Curse

Jetdoc · Jan 11, 2007, 05:05 PM // 17:05

I like the concept of the idea, but at the same time I agree that there could be several blatant abuses:

1. Paying for rankings. WTB one positive response for 100 gold spams come to mind.

2. Discrimination similar to PvP Ranks. Remember the good old days in HoH (now HA) where you'd see "GLF Rank 3 Warrior - show emote or you won't be accepted". Now imagine the same in PvE. It's hard to "get in" if you don't have the rank/title, which discourages new players, and that becomes a vicious circle.

3. Ranking abuse. Although you mentioned a partial response to this, it is very, very easy to get in an argument with someone in game, especially if you are the organizer of a party. Imagine your PuG goes into a mission and fails. Who do you think will get most of the negative responses, whether or not it was their fault?

AuraofMana · Jan 12, 2007, 01:03 AM // 01:03

I posted this in some other thread and I will do it again:
"Most of the titles doesn't really make you a pro:
1. OMG I AM R13, I grinded and I play HA all day. I ran IWAY and SF = I am PROZ!
2. OMG I GOT ULTIMATE SURVIVOR! I had someone to run me and got pwr leveled because I am rich.
3. OMG I GOT FRIENDS OF KURZICKS TITLE! I ran the Faction run as a doorman, I am pro.
4. OMG I GOT CHESTRUNNING! I had a full team of pro runners and I didn't even get hit, once. IT'S TRUE I AM INVINCIBLE!

And this title is unnecessarily complicated."

Do something about stuff like this instead of making Anet change every little thing. Use your hands, they are there for a reason. Type, communicate, you know, like talking over the internet? Yeah it's really not that hard. Ask people you invited to your party.
Next thing you know, you want a detail report on everything someone's character has ever done in his entire GW experience, and what happened in his real life into a diary that is organized in a proper fashion.

And GW is dying due to 2 things:
1. GW is not innovative after 3 chapters.
2. WoW.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Let me respond to those those critiques I didn't anticipate in my original post (Sorry I won't be able to respond rapidly like a conversation. Other obligations and all.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri_Stucoff

I like the idea about the player skill titles. But it might become like PvP rank. People will not let you in unless you show your title, god forbid this become like pvp. I hate the rank system already. But it would be nice to know some peoples skill level and attitudes before letting them in your group so you can have a nice happy group. If this can be implemented so it is fair and not a bais to join a group sure thing, I would love it.

I agree that PVE elitism is a concern and could even be a deal breaker. The goal of the whole thing is to allow players with similar attitudes, playing styles, expectations, and yes skill level to get together. I would personally want to group up with people at or around my level or higher skilled players who have some patience or less-skilled players willing to take a little direction. I think this system would allow for that, and that there are safeguards built in, but some elitism might be inevitable. Yours is a legitimate concern, but I think the benefits would generally outweigh the risk you describe.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calen The Civl

I have long felt a rating system is needed with the lack of community in this game. At the least it would allow like minded players to party together and help avoid some of the conflicts around. It would also help make some people think twice about their actions unless they purposefully want a bad rating.

Of course, abuse may still be an issue unless some type of 1 character 1 vote system is established. The safeguards you listed would work nicely but I am sure some player will find a way to exploit votes.

Reputation smear campaigns could also be an issue if someone is petty enough to hold a grudge.

How would this be displayed without further cluttering towns?
Also, since it is an opt in system, just how many players will opt in? Rating a team would require a fair amount of time (we all know how some get bent out of shape by just the "waste" of a few minutes).

That said:

/signed - I generally think a rating system would be a good idea.

Thanks for the support!

I don't think smear campaigns could really work. Remember, you have to group with a person for 15-30 minutes and successfully complete a mission in order to earn the right to apply a single, non-repeatable vote. The organization required to plan huge numbers of people to all group with this single person all separately and then all rating the person falsely after working to complete a mission. Honestly, I don't think a smear campaign is possible. Moreover, most of the extremes of the ratings aren't good or bad - They represent playing styles. Beginner versus Veteran. Teacher versus Stoic. Player-taught versus versus self-taught. Demanding versus forgiving. Have a life versus GW is my life. You get the idea. The "smear" would tend to push you from one style to another - Hardly a scarlett letter. Also, it's the player's choice to display the rating. I think you are right to be concerned, but I believe I've thought that through.

As for screen clutter, I hadn't given that one a lot of thought. I guess it could be an adjunct to the party search screen. You hover your mouse over those players LFG and a little screen pops up showing what if anything that player communicates about his or her playing style/mission expectations. That would be nice.

As far as the time involved in voting, I would put a big cancel button on the vote screen that comes up after the successful mission. If the player can't be bothered to vote, do you really want their vote. Voluntary is best. Choice is what this is all about.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonious

I'm not an afker, don't worry.

*goes afk*

As in the greatest YTMND ever made, lol internet!

If a player repeated goes AFK, and other players tag that player as such, they will earn a score of (what did I call it?) "Sadly, life intrudes" instead of the "GuildWars is my Life". For missions where AFK is of concern, players can demand this rating be shown. That would be one form of "elitism" I could support.

The system is specifically designed to address this concern (among others).

Jesse · Jan 12, 2007, 02:18 AM // 02:18

With all due respect.....Wait there was a proposition in that beast of an essay?? Guess ill have to go back and read all 30 pages of it...heres my rating system..

1. Casual Guru poster(me)
2. Posts on a certain forum once every couple days
3. Goes on probably once aday to see whats up
4. Goes on once aday for 2 hours at a time
5. OMFG Hardcore Essay Writer that spends 5 hours typing a forum on his own opinion that the game dosent suit him...so clearly its dying :\ (you)

Come on.....if you think the game is dying then go play something else. Its your own opinion that some things should be changed. Face it there will always be people in the world that are like me and its our goal to ruin your fun (im kidding, i love GW and play it relgiously). Facts are the facts and those facts are that the world is filled with A$$holes. And another thing...complaining and posting petitions on GWG really does nothing. Do you think ANET is going to log on here and read this and say. "Hey wow this person dosent like the way the game looks like its going so lets change it according to his personal preference"

People in the world will always be there to ruin what you want to do for fun. A nice easy way to fix that it ...Put up and Shut Up

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

I like your suggestion very much.
I also agree with some of the other people here abotu the title part.

GW should just have a profile and these titles that you suggest should be part of it.
Other things that could be added are number of completed missions in a certain map, so

14/25 Phrophecies Mission Complete.
150/270 Elite Skill Captured.
Survivor.

You know what simply be able to add most of the current titles that you can achieve,that way you can show that you have carthogropar (sp?) ,friend of the kurzicks and Skill Hunter all at the same time.

Every single one of these should be optional, so you could choose to add all of them or you can choose to hide for example number of missions completed because you payed for a run with this character cause its your 4th character.

Cool ideas. Very nice. And I totally agree about the optional part. That is what it's all about.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:26 AM // 02:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laenavesse

O-o;;;

Jesus I can't believe I read that and I thought I wrote long OPs...

at any rate i like the idea as well as other stuff that people have posted already. I like the idea of a profile card/window rather than titles, and more than if you typed a command all that information just spilled out into the window.

...

Uh, one thing I'm *not* so clear about is whether or not those "titles" are optional to the player or if they like..just appear. Cos a person could check the top one but they're really not. Or is that what the voting system affecting?

Thanks for kind words, and, yes, optional. I should have been more clear (or less wordy

).

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Dragon

Very nice, very thought out thread

I would like to see a feature like this implemented, but like others have said a profile window would be more preferable compared with a title.

And as far as people owning multiple accounts voting for themselves/getting guild members to vote for each other, hopefully if this feature was to run and be used for a long time scale then all biases/self voters should be minimal.
As the OP has stated only 1 vote from 1 person would count, therefore (unless someone does own 200 accounts =S) then biases would be minimal.

I was writing this over lunch and this thought popped into my head

2 days ago i was bored with exploring, and therefore i was helping people through the zen dajui(sp?) mission that day i helped maybe 6-7 groups out of then 30-35 people only 1 person (as far as i can remember) said thank you, not just to me but to the team, and many people left as soon as we got to the docks, so how many people would use this system if it were to be implemented?

Dark

Thank you.

Your point about the long run smoothing out biases and is soo true and I should have stressed it more in my OP. I knew it was too short.

I even have some ideas about how the more recent votes should count more than the older votes or that old votes start to drop off after some time. That is, use exponential smoothing or moving averages for the mathematically inclined.

As far as the few thank you's received, imagine the potential friendliness that could occur when groups know the ratings will come. It might swing the other way - if only at first. But as I've said elsewhere, if a person can't be bothered to vote, you don't really want that vote anyway.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by glountz

Too complicated.
For title/profiles, I wait for Anet to do exactly like modern IMessengers. A title where you write whatever you want in it ("AFK", "chatting", "Selling stuff", etc...) and a customisable status on the friend/guild list ("Eating", "Sleeping", "farming"), with an automated AFK status after 5 minutes of no trigger on keyboard/mouse. That is, what exactly is implemented already in messengers.
Your idea is good, just too complicated. Just let the player wear a custom title and a custom status, and your profile is ok.
/half signed

On the rating system, for 150 gold, I distribute one good rating.
You understand ? It's only one way to abuse it. Many can come up with better ideas.
So
/not signed.

I like the idea of the AFK/Chatting/Selling stuff profile - even better if that profile appeared on your friends' and guildies' friends and guild screens.

As for paying to get a "good" vote,

A) You have to complete a non-trivial mission with the person,
B) there is no way to know how a person voted for you. I can't believe people would pay for something that there is no way to know if you got it or not.
C) Suppose even after everything I said above, someone figures a way around. People are clever, as you suggest. This person goes out and pays a bunch of people to honestly sell fake ratings to inflate his skill level. Now this person goes out with some pickup groups with an obviously wrong rating. 7 other people per mission quickly bring this person's paid ratings back into line. I don't see the potential for abuse you imply.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 03:03 AM // 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse

With all due respect.....Wait there was a proposition in that beast of an essay?? Guess ill have to go back and read all 30 pages of it...heres my rating system..

1. Casual Guru poster(me)
2. Posts on a certain forum once every couple days
3. Goes on probably once aday to see whats up
4. Goes on once aday for 2 hours at a time
5. OMFG Hardcore Essay Writer that spends 5 hours typing a forum on his own opinion that the game dosent suit him...so clearly its dying :\ (you)

Come on.....if you think the game is dying then go play something else. Its your own opinion that some things should be changed. Face it there will always be people in the world that are like me and its our goal to ruin your fun (im kidding, i love GW and play it relgiously). Facts are the facts and those facts are that the world is filled with A$$holes. And another thing...complaining and posting petitions on GWG really does nothing. Do you think ANET is going to log on here and read this and say. "Hey wow this person dosent like the way the game looks like its going so lets change it according to his personal preference"

People in the world will always be there to ruin what you want to do for fun. A nice easy way to fix that it ...Put up and Shut Up

Mom, Mom, Mom Mom Mom.

gameshoes3003 · Jan 12, 2007, 03:31 AM // 03:31

I did read the whole thing and many people have agreed to this idea. A problem that you said was that everybody will run into someone that'll hate their guts. What does the angry guy do? Makes the others' (can be more than one lol) rating worse which can be oooogly! Also there's always those people that try to be funny then giving that guy a bad rating too. I personally can get "overexcited" about the game and totally flip out, and uuh... my rating will go down the toilet.
I do accept any new player for I do believe that the new people in the game, are the ones keeping it going because if the people on the game are total asses then that player will tell anybody he/she meets not to get it. And those titles can potentially do that because there are some picky people out there you know. So then, a new guy with that "I'm still learning" title tries to join people who are on their 2nd-8th+ character and then id denied. Well that's not nice. Then a pro tries to join a new people group. Generally the new people will let he/she join, but sometimes they want a NEW people party ONLY group which therefore pushes the "pro" out.
I did see you mentioning about Factions ruining the "spirit" of the guild. Yes there are times when the alliances are all crabby about faction. What do I do as a leader? I let my people do whatever they want lol, therefore my faction drops since I'm such a cool leader that I relax then my guild gets kicked for "leeching" no matter what my guild has done to help the alliance (guild battles, money...).
But just to sum it all up, I don't think there should be these titles because it'll make the game look like a whole competition for ratings since people are likely to say, "please give me a good rating so I can get a super-duper title." No, that's not what this game is about. Titles are fancy sure, but not the centralized focus of the game.
If people are going to be stingy and anal about having pros everywhere, they're not challenging themselves to play a game that's suppose to be challenging. What do leechers, scammers, rage quitters do? They add a level of difficulty to the game which I would call, REALITY. Therefore, these titles will take away the "reality" of the human mind away from the game and then taking away many challenges from the game itself.
/notsigned
clearly elaborated, just will not work.

AuraofMana · Jan 12, 2007, 04:24 AM // 04:24

You are making GW unnecessarily complicated, and people don't like complicated stuff because they have to actually think for themselves.
Democracy fails, so obviously Anet has to pull a Dictatorship on this one.

lyra_song · Jan 12, 2007, 04:31 AM // 04:31

Interesting....but it wont work.

Grais · Jan 12, 2007, 05:16 AM // 05:16

No way no how never. Player ratings in a cut throat enviroment such as an online game. I dont care how you rationalise it, what kind of safeguards you think you can build into it, it will never work.
Your idea is so insane I have to wonder.
Think about it, letting the player base of Guildwars rate each other, FTL, that would be the day I quit for good.
Not that I dont think your heart is in the right place, because you obviosly took a lot of time, and thought was put into this, I just think you are giving way too much credit, to a community that, in my eyes, has done absolutley nothing to prove itself worthy of such responsibility, and never really can given the anonymous nature of online gaming, and that is just the way it is.
Its a non starter as far as I am concerned, and always should be.

Calen The Civl · Jan 12, 2007, 06:07 AM // 06:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grais

No way no how never. Player ratings in a cut throat enviroment such as an online game. I dont care how you rationalise it, what kind of safeguards you think you can build into it, it will never work.
Your idea is so insane I have to wonder.
Think about it, letting the player base of Guildwars rate each other, FTL, that would be the day I quit for good.
Not that I dont think your heart is in the right place, because you obviosly took a lot of time, and thought was put into this, I just think you are giving way too much credit, to a community that, in my eyes, has done absolutley nothing to prove itself worthy of such responsibility, and never really can given the anonymous nature of online gaming, and that is just the way it is.
Its a non starter as far as I am concerned, and always should be.

I can understand your cynicism; however, the entire point of the system proposed is to remove some of that anonymity. Whenever you are grouping with someone you have no idea of their play style unless you play 20 questions with them. This system's purpose is to allow play style and expectations to be known in a glance.

Even the most ardent jerk of a player would enjoy being known as a jerk if such a rating existed. Afterall, isnt that the entire point of bullying and taking advantage of people: attention.

hallomik, I do believe you have made a decent framework. "Smear" campaigns, though difficult, could be done if someone is determined enough. Would be a lot of work with a system like yours, but then you can never tell what lengths some people will go. As long as the system does not enable any banning or any type of suspension based on rating if instituted, "smears" and buy offs would only last so long before the true colors of the player shows through.

hallomik · Jan 12, 2007, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameshoes3003

But just to sum it all up, I don't think there should be these titles because it'll make the game look like a whole competition for ratings since people are likely to say, "please give me a good rating so I can get a super-duper title." No, that's not what this game is about. Titles are fancy sure, but not the centralized focus of the game.
If people are going to be stingy and anal about having pros everywhere, they're not challenging themselves to play a game that's suppose to be challenging. What do leechers, scammers, rage quitters do? They add a level of difficulty to the game which I would call, REALITY. Therefore, these titles will take away the "reality" of the human mind away from the game and then taking away many challenges from the game itself.
/notsigned
clearly elaborated, just will not work.

I appreciate you reading it all. Think of it as an "elite mission" post that only the top forum readers can get thru.

Begging for particular ratings (attempted bribery even) will surely occur. I believe I've addressed elsewhere why this fear is legitimate, but overstated - no one knows how you voted, the ratings are not good/bad but represent playing style. Also, begging is kind of annoying, so beggars I imagine will learn through this system the "community" doesn't approve of it.

As for the various player types adding reality to the game, I agree with your point. This system doesn't ban or eliminate that behavior. For all the reasons outlined in my OP, it will surely still occur. If my proposal worked, the effect would be to reduce it. Are you really against that?

Not A Fifty Five · Jan 12, 2007, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

Enforcing social responsibility through ranking system doesn't work. Proven in every environment it was tried at.

Why? Consequences.

Just because someone has a number next to their name, doesn't mean anything. This is also extremly volatile system due to human nature and limited interaction present in Guild Wars.

Once you abstract a player to a number, or a set of numbers, you take the human side out of the equation.

Social responsibility comes from the need of reliance on others. When you cannot do something without the others, you'll either give up, or adapt to others' expectations.

Why do people in other MMOs behave "better". 1 world, 10,000-15000 active players. Assuming person's social sphere at 150 people it's easy to see, that everyone on such server is a friend of a friend.

Why are heroes perceived as a trigger for this? Exactly because since they were introduced, you no longer need to group for anything. Hence, everyone became self reliant. All 3 chapters are perfectly completable with heroes.

Ranking doesn't change that. Humans will always gravitate towards self-reliance.

The only solution is to offer subtle advantages to players for interacting with others. Not title rewards, they require exploitation and grinding ("STFU noob, i have Serenity now title"), but gameplay, which rewards cooperation and teamplay. Current game doesn't.

In GW, that will not happen. Its target market, as well as the apeal of no fee, combined with anonimity of one server makes it impossible.

These issues have always existed. They were just exposed since nightfall, since social constraints were finally taken out of the picture.

If you want enjoyable experience, do what many have done since start. Join a guild, turn off spatial chat.

Your idea, like many similar ones, causes exactly the issues that other titles do: Time spent does not mean anything. Titles don't mean anything. People can work at one job for 30 years, and be completely incompetent. In other case, you might have an intern come in and play with the big boys from day 1.

Ironically, titles that reward people who play a lot actually bring out the worst people. Why? Let's be realistic here: The more time someone spends in a game, the less likely they are to have sufficient real world social interaction.

Agreed with antheus, it just has too many complications.

Also, it just won't happen because of money. ***holes will stop playing the game, because no matter what system you try, you will be "forced" to show your titles because people will ask to see them, not showing means its low, and since they cant be a jerk they'll stop playing. I know anet doesn't like ***holes in general, but they do like ***holes that pay

. ***holes don't stop people from playing GW also, seeing as they're a fact of life that everyone adapts to. So its a big loss monetarily for anet, and I wanna see more sequals even if I have to put up with ***holes.

Also this is terrible for newbies. Someone with an "inexperienced" title will never get a group. You can argue they can just group with henchies, but do you honestly want the gw community to start with having to do the first X missions with henchies?

P.S. You may want to condense your initial posts a bit, it'd be a shame if you write some artwork like that and people don't like it. Trust me I know, check out my leet "Wilds Pathfinder" title lawl.

S0larius · Jan 12, 2007, 02:31 PM // 14:31

This may be not be the right place for this post, as everyone is responding to the idea of player ratings - but I'd like to respond (briefly) to the title.

The only concern I have about the expansion of GW is that new areas keep getting developed (yes I said it). People drop off and people join up but overall, I'd say the pool of players is quite thin to support three maps. As others have pointed out, there are barely enough players to facilitate a community outside of Nightfall. When I first started playing GW, it was Tyria only, and every town you went to had plenty of players. Some for farming, some for questing, some for missions only.

Either way - there were enough players to find a team for what you wanted to do!

IMHO - Anet needs to introduce some funky new features to draw people back to the old maps instead of spreading the world out further. For example (albeit examples already expressed by many):
- Introduce some new races;
- Introduce some NPCs like steeds or some such crap;
- How about a hybrid of PVE and PVP? What about allowing one team to play the bad guys on a PVE mission and letting the regular team come through and try to obtain the mission?
- Maybe for those people with uber machines and bandwidth, make some areas accessible to anyone at anytime (not just the group that zones)
- expand the party styles and sizes;
- offer new ways to complete the existing missions (maybe going through a mission without aggroing something like the watch towers in Nightfall?);
- introduce new bosses (almighty ungodly bosses maybe - with extended team sizes);
Add more rares or elites to existing places; add new quests to old places;

These may or may not be good ideas, but the underlying theme is thus: Improve, tweak and mod the existing map with new features and you'll obtain a greater sense of community because there will actually be PEOPLE where you are. Oh - and reduce the reliance on monks already - talk about egos.

Lord Zado · Jan 12, 2007, 04:32 PM // 16:32

You know, I've always been against a player rating system due to the griefing and elistism others have mentioned, but you have a very well thought out system.

You avoid guild/alliance/multiple account buffing with your 1 vote per person and "guild votes count less" idea.

You avoid most griefing by forcing people to complete a mission with someone before they can vote. How many people would go through an entire mission just to give some stranger a single bad vote? You can perhaps even extend the protection by saying lower rated players' votes count less. The low rated players will either be griefers who were voted down or actual beginners. Beginners usually have no idea what builds their allies are using and how well they are using them, so it would make sense that their opinion of someone would count a little less than a veteran.

The flaw in the system isn't griefing or artifical rating buffing though...it's getting people to use the system properly. As others have pointed out, most PUG's finish a mission and disband right away, most times without even a "thank you" or "nice job". How can you expect people to be patient enough to rate 7 others? There's no real incentive to rate others. In fact, we could see a situation similar to what we see on the forums. Few people are compelled to make positive posts, but as soon as someone sees something they don't like...off to the forums they go! There could be a general trend to just vote for the people that did poorly.

Secondly, there is the issue of how to judge other players. I'd classify myself as an accomplished veteran. I have at least one of every character type through at least 2 campaigns and I read these forums regularly to see the latest PvE build ideas and such, so I am extremely familar with all the classes strengths and weaknesses, common builds, etc. But even with all this knowledge, when I am in a mission, my job is to fulfill my role, not observe what others are doing. So how would I know whether or not they are doing a good job? In fact, the only people able to accurately rate others are people who I would rate down for paying more attention to the group than fighting!

It becomes a "shades of grey" issue. Sure the group makes it through the mission, but maybe the tank was bad and we had a really good healer? My monk is my primary character and I can tell you that they would be the hardest to judge. Most people unfortunately believe deaths = bad monking. I've had level 5 monking outings where the whole group nearly wiped and level 3 monking outings where everything went just peachy.

Now I know your ratings are designed to indicate playstyle, not necessarily player skill, but the ratings WILL become all about player skill. And there's simply no way to adequately judge who gets a 2, 3 or 5. So for this reason, may I make these suggestions:

Keep your self evalution idea. It lets players indicate to others how they feel like playing and if they think they are a veteran or not. Sure some people might lie, but I doubt many beginners will go around with "hardcore veteran" showing. At least this will get people in the ball park for the most part. And more importantly the playstyle thing will get people on the same page.

Second, instead of a complicated peer evaluation system, simplify it so that its usable. At the end of a mission or quest (after everyone resigns I guess), there will be a countdown timer similar to what is at the end of every PvP battle or tombs...say 15-30 seconds. During this time on the party menu, on each person's health bar (or next to it like when someone calls a target) there will be a + and - symbol. You can vote someone down, up or not vote at all. This is quick and simple. (Side note: People could also use this time to cap skills from end of mission bosses. It's another common request around here to give players more time to cap skills from such bosses)

To keep your protections in place, you can only vote for a person once ever. If you vote for someone a second time, it simply replaces your old vote. People with a -.5 or less rating should not be allowed to rate others. People with a -.75 or less should not be allowed in places like RA and Fort Aspenwood. (Sidenote: This would likely solve the leeching/quitting problem as everyone would immediately give leechers/quitters negative votes).

The other, deeper, problem with ratings is ratings are most useful where lots of people are gathered. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of places where people gather nowadays! Now I could create an entire thread on this, but I'll tack it on here. If you look at Prophecies, after everyone played through the game, they went to 1 of 3 areas: Tombs, Sorrow's Furnance or Temple of the Ages. Why? Because those were fairly challenging areas that had nice rewards (greens, ectos, shards). Something you can do over and over. What was introduced with Factions and continued with Nightfall was this whole "every boss has a green" idea which is a huge, huge mistake. The biggest worry with an ever expanding game is you stretch the playerbase to thin, so why not create more gathering places like SF or ToA instead of putting valuable items all over the map just to spread us even thinner.