User talk:Axwind/Old

Show Preview

Hi I noticed you did a massive amount of small Edits to User_talk:Bobby Stein. Instead of doing lots of small edits use the Show Preview Button before saving. It lets you see how it will actually look and you can read over it again and make adjustments if you feel the need for it. Once you are satisfied you can save the page. This way you dont clog Special:RecentChanges which is monitored by many people to catch Vandals and it also keeps the Page History clean. Thanks --SilentStorm 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sorry about that, I just haven't used wikis much before. But I'll keep that in mind. --Axwind 05:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving stuff off Linsey's page

Your section was moved off Linsey's page in an attempt to keep her page from imploding on itself. Any topic that takes up more space than Media Wiki recommends (32k) for an entire page should not be on a talk page, but on a separate article. The move link was left so that Linsey could easily access it when she has time to read it over. If you wish to reorganize it, moving other peoples comments to that associated talk page, etc, so that your idea is more fully presented you can, though at that point, it should be linked to ArenaNet:Suggestions rather than presented directly to Linsey. Any large posts like that on Linsey's page will receive the same treatment as yours did. -- Wyn 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought all the suggestions pages were going to be removed, though, on the 15th. --Axwind 14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really removed, but rather moved to user space. So you can keep all your suggestions in your own userspace, and there will be a system worked out to have them linked, so they are easier to find. - anja 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GW2

Don't want to go more OT on Linsey's page, so:

I said they're using instances for story based content, like GW1, but there are also persistent world events that happen perpetually. How you define the lore for that is you don't mention it, there's quite a few events in Guild Wars that don't really have a consistent lore, good example: Alliance Battles. How has the fighting gone? We don't know. All we know is they fight over various territories and it never ends. Also GW2 is an MMORPG, they added persistence so it is no longer a strictly unpersistent world like ORPGs (Diablo 2...) are. I think you should wait to see, because no matter what there's one thing I'll always give ArenaNet credit for and that's that they know how to pick their battles and they aren't going to try and compete with World of Warcraft with a WoW clone. They aren't stupid. They almost did that with GW1 (check out the Alpha vid on Youtube sometime!), but they changed it substantially by the time of release in lots of respects (graphics, especially) because they know that'd be an exercise in failure. There's several things we know about GW2 at even this point that makes it different from any MMORPG out there. Environmental movement (climbing, swinging from vines, etc), skills change based on how they're used, limited skill bar, your character automatically changes depending on if it's a PvE&World PvP zone or PvP zone (so it's the PvE + PvP character system in GW1 but better), UAX in the non-World PvP zones, an actual story like in GW1, etc...I think you're getting caught up on multiple races + persistence and not looking at the big picture. Even the few things I just mentioned (and what we know) have the capability to really change how MMO's are looked at, that's all stuff that's not been done before, or if it has (environmental movement and story) it's been very rough around the edges. DarkNecrid 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're right. And I also hope that our characters are more involved and interactive with the story instead of being stiff and tight-lipped like they so often are in GW1. It would be nice if our characters would participate more in dialogue so that the NPC's are talking with them instead of just to them. This would allow our characters a little story development of their own, something GW1 seriously lacks. --Axwind 05:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Show Preview (2)

This is your second friendly reminder to please use this helpful feature of MediaWiki. It is difficult enough for me to keep up with all the conversations on talk pages, especially Linsey Murdock's, without you repetitively re-editing your posts. :( Concerned Citizen 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have it set to "minor edit" by default so I didn't think it would show up in the logs because that's why they're called minor edits. I didn't realize it did, though. Sorry about that. --Axwind 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

EOTN

→ moved from User talk:Linsey Murdock

I understand what you were saying in my other thread, Linsey, but I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to fix the Gwen-PH story arc so we have better resolution for that part of the story? There are some things that, as they stand now, make no sense in terms of continuity but could be fixed (such as the garden scene, which is the same whether our character had already known her or not). You could allow that more involved reveal of Gwen that you mentioned by making it available only to those who kept the tapestry shred - and hence, mostly only those that like her and wanted more depth to the reunion in the first place. Or just add optional content to provide the same effect. I'm trying to be as vague as I can here to avoid the licensing issues we were talking about before, so hopefully you'll be able to read this. Although Bobby did say that he had showed you my original post already, though how much of it I don't know, as well as to several other people in the office. Thanks for being patient with me, and I hope you'll look into doing something to address this at some point. Thanks! --Axwind 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They probably won't change this and there really isn't that many continuity errors at all (I can't think of any...). Regardless, there is more pressing issues with the game than the story, which likely won't be added to until Guild Wars 2. DarkNecrid 18:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Axwind, this was a subject of discussion during EotN development and this is what was decided on. I'm not going to go back on the decisions that were deemed the right thing to do back then. I do understand where you are coming from, but I just don't feel right about going back on those decisions. Sorry. - Linsey talk 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DN, I pointed out one such error above - the garden scene. It makes no logical sense for her to talk to someone who already knew about her love of the flowers as if he or she didn't know. And the book you fill out is another error. It's written the same regardless of whether your character met her before or not, though logically someone who had already known her would have done so differently. When you have an established backstory, an established prior encounter (as is true if the character has the tapestry shred), the story demands, to maintain continuity, that that prior history be properly acknowledged and connected. Not just given a token nod.

Just so you know, the support from the community is not as one-sided as some may say. I listed in my other page most everyone who responded and how, from everywhere where I posted this stuff - here, GWO, and Guru as well as in-game, and as it turns out, more people want something to be done than don't. It's not a big margin, but it's there. And as I said, make it optional - if someone doesn't want to see it, they don't have to. Those who don't have the tapestry shred to begin with would never know the difference. --Axwind 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NF characters shouldn't be able to go to Prophecies and Factions because that's going backwards in time. It's a gameplay design choice, and gameplay is more important than story, even though I like the story very very much, the greatest story is nothing in a game without good gameplay. And Linsey said no, so arguing this point is moot. DarkNecrid 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

tbh id rather the live teams time be used on balancing pvp redoing pve monsters builds so there challenging and fixing ai bugs instead of adding a few cinematics to make a few role players happy--Aura 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about cinematics, Aura. And as I said, from my own research, more people want this changed than don't. Not a big margin, but it IS there. And I don't think Linsey wants to leave a good number of people disappointed and let down. At least I would hope she doesn't. --Axwind 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that's true Axwind, but as has been pointed out, Linsey has said no, so it's time to move on. -- Wyn 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can give you the numbers if you want, Wyn. It is true. So many changes and adjustments are made to the gameplay, for once let something be done for the story. Instead of ignoring that entire half of the game. --Axwind 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The storyline/lore comprises considerably less than "half of the game" for the majority of players. Vili >8< 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The majority of players are pve, NOT pvp. Which means that the story is very much a part of the game. --Axwind 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if you make it so. The majority of players skip through cutscenes, don't read mission/quest/etc dialogue, have never read the manuals, and so on and so forth. Vili >8< 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? Have you asked every single player out there? Or at least a broad spectrum from multiple places? Don't make assumptions. When I say more people I have interacted with want something to be done than don't, I mean what I say. I can provide numbers and names of people I've interacted with in four different places. --Axwind 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like how you repeatedly insinuate that others are merely making baseless assumptions while asserting that you, and you alone, have hard facts and statistical data. Care to share those with us? Isn't it enough that you've already been shot down by Linsey, other ANet employees (EotN development), a number of Wiki users (who, you know, are players just like you), and so on? Even if this were to devolve into a "my data vs. your data" argument, it's utterly meaningless in the end because ANet has already said no, and they won't renege on that without overwhelming player outcry...which is certainly not the case. Vili >8< 01:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

its all about the lives teams resources and what there time would be better spent on if you ask the community what they would rather have time spent on a new elite area for example or time spent on making the storyline up to scratch lets see how many would pick option 2 cause yes there are more pvers but only a fraction of them are true role players welcome to the vocal minority :)--Aura 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Aura, you're making assumptions. And the game already has enough elite areas as it is. What is the harm in adding more depth to a part of the game that's already exclusive to a certain set of characters? Characters from other campaigns or those who don't have the tapestry shred would not experience any differences. So they wouldn't be made to see something they don't want. Is that so hard to understand?

And Vili, here's the list, since you asked for it.

In favor:

• Axwind (wiki/Guru/GWO)
• Arduinna (wiki/Guru)
• Mervil (wiki)
• Tender Wolf (in-game/Guru)
• Operative 14 (Guru)
• timeoffire45 (wiki)
• Boro (wiki)
• Gwmaster (Guru)
• Taco Fiend Taco (Guru)
• DragonRogue (Guru)
• kazjun (Guru)
• raspberry jam (GWO)

Against:

• SkyyHigh (Guru/GWO)
• MagmaRed (Guru)
• Azazel the Assassin (wiki/Guru/GWO)
• Dr. Jones (Guru)
• MithranArkanere (Guru)
• DarkFlame (Guru)
• Doomfrost (Guru)
• Sjeng (GWO)
• Rose of Kali (wiki)
• Mini Me (wiki)
• Wynthyst (wiki)
• Ezekial Riddle (wiki)

Neutral:

• Draxynnic (Guru)
• satomz (GWO)
• Erring Ryft (GWO)

A small sample size, I know, but it's likely to remain proportional the larger it grows. So we have a near even split with a slight tilt in favor of the changes. And the only Anet staff that's commented on it is Linsey and Bobby. And Bobby, while he couldn't actually look at my original stuff, was favorably inclined to the idea itself, as he pointed out to me on his page. --Axwind 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no harder to understand than understanding the prioritizing of the Live Team's time and resources which you seem unable to do. New content (a new eilte area) would benefit EVERYONE in who plays pve, while expanding content for just those few who qualify (have a tapestry shred.. which btw, is nonsense since they can be bought/traded). I can think of a gazillion other things I'd rather see the Live Team working on than something that is exclusive to a very small minority of the players. Linsey has already indicated that new content, say a new quest, takes 1 month of developer/writer/artist/QA time. Wouldn't you rather see that time spent on things that would benefit the entire community, whether it's new content or skill changes, or revision of monster bars to make the pve game challenging again, rather than continuing to push this revision of old storyline? I would have to also disagree that "the game already has enough elite areas as it is." since those areas are 1-4 years old and have been completed by most everyone who has wished to complete them. As for your sample... I would not consider the opinions of 25 people out of 6 million to be representative of the playerbase in any way and seriously proves nothing. -- Wyn 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As the sample size grows, the proportions remain the same, Wyn. That's the point. Even at a larger sample size, the support would still be as it is. It's called extrapolation. And while the shred can be traded, there's little reason to do so. I don't like a storyline that's broken because some among the devs couldn't be bothered to keep the continuity intact and simple storytelling logic in mind. And pve is plenty challenging, irritatingly so in many places. Or do you really think missions like Hell's Precipice are easy? Why not do something for once that hasn't been done before? I never said the additions had to be substantial. Just a better tie-in to what came before. Something outside the initial dialogue and that one quest to indicate that the prior meeting happened, that it existed. And really, how long would it take to write and key in a couple alternate lines of dialogue for a few existing scenes that are already in the expansion, such as the garden scene? Leaving both versions identical save for two or three lines? Or the Wintersday quest - which, in the case of a PH, she isn't actually alone at all, because in that situation there is someone in the present whom she knew as a friend in the past. A line or two to acknowledge that (if the character has the shred or has done its quest) shouldn't be too hard to add, I wouldn't think. And an extra line or two in the initial dialogue when a PH with the shred first meets her. And alternate epilogue dialogue. That's all the sort of thing I'm talking about, not expansive multi-quest stuff. Just small stuff. Fixing the continuity doesn't mean adding gobs of new content. Sorry if you guys thought I meant that. Just adding a few lines where appropriate to acknowledge outside her background quest that they met before, and in such a way that only those who can already access that part of the story - her background quest - would even see them, since storywise and gameplaywise that's how it should be, and so that those that don't want to see it don't have to. Not new quests, they aren't needed. Just a little extra/alternate dialogue. And maybe an extra text scene to close things up (via popup portrait dialogue), but it's okay if adding a scene isn't possible as long as the other dialogue gets tweaked. --Axwind 02:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Get over yourself. The 6 million players don't care about the storyline enough to have this done over monthly dev updates. You'll be lucky to get 25% if you poll everyone. People play games for fun and competition over a storyline, that is what books and movies are for. Your 50 50 split wont stay with greater numbers, people don't care enough about lore. And the sites you are getting info from are players who are more into the game than the norm so of course they will be in favor of lore fixes duh!~>Sins WDB 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dewey wins.75.165.119.187 03:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move this to Axwind's userspace since Linsey answered and it doesn't look like the topic will end even if archived. Also, Axwind, your sample is very suggestive and failible. Also, I am not against expanding depth of characters. What I am against is 1) wasting dev time and resources on something that is not a majority want and 2) expanding on already put in content unless it's a retroactive change. Also, you list the people, but why don't you link us to your "guru thread" and "gwo thread," it might support your case, but not by much. And as Sins said above me, the three places (gwo, guru, wiki) that you got info are places where you can find three types of people... 1) trolls who don't care about the game and seemingly want it to fail. 2) People who love the game and want it improved no matter how small the improvement (those would be your "yes" people). And 3) people who no longer play the game but stay active to the forums. If you were to go into random active towns and ask, and screen shot, then your proportion will change, I'm sure. You take yourself to be right all the time, even when asking a question. And learn to do ONE edit to the same location, please, spamming the history and recent changes pages is not fun... -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Or do you really think missions like Hell's Precipice are easy?" Yes actually, that mission is easy.--BabyJ 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Too costly. (2) Not nearly enough interest to justify the costs. (3) Please add me to the "no thx" list. -- Alaris 04:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i am said no one got my pop reference.... [1] any way you should move this to axwind's page. like someone stated in the gwen thread he is on a war path.75.165.119.187 05:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You say what you think, Sins, but you don't back it up. Not everyone plays for just the gameplay. People do enjoy the stories as well. And I never said it had to get in the way of the monthly updates. And what I'm suggesting, Azazel, IS a retroactive change. And nothing very large or resource-intensive, either. So it shouldn't take much to do. Or didn't you read the last post I made? Swapping in just a few alternate lines of dialogue here and there depending on certain variables shouldn't be hard to do. It's been done before in GW. So we know it is doable. And I never meant to spam anything, I have minor edit set on by default, which means they shouldn't show up at all. But sometimes I don't realize I need/want to change something in an existing post right away. So lay off, Az. And fixing story continuity is not a waste, it makes the product better because the story is then more consistent within itself. People are disappointed with how it turned out, not just me. Here are two just from my original thread on the wiki, since you discount anyone who's not on it, Az:

Arduinna:

I was excited too about the prospect in meeting Gwen again. To say, it was a bit of a let down, meeting her in EotN, and her not acknowledging your hero. Maybe it's because all the trauma she has been through, getting captured by the Charr and all.

Mervil:

I am in full agreement with Axwind. The story of Gwen brings a bit of humanity to the game. Innocent child whose family is killed in the searing and she is captured by their killers. Everything is taken from her. She escapes and begins a crusade of vengeance. Then she meets up with her only link to her once happy childhood where she had people who cared for her. I too was disappointed in the reunion. SOMETHING should have been there. Some amount of recognition (even emotion) from the PH. Then there was the Wintersday quest. I definitely felt it was a step in the right direction. Finally, that aspect of love and hope that Gwen has missed out on in her lifetime was addressed. But again, some form of deeper friendship from the PH was needed. I don't think that some form of "human" side story is a bad thing in a game.

In short, I'm not the only one who wants this to be fixed. Let the story get addressed for once, it's just a few minor revisions. That's all. No quests, no big changes. Just a few alternate lines in certain places, depending on whether the character has the shred or has done its quest or not. A few alternate lines of dialogue. That's all. A relatively quick thing that can probably be squeezed in between other stuff. I'm sure something small like that would be doable, Linsey. --Axwind 05:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Axwind, extrapolation of this sort only works when you have a random sampling that is representative of the larger population as a whole. Even if one was to poll the entire wiki, GWO, Guru, whatever, that represents a fraction of the Guild Wars playerbase, and as already pointed out, they are mostly not at all representative of the "average player" either. And I think you'd agree that every player ought to have an equal say in what they want to see implemented into the game, if you are going to conduct these sorts of polls. One other thing to consider...a typical political poll in the U.S. will have 500-1,000 participants to be representative of the larger population, and the margin of error is around 3% for that. To get the margin of error to 1%, you'd need to increase that sample size to 10,000 participants. Even though Guild Wars has ~6 million players instead of ~300 million, that still goes to show that you'll need far more people than what you've got if you want your numbers to mean anything statistically.

That being said, I'll have to repeat myself on a point I made earlier: It doesn't matter how many people are for or against - this entire poll is meaningless - unless you have some massive overwhelming majority of Guild Wars players in favor...and you manage to keep that majority over time, thus showing it isn't a one-time fad or something, and truly the general community's opinion. This is due to the simple fact that the devs said no already. (Bobby Stein may have thought that the general idea is a pretty cool guy, but is he willing to overturn the EotN devs' decisions?) As you already note, there's an "even split" (and this is without anyone even being invited to "vote" yet), and so you've got quite a long way to go.

As to the difficulty of PvE: Almost everything in the game can be done with Hero/Hench, without relying on PvE skills or consumables, and the great majority of these things can not reasonably be classified as "hard". This is even more true for prepared human parties. (Tedious, yes, but not difficult.) The notable exceptions are a few things in Hard Mode such as DoA or Slavers' Exile...but even then, Shadow Form, 600/Smite, other things can make it cake. Vili >8< 05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Axwind, I never said you were the only one. And I read the guru and GWO threads last night. Some of them, such as gwmaster, sounded REALLY sarcastic. But even if every single person wants this - and I'd LOVE for some changes, any changes, if it adds more to the lore (which includes character personalities), but if Linsey said no, it's a no. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

EOTN (amended)

Sorry to do this, but I guess I didn't explain what I meant very well before, Linsey. When I asked if you could add something, all I meant was a few alternate lines of dialogue in certain places, that's all. Variations on the existing dialogue that would only be seen if the character has the tapestry shred (or has done its quest). No more than 2-3 lines or so in a given place, really. Most of a scene's dialogue would be the same either way, with only a couple lines differing between the two versions. As for where, only a couple places would need it done:

• The garden scene
• The Wintersday quest

As well as a couple extra lines in the initial dialogue and an alternate epilogue line. All told, it adds up to only about 7-10 lines or so of dialogue to write and code. It's not much to add, but it would fix things without needing anything else to be done and it would acknowledge outside the shred quest that the prior meeting happened, that it existed. That's all I'm asking for. No new quests, no new cutscenes. Just a few extra/alternate lines in a few places. I don't think it would be too hard to do and it wouldn't change the overall expansion that much. And the variations would only be seen pretty much by those who want to see them. Please let me know. Thanks! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Axwind (talk).

This would probably be better placed in the suggestions section - iirc, that is now done on user's own talk pages. Ashes Of Doom 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Linsey has already answered you. I undersatand that you feel stongly about this and really want it changed to how you envision it. But at this point, further posting just constitutes harassment to get your will, and that's not really acceptable. Backsword 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, her answer was based on my not wording my request right, so she didn't really understand what I was asking. I want to hear back from her about what I said above. --Axwind 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think she understood your request fine and her answer was no. She doesn't want to change a decision that was taken before by the team en masse for how to progress Gwen's storyline. Feel free to continue the debate here or on any of the pertinent topic which are on linsey's page at the mo, however don't be remaking the same topic over and over just to get a few more points across as it doesn't change the basis for Linsey's answer and spamming her page with the same suggestion, will just cause problems. -- Salome 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, she didn't, because she thought I meant adding quests and substantial content, which WASN'T what I asked. Understand that. --Axwind 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, she said she would not change existing content. She was talking about the content that was put in during EotN - i.e., about what you want. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you link me to where she said that, Az? I would like to see this resolved. Backsword 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of "this was a subject of discussion during EotN development and this is what was decided on. I'm not going to go back on the decisions that were deemed the right thing to do back then. I do understand where you are coming from, but I just don't feel right about going back on those decisions. Sorry." is so hard to understand? You can spam her page and get yourself a time out if that's what you wish to do, but she has already answered your question and no means NO. And why just Gwen specific dialogue? I've seen many places throughout all guild wars campaign's that could be written to be more specific or different. But that doesn't mean just because I think they should/could be written different that they should be because I want them that way. The stories/dialogues were written the way they were for a reason and theres not much anyone can do about it. Is the story/dialogue really that game breaking? Seriously, get over it.--BabyJ 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Backsword, her only response on the EOTN topic - "this was a subject of discussion during EotN development" meaning she knew it was about the stuff that is already in the game. At least, that is how I read it. And I agree with BabyJ, why should it be just Gwen's background touched on? Why not Adelbern, Evennia, or the others? They can add new stuff to add on (showed a little bit with the endgame area added to Prophecies). I'd love for more indepth stuff with the characters, but the Live Team will not change existing dialogues it will seem, so pointless to bring it up over and over. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to spam a page

Is not a way to get something you want. Linsey is unable to respond to suggestions at the moment. The suggestion to add specific lines of dialog to specific places is in fact a very *specific* suggestion, and so she cannot say anything. Continuing to make topics on her page is not going to make her listen to you. If you have a valid suggestion (I'm not saying you don't), please post it on a section of your userpage, and link to it once we have resolved the licensing issues. Ashes Of Doom 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Ashes said this is a very specific suggestion and you really should take his advice. I understand your suggestion perfectly (I just don't agree with it). Regardless of my personal feelings though, Linsey's page is not the place for suggestions. If you do try and spam her page with the same thing over and over, the admins will give you a wee time out to calm down. -- Salome 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I never gave any specific lines, so don't say I did. Just the general idea so she would know I was only proposing a small edit. Is that so hard to grasp? And she'll never look at userpages, it'll get forgotten if I leave it here.

Re: your latest comment on Linsey's talk page (I put it here becuase I dont want to add too much to her page). Remember this: Linsey cannot answer any "questions" or suggestions until the legal issues are resolved. It really is that simple. Do you need me to repeat it in all caps? With regard to the suggestions themselves, you may feel that they might not get read off of Linsey's page, but that is probably not true, as she makes a real effort to go out of her way to read stuff on userpages. Linsey's page is NOT THE PLACE FOR SUGGESTIONS. Ashes Of Doom 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Your question has been answered 3 times by Linsey. Continued argument is simply a willful creating of disruption on your part. Please drop it, or you will lose your editing privileges for a period of time. -- Wyn 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

EOTN 2 Continued from Linsey's Page

Axwind - this is a suggestion, and as it is not related to a recent update, Linsey would prefer not to have it on her page. Keep a section of your userpage for suggestions, and if you think it gets to a state in which you have some really amazing ideas, then you might want to share it with the devs, possibly after other players have given feedback. This is the third thime you have made this suggestion, and apart from the fact that Linsey has already said it is unlikely to happen, you persist on putting it in a place where it really shouldn't be in the first place. Linsey - you might want to reinforce your "No suggestions" preference at the top of the page. Ashes Of Doom 14:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that last point, there is a nice pink box up top for that. Ashes Of Doom

As I said, I didn't explain myself fully when I asked her the first time. So her answer is based on my not having explained well enough what I meant in the intial post. Which is why I said what I did above. And I want an answer to my question. How long does it take to write, code and test less than a dozen lines of text-only dialogue? And why is it such a problem to have such a small adjustment made? --Axwind 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Linsey has not said it is a problem. She's said she doesn't want to do it as the decision was made beforehand not to do something of this ilk. Further to this, what you are posting is a SUGGESTION! As stated Linsey cannot comment on suggestions at this time due to licensing. Furthering this debate is really benefiting no one and is just cluttering Linsey's talk page which is already cluttered enough, so i'm going to respectfully ask people to just leave this topic alone for now til it can be tidied away so we don't add another wall of text about an already answered question. (I personally would archive it myself, but as Linsey and Wyn seem to be working as a team on this page, I think I'm gonna leave it to one of them in this instance.) -- Salome 15:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The licensing issues, if I understand right, apply only to specific ideas, not broad general things like what I've asked for here. I never said what the new lines should be, because that would be going into that gray area and I'm trying to avoid that. And what Linsey referred to in dev deciding not to do was gear the expansion toward her and add lots of content toward that end, which is NOT what I'm asking for here. It is NOT what I'm asking for here. Let me make that clear. A few dialogue tweaks is all. Tweaks that would only be seen by those with the tapestry shred or its quest and thusly, only by those who WANT to see them. How can I make that more clear? For those without the shred, the expansion would be the same as it is now. The only difference for those who do have it or its quest is a few extra or alternate lines of text-only dialogue in certain places that I've pointed out above. That is all. And my question still hasn't been answered by Linsey. How long does it take to write, code and test less than a dozen lines of text-only dialogue?

Don't archive this because the question I just asked HASN'T been answered. And I'll keep asking it until it is. --Axwind 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no you wont. If after this post has been archived you continue to re-post on Linsey's talk page about this topic, you will get banned for wiki-disruption, just like any other user would. -- Salome 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The licensing issues apply to any suggestion, it does not say "broad suggestions are allowed!!!!!". An idea, is an idea. To answer your question, it wouldn't take much time at all if you just think about it as "write/code/test less than a few dozen lines", but you're ignoring that they are a company, first they'd have to plan this out, then they need to pass that over the lore team for English writing, and then the lore team will probably discuss it a lot because there's many many ways to get the same point across on what would be the best way (is this too wordy? not wordy enough? etc), but then they have to translate every single word into 9 other languages, which is very time consuming because there's various ways each line could be translated into each language correctly and that has to be discussed, then they'd of course have to pass this over to QA or have someone go over it to check for typos in all 10 languages, then they'd have to push it Live and make sure they didn't break anything. It's hardly as simple as "write, code, and test less than a dozen lines of text-only dialogue."

Furthermore, harassing a user (yes, this is what you're threatening) isn't going to make them any more likely to take you seriously and isn't going to help your "cause" (she already said no though and knew exactly what you were asking) and I'm pretty sure it'll get you banned. Linsey doesn't have to answer you (even though she did because she's cool), she does it because it gives a connection to the community and she loves the game. Abusing that relationship isn't very nice of you. DarkNecrid 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion on his talk page, as Linsey feels obligated to read all walls of text on her userpage, and she doesn't really need to be concerned about further discussion. Ashes Of Doom 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be a little more involved than I said, DN, but it's still only a handful of lines. And don't put thoughts in her head. I'd like to hear from her that she knew what I meant initially. I'd like to hear from her an answer to my amended statement. And the question about how long still hasn't been answered, either. If this goes on my page, she'll never say anything about it again. It'll be forgotten. And I don't want to leave it unresolved. --Axwind 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where she legally cannot answer feedback at this stage. That is to say she cannot read, respond or implement your suggestions so perhaps you should just be quiet until we get those legal issues sorted out. Have a nice day ^_^ Misery 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter how long it would take to implement what you ask, although I guarantee that is it longer than you think, getting the timing right on dialogue is NOT easy and I'm sure you aren't taking the editing, localization or QA time into account either. The point is, regardless of whether you think it is a good idea, there are hundreds of thousands of other people in just the ACTIVE player base and you aren't representing all of them. But even that doesn't matter, what matters is that I've already said that I am not comfortable with making any changes to the way this is handled in game. That doesn't mean I don't want to spend Live Teams time on this because it is minor, it means that I don't want us to do it at all. Nothing to do with the time it takes. This is the third time you've posted about it on my page in the last couple weeks and the answer is the same. I consider this topic closed and I ask that you don't press it further. My page is big enough without lengthy topics being posted multiples times on it. - Linsey talk 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but what I'm saying is that it would only be seen by those who want to see it. So it wouldn't cause players discomfort because only those who want to do the background stuff would see any differences. And it can just be the garden scene and the line in the epilogue, if it makes it easier. 2-3 lines total at most when you add them together. How does having minor variations in dialogue in just two places break the game? I honestly don't understand. It's just swapping one or two lines in for another if a character has the shred/its quest or not and leaving the rest of the dialogue exactly as it is. The timing is already set, I think, because it's just a conditional one-for-one (or two-for-two) swap. I don't understand how players would get upset or feel weird about something they might never even see anyway. --Axwind 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been answered and Linsey says the matter is closed. In short stop posting about it! If I see your name on a post relating to this again arguing the point on Linsey's page, you will be getting a wee time out. -- Salome 19:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just have her answer the above questions, Salome. How does a conditional line-for-line dialogue swap (2 lines in one scene and 1 in the other) that is only different if a character has a particular item/quest break the game? How? How does such a small thing go at all against how the devs handled things when it changes so little? And why is it everybody thinks the dev team can do no wrong? How can something that only some players would see be at all disruptive to the game? Something that is within the player's complete control to avoid if he or she wants to? Linsey's concerns are unnecessary because the alternate dialogue can be easily avoided if a player doesn't want to see it. That is the whole point to making the extra lines alternate, to limiting them to those with the tapestry shred and/or its quest.

Salome, apparently you don't actually read the dialogue in the game when playing. Because if you did, you would know that Gwen does, in fact, consider a Prophecies Hero character with the shred her friend, as her quest dialogue proves. It is indisputable fact. Unlike your misinterpretation. So any alternate lines would be perfectly natural in terms of logic. And I can prove that the devs did make a clear mistake with this story. In the garden scene, her conversation is the same whether she knew your character in pre or not. Yet, logically, it shouldn't be. Because if she's talking to someone she had once known, that someone would already know of her love for the flowers. And she would know that he or she knows. Simple deductive logic dictates that the initial lines of dialogue should be slightly different in that case to account for that. But they aren't. It is a clear continuity error. But I guess Anet doesn't care about getting things right. Otherwise they'd prove it by fixing this. Just because they think they did it right doesn't mean they did. Because obviously they missed this. And I would like to see Linsey's response to this clear mistake. If she can look past her own page for a moment, that is. --Axwind 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A "conditional line-for-line dialogue swap" can be a hassle in many ways. Any change to existing code must undergo QA testing, because any erroneous or accidental deletion of something as simple as a colon, equal sign, or closing parenthesis can result in seriously borking the game. Also, you don't seem to realize it or didn't read it from Linsey's page, but any additional text must be localized into the ten-or-so different languages the game is offered in, which costs both time and money in amounts that are not insignificant. And, like you point out yourself, the added context would only be seen by some people, the majority of which probably wouldn't notice in the first place. I don't consider myself dense or unable to follow a plot line, but I can say that I didn't notice the inconsistency, simply because it's so small. When the Live Team undertakes improving upon something, the amount of effort put into doing so has to equal to the reward to the players feel when receiving such an update, or its simply a waste of their time. Would it be better if every plot hole were stitched up? Of course. But the large majority of fictitious literature in the world has some plot holes, so expecting ArenaNet to spend so much time and resources (even if you think it wouldn't be so) to fix one teensy-tiny plot hole is unfair to them. Pestering someone until you get an answer is one thing. Pestering someone until you get the answer you want is regarded as immature (this is regarding your actions, not you as a person). --★KOKUOU★ 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is, it's only 2-3 lines at most. Less than what would be in a single quest, really. And how do you know what goes on? Do you work for Anet? The reason I say limit it to certain characters is because not everyone wants to see it. And I don't want to force that on players who don't want to see it. As well as the fact that storywise it would only affect a certain kind of character anyway. I don't understand how translating a couple short lines takes so much work. Think of it less as an update and more as a story patch (akin to the minor gameplay patches or bug fixes we sometimes get), and you'll have a more accurate idea of what I mean. Why should the story be always ignored? Why can't it be addressed as well? Nothing in the story ever gets fixed or addressed. Nothing. Yet it's just as technically possible to do so as it is to address gameplay. Unlike literature, in GW it is technically possible to fix errors in the story. That's what people keep missing. --Axwind 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do translation for a living, and some for the game industry no less, so I know how much back-and-forth work there is when it comes to localizing even just a few lines. Now, times that by about ten languages, and all of a sudden you have a considerable amount of work. No, I don't work for ArenaNet, but do you? Do you know what goes on? Unless you do, you're making more assumptions than I have about how easy it would be to do something like this. The fact is, you've already asked someone who does work for ArenaNet (three times, to boot) and she's already told you this just isn't feasible. Do you think she's lying just to get rid of you? As a long time contributor here, and having met Linsey in person (even if it was only for a couple hours), I can tell you that she's extremely nice and wouldn't lie to you just to get you to go away. She's been extremely communicative with the community, so you should cut her some more slack. (I hope that didn't sound creepeh to Linsey... o_O) --★KOKUOU★ 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When I said it wasn't much, I meant in comparison to the amount of work required for a new quest or entire scene. Sorry for the confusion. But I still do not understand how just adding those few alternate lines would conflict with how the game was originally handled, since overall it doesn't change much at all. That was her objection. And she still hasn't answered that question. Why is she uncomfortable with changing how it was handled? And what would make her comfortable? She's never explained it much. I believe you about her, I just wish that for once in the history of GW, the story would actually get some attention from the Live Team, and not just the gameplay. But I guess that's too much to ask. You say it's a lot of work to translate, but how? I honestly don't understand. You guys act as if you had to walk to all the different regions. And she didn't say it wasn't feasible, she said she just didn't want to do it. There's a difference. --Axwind 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As language is not the easiest thing in the whole world to translate. Just for a very small example and this isn't even going into the truly complicated areas of it, but I was once partnered with a flemish person and I said something about holding them in my arms in a valentines card. Later on that day I got a phonecall from them, telling me that "wapens" apparently means Arms as in missiles and the likes, not ones actual arms. Thus I had sent my honey a valentines card basically saying I wanted to blow them up. Fortunately they found it hysterical (and proceeded to tell all their friends and show them the card, the shite!), but this is just a wee simple anecdote to try and highlight some of the basic problems which can arise. Their are however much more complicated issues in transaltion, with syntax and the like and how some languages dont even have the word to express the thought behind it. For example their are several tribes in Africa which don't have a word for "try" or "attempt" as you simply do something or you dont. Translation is much more complicated than most people think it is. I've been fortunate enough to live in Antwerp and Paris and in the short times I was there, I saw the problems which could arise just translating from English into Flemish and French (which roughly have the same alphabet and follow the same basic language rules). I can only imagine the problems which can arise in transalting into languages which don't follow the same basic rules as our own, for example chinese and Japanese. Also in answer to why she probably doesnt want to make the change, would you want to second guess your work colleagues if they all got together as a group and decided to take the game one direction and then you just decided by yourself to completly undermine that and take it the opposite way? If you would, you wouldn't be employed very long or very popular in your office. -- Salome 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But why does the addition of just 3 lines at most constitute moving away from the original direction? How does such a small revision - in comparison to the size of the expansion as a whole - do that? Especially when only a portion of the playerbase would see the difference in the first place? Why can't story be addressed like gameplay issues? Why can't it get the same tweaks and patches that gameplay does, to make the story as a whole more solid and consistent? And it wasn't an overwhelming decision from what she said, more a split. So I'd hardly call it an overwhelming majority that won. --Axwind 00:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) in response and addendum to what you said to me above. You may be missing the concept and implementation of dramatic prose and timing in Gwen's speech in the garden. The monologue in the garden is just that. It's very carefully worded to be inclusive of both none ascalonians and ascalonian heroes. Notice the use of the language, it's clearly her voicing her loss and taking you on a wee walk down memory lane. Her speaking her own thoughts out loud. The speech isnt supposed to be a wee chat to the hero about their past. It's all about what she lost and how those flowers signify hope to her and the chance to take back her homeland, you are only their to hear her pain and her motivations, you are not their to go "duh i know you like flowers! I gave you loads of them, in a creepy taking-things-from-strangers-kinda-way, when you were a kid". Also notice that when she says "we", it could mean her and other ascalnoians if you were a "foreign" hero, but her saying "we" could also be inclusive of the hero if they are in fact ascalonian themselves. When I first saw the gwen text, I was quite impressed with how they managed to be inclusive of both lore lines without showing a leaning towards either one. EDIT also in response to your last message you clearly either don't understand or you don't want too and I don't think I can make you understand. I will try briefly one last time, Linsey can add content or fix/patch bugs or oversights, however she can't make unilateral dicisions about lore which has already been decided upon by a team of people. It's bad work etiquette and its out and out rude. Further to this, your suggestion very simply put, isn't worth the amount of effort for the amount of gain. As you said it doesn't change the game that much, as it doesnt add anything to it, so why bother changing it all? -- Salome 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To differentiate. It's more her saying something like "I've always loved these flowers. You gave me so many back then, remember?" and a response from the PH, this for example: "Yeah. You wanted to have a whole vase full of them." And the rest goes on as it currently does. It's fond remembrance on the part of the characters and a nod to those that actually spent time with her in pre and an acknowledgement outside the tapestry shred quest that it happened. That's all. Answer me this. Would you treat someone that you had met before, that you considered a friend and still do, like someone you had just met? Would you treat them as if you had never met them, even if you had? --Axwind 01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If i was a fictitous computer game character in a fictitous world with fictitous flowers and a boat load of real people would have to spend time and effort on me making a pointless nicety? Then yeh, I think i would be fine with being the brooding silent type. -- Salome 01:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about realistically. Because that's what matters. It's not pointless to show appreciation for those who enjoyed a part of a story you made, and to make that story consistent within itself. You miss the point that the reason I ask for so little is because I know Linsey doesn't want to make any big alterations. I thought something small would be doable without affecting the lore, which you still haven't said how it would do that since it doesn't change any existing facts about it. It's not a nicety, it's an acknowledgement outside the quest that she remembers the character and the time they spent together. And anyway, her behavior toward a PH outside the quest does not match up at all with her dialogue in the quest. It's a total discontinuity. As is the absence of any reference in the Wintersday quest to their prior meeting. Because in that instance, she is NOT alone. She DOES have a friend from her past with her in the present. She hasn't lost everyone. But that is never acknowledged at all. Not once. --Axwind 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Axwind, adding a condition to dialogue as you have suggested is harder than actually doing the entire thing over. The coding is much more complex than just having a standard dialogue trigger on an event. The software would have to check to see that the specified conditions were met. Linsey has told you she is not making any changes to the decisions that were made in how this dialogue works regardless. That should have been an end to this discussion. -- Wyn 02:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the harm when the discussion is on my space, Wyn? I've stopped cluttering up hers, let me do what I want on mine. I don't know much about programming, but however would be easiest to do it would work. Or do you and Linsey like leaving blatant mistakes unaddressed? --Axwind 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how what is being discussed a mistake, or blatant. Only those who actually read the dialogue even know that Gwen addresses everyone the same, no matter which continent one is from. And only those who like depth in characters care about it (most of those on your list probably were sarcastic *those from guru* or meant in general, and in general I should be a yes, but not in redoing when Linsey has no intent on doing so). So I fail to see why this discussion still continues, clogging Linsey's page or not, discussing this has no point (and it was my foolish mistake for moving the discussion, I admit >_>). -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the dialogue, you'd know it's a mistake. Just read what I said a couple paragraphs above, I explained it pretty clearly. Many players play for the story as well as the gameplay. Why should games be solely about the gameplay? They can be so much more, but people like you don't seem to want to see that. And no, go to the threads and see for yourself. They meant what they said. Don't make assumptions when you haven't even looked. --Axwind 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

summary of this thread. -Auron 06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stow it, Auron. Again, you make a generalization with insufficient backup. Did you ask everyone in the entire player population, or at least several hundred? I didn't think so. Without that, no definitive answer can be given. But I guess speaking constructively is beyond your capabilities. --Axwind 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask everyone in the entire player population either, yes you speak as if your stuff should be done because the "community" wants it, when in reality most of the community definitely doesn't care. The average person doesn't read the Quest text, the book text, the mission cutscenes, etc. Please don't say Auron is making a generalization with insufficient backup when that's what you've been doing for the past several days. DarkNecrid 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You just did the same thing yourself, DN, so shut up and do as you tell me to do. I at least made some effort in that area. You did not. --Axwind 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard Entertainment actually had some stuff about this at the GDC, a majority of their 11.5 million players (which means at minimum ~6 million people) skip all their quest dialogue, cinematics, etc. They don't pay attention to them. And World of Warcraft has a huge fanbase dedicated to lore because of 3 games and tons of books, if a majority of the people playing it skip that crap, people in a game with no pre-existing lore aren't going to fare much better. The average person really doesn't care dude. The problem with your effort is that Wiki + forums combined aren't even a majority of the players playing Guild Wars, and so even if everyone on Wiki, GWO, Guru, and every other forum said "yes I'd love that", you wouldn't even be close to what the greater Guild Wars community thinks. DarkNecrid 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard is not Anet, so your comparison means nothing. It's a different company, different game. --Axwind 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know Blizzard isn't ArenaNet, that wasn't the point at all. Blizzard has a universe that has infinitely more lore than this game, has a fanbase a lot lot larger than this game, and even then a majority of their players still skip it. It doesn't matter who makes the game, what matters is that a majority of people skip the lore in these types of games because they aren't interested in it. DarkNecrid 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interoffice Memorandum

To: All

Subject: Beatings

Message:

Please stop beating me!

Yours Truly,

Dead Horse

Drakora 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)