User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Product Information/Jun 2009

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

New Content Update

I see you haven't been commenting on your talk page (or the wiki at all) since about the 1st of May but I thought I'd throw this down: on the 15 January 2009 Arenanet put out "We want players to feel connected to what we are developing even though it may be months away from release, so during development we will be more open about our process and what we are working on." so I thought I'd ask what is the live team actually working on? It's been almost, what, a month since the last 'content' (and I use the word loosely) update and I'm sure there are hundreds (even more) players who would love to feel connected with what you guys have in store next. Also, how are you doing? Haven't seen you around the wiki for a while. 000.00.00.00 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think she's been super busy with the GW2 product review stuff. DarkNecrid 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they are afraid of us because of the skill update.Boro 05:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the changes they made were good for the game. The only reason to be scared is a lack of changes.~>Sins WDB 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

/agree. Unfortunately, the community is demanding ANet's heads each time they give us skill updates. This latest was a good update, aside from Aegis (PvP), perhaps. Mediggo 05:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Strength of Honor (PvP)? Kigamo 08:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a sad skill in it's own way. It's now too powerful in PvE, and ridiculously weak in PvP... Could say SnH got Smiter's Boon'd. But as I don't do competitive PvP, I can't really say a thing or that about SnH. Aegis had it's entire mechanic changed to something that is unseen in GW. Yes, that includes Shadow Form. They are just not the same thing, and it's retarded to compare the two like that. Mediggo 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aegis,Ether prism and Shadowform are very similar skills.None of those should ever have been brought to life.Anet should kill those babies while they can tbh :x Lilondra *panda* 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them similiar (like, what I said above), because they are still too different. But you are right about that they shouldn't exist... Aegis had it's place, Ether Prism used to be fun, but I doubt many of you ever bothered to seriously test it. Only SF was an outright Fatal Mistake by ANet (abused in farming, ecto prize dropping like hell, huge QQ everywhere, etc)... Only thing to do now is to say baibai to Aegis (PvP) and say hi hi to E/Rt's (which have been around for some time already, as you know). Shadow Form should be just completely reworked (like Aegis was, but not remove it from game). *reset indent approaching* Mediggo 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ether Prism gives you temporary immunity to damage, while Shadow Form gives you constant immunity against being targetted...that's something completely different. I'd say Ether Prism is actually well designed, because if you save it for defense, then you will miss your energy, where as if you use it for energy, it won't be around when they spike you. And it still doesn't save you from life stealing, interrupts, conditions, etc. It's totally different from Shadow Form, more like: this is how SF should have been. 145.94.74.23 07:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ether Prism is well designed". Tell that to IWAY. Xhata 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The energy gain is crazy,Elementalists shouldnt have had that much of defense they should go secondary for it.The immunity just pushes it even further in imbalance Lilondra *panda* 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, pretty much nothing between this post and DarkNecrid's really needed to be here. Thanks for that. o.O 000.00.00.00 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Move it to someone else's talk page? King Neoterikos 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Regina, is there anything that can be said yet? We're into June now, over a full month into the next content cycle. 000.00.00.00 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Linsey said it's focused on PvP Love on her page. That's about it, I doubt they'll say anything more until it's a lot closer. DarkNecrid 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for pointing that out, DarkNecrid. If it's more PvP then it'll probably be 6 months before anything I'm interesting in is added of changed.

Also, anyone else noticed that it's been over a month since Regina has graced us with her presence? What? Do we smell? I remember when Gaile used to/still does get busy, she still manages to post [sighs] 000.00.00.00 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If Regina was half the king Mufasa was... 99.142.29.90 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not to dig at Regina but I crack up everytime I read that Lion King reference! ^_^. Ok, I think this has been answered, anyone wanna move it? 000.00.00.00 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There've been discussions about what to talk about in public, how much we should talk about in public, and how we should talk about stuff in public. As you can see, in much contrast to previous years where only select members of the Community Team could post, we have Linsey posting on the Wiki and being more open about discussing design issues, and Martin and I have deferred to her on those issues. This is intentional. We would like to have more than just the Community Team posting and communicating in public.

We aren't able to discuss the details of what the Live Team is working on. Linsey has already stated that the team will work on some PvP improvements, but because game development is a continuous process, and there are still some things to be finalized, we will reveal info once we are confident about its status. Otherwise it would be disappointing to players to hear us discuss something, and then later due to whatever constraints (design, technical, time, etc.) down the road find that we can't release it. --Regina Buenaobra 00:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Changes Page:

This Change is Definitely going to happen. It is either already finished or so close to finished that we can reasonably expect it finished by the scheduled date, and so will be published on its scheduled release date. If, for whatever reason, it isn't, we will notify the community as soon as we've confirmed that the update will not happen on schedule.

This Change may or may not happen. This could be for several reasons: we may have started on it, but aren't far enough into the development to be confident that it will be ready by the next update; we may not have started on it at all and are still exploring the feasibility of the implementation; it may be for any number reasons.

This Change will not happen. It may be technically impossible, conceptually flawed, or simply out of sync with the current direction of Guild Wars. Whatever the reason, we do not expect this idea to come to fruition any time soon.

imo. Raine - talk 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DWC

→ moved from User talk:Linsey Murdock

Hi, I know new armor isn't going to be made for GW, but I was wondering what the chances are that another Design a Weapon Contest happening. If there has already been an answer to it I would appreciate a link please. :) Puebert 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a better question for Regina, and I believe she has already covered it. Time for archive digging. — Jon Lupen 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read the FAQ and it kind of answers it there, but it doesn't really mention a DWC. Puebert 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regina has answered this, I just need to find where. — Jon Lupen 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Have a look here. — Jon Lupen 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the better way to start Design A Weapon contests is to require mesh files of the weapon to be sent along the drawing :) (Or maybe that's not the better way). --Boro 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks Jon. Puebert 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Books

Matt Forbeck has talked about his Guild Wars book, Fall of Ascalon, and Robert King has done the same. Since they have already spoken about it, are we going to get any bit of official news about those two books? Erasculio 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We will have information about the books when the time comes. :-) We're currently working on the information release schedule for that. --Regina Buenaobra 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Allowed?

Would it be against the rules for me to charge GW currency for GW piano arrangements?-- BVt 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not in game stuff your talking about yeah.~>Sins WDB 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be against the rules to charge platinum for drawing GW characters, as people have been doing for quite some time on Guru?-- BVt 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. I can't find anything in the EULA on offering out of game services for in game money, but the opposite is not allowed. However, this is obviously a technicality so while you may have an argument for it if you get in trouble for it now realize that the EULA will change if ANet thinks it's necessary.~>Sins WDB 01:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As shewmake said, charging in-game items for a piece of art (drawing, music, etc) has never been a problem, and it poses no threat to anet or the game. Getting an official response is always better than guessing, but you should be fine doing what you want to do. ~Shard 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In before the WoW example of some chick literally wh0ring for Gold/Mount... --ilr 03:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As outrageous as that sounds, I can believe it. O.o-- BVt 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, would "buying RL money for GW platinum" be less outlawed than "buying GW platinum for RL money"? I mean, buying RL commodities and services with GW money is fine, right?

Sketchy line is sketchy. Raine - talk 05:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in contact with our lawyer about this... --Regina Buenaobra

This is not intended as a form of criticism. I just find it interesting that after 4 years of people openly exchanging in-game items for out-game art commissions via forums listed on Anet's official websites, Anet haven't decided their legal stance. And Ilr, I remember during early days of GW, there were naked female elementalists soliciting gold for their dances. – Barinthus 17:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably more to do with the potential copyright infringement of providing piano scores. Misery 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is gold sellers and how they mess up the economy (by making legit gamers non-competitive when trying to buy in-game items). Small-time RL traders don't really have an impact... But the issue here is that nothing stops gold sellers from pretending to be selling art and such. As soon as there is a legal loophole to exploit, some people will exploit it. Which is often why ANet don't want to say that these things are "legal". But then again, they don't want to stop people from having innocent fun. -- Alaris 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't monitor every single line of chat and every single forum thread for potential violations of the User Agreement. We simply do not have the resources to pursue every potential rule-breaker. As far as I am aware, no one has reported those activities citing a complaint about someone charging gold for drawing another player an picture. But when the issue is actively brought to us, then a lot of specific questions have to be asked. --Regina Buenaobra 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Trading in-game gold for goods or services outside the game breaches our User Agreement in section 3. Bartering gold for a good or service outside the game is outside the scope of our limited license to players. It also breaches Section 6 (b) because bartering in-game gold in this manner is using "Game Content" for a commercial purpose. So the answer is: it is against the rules to charge GW gold for GW piano arrangements.

In general for these sort of support issues (whether it's an offensive name or whatever) we take action based upon player reports. --Regina Buenaobra 00:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

April Content: "How's it going now?"

It's been a few weeks since that update and the releasing of the quest-a-day style addition to the game, there's been a few (minor) changes to it, large discussion about rewards/packs/etc and so on and I was just wondering how, from Arenanet's end, player involvement is? A fair chuck of my guildies, alliance members and friends on Guild Wars were doing them a lot for a good fortnight or so but many have since discontinued (many commenting about repetition, their goals (say equipment bags) being too far out of reach etc) and just have the odd silver or gold coin in storage, so it got me to thinking how it's all going, if such a thing can be answered. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't go into specifics, but we've been seeing a healthy amount of activity since the April update. :-) --Regina Buenaobra 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

xfire has shown an increase in play, but it's not the most reliable source. Karate Jesus 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We're post semi-major skill update, the extra influx should be expected. Don't get excited until a period after a typical monthly update. ~>Sins WDB 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still doing the zquests and having fun. My goals have been hijacked into making all characters zquest-ready so I can enjoy PUGging whenever I can... with priority on my two healers. It's much less about the packs, and much more about having fun with PUGs. -- Alaris 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PvX cookie-cutter Healing for crappy PuGs is "Fun"? Since when?? --ilr 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Alaris meant it that way. As for the quests, I can't answer for everyone, but my guild started out doing them every evening, and now they just do them whenever they feel like it, kinda like dungeons and elite missions. Sometimes as an incentive to do said missions or dungeons. And often together. So it may not be the answer to everything, but it has definitely helped our guild. 145.94.74.23 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)