User talk:Linsey Murdock/FAQ/Temp

Which questions?

Which questions does the community most ask of Linsey? -- Wyn 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"I want a new Realm of the Gods/dungeon/explorable area/mission, why haven't you people made one yet?", which she has pretty much already answered here. It's a long reply, but I think it belongs in a FAQ.

Random questions about the Hall of Monuments, especially given the incoming update. This is the kind of question that likely will get a "we will talk about it when we can" reply.

The good old question, "When are we going to get news about GW2?".

And if Linsey wants, we could point people making suggestions to the wiki suggestion pages. Erasculio 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Will you ever add an auction house/hairdresser/character renaming/etc.?" These always seem to pop up, so seems like a good idea to have the permanent no in the faq.--Pyron Sy 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it was not brought up yet. Include the Ignore List/Friend List extension questions. They get asked regularly too if I'm correct. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "Why aren't you CRM instead of Regina?" That one seems to be coming up more and more. -- Wyn 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The JQ/FA leeching question comes up often not just on this talk page. As does sync entry to RA. --Aspectacle 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Linsey will join this conversation soon. Since the HoM update is something that IS coming, and we've been promised updates, should there be a special place for that? Rather than on the FAQ? I hate to weigh her down with too many places to go, but a little creative design work on her talk page (sort of like Gaile's and Emily's) and people could be directed to specific areas, like this FAQ and a specific HoM update journal. I also think a simple template like the {{noarchive}} one that is used on the Ask pages that could notify someone that their question isn't going to be archived, or get a specific answer because it has either been answered recently, or is in Linsey's FAQ. That way Linsey would not even need to respond to some of the stuff that comes her way, over and over and over. -- Wyn 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else's text go a few sizes smaller when looking at the FAQ page? Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the font on the tabs at the top of the page ("user page", "discussion", etc) and the bar at the left becomes smaller on the FAQ for me too.

I think it would be great if Linsey helped us to make the questions, since she has a better perspective than we do about which questions are asked more often (as she answers them all, so she probably knows better which ones have been repeated the most).

Regarding the current questions, I would suggest removing the "ever". The last time someone from Arena Net said they were not ever going to add a requested feature, it led to some complications (Gaile and the character slots thing). Erasculio 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Question: Additional guild ranks — Jon Lupen 16:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply put the questions up to get things started, of course Linsey is most welcome to change them, or any of you as well. As for the formatting, I simply copied the shell formatting from her Journal page for the FAQ. -- Wyn 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A recent thing is being asked a lot, what this "We want players to feel connected." actually means. So far there's no defination to what it means, I don't think I've seen Regina or Linsey answer this. I think it fits in the FAQ. Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the "feel connected" thing is probably just a temporary reaction to the one dev update. I'd expect that one to pass, but we'll see. It might persist now that it has been mentioned. -- WarBlade 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, most of the time that question is just part of a complain, not something truly being asked. I see no point for it on the FAQ. Erasculio 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We should add a question along the lines of "OMG, your talk page is too big, please archive it!" since a week ago there were around 3 sections saying that on Linsey's talk page : P Erasculio 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked a couple of the existing questions a little bit and added a whole bunch more. I even answered a batch of the questions. I know there are more that can go up there! I even thought of a few more while I was answering, but I forgot them by the time my thought train had reached the station. Keep up the good work guys!! - Linsey talk 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your answer to the first question (asking about Guild Wars 2 release dates) your final sentence strikes me as being a purely 'Linsey Murdock perspective.' There's nothing wrong with that, however seeing as GW2 is not really the primary focus for the Guild Wars Live team, perhaps a touch of the ArenaNet position on that question would be warranted? Other responses from ArenaNet to that same question have mentioned that news will be published on guildwars.com when it becomes available. Saying that might offer a little more closure to the question than, "I don't have any more information beyond that." -- WarBlade 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot quicker for me to just answer these FAQ questions as if I was being asked on my talk page rather than drafting a formal response. Since I don't even really have time to be working on the wiki at all (I do most of my work here between 11pm-5am), I'm not likely to change that since it is faster and works for me. If you guys feel that the answers on this FAQ should be more formal, you can worry about editing or adding additional information. Sorry and thanks for any work you put into this. - Linsey talk 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

can we get a content box and maybe some categorizes so its not just all walls of text? yet again i would make the changes myself but i am a wiki scrub.75.165.125.104 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Tag

There is a missing closing tag on this page (which causes the change to the basic wiki layout), but I can't quite figure out what or where. 145.94.74.23 12:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At least to me, it's fixed now. Erasculio 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I am pretty sure that isn't how it was intended to be formatted (unless my knowledge of wikicode is feebler than I thought) Vili 12:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Journal update - Feb 5 sorry i know this is in the worng spot but its locked...

i just wanted to say thanks for the up date and the info its exciting to hear that there is change coming to the game and i hope its all good stuff that has been on the back burner or some of the more FAQ stuff HINT HINT (being able to change hair, appearance, a advancements to the way things are sold ie a market place...ect) keep up the good work! a WOOT WOOT as well!75.165.102.188 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LMAO yeah its locked for a reason were all excited but give a lady a break okys. We can wait to chat to her after she gets better. ~Lulu

A locked page should not mean... "Oh! Let's go find another one that isn't!" Please wait until she has time to get caught up. She's trying to concentrate on doing her job (designing stuff for us in the game), not responding to every little thing. -- Wyn 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

first off wyn i was paying her a complement stop being so srz buzness jeez, secondly don't care third didn't want a response.75.165.102.188 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sysoping is serious business, you shouldn't poke fun at it >.> — Jon Lupen 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I recognize that communication with me is a little difficult right now. One good way you could make sure that I see comments on this stuff is to post on the forums. Especially after I post a journal entry, I watch the forums to see if it has been picked up there and read all the comments if it has. Like Wyn said, this isn't the place for commenting on my journal post, but I do appreciate the sentiment! Just take it to the forums next time :D <3 Linsey talk 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which forums? 000.00.00.00 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know they are active on both Guru and GWO forums, which others, I'm not sure of. -- Wyn 03:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do watch both Guru and GWO, particularly the threads which relay information posted on my talk. I'm getting close to being done with all this archiving, so hopefully I'll be able to unlock my pages soon. - Linsey talk 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the direct link to the GWO Community Relations watch Forum: http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=151 On the top, you can find the sticky threads for the last active months. I try to keep it up to date, with things posted by Linsey, Regina and other ANet people active on the wiki. Gorani 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is too much work for our Developers... => Why not let the community help?

Hi, I read your FAQ, it's really nice we finally get some more information. As you wrote many things require a bunch of work - like creating armors and so on. So, my question is: why don't you let the community help? Per example armors or weapons. I guess you know TexMod. It's a nice programm that help you change your armors or weapons look. Well, I'm really surprised how many good artist we have in our community. The only disadventage TexMod has: you're the only one who can see it. So my suggestion is: why not release community made armors? Sure, the skeletal structure might be the same as the one from other armors, but anyways some look really, really awesome (for example I once saw a combination from an elementalist armor and the ritu fow armor tattoo, it was awesome!, too bad I cant find the link :/ ). And I guess they wouldnt be to difficult to implent either. So, would this be a possiblilty to get new skins? I mean, those artists would just have to send the textures they made and the live team only had to copy the costs etc. for the normal armor and add a copy with that new skin. What armor that should be implented could be voted: per example in the big forums like Guru or Wartower. This would minimize the effort and additionally give some clever heads and precise fingers the chance to etneralize theirselves in Guild Wars 1 :)

.Nyall --92.201.67.75 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why we can't do this is for legal reasons, but second on the list is that even when we do outsource to other professionals in the field, it still requires quite a bit of time to polish what we get to our standards before it can be put into the game. - Linsey talk 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, I guess many many people would be ready to help for free. But if you say it isnt posssible it isnt :/ thanks for your answer anyways .Nyall--92.201.67.75 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A: for Will there be any new missions/dungeons/realm of the gods/explorable areas added to Guild Wars?

Have you considered reusing already existing areas? Maps that are present in game, but which are severelly underused or which could be used for more than just one thing?

Examples are: BMP Mission areas. Prophecies mission areas, NF Starter areas, Factions and NF challenge mission areas, Old PvP outposts, PvP maps (you did that before with Tombs!), some cinematics-sets etc. Some explorables also call for being used for ... well ... anything as all they do is just exist. There is at least 10 explorables in prophecies does not have any quest taking place there! All material for new explorables or missions or surface dungeons.

While not saving THAT much time (only terrain could be really reused), some would make terrific explorables as missions that take place there are quite nonlinear and design is stunning (Wilds mission area for example). And for some odd reason, some prohpecies missions and outposts that are near them show signs of being connected by portals which were later removed.

Zweistein 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of heroes from PvP

Personally, Im really looking forward to that answer. Many more people want a clear statement from Anet what you think about 'bots' in person vs person games. I hope to hear from you soon. -- Cobra 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the answer has arrived on this question. Saying that I'm disappointed doesn't express it very well. People never had the option to play with heroes before Nightfall came. In Tyria and Cantha it was never a problem, finding people to play PvP with. From my point of view it doesn't need any "exploring". Disable heroes in the Battle Island completely. It is called a Person vs Person battle. There should not be a discussion about it. But its just my 2 cents. And besides that, I stopped playing. -- Demonic Cobra 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

next content update

Maybe we should add a question to the faq at the very top of the FAQ page asking "What new content/features will be included in the next upcoming content update in (insert estimated month of update)?" and then Lynsey can list the new features planned for each upcoming update as and when she is sure it's going to be added. As I can see that that question is going to be come alot more popular as we go forward and it would also be an easy way to keep a concise list of things to come each update, without it being scattered through archives. Admittedly it would mean that it would a be a non-static question on the faq page, as the answer would always be changing depending upon what update we're awaiting, but still it might be useful and it would allow people to feel more informed about what's happening right at the moment, as I think that's where alot of the frustration is stemming from, is that alot of peeps are feeling disconnected from the game and from the dev team. What do you guys think? -- Salome 11:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need that: We have Upcoming changes and features on the main page, good visible to everyone in the same box as Game updates. BigBluetalk 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Linsey is planning to add some of that kind of information to her talk header once she works out the posting rules (it will replace the lock notice). That way the information can be kept current. The purpose of the FAQ is to provide static answers to the most frequently asked questions, not provide update information. -- Wyn 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

True, it was just incase it becomes a very frequent question. Also in response to Blue, Although I see your point, having that info somewhere on Linsey's page is a good idea also, as that way people can see a dev directly communicating with the community, which the perceived lack there of is currently causing issues within the player base. -- Salome 15:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

More questions for FAQ

→ moved from User talk:Linsey Murdock

All the questions that people want to know the answer to, such as Q: Will the 3-hero restriction be lifted so we can have 7 heroes in a party? Q: Will heroes be removed from PvP? Q: Will Henchmen skill bars be update?

These are the questions that flood GW suggestion pages and regina's talk page. If there is no answer, at least remove to questions from the list so they don't taunt us with hope. It's an easy way to avoid people flooding your page, having to lock it. --adrin 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to answer them. I just don't have time right now. - Linsey talk 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New armor

Ok, I realize that the FAQ says there will be no new armor made. That is fine, I can understand that time and staff are limited at this point for Guild Wars. However, what about beta armors that were removed? A lot of those armors were very much liked and many were disappointed to see them not be implemented into the game (I personally was upset when I found out that Elementalist Aziure's armor was removed). Maybe something to think about? :o) --Shadowphoenix 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FAQ page has been inactive for a month

Maybe it's time to answer the questions people actually care about now? --adrin 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you didn't read Linsey's answer 3 inches above this post? --Arduinna 12:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's spring break, atm I'd personally find it unpleasant to use my free time posting answers to angry questions on a wiki just to appease a vocal minority. I'm sure Linsey feels similar. Vili 12:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah ur right. i give up anyway QQ --adrin 12:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

With the April update coming in just a few weeks, you really need to cut some slack here Adrin. The GW Live Team consists of a total of 2 people. If you haven't noticed, both of their talk pages are being filled with walls of text. Do you work your job 24/7? If not, why do you expect them to? In case you haven't realized it, answering these questions is actually part of her job, unlike the rest of us who just do this for fun. -- Wyn 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, with the April Update I don't always get time to even eat lunch, let alone any kind of free time. Since I do all my wiki work entirely off the books, it's hard to find time for it when all my off the books time is taken up by working on the build. I was feeling pretty stressed yesterday so I took a break from the build to calm down a bit and answered a bunch more questions here. Enjoy! - Linsey talk 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

holy sh*t!

1 month/quest? are u srs? coz i dont think i can believe that... - wuhy 86.101.134.142 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the number of people that appear in the credits, the time between release of campaigns, and the number of quests, it's actually impossible, unless a lot of quests are made at the same time. It must be a wrong explanation or an exaggeration. MithTalk 12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would guess they have several quests in different stages of development at a time when they are creating a new campaign, ie. quest 1 goes from developer to writer to artist to programmer to QA..., when quest one leaves developer, quest two is started, etc. To develop a single quest I can see it taking a month total without any problem. -- Wyn 12:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is they need to test them and whatnot. 1 month does seem like a hell of a lot of time, especially for a professional (OK big quests will take a while but short simple ones shouldn't) but you have to bear in mind that if you're not careful you get shoddy, buggy quests with spelling mistakes and stuff. Given it's just design, though, I wouldn't have thought something like A Decayed Monument would take all that long, though. 86.26.204.160 09:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for armor sets, there are 99 armor sets in nightfall(also counting hero armors), i cant imagine you had 198 SENIOR artists to make that in half of a year... - Wuhy 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wynthyst, and suspect there's a misunderstanding involving latency and throughput, it may take a month to get a single quest from start to finish due to various bottlenecks (such as waiting for the next build), but that's not the only thing they'll be doing, designers and writers will be busier early on, coders will be busier in the middle of quest developement and localizers will be needed needed more near the end. Anyway, each campaign only has about 200 quests, so one month per quest seems like it could be realistic, particularly of the people working on quests are also working on more than one quest at a time due to bottlenecks, or are working on other non-quest projects. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<3

Q: Will heroes be removed from PvP?

A: We recognize the problem they are causing in PvP and would like to do this but there are concerns about how it will affect players' ability to get in and play. So, yes we want to do this, but we need to fully explore the situation before we do it. I would like to address this issue as soon as possible but it needs to at least wait until the April build is done.

Just had to say I <3 you now ^^ Lilondra *panda* 19:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do fully explore the issue, too. Heroes are hurting PvP atm, but it would be a shame if they were removed entirely. 86.26.204.160 10:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. When it comes down to either asking people to get a little dedication (picking up groups really isn't that hard) or allowing people to continue to run bots (that's all heroes are) in PvP, there really shouldn't be much to explore. If you want to find a "shame", look at their induction into PvP. Raine - talk 10:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Character-based Titles

Q: Will "insert random title here" be made account wide?

A: No. I have already evaluated the titles in the game when developing the big title update in November 2008 and I have decided that there aren't any reasons compelling enough to warrant additional titles being made account wide.

I hate to bring this up when its already on the FAQ, but is there any chance the "money" titles (drunk/sweets/party) at the very least could be reconsidered? I mainly ask this because there's no good way of getting party points (People are buying and paying a lot for them, but few have them to sell). The Gaile event that gave double party points is not a repeating event as far as I understand, which is where most people got their party points (and was an event I was out of town for).

I have party points (used) strewn over many characters from before the time I decided to just lump all my titles onto one guy, but if the titles are never made account-wide, I'm *really* going to have to grind for max party points. I'm a gamer, but I'm also a full-time programmer. I don't play for more than a few hours a day and I absolutely refuse to make use of macros, exploits, or RMT to get titles for me. The problem recently became further insulting when a bunch of "in-house" exploiters got their max party titles for free with the EL Mischievous Tonic bug.

To be frank, I don't see much good reason in making these titles account-wide, but I also don't see much good reason for keeping them character-based. You might say, "but it doesn't make sense to have them account-wide, I would be an Incorrigible Ale-Hound from my brother's drinking problem!" But in the same vein, it also doesn't make sense to have wisdom or treasure hunter account-wide. The only difference between them is that those two provide a small salvage/retention increase which people hardly care about as they only want the monuments (myself included...).

I know this might be an "out of the way" thing to do, especially with the April update coming, but it can't be too hard to do as quite a bit of code reuse from the wisdom/treasure hunter patch can be done. I'm not really concerned about the LDoA or Survivor titles being account-wide, because if the money titles are made account-wide then there's practically nothing to stop someone from rerolling for those titles, aside from making them play the game again for all the PvE "accomplishment" titles.

I know someone is going to immediately jump on my case telling me that GW2 is far off and the monuments are account-wide, or that you can get 2 party points or something by doing the Snowman dungeon. I only have 2-3 hours a day I can spend on this game, if not something else simply because I don't feel like grinding. I just want to ask you to reconsider the decision on some of these titles and give my honest feelings on why I think the party title at the very least should be account-wide.

Thank you for your time. 67.189.102.201 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to jump at you ;). But you are right, GW2 is far off. And somwhere during the last years ANet decided that it is better if people kept playing GW1 until then, while initially they advertised that GW1 has no monthly fees and therefore you can stop playing the game at any time and then come back months later to play it again. The latter is of course still true, but I guess by now they're afraid that you actually won't come back to GW1 or GW2 but play something else instead. So they want you to have something to do every day.

At that point they came up with the first grind/money-sink titles (what easier way to give people something to do without having to add much to the game?) and over time added more and more of these. Unfortunately the people ANet listened to, those crying on the forums "Oh, I have nothing to do in GW, the game is dead!", were mostly those who have the time to play 4-5 hours every day (and probably play only one character anyway) but didn't want to PvP. Nobody really considerd casual players and/or players who prefer playing all classes when creating those titles (obviously these weren't QQ'ing on forums, they were busy playing the game).

It looks like they realised by now that they can't continue down that road, hence the "Zaishen Daily Quests" in the upcoming big update. But IMHO that doesn't mean they shouldn't fix the badly designed existing stuff and make those consumable titles account-wide (and while they're at it, make the alcohol title a point-based title instead of minute-based, a game rated 12+ shouldn't really glorify alcohol consumption that way).

On a side-note: I play GW since its release, and I had a couple of month-long timespans since then where I played different games. I always came back to GW, not because of titles but because of the game itself, its mechanics and design. ANet should really trust more in their capability to create a great game than listen to the "I want WoW without the monthly fee - give me grind!" cryers.

OK, simply writing "I support your request" would have been shorter, but it was a good opportunity to bring up the stuff above ;) Sorry about the additional wall of text, Linsey. Xelonir 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Linsey for this once while she was online - she shot me down without really providing any reason. It is kinda dumb that I have all these Candy Canes, but no reason to use them on my primary/titles char who has already maxed all the PvE titles. I would really like to see these combined just as Wisdom and Treasure were. One of the reasons for combining Wisdom/Treasure titles was to give players greater freedom to play all their chars and enjoy those benefits they had already earned. How is drunk/party/sweet substantially different? 65.189.40.90 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Wisdom and Treasure have a direct impact on gameplay by determining salvage and lockpick retention rates. The consumable titles are a gold sink.--Pyron Sy 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay impact or not, titles are nice to have and it sucks to, for example, have enough vanqs to get the title, but spread out over your account. Obviously Survivor is a special case, but I see literally no good reason to not make the other titles account-wide except to encourage boring grinding, which IMO has no place within Guild Wars. Impaled 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Menu

I'm not sure how easy/possible it is to start the page with a link menu of all the questions, which would help to jump to the specific question one wishes to read. As this grows, it will be harder to notice FAQs, and I fear people will just skip this and re ask directly on the talk page. Again, I'm just starting to look into wiki code, so I don't know if this suggestion is feasible. --Nekki 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if all the Q: lines were made into Level 2(?) headers, that should automatically create an index at the top, right? Maybe that would help.

Question to Linsey: should we do that? Xelonir 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Implemented for now. If Linsey doesn't like it we can always revert. - Tanetris 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Wizardboy has moved the ToC to the right beside the questions. I rather hate it and feel that anyone who doesn't want to scroll through the ToC can just click the hide button on it, but that may be my personal bias speaking. Someone else feel free to review above compared to beside. - Tanetris 06:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think beside looks better than above.--Pyron Sy 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "Besides". --Nekki 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that due to the length of the questions, the TOC is almost as long as the page itself, I think it's a bit overkill.... -- Wyn 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless it grows to more questions. You could revert back until more content is added, but I think users would prefer to jump direct to specific answers rather than scroll down to see which questions are available. I agree, atm, it might be overkill, but in the future it might be needed. --Nekki 18:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What about now? A bit of a cheap trick, but it allows for sections by like topics while keeping the TOC short and manageable. -- Wyn 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

beautiful work.--Nekki 03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance of taking a look at the ritualist profession soon?

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock

Lol?

In the FAQs page, heres a coppy paist if found in that page.

Will there be any additional festivals or new content for the existing festivals? A: I don't think we'll do any more new festivals, but I don't think it's out of bounds to do new content for existing festivals like we did with Wintersday 2008.
Friends list/Ignore list/Guild roster
Will there be any changes to the friends list or ignore list such as increasing their size? A: The Live Team is currently looking into the feasibility of this and will post here when we know more.

Friends list/Ignore ect is the same color of the background --~~Lotus~~ 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was done to all topic headings, it was done that way so that the Table of Contents would not be cluttered. A heading needs to be added to the festival question though.... -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Centaurs

Hey Linsey, I was wondering if there will be some more information realsed about the centaurs.
With the Sylvari, being a playable race in Guild Wars 2, following the morals of the centaur Ventari.
I'd love to see some more information about them pop up.
We already know a lot about humans, the dwarves have at least some details given away,
and there is a huge amount of information to be found about the Charr, on both this wiki and the Guild Wars 2 Wiki!
Leaving the centaurs, and with them the Sylvari..A bit behind.
Sure a have a drawing of a scarcely dresses Sylvari woman, but that's about it.

Now, Guild Wars 2 and the Sylvari aside.
Mirza Veldrunner said that the centaurs have been "too busy fighting each other.."
Well, I've searched high and low,
but there's nothing about something like a civil war between the centaur clans to be found!
This being, according to Mirza, the main reason they got enslaved by the Kournans I find significant information.
Furthermore I'd like to know why the centaurs attack us anyway.
I mean, the first centaur I ever encountered (a Shiverpeak Longbow) was hostile to me,
and it is quite an accomplishment to have someone, who's entire race is new to you, have a grudge on you.
-- 84.245.20.230 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In this interview, Jeff Grubb mentions that one of the side-stories will be about the Humans agents the Centaurs. — Poki#3 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding why centaurs attack humans, it would be the same reason Tengu attack humans (I believe) - that is, when humans first appeared and spread throughout the continents, they pushed other races out of their homes. In effect, they pushed the Charr north, tne Canthan Tengu to Shing Jea, the Caromi are scattered throughout Kryta, and due to their looks, I'd assume the Modniir/Shiverpeak Centaurs and the Maguuma Centaurs are closely related and were split in half by humans. Though that's just a theory. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)