Feedback talk:Joe Kimmes/Archive 2015

The Friends List betterment

This one is most likely the only single suggestion I previously considered bringing up here at least a couple of times, just as the same story of lacking enough space for the recently-obtained contacts pursued me month after month. To provide a short summary for you Joe, I'll simply state that if one is playing the game on a weekly basis and is interested in its competitive aspect, the chances this person will run into exceeding the currently-allowed limit of 50 friends within just a few months are nearly inescapable. At some point, I had to completely withdraw the idea of asking new people whose skill or attitude I liked for mutual friendship, as it would have naturally resulted in necessity of freeing the required space by finding someone who's a little bit less active, but still a kind of fellow you wouldn't wish to lose contact with. I'm not certain how greatly such a change would affect the ending size of user database, though if you'll deem there are no serious obstacles connected to expanding the existing limitations, I'm sure many of us would appreciate seeing them broadened to 75, or better yet, 100 friends, solving the matter without the necessity to make additional bookmarks once and for all in the way most comfortable. Thanks for evaluating that possibility. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Great suggestion. Over a period of 10 years I too have run across multiple instances of too little of room for all of the people I have met over the years. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I third this. The ability to double the friends list and possibly organize it into, such as: by PvP/PvE gameplay preferences, by mutual friends/followers, by guild/alliance affiliation status, by online status, by their location in the world, by current achievements, or by most recently played (as with guild list) is currently high on my wish list. Even a Looking For Group feature would be awesome if possible. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a frequent and excellent request - unfortunately, it's been a request almost since the game came out, so I suspect that there are backend reasons that the cap simply can't be increased. I will ask the server programmers when I have the chance, but my hunch is that it unfortunately can't be changed. - Joe Kimmes 20:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyword as to why yet? ~Sir Sledge (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Time Frame For Update

You have mentioned in quite a few of the posts above that certain things are good ideas and certain things you will run by other people and check on, which is all very great of you to do for the community. I am curious though, if there was a certain timeline on which you were forced to work with. With all these changes are you only permitted to update the game once? Is there a certain time you are allowed to update the game? I wasn't sure if you had a timeline in mind or if most of the responses have been mostly "fluff". Thanks again, Joe. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of details to share; since any update is a team effort, it's unfair for me to claim independently that something will certainly happen or that it will happen within a given time. - Joe Kimmes 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, or at least what I was told of, we might see some of these changes shipped on Live Server during this winter. That's what the Design Team according to Gaile expects, at least. Though, as was mentioned by Joe, there are no exact dates to rely on. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken Ban Wave

There seems to be a recent event where ArenaNet has mass banned accounts regardless of if they did break any rules or not. What are the reasons for banning everyone? Is ArenaNet that desperate to get people to play GW2/Buy the new GW2 expansion? I have accounts that we're never used for botting or gold selling yet they are terminated. Hopefully you have some sort of explanation for ArenaNet's bullshit. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Greener

I have moved the remainder of the conversation to my talk page, where I would ask for civility for its duration.

As for the initial post, while I may not agree with some of the phraseology, it is a question to Mr. Kimmes. Motoko, I'm sure you're aware of how you can contact support, and how it changed last year. They are apparently quite behind in both GW2 and GW1 tickets at the moment, which isn't the greatest of news, but I would encourage you to go there if you haven't yet. G R E E N E R 12:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the conversation and additional cleanup of this talk page, Greener; I'm grateful for your vigilance.

As to the topic, this is something you will have to take up with Support, as suggested. It's outside of my domain to discuss account statuses or speculate on Support's policies. - Joe Kimmes 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I've moved discussions earlier than 2015 from here to a new archive page; if I've messed any of it up, let me know! - Joe Kimmes 01:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ban one more retard Joe?

Theres a guy called " <redacted> that still isnt banned after you banned like 2000 accounts he is still not banned, he has been syncing HoH, ladder and uses bots, and he still fucks up the ladder even tough you banned 2000 accounts, can you just log into GW and ban him? so hard --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.94.181 (talk) at 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Please send the information and reports that you've collected to Support. Note that they will not reply back to you concerning another player's account, though they will appreciate the help you provide them. G R E E N E R 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's just inexpressible (the way this was composed originally). On the other side, perhaps you can see now, Joe, why sometimes I tend to prefer maintaining correspondence privately rather than voicing serious design concepts open-doors. All an average visitor of QQ's forum is good for after hitting the spotlights here is spoiling the established creative atmosphere, therefore, I believe time has come to address it particularly, commencing with a discussion of a specific policy draft related to ArenaNet's staff feedback pages. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out, I can't personally ban anyone. I'm actually not involved in any part of that process in most circumstances. Please send any details and proof you have to Support.

To address the topic of civility on my talk page, the tone of posts addressing me doesn't affect me greatly, so I don't particularly mind as long as the wiki's own standards are upheld. I do ask that players be polite to each other, however. - Joe Kimmes 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Random Arena nerf too much?

100 points only each day? its too little for RA, fix it --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.226.120.158 (talk) at 03:09, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC).

It's no longer 100, it's 200 now. See Feedback:Game updates/20150205. --Silver Edge 06:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As helpfully pointed out, that limit has already been increased. We are continuing to monitor the game's logs to see if the limits are working out as hoped and will continue adjusting them as needed. If anyone would like to discuss particular cap values, feel free to bring them up. - Joe Kimmes 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One guy fucks the ladder up

Joe can you report to arenanet? Some guy is fucking the ladder up by entering 2 diff guilds 24/7 so every time some real guild try to play ladder they end up facin his alt accounts!!!!!!!!!!!!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.94.181 (talk) at 18:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

As per above, and your talk page, PLEASE help by taking screen shots, noting times and character names, and then passing that on to Support. Mr. Kimmes, as well as all of us in the community, would like to see such people be removed from the game, and if you give Support such data, it will really help everyone. G R E E N E R 07:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Guild Wars 1: the future past 10th year anniversary

To begin with, I'd like to address all of you with one simple question: who would have thought back to the spring of 2005 that this moment, the day of the 10th Guild Wars anniversary commemorating its launch, will reach through towards us so quickly? To be honest, I didn't, not even at the sunset of the game's golden PvP era, when Rebel Rising and the old Dark Alley have both obtained numerous GvG trophies and ran their own variations of HA setups which were so outstanding that the team didn't even need the usually-endorsed means of energy recovery for their backline.

This was the middle of 2008, the year in which I decided that having rather thriving set of in-game achievements, it was the time for me to switch to exploring the other charming opportunities outside of Guild Wars domain. I'm sure that many of us, the PvP oldschoolers can contribute with their own stories of how Guild Wars gameplay felt back in that age, and how we personally advanced on the path of mastering the level of personal skill, as well as maintaining team play. These are the things around which there still could be hundreds of numerous thoughts soaring the air and even finding their ways to the newly-produced YouTube videos, in some of which I have seen the overview of the recent updates I've inspired. It was very pleasant to observe these reviews, really, and I hope there'll be more changes which you could highlight in your reports with the advancement of the present year.

However, if only certain gameplay issues were something I have attempted to improve, we would have stopped where we are, with Guild Wars 2 sales being one of the most principal reasons of why Guild Wars 1 support wasn't ceased in the first place. And you know, the last autumn, I have thought this: why should a self-sustainable product, with community of the same kind, be managed in such a dependent way, when there are other options for increasing its own revenue? Not to mention this kind of problems is successfully resolved in most of the modern games, with Guild Wars 2 and its Gem Store not being an exception.

So what are you suggesting in particular, the readers might inquire? Pretty much the same thing as I did for the last half-year period: an improvement which would allow the project to be self-sufficient, not depending directly on the success & sales of other ArenaNet's titles.

And for this to happen, the company has to consider the possibility of digital in-game currency distribution, in the way similar to how it's handled within Guild Wars 2. In other words, the ability to purchase stacks of Ectos and other prestige or mutual-settlement items should be embedded into the in-game store. As a matter of fact, I'm still a bit puzzled of why it wasn't done, let's say, 5 years ago, when the playerbase was about 5 times broader than now, and everyone was still waiting for the upcoming release of Guild Wars 2. Perhaps, it was the lack of this feature amongst what have greatly impacted the company's decision to put the project on-hold after the launch of Guild Wars 2, leaving it almost in a frozen state, melting which took me numerous days and enduring conversations with different people in order to reflect this change-demanding mindset, in which the community of the project dwelt.

And why should Guild Wars 1 be any way different from Guild Wars 2 when it comes to purchasing in-game currency directly from the store? I'm sure most of the members of Faith Healer's Design Team can recall that even a few months after original Guild Wars: Prophecies launch, there already were dozens of RMT companies offering their services and attracting players through various in-game advertisements, encouraging them to give these proposals a try and have a mutual deal. I assume there's no need to mention that most of these sources supplied potential customers with absolutely no warranty that their order will be received and processed as expected. It was the business venture that the RMT companies ran and which ArenaNet wasn't any part of, nor could it establish its own rules for, or drive the smuggled e-wealth sellers away from the market.

But what's more important is that potentially one of the most revenue-raising options was left out of stock offered by ArenaNet, not contributing anything to the customer's or its own basket. If you'll look at the modern Guild Wars 1 currency shops advertised by third-parties in-game, you'll be surprised with the variety of what they have to offer, and how it differs from the official in-game store, let me illustrate this with an example from the assortment of one of such third-party shops, which is currently being actively promoted by its runners:

Gold:

1. Platinum:
300K Platinum - 4.05 USD / Add to cart
500K Platinum - 6.75 USD / Add to cart
1000K Platinum - 13.49 USD / Add to cart

2. Globs Of Ectoplasm:
50 Ecto - 3.29 USD
100 Ecto - 5.99 USD
200 Ecto - 11.93 USD
300 Ecto - 17.86 USD
400 Ecto - 23.77 USD
500 Ecto - 29.65 USD
600 Ecto - 35.51 USD
700 Ecto - 41.34 USD
800 Ecto - 47.15 USD
900 Ecto - 52.94 USD
1000 Ecto - 58.7 USD
2000 Ecto - 115.01 USD

3. Zaishen Keys:
100 Zaishen Keys - 5.99 USD
200 Zaishen Keys - 11.96 USD
300 Zaishen Keys - 17.9 USD
500 Zaishen Keys - 29.71 USD
1000 Zaishen Keys - 58.7 USD
2000 Zaishen Keys - 117.1 USD
3000 Zaishen Keys - 175.21 USD

4. Obsidian Shards:
100 Obsidian Shards - 4.07 USD
250 Obsidian Shards - 10.18 USD
500 Obsidian Shards - 20.19 USD

6. Hot-Sell Items:
7th Birthday present - 0.99 USD
6th Birthday present - 0.99 USD
Large Equipment Pack - 1.99 USD
Wintersday Grab Bag - 1.99 USD
Armbrace of Truth - 2.49 USD
Destroyer Core *250 - 3.99 USD
Heavy Equipment pack - 3.99 USD
Diessa Chalice *50 - 19.99 USD
Gold Zaishen Coin *100 - 19.99 USD

Our Advantages:
24 Hours Delivery Guarantee
100% Refund Guarantee, etc.

Considering all this, the question which naturally arises, and as it appears to me, is worth addressing to one of ArenaNet's original founders, as well as the company's whole Design Team, is: why are these handy and obviously highly-demanded premium features still absent in the game, even after all these years? It's understandable that the development of Guild Wars 2: HoT expansion requires a lot of time & efforts, but still, why not make the already-released, successful and well-polished product even more sustainable in terms of generating income? I'm sure Joe would support my thought that most of code-related patterns required for the implementation of the aforementioned premium options are already existing within the game's source, to take /special console command which provides item generation based on customer's request and certain account permissions, for example. Why can't the same be developed for one-time provisions of ordered Ectos, Zaishen Keys, or Golden Zaishen Coins? :) It doesn't seem as something unfeasible to me, needless to say this would be one of the best gifts possible for the community to celebrate the 10th Guild Wars anniversary... Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you're not conflating the economies of GW1 and GW2. GW2 uses gems as an intermediary currency between players' wallets and the game. There is then a player driven market with a fixed percentage loss that acts like a buffer between gems and the in-game gold. These steps help to buffer the economy so that it doesn't get shocked/abused by RMT's paying (often with stolen credit cards) for gold and then trading it on the black market for actual cash. GW1 doesn't have such a middle-man currency, and setting one up is no easy task. The GW2 economy is constantly monitored my a dedicated team; the GW1 market will have to make enough money to cover the cost of both implementation and upkeep to justify its creation.

If the GW1 store were to offer items directly for cash, it would need to compete against the RMT prices that you listed above. Right now, it values an ecto drop to be worth only SIX-CENTS! Can you imagine having the experience of, "Yay, an ecto" being reduced to such a trivial price? Z-keys, worth 5000 Balthazar points, are valued at the same, and Obsidian shards are worth FOUR. In Canada, we don't even cash that can PAY that low of a price! If the GW1 market opens with these prices, it would be a slap in the face to anyone that worked hard to get their Obi-armour.

The real issue though is the damage this will do to the game. If one can buy ectos or obsidian for such low prices, they'll flood the market; they'll destroy any economy attached to those items. If you can pay six-cents to get a Z-key, would you work hard in PvP to gain any Balthazar points? What drive would there be if the reward at the end of all that effort is worth so little? G R E E N E R 11:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A big part of why this wasn't done years ago is that it runs directly counter to the entire design of the video game. No, really. Ecto are used as a trading currency because they have value; they're "rare" and hard to acquire (and "making" new ones drop requires doing high-end PvE content, which is time consuming). Every time someone makes gloves or obs armor, they're removing ecto from the game, and more ecto has to be farmed to get it back into the economy. This balancing act is what gives ecto its value; throwing it in a store for a nickel removes that value, and (with it) the value of the PvE area in which ecto is acquired. This would simultaneously remove any incentive for casual players to do UW while also inflating the currently rare items (minis, rare skins) to *obscene* amounts of ecto, which would only be obtainable by people who buy ecto from the game store. As greener said, the damage to the economy would be severe.

ANet has long held a stance against cash shop creep in their games, and listing high-end in-game rewards for sale is a complete 180 to that. If anything, I'd like to see some of the more popular GW2 armor/weapon skins put in GW1 if at all possible; it's definitely a lot of work, but would more closely mirror their past and current work in regards to real money trading. Gutting the spirit of their original reward system to prop up a nickel-and-diming material cash shop doesn't seem like something they'd likely ever do. -Auron 14:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have agreed with most of the arguments you've posted, guys, though, with one slight exception: if the year we were still in was 2009, the beginning of it, to be precise, as by the end of the very same year what you've mentioned as "unique, high-end armor skin sets" has been replaced by exclusive costume designs which are unobtainable through the normal in-game means, except for ordering them from the shop. That's the thing which practically replaced the old "cool-looking FoW armor set" concept for PvPers from the moment onwards. These costumes cannot be displayed inside the missions, but who cares: that's not the purpose they're bought for, it's more for being able "to stay under disguise in a PvP outpost", kind of a mix of both armor skin and an eternal tonic. :) FoW set, you said? To face the truth, is there even a single long-time player remaining in this game who haven't already crafted at least a few of those? :) Once again: the year it became pretty much "another regular armor" is 2009, and that's half a decade ago. I've checked the American District 1 of Temple of the Ages today, and all that I've spotted so far was 9 players and a few groups. I know that guilds like LGiT are doing FoW & UW SC runs on a persistent daily basis, but still, that number of players and PUG activity in the area is incomparable to what it used to be back to 2008. Please, stop living with stereotypes of the past, guys, while stating at the same time that the present game is "dead", - having accounts in multiple guilds, I'd be ready to place a bet that if you stood in about 4 of the most-active alliances at once, you'd seen that it's far away from being so. Should I mention that what was once considered being truly difficult, end-game missions, is sliced through like pieces of cake with the help of powerful consumables now? These areas aren't taking a couple of hours to pass anymore, like they were in the old times preceding the release of Eye of the North.

To speak a little bit of the original design: one of the cornerstones on which Mike O'Brien, James Phinney and Curtis Johnson built it was the no grind philosophy, whether it's PvP or PvE. Therefore, I deem it's pretty much only these talented industry professionals who can state for sure whether my proposal contradicts the original idea after 10 years were left behind the game's back or not. At least two of them could, since Mr. Phinney is no longer involved with development of Guild Wars franchise. It's quite possible that to some of you my idea might seem as a complete turnaround from the original concept, yet, to me, it looks more like a matter of versatility. We used to play-test many PvE missions along with what was initially known as Tombs with James back to the middle of 2004, so I have some foundation to place proposed concepts on. :) At least, I wouldn't strike myself out of the circle of people for whom the addition of any light-headed or poorly-conceived changes to the project would literally mean one bold strike-through upon everything the Dev, QA & alpha-testing teams have done prior the initial game's launch.

To move further, there's an interesting observation I've made years ago and which is directly connected to the events which occurred back at that time - the summer, following 2004's E3 for Everyone Event, when about 1200 people have had both interest and willingness to participate in daily play-testing activities and at the same time were able to generate any desired amount of in-game currency or perform full primary and secondary profession skill unlocks in a matter of seconds, just by typing the corresponding console commands, and you know, the essence of my observation was that even while disposing all these things at hands, it didn't affect the fascination factor of going through the game's content for them and play-testing it anyhow. Up to this day, I consider this one a really worthy notice, serving an approval of how the existence of grind or its absence is not anyhow relevant to the actual quality & attractiveness of the game. Holy smoke, we didn't even have what's called fame now, nor any reveries of character titles, but still spent 6 hours straight being logged on at holidays! :) And may be then, only about 2-3 months prior the release, some sort of distinguishable grind in the form of FoW armor's price adjustment was introduced into the game. And then, the armor itself, due to its fairly expensive value, has turned into something which was considered elite for the first few years past the launch of the game, may be even up to Nightfall's release.

And so, approaching the main question: if everyone will be allowed to wear it by paying with real world cash now, will its price significantly drop? My personal guess is that - no, it will not. The Ecto's cost is 7 platinum right now... all right, I can expect it to go down to 5-6k after the addition of such of an update, yet, rest assured - it wouldn't drop any further, as people aren't going to shop for stacks of Ectos on a weekly basis. Not hundreds of them, at least, and my own guess is that not even dozens. Also, it's important to note that unlike unofficial smuggling shops, the currency in the official one should be sold in stacks where 100 Ectos or Zaishen Keys are going to be the minimal amount of what's possible to purchase for the account. It definitely doesn't need such things as selling separate Zaishen Keys or Ectos, though not for the reasons somehow contradicting the game's design, mostly due to another one, which I believe, Greener has already mentioned - credit card fraud.

On the other hand, one of the positive things the players will receive with such an update is that it'll provide almost ultimate solution against hacked and compromised accounts, where all items from the storage become completely stolen or destroyed, requiring months, sometimes even year-exceeding lapses of rebuilding from the ground. This problem will absolutely be forgotten, as every player will have an exclusive, personal "Account Restoration Tool" at his/her disposal, supplied by the shop.

In conclusion, the bottom-line drawing I'd like to carry out is that Guild Wars is a PvP-oriented, grind-discouraging MTG & CS-consanguineous title, that's still retaining its flavour even 11 years after being handed to the public. Not sure how well it'll face its 15th birthday though, yet, if the comeback of Heroes to PvP is going to be undertaken at some point in the future, my belief is that even five years after this spring's anniversary, the game will still be fine. :) As to the assumption that PvPers take a part in GvG or Heroes' Ascent matches for item rewards, it's the one capable to cause a spontaneous smile, as it pretty much mirrors the guess that Counter-Strike scrimmages are played for the sole purpose of account-awarded medals or stuff of that kind. :)

Guild Wars at its core is a strategical competitive MMO, guys, and contests as such are usually driven by manifesting the art of skill, not just collecting & relishing as much candy-like rewards as possible. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just considering the number of players who turn up for ZMs + ZBs compared with even a year ago, you're lucky if anyone forms a group at all. I'm sure that ArenaNet keeps logs of how many recently active players there are, but I might hazard a guess with some finger-in-the-air numbers:

• Over a 2 hour busy period at 100 players in Kamadan AE1, 100 SCing somewhere, 200 grinding out pve somewhere (probably with heroes), + maybe another 100 in PvP [500 total over 2 hours, 250 "players" per hour]
• There are periods when the game is less active due to sleeping + working in western countries so perhaps 7 hours of activity + 15 hours of half activity [250x7 + (250x15x0.5)=3625 "player hours"]
• Probably most people play for an hour.. and some for much longer. Perhaps average time would be 2 hours? [3625/2 = 1812 unique players]

I can't see there being more than 5000 active weekly players. How many large active alliances with 10 guilds with 100 players? Very few.

I don't think the number of people available to purchase RMT would justify the expense of setting it up. -Chieftain Alex 08:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dmitri, I read through your argument above and I'm not too clear on some of your points, so I took to jotting them down. If I've misinterpreted or skipped over any of your arguments, please correct me. I've also chosen to respond to what I believe you were saying with grey text.

• The novelty of FoW armour has worn off; people use costumes to show their uniqueness. (Costumes are bought, FoW armour is worked for; they're different concepts. I'm not sure if they can be compared)
• People aren't running UW and FoW as much as they were before. (Does this mean that we should nullify the point of running them? That's one way to kill their motivation to sign-in.)
• High end content is easier to do now than when they were first implemented.
• A store would fit with the original design philosophy from 2004 (I really wasn't clear what you were trying to say, here. Apologies.)
• Play-testers like play-testing and seeing content.
• Allowing people to buy ectos for cash will only drop the price of ectos from 7k to 5k. (People won't bother to trade ectos at all, nor will they run UW. They'll use a credit card. Path of least effort.)
  • People won't buy them in large amounts and flood the market. (There will be no player market worth mentioning. People who have already gathered a hoard of these items will end up devastated as they try to compete against six-cents an ecto.)
• Putting a minimum purchase of 100 ectos at a time will stop potential credit card fraud. (I wasn't clear if this is what you were implying, but maximums slow down fraud, not minimums.)
• The store will negate the problems people face if their account is hacked.
  • They can use the store to buy what they had spent years gathering. (Anet's new business plan: Compromise player accounts; force them to buy back what they had with cash! Not what you meant, but I laughed.)
• Guild Wars is PvP-oriented and opposed to grind, in the same manner as Magic the Gathering and Counter Strike.
  • People compete in PvP for titles and account rewards. (If you believe the majority of current players are playing for achievements, then they're not likely to buy materials to make out-dated armour.)

I used ectos as a general stand-in for other items which you suggest could be bought. And again, sorry if I missed any of your arguments. G R E E N E R 09:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Greener. I'd say that you understood it right for the most part, except the last point where the actual implication consisted of the statement that if gameplay is attractive, then the matches will take place for the purpose of experiencing it and demonstrating your own forms of art, that is within creation of team builds. It has nothing to do with any titles or items, to provide a clear example, someone with Hero rank 12 might be more experienced and aware of the corresponding, year 2015 HA mechanics than the person who has maxed up the title. The key notion behind was that any kind of grind is actually a very redundant thing, at least if your game was made up right and assumes attracting a target audience aged beyond 25. It's all right if some people will prefer to use a credit card to dress up their characters, unless they'll also be given clearly overpowered abilities which don't fit into the game's balance with these payments, and while the item stats remain intact, there isn't much to worry about. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha, thanks for the clarification. G R E E N E R 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to step into the discussion of directly selling game currency; that is a question for the commerce team and undoubtedly a topic that they are aware of. I will state that implementing such a store transaction, to an acceptable level of customer experience and quality, would be much more difficult and time consuming than is suggested here. - Joe Kimmes 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite understandable, Joe, actually, when I was putting up the phrase this would be one of the best gifts possible for the community to celebrate the 10th Guild Wars anniversary, the rational part of me responded back with more likely, the 11th Guild Wars anniversary estimation, due to the present turnaround capabilities of the team providing further game support. Nevertheless, I still felt that missing such an opportunity as drawing the commerce department's attention to the associated aspect for one more time would be an unforgivable omission. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thought throwing in this link would be a worthy finale for the whole topic, as it confirms the players could actually benefit from the proposed method of restoration of hacked accounts. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, buying currency from the online shop would ruin Guild Wars outright. There's a lot of hard work that goes into endgame items. If I could just spend money on the means to trading for those items, why would I even want to play? What would hard work and dedication be worth compared to a limitless credit card? No game actually benefits from pay-to-win, only the company that owns the game (temporarily) benefits.

Players are usually just farming for their HoM for GW2: make those rewards available for purchase in Guild Wars 2 and save Guild Wars from needless torture. - Infinite - talk 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not about "paying-to-win", rather - paying-to-support (so that we could actually see further updates). As to the influence of how such implementation might affect the game's economy, my anticipation is that it would only equalize it in terms of accumulated wealth between regular players & the botters, who have already severely harmed the game's internal well-being with their activity on various sites such as elitepvpers or GameRevision. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Bans and unbans this week

Could we please have an official explanation of the mass ban and subsequent unban of many accounts which happened 17-18 February? Many people guess that it was a result of usage of Textmod or playing with 2 or more accounts on a single PC (multilaunch), because many banned players didn't violate any UA restriction like botting, spamming, RMT, sync PvP etc. We know that until now these 2 programs were semi-officially allowed, but maybe the stance of ArenaNet has significantly changed nowadays? My apologies if you are not a right person for this question, but very few official GW channels still exist (Twitter, FB), and all are silent about last ArenaNet actions. Maybe you can forward this question in right direction. --37.190.37.110 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, it's outside of my domain to speculate on Support's policies. I can only suggest that you continue to use official channels to ask for clarification/explanation. - Joe Kimmes 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do if you're looking for an official explanation would be to e-mail community[at]arena.net and ask them to release one, in this case - on Guild Wars Guru, as far as I'm concerned. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Flawed items in the shop?

Good day, Joe. I've recently bought Agent of Balthazar and Formal Attire items from the store and have found that they (and probably, a few other similar costumes) weren't polished to the level where their presence in the shop would actually make the customers satisfied, to my regret. The problem which occurs with these and some of the other related premium armor designs is that they have multiple white dots scattered around the edges of outfit's models if the Anti-Aliasing option is set to 4X (and that's the setting which most of GW1 users with modern hardware would prefer). Because of this, I wanted to point the Live Team's attention to the corresponding bugs involving premium features, where a considerable probability of customers inquiring for refunds arises upon purchasing these items from the store and experiencing them lacking the expected, flawless in-game appearance. Thanks for looking into the crux of this issue. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry the costumes didn't meet your expectations; Agent of Balthazar is a personal favorite of mine. If you find yourself unhappy with any purchase, I suggest contacting Customer Service or Support and seeking a refund, as it is very unlikely that art assets or the graphics engine will be updated. - Joe Kimmes 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for the 10th Anniversary

Hello Mr. Kimmes. First of all I want to thank you for the good job the Live Team is still doing on this amazing game, letting us players enjoy the life in the lands of Tyria. Recently I've been thinking about GW's Anniversary quite a lot, and came up with some ideas to give the players some nice treats, as well as showing ANet that this game is far from dead. My idea simply revolves around the creation of "Upgrades" for the games, keys that can be bought from the online store to give us something more in the game. These packs would contain:

• The /bonus items from the Collector's Editions of the games;
• The 4th Anniversary vault panel.

My idea was to make those packs available in the store for €4.99 each (same price of the other Upgrades), or make a bundle with all the /bonus items from every Collector's Edition, the panel, and four more character slots for €19.99. This would give those players who couldn't get the pre-order of the games the chance to enjoy those pretty items. Many of us are searching the web for old codes to unlock those goodies, sometimes getting only scams and losing money because of heartless scoundrels. With these packs we could finally be sure to get what we want, giving our hard earned money to those which created our favourite games instead to scammers. Both the players and the company win! Thank you again for your work and for your attention on this little idea of mine, I hope to hear what you think about this soon. Darigaaz

Some, like me, may have some of these Pre-Orders and/or Collector's Editions that we paid for. I'd suggest to do the following: Make Pre-Order weapons available in their respective packs. I would do the same with storage panels and the effects/dances of these editions. I would make them cost more than €4.99 and I would suggest about €10.99 per unit and respectively €29.99 per set. Have a discount on the following anniversary on all. Rodan (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the basic idea is to put something "new" on the store for those who still play the game, and to a price affordable to many. Charging too much for those Upgrades would be counterproductive, that's why I kept low prices in my idea. Also you can't expect people to pay for them as they were buying the actual Collector's Edition of the game, since they are missing the physical package of the game. I think that €4.99 is a fair deal both for players and ANet, but maybe they can put them in the market for €8.99, that would be still reasonable.--Darigaaz (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're enjoying the game!

This is a neat idea; I sympathize with the difficulty of getting exclusive bonuses like the Collector's Edition perks. I remember Prophecies CEs being quite expensive, and that was several years ago.

I will pass this along to the commerce team; however, as always I will caution any readers to temper their expectations. Store items aren't easy to implement even if they are simple, and involve several disciplines besides mine including QA, art, writing and web design. We would also have to be confident we weren't going back on promises about the item's exclusivity to a particular version. - Joe Kimmes 17:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr. Kimmes, I really hope to see my idea become reality and feel as if I helped a little bit to bring this game back to his glorious times.--Darigaaz (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Call me "elitist" if you will, but I sincerely hope CE perks like Divine Aura don't make it into the store, this feels like one of the few perks that "proves" you've been playing GW1 since the beginning, and still draws comments from newer players! --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 15:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I simply don't think that after 10 years this game still needs elitarism. What this game needs is something interesting to offer to its players, and since we can't even hope in new content at the moment our best hope would be getting at least those /bonus items. Notice that I'm talking only about the items you get by typing "/bonus" in chat, not those bonus effects you get when you use your emotes.--Darigaaz (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On that, I would agree. I bought the bonus thing when it first came out, and those items have been very useful and fun --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideas to pump new life into the game

Good day Mr. Kimmes. This is a list of ideas I was thinking about on these days. I have already posted this on GWGuru, had some good feedback, but I was also interested in hearing what someone inside the game would think about this.

The core of the project revolves around re-creating a strong and present community both in- and off-game, mostly through the use of modern social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) which maybe weren't so common back in the old days. This has been partially taken care by many fb groups, which are growing faster and bigger every day. When the community will be back to a state which will grant GW players a minimum of "people's power", we can organize a serious petition to ask ANet for some improvements to their game. Obviously we will ask for little tweaks first, something a very little group of people can do with very little work, allowing ANet to keep their focus on GW2. But if this works out well, with some time we will be able to ask for something more, like an Elonian chapter for Beyond, for example.

Here's the plan:

1) 10th Anniversary Editions Selling in the online store cd-keys for new editions of the games, which will include access to the selected campaign/expansion, 2 character slots, unlock the anniversary storage panel, all the /bonus items from the pre-order editions and the Fire Imp. For those which already have all the games, creating some "10th Anniversary Update Packs" with just the /bonus items for the selected campaign/expansion would be a nice idea. The prices should be around 20€/$ for the games, or 5€/$ for the upgrades. This way both the players and ANet get something they want: the first get new items for their characters (if they didn't had them already), and the latter gets more money in their bags selling something they don't even have to work (too much) on. This may also lead to a new wave of players coming to the game, some from GW2 maybe, or from other games, with a good use of strategic offers from ANet's marketing division.

2) More clarity from ANet/NCSoft In the last couple of months we witnessed a huge ban wave, mostly done for expelling botters and real money sellers from the game. That's a very good thing, but ANet's Ban Hammer went rampant mad and banned some innocent people along with the scoundrels. Now, accidents happen every time, but what really upsets me is the lack of communication from ANet. No apologies, no explanations, no nothing. Lucky for me I wasn't part of the ban wave, but this way of relating with their public really grinded my gears. If we start to act as a strong community we may be able to reason with the Big Bosses in a more "face-to-face" way. We don't need to start an uprising, but just to act like a consumer's committee, or whatever you call it in your country.

3) Little improvements As I've said above, if we manage to get new life in the community we can also dare asking ANet for some tweaks in the game. Here is a list of the little things I think they can very easily work on for us: -Work on some old big bugs (see "Gwen's Flute" for an example) -Enhance the Alliance section of the Guild panel (see which members of other guilds in the alliance are online) -Add an "Undo" options in the Buy/Sell window Those are just the ones that come to my mind at this time, but the main concept is: nothing new to add, just working on what we already have.

4) Further plans If the game becomes more active on the long run we can also hope (or ask) for more serious improvements, like the Elonian chapter of Beyond, new armor sets (like Tyrian for Assassin, Ritualist, Paragon, and Dervish, and Canthan for Paragon and Dervish), One or more meta-game updates per year (just to change periodically both PvE and PvP meta), and so on. As I said, this would be something to look to in the far future, maybe next year, providing that the community becomes stronger than now and decide to act as a union to get some power in dealing with ANet/NCSoft.

This is my idea. The best way to achieve these goals is through online petitions. With enough participants we can try getting some life in this game again, but we need to work together for this. Found rising might also be a good way to help ANet on the financial side, a kickstarter project could be useful to help them cover the cost of another Beyond chapter, but before doing such thing we need to know Whether ANet would approve such thing and also be sure that the kickstarter would be successful.--Darigaaz (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a cool idea, I certainly won't tell you not to try. I would suggest that the largest show of support you can make as a group of players is to play the game: set up player events, organize pvp play days, run missions, things like that. Even logging in to do a Zaishen quest on a regular basis can positively affect the visible livelihood of the playerbase. - Joe Kimmes 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The first two items on the list is what receives my token of appreciation, however, what's expressed in the 3rd, that is - the enhancement of the Alliance tab, could hardly be considered an easy task to outline, not speaking of the actual process of implementing it into the game, which would require the alteration of UI, numerous modifications within the network code, long-term testing and overseeing it within the Live Server environment, as there are no largely-populated alliances within the initial workspace of where the new updates are forged. In other words, such addition of a "seemingly already-existing feature" would have taken up to 4-5 months, provided there was a fully-equipped team of devs ready to design, draw and code all of this.

What's important is to place a proper judgment on the current state of the project, upon which you could easily prioritize things as "most-likely possible to implement", "applicable for future consideration" and "not feasible at all without a dedicated team of devs", which Guild Wars 1, to my regret, doesn't have. The easier things you suggest are, the higher are the chances that one day we might see them in-game. The fundamental problem of today's Guild Wars is the population issue and area playability difficulties originating from it, which, of course, can all be gradually fixed if the Live Team will put a focus on it as their priority task throughout upcoming months. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dmitri. Darigaaz, you may try to implement ideas of what once could have been plausible to do, but it's not. Guild wars is not strong like it use to be. Not in the sense of player base nor staff. Too many players are against each other in the game and in the facebook groups that it is not funny. Several players refuse to come back after their bans. Some, check things out due to the bans and leave. Many have real life and that would be things such as school, work, and other necessaries. The first two are good, but let Anet determine the prices and what could be great from suggestions. Within regards to the dev., It's sad that people cannot unite together and set aside the differences. Stop the immature games of pitting who's against whom or who hates whom. Stop the drama, hostility, and bad assumptions with accusations. Otherwise, some things won't fly. There would be no reason to build, if these things aren't solved in game. Rodan (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

For me there are three main issues - 1) the price of the game and 2) how long before GW1 gets shutdown by Anet and 3) the current noob-hostile player base. The game is not cheap compared to the many F2P alternatives out there nowadays, I don't want to be in a position where I tell others to pay significant money for the game (especially all the campaigns etc) and then it gets shutdown within 2 years or even 1 year! So without any clear credible statement and commitment from Anet and NCSoft, it's hard to promote the game to others. The way City of Heroes was handled doesn't inspire me with much confidence. In my opinion GW1 is still superior in many ways to other games (especially in the gameplay mechanics). The graphics might be a bit dated, but still good enough to be competitive or even better than much newer games. So from the technical perspective it's still an attractive game, but from the people perspective maybe not - there are fewer people around to do stuff with and many existing players in GW1 seem quite unfriendly or hostile to noobs, so unless there's a sudden huge influx of noobs (who can learn and enjoy the game together in their mutual noobness), the few that try might be discouraged by the existing bunch and spread the word. Doesn't help that the game engine fails a fair bit with the social (offline messaging) and gamification (top damage/heal/prot, top capper, top gate/carrier destroyer, etc) stuff.

With these issues and others can there still be a big enough market for Anet etc to try to push the game? Who in Anet/NCSoft with the power to change stuff would want to risk their necks for GW1 without a sign of a big market? Most might prefer to risk it on something new right? Looks better on your CV if you fail ;). 121.121.121.143 14:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right, can't say that I don't agree with you. The prices should be lowered a bit, and also ANet/NCSoft should state what are their plans for this game in the long run, if they're going to shut down servers tomorrow or in 10 years. What I really don't understand is your statement about the "unfriendly player base towards newbies": I've started play the game in late 2012 and found the community quite friendly, and all my noob friends tells the same. The only thing keeping noobs away from the game it's the price of the game, and maybe the lack of a free trial (many of my friends irl don't want to buy a game without trying it a bit first).-- Darigaaz (Talk) 15:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another 10th Anniversary Suggestion

Hello, I have another suggestion for a 10th anniversary Edition, I posted this on guildwarsguru and got some support for it

The 10th Anniversary Ed. would consist of all the following

-Guild Wars Prophecies

-Guild Wars Factions

-Guild Wars Nightfall

-Guild Wars Eye of The North expansion

-Guild Wars bonus missions

--below this line would be the smaller upgrade package--

-10 character slots (+2 if you already have the other games and haven't bought additional character slots)

-ALL pre order in game items from all games & expansions

-ALL promotional items (Examples Coke Items and mini pets)

-ALL in game collector edition items (Examples Divine Aura, Kuunavang, Varesh minis)

~[1] ~Sir Sledge this is my first post on Wiki so :-/

Thanks for your suggestion! I think it would be great for new players if there were an obvious best version to purchase; I've seen a lot of players asking for advice on which chapters to buy. However, remember that new versions of the game are a large undertaking; it involves a lot of testing, marketing and legal-type work that I don't know much about, even for something seemingly simple like a compilation release. My usual disclaimer applies; I can pass your idea along, but that doesn't guarantee it will happen. - Joe Kimmes 18:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How about just give the buyers the keys for everything as if they bought them all one by one? I know you still have to test the issuing and emailing of the keys but would that be easier? Or is that not possible because you can't issue the keys for everything if the account is not created?

If it's cheap enough like say $10 I might even buy two or more for my friends. I won't do that if it's $40... ;) Targetdrone (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybee I have another possibility for bringing back life and glory for GW1 - What about a giveaway of GW1-Story - you know GWB: Elona - if a player bought the new AddOn "Hearth of Thornes"? ANet would power its new game and bring back ideas and lore to that game that bring it to future? If I brought rules of wiki - I am sorry. It is my 1st writing here.( josh ) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.200.214.29 (talk) at 22:11, 19 April 2015‎ (UTC).

Always feel free to write. You broke no rules. You can sign your name using four '~' signs. G R E E N E R 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Codex Arena: a set of small, yet important tweaks

Hi there, Joe! :) It's been a while since I posted, so I sort of started missing the friendly company we've got here... So, first of all, I'd like to congratulate everyone at ArenaNet, and especially Mr. O'Brien and the folks at Nerf Herders guild with the 10th Guild Wars Anniversary! I also would like to dispatch the same heartwarming congratulations with the event to the company's invaluable & abiding Community Relations Manager, Mrs. Gaile Gray! :) Last but not least, my personal shout of cheers for the years of dedicated adherence goes to ArenaNet's ex-Lead in-house GM, Quaken Frostraven, as well as Garth Ingram, one of the elder officers of [NERF]. It's good to know that you guys don't allow the project to become abandoned. To be honest, as a player, I didn't expect we would receive that much attention, and was waiting for some kind of an ordinary update with may be a few bug fixes, but what you did was a splendid preparation of a broad-scale gala for the players! A kind of which couldn't be undervalued, and this is greatly appreciated by a vast amount of the travelers of Tyria... Thank you! :)

The new weapon designs is what many of us were anxious to spot one day in-game, and I have to say, they're absolutely awesome, as 99% of artwork which comes from Mr. Dociu's crew! I can imagine these Balthazar's accessories being constantly swung within the game's realm now... the only thing that's still missing are Clarions of Balthazar. Or perhaps, those are out there already, and I'm simply not aware? ;) Guild Wars has always been a sea with boundless horizons, and what I appreciate the most is that us, the players, have always been allowed to participate in the expansion of those.

Or inspire some sky palette changes at least, like those I recently had in mind for the newly-improved Codex. The first amongst what seems necessary here is swapping Aura of Restoration on the Elementalist henchman with Aura of Restoration (PvP), as that's what the area is for. Then, I have to note that the real teams have proven to be almost unbeatable by 1 player & 3 henchmen with the current NPC skillbars. Does it mean they weren't appropriately designed? Not at all! The idea of restricting the use of elites on the hired NPCs appeared as something quite handy & novel to me. The actual handicap originates on the fact that for some reason, the number of skills was cut down to 6, which made one-player teams really, really weak. Even the ones where the party host is running an extra primary Monk, in addition to exceptionally-fragile hench healer. The good news is that the whole trouble was rather easy to pick up a fix for, by simply boosting the existing skillbars with two additional non-elite talents:

Paresh (the credit for complementing the first one goes to my buddy Direct Blame Here)

Cardis

Marin

Soheila

Atu

Vinson

And the matter gets solved, bingo! Well, almost, since after such an update, it would be reasonable to increase the daily cap of the arena to 200 points too, though it's more like a soft touch to apply, I assume. Taking a look at the entire perspective, I can claim for sure that we have gone a huge road from "This hardly can ever be undertaken" to "That's how the old flavor of the game tasted like!". All that stood in-between was shaking hands with those who truly care, since we never denied the chances to contribute to prosperity of your gorgeously-architected world... ;) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If Elite skills are considered, heres reference DMR's take on the Codex Henchies: User:Damysticreaper/Sandbox6#Codex --Falconeye (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's great to hear that you're enjoying the anniversary update; I'll share your congratulations with the team!

Aura of Restoration (PvP) bug has been noted and fixed on the development servers; it may not go live until after the festival. Thanks for the report.

As the henchmen themselves imply in their dialogue, the henchmen bars in Codex are intended to be quite restricted. Since they are static and break the normal Codex rules, we chose to place the 6 skill only, no elite limit on them to compensate. It's also unlikely for the Codex to give you exactly the skills you want, so the henchmen are trying to emulate those conditions. (Vinson's a bit of a loose cannon with his 7 skills, which is intended to make up for him spending a slot on an Attunement.)

As always, we'll be watching the results of the changes and updating as warranted. - Joe Kimmes 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(Also, has anyone noticed that the High Commissioner has some new dialogue about the change in rules to allow Henchmen?) - Joe Kimmes 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, no one who edits the wiki has noticed... yet. I suppose for true fairness and competition, all player skillbars could be restricted to 5 skills (+ rez sig). That would be fun and challenging way to PvP; making an effective Form-based kill-squad . ^_^--Falconeye (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been tracking possible changes of what's inscribed on the tablets, but haven't found anything which could potentially signify misinformation here. The NPC you've mentioned didn't carry any outdated assertions of henchmen being unavailable, and thus was quickly attributed to content there's nothing wrong with. As for the idea of utilizing only 5 skills, I think it might greatly reduce the pool of possible choices & overall versatility within the builds. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly-picked skills versions on PvP NPCs

As a quick note, Syn Spellstrike has the PvE skill Frustration. Zaishen Elementalist uses Ward Against Harm. He used to have the skill Ward Against Melee (PvP) even after it had been removed, but he is no longer using neither the PvP nor actual version. --numma_cway (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

To add to that list, I'd also note that Master of Lightning is using non-PvP version of Aura of Restoration in Isle of the Nameless (PvP) and does not use Lightning Orb, as he's got the withdrawn (PvP) version of it here. Another NPC with the same problematics is Luxon Army Elementalist, who's not exercising the correct, PvP version of Lightning Hammer & also avoids the use of Lightning Orb due to the same glitch as Master of Lightning. The similar is true for Kurzick Army Elementalist, probably for Kurzick Elite Elementalist & Luxon Elite Elementalist too, and partially applies to Kurzick Thunder & Luxon Storm Caller. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also some other NPCs which are running the PvE versions of skills in PvP areas. The Mesmers of the Illusionary Weaponry Team in the Zaishen Elite with their non-PvP Illusionary Weaponry spell fall into this category. The other affected NPCs are Degeneration Team Mesmers of the same skirmish. On them, the PvE versions of Migraine & Mantra of Resolve are used. However, while fixing this, I'd suggest to substitute Mantra of Resolve (PvP) with Mantra of Concentration, as the NPC's AI will clearly be unable to benefit from the new, post-nerf version of the skill. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Anet still official accepting Category:Feedback proposals? Because the above henchie comments seems better served using that format. --Falconeye (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Updating this a bit, with results of the recently-performed QA check of PvP Henchmen skills:

• Zaishen Mage: Aura of Restoration (PvE)
  
• Cassie Santi: Illusion of Pain (PvE)
  
• Hinata: Aura of Restoration (PvE)
  
• Luzy Fiera: Aura of Restoration (PvE)
  
• Motoko Kai: Aura of Restoration (PvE)
  
• Zen Siert: Heart of Fury (PvE), Wounding Strike (PvE)
  
• Alsacien: Wounding Strike (PvE)
  
• Uto Wrotki: Heart of Fury (PvE)
  

Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Community

So... any hints on which newly added NPC's are references to whom? ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't recognize outright if the Codex henchmen names refer to something or not, yet the one their healer has got is very close to its Russian (as well as Serbian, Italian, Greek & many others) variation, which would be Marina. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All the new NPCs are simply normally-imagined names and not in direct reference to anything. Some of them are based on previous designs though, such as Nightfall heroes who didn't make it into the final version of the story. With the nostalgia of the coming anniversary, it felt fitting to give those characters a small part in the game. - Joe Kimmes 18:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, which ones didn't make the cut? What, if any, bloopers, backstory or lore was intended for them? More "trivia" is always fun. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that for now I'll keep it unknown beyond the above, to avoid going down a rabbit hole of first-pass designs. Maybe someday we can do a behind-the-scenes sort of thing. - Joe Kimmes 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof of Legend - again

Hello Joe, sorry to pester you again.

1) I've seen people claim that some dungeons in EotN also give PoL for the appropriate region. May I assume that's a hoax?

2) We just got an edit that Vizunah Square (Foreign Quarter) doesn't give a PoL. Could you kindly check or confirm?

Thanks, Steve1 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Conveniently, I played Vizunah with some friends over the weekend, so I can confirm that that one worked fine.

There's no code that would give you a PoL for the EotN dungeons; if they did, it would be unintended. There are a few dungeon-like missions; perhaps that is the source of confusion? - Joe Kimmes 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a lot again!

That explanation makes sense. :) Steve1 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Log In Screen

Morning Joe! We've had the same log in screen for GW1 since before Eye of the North was released. Do you mind asking the appropriate people if they can change it so that the log in screen cycles through all 4 log in screens every time we log in, change characters, or maybe once everyday.

Thanks for reading & thank you in advance.

~Sir Sledge (talk) 8:57am EST Apr 29th 2015

I think that an option to choose which loading screen to show would be better.-- Darigaaz (Talk) 13:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I vote for Both :P An option for it to cycle through all 4 every time you go to the log in screen and/or the character selection menu, and options to choose from any of the 4 loading screens(5 options total) with out it changing on you. ~Sir Sledge(talk) 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a recurring request, and unfortunately the previous answers still apply. Summarized, reverting the login screen (much less allowing multiple login screens to toggle) to a previous version is a large task with only slight benefit. - Joe Kimmes 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That is very unfortunate. I know a few people in the GW1 community that would love to take on that task. Sir Sledge (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it still worth the task if the screen is changed per season, let's say Prophecies intro for Spring, Nightfall intro for Summer, Factions intro for Autumn and Eye of the North intro for Winter. People won't be able to toggle like they desire but we still get to see a different intro screen 4 times per year reflecting the seasons. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I Like this idea, ^ ~ Sir Sledge (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to create a short FAQ llist of things Anet cannot/will-not ever do... or else folks will keep on requesting. --76.175.67.121 18:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

While it's true that we have a FAQ, I'm not sure how many people ever use it, nor would they likely search it out if it included an black-ball list. It'll just be up to the community to keep ourselves informed. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a wish list, so long as you don't pin all your hopes on it!

If you think a referral list would be useful, though, you can start compiling one on Talk:Upcoming changes and features. If we get enough references, we can integrate it easily into the page. G R E E N E R 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions that have already been asked, as it's not currently all that commonplace.

To comment on Da Mystic Reaper's suggestion, the mechanism of how multiple login screens could be decided between is not a big issue, be it randomly, seasonally, player-controlled, etc. The problem, as previously, is in the art and UI for the older login backgrounds, particularly in the case of Prophecies. - Joe Kimmes 21:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

On another note, the login screen announcement no longer displays the Anniversary Celebratiom announcement even though the event is still active (probably because when the event was extended to two weeks, its login screen announcement was not extended to display for two weeks). Also, the Anniversary Celebratiom announcement still mentions "throughout this weeklong event" when it's two weeks long now. --Silver Edge 05:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right - it looks like the login message timing was never updated. I'll correct that for next year, thanks!

Which message refers to a weeklong event - is it the login message, an NPC or a website message? - Joe Kimmes 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The login screen mentions "weeklong event". The timing of http://www.guildwars.com/en/ needs updating too, since the Anniversary Celebration is no longer displayed under "Current Events". http://www.guildwars.com/en/events/anniversary still mentions "for a week of festive fun" and lists "April 29" as the end date. --Silver Edge 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh drat, I reviewed that login message personally and missed the weeklong qualifier. I will get that updated for next year, thanks again. The website is harder to update, which is part of the reason it doesn't reflect any of the new additions, but I will message that team and let them know about the discrepancy. - Joe Kimmes 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Heroes' Ascent capture points bug

The anniversary update added a bug that makes the last tick score twice. However, it only counts once. For example, I just lost with 46 against a team with 45 points... --numma_cway (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; nothing changed in the HA code aside from the festival drops on the Hall chest. I will make sure QA checks reports of this bug, thanks for pointing it out. - Joe Kimmes 23:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing to add: It's only on shrines and antechamber. It does not appear in HoH AFAIK. --numma_cway (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Decade & Balthazar weapons

Please thank Anet for adding the very first family of "God weapons"! ^_^

• Will we be allowed to add Balthazar weapons to Hall of Monuments?
• Would it be possible to add a "Decade Shield" to the list offered by Ancient Anniversary Weaponsmith, that's useable for both warriors and paragons.
  • Would it be possible said shield to have (Requires 9 Leadership; Command; Motivation; Strength; Tactics)? Preferably with a (Armor +5 vs physical damage; reduces blind duration 20%)?
• Would it be possible to add a requirement 9 Leadership Balthazar's Shield to the list offered by Zaishen Martial Weapon Master?

Would it be possible to do any of these for next year's Anniversary (if not sooner)? This might be a good time to address the issue of the paragon being unable to effectively "12-12" due to lack of a leadership shield. --Falconeye (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a 10 armor shield on expertise, but I don't think they will change game basics now... --numma_cway (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

care to link to said "expertise shield"? --Falconeye (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chimeric Prism. --aRTy 02:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed the new weapons! The art team put a great deal of effort in to revisit the GW1 art process.

In fact, there originally was a Decade Shield; it was cut for a couple reasons. 1: the shield would have needed a unique festival-based mod, whereas the martial and caster weapons already have them. 2: the shield would have been able to stack with the existing 1-hand Decade weapons, increasing their total effectiveness (during festivals). These problems are also shared by focuses. A cross-profession shield would be pretty cool though, maybe enough to justify adding it. It won't happen this year, but I will keep it in mind as a possibility.

The Balthazar weapons will not be able to be added in the Hall of Monuments. I love the set, but adding new things to the Hall is very difficult, as it involves the (very old) website calculator and the GW2-side connection.

Adding items for missing attribute-requirement categories would be cool. It's risky though, since PvP has to be considered and limiting a build-enabling weapon to an event like the anniversary could be bad for anyone who missed it. Also, it can easily create new bugs if old mods aren't set up with an attribute in mind, etc. - Joe Kimmes 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a balance reason as to why Leadership shields do not exist for paragons, but a "expertise shield" does for rangers? --Falconeye (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Expertise as an armor attribute on offhands is neither a dropped modifier nor available to PvP weapons; it's an unusual one-off on a promotional item. I doubt the designers of the Chimeric Prism intended to set any kind of precedent with it. - Joe Kimmes 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

About the Balthazar weapons, is it a possibility to obtain them even after the 2 festivals? I can understand that the Decade weapons will be available only during the 10th anniversary but the Balthazar weapons could remain after the anniversary. You can make a blessing of war available trough zaishen coins. That way people who missed the event can still get them without having to wait another year, and tbh they are too good to be available for only a limited amount of time.

And about the Leadership shield. A reason a Leadership shield is needed is to open up the secondary profession for a paragon primary. Right now a paragon needs to invest in at least 3 attributes, Leadership, Spear Mastery and either Command or Motivation for your shield. Because of that you don't have enough attribute points to properly invest into your secondary attribute. The only viable options is warrior secondary and invest in Tactics instead of Command or Motivation since it also has a shield. If you have a Leadership shield you have the option to invest into other attributes more easily without worrying about meeting the requirements for your weapons. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the game update for the anniversary additions, Blessings of War are available year-round through the Zaishen Chest. - Joe Kimmes 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Will the collectors for the Blessings of War remain in the Isle of the Nameless after the Anniversary is over? Ailina (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are a permanent addition to the Isle. - Joe Kimmes 19:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those wonderful weapons ! Both decade and balthazar's are really awesome :) --Ruine Eternelle (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for playing the game - I will pass your compliments along to the artists! - Joe Kimmes 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Annihilator / Javelin

Questions regarding the new Category:Skills with linear AoE. Is it possible to:

• Clarify how exactly the mechanics behind Lightning Javelin and Annihilator been work?
  • Do they both use the exact same mechanics, or are they separate?
  • Is it a brand new area of effect, or is it "many" AoE's "moving" in a straight line?
• Is this relatively easy/difficult to pull off, programming wise?
  • Can we expect more "non-circular" unique in the future?
• Annihilator's "spirit-ranged" aoe damage is awesome! ^_^

Thanks in advance. --Falconeye (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question! Annihilator Beam's Notes section is a decent description of how the line attacks work mechanically - it's just a lot of AoE circles in a line to approximate a linear area.

There are four skills using that setup; the two you've mentioned plus Torment Slash and my favorite, N.O.X. Beam, which the Annihilator Beam is duplicated from. They all work basically the same, with individual variations for timing, animations, etc.

In terms of difficulty, it's a mixed bag. It's not hard to copy the basic functionality, but it presents problems with animation for something like Lightning Javelin, since the projectile may not visually match up with the aoe effect. It's also more expensive for server calculation, which is one reason that it's been used sparingly. - Joe Kimmes 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So why the exception: was there a special reason for giving Lightning Javelin this "linear" effect? Were other Elementalist skills also considered?

Since its difficult to "control test" it, how "long/wide" is Torment Slash's Area of effect?

Exactly how many "AoE" circles were used in Annihilator Beam's linear area, and does it stop at 2.7 radii or much further like Urgoz's attacks?

Is it hypothetically plausible to create more unique "non-spherical" AoE's (i.e. cones, walls, ect.), especially if animation or server calculation were not an issue?

--Falconeye (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As the programmer I can't really speak to the design intent. I would guess that it was to give the players a cool skill and see what was done with it.

I think in the interest of scientific discovery I'll stay silent on the underlying numbers on those skills.

All sorts of AoEs shapes are technically possible - the most unusual thing about the line aoe skills is their delayed timing. After that, it's all geometry and collision calculations. - Joe Kimmes 01:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

full common armor sets & new weapon sets

Hello. I have a few ideas for complete sets of armor for the gauntlets found in EOTN using preexisting sets of armor. How much work would be involved in making them?

I also got thinking about new common armor/armor effect costumes & weapons.

Chaos Weapon set hidden somewhere in the fissure of woe, there would be a new [Weapons] trader that sells chaos weapons and offhands for all professions. they would cost X Piles of glittering dust & X Globs of Ectoplasm. they would all come with Maxed damage, and an empty inscription slot, with Requires 9 (type).

Eternal weapons set & Eternal Armor effect An [Armor] and a [Weapons] Trader placed in Hall of Heros (explorable area) and only appears after all foes are defeated or hidden somewhere in the underworld. All weapons & offhands would require realistic crafting materials, and would also have maxed damage, an empty inscription slot, with Requires 9 (type).

Eternal Armor effect would go in the costume slots (head & body) and would give your character a ghostly appearance. It would also be the first

Shadow weapons set a [weapons] trader placed in the fissure of woe that would sell all shadow themed items. they would have Maxed damage, an empty inscription slot, with Requires 9 (type).

All sets would include Swords, Axes, Hammers, Daggers, Scythes, All bows, Spear, Wand, Staff, Focus items, and Shields.

19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)~Sir Sledge (talk)

These are neat ideas - I think a lot of players have wanted a full Chaos set ever since the axe was released. I will remember your suggestions if an opportunity arises to add new art in the future.

Weapons and armor take a great deal of time to create, across all development disciplines. Even costumes have to take into consideration unique requirements for each profession and gender. - Joe Kimmes 01:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, would it speed things up if already existing models were retextured? Because, that is what has been running through my head for armors & weapons, been thinking about the darksteel longbow given a chaos texture...Except for chaos armor...that would be form hugging to the player model w/out armor on. I can describe the others for all professions if you'd like.

~Sir Sledge (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reskinning existing models is by nature faster than creating a new model, but it doesn't actually reduce the overall time significantly. Remember that a reskin doesn't reduce many areas of development - programming, quality assurance and even details like the item icon still need full attention, for example. - Joe Kimmes 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Alt-Ganking in HoH - some solutions

So alt-ganking is a major issue in Heroes' Ascent and destroys the fun for everyone. The term means that people use alt accounts and 7 henchies to gank any real team that would safely beat them in 1on1. I thought about it for a long time, so here are some ideas:

1. Remove the blue team in HoH. The blue team has to be removed (rather than the yellow one) because especially KotH is very easy for the blue team.
2. Add a 50% chance for a 1on1 in HoH even if there are 3 teams. This has the advantage of not removing the 3-way mode. Optional: Remove KotH in 1on1s or remove blue in KotH 1on1s.
3. Add a maximum match length for deathmatch of like 10 minutes (after which the team with more morale wins). People use these maps for having alt accounts ready to gank teams that are on higher maps (they call it freezing). This however is likely to be circumvented.
4. Combine any of the above.

I currently prefer number 2. --numma_cway (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, please make sure you have reported any player(s) that you believe are manipulating the matches in HA.

• Click "Submit a Request". It will take you to a GW2 page, but they're using that process for all tickets.
• Details on what to submit. Scroll down to Using the Submit a Request feature, and try to provide as much information as you can.

Anet has been pushing to catch up on GW1 tickets, which is great news, but you may not see the results as soon as you'd like since they'll have to do a review of the situation. G R E E N E R 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there are many many players who have reported this to support, as the issues exist since at least December already. There are and have been several guilds centered around only match manipulations, some of which also make it clear in their guild names. I support doesn't care. They did permaban some syncers in January, but they recently unbanned them for no particular reason. What's wrong with support? I think that permanently (and I mean permanently) removing all fame and champion points from syncers would be more effective anyway. As we are talking about effectivity: This match manipulation stuff also affects GvG, where I think the current limitations make no sense. How about making a guild not have more ladder than C AT and mAT matches (but in return lowering the require membership time)? Sync guilds would lose all their rating in C ATs which cannot be manipulated. Additionally, losing no rating if you intentionally do not connect to the server is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed (e.g. by causing guilds with no players connecting to lose (not exchange!) like 10 or 15 rating), as this allows syncers to only exchange rating with their own guilds. --numma_cway (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Numma. What you brought up is actually a very well-known design issue, and I'm glad to see it finally has got its place here, though it's definitely not going to be the first time Joe hears about it. In one of my recent reports, the solution of resolving this flaw consisted of assigning the yellow slot only to the teams who have managed to reach any of the last three maps, that is either The Courtyard or Antechamber and The Vault, making them the only 3 instances from which the yellow teams are taken. At the same time, in case the Dev Team will decide to address this by reducing the total number of Halls groups, then your suggestion of allocating the yellow slot to the holding (blue) team & restricting the spawns at their current, upper-from-the-center hosting team base seems wholly-advisable. To explain the whole map's design particularities briefly, the reason the Blue team should take the current Yellow's spawning point in case all of the matches are going to be held in 1 on 1 format is that the amount of space the exit from the Blue base at the stairs provides is broader than the one which is allocated at the bases of Red and Yellow. Therefore, if we'd like to balance it well especially for the Two Teams competition, then the maintenance of equal base terrestrial conditions on a Relic Run is very important, and this can only be achieved if the Blue Team will utilize the Yellow's spawning point.

On a more personal sight, apart from the fact that 16 vs 8 matches are clearly out of the list of things which could be considered legitimate within the originally-intended gameplay process, it was rather enthralling for me trying to come up with a certain set of builds (or essential skill patterns, sometimes) that were directed at the purpose of establishing the true manifestation of 8 vs 16 art, at which I've gone quite a long proficiency-perfecting road. And since I'm quite-luckily discussing this with the author of the paw·ned² tool, I'd like to provide a bug report for this one too: in the current version, the assignments are not saved into .pwnd files for some reason, constraining the place where users can save the assigned tasks/build roles to the build's (unnamed) title, instead of the supposed (unassigned) field. As to the team makeups themselves, here's the link for those who might be interested to familiarize with the details.

In conclusion, I'd like to mention of the existence of a better, and much more powerful solution to the whole syncing & botting banishing story, though immersing into the details of it would actually require a separate topic. To express it as short as possible, the Login Server must verify the users by their Hardware ID prior to processing the login (username/password) data, so that if a certain machine is already authorized within the game under a definite, unique Hardware ID, the same could not be used again under any different account until the first connection with that ID drops out. There likely aren't any other measures which would fix it better. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This hardware ID thing is likely to get manipulated. And this "only teams in the highest three maps" thing would still allow the red team to be a (most likely synced) team that skipped from underworld, doesn't it? I doubt there will be enough teams to have two teams on these maps outside of HA bonus week (which is starting today), or even during that week. --numma_cway (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Hardware ID hash is generated for each PC individually by the Guild Wars client, how would you be able to spoof another one, besides setting up a Virtual Machine? And, as I outlined, this isn't targeted at match manipulation solely: botting items in multiple game windows is also a major argument for the implementation of the portrayed system. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue up. It's unlikely that there will be an opportunity to make large changes to HOH's rules, as there is a very high development cost to altering any PvP mechanics. That said, could you describe the concept of 'freezing' in more detail? I would like to relay that method to the team, and want to be confident that I understand it.

I will also echo Greener's comment; please do use the available reporting methods to report match manipulation and exploits. - Joe Kimmes 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a little obsolete since it describes the procedure before the update from last year, but have it from someone who did it. (I'd link to the original post, but apparently nonmembers can't unhide downvoted posts on QQ.)

The idea is that since Halls matches look for new teams to fill the 1-2 empty slots for the upcoming HoH match, it's possible to influence what teams get sent there by ending matches at the appropriate time (the minute before a new HoH match starts). The easiest way to do that is to have both teams involved in a pre-HoH match be under the control of the holding team, so that you can manipulate the result as needed. Freezing is the term used to describe matches that were being held waiting for the timer.

I wasn't playing back when it came out, but from what I understand, the last HA update (allowing 7 henchmen teams) made it significantly easier for syncers to take care of business. Instead of running just a couple of teams, they're now capable of saturating HA with dozens of teams (someone I know who plays with [mojo], the group that syncs GvG and HA during late evenings American hours, mentioned that they run something like 30 accounts when they play). Not only does it mean that most matches in HA during off-peak hours are going to be against henchmen teams that are AFK, it also virtually ensures that every HoH match will be a 16v8 once you get there. --Lemming (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that controlling even 6 alternate accounts can allow the main syncing team to freeze UW matches good enough for a guaranteed 16 vs 8, where the luck to win it for the second real (red) team is about 16.6% at most (on King of the Hill which is 33.3% out of possible scenarios, and only with specifically-prepared builds of which 90% of the community isn't even aware). Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Lemming. - Joe Kimmes 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to note that the amount of allowed henchmen never affected nor the complexity alt teams for The Halls are formed with, nor their numbers, since post-update Dishonor trait is only applied to the leavers before completion of the match. In other words, even if there was absolutely no henchmen in the outpost, the syncers would simply put up 8 alts into the team and quit 7 of them upon completion of the Zaishen trial and before the timer start. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a shot and sent a couple of reports in. This was the response I got.

The Guild Wars Support Team no longer accepts violation reports through our ticket system. If you'd like to report someone for a potential rule violation, please use our in-game report system to do so.

To submit an in-game report, click on the person you wish to report and type “/report” (without the quotation marks). A pop-up window will appear that lists several reportable activities. Please select the relevant violation or, if the exact violation is not listed, the one closest to the activity you wish to report. Our agents then will investigate the matter.

If you're unable to report an individual because they are not in your district, you may submit an in-game report in the future if you note an infraction and are in the same district with the offending player.

I saw in your response to one of Motoko's suggestions regarding changing the mechanics of HoH to minimize the impact of syncing that any solution implemented would need to be cheap in developmental costs, but the absolute cheapest way would be for support to handle it (it's only a couple dozen people doing it), and it seems that's not happening. --Lemming (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That would mean they'll have to allocate at least a few reps to constantly monitor the game, and to me, it doesn't seem as the cheapest solution possible, which consists of simply turning all the Halls battles into 1 on 1, with Blue team utilizing the Yellow's spot. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey I would like you to know that this is still a problem. When I try to win in the Hall of Heroes with my team and we have to play 1v2 it's basically impossible to win. One team just wastes my time by engaging in fights while the other runs relics, captures points or stays in the middle. Also it gets kind of boring having to play versus E/A Meteor Shower/Starburst every round but whatever. --Ezalor (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Help on pre-searing survivor (and other ideas)

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/Pre-Searing Survivor r3

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/A Title for completing HM quests

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/Ascalon Academy PvP Arena

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/PvP Arena Museum

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/No more message about win in HoH

May 2015 MAT matches no longer viewable on obs?

Hi, when I try to obs the 2015 May MAT matches I get stuck at "Connecting". They were working earlier this week. Seems a bit early for their removal compared to normal. Targetdrone (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder if recent maintenance may have affected the matches. Thank you for the report. - Joe Kimmes 18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Boss Fight Club

← moved to Feedback:User/Sir Sledge/The Boss Fight Club

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Sir Sledge/The Boss Fight Club

Hey all, a few things to suggest:

1. Suggestions are great, but aim to keep them more concise. Busy people have limited time to read, but your feedback is appreciated. Help them help you!
2. Avoid editing other people's words, unless it's the basics such as cleaning up formatting.
3. Show preview is everyone's friend! It took me far too long to dig through the history of this page to find the pertinent details for the move, and was forced to do a half-assed job instead.

I've moved the sections and comments to a more appropriate location. This does not reduce its visibility, so don't worry. G R E E N E R 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I was on vacation for a few days and this page got quite busy. Let me reiterate Greener's second suggestion: please don't edit other people's words on this feedback page. It's flat out rude, and it takes longer for me to process suggestions if it becomes necessary to review the change logs.

As always, thanks for keeping an eye out and cleaning things up in a courteous fashion, Greener.

I'm busy catching up on a lot of things, but I will reply to the new posts as time allows. - Joe Kimmes 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Joe! :) The differences in styling which you mentioned, can be compared here, though they're purely cosmetic ones and weren't meant to express any bit of rudeness. I simply knew that Sir Sledge was looking for someone to do the article's cleanup. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty fun idea; I've wanted a Boss Rush sort of mode for a long time.

As I've said in reply to other content ideas, efforts are focused on support and maintenance of the game, so a big new project like this is unlikely. But, let me give you some food for thought to help refine your ideas:

- Think about how much variety your mission would have. There are cool story bosses like Shiro, but would normal explorable bosses be too easy or not exciting to fight? Would bosses that often need unique builds, like Duncan the Black, be problematic?

- One part of your proposal is that players only fight bosses that they've previously fought. How will that affect the difficulty for different players, such as someone who has fought every boss compared to someone who fights a minimum number of bosses?

- Many major foes have unique mechanics that are supported by the missions in which you fight them, such as Shiro's Echoing Banishment - do you handle those special cases, increasing the mission's code complexity, or water down fights by removing those skills?

I encourage you to listen to other players' feedback as well and continue to update and polish your ideas. - Joe Kimmes 20:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Greener Thanks, but I wasn't going to or will be keeping concise suggestions. I like to lay them out exactly how I want them to be. I Do use the preview button, but there are always a few things I wish to add or delete. But from nw on I will be using the my new suggestions page. And thank you again for helping make my suggestion neater

@ Dmitri Fatkin thank you for including the links I my suggestion to related pages.

@Joe as time permits (hopefully by sunday at the latest) I'll have this idea revised to answer most of the feedback gathered. I have even thought of a subtle character detail for people that kept opposing the re-release of pre order content. So I ask that some time next week you take a look at my suggestions page.

03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Guide

Recent activity in the Guides gave me an epiphany...

• What if The Guide did more then a quick tutorial on basic movement, control, and fast travel? Like inform players how to use [Option > Help], quick access to Quick access links,provide a list the top 10 most vetted, in demand and frequently asked guides, how to be an awesome primary <profession>, etc.
• What if The Guide hung around in high-traffic towns and PvE-beginner areas, shouting stuff like:
  • "Did you know that Guild Wars has its own wiki? Contributed and maintained by dedicated players, just like you!"
  • "Hail to thee, Silver Edge! He resolves problems before most readers even realize there's an issue!"

And while were at it, can he be given a Agent of Balthazar skin. He is THE GUIDE afterall, not some rank and file Zaishen priest. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a neat idea. I think the game's tutorials could use a lot of work in general, and linking to the wiki is an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. - Joe Kimmes 18:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Would be nice to see, though this feature is already partially out there and is embedded into the /wiki console command (also extensively duplicated with F10 option), which does exactly the same thing as would the suggested NPC. However, not even many of the old players know of such auxiliary within the game's command prompt. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Decade Weapons

Are these available each year during the Anniversary Celebration? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes! You could think of them as Over A Decade weapons if you like; all of the Tenth Anniversary changes are intended to be permanent. - Joe Kimmes 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Extending the GWAMM Title pt 2

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback_talk:Joe_Kimmes/Archive_2011-2014#Extending_the_GWAMM_Title - Did anything ever come up from this? I took a leave of absence from the game for quite a few months and stopped paying attention to your talk page (Sorry :P) - I was genuinely curious if this was possible to implement with maybe some simplicity going into the mechanics... Example: Make an NPC that hands out a "Customized Trophy" for every 5 max titles achieved. You could provide an NPC Vendor that has available items or minis for 1-8 of these trophies (Since technically 43/44? is the max any character can get in the game) Gladiator Motoko (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I want my characters to run around with the title: "If you dont think this is the best game ever... I will fight you!". --Falconeye (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is on the suggestions list, but nothing has happened thus far. Updates related to titles bring up a number of associated concerns from the designers - for example, a new reward for maxed titles could end up mainly benefiting negative behaviors like automating play or matchmaking abuse. This could be balanced out with title changes, but that turns it into a bigger project. - Joe Kimmes 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the titles, etc., left alone. I would like it, if people offered their help in getting others to get the same titles and not beg for more. Rodan (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Infi, what are you doing

Hello Joe! I don't usually do this kind of thing (as I'm mostly busy testing things on this wiki, since my GW2(W) retirement), but I've decided I might as well share some of my theoretical ideas. In light of the recent 10th anniversary (my, do I feel old now!), it was nice to consider some of the nostalgic moments: old guilds, old friends, old achievements, but also new achievements, new friends, some new content and.. still an old guild. It may have been a small bit of refreshing content, but it was very welcome and very impressive. However, it did make me think of content I will forever miss and cherish that has been removed from the game, or is currently virtually impossible to relive. Considering the fact that the team can't put a lot of time or resources into Guild Wars these days, I started thinking about some content already in place or content that has previously been in place, and worked from there:

• The arenas found in Tyria, Cantha, and Elona with level restrictions of below level 20. These arenas have so much love in them, not just in terms of design, but also strategies that were considered. Yet no one will ever be entering them alongside you, unless you can find enough players who are not grinding their Hall of Monuments for GW2 to join you with characters they would have to create on the spot, despite not having the empty slots for them any longer. In short: there is no realistic or reliable method of entering these arenas, let alone have a decent match in them. I had some ideas for them:
  • Remove the level restrictions from these arenas, allowing level 20 characters to enter and play PvP in them with exactly the same mechanics and rewards as they yield now. That means keeping the rule of no elite skills. This removes the random factor you would find in the Battle Isles, and it adds a fun twist to the way these arenas can be enjoyed.
    
    or
    
    
  • Like Guild Halls prior to purchase, allow the arenas to be explorable as empty zones, like a nostalgic museum.
    
    but that's not all ArenaNet could do for the PvE-side PvP arenas we currently have on our map:
    
    
  • The older arenas, like Fort Koga, and Amnoon Arena, which are now exclusively available (randomly) via the Battle Isles, could return in their original locations as well, the way they were originally implemented, or as similar "museum-like" explorable zones. In case that line sparks confusion, that does not mean removing them from Codex, Zaishen, etc. alongside that change.
• A reward for 100% cartography. While I feel titles are in essence a boring grind (yet I've maxed quite a lot of them across the years), they could have some nice in-game rewards tied to them. Personally I feel the cartography title tracks lend themselves best for this type of thing:
  • Whenever a character achieves 100% cartographer in a campaign, the world map for that campaign will use a high definition, completely uncovered version instead of the foggy variant. I've seen .dat file mining reveal world map artwork of stunning quality, yet we'll never see those details in our game. I feel that's a shame and it would be nice to see the world of Tyria in such quality up close, too. Though I'll admit it'll be most challenging to apply that rule to Tyria itself, considering the addition of Eye of the North.
• Due to GWW being younger than Guild Wars itself, a lot of valuable information and history is missing from the official wiki.
  • A list of the skills and their data upon release, for documentation's sake. Currently I'm scavenging for the original skills around the internet and while that's fun, a lot of information is not 100% accurate. It would be great to compare the very first day of a skill to every subsequent change and update. The wiki has documented the changes and updates, we're just lacking the first day(s).
  • Some definite drop rates on various items, such as the rewards from Imperial Lockboxes and the likes. With the current community there will simply be no way to pinpoint drop rates sufficiently.

As someone who works in graphic design, I know everything that is suggested is always easier said than done, so I expect literally nothing. But yeah, that's just about it.

• Bring the team arenas back I'll show myself out now. - Infinite - talk 00:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with everything you said, Infinite, I already asked for several points a bit sooner, especially access to old PvP arenas and their outposts.

But I'm afraid Arenanet team has strict orders of 0 change in non-critical things regarding GW1, so chances are what you said will be heard (Joe is a really nice guy) but never be worked on. If you're looking to enjoy the full map, a minor amount of work with Texmod and the files I left from Borderless CME should make you able to do it. Probably not what you're looking for, but still better than nothing I guess. --Ruine Eternelle 11:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Infi. From what you wrote, one feature seemed as very viable & promising suggestion to me, the one which could improve the current state of the game: that is, the eased entrance to all low-level PvP arenas. It's something which I had in mind as own suggestion for a long time, in fact, but the more important drawbacks sort of postponed its appearance here until you published it. The matter itself is, indeed, among notable things mentioned within the players feedback at Guild Wars Guru (same complaint is expressed multiple times after these posts in the thread), so the actual fact is that - yes, by the normal means, without utilization of alternate accounts, these areas are almost unplayable & unexplorable today. Rephrasing it short - not normally functional. However, I've got strong confidence that a simple removal of level restrictions for entrance to them will not solve the issue, - due to exactly the same reasons of why HA or Codex weren't playable prior their respective updates. So the way I personally envision it on the side of designer's approach is that the entrance to all of these areas should be amended to the pattern of how the Ascalon Acamedy matches are getting started, that is: if there aren't enough people to assemble the full 4 players party, the missing ones are replaced with henchs, and the battles occur between two groups even if there's only one live person in each. Thus, only the presence of two people in order to explore the map inside the arenas is going to be required. Otherwise, removing the level restrictions alone is not likely to produce the desired effect, simply because there'll almost be never enough people, even if some of them actually wanted to spend their time enjoying the minor league PvP here. The suggestion itself is great, yet the implementation of it is a little bit more complex than you proposed, in case we'd actually want to see it playable.

In addition to that, I'll say that the idea of bringing back Fort Koga in its original state as Relic Run map located near Henge of Denravi is something I terribly sympathize for, as it literally flashes me back to 1.5 years spent in the Alpha prior the game's release... I still recall playing 8 on 8 CTR matches on that map with or against the other testers or the members of ArenaNet's Dev Team, and assuredly, the map itself was something worth to be there past the early betas. Thence, if I designed my own Guild Wars world, I'd still choose location such as Hakewood as startup town for the players too (as it used to be in the closed testing), as well as creating an entirely-new campaign built across the events and surroundings of Krytan region, for which I sustain the warmest feelings across all Guild Wars content, so seeing an update like you described at some point in the future would literally mean "We're on the right track, baby!" kind of thing for me! :) (If henchmen will be there for the play, of course). Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Neat idea! As noted by other editors, it's not likely that the team would have the chance to spend much time on the low-level arenas. If the chance arises, though, I will remember the interest in difficult-to-revisit areas. - Joe Kimmes 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I had actually wondered if it would be possible to mimmick the Eye of the North buff in game. The one that modifies level 10+ characters to that of a level 20... Except a backwards concept where the buff modifies the character to a level 10 or 15 character. Of course all of the arenas would be connected intercontinentally (tyria, cantha, elona). I know it won't happen but it was just an idea I had. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Joe whadda know?

Sorry I couldn't resist that. I just wanted to stop by and personally thank you for making the 10th anniversary more than what I expected. Things have slowed down again which is normal for Guild Wars and all online games in the summer months, so I can take time off to work on my wiki pages or enjoy my 25th wedding anniversary next month. Please try to pull yourself away from the PC to enjoy your summer too. I hope all goes well and I am looking forward to having a 25th anniversary with Guild Wars in 2030! --Wendy Black 00:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Swooping in here to offer my congratulations on the first 25 years of what be an amazing journey! May the next 25 never cease to fill you with wonder. G R E E N E R 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks G R E E N E R, I don't know exactly what the hubby has planned for us. He has joked about the fact that our anniversary coincides with the annual "Running of the Bulls" in Spain, that he would watch me run this year. At least I hope he is joking. ;D --Wendy Black 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will pass your thanks along to everyone who worked on the Tenth Anniversary update. Congratulations on your own anniversary as well! - Joe Kimmes 00:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Skillbalance/duplicated skills and /Bonus Items

• 1. The Meta builds are quite deadlocked in pvp, any chance for some small updates? Maybe all once all two weeks ~2 underused skills per class + watch how meta evolves. Is it possible to seperate the proph/factions duplicate skills as unique skills for other classes like the ele skills on september 13, 2012 update? I would really like that! :) P.S.: I still remember the Paragon and Ranger rework plans/announcements from the past.
• 2. I really like the japanese, coke and korean bonus items (Peacock's Wrath, Dragon's Envy, Scorpion's Lust) is it possible for us to buy these skins or let them drop in dungeons that actually haven't special loot yet? (Vloxen Excavations, Cathedral of Flames) also the US-only preorder items are still missing in rest of the world :/ I really like the "bone idol" there. --188.22.247.27 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

1 - Unfortunately with the game in a maintenance state, skill updates are going to be unlikely. There is a lot of work that goes into even small updates, and any balance change tends to create new work - toning down overbuffed skills, fixing buggy interactions, and so on.

2 - There are a fair number of limited-edition items that are a frequent request for addition. It's a tricky change to make - for things like pre-order bonuses, we need to be certain that we aren't going against previous statements of exclusivity. I will remember this if a chance arises for it, however. - Joe Kimmes 16:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the only real use for preorder items is prophecies tutorial, there it is a great buff. For Korea... I only saw some koreans til factions release, taiwan and japan was dead since I remember, I don't think there would be any complains. The choice to rerelease masks from festivals in case of exlusivity was more delicate imho. But we'll see how it ends up... as for skills... to bad :/ --Kali Shin Shivara (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the request for these items and if it counters their exclusivity... It was previously stated that the festival hats from previous years were also exclusive and then they were re-released in the current format we have today. Food for thought ^_^ Gladiator Motoko (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The exclusivity on the hats was not contractually binding with a third party. G R E E N E R 10:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The regular GvG & 2 additional henchmen for it

Good day, Joe. I hope you're spending a nice summer, and like Wendy said, are having enough time for swims on the beach with friends & other non digitally-connected activities. :) At least that's what I'm currently trying to achieve for myself, but sometimes, it still ends up discussing design shortages over there. ;) Perhaps you remember that back to the February of this year, I had it already mentioned within correspondence off the Wiki, and you said that you also hoped such an opportunity may arise for the Live Team in the future to get this issue eventually addressed. To remind you of what exactly it was and so that the readers will also be able to get fully acquainted with the subject, I'll paraphrase the whole plot around design's feeble again. At the present time we've got regular, non-AT GvGs which are never active and almost non-exercisable at all. There aren't plenty of options which could be done about it, though, two of them lie on the surface.

The first one is which you'll probably label as demanding way too much development time, that is, the reestablishment of the Heroway concept within PvP. It's no doubt every competitive player will be very glad to experience something like that in one of the new updates, yet, at the same time I understand that with Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns release residing right behind the horizon, the whole task might consume significantly more time than the designers are able to allocate. Therefore, I'm picking up the easiest solution for review, as usual: despite the fact if Hero companions are available or not, make improvements to the current, crippled 2 players + 4 henchmen scheme, turning it into 2 players + 6 henchmen (and not more, since GvG matches are not accommodated to the idea of 1 person being able to carry out all the necessary tasks).

The way it exists now, the 2 players + 4 henchmen scheme does not fulfill the implied role unfortunately, due to the global lack of GvG activity at any time off the ATs, and, what's more important is that if 2 players have actually gathered at the Guild Hall with an interest to start a regular GvG match, they'll be unable to proceed further in accordance to the originally-input, non-flawed format. Why? Because no one is interested to run what's supposed to be an 8 vs 8 combat with only 6 players (2 real ones + 4 henchies), as the format itself supposes you're splitting, as well as produce major pushes on the enemy team at the flag stand, towards their base, etc.

And in order to perform that, you actually do need 6 henchs, for the fully-fledged 8 on 8. What we see right now is that people have stopped playing the regular, non-AT GvGs at all, except a few syncing parties who weren't discouraged significantly-enough by the daily Champion points nerf. And, as you might have guessed, no one wants or cares to play the "games" against those. What people actually expect is the opportunity of being able to gather at 2 Guild Halls, agree on a certain regular GvG match via the alliance chat or PMs, and give it a go, requiring the minimum of 4 people in total. This way, it might actually produce a certain non-AT GvGs revival effect, as when the other competitively-attracted players spot the real matches on the observe, they oftentimes send a whisper to the party leader, asking if they could also join for the next run, which naturally expands the consistency of active crews in GvG.

As a matter of fact, with this new scheme where only the caller & flag runner are required, eliminating the necessity to seek for additional 2 players substituting the unavailable 2 henchs, even the PvE-oriented entities could be attracted to take a part in these matches, especially if they'll know there are some valuable rewards on the table. With this moment in mind, I'd actually suggest amending not only the current, awkward 2 players + 4 henchmen scheme, but also increasing the cap of Champion's Strongboxes awarded at this specific type of PvP daily from 5 to 10, serving as an acknowledgment to players that the Live Team is aware of handicap surrounding the regular GvGs and is doing its best in order to resolve the situation.

Thanks for reading, everyone, and please, don't turn down to allocate the time to express your own opinions of how else the regular GvGs can be improved. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As always, I am happy to relay ideas posted here to the team - some are rejected, some are put on the future ideas list and some are eventually implemented. However, I'd appreciate it if posters don't repost/'bump' their suggestions; it's unlikely that I will have anything more to add to a second post. - Joe Kimmes 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's never undue to clarify, Joe, as sometimes people tend to get the expressed wrong in absence of live communication. For example, by the beginning of this year, I've read something about myself proposing the 3 players + 5 henchmen scheme for the regular GvGs, which has never been the case, and the originally-implied meaning was splitting-up the regular GvGs into the 2 players + 6 henchmen layout while raising the required number of human participants from 2 to 3 for the ATs, as a measure to diminish the occurrences of the sync.

So basically, your colleagues have taken the minor part of the idea and have built a full-scale discussion around it, with the purpose I'm still not able to catch. The 3 players + 5 henchmen scheme for the ATs has been suggested with the sole purpose of complicating the life of the syncers, forcing them to maintain an additional GW window within each party in comparison to the current design where they're not obliged to.

From the game mechanics standpoint, it simply encompasses no sense to go into a match with 2 players and 4 henchmen, as any fully-stocked party of 8 players (even the one with 4 players & 4 henchmen) will prevail over the mentioned setup in a matter of few minutes, so what I suggested (the 2 players + 6 henchmen scheme) actually increases their chances & addresses the flaws of the current, no less than 4 required live participants + 4 henchmen layout (yes, that's the actual present model, measured with a proper GvG mechanics sight, although it seems to be 2+4 at first glance).

Proceeding from that, even if it's too challenging to perform the suggested Regular GvGs/AT henchmen numbers split, introducing the 2 players + 6 henchmen scheme into both will suit the purpose just fine, despite the capability to establish the 3+5 requirements for the ATs, which is more than justified, as to possess at least minimal chances to come victorious out of an AT match, you'd need: 1) a caller for the henchs, 2) a solo splitter and 3) a flag runner, which turns it into the already-referred 3 players + 5 henchies lineup. In any case, as I said, this isn't an important part of the suggestion: all the missing salt of it is within the 2 players + 6 henchmen scheme, whether it's possible to split it up for the ATs, or not. You're perfectly aware that the syncers are able to start up to 12+ game windows on one PC, and in the end, be it 2+6 or 3+5 for the ATs, it wouldn't bother them much. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Great Snowball Fight of the Gods

Will Lyssa and Kormir ever be allowed to participate in The Great Snowball Fight of the Gods? The 'TEAM: War/Death/Knowledge vs. TEAM: Nature/Life/Illusion would be epic! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Poor Kormir has only been in the pantheon for a few years - doubtless like grains of sand to a deity - and already you're asking her to pick sides in an eternal war? I believe Lyssa is likely of two minds on the snowball battles as well. - Joe Kimmes 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Touch skills

The following concise descriptions omits that these are touch ranged skill types:

• Consuming Flames
• Gelatinous Corpse Consumption
• Iron Palm
• Blood Ritual

--Falconeye (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Skill PvP version notifier

Would it be possible to remove the "Skill X has been updated on Hero Y's Skill Bar for PvP." notifier for heroes? It's kind of a nuisance, since whenever one enters a guild hall with a full party of heroes it instantly floods the chat all the way to the top. It's kind of unnecessary too, seeing how heroes can't be used in any form of PvP anymore. Also I'm guessing just removing the message without changing anything else wouldn't be too problematic, although I am not a coder so I can't say I know anything of the matter. Jeree95 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A simple "You are now using PvP-only version of skills officially sanctioned as tournament legal by the Zaishen Order!" would suffice. --Falconeye (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, given that you can't use heroes in PvP. As always, I can make no promises or timelines, but this seems reasonable to sneak in at some point. - Joe Kimmes 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also related, would it be possible to remove the "Heroes" tab from Priests of Balthazar (that allows you to unlock heroes for PvP using Baltha faction)? It's only there to confuse newer players who throw their hard-earned faction down the drain in hopes of unlocking heroes, which turn out to be unusable both in and outside of PvP. Jeree95 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Kormir

As a god, is Kormir still technically blind, and thus is compensating with other mortal/divine senses? Or is she faking it? --Falconeye (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: All my answers on lore-based questions are my opinions and/or the opinions of employees who sit within earshot of me; they do not represent authoritative canon and are only presented for purposes of entertainment.

Alright, I discussed this with some nearby designers, and we agreed that Kormir is technically blind, but only very technically. There is precedent in classical mythology for a deity being permanently scarred or injured - see Odin, Tyr, etc. It's likely that Kormir remains physically blind, to the extent that gods retain physical form, but she can undoubtedly perceive light via divine sense.

I do not know about Dhuum's lack of legs, though. - Joe Kimmes 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Refuge ... and friends

In regards to healing/health gain, its seems that very many skills make wrong usage of the official terms in their descriptions. This is frustrating for keeping consistent and accurate documentation of the 10k's of skills. --Falconeye (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There's only roughly 3409 skills, that's not so bad!

In seriousness, healing vs health gain is a detail that frequently got implemented or described incorrectly. It'd be nice to fix them at some point. - Joe Kimmes 17:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there plans to fix them? Or should we post a warning-template on both articles explaining why healing/health gain should be ignored? --Falconeye (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Decisions on how to document game content aren't something I want to take sides on if I can avoid it, sorry. - Joe Kimmes 21:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for Ascalon Academy PvP and other low level PvP arenas

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Ruine Eternelle/Ascalon Academy PvP Arena

What are you doing ?

Hello again Joe ! Please excuse me if you find my question stupid, but I was curious to know what are you doing now (outside of answering to nostalgic people on this wiki) ? What are also other people from the original GW team doing now that the GW chapter is over ? Do you still see each other, perhaps on other projects or games ?

Thank you for answering me, that's it for my questions :) Hope you have a nice summer and weather! Ruine--78.231.36.113 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can answer for myself at least - my official job title these days is 'Technical Designer'. I do similar things to what I've done on the GW1 Live team for the GW2 team - helping the designers make exciting content and trying to approach the game's creation from both a design and code perspective.

I would keep an eye on game credits to see what everyone else is up to! - Joe Kimmes 19:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

GW2 sure seems a lot of work... I played a bit of HoT's preview event (or so I think, that part where you explore the new map in Maguuma jungle) and you really added a lot of new and nice features. I especially liked using the winds to go everywhere (i am like a child when it comes to exploring every part of the map) and the new armor with a butterfly on the shoulder !

I would have loved to work with you on that, some things must have been such a pleasure to do.

Now if you want it I'd like you to stay a bit away from your computer a bit, breathe deep and relax. Then pass my congrats and thanks for these two wonderful games and good luck to their future to the other members of the crew ;) Keep being healthy and full of inspiration !-- --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.231.36.113 (talk) at 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

Spiritual Possession

Why isn't "Well I'll be a yak's uncle!" (source) a quote for Spiritual Possession? Just asking, that must be one of the funniest random quotes in GW :P Jeree95 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Summit Dark Binder somehow survived the events of Sorrow's Furnace...? - Joe Kimmes 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lore and Creature questions

1. Xinrae's Revenge is next month; with two skills named after her, who was she? Why is she associated with disabling and life stealing?
2. Are Vampires, Drinkers, and Incubi related to each other somehow? Are they of the same species? Are they sentient? What is the history behind them (both lore and real-world)?
3. Is it too late to alter the appearance of Bone Minion and Vampiric Horror, preferably with Scarab and Rider, respectively? Without the Minion List, they are visually difficult to distinguish at a glance, since they all look like Bone Horrors! Since I have no knowledge of programming, am I wrong in thinking its simple case of swapping out the character model and reskin it to look like an undead meatshield? Flesh Golem is a reskin character model of Charr Axe Warrior, so I know its doable. ^_^

--Falconeye (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The flux was named in memory of Xinrae since it had similar effects to the original version of Xinrae's Weapon; other than that, I cannot say.

I don't know much about the various batlike creatures, though I'm sure some intrepid Tyrian researcher out there could write a paper on the similarities between such displaced species.

It probably is too late to change minion art. For one, there are likely players who are used to the look of their minions and would be saddened to see them change after many years. In addition, I think you are underestimating the effort needed to create new models. The example of Flesh Golem versus the Charr Axe Warrior is a good one - they share animations, but the two are otherwise entirely separate models with different horns, blade arms, plate armor and so on. It's about as different a model as Shiro Tagachi is from a Warrior player character. That's not so say that new models are impossible, but it is a significant investment of time from an artist. - Joe Kimmes 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That said, I've always wanted a skill to summon Other Flesh Golem. - Joe Kimmes 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What changed?

A user was asking about this Talk:Zaishen Elite#What changed? --Falconeye (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Zaishen Elite is considered by the game to be a PvP mission, so it uses the universal PvP rules when applicable. I'm guessing that the user ran into the match time requirement to receive rewards, added earlier this year. - Joe Kimmes 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rift Warden miniature

Hi, Joe. It seems like this one has got its English naming spelled a bit wrong. And the following is probably also worth checking for exactly the same typo, as well as this. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Xinrae's back with a Vengeance

This Month's "Flux":

• Xinrae's Malevolence- when you try to enter a battle in Random Arena the attempt gets rejected with code 13 for all members of your party and the opposing party (well OK maybe just for you ;) ).
• Xinrae's Denial- when you try to login using certain characters the session sometimes gets disconnected with code 007. 121.121.121.209 17:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please contact Support or Community if you continue having issues; they will be able to compile feedback and/or help diagnose connectivity issues. - Joe Kimmes 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Menlo's krewe

Mhenlo, Eve, Cynn, Devona, and Aidan... Do they have an official name for themselves, lore-wise? We have in-game NPC parties with names like Ascalon's Chosen, Ebon Falcons, Destiny's Edge, Lyssan Fools, ect. They are the only NPCs who have been with the player-character through every adventure (while being followed by Menlo's personal harem) so they'd got to have an actual name. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked around for you and got the impression that they've never had an official name. The lore writers would be a much better source for information than me though! - Joe Kimmes 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How may a gww-contributor get intouch with a lore writer? And if they still don't have a name, I propose that your avatar puts it to a vote and give them an awesome name! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

GW1 seems to have given names to large groups, namely guilds (the focus of a lot of the lore from Proph). The rag-tag group of Mhenlo et. al. seems more like a contrivance to get players used to the idea of traveling in parties. A player can group up with Little Thom or Talon Silverwing (one of my personal favourites), and tell their own little story as they go through an instance.

Naming smaller groups in GW2 helped for the lore (e.g. Destiny's Edge), as well as reflecting the reduced focus on Guilds being the deciding factor of events. They've got krewes and warbands to boot.

Bobby Stein is quite busy right now, but if you're willing to wait a bit, he may get back to you via private message on the forums. G R E E N E R 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Two things are for sure : they are ascalonian and they travel a lot. --82.240.45.162 01:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Its never stated that Eve is from ascalon; she was along for the ride (and endless supply of corpses). --100.32.136.225 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is correct ! She may not be ascalonian by birth, but she grew up in Ascalon City among ascalonians (well, it's also true that she never got along well with the other girls at the orphanage and prefered animate minions than making friends)... Anyway to me she's still ascalonian by heart, since in the end it seems like she made some close friends there.--82.240.45.162 23:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can Bobby Stein contact use using this wiki's discussion? I rarely use forums. I gave it ago, then I discovered wiki's and twitter's.... so much better. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding GvG syncing

I've been working on compiling a list of suggested changes from the extant GvG community, but I figured I'd drop this suggestion first before I spend any more time thinking about the issue.

In the current state of GvG, ranked ladder play is used for two purposes:

1: killing time between AT rounds during the European hour Daily C (a couple of matches per day at the most)

2: syncing (dozens of matches per day)

If feasible from a technical standpoint, eliminating all rewards from ladder play (Balthazar faction, champ points, strongboxes, and guild rating) would be a solution that cuts out the latter while preserving the former. Alternatively, eliminating the ability to enter a rated match entirely would accomplish the same objective (the one remaining legitimate usage of ladder is easily replaced by unrated scrimmages, since the only available opponents to face are easily discerned from looking at the AT standings).

The biggest objection that I can see is that this would increase the barrier of entry for any new guilds attempting to begin GvG, but there are already no guilds to actually play against for said hypothetical new guilds; they'd necessarily be scrimmaging or playing in ATs. I can't foresee Dmitri's suggestion to make ladder easier to enter having any kind of substantial effect either, past an initial spurt of interest - no previous attempts to boost the playerbase in specific areas (the introduction of Codex Arena, strongboxes, lowering of champ range to 1050 rating, 7 henchmen teams in Heroes' Ascent) have ever succeeded in doing so, and all eventually resulted in syncers benefiting disproportionately.

tl;dr: Ladder matches are useless unless you're a syncer. Removing them (or at least their rewards) would be a quick solution. --Lemming (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the first question I'd like to ask is what's the ending goal of the changes you have in mind? If the long-run objective is about increasing the overall number of Daily AT participants, then none of the above is applicable for the task.

The reason they're syncing is that with the current system lacking the opponents within the Regular Ladder and the AT matches having rather high K-value of 25, these players are left of almost no viable sources for advancing their progression of the Champion title quickly enough to accumulate the allowed daily points limit. That's what induces the on-going staging of the regular GvG matches, despite the introduced limits. Removing rewards from that format will simply draw all of the syncers and their alts into the ATs, spoiling what's left of it for the actual players.

One of the remedies which are most-likely to succeed in resolving the current situation consists of turning the Champion title into a more casual one, resembling progression speed of the Hero mark we've got at HA. Not that it will transform the remaining playerbase into 10.000 from the nowadays 1.000 people, but will at least be able to revive the interest in the tournament among those who have taken an extended break from Guild Wars 1 PvP.

So the solution to what I believe you're ultimately seeking should be centered around creating a certain level of appeal within the existing rewards rather than nerfing everything to the ground in my opinion, as the latter is definitely not going to help in broadening the existing playerbase.

As to the exact measures able to facilitate in achieving this, it's not something I can chalk out at once, as the area of GvG and its rewards is probably among the toughest to design proper balance changes for. -- Dmitri 195.16.111.180 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you'd assume that; The end goal is to stop GvG syncing on ladder. There exists a legitimate means of advancing the Champion title; just because it's difficult doesn't mean that cheating to obtain it is justifiable.

I considered the possibility that they'd flood the daily ATs, but there are unavoidable obstacles (7 day waiting time before a new guild is usable for either feeding rating or being fed rating too, the higher variance from higher k-value requiring a larger rating buffer, having unavoidable matches against nonsync guilds that are almost guaranteed losses, and having to spend almost three hours for a maximum of five champ points as opposed to an hour for 10 syncing ladder) that I believe would serve as meaningful deterrents, especially if a ladder reset, which would eliminate all their accumulated rating 1050+ guilds, is possible.

I, too, would love for some kind of update that causes the GvG population to balloon sustainably, but I don't believe that anything incentive-driven is going to work (in the sense specifically of being taken advantage dramatically more by legitimate play than by syncing). Any kind of success on that level would require hundreds of players suddenly playing regularly and sticking to it for longer than a few days, despite the same structural issues (the format isn't really playable without a bunch of people logging on, is very difficult, and has to compete against League or Dota or GW2 for those coming back for HoM rewards) still existing. Any overhaul that really works would have to at least in part address those, and given the status of the Live Team's objectives, I don't think that's feasible at all. If they ever do anything regarding the issue, I'm of the opinion that they should do something to handle the issue on hand. --Lemming (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem (not the only one, of course) is that the 1050 rating thing doesn't work any longer, at least for 70% of audience this change was initially intended for, it stopped the day these people found themselves in the situation where waiting for a regular GvG match for 30+ minutes in the Guild Hall grants them no opponents, no matter the ratings whatsoever.

In the world of game polishing, this is referred to as partially-broken mechanics, however, like I said before, that's only a minor parcel of the whole picture darkened by the widespread inappropriate behavior of people who simply wanted various adorable titles without caring of how this would reflect on the whole community. They thought that's what the others value in their "level of competitiveness", so for the last 1.5 years, there has been a race of adjusting the features for the originally-intended play so that the legits will somehow be able to wind up to the title "progression" levels these syncing "craftsmen" have already "achieved" a couple of years ago.

What legitimate means are you talking about when nearly 40% of people wearing highly-advanced Champion titles have managed to get a hold of those by severely abusing the game's mechanics? I mean, do you really want to restrict it further for the legit GvGers such as EDGE guild, for example, and at the same time leave about 2,500 synced Champs as is?

The same can be said about almost any other PvP title, actually, including R15 Heroes & R12 fake Glads (thanks to the you-know-what site). The only one an oldschool PvPer is still able to wear without that feel of biting a piece off a bad apple is the Zaishen one, however, even the aforementioned can be looked down as "that precious thing a hardcore PvE botter is proud to exhibit", it's just so that I'd personally rather associate myself with their kin than the other side of the scales overflown with Halls gankers & hardcore GvG (as well as ex-Codex & Dev Arena) syncers.

You see, we're playing an interesting Wiki staging here, called "pretending of not being aware of the actual state of things", with about 1500 people in total still involved in offered competitive formats and half of them not giving a slightest concern whether their daily PvP routine involves cheating or not.

Of course that pretense is done for the sake of the whole project, but on a more realistic sight, as one of the French [dR] players told me a few months prior I've sent an e-mail to a long-time visioneer of this company regarding the possibility to release HA update, "The syncing is what drives this game's on-going playability, it's like the fuel for the engine after the staff behind the wheel stopped caring". I often used to object this kind of thinking, which I encountered numerous amount of times, however, up to the present day I cannot dismiss the feeling my urge to go back towards the roots of the original Guild Wars flavor with the help of the last year's updates has been a fight with windmills, as most of the time, the members of this rather small PvP society prefer to silently keep grinding worthless numbers the way the game's engine permits them instead of bringing up issues of conspicuously-handicapped PvP here, so that Joe could actually take a look into it and provide a normal fix.

I probably do know how to address some of these GvG flaws, though following the way you suggested and making it actually work, we'd need to literally reset almost every PvP title, not mentioning the ladder itself, etc. You've got noble intentions, but, it's been a long time since most titles have turned into nothing more but pointers to the amount of time invested into certain area, and they'd better be left this way, for 11 years old game. -- Dmitri 31.173.81.31 20:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That was... a lot of digression.

I'm fully aware of the actual state of things. I'm also fully aware that in the big picture, syncing isn't all that harmful. In spite of all that, I'm still of the opinion that as long as Anet continues to run and monetize the game, they ought to enforce their own rules of conduct, even if purely on principle. The fact that there may hypothetically exist a superior solution addressing core issues should not preclude other measures of treatment.

I am curious that you brought up EDGE, though. From looking at the guild's ladder history, there certainly do appear to be matches played that are not accounted for by ATs. What is the nature of these matches, though? Are they just against sync guilds who didn't stop the countdown timer in time? I'm not seeing how I'd be "restrict it further for the legit GvGers"; while I can't profess to speak for all current GvG players, I'd like to think that I'm more in tune with what we collectively want. (That's why I didn't suggest disabling champion title advancement - not only would it not stop syncing for other reasons, it'd also actually deter activity from current players. Believe it or not, even if the title doesn't matter, getting the occasional champ point is quite a nice incentive.) --Lemming (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions, thank you for going into detail about your reasoning. I'd say that most of the proposals are possible from a code standpoint, but would incur a high cost in testing and design cleanup. It's also good to avoid removing features or rewards without a replacement ready, although even that isn't a cure-all. - Joe Kimmes 01:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The biggest attraction to the ladder rating deactivation to me is preventing syncing guilds from attaining Rank 1 on the ladder. The ability for sync guilds to farm rating far beyond the reach of any reasonable active guild and to prevent the scenario of ever having to fight a decent guild seems a bit beyond broken. Not to mention I would love to see either ladder rating decay as a result of not winning an AT match or some sort of degenerative punishment. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's just not make it way too complex yet, or it will draw us into the Maguuma jungles. :) As a matter of fact, the thing we're discussing right now has drawn my attention much earlier this summer, it's just so that I've been waiting for someone else to bring up the issue, as there are many others already pending at the moment (such as the fixes for the last HA map & Codex henchmen skills, for example).

I've been also extensively reconsidering all of the particularities around the ATs during the last few weeks, despite my general busyness & being out of town (4G is still a good option for the posting). Thus, in order to keep it all laid on the right shelves, I will provide the list of required changes first, and then will supply detailed explanations of why it should be tweaked this way, for both the designers and the general Wiki contributors.

So, to begin with, the AT rewards & the generic GvG systems need these changes which are targeted at maintaining a stable, on-going interest among the players in the daily ATs participation for the years ahead:

• 1) Each battle within the Daily Automated Tournament grants 2 Champion points to the winner (with the established daily 10 Champion points cap preserved).
• 2) The Champion points qualifier between two guilds participating in the ATs should be 1,015 rating points (To qualify, the guild ladder must not be frozen and an AT battle must be between two guilds each of which possesses a rating of 1,015 or higher).
• 3) The number of AT match participants who have stayed in the guild for 7 days should be increased from 2 to 3 players, the number of allowed Henchmen should be raised to 5 for the Daily ATs and 6 for the Regular GvGs.
• 4) The K-value of the Daily Automated Tournament games should be lowered to 15 (from the existing 25).
• 5) The K-value of the Regular GvG games should be lowered to 10 (instead of the present 15).
• 6) The K-value of the Monthly Tournament battles should be lowered to 30, replacing the currently-active value of K=50).
• 7) The 1,050 rating requirement for both guilds in order to receive a single Champion point within the Regular GvG matches should be preserved, along with the existing Regular GvGs rewards system which grants only 1 Champion point to the winner of the game (meaning that all of the regular GvGs will still be proceeding according to the existing 1,050 rating for both opponents / 1 Champion point per game rules, with the alteration of the existing K-value to 10).
• 8) The guild all members of which have failed to connect into the Regular GvG match within the first 60 seconds always receives a penalty of -100 rating downfall as a prophylactic measure to counter avoiding the real matches on the alt guild used for syncing by leaving the party upon match-entering countdown.

And there goes the detailed explanation of why I designed it the way I did:

As Joe already said, the team is looking for solutions with rather restrained time & financial input, yet being able to generate significant output for the existing playerbase & help to boost activity within the daily tournaments. That's where my generous approach of handing out even more motivating rewards for the amateurs comes from: we need to keep the existing PvP community interested and remain afloat for the upcoming 3-4 years, and for this, practically every guild the players of which are Daily AT participants is going to receive its share of 2 Champion points per player for every game they prevailed in.

At the same time, this approach negates the currently-advantageous effectiveness of syncing, preventing it from being more fruitful than the actual participation in the Daily ATs. The 1,015 rating/K=15/2 Champ points per game rewards system is beneficial for practically every involved legit GvG player and theoretically allows them to maximize the title within the next 3-4 years as long as they're remaining active in the game.

In my opinion, that's the thing we need as the ultimate attempt to keep the remaining GvG population involved & satisfied, as up to the present day, there's still not a single non-synced Emperor's Champion in the game (or at least that's how it appears from my own observations which aren't as accurate as the ones which can be provided by Joe). Anyway, the summary of this part is that the title itself is rather unlikely of being able to become maximized through the means of the normal, legit play and resembles even a more hardcore version of Legendary Survivor of Ascalon, which exists in theory and is almost never spotted in real environment. Changing this will allow us to increase the overall interest in the Daily ATs, drawing more participants into them.

And now, for the K=15 AT matches part. The reasoning behind this is that some legit guilds are losing way too much of their rating by frequently shifting their team or simply forfeiting the first round of the ATs they registered for, sometimes having their ratings as low as ~ 850 due to this. They're actively playing, but unlike the syncers, are receiving nothing out of it, that's what grounds the proposed change of 1,015 rating as Champion points game qualifier. With the K value such as 15, it'll be practically assured that every legit guild participating in the ATs will have their chance of winning the game and comfortably advancing their Champion titles, until the assembled team has no core crew and is unable to win a few AT games in order to accumulate the compulsory rating of 1,015, where there isn't much which could be done on our part, except than wishing them to improve their strategies in the future trials. ;) On the average, the Daily AT lasts 4 rounds, where the guild winning all of those is going to receive almost capped reward of 8 Champion points, while the other 2 which are still theoretically possible of being acquired can be gotten through the Regular GvG ladder play with the help of agreeing on the game with friends, via the alliance chat or by signing up for another Daily Automated Tournament.

As for the K=10 value of the Regular GvGs aspect, this one was lowered for the purpose of not letting to maintain equality between what's generally possible to earn out of Daily AT matches in comparison to what's obtained through the Regular GvG encounters. In addition to this, I tried to avoid the situation where it's hypothetically possible to throw up a staged Regular GvG match against a high-rated alt where the winning unranked 1,000 rating guild belonging to the syncers will instantly receive the +15 rating change within one single staged game (this cannot be done with K value of 10), making it easier for the syncers to prepare such fake 1,015 rating guilds for messing up the ATs. For exactly the same reason I've also suggested increasing the 1 week stayers obligation from 2 to 3 players for the Daily ATs.

In regards to the 1,050 Champ rating requirement for the Regular GvG and its -100 rating penalty in case nobody joined on one of the sides, I believe we have extensively discussed this in the past and the thorough explanation can be found within this page's archives, the short version is that some people are cheating with the use of multiple game windows and don't allow their alt guilds to lose rating vs encountered real people by rapidly abandoning the party with all of their alternate characters during the 10 seconds countdown the matchmaking system initiates entering into the game. Using such cheat allows their alt guilds not to lose rating vs the real guilds and helps to maintain faster syncing, because of which the 1,050 rating requirement of Champ range within the Regular GvGs must be retained.

Concluding this up with a reference to MATs, I have thought it would be a good idea to bring the Automated Tournaments closer to the original ladder system and the way it affected guild ratings back to 2006, not in terms of the old K-value being 30, but of the speed an average guild was able to recover their rating from multiple losses. With the nowadays number of opponents being reduced by about 10 times, this is achieved with the new AT K-values of 15 for the Daily Tournament games & 30 for the Monthly ones, i.e. consequent losses don't significantly impact the guild's ability to receive rewards distributed as encouragement for the Daily Tournaments participation.

That's what I've been thinking on during the last few weeks, along with some other improvements such as exclusive minipet rewards offered as Guild Lord loot to the winners of the Monthly Automated Tournaments and the proposal of bringing back the top 100 guild standings on the official website or at least being able to request those from it, however, I think we'd better make a small break with GvG suggestions at where we are right now and let the Live Team evaluate those, introduce the ones they deem appropriate and see how it goes, otherwise we're running the risk of suggesting a numerous set of things which are going to be sent into the barely-visited storage room (something like that apparently exists on Joe's computer ;).

P.S. The additional ideas can be gathered from this thread, though I'd suggest to avoid considering most of the concerns hidden within the Skill Balance spoiler. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

>'let's just not make it way too complex yet'

>posts 1500 word proposed rework of title and entire format

Sarcasm aside, the only part of your proposal that actually impedes syncing is going to be the final clause, which I don't believe will ever be addressed (that specific suggestion's been made ever since champ point syncing first became a thing in ~late 2009, and the explanation back then was that it's unfeasible to change it). Even if there are champ points to be had every daily AT, it doesn't mean that ladder syncing won't continue to be both easier and quicker, especially for the demographic that does it.

Also, I'm quite confident that raising the AT requirement to three 7-day members is going to decrease GvG activity more than they'll be increased by the heightened incentives. --Lemming (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the process of trying to counteract the adverse effects of the ability to run the game in multiple windows by putting up adscititious restrictions such as the increment of 1 week obligatory stayers within the guild is not after all truly-efficient. It compels the syncers to house about 6-7 additional accounts within their alt guilds, but doesn't eventually address the whole problem.

There's only a single option which could, that is storing each unique Hardware ID of every user who connects to the server and then checking if it already exists within the database table upon any attempt of a secondary login, which always needs to be denied until the table record gets emptied with the closure of the first session. There are no other assured means of entirely restricting cheating such as syncing, the remainder are only partially-effective measures, one of which is what you and Motoko seem to be seeking for within this topic.

Of course it's not impossible to forge one, but in the end, everyone has to understand that throwing more sand into the dam does not stop the water flowing, and with every such semi-efficient fix, the cheaters will be finding their ways around these. Anyway, if the tendency is that some of us are wanting to put an end to these cheating guilds being ranked #1 on ladder and accumulating more daily Champion points than the regular players, this can be achieved with an addendum of the 9th clause to what I've already written:

• 9) The matches played within the Regular GvGs cannot ascend the guild's rating past 1,050, upon reaching which, any further victories will only be resulting in +1 nominal point gains, while the losses are still going to be accounted as usual.

That's it, and not so severe as the suggested option of taking out the Regular GvG matches entirely. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disabling the ability to log in on multiple accounts would still only be a bandaid fix that doesn't deal with the core issue of how matchmaking works, while also incurring an unnecessary burden on the people running multiple accounts for nonabusive purposes. (That's not to even mention how complicated it may be to code as far as solutions go.)

It doesn't even take a stretch of the imagination to imagine how syncers can work around it. Even assuming that the implementation deals with obvious workarounds such as virtual machines and remote desktop and connecting via proxies, it wouldn't prevent syncing as long as two people per synced match are okay with manning the dummy guild. Maybe they'd work out a rotation for who falls on the sword, or maybe they'd find two unwitting PvEers happy to get paid a few ectos for an hour of their time. Whatever they devise, I'm certain that attacking multiple logins isn't going to do the trick.

Ultimately, I guess I'm just not seeing why preservation of ladder play is necessary at all, besides how bad it might look to cut features without a replacement. With developer time evidently at a premium, implementing and testing an overhaul like you're suggesting, with actual mechanical differences that need to be coded in, seems like it'd be a waste of effort. --Lemming (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the players, including myself, have seen the similar reasoning and the results of it in the past, where it led to the removal of Hero Battles and Team Arenas, then almost the same has happened to the ability to bring Heroes into PvP, as some players complained that those are capable of being too good at rupts. The change itself has cut down the variety of build choices pick-up groups could utilize with the help of AI-controlled companions by about 85%. Five years later, we've got players with rupt bots running around GvG, HA & RA all-together, does it mean all of the mentioned areas should be removed? :)

According to your rather simplified scheme of resolving such kind of things, they should, while proceeding with mine, the stuff requires to be actually reworked, preferably the easiest-for-the-devs way, but not to the degree where ordinary problems are addressed by eliminating a certain core element of the game which existed there for more than 10 years, as in the end, such change will hardly make the players happier, even if they'll be told it was done for the purpose of keeping the format clear.

I don't see why the GvGers should be forced to head into RA instead of the Regular GvGs between the AT rounds because some of us assume removing the standard play will reduce the amount of syncing. Is it actually so assured that the players capable to run 12+ game windows on a single PC will not bring that number of alts into the ATs, resulting in even more serious problems, that only the restriction of Multi-Launch could address?

Well, I have explained my own concerns around this, let's see what Joe is thinking on the matter. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do the guilds you play with regularly get real matches on ladder between AT rounds? In my experience while playing these past few months, trying to queue for ladder between AT rounds is almost always a complete waste of 15+ minutes. The only time that trying to get a ladder match is a good idea is when the available guilds coordinate entry, and even then, scrimming is often more effective since you don't have to deal with rating differential-related queue times. We're already forced into RA or obs mode or going afk when there's no scrim by the lack of any opponents; the inability to enter ladder won't change that at all.

I'm certain that syncers would figure out some way of using the ATs to their advantage, but I think you should diagram a few simulated ATs to see how they'd play out with some syncing guilds in them, because I'm not really seeing how they'd be all that different from current 3-round ATs in terms of number of real matches.

Also, this is just nitpicking, but it's something everyone gets wrong - it was the announcement of HB's removal that precipitated red resign on a gamewide scale, not the other way around. --Lemming (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a reason to perform a second check of an obviously-known fact that even a few alts are capable of spoiling the entire Daily ATs atmosphere for the actual guilds. The alts either enter and do nothing, or forfeit the tournament due to undesired competitor. Either of these actions will make their real opponents wait for the next game as long as 25 minutes. The only thing you can hope for is that all of the syncing will be occurring on a separate tournament, such as Daily A/B. That's what it'll probably turn into in case of the regular battles removal, in other words, the thing you'd like to see disappear, will most-likely not. Anyway, whatever measures the Live Team decides to take, all of these are going to be highly-appreciated by me personally. Doing something about it is still better than leaving it as is. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not move this conversation to Talk:Guild versus Guild and create a Feedback talk once the different possible improvements regarding that matter are found to clearly list them ? Think about your talk from Anet's point, it's a bit hard to read all that and deteremine what to do.--Ruine Eternelle 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We're basically looking for the same thing, it's just so that where I'd rather see blooming garden, Lemming wants to put up a lawn as cropped as one on the football field. ;) Not much to add to what I've already said, though. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For the future, when writing lengthy/detailed suggestions I would greatly appreciate it if posters would create a Feedback page for it, then post a link here (assuming that meets the wiki's rules and standards). It'll help keep editing and commentary localized, and let you easily adapt your suggestion based on other players' feedback. I don't want to have a strict rule, so please use your best judgment on when it's appropriate to make a formal page.

Anyway, my previous comment is the most I think I can say on this subject. I don't want to create false assumptions by giving my own opinions too often, however, I want you to know that I am reading your ideas. - Joe Kimmes 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ladder Reset

Joe, what is the difficulty of performing a ladder reset? Also, if a ladder reset is possible, would you be able to set it on a quarterly or bi-yearly timer? The benefits of the ladder seem to be primarily beneficial to syncers both for champ points and more recently, the rank 1 guild emote. With an automatic reset (Heck, you couldn't you reset everyone's rating after a monthly tournament when the Qualifier points are reset?), an automatic reset would help the ladder self-manage by keeping non-qualifying players in guilds with a low rating? Of course there will always be syncers, and of course people will always abuse the system. But an automatic system that self-governs and helps minimize the abuse while not decreasing any fundamentals of the game... Isn't that an idea worth looking into if it is an easily coded thing to do? Second note... Is anything currently being worked on and is there an ETA for those items? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A regular ladder reset would be a good idea. I think it'd be better to have one if/when any anti-syncing measures (or even just a banwave) are implemented, although for all we know that might never come around.

Outside of the previously mentioned concern of the rank 1 ladder emote (another instance of a PvP incentive that's providing a motive for syncing), I think it's kind of silly that about half of the two dozen or so guilds that actively GvG can't even get to the top 100 for observer mode, just because there are hundreds of sync guilds and dead sold GvG guilds that get bumped cluttering the ladder. --Lemming (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The ladders are part of the Server Team's domain, so I have little information I can provide about them. I've made a note of your suggestions, though. - Joe Kimmes 22:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting Busy For A While

Hey everyone, I want to let you know that as the studio enters the home stretch for GW2's first expansion, I'm going to be pretty busy and may not be able to post here as regularly. As always, I'll be reading your comments when I have time; just don't be dismayed if there's a large delay before any reply. - Joe Kimmes 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Start of the new year is tough, isn't it ? Good luck !--Ruine Eternelle 10:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The best of luck with releasing it, Joe, and hope to see you wholly back here again in November! =) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignore verification

Is the ignore feature still functional? See Talk:Friends List#Ignore verification for details. --Falconeye (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)^_^

Don't bother Joe with that xD. Also, check the above section... --Ruine Eternelle 13:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that chat functionality is outside of my expertise. There have not been any changes to it that I'm aware of, however. - Joe Kimmes 22:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ascalon Academy closed ?

My question is in the title : I tried to sync with another player and with my two other accounts, and it failed miserably every time we tried. Has the arena been removed or is there a condition to fill in order to enter it ? And because I know you're interested in pre-Searing news I wanted to share that picture with you (in french sorry, but I think you can guess what title it is) :

P.S. : And that guy did better--Ruine Eternelle 12:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on the title!

Nothing has been changed about Ascalon Academy, but I am not familiar with existing restrictions on entry, or any matchmaking restrictions that might otherwise affect matching. - Joe Kimmes 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Costume Question?

Years ago, I purchased the Vale Wraith and I love it. My question is; would it be so hard to change the walk animation to a glide? My oldest son is now working for a security database company, suggested "the armature of the Mursaat could be substituded when wearing the lower part of this costume". I don't know the tech stuff and my son admitted that it would require a bit of work on your part (thus time + money) so this is not a formal request. I am suggesting that if it is a simple fix, it would be a good fix for this costume. Jogging in this costume looks wrong and you could sell a lot more during Halloween. All my characters wear it during Halloween and Shade of Velspa wears it 24/7. I am always getting compliments on it, but when I walk around most players decide it is not usch a good deal. Wendy Black 04:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be pretty amazing if this turns out to be possible. Not sure how many developers will be able to look at it this Halloween due to the HoT release, but even just a gander before next year would be nice. G R E E N E R 07:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a *Hint*Hint*: Unique animations for each costume = more sales. I personally want a costume that causes my character to fight UPSIDE DOWN! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you've enjoyed the Vale Wraith costume!

Unfortunately, art updates are something that can't be done at this time, due to the game's development state. Animation changes are also historically trickier than a cut-and-paste operation on existing animations; each character uses its own set of animations that cannot necessarily be shared between them. This is even true for the player models; for example, the non-Assassin professions don't support all of the unique dagger animations. - Joe Kimmes 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nameless Lich

So, what is the story behind the Nameless Lich? What did Anet intend to contribute to lore with her? Since its now impossible to know, would your "lore krewe" care to enlightened the wiki community? ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My son was telling me something about her this Halloween. I will try to remember to call him after work today and ask him what he actually knows for sure. I was really more interested in his story about the reason why the summoning and return of Mad King always fails. He told me the Lunatic Court fails to bring back the Mad King each year and gets his pony instead. --Wendy Black 13:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My son said, she was going to be additional Halloween quests but apparently was never finished. The common theory held about her is; She represented the Undead Lich and was attempting to divert the plans of the Lunatic Court into the resurrection of the Undead Lich. Unless someone knows better, the only way to know for sure is contacting her creators. --Wendy Black 08:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sworn to secrecy and cannot reveal the Nameless Lich's unspeakable name, dark heritage, forbidden lore or shadowy machinations at this time. To do so would betray the meticulous secrecy of the designers behind such. - Joe Kimmes 23:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

observer mode broken 11/6

Just thought you might want to know. No matches are appearing. --Lemming (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it's something you guys did, but matches are showing up again as of noon Pacific. --Lemming (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that one of the recording servers became overloaded; the server team took notice and corrected the issue. - Joe Kimmes 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Level of Detail Distance and Object Culling

Can you add a toggle in Graphics Options (not an outright removal) to disable level of detail and object culling? The graphics of this game would improve drastically if the textures remain at their highest levels regardless of the distance the camera is from them. It would also be a huge help if there was an option to keep all objects visible at all times (to prevent objects randomly appearing and disappearing depending on your distance from them). I love this game but low-detail distance textures and object culling is really reducing my ability to enjoy it to its fullest. When we take a screenshot, the resulting picture is as if none of the objects ever got culled....so there has to be a way to make this change to the game engine. If you don't know what I am talking about, make a Prophecies character and walk around Lakeside County while looking at distance objects and terrain. Thanks. God Of Fissures 12:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I second this! --Falconeye (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

More details in the distance will probably hurt your eyes if you play for too long. As for culling, I don't see where it may bother you...--93.25.214.156 20:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Culling hurts my eyes when objects are randomly disappearing and then reappearing... If they all stayed visible constantly, the gameplay would be much more natural and realistic. God Of Fissures 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are asking for is rather to increase the distance of culling for elements. While it may be nice to be able to switch to that kind of display when looking at the landscape and making screenshots, I'm pretty sure that the general gameplay will not be better : more elements will cause you discomfort for extended periods of time, since you cannot have a depth of focus (in real life, your eyes naturally adjust to the distance : if you want to see things in the distance better, things near you will be blurred and vice-versa). --193.48.141.104 10:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that I would like to see the option to disable these performance optimizations. I am sick of objects in the distance disappearing, 2-dimensional placeholders in the distance, etc. I don't know why this isn't understood by anybody except Falconeye. It is 2015 (10 years after release) and compute power has increased exponentially since 2005. These renderer optimizations are no longer necessary and I think the removal of them is a step in the right direction. God Of Fissures 13:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I third(?) this... there was a thread way back about this on GWGuru, but no solution was found. But indeed, making a screenshots replaces all 2D planes with 3D objects for a second, so it must be possible to implement. Magamdy 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that (contrary to popular belief) more details isn't better : too much of them will tire the player's eyes due to them not being able to focus (like I said, there is no depth of field). --Ruine Eternelle 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It woundn't be active 24; and with stupid Microsoft canceling support for XP OS's, everyone has been gradually forced into Windows 8-10 (on a plus side my new laptop has 100x gig's and other crap over my 2001 model; and I can finally run GW2 without crashing). I'd often disable particle effects during drunken-related events/quests. With a feature like this implemented, I'd active/deactivate mostly when running, or any situation where seeing beyond the horizon is critical. --Falconeye (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally I like the in game graphics, however I have done some focal blurring using the GIMP on still images. You can see these images using a focal blurred background in my personal gallery. I would bet you could add a focal blur to the game by running it through a "DirectX tweaker" the same method GwDressUp uses to display armor you don't own. I have no doubt it would slow some older GPUs down, but at least it would be an option to the players and not a demand. Some graphics cards come with control panels that perform these actions as well. --Wendy Black 09:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not about wether the ingame graphics are "likable", it's about them being hold back by GPU powers saving that were relevant in 2005. When you look at a distant mountain, theres a big chance it's just a blurry ground texture and a flat shape. My PC can run the game at 120 FPS at 4K resolution, so I'd rather have an option to ditch these functions. Magamdy 09:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. There should be an option to enable or disable the renderer optimizations based on personal preference. God Of Fissures 11:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) All I am saying is "on a clear day you cannot see forever" in Guild Wars. I know a thing or two about how games work and what you are asking for in Guild Wars just isn't possible. They would have to hire a full team to rework the game engine and make new 3D maps. The mountains are flat (they are painted on a skybox) the world is chopped up into zones because you are about to run into a skybox. I am glad you can enjoy the game on your PC, but my opinion is, I like the graphics. --Wendy Black 11:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking for fog to be removed or for the view distance to be unlimited. Do you know how when you get closer to an object, it skips through varying levels of detail? Farther out = less detailed texture, close = more detailed? That is what I mean by "Level of Detail (LoD) Distance". In my opinion, there should be a toggle in Graphics Options to disable the LoD Distance and force these textures to render with the highest quality textures, regardless of your distance from them. I hope I have made my point clearer. God Of Fissures 11:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone is so against this. What we want is to have the game look exactly as it would in a screenshot, when the ingame engine is programmed to replace any loD flat shapes with the actual models. How can that be a bad thing. And to the "detail hurts your eyes" argument, I guess you haven't played any recent games these last 5 years, or even Guild Wars 2, because those games have faaaar more detail than GW1 will ever have. Magamdy 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL I didn't say I was against graphic improvements. I am all for it, but it won't happen unless you have a good DirectX programmer in your back pocket. This conversation is a bit odd since I am working on updating the TexMod pages at the moment. To understand what I am talking about, you need to understand that everything you see in Guild Wars is ran through DirectX and your video drivers. To make improvements to the graphics, one only needs to third party software such as; Nvidia or AMD consoles and other such DirectX manipulation. I don't own an Nvidia card but according to what I can find in 3 minutes of searching, some have texture filtering which includes features such as; LOD bias, Trilinear Optimization, etc.. ok I happen to run my GW on a laptop with mobo GPU so what can I do? There are other programs available to tweak the DirectX graphics. I really don't see how Joe Kimmes can help at all beyond what we know already. I hope find the answers you are seeking. --Wendy Black 09:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no, that is not what I'm talking about. In fact I already have those things enabled. What I want, is a toggable button, in the options menu, that allows the ingame, hardcoded code that replaces LoD placeholder flat shapes with their 3D counterparts during a screenshot, to be active always and remove LoD planes entirely. And since what we want is ALREADY ingame when taking a screenshot, it afaik would not take huge amounts of programming. I hope at least Joe Kimmes understands what we're adressing here. Magamdy 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been requested previously; if memory serves, it turned out to be more complicated than expected. Graphics engine changes cannot be made at this time, unfortunately, but I will remember your request if the opportunity does arise. - Joe Kimmes 23:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)