Curse

Cacheelma · Mar 01, 2007, 07:32 AM // 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

Actually if you have a friend who has done the worm mission he should be able to get you to the basalt grotto from the gate of desolation, with you lingering behind...from there you can go east to jennurs horde, tihark, kodash etc...

I must admit I haven't tried it but I was speaking to someone online who had apparently helped some people that way.

Uh....yeah. Come to think of it, that's possible too. I've just read about this so-called Junundu trick which can bring you all the way through The Bone Palace, which in turn would bring you to the Grotto too.

But...I find it to be VERY time-consuming and depending on too many factors to the point that playing through the game *might* be easier, really.

cthulhu reborn · Mar 01, 2007, 07:45 AM // 07:45

Nah not really...it doesn't take that much time to get to the basalt grotto...not more than playing one mission so it will save you the time. But it's kinda pointless to jump ahead for anything more than armour and skills oh and some treasures of course. But then that was the whole point of running from the start....but since you can get max armour on the starter island I really wonder if this is really useful.

You still need to do certain pq's to activate the missions anyway. But hey it IS an RPG and there is a story line to follow.

In Tyria there was a need for missions because you wanted the xp...older players will remember the wopping 2000xp we got for the mission + bonus....now you get 4500xp and 2-3000xp for a lot of mere quests. Also Ascension was a big deal; it took a bit of doing before you could go to FoW/UW. Now all you have to do is finish the first pq on the main land...most disappointing really...

Come to think of it...they have made things a lot easier for players already.

elsalamandra · Mar 01, 2007, 11:54 AM // 11:54

I tottaly agree with Reborn.

lyra_song · Mar 01, 2007, 12:07 PM // 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

I'm curious about what would be so bad about this? Especially once another campaign is out, and so on, and so on. That will be a lot of ground to cover for just one character, let alone 8+. Maybe I'm missing "better" solutions, but this seems the best mentioned so far.

Its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

This is a problem with the player, not the game.

The game shouldn't be neutered because people can't be bothered to play it.

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

This is a problem with the player, not the game.

Um, refer to wikipedia entry on "Appeal to tradition"

For those of you unwilling to go there, it is a logical fallacy with the premise "This is right because this is the way it is and we've always done it this way."

You sir, are making the assertion that there is no problem. I think that there is. We simply have differences of opinion. I cannot prove whether I am in the majority or minority, but having strength of numbers does not necessarily determine correctness. I merely have the strength of my convictions.

Your statement that the problem is with the player is not a fact, merely an opinion. <grin>

And as of yet, no one has made a cogent argument as to how opening up 75% of the game will harm the player(s) experience, with the exception of easier access to end-game greens, which I would be happy to address to the best of my knowledge.

I have not beaten Nightfall yet, which should tell you something about the time I have available to play this game, so I cannot comment on the quality of endgame greens in that campaign.

I have beaten Factions with 2 characters, and the green item weapons were all of the "vampiric" variety, with some shields thrown in for good measure. Those items are what the fuss is about? Collectors items are as good or better. Specific example - 5 margonite masks can be traded for an adamantine shield 16 armor Req 9 tactics +30 health -5 dmg/20%. That is exactly the aegis you can receive for the endgame, and I think the collectors item can take modifications!

So the theory that endgame greens in the Factions campaign are "superior" is hogwash. I cannot comment yet on the Nightfall campaign.

So, convince me there is no problem. Why is playing more than one or two characters through a campaign so wrong? To get even some of the good skills in new campaigns and stay competitive in PvP with my PvE character(s)? You have made it clear that you are resistant to change, but you have not elucidated as to why is this a crime, and why do you not want it to happen?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

axe · Mar 01, 2007, 03:30 PM // 15:30

I was just thinking about this last night when we needed a monk for a mission and we all have monks but nobody has played their monk through nightfall yet.

Also I have often wanted to try some new build ideas in FOW and usually that invovles a character class that I dont have. It would be cool to treat certain high level pve areas like pvp areas and be able to go in there with pvp chars after fully unlocking a campaign.

I think that to fully unlock a campaign you need to get Protector and Cartagrapher maxed on one character and then that chapter becomes unlocked and available for you to use pvp characters in that campaign. pve characters would still need to go through the game as normal. I would LOVE to be able to help friends out by rolling a pvp character to monk or nuke or whatever was needed.

The argument that this would alow access to endgame greens is silly because you dont even need to own the chapter to get those endgame items, you can just go to LA and buy them. The thing that WOULD be a problem is that you could just keep making new characters and getting a book of secrets on each and that would be easily fixed by not allowing a "pvp" character to get those items. They would still be able to get drops which is no different than if that player took a pve character in there. I really think this would make the game so much better for casual players.

I would just say that pvp characters would not be allowed to use armor crafters and that they could not get any type of item that is a "one per character" type of item which would include quest reward items.

lyra_song · Mar 01, 2007, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Um, refer to wikipedia entry on "Appeal to tradition"

I love philosophy. I was thinking of minoring in philosophy back in college, but i chose anthropology (but i didnt get enough credits for that in time either so i had to drop it...but thats another story).

Anyways....Appeal to Tradition would apply to my arguement if I left it as is. I will elaborate but give me a moment.

Upholding the status quo is in fact not my perogative (in fact i go against the status quo very often in these forums)

Quote:

Your statement that the problem is with the player is not a fact, merely an opinion. <grin>

Yes, conjecture, just as much as the rest of these posts on this thread.

Quote:

And as of yet, no one has made a cogent argument as to how opening up 75% of the game will harm the player(s) experience, with the exception of easier access to end-game greens, which I would be happy to address to the best of my knowledge.

The end game greens are irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:

So, convince me there is no problem. Why is playing more than one or two characters through a campaign so wrong? To get even some of the good skills in new campaigns and stay competitive in PvP with my PvE character(s)? You have made it clear that you are resistant to change, but you have not elucidated as to why is this a crime, and why do you not want it to happen?

Ok. Lets try this.

Lets say a Chair's primary function is for sitting in.

A Chair can be used as a stepping stool for reaching high places as well.

If the chair does not hold well as a stepping stool and is a crummy stepping stool, we should not hold it against the chair, since that is not its primary function.

The OP idea is equivalent to demanding that the chair become a stepping stool.

Guild Wars is a video game. Games are meant to be played. By virtue, video games are time consuming and non-educational entertainment (for the most part.).

Guild Wars upholds its function and design. It is meant to be played.

There is nothing broken about the design since there is nothing in the design to hinder you from playing the game, nor is it hindering you from playing many characters. In fact the game caters to players with multiple characters thanks to purchasable player slots and constantly adding more slots per chapter. There is also running, leeching, ferrying, etc. Many ways to speed up gameplay. There is no limiting factor to stop you from taking your time or rushing through.

The only limiting factor is the player's own time to actually play all those characters.

The idea of unlocking areas and skills through merely beating the game with 1 character violates the design of the game and its an insult to the designer. It is asking for an exploit. It is asking for a shortcut. It is asking for a handout.

If i have a car made for stop and go city driving (such as a hybrid), and it performs poorly in highway driving (where theres less braking), you cannot blame the car. The car can be modified and fixed to perform better in highway driving, but then its original function and design is lost.

If Anet implements ways to unlock outposts and skills, it has to be character based and not account based.

-----
I'm a designer. I work 40+ hours a week. I have 17 characters and i havent even beaten Nightfall yet. Oh and then theres my almost non-existant social life, and my own independent projects.

I oppose this idea strongly, even though it would help me very much.

Perynne · Mar 01, 2007, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

And as of yet, no one has made a cogent argument as to how opening up 75% of the game will harm the player(s) experience, with the exception of easier access to end-game greens, which I would be happy to address to the best of my knowledge.

So, convince me there is no problem. Why is playing more than one or two characters through a campaign so wrong? To get even some of the good skills in new campaigns and stay competitive in PvP with my PvE character(s)? You have made it clear that you are resistant to change, but you have not elucidated as to why is this a crime, and why do you not want it to happen?

First of all, we never said that playing more than one or two characters through a campaign is wrong. Like you pointed out before too, stop putting words into our mouths.

Allright, let's break this down.... here are some of the reasons I think opening up 75% of the game will harm the players experience (some of these points have already been brought up in previous posts):

1. That's 75% of the game. Even 50% would be a lot. How many games do you know that allow you to skip so much content just because you can't be bothered to play it? Even if you need to play through a campaign with one character before you can unlock it for all characters still means you'll lose a huge amount of gameplay. I know it's hard going through a game on limited time (I have limited gameplay time myself), but I find a game loses a lot of it's magic if all content is readily available to every single character. Sure, you'd have your elites and high-end armor and stuff, but you wouldn't have that wonderful feeling that comes after you've passed a game with a new character, of having actually accomplished something. Which leads us to...

2. Having so much unlocked would be a huge incentive to just forget about 50%+ of the game (excepting the one character that sweated through it). Missions would become empty except for new players and those rare few who actually do them to help others. There would be an even bigger problem of finding PUGs than there is now (yes, I like PUGs, they're not as bad as most people make them up to be).

3. If all you wanted was to cap skills for use in PvP and/or PvE, then a solution like a skill trainer that deals in elites you've unlocked for your account is a MUCH better idea. But wait, aren't they called elites solely because you have to go out there to cap them yourself? Bingo. I think it totally makes them worthless as elites if you'd be able to skip to them easily. Why not just make them into normal skills while we're at it.

4. Most people would just abuse this system. Those who play alone and those who are only after stuff would quickly pass the game and then promptly forget it. It would also be a huge incentive not to learn how to play different classes. For example, you pass through all new campaigns with your ranger. Then you decide to make a ritualist... hooray, you get her to level 20 and suddenly the whole world is open before you. So you promptly skip to the last missions without bothering to learn new tactics and skill sets and then wonder why the game is so tough. Repeat x times with any new class. There would be even more problems with players not bothering to learn their class.

5. Boredom. Sure, you have 12+ characters you want to take through a campaign. Yes, this would require quite a bit of time. Time is good, it keeps players in the game and gives them something to do. Howerver, skipping over 50% of the game suddenly makes things easier, gamers get everything they want right away and finally end up getting bored because everything is served to them on a silver plate.

6. It's PvE... you know, roleplaying. Fine, PvP has everything instantly. It's a good thing, you can stay competitive. But there's nothing in PvE that merits this idea. There's no need for you to have the latest elite on every single one of your characters so you can beat the endgame boss. There's no need for you to have the best weapons available, or the best armor. If you want a PvP character out of your PvE character, then just play through the game. A PvE character's main idea is not to be pitted against other players anyway, so I think it's sensible that you'd have the difference of needing to actually play with it. If that is too tedious for you, then create a PvP character.

Here are some key points I think answer your question quite well. I had a couple more, but I need to go play my monk through Factions on the limited time I have. She's my 4th character, by the way.

Loviatar · Mar 01, 2007, 05:28 PM // 17:28

regardless of what has been said afterwards here is what the OP wants

Quote:

If Anet is interested in making the game better (and having players diversify and play more characters is better in my opinion), here are three proposals:

1) Have outposts discovered by one character available to all other characters (this won't hurt the exploration title since only the outposts may be made available with the actual map remaining cloudy)

map open for all characters old and new period.

as to not hurting explorer title how about all the work you spent getting to that outpost in the first place?

if this is to save time and effort how can it NOT effect the title?

Quote:

I'm not saying it will be simple to make these changes. If made, they will definitely screw up other things in the game, for instance, players who have farmed titles/XP and discovered outposts with many chars will say "why are people now getting for free the things that I have worked hard for". I'd like to hear other people's opinion about this

they admit it will screw up things for others simply because they want to do more characters in less time

Quote:

2) Make some (if not all) role playing titles per-account and not per-character. I can't help but wonder, why on earth the only role playing titles that Anet made per-account are the lucky/unlucky titles...

the new character you made has not earned those titles yet but the OP doesnt care

Quote:

I'm not saying it will be simple to make these changes. If made, they will definitely screw up other things in the game, for instance, players who have farmed titles/XP and discovered outposts with many chars will say "why are people now getting for free the things that I have worked hard for". I'd like to hear other people's opinion about this

Quote:

3) XP and skill points may also be per-account. If 2 players create a dervish, where one player has played 2000 hours of guild wars with many other characters and the other player is new to guild wars then the veteran is more experienced, even though he is creating a new character. I think we all have many skill points on our primary character which we never use, but our other charcters are sometimes in need of a few.[/

and there we have the final piece of the hardcore (farmer mostly) UNLOCK ALL SKILLS as they no longer have to play the game to get skill points

complete open map to jump anywhere for that elite you need so bad/UAS/titles for higher salvage(farming) benefit

perfect for GOLD WARS/TRADE WARS/BOT WARS / GW TYCOON WARS BUT HELL ON JUST PLAYING THE GAME.

oh yes i almost for got......................

Quote:

If made, they will definitely screw up other things in the game

Quote:

players who have farmed titles/XP and discovered outposts with many chars will say "why are people now getting for free the things that I have worked hard for". I'd like to hear other people's opinion about this

my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character dont create it in the first place.

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Lets say a Chair's primary function is for sitting in.

A Chair can be used as a stepping stool for reaching high places as well.

If the chair does not hold well as a stepping stool and is a crummy stepping stool, we should not hold it against the chair, since that is not its primary function.

The OP idea is equivalent to demanding that the chair become a stepping stool.

If i have a car made for stop and go city driving (such as a hybrid), and it performs poorly in highway driving (where theres less braking), you cannot blame the car. The car can be modified and fixed to perform better in highway driving, but then its original function and design is lost.

If Anet implements ways to unlock outposts and skills, it has to be character based and not account based.

Both of your arguments are based on a static situation. I can safely state that with each new addition to GW, the situation changes. There are (more characters) x (more areas to explore) = (more time). The is just more of everything. So let me help your examples by changing a variable to make it valid.

So by your first example, each campaign is another person who is to sit in the chair, making the people split the chair by time. That is a literal example, in that you simply have more options and have to divide your time up, becoming less efficient. Why not modify the chair and make it a bench such that it can seat more than one person at a time? Makes sense to me.

By your second example of the car, each campaign is another network of roads that can be driven down. The case you are making is that regardless of the efficiency, we should not modify the car to be able to drive at a faster speed, when there are more roads that can be driven. I would make the case that the car should be modified to be faster so that you can drive more roads in the same amount of time, because there is no escaping the fact that there are more roads.

So to keep parity with the more content in every new campaign, an efficiency tweak is required to keep pace such that the percentage of work done in a unit of time keeps pace with the increased quantity of work.

Look, even if unlocks are open, you are not being forced to use them! Play the campaigns through if you want. Stay in the slow lane and never experience Nightfall as a Ranger. I'm not going to stop you.

And yes, the unlocks are per character. Your newbie baby monk gets nada zip zero zilch.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Tromador · Mar 01, 2007, 06:02 PM // 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perynne

6. It's PvE... you know, roleplaying.

NONONONO!!! AAAGGH..!!

It's NOT roleplaying.

If it's roleplaying

1: Elonian characters cannot do Cantha/Tyria. Those events happened in the past, where is the NPC with the time machine?

2: You may not go back and help others do missions once completed. Your character has already experienced those events. Similarly, if you didn't get masters/bonus first time around, tough luck, the events have occurred - your character can't rewind time.

3: Anything you "make up" to fill in gaps is metagaming and has no place in a pure RP environment.

Man, if you really honestly stuck to a strict IC ("in character") regime, you'd really be in trouble.

You might argue going back and redoing is like reloading a save in a game like NwN. No. Reloading a save means losing everything done since - this doesn't happen. To maintain strict IC, you get one shot at everything. The only save which counts for anything is a total party kill in a mission where you have to restart.

But then GW doesn't force this upon anyone, because it isn't an RPG. It's a fun hack and slash, with a linear storyline.

Loviatar, I'm not sure it's productive to address the OP. The debate has moved along. I'm 100% convinced that nobody posting regularly in this thread agrees with everything the OP has to say, so your arguing against the wrong points. Let's try to move forward, not start over.

I'm sometimes half convinced I'm playing devil's advocate. I really think the only thing I truly want is Elite availability so that the Elite missions can have a more full metagame in terms of individual/team builds and I'm all for capping any skill at least once before it would be unlocked for the account.

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perynne

Here are some key points I think answer your question quite well.

Um, no. And here is why. I will, answer your points, one by one.

1. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

2. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

3. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

4. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

5. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

6. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.

I am not advocating forcing you to miss the early parts.

People who beat down liches multiple times do not have to escort weenie traders and protect them from 4th level bandits.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Perynne · Mar 01, 2007, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

1. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.
2. You still have the option of playing your way, to quote you "sweating" through the game.
etc.

Congratulations to you for not even reading my post before answering. You asked what problems your idea would present, and I gave some to you. There are always options, but that does not mean the problems will go away just by ignoring them. My way is a very social gaming way, and the problems I presented are valid points that would destroy a lot of that.

And Tromador, I don't play strictly in character. I used the word "roleplay" to describe that there's an entire world to explore, with different characters. There's the sense of being IN the world (which you don't get as much in PvP), even if you're not doing roleplay. I happen to like that illusion, even if I don't play in character. Shortcuts would just shatter it and ruin a good game.

Oh, and I think Loviatar made some brilliant points. I doubt the game designers wanted to make a game that caters to obsessive farmers and people who make more characters than what they can handle. I think they wanted to make a game that is for those gamers who enjoy going through the game one character at a time, those who enjoy looking at the scenery and taking their time with things.
If they wanted it to be dumbed down and played through in a matter of days per character, shortcuts would have been implemented right from the start and all of the new campaigns would have the same runner freedom as Tyria. Since they don't, I'm guessing the designers want to keep it that way.

lyra_song · Mar 01, 2007, 07:07 PM // 19:07

[QUOTE=TabascoSauce]So by your first example, each campaign is another person who is to sit in the chair, making the people split the chair by time. That is a literal example, in that you simply have more options and have to divide your time up, becoming less efficient. Why not modify the chair and make it a bench such that it can seat more than one person at a time? Makes sense to me.[quote]

No. The game is the chair, the number of campaigns is irrelevant. The number of player slots is irrelevant.

Its 1 gamer, and 1 game. 1 person and 1 chair.

Each campaign is still designed to be played through. ie: to sat on.

This simply design and purpose. Arenanet has not made each game skippable.

They have changed the pacing in Factions and Nightfall slightly, as well as adding options to speed it up, but the purpose and function is still to be played not to be skipped.

How much sitting you are willing to do is up to you.

Quote:

By your second example of the car, each campaign is another network of roads that can be driven down. The case you are making is that regardless of the efficiency, we should not modify the car to be able to drive at a faster speed, when there are more roads that can be driven. I would make the case that the car should be modified to be faster so that you can drive more roads in the same amount of time, because there is no escaping the fact that there are more roads.

So to keep parity with the more content in every new campaign, an efficiency tweak is required to keep pace such that the percentage of work done in a unit of time keeps pace with the increased quantity of work.

Again. Campaign or time spent (efficiency) is irrelevant

A hybrid's electronic motor gains energy when the car stops. So city driving, composed of short bursts of movement and lots of stopping is MUCH more efficient for the car, than highway driving, which is composed of long periods of movement.

The car is efficient for its purpose. To move through stop-and-go traffic.

Adding more campaigns is adding more stop-and-go traffic. This already fits the purpose of the car, there is no modification needed to make it do what its supposed to do since it is already efficient.

Forcing it to change outside of its purpose is a bad idea.

So what am i saying through my examples?

The game is made with a certain function (to be played) This idea (skipping parts of the game) does not fit how the game works and is in fact contradictory to its design.

Now....i am willing to entertain ideas on how to play the game FASTER or perhaps reward players who play 8-10 times through.

But i will not accept ideas that do not involve the primary function of the game, which is to be played.

I dare you to tell me that this game is not supposed to be played. ;P

-------------

I keep seeing this arguement "You dont have to do it" or "You can still play the old way".

It doesnt make sense to me since people are asking essentially to remove the old way (play the game).

Even if it stays there, its essentially vestigial, for show, and void of its original function since theres a better and faster way to access content (skipping).

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

But i will not accept ideas that do not involve the primary function of the game, which is to be played.

I dare you to tell me that this game is not supposed to be played. ;P

What you really mean is play the game your specific way.

To quote the Princess Bride, "My way is not very sportsmanlike". Not necessarily relevant but very funny.

I think a better way of phrasing your statements would be to say:

But i will not accept ideas that do not involve the primary function of the game, which is to be played linearly in a rigid fashion which is the way I prefer to play the game and will necessarily force on you.

and.....

I dare you to tell me that this game is not supposed to be played linearly in a rigid fashion which is the way I prefer to play the game and will necessarily force on you. ;P

I reject your rejection of my rejection of your rejection of my rejection etc etc etc. We can reject each others logic all day and night because of fundamental differences, those being me wanting the game to be more efficient so I can experience more on my limited time budget, and your stated desire to prevent me from doing so. We agree to disagree.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

lyra_song · Mar 01, 2007, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

I think a better way of phrasing your statements would be to say:

But i will not accept ideas that do not involve the primary function of the game, which is to be played linearly in a rigid fashion which is the way I prefer to play the game and will necessarily force on you.

The game IS rigid. The game IS linear. The game does offer not much freedom. That much is clear. But this game is designed to be like that.

This limitation is imposed on ALL of us.

And no...i do not prefer to play it like that. I like to be free and do what i want, i think it would be rather silly for me to choose to be caged vs to be free.

However.

This is Guild Wars. When you play the house, you play by house rules.

Your idea is unreasonable, overly demanding, unrealistic and outside of the limitations of what freedoms the game does allow.

What we need are ideas that fit within the limitations and design of the game that can still satisfy those who want the game to progress faster.

so nya. ;p

Quote:

We agree to disagree.

Yes but its still fun.

I do not disagree on making the game more efficient, only your method.

Orbberius · Mar 01, 2007, 08:07 PM // 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

The game IS rigid. The game IS linear. The game does offer not much freedom. That much is clear. But this game is designed to be like that.

Yes... that's why people are suggesting a change. Just because one part of the game was initially designed in one way doesn't mean it can't be changed later on. Particularly in this case, the change won't need a rewrite of the engine or anything complicated.

cthulhu reborn · Mar 01, 2007, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character dont create it in the first place.

Well...that about sums it up for me....

DarkSpirit · Mar 01, 2007, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character dont create it in the first place.

Good point.

I have put 14 characters through nightfall, of which 10 of them went through prophecies and factions also. All this while holding a full time job and taking care of a 1.5 year old baby, not kidding. How do I do that? There are shortcuts through the game that you can take, if you think hard enough but that is another topic.

The pve aspect has a storyline. If dont want to go through the storyline, you can still make pvp characters and get to use them. Otherwise if you are sick of the storyline then nobody is holding a gun at your back to make you play it a second or third time.

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar
my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character dont create it in the first place.

Well...that about sums it up for me....

Oh man I am about to split my sides laughing here.

What you really meant to quote is.......

my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character linearly in a rigid fashion which is the way I prefer to play the game and will necessarily force on you, dont create it in the first place.

Contrary to some opinion, it will not break the game, any more than having a character go through the Droknar's run. Well, there is a qualitative difference there in that this is a Droknar's run for an ascended and mature character, not a low-level.

Thx!
TabascoSauce