Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about a List of Guild Wars missions article? Teh tennisman 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Storyline missions 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Confusing Text 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sourcing the criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New fansite link 

message: 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:  vs. ), 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)
thread_title:  Wiki Link 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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 .  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  False info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention Alliances 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Development info