ogden Stonehealer

When Ogden Stonehealer maintains a self-targetting enchantment and you control-click the upkeep icon, the message in the chat log will be "Ogden Stonehealer is maintaining <enchantment name> on herself". Normally, I would post this at ArenaNet talk:Text bugs, however there are a number of reasons to suspect that this may be intentional.

• One of Ogden's idle quotes is "How do you know you haven't already met a female dwarf? Eh? Eh?".
• One of the Dredge Slaves' idle quotes in Sorrow's Furnace is "I wonder what a female dwarf looks like? Do they have beards too?".
• In some fantasy settings, such as Middle Earth and Discworld, female dwarves grow beards, and are largely indistinguishable from male dwarves.

So is this a text bug, or is Ogden female? -- Gordon Ecker 02:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a text bug; determined by the gender of the player character. Did a bit more testing, and it applies to all heroes. --24.179.151.252 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Last I remember it was displayed as "him/her". — Poki#3 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've confirmed that it's "himself" or "herself" for all heroes based on the player character's gender rather than the hero's. Reported at ArenaNet talk:Text bugs#User interface: Upkeep. -- Gordon Ecker 07:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference in GWEN I think, to a beared dwarf goddess. 75.146.48.190 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fansite listing, take 2

Hey again. Thanks for contacting us about fansite listing, but since then we have not heard anything from you. Is all well? WHen can we expect a response? Thank you. Soqed hozi 09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an update about this already. Thanks. --Regina Buenaobra 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just recieved it today, thank you. Soqed hozi 10:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jup, got it. Thank you HeavenMonkey 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heros and Sacrifice skills

I posted this on the hero talk page but here i thought i get a faster answer. Should heroes really be using sacrifice skill like Order of Pain, Dark Pact and Spirit Light when they are low on health, some boss well stop using sacrifice skill when they get low on health, this one comes to mind, even player stop using sac skills when they get low enough, should we expect that from hero, cause i notice my necro hero will use Order of the Vampire when they are very low and i have see them kill them self with that, so i was wondering should this be fixed--Metal Sazz 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They won't just kill themselves when using those skills, most likely what happened is that they were under attack while they were casting the skill so by the time they finished casting they didn't have enough health left. You can argue that the limit for the amount of health they have left should be higher than it is now, making them stop using the skills sooner (like when they're at <50% health). Feel free to add this to the list of AI issues here: ArenaNet_talk:AI_bugs#Common_skill_issues. Just don't expect the problem to be looked at anytime soon, the progress on them has been very slow and unfortunately Q&A doesn't always agree that heroes mindlessly spamming a certain skill is actually a bad thing.

It's a shame really, because the hero AI could have been great if they had only invested a bit more time in finishing it. The original implementation of the AI was rushed (assassin and ritualist AI basically weren't even implemented at all, assassin AI for example only become usable with one of the more recent updates), and Anet has just been way too slow at fixing these problems. Even now the AI suffers from horrible flaws that continue to prevent Hero Battles from becoming anything more than a joke. --Draikin 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hero Battle Ladder Rewards

Me and other top 100 players on the ladder believe players on the Hero Battle Ladder should recieve a little more commander points when playing other high ranks. It would be similar to how GvG works, just not based on rating, but rank. This may encourage "tankers" to not farm the low ranks and be active in the ladder. Also people in high ranks may enjoy doing rateds more that care for the commander title. This may also help some players to get to the unreachable titles, r8-9+, without destroying your rating to grind players over and over again. For Example:

Top 25 vs 25: 4

Top 100 vs 100: 2

Everything else: 1

OR

Wins while in top 25 : 3

Wins While in top 100 : 2

Other : 1

Although that could turn the ladder into a grind fest.

Its not logical that a higher ranked player wins vs better players for a lower title (r4 to r6 commander) then tanking rating and grinding to get r9 commander. higher ranked players also tend to have to wait longer for a match.

Check out the Guru Thread : [1]

I believe rank is better because rating in HB is all over the place, and can be grinded

I hope this is looked at so i dont have to grind my next 500 wins, and would be a nice update to HB.

P.S : crossing should be deleted from rateds :) BMShen 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. A very major issue has been players tanking in rank and then changing their account name to completely erase themselves. This action basically gives them a huge advantage in a hero battle matches because the opponent has no idea what to expect of their opponent (especially during the monthly automated tournament). By implementing this concept that let's it mirror the champion title, the hero battle ladder will become more stable. After all, the whole point of a ladder is to properly display a player's relative strength in the relative field of PvP. Ekelon 04:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ok didnt get a response to suggestions, ill try your page. copy and pasted. BMShen 11:44, 16 June 2008

Don't spam every page you think about with this. The suggestions page is good enough. — Poki#3 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

well im going to do what i can to get it seen, and 2 pages is every page eh?. BMShen 12:44, 16 June 2008

         good idea shen i like it. it will help make the ladder more active and lower the tanking

Cleaning up unused features

It seems that there are two features in Guild Wars that were a good idea, but that nobody uses. The Party Search, and the Chat Filter. You should take them both out of the game to save space.

During my second ban in one week that I got for doing absolutely nothing, I will be telling everyone I know not to buy GW2 because anything you put in all-chat will get you banned by Nazinet. You know why Blizzard doesn't ban people for language? Because they have a chat filter. You know why Westwood doesn't ban for language? They have a chat filter. You know why Gamespy games don't ban for language? They have chat filters. You know why Steam doesn't ban for language? They have a chat filter. Arenanet is the only company I've ever dealt with which bans you for language.

You not only banned me, but I see at least 4 people I reported yesterday who cursed at me, and they're still in game. Maybe I should sue for discrimination. Or does your customer service only work 1 hour a day like they usually do? This ban was probably leftover punishment from something I said a year ago anyway. Maybe this time was punishment for mentioning S U X O N My K U R D I C K [Gulp], or Omg Its All Over Ur Face [Come], guilds that stayed around for close to a year before getting banned.

Maybe you should ban people for talking about religion. There goes half of RA ID1. Maybe you should ban people for making names with Fcuk and Shlt in them. Maybe you should ban players who purposefully exploit broken game mechanics. Maybe you should ban players who are making a conscious effort to make other players' gaming experience less fun. Maybe people swearing around the filter? Maybe griefers, you know, the people who kill themselves at the beginning of each RA match? You think it's okay for someone to prevent 3 other players from playing, or to not let someone use an already censored word?

How many people play GW on a weekly bases? Probably around 1 million. How many of them swear at least once a week? Half of them. Wanna ban half your players? All it shows me is that you do not care about your players or your game. It shows in the updates you do too. Especially the balance updates. If people don't move to GW2, there will be three reasons: Terrible game balance state, boring pve, and nazi bannings. ~Shard (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Shard your crying is getting a tad boring. Honestly i'm not the most P.C. person in the whole would but in 3 years ive only been banned once (although still that was for saying "I like nuts, they taste nutty!", which was a tad odd. However on the whole you only get banned for being truly offensive. So simply stop effing and blinding and chat without typing like an adolescent. As for your end wee rant, Anet does ban for all those things except for religious chat. -- Salome 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

ANet maybe does ban for those things, but it doesn't mean they're doing a good job of it. There were people in Gunnar's Hold on Wednesday just sitting there reporting people for even minor infractions, and encouraging others to do so. They're still in game. There is no way to "swear around the filter" since you can open up Options and simply change the level of the filter. I've never had a griefer in my group, so I won't say anything on that matter. I think Shard's complaint is not that they don't ban for it, but they could do a vastly better job. —U T O P I A N •

Shard, honestly, maybe you need to clean up your gameplay if you're getting banned so much. Yes, it may seem unfair that other players doing things similar to you aren't getting banned, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have received the punishment you got. Seriously, no company, let alone one the size of ArenaNet, has the manpower to monitor every name, every chat entry, and every guild name created by players in the game; they catch the ones they catch and rely on help from other players to help out. Yes, those doing the same things as you should get banned as well and grow up, but crying, "I wasn't the only one! He did it too!" not only sounds juvenile, it also means you're not able to take responsibility for your own actions. Perhaps you should play one of those other games you mentioned, seeing as it seems they'll let you continue to be a child. Kokuou 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can swear around the filter by typing stuff like fcuk, shlt, or f u c k, etc, none of which the game censors. I don't remember doing it in the last 2 days, but if I did, I just typed it out 1 word like I always do.

Offensive? How is ---- offensive? People who play with the filter off do it because they do not mind. Saying ---- is NEVER offensive. I think it's complete bullshit that people don't get banned for swearing around the filter, by I get banned because other people lose to me in pvp or whatever their reason is.

Arenanet does not ban people for exploiting broken game mechanics. They ban you for modifying the client to do so, but they do not ban for exploiting mechanics already in the game.

I'm not getting "banned so much." This is the second time in one week I've been banned, but I have never been banned in the past 3 years of me playing. Anytime I curse it's because someone else cursed at me, so I think it's complete bullshit that I would get banned and they wouldn't. Their text is what, 2 lines above mine in the chat log? Maybe Anet just wants to keep my opinions out of the game, so they can cover up how much failure is dripping off this game.

Kokuko, what am I being punished for? Last time it was apparently a racial slur, not a very blunt one, but I can see how that could be a problem. However, this one was for me typing four dashes in all chat. Is anyone here a stick figure and is offended by ---- in all chat?

Banning people for absolutely no reason is one thing, but choosing to not ban other people for the exact same nothing just blows my mind. The only juvenile thing about this is how people who play with the filter off cry whenever they see a four letter word, and the fact that a game company would be so negligent.

Regina, tell Jeff or someone to read "The Nordstrom Way." It's a book about how to run a company and keep customers. They desperately need the knowledge. ~Shard (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i've never reported anyone, but some ppl report others all day long for anything, those ppl are usually roleplayers or faggots, however anet listen to them. i can write something like "go get raped by ur nigger dad again" in open chat and not get banned, while another guy gets banned for saying a word, it all depends on the ppl around u. and yes, ppl do report others if they lose to them and theyre being a dick about it, its normal to call someone something back, thats what they want so they can report u. however gw is 12+ so chatfilter or not its still not fine to use some words --Cursed Angel 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cursed Angel, I'm asking you (again) not to use words like 'faggot' and 'nigger' for the last time. Many, many people on this wiki take offense to such words (myself included). I will start an ArbComm case against you if you persist in such language. I would have brought this to your talk page, but since it's pertinent to the conversation, I wrote it here. Please, in respect of your fellow GWWers, please stop. Kokuou 03:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

inb4 double standards Vael Victus 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cursed Angel: If you cannot refrain from using offensive terms like "faggot", then please refrain from posting at all. --Regina Buenaobra 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cursed, just use ---- instead of the actual words. You only get banned on guild wars for that, not on wiki. ~Shard (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ - people do use Party Search. I use it and have gotten invites via it. – Barinthus 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Barinthus. Party Search is frequently used in certain PvP settings (Alliance Battles and Heroes' Ascent come to mind). I don't think it's as used in the PvE outposts, though. While I think it's true that more people would use it if it'd been incorporated into the game by release, the circumstances that necessitated it were less present at that time. Players were concentrated in more outposts. Now, players are spread across three games and an expansion. The Party Search feature was implemented in December 2006, long after the culture had been shaped. Additionally, the use of Heroes and development of strong PvE Hero support teams (Sabway) allow for successful completion of Hard Mode without the need to find extra players--convenient for players who have limited time to organize groups for different kinds of clears. I'll take my Sabway team into game on a weekend morning to start a dungeon, and then be afk for several hours, pop back on to do some more, go afk, rinse and repeat til I'm finished. In contrast, I'll always use Party Search when I'm doing Alliance Battles or Heroes' Ascent.Ceolstan 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, quite. I use it a lot in AB... in fact, that's how I get groups most of the time. Its use is pretty much related to just inter-district stuff, but it does work. Also if you're selling something in like, Lion's Arch for example, you can see the "sell" tab and people find it easier to contact you. I once sold a minipet like 20 minutes after I said I was selling it and the guy said he found me on party search. <3 Vael Victus 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Never been Banned yet. And i use those features. --Silverleaf 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I use the Party Search every day as a PvE'er, either for in search of parties or for trading. As for the chat filter, its a gray area for me, its nice to have but I no one who uses it, and since you only get banned by people complaining about you messages: either therefore annoyed they see a lot of ---- in your posts or they can see them for what they are - thus the filter not being used or only to a decree - I do have to question whats the point? But, really, it is a nice feature for those who use it, but for those who don't its one of those set and forget options we never worry about because the odd naughty word isn't going to cause our world to end. 000.00.00.00 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the chat filter is not there as a license to say whatever you want in-game. You get reported because people take offense to your language or the topics you're discussing. --Regina Buenaobra 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumbing Up Gaming

First off, I would like to say that I am not accusing anyone of anything. I found this article a few days ago and figured, hey, a lot of regular people like me have read this, but it needs to actualy get around to some game devs! So, Regina, it would be VERY MUCH appreciated if you would pass this along to inside Anet, and let them get to it whenever they see fit. I found it interesting, maybe you and they will too. I would also like to thank these same devs for making a game the does require intelligance and cooperation to play and become good at. My only beef with the game that does not stem from the people playing it is one-sided, catch-all single-skill ownage. *coughursancough* But that has been addressed, and reddressed, and overddressed and I confident that it is being delt with in some form. Anyway, moving on, Its a very good read, and I think you will find it so too.

I think it makes some good points, and makes a good discussion, while it may not be directly GW related, I'm sure we can find a way to tie it in.

Have you read it? What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.

It would be nice if you left them on this page or here

Still rootin for ya devs! --Wolf 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Using tonics outside town

We want it! We can use Transmogrifier Tonics outside town, why not the monthly ones? It would be uber cool to walk outside as a golem and hit things. 72.235.48.41 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavily lacking on the animations side. I mean, you can hardly do any emotes with the monthly tonics. With the transmog and yuletide, those still fit the mold of a player model and so are easy to apply current animations too. Look at the monthly tonics, doesn;t even resemble a player and so would require their own set fo animations, which Anet just doesn't have time to make. --Wolf 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need human animations. All the monsters released as tonics attack and cast spells in game. All the animations are already there. All they're missing is the emotes. ~Shard (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

isle of the nameless

make it change skills to pvp --Cancer Angel 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So people have nowhere to test pve skills?

Maybe there should be an NPC near the entrance you could talk to to change to pvp skills. ~Shard (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

People have a place to test pve skills. There is no place to test pvp skills.

Churrhir Fields is a 4 player pve test area, Isle of the Nameless is a 8 player pve test area. The request is valid imho but could be a new area (to test a 8 player team for PvP) next to the PvE area's since the PvE/PvP skill split. --Silverleaf 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone mentioned, that the Guild Hall and the Great Temple of Balthazar should have a PvE/PvP switch like the Normal Mode/Hard Mode switch in other areas, and I think this is a great idea and doesn't look that complicated to me. — Poki#3 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But making such a switch only for there... I think that two different alternate areas or another secondary outpost linked to the isle of the nameless would be easier. MithTalk 13:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think making a switch is easier then making a whole freaking island. — Poki#3 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Poki on this one. Also Churrhir fields is not an option for many people who don't have nightfall -- Salome 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

People have been asking for this since the split got introduced. Obviously nobody at Anet thought about the effect it might have. With exactly 0 people working on GW1 at the moment (as far as I know those 2 people haven't moved yet), any fix in the first 3-6 months isn't likely. I agree it should happen tho, but honestly, this whole situation shouldn't have happened if Anet actually thought about the skill-split first. Dutchsmurf 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We did think about this before implementing the skill split. The decision was made to keep it for PvE skills for the time being, pending evaluation. I've gotten a lot of feedback asking for a skill toggle or for the Isle of the Nameless to use only PvP versions of the skills. The problem with having only PvP versions is that people can't test the PvE versions. We should be getting the designer working on GW1 pretty soon, so this is one of the many issues I'll raise at that point.--Regina Buenaobra 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

here is a possible way to fix this just add those areas to the other games i think you only really need to add them to factions and Prophecies seeing as night fall already has that area. factions already kind of has that area with the board walk. the other thing you could do is use the old arenas i think that would make some mappers quite happy.75.165.110.13 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hero Battle Finals

Hi Regina. I'd like to talk about the HB Finals of yesterday. You see, the finals ended in a draw. Instead of going in sudden death the match ended and they randomly selected a winner. For something as big as the finals I would've expected something different than in all other matches (which still is rediculous for knockout matches, Depeche Modee lost many, many times because of this). In my opinion, something as a rematch would be more appropiate instead of deciding the winner by 50% chance. Thanks for your attention, ~Smurf 217.123.94.205 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Smurf had last kill and more shrines at the end of the match. — Skakid 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked the rules yesterday, and they stated it was based on matches won in previous tournaments or something like that (and honor). Mango 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya that was an unfair way to decide the victor, a Sudden death wldve been cool or some other way but smurf got cheated out of X amount of rps. Was rooting for you cause you were running a more respectable build lmao, ~Tigercat

Scamming

Someone was just advertising that they were buying z-keys for 5k. When I opened the trade window, they only offered 5 gold. When I told them this, they closed the trade and left the area. I was just wondering if this obvious scam was reportable.--Yankeefan984 02:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering they didn't actually scam you, only an attempt, I don't really think it is reportable. However I could be completely wrong, and in that case, the right page for this would be gaile's page as she is the support lady. -Warior Kronos 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty obvious scam. If you have half an eyeball, you can notice it. There is, after all, a reason why it writes out exactly how much gold is involved in the trade. -- Armond Warblade 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

what would you report? that you both put items in the trade window and both hit accept? everything he did was done through intended game mechanics. if you had hit accept nobody would have been at fault but yourself. 71.230.145.170 07:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

oops, forgot i was viewing the archive xD ignore me 71.230.145.170 07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)