User talk:Linsey Murdock/Suggestions3

Low hanging fruit: Removing Jade Quarry cinematics

If you are still going after those, removing the cinematic from jade quarry would be an (imho) simple one. Other people dislike it as well. --Xeeron 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree!!! ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Highly disgree. There are some people who like watching the cinematics (at least one time) and some people use cinematics for fan-made videos. I suggest to make it like the opening cinematics in other PvP matches. Instead of the whole party having to skip, it's a solo skip. And while at it, please bring back Fort Aspenwood's cinematic - and any others that were taken out. (nothing bad about having the mid-mission/quest cinematics and end-mission cinematics solo skipping too). By simply making it a one person skip, then people who want to watch can watch, those who don't can skip and there won't be any "skip cine" being spammed in chat. Everyone wins. -- Azazel The Assassin 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Better idea: party leader decides if the party gets to watch or not. Vili 08:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be better than allowing solo skipping. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Because when the rest of the party is waiting for Noob Monk to load into the instance (because he is watching the cinematic), things can get ugly. Vili 08:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Both parties are automatically split up after Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry matches. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he thinks the cinematic is upon entering the match, like the AB cinematics. Vili, it is not. The cinematic is upon leaving the match. And it would be a better idea to have it solo skipping, even if the cinematic was prior to the match, there is a timer to until the match starts. Not to mention that other PvP arenas have a cinematic and they all end, even if you watch it all, before the timer runs out. -- Azazel The Assassin 09:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Vili was making a general suggestion about cinematics skipping, which I misinterpreted as a suggestion specifically for Fort Aspenwood and the Jade Quarry. I'll clarify my earlier statement. I don't see why having the party leader decide whether or not to skip the Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry victory cinematics would be better than letting everyone have the option of individually skipping them in order to get back to the outposts. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was making a general statement and as usual it caused discord and confusion; it doesn't apply to JQ/FA. Basically if all cinematics became solo-skippable, I wouldn't want to be bound to waiting for some first-timer who wants to watch a cinematic; especially in timed missions, this can be an issue. Solo-skippable seems to me, basically the same system we have now, just that you can reach the instance instead of having to watch the cutscene. Which is of limited use if the rest of the party isn't with you anyway. Leads ought to have at least some kind of powers like this anyways... Vili 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a way to make those cinematics "solo-skippable", that is the best way to do it. However, I suspect that they can not do that or only with considerable effort. And I don't think thousands and thousands of players should be made endure those videos again and again simply because a tiny group of fan-video makers wants to cap them once. --Xeeron 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was possible to split the party up before the cinematic rather than after? Dunno how easy that would be, but certainly easier than coding an entirely separate way of handling cinematic-skipping just for JQ. - Tanetris 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an opening cinematic you could watch for both Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood. It has been removed and is now only viewable by talking to the NPC in the outpost. Maybe Linsey can stop the cinematic from auto playing on victory and allow players to watch it by talking to the NPC instead. I personally miss the Fort Aspenwood cinematic and would like to be able to watch it again, I'd hate to see the Quarry one disappear in the same way the FA one did. 121.91.86.30 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We do plan on adding the cinematics to an NPC, hopefully in the next content update. - Linsey talk 06:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any chance that other cinematics - like the Fort Aspenwood ending, or PvE Mission cinematics (availible once you watch the cinematic, like in Eye of the North), and any other cinematics that were removed - can be added to NPCs (whichever NPC would best fit as a "holder of cinematics" *I personally think the Vision of Glint, Togo's Spirit in Tahnnakai Temple, and Seer of Truth would be most appropriate for PvE Missions*)? -- Konig Des Todes 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldnt togo's spirit kinda be a MASSIVE spoiler? Surely a different NPC? Kuunavang for example? -- Salome 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of that, as the Seer of Truth, would be to make it so you have to beat the game in order to get to view the cinematics. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed but would that not then require togo's spirit to be put somewhere other than tahnakai temple which by my recollection is one of the earlier missions in factions? -- Salome 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't see how a location change would be needed. All three NPCs would act like the Scryting Pool - which may I remind you is in an explorable area as well, so that's not a problem. Togo's Ghost only shows up when you beat Imperial Sanctum, so no spoiler needs to be added, just a requirement in place - which would be the same for Seer of Truth. So I am failing to see how this is a problem. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

HoM Monument to Honor Update

Will it be possible in a future update to let u choose which statues you want to display in the HoM's valor statue? I wanted to display only certain ones but I only get a certain number of arrangements. idk if this has been answered before but if you could let me know that would be great. thanks--adrin 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, any kind of "here's what we're doing" to the HoM would be nice. Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would look for HoM Questions to be included in Linsey's FAQ. -- Wyn 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We still don't know what will be done to the HoM so we can't talk about it. Joe is going to look into the feasibility of adding sorting in the HoM. We'll see... - Linsey talk 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Master inventory of all characters?

Dear Linsey,

first I want to thank you and the live team for the great work you did in the last months (especially the November update). Keep up the good work.

With an increasing number of characters it gets difficult to keep track of all the weapons, mods, inscriptions, consumables and etc. in the inventory of each character. When you see in trade chat "WTB xxxx" you sometimes have to search a few characters because one can not remember exactly where item xxxx is stored, especially if the item is a mod / inscription which is still attached to a weapon. This is really a waste of time and is sometimes the cause of missed trade chances because you're not fast enough. Is it possible to program a function in GW which creates a master inventory (on the local hard disk is sufficient, I think) which keeps track of all the fancy things? This inventory must be sortable by several categories (mods, inscription etc.) and shows which character carries the item. This must also include the weapon slots and armor slots of heroes. In this way you have to switch characters only once at the most. The update of this inventory could take place whenever you load a character. Kali The Devourer-- 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with this idea. A simple button that could 'export' all of your current inventory items for all characters to a .csv file would be sufficient enough for me, since I could then use Excel, or some other database/spreadsheet application to then sort or search for anything. The only issue I can think of would be how running an export query of this type would affect the servers' performance, possibly creating even more lag in the game. :( --209.194.208.116 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This kind of feature is not possible. The game does not keep track of what is on a character unless you are logged in to that character and there is no way to have it do that unless we recoded the entire game. - Linsey talk 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So its not can't (ie not possible) its won't (could do but we're not). 118.92.167.172 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's can't and won't. Can't, because recoding the entire game is a monstrous task which would consume lot of time and resources (money and people)- something which ANet may not necessarily have. The team still working on GW1 is significantly smaller these days than before, and they have other, more important things to work on too. Recoding the game so that it would accomodate a feature that isn't really necessary (seriously, go into your characters and create a little spreadsheet in Excel, much less hassle in the end) is not what most people would consider a constructive thing to use the previously mentioned resources on... which makes this a won't, as well. -- Elv 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the game should not query the server for a display of this master inventory, but instead dump the item information of a character

into a database on the local hard disk of the game computer every time an item is added or deleted in the currently loaded character's inventory.

Every time you display this master inventory you would only access the local hard disk. You'd need a few database handling routines and a window

interface for displaying a list sorted by category. The game does not have to "know" about the items of the other offline characters. In the end

it's like GW would display the contents of a local disk file (with added sorting functions) without GW knowing anything about the content of the

file. In this way you don't have to recode the entire game. Kali The Devourer-- 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Arenanet would be keen on storing any sensitive information on the player's computer. Now, how is it not possible? Information is sent from the character blobs to account blob all the time, the Xunlai Chest for example isn't it? I'm reaching here but bare with me (please note this isn't a suggest more me thinking of an idea within the scope of the topic):

Player rocks up to Xunlai Agent, opens a window of dialogue with several new options

Update Master Inventory - the option to update the character's inventory information within the Account BLOBS Master Inventory record.

This would send information from the Character BLOB to the Account BLOB of the state of the character's inventory - basically a record of all the items in the player's inventory and gold, possibly even on the heroes as well though just the player's inventory would be simplier for a starter perhaps.

View Master Inventory - allows the player to view the most up-to-date inventories of all character's registered in the Master Inventory record within the Account Blob

Would open a window allowing the player to view the character inventories registered within the Master Inventory record in the Account BLOB.

Now seeing as its checking the Account Blob, as I would assume happens when you look at your storage chest wouldn't this just require a programmer to come up with a way to send inventory information as a whole from the Character Blob to the Account Blob and a way to view it. Once its on the Account Blob it could be open free from the other blobs just like the way the storage chest works less being able to move things about since its viewing only (read only).

Probably talking out of my south end here though, am happily not a programmer and it probably shows ^_^ 118.92.167.172 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, it would massively increase the size of the Account BLOB. 118.92.167.172 10:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave the account Blob alone, because the master inventory could be stored on your local hard disk. And the

information is not really sensitive if you're the only one "working" ;-) on your computer. And of course the

data of this master inventory doesn't have to be imported in to the character Blob, let alone the account Blob.

Actually, it must be absolutely impossible to incorporate data of the master inventory into any Blob. And

the master inventory has to be updated every time an item is added or deleted from a character's inventory or a

hero. It would be bad if this were only possible at the Xunlei agent. Kali The Devourer--134.102.120.42 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

either or. Its massively unlikely anything like this would come to light for Guild Wars anyway, even Guild Wars 2. I was just throwing stuff out there ^_^ Its always nice to bounce around ideas. Aba Malatu 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested a similar idea last year on my wiki talk page. Imagine a window or a full screen display if you will with all of your characters' inventories next to each other, say up to 5 inventories in one screen (1 row of 5 inventories) and all your Xunlai tabs on the bottom (tabs 1 through 4 and the materials tab next to eachother.) So you'd have 2 rows of 5 tabs in total. In this window you can easily drag and drop all of your stuff to whatever spot you like. If you have more than 5 characters, you can simply scroll through tabs with a "left" and "right" arrow button on the left and right side of the window/screen (kind of like the character selection screen, only your inventories just swap 1 place instead of "sliding" along like your characters). You could also add heroes with a rolldown menu, and manage their gear as well. Pre-searing characters would be greyed out. Here's a photoshop image of this idea. R.Shayne also made a screenie that sort of shows what I'm thinking of. Sjeng 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This just isn't something that we can or will do. - Linsey talk 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewards for PvE Don't Match with PvP

I have been noticing a lot with recent changes made to GW that I tend to make A LOT more money selling Z Keys from balth faction than I do when I do anything in PvE of GW unless I specifically join some dedicated farming group. If I just play in PvP normally I accumulate enough balth faction to buy several Z Keys which I then sell for 5k each. The same goes for Alliance Faction.

The amount of time required to fill one measly copy of Shiro's Return will give you a mere 40k Luxon/Kurzick faction to your title and a puny 6 plat. If you spend the same amount of time in Jade Quarry you will likely get about 8-10 Z Keys (40-50 plat) and over 200k to your allegiance title (if you donate it to the guild) or 100k and a boat load of Jade or Amber. Normally playing the game in PvE is very unrewarding financially compared with PvP. Filling a book in hard mode gives a very small boost to the rewards.

The only time I can compete with PvP for flat out cash rewards in PvE is when I do CoF runs or something gimmicky and boring like 55hp monk farming or "insert other boring non-engaging solo farm here". The sad reality is when I want to buy something for my PvE toon, it's more efficient (and often fun) for me to PvP than it is to PvE. 58.106.143.59 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So whats the problem if your having more fun playing pvp and you enjoy it i see no reason why they need to change it. or how they would for that matter. also on that note i would like to point out from the start the game was geared more twords pvp then it was pve just play through the ph sory line and it will become very very clear to you that it is. 75.165.113.53 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree with the original poster, PvE generally is very non-rewarding compared to PvP, heck even if you farm all day you're probably better off PvP'ing if you're any good at it. I'd also like to see a bump in the reward for PvE.

- Kherec 11:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree on that matter. Zkeys are just too hurting for the economy and can not be removed right now! The players that really get all their keys are players that do core PvP (GvG, HA, TA..) and usually these people do not "need" that money. As I only want one main character - I have to start earning money in PvE with my mesmer. It is nearly impossible to farm with that profession so I have to revert to playing on the market. Since I don't have core GvG experience I cannot do that to earn my money.. I believe something should be done to balance out the rewards for PvE and PvP.. Perhaps adding a similar key to playable parts of PvE? Without being able to buy them through farming of course. Idk.. -- Karasu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the money earned from zkeys comes from other players. In terms of the overall economy, it's a zero-sum game (putting aside the ~300gold the person who eventually uses the key can sell golds to the merch for). You gain 5k, someone else loses 5k. On the other hand, increasing PvE rewards, dropping more merchable items or more gold, increasing merch sell prices, extra gold from vanquishing or from completed books, is the exact opposite. It's gold that comes from nowhere, pumped directly into the economy. This is a Bad Thing(tm) for the economy.

The solution, then, is to introduce something into the PvE scene that would be valuable to other players but not to merchants. Of course, there are a lot of such things already. The mini polar bear and various sweets and alcohol come to mind, though their availability is rather limited, various weapon skins can net anywhere from a few plat to stacks of ectos, depending on stats, rarity, and general prettiness, and of course there's always ectos and DoA gems/armbraces.

Quick note to Karasu: Mesmers can't make money in PvE? DoA. Cryway. Look into it.

Back on track, I wouldn't mind something similar to zkeys being introduced into PvE, or even a PvE method of earning zkeys, but keep in mind that if it's just added in as a random drop or something so simple, it's going to get farmed to death and the price is going to plummet really quick. What comes to my mind is a repeatable quest from the Zaishen Order guys similar to Worthy Deeds and Anything You Can Do, but with bosses that change each time, and only repeatable a certain number of times per time period (once a day?). But that's just an example off the top of my head, and I don't know if something like that would even be possible. I'm just saying pumping up PvE gold rewards would only lead to inflation, and making zkeys drop from every mob like festival drops would only devalue zkeys. - Tanetris 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with devaluing Zkeys? If you make them worth less, but not worthless, then you decrease the amount of money a pvper makes without touching the pve aspect of things. Why do pvpers need to make a ton of money in the first place? The only thing they can buy with it is guild hall stuff and a few weapons (most of which drop form the zchest anyays). If you can devalue them to even 2k then it is still largely profitable, but not significantly better than speed vanquishing, or running most areas. Kelvin Greyheart 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah - careful with that! @ Tanetris : indeed - pve has other methods of rewarding players, but those are rare and mostly require farming. They also do not give any value. The problem here is that currently Zaishen keys are pumping LOADS of money to the people doing PvP, who generally don't need it. Maybe even more money goes to the people that have MULTIPLE accounts. I find the Xunlai tournaments very annoying due to this fact. People sometimes have 14 accounts and all they have to do is collect their 2.5 million or so each month without doing anything. Far from fair to the players with one account and no experience in choosing their top 10 (me, for example). I agree with having at least one title that is a money sink and more for the elite - but this is ridiculous. The sink drained all their money to PvP and people that break the EULA (idk: isnt multiple account against this or the xunlai rules somehow?). Devaluating is currenly far from an option. People rely more on Zkeys then ecto's at the moment. The only way of devaluating it is to give MORE Zkeys somehow. If the prices drop two things will happen: 1. People who invested in them (title or replacement for ecto) will start complaining 2. More people will start buying them and the prices will raise again. No more special title and more problems.

The once-a-day quest is also very unfair. 1. lots of people can only play in the weekends or on certain days 2. lots of people have multiple accounts. We're looking for what they've been trying to fix with the storybooks - but then of some real value (money or impression - like a miniature, title or outfit gives). All you have to do is do general things everybody in PvE does or can do. It cannot be farmable in any way. -- Karasu (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts is not against the EULA or against the Xunlai rules. Also Tane is right, zkeys themselves aren't creating more money, they are just moving that money around the player base. Which in itself isn't a major issue. Admittedly though they are moving alot of those assets into the PvP sphere.

However creating new ways of gaining money within the PvE game which can be sold to merchs would lead to wide devaluation of currency which would affect all none fixed priced items, as you increase the base assets of almost all players and thus the pool of money that can be spent rises in accordance. Thus meaning that items become MORE expensive. In short it leads to mass inflation which isn't a good thing.

As tane said a none merch-able PvE item which is worth money to the player base would be the best way to balance the movement of this money. However this probably wont happen as at the moment the Z-keys are doing a very good job of taking alot of the excess gold made in the PvE spehere and burning it off though the Z-chest, which should therefore in theory lead to a decrease in the available assets of most players and thus bring high end prices down. Which is a good thing. -- Salome 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But they still pump new zkeys ingame each month which makes new money out of nothing which is a bad thing. Death Sligher 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

<reset indent> Nono guys. Listen to what just has been said. ZKEYS are being made out of nothing and most come in trough PVP and people that have multiple accounts (or xunlai tournament in general). This makes a movement from people that have MONEY or interest in trading with them towards this influx group. The money just being drained from the people that go for the title. If you count PvP as losing money - they don't bring it back to PvE for example - then everything that is left is that people who have multiple accounts gain a lot of money. End of story. Thus ever since the title exists and especially since reward points generate keys all that happens is a movement of money towards players with multiple accounts without them doing anything at all! This is the part that is most unfair. I would like to see a solution on this matter. Getting people to give you a million a month (if you have 5 accounts or so - which surprisingly many have..) when you didn't do anything inside the game is something that is highly unbalanced against the 98% of people or so that have access to only one account. I see no balance at all here. -- Karasu (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If they drop in price and people have invested in them, so what? Tell me. How many people took advantage of early money making tricks back when the game first launched and invested in ectos because they couldn't store more money? How many ectos did they have? Answer. Many had thousands Some had 5 thousand or more. So. Tell me. How much does 5000 ectos at over 10,000 each, lose in value when they drop down to a mere 5k each, or even 3.5k at the low end. lets see. 5k times 5k is 25 million lost. If you have invested in Zkeys you are taking a chance that the price wont fluctuate or won't increase. Same with ecto. If you want something to be a rock solid money sink that doesn't fluctuate, invest in lockpicks. Yeah you can't get as much money (currently) in a stack, but you are guaranteed that if you spend 300,000 on 250 (at 1200 each), no matter when you decide to liquidate they will still be worth 300,000 at 1200 each. There is nothing else in the game that is anywhere near as rigid in its pricing that lets you store that amount. If prices can fluctuate based on supply/demand you are taking a risk, and as such have no right to complain whatsoever if your investment evaporates under you. Kelvin Greyheart 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that back then there weren't as many people. Now the players are much more direct to STRIKE against something they don't like (see HA meta and recently Palm Strike). Zkeys are being made into a currency and removing that from the game by killing it's value won't make people happy. Investing in Zkeys isn't adviced at the moment, of course - but it actually did a lot to the economy already. Indeed - It would be a good idea to set up campain to improve Lockpick pricing at 1.2k solid. It would kill the people that have worked hard to gain access to them though. -- Karasu (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Karasu on that though, the Xunlai tournament house is moving alot of money over to those with more than 1 account for no effot what so ever, which is unfair. For example I have 4 accounts and i make predictions with all 4. I am currently making upwards of 500k each month because of this which is rather nifty for me, but rather sucky when you compare it to friends of mine who've spent ages farming and running people places to earn a fraction of that in the month. I also have a friend who has 15 accounts and hes making roughly 3-5 million a month from the xunlai tournament house. I have to admit I dont really mind that much as its not actually making the economy worse as the amount lost on the z-chest is outweighing the actual wealth gained on it across the spectrum of players. E.G. over 80% of all drops are either fire water or creme brulee. -- Salome 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They same goes for the ultra rare minipets only people who have 15account or so can get those mini's so if you only have 1account you need to farm ultra uber lot to get 5mil to buy those minipets but there are people who just get the money from ziashenkey prediction it is just unfair. -unsigned...

now on the fount of the Xunlai tournament house i hole hardly agree. but something to think about is anets model for making money is for people to buy each campaign, so for them people being rewarded for having multiple accounts isn't such a bad thing. but another reason why you get so many points was so you would get armors and weapons for your pvp toons. a simple fix that would also fix zkeys is letting you convert 1k bath faction to 1 rp and removing the 5 rp for one zkey. but also allowing for people to at that point unlock armors and weapon skins. i would imagine that you would have to add more ways to get rp. last point on rp is that if you take part in a at everyone who participated in it should get reward points not just the first team. on the zkey vs pve fount all that needs to happen is ectos need to reach the price of 6k at the merch then they would sell for 5k each or the money trading cap needs to be increased to a much higher amount 500k? then the hole point of buying something to store money would be worthless. 75.165.113.53 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is also supposed to be used on getting new armours/weapons, however for that to even be vageuly vaible a huge change needs to be made to the cost of those things in relation to TRP's. For example basic armour at the moment costs 20 TRP's per piece which is 4 Z-keys which can make a player 20k in no time. To even unlock fancy armour one has to have bought 50 pieces of basic armour coming in at a nifty 1000 TRP's which is 200 z-keys and 1 mil in cash. Then if you reroll any of these pvp chars you lose this armour with it. Simply put as it stands its just not worth wasting that amount of money on it. It either needs to become an account unlock for the armour or instead half the TRP cost of the pvp armour pieces and get rid of the 50 armour piece min to unlock fancy armour and thus motivate people to invest in them. -- Salome 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a Z Key reward and say a perfect Zodiac Staff is there is an easily attainable market for the former(whether it is set by players or not), and while the later would have some value you need to wait for the right buyer. The only thing in PvE with comparable value to a Z Key is ecto, and those only drop in one (minor exceptions) part of the entire game. I would suggest some kind of PvE key which is gained by exchanging skill points or something but then solo farmers (raptor farmers, 55 monks etc) would abuse that to hell. The reality is anything you do in the game while playing normally in PvE is going to net you next to no cash at all and nothing of value similair to a z key, and if it does you need to spam forever to sell it. The only comparable item to a Z Key, ecto, drops in one part of the game only. The Tournament Rewards from predictions is also fairly upsetting. Like someone above said, people are making very large sums of money selling their monthly gains per account. Now you can literally farm gold. Buy an account, water once a month with predictions, trim your money tree by picking your keys up when the tournament is over and water again for next harvest season. No effort required at all. There is no surprise when there are several forum posts informing people when a single campaign of guild wars goes on sale for $5 and then the responders are all commenting on how many Z-Keys they will be getting next month. It's gold selling, only this time the money goes into A-Nets pocket, when the players buy their gold via accounts and predictions, the seller is a net. 58.106.44.4 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wheter intentional or not, I do believe that Anet is the only one with a right to sell ingame gold. 145.94.74.23 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the solution to PvP and PvE variances in obtaining rewards is to simply separate them altogether. In other words, PvP currency would be different, and incompatible with PvE currency. And for that matter, PvE weapons and other items such items could not be used in PvP and vice versa. I'm sure it's too late to do that in GW1, but maybe in GW2? At least with my idea, PvErs won't be jealous of items that only PvP players can get, and vice versa.--209.194.208.116 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no Linsey, but at first glance it would appear that Zkeys are a "bridging item". By that, I mean an item meant to bridge the two game types (hence why they're so interlocked). I'd almost be willing to bet money that the fact that Zkeys cost 5k is intended as a mechanic to make PvE focused people want to PvP. It's good profit for PvE, and if you want the emotes, you'll have to do PvP since most people really can't afford 100+ Zkeys @ 5k each. ArenaNet did ultimately set the price when they set what you have to pay (5k faction, 5TRP) to get Zkeys, and it's not hard to figure out what people will sell them for after that. I'd almost say that the Zkey being more rewarding than a lot of PvE stuff is done on purpose as a mechanic to get PvE people interested in PvP. (This is a good thing, both for PvP and ArenaNet, since PvP has unlimited re playability and content generation.) DarkNecrid 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you guys are coming from and I agree with some of these points. There has been some internal discussions on the wealth available through the XTH but we have yet to decide if we are comfortable with it. For right now, we are still watching trends and compiling data on the way the XTH works before changing anything with that system. Like others have said, XTH does not "print money" so to speak. It facilitates the creation of items which are then traded to other players for money. Farming in game and selling to a merchant is "printing money", the XTH just moves money around. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with hardcore PvP'ers making loads of cash just like a hardcore PvE'er would and the idea that PvP'ers have no use for money is a misconception. I once had a conversation with Johann Tang aka Lulu the Monk formerly of TE who told me it cost him around 800plat of his own money plus borrowing from guildmates to get geared up for the World Championships. That was a long time ago when gold was worth more and since then we have gotten the (J) screen so it is a lot easier to get geared now, but the really high-end players still need a certain amount of gold to have the full range of tools they need to operate at that level. Plus there is the cost of changing out a guildhall, invites and guest invites, etc. Granted, they likely don't need the huge amount of gold they could be making off of z-keys but they do need gold.

I'm not going to commit to making any changes or hint that they are already in the works, but I see where you are coming from... - Linsey talk 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Guilds, npcs, and pvp toons

i know it was brought up before and i wonder if anything came of it, and that is the ability to make a guild and get the npcs for the guild hall for pvp toons. (by getting the npcs for pvp toons i mean another way that isn't money based.) is there any new info on this?75.165.125.117 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but whats wrong with Zkeys? No matter how you implement this it will still involve a large amount of work on the part of the player. Selling the Zkeys is almost a trivial task when you can sell 50 of them in one session. (Bulk sales go pretty fast.) As it currently stands you can do everything except create a guild (and chose a faction??? (not sure on that)). That takes 5 minutes tops to create a guild. You can promote an officer to change allegiance and have him promote you back. You can do everything else without pve if you must. Kelvin Greyheart 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I already have a post-it note for this. - Linsey talk 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

grate temple of balthazar and npcs

can you please add a sigil trader, a merchant, a guild crater, guild emblemer, and Canthan ambassador would also be nice. 75.165.125.117 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Canthan Ambassador exists there. Go to the giant statue. And with it being a PvP area - I don't think there is much need for a merchant, but nothing against it here. And sigil traders are in the guild halls from the Canthan Ambassador, so they are not inaccessible - no need for it, but would be helpful. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

didn't know the canthan ambassador was there. the merchant is more of a request for selling the items you get from the zchest. 75.165.125.117 04:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I already have a post-it note for this too. - Linsey talk 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

GH bug, can it be made permanent?

I just noticed upon changing our guild over from luxon to kurzick, that we now have both luxon and kurzick reward and AB npc's in the hall. I understand this is because the hall hasn't been empty since we changed over. IS their anyway to keep this permanent however, so as to allow us to just ab without having to be guested places? Please?! If the bug already exists to allow this, surely their is a way to make it not a bug and just keep it as is. -- Salome 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would love that. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure your guildhall is never empty! And you will have one unique situation in the guildhall. But i would rather see that both the NPC's to enter AB are also in the Great Temple, just like those 2 of Jade Qaurry and Aspenwood. Demonic Cobra 11:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to rain on your parade, but the next update will force people to log. (If people don't get the update, they will be in a separate instance I believe). Unless you change again they will most likely go away. Kelvin Greyheart 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Kelvin is right. However here is the thing, the luxon rewards guy is already set up to not allow you to donate your faction to the guild if its not the same faction, e.g you cant donate luxon faction to a kurzick guild. Also during the preview event it was et up to have both AB peeps in the gh, however that was removed upon release. Which is why I'm asking Linsey if this can just be reverted to how it was. I know it still leaves problems however at least rectifies one of them and if you added the option of being able to donate faction to guilds you are guested too, that would solve the guild faction donation problem too. -- Salome 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason (maybe among other things) for removing the NPCs is because people were going into AB and saccing with BiP to get pts for the other side before the match even started. Kelvin Greyheart 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but cant you just guest into another guild now and do the same? -- Salome 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having both. Make sacrifice kills not count for points or something. (Obviously thats too simple, since you could use BiP or something to deny the other team points, but eh it could work.) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Kelvin Greyheart (talk).

• feels sheepish for getting beaten to signing unsigned comment* (OH god damn it. Forgot to sign. Bloody hell.) Kelvin Greyheart 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude! ^_^ Aba Malatu means Forbidden Truth 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Having both sets of NPCs in a GH does set things up for a lot more griefing. I'm not sure if I want to do this. I doubt I will. - Linsey talk 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Revamp Monster Skill bars

You know how HM introduced a whole new level of replayability to the game? How about taking it one step further (with what I assume is minimal use of resources) by revamping monster bars across the board? Make monsters more challenging and give them skill bars that "make sense" and you have almost a new game out there, with almost no effort. THe addition of pve skills and consumables, not to mention the bad decision to allow spellbreaker and shadow form to be maintainable, have eliminated most of the difficulty. Make it challenging again by forcing people to adapt and adjust strategies against enemies that are more than one-trick ponies. The monsters are cool, the scenarios are gorgeous. How about making the gameplay more interesting? I always thought HM itself was a good idea that was executed a bit lazily, as far as monsters are concerned. Higher attributes, faster cast, faster move, faster recharge, etc., but in the end, its just... more of the same you know? Ok, some critters got the occasional elite, but it still struck me as incomplete. 189.33.148.42 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh...That would be something incredibly complex and time comsuming. Changing the skills of an enemy would require Arena Net to see all places in which said enemy appear, consider what other enemies appear in those places, consider the patrol routes of all involved NPCs, consider the overall difficulty of all those areas at the same time, playtest everything, test everything for bug, consider exploits that players could use in those areas, and etc. It's an old dream of mine to see all enemies with full skill bars and with two professions like the Charrs in GW:EN, but if Arena Net wasn't able to do that even with full resources, when they introduced Hard Mode, I doubt very very much that Linsey would be able to make such massive changes. Erasculio 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up - in the "New Area" section that I think got moved to the temp archive - as an alternative method to new content. Linsey has already stated that she has made note of it and will look into the possibility. I personally do hope that this is done - as the next major update after April. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio, some of the things you said make no sense to me. Playtest and test bugs? But the skills are already there, and the AI programming for them already exists (after all, you can theoretically use any non-monster skill on a hero, so there is already an AI for everything, good or bad). Exploits? Anet doesn't give a crap about exploits, and adding different skills to monsters would make exploits harder (like adding chillblains), or keep them the same. As for overall difficulty, that's the point of it all of course. Anyway, consider this as the only feasible possibility for new content, and I think it's a very good idea. Of course we'd all like new god realms, for instance, but that's just not going to happen - unless Anet charges for it. I'd pay by the way. I'm sure many people would, but it's just not part of their business plan. 189.33.148.42 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They would have to test if the update that introduced the new skills would not have any bug with it, just like they test every update; but with something of that size, the chance of a bug appearing would be bigger than with the smaller changes we have seen as updates recently. Playtest would be fundamental to know if the new skill bars result in the difficulty Arena Net wants for any given area, as well as if the resulting monsters are fun to fight against; that's a huge part of level design, which is also a huge part of GW. Also, changing the skills would open room for new exploits; there would certainly be at least one area in the game in which the current farming methods (55monk, SF assassin, etc) currently don't work, but would begin working once the skill bars are changed and the current counters to those "exploits" are accidentaly removed. I would like for this change to happen, but IMO it's unfeasible, just like the new god realms. Erasculio 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If even this is unfeasible, then maybe it's time to gather everyone and stop pretending. GW is dying. It's very simple really. What sort of insane company would invest on a game without expectation of earning revenue back from their investment? GW's model of no monthly fees is a death warrant. Slow death, but certain nonetheless. What would Anet want right now? More people buying GW products. Would improving the game affect that? I don't think so, not significantly enough. It would just make happy people who ALREADY have the game and have been playing for so long they are bored. These people? Anet says they care, but really, they don't. They CAN't care. These people don't give them money. I'm not saying they're evil, it's just how the market operates, and they follow the rules like anybody else. 189.33.148.42 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sign in, Register or whatever but don't do it anon. If you want yourself to be taken seriously, then register, make your userpage, signature etc. and stop being an Anon. When I was an Anon, I had always typed my signature (monokli) at the end of my message. So please identify yourself. Boro 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a user on the old wiki who chose not to migrate to this one. Also, I don't think I need to be anyth else than a GW player to express my opinion and my suggestions. What difference does it make if i'm Daniel Lozinsky from Denmark or Isabella Latorre from Spain? If you have anything relevant to the topic to add, please do. 189.33.148.42 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. If you(GWLT) decide to revamp the monster skills (no. don't change all eles to fire nukers), then remove the HM Damage/IAS/IMS/etc. buffs, keep the health only. to compensate this change, ban henchmen and/or heroes from HM to force team creation not just hero micro-skillz (another option is to limit them to 2 hero or hench/team). That ideas were what I had 189. --Boro 18:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets start a new indentation here before this becomes unreadable. So, let me give an example: Afflicted Elementalists have air attunement, aura of restoration, lava arrows, lightning orb and mind burn. How about we streamline that a bit? Fire attunement, aura of restoration, lava arrows, smoldering embers, glowing gaze, mind burn. There. it has self-heal, energy management, and the weird air/fire thing (with no synergy or reason) is fixed. It wont slaughter players worse than it already does, but its bar is now more.. elegant. That's the kind of small fix i'm proposing. 189.33.148.42 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable I agree, But I have seen many weird things from arenanet. Boro 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How I understand changing monster skill bars requires no skill changing like Erasculio seems to think (might be wrong but that's what I get from what he says). changing the skill bars to be balanced bars with other itself and other monsters that are of the same affiliation that is in the same region (i.e., Afflicted, Shiro'ken, Forgotten/Enchanted, Undead). This would serve as much of new content as HM did - but with a lot less grind and would allow the perfect chance to eliminate all known farms in one attempt. So changing a majority, if not all, of monster skills to be balanced (limiting skill amounts depending on area *starter areas should not be touched except in Hard Mode*) would create more content than it may seem - by not only changing things with no new grind, but having a chance to make things harder. While working on monster skills, allied NPCs should also be looked at - such as henchmen and allies like Rurik, Evennia, Kormir, etc. It will pretty much be one big change that will be possible better than adding new quests. I would go so far as to add a change of monsters (both explorable and mission) but that probably would be too much. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing every monsters skill bar in the game is a much much bigger project than most of you seem to think. There are literally thousands of species spawned in the game. I could come up with and change the bars of maybe 20-30 a day if I am on a roll. Everything would need to be play tested for balance and yes there would need to be extensive bug testing and fixing needed. It is true that the skills are already in the game and that monsters have some AI for the majority of them but there are many skill interactions that they wouldn't know how to handle so that would need to be identified and fixed. When dealing with this many changes it is easy for simple errors to occur like not giving the species the right attributes for the new skill bar or not having the right weapon. So each one would need to be checked by QA for bugs and for play testing. Also, there is no possible way for creatures to have a completely new skill bar in HM over normal mode without me needing to make a HM version of the species and then do some very complicated and clunky spawn work for EVERY SINGLE encounter in the game in order to have the HM version replace the NM version. I don't even want to think about how massive a nightmare that would be to work on.

So the point is, when you say "minimal use of resources" in this case you are referring to (assuming I manage to do 30 a day with *quickly checks the species files* ~5000 species to do...) around 167 work days of just MY time plus who knows how much QA time or code time (to fix AI issues that show up). Even if I could do 50 a day, we are talking about 100 work days, 5 months, worth of my time. Say I could do even 100 a day (which is an unreasonably high number) and we are still talking about a month and a half of just my time. When working on a campaign, we have 1-2 full time designers generating species for a solid 6 months to populate the game.

While I do recognize that something like this could change the game a lot and add some new replay-ability for a time (you do realize that as soon as people are used to the new skill bars again the change will be moot, right? Not only that, but new players don't really benefit that much at all), I could be using that time to design things for Joe to work on which could add more true depth to the game. So I will think about this a little bit more, but right now I am feeling that it would require too much work on my part for not enough return. - Linsey talk 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Allowing users to see everyone with High-Quality armor.

I have a good computer that can run GW on high and as GW is not the most demanding game that isn't the hardest thing but I would like if you (ArenaNet) would make it so that in the settings tab people can make it so all people have High-Quality armor. There is a mod for it right now, but I am not much into using Third Party Programs, I know this wouldn't be hard to add to the game since the mod is only a 300k file, it may be a little hard to add a check box to the settings tab but I believe many GW players would love this option. I hope this is an okay area to post this, if not please move it. -- Natalie Black 00:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. — Wolf 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirded.--The Gates Assassin 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

frothed. it makes a huge difference. 75.165.123.205 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes please!!!! It's just one little thing that would make the game so much better. Underated Skill 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sixthed, when others have armor I want, I want to see how it would look with those dyes/combinations. Azazel The Assassin 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Modders FTW, doing what developers can't or won't: sometimes for good sometimes for bad ^_^

Gotta seventh this, definately. --000.00.00.00 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

8th ^^ If that is added, it shall be great =D |Cyan LightHere!| 07:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, you should be able to turn it off. Not everybody has a great pc. But, yes, it would be great if the option was there. --Lady Rhonwyn 08:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what she was suggesting: a checkbox, slider or slider setting in the graphics settings to enable it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Eleventhed! If there is such a word. It's nice to be able to see other people's armor, and not just your own, in high res! --kaheiyeh 09:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

They could just tie it in with the graphics level stuff they have now in the F11 menu.--The Gates Assassin 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be nice indeed. -- Wandering Traveler 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

+1, etc. I've wanted this since I first noticed everyone else's armor looked terrible.

Yes please.

+1

After talking to Joe, this feels like the kind of thing you should take to Regina about. She will better be able to track down the answers for why we don't have this setting already and whether we could ever add it. - Linsey talk 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Quest List

Hello Linsey. I don't know if this has ever been asked: Have you ever considered creating an NPC or some other method for players to determine if they have any quests that they have not completed? For example: Create "Loremaster Sal" in Kainang, who will tell you there's still quests out there not yet completed, then suggest to the player to go speak with "so-and-so" in "where ever". Something to that effect. Saldonus Darkholme 9:30, 20 March 2009

then you have the issue of how repeatable quests are handled. You also have to think that there are quite a lot of side quests, so having an NPC list them for you isn't entirely fees able (in my eyes anyway) ~PheNaxKian Talk 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that if such a thing was done, then it would be needed to have a list of quests, therefore, repeatable quests would not be included in said list. I for one would enjoy such a thing, along with a NPC in each campaign to replay cinematics from missions/quests and a NPC to redo quests, of course without any rewards any repeating times. Of course, the last would be full of exploits, wouldn't it... -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No one had asked yet, but I had already thought of it. ~_^ - Linsey talk 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I always wanted to see something like "Legendary Wanderer" for doing all the interesting quests you see here and there. Oh, and of course, I prefer yours xD Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Adventurer fit better? Wanderer would be the original Cartographer x) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think repeating old quests, even without rewards, would open Pandora's Box of exploits, but it would have been great if you have a message or icon that says "Adventure awaits" if there still is a quest to be done on that map or outpost. That might be easier to implement than a NPC located somewhere. Perhaps that's an idea for GW2. Gorani 07:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My main character has done every single quest in the game that was available to her as a Prophecies char, including repeatables, except UW clear and Special Ops: Grendich Courthouse - I still can't find a battle plans for that one. I can vouch that it was rather painful to figure out which ones I had already done, as many have a long chain of prerequisites. I also think it's worthy of a title, but it would need to exclude quests available only to native characters of the campaign, and probably the repeatable ones as well. In order to not make GWAMM too easy (and no, we don't need rank 7...), it would just be a single title for all campaigns and the expansion put together, on par with the Black Moa Chick cross-campaign hunt. Rose Of Kali 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day idea that would be too funny!

Ok I know it is kinda late to suggest this, but I just had an idea for April Fools day. It would be so funny to have a "April Fools Day Glob of Ecto" in explorable area that are not able to be picked up (kind of like notes from dead people that are in explorable areas). It would be so funny to sit in say Lions Arch and watch people spam that they found a Glob of Ecto that they are going to try to "farm" or QQ that they found it and it wouldn't let them pick it up! Just an idea that I think would be funny.

No that would be incredibly annoying and would just serve to piss off alot of the player base. Changing charecter models is funny, teasing people with pretend ecto that they can't pick up, is just plain old spiteful and annoying. -- Salome 14:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ow not being able to pvp for a day sure is funny ! Lilondra *panda* 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

the PvP community still hasnt given up moaning about that. It was 24 hours, deal and move on. -- Salome 15:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying the Idea is not bad.Perhaps mod it so when they pick it up some fireworks starts.And give a april fools spirit effect => +25 % movement speed for 3 minutes Lilondra *panda* 15:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, too late for April Fool's suggestions. - Linsey talk 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

They already have the Update 1april joke so its to late guys, Joke^^Death Sligher 20:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get the complaints about the stick figures "ruining" PvP. Since when does character appearence play any role in telling people apart in the arena? :/ --Mme. Donelle 06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone uses character appearance to determine how to pre-prot and it makes watching the battlefield a lot harder. You can't just tab through 8 people constantly, you use how they look to determine it. Plus, no one except Rangers could use the J menu to modify their armor, apply runes, etc. DarkNecrid 07:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw folks complaining in TA, though. I won more matches that day than I ever had before simply because my opponents were too busy bitching instead of fighting. --Mme. Donelle 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid complaint though. For example, one of our designers and probably the best Dom Mesmer I've seen, does all his interrupts by identifying the cast animations for any skills considered worth interrupting, mouse clicking on the person and mouse clicking on the interrupt (sounds slow, but he could get 1/4 casts fairly reliably in his hay day by watching the anims and anticipating tactics). That's just one small example and granted not many people play that way because it requires an amazing level of twitch skill to be remotely decent at it (he also happens to be the best Starcraft player up here and that says a lot if you know the level of talent that exists at Anet), but you can see how the stick figures would totally hose that. We aren't likely going to ever have shapeshifting like that in PvP again. - Linsey talk 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So the person who got rank15 from starcraft and played mesmer was from Anet :S ? That examples alot (joke) Death Sligher 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I still miss the sex change April Fool's. :P That surely couldn't have broken anything. Rose Of Kali 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

PvP Item Limit

Hey, I know you're swamped, but whenever you get the time...just wondering why is there a PvP Item limit? It seems kind of weird that a PvP character can't actually create however many items they want even if they add bags + belt pouch. After you create a certain amount of items, it won't let you make any more from the J menu. I realize this probably isn't the most important change ever (it isn't.), but it does seem like an old design choice that could use some updating! :) It's a weird PvP only limitation, PvE characters are allowed to carry any number of "PvE" items they want (as much as they can fit), and stuff. DarkNecrid 09:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i found this annoying when i wanted to out fit a pvp war a wile back and just have enough stuff so i never had to remake it and was disapointed to find out that there is a limit i also agree this isnt high priority.75.165.102.6 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with hacker-like bots that are trying to overload the server by creating millons of items, or something like that. 145.94.74.23 08:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They already have a timer that will prevent you from creating PvP items if you do it too fast. DarkNecrid 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked Izzy about it today. He says that it was because Brett was really concerned about the amount of data they are and what having a super fast, free way of making a crap ton of them would do to the servers. The thing is, because of the way the J screen had to work, the items generated from there are about twice as big as normal items are. However, this was back when the J screen came out and our average concurrency was at it's height. It is possible that this isn't as much of a concern, however the fact that we are expanding storage in the upcoming Content Update may shoot this in the foot considering they both fight for the same space on the servers. *shrug* I'm not sure, but I'll try to investigate further. Brett is a very busy man and we just pestered him a whole bunch about storage and server space etc... I might wait a little bit to give him a breather on the subject. :P - Linsey talk 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you! :D. DarkNecrid 10:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see the problem. There is a feature called PvP equipment template that allows limitless "storage" of PvP setups. Use it. It is not like you need the physical items anyway, you can't swap armor while in a PvP game and there are only 4 weapon sets. --Lensor (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have 7 shields with +10 AR against whatsoever, at least one low energy focus, one high, a normal one. A focus for cast chances and on for recharge. And then there are wands and caster weapons...Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Double degen set in GvG to force a self death at the rez timer, some people might use different elemental weapons, etc...people swap whats in their weapon sets depending on what they are fighting or what they need. Also the item template feature is nice but it doesn't save as much time as you might think: it doesn't store weapon sets (except the one you currently have out) so you have to remake a minimum of 3 weapon sets every time you use it, unless if you save the other weapon sets which while possible, takes up lots of space because of the PvP item limit (and partly why I'm asking about this. :P). DarkNecrid 14:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(ri) Hm, Dunno why I was sure that the template saved weapon swaps too. It should. Even so, how many swaps is it possible to use in a single match? Is it remotely plausible that anyone would ever need more than a full bag? Even with 7 shields, 5 different focuses, double degen set and a handful of caster weps you would still not fill a single bag. If you need more than that for alt builds, saving items in templates is IMO a reasonable solution. Not that I am *against* removing the item limit, it just feels like something that would save a few seconds (respawn instead of instant equip), at the cost of opening up Anet to spawn frenzy and thereby server space issues.--Lensor (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't store weapon swaps at all (which sucks). The thing is you just can't create more than I think it's 23 (Haven't checked in awhile, use PvE items to get around the limit!) PvP items and have them in your inventory. With 7 shields, 5 focuses, your 3 other weapon sets, you're already hitting 18 PvP items (a double degen weapon can only be gotten in PvE, so it doesn't count against the limit here). That's not including various other stuff you might have like other caster weapons etc like Noct said, or various elemental weapons if you want them as a melee class, etc. You'll be cutting it very very close in some cases, and I get the whole server thing but it kinda sucks a PvP character can't really use bags + belt pouch unless if you pay money for PvE items (which defeats the purpose of the J menu). If the limit gets removed so we can fill out a full 45 space inventory then you'd always have room + could store weapon sets across multiple templates, too. Either way, hopefully Linsey can figure something out! :) DarkNecrid 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

QQ... make it infinite... OR they could simply increase the PvP items limit itself to 40, or even 45, which would fill your entire inventory with 2 upgraded bags and a pouch, but you still don't need to worry about them creating "limitless" items, if that indeed is a concern. Otherwise, it's really not hard to get basic perfect items with common skins from PvE, especially from collectors and crafters. Shields with vs. dmg type mods would have to be inscribed, but those mods are commonly sold for 1-2k in Kamadan, if you're patient enough to wait for one. The most you will pay for a simple perfect PvE blue or green item with a common skin is about 5k, or the equivalent of 1 Zkey, which isn't hard to get for a PvP character. In any case, I'd wait and see what they do with the storage in April, and go from there. Rose Of Kali 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wurms in nightfall

Linsey would you consider changing there bars to at least reflect what profession you are? or add a few quests were you can cap new elites that are profession based? i find how they are set up right now defeats one of the most basic game mechanic of the game which is making your bar not the game giving you a bar.75.165.97.80 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

dude, you're in a Wurm. Thats kinda you deciding that you want that bar. Only a tiny bit of the game makes it necesarry to be in a Wurm, the rest of the time you spend in it, is just because they rock so hard. -- Salome 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea kind of but i was also thinking along the lines of how the snowball arena works were every profession has one skill that is specal to them.75.165.115.205 05:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we'll do this. The wurms don't have professions and when you are "in wurm" form, you are sort of riding the wurm. That doesn't mean it takes on some of your characters characteristics (like profession). - Linsey talk 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The big problem i have with worms is the lack of being able to chose what skills you have, and the fact that there heals are very limited. and some of the skills are just not very use able Junundu Smash for one. and makes them very undesierble in hm, because the seem to collect dp like there is no tomorrow. so maybe a buff the the skills that heal? or something.75.165.115.205 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wurms only REALLY accumulate dp if you over-agro constantly. Simply agro wisely and you shouldn't have a problem. The damage they deal as well as the fact that you have 3000 health makes up for the lowered armor and limited healing ability... also, if you time your heals just right and don't waste them when you don't need them (the 500-health heal specifically), it can be the difference between life and death. Really, just be smart about using the wurm: you are NOT invincible, but you CAN deal and take a lot of damage. If your dp starts getting too high, then (if you're with h/h) hang back, switch to a ranged weapon, and just auto-attack the snot out of everything and allow your h/h to take care of the rest: they're very good at it. hope that helps :-P -- Timeoffire45 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible RA tweak for update after april

My proposition is simple: Whenever an RA team makes it ten wins, it is temporarily recorded. If those exact four accounts land on a team again, they move immediately to team arenas. Unlike dishonor, false positives here don't hurt anybody. A team of four experts that fits well together would cream RA whether or not it was a planned bug abuse. Rather than banning the accounts, just give them a fitting challenge. I understand that it takes months to implement a new feature, and I think we're all willing to wait. It doesn't require new design, just some good code. Rather than designing something new, it fixes something that is heavily used. Currently, getting a 10-streak legitimately is rather difficult. After this, all players would be equal again.131.128.160.149 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Whoops, this should be Julian 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That would still allow synching. A better solution would be to discourage it by removing titles from RA, or by actually punishing offenders instead of /rawring them. ~Shard 04:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually find this a decent suggestion for once. If implemented, synchers can't go more than 10 rounds on the same accounts, they would need to switch it up, which limits "farming" of RA by synchers. This can only continue to be abused if the synchers have multiple accounts and/or the synching group of friends/guildies is larger than 4, so they can rotate the teams. But even then, they still can't get very far before hitting the limit, and the effort becomes much more elaborate, thus removing a large number of synchers who are simply 4 friends abusing the system. Removing titles from anything is never a solution, it only impairs those who were legitimately pursuing the title and now lost the ability to do so. Any kind of serious punishment should also be avoided, as there will always be innocents getting caught in the system. A mild discouragement like Julian suggested is not a perfect solution, but it is still a solution that helps the problem and doesn't hurt anyone innocent in the process. Rose Of Kali 05:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Better solution: put the 8 people going into the match into random teams and not teams chosen by when they hit enter battle (edit: or removing Gladiator title however people still synched without Glad title just to grief). DarkNecrid 06:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind people synching for fun. My guildies do it all the time because we don't want to face the TA meta (which is horrendously broken for those of you who don't know). The problem is that people aren't using RA synching to have fun with BYOB, they use it to farm glad points with a predetermined team build. Unreachable titles are unfun, I still don't know why anet keeps adding them.

Shuffling players in the queue before every match start would do little, many of the teams who sync enter do so from an empty district, korean for example.~Shard 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's 3 types of synchers, the ones who do it in the empty districts (I don't think many people who complain about it are complaining about these type of people tho, it's just a title and if they suck being rank 5000 in it isn't going to help them), the ones who create team builds in populated districts (which ruins the fun of lots of people, you're pretty much pre-determined to lose), and BYOBers which are considerably more rare now and days. You're right that shuffling wouldn't remove it from the empty districts, but if they had to be removed, a combined shuffle + removal of title from RA would work. Prior to the glad title there were guilds who would still synch RA with team builds just to grief, and with zkeys now people might still do it just for pretty fast Faction gain (since most matches would end pretty damn quick). The punishing offenders idea sounds good in theory but support doesn't seem to care much when it comes to the lower end game modes. The shuffle teams deal should be there anyways...just creating teams based on when they enter a queue is hardly "random". (edit: Either way I think anything would be better then what the current deal is, I'd definitely love to see the title taken out of RA and a shuffling deal added in, but that's just me.) DarkNecrid 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about having a look at whether it's possible to completely remove all districts except international ones from all PvP areas involving randomized party creation. I know, it requires some server programmer work, but I believe it would be technically easier than making 1 queue for all staging districts spread over the world, or making a whole new matchmaking system with punishments and such. This would significantly reduce the possibility of any reliable syncing and would be fair for everyone. The only advantage to the current system is having the big nations (German or French) be able to play in random teams with other players speaking their language, but for all the severely underrepresented nations empty districts await open for abusers. But removing some districts from random PvP zones and keeping some would be a bad move (discrimination of some nations feels bad and abuse would be still possible at hours when those nations sleep), so it has to be all or none. --Yawg 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Imo up faction rewarded in RA and drop the glad title.This way It is great for new players to play as they unlock skills while it is not worthwile to farm by syncing Lilondra *panda* 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If we can, I would prefer that we just fix the base issue rather than doing all kinds of changes to make up for the issue. Before discussing other ways to work around it, let me first find out if the base issue is fixable. Inquiries have been sent out, but the server team is pretty slammed right now so I'm not sure when we'll hear back. I will let you know when I do. - Linsey talk 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -Julian 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of sheer curiosity, what d'you mean by the "base issue"? Are you referring to the way that groups are chosen, which allows syncing, or are you referring to some specific aspect of said mechanism, and, if so, which aspect? Or do you mean something else entirely (on the extreme end, the base issue could be RAs' existence; any form of PvP that randomly assembles players is bound to have some inherent issues, no?). I ask, again, simply out of curiosity. Raine - talk 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)