Curse

Fitz Rinley · May 24, 2006, 01:38 AM // 01:38

I refuse to accept the current Guild Wars Favor/Faction system at any point. As usual they refuse to hear criticism directly. I can say I am not the only one to influence the game. What I know is that I have disapproved of prohibition as the means to lessen the interest in ‘botting’ and e-baying. What I know is that I have suggested titles. What I know is that I discussed openly the only reason I wanted Obsidian armor was to get pieces that would have the options I desired and be uniform to my outfit. What I know is that I was the first person I remember discussing alliances between guilds.

ANet has taken a stance against e-baying/breaking the EULA by taking away the inspiration for it – the lack of opportunity to achieve in a casual manner as advertised. 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.

Currently there are titles which do not change play as it has existed, but increase options. These are good. I understand PvP has a problem with rank titles becoming a way of prejudicing players against accepting others into their group. The problem here is that players do not get the experience they need, and then are shut out.

Solution: Set up entry arenas based on fame points similar to the PvE arenas that would deny entry to persons with a certain level of experience. There are 12 ranks, set up three access levels for rank groupings: 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12. When a person gates in they go to the district of their level.

Now, in Cantha, one needs no longer mix and match uniform parts to get uniformity to their suit, armor, or ensemble. A warrior can now switch to hammer and put on a pair of Stonefist Gauntlets of Superior Hammer and not look like he lost his plate-mail set and had to drag out his left over knight’s gear. The women can switch tops and keep the sleeves they like and match it to the skirt they find attractive. A little complimentary dye and know one knows they are not meant to go together. This increase in options for the players’ self-expression is a real boon to the game. It is applauded.

When I discussed alliances as a neat thing that could be done, back in November-December, it was as a form of inclusion that would allow guilds to ally with and support their friends in GvG style battles. That has been brought about to some extent. I am critical because:

1) The command, control, and communications system fails to provide communications at the line of combat and support at the effective squad level. If units were the size of companies (130 – 240 personnel) or Battalions (550 – 1,250 personnel) then communiqués only up and down the chain of command (guild leaders) would make sense. In a squad level action of 8 to 16 it does not make sense, and is counter to human field experience. When the wounded cry, ‘’Medic!’’ there should not be a chain of command directing, potentially the more busy monk, the wrong way.

2) Instead of the alliances allowing a friend or two from another guild to be part of the entire team, the alliance system demands a fielding of ‘X’ number. To this extent, one and two man guilds are denied still the participation with their real life friends that I was suggesting.

3) Alliances are set to receive faction points from individuals. This creates many problems. First, for an alliance to gain control of an area they must farm/purchase more faction than another alliance. No MMO has managed to prevent e-bay gold entirely, restrain it yes, but not prevent. Now, wealthier players need only buy gold via e-bay and pay mercenary players to provide faction. This is an avenue which should have more concern than any other, given the great efforts that ANet made in lessening interest in e-bay gold purchases. The idea of faction farming mega-corps that then deny access to content areas which they purchase control over is also at issue. There is nothing to prevent these guilds, or their members from taking advantage by demanding gold, or simply denying access to all. The entertainment the game provides was purchased with real world money. That entertainment must not be denied at the whim, corruption, or petition of fellow players.

Solution: Establish access for an alliance based on the total number of points acquired at a fixed total. This should be a total based on the potential of the casual player, not the elite player. Once access is gained to an elite mission or area, it is permanent.

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-sidedness has cause 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.

A greater sense of characterization has been brought about with the addition of personality to the flat NPC’s. The comments are witty, if fleeting/easily missed, and yet always in the way of where you want to click the mouse.

Solution: Add an additional check box in the IM for NPC comments and move them to the IM. Then we can read them between battles, or un-check them and not read them at all.

For as long as I have played (headed to 8 months now) there have been rumors, circulated about potential upgrades to the inadequate 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.

It is no secret that I am angry with ANet for the mishandling of so many things in the release of Factions. I have no intention of hiding or lying about what I observe in the fear of some to face the issues, or my anger over those that finding a temporary fix for themselves drop the issue and forget others. I will not let the issue of Favor/Faction go. Nor any like-minded system that debases the humanity of fellows such that they are dependent upon the whim or chance of an elite few who are in opportunity of talent or money wealthier, but in being no better. This I hold enemy in any venue: that we are in anyway not equally morally obligated to uphold the opportunity of our fellows and castigate those actions or works which impede it. Further, the lack of efforts elsewhere does not legitimize a lack of effort here. Hence: I would call upon all players to refuse participation in any Faction exchange, support of Favor, Alliances, or entering restricted content areas until ANet corrects its position against individuality and solves these issues.

Aki Soyokaze · May 24, 2006, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

As usual they refuse to hear criticism directly. I can say I am not the only one to influence the game. What I know is that I have disapproved of prohibition as the means to lessen the interest in ‘botting’ and e-baying. What I know is that I have suggested titles. What I know is that I discussed openly the only reason I wanted Obsidian armor was to get pieces that would have the options I desired and be uniform to my outfit. What I know is that I was the first person I remember discussing alliances between guilds.

Just because you have complaints/suggestions does not mean that they, ANet, have to listen to or impliment them. Many people have suggestions and ideas as to how to improve the game; but, it would be unreasonable for ANet to sit down and read every e-mail they get and act accordingly those e-mails. You may be of the opinion that you're suggestions are prefectly valid and sound. However, these ideas may not be sound and may not prove to benefit either the game or the vast majority of players out there and as such are ignored by ANet.

ANet has no more moral or humanitarian obligations to players who are skilled or wealthy than they do to players who have to 'depend' on the skilled or wealthy few. And those players who are wealthy/skilled usually put in the time and/or effort into getting there and the only obligation that those players have to the less wealthy/skilled is to either choose to or not to help them. Not everyone buys their money or accounts, some people actually do 'earn' it one way or another. And nobody is saying that those less fortunate people 'need' to depend on those that are more fortunate, they could always go out there and get the gold/skills on their own. This is a game not a looming social crisis.

However, this is a game and only a game and it should be taken as such. Thus as a game it should be a fun experience that should be derived through playing the game; and if you are not having fun and you are not enjoying the time you spend playing the game then you have a choice not to play.

But, since you seem to be so angry over what has happened perhaps you should apply for a job ([email protected]) with ANet so that you can correct the problems that you see as being so prevalent.

Zhou Feng · May 24, 2006, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Both of your posts have great validity. However allow me to introduce my own theory of the Factions release event:

Perhaps hard pressed for time Anet released Factions "prematurely". This however may have been a calculated gamble. Factions would then be a sort of "project" to prove what the "guinea pig" Prophecies has undergone:

The power and capability of the upgrade system through means of Streaming Data, effectively and efficiently.

We all know how the original Guild Wars folder has more then tripled on size. I believe Factions will be no diffrent. I predict Anet has some very big missiles up its sleeves, considering that Gaile has mentioned a few times or even hinted that the boyz are working on some "big and cool things".

As it stands factions PvE seems "rushed". Its Alliance system seems "broken". And its Elite Missions seem "unfair". But I am most sure that Anet in the time they have will again do what they did with Prophecies and even some more.

One thing I do wish is that the War Torn city looks more... adequate and realistic... rather then a cardboard... and that the scenery is more... dynamic.

However I am quite certain that soon Factions will have a slew of new content which Anet will release via their Stream Technology wowing the GW Community.

Fitz Rinley · May 24, 2006, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aki Soyokaze

Just because you have complaints/suggestions does not mean that they, ANet, have to listen to or impliment them. Many people have suggestions and ideas as to how to improve the game; but, it would be unreasonable for ANet to sit down and read every e-mail they get and act accordingly those e-mails.

If they were not capable of reading them then they should not have been capable fo responding to them. Everything they are sent is read and replied to. While it is true the only thing the living must do is die, there are options between birth and death. If I had suggested that all players who have over certain number of deaths never recover past 15% dp it would indeed be unhealthy for the game and its players. It would violate the limited concept of business ethics, which is far inferior to real ethics. I made no such suggestion.

Quote:

ANet has no more moral or humanitarian obligations to players who are skilled or wealthy than they do to players who have to 'depend' on the skilled or wealthy few.

ANet has a moral obligation to ensure everyone who pays gets total access to content purchased without being interferred with by other players. The right of the skilled or wealthy to swing their fist stops at my nose, their right to play the way they wish ends when it prevents the access I purchased.

Quote:

Not everyone buys their money or accounts, some people actually do 'earn' it one way or another.

It does not take everyone. The shortsightedness of the current system only needs for one. The loophole is too great and needs closed by elimination of Faction control to content.

Quote:

And nobody is saying that those less fortunate people 'need' to depend on those that are more fortunate, they could always go out there and get the gold/skills on their own.

The very faction and favor systems scream forced dependency. No casual player may ever spend the time to develop the skill to become an elite rank 12 player in HoH. Yet that casual player is dependent upon such players for access to game content. Faction is the same only worse. All persons who have personal integritty, personal creativity, or proffer personal expression in their 'supposed' RPG/PvE environment are denied content access because they will never be able to compete with a 1,000 man faction farm or the potentially corrupt purchaser of faction.

Quote:

However, this is a game and only a game and it should be taken as such.

The origin of all games is in training the behavior of and skill of the young. Repetitive play in unethical practices will reinforce those practices and instruct players to move those practices to the real world. Teaching others to hold lordship over others, deny access of people to their purchased content without bribery or because one can, or to depend on the chance of an elite few thousands of miles away for access to their purchase is incorrect training.

Quote:

Thus as a game it should be a fun experience that should be derived through playing the game; and if you are not having fun and you are not enjoying the time you spend playing the game then you have a choice not to play.

This is a logical fallacy pattern of Balck and White Thinking and has no validity in any argument.

Quote:

But, since you seem to be so angry over what has happened perhaps you should apply for a job ([email protected]) with ANet so that you can correct the problems that you see as being so prevalent.

Modern corporations do not support directors of ethical considerations. Theyt have public relations or community management positions which are aimed at control of how the public relates to the corporation in the corparations interests, not the publics.

Fitz Rinley

Aki Soyokaze · May 24, 2006, 09:02 PM // 21:02

Quote:

If they were not capable of reading them then they should not have been capable fo responding to them. Everything they are sent is read and replied to. While it is true the only thing the living must do is die, there are options between birth and death. If I had suggested that all players who have over certain number of deaths never recover past 15% dp it would indeed be unhealthy for the game and its players. It would violate the limited concept of business ethics, which is far inferior to real ethics. I made no such suggestion.

I never said they weren't capable of sending you an automated response, I said that it would be unreasonable for them to read every e-mail and act accordingly (i.e. change everything you want changed). And just because you made a suggestion does not mean that they have to listen to it.

Quote:

ANet has a moral obligation to ensure everyone who pays gets total access to content purchased without being interferred with by other players. The right of the skilled or wealthy to swing their fist stops at my nose, their right to play the way they wish ends when it prevents the access I purchased.

Your rights and privilages stop when you can get online and simply access the game, not when you can access all or any of the game that you want. You paid for a game and as such all of the rules that apply to that game stipulate your rights and privilages. ANet has no 'moral' obligation to provide you with access to FoW or elite missions whenever you decide that you want it. You paid for a game that grants you access to a server. Anything else from there on out is your responsibility from gaining faction to gaining access to FoW to earning gold.

Quote:

No casual player may ever spend the time to develop the skill to become an elite rank 12 player in HoH. Yet that casual player is dependent upon such players for access to game content. Faction is the same only worse. All persons who have personal integritty, personal creativity, or proffer personal expression in their 'supposed' RPG/PvE environment are denied content access because they will never be able to compete with a 1,000 man faction farm or the potentially corrupt purchaser of faction.

You keep speaking of 'skilled players', 'wealthy players', and 'casual players.' And to be honest it sounds less and less like you're gripe is with ANet and problems associated with the game; but sounds more like you have a problem with the fact that people actually have to put in time and effort. Added to that a 'casual player' would not be concerned with such things. They would more than likely go off an play for half an hour or so; rather than sit around and whine about not being able to get into FoW because they don't have favor. What you describe is someone who is either lazy, unskilled, or both. And while not being able to get into FoW or elite missions doesn't mean you're lazy or unskilled; it should make it apparent to you that you can do things to gain access to such content in the game. Content that you are not being cut off from and content that you can earn the right to access.

Quote:

The origin of all games is in training the behavior of and skill of the young. Repetitive play in unethical practices will reinforce those practices and instruct players to move those practices to the real world. Teaching others to hold lordship over others, deny access of people to their purchased content without bribery or because one can, or to depend on the chance of an elite few thousands of miles away for access to their purchase is incorrect training.

This is a logical fallacy pattern of Balck and White Thinking and has no validity in any argument.

The origins of 'games' has nothing to do with this. This is a form of entertainment, not a venue in which we try to teach 'children' life lessons. However, it is not as if social structures within the game have not developed to mirror and even mimic real life social relationships. Hold lordships? Deny Access? Reinforce those practices in the real world? I'm sorry but I didn't realize that I could walk into any country club, gym, arena, etc. without paying for or being given the privilage of being there. I didn't realize that if I rented an appartment I'm not allowed to take down walls and renovate. I didn't realize that people who put time and effort into getting and education and earning money had a right to be richer than I am. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but there is and always will be a hierarchy or spectrum of people in a society. There will always be those who are poorer than others, are smarter than others, are better than others, etc.

So not only does your theory of social ethics and behaviors for a game not apply, it also makes no sense what-so-ever.

And yes it is just as black and white as that. This is just entertainment, not a looming social problem that is entangled in eithics and humanitarianism forced upon us by a faceless corporate entity.

jimmyhats · May 24, 2006, 09:14 PM // 21:14

reading this topic has been the biggest waste of time imaginable. OP needs to get over himself.

kaya · May 24, 2006, 09:41 PM // 21:41

ya, sounds like somebody doesn't feel important enough. can somebody give him a bone?

AlyssaMarcia · May 28, 2006, 01:06 AM // 01:06

half of the OP's ideas would hurt the economy...economy =the most delicate and important part of a game... good luck with this stuff boy.

erick5876 · May 28, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

ANet has a moral obligation to ensure everyone who pays gets total access to content purchased without being interferred with by other players. The right of the skilled or wealthy to swing their fist stops at my nose, their right to play the way they wish ends when it prevents the access I purchased.

The power struggle and blocking of content is an essential part of the game. That is exactly why this game is a Massively Multiplayer Online game, and not a single player game on a home console with downloadable content. It keeps the game world from being static, and encourages competition.

Besides, the blocked content is still available to you. You just have to invest the effort to become skilled, or wealthy enough to access it. This is no different from any other game. You could make this same argument for singleplayer games. You may not have enough skill to beat the current stage, so you can't advance. Does this not also block your access to the content you payed for? Should every game be so easy that anyone with enough money to purchase one can beat it? Should the entire game world be open, with no effort required to gain anything? Should every single item be available from the start? There is a word for that type of entertainment. It's called a movie. No need for interaction, no challenge, it's all right there, right from the start. All you have to do is enjoy it in whatever spare time you have.

I think the power struggles are neccessary. I have played quite a few MMORPGs, and they have all addressed this in different ways. The ones without it might as well be single player. Some handle it horribly, and one group will remain in power forever. In others, power changes. It change several times in one day, over a week... I've even seen a game take a year for a new group to gain control. It all depends on how Anet will handle that problem. I fullly trust that they will make sure everyone gets equal access to all of the games content, if they are willing to work a little for it.

I firmly believe that dedicated players should be rewarded for their effort. At the same time, I see your point that someone with an ebay account or the willingness to use bots should not be given a large advantage over what you describe as the casual player. Both of those activities are really a form of cheating. The people selling things on ebay, are probably using bots to obtain their assets, and are selling them to lazy players that don't want to put forth any effort. Casual players are able to access the majority of the game content. If they lack the skill to gain access to more, that is not the game's fault. If they lack the time to gain the skill, or amass wealth, then they should reconsider playing this time of game. The use of bots, and the buying/selling of game conent on ebay doesn't benefit anyone, and only serves to unbalance the game more.

Quote:

Perhaps hard pressed for time Anet released Factions "prematurely". This however may have been a calculated gamble. Factions would then be a sort of "project" to prove what the "guinea pig" Prophecies has undergone:

The power and capability of the upgrade system through means of Streaming Data, effectively and efficiently.

I also believe that the game's imbalances will be fixed in time.

Kakumei · May 28, 2006, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Ethics and morals have nothing to do with video games.

Mandy Memory · May 28, 2006, 05:35 AM // 05:35

I must admit, The op thought of and suggested all of those things first....and Im a llama.

Ken Dei · May 28, 2006, 05:37 AM // 05:37

The wise, and noble, speaking to the vain and selfcentered masses, seeking only fairness in their name. Yet, scorned by those he seeks to provide opportunity to.

The OP is right, even those of failed morality, and blinded inner turmoil know this and seek to bring about the failure of truth through mindless gibberish and rage. Those who feign counter-point do so with the same time-falsened arguements which prove nothing more then a lack of will to fight for what one wants.

In my support, I urge moderation. Your words are strong, as is you inheirant conviction. Those you speak to have been lulled into a the sorrow filled believe that things are as they are and shall never change. Others are your enemy by the very values they skulk around in. The greedy, the maliciously hypocritical, those who are entwined in the system, but favorably so; and see any intelligent approch to something different as an unabidable threat to their existance.

Be careful, when your neck is out; there are 1000 blades waiting.

Replicant · May 28, 2006, 06:44 AM // 06:44

Fitz Rinley, that was a VERY good post and playing this game for 10 months myself I completly agree with every aspect that you mentioned. I really wish Anet would listen to people like you to improve this game.

/signed

I fear as if this game will eventually die though due to anet not doing simple updates and listening to the community. It's a sad reality that people can't grasp the concept that people have quit this game due to it becoming boring and probably would've stayed had anet listened more to the community.

It's actually kind of a no win situation though, you've got the people that quit (that don't check these forums to sign on this), you've got the people that don't even look at this forum, and the people that like the system how it is that flame people like the OP with the thought that they're the only people that matter when it comes to the game.

I've known many people that quit because this game became to dull and boring, i know this from experience as i quit for a month 6 months ago, and the only thing keeping me in this game is the guild i'm in, and the farming challenge that practically gets nerfed with every patch. I even donated 250k to my guild for guild services just to set my bank amount down so much that i would be encouraged to farm again.

I really hope anet takes a look at this post and considers these changes.

Zui · May 28, 2006, 08:05 AM // 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy hats

reading this topic has been the biggest waste of time imaginable. OP needs to get over himself.

I second that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandy Memory

I must admit, The op thought of and suggested all of those things first....and Im a llama.

It's good to know you're not a llama.

To the OP:

1. Get over yourself.
2. Back up your statments that everything was your idea. I know I've seen almost everything you suggested, suggested previously here at Guru.

As for your ideas... (please forgive me for not quoting you)

1. The anti-farming code will remain in place, and does remain in place. Anet will, and has done nothing to remove or lighten it. It is to prevent non-casual gamers from farming for money, and people/people running bots to make a profit. What on earth are you talking about?
2. Titles do not increase options. They allow players to show off. Nothing more.
3. Rank discrimination at HA has been going on forever. Titles changed nothing in that regard, except now it's 5/6 and 8/9 groups instead of 5/6 groups and 8/9 groups that were really 3-6 groups and 6-9 groups. Where have you been?
4. Your idea about splitting the ranks up is nice, and has already been suggested. It won't work. The fame mechanic is broken, 'your' idea presented isin't thought thruogh enough. Actualy, the entire heroes' ascent gameplay mechanic is broken with the repeating stage, and again in the way fame is awarded. There is no way to fix it besides redesigning the maps, and doing a fame wipe, then changing the way fame is awarded. Never, ever going to happen.
5. Did you ever consider the armor skins could be to add another element of depth in PvP, in addition to your stated reasons? There are two sides to every coin, you're only seeing one.
6. Your first point about alliances is very hard to understand. I think you're talking about the need to be able to talk to members of your own faction. If so I agree, and so does just about every other single gamer out there.
7. Your second point needs to be articulated clearly. In GvG it has always been you need 4 or more to be from your guild. If you mean somthing else, I'm totaly lost. Please elaborate and articulate.
8. 10% of a guild total faciton is lost daily. This keeps the town control circulating fairly well, among those alliances that are actualy working for it. There are tons of free taxis to elite missions as it stands, again whrere have you been. I've only seen one person so far asking for money to take people to an elite mission, and 50+ people doing it for free. Nothing is being denied to you if you, you can bum a free ride to an elite mission.
9. Your solution is bad. It would destroy the entire reason guilds work to control towns, recognition. Somthing that PvE players have been complaining they lacked for a very long time. Say, hasn't anet already said they're adressing the elite mission access thing?
10. Removing the favor system is again a bad idea. PvPers have only skill to gain them recognition, they have no vanity armors or vanity skins. You're taking away recognition of skill. Fix the broken game mechanic at heroes' ascent if you want, don't fix favor, favor is just fine. Perhaps if fame was fixed 90% of our felllow Americans would stop IWAYing and actualy try to create 1/2 decent builds(or run blood spike) and make an attempt at making it to halls, and trying to win in halls.
11. Please remember the Guild Wars took place in Tryia. Not cantha. Please remember Tryia bans Guild Halls, Cantha welcome them... Your logic on this is absolutly flawed. The alliance system works perfectly with the facitons storyline.
12. NPCS talking aren't a big issue - deal with it. Anyway it's already been suggested countless times with the option to toggle... Go /sign one or all of those threads.
13. About more needed storeage, that's again been suggested many times. I'd even say having more storage for merged accounts would be pretty nice. Maybe since you get 1/2 the amount of charactars, add an equal amount to storage as well... Either way already a topic on it, go /sign it.
14. Why? An iron bar would need to be melted down, couldn't be sold, would allow players to horde it for profit... You get the point, it'd cause too many hard/impossible to solve issues. Lets fix somthing that actualy merrtis a fix first.

Since your post is so long, and doesn't expand on any of 'your' ideas, it's very hard to reply to it properly. I suggest maybe splitting it into multiple threads, and fully explaining your idea, as in how it would work, what the benefit would be, would there be a downside... Or just using search and typing /signed then submitting...

Fitz Rinley · May 28, 2006, 01:59 PM // 13:59

To those that understand what I have said, thank you for your effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zui

1. Get over yourself.

This is a non-sensical statement or ad hominem attack.

Quote:

2. Back up your statments that everything was your idea.

If you read you will note that I stated clearly in reference to only one issue, that I was the first I saw. That does not mean it was my idea first, though it implies there is a possibility. In every thing else I claimed only to have weighed in on the discussion. Your accusation that I claimed everything as my idea is another ad hominem attack thru distorting the question, the question of origin.

Quote:

1. The anti-farming code will remain in place, ...

I did not say the anti-farming code was going to change, nor ask for it too. Again you did not pay attention. I stated that prohibition (previous anti-farming efforts) of player ability to achieve something they want or need for game play (like funds, collectable drops, runes, etc.) is not as effective at combatting botting and e-bay gold buying as reducing the player need for botting and e-bay gold buying. If players can reasonably get things they want without the latter, it will take the profit out of botting and e-bay gold selling.

Quote:

2. Titles do not increase options.

So exploring all maps fully for title is not a new option of play? Drinking ale for a title is not a new option for play? Hunting down 180 elite skills for title is not an new option for play? Yes, some of the base actions could have been done before, but not as a play option for title. The titles do increase options, and prhaps offer some players goals they had not thought of before.

Quote:

3. Rank discrimination at HA has been going on forever.

I am not sure you actually read my post. I suggested a method of interrupting the discrimination. I did unfortunately link this in the same paragraphe as my approval of titles, but there is no particualr reason other than title and rank are intrinsically tied to the same numerical system in the particular case of HA.

Quote:

4. Your idea about splitting the ranks up is nice, and has already been suggested. It won't work. The fame mechanic is broken, ... Never, ever going to happen.

You do not need to redesign the maps, but redeisgn access to specified instancing or make new maps. Keep the current ones for contestants. No fame needs to be wiped, simply apply a new frame work for fame gain. All who have a current fame level keep it. Just like those who had HoD swords kept them. Given changes made in the game thus far, it might be a good idea never to say never.

Quote:

5. Did you ever consider the armor skins ...

This has nothing to do with anything I have said. I have promoted increased option and expression for armor skins game wide. I have even suggested one be able to change their apparent skin (within the same class ofcourse) thru faction purchase in PvP arena areas.

Quote:

6. Your first point about alliances is very hard to understand. I think you're talking about the need to be able to talk to members of your own faction. If so I agree, and so does just about every other single gamer out there.

Yes, we agree.

Quote:

7. Your second point needs to be articulated clearly. In GvG it has always been you need 4 or more to be from your guild. If you mean somthing else, I'm totaly lost. Please elaborate and articulate.

By requiring 4 or more to participate in in GvG, guilds smaller than taht will never be able to play. This is a factor of choice. A choice that will hurt no one to have available. I play with 7 other people regularly. We total 13 accounts between us. No guild has offered anything more than another (friendly helpful people, hall, and cape - we are better see). Which guild is going to offer me my own freedom of expression (coat of arms and name which has personal meaning in my fantasy playing) - None of them except my own. Nor am I going to ask others to give up their freedom of expression to cater to mine. As Peter Gabriel one said, ''For me my demons are real.'' Symbolism and personal expression are no less real for a huge number of people. The choice to maintain one's own existence is at stake for anyone who comprehends the meaning of symbols.

Quote:

8. 10% of a guild total faciton is lost daily. This keeps the town control circulating fairly well, among those alliances that are actualy working for it.

So an alliance of 10 guilds each with less than 4 persons can just walk in at anytime and wrest faction away from the current guild of 1,000 faction farmers after 45 minutes to an hours collection of farming. (This is a decent casual rate of play, given the circumstances, IMO.) No they cannot, nor shall they under the current system.

Quote:

Nothing is being denied to you if you, you can bum a free ride to an elite mission.

So nothing is denied me if I denigrate myself to being worth-less than another human player.

Quote:

9. Your solution is bad. It would destroy the entire reason guilds work to control towns, recognition. Somthing that PvE players have been complaining they lacked for a very long time.

If all guillds work to control towns for is the ability to lord it over others with generosity as a cover for their ego boost, then I am even more infavor of its total obliteration. Some require more public recognition than others and will go to any length to get and keep it, Nixon being an example. That does not make it right. In this case, control of towns, like Favor, is control of other peoples lives. That is wrong.

Quote:

Say, hasn't anet already said they're adressing the elite mission access thing?

If they intended to address it then it would be done. It is not done so they are not addressing it - they are post poning it as long as possible or trying not to do the right thing at all.

Quote:

10. Removing the favor system is again a bad idea. PvPers have only skill to gain them recognition, they have no vanity armors or vanity skins. You're taking away recognition of skill.

Again, if the only way one can feel their ego boost is by controling the lives of others, then I am even more adamant about the elimiantion of Favor. This is the only thing Favor does, grant a few professional players control of the lives of other non-professional players. Doing so is wrong. There is a title and emote sytem that expresses how much effort one has in developing PvP skill. Further, these contests are held without respect for one another in any PvP match I have attended. The recognition is all self-centered and nothing has been done to foster competition over opposition.

Quote:

11. Please remember the Guild Wars took place in Tryia. Not cantha. Please remember Tryia bans Guild Halls, Cantha welcome them... Your logic on this is absolutly flawed. The alliance system works perfectly with the facitons storyline.

The argument of Tyrian based characters (almost all players here-to-fore) that this game is Guild Wars and you must submit to a large guild because the Guilds are all at war and that is the way it is fails given the history of either side of the pond. Also, there are national wars in Cantha, not Guild Wars. The guilds are acting merely as mercenary units (much like the Helenes/Greeks in the time of Darius) not specifically at war with one another.

Quote:

12. NPCS talking aren't a big issue ...

Noted.

Quote:

13. About more needed storeage, that's again been suggested many times.

Noted.

Quote:

14. Why? An iron bar would need to be melted down, couldn't be sold, would allow players to horde it for profit... You get the point, it'd cause too many hard/impossible to solve issues. Lets fix somthing that actualy merrtis a fix first.

This is a stacking option that alleviates some of the storage pressure. It doesnt need any specific mechanic for melt down. It will either be sold in bulk at value to a merchant, or a portion of it will be used by a crafter. And given that players must A) have the materials, and B) have a profit to use said materials I fail to see an objection. Further, there are much faster ways to make money than farming for bone. The really big money cravers buy it, and the next down farm greens. Those that sell wood, cloth, iron, and dust will still have a limited audience to sell to. If that audience refuses their prices and goes to get their own, hording for profit will only result in mass sales to the merchant.

Quote:

Or just using search and typing /signed then submitting...

Actually I have never seen the search function work, when it bothered to show up here. Since others seem to have it, I assume there is something in one of my programs that prevents it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erick5876

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley

ANet has a moral obligation to ensure everyone who pays gets total access to content purchased without being interferred with by other players. The right of the skilled or wealthy to swing their fist stops at my nose, their right to play the way they wish ends when it prevents the access I purchased.

The power struggle and blocking of content is an essential part of the game. That is exactly why this game is a Massively Multiplayer Online game, and not a single player game on a home console with downloadable content. It keeps the game world from being static, and encourages competition.

This is a massive multi-player on-line game because massive amounts of people have friends in various parts of their nation and world with whom instanced play is a popular form of social contact, while avoiding the depredations in other massive multi-player online games. Further comparison of GW to those other games will reveal that GW is popular because it is not those other games. What keeps the game world from being static is the creation of new things.

Competition is too often used as a synonym for opposition. Strife and hatred, the products of oppositional play (have we not seen Kurdi**s and Fu*ons with a slew of immature manure), are not an acceptable part of the game. Competition is derived from com-petere, together-walking. Competing to achieve is different than opposed play aimed at rousing adreanline pushed animosity and encouraging prejudicial treatment of others.

Today prejudice is merely seen as hatred of others. That older prejudice, in my nation, where Blacks were looked down upon as inferior beings who needed to be and should be taken care of by the superior Whites in forms of patronage is nearly forgotten. It was inconceivable of adjusting the system so they had an equal opportunity in their own right because it was of course unchangeable fact that they must be patronized with the gifts and blessings of those that are superior to them. In the form of Faction that arrogance returns.

Quote:

This is no different from any other game.

This is no excuse.

Quote:

Besides, the blocked content is still available to you. You just have to invest the effort to become skilled, or wealthy enough to access it.

The only way I can access the restricted content is to destroy my personal integritty or cheat. I choose neither.

Quote:

You may not have enough skill to beat the current stage, so you can't advance. Does this not also block your access to the content you payed for?

This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either A (make it on your own) or B (do without), when the function is C (do without or denigrate your value as a person by abasing yourself to others).

Quote:

Should every game be so easy that anyone with enough money to purchase one can beat it?

Not at issue nor suggested. The Faction system is a denial of game content I purchased access to by fellow players.

Quote:

Should the entire game world be open, with no effort required to gain anything? Should every single item be available from the start? There is a word for that type of entertainment. It's called a movie.

False analogy through distortion of the question. The question is should fellow human beings be permitted to deny access to others in reference to the products they purchased. So, my state buys a dam, but because your state also bought a dam, and generates more electricity with it that we do, your state can determine whether or not we may use ours. We each purchase a dog, but because I can train mine to do more tricks I get to tell you how much you may pet and play with yours. This is what you are indeed supporting when you support faction.

Quote:

I think the power struggles are neccessary. I have played quite a few MMORPGs, and they have all addressed this in different ways. The ones without it might as well be single player.

Power struggles may be inevitable because of corruption, that does not mean they are needed. And again you suggest that because someone else did it we should to. That is not sufficient cause. Competition need not be and is not opposition. If it were when one corporaton beat another we would execute all members of the failed corporation. The companies merely compete to determine who can provide the best goods and services with the least invetsed resources. They are not opponents.

Quote:

I fullly trust that they will make sure everyone gets equal access to all of the games content, if they are willing to work a little for it.

In ''God we trust all others we monitor. We'd monitor God if we knew how.'' - professional axiom in a prior profession. Because of greed and least invested resources, no corporation is trustworthy beyond proof.

Quote:

I firmly believe that dedicated players should be rewarded for their effort.

What qualifies as dedicated and what qualifies as play? Dedication is inside the mind, I have well over 1,500 hours in 7 months - is that dedicated? I have $225.00 and change invested in playing (plus server for Ventrilo) is that dedicated? Are we to assume someone who makes HoH in a week or two of IWAY causes them to be dedicated? Do we assume someone who beats a chapter in 20 hours is more dedicated than someone who takes their time to enjoy the content? Do we assume someone who beats the game in 20 hours and leaves to play some thing else is more dedicated than someone who remains? Do we assume that because someone is dedicated to personal integritty and expression then they are not dedicated? Do we assume that someone who also is providing for a family is not dedicated? If dedication (an internal moral feeling) is evaluated solely on numbers one can count externally, is it to be measuerd just in the thousands of dollars one donates to GW without a purchase? This should remove many players from ever being considered dedicated. Is play only PvP, GvG, PvE, Role Playing inspite of difficult mechanics for it, or is it the social interaction between individuals in a manner they are comfortable with while logged in? Is it more than one of any option?

Quote:

Casual players are able to access the majority of the game content. ... If they lack the time to gain the skill, or amass wealth, then they should reconsider playing this type of game.

While it is true that the lack of skill or talent on the part of one person does not convict the game, the rest is not accepted. What is in question is not whether casual players are able to access some of the game, but whether a corporation has an obligation to provide a product where consumers do not prevent the use of any protion of the product by other consumers. It is one thing to take turns at the roller-coaster, it is quite another for persons in line to have the power/authority to lock 99% out of the part of the park where the roller coaster is at. This is the situation with Faction and Favor.

Fitz

fallot · May 28, 2006, 04:05 PM // 16:05

The favor system does baffle me sometimes. Barring any argument of access to content which you paid for etc. a handful of players exercise control over a reasonable part of endgame content without any intent to do so (they couldn't care less for their region having access). I've never heard of a team that holds halls so their region can have favor. This PvE/PvP symbiosis may have sounded great in the mind of some Dev, but the very nature of GW PvP and PvE (and the vast disconnect between them) means that this is simply not a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley

It is one thing to take turns at the roller-coaster, it is quite another for persons in line to have the power/authority to lock 99% out of the part of the park where the roller coaster is at. This is the situation with Faction and Favor.

Agreed, that is a good analogy. As for the original post, all of the suggestions offered are of merit and the post itself is an insightful read, rarely seen on these forums.