Guild Wars 2

Proposal Overview
Put guild-halls in the open world.

Goal of Proposal
Having guild be more part of the game itself and giving guild-halls more meaning, more reason to be pride of it. While at the same time keeping people in the maps.

Proposal Functionality
While it would likely be easiest to just put the guild-halls in some instance this would take away a lot from what guild-halls can be and the role guilds have in the game. If you put guild-halls in the open world it is more fun to work on your guild-hall because you know people can see it and it would also put guilds more in the game. While putting it in an instance would basically also mean you put guilds themselves away as if they are not part of the game-world.

There are many ways to implement this. From special maps to things like Retro suggested https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Guilds-Guild-Halls/first#post4454383 and many other options are thinkable.

Associated Risks
That depends on how you implement it. Maybe you get places where not many people are because guilds stopped playing or maybe those places get many people while the city’s don’t. At the same time those can all be solved by the way you implement it.

Another problem is to work around the mega-servers here.

Prophet.6257:

Devata.6589:

Prophet.6257:

Proposal Overview:
Guild Zones.

Goal of Proposal:
I love depth in MMOs. It is the main reason I play them over other genres. I assume there are other like me who feel the same way. Well, my idea to add more depth to GW2 involves the addition of new special themed zones with player/guild/alliance driven content. These zones will exist by districts that the player can select similar to GW1’s cities.

Proposal Functionality:
Each zone will have content that is unlock able through Gems, Gold, Dungeon Tokens, Badges of Honor, and most (if not all) other forms of currency in game at an appropriate and fair exchange rate. This is to avoid adding another currency but instead adding a vendor accepting all currencies for this feature.

Each zone will include:
——————————————-
-Keeps (Strong customization options)
-Housing (Strong customization options)
-Zone exclusive mounts
-Unique Enemies (fitting each zone)
-Unique Biconic Characters (to drive extended PvE content)
-Hard Mode
-Zone Buffs/Debuffs
-Open World Boss
-Zone PvP Toggle On/Off
-Zone Guild vs Guild Matches (some instanced version of the zone maybe)

Each zone will lack:
——————————————-
-Capitol City vendors (to keep Capitol Cities well populated)
-Multiple Waypoints (to encourage the use of mounts, but one or to to res.)

Potential Risks:
Players may be upset with the amount of time needed to get the required funds to unlock the content. It may also make content that requires more organization than is normally done in pugs.

Personally I would take the gold and gems out of it and maybe any currency. We would not want yet another gold grind. Think should be earned by playing the game. Doing a guild-mission could drop maybe a access pas? Or completing a hard guild-dungeon something like that. It would make more sense and be more fun wouldn’t you agree?

That’s why I had it so open to any currencies. So it wouldn’t just be a “gold” grind. I do like they way you are thinking though. Guild missions to unlock a guild hall. I would prefer it not have an RNG factor though. People get kittened if RNGesus hates them and it is unfair to those folks.

How about adding a couple different paths to obtain a guild zone? This way it gives guilds options and can account for guild size by scaling cost and difficulty.
1.) Guild Missions
2.) Guild Scavenger Hunts
3.) Guild Fund Raisers

I would think most guilds would do the path you suggested first if for nothing else to enjoy the new content and avoid the financial cost.

On a side note I would like to see a progress bar added for the unlock regardless of the path the guild chooses.

I think that if the RNG is not extreme it should not be a huge problem. 1/10 for easy obtainable things maybe 1/100 for very kittenes. People get kittened with general loot that has 1/1000 1/10000 type of rng because you can’t really work towards that.

And adding new paths would for sure be an option while I think changes that gets added is smaller. We could of course also use the current dungeons. I suggested that in another post already. Do a dungeon with a 5 members of your guild and you unlock x and maybe have a 1/ 10 rng of getting drop y (blue-prints or an item or an upgrade, for your guild-hall). Doing all paths of a dungeon with groups that all are from the same guild would reward another unlock or item and completing all dungeons and all paths with all guild-members would unlock yet another thing.

Something like that.

Adding new paths or special guild-dungeons and other content would be great but this just gives a few options for content that is already in the game.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

CDI – Collaborative Discussion Initiative

I, too, worry about small family/friend guilds being shut out of the opportunity to obtain their own Guild Hall. We could all, no matter our size, obtain one in GW1, and over time fill it with NPCs offering all manner of upgrades. I hope to see the same in GW2. It was based on Gold in GW1, it can be based on Influence in GW2, or Gold. But not merits, I hope, because some of the small guilds just can’t raise merits.

It doesn’t matter how fast the large guilds will get their Guild Halls, then, as the whole purpose is to have the Guild Hall and its functions…at least, I would hope so. Otherwise, it will be just like the other Guild-centric content released. Only for those that are of a certain active membership size.

Thank you in advance for considering the small guilds, as well.

But why use a currency at all? Would it not make more sense and more important be much more fun to unlock it with doing thinks with the guild. Like i gave an example before, do a gungeon with only guild-members ir unlock it with doing guild-missions and that sort of things.

Currency is just a little boring. You do some general things and that number then go’s up slowely and then eventually you can buy it.

But if there are ways to directly work for it that makes much more clear things to do and goals to work for with the guild. What should be one of things guild-halls should provide imho.

GW2 is enough currency based. Maybe this can be done different. And that would likely also help smaller guilds out.

MakubeC.3026:

Proposal Overview
Getting the concept of Guild Halls right.

Goal of Proposal
Few definitive bullets on how to approach Guild Halls.

Proposal Functionality

• GH should be instanced.
• The theme for the Instances should NOT be one singular place where every guild has a “different version of the same building”. Like a Mansion or a Cave .
• Rather they must be a place or Guilds could logically coexist, even if they in reality don’t (A Neighborhood full of mansions, a mountain full of caves, The Mists, One Airship out of hundreds in the airport).
• They should be highly customizable.
• Must have different themes (Asuran, Human, Norn, Charr).
• Should be tiered, unlocking greater locations but also leaving the option of not upgrading (Tier one: Guild Cave. Tier Two: Guild Airship. Tier Three: DR Mansion). But my guild is small and pirate themed, so even when we can upgrade to a mansion, we stayed with the airship.
• Should have a sparring area for guild members.
• Should have a section where you can see information about guild mates (AP, Number of Characters, Hours Played, Little Summary about him he wrote).

Associated Risks
Not considering any of these could result in something. And no, this is not a threat.

Why do you think to get it right they need to be instanced. Or for that matter why do you think any of the other things you suggest need to be in to get it right?

fellyn.5083:

The only suggestion I have is to make them attainable for small guilds.

Unlike upgrading a guild now it’s pretty much completely unrealistic for a small guild to ever get to do their own quests and stuff with how much influence upgrades costs.

Costs should scale based on guild size.

I agree that it should be accessible for smaller guilds. I don’t agree it should scale based on guild size. Is it also not just fair that bigger guilds can build bigger halls?

What I would see is making is easy to unlock a basic guild-hall that also small guilds can do. But then building things around it and on it and expanding it and so on will take a lot of work. Not so much with influence but you would need to do guild-mission-like-content or maybe other things as well to earn blue-prints or objects.

Complete all dungeons + all paths with groups that only contain members all of your guild could unlock some huge thing while completing 1 dungeon would reward something smaller and completing all paths of one dungeon would also rewards something nice.

That sort of things should also be doable for smaller guild but would obviously be easier for bigger guilds.

Maybe there is also some RNG behind it to make content better re-playable.

Prophet.6257:

Proposal Overview:
Guild Zones.

Goal of Proposal:
I love depth in MMOs. It is the main reason I play them over other genres. I assume there are other like me who feel the same way. Well, my idea to add more depth to GW2 involves the addition of new special themed zones with player/guild/alliance driven content. These zones will exist by districts that the player can select similar to GW1’s cities.

Proposal Functionality:
Each zone will have content that is unlock able through Gems, Gold, Dungeon Tokens, Badges of Honor, and most (if not all) other forms of currency in game at an appropriate and fair exchange rate. This is to avoid adding another currency but instead adding a vendor accepting all currencies for this feature.

Each zone will include:
——————————————-
-Keeps (Strong customization options)
-Housing (Strong customization options)
-Zone exclusive mounts
-Unique Enemies (fitting each zone)
-Unique Biconic Characters (to drive extended PvE content)
-Hard Mode
-Zone Buffs/Debuffs
-Open World Boss
-Zone PvP Toggle On/Off
-Zone Guild vs Guild Matches (some instanced version of the zone maybe)

Each zone will lack:
——————————————-
-Capitol City vendors (to keep Capitol Cities well populated)
-Multiple Waypoints (to encourage the use of mounts, but one or to to res.)

Potential Risks:
Players may be upset with the amount of time needed to get the required funds to unlock the content. It may also make content that requires more organization than is normally done in pugs.

Personally I would take the gold and gems out of it and maybe any currency. We would not want yet another gold grind. Think should be earned by playing the game. Doing a guild-mission could drop maybe a access pas? Or completing a hard guild-dungeon something like that. It would make more sense and be more fun wouldn’t you agree?

Conski Deshan.2057:

I think we need to address the open world vs instanced for guildhalls, I believe open world is not viable.
-Mega servers specifically prevent the creation of open world structures as it would depend on which copy of the map you end up in.
-There is no existing space large enough to house guild halls in the open world (that includes in cities) or that can be created reasonably.
-A Guild hall is your guild’s and guests private space, having any passer by able to enter detracts from this.
-It limits certain implementations such as for GvG
-It doesn’t fit the narrative large scale multi-racial guilds outside of the 3 orders are a mostly meta concept not game concept, having it in an instance allows for grand guild halls without detracting from the narrative.

Mega servers are always a problem for guilds and so if it comes to guilds and mega-servers the Dev’s will need to find some solutions there anyway.

However I will go over your problems.

1- When you use new maps where you have guild-halls in the open world you can simply make those maps server based. That would be one possible solution. You know just as the WvW maps are also still server based.

2- Again new maps could solve that but a suggestion like that from Retro is also able to solve that problem. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Guilds-Guild-Halls/first#post4454383

3- If a guild hall is in an open map that does not mean everybody can enter. I would think guilds have the option to give free access or not.

4- I don’t see this one. You could have a place in your guild hall or in a open world map for guilds or guild hall neighborhood (referring to things suggested here) where you can GvG.

5- Why not, why can’t there be sub guilds. Besides it’s also not like if those 3 orders are such a big thing for many people. Players who did not complete the LS aren’t even really in one of them. And no matter if you would place it in the open world or not you would still have to explain it story wise. So make it part of the narrative I would say.

I would think open world guild-halls would be better because it would simply add much more to guild, to the world to the hole idea of guild halls and so on. However yes as you point out it comes with it’s own difficulties that need solutions.

Deified.7520:

Anyways here is my idea

~

For currency I suggest putting a cost that somehow interacts with the amount of members you have. I’m sure this will be incrediably hard to program, but like if you have 5 guild members the influence cost will be 500 with an upkeep cost of 250, if you have 50 guild members the guild hall cost will be 8,000 influence and 1500 upkeep cost. Then put in a flat rate of merrits for the inital cost. Such as 100 merrits to buy a guild hall plus the scaling influence cost. Owning a guild hall has an upkeep cost of influence which takes away influence daily. If you don’t keep logging in and your guild goes dead and you miss a influence payment, then you lose the guild hall and all upgrades within it. This is to help entice people to continue being active and reward active guilds.

Now with megaservers this area needs to be instanced. The area can be locations in games or just plots of land that upon entering the instance show a “guild fort”. Or perhaps you can see the guild fort but you can’t go inside of it in the open world and have to talk to the npc to get into a instanced version. Kind of like the home district in Divintys Reach.

The NPC has a list of guildies that you can visit if they have public enabled. Basically if the guild has enabled public guild halls it will allow random players to see them on the list, travel to their guild hall, and take advantage of certain vendors (like regular merchants). If they have it disabled they can’t see them on the list.

As for crafting tables and such I think a upgrade that can either be bought or earned are crafting tables (tied to a guild crafting achievement), Guild Bank, and regular bank. No TP.

Goal of Proposal
Right now guilds I feel don’t feel accomplished as a whole. There are many good guild accomplishments that a guild can do, yet there’s no way to show people that they’ve done this. You can have a 2 year old guild and a 6 month old guild and have them look the same progression wise. I want to give guilds some ways to “show off” what they’ve done as a community and to show other players that hey, we know what we’re doing.

Proposal Functionality
Right now one of the riches, most exciting, and most growing part of the game is the open world. With the living story it is constantly changing and there’s a lot of flexibility. So with new living story updates you can offer more guild areas. Guilds can change their areas at an influence cost, but keep their upgrades. So the living story will allow you to continue adding new “guild achievements” for guilds to earn while offering more halls for them to buy.

Associated Risks
Lots of complicated programming, possibly too many public guilds in a list, UI issues with the guild search, guilds losing their halls from being inactive and complaining, more work for the living story team.

Would rethink this part.

“For currency I suggest putting a cost that somehow interacts with the amount of members you have. I’m sure this will be incrediably hard to program, but like if you have 5 guild members the influence cost will be 500 with an upkeep cost of 250, if you have 50 guild members the guild hall cost will be 8,000 influence and 1500 upkeep cost.”

That means you will almost force guilds into forcing there members to be really active. It could be a dead sentence for just social friendly guilds. In addition it might also not be completely fair. If you are a big group you can accomplish more. Thats no problem.

Piogre.2164:

I have a few things to suggest here, I’m going to start with this one. Each guild hall should look distinctive, and have the feel that it belongs to the guild. In addition to things like a hanging tapestry with the guild logo, upgrading to include various merchants and services and an SAB game console, and the ability of the guild leaders to determine the architecture and model (Norn architecture? Asuran?), and maybe swap out the carpet or something, there should be something more, something which distinguishes the guild itself.

Proposal:
Guild member statues and portraits, and item display cases.

Proposal Functionality:
Allow an upgrade to take a snapshot of another guild member’s current character, and create a full-color statue of that character in their current gear, in one of a few selectable poses. Then allow this statue to be placed in one of several spots in the guild hall- perhaps with an interact node giving the player’s name.

Additionally, have a similar function to make a full-body or chest-up portrait of a character, to be places on a wall in the guild hall.

Finally, allow a guild member to create a display-case to be hung on the wall, containing one of their items (the item is not consumed), which holds the model on display in the guild hall.

Associated Risks:
Unsure how this would be implemented safely, not sure how many systems it touches.

Yeah that would also be nice for many things. You could place statues of winners somewhere at the entrance.

But also could have a basement where you can make like your guild stone army https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/10357/93506/f/598584-An-army-of-stone-3.jpg
You can then see all people who have ever been in the guild, maybe even see them in different faces (like a year a go and now). Really nice idea.

Baltzenger.2467:

The idea of competition against fellow guilds from the same realm/world/server is good, but doesn’t fit with GW2 model in my opinion. At this point, to improve the wvw competition, we need stronger communities, and having guilds hold grudges against other guilds from the same server because “they got the plot they wanted” doesn’t really help to this purpose.

And in regard to Arzo’s comment, I agree. If you leave small guilds out, when this is not a competition of who has the biggest guild, then you are hurting the community. Small guilds are very important to the game, starting with the idea that many “big” or “highly competitive” guilds, start as small guilds that didn’t want to expand at first. GW2 is great in the idea of having small communities cluster around the idea of your “world”, and being able to participate on more than one.
Guild Halls should vary depending on the power of the guild, yes, but at the same time, small guilds should be able to afford at least, some version of it that fits their needs. (which are different from the needs of bigger guilds)

About the competition. If you would do it in a WvW like manner you could do it with guilds from different servers and then it changes together with the WvW reset.

About smaller guilds. I completely agree small guilds would need to be able to get a hall as well. At the same time, guilds need goals to work, things to do. If a guild-hall would just be some simple thing to unlock then guild unlock it and be done with it having nothing to do.

So I suggest unlocking some basic guild-hall much like the lord room of a WvW castle should be very doable for smaller guilds. But after that guilds should be able to build things around it and unlock many other elements they can use. Many cosmetic, some not cosmetic. Doing that would then be harder for smaller guilds but it does give guilds goals to work towards and set them apart.. not so much in since but also in the way they build there guild-hall.

Retro.6831:

Proposal Overview
Guild Neighborhoods & Competitions

Goal of Proposal
One of the repeated concerns with housing systems is that they remove players from cities in favor of private, instanced areas. The goal of this proposal is to alleviate this to some degree.

Proposal Functionality
Due to the sheer number of guilds, it is impractical not to instance them. However, they do not need to be isolated from one another, nor do they all need to be instanced.

My proposal is that Guild Halls be grouped into neighborhoods where multiple guilds (4+) each have their own editable plots set around a central common area that cannot be directly modified (See first attachment). Those guilds then work together to upgrade their neighborhood, adding both aesthetic features (fountains, statues, landscaping) and gameplay features (special harvesting nodes, vendors, etc.) to the common area by popular vote / donation drives. A neighborhood of low quality would be a dimly lit area with dead grass and dirt roads, while a neighborhood with attentive residents would have lights and festive banners, musicians and entertainers, manicured gardens and elaborately paved streets.

A score is assigned to each neighborhood, based on the individual guild plots (quality and quantity of furniture, number of trophies, specialized services) and common area. Optionally, points can be awarded for successful completion of Guild Missions, WvW claims and successful dungeon / PVP matches done as a guild. Guilds would be grouped into “leagues” based on size, overall neighborhood quality, etc.

Within Lion’s Arch, several ‘blank’ neighborhoods would be placed around the city, all using the same template (See second attachment). Each week, the top-ranked neighborhood for each league is placed directly into the regular, persistent game world where all players can see it and take advantage of any amenities present (each blank neighborhood represents a different League). The portal leading into the private guild instances would be placed at the exact center of the neighborhood, creating an area where people gather to both take advantage of services present and to travel into their own neighborhood instances.

Associated Risks
- Requires the Megaserver system be abandoned inside cities or adjusted to compensate so players only encounter the neighborhood of guilds based on their home server.

- Requires some method of loading large chunks of instanced content into the persistent world (perhaps it requires a reloading of the zone to change).

- A system would need to be developed where guilds can migrate in and out of neighborhoods. For example, if an active guild is stuck in a neighborhood with several inactive ones.

Nice idea but how do you prevent the same guilds from always ‘winning’ (also once a few guilds are up frond it get harder and harder for other guilds to beat them.. like AP’s)? And would that not be unfair to smaller guilds?

In addition to that automating a system with points might not give proper results. Maybe one guild / group of guilds should win because they have the best looking guild hall but don’t have nice fountains that give points or maybe they want dead grass because it fits better with there Halloween style neighborhood.

So I really like the idea (it would also fit with my own suggestion) I even like the competition idea but I also see a few problems with that competition. If there would be ways to solve those problems it could be really nice.

The same system as you suggest here could also be done in a WvW map giving the option for a PvE and a more PvP / WvW approach.

In my suggestion I also talked about unlocking mini games when combined with your suggestion you might be able to unlock capture the flag, a game that those 4 guilds can play together, taking the flag from each other camp.

Not sure what boundaries we have, guessing that development on halls is already started some suggestions might be useless but nonetheless less here is what I would like to see.

Proposal Overview
Building your own Guild Hall what would be more like a Guild Castle in an open world map. (maybe (also) in a WvW like map) and letting you unlock ‘building blocks’ with other guild activities.

Goal of Proposal
Giving a guild more to work towards and making guild-halls more specific to a guild in stead of just being some instance you can go to.

Proposal Functionality
First you would unlock some basic guild-hall (like the lords room in a WvW castle), you do that with influence and should be accessible also for smaller guilds. This gives you all the basic abilities.

But after that you can also start playing with your guild for building blocks (not buying it in a cash-shop and it should also be more fun as just influence unlocks).
Maybe some can be unlocked by doing a dungeon or they can drop during guild-missions and that sort of things.
While I would love to see this as detailed as small voxels more realistic for the way GW2 works would be bigger parts. If you would go to WvW but also some of the buildings in PvE you can see how there are many of the same ‘blocks’ that make up a building. For example the gate,s the wall’s that can be destroyed, the cannon, the parts linking walls, the part with the stairs inside and so on.

It are all predefined building blocks. Add some more of them and let guild play for blueprints of those building blocks.

Then let them place those building blocks like they want it and so create there own guild castle. Next to those builds you might also unlock the ability for mini-games and letting you set up a rush in your castle and so on.

Guessing you need supplies there might be like a guild building bank where members can donate mats that are (and can only be) used for the building process.

This would be nice in PvE but could even work in some WvW like maps where it then gives a real reason to defend your castle.

Associated Risks
Likely not something smaller guilds can do much with and it does have some complexity.

Mega-server is a problem here but it’s a problem for guilds in general. If you make special maps for guild-halls those maps would likely have to server-based. But then you still have the problem of guild-members that are on different servers.

Looks good. Roster Improvements/General Guild Improvements is indeed to big to summarize but the many suggestions about it where almost all very good so I hope most of them will make it in. And just as a side note. Please make sure both guild-rosters (The one you see under “main” and the one you see under “Roster” will get the same functionality. Now for example you can only see “Last Online” in Main but can only filter on things in Roster.

I do feel Guild Halls do not really belong in QoL but if it get’s QoL elements (like maybe calendars in the guild hall) I guess it fits in here.

I have been actively collecting guild suggestion on this forum for over a year so it’s great to see it now finally gonna get worked on:D

Anyway, it’s a great list!

VergilDeZaniah.3295:

The gemstore is a good idea, and since you can also pay with IG money, I’m not against it at all. The only thing I’m against is that every but one armors released during these two years came in the gemstore. Some skins have their place their, while other don’t. They should go half way in between, but not put everything in the gemstore…

The fact that you can buy it with in game gold means that the only way to earn them in game is by grinding gold. What I would not see as a fun way of playing that game. And the fact that all or most or best looking things are added in the cash-shop is what you get when you focus your income on a cash-shop. When you place to many in the world so you can earn them directly in game by working for them there would not be enough reason to buy them from the cash-shop.

So you first say you like it and then explain why it’s bad. Think about it.. maybe you do not like it… You might like the idea on paper but then if you pay attention and see what it does to the game you do not like it.

Nerelith.7360:

You like to assume a Lot based on zero evidence and silence.

Maybe they are working on a seamless world? based On what? Maybe they add Mounts? again..based On what?

I saw Colin’s video of almost 20 months ago… wow… Mounts are Impending according to you based On a video full of " provisos…quid pro quo’s… addendas… "< Genie> etc etc etc…

it sounded to me Like he was keeping his options Open without making any statement of intent whatsoever.

I asked you to include examples of Mounts In Guild wars Lore. You made an assertion. Back it up. Show where In GW, humans used mounts in the then ..current day and culture. Not mounts they fought, ..Not history they outgrew.

you made assertions that mounts were a part of Gw Lore, when asked to give an example, you try to deflect.

I also asked you to do the same for Gw2. You also failed to provide one.

I said it before, I’ll say it again. if you want mounts In gw2, this game is not for you.

Secondly… about Open World PvP, if I need to explain it to you, maybe it’s best you google it, because if you think " Instanced PvP is almost like Open world PvP" you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. But basically Open World PvP means you are not safe anywhere on the server, you can be attacked at will, even if you don’t desire PvP. AA is a compromise since while there are areas you are safe from PvP… to get past level 30, you more than likely need to go into PvP free for all zones, where you may be ganked by a few level 50’s at level 31.

PS: if you do go back, and try AA, I am on Inoch and part of an awesome Guild…send me a letter… name is of course…Nerelith :-)

Only thing I did assume was how open world PvP would look like in GW2 that does not have an open world, but it looks like you also assumed something about that else you would not say you could not compare open world PvP in GW2 to the EotM we have now?

“Maybe they are working on a seamless world? based On what? Maybe they add Mounts? again..based On what?” That was not an assumption. What I say there is that thats all possible, Not that I assume any of it! You beleef (or so it seems) as if that would be impossible because it would go against the core of the game or whatever.

So to ask that question back. Based on what do you assume / think / believe ‘no mounts’ are part of the core design of what GW2 is and so it would be unthinkable they would be added? Even tho Anet only said they would not be there at release and Colin talked about how they could be implemented. So tell me why are they against the core design / where did you get that information? I am really interesting to that because I see statements like that a lot. While I never did see Anet make a statement like that and I see many references to mounts in the game.

“Mounts are Impending according to you” I never said that. All I say it’s possible while you seem to believe as if it’s impossible because it would go against the core of what GW is. So if anybody is making assumption here it’s you isn’kitten Asuming it’s against the core idea of what GW is I mean.

“it sounded to me Like he was keeping his options Open without making any statement of intent whatsoever.”
Ah there you go. That option is open!
So it is possible they would implement it (just what I was saying) and that would also mean it does not go against the core design philosophy of the game! Would it?

That is exactly what I have been saying here all the time(or trying to say) and why I say a reaction like “maybe this game is not for you” to somebody suggesting it is nonsense imho. You know, exactly what you where trying to defend. So then we could end this there?

Mounts can be worked on (not assuming they are or are not working on it.. but they can be working on.), they can be added to the game and they are not against the core of the game, so suggesting them is completely fine and would not mean he or she should better go play another game. Right..?

That was my hole point here, not more, not less.

About the rest of your post. going into that would derail it to much to a mount discussion. The above is also true for many other times the “maybe you should look for another game” argument is used. But where there are mounts in the lore is more fitting for a mount thread imho.

However just a few references to mounts in GW2. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Thunder_Ridge_Camp_2.jpg horse carriage that did bring that team there. Choppers and zeppelins in Orr / arah, combat mounts parked and being build in black citadel and so on)

Nerelith.7360:

~

“Except in it’s current Iteration, this game has no mounts.” At this moment we do not have mounts no. How is that relevant when people suggest for them being added and then some people (including you) say it’s should not be in GW because it’s not part of the core philosophy or however you might put it. No it’s not there, that is why some people suggest it. With any of these things.

“The witch’s Broom is a costume toy, not a mount, the Kite is the same.” It’s a toy but still irrelevant.

Oow I have see many mounts, from choppers to bad-mobile-like vehicles to submarines and some in use but mostly you indeed don’t see them being in use. However now you are turning it to much to the hole discussion as to of we have mounts and if or how they fit.

I said enough about that in this thread here:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Maybe-GW2-is-not-the-game-for-you/page/2#post4441133 including some of the questions you ask here.

but that is not what this thread is about. What the thread is about is that some people (like you) don’t like something and then act as if it’s in the core philosophy of the game and so it should not be added and so if people want that they should look for another game. That while the idea that it’s not in the core philosophy is part of there own imagination.

I would even agree with you that mounts would have some problems in the way the current game works. Maps being instances in stead of an open world is one of those problem. If you would go from map a to map c crossing map b that would mean 3 loading screens. But that does not say much. In fact if you look at some old trailers and screenshots it looks like Anet did try to make a true open world but somehow eventually had to go for instanced maps. That would likely also more explain waypoints that don’t really fit the rest of the world and all the mounts we see but never see being used. Maybe this what we see is the compromise, not the original goal.

Nonetheless it’s just not true that ‘no mounts’ is like a core philosophy for this game and so the argument that if people suggest them being added should look for another argument is invalid.

“Just an Fyi: You cannot Point to “Instanced PvP” and then say " it’s almost like Open World PvP". totally different dynamics.” Lol and then what the heck would Open World PvP in GW2 be? GW2 has only Instanced maps as you might have noticed. That what Anet names “open world” so if you would and ’Open World PvP” but also would assume there would be friendly maps that is the closes you will come.

Until they maybe at some point would make it a seamless world. Who knows, that might be the big thing they are working on, in the background. But for now this is pretyt much how open world PvP would look like in GW2.

About those other games. I did try AA and it’s nice, will likely hop in there again. Just to bad of the LP. WoW also nice but don’t like a timer over my head.

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

For a world that’s not really a open world but has instanced maps WvW is as much open world PvP as about any MMO out there with open world PvP.

So what would open world PvP in GW2 mean.. adding a new map where people can fight with each other (like in WvW) but without the camps, towers and keeps as in WvW?

And about way-points and mounts. GW1 had mounts (sure not exactly the way we know them from some other MMO’s but they do have mounts). The world is filled with mounts just none we can ride on (well even one of those.. riding broom) and Anet did state mounts where for sure an option. So also that is not so much ‘not GW’ as you seem to think.

Way-points seem to be a way to overcome the problem of not having mounts but don’t really fit in the lore (portals do and you might see how the two sort of don’t match) and have only recently been put into the story as a way to reduce them, in a more story like way.

So I am sorry but if you are going to say that GW2 is not for people who like mounts and open world PvP I am going to assume thats something you very much want from a game and I need to conclude that maybe GW2 is not the game for you. Because those things are not so much in the GW core as you seem to think and so it could easily change in a expansion. In fact they are already reducing the number of way-points so it seems.

Maybe this game is Not for you?

Or not for you if you are looking for a game where No mounts (as an example again) is so much core of the game philosophy. Because thats not the case in GW2 seeing as how even Colin talked about how mounts could be implemented.

And open world PvP. Well Edge of the mist comes very close to what would be open world PvP in a MMO that is not really open world but works with instanced maps.

You are exactly doing (in the post before) what I talked about. You do not like something and then act as if it’s in the core of the game philosophy that it should not be in the game. What is complete nonsense of course (at least with this example).

You may disagree on putting it in but don’t try to change what the core of the game is about as it is not about no mounts (coming back to that example again).

In fact, during the launch they said there would be no mounts at launch. That ‘at launch’ was not added for nothing. They can be introduced at any patch or expansion. You know, maybe that is even the reason they are now reducing waypoints? who knows. Considering ‘no mounts’ is NOT part of the core game philosophy they could be added any moment.

http://guildwars2.cz/otazky-odpovedi-pro-guildwars2-cz/2/
“Will be there any other kind of traveling across long distances apart from asura gates (e.g. ship)?
Eric: Any of the major (non-capturable) waypoints that a player has unlocked can be travelled to regardless of the distance involved. Prices do vary depending on distance though, and asura gates are free, so a player might find it advantageous to use asura gates in some circumstances. Other than waypoints and asura gates, there will be no other methods of long distance travel such as mounts, ships, etc inGuild Wars 2 upon initial release.”

So if you did expect them on initial release this game is maybe not for you, if you expect them to never be added because of some design philosophy then this game is also maybe not for you.

If you are really looking for a game where those things are the core game philosophy then maybe this game is not for you?

nightwulf.1986:

Devata.6589:

“It was a CORPG that positioned itself in the MMO market at a specific time when there weren’t many F2P games.” First of all, back then there where many F2P games. But then again I don’t see how that is relevant as GW1 was B2P not F2P.

Yes it was not P2P but let me tell you something about that ‘time’. GW2 was released after WoW. Since WoW there have been no mmo’s that where successful with P2P. WoW was the last one to be really successful with it. There are some new mmo’s that use it but we still have to see if they will get successful.

But to come back on your “there weren’t many F2P games”. You of course prefer to the idea that GW1 was pretty unique with there B2P model. And thats true, but that hasn’t changed a bit. They would still be pretty unique with the B2P model today. However they act as if they are unique but with the current model thats more F2P then B2P they are not unique. So no, in that way times did not change to much.

“How many other MMOs can we look to today that use that model successfully?” Just as many other MMO’s as where successfull with that model back when GW1 was released. Now of course if you think it would not work we can simply look at the numbers.
Here are some numbers: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/NcSoft-earnings-1Q-14/page/3#post4029793
And here a small comparison to GW1 https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/NcSoft-earnings-1Q-14/page/3#post4029793

If that is anything to go on GW2 with a B2P model would have earned more money by now! So yes with the information we have we can say the B2P model would work great also today.

“operating costs for GW2 far exceed that of GW1” So does the number of players. It’s just a game on a bigger scale. So irrelevant.

“companies are simply greedier than they were 10 years ago and don’t have the guts to run with that model.” Well maybe and likely and I think this is the only think that has truth to it in your story, but thats not a good argument to not ask for something that is better.

You see, if people don’t buy cash-shop crap but are willing to buy the game an real expansions (not talking about DLC crap) then companies will get afraid of other models and come to like the B2P model.

“All I can say is if you can pitch that to any MMO company as a business model today and get that to work, you might just have the next big thing on your hands.”

I guess that is what I am sort of doing here.

I think you should read this http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/14/business/fi-game14

All of the interviews and articles around the time Guild Wars 1 launched paint a very clear picture that the norm and expectation for MMOs was a subscription model. The landscape and expectations for payment models was changing just as GW1 was launching. I still feel that my assessment of Anet’s business strategy is accurate in that it was one that involved good timing to make the most of their B2P model. In interviews and reviews of the Guild Wars 1 launch, it was being compared to any and all offerings for MMOGs on the market because of its unique payment model and method of content delivery.

Player expectations have changed, Business expectations have changed, the market has changed, everything is different. You can see in the article from 2004 that I linked that companies were already poised to get in on the microtransaction model because, eerily enough, of the player generated RMT of items and goods in MMOs. Indeed, Anet was not ignored by the industry at large as "Many in the industry will be watching “Guild Wars,” which is the first title from Strain’s Seattle-based ArenaNet." And after all was said and done, the current payment model used by Guild Wars 2 is the result of history.

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here. Back when P2P was the standard (sort of) GW did not go with the P2P but with B2P. Now that F2P is the standard GW2 should not be able to go with B2P but with a more F2P model just like the rest?

nightwulf.1986:

Haven’t we already established that GW1 was the only game on the mmo market running with the B2P model with no subscription and a small cash shop? It was a CORPG that positioned itself in the MMO market at a specific time when there weren’t many F2P games. One of the earliest interviews with one of the Anet heads talked about this being a very peculiar marketing strategy at the time to not charge a subscription if that tells you anything about the era. The argument for GW2 to run with that model seems to be because it worked then, it can work now. I really don’t see that as true. How many other MMOs can we look to today that use that model successfully? There really aren’t any. The arguments for this will likely be either it’s because it’s no longer tenable given the payment model landscape in the MMO market, operating costs for GW2 far exceed that of GW1 or all companies are simply greedier than they were 10 years ago and don’t have the guts to run with that model. You can choose what you want to believe but there is probably a little truth in all of these things and more than people want to consider to inform their understanding of MMOs as a business.

Devata, I should point out that I’ve seen how passionately you argue your position in support of the GW1 payment model and your ideal MMO business. I admire your idealism. All I can say is if you can pitch that to any MMO company as a business model today and get that to work, you might just have the next big thing on your hands.

“It was a CORPG that positioned itself in the MMO market at a specific time when there weren’t many F2P games.” First of all, back then there where many F2P games. But then again I don’t see how that is relevant as GW1 was B2P not F2P.

Yes it was not P2P but let me tell you something about that ‘time’. GW2 was released after WoW. Since WoW there have been no mmo’s that where successful with P2P. WoW was the last one to be really successful with it. There are some new mmo’s that use it but we still have to see if they will get successful.

But to come back on your “there weren’t many F2P games”. You of course prefer to the idea that GW1 was pretty unique with there B2P model. And thats true, but that hasn’t changed a bit. They would still be pretty unique with the B2P model today. However they act as if they are unique but with the current model thats more F2P then B2P they are not unique. So no, in that way times did not change to much.

“How many other MMOs can we look to today that use that model successfully?” Just as many other MMO’s as where successfull with that model back when GW1 was released. Now of course if you think it would not work we can simply look at the numbers.
Here are some numbers: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/NcSoft-earnings-1Q-14/page/3#post4029793
And here a small comparison to GW1 https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/NcSoft-earnings-1Q-14/page/3#post4029793

If that is anything to go on GW2 with a B2P model would have earned more money by now! So yes with the information we have we can say the B2P model would work great also today.

“operating costs for GW2 far exceed that of GW1” So does the number of players. It’s just a game on a bigger scale. So irrelevant.

“companies are simply greedier than they were 10 years ago and don’t have the guts to run with that model.” Well maybe and likely and I think this is the only think that has truth to it in your story, but thats not a good argument to not ask for something that is better.

You see, if people don’t buy cash-shop crap but are willing to buy the game an real expansions (not talking about DLC crap) then companies will get afraid of other models and come to like the B2P model.

“All I can say is if you can pitch that to any MMO company as a business model today and get that to work, you might just have the next big thing on your hands.”

I guess that is what I am sort of doing here.

phys.7689:

Devata.6589:

In the end also this boils down to monetization.

GW1 was a true B2P game being monetization by selling the game and that also means releasing regular expansions.

GW2 is mainly monetized with the cash-shop what means releasing thing to keep people busy (LS) and taking elements out of the game to put them in the cash-shop.

Compare for example GW1’s cash-shop to GW2’s cash-shop with how much has been added and is in the cash-shop (vs in the game). Then GW2 wins easy.

Of course it just depends on what you prefer. I prefer the true B2P game thats in fact one of the reasons to go for GW2 as it was promoted as a B2P game and had also that name from GW1.

i dont have a problem with gw2 monetization in theory, I mean they could take all the money from cash shop, and focus it on creating new free content.

But the reality is, the further we get away from initial purchase, the more this game resembles an f2p game, which is natural, because the cash shop is the only means of new revenue from players after initial purchase.

if profit was tied to creating new interesting content people want to buy, thats what we would be getting

“i dont have a problem with gw2 monetization in theory, I mean they could take all the money from cash shop, and focus it on creating new free content.”

No they can’t really do that ‘freely’ because as you say yourself

“the further we get away from initial purchase, the more this game resembles an f2p game, which is natural, because the cash shop is the only means of new revenue from players after initial purchase.”

So what their main focus has to be with this form of monetization is getting people to buy gems. Whether they like that them-self or not. If the cash-shop is there main source of income (and that it is at the moment) they have to focus on that. Not focus on just being able to sell the game people like while of course they still need to try and provide a game people like. But you can easily so how the two (getting people to buy gems, creating a game people like) conflicts with each other.

And again like you say yourself “if profit was tied to creating new interesting content people want to buy, thats what we would be getting”.

Basically you seem to be saying the same as I and seem to b in agreement. Only your first line “i don’t have a problem with gw2 monetization in theory” in then a little strange. Because imho you should have a problem with it reading the rest of your post.

In the end also this boils down to monetization.

GW1 was a true B2P game being monetization by selling the game and that also means releasing regular expansions.

GW2 is mainly monetized with the cash-shop what means releasing thing to keep people busy (LS) and taking elements out of the game to put them in the cash-shop.

Compare for example GW1’s cash-shop to GW2’s cash-shop with how much has been added and is in the cash-shop (vs in the game). Then GW2 wins easy.

Of course it just depends on what you prefer. I prefer the true B2P game thats in fact one of the reasons to go for GW2 as it was promoted as a B2P game and had also that name from GW1.

The strange thing is that even in current promotions of the game they are still pointing so much towards having no subscription. Like if they are having this special great payment-model. And with GW1 (B2P) they did have this special great payment model but with GW2 it’s similar to the many F2P games that most MMO’s have. Nothing special about it.

I think a nice personal summarize with 3 request (not so much a top 3) would be.

- More goals for guilds,
- More things to do for guild,
- and giving guilds more meaning in GW2.

I guess Gaile has made this like a second CDI thread about end-game and we can expect dev’s to be paying attention. So here is what I would like to see change / added for better ‘end-game’.

Put a lot of fun things… think skins, mini’s, dyes (the colors), special ranger pets, fun items and so on all over the game.

So pretty much all the stuff that you can now find in the gem-store.

Reward a mini’s from a dungeon, or a boss, or maybe even an RNG drop from some mob you can farm or as reward for an event or a ‘quest’ (of we would get anything like that) but also put it in crafts. Not just at lvl 400 or 500 but at level 5, 10, 15 and so on. Put then recipe’s for those things also in the world and maybe a special item you need to make them.

And when I say put them in the world I mean in a way you can directly work towards them. Not like a extremely rare drop from a huge group of ‘things’ like we now have with champion bags and so on. That does not let you work directly for it.

With those items you could even create a new craft. Musician for example.

That would give you a lot of things to do… meaning it would be end-game. In fact it’s the type of end-game I usually do in other MMO’s but that is not available here.

For example, recently I was searching for a few items (skins, and a mini) for a character. Using the wardrobe I was checking them all. And then when I did see a nice one I checked how to get it. Well the 2 mini’s where simply not available anymore because it was some temporary cash-shop thing. (and even it it was, it would have been just a boring gold grind or buying it.. No real fun end-game sending you into the world).

Another mini was also not available in the game anymore but you could still buy it for a lot of gold do again.. grinding gold or buying gold with real cash.. never-mind then. I play a game to have fun.

A few of the skins has similar things. 5 black lion tickets or stuff you buy for a lot of money. Not something you could go into the world for.. you know playing the game to earn directly.. No just boring grind for gold.

So when I settled on some other skins and another mini I did see a nice backpack and a nice finisher but of course again also that is gems so grind gold or buy it. No going into the world doing a dungeon or killing a boss or completing a jumping-puzzle or whatever to unlock it.

My suggestion. Put all that stuff in the game so we can unlock / earn it directly in fun ways buy going all over the world. You already know the lack of this is a problem as you have been trying to somewhat improve this with the feature packs but thats has not come close to being enough. To make it worse, you did use things for it that where available for everybody before that.

I do see the problem. You are monetizing exactly this element of the game so thats why it’s not easy to change it. But maybe there is a solution for that as well. Monetize the game.. Sell expansion.

Then all these things can go in the game where they belong and it would ad a lot of end-game that could easily keep you going until the next expansion that is never more then a year away.

Roybe.5896:

You guys do realize the game is overtaxed with minipets…right? Mounts area real problem and not in a personal annoyance way, but in serious gameplay ways.

Mounted players could be able to grief people, by standing around fights so that players behind them could not see AoE tells, walking over players and hiding their sight, just basically be in the way.

Permanent speed buffs while on mounts would be a poor choice for the devs, as this game is not designed to be run through quickly to get quests done and return to the quest giver to get your rewards. By speeding through an area a newly implanted NPC interaction, that triggers new dynamic events, would surely be missed.

Blocking sight like you can do with a norn and a char you mean?
And speeding through an area like you can already do with the speed buffs?

Not to mention that all your suggested problems have already been solved in other games.

But with any addition (because mounts where just an example here) you are right. It should be implemented correctly. Take your mini’s for example. They do not add as much to the game as they could. They are mainly there to try and get people to buy gems. Getting them is mainly grinding gold or buying with cash. So it’s an example of a bad implementation (from a gamers perspective) while it could have added much more to the game and with any new addition it should be implemented in a good way where you think how to solve possible negatives and where it created new game-play in a fun way.

I think everybody agrees with you on that.

But just because somebody who makes a suggestion does not also details how to solve all possible problems does not mean anybody should tell him to go play another game.

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

Stuff

Not really going in to it because it would be to much a mount discussion. I guess everybody can make up the flaws for themselves. But this is exactly what I reffed to before.

You seem to have your own view what the game / lore / core should be for you. Then you act as if that it is that way (maybe you even manage to convince yourself) and so if anybody wants to add something that does not fits in your idea they should go play another game meanwhile coming up with excuses why it really does not belong in the game. Not why you don’t like it but why it does not belong in the game.

While you could of course also just say you don’t like mounts in stead of having to try to make it so it would not fit in the game while it very much does.

Here’s the funny part :
I don’t care about mounts. I don’t like and I don’t dislike them either.

I do care about poor game performance. I also think that not every idea someone thinks up should be in the game should actually be in the game just because it works in other games MMOs.

As a general rule of thumb if the only answer to the question " Why should it be in the game" falls along the lines of " Why not" then that thing should probably not be in the game adding to the clutter.

True, luckily there are many reason here to put them in. Like because it’s fun (and thats what a game is all about). Because of the cosmetic value, because mounts give a more immersion way of traveling and does not shrink the world as much as way-points do and because collecting them (when implemented correctly) is a hole type of end-content by itself.

But what I am not getting at is why you give this reaction. Nobody said mounts should be put in because ‘why not’.

And to get back to the real subject. Same for most of those suggestions that get as answer “Leave this game is not for you”. There are usually multiple reasons why they should be put in.

Esplen.3940:

Devata.6589:

Esplen.3940:

Not to mention more data because of files, assets in addition to making them all work with game physics, jumping, clipping, animations, racial animations, idle animations (which also have to be done for character models in addition to mount models), and then there’s other issues such as size. A Norn would not be able to ride something that a Human, Sylvari, or Asura would be able to ride because of weights. A Charr would not be able to ride most things because of their body shapes.

Thats all not lag.

And where, pray tell, did I even mention the slightest reference of lag?

Your reaction was an ‘agreement’ or extension (however you want to name it) to Harper who was talking about lag. That is you reference to lag.

You see thats why your sentence begins with “Not to mention more data because..” Thats a reference to Harper’s reaction. But then again. You know that because you typed it yourself.

Harper.4173:

Stuff

Not really going in to it because it would be to much a mount discussion. I guess everybody can make up the flaws for themselves. But this is exactly what I reffed to before.

You seem to have your own view what the game / lore / core should be for you. Then you act as if that it is that way (maybe you even manage to convince yourself) and so if anybody wants to add something that does not fits in your idea they should go play another game meanwhile coming up with excuses why it really does not belong in the game. Not why you don’t like it but why it does not belong in the game.

While you could of course also just say you don’t like mounts in stead of having to try to make it so it would not fit in the game while it very much does.

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

I used mounts as an example and them people had to come and tell why mounts would not fit in the game (while they do) in a way only proving the point I made in the first place where I used mounts as an example. Anyway. Thats how it got into a mount thread for a while. But I think we are back on track now

mtpelion.4562:

If you want to play a game that has mounts, then GW2 is not the game for you because it does not have mounts.

You are free to suggest that they add mounts, but until they do you are better off enjoying one of the hundreds of other games that do have mounts, and people are not out of line to suggest this to you.

See how that works?

If that would be the only element those people suggesting it are interested in. Then you are right. If they just would like it as an addition you are not right. And then in that second case acting as if adding that one thing would go completely against the core of the game while it wouldn’t, is wrong. Thats what the thread is also about.

Esplen.3940:

Not to mention more data because of files, assets in addition to making them all work with game physics, jumping, clipping, animations, racial animations, idle animations (which also have to be done for character models in addition to mount models), and then there’s other issues such as size. A Norn would not be able to ride something that a Human, Sylvari, or Asura would be able to ride because of weights. A Charr would not be able to ride most things because of their body shapes.

Thats all not lag. Lag is what you get if to much data needs to be send to you or from you and because of to many data it does not get to the clients fast enough. So that the position of the mount, the direction, maybe the animation and if you can color him the colors. That should not have to be much more as a few bytes.

Additional data needs to be stored yes.. you would need to download additional data once and those animations need to be created once. After that your PC needs to render it. That is what might be a problem but should really not be a problem. It would be similar to having a mini as additional model. So if Anet can get that to work then simply remove mini’s when riding mounts and the problem should be solved.

Some of the other problems have already been solved (see the riding broom).

But now it’s becoming to much of a mount discussion and why those excuses are not valid.

The mounts where just an example here and the subject was people basically saying “go play another game” simply because somebody suggested something they personally don’t like. Making then up that that addition would not fit in the core of the game.

Harper.4173:

Nor were mounts advertised or a selling point. You can’t say that the fact that they didn’t specifically say " no mounts" means the game should have mounts.

I’m not saying that.
Quote me where I say that please.

Harper.4173:

Did you research GW lore before you bought? Did you see if they fit in or if they were used before? Because if you had done so ( or others) you’d see that in a universe where people can just waypoint around the map ( aka teleport) there’s no real reason for anything mount-related.

Yes I did and if you did as well you would have know way-points don’t fit in the lore.. the lore where portals are so a big deal.
And the citizens of Tyria seem to disagree that there is no reason for mounts as they seem to be using them all the time. Only players aren’t using them. Besides again, it does not matter if it’s needed. A good looking skin is not needed, should we then also not have different skins? It’s a completely invalid point

Harper.4173:

Mounts serve a functional purpose in other MMOs – they move you around – which is not needed here since the GW universe has other means of doing that.

They move you around, they are a cosmetic, they are a collectibles, there are a game-play element (hunting them down in the world) and they help you to travel faster in a more immersive way then simply teleporting all over the game. In all honestly. Waypoints are an inferior way of travel looking from an MMO perspective because it makes the world feel smaller and takes away from immersion.

But again, it does not matter if you ‘need’ it or not. Besides why could it not be the other way around.. maybe we do not not have mounts because we have waypoints but we have waypoints because we do not have mounts (yet) because Anet was not able to get that in for release / get it to work. That would in fact make much more sense and explain why they put in place such a system that does not really fit the game and the lore and makes there world feel so small.

What I personally think is that they had trouble creating a true open world (there are some early tailors and other stuff that suggest thats what they where building) and where forced to go to instanced maps and then using mounts to get from place A to B 3 maps away would mean loading screen after loading screen. And so then they came up with waypoints. Meaning waypoints where more of a thing they did fall back on, not the first choice. Not sure but thats what I think.

Harper.4173:

Why would I ride a horse/cat/camel/whatever if I could simply teleport.

IDK, ask the citicen of Tyria. But thats what I am saying.. You say mounts don’t fit, I say waypoints don’t fit. No real lore about them.

So let me ask you that question.
Why are portals such a big deal if we can teleportal all over the place? And why did the research that investigated what was going on in Kessex Hills traveled there with a horse carriage while they could just teleport? And why do I never see a NPC use the waypoints, I sometimes even have to guard them while they walk from one waypoint to the other? http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Thunder_Ridge_Camp_2.jpg

Harper.4173:

You say " they would not create lag" but I doubt you have any technical experience on the matter.

I do. The extra model could mean it gets harder for PC’s to load it (decrease of FPS) but the additional information needing to be send would be similar to that of a mini (maybe a little more) and so would not easily increase lag. Would you really be afraid of that additional model (that is not lag!) (what Anet was with mini’s) then simply disable mini’s when riding mounts.

But really if it would be a problem the core problem is somewhere else in the core, not with the mounts them-self as that has been done in many games. Also don’t forget we already have the riding broom.

Harper.4173:

We could also have personal clones, floating pandas, undead servants and anything else following us around but just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

mesmers have clones, we don’t have floating panda’s but we do have balloons, necromancers have undead ‘helpers’ and we can all have many other things (mini’s) following us around.

Belzebu.3912:

I think most the times people use the “this is not the game for you” is when someone come and say things like “In WoW we have this and that”, “In TERA there was such thing”, or ideas like “add mounts”, “gives us hardcore content”, “make PK servers” and so on.

Those things are features that the ANet is trying to avoid and the game was not designed for that, so in those cases, this is not the game for you.

EDIT:

mage.3570:

But we get the same reactions when we request features in GW1 that are absolutely missing or lacking in GW2, such as more skills, templates, elite dungeons (8+ team), etc

I usually don’t see this reaction for those suggestions.

“Those things are features that the ANet is trying to avoid and the game was not designed for that, so in those cases, this is not the game for you.”

Again somebody who does it. The thread is really a magnet to the people it’s talking about isn’kitten

No this game was not designed to not have mounts. Not having mounts has never been a selling point and people with those complains you see in almost any forum of any other MMO (probably except for Wildstar) where any suggestion that they see as coming from WoW results in people having to go to another game instead of turning ‘this’ game into another ‘WoW clone’. (see Addition)

Colin talked about how mounts could be implemented, so thats how much Anet is trying to avoid them. But I guess the group of WoW haters might have a some success. If they make enough noice maybe Anet will get afraid of putting in things like mounts.

Also just because Tera or WoW or any other MMO has a good feature does not mean it should not be in GW2. No GW2 should also learn from other games (just as they do from GW2) and might very well take some of those elements maybe with some changes to better fit GW2.

Also your ‘hardcore content’. Anet even did see they wanted to put such content in and referred to things like the liadri fight. So saying Anet tries to avoid that makes no sense what so ever. It’s not like it does not fit in GW or it does not Fit Anet.. It does not fit you!

Addition… Just for fun I googled for literally “turning this game into another WoW clone” and got two hits. One from the ESO forums and one from “Phantasy Star Universe”. That what I am talking about. Those thinks are no so much ‘it does not fit GW2’ it’s much more ‘it does not fit WoW haters’ and so you will see them in almost any other MMO forum.

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

I think that its trollish and demeaning for a player to join an up-and-running game, play it, and then berate it for why it isnt like [insert x game here], like the developers have made this game as a commission for said player and have done a poor job capturing the player’s dream.

:“This isn’t the game for you” is a wake-up call that lets players know that while suggestions for enhancement are fine, berating a game for not bending to their whims is silly.

there are people that use that reasoning to berate and shut down suggestions though. Even if they’re frequently made suggestions, if they are done politely you shouldn’t be suggesting the person pretty much leave, though.

Sadly many people who like to defend any element of the game seem to mainly have some hatred to those other games.. or well.. WoW and seem to see every change as a move in the direction of WoW (see the many mount discussion, many nonsense reasons are made up why not to add them but in the end it turns out they simply don’t like it because WoW) so any change that would mean something would be added that is similar as in WoW is being attacked by “Maybe GW2 is not your game.”

Asking for something that might also be in another MMO does not mean asking to change the game into that game.

GW2 was designed and advertised before launch particularly at segments of the MMO player base that disliked wow. Disliked the trinity, grind, and other associated elements.

There are enough valid reasons why mounts are a bad idea ( lag, we already have a means of fast travel, don’t fit in thematically etc).

Advertised as no trinity, yes, advertised as no grind yes (sadly that worked out different) advertised with events yes.

But the fact that there where no mounts was never so much advertised with or was never a selling point.

And this is again a good example of what I was talking about. People who don’t want mounts because WoW (what you reveal in your first part) then use the “it does not fit in GW core” as excuse (and so basically trying to change what GW is about. Considering it very much does fit) and then coming with some additional excuses because they known “because WoW” is not going to cut it.

Lag..? mounts would not create more lag and the additional models should also not be a problem as it’s been done in many mmo’s.

The current form of fast travel does not fit in the world where ‘portals’ are the big thing. And at best way-points mean mounts are not needed but that does not mean there is no reason for putting them in.

And thematically..? Really? There are already mounts in it. NPC’s that have traveled with horse carriages to places, vehicles parked in Black Citadel and you can even see the dredge using vehicles. Not having mounts while they are very visible in the world… that does not fit thematically.

You might not like mounts because WoW and thats fine. But don’t try to redefine what GW is by saying mounts don’t not fit in there while they do or even worse (subject of the title) then blame other people of doing exactly that.

Gaile Gray.6029:

anzenketh.3759:

HHR LostProphet.4801:

There are those people looking for an interesting mechanic, challenging mechanics, new mechanics. From basic event-mechanics to complicated worldboss-mechanics. They wont find any interesting mechanics for the very most time in GW2.
There are the people playing for the reward. They too wont be very satisfied. The most eficient way to get gold, the dominating reward, is by far to flip the traiding post. There is almost no special or meaningful loot dedicated to specific game types.

This is the discussion that we should be having. Not the discussion on if anything has/has not been added to the game. I can understand how some people based upon the issues you raised come to the conclusion that there is no “endgame”. Except that is not true. There is endgame depending on how you define it. I define endgame as things you can do when you complete the personal story and reach level 80. There is plenty of that.

So instead of claiming that there is no endgame. Perhaps we should be discussing on how to improve the endgame that we have. I honestly think that is the point that a lot of people are trying to make.

My recommendation find the boss mechanics that you like in game and ask for more similar to that. There is a wide variety of event and boss mechanics in the game.

If it is rewards that you are looking for. Post a suggestion on how you would like to be rewarded.

I agree with you. Suggestions would be wonderful: Practical, reasonably expressed, and clear. Here’s the challenge, and we’ll see if it’s possible and reasonable: Share your opinion about how to improve the end game in (roughly) 100 words or less.

I’d like to see this because I believe the effort could increase the value and focus of this thread. Doing so would give the devs a concise resource that they could kitten, and that’s always helpful to them.

Now this looks more like it.

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Devata.6589:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

I think that its trollish and demeaning for a player to join an up-and-running game, play it, and then berate it for why it isnt like [insert x game here], like the developers have made this game as a commission for said player and have done a poor job capturing the player’s dream.

:“This isn’t the game for you” is a wake-up call that lets players know that while suggestions for enhancement are fine, berating a game for not bending to their whims is silly.

there are people that use that reasoning to berate and shut down suggestions though. Even if they’re frequently made suggestions, if they are done politely you shouldn’t be suggesting the person pretty much leave, though.

Sadly many people who like to defend any element of the game seem to mainly have some hatred to those other games.. or well.. WoW and seem to see every change as a move in the direction of WoW (see the many mount discussion, many nonsense reasons are made up why not to add them but in the end it turns out they simply don’t like it because WoW) so any change that would mean something would be added that is similar as in WoW is being attacked by “Maybe GW2 is not your game.”

Asking for something that might also be in another MMO does not mean asking to change the game into that game.

There’s a specific situation where that attack would be valid. making a polite suggestion at all would not qualify your opinion to be bombarded.

Only time it would make sense is if some hardhead decides “I’m quitting, this isnt like WoW at all!” and then expects sympathy.

You’ll get no sympathy from m-

I do wish people would read threads on “why is X probably not in the game” before suggesting it multiple times though.

Mounts for example. Anet is culling minis right now. with the environment so detailed, any world bosses with mounted players charging headlong at it would slow the game to a sickening crawl, most likely.

Now, it’s a bit annoying when someone chooses to ignore this and asks for mounts anyway, but asking them to leave is waayyyy too far.

But is that really the reason. And even if thats a problem should that problem not be solved in stead of seeing that as a reason? Other MMO’s don’t seem to have a big problem with that.

Thats what I mean. This is not a reason, more an excuse. Colin himself talked about mounts and how they could be implemented. (like mounted combat).

However some people react as if it’s not it would be against the core of the game. What is total nonsense and by saying that so much the them self are the ones that try and define a new ‘core’ of what GW2 should be. They are trying to change what GW is.

Azure The Heartless.3261:

I think that its trollish and demeaning for a player to join an up-and-running game, play it, and then berate it for why it isnt like [insert x game here], like the developers have made this game as a commission for said player and have done a poor job capturing the player’s dream.

:“This isn’t the game for you” is a wake-up call that lets players know that while suggestions for enhancement are fine, berating a game for not bending to their whims is silly.

there are people that use that reasoning to berate and shut down suggestions though. Even if they’re frequently made suggestions, if they are done politely you shouldn’t be suggesting the person pretty much leave, though.

Sadly many people who like to defend any element of the game seem to mainly have some hatred to those other games.. or well.. WoW and seem to see every change as a move in the direction of WoW (see the many mount discussion, many nonsense reasons are made up why not to add them but in the end it turns out they simply don’t like it because WoW) so any change that would mean something would be added that is similar as in WoW is being attacked by “Maybe GW2 is not your game.”

Asking for something that might also be in another MMO does not mean asking to change the game into that game.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

For a world that’s not really a open world but has instanced maps WvW is as much open world PvP as about any MMO out there with open world PvP.

So what would open world PvP in GW2 mean.. adding a new map where people can fight with each other (like in WvW) but without the camps, towers and keeps as in WvW?

And about way-points and mounts. GW1 had mounts (sure not exactly the way we know them from some other MMO’s but they do have mounts). The world is filled with mounts just none we can ride on (well even one of those.. riding broom) and Anet did state mounts where for sure an option. So also that is not so much ‘not GW’ as you seem to think.

Way-points seem to be a way to overcome the problem of not having mounts but don’t really fit in the lore (portals do and you might see how the two sort of don’t match) and have only recently been put into the story as a way to reduce them, in a more story like way.

So I am sorry but if you are going to say that GW2 is not for people who like mounts and open world PvP I am going to assume thats something you very much want from a game and I need to conclude that maybe GW2 is not the game for you. Because those things are not so much in the GW core as you seem to think and so it could easily change in a expansion. In fact they are already reducing the number of way-points so it seems.

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

Scipio.3204:

Scipio.3204:

Vayne.8563:

Scipio.3204:

Vayne.8563:

~

snip

~

Agreed, Challenge/reward factor could be improved in this game, but liadri is a great example for a challenge that frustates you for some time , but killing her after numerous trying , that feeling makes it worth it.
And actually I disagree with your second pharagraph’s first sentence. The last two year have been lacking, no matter how I look it. Anet proved they can do faster, and I’m not talking about the first game’s expansion frequency. I’m talking about the 5 year they made GW2. I’m just gonna say a number, but I could say a lot: Explorable areas, GW2 launched with 26 in PvE, that means during the 5 year development they created 5 every year on average. This number is also sad on a lot of things (Professions, Races, events, skills you name it.)

And on those tests… I don’t believe anet is lying…but I also don’t believe they told us everything. They said they made tests , did they say where? Probably not on the west, if they did recruit 10k tester in the west that would leave some kind of mark. I do believe those tests took place on the east. There were tests before launch with a loads of people, yet anet didn’t make these changes back then. And its slightly suspicius that china launched with these changes.

Still no answer? But I enjoyed our discussion

There’s not much to say. I didn’t end up killing Liadri, because I didn’t really like the setup. I don’t play MMOs to solo mostly anyway, and sitting there, waiting my turn to get to Liadri was not all that interesting to me. I’d love to have the minipet. I’m sure I could have beaten her if I banged away at it, but the reward wasn’t worth me doing something annoying. Particularly because latency where I am is such that it would make it harder for me than someone who actually saw where they were.

Anet didn’t tell us much, so I don’t think they’re hiding stuff. If they didn’t have reason to change the early game, they wouldn’t have changed it. I mean it’s a lot of work. Obviously they thought it was necessary. I feel I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t really expect them to consult me on major decisions….or at all for that matter.

I believe the test was done in the west, because I help people in starter zones quite frequently and I see the questions people ask and how confused they are. This isn’t some random thing that happens to a couple of people. People really don’t have a clue what’s going on, and I’ve seen several people ready to give up because of it. I don’t see why anyone would think otherwise.

If anything makes things confusing for people I don’t think it’s having trouble throwing a bucket with water on plants or the 5 skills you can unlock for the weapon you use.

It’s more likely the lack of traditional quests that normally also guide you through the world. This already proved to be a problem in alpha and thats why hearths came in..

Maybe that also did not do the trick. I am all in favor for also including traditional quest (more because I find them amusing and they give me a better bound with the world and the NPC’s) and that might help new players much more.

I agree with you about the bucket of water, but taking individual changes out of a whole packet of changes is just pointless. Yes,s we could always edit change A, B or C, but over all the NPE, in my opinion was well done.

Anet was never going to get it so everyone agreed with it. They made decisions, they made changes, feeding the cows and watering the plants is something I’ve done for maybe a some total of 5 minutes of my Guild Wars 2 experience, in thousands of hours.

Was it a bad change? Yeah probably. But over all, it’s so insignificant..most of these changes are, that it won’t affect my enjoyment of the game. People are focusing on details. Overall, for me, the experience of leveling has improved, though it still needs some adjustments.

No, we should talk about individual changes. Because there are likely also things you agree with so you don’t say “I like it or I don’t like it”. It’s much better to say what you like and dislike.

And about that hearth. For some reason if I think about GW2 hearths thats the hearth I always think about.

Vayne.8563:

Scipio.3204:

Scipio.3204:

Vayne.8563:

Scipio.3204:

Vayne.8563:

~

I’m sure anet knows what would be best for GW2, but anet also knows what is best for anet. The launch of living story wasn’t based on metrics. The fact is, like you said yourselfs, it’s easier to cater to casuals than to anyone else, and for that the concept of living story is perfect. The last two year was casual priority, and I don’t expect much in the future either, this would explain the company policy too.

And on challenge: it’s optional. Have you ever completed something that was hard and frustrated you for a long time? It’s well worth it.

Some things I’ve completed that were hard and felt they were well worth it. Other things that are hard I consider to be not worth it, but frustrating, if I feel the challenge isn’t fair somehow. Or if there’s a lot of wasted time to get to try it. That annoys me. I don’t like to play through an entire living story to try to get one achievement, miss it and have to play through it again. That isn’t fun for me.

But Anet isn’t just making things the way they are to save labor. That’s a misnomer. It would have been far less work for Anet to create a tutorial then do the NPE. They did it because it tested best. Tested is the key word here. Not your opinion. Not my opinion. They ran tests and had a result and based what they did on that result. Like it or not, that’s how it went down…unless Anet is lying.

Agreed, Challenge/reward factor could be improved in this game, but liadri is a great example for a challenge that frustates you for some time , but killing her after numerous trying , that feeling makes it worth it.
And actually I disagree with your second pharagraph’s first sentence. The last two year have been lacking, no matter how I look it. Anet proved they can do faster, and I’m not talking about the first game’s expansion frequency. I’m talking about the 5 year they made GW2. I’m just gonna say a number, but I could say a lot: Explorable areas, GW2 launched with 26 in PvE, that means during the 5 year development they created 5 every year on average. This number is also sad on a lot of things (Professions, Races, events, skills you name it.)

And on those tests… I don’t believe anet is lying…but I also don’t believe they told us everything. They said they made tests , did they say where? Probably not on the west, if they did recruit 10k tester in the west that would leave some kind of mark. I do believe those tests took place on the east. There were tests before launch with a loads of people, yet anet didn’t make these changes back then. And its slightly suspicius that china launched with these changes.

Still no answer? But I enjoyed our discussion

There’s not much to say. I didn’t end up killing Liadri, because I didn’t really like the setup. I don’t play MMOs to solo mostly anyway, and sitting there, waiting my turn to get to Liadri was not all that interesting to me. I’d love to have the minipet. I’m sure I could have beaten her if I banged away at it, but the reward wasn’t worth me doing something annoying. Particularly because latency where I am is such that it would make it harder for me than someone who actually saw where they were.

Anet didn’t tell us much, so I don’t think they’re hiding stuff. If they didn’t have reason to change the early game, they wouldn’t have changed it. I mean it’s a lot of work. Obviously they thought it was necessary. I feel I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t really expect them to consult me on major decisions….or at all for that matter.

I believe the test was done in the west, because I help people in starter zones quite frequently and I see the questions people ask and how confused they are. This isn’t some random thing that happens to a couple of people. People really don’t have a clue what’s going on, and I’ve seen several people ready to give up because of it. I don’t see why anyone would think otherwise.

If anything makes things confusing for people I don’t think it’s having trouble throwing a bucket with water on plants or the 5 skills you can unlock for the weapon you use.

It’s more likely the lack of traditional quests that normally also guide you through the world. This already proved to be a problem in alpha and thats why hearths came in..

Maybe that also did not do the trick. I am all in favor for also including traditional quest (more because I find them amusing and they give me a better bound with the world and the NPC’s) and that might help new players much more.

Orpheal.8263:

PAGE X
Option to see all Characters from someone’s Account (Personally I’m absolutely strictly against this! Makes privacy way too much glassy – however, showing guild members by Class Symbols, if that Guild Member X owns such a Class on his account, is somethign different, but more should nobody get to see)

I am not sure what additional account information you are referring to.
The information I am talking about is already visible. As soon as he logs in with that character you see that information of him in your guild-roster. If he then logs in with another character you see that of the new character.

So if I would be looking at the roster the whole time and note it I would have the same list. All I am asking here is basically for the roster to not overwrite it when a member gets on a new character but simply show both the characters (only one with status online) and remove it when he throws the character away.

So this does not really add any new information that is not already obtainable. It only makes it easier! for guild-members to know whats race and professions (and crafts) your guild-members have what is useful when organizing events.

Anyway, good work on the summary.

It’s of course personal. I can tell you what I am missing that you could consider end-game. For that we should look at what I mainly did in other mmo’s.

I went into the world to collect mini’s, to get rare special pets (as ranger), I went on a hunt for cool recipe’s for my crafting to every next level create this nice little item. (Fun crafts) And I did go on the hunt for mounts. Lastly I liked to have some special items that many mmo’s have.

Mainly those thinks but that could as well be skins or looking at GW2 it could be dyes as well.

Now looking at how that works in GW2. We don’t really have fun-crafts and the ‘fun’ items you could possible make with those items are mainly cash-shop items.

Collecting mini’s is for 90% grinding gold and buying them or buying them with cash. Only a few you can get in the world but once you know 90% is nothing more then a boring gold-grind then also those 10% is not interesting anymore. Same for skins and dyes.

We don’t have mounts and also the idea of ‘rare’ ranger pets that require some special tactics / trick to get them is also none-existing.

All that stuff has monetized. The last feature pack did improve that somewhat but it’s not yet at the point where you can go and work towards most of those items in the world… other then grinding gold.

Of course I did find other end-game like WvW and JP’s in GW2. But going into the world to hunt down those mini’s is not here and that is what my end-game was in many mmo’s.

So it’s not always about dungeons.

I see this more as a bug or design mistake, however I figured I better throw it in here before we move on to guild-halls.

Proposal Overview
Fix the guild finisher to show the guild from the person using the finisher.

Goal of Proposal
Having a better working guild-finisher that does what it’s supposed to do.. show of your guild.

Proposal Functionality
At this moment if you kill somebody using the guild finisher you see your guild-emblem. However the person getting killed sees his guild-emblem. (I have no idea what people around see but i’m guessing everybody sees his guild emblem) What takes the effect of showing of your guild away completely.

So I propose that everybody always sees the emblem of the guild from the person using the guild finisher.

Associated Risks
None.

munkiman.3068:

Tamasan.6457:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

What are the top 3 improvements you would like to see to Guilds in regard QOL and Logistics.

1. More granularity in guild permissions (specifically missions, admin ranks, bank access).
2. Visibility of chat in non-repped guilds.
3. Guild calender.

4. +1 on Asura Special Forces trebuchets.

I don’t understand all the votes for a calendar. Every free forum and some social media services have free calendars that people can use. I think the easiest solution to posting events in-game would just be MotD being put into guild chat on login or rep change.

I even build my own calendar system om the guild-website (more based on the game then the general calendars) but many members simply don’t like to go / use external sources including sites.

In addition if it’s in there game there are also more options. Like notifications about upcoming events or setting a buff / guild-mission to start at a specific time and that sort of things.

Thats why I would still like to see it in the game.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

4: The ability to fire Asuran Special Forces into Enemy Keeps with a special Guild Trebuchet!!!!

Isn’t that more WvW? Anyway somebody beat you about 1,5 year with a similar suggestion

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/WvW-needs-more-resourcefulness-and-less-zergs/first#post1183822

I still preferred my suggestion in that thread of taking over a camp and using the enemy flag and then being able to hide in the Dolyak.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Please find below Orpheal’s summary for the CDI below:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Guild-CDI-The-Complete-Summary-Edition/first#post4419141

What are the top 3 improvements you would like to see to Guilds in regard QOL and Logistics.

Once we have a good idea of folks favorites we can have a final discussion.

Chris

More permissions. (That’s from being able to select who can invite up to settings more speific permissions for the bank).

More detailed member informations. And being able to use that. (Thats stuff like seeing how much people represented over a given period (Graph) or how much influence they used ad so on. And then the ability do something with it means making a selection with that information to mail paople or to set as auto-rank and so on).

Guild-calendar. (Where also member can set up events making ‘rules’ for joining (maximum 2 warriors) )

But really a top-3 is not ‘fear’ towards all other suggestions because I would want many of those just as much.

Ohoni.6057:

I don’t think Chris made this thread with the purpose of driving away paying customers…

I would rather drive away the paying customers that are looking for a completely different game, than to drive away the paying customers who like the game we’ve got. If you want guilds to be a vital element of the game for every player, something where you need to join specific guilds to max out your crafts or combat abilities, then that’s fine, but do that in another game. I want to be able to max out my crafts and combat abilities without a guild, so far that is possible in this game, and I do not want to see that changed to suit your whims. Sorry.

Isn’t is fair to assume that many paying customer where expecting a game where guilds did where an important element of the game? The game being named Guild Wars. Most won’t know the lore. So guilds having a big role should not be a problem.

You having to join a guild to play the game is not likely ever going to happen. At best you might be locked out of some specific new guild-related content (guild raids for example) otherwise and it’s rewards while you still are able to get items / rewards of the same type in other way. But thats already the case with guild-missions and reward you can only buy with guild commendations.

So I don’t think you have to worry to much.

However to stay more on topic, why don’t you make your concerns visible in the form of a suggestion. Thats what this thread is about in the first place

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Awesome Work in Progress Summary by Orpheal

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Guild-CDI-The-Complete-Summary-Edition/first#post4419141

Chris

That’s a realy good summary!

2/2

- Improve the LFG system so that it sends a alert to guild members that a guild member is looking for a group.

- Changing the guild roster UI to better reflect guild leaders/officers.

- An option for people to show the server-time and the local time together.

- In guild-chat also show the account-name. [account-name] | [Character-name]

- Mailing to multiple people (in the guild) at once. Rank based or just multiple names at ones or multiple ranks at once. And not being suppressed.

- Setting notes per member and also having the option for multiple notes with view premission based on ranks.

- In the guild-roster being able to select / filter multiple people, manually or with criteria (like how much influence earned or rank or online-time or last online and so on and so on).
And then being able to do something with that selection. Like mail all of them or change rank or set a note for those members and so on.

- Seeing guild-members on the mini-map with (orange) dots.

- Chat-channel based on ranks.
There where many suggestions about the chat.

- Having a MotD that pops up in the chat when a member log in but also a second message that has more information (and the MotD possible links to) and being able to set times to the MotD.

- In the chat showing if a member joins or logs out or reach level 80 and maybe some other information.

- On calendars Having the ability also for members to create events where other members can sign up to. When setting up an event you can set requirements like profession, race, level and maybe a max number of participators for an event.

- Exporting a list of all members including character names and information to a file.

- In the Api have the option to export real-time information to see what guild has claimed what WvW camps / towers / keeps / castle. But maybe also other information in the future.

- Members should be able to stack in the guild-bank without having to first take it to there inventory.

- Transfer influence from one guild to another guild.

- Exporting mails to a file.

- Being able to set a welcome mail for new members and the option to add items from a stack saved somewhere.

- Build queue management: (automation or timers)

- Guild commander tag (like showing the guild emblem but rank based)

- Build mission activation Better permission and logging for this. / Detailed guild mission interaction history.

- Guild Name changes and associated costs

- Guild World Transfers

- Being able to view what your Guild has claimed in WvW.

- Guild alerts, or guild mass communication.

- Social section inside the guild panel.

- Improve the upgrade interface.

- Add a “build queue queue.”

- Create better metrics to evaluate guild participation

- Make it easier to tell who has joined or left the guild when reviewing roster history.

- Claiming PvE Zones – similar to JQ and FA in GW1

- Calendar in guild-hall

- Being able to send a recruit message in map chat but only show it to people on the same server however possible over multiple map instances.

- Guild Wars introduction

- Guild Store – An extra tab in the Guild Bank where members can buy things donated to the guild for prices set by the guild leadership.

- Guild Zones.

- A competition system in which Guilds, and associations of Guilds, compete each other for certain goals, missions and objectives both in WvWvW and PvE maps.

- Recruiting in the world with billboards that link you to a UI. http://tinyurl.com/q6xwavh

- W:ET like Guild battles

- Allow gw1 style guild guesting

- Guild Recruitement through banners

- Change to Influence, instead of only adding for the guild you are currently representing have it add for all the guilds that you are a part of.

I did not start at page 1 (started at the permission discussion) so I might be missing a few but this should be most suggestions having double filtered out as much as possible. Missing any? Add them

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Niquechelle.2015:

This is just a short summary of the most mentioned things in this Thread. I hope it helps a little

Guild mail
-ability for the guild leader so send mail to the whole guild at once

Guild halls

Guild capes
-visible representation of own guild

GvG
-8v8 match between two guilds

Guild recruitement boards
-possibility to post facts of own guild for guildless ppl to read at one place

Guild event calendar
-ingame event calendar to post guild mission dates and other events

Auto upgrades
-set specific upgrade times for guild buffs e.g. every friday

Alliances
-ability for guilds to group up for guild missions and other events

Guild tags
-commander tag only visible for guild members, for organizing guild missions and other events

Guild bank changes
-separate material slot
-donations possibility
-finer tunement for member rights e.g. view only, moving only of items

Divisions in guild roster
-ability to group members by activity

API
-access to ad ability to edit guild info and rooster outside the game

MotD
-make MotD more visible for members

rename Guilds
-allow renaming of guilds

Guild chat
-allow guild chat for all guilds, not only the one who gets represented

Guild missions changes
- mission in instances
- missions can only be started with given permission

Account guild
-new toons rep one choosen guild automatically

Guild UI changes
-make it harder to leave guilds by accident
-show player join/ last representing date
-more ranks

Awesome. You will be getting some goodies! Please PM me.

Everyone else can you please look through the list and add anything that is missing.

Chris

1/2
Sure. I will try to add to the list with things I read (not only my own.)

So basically the whole permission / rank discussion is missing. ‘More ranks’ and – ‘missions can only be started with given permission’ was only a part what has been suggested. It’s hard to add all what has been suggested to the list but I will try.

- Bank-ranks seperate for money and items, limiting withdraw, splitting up admin rights / permissions, kick / invite, promote / demote, show guild tag, sllow to represent other guilds.

- Make guild stuff more instance based like guild-missions / guild-puzzle.

- More information about guild-members. characters, influence earned, date they joined the guild, how much they represent how much they are online and grpahs showing that information over time.

- Guild adverts that can be prepared by guild-leaders and reviewed by members.

- Automated ranks. Based on information set a rule that if a member represent X procentage and is in the guild for Y time or / and earned Z amount influence he gets rank Q. Another person suggested member would get a message in to inform then in stead of automated rank.

- Auto represent first guild and better instruction to players how representing works.

- Guild Material Storage and Crafting

- A build template system, allowing for players to switch up their builds on the fly without having to manually do so every time.

- Achievements and Monthlies for Guilds

- Import calendars from a trusted calendar provider (e.g.: Google, Apple, Yahoo, or Microsoft) for display in the guild calendar UI.

- More guild and group content, especially guild/ group vs environment (in instanced areas)

- Temporary Guild Waypoints.

rapthorne.7345:

It’s a way to freely obtain large quantities of cash shop items for minimal effort. Some guildies have told me they farmed 20 keys a day for a while.

That’s a net loss of massive profit for ANet when you consider key gem costs, and the sheer number of people that “key farm”

Assuming they would else buy the keys what is not very likely.

With other words. No there is no profit lost.

Besides Anet oficially stated themself it was oke so what are we really talking about.