Curse

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 19, 2006, 04:09 PM // 16:09

Ah yes, yet another character slot thread. I've already stated many times on the original character slot thread my views on the subject, so am not going to rehash them here, but there is something I do want to bring up since it does relate to this topic.

Anet used the equation 6x100 > 8x50 to justify the slot numbers for a merged account. However, we already know that that is completely faulty math:

6 primaries in C1 with content unique to each. 4 slots to play with in C1 = 67% total content accessable at any one time.

8 primaries in C2 with content unique to each. 4 slots to play with when unmerged = 50% content accessable at any one time.

8 primaries in C1+C2 with content unqiue to each. 6 slots to play with when merged = less than 75% content accessable at any one time. Here's why:

We know as a fact that 20% of Faction's content is for new, low level characters, while 80% was designed for our current ascended characters. Therefore with a merged account, 4 characters are only able to access 80% of the game.

When a new character is created, we must choose whether that is going to be a Canthan character or a Tyrian character - therefore we are unable to access one of the two tutorial worlds with that character - which means Tyrian born is missing that 20% of Factions, Canthan born is missing, say 5%-10% of Prophecies. Now if those two new characters are A and Rt, they may be missing even more content if they are not permitted to be born in Tyria, or if they are, a huge update will be necessary in Prophecies (both Pre and Post Searing) in order to add content for those characters to use and explore.

Now, we must factor in the alliances and Factions of Chapter 2. As stated in the FAQ, certain missions and explorable areas will only be accessable by one alliance/Faction or the other. No mention yet on how neutrality plays into accessing content. So essentially, each Faction will have 50% access to the high level content, and from what I can deduce thus far, neutral parties will have access to neither, so they'll be getting even less content.

No where in any of these equations did I see 100% ability to access content with any character. Just where the heck did the Anet devs go to school to come up with their equation?

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

Eclair · Mar 19, 2006, 06:35 PM // 18:35

You know what, I'm sure A-net probably has some really good economical reasons for only giving you 6 slots if you merge, so if you disagree with their plans, do it by not buying Factions.

If enough people don't buy Factions because of A-net's screwed up policy, then they'll realize they should have went with 8 merged slots.

Arguing about it here isn't really going to change anything.

merciless · Mar 19, 2006, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiderguard

Ok, I tried to search for the info, but the search function is broken...again.

Why do existing GW players get only 2 char slots when they purchase Factions, but new users get 4 slots? I think this is unfair to punish loyal customers who have purchased both games.

Existing GW players end up with 6 slots and new users get 4 slots. I think that is fair enough.

Jenosavel · Mar 19, 2006, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Ah yes, yet another character slot thread. I've already stated many times on the original character slot thread my views on the subject, so am not going to rehash them here, but there is something I do want to bring up since it does relate to this topic.

Anet used the equation 6x100 > 8x50 to justify the slot numbers for a merged account. However, we already know that that is completely faulty math:

6 primaries in C1 with content unique to each. 4 slots to play with in C1 = 67% total content accessable at any one time.

8 primaries in C2 with content unique to each. 4 slots to play with when unmerged = 50% content accessable at any one time.

8 primaries in C1+C2 with content unqiue to each. 6 slots to play with when merged = less than 75% content accessable at any one time. Here's why:

We know as a fact that 20% of Faction's content is for new, low level characters, while 80% was designed for our current ascended characters. Therefore with a merged account, 4 characters are only able to access 80% of the game.

When a new character is created, we must choose whether that is going to be a Canthan character or a Tyrian character - therefore we are unable to access one of the two tutorial worlds with that character - which means Tyrian born is missing that 20% of Factions, Canthan born is missing, say 5%-10% of Prophecies. Now if those two new characters are A and Rt, they may be missing even more content if they are not permitted to be born in Tyria, or if they are, a huge update will be necessary in Prophecies (both Pre and Post Searing) in order to add content for those characters to use and explore.

Now, we must factor in the alliances and Factions of Chapter 2. As stated in the FAQ, certain missions and explorable areas will only be accessable by one alliance/Faction or the other. No mention yet on how neutrality plays into accessing content. So essentially, each Faction will have 50% access to the high level content, and from what I can deduce thus far, neutral parties will have access to neither, so they'll be getting even less content.

No where in any of these equations did I see 100% ability to access content with any character. Just where the heck did the Anet devs go to school to come up with their equation?

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

I also disagree with ANet's math, but think that a merged account still comes out on top. As you pointed out, the devs have said that 80% of the factions content will be for level 20 ascended characters. One point you were off on was that they also estimated that 50% of our current content is geared towards level 20 ascended characters, not 90-95%. Also, anyone playing factions with a faction born character will have access to 100% of factions. You're not limited to one side and can change as many times as you'd like, so the assumption that you can never get more than 50% of content out of Factions is flawed.

Here are the numbers as ANet probably should have given them out:

Prophecies + Factions Separate Accounts:
4 character slots with 100% access to Prophecies Campaign.
4 character slots with 100% access to Factions Campaign.
total: 400% of Prophecies, 400% of Factions

Prophecies + Factions Merged Accounts (assuming you were a devout player and already beat the game with 4 of your slots):
4 character slots with 100% access to Prophecies and 80% access to Factions.
2 character slots with 100% access to Factions and 50% access to Prophecies.
total: 500% of Prophecies, 520% of Factions

As soon as you take PvP into account, it becomes a whole different ball-game. PvPers greatly benefit from the merge because they are about flexibility and need to have all their unlocks accessible at any given time. Thus they can't be restricted to only having certain skills on this or that account.

WasAGuest · Mar 19, 2006, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenosavel

I also disagree with ANet's math, but think that a merged account still comes out on top. As you pointed out, the devs have said that 80% of the factions content will be for level 20 ascended characters. One point you were off on was that they also estimated that 50% of our current content is geared towards level 20 ascended characters, not 90-95%. Also, anyone playing factions with a faction born character will have access to 100% of factions. You're not limited to one side and can change as many times as you'd like, so the assumption that you can never get more than 50% of content out of Factions is flawed.

Here are the numbers as ANet probably should have given them out:

Prophecies + Factions Separate Accounts:
4 character slots with 100% access to Prophecies Campaign.
4 character slots with 100% access to Factions Campaign.
total: 400% of Prophecies, 400% of Factions

Prophecies + Factions Merged Accounts (assuming you were a devout player and already beat the game with 4 of your slots):
4 character slots with 100% access to Prophecies and 80% access to Factions.
2 character slots with 100% access to Factions and 50% access to Prophecies.
total: 500% of Prophecies, 520% of Factions

As soon as you take PvP into account, it becomes a whole different ball-game. PvPers greatly benefit from the merge because they are about flexibility and need to have all their unlocks accessible at any given time. Thus they can't be restricted to only having certain skills on this or that account.

What Hanok was saying, I believe, is that because of the Factions alliance/border/territory/PvP game, players are being shorted in several ways. The slots for one, still nothing in print, no "Official" word as to why we don't have one slot per primary class. There are assumptions and ideas thrown out, but nothing official on it. Now, enter Factions with the already shortage of character slots we have, much of the game content (speaking on the PvE side of things) is locked out untill areas are unlocked via PvP mini-games.
So, the "fuzzy math" that us consumers have been given is even more off than once was thought.
Another was to think about it is this; a player chooses the following:
Warrior, Monk, Ele and Ranger. Four classes with four unique quests for skills, armor and weapons. All of these things are content. Necro and Mesmer are left out and the player can not try these classes out without deleting one of the characters (not always an option for everyone for various reasons). Therefore that player loses that content.
Add in Factions with two more classes and the player is still missing out on two primary classes with even more content (two continents worth of content for those classes) they can't access.
Now, further add in the new territory system/border lines and there's even more content the player can't access.
There are plenty of topics on the PvP mini-games (the supposed PvE content in Factions), so here is not the place to discuss it.
Combine the two issues and there is less and less content that the player has access too.
Having more slots would aleave some of this and allow players to more fully enjoy the game.

Peewee · Mar 19, 2006, 10:07 PM // 22:07

imo, ur not paying for a monthly fee, so far ANET support has been excellent, and i would rather drop 2 char slots than have terrible server lag because they cant afford anymore. All in all, stop complaining. 2 new proffesions, 2 new character slots seems fair to me, rather than the new players, who will get 4 character slots for 8 new proffesions. Aside from that, you of course have the choice to take 4, you will just not have the use of all skills for all proffesions.

And of course, GW is a pvp game in essence. PvP players need only 1 slot in order to play all proffesions. Maybe ANET are encouraging ppl to put down their Wammos and come join us guys in the arenas :P We are all waiting....

Alcazanar · Mar 19, 2006, 10:15 PM // 22:15

in the future the will be expensive add-ons that gives you
additional charactor slots so please kill this thread

Cjlr · Mar 19, 2006, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alcazanar

in the future the will be expensive add-ons that gives you
additional charactor slots so please kill this thread

Oh really? And you know this how? I don't recall seeing that information anywhere...

Loviatar · Mar 19, 2006, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cjlr

Oh really? And you know this how? I don't recall seeing that information anywhere...

what i did see of interest that could sort this out over time was the flat statement that not all chapters would have 2 new profesions.

if 2 slots is being set as a standard by chapter 2 (will see on 3) that leaves room as soon as they have enough assorted professions/skills to keep people busy they might in say chapter 4 offer one new profesion and 1 emply slot cutting the slot deficite to only 1 slot short of 1/primary.

do this 2 in a row and you have your 1/primary.

since this is just the game foundation they are building on i eagerly await what it will look like a year from now.

but everybody cant have everything they want yesterday

Mosch · Mar 20, 2006, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclair

You know what, I'm sure A-net probably has some really good economical reasons for only giving you 6 slots if you merge, so if you disagree with their plans, do it by not buying Factions.

If enough people don't buy Factions because of A-net's screwed up policy, then they'll realize they should have went with 8 merged slots.

Arguing about it here isn't really going to change anything.

The thing is, I would like to play it, but not under the circumstances we are forced into. So I along with many other people voice their opinion on this decision. I don't like it, so I post about it on the internet

Quote:

Originally Posted by merciless

Existing GW players end up with 6 slots and new users get 4 slots. I think that is fair enough.

Yes. But existing GW players paid for 4 slots already, buy another game that has four slots and only get 2 additional ones, still not being able to play all classes. We are currently trying to solve the puzzle why that is being done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alcazanar

in the future the will be expensive add-ons that gives you
additional charactor slots so please kill this thread

Case closed, Alcazanar solved all problems in the manner that nobody can argue with

Loviatar · Mar 20, 2006, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosch

Case closed, Alcazanar solved all problems in the manner that nobody can argue with

indeed.

with a completely unverified rumor from an unnamed source

Jenosavel · Mar 20, 2006, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

What Hanok was saying, I believe, is that because of the Factions alliance/border/territory/PvP game, players are being shorted in several ways. The slots for one, still nothing in print, no "Official" word as to why we don't have one slot per primary class. There are assumptions and ideas thrown out, but nothing official on it. Now, enter Factions with the already shortage of character slots we have, much of the game content (speaking on the PvE side of things) is locked out untill areas are unlocked via PvP mini-games.
So, the "fuzzy math" that us consumers have been given is even more off than once was thought.
Another was to think about it is this; a player chooses the following:
Warrior, Monk, Ele and Ranger. Four classes with four unique quests for skills, armor and weapons. All of these things are content. Necro and Mesmer are left out and the player can not try these classes out without deleting one of the characters (not always an option for everyone for various reasons). Therefore that player loses that content.
Add in Factions with two more classes and the player is still missing out on two primary classes with even more content (two continents worth of content for those classes) they can't access.
Now, further add in the new territory system/border lines and there's even more content the player can't access.
There are plenty of topics on the PvP mini-games (the supposed PvE content in Factions), so here is not the place to discuss it.
Combine the two issues and there is less and less content that the player has access too.
Having more slots would aleave some of this and allow players to more fully enjoy the game.

I understood just fine what he was saying. The problem I have with it is the assumption that somehow a player of Factions will only ever get to see 50% of the game's content. This seems to be a common assumption borne of the idea that all areas of the map will be controlled be either the Luxons or the Kurzicks, and that only players allied to the controlling faction will be allowed access to what that area offers. For some reason, people look over the fact that a player is not limited to one faction. You can play with the Luxons until you get tired of their content and then switch over to the Kurzicks. The little info ANet has given us would indicate that there is no limit to the number of times a player can switch which faction they're loyal to. Therefore, while content in Factions may not all be accessible at any single point in time, it is all accessible to any given player at some point if the player seeks it out.

It goes along with this idea that in a fashion similar to favor who controls the maps will be determined by PvP. That, at least, can be shot down now as a wrong assumption. Gaile herself has said that it will be both PvP and PvE which determines control of towns, which means that yes, PvE players will be able to aide their faction in taking over new towns. In fact, they'll be vital to the taking of new towns.

Therefore, the only content-limitations within Factions itself would appear to be the Elite Missions. At this point in time we have no idea how many of these there will be (for all we know, there could be as few as 2 or as many as 20). Nor do we know if they will be tied to which Alliance you are a part of or to which Faction you are a part of. Either way, complaining that your content is being limited on such sketchy info is absurd.

Also, if you want to argue that the merged account is losing out in terms of primary classes played in the game, you need to take into consideration that non-merged accounts are also losing out on content. Sure, they can have one of every primary class, however they will never have the full range of skills available for any class. Therefore, they will be limited in what builds they are able to play. Despite even the very best of ANet's efforts to balance the game, you can rest assured that at some point the equivalent of the 5-man SS green farming team will come out and that it is very likely to require skills from both chapters. How ANet will tackle such problems when the arise is anyone's guess, but overlooking the advantage that a merged account has in content on this note is silly.

If you look at it in terms of skills you will be able to earn on your accounts, and thus the different builds and experiences you can partake in, the picture looks like this:

Non-merged accounts:
4 character slots * 2 professions worth of skills * (40 core skills + 35 prophecies skills)
4 character slots * 2 proffessions worth of skills * (40 core skills + 30 factions skills)
total skills to play with: 1200

Merged accounts:
6 character slots * 2 professions worth of skills * (40 core skills + 35 prophecies skills + 30 factions skills)
total skills to play with: 1260

Its a very close margin, but the merged account still comes out on top.

I'd like to make it clear that I am in full support of enough additional character slots to cover one character of each primary profession. However, I feel the majority of the arguments complaining about being cheated out of content are childish or not at all well thought out. There's a very great difference between wanting more slots and feeling that you're somehow being cheated by not being given more.

I don't want my position to be misunderstood. I would love to have extra character slots. I don't feel we are entitled to them, however, and I certainly don't feel that we are being punished for merging our accounts rather than leaving them separate.

Loviatar · Mar 20, 2006, 02:48 AM // 02:48

forget the math.

it is simply the old saying .

figures dont lie but liars figure.

what it boils down to is that if you have to have one of each primary with UAS and all the frills you will need 2 of each chapter which will leave 4 dedicated PVP slots as a bonus.

if you are not dedicated (obsessed) enough to go this route use 6 primaries and stop the massive i deserve it i paid for it so gimmie it team

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 20, 2006, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenosavel

I understood just fine what he was saying. The problem I have with it is the assumption that somehow a player of Factions will only ever get to see 50% of the game's content. This seems to be a common assumption borne of the idea that all areas of the map will be controlled be either the Luxons or the Kurzicks, and that only players allied to the controlling faction will be allowed access to what that area offers. For some reason, people look over the fact that a player is not limited to one faction. You can play with the Luxons until you get tired of their content and then switch over to the Kurzicks. The little info ANet has given us would indicate that there is no limit to the number of times a player can switch which faction they're loyal to. Therefore, while content in Factions may not all be accessible at any single point in time, it is all accessible to any given player at some point if the player seeks it out.

It goes along with this idea that in a fashion similar to favor who controls the maps will be determined by PvP. That, at least, can be shot down now as a wrong assumption. Gaile herself has said that it will be both PvP and PvE which determines control of towns, which means that yes, PvE players will be able to aide their faction in taking over new towns. In fact, they'll be vital to the taking of new towns.

Therein lies part of the problem I am talking about. It's the fact that content is locked out. This game WAS supposed to be designed for the casual player, but how are they supposed to play if there are areas, quests, and missions they can't access because of who controls what area? I may have mentioned here or in another thread that with favor, sometimes a week can go by before I am logged into the game at a time that America has favor. So what happens if there is a quest or mission I want/need to do but have to wait until a particular side has control in order to do it. With a limited amount of time to be in game, literally it could be a month or more before I get lucky enough to be logged in at a time when I can get to that quest or mission.

Now, as you said, PvE players can participate in this control - but how we are supposed to do it hasn't been clearly defined, at least as far as I have seen. A big beef around here is that PvE would have to do some type of PvP play in order to affect control. Now, I'm a PvEer who just happens to like doing some PvP as well. The majority of PvEers do not. So their option is to either partake of a play style they detest, or wait around twiddling their thumbs until enough PvEers who do like PvPing are logged in and participating in these control quests/missions.

There would be no possible way to link a normal quest to enabling one side to better gain control over a territory. At some point all PvEers will have either completed the quest, or ignored it because they simply do no want to complete it. At that point, that quest becomes useless to aiding any side in gaining control. Replayable PvP quests seem to be the only way that will help sides gain and maintain control.

A lot of this subject actually belongs in another thread, but the slot limitation gets down to the basic of how much content can we access without having to throw away or waste previous play time. My point in posting those figures is that never at any time during the game can a player access any portion of the 100% of the content that he may want to access because of the slot limitation and the favor/faction limitation. As I have said, I have posted several points on this issue on the original thread, and won't rehash the argument here, but I will say that in over 35 pages of posts, NOT ONE post was able to offer any VALID argument on why there should NOT be enough slots per primary class.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

WasAGuest · Mar 20, 2006, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenosavel

I understood just fine what he was saying. The problem I have with it is the assumption that somehow a player of Factions will only ever get to see 50% of the game's content. This seems to be a common assumption borne of the idea that all areas of the map will be controlled be either the Luxons or the Kurzicks, and that only players allied to the controlling faction will be allowed access to what that area offers. For some reason, people look over the fact that a player is not limited to one faction. You can play with the Luxons until you get tired of their content and then switch over to the Kurzicks. The little info ANet has given us would indicate that there is no limit to the number of times a player can switch which faction they're loyal to. Therefore, while content in Factions may not all be accessible at any single point in time, it is all accessible to any given player at some point if the player seeks it out.

50% locked would kill the Factions game, so I can't see that much locked out either. But subtract the character slots and you get even less content to play around with.
PvE have no way to alter or aid in the moving the boundries is the truth. The competitive missions are not PvE missions or quests, they are PvP-mini games where the players are pitted against other players for points, score or against the clock (assuming that is what we are watching in all the videos posted on the net so far). Much in the way sports are, Basketball comes to mind right now. Golf might be a better example, players test themselves vs the course while still trying to beat the other players. It's PvP no matter the spin, PvP isn't just killing other players. I spoke more in another thread about this already though, so I'll stop.
But what it gets down to is simple really and there has been no current Anet responce (other than fuzzy numbers that don't make since unless they are forced into place - squares don't fit into circle holes unless they are forced) that can explain:
1) Factions comes with four slots already, why not leave them at four?
2) Why limit the players ability to play all primary classes without losing hundred of hours on characters they've enjoyed and want to keep?
3) Why limit the players content further with lack of slots when the content being locked by PvP mini games limits them already?

Edit: Still asleep it seems... forgot to fix the /quote at the end of the post... meh

Mordakai · Mar 20, 2006, 02:03 PM // 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

but I will say that in over 35 pages of posts, NOT ONE post was able to offer any VALID argument on why there should NOT be enough slots per primary class.

Not "valid" enough for you, perhaps. I've heard several reasonable explanations.

These boil down to:

Hidden cost to Anet for merging accounts. While no one can prove such a cost exists, that does not mean it doesn't.

Anet is Greedy. Sure, you don't like this argument, but it doesn't make it invalid. Anet wants people to buy more than one account to increase their revenue. Nothing wrong with that.

On the flip side, I have yet to see a "valid" reason why Anet would NOT give us 8 slots if there was no reason for them not to!

Loviatar · Mar 20, 2006, 03:59 PM // 15:59

hi

i really, really, REALLY would appreciate it it you would add *IN MY OPINION* now and then instead of offering something like this as so factual and so obviously correct it does not ever need a qualifier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook
but I will say that in over 35 pages of posts, NOT ONE post was able to offer any VALID argument on why there should NOT be enough slots per primary class.

next you throw out dire figures of 50% lockout

the quests in question in the controlled towns are (according to ANET) super hard and bonus not needed for the super elite for the tip of the hardcore segment of game players and theit casual target audience wont have a chance and IN MY OPINION will get on with the main course of the game and leave the habbanaros to the experts

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 21, 2006, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Not "valid" enough for you, perhaps. I've heard several reasonable explanations.

These boil down to:

Hidden cost to Anet for merging accounts. While no one can prove such a cost exists, that does not mean it doesn't.

Anet is Greedy. Sure, you don't like this argument, but it doesn't make it invalid. Anet wants people to buy more than one account to increase their revenue. Nothing wrong with that.

On the flip side, I have yet to see a "valid" reason why Anet would NOT give us 8 slots if there was no reason for them not to!

These actually are not valid as in the previous thread, many stated that they wouldn't have a problem paying for extra slots, so that fact that Anet wants to make money is in truth not valid as we are willing to pay for the extra slots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

hi

i really, really, REALLY would appreciate it it you would add *IN MY OPINION* now and then instead of offering something like this as so factual and so obviously correct it does not ever need a qualifier.

next you throw out dire figures of 50% lockout

the quests in question in the controlled towns are (according to ANET) super hard and bonus not needed for the super elite for the tip of the hardcore segment of game players and theit casual target audience wont have a chance and IN MY OPINION will get on with the main course of the game and leave the habbanaros to the experts

I guess I always assumed that one's post IS one's opinion and that fact would be so obvious (in my opinion) that it wouldn't need the "in my opinion" statement (in my opinion).

In regards to the % of playable content. I certainly don't expect 50% of the content to be locked on a permanent basis, but certainly, it's possible that one might only be able to access 50% of the content at any one time while they are playing due to the slot limitations and the Faction/Favor control system. My entire point was just to show that Anet's fuzzy math equation is really a complete falsehood as based just on the slot limitation, there is no way a player can access 100% of the content whether the games are merged or played as stand alone versions. Plus if your statement is correct, then Anet is limiting the content that can be accessed by its target audience through the game paramaters that they designed, therefore their 100% statement is a lie (in my opinion).

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

Mordakai · Mar 21, 2006, 02:33 PM // 14:33

So, Odbrook, why do you think that Anet currently does not offer a way to get 8 slots? Are they just stupid?

crimsonfilms · Mar 21, 2006, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Quote:

These actually are not valid as in the previous thread, many stated that they wouldn't have a problem paying for extra slots, so that fact that Anet wants to make money is in truth not valid as we are willing to pay for the extra slots.

Because that would be wrong and a PR nightmare. How will you explain to players that every other game that it competes with has no such limitation to begin with - let alone 'buy a lost program'

It 'nickle and diming' your community - especially the most loyal and hardcore.

Either way, the slot limitation is stupid limitation on the game. A big flaw IMO.

The most reasonable explaination is still ANet wants the money.