ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes

Article?

What's up with this article - is it a compilation of all things that people shouldn't be suggesting? It doesn't even look readable... (Terra Xin 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I can see the case for removal myself, but still think this should stay. 'Suggestions' like these will happen, so it is better to have them all collected here, where they won't disrupt the other pages, rather than have them keep poping up, and get delted, and repeat, and again... Backsword 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still pointless to have around, and should be deleted because of it NOT BEING A SUGGESTION PAGE. It should be on a Guild Wars 1 Complaint page if it is really nescessary to have around. Either that, or the complainers can write into ArenaNet. az :D 00:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but we are going to get these pages anyway, so the best we can do is keep it seperate. Esp. since people have argued for keeping. (eg. Armond). I can see how one could argue it's suggestions: It's basically saying do Y, where Y is defined as not X. Backsword 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like when you're sweeping the floor for dirt and you can't be bothered picking it up so you pile it up in a corner. We've got to be more harsh on this. If it isn't a suggestion then put up a candidate for deletion. If the deletion is contested then dump it onto the GW1 suggestions page where it belongs. I'll tidy this up for the moment until we work something out.(Terra Xin 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Consumables

The consumables section of ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes contains text from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Consumables. Prior to the merge, Jette was the sole editor of the source article. -- Gordon Ecker 08:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sole editor? That's because nobody takes me seriously! It's all "hay, look, he's a total jerk to everybody, his ideas can't possibly have merit!" Hypocrites.. --Jette 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

consumables are mainly bonus stuff, if u have noticed there is no consumable food like in most mmo's. i dont see ur problem --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.39.72.8 (talk). Consumables are fun additions to the game! From cupcakes to candycanes, these would be seriously missed in GW2. Plus, it would make the Dwarves very unhappy if you took there ale, even if they're stone. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:64.131.54.75 (talk).

Consumables such as holiday items don't really have much effect on the game, but items like armor of salvation and other items that make hard areas easy to complete should be removed. They have taken all of the challenge out of guild wars. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.239.243.221 (talk).

PvE-only Skills

Unless these are restricted by location like Junundu or Siege Devourers, DON'T DO IT. Don't you ever put in a skill that replaces your skill bar ever again. I've already been put off from buying Guild Wars 2 after witnessing the blatant disregard for PvE balance that is Ursan Blessing. You need to go way back to basics. Allow me to remind you of your own initial vision. Skills + attributes = CREATIVITY. Player created content = success. A skill that = a new set of skills = Anet being stupid and ruining their future. Spawnlegacy 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you like Ursanway then, right? Seriously, I never really understood why people always got so worked up about Ursan, it's purely pve, so what if it makes things easy? If you don't want it to be easy, then just don't use it. I never use it and I'm totally happy. That mission where you get to blow through all the charr when you first get Ursan, that was a pretty fun mission as far as I'm concerned. Other than that, meh, take it or leave it. (Satanael 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Even if you never use Ursan, it still affects you because it affects the economy. And for your convenience, I'll summarize the next forty pages of stupidity that always crop up on Ursan topics.

GAH I HATE URSAN IT KILLED GW your mother killed gw I'm not even going to log in again until it's fixed HEY WHY DOESN'T ANET TRY THIS FIX? lol u tards ursan doesnt need fixing its pve nobody cares about pve PVE IS VEWWY VEWWY IMPORTANT nuh-uh URSAN IS WRECKING THE ECONOMY IT'S WRECKING EVERYTHING What about Imbagons? They need a nerf too. nobody plays paragons thats dumb OMG STAY ON TOPIC URSAN RAPED MY FATHER AND MURDERED MY MOTHER

Repeat forever. --76.25.197.215 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL @ IP. I think that could have been the funniest thing i've read on the wiki recently. -- Salome 12:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that Ursan has made things a little too simple, but yes, you can always not use it, but this puts me on to another topic somewhat related. I started playign GW1 3 months before factions, back when there was only proph, and i've noticed the gameplay evolve to something that is a little dissapointing to me. 3 years ago, if a monk was part warrior and could heal himself and the party, plus carry one decent attack skill to defend himself, he was considered good. Now I play the same build on my monk, get ridiculed for it, and then i ended up carrying the party, adn the other stupid monk because i could play, and they never heard of a monk defendign itself. That's just one way that the game play has kind of deterierated, so what i'm saying is: when GW2 comes out reset it to the same level as prophacies so people can learn the the older ways to play, and we can also start out anew game like that. Lord Zepherr 08:32, June 30, 2008 (UTC)

I've been playing from the start and I must have missed when playing as a monk with a warrior attack skill was ever considered a good thing. -- Salome 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the skill bar replacement per se, or even the fact that it also changes your stats. Afterall, nobody is complaining about the other 2 blessings. The problem most complain about is that Ursan is too easy & too versatile. I personally love the idea of having the chance to play a different role with Ursan and the like. But these skills should be good enough to allow you to get into groups for elite areas, while at the same time still somehow balanced so that ppl with good builds can also get in, preferably even in the same groups. Some suggestions to this effect: (1) make it 8 skills instead of the 4-5 the blessings currently give thereby allowing more diversity in the skills included, (2) make those builds require some strategy to be effective, (3) if not 8 skills, the instead of 3-4 empty skill slots let the player's skills through and balance the rest thereby retaining some of the player's profession's individuality, (4) put less synergy between different players using the same build thereby discouraging all-Ursan teams, and (5) have blessings for different group functions thereby allowing any profession to fill in the stop of any other function. -- Alaris 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution to the Blessing problem would be to make them non-elite and have them simply give you the passive bonuses: Armor and health for Ursan, regen and health for Volfen, or health + block % chance for Raven. Just make them passive skills that give those effects as long as they're on your bar. However, I know Ursan will never be changed because ANet no longer gives a shit. --Jette 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that such skills wont be in the new game, norns would turn into bears to gain slightly better power, maybe it could give some aura to nearby players, maybe more coarage in effect of a certain bonus. --Super Igor 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem isnt Ursan itself. It's a messed up skill, but a proper nerf could fix that, no problem (and probably render it unusable while at it). The problem is, it, together with many other PvE skills, stands far above 'normal' skills. Has effects that another skill of the same status would never get (and that while its even usable by anyone). That's where balance simply becomes a problem. In NF the sunspear skills were at least a limited number and thus still a bit elite-like. In EotN theres tons of them, plus an elite 'elite'. That is bound to cause imbalance. So the main idea should be: in GW2, do not add unbalanced PvE only skills again. And in my opinion, a skill that makes the rest of your skillbar unnecessary...that is definately unbalanced, even if not as a skill, it unbalances game mechanics. Adding the overpowered skill in itself just worsens it. --Tenshi Samshel 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Separation of PvE and PvP skills is necessary so you can balance one without messing up the other." is completely irrelevant to the suggestion that "PvE-only skills should be comparable in power to regular skills.". I have created two suggestions about the PvE / PvP skill split debate and moved the comment down. -- Gordon Ecker 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Irremovable Buffs

u want ur weapon spells and echoes to be removed? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.39.72.8 (talk).

Warmongers, WoWarding, Choking Gas, RaO, RtW, SY, Glass Arrows, Ether Prism.... yup, they are all balanced.... Koda Kumi talk 12:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlimited Ammo

quivers as offhand would be a good idea though --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.39.72.8 (talk).

quivers as offhand would be good, but still unlimited ammo.the quiver should affect attack speed maybe, just for bows --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.177.2.87 (talk).

Micro-managing ammo is a useless and unfun part of any rpg. GW assumes your character brought enough arrows to last the out the explorable area/alliance battle/random arena/whatever, and should stay as it is. 115.129.22.229 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I really agree. It's a hassle in other games and it's a poinless goldsink.-- anguard 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Unless different types of ammo are being introduced, there shouldn't be a finite quantity of ammo. Forcing a player to buy the same ammo over and over only creates unnecessary, frustrating, and time-wasting extra steps. This is similar to requiring Amazons in Diablo II to buy the same arrows over and over; it provided no benefit, but the downside was that the player was forced to either abandon gameplay and return to town to buy arrows, or to waste inventory space by carrying extra arrows. Ninjatek 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the bows as they are now. Things like range and speed vary in the kind of bows you buy. We dont need quivers to decide that. Also, ammo is a hassle, and if there are going to still be things like preparations, that would add to the hassle. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:64.131.54.75 (talk).

EEPS in caps, who wants to have quiver? think of all the storage space wasted if you have to carry around extra quivers just for backup. sheesh. bad idea. don't complicate things, don't change what is not broken. Running around in high heels is also unrealistic, point is, it does not need to be realistic. Rangers' skills damage and the bow damage are balance is what matters. Pumpkin pie 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, being all in favour of combat on the realistic side, I would be for a quiver system limiting the ammunition one carries -- that is, if you want to carry more arrows, it takes up more inventory space, and if you run out, then better get some melee or magic skills -- except that is totally illogical. Why have limited arrows, when you have armour that can't be damaged for more than a few seconds at a time, weapons that never break or grow dull, a character that can run through an arctic environment forever without growing tired... it's just a minor, stupid thing to worry about.

Scythes

Scythes are not overpowered, learn a better build. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.39.72.8 (talk).

I don't think there are going to be dervishes or scythes in Guild Wars 2. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.64.0.150 (talk).

Well there is no reason not to have them. I personal like them --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:True Windigo (talk).

"Because ANet fails at balancing melee" isn't a valid argument. The whole point of this is to constructively criticize what ANet has done thus far, which is why you put this section in in the first place. Come up with a better argument. --tero 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Although te scythe did allow for a form of aoe basic attak it was also balanced in the fact that you would do anywhere between 9 and 41 damage...9 health to a monster by the time you got a max damage scythe is nothing. Plus Anet does an amazing job at balancing anything they put into guild wars.Darkworlock 22:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Compare Scythes with Hammers. Same attack speed and the same average damage (except for hitting multiple targets). Why is one used more often than the other? - Because of the skills associated with that particular weapon. The problem isn't that scythes and hammers need to go, it's that scythe and hammer skills need work concerning balance and effectiveness. By the way, Hammers should be able to hit multiple enemies - at least with the spacebar attack. Ninjatek 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Spears

IMO the point about spears being thrown being a "problem" should either be removed or have a counter-arguement added. Historically, spears were popular as both melee and thrown weapons. -- Gordon Ecker 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is opinions. Of course not everyone agrees. But the spear point is no different than any other there. Backsword 07:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spear = melee, javelin = ranged. Both are technically spears, so no any offence can be applied :) Ratys 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pros and cons are part of the standard formatting for suggestion pages. What about rephrasing the complaint to focus on spears being generally unusable as melee weapons in GW1 rather than on spears being usable as ranged weapons? -- Gordon Ecker 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

dont u know anything about native spear throwing? hence the african theme? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.39.72.8 (talk).

Why not have them do both under the same attribute? I'm not sure if anyone has noticed that GW1 does have a melee spear attack. So I say both under same attribute, because I think that would make for some interesting play styles. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:True Windigo (talk).

I think the argument about thrown spears here goes to the ammo question. While it might be ok to assume a ranger brought enough arrows for a long battle, a paragon throws 100s of java-spears during a run, and it woudl be implausible to assume they carried and discarded that many... magic 'auto-returning' spears is the cop-out explanation, but yeah... there's a balance between playibility and implausible. 115.129.22.229 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Team-dependent Missions

Is "A stronger emphasis on teamwork in PvE missions and quests." complaining that there's too much emphasis on teamwork in PvE missions and quests, or not enough? It should be rephrased in the form of an unambiguous complaint or moved to another heading. -- Gordon Ecker 05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed that it was based on PCGamer07's suggestion and rephrased it as a complaint about too much teamwork dependance. I have also rephrased the other suggestions with clearer language. -- Gordon Ecker 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the suggestion "A stronger emphasis on teamwork in PvE missions and quests" BTW. Because that would just be difficult with all the other players that you have never met. I put up the complaint "That missions are too dependent on teamwork", hoping that people can still complete missions without teams if they chose to, because of all the issues of a bad PuG. --PCGamer07 11:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is already stated that the majority of GW2 will be completable solo with the new companion system. So I'm sure primary PVE missions will require LESS teamwork that way everyone can finish the GW2 storyline. However, I'm hoping dungeons *if they exist* require MORE teamwork with a full or nearly full human team. That way, only the best can get the rewards the dungeons offer. Malchior Devenholm 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PCGamer07, I know, Skakid9090 added it, I assumed that he added it based on your suggestion and just phrased it oddly. Malchior Devenholm, there has been no such confirmation for missions, only for quests. -- Gordon Ecker 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

GW is definitely not a team dependent game. I've completed all 3 campaigns NM and HM with Heroes and Henchmen. Vanquishing and Missions, with nothing but H/H. I would definitely think Guild wars 2 need to up the team play a bit. And since its a persistent world, if someone leaves or drops, just pick up someone else into your party. PvE in Guild Wars is a joke. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.78.15.126 (talk).

Just wondering, does "Team-dependant Missions" refer to those such as Sunjiang District? azalea^chat 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I really dislike Visunah Square and Unwaking Waters, the ones where you have to work with another team. Not to mention that even getting another Human on the other side in HM seems nearly impossible. 75.146.48.190 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It think that they should make it easier to play alone but increase the reward for playing in a party. The more players the higher reward per player, but with increased players add more foes and make bosses tougher the difficulty per player should remain the same however since its would consist of a big team the coordination between the players would increase the difficulty as stated before. Do not just scale all foes, add more foes instead of making each foe harder, only make bosses scale with the amount of players within a party.

Why do I want to increase the reward for parties? simple it makes the game more social and more of a MMO rather than just a single player game, rewarding players for socializing instead of demoting it. And less grinding for casual players.--195.66.94.4 10:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Failure of Team-dependent missions

I swear, the thing that I hate most about GW is that a lot of the missions are just impossible without playing with others. And that can open up to a lot of problems. Where should I start? Ragequitters that can ruin the mission instantly for the rest of the group. Noobs that are 6 that don't know any strategy and cause party wipe. And just the difficulty of finding a good team makes you just so frustrated. It's like NCSoft tries to make no spawn camping so they make missions, but instead of better, it becomes a nightmare that would never end. I never really had trouble with the last mission in prophecies, Hell's precipice until lately. I swear it is my 8th time doing it and kept failing because of the rest of the team resulting in either party wipes or rage quitters or immature players that would rather brag about how they can solo than working together as a team. After losing it that much, it just makes you feel so sick and disguested that you don't want to play anymore. Because why waste your time failing, right? It's no point, the only reason I play it is to complete the missions, not to fight Imps and Titans, because after the 3rd or 5th time, it's not fun anymore, but rather, a chore. And why on earth are missions so long? Because Anet wants you to keep playing? Come on, if the game is that fun, you can keep people playing without tricking them. Just to say it, missions are enemies of casual players. I said all these because I want GW2 to succeed and not making these mistakes again for the good of all players. --PCGamer07 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You wipe on Hell's? But yeah, the solution here is to make questing to level up actually teach you how to play the game. I think I stopped pugging Hell's after running into the ele with five skills from pre on his bar and no elite and the W/E with five ele skills and no elite in the same group. -- Armond Warblade 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You can wipe anywhere with a bad PUG, he didn't say anything about his success rate with henchmen. Hell's Precipice was a bad example, a mission which generally requires splitting for the main objective (such as Aurora Glade) or the bonus objective (such as Dunes of Despair), or an escourt missions such as Dasha Vestibule, would make a better example. -- Gordon Ecker 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But yeah, just recently, I randomly found a good PuG and we beat Hell's. w00t! It's about time! But about those other missions like Aurora Glade and Dunes of Despair also really bad missions especially if you have a bad PuG. Aurora Glade was a nightmare for me for a while, it haunted me in my dreams :( I had the White Mantle laughing at me. But anyway, I stopped using henchies for missions at the start of Magumma because that is when henchies turn bad, just useless. This one time, my melee guy ran after an enemy 20 feet away on a cliff. I was like, how did you even see that? --PCGamer07 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I would trade the option to team up with people for the option to team up with 7 heroes since they're better than 99% of people. Another problem is the henchmen in the first chapter and their bad builds-for example the healer henchman uses Healing Breeze which is a terrible skill for a monk. The archer henchman uses practiced stance with... kindle arrows? Not to mention that most henches have at least 1 empty skill slot. The protection hench doesn't have Reversal of Fortune or Guardian(two important core skills for protection). The elementalist henchmen bring Mind Burn which is trash(dual attune is better). The mesmer doesn't have an interrupt(which is the only reason to bring a mesmer hench) and lacks backfire, diversion, and phantasm. The warrior henches all have terribad builds(Stefan's build is almost ALL energy skills, and both attack skills are crap) except Devona who knocks foes down and even then it's conditional. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.64.0.150 (talk).

Why is it that whenever I suggest that Guild Wars 2 be solo-based instead of team-based, people hate the suggestion, then 2 weeks later they whine that they can't take 7 heroes?

The parts of GW I hate the most are the solo things. This is a game designed for team play, whether it's with other real players, henchmen, or heroes. There isn't a mission in this game that can't be completed without another player if you have your heroes properly built, or even have any understanding of the henchmen builds. To me there is no reason to change the party size. If you wish to play with others you can, if not you don't have to.-- Wyn 04:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Except for the elite missions, which don't even allow henchmen. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have said storyline missions. I'd be very disappointed in any MMO where the elite missions were able to be done without team play. -- Wyn 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Define this: "That way, only the best can get the rewards the dungeons offer." in my understanding playing with human is far easier then playing with H/H how is a full human team better than a solo + h/h team? why whould anyone even want to tolerate "elitist" attitude like that? Make it a choice, you play your way, i'll play my way, i'd be disappointed if it cannot be complete solo with H/H. Pumpkin pie 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FedEx-style quests

Can anyone specify what that means? azalea^chat 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NPC with exclamation on his head says "Hi, that's a nice shiny shield you have there, and OMG that hot neon pink colored armor is FTW!. Please escort this two legged turlte all the way across the map, while fighting hoardes of uglies." Accept = Umm, OK, Decline = Call me after the dude learns how to run. Reward = 500XP, 50g and an item that a merchant will buy for 25g.

Hahaha, yeah, and don't forget the part where you have to run alllll the way back to the NPC who originally gave you the quest, who then has a new quest for you that takes place three feet next to the location of the first. And after that, you have to run back to claim your reward AGAIN. (Many Factions quests in Kaineng City are like this.) --fraught · (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. lol. Yeah, I remember a lot of these type quests in Factions, however, since it is unlikely that Cantha will be accessible immediately in Guild Wars 2, I doubt many of them will show up. And besides, you don't have to do all the quests, you know.. azalea^chat 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more of an escourt quest or escourt mission. The basic FedEx quest is "deliver item X to NPC Y" or "get item X from NPC Y". I think they're okay in moderation, for example the "report to X" quests, such as Defend the Wall, are generally quick, make sense and move the plot along. -- Gordon Ecker 03:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it should be understood that these quests, while pointless in themsefl, are meant to get players to go to a specific location, tat they may not visit otherwise. Backsword 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the pointless, non-essential, doesn't direct you to the next mission quests would be considered Fed-Ex quests. Just some of them are international shipping, and some are local area deliveries. Yes, even the "escort quests" would be considered Fed-Ex quests.

Oh, so FedEx-style quests means like Defend the Wall? That sounds more like FedEx than escort quests. In that case, I see nothing wrong with the FedEx stuff. What's the biggie? azalea^chat 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The game is full of them. Most of the current quests are 'I accept' *follow an arrow*, *win* Imperial Guardsman Yang's 'Housing for Refugees' is a prime example. Why the hell are you guarding the deadend of an uninhabitted sewer?!? This sort of thing is ok once in a while but it should not make up 2/3's of PvE content. I, for one, want the game to make me think. -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) NO MORE ARROWS

Um...if you hate FedEx quest....don't do them? Its not like there's not enough quest in the game to get you to level 20. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.78.15.126 (talk).

FedEx quests are a WoW imitation. Unfortunately, the popularity of WoW sort of set a bad standard, even though it is a stupidly bad standard, and almost every MMO in existence has them. FedEx quests are common because they are easy to script/program for the developers and they figure "If Blizzard gets rich off WoW why not imitate them" which leads to almost every MMO ending up as crap. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.5.27 (talk).

Blizzard didn't invent everything, FedEx quests have been around since the 70s. -- Gordon Ecker 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

People need to understand Arenanet isn't ripping off WoW, it ripping off everything else, like WoW is too ^_^ 000.00.00.00 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Um...if you hate FedEx quest....don't do them?" Indeed, the majority of the players never do quests except for the ones that bring them further in the game. Most quests are boring, take too long, and have a very small reward (wheee, more useless exp).-=-Koda Kumi 20:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Spawn. The game's side quests need to be a little more versatile. Those are the best. The one who's name escapes me where you have to scare the pig into it's pen again is an example of a breakaway from the usual jazz. And by more challenging, I don't mean more enemies, or to put a maze somewhere in there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.54.75 (talk).

True, but you can't expect all side quests to be like that. That defeats the purpose of them being side quests in the first place - in that many of them should be relatively simple to complete. And FedEx quests are common because they're easy for the developers and quest designers to complete. You do want a lot of quests to be in the game right? You can't get a lot of quests without a significant number of them being simple quests. -- ab.er.rant 03:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Imo this kind of thinking is why there are not many good games on the market these days. Koda Kumi talk 12:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PvE / PvP skill split

Should these two entries be merged or kept separate? If they are merged, should the entry be phrased as a pro-split suggestion or an anti-split suggestion? -- Gordon Ecker 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since GW1 has such a split, the views must be considered as one about timing, and one about the existance at all. Backsword 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the anti-split suggestion's nonsensical "Balanced PvE is a worthwhile goal." pro point. Giving skills identical stats in PvE and PvP would make it harder to balance a skills for both play formats at the same time. -- Gordon Ecker 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Using the same stats in PvP means the skill can't be overpowered without breaking PvP. List all the most overpowered skills in GW1, and see if they are not either PvE only or PvE versions. Backsword 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the most overpowered skills are PvE only skills or PvE versions of split skills, however there are other unsplit skills which are far more powerful in PvE than they are in PvP, such as Obsidian Flesh, Meteor Shower and Spiteful Spirit. Also, balance isn't just about nerfing overpowered skills, it's also about buffing underpowered skills, and in GW1, the vast majority of skills which are underpowered in PvE are unsplit, and many of them could not be buffed to be competitive in PvE without being split or becoming overpowered in PvP. -- Gordon Ecker 00:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should there even be a discussion? PvE is not PvP. PvE has little need for balance other to prevent Abuse. PvE idea of "Harder" areas or monsters is making them vastly more powerful then players who will face them, there are limits to what fair and balanced skill sets can do for you when your adversaries hit twice as hard and twise as fast then you will ever be able to, not having Powerful PvE skills will only lead to 55monk type of play that excludes all but few select professions/classes. Biz 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NO HARASSMENT

The reason I DON'T play WoW anymore - and will immediately stop playing GW if I see it - is the built-in harassment factor. From what I can understand of how that came about: It's not fair to say that was the intent of the designers at the start BUT as the game progressed they found themselves TRAPPED in a complex cycle of pandering to the market and i.e. adding features that could be used (or abused) to harass other players. Apparently at this point they have totally given up the basic "fair-play without abuse concept" and just go along for the ride and rake in the bug bucks. For example the add-on of the new area back in... i dunno now it's been so long... sunstar elves or something... anyway, with the addition of this new area and new items, which was heavily marketed to attract interest and spending... the psycho attention seekers that are so prevalent on the internet game scene just couldn't stand the fact someone else was having fun without paying any attention to them... so they went into the new area and turned on "aggro status" and then clustered around the only npc vendor with the most popular item or quest. They were so tightly packed it was beyond the game mechanics ability to distinguish the vendor from an "aggro status" player. The game mechanics were boffed. Being in "aggro status" meant that, because of the default layout of the mouse controls built into the game, anyone trying to access the vendor and instead clicking on one of the tightly packed attention-seekers would automatically "attack" that player, thereby automatically putting the non-aggressive player that was just trying to access the vendor into "aggro status" as well... and who was immediately killed by the 20-30 attention-seekers who were intentionally tightly clustered around the only available vendor.

I like the idea that Arenanet is planning on keeping PvP and PvE totally seperate, which WoW did not in their attempts to garner more mony by pandering to the abusive/obsessive segment of the market. If Arenanet does not, then I will not play GW! Hello? Totally seperate areas! Yes! If the PvE and PvP areas are kept seperate, then players who want to (and who have a right to play the game THEY purchased any way they choose without being harassed) will be able to CHOOSE to go into a PvP area... not the opposite! ... and not be the victims of obsessive/compulsives that choose to come into the PvE area. The main point here is for Arenanet to continue the good work and not fall into a hidden trap like WoW did... so that in 1-2-3 years GW would not also be totally at the mercy of a certain segment of the market which constantly clamors (via thousands of emails and flooding of the forums on WoW) for more features, more items, more areas, more PvP... and then finds exploits for them right away andor otherwise uses them to harass others and disrupt the game. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.21.153.149 (talk).

Can we get some Cliffs Notes please? Less rant, less WOW talk, and more to-the-point please. Ninjatek 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Er...

Considering that they're going to (a) decide what current and new professions that they want in the new game (and they pretty much said that they weren't going to just use any one of them without discussing it first), (b) decide how that's going to interact with races, (c) re-build everything from first concepts, this suggestion dosn't really work very well. It's much more of a GW1 suggestion as it's wholly based on the details of this game's whole system. If you want to say things like "there shouldn't be weapons that can just hit more than one person in melee", or even "melee aoe is bad and should be rare and/or expensive", and perhaps "there shouldn't be a class of buffs that are irremovable", those kind of thoughts are probably much more useful. Think of the underlying game design that you want to affect, because they might not have dervishes or item spells next time around but they might have crystal manipulators and aura adjustments that work about the same way ^_^. About scythes: It could also be said to be illogical that you swing a big blade on a big stick and can only ever hurt one person. About spears: w:spear lists w:javelin and w:pilum near the beginning when stating that spears are sometimes thrown.

Shouts are really the only thing about paragons that make any sence, Anthems, Echoss, Chants, Are all gateways for imbalance because A. They make no sense and B. THey cannot be removed. As far as scythes go they are imbalanced period, by the logic you employ i should be able to swing and axe and hit more than one person because most of the skins are large and extremely long. Hell i should be able to hit two people standing next to each other with a sword, or a hammer too, the point is that with every weapon it is theoretically possible to hit more than one person, but in this game only one weapon can which causes imbalance. What do you see in EVERY party no matter what? A ritualist, Something wielding a scythe and some form of a paragon. These classes should have never existed. Ritualists would have been fine with out the ability to grant "weapon spells"--99.153.226.11 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Now let's complain about the warrior</sarcasm>, because he has many skills that cannot be removed. Here they are: "Charge!", "For Great Justice!", "I Will Avenge You!", "I Will Survive!", "Retreat!", "Save Yourselves!", "Shields Up!", "Watch Yourself!", Deadly Riposte, Dolyak Signet, Endure Pain, Protector's Defense, Riposte, Shield Bash, Signet of Stamina, Signet of Strength, and Warrior's Cunning.

The warrior also has the potential of AoE, "Fear Me!", "None Shall Pass!", Crude Swing, Cyclone Axe, Earth Shaker, Hundred Blades, Triple Chop, Whirlwind Attack, and Yeti Smash. And also wars have anywhere from 1-16% sundering that is unremovable and doesn't wear out.

If anything the dervish is nothing without his enchantments, which are easly stripped, and the dervish has lower armor. A paragon can be easly locked down with a hex or two. A ritualist's "weapon spells" can be locked down just like any other spell. And a warrior can be put out of buisness with some hexes and mayby some stance removal. And honestly I rarely see a rit (especially outside of cantha), and I a little more often see dervs and paragons outside of elona, but not that much. Besides, each profession will be soloable, so each profession available in GW2 will have moer power than in GW1 persay, it will just even out at a much higher level. --Elven Chaos 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All warrior shit is shouts, Which actually MAKE some amount of sense, Echos Chants and Anthems make NO sense are imba in every way.

All the skills(not shouts) you have pointed out save the few elites(ie earth shaker which might actually be used occasionally), are NEVER used. and if you'd like i'll post every dervish attack up here seeing as they are ALL AoE simply because of the weapon used. Ever seen a melandru derv? enchantless, The old pious assault dervs, enchant less, R fucking Ds Enchant less dervishes should have never existed. Paragons should have never existed. Weapon spells should have never existed. It fucked up the game, Look at the meta and everything you see these three classes have influenced in a major way.--99.153.226.11 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then try four aggresive tactics:

1. Learn to Interrupt {Rt, P, Avatar of (_) ) (Daze is very good and makers dervishes much more interuptable)
2. Learn to Remove Stances (R/D)
3. Learn to use Hexes and Conditions to Lock-Down Enemies (Rt, P, D)
4. Learn that not everything is ment to be removed, but rather locked down that much easier.

--Elven Chaos 03:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DSHOT THEIR DIVERSION ON RECHARGE, GUYS

Congratulations, you suck at theorycrafting. --76.25.197.215 03:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Guild Wars is too fun and this will fix any problem with people who get in to the game. In fact lets just remove enchantments and hexes from the game and only have 4 classes. Warrior, Monk, Ranger and Elementest. Also lets make it so warriors and elementests are all male and monks and rangers are all female. You know because it makes no sense that a girl would be able to carry a BIG hammer. You know. this would be the balance you want."

Why i added this to the page In the first place was to prove a point. All the professions in Guild Wars are Very well balanced and fun to use. Also Weapon spells, shouts, chants, and echo's are not over powered. example(1) you can only have ONE weapon spell on you at a time. And most if not all weapon spells only have one effect to them. Enchantments and stances usually have more then one effect to them. (2) Chants are almost always removed with your next attack skill. Also All chants and echo's have a casting time!!!. (3) Echo's almost only take effect if you are under the effect of a chant or shout. (4) you have no idea what you are talking about. (5)Enchantments and Stances almost always have a better effect then weapon spells, chants, shouts, and echo's. (6) What about Glyph's and signets? are they cheap too? And do say "oh thats different" because its not. Yozuk

They are not particularly well balanced. 1. Who cares, it's unremovable and is either doing lolaoe or lolblocks, and any given class only needs one of those. 2. Who cares if they have a casting time, no team has enough interrupts to camp both monks, the runner, the mesmer, the ele, and the paragon, and the paragon takes lowest priority on that scale because he's the most passive. 3. Echos are also unremovable, and if you have Echos you sure as fuck have Shouts. 4. Says the RA scrub. 5. That's because they're not unremovable. See how this goes? 6. Glyphs only affect yourself (and only a few spells at that), signets are either suboptimal heals or require you to gimp your bar to achieve a passable effect, and are always inferior to the spell versions. --76.25.197.215 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. splinter weapon does not affect the person you hit and does away after so many hits, weapon of warding only lasts a few seconds. 2. AoE, nukes, spikes, and KD also play a roll, not just interrupt. 3. Echoes depend on shouts and chants, and if you have anything similar to Vocal Minority or Well of Silence on you, then you stop fueling the echoes, ontop of being unable to shout or chant. 4. Actually, says a person with a brain. 5. And thus, balance. 6. And thus, even more balance. 7. We are talking about ANet, don't we already know they will take balance into hand? --Elven Chaos 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you know what 'AoE' means? WoW lasts longer than Guardian, provides health regen, and is unstrippable. But I guess any prot in the entire game 'only lasts a handful of seconds', depending on how you look at it. 2. So... how exactly do you interrupt a Chant with a nuke? If you look up, his contention was that Chants were interruptable, not that there are things in the game that do damage. 3. So all you have to do to beat a Paragon is to spec against them and waste a skill slot on something that will be utterly worthless if you fight a guild that isn't running a para. Nifty! 4. Evidently not. 5. Nope, still got lolblocks, lolrangerspike, lolintterupts, loldamageimmunity, and lolspikeimmunity, all unremovable. But nice try. 6. Your point was that signets were equivocal to weapon spells. My point was that you were talking out of your ass. Try again? 7. Their reputation says yes, their profit model screams FUCK NO. --76.25.197.215 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. First, off, I'd think you'd have more issues with the assassins and their shadow steps or perma-sf. I'm fine with those. Second, these are classes enjoyed by many, and they are a lot of fun dynamics. What we want is balance, not removal of anything original or different. Generally, adding new classes will produce new problems, but not adding new classes means the game will get stale faster. So IMO it's better to deal with the issues, balance as needed, but introduce new classes nevertheless. -- Alaris 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

76 Covered all my arguments so I really have nothing left. Elven and Yozuk stop theory crafting and go Obs mode for a change, Dervishes, Ritualists, and Paragons have been the target of many major nerfs recently and doing even the slightest buff throws the game into a spiral of imbalance, and the slightest nerf renders a skill impractical to use in standard play. These classes should have never existed, gw was fine without them in the original game, and just because they are "fun" to play doesnt make them balanced or balance able. --99.153.226.11 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mha ha ha ha ha This suggestion is going on to long. It needs to die because its a BAD IDEA! And i'm not theory crafting here i'm telling you the facts and bashing you at the same time. Your just a child who is pissed because he can't win in PvP. You what to play a generic MMORPG fine, play a different game. But don't try and ruin it for the rest of us.Yozuk

Your "facts" are stating what we already know and not disproving our arguments in the least. You're making yourself look like as ass to be honest, not bashing us. OP classes are suddenly the chemistry for a good game? One would think that running into dervishes and ritualists in every match would get a bit boring after awhile, and get the fuck out of RA and try some actual pvp for a change. --99.153.226.11 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AH ha ha ha ha. Now this is getting fun. And yes i may be an asshole but at least i admit it! at least i admit it! Your bitching is now fun for me. Oh and i do pvp from time to time and there weapon spells, chants, shouts, echo's and even forms never helped them against my assassin. PS if you already had known the facts you would have never made this suggestion.Yozuk

"From time to time"? What, a round of AB every couple weeks? Get into a top-300 guild and GvG a couple times every day, and your opinion might actually be worth something. --76.25.197.215 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's lots of people who have no idea what they are talking about,they just want the game to be easier for them becouse they suck at it.

Do you really think ArenaNet cares if elitists play their game? Whether the common player be newbies or veterans, as long as they're making money, I doubt they're offended by noobs. Deal with the fact that they exist. azalea^chat 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK... you know what... the original suggestion is completely right... It makes no sense that scythes (made to farm and reap grain with relative ease and efficiency by cutting through more than one "head" of grain) should hit more people than a blunt hammer (that would probably resound after hitting, thus the long recharge). All weapons should hit more than one target, forget that scythes are heavy, slow and made for that purpose. Yeah, weapon spells and echoes should have some form or removal, I mean, think about it, we can forcibly stop people from echoing each other and saying what they believe (against the first amendment in America) and we can forcible revert a weapon to its previous state without destroying the weapon completely and without magic. ITs not just the add-on professions. You know, it makes no sense that as rangers have higher expertise that skills should cos less, or that as warriors are stronger they should penetrate more armor, or even that as necromancers become more vile that death should excite them more. I spose we should make GW just like WoW in every way. I mean, we are already in a persistent world... lets just go for it all the way! Lets make gnomes and elves, and instead of a storyline, lets have a leprechaun run around in circles! A=net has balanced every profession with a counter profession. but who cares? I know, Lets replace the people who put so much good work into a game with unique gameplay (I'm sorry, I believe the paragon and ritualists to be pretty unique...) with monkeys! (note... this whole thing is sarcastic... no offense meant...)...Zeph 05:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Professions

GW2 =/= GW1. — Skakid 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So they aren't bringing back those classes in GW2?--99.153.226.11 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no classes are confirmed for GW2 (and likely won't be until the beta). I think I read somewhere that the GW2 classes would be different from all the GW1 classes, but don't quote me. -- Armond Warblade 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sssssh. I'm having fun. --76.25.197.215 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm venture to guess they're keeping the 6 core professions.

Assassins suck because the attack chain idea promotes gimmicky play and nothing else.

Ritualists suck because they take too long to establish spirits, and when they do, they're broken. When they don't, they're weak. Anet made a camping class in a game requiring movement.

Paragons can be balanced. They're only imba right now because izzy doesn't realize that they do damage when they're not making their party invincible.

Mysticism needs to be fixed. When it does, dervishes will be fine - it's only scythes that are broken. Notice how nobody uses mysticism, earth, or wind prayers in high level play unless it's a speed boost or attacker's insight. ~Shard (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO they could be fixed, but I don't like how almost all new professions introduced mechanics that didn't merge well with what the game already had. Weapon spells, ashes, forms, chants and echoes, plus spirits and shouts to a lesser extent, just feel weird. For example, plenty of skills have in their description "non spirits allies within range", and spirits were not expected to suffer any condition yet now they burn - both those traits are solutions to problems, but both strike me as extremely inelegant. Everything else has been introduced so late into the game that there were no skills able to counter most of them, and even if they were introduced now they would be niche skills (like the useless Vocal Minority, which only helps Build Wars). Erasculio 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion seems to be based on the implausible assumption that, if the professions are included in GW2, they will be crudely ported over with few if any changes. If scythes had a more reasonable damage range and areas were less constrained, they wouldn't be a problem. If spear DPS and spear attack skills were comparable to bow DPS and bow skills, they wouldn't be any more problematic than bows. If every profession got a few unstrippable party buffs and there was some mechanic to prevent stacking abuse (for example making the buffs weak and sustainable and limiting them to one per skill bar) then giving paragons unstrippable buffs won't be a problem. If Mysticism only worked on dervish enchantments and could only return a certain percentage of the enchantments' energy costs, all it would really do is make dervish enchantments more expensive for non-dervishes. If monks, necromancers, mesmers and elementalists could buff their allies with weapon spells, ritualists being able to buff allies with weapon spells wouldn't be a problem, even if they were still unstrippable. If spirits worked more like pets (mobile, capped at one as a time, requiring separate skills to do anything besides attack), they wouldn't be any more problematic than pets. I think the main problem with the expansion professions is that they're expansion professions, if GW2 includes all ten as core professions, ArenaNet can balance the professions around eachother from the start rather than having to shoehorn them in later. In fact I think that GW2 could include all ten GW1 professions, as well as chronomancer, the cancelled martial artist profession from Factions which got retooled into dervish and any other hypothetical cancelled or rejected GW1 professions without any problems as long as all the professions are developed simultaneously and included at release. -- Gordon Ecker 09:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The original 6 were great... but the additional 4 were just as well... honestly, I play the game only for the para... I dunno what I'd do if they took it out...Zeph 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove Them...

and keep assassins cuz they are cute. :3 --Super Igor 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WEIRD'D OUT --Metroid 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

taek awey asassins insted of ritu cuz ritu cen actuly be balenced wen they haev not that meny skils in gw2, asassins ís alweys going to be retardly strong in pvp end week in pve --Frozen Archer 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GAH! soo.....many......typos.....*falls unconsious* By the way, what the heck happened to the page? O.o az :D 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It got renamed like four times. -- Armond Warblade 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

assassins are not always weak in PvE. My assassin is actually has a very good PvE build that makes him a strong asset to the team. I use a sin in 2 ways when playing PvE. Interrupter(Critical disrupter) of a defense eliminator(a combo with Wild Strike and Shattering Assault to eliminate there stances and enchantment to help my allies kill them faster.). So to say there weak or even useless in PvE is a misunderstanding of the strengths and weaknesses of an assassin.Yozuk

Keep the assassins, they are indeed a valuable asset to the team. They are a renewable resource for Olias, he loves rezz'ing the sin as a Flesh Golem.

Lol, Ritualists always seemed poorly thought out to me...now magic ninjas who run through the mountains with axes? Genius Eragon 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved Talk

I can spread deep wound and bleeding to 3 targets and also hit harder and strike at about the same speed as most other weapons, and it only takes about as much skill as hitting tab and space multiple times.

That means you're fighting idiots or dumb AI's. Anyone who bunches up so you can hit them is asking for it anyway.

Shouts can't be removed, because, realistically, you can't 'remove' something someone just yelled out unless you sear it out of their mind. Which their shouldn't, and doesn't need to be shout removers. Paragon's can easily be shutdown by multitudes of skills if you are really that bothered.

By that logic the other team could yell something and disrupt what ever is in the players mind or w/e. Also see point number 5 above.

There already are negative shouts.

"Fear Me!" doesnt count. As for about EVERYTHING you tried to strike out / prove otherwise if the point was for them not to be able to be removed than that was epic imbalance from the start. ANYTHING that has no counter is imbalanced, period. if it was meant to be that way then it should be removed. and dont strike out anything discuss it on the discussion. or add it below. Also it is utterly impossible to balance a weapon that strikes for AoE when others cannot.

Every weapon has more than one skill that allows it to do AoE. To counter weapon-spells you do not remove them but prevent them, anti-spell-hexes/interrupt/daze, so YES!!!... there IS a counter for everything, your talking about ANet, period. You could even consider out-damaging and out-lasting the opponet(s). So there is plenty to counter with.

More than one skill not every attack skill or even auto attack on their bar can be AoE like a dervish, HELL i could put melee attacks from a warrior on their and they would be AoE balanced right? and none of the other weapons AoE Skills result in an AoE deep wound. Also as for your counters for weapon spells, enchantments and hexes have the same counters accept they can be removed from a person so that is not balance, and the same goes for echos and chants they can be interrupted but that is hardly the point, unlike everything else it cant be removed which is imbalance.--99.153.226.11 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AoE scythes are hard hitters at times, true. One might say though, remove the scythe and you remove the dervish alltogether since it loses its main advantage over warriors and falls completely behind on sins. Though I myself wouldnt mind seeing the profession scrapped in return for some other skills on other profs...aesthetically theyre cool but they dont really have a unique purpose. Beyond their melee AoE damage that is... which with good AI would tend to work only two hits max anyway. As for shouts/chants/echoes/weapons/forms/etc: same problem as the NF profs, theyre pretty much existing things again and again. All are basically (almost)unremovable enchants; one or two is more than enough. With shouts as simple AoE 'enchant' and weapons as personal, mutually exclusive 'enchant', Id say thats enough of them. Form is just another weapon, chant another shout, same for echo, just slight differences that imho dont deserve a seperate type. Keeping them shouldnt be a problem, if simply the effects are reduced (mainly the length) as the cost for being unremovable. Shouts probably arent on debate anyway. Weapons are restricted by exclusiveness and by prevention ofcourse. And accept you cant remove some things. You can't disenchant away a simple warrior who ran at you and throws you in a KD lock ;). --Tenshi Samshel 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add a {{moved}} tag indicating where this talk was moved from? -- Gordon Ecker 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes

You could have a different set of servers that allows players the ability to play a grinding version of Guild Wars, this way you can still maintain the idea of Guild Wars not being another MMOG with grinding but still address the players that do want that. Offhand I would say that characters on the grinding servers aren't allowed on the normal non-grind servers because the game mechanics would be different enough that grinders could attain an somewhat unfair advantage to people sitting on the non-grind servers. On the grind servers you could then have the level cap raised appealing to those players as well. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:AlucardBC (talk).

They could always ...

Be like City of Heroes and remove auto attack. Would need a few more skill slots to make up for it, but maybe it would stop people from using "C-SPACE, C-SPACE!!!" as their argument. --Star Weaver 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeeaaaasss I so wish to press a button every 1.33 seconds just to attack, maybe we will make Mages draw Runes in the air with mouses and rangers manually aiming every shot too?. Biz 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, the ranger aiming every shot thing is actually a suggestion by someone... - Elder Angelus 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

anet may be worried about getting sued for giving people carpel tunnel XD jk. but seriously a dumb idea, can you say bot much?

• • Agreed rediculous idea....next!

Split-up Suggestions for Individual Criticism

Does anyone have a good reason to use non-standard formatting for this article which clumps multiple suggestions together and omits the pro and con sections? -- Gordon Ecker 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure why it was done. However, I'd guess because it becomes quickly unwieldy as th list grows, combined with these not really being suggestions, so there not being anything more to say than 'i agreee' or * I disagree', and it's not intended as a poll. Backsword 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless criticism such as "I agree" or "I disagree" shold be removed. IMO the main disadvantage of the current system is that it allows people to shelters bad idea from criticism. I'll split them up tomorrow if no one objects. -- Gordon Ecker 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's changed for now, and fixed or pointed out the flaws in the really bad suggestions. -- Gordon Ecker 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way I can see Limited Ammo for rangers working

I would suggest unlimited ammo for all professions. But in the case of limited ammo, I would suggest that rangers get an indicator of how much ammo they have left and a "Reloading" skill that replenishes it(would have 2 second cast and minimal energy cost.) Different ranged weapons could have different reload times and different ammo capacity. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.215.11 (talk).

Which would give ranged attackers one less skill slot than casters or melee attackers. -- Gordon Ecker 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Like attunements, amirite? We should give warriors a "hold weapon" skill. -- NUKLEAR IIV 08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or do it like WoW, where ammo is cheap. -- Armond Warblade 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

this limited ammo idea is dumb....unrealistic??Guild Wars is not based on realism. If thats the case, take out eles, charrs, or anything thats unrealistic. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.78.15.126 (talk).

Ever heard of realism in a fantasy setting? -- Armond Warblade 12:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about, fuck ammo, it isn't fun? -- NUKLEAR IIV 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So inorder to be an effective ranger that fires one arrow every say 4 seconds, you need to bring whole inventory of arrow quivers with you for a nice little 3 hour stroll in a UW like separated area where there are no arrow merchants? Not to mention all the Barrage type rangers :P Idea of limited ammo is in the realm of Breaking armor/weapons, healing/mana potions or food for healing things that better stay out of GW. Biz 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't carry arrow quivers, and the arrow reloading doesn't take up a skill slot. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.174.17.99 (talk).

Isn't that the point of Preparations having 2 sec casting time?reanor 15:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not having ammo, but maybe not as strongly as I would in GW1. In games like WoW and Diablo I've felt it is a massive waste of space and requires repeated in-game trips to town that you wouldn't need to make with other chars. There are way more enemies in the game to be realistic, not to mention you're pretty much at the bottom of the food chain (nothing really runs away, does it?). The real problem with ammo and GW1 is if you didn't bring enough ammo you'd need to quit and leave your party behind, and that will be less of an issue with a non-instanced world. But fun? No. Fair? No. To make it fair, add weapon and armor breakage and make it a small fortune to learn spells. Rangers and Mages would save money on armor damage while warriors would sink a fortune into it. Why not start throwing in food and water, encumbrance, fitness, sleep and all sorts of other requirements? Is any of that maintenance fun? I say no, attribute all that to "magic" and leave it out. --Falseprophet 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not change whats not broken [[User:Pumpkin pie|Pumpkin pie]] [[Image:User Pumpkin pie sig.jpg|19px]] 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

preasure vs spike balance

Are we sure the line "Emphasizes the skill set players have loaded on their characters over the hability of them" is not the other way around? Having played on several different pressure-based games, i have to say that what really matters there is "what, when and how" a player (re)acts, instead of spike games like gw1 where things are more like "hit, hit, hit, ZOMGZERGRUSHKEKEKE".--Fighterdoken 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...Stuck much?

The "body-block" mechanic is something that I do think is helpful in bringing a depth to movement that had not been prevalent in rpg's until recently. I have been playing GW1 for over three years, however I vow before I will buy GW2, I will find out if there is ever a need for /stuck. If there is I assure you I will not buy gw2. I have never needed to type anything like /stuck in any other online game, and I am sick of it. Grinding is going to be something that all rpg's are going to share for some time, however when trying to pull a set of mobs I don’t want to be able to turn around and watch the spot where 5 yetis are pounding me into a wall. If I get stuck because of a mistake I make that my fault and I accept that, but getting stuck because my client program is confused is not acceptable. Can you imagine EA (who arguably makes the glitchiest games bar none) releasing a battlefield game that did not actually show you where you were. It would never happen there, it should never happen here.

End rant.

^it's generally bad game designing to make a game where one can get stuck. I don't think they'd fail at it. ---Chaos- 12:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Team dependance

I've split this section, as there's a huge difference between not needing other people in your party and not needing other characters in your party. -- Gordon Ecker 07:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes#Team dependance: reliance on parties (Discussion)

• Online Mass multiplayer game.
  • Refuting this- Removing team dependence will not invalidate the multiplayer aspect due to PvP. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.225.113 (talk).
• Playing with other people promotes social skills.
  • Refuting this- What about people who don't want to have to develop those? They should not be forced to. How would you like it if Anet required you to have t3h 1337 MMO skillz or you couldn't finish any missions? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.225.113 (talk).
  • Refuting this - Please remove this ridiculous argument. Guild Wars is a video game, not an educational tool. Unless we are talking about Leapfrog, games aren't designed for teaching. Subsequent learning doesn't necessitate teaching - i.e., social skills can be learned without having them taught. Let's keep discussion on video games and education separate please. Ninjatek 15:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Forming a team requires some skill with regard to overall team balance, strategy, and skill synergy.
  • Refuting this- Some people don't want to run the build you ask them to. Does that mean that they should have to be excluded from the game for running their own valid build? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.225.113 (talk).
• Could be harder to balance.
  • Refuting this- It's called "separating PvE and PvP balance." Got a problem? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.71.225.113 (talk).

In response to your fourth refutation, PvE needs balance too. IMO it could be pretty hard to balance the professions so that they can all solo all the elite areas and uber-bosses like Primordus. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Monsters scaling with party size =/= realism.
  • Guild Wars is not based on realism, and probably will not be balanced around it either. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.9.249 (talk).
• Some have come to GW1 "because" they are able to solo anything with heroes and henchmen.
  • Remove that aspect and you remove a segment of the community that simply will not play the game. Some enjoy the "option" of teaming to accomplish a task, not relying on others, and challenging thier own minds to overcome the challenge on their own. Everything should be solo doable just as in GW1. On the same note, Heroes are a must and probably the only reason I love the game. (Bought Nightfall first and then worked backwards, no interest without them.)2 1/2yr vet.

Deletion

Oppose. IMO the deletion tag was added in bad faith and should be removed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then theres another page where it shoud be removed too, and you know which. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is the original one. (And you know it). Backsword 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would it matter? So you're saying that making new gw1 problem suggestions here is allowed but making them to new pages isnt. Awesome. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion, again

Yes, these are all GW2 suggestion. They just happen to be suggestions based on perceived mistakes in GW1.

1. Consumables

   If current trends continue, Guild Wars 2 will have powerful consumables.

2. Mechanical rewards for grind

   Also likely in GW2 based on current trends.

3. Overpowered PvE skills

   Also likely in GW2 based on current trends.

4. Unlimited ammo

   IMO it's a horrible suggestion, but I'm pretty sure it's relevant.

5. Unremovable buffs

   Do you have any reliable sources implying that GW2 may not have unremovable buffs.

6. Overpowered weapons

   GW2 is going to have weapons, and although I'm pretty sure they're not trying to make any of the weapons overpowered, I'm also pretty sure they weren't planning to make scythes overpowered when they were designing Nightfall.

7. Inscriptions

   I disagree with this one as well, but I'm not aware of any sources refuting the possibility of keeping modular upgrades in GW2.

8. Spears

   I'm not aware of any sources with information about the presence or absence of spears in GW2.

9. Team dependance: reliance on other players

   Definitely relevant to GW2. Instanced areas and some henchman equivalent has been confirmed for GW2, and there haven't been any statements about whether or not elite areas are planned to be henchable.

10. Team dependance: reliance on parties

    I disagree with this one too, but it's definitely relevant.

11. FedEx quets

    How many MMORPGs don't have them?

12. Reused dungeon terrain blocks

    IMO it's almost certain than GW2 will have reused dungeon terrain blocks, which would make this relevant.

13. Hard Mode

    They may not be planning Hard Mode for GW2 right now, but IMO they probably weren't planning Hard Mode for GW1 when it was released.

14. Use a PvE / PvP skill split from the start

    Guild Wars 2 will have PvE, PvP and skills. IMO both having a split and not having a split are likely to be under consideration at this point in developement.

15. Spend more time improving the game

    Completely relevant.

16. pressure vs spike balance

    Completely relevant, GW2 will likely have both pressure and spiking.

17. Don't split districts by language

    A bad idea, but definitely relevant.

18. Change the blocking mechanic

    Completely relevant.

19. Sunspear-esque Grinds

    Current trends make this unlikely, but it's still plausible.

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So what makes that monk suggestion irrelevant then? Seriously, if that Sunspear suggestion deserves to be there, why that monk one doesn't? 72.36.145.138 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the truth is this whole controversy is an issue of wikipower. Yes, most of the suggestions in this page are kinda retarded or didn't get as much thinking as they should've, but outright deletion is a unilateral measure and an abuse of power. I suggest removing the ones already proven wrong by consensus (just look up at the rest of the talkpage for examples), and reworking the ones that are left after that.reanor 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not allow people to suggest improvements on the suggestions pages....???? Because that is how suggestions work? I am confused. -=-Koda Kumi 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what 72.36.145.138 said above. GW2 most likely will have monks and thus that monks suggestion was relevant. If its not relevant neither are these then.

Deletion is for pages. If you want to remove a specific point, you edit the page~, not place delete tags. Backsword 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Nerf monks

   Completely relevant since GW most likely have monks.

C'mon just admit it, either delete this page or undelete the monk one. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to understand Limu is that this is not a "personal suggestion section", but a "community" one. It doesn't matter who made it; if there is a better place for the suggestion, it will be moved/merged. If the suggestion doesn't belong to the section in it's current state, it will be edited or deleted. If you "really" feel the suggestion has value and has to stay, then place it where it belongs, or reword it so it belongs where you want it.

I think all this issue is just a matter of wording. If you make a suggestion regarding "the nerfing of xxx class", then it is a GW1 suggestion and doesn't belong here; the reason behind this is simple: we don't know yet the exact mechanics for GW2 classes, and thus requesting the "nerf" of a class we have no clue how (or if) will be played is out of place.

If you really think the current status of monks in the game is an issue, you can add a proper sugestion here without problems. Even more, something along the lines of "No more high-survivality and high-damage classes: Pick one or the other, not both" could cover also several other "overpowered" combinations.--Fighterdoken 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Limu, in response to your first post, first, I never claimed it was irrelevant. Second, this section is about the proposal to delete the entire page, I'm not aware of any proposal to cut the Sunspear section, and such a proposal would not belong in this section. Third, the deletion policy clearly states that general deletion is based on case by case consensus, not on binding precedent from prior deletions. If you want a deleted page restored, bring it up at the admin noticeboard, if you would like to change the deletion policy, bring it up at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy, in either case, you could try to get more input by bring it up at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Limu, there's one thing you haven't actually tried doing: Add the "mistake" of healing-specific professions/classes/specializations here. Try to actually improve suggestions rather than just always disagreeing with deletions. To the others, if Limu feels so strongly about it, let him/her work it in and make it less GW-specific. You can't wholly deny that at a certain level, there's a similarity with some of those sections already here. This is a really useless argument for something so trivial. -- ab.er.rant 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So does the tag stay or not? I'll throw in my Oppose vote if it is needed (reasoning: bad faith). I'd rather not remove it, and then be unable to remove it when I need to. --Riddle 14:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. didn't we talk about a section delete tag a while ago, during some controversy with the Skill Feedback?

Yeah, it's at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 8#Section removal template. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, I still want to know would it be improper for me to remove the tag now? I'd hate to burn through my one revert. --Riddle 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant just removed it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions 21-27

Make these happen and PvP in GW2 will be perfect. 203.39.173.135 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

88.85.132.147's erdits

Obviously bad faith edits, but I'd thought to give anon a chance to justify. Backsword 15:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then. Backsword 16:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

~

Hey Limu, if you are willing to play a bit more, maybe I can explain why people keep reverting your edits to others comment. Breaking them up we get:

1 Removal of cons on points you support.

2 insertion of false claims that everyone supports them.

I think you overestimate the influence of this page. I'm not sure Anet will ever bother to read it. Even if they do, and you manage to give the false impression that eveyone supports something, it will have minimal impact.

3 Namecalling. Now, this page do exist as a place to vent, so it's hardly uncommon or something only you do. But it still doesn't belong, so there is no reason to complain once it's removed.

4 claims that, unlike WoW, there are no dungeons or elite areas.

5 claims that in reality, there are no gambling and only magicians cast magic spells.

Now those points could be valid content, if it wasn't for them being so obviously false. Even if one didn't think they were added in bad faith, they'd still be removed for being plain wrong. Backsword 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard Mode

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes#Hard Mode

• Makes it boring to play in earlier areas with high-level characters. (Why would you if there's high end areas?) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:88.85.132.147 (talk).

Because playing in the same high end areas can also get boring. The "why this is a good idea" and "why this may not work out" sections are for posting pros and cons, not for discussions or comments about pro and con points which have already been posted. Discussions about suggestions and their pro and con points belong on the talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Backsword

Backsword is vandalising this page. He doesn't even check out what he changes, he just undoes. Some sentences there didn't make any sense after Backsword edit. Also, he removed some viable pros. Could some sysop take action and warn/ban him for these actions. Thanks. 88.85.132.42 22:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Erasculio

"14:38, 14 January 2009 Erasculio (Talk | contribs) m (19,291 bytes) (Undo revision 1302744 by 208.77.19.51"

Tell me why please. Otherwise will be reverted back. 208.77.19.51 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You all need to stop reverting these comments, and discuss the changes. Further reversions without discussion will result in blocks. -- Wyn/talk 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wyn! Pay attention and see what Erasculio did. He removed totally plausible cons and pros and removed content from suggestions. That's just pure vandalism and I 100%ly disagree with that. Unless he has some proper reason why he did that, I'm going to take take this to admin noticeboard to take some further actions against him, that's vandalism and that's it. Someone should also revert that back if there's no proper reason for that edit. 208.77.19.51 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what who removed, other than it's the same exact thing that's been reverted a gazillion times, and it needs to stop. Discuss the differences and come to a consensus. Personally, I don't believe that people's pro/con comments should be edited by others at all, but since there is no policy/guideline regarding the editing of these pages, we have to just discuss. -- Wyn/talk 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm discussing now and if Erasculio can't give a proper reason I'm going to revert it back and take Erasculio's case to AN. As you said, people shouldn't edit other people's pros/cons. That's what Erasculio did, he... (I don't even bother to write it again so here it is from my previous comment) "removed totally plausible cons and pros and removed content from suggestions". 208.77.19.51 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand discussion. During a discussion one person puts forth a point of view, then other people consider it. They may offer other points of view, agree or disagree. Eventually consensus is reached and then action is taken. A discussion does not consists of one person offering a view, claiming it to be correct, citing one other person as not being able to instantly come up with a counterpoint immediately as the reason, then take action. Misery 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you are already in violation of GWW:1RR I suggest you don't revert. Until there is consensus on this issue, it will stay as it is. -- Wyn/talk 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bla bla Misery, I know. Time starts now, 24 hours to give proper reason why are you removing that content. 208.77.19.51 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a good argument as to why the content belongs there? An argument requires input from both sides - maybe giving your reasons will persuade other people give their reasons for reverting. Hence, discussion begins. Discussion != ultimatum. If you "revert it back and take Erasculio's case to AN", chances are you'll be blocked for constantly violating 1RR and ignoring calls to discuss the issue. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page, this is the silliest revert war I have seen in quite some time. I have yet to see a single good argument for either side from the reverters.
Personally, I think the arguments/pros/cons added are good and I don't see a problem with them. Those who do, could you please clarify why? - anja 15:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Backsword has broken 1RR here more often than I have. Why is he not blocked but I'm about to get blocked if I edit it again? 2. About the argument, here comes: Those are someone's suggestions, ideas, pros/cons etc. and as they've been added here, they're also community's suggestion. Hence no one has any right to remove them as they're totally viable ideas. I've spoken. 208.77.19.51 15:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs != right. Backsword has stopped reverting, and he's not threatening to continue doing so.

Yes, they're the community's suggestions, hence the community is to decide on the suggestion content, the pros, and the cons. To say no one has the right to remove them is contradictory - if that were the case, they'd be one person's suggestions, not the community's.

More to the point, why do you think these ideas and points are viable? That's the crux of the issue here. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They're as viable as any other GW2 suggestions in this wiki. 1. They're true, that's what's going on in the game and 2. they're properly written suggestions which make sense to fix to GW2. If these are not viable suggestions then I guess no other suggestion is either and need to be removed. Besides, even how bad some suggestions there are, they still deserve to be there, no one is deleting them so why to attack against these? 208.77.19.51 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that I don't think that people's pro/con comments should fall under the community edit clause here, though let me clarify. If someone has a valid (valid in their opinion) pro/con it should stay. If their comment is nonsense, or trolling, it should go. I don't feel anyone should be able to say, I don't agree with that pro/con comment, so I'm going to change it and make it how I think, unless there is discussion and consensus. I personally don't believe that Backsword's edits of these comments were correct and would just as soon see them go back to the way they were prior. If he has issues with the comments, he should be discussing them here.

@208. As Brains' pointed out, Backsword has stopped reverting. You continued. My main purpose was to stop the revert war, and try to get discussion going. -- Wyn/talk 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think about 1/3-1/2 of the removed comments should stay removed and the rest needs to be made more objective (e.g. "No one likes capping anyway" -> "Some people dislike capping") --JonTheMon 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anja, you are incredibly not fun >.>

I don't think those comments should be spared from being edited by the community. I think these pages (suggestions as a whole) are already some of the most confusing pages on the wiki; making it so sections of them may be edited by everyone and other sections cannot would only add to that confusion. I think it would be wiser to keep the old mentality that anything signed cannot be edited by anyone else, while something that is not signed and is on the main spaces may be edited freely. Besides, if the suggestion itself (which is the most important thing in the article) may be edited by anyone, why wouldn't small things like the "Why this is a good idea" be edited as well?

Regarding each individual change:

1. To "Hard Mode": this is a suggestion to not add Hard Mode to GW2. "More actual content instead of different difficulty levels" has been removed because it's, well, wrong - removing a feature from the game is not adding more content, it would end with less content. Notice how the suggestion does not make any mention (nor implies anything about) using resources from Hard Mode to make something else. "Realism" has been removed because...What does realism have to do with not adding Hard Mode? I can't find any argument to justify having such a random statement (word?) defending that idea. Lastly, "It's stupid to play same areas, missions, etc. many time, just in different difficulty level" has been removed thanks to how it's just an opinion (we don't have "I don't like this idea" as reasons for why something wouldn't work) and to how it's offensive to the players who do play the same areas and missions many times in different difficulty levels.

And before I get 15 edit conflicts, similar reasons apply to the removal of the other points being mentioned (like one other "Realism" claim, another personal opinion stated as fact like "No one likes capping anyway", and so on). Erasculio 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not then change the description of the pro to "More developer time to add content to the game instead of different difficulty levels"? I do agree that "realism" isn't really a big factor for fantasy games. --JonTheMon 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that was not what was written or what was implied, as far as I could see. If someone would like to add that (when the page has been unprotected) I wouldn't remove it. But the old comment didn't make sense. Erasculio 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that one (actual content instead of different difficulty levels) should be rewritten as you said it would make sen. But removing it isn't something that should be done. Also, have you ever heard about realism in fantasy environment. Let's imagine we've fantasy world, like Tyria. There's magic and a lot of weird things we can't really imagine to happen in real world. However, mostly likely there wouldn't be a choice to turn on easier or harder difficulty. This is just my opinion as role player and fantasy literature fan. The one about capping should be changed to "some people don't like capping" or something like that. Also, it's pretty self explanary that no hm means more content (more areas to cartograph to say it simple). I agree that some of those suggestions, cons and pros should be written to make more sense but definately disagree with removing someones suggestion. 208.77.19.51 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has given any proper reasons to delete those suggestions, cons and pros I think it would be time to revert it back. 208.77.19.51 13:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestions themselves aren't really being deleted, they're just being reduced in size (even if you keep the removals). And I don't think a straight reversion has been agreed upon; a partial reversion with some text changes instead. --JonTheMon 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The process of reaching consensus often takes days if not weeks. Please don't think this is going to happen in a hurry. -- Wyn/talk 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mapping

I'd have added this on the actual page, but now it goes here instead. I hope that the real article is not going to be left prot'ed forever (or removed entirely).

Mapping in GW is pretty nicely done; Instant moving from town/outpost to another without any costs. While it may not be entirely realistic, it makes the game play much better than some other solutions, like paying gold for an instant teleport, or flying to your destination which would take couple of idle minutes. I also like it that it can be done anywhere... however, this may chance in GW2. Anyways, now onto my suggestion.

Make unified map for all in-game locations.

A solid world map looks much better than moving to another "campaign map", as with Prophecies+EotN, Factions and Nightfall. Such all-covering worldmap would also make moving from campaign to another much faster, rather than zoning to slow and crowded Kamadan or any other port town before you could reach your desired location. This should not be a problem in initial release of GW2, as there's said to be only continent of Tyria to play on, but this may change in future.

What about PvP in the Mists and other areas? I dislike the current version of Battle Isles, but as the campaign maps are separated like how they are now, it's understandable. There will probably be a separate map for these areas in GW2, but would not be as annoying as loading two (or three, in case of DoA) maps to get where you want just to cap a skill, craft material from an artisan, or simply form a party with a friend or guildmate. Mediggo 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want it on this article? Why not make a new article? --JonTheMon 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific suggestion for mapping, create a new suggestion there. Since the majority of the suggestions could technically fall under "Don't repeat these mistakes" I don't believe it's a priority to have it on this page. Placing your suggestion on the talk page is not really how to do this. -- Wyn/talk 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Don't repeat these mistakes is protected for now, and my suggestion certainly falls onto category of Don't repeat these mistakes rather than any other. If you know a better place for it, feel free to move/copy it. Mediggo 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/No map travel? Or just make a new suggestions "Single world map"? --JonTheMon 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's been protected, so if it absolutely can not wait until that changes, you should create a separate article for it rather than misplacing it on the talk page. -- Wyn/talk 16:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, LA is what will be sued for PvP centre. Backsword 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You could put it on a temp page, and someone would move it for you once prot is off. Backsword 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Since the page is going to be deleted otherwise, and Limu is blocked, I suggest we wait until his block expires and then asks him if he wants it as a userpage. He could do whatever he likes with it then. Else we just get rid of it. (unless someone else wants it) Backsword 04:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He can request the info be posted to his userspace, since sysops can access deleted pages anyway. No need to wait on deletion if that's the decided course of action. -Auron 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and the block expired a few days ago. (It's Febuary already?) SO might as well ask him now. Backsword 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Linux Support

It would be really nice if I could play GW2 on my Linux machine without having to use Wine, CrossOver, etc. like I have been having to do on GW. --99.195.215.140 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I also understand that IBM Compatible Machines (PC) will be first priority because of the population using them, however, Linux Support would be nice for them to keep in mind as a secondary priority to include as well. Additionally, it would add population to the game, and the game would make more money as a result.

No.

Things are fine the way they are, you're playing an MMORPG that is anything but realistic. It's a fictitious game and srs, take your realism out imo. "Make arrows stronger, but with a finite amount?" They should not, and will not change this because you want them to. There is not a problem with the arrows, you just don't like it. People put suggestions here because some mechanics were generally bad. This is not bad, you just can't handle it. --Ʀєʟʟɑ 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)