Guild Wars 2

ipan, I mean this in a friendly way, but perhaps the problem here isn’t the lack of a character counter.

Torsailr.8456:

ipan.4356:

What dungeons lack is exploration. Try building some vast underground complexes (think Underworld from GW1). Truly epic sized structures that could take days to fully explore.

While I agree with the idea I wonder if this is practically possible. I mean there will still be event markers showing you where to go and most people want to complete it as fast as possible. Given a few weeks the most effective path through will be discovered and the rest ignored, much like dungeons now. The difference being, it might take longer to run from point A to point B in a map that size.

Is there a way to force exploration or detours through the dungeon? Randomized layout similar to Diablo 3? I’m not sure that was a successful experiment.

I’m not trying to criticize, I’m curious how that issue could be solved.

I’m somewhat critical of the idea – artists work a lot slower and cost a lot more than people think. You can’t just whip something like this up. Buuuuut as a fun thought experiment, how would you do this?

You couldn’t just have one path through the large area. In fact, you probably couldn’t even just have three. Like Underworld, you’d have to have multiple goals and objectives that you can do. Ideally in whatever order you choose.

I’d be curious to see an instanced zone-sized map with a large group of NPCs at the beginning. By talking to them, you kick off a challenging Dynamic Event chain which takes you through the map. By having multiple paths and multiple NPCs, you can see the same areas but with different pathing and different things happening.

For example, in one DE-chain, you might be escorting an NPC with an object that draws a particular type of enemy. In another, you might be taking a similar path through mostly the same areas, but instead of drawing that enemy type, you’re riding on the back of a dolyak and attacking something else. Who knows?

I think my rule of thumb would be: reuse your maps, but change the enemies/objectives/mechanics. Dynamic Events, as I understand it, are relatively easy to create so long as they don’t interfere with each other. Perhaps by allowing only one DE-chain at a time, the non-art asset content could be created quickly.

Kaz makes some good points and there will definitely be some people who are never satisfied, but that said…

Fractals are great! But they serve a very different purpose from dungeon paths. The reward structure (and rewards) are totally different. They require a longer time commitment than most dungeon paths. The level of difficulty is different. The integration of story is different.

And look, if Dungeons are somehow no longer a thing and Fractals are the future, that’s something I can learn to live with. (I still don’t like the time commitment that comes with Fractals, that’s why I rarely do them. I know how long it takes to do a AC 1 and 3 or COE 3, for example. Fractals are always a toss-up… sometimes random is nice, but sometimes you want to be able to plan your gaming time. I can’t, for example, commit to Fractals if I know I only have an hour. Some runs just go bad and take longer.)

I sort of want to make a longer post or maybe a video about Aetherpath and why I think it’s played so much less than other dungeon paths. I’m sure Anet views their only post-launch actual-dungeon path as a failure, but I’m not sure they fully understand why. Rewards is a big part, but it’s only a part. I’ve been trying to come up with a few easy rules for making dungeon content that’s fun, not frustrating.

For example, the boulder puzzle in COF1 and the laser jump puzzle in COE are both fun. The ooze puzzle is a nightmare and makes me want to throw stuff. What’s the difference?

Good dungeon puzzles have some flexibility. You can complete them with 2 or 3 members knowing what to do. Having one person who doesn’t communicate and who doesn’t know what they’re doing shouldn’t mean failure.

Good dungeon puzzles also don’t rely on NPC pathing or glitchy aggro mechanics. (Aetherpath at least used the ooze attractant stuff, that’s a plus.)

Good dungeon puzzles also shouldn’t rely too heavily on randomness or unclear factors. For oozes, I’m thinking spawn times. If a few lava elementals spawn and aggro your ooze, well, sorry bro. Start again.

I ran Aetherpath the other night with some folks who aren’t experts on the path but have all done it a handful of times. It took well over an hour and was maddeningly frustrating. And for the 2g path reward (and no good drops along the way, not even a rare, despite my nearly 200% MF) it just wasn’t worth it.

Also, it’s not that Aetherpath is bad, it’s just that it feels like they crammed way too many fights and mechanics into that one path. Imagine, instead, it was a new dungeon and oozes were on one path, Sparki and Slick on another, and the electric room + holo generators were on another. Each path could have its own end boss and maybe a few more medium-sized fights within… Guess what, without significantly more work than that one path took, you have three explorable paths of more reasonable length.

Anyway, just a few thoughts from somebody who would like more dungeons… but not dungeons as long and complicated as Aetherpath.

Clerigo.9475:

Chris been missing for a day. Any news?

I’m not sure it’s appropriate to ask. He’s dealing with family issues. He’ll return when he returns.

munkiman.3068:

timmyf.1490:

Wonderly.1324:

• Remove RNG from precursors and make them obtainable only from vendor purchase at 3000g a piece

I’m not sure what’s worse: this suggestion or the possibility you aren’t joking.

Yeah, i was thinking the same thing. OUCH!

I’m thinking maybe it was a typo and he meant 300g.

Wonderly.1324:

• Remove RNG from precursors and make them obtainable only from vendor purchase at 3000g a piece

I’m not sure what’s worse: this suggestion or the possibility you aren’t joking.

Gaile-

I’ve polled my guild to ask them what they want to do. The answer, overwhelmingly, was dungeons. Now, nearly everybody ALSO said they liked Living Story stuff, but dungeons came up time and time again as “we want to do more of this.”

If ArenaNet could commit to adding a new full dungeon (story + 3x explorable tied in with Living World with corresponding weapon and armor sets) every 6-9 months, you’d be providing endgame content for your most active players.

Imagine the Scarlet fight was Story and we got explorables investigating her creations! Marionette path, Toxic hybrid path, Holopath…

John- would ArenaNet be willing to try an experiment? Doing away with servers and having some sort of Alliance system comes up a lot. Maybe it’s just the science geek in me, but I’d love to see a brief (2 or 4 week) experiment with Alliances.

Don’t change anything about the underlying server system, just allow players to declare themselves a part of an Alliance. Have AvAvA battles for a few weeks to see if people like them.

Put WvW on pause during that time with no effects to Glicko or server home.

At the end, collect feedback and see whether players prefer traditional WvW or the “new” AvA.

It’s rather disappointing that the most commonly proposed solution to “there aren’t enough people on some servers” is “limit the number of players who can play the game mode.”

Dayra.7405:

munkiman.3068:

Without being free, there is already incentive to transfer to lower pop servers, it’s a lot cheaper

That’s not an incentive to move down. Staying on an overstacked server is cheaper.

Keep in mind that munkiman is on NSP. Silver league, cheapest transfer costs (Medium pop). 500 gems.

I’m on Sanctum of Rall. Very high population, Bronze league. 1800 gems.

It’s 3.6 times as expensive to come to my server even though we’re ranked lower. That’s why I suggested making transfer fees based on WvW tier, not server population. We’ve got A LOT of PvEers on SoR who don’t set foot in WvW due to some… toxic experiences in our T1 days.

I’m tossing this idea out without being really committed to it because I’d like to hear what people think… What about regular free transfers to Bronze league servers? This would give guilds who are on larger servers a handful of potential destinations if they are unhappy with their current server community. It’d also give Bronze league servers regular infusions of new players.

If you had some sort of schedule for this, perhaps once every two months, players would know they can transfer for free in X weeks.

From my perspective, I have several guild members who are on other servers and would love to come WvW with us, but the insanely high price of a transfer is keeping them away. It’d be nice to say, “Hey, first week of October, we’ll have free transfers. Come on over.”

I’m just a casual WvWer, though, so I’ll let somebody else explain how this would completely ruin the game.

Glad to see Aco recruiting for WvW! Do you guys use the server TS when you run? It really helps for coordinating. Message me if you want more info. See you out there!

Kaamau.5341:

Potential Risks
One risk is that people will be torn between two guilds that require them to be major members and people are forced to choose between them at the beginning.

But its not really much of a risk, just ask one if you can minor, which should probably be OK for most guilds since minor members are not involved in the cap but can still be involved in most else. You might not be involved in some of the guild’s major events but you still keep friends.

I think you are really underestimating that risk.

Any Alliance system in GW2 should avoid changing the current multi-guilding system. No new system should remove existing flexibility unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

I would hope ArenaNet has learned that lesson after a few missteps.

Todo McGillicutty.8169:

The Maguuma Server was having this problem last night. A large group of people (I’m pretty sure it was all one Guild) were creating Siege Golem so they could purposely jump off cliffs to destroy them. If anyone asked them to stop they scream how we can’t tell then what to do because they had (according to them and the player himself) a Dev from the Adopt a Dev program in their group with them. And while I can’t prove that’s true, if it is it’s kind of pathetic.

Trolls always have a ready-to-go defense for why you can’t stop their trolling. Usually it’s “it’s allowed and if you report me, you’ll get banned instead for false reports.” That scares off a bunch of people from reporting them and makes it even less likely ArenaNet will do anything.

We had a particularly bad troll on our server. We’ve had dozens of people report him over the course of a year, perhaps more. (He seems to have left now, thankfully.) He was so bad, in fact, that he was a part of our new player training.

Dropping blueprints gets expensive. He had a bunch of cheaper tricks… constantly repair walls that are actively being attacked… pull siege from Garrison while upgrades are running to build all the cannons, mortars, oil, etc.

You can devise as many systems as you like, but IF YOU DO NOT ADD IT TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND POLICE THE WORST OFFENDERS, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

Sorry for the caps, but I find them necessary.

There is no accurate reporting function for “attempting to ruin the game for the rest of us.” In fact, when I’d ask people in map to report him, our troll would threaten them saying their accounts would be banned for wrongful reporting if they did. Scare tactics.

Update the TOS. Create an option for Competitive Event Manipulation. Hand out bans for the worst offenders. The problem will solve itself once players realize you’re not afraid to ban people.

Heck, don’t even ban them from the game, just WvW. “Sorry, you have to sit out of the rest of this matchup now” will go a long way.

Chris-

1. Guild Chat Upgrades (chat remains after character switch, toggleable chat from multiple guilds)
2. Guild Calendar
3. Nobody commented on it, but I really love my Guild Notification Area idea from here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Guilds-Logistics-and-QOL/4399037

Grevender.9235:

I would like to see all guilds given the option to use them in actual GvG events, as an added mechanic and not as the only/forced way to do it.
I hope this helps clarify?

I’m going to use hyperbole to hopefully explain better. Bear with me for a moment.

I would like for Guild Wars 2 to create a fully-realistic art museum showing the history of Tyria. Think the Louvre, but in-game. It should have at least a few thousand high-quality works of art that I can walk by and view.

In addition, to replicate a tour experience, each work of art should have a voice-acted “tour guide” button that explains the piece and its historical significance.

If you don’t care about art or lore, just skip it. It’s an option. Nobody’s forcing you to do anything.

Okay, did you catch what I did there? That optional thing I just suggested would take man-decades of art team and writer work as well as thousands upon thousands (or perhaps millions?) of budget dollars in voice-acting.

Resources are constrained. ArenaNet can only do so much. When considering any idea, you can’t just look at the idea itself. You must also consider whether it requires resources which could be better used elsewhere.

So when I say that GvG Airships are a bad idea, it’s not strictly because they aren’t fun or wouldn’t be interesting for about 20 minutes before everybody switches to Necro and Engineer, it’s because the limited resources available to make, test, and perfect GvG maps should not be working on such a niche, gimmicky application.

Hopefully that helps explain myself a little better.

Safari.3021:

timmyf.1490:

I bet it’s more like 2 or 3. That means that Flying Airship GvG That Everybody Hates Because It’s So Gimmicky And The Other Guild Just Brings Lots Of Knockbacks And Fears Why Did They Not Listen To Us After Skyhammer?!?! I’m Not Buying Gems Ever Again QQ map constitutes a huge wasted opportunity.

I wouldn’t hire an airship builder to build me an airship without safety rails XD

Hahaha an airship map without the ability to knock people off the airships would be acceptable.

Grevender.9235:

timmyf.1490:

Let me get this straight… after the uproar over Skyhammer, we want ArenaNet to make GvG a floating airship mode?

This won’t end well.

who said it should work only that way? it’s just about giving options, then players will decide if to use them or not….

I understand, but you also have to consider resource constraints. How many maps do you think GvG would launch with? 20? 10?

I bet it’s more like 2 or 3. That means that Flying Airship GvG That Everybody Hates Because It’s So Gimmicky And The Other Guild Just Brings Lots Of Knockbacks And Fears Why Did They Not Listen To Us After Skyhammer?!?! I’m Not Buying Gems Ever Again QQ map constitutes a huge wasted opportunity.

I think airships are way cool and I’d love to see where ArenaNet can incorporate them, but GvG doesn’t seem like the right place. That said, I’m not really involved in the GvG community, so maybe I’m totally wrong about that.

Let me get this straight… after the uproar over Skyhammer, we want ArenaNet to make GvG a floating airship mode?

This won’t end well.

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

Now sure, this is a game and some suspension of disbelief is inevitable. I guess I am just trying to present a frame of real life reference to how many guild memberships might be enough.

Sometimes… less is more.

I pose a different question: other than “players are too stupid to know when to stop,” what legitimate non-technical reason is there for limiting guilds at all?

I can see one. Guild Catapults, for example, require a lengthy time to build. You could make dozens or perhaps hundreds of guilds and build Guild Catas with them. The problem? You need influence. So long as we don’t allow influence gain to more than one guild, though, it’s a non-issue. This means guild cata prices would drop asymptotically to ~1g from their current ~1.5g. That’s an impact on WvW for sure, but perhaps not a huge one.

Limiting guilds – unless somebody has a more-convincing example – only makes sense from a technical perspective, then. Allowing players infinite guilds would be a UI nightmare and, depending on how efficient the GW2 DB is, potentially a resource issue as well.

I am rejecting the utility of limits as a way to force players to rep a guild more often. If you limited players to 2 guilds, they could still rep one guild 1% of the time and the other 99% of the time. It is the job of guild leadership to determine whether players are representing a guild enough and participating in the guild enough to remain members. It is not the job of ArenaNet to place an artificial cap on guild membership to increase participation.

My two cents, anyway.

Edit: I forgot TP fees, so the guild cata price would probably drop closer to 1.2 gold.

DAT MATCHUP

No drama? Like this?

callidus.7085:

Ok.. good points. I wouldn’t want that to be the norm either. Anyways, to the “WHY people want to end representation”… for me I thought that the buff sharing between guilds would sort of work towards a natural guild alliance where differing guilds would work together to cover all the buffs.. perhaps not the best way, but a thought I had.

A majority of the complaints I have about the guild system would be fixed with a chat channel for each guild so people don’t need to rep to read guild chat, but can opt to listen in like all other chat channels. For some reason I just thought doing away with the majority of representing would be better, I guess not so much.

Thanks for letting me know why it’s a bad idea, I hadn’t really thought of it that way.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you on the goals. I think people should be able to see all their guild chats and I think there should be an alliance system. I just don’t think multi-representation is the best way to do it.

callidus.7085:

timmyf.1490:

I just wanted to chime in and say I am NOT IN FAVOR of these ideas:

• Representing multiple guilds simultaneously
• Ending representation
• Earning influence for multiple guilds simultaneously
• Reducing the number of guilds you can join
• Completely doing away with build queues (as queues are one of the few ways small guilds can keep up with large guilds)

I don’t know if this is the right place to ask.. but can I ask why you’re not in favor of items 1, 2 and 3?

If you’re not in favor of them, you could always ask that your members only be in one guild.

You sure can! I should start by stating that I’m a guild leader and my guild does not have a 100% rep policy. In fact, we even have several ally guilds with whom we often do activities/cross represent.

So why am I opposed to these things?

Why Representing Multiple Guilds Simultaneously Is Bad

I think it’s important to distinguish between the act of representing and the additional results of that action. Representing, specifically, means that you wear the guild tag of a guild. Period. The other things – guild chat, buffs, influence gain, etc – are tied to that representation, but the representation itself is just a matter of choosing which guild tag you wear.

It’d be silly to let people wear 5 guild tags at the same time, in my opinion, so I come down on the line of only representing one guild.

Why Ending Representation/Multi-influence is Bad

There’s two ways to accomplish this: ending everything about representation except it functioning as a way to choose which guild tag you wear (I call this “ending representation in name only”) and fully ending representation. I get the feeling most people here think you should still be able to choose a guild tag to wear, so I’ll argue against the former.

To me, the purpose of guilds is to build community. That community could be small or it could be large. Certainly players can participate in many communities at the same time, but my worry is that allowing buffs/influence gain from non-represented guilds means that non-social, buffs-only guilds become the norm.
t
Not to represent, of course, just to join and leave on in the background for buffs.

Also, I think this would greatly increase the both the number of guilds and total amount of influence generated. You think 100% rep guilds are bad? Wait until guild leaders realize if they force members to join ALL FIVE of their guilds, they can earn 5x influence. I can see mapchat now…

Nub Hunta: Evil Emote Empire [JUMP] recruiting | 5x 500 guild | Must rep all 5 guilds | TS, Enjin, full buffs, lottery. Whisper 4 info.

The important question I have is WHY people want to end representation. My hunch is that people 1) want free influence for their bank guild and 2) want to join guilds that require 100% rep for buffs or special events without having to actually rep the guild.

I just wanted to chime in and say I am NOT IN FAVOR of these ideas:

• Representing multiple guilds simultaneously
• Ending representation
• Earning influence for multiple guilds simultaneously
• Reducing the number of guilds you can join
• Completely doing away with build queues (as queues are one of the few ways small guilds can keep up with large guilds)

Devata.6589:

The whole process of building it and unlocking elements inside give guilds goals stuff to work towards. It can be linked to other content (guild-missions, raids). So it allows for a lot of content. Of course unlock stuff guild-related should then not be cash-shop related because then it would indeed be nothing more then what you say.

But yeah it could add a lot to the game much more then just a place to hang and something to show of.

“Stuff to work toward?” It’s just an influence sink. Large guilds get it nearly immediately, unless it’s heavily time-gated, and small guilds like mine spend months struggling to catch up. No thanks.

Linked to other content how? Like, guild missions INSIDE your guild hall? That’s an interesting concept. I’m not sure I feel strongly about that one way or another. Still, that’s not QoL, that’s new content.

Guild Halls would be a sensible launch point for guild mission/world boss instances, if we ever get those.

I just don’t see these ideas for GHs so far and go, “Oh yeah! That’s something really cool worth the development effort!” But maybe that’s because I don’t care much for the “showing off” part of it.

Curious if anybody has a reason for guild halls that isn’t…

1) I want the things I get in cities, just not the other players (idling, crafting, MF, etc)
2) I need to show off
3) I want to group up with people

I feel like we can get more creative than that. Training/dueling/whatever sounds interesting… what if there was an arena that allowed you to spawn specific bosses (from dungeons is my thought) so your guild can practice kills. No loot, just for practice?

A dueling arena would also be fun. Being able to use PvE builds for PvP with guildies is pretty much impossible right now.

I’d also like to be able to name somebody Guildmate of the Week, maybe there could be a function which lets you erect a statue of a character? It’d be a cool way to give members credit for helping out the guild.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Piogre.2164:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I have been adopted by a WvW Zerg Smashing guild called Helioz on TC

Hey, I know Helioz. Back when I was on SOR (and they were, too)

Really looking forward to the reset tonight and playing with them.

Ahh, the Great Migration from Sanctum of Rall. :-/

anzenketh.3759:

wwwes.1398:

Frankly, and without meaning to sound controversial, it sounds like there is a difference of opinion here from people who use guilds in a utilitarian fashion and people who use them to try and build a community within the game. If anything, it demonstrates the importance of only giving rewards to a main guild, because anything else will just be used to game the system.

If we are going to get into things like guild halls, I can’t see how you can possibly have that conversation if you aren’t dedicated to the idea of a primary guild as a community.

I don’t consider me having a larger guild that I join only to do guild missions gaming the system. My smaller primary guild can not do a lot of the guild missions so I joined one that can. The guild I joined is ok with that so why let it stop them. Perhaps giving rewards for guild missions should be a rank feature. That way you can demote people who are not helping build the community while still not kicking them from the guild.

I think the best option here is to implement alliances and allow allies to get credit for another guild’s missions.

My guild allies with another guild and we do missions together, but it’s a pain in the butt. My guild is constantly having to invite their members for missions and vice-versa. If we had alliances with shared missions, we’d just set up the alliance and be done with it.

Just as a side note: if you implement both alliances and guild calendars, be sure to have a system where a guild can make events visible to alliance members. That’s an important design consideration you shouldn’t leave out.

BrunoBRS.5178:

influence, quite honestly, is a non-currency for most guilds (it’s like guild karma, everyone has tons of it but very little to spend on after a while), so i don’t see how multi-repping would damage the system right now.

Influence is quite valuable if you know how to use it properly.

If multi-repping were a thing, myself and a friend could build 5 guilds and do events together. We’d be earning 100 influence per event across our 5 guilds.

Oh, the glorious guild catapults we could build.

Zesbeer.8365:

personally I would leave any guild that required taxes if taxes were added to the game.

Right, that’s how you prevent situations like that. Guild Leaders who abuse taxation systems will quickly find themselves alone.

I’m not necessarily in favor of such a system – I don’t consider it a high priority and wouldn’t use it for my own guild – but it’s self-correcting to a reasonable extent.

I find it a bit funny that the discussion has gone in two completely different directions:

1) Reduce the number of guilds people can be in.
2) Let people earn influence for all five of their guilds.

I don’t think either of these are helpful. It makes sense to have representation tied to influence. It also makes sense to give people flexibility to play with diverse groups of players.

As a guild leader, I have several guild members that bounce between guilds. This is for a variety of reasons. We’re a primetime-NA guild, mostly, but we have a handful of players who play during the daytime here. Well guess what… a guild with only 2 members online isn’t all that much fun! So some of our members have an alternate guild they join during the day and then they come back and rep us at night.

This isn’t a problem. This is a GOOD thing.

If you want to make guilds more useful, you need to give guilds things to do together. GvG is helpful for guilds that enjoy PvP. I doubt I’d be able to get my guild to GvG much.

There’s probably some sort of equivalent for PvE, but I don’t want to say the “r” word here. At least not yet.

I know this isn’t a nice thing to say, but if people don’t see a point in being in your guild, it’s probably because your guild doesn’t offer anything. Instead of pointing fingers at missing mechanics, perhaps you should talk to your guild members and see what it is they want and whether you’re providing it. I just ran a guild survey recently to identify what people like and dislike about my guild. I asked what activities they’d like to do more of. I took that feedback and scheduled new events to meet that demand.

Anyway, I don’t think there’s any shortage of reasons to be in a GOOD guild. I just see so many guilds that are “join for buffs, 400+ members, everybody welcome, [I just want your influence and numbers so I can feel important].” Those guilds – to me, at least – have zero value. But it’s not the game’s fault.

Proposal Overview

Guild Notification area in the top right of the screen (in the Story + Event notification area).

Goal of Proposal

Having a Guild Calendar is nice, but players often don’t think to look, forget to look, etc. Same thing for a Guild MOTD. Putting it in the chat box on login is also nice, but it’s easily forgotten.

Placing a Guild Notification area in the top right of the screen with a short MOTD (limited to 100-150 characters) as well as listing the next three events on the guild calendar could help to keep everybody in the loop.

Proposal Functionality

This might be easiest with a REALLY quick and dirty mockup.

Potential Risks

As it’s toggleable, I don’t think there would be many risks. More screen clutter, I guess.

I’m unsure as whether the click-to-open options would work as the current behavior has clicks collapse the panel. That’s something that is debateable.

Would a system like this help?

JonPeters.5630:

Also wanted to say a good way to think about a feature and losing or changing it i s to think of it in these terms.

Is this a feature I MUST have, SHOULD have, COULD have, or DON’T have to have. It’s easy to want everything but difficult to recognize which category something actually falls into for the good of the game in general.

I think being able to easily see the current Home World of guild members is a pretty obvious Must Have.

I think being able to turn guild chat on/off by guild would be useful. Similar to the new Combat chat menu, the chat options for guild chat should just include the list of your guilds, up to five.

There should be one option, Only Represented Guild, which disables the other checkboxes and maintains the current behavior.

Unchecking that box enabled the up-to-five per-guild checkboxes.

When joining a guild, the guild chat checkbox for that guild should be enabled by default.

Proposal Overview

World-chat for communicating with members of your home world.

Goal of Proposal

While this may not seem like a guild problem, it’s become significantly harder to do guild recruiting in the Megaserver age. I consider this an absolutely necessary guild QOL change. Making guilds cross-world was nice, but guilds that do a substantial amount of World vs World may wish to limit recruiting to players on their home world. (Might make a separate proposal for this, but we need to be able to see the World of members in the guild roster as well.)

In addition, we often run WvW events that we wish to publicize to our world. We don’t want to inform enemy worlds that we are running these events. (Also, it seems spammy and rude to be messaging a bunch of people who can’t join.)

Proposal Functionality

Add a world chat option which messages all members who are members of your world. This should not include members who are guesting on your world. Ideally, this should message every world member in the current map regardless of Megaserver shard.

Meaning: if I send a message in Lion’s Arch to /world, all Sanctum of Rall players in Lion’s Arch will receive the message.

The option should be enabled by default on the main chat tab.

Associated Risks

As always, you have to worry about spamming and gold-selling. The existing flood control should perform reasonably well in preventing major issues.

Enabling the option by default could cause some difficulty for players who have heavily customized their chat tabs.

I don’t like picking on people, but Rebound, I hope you and others will find these comments helpful. This certainly isn’t limited to you; this is a pervasive problem on these CDIs.

I see a lot of this.

Rebound.3409:

Associated Risks
Honestly i don’t see any.

But your suggestion was…

Rebound.3409:

Proposal Functionality
Make the number of guilds u could join max 2.

You don’t see any risks with that change? What about people who are in more than 2 guilds now? What about people who have guilds for different game modes… I could no longer have a guild for PvE, a guild for WvW, and a guild for sPvP. Heck, if I so much as have a guild for an extra bank, that limits me to just one guild!

Guys, PLEASE think about ways in which your proposals could:

• Hurt existing players by forcing them to change behavior
• Be exploited or abused
• Change the game balance by being excessively rewarding or unrewarding

It’s fun to think “I have the best idea ever and there’s nothing wrong with it and everybody will love it and it won’t do anything bad only good yaaaaay!” but that’s rarely the case.

Even as a guild leader, I don’t want people to only be able to rep 2 guilds. That change would absolutely tear some guilds apart.

Nike.2631:

•stacking in the guild bank should be possible without first moving it to your own inventory.

Not possible for technical reasons – multiple people may be manipulating the guildbank contents at the same time. The current system prevents that from going horribly awry or being purposefully manipulated.

No. You’re just not thinking it through. (Another poster posted a slightly different implementation of this same thing, but here’s an alternate version.)

If withdrawing through drag-and-drop, you perform a check:

On begin-drag: note quantity of item
On drop: check quantity again

If quantity changed, drag-and-drop fails
If quantity is the same, move items

Hahaha, I can’t believe you guys are posting that here.

Foghladha.2506:

And that Timmy guy ain’t bad either :P

Maybe reserve judgement until after you’ve watched the first episode of “Spelling with Peanut.”

This Friday, I think I’ll see how many whiskeys I can have before I can no longer pronounce “Calamitous Annihilation.”

Over/Under is 0.5. Place your bets.

xivor.8754:

Ahahahahaha. Sorry, maybe during the tournament we can have a friendly walk into the DH ruins!

XIVOR I WILL SNEAK ATTACK THEM SSSSSHHHHHHH

Tigerlily.3765:

Sam went up to 500g yesterday.

Is there a Sam farm going on right now? I bet there is.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

I like the rng here, it makes looting enemies much more exciting since you never know… maybe you’ll get something cool. That’s one of the best parts for me personally, because I don’t want everything NOW, I want something to do in the long-term. Exactly what we got.

Maybe it’s just me.

I think that was the idea. It makes certain items valuable. The problem is that, at this stage, it feels forced. If it were in the game since launch, it would have been fine. But now, two years in, go back and run this meta event a bunch to hope you get some item so you can work toward a pittance of chivos? Ugh.

Collections should have launched with a new continent as a way to make Hearts worthwhile. Do the heart, get access to the vendor, items from collections within. (And remove Hearts from map completion.)

We love you too, VEX! :-)

Mesket.5728:

timmyf.1490:

Mesket.5728:

When people say they want guild changes, they refer to guild halls and GvG.

I am a guild leader. Guild Halls and GvG are two of the items lowest on my priority list. That’s not to say I don’t want those things, I just consider them considerably less important than other improvements.

Good, but the other 99,99% of the player base who is not a GM don’t care for UI changes and want guild content to play with the guild members… not to play with the guild UI.

I didn’t say that all I wanted was UI changes. You’re awfully quick to assume.

There are some automation and UI changes I’d like to see, sure. For example, I’d like to be able to roll a 24/7 WvW +5 supply without having to constantly babysit it. Same thing with buffs for captured objectives. It’d be nice to have a separate tab for WvW buffs and I can choose which buffs should be running with a corresponding influence/hour or /12 hour cost. I should have the option to run once or run continuously (until influence is expended).

I’d also like to see guild commander functionality and better control over permissions. Perhaps that puts me in the 0.01%, but those are important features for guilds.

That said, what do I want content-wise beyond halls and GvG? New guild missions or mission types. Reasons for guilds to capture and hold objectives in WvW. Guild Games or other sandbox features. Guild contests or lotteries with built-in support for that functionality.

Guild Halls are just a place to idle instead of a main city. Boooooooring.

Mesket.5728:

When people say they want guild changes, they refer to guild halls and GvG.

I am a guild leader. Guild Halls and GvG are two of the items lowest on my priority list. That’s not to say I don’t want those things, I just consider them considerably less important than other improvements.

I think the thing ArenaNet didn’t anticipate with this system is that players would EXPECT (yes, EXPECT, not WANT) to unlock EACH AND EVERY TRAIT RIGHT AWAY instead of unlocking them as needed for a build.

I absolutely don’t understand this desire, but it certainly seems widespread. For players who have it, their characters feel “incomplete” until they finish unlocking everything. Which is, as many have said, time-consuming and expensive.

I think the best bet would be to reduce the cost of paying for traits or to switch trait unlocks to Grandmaster only.

Brandon- I’ve never programmed a camera, so I could be way off here, but thinking out loud anyway.

Current behavior:

If camera can not move in desired direction (e.g. player instructs camera to move into ground), move closer to player

New behavior:

If camera can not move to desired location,
——if camera can pivot toward desired location while maintaining line-of-sight with player, pivot toward desired location while remaining at a fixed distance
——else, move toward player location (current behavior)

Line-of-sight would be the hard part to figure out. Players and NPCs shouldn’t break that, only terrain and structures. Not sure if that’s possible.