Curse

Dosearius Takerius · Mar 19, 2011, 04:34 PM // 16:34

Well, the vote totals don't seem to be changing much from a percentage standpoint (the ratio of yes votes to no votes has remained fairly consistent since the poll went up.)

So, regardless of their reasons, the poll clearly has shown the more players favor LDoA remaining a character title rather than a account-based title.

Of course, however, as with any election, the side that is losing will do everything in their power to keep to argument rolling in the hopes it will change minds, which does not seem to be happening here.

The community HAS spoken, some just don't like what they have to say.

Hobbs · Mar 19, 2011, 04:42 PM // 16:42

Viva Democracia!

Bright Star Shine · Mar 19, 2011, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Multi quote time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

I gave up because you ignore every counter-arguement. And the one I gave still stands. LS and LDoA is 1 title more than simply LS. Basic math, doesn't need explanation, can not be argued.

As long as 1 < 2, this arguement can not be refuted, I'm sorry.

Since when do you decide when arguments can or can not be refuted? Christians also say that the fact that god exists can't be refuted, yet, there is still no proof. Hurr durr.
But to answer anyway: it is sad that you need LDoA that badly but until you convince Anet otherwise, it's still characterbased.

Quote:

There's no reason why some people should have an advantage over others because of choices they made before the survivor-change update.

So, you're saying, everyone who had something given to them prior to a certain update are in advantage and should not be? Well in that case I want uncods to drop again, because I didn't decide to start playing GW prior to the moment they were removed, and I think those people have an advantage over me. (I clearly don't, I'm just bending arguments to fit my point, like you have been doing the entire time too)

Quote:

I also said that there's 2 options: Either allow every character at any given time acess to pre, which will get alot of opposition from the Pre-community, or allow LDoA to be acount wide. Those are the only 2 options we have to even out this unfair balance.

I never said LDoA had to be made acount wide, I merely said either one of the 2 works, and making LDoA acountwide is the easier solution.

There is also a 3rd option you forgot, and I did mention in my post: drop it, stop QQing. Your reasoning is also utterly flawed here. Since when should Anet be forced to choose either one? And giving them 2 ridiculous options to choose from is kind of a bad gesture, no? That's like choosing the lesser of 2 retarded evils.

Quote:

You just seem too hell-bend over the fact that it doesn't fit "lorewise" when I can give you a million things that don't fit lorewise, so that can't be a valid ground on stating this is a bad suggestion. And I refuse to believe someone can be as ignorant to actually believe such a thing (that lore dictates it should be a character-based title) so therefore I assumed you're merely defending your own advantage you currently posses.

So, because already so many things don't fit lore-wise, another one doesn't matter, right? Again, good reasoning.

Quote:

My girlfriend currently has 8 PvE characters on her acount all level 20, elite armor, etc etc. She chose for LS a couple of years ago, and currently needs a couple more titles to gain GWAMM. She wants to get GWAMM on her Monk, but she also wants LDoA. Why is she getting forced to remake her monk which has a redicilous amount of hours solely because of design flaws made by Anet 4 years ago?

This is one of your most flawed arguments tbh. No one is forcing her to delete her monk. If she wants GWAMM on it, there are more than enough possibilities to get it. Unless there were only 30 available titles and LDoA was mandatory for GWAMM, your argument isn't valid. (Surprise)

Quote:

-GWAMM being easy is no excuse for imbalance existing. Again, you're arguing that bots should exist in PvP because it's "easy" anyways. An imbalance exists, it shouldn't, bottom line.

Again, one of your beautiful examples of putting words in my mouth I never said. You're even worse than my gf from time to time. I never said anything about bots, nor did I approve of anything. And where the hell did I say PvP is easy?

Quote:

-Chest opening is character based too, so is PvP. Every Norn + SS + LB title are "acountbased" yet they aren't. How do you feel about these titles? So many flaws in that arguement.

Treasure is account wide the last time was checked, and so was every PvP title. And ehm, rep titles are charr based. You are quite confusing me with your reasoning here. Not that you haven't done that before but this one si especially strange.

Quote:

-And LDoA will be acountwide for a good reason aswell: You won't be forced to play through intire character solely to get an extra title for HoM, you can get it on character and see the progress on all characters.

When will it be account wide? I never saw Anet state that it would be? Also, you're blaming us for wanting to keep it charr based for e-peen, yet here you are saying you want to be able to show it to others, which kind of defines e-peen.

Kaleban · Mar 19, 2011, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosyfiep

no
ldoa means ONE character made it to level 20 in pre searing, the same way protector of tyria says that ONE character finished all the tyria missions, same as protector of cantha as well as cartography--these are titles that ONE character must do. When you make a new character you dont get protector or guardian without ever having done a mission do you? WHY would you give any other character than a prophecies based character ldoa?

makes about as much sense as making protector and guardian (and cartography) account wide, heck why bother playing a new character if they already have all the missions mastered/bonus achieved and the whole map already unfogged? These are things that your character should do not your account.

Also makes about as much sense as a character being able to wear "Legendary Hero" without ever stepping foot into Heroes' Ascent...

Oh wait. Pretty sure I've seen one or two in Pre-Searing...

At this point in the game's lifecycle, and with the changes to Survivor a poignant example, it makes no sense to keep titles character based at all anymore.

As for the argument that new characters shouldn't have the Protector or Guardian or whatever titles to display, exactly how does it matter? Having those titles doesn't mean said character can't load up, grab a Zmission and go do HM Dasha Vestibule. Or simply do a mission for any reason.

Also, the argument for character individuality and role-playing was tossed out by ANet the moment the HoM was unveiled, as well as Mercenary Heroes. For $45, you can literally play with every character on your account simultaneously. The HoM displaying account wide accomplishments to individual characters makes no sense in game does it?

The simple fact of the matter is, the game is old, with little new content being released (WiK is simply Diablo II-esque re-skinning of enemies and new spawns with a few scripting updates), and overpriced cosmetic content being the new model for cashflow. Players are LESS inclined to play multiple primary professions and experience less of the gameplay precisely because to get the most benefit you have to concentrate on one character unless you have thousands of hours to waste grinding, which was the opposite intent of the game in the first place!

I would argue that the game would see a revival of sorts by making all titles account wide, which would encourage players to dust off old characters or make new ones without feeling gimped to having to spend a bajillion hours farming titles to bring them in line with their "main" a concept that wasn't supposed to be in GW from the outset.

Missing HB · Mar 19, 2011, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

At this point in the game's lifecycle, and with the changes to Survivor a poignant example, it makes no sense to keep titles character based at all anymore.

That's an interesting point... In fact , although it gets more and more ridiculous after every update , it seems that they just want to make the game easier than it already is...

But well , then once again i will come with my old arguments. If the game comes on end of his lifecycle , why aren't they allowing heroes in PvP ? Overall , it would still be player vs player ( since 1 would control them) and it would furthermore help players to get titles easily ...

I really see no logic in their updates

Bright Star Shine · Mar 19, 2011, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

That's an interesting point... In fact , although it gets more and more ridiculous after every update , it seems that they just want to make the game easier than it already is...

But well , then once again i will come with my old arguments. If the game comes on end of his lifecycle , why aren't they allowing heroes in PvP ? Overall , it would still be player vs player ( since 1 would control them) and it would furthermore help players to get titles easily ...

I really see no logic in their updates

You just want HB back^^

Kaleban · Mar 19, 2011, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

That's an interesting point... In fact , although it gets more and more ridiculous after every update , it seems that they just want to make the game easier than it already is...

Thats the thing though. Anyone can title grind 30 titles with enough time and effort and get a GWAMM.

And yes, it seems ANet is on track to making titles easier to achieve.

But is that wrong? I say no, since titles in the long run have no gameplay effect (aside from rep skills and LB) and Guild Wars was billed at one time as a grindless MMO.

If titles were to follow their initial concept, then all rep titles for example should have been max-able after one NM and one HM playthrough, and not require countless hours of grinding. The Vanquisher title tracks are literally titles that reward single minded grinding of the entire game lol.

Or PvP tracks taking thousands of hours to max even IF you never lose one match, Luxon/Kurzick requiring SC vanqing to be completed in a mortal lifespan, etc.

While I don't advocate giving out free titles to every new player the moment they install the game as some of the more ridiculous and reactionary players would claim, I would say that a title that is achieved on any character should be applied to all characters, even for GWAMM, as that title should reflect the player's accomplishments, not a single character, as that leads to "main-ing" and ignoring 9 out of 10 professions.

Unless of course a player spends 23 hours a day for the last six years doing nothing but scraping maps and failPUGging RA for a point here and there, but that doesn't sound like fun to me, more like mindless drone work.

FreeImposter · Mar 19, 2011, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Why make LDOA account wide? Did your other characters survive the searing (which took place a full two years before the present, I might add)? Do you have a Dervish that just couldn't seem to shake that elusive Gwenn? Hell I say if ANet were to make LDOA account wide they should just start making up titles like "Adelbern's Avenger!" for characters who didn't live through the Guild Wars (ALL of them, since it's before game storyline).

Let's follow a plot pattern please. I vote no.

FreeImposter · Mar 19, 2011, 11:15 PM // 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bright Star Shine

Again, one of your beautiful examples of putting words in my mouth I never said. You're even worse than my gf from time to time.

Ahh... Sadly, I can relate.

melissa b · Mar 20, 2011, 02:25 AM // 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeImposter

Why make LDOA account wide? Did your other characters survive the searing (which took place a full two years before the present, I might add)? Do you have a Dervish that just couldn't seem to shake that elusive Gwenn? Hell I say if ANet were to make LDOA account wide they should just start making up titles like "Adelbern's Avenger!" for characters who didn't live through the Guild Wars (ALL of them, since it's before game storyline).

Let's follow a plot pattern please. I vote no.

Your not the first person to use the lore argument but its an ubalanced one....other titles don't follow lore but were changed to improve the game. A change to LDOA will bring back back balance to titles and will be inline with anet wanting characters that were created before titles to be able to access them as stated in their developer update for the survivor change.

Also your if a than z example is beyond rediculous. How does anet changing LDOA to balance titles have anything to do with anet throwing all logic out the window.

Dzjudz · Mar 20, 2011, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Neutral: I don't really care either way. I don't have LDoA and probably won't get it (have a level 13 in pre but that char has been there for 2 years) because there is no need for it (already have GWAMM and 50/50).

Aycee · Mar 20, 2011, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeImposter

Why make LDOA account wide? Did your other characters survive the searing (which took place a full two years before the present, I might add)? Do you have a Dervish that just couldn't seem to shake that elusive Gwenn? Hell I say if ANet were to make LDOA account wide they should just start making up titles like "Adelbern's Avenger!" for characters who didn't live through the Guild Wars (ALL of them, since it's before game storyline).

Let's follow a plot pattern please. I vote no.

Well how about getting Protector of Elona on a factions made character? I'm pretty sure the first couple of missions happened BEFORE our characters hopped on that boat to Nightfall. Just saying.

Bellatrixa · Mar 20, 2011, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aycee

Well how about getting Protector of Elona on a factions made character? I'm pretty sure the first couple of missions happened BEFORE our characters hopped on that boat to Nightfall. Just saying.

In Nightfall and Prophecies, I get a message saying I am reliving historical events when I enter missions on my Canthan Necro.

Just sayin.

I guess people really don't read most of the text in the game, huh?

Hobbs · Mar 20, 2011, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by melissa b

Your not the first person to use the lore argument but its an ubalanced one....other titles don't follow lore but were changed to improve the game.

I assume you're referencing Treasure/Wisdom. Again, I reiterate, these titles were changed to make them easier, less grindy, more integrated into normal play. Yes, it damaged lore (in a minor way, it's not like it changed the entire history of the game), but it gave a huge benefit. Making LDoA account wide won't make it easier, less grindy or more integrated into normal play. In other words, it's completely different to Treasure/Wisdom. Those titles were made account wide so you could work on them across multiple characters, making LDoA account wide simply isn't the same.

Quote:

A change to LDOA will bring back back balance to titles and will be inline with anet wanting characters that were created before titles to be able to access them as stated in their developer update for the survivor change.

If they'd wanted LDoA to be this way, don't you think they'd have done it when they did the last title overhaul, that is, this month? You keep saying that making LDoA account wide is ANet's intention, yet it's a relatively easy change and they haven't done it.

Killed u man · Mar 20, 2011, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbs

If they'd wanted LDoA to be this way, don't you think they'd have done it when they did the last title overhaul, that is, this month? You keep saying that making LDoA account wide is ANet's intention, yet it's a relatively easy change and they haven't done it.

So is survivor, and it took them 5 years to change it, so you can throw that arguement out the window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatrixa

In Nightfall and Prophecies, I get a message saying I am reliving historical events when I enter missions on my Canthan Necro.

Just sayin.

I guess people really don't read most of the text in the game, huh?

This is unrelated to the issue at hand. If you get chest hunter on character which never left prophecies, and you make an Elonan one, you have max chest hunter based on a character living 3 years in the past. I don't see any text explaining that.

Again, lore is no excuse not to implement this.

Why do bosses have glow around them? Why do some bosses not have glow? How come the Tyra Dessert and the Elonian Wastes don't perfectly match up? How come you can get PvP titles on a character that's never been to PvP before? How come you can beat Shiro and the Lich over and over again? How come, after you beat the game, you can still go the first outposts, and they're still in ruin getting tormented by the end-game boss you just beat? How come you can replay missions?

If you want to talk about lore, go play WoW, as it makes alot more sense than GW. There is very few things that make sense lorewise in GW, because gues what: it's not rocket scientists that made up the GW lore, it's writers who did it for "the crack". I'm fairly sure not one of them believed people would ever be taking GW lore as serious as you guys are, that's why there is so many flaws in GW lore. (You can find all of them on the official wiki)

Again, the only remaining arguement is that you want to keep your advantage over other players with the extra title you have. That's the only arguement I can't refute, but given the fact that such behaviour shouldn't get promoted anyways, I see no reason to anyways.

Hobbs · Mar 20, 2011, 02:58 PM // 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

Again, the only remaining arguement is that you want to keep your advantage over other players with the extra title you have. That's the only arguement I can't refute, but given the fact that such behaviour shouldn't get promoted anyways, I see no reason to anyways.

Seems like you aren't paying any attention at all. I've said I was in favour of making Survivor easier, LDoA easier, Treasure easier and Wisdom easier. So no, it's no about keeping prestige at all. Besides, I don't even have an LDoA character and I had GWAMM without Survivor so there's no "advantage" for me to keep. Further, as has been mentioned previously, just because there are faults in the lore doesn't mean you should introduce more, especially ones as glaring as characters being awarded titles that it is impossible for them to access. It's possible for PvE characters to access PvP so that title crossover doesn't really matter but it is impossible that Canthan and Elonian characters could have been in Pre.

You aren't paying any attention to what is being written, just building up straw men and knocking them down. It's incredibly boring.

Dosearius Takerius · Mar 20, 2011, 03:39 PM // 15:39

It's gotten to the point where I feel a couple of you will take any other persons points, discount them, and then accuse them of just wanting to keep their (your) perceived advantage over others (you).

You asked for opinions but discount every one of them if it differs from your own.
Again, the poll clearly shows (and has shown since within a few hours of it being up) that the community is almost 3-2 in favor of LDoA remaining char based rather than account based.

Bottom line, this argument, at this point in time, should be over. The thread no longer has a discussion 'feel' to it and should probably be closed before it gets any worse.

Coast · Mar 20, 2011, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dosearius Takerius

It's gotten to the point where I feel a couple of you will take any other persons points, discount them, and then accuse them of just wanting to keep their (your) perceived advantage over others (you).

You asked for opinions but discount every one of them if it differs from your own.
Again, the poll clearly shows (and has shown since within a few hours of it being up) that the community is almost 3-2 in favor of LDoA remaining char based rather than account based.

Bottom line, this argument, at this point in time, should be over. The thread no longer has a discussion 'feel' to it and should probably be closed before it gets any worse.

This poll means nothing, 300people never represent the community.
Numbers can give a whole wrong impression so like this one is.

melissa b · Mar 20, 2011, 06:12 PM // 18:12

So lore argument was countered so you introduce a counter-counter argument..."just because there are faults in the lore doesn't mean you should introduce more" it's great to stick to lore and if providing balance to LDOA without hurting lore could be achieved in a sensible way thats great...however the alternatives are not as practical as simply making LDOA accountwide and ANET has shown the lead by making survivor go against lore in order to allow characters created before the title to achieve that title.

"It's gotten to the point where I feel a couple of you will take any other persons points, discount them, and then accuse them of just wanting to keep their (your) perceived advantage over others (you)." some people on the con side have an unusually strong passion against all posts from the pro side. Some of these posters likely have hidden or unspoken agendas (not all).

"You asked for opinions but discount every one of them if it differs from your own.
Again, the poll clearly shows (and has shown since within a few hours of it being up) that the community is almost 3-2 in favor of LDoA remaining char based rather than account based."
Yep opinions are good, and people from the con side have "discounted" every conflicting opinion from the pro side. As far as the poll results so far. Anet has said in one of the developer updates every change upsets someone. 35% is a significant number of players. These players could really use this change. So are you saying minority opinion doesn't count?

"Bottom line, this argument, at this point in time, should be over. The thread no longer has a discussion 'feel' to it and should probably be closed before it gets any worse."
Why so the idea can't be forgotten and discounted thus benefitting the con side. Sounds like a politican wanting to bury an issue and people to forget it.

Now back to what I wanted to orginally post. Has anyone initially voted no but reconsidered their position after reading through this thread and why?

What are some benefits that would be a result of this change for you?
For me personally, I could take my main which is already GWAMM and finish the last pve title available for it.

Bellatrixa · Mar 20, 2011, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by melissa b

Now back to what I wanted to orginally post. Has anyone initially voted no but reconsidered their position after reading through this thread and why?

What are some benefits that would be a result of this change for you?

No, I haven't reconsidered my stance on it. My main is a Canthan Necro who is about to hit r4 for GWAMM and I have no LDOA character although I do have a couple of chars in pre, one of whom I will go for LDOA on for lulz. Yes, it would make GWAMM easier for my Necro but tbh, I find it easy enough as it is and the changes that would have to be made to make LDOA accountwide are too awkward and complicated in terms of game development and lore. If it WAS implemented now, I wouldn't benefit whatsoever other than being able to achieve GWAMM more easily which I currently have no issues over anyway.

still /notsigned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

This is unrelated to the issue at hand. If you get chest hunter on character which never left prophecies, and you make an Elonan one, you have max chest hunter based on a character living 3 years in the past. I don't see any text explaining that.

Are you being blind on purpose? I was responding to someone's question, hence my quoting their post and replying with an answer. In terms of the topic, they were asking how something else was relevant to lore and I explained it. Why do you have to pick arguments with everyone? Is it because you can't stand people having logical opinions that go against what you want?

As far as I know, ANet explained the change to Wisdom/Treasure Hunter as making the title less clumsy as the character-based version made people feel restricted to playing one character, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. Please, for the love of Grenth, learn to read!