Curse

Fitz Rinley · Jul 03, 2006, 09:36 PM // 21:36

I remain unhappy with the current Guild Wars Favor/Faction system on many points. There are a few I also like. As usual they refuse to hear criticism. Alliances were not developed to be more inclusive of individual players. Faction, as a Zerg Farming activity, eliminates the value of the small guy and person with individual expression. The full advantages of instancing are disregarded when difficulty level could be set by party leader upon entrance to area. Gold does seem more abundant, but why? How does ANet justify the aim at destroying all the individual player guilds? Why are we only supposed to Zerg? Why do things like improved storage seem more like a lie every day?

I know I am not the only one influencing the game. I also know I have disapproved of prohibition as the means to lessen the interest in ‘botting’ and e-baying. I know I have suggested a title system. I know I discussed openly the only reason I wanted Obsidian armor was to get pieces with the options I desired and remain uniform in appearance. I know I am the first I remember discussing alliances between guilds.

The first discussion I remember about being able to ally with another in guild was aimed at inclusion so that creative individualists could also play and be included in Guild v. Guild as permanent or semi-permanent members of their friend’s guild halls. Through ANet’s creating a system requiring 4-man teams per guild these alliances are eliminated or the small and one man guilds must destroy themselves to participate. Individualism and self-expression is targeted for destruction. This is one reason I have destroyed all of my leveled characters. They had no point to exist, their individualism had no value. My expression for me had no value either.

Further, the value of an individual is destroyed by the fact that they cannot compete with Faction Farming Multi-corporation Zergs, who are merely assumed to be playing honestly. Buy enough e-bay gold and you may admit persons to your guild for their faction, pay them off, release the mercenary player, and find another. Faction is said to only control two things in game, entry to the Deep, and cost of things in certain communities. I can understand how merchants might give military occupational forces a discount in order to avoid unpleasant consequences. Or even kick-backs and higher taxes such as some cultures charge others whom they designate as subordinate due to religious belief. It is happening in places like Iran today. I do not understand placing fellow players over other players based upon their wealth, personality traits, or potential disability as does the faction situation with the deep.

By wealth, I mean that anyone that can afford to buy off enough faction gets preference. By personality, I mean anyone that is an extravert (50%) of the population is given preference against the other 50% who are demeaned into sub-status. (Obviously those who are not extroverts should be required to be co-dependent upon extroverts as they should not be afforded their own access system of merit. They should be charity cases ferried to the deep instead.) By disability I mean any disability that makes playing with PUGs unworkable: Arthritis, autism, bi-polar, deaf, etc. Since the game is instanced, there is and remains NO reason why difficulty levels cannot be set when a party leaves into an instanced area.

The new game policy of let's have one mass mob of inseparable 12-20 creatures after another is particularly inexusable. As they cannot be drawn apart, the AI is insufficient, and PUGs... Pugs draw into a few kinds: 1. Those who think wisdom is a toothache yet to happen, 2. Dudley Do-right, 3. those that could benefit from having a mother like Malcom in the Middle's, and 4. the occassional person you would add to your play list but is not in your time zone. Add one Cup of Corruption to a necromancer run by a real role player and you have kill one-res, kill one-res, kill one-res, kill one-res, (60 dp), kill one-res, kill one-res, kill one-res, ... There is no reason or value in this gaming anymore. Nor is this the only section of the game that has ended up this way.

The current title system is an excellent example of something that has been discussed and where ANet did very well. The titles do not establish player over player control, unlike the Faction and Favor systems they maintain. The titles add goal options that did not exist, i.e. the titles. I have been informed that PvP titles are a form of rank prejudice that is used in excluding people from play due to lack of experience in PvP/HoH. That is unfortunate. Perhaps as a solution all PvP experience could count toward such a title, or there could be separate arenas so that the snobbish would only be able to play with themselves anyway. (Meaning if you were not of a certain level you could not get in the arena.)

I am very pleased with the new system of armor purchases in Cantha, and would like to have seen them moved over to Tyria. I understand the Tyrian armor has been updated to be equal to Cantha. If this is the case, then I could not find where a female Elementalist may purchase Air Elementalist Tyrian Armor with Battle Mage specs, as an example. Additionally, it would be absolutely helpful if they would explain how to use the dyes so we do not have to waste money to get things the way we want them.

ANet has taken a stance against e-baying/breaking the EULA by taking away the inspiration for it on the general day to day grind. The former system of restricting drops and minimizing gains is similar to other MMO’s and results in casual players becoming frustrated and acting around the system. Reduce the frustration and you reduce the violation. I congratulate ANet on taking this step. If the game is going to continue to produce for the casual player, then certain other aspects must take a parallel measure. Those who talk about being casual players with millions or even hundreds of thousands of gold in their account who can do anything they wish, I do not believe and they have no means of convincing me that they are legitimate players. So the real question is, did ANet really just make so many things require and provide gold that players could no longer keep track of who is and isn't e-baying?

I quote myself here from another post elsewhere:

Quote:

Faction in every way seems to pivot on the principle error of Favor. A few elite or privileged players are granted all power over the millions of the rest of us that play to determine our access to content areas. This is and always shall be ethically wrong. Regardless of talent to play, regardless of home financial or time access, every person that has purchased the program ought to have equal access at all times to all content without restriction by the whims and/or opportunities of others. Becoming ascended should be sufficient to enter the Underworld or Fissure of Woe. Ascension is in essence ‘Favor of the Gods.’ No dependency upon elite talents in the HoH should deny access to any. If United States players, at some earlier date, demanded of others that they get better in order to hold the HoH and Favor it would not be the first time my nations predilection to arrogance and short-sightedness has caused them to fall on the wrong side of an ethical decision. Neither does returning the response by any other nation or region improve their stature.

ANet may have unwittingly provided the guild system in use by error. They provide that players may form and operate guilds as they will, at an age when all guilds are outlawed and after the Guild Wars themselves are over. If one were to appeal to reason, in said environment people would want their own local expression but would not trust to larger groups and alliances. The only powers they would recognize, as reflected in real world histories, are those favoring strong central authority supporting strong individual liberty and security. Yet, the current faction system denies this.

Again a self quote

Quote:

For as long as I have played (about 8 months) we have been hearing about the soon to be added upgrades to storage. As I calculate an account needs approximately 73 slots for dyes (8), materials (11?), rare materials (24), and collectible drops (157?). I allowed approximately 30 slots for collectable drops. Then we have armor, at one head piece per attribute for different builds, and 2-6 suits of armor for different areas and or builds. This comes to another 51 slots average for 6 characters. Then we have weapon combinations for of weapons and weapon and off-hand for various builds: assassin - about 6, elementalist – about 18, mesmer – about 14, monk – about 14, necromancer – about 14, ranger – about 7, ritualist – about 14, and warrior – about 9. This gives us an average of 12 and guarantees the elementalist will run short of space. Then we need 30-45 slots each for holding loot when we go out, and 3-5 slots each for kits. That comes out to a total of 490 slots, and no holiday goodies, mini-pet house space, etc. This means with 290 slots available we are, by design from the get go, about 200 slots deficient, and expecting it to get worse.

Solution: Reduce the need for slots and set up a secondary system for handling primary hand, off-hand, each of the five areas of armor, and a holiday/gift area. Each weapon and armor slot would receive a drop down menu. By picking up and dragging an icon to that slot, the item is added to the menu. The item is removed by dragging that slot back to a regular back pack slot. Each weapon or armor slot would to hold up to 8-10 items. Then highlighting items and clicking onto the Weapon Bar loads that combo into that slot. Armor is just highlighted and that becomes the piece you are wearing. Right here we have removed an average 123 needed slots. Then add an additional bar for gift items/quest items to be stored in. The item going in must have a trader’s value of 0g. This is for holiday event items, pets, etc. But also removes those annoying quest items like capes, mirrors, cups of corruption, Althea’s ashes, etc. until needed.

I have been given the impression that increased stack sizes won’t work because of coding structure. What about an increase in stack codes? Instead of iron ingots, every 250 becomes a stackable iron bar. Every 250 wood becomes a stackable wood cord. Every 250 becomes something else. One could stack up to 250 iron bars, or 62,500 iron ingots value. At most then, one would never have more than 2 stacks of any given crafting material.

As laudable as examples like that of say TC was, when they held control, it was a state of condescension, and one that is undesired. I still feel all players should refuse participation in Faction, Favor, and Alliance based events until such time as ANet corrects the deficiencies they have placed in them. I feel this strongly enough I have killed in protest all 12 of my advanced characters (levels 12-20 with many having finished Tyria) and maintain only two starter characters to determine if ANet improves the game.

Fitz Rinley