Curse

Red · Dec 31, 2007, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I advocate gameplay. I do not advocate catering to lazy players.
If you want something, you pay the cost. If you want this option, whats the cost?

Currently, the cost is eating the meatloaf. Either I finish the meatloaf, or I can't have any pie.

This thread is essentially my asking to skip the meatloaf and be allowed to eat the pie. And you repeatedly telling me why I shouldn't even ask to skip the meatloaf.

You are right, there is a cost. I am suggesting the cost is driving some customers away, and ANet should thus make a change.

lyra_song · Dec 31, 2007, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Currently, the cost is eating the meatloaf. Either I finish the meatloaf, or I can't have any pie.

This thread is essentially my asking to skip the meatloaf and be allowed to eat the pie. And you repeatedly telling me why I shouldn't even ask to skip the meatloaf.

You are right, there is a cost. I am suggesting the cost is driving some customers away, and ANet should thus make a change.

The current cost is playing the game.
To get to the endgame areas.

Driving away people who DONT WANT TO PLAY THE GAME is not the same as driving away CUSTOMERS.

What will be the cost of getting to the end without playing?

Find me a reasonable and balanced cost.

reverse_oreo · Dec 31, 2007, 10:53 PM // 22:53

basically, i have started 3 new pve characters in NF trying to get them to DoA and gotten horribly bored because i have already taken 3 through. This idea is epic and needs to be done.

/signed.

Eviance · Dec 31, 2007, 11:04 PM // 23:04

I think she has pricey pie there Red. >_>

Someone suggested making an actual NPC with prices - prices that go up per area along the line. Also the NPC would only be able to take that one character. This would prevent paid ferries of large groups as well or people being shuttled to parts of the game that they haven't touched. I think that would be obvious.

Heck I would pay 20k per character for all my level 20s to have the map unlocked for them. Kinda like skill points, it starts out low and progresses with the map progression. Heck I would be happy for this for just lvl 20 characters! I got about 10 level 20s just sitting at various boating towns. My ranger is the only character who has fully and completely beaten all 3 campaigns and the expansion. I love playing my other characters, I just get bored with the excess of each quest and mission over and over.

Shakti · Dec 31, 2007, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

The current cost is playing the game.
To get to the endgame areas.

Driving away people who DONT WANT TO PLAY THE GAME is not the same as driving away CUSTOMERS.

What will be the cost of getting to the end without playing?

Find me a reasonable and balanced cost.

Gotta say, when this whole glitch thing began I actually agreed with ya Lyra. As time's gone on though, I really read both sides of the argument...and now I feel why not? If we limit the lvl to 20 and enable it only after you've beaten the campaign at least once, why not? Doesn't hurt me, doesn't hurt you.

Don't think I'd choose to do it, if I'm gonna play I wanna play lol....but I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to enjoy their game if what they're doing isn't affecting others...and with those limits, I don't see that it would .

Red · Dec 31, 2007, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

The current cost is playing the game. To get to the endgame areas.
Driving away people who DONT WANT TO PLAY THE GAME is not the same as driving away CUSTOMERS.
What will be the cost of getting to the end without playing?
Find me a reasonable and balanced cost.

You just repeated me.
The current cost to get the pie is eating the meatloaf.
The current cost to get high-end areas is playing through the campaign.

Driving away people who DON'T WANT TO PLAY THE ENTIRE GAME is precisely the same as driving away CUSTOMERS who don't want your meatloaf, only your pie.

Does everyone remember the PvE character vs PvP character issues? Players who PvE'd were able to gain a substantial advantage over PvP characters, as the PvEs could take in multiple armor and weapon sets, and so forth. The cost of playing PvP at its best was grinding through the PvE campaigns.

AND THEN THEY CHANGED IT

What is the cost now of enjoying PvP without ever rolling a PvE character? Not really anything at all; and why should there be? Let people enjoy the PvP areas without making them pay a cost at all. Indeed, this is part of what makes Guild Wars appealing!

Now then. You keep talking as if there HAS to be a cost for getting the pie, as if you HAVE to sacrifice something to get there.

Why?

=DNC=Trucker · Jan 01, 2008, 12:16 AM // 00:16

Hmm, interesting write up, but I think there are a LOT of exploits that could surface due to something like this. While on a whole I think I /sign this idea, especially as GW1 comes to its end-of-life.

A few things:

1) If you want anet to truly listen to the idea, I think you should constantly update your original post (at the bottom) with the more intelligent pros/cons that have been raised in the thread. Do the leg work (tally up the yay's and nay's

)

2) When the "gates" on factions were implemented to deter running, why do you think this was done? Out of the design meetings the ANET staff may have had discussing the running/gates issue, why would they change their mind now - there must have been strong opinions against it to add that in the game right?

All in all, its a good discussion. I lean toward implementing something like this, but being very careful about its limitations and unforeseen consequences.

lyra_song · Jan 01, 2008, 12:19 AM // 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

You just repeated me.
The current cost to get the pie is eating the meatloaf.
The current cost to get high-end areas is playing through the campaign.

Yes. I know. And I want to know what replacement cost you will use since you dont want to pay the current cost.

Quote:

Driving away people who DON'T WANT TO PLAY THE ENTIRE GAME is precisely the same as driving away CUSTOMERS who don't want your meatloaf, only your pie.

If you want only pie, then go to a place that sells pies.

Guild Wars sells the complete meal. I don't see the point in trying to keep people who don't find the whole thing appealing, since in the end of the day, they aren't enjoying their stay. They would be happier elsewhere.

Quote:

Does everyone remember the PvE character vs PvP character issues? Players who PvE'd were able to gain a substantial advantage over PvP characters, as the PvEs could take in multiple armor and weapon sets, and so forth. The cost of playing PvP at its best was grinding through the PvE campaigns.

AND THEN THEY CHANGED IT

What is the cost now of enjoying PvP without ever rolling a PvE character? Not really anything at all; and why should there be? Let people enjoy the PvP areas without making them pay a cost at all. Indeed, this is part of what makes Guild Wars appealing!

LOL. Are you actually comparing a change that was made for BALANCE reasons to your idea?

Quote:

Now then. You keep talking as if there HAS to be a cost for getting the pie, as if you HAVE to sacrifice something to get there.

Why?

Because it is the END GAME PvE content.

-Sonata- · Jan 01, 2008, 01:20 AM // 01:20

***Warning: This is Lengthy. Not intended for skimmers!****

I will play the devils advocate on a few things and give some counters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

People, I believe, want to play high-end areas together. When gathering guild groups, often an otherwise well-prepared group simply needs one more monk--but alas, says an eighth guildmate, "my monk isn't that far". We'd like to go to Domain of Anguish, but so many have only taken their one or two roleplaying characters through Nightfall, so a guild ends up with a possible team of 6 warriors and 5 eles, with few monks or paragons.

True. People do want to play high end areas together. It's a lot of fun. My guild and alliance play UW/FOW, DoA, etc. But here's where I have an issue with the instant ferrying; Class Experience.

This isn't meant to sound "leet", but my main is a Mesmer (obviously) and I'm a great Mesmer. I pride myself on working to be an effective player with my groups so we can accomplish our goals. The only reason I'm good at my class is because of playing experience. That's something a wiki can't give me. A wiki can't teach me timing, positioning, and skill combinations that can compliment each other when used properly.

I've never, ever, played a Paragon, but someday I will and I would certainly love to bring her to DoA. If I'm able to create, ferry to the final mission, get a run, and get into DoA, that doesn't present any further opportunities to anyone. Well, anyone except 'me' because afterall, I'm there and that's all that matters. However, I'm still a Paragon without any class playing experience. It matters not that I'm a great Mesmer, would you want me playing my Paragon in DoA with you? If you say no, I wouldn't blame you. Even if I had the best, uber, most effective build a Paragon can run in DoA, I'm still not effective in timing, positioning, knowing "when to", knowing "not when to", the class energy management if required, etc. All things a wiki can't teach; only actual playing experience.

I've been playing Guild Wars for over 1 year now. I encourage players to play as many different classes as they can and I encourage myself to do the same. I hold 8 character slots. 2 are Mesmers. The rest are Dervish, Assassin, Necromancer, Ritualist, Ranger, and Monk. I have plans of buying slots to create an Ele and a Paragon.

The point is there is a trade-off to insta-warping. The trade off is this. Yes, you'll have more people and more variations of classes in elite areas. The flipside to that is you now raise the percentage of players who have little class playing experience. Again, see my hypothetical Paragon. For some this might not be an issue. However, keep in mind we have a community that is extremely picky in regards to ability, especially in elite areas and one that, in which the majority, doesn't like to teach, instead reply with "Read the wiki". Full circle.

I completely understand the pain of redundant gameplay and some people just want to play a certain class in a certain area. But I just don't see the point of the instant ferry to do so. If it holds true that your guild/alliance loves to do things together, take the few hours to have your guild/alliance aid in getting you to HzH for Urgoz, or the key missions to finish Nightfall. That alone is something everyone can do together instead of leaving it up to Anet to do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

The argument carries over into Guild Wars PvE. Because Guild Wars is unlike EverCrack and WoW in that grind does not reward a player with epic (statistically different) armor and weaponry, there is little to be lost by allowing characters to advance through the campaigns quickly. However, I suspect that by opening up the entire PvE realm in a similar manner that PvP is open to new accounts, then we would witness a similar increase in interest.

I disagree and here's why. If you provide the ability to skip content, what content are you drawing interest too? Barely a handful of single areas in 3 massive chapters? That hardly seems like a balance of interest. To overhaul mechanics of an entire sector (PvE) for a few areas.

To that though I do offer a suggestion and that is in relation to a Guilds/Alliance, alliance. That's to offer that when you're part of a Kurzick Guild, or Luxon, your characters, account wide, can have instant access to that sides specific Elite Mission through your Guild Hall, much like having an AB NPC available. Those Elite Missions are about the only area in which I do believe Anet SHOULD open up to everyone because those two can encourage more co-op guild play in the manner the AB does.

You mentioned hard mode and normal mode, but this account wide feature doesn't grant anything to a player other than increased difficulty, better exp, and some special drops (Tomes, Lockpicks, etc). HArd Mode doesn't grant me specifically designed Rewards for completion of a special area.

To unlock all areas via a ferry is, however, a different story. It removes the "Elite" area function that it's supposed to serve for the indivdual "character" and "character" is the keyword for that. Just because I've completed Nightfall on this Character doesn't mean I should have the right to access DoA on a brand new Paragon just because I said so, or that I've proved my worth on Sonata, so my ParagonX should be worthy too.

I will agree, I am impatient and have desires to get to placeX right away on another character, but, I don't think that entitles me to just have it handed to me because I succeeded on another character.

Finally, in regards to armor. This was a big discussion point in many towns. If one of the keys to the insta-ferry is too allow easy access (lets say to Kodash for Vabbian, or Cava for Luxon) for armor, why not just place the crafters in the beginning capitals? Ascalon, Shing Jea, Kamadan. It would serve the same purpose, but even so, it looks even more like just giving players what they want without actually working for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Instantly mappable towns encourages players to run more characters.
More characters mean more slots.
There are 10 total professions that can be played.
Three Campaigns = 8 slots total.
Also, many players may have two characters of one profession, or use PvP slots.

This is true, in some aspects. It would allow easier access to more advanced skills, specific armor, and key areas for second profession changes. It could very well draw in people to purchase more slots. However, is it really running the character and why does it all have to be easy? One of the biggest complaints I always hear is that PvE is too easy. If it's so easy to begin with, why is it so difficult for people to make it to AreaX?

Again, if I can make a Paragon, skip an entire campaign, only aquiring the skills needed for a high end area, that doesn't make me a great Paragon, nor does it mean I'm going to play a Paragon a lot if it's just there to do DoA. To use another example; I don't play my monk much at all. Barely would be best for a description. I could run the most elite Monk build given to me, but that doesn't mean at all I'm going to perform great if I don't have the playing experience that is gained from playing through the games. What good is the build if I don't know how to play it? I could just pound at numbers blindly and hope for the best.

From my vantage point, and only for me, it becomes a wasted character slot. No time put into it, no skill, no class experience. That's the downfall that can't be seen on the surface, but would show itself quickly and worries me in a community that has lately been obsessed with Skill>time and the raging of PUG's. In a time in which many players are convinced Skill>Time is going out the window, now you're asking Anet to make a feature that truly goes against that mantra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Some people have brought up the good point that the ability to spam character creation disrupts the Book of Secrets, Amulet of the Mists, and Droknar's Key items at the end of Nightfall, Factions, and EotN respectively. I contend, however, that these items are relatively cheap (and pointless) already. Moreover, what are the prices of these end-game items now? 20k? 10k?

But here's the kicker. Compound that 15K (using the avg of 10+20) by the now easily obtainable quantity. Assuming the insta-ferry allows me to create a character, skip to the final mission, run it, and grab an end game; we're looking at what, 10 minutes tops for each run? So we'll say, max, 6 end games per hour. Play 8 hours a day, that's 48 end games for one day. Sell all 48 the next day at the cheapest possible avg of 10K is 480K. Take those numbers and multiply it by the number of players who would do this method and you drive any value of these items right into the ground even more and overflood the game with them even more.

I'm not against farming and I'm not against making money. I am, however, against giving opportunity to easily obtain "End game" items without actually playing to end the game. Again, it's saying "You don't need to work for anything, just have it now". No, it doesn't affect me directly, but it makes me ask the question, why even have any game content at all if all the rewards for playing are given to you the moment you walk through the front door?

It is a ripple effect and end game items are only one aspect.

Just because the prices are lower now than they used to be doesn't mean it's a great reason to drive them into the ground more.

Also, keep in mind, a persons value of their gold is different from anothers. One person might not consider 100K to be much at all. Many in this game feel 100K is pocket change. However, to others, 100K is more than enough and rely on specific items of 10-20K, which sell rather easily, to maintain profit.

There are somple players who make in game financial livings off of Dock ferry runs for 500g. Certainly cheap, but who are we to say if it's worthless, or not? Something doesn't have to be 100K+20e to, over time, obtain wealth from the item, or service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

However, there are two counters to this concern. First, It's not necessarily true that gaining more players in one area means they were pulled away from another............

I believe that fast mapping would actually increase players, rather than decrease. Grand Court of Selbekeh, for example, is fairly far into Nightfall. Players who are not encouraged to play through the campaign will obviously not appear at Grand Court. However, as previously stated, guild and alliance groups will be encouraged to try other missions--for titles, for capping, for pride's sake--that they might otherwise never have played if they were made more accessible.

I don't have much of a reply to this part other than it shouldn't be on Anets shoulders to cater to your Guild/Alliance players abilities. There's nothing stopping Guilds and Alliances from working on MissionX other than some players unwillingness to work. While it might not have been intended, this comes across to me as almost "It's Anets fault playerX can't do Grand Court because PlayerX can't just get there right away".

On another note, I do feel it will pull people away from already rather empty areas. You mentioned the jungle and again I agree. But seeing as how people can skip places like the Wilds, Bloodstone, and a few others and move right to Sanctum, the reasons these places are so empty is because we already see the effects of being able to skip large portions of gameplay just to get to the end. Note the populations of Sanctum vs Riverside, Wilds, and the previous. This is already a direct result of the ability to skip and the reason why some players LOVED the locked gates in Factions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

This game is many things to many people

This is at the heart of it all and is why your post is no more right, or wrong, than mine. You make a very fair arguement that limitations to you shouldn't happen. I agree just as I'm sure you wouldn't want to limit my gameplay either. However, there has to be realization that the downfalls and negatives are felt by everyone in the game no matter if you're new, old, those who would use it, and those who don't. This is the fine line that has to be walked, not by us, but by Anet. Guild Wars hasn't been a success because it got lucky. It's been a success, with such a loyal player base, because of the play mechanics it uses. To suddenly change a significant portion of that is one that shouldn't be taken lightly and certainly a reason I'd suggest and hope Anet never, ever, makes it a feature.

There will always be players who will see Anet as never doing anything right no matter what. So be it. But keep in mind that making a feature this big, insta-ferry, has a huge impact. While it can be positive and you outlined some great positives, it's not all positive, and has serious drawbacks on the entire community. These are things we need to be very careful with. Many online games have destroyed themselves because of significant game mechanic changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

"We need an obsidian flesh ele for underworld", without ever having to say "sorry, I'm not that far".

Again, I have to say, should this fall onto Anets shoulders for blame? I don't see how, or why, it should. It's asking Anet to change a significant portion of the game setup just to cater to a group who needs one specific class for one specific area. This isn't agruing about what's fair, or what isn't fair, it's just saying why is this problem up to Anet to solve for you with immediate gratification?

Sure, it sucks that one would have to decline, but that shouldn't fall on Anets shoulders to fix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Giving them the ability to do that increases their fun, and does not harm your ability to play directly. As such--when the implementation of fast mapping means good things for them without restraining you--what's the problem?

There are more problems than meets the eye and some I listed and explained. Given time if ever put in place I'm sure more would arise. There are consequences to adding such a feature. Some seen now and certainly some that are unseen.

I won't sit here and lie that if such a feature was put in place, I would not be without temptation to use it. I would. That, though, doesn't mean it should be.

It should never be Anets responsibility to make everything available right away, no matter how long we've played, or how many characters we have. If you have 10 characters, but can't be bothered to work all 10, then perhaps that's a sign you shouldn't have 10.

Having the ability get anywhere at anytime, or to get any armor, or special weapon at anytime, is essentially the same as placing every high end crafter right in the starter Captial and in turn makes Guild Wars nothing more than a Kaneva, or Second Life. Just buy what you need to make you look good and become a social status.

I really wish I could /sign Red. To be honest, at first read I was thinking it would be a great feature. But after thinking it through, I just can't find enough reason to back it. In the end it just feels like another "Too lazy to earn it, I just want it all now". I don't mean that to be disrespectful, but there's just no other phrase that can describe it.

It was a great read though. Happy new year!

Tyla · Jan 01, 2008, 01:24 AM // 01:24

/signed
grind is fail

Tooplex198 · Jan 01, 2008, 01:52 AM // 01:52

/not signed

Thanks but no thanks you know that gold spammers would utilize this or find a bug in it and then we will have gold spammers in every town. This would kill the game not make it better.

CyberNigma · Jan 01, 2008, 02:47 AM // 02:47

/signed

too many people can't see outside the box..

ANet could easily figure out a way to implement a GW version of Tabula Rasa's (Richard Garriot/NCSoft America) Character Cloning. They are smart enough to figure out how to make it into a Character Morph (seeing as how the class system works differently and you'd be creating a char of a different class) which would have the same stuff unlocked as the original. Then you proceed to unlock the stuff specific to that class and have the previous characters skills already unlocked (for use as primary or secondary skills depending upon the class).

I prefer to be in a group of people that are having fun even if we're laughing our asses off at stupid wipes in Abaddon's Gate than elite 'good' players that are trying to plan and execute a perfect (read: not very fun) mission most of the time. If they suck, so be it. If I really really want to get something done then I'll just H/H it anyways.

EDIT: If a player is smart enough to play through a class (play through it fully once and not be run/escorted) then they're smart enough and probably adaptable enough to figure out another class, even one very different from their previous ones. In PvP people switch between classes all the time. In fact, learning a class in PvP is done by playing a new class at level 20 with all its gear (and now with the unlocks) all their skills. If PvP is harder than PvE (which people constantly say on these forums), then there's absolutely no reason people can't do the same with different characters in PvE.

Biostem · Jan 01, 2008, 03:11 AM // 03:11

I think completing a campaign should give you a certain number of "passes" - those passes can be used to get to the next major point in the campaign instantly, and thus allow players to skip certain missions or quests that they detest. Further, I would also include an "easy" option for missions that someone is finding particularly difficulty. Perhaps it would lower the enemies' level a little, or reduce their numbers, but the end reward would also be reduced. Another option would be to have GW2 base mission rewards upon how many people/henchmen/heroes you bring - so the "standard" amount gives normal rewards, but you can bring more allies along to ease things a little.

Overall, though, I am against complete and unlimited skipping of content because it would cause people to jump to the end as soon as possible, become bored or under-skilled w/ their character, and either whine that there's nothing else to do or make those higher areas less fun for those who did the content to get there.

HawkofStorms · Jan 01, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

/notsigned
The traveling system in GW is already incredably easy (map travel is an amazing pro for casual gamers, but also a big con as it breaks emersion).
I'd prefer if GW2 had some sort of happy medium. ie... allowing map travel but requiring you to use some sort of magic amulet or something to do it.

greyf0x_f0x · Jan 01, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

I actually think this is a very interesting argument. I'm actually torn between whether it's a good idea or not. I must confess that I've used my fair share of runs and taxis in my time.

I have never used a taxi service or somthing similar, to skip elements of the game I have not previously completed. I think this is probably true for a very large percentage of people who use such services. The whole concept of "running" in guild wars is quite unique amongst MMOs, it's an accepted practice specifically designed at skipping large chunks of the game.

I really see the suggestion as the logical extension of running. Personally, I would love to see it in the game, having unlocked every town and outpost on at least 3 PvE characters already, it would be nice if some of my other characters could inherit some of their hard work.

Lyra has made some very good points about the possible cons of this system. I agree that it could possibly shorten the lifespan for some players, rather than extend it. I know that I have spent a respectable amount of hours "grinding" my 4th, 5th, 6th... all the way up to 10th characters through PvE. If I had a "Skip to the towns with the cool armour" button, I'd have clicked it.

I can just foresee this kind of option, as causing burn-out for players MUCH faster in PvE. Sure I don't particuarly enjoy grinding my characters through Bland Area 53, but having put in the work, there is at least some small sense of satisfaction when you get to the needed town (even if it is for the 300th time).

However, when you consider the amount of hours the more hardcore players put in on their characters, the few days it takes to fully unlock a continent, are almost insignificant, compared to the hours they spend farming, vanquishing, questing, earning titles (the list could go on...)

At this point I'm still not sure it would be the right thing for ANet to do, they are effectively giving people less reasons to play very large chunks of their game. I can't help but feel it would decrease the general population somewhat. As Inde said near the start of the thread, maybe when GW2 comes out, this could be a nice feature.

Final thought: why did they make Hard Mode account wide? Having it character based would have been more inline the current model of the campaigns, yet I have never seen anyone complain that HM should have been limited to only characters who had cleared a game.

MagmaRed · Jan 01, 2008, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Magma

(2)
Yes, the economy is already bad. What are you trying to save? In my original post, I explained and discounted the worth of the end-game items you're referring to--did you see that part? More importantly, you can already get your heroes statistically superior weaponry with /bonus items. Hourglass Staff, anyone? I know all my casters use them.

/bonus means nothing. Why? Not everyone has the option. End Game Greens are an option for everyone who owns the game. The bonus items are only available to the people who own the correct version of the game. Out of the 80 some people in my guild, I know of only 6 people who can use /bonus items.

End game greens are not 'GODLY'. But they are very nice. Currently, people who do not need/want the end game greens make some money by selling the greens or the amulet/book/key. Your idea makes it so their customer base is gone. Why buy one from someone when I can get infinite amounts of those greens for little time/effort?

And as I stated, and have yet to see anyone disagree with, the economy is bad. You don't disagree with that, but you want to make it worse. Your idea eliminates 2 ways people make money. Selling end game greens and selling runs. Although I can't say either of those are my favorite part of the game, I don't see selling the end game greens or runs to be a problem.

And since you asked, yes, I did see your mention of the end game greens and value. But what you seem to forget, is that there is some value to those greens. It may be small, but people are making money with it. You offer people a way to get those items for free, meaning the people making chump change on end game greens will be making nothing.

I rarely PUG. I find hero + hench to be faster for me. If I need more help or want some interaction, I use my friends list and guild roster. But I do PUG, and I always see people in cities PUGing. When you no longer have to do certain areas of the game, there will be a HUGE decrease in the population there. This is a comment on the game, but is not needed. Having people in places they don't want to be is a part of life. You can already skip 90% of Tyrian missions. But allowing this to happen freely means new players will have a VERY hard time finding teams for those unfavored places.

Although I have no problems with the way the game is, I'd MUCH prefer a way to make those areas more enjoyable for people than to give them a way to skip it.

Tyla · Jan 01, 2008, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagmaRed

Your idea eliminates 2 ways people make money. Selling end game greens and selling runs.

This bit changed my mind...
/unsigned

Holly Herro · Jan 01, 2008, 04:01 AM // 04:01

/signed

NO one should say /notsigned. You don't have to use this feature if it's implemented into Guild Wars, which it hopefully is.

Tyla · Jan 01, 2008, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly Herro

NO one should say /notsigned. You don't have to use this feature if it's implemented into Guild Wars, which it hopefully is.

If no one should say /notsigned, it defeats the purpose of making a thread if there is only one answer.

Biostem · Jan 01, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly Herro

/signed

NO one should say /notsigned. You don't have to use this feature if it's implemented into Guild Wars, which it hopefully is.

There are "meta-level" implications that a feature like this would cause. It would affect *everyone* who plays the game, and as such, even though that wouldn't use it would be affected.

Let's say that once you beat the campaign, you can bring any future character to any outpost in that campaign. Now, you choose to use that feature but I don't. Unfortunately, I now have a smaller pool of other players to meet in the mid-level outposts to help me or maybe I just prefer to play w/ human players. I get frustrated that I can't find a player, and because I don't want to or can't bypass this particular mission, I quit playing and GW loses a customer for future products - I've been turned off to the entire series.

That example is an extreme one, but it's not unreasonable. I think what is needed is a happy medium; a way to speed through content a bit more quickly your second or later time around. I think the idea of a limited number of skips for subsequent characters would work, or perhaps branching paths to the end game (some having less missions) would also work.

Overall, though, a wholesale free pass straight to the end would damage the game...