Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Guild Wars (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 4 >>

Contents

More Vandalism

Someone put false information conserning the different proffessions by adding a made up proffession,has been taken off.--The Avian Flu 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism: someone deleted the whole article and wrote a bunch of childish insults. Perhaps this article should be edit-protected temporarily? 204.56.177.248 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This page has always been the target of childish edits, usually at the rate of one or two per day. Unfortunately the policy for semi protection, or protection doesn't really cover the sort of casual vandalism which goes on here, as it isn't supposed to be a pre-emptive. Nice thought though. --Aspectacle 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Factions Content

I've moved the Factions content from this page to the updated Guild Wars Factions page. I think as it is a stand-alone campaign it introduces enough content to merit it. Also this page is fairly large even without that content, and would only grow larger and more unwieldy with each chapter that arrives - particularly with the way I'd structured the Chapters section previously.

I also have good intentions about removing Factions content which gets added to the page (I'm imaging that Assassin and Ritualist will get added to the professions section within the week) - unless there are objections. Please let me know if there are. --Aspectacle 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I expected to find a general overview and then links to each release. After all, there is only one game engine (i.e. only one icon to click to start playing, one login screen, etc.).
I've tweaked the initial paragraph with this in mind. I hope this is sufficient. --Aspectacle 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Storyline missions

Shouldn't there be at least a List of Guild Wars Storyline Missions page or some list of said on this page? Teh tennisman 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that granularity of detail isn't really required for a site such as wikipedia. There are other sites such as gw.gamewikis.org which cover off that sort of information in considerably more detail. If you've got a strong reason why that detail is required please post it and we can discuss it further. --Aspectacle 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a List of Guild Wars missions article? Teh tennisman 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on about deleting the extra articles. Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion there? Adding new information while we're talking about removing similar pages is probably counter productive. :) --Aspectacle 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Text

"Guild Wars, also known as Guild Wars Prophecies, is a Competitive/Cooperative Online Role-Playing Game (CORPG) created by ArenaNet, a developer founded by individuals formerly from Blizzard Entertainment which is now wholly owned by NCsoft, a South Korean game publisher."

Read the italics closely, and you will notice that it sounds like Blizzard Entertainment is owned by NCsoft, and not ArenaNet. I am changing it because that is not very clear. I believe that it should be changed to:

Guild Wars, also known as Guild Wars Prophecies, is a Competitive/Cooperative Online Role-Playing Game (CORPG) created by ArenaNet, a developer founded by individuals formerly from Blizzard Entertainment. ArenaNet is now wholly owned by NCsoft, a South Korean game publisher. MastrCake 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing the criticism

"It is believed that...", "There has [...] been criticism...", "nerfing usually works out for the best...", etc. That entire section is rife with weasel words or POV. Please source these criticisms from reputable game reviews. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem is they don't come from "refutable game reviews". :) These are merely the distilled comments of players on forums (or worse grumpy editors of the wiki which I have tidied up), which of course are a completely unsuitable source. I'll look around for official reviews, I think there will be two critisms, 1) Steep learning curve in future chapters 2) Will only really be successfull because it has no subscription fee. ;) What do other games have here? Is it worth making it "critical reception" and have compliments as well as criticism? --Aspectacle 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and thank you for your feedback. I have done a bit of work on this page and I have never been sure whether "the right thing" has been done or not, as no-one seems to make anything but small changes here. If you have any other feedback on completeness (or over-completeness ;) or other content I would be glad of it. --Aspectacle 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the portion about "nerfing works out for the best..." seemed biased to me. This "fact" is highly disputed and shouldn't be stated here as a fact. --Peregrine88 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have redrafted the entire section with what few online reviews I have found. Please update, correct, or refine as needed. Ideally, this section should adhere both to the spirit and the letter of the verifiability (using reliable sources) and NPOV policies. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New fansite link

Hi, I was wondering if it would be OK to add the faniste www.guildwarshelp.com, we are fairly new, but were almost done with "V2" of the site which includes a new template and much more content than what we currently have. Were also looking for anyone who writes guides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.190.68.6 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the only links in that section are to official ArenaNet sites and to GuildWiki which the community decided should be merged into that section (related AfD). Your site most likely will not make the cut as it isn't even listed in ArenaNet's official list of Guild Wars fansites. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Link

I'd like to add a link to a community Guild Wars wiki. http://www.gwonline.net/wiki. This is an official Elite site, recommended by AreanaNet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.176.6 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the parent site of that wiki was linked, not the wiki itself. GuildWiki is far more well known than that site per Alexa rankings (compare: [1] vs. [2]), which are a bit more reliable than Arena Net themselves. Since the gwonline.net wiki appears to be completely redundant with GuildWiki, not to mention newer and less apparently comprehensive (compare: GuildWiki:Category:Lore vs. GWOWiki:Category:Lore), I say leave it out of the article. Alternatively, remove the link to GuildWiki also (though its AfD decided to merge/redirect, so it will be hard as hell to get RfD to overturn). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

False info

There were two peices of information included in the article which were false, and such were deleted. One said that in order to get any skills for PvP, players are required to play PvE. This is not true, as asll skills can be unloxked with faction won in PvP. The second one said that there was no spesific chat for trade, which there s. Just beacuse people are tow stupid to use it, dosn't mean it isn't there.

I have reverted your edits. The information is correct but required clarification on the trade chat - because what is said there is correct as there is no *sophisticated* trade interface in GW like other MMORPGs only a trade chat channel. Also your edit about PvP characters made it sound like PvP characters could only use skills unlocked with balth faction - which is untrue - If you read a bit further up the page the means for unlocking skills for an account are detailed, including both PvE and PvP methods for doing so - there is no suggestion on the page that either type of play is *required* to get skill unlocks. --Aspectacle 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Revisiting your edits I see that there was information which was outdated and inconsistent wrt to the PvP unlocking mechanisms. I've added information to clarify the situation. Interesting to note that this PvE vs PvP conflict of interest is still an issue which ArenaNet is trying to resolve. --Aspectacle 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The trade chat channel can be turned off, which you failed to mention. You also seem to think that ads for groups and trade are always on the same channel, which they arn't, especily afterAnet made it so any post the contains the leters "WTS" or "WTB" is automaticly moved to the trade chat, which I personally keep off unless I am looking to buy somethng.

Be careful not to add subjective weasel words such as "some fail to realize ...". Also note that when I drafted this section initially, my sources were the IGN and Gamespot reviews. If you have more recent reliable sources that say that the trade situation has improved since the original reviews were published, please modify the section accordingly and provide the citation. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

here is your proof. Next time, stop defending outdated infrmation, such as the Faction asystem which you insisted didn't exisit beacuse the only thing you know about guild Wars are two outdated articles. The funny thing is that those coments only seem to apear in older articles from those two sites, and now are never mentioned. It s clear you know little, f anything, about Guild Wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.188.142 (talk • contribs) .

I play Guild Wars too. I've checked what Kaustav has said and what he said is accurate and verifiable using third party sources and is still accurate today. There is still no sophisticated trade interface. Updating the filters in a way which can be by-passed with great ease does not constitute a sophisticated trade interface and barely helps the chat spam issue at all. If you want to see what the community thinks of the trade situation I suggest you read some of the forums where people are still begging for an auction house to be added to the game. Here is a recent example [3]. The issue is the lack of sophisticated interface which leads to the need for use of the chat channels, trade, local or both, for players to get their wares noticed and sold - *not* the spam itself. Your edit adds nothing but evidence to the fact that ArenaNet are avoiding implementing a decent interface. --Aspectacle 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right: I know very little about Guild Wars. That is why I depend on reliable secondary sources. Remember that Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability, not truth. If trading in Guild Wars is now better than it was when it was released, it should not be difficult to find game magazine reviews that make this observation. Aspectacle's comment above leads me to believe that the criticism of the trade situation remains essentially valid today. Please take this as a neutral comment: I am not interested in a heated debate. I do encourage you to edit the article to provide a neutral, balanced view of trading in Guild Wars if you believe it is currently biased. It would be ideal if you structure it like the paragraph about skill unlocking is structured: first summarise the published criticism, then mention the steps ArenaNet have taken to address the criticism. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Spammers will be spammers, you can't blame the devs beacuse some rude epople want to play the game. This is the same type of thing that is on the WOW article, claiming blizzard hates gays jsut beacuse many of the players do. The article still claims Blizard themselves opely hate gays, when in reality it is jsut the players.

The link provided has also been dealted from the article. It seems you don't want to show the truth of the amtter beacuse it wopuld prove your outdated articles wrong. That update is a viable one, which reduced spam in local chat and restricted a bulk of it to trade chat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.188.142 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, I have had to revert your edit for two reasons. First, the game update you are referring to moves trade messages from a general channel to a trading channel; however, the context is not about the general channel. The criticism being stated in the paragraph is that the only way to trade with users is to advertise one's wares in a chat channel. A filter from one channel to another does not obviate the need for advertising one's wares. Second reason: wikis are not suitable primary or secondary sources for establishing critical views such as "reduced much of the trade-spam in local chat". A wiki may further not be used as a primary source for anything but information about itself, which is not the case here. It is my understanding from reading the guildwarsguru thread Aspectacle linked above that the reduction in "spam" is opinion rather than fact, and this opinion is moreover not widely shared by Guild Wars players. Therefore, because Wikipedia does not publish original viewpoints, such claims must be sourced from a reliable secondary source such as a game review, a comparative study of different games, and things of the sort. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

External links to the Spade Rebellion, etc.

I notice that the link to Spade Rebellion (added by 71.229.112.185 (talk · contribs)) has been repeatedly reverted out of this article. The most recent of these reversions was done by me. It seems to me that this website is not particularly notable (it's a Geocities cite!). It is less notable than the dozens of "fansites" that are also not mentioned in this article. If I am wrong and this is a widely known group in Guild Wars, please provide some evidence here. Forum postings on the major fansites and the like are fine to establish this group's popularity. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of them either (been playing since the game came out). I checked out their website, and the forums are dead (most people on has been 3). It sounds like someone's just putting it in their to try and get new recruits.
Epsoul 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of him (errr, them) either. There is only 1 member of the page forum, and there has been no activity on the forum, other then the introductory messages by the founder himself. It seems like it is nothing other then an attempt to spam his site. And the mandatory music on the pages is bad and annoying. 72.161.217.83 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention Alliances

Should the subject of alliances be brought up in the article? The system was introduced during Factions, but if a Prophecies only character is a member of a guild in an alliance, said person still can visit the guild halls of alliance member guilds. I'd be happy to add it to the article, but I'd like to avoid any potential ugliness by having the support of the editors of this article. Epsoul 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I actioned the completely split style of the guild wars articles I'm not sure that I'm going to give you a very unbiased opinion. I'd like to keep the articles for the different games fairly seperate. However a mention that you can get access to some features from other campaigns, ie alliances, through guild mates isn't out of place - it kinda depends on how you want to say it. Make your change, "be bold", we can talk about it after.  :) --Aspectacle 23:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I just put in a small addition (finally) about alliances. Its not perfect, but imo, it is good enough for now.Epsoul 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need "guild mates" to help you .Title and alleinces were both introduced with Factions, but they are still core content that everyone can use regardless of campain. Even people wo only have PvP content have acess to alliences and titles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.188.142 (talk • contribs) .

you are incorrect wrt alliances. If you are a guild leader you must join a faction in either House Zu or Cavalon during the PvE campaign before you can join an alliance. Titles were introduces across the board this is true - alliances however were not. The article doesn't say that guild mates are required - just that belonging to a guild adds to the game experience. --Aspectacle 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Development info

I was looking at an article review for the World of Warcraft page and they had this as a suggestion; "Do we have any development info? Information from the creators on how they got the idea, how they went about implementing it, why they chose to do things a certain way?". here I think this could be interesting for this article if anyone knows of such information? --Aspectacle 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm don't know of any such info, although the Making of... DVD that came with the Nightfall Collector's Edition may have some clues on their creative process (at least for Nightfall, if not Guild Wars proper). --Rambutaan 03:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There were quite a few online interviews with Jeff Strain before and around the release of Prophecies which have a bit of information about the client and streaming technology, the reason why they left Blizzard and what they were hoping to achieve with Guild Wars. I've put the interesting snippets from them into a text file sitting on my desktop, when I've got some time to spend I'll try to stitch them into an section. I've got that making of DVD - I haven't watched it yet thou. :) --Aspectacle 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Profs

Is it just me, or do the prof descriptions suck? They are missing information/aren't detailed enough, also the warrior shouldn't have the "Tank" description. I'll try and fix the section later, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time for a while. Epsoul 01:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I keep on removing the tank reference, someone keeps on putting it back in. /sigh Please don't make the changes too involved, that tag "too much game detail" which was added yesterday will likely result in my having a go at abbrieviating the entire game mechanics section. I tried to make the professions summary a one sentence concise description of the idea of what it does (particularly as there used to be a whole page devoted to describing the professions). I agree some of them are a bit *meh* so if you can do better go for it! --Aspectacle 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Did a basic edit to the profs. I Kept the idea of short descriptions, but I generally fleshed out the skillsets and such. A possible solution for the continued tank additions (which isn't even true, because elementalists use spells that add tons more armor than warriors) is to put up a vandalism tag, which would probably also cut down on the WoW vandals too...
Epsoul 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In-Game Events Details

I would like to change the section detailing about In-game events to include the Dragon Festival and possibly mention about the various weekend events such as the just passed Green-Drop Weekend.Onenottoforget 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've move this comment down here, to make this page cronological.
I'm not a big fan of the in=game event section because I don't think that it adds anything of value to someone who want to learn about Guild Wars any more than a simple statement that "ArenaNet arranges in-game events for players often co-inciding with real-world events. These events often feature minigames, quests, town decorations, masks and collectable gifts. Smaller events also occur which include weekends where the rate at which certain items drop while out questing is increased or the rewards from PvP play are improved." To explain each of the event adds little to the article. But you know - it's a wiki, do as you will. --Aspectacle 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that I just want to if it comments about any particular events that it mentions at least the all the main ones such as Halloween, Christmas, and the Dragon FestivalOnenottoforget 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)