ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Keep certain aspects from GW1

Click toMove

They're gonna add a z-axis, so you can't do all movement with just your mouse. That's why they're gonna remove it. --Sir Bertrand 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite the inherently paradoxical nature of this suggestion, I endorse it fully. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, someone speaks up! However, I think that this should be amended with "Don't follow most suggestions," as some could be thought out with regard to balance, but most of them... are comedy. Sit down with a bag of popcorn, drink of your preference, and some of these are better than a Jim Carrey movie. All the mount suggestions? It's like the blockbuster comedy of the summer. Here, let me toss out a quote and you guys can find it in this suggestion space: "...best at magic or best at healing or best at even killing!" Just an example. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather people suggest good things and ANet simply puts them in properly. Vael Victus 12:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Face it; people are, overwhelmingly, dumb. It's not necessarily even that they're unintelligent per se, but for every good suggestion, you'll get dozens that are unrealistic, game breaking, poorly thought through, etc. Relying on people to "suggest good things" is a poor idea. As to Anet implementing suggestions properly... that's a whole other can of worms... *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So for every good suggestion is at least 24 bad ones? I think that's a little over-dramatic. Besides the fact no one will ever stop suggesting, I'd just hate to see the day when we did. They'll use suggestions as a way to see what the community most wants, and they see that the community wants a straight injection of WoW into GW2. Vael Victus 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want people to stop making suggestions - I like to make those myself, and quite often even. If people want to keep telling Arena Net what to do, let them go for it. What I want is something much simpler: Arena Net to not listen to those suggestions. And that's because the players (not even "some players"; all of us, including me and you and everyone else) are not game designers. We do not have the training or the knowledge to know how what we say would impact the game, neither how long and how expensive it would be to undo some of side side effects of such impact. We do not know what are the limits of Arena Net's technology, and most importantly of all, we do not know what is Arena Net's view for Guild Wars. As the examples on my "suggestion" point out, what players ask for may not even be something they would like when actually implemented on the game. In less words, players are simply too ignorant to know what they're talking about. If we happen to say something that could be twisted into an almost useful idea, great; but that's the exception, not the rule (and IMO, DE's numbers are too low - I think the "bad ideas:good ideas" ratio is higher than what he mentioned).

Someone suggested a poll at the GW login screen in order to see what the community thinks of matters. IMO, that's an absurd - the community is not made by game designers. Players say/scream/whatever they want GW2 to be a copy of WoW? Yep, that would definitely make the game sell well. A high number of players want Ursan to stay as it is? Nice, but what the players want may not (and often will not) be what is better for the game. IMO, Arena Net has tried far too many times to reach a compromise between its vision for GW and what (some) players are asking for; and the results of such compromise are more hurting the game than helping it. Erasculio 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exaggeration is a useful tool for getting one's point across. *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like all you want to do is discredit people for not being game designers. I'm a game designer, and just because I say something doesn't mean it's the best way to be. In that aspect, that doesn't mean that someone who isn't a game designer doesn't know what they're talking about. This isn't open heart surgery, this is GW, which we all play and have feedback on. Ultimately it comes down to the players because we're the ones that play the game. Do I want to see mounts vs. map travel in GW2? Absolutely not, and I doubt there will be. All these suggestions just show where people who are slightly interested in GW want the game to be like. Unfortunately *probably* for you, you don't want a game anything like WoW, which from a business standpoint hasn't really made ANet money, and I doubt they'll be doing it again. Vael Victus 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that listening to the advice of "hardcore players" who may very well know a lot about the game and offer good advice is economic suicide because it will piss off the majority of players who actually suck and don't care about balance and will probably never offer advice on a fansite anyway. Assassins may be terrible for the game but they probably generated a lot of extra sales revenue due to everyone going "Lol, I can be a ninja". Having to play with these people is the price you pay for having the company able to afford to produce the game. Misery 13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know what the majority of players think. And IMO it does not really matter, just as it does not matter what the "hardcore players" think. Neither of those groups is able to see the game on its entirety, neither is capable of understanding how the game is designed, and neither is expected to know the difference between what is better for itself and what is better for the game. Arena Net, in other hand, has to do all of those - and really, I think they can only do that alone. Erasculio 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that a lot more players are not involved in the community than are. Vael Victus 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. You are never going to get any suggestions from a majority of the players and that is where Anet's money actually comes from. While it would be incredibly crappy of them to only care about the money, it's a point they can't ignore. Web based suggestions are always fundamentally flawed for this reason, even for online games because a majority of people will just want to play the damn game. Misery 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/"Click to View"

They're gonna add a z-axis, so you can't do all movement with just your mouse. That's why they're gonna remove it. --Sir Bertrand 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Keep Click To Move

Thoughts? -- Verhaze 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless if there was actually a good reason to remove it (which we won't really know until far more about the game is released), I completely agree. Why remove something which works? Why not give the option? I actually think that there really must be a reason behind removing it more than just to change how the game feels. That would be really stupid. =/ --Vennykins (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

>>Unless if there was actually a good reason to remove it

Well, when people have good reason, they usually are proud to tell it. --85.140.174.219 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it had something to do with the 3rd-axis system, although im not quite sure how that would affect click to move... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.182.129.252 (talk).

Yeah, I think I heard that too, but that's just stupid. Simply disable the effects of clicking while in the air, or make the click code resume on landing. -- Verhaze 14:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

>>I believe it had something to do with the 3rd-axis system, although im not quite sure how that would affect click to move...

I'm personally can write 3D-based click-n-move system for them in such case. --85.140.174.219 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any reason at all to disable click-to-move. Sure, a checkbox to turn it on or off could be handy for some I guess, but I'd glue that box as solidly to the ground as my minor-edit box. I'd really like to see the logic behind the idea to disable it. -- Verhaze 11:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

>>I really wish they would leave the Click to Move in the game. The Guild Wars movement system is still simple enough for anyone with a disability or an injury to enjoy playing the game. I know this effects a small number of people but even the casual gamers I think found this appealing and made the game enjoyable for them. I wish they would at least have an option to use this mode.--Gun 13:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I care not what happens in GW2, I might end up playing it very little... I don't like the whole persistent world thing... As long as they have the simple things that were in Gw1 I'm fine... Don't make me have to face the target I'm attacking. Don't make me have to continually click to attack. Show all the dots on the map. Keep it Party orientated. I'm fine... sry... I just spent some hours playing WoW... and wow is it terrible... these little things just kill me... and as much as I'd appreciate point to click still in... as long as they don't make this like a stupid WoW game, I'm fine...Zeph 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Click to move is something that reduces lag - Joe

Attribution

The Click to Move section of ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Keep certain aspects from GW1 contains text from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/"Click to View". Prior to the merge, the sole editor of the source article was 196.25.253.13. -- Gordon Ecker 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Running

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Scratchpad

I don't know about others, but prophs was wonderful because I can run through it.

now, I know you can put a trigger in for "one of this accounts characters beat this chapter" a la hard mode, so, why not lock out running for the first run through, and then allow running for all subsequent characters?

I enjoy running, maybe half of my 2000 game hours were spent running (if I recall correctly exclusively tip and free runs) my ranger has mileage on him.

This doesn't hurt the people who don't want to run, but it does give much more enjoyment for those of us who are sick of hearing princess danika's voice because someone wants to skip the cine.

I think players should be allowed to walk and run,depending on the way they feel like it.There should be made a key that would allow characters to walk or run,some players might wanna see their characters walk in towns and outposts instead of always running around like drunkards.

Running is totally cheating!!It takes away the whole point of the game. i never run because i hate 2. Just think of big "NO RUNNING" signs everywhere. MoasRule

Guildwars 2 is persistent so there won't be running (unless you run yourself) so you will run off while the player stays there and does nothing.122.109.43.82 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They should just unlock cities on your account. I already beat Prophecies with 3 characters, what's the big deal letting the new monk I made map-travel to Lion's Arch to team up with my dad that came back after after 2 years. We don't care if I'm low leveled, running is a super time-wasting pain in the butt, and I already know how to play. If nobody else in the district wants to group with a level 8 monk, that's cool, I'm not hurting you or anything. And getting my level 20 far enough into Nightfall to team up with other guild members is a pain, they are 8 missions ahead. I already beat that campaign too, let me map-over so we can all have fun playing together. I'm cool with playing through to catch-up if I hadn't done the campaign before, but I already did that on another character already; I want to try out playing monk in RP but I don't want to spend hours getting to my friend's mission. And believe me, I have 20 character slots, that is a lot of wasted time running around places I have already been, not having fun, just to get to the good part. - 144.226.230.37 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

i dont agree with that if you run to LA than you can go to faction or nightfall en then u can get good armor or other skills then you can go back to were you were

In Prophecies, you can get max armor once you get ran to Droks, so like, a level 3-4 can be in max armor in Prophecies, A NF character can get a ferry to Consulate Docks, about lvl 3-4 too. Only a Factions character has to wait to get to Kaieng City for Max armor. So basically, Prophices has some of the fewest limits on where any character can get - Crystal Desert, Fire Islands - other than perhaps Nightfall (Realm of Torment). So it's not a particularly game breaking idea for GW, and not likely a real problem if GW2 even lets you unlock cities on account basis. 75.146.48.190 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What's so bad about running anyways? 24.240.74.66 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think running should be discouraged. It beats the point of the game. You go anywhere do anything and dont care who you bring down to do it when you run. example lvl 5s in the desert Rach 23:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of removing the ability to run places, which only makes maps congested with enemies (I like when they're more spread out)how about just remove some of the incentives for running? For example, make it impossible for someone to get powerleveled by a lv 20 once they get to a high level area. This would allow visiting all areas of the world whenever you want, but you would have to follow the storyline to level up. Running doesnt have to be overcome by making mobs black your way, as it was done in GW1... 76.118.75.113 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Professions

Keep a few from the old ones and create some new, but new mustn't be from WoW and other stuff 86.101.55.163 06:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If they decide to keep professions, then keep the 6 core and dump the others. (Terra Xin 10:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Personally, I don't think we should dump the expanded ones. (ritualist dervish ect.) Dervishes are one of the most original things I've even seen. I mean sure, its holy like a paladin but it has unique armour and weapons with a unique array of abilities. Paragons are also very unique. There aren't any professions from other games that are like it. Assassins, however, are not only most common, they are the most popular. Therefore, they are not unique at all. Ritualists are still fairly unique with their healing/summoning/spiritual powers. In my opinion, none of these should be taken away. Maybe a different name, but same skills and features.--Catforsale344 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree and believe that all core professions should be kept, but I believe that all the expansion professions should be dumped, or at least become unlockables for more expireinced players. This is because it appears that they are more popular than the more useful core professions. This doesn't really seem that bad, but when you have a whole bunch of new players, who just made an assassin, who happen to think that they are the coolest thing to hit the internet since caps lock and forget that the assassin is a difficult and more advanced profession to play as, it becomes very frustrating for an expirenced player to make a balanced team. --Fox 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think all the professions from Guild Wars should go in to Guild Wars 2. but thats because my top four favorite professions are the ones from factions and nightfall. And i also find thats the professions from the core game very boring, as good as they are. --User:Yozuk

YaY for the idea man. No new Proffesions = good :D ~Enar. hello.

I think there should be one new profession to introduce the arrival of Sylvari, otherwise it's like "Oh wow, a tree race, whats it specialty? What? There were new professions with Factions and Nightfall, how come Sylvari doesn't have its own special class?" I have a potential new profession on the profession page if anyone would like to look.

I think they should keep the 6 core professions, keep Dervish, edit Paragons and Assasins so Paragons can throw spears AND do melee attacks with them. Assasins should be more like a Big,Strong, stealthy dude that shoots arrows. Then Anet should get rid of Ritualist complety and put in Pirates. Pirates should be able to throw daggers.24.240.74.66 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PLZ PLZ PLZ add classes or combine them. BUT make all professions available to all campaigns (if multiple campaigns will exsist.)Rach 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

honestly... they should keep the ten... maybe add a skill here and there... but make their mechanics the same... one thing I noticed about the original six was that they came in pairs. The powerful and blunt Elementalists opposing the sly and manipulative Mesmers. The "holy" monks and the vile necromancers. The Energy efficient Rangers and the Energy negligent Warriors. They also attempted to do so with nightfall and factions. The soloing dervs and the party Dependant paras. The spirit spamming ritualists and the skill spamming Assassins. Granted, some of these are stretched. But, if anything at all happens, I say make a true shadow of some of these professions. Like the assassins and rits. Maybe even the para and derv. but the original six seem pretty balanced. maybe make a paragon profession that gains energy from enemies within earshot... I dunno... but I really hope that no classes are destroyed... it would mess up the whole balance...Zeph 04:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't follow suggestions

>moved from article (Terra Xin 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Previous suggestions from the community:

1) Before the release of Factions, "We want a dual-wielding, low armor high damage profession!"

Then we got Assassins. And so, disaster followed: players spent months complaining how their assassins kept dying, how they were doing little damage, and how an assassin wasn't a Wamo with daggers. It took a year be ers moved on or actually understood how the profession works. PvP-wise, it's even worse: still today, some of the most broken build (Assacasters and etc) rely on assassins, some of the most despised mechanics (Shadow stepping) belong to assassins.

2) Before the release of Factions, "We want big missions, in which a lot of players get to, I don't know, kill a dragon!"

Then we got Unwaking Waters (that fits perfectly within the above description) and Vizunah Square...And players complained about both: it was too hard to find a good party, often someone would leave, players complaining that henchmen were better/worse than real players, and so on.

3) Before the release of Nightfall, "We demand Elite Missions! If NF does not have an Elite Mission, we won't buy it and will play WoW instead!"

Then we got the Domain of Anguish. And people learned that the definition of "elite" means "only a few", seeing (although unfortunatelly not always realizing) that the majority of those claiming for an "elite" mission were simply not "elite" enough to play in one. Thankfully Arena Net eventually lowered the difficulty of DoA and made it playable for everyone (not just the "elite" players).

4) Before the release of GW:EN, "We want a higher level cap! We want to become more powerful!"

Then we got the faction titles in GW:EN, that effectively make our characters stronger thanks to grind. And the result? Go to any high end area and you'll see "GLF more, must be Ursan rank 8 or higher!". Player discrimination, that used to be a matter of having the proper skills, now is a matter of having the right skill (Ursan...) and grinding enough (Norn points...). The difference is small (someone rank 8 does 28 more damage with Ursan Strike than someone rank 5), but it's more than enough for the players to discriminate themselves over it.

I think a better thing would be "Don't follow all suggestions" Rach 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, they should ignore your suggestion, and since they ignore you they will listen to and implement their ideas. Just had to say that. Weaponmaster 07:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Henchmen

They were pretty much confirmed before this suggestion was added. IMO it should be removed. -- Gordon Ecker 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No monthly fees

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Keep certain aspects from GW1

PLZ DO NOT ADD MONTHLY FEE, because it will decrease the population of GW2 fan, like me. A LOT OF PEOPLE dont have enough money or dont want to waist money every month for a game or dont have a credit card, etc, etc, etc. Just keep your promise to not add monthly fee, ArenaNet, or you will commit a mistake. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.212.9.171 (talk).

The lack of monthly fees was confirmed when they first annourced Guild Wars 2 in PC Gamer over a year ago, and they've repeated it in many of the interviews. -- Gordon Ecker 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Commit a mistake? lol--70.71.240.170 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Old School" Graphics

My main problem would be that when a game looks different some people would feel odd about it and feel that the new look is out of place to what they are used to. About a month back I bought NWN2 and I was fairly shocked by its graphical change. When I play it I keep forgetting what I am playing, when I remember I feel...weird. Hopefully GW2 avoids this fate. Weaponmaster 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any shift in the artistic style between GW1 concept art and GW2 concept art. -- Gordon Ecker 05:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)