Curse

TabascoSauce · Mar 05, 2007, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

For the last time, this is not a modification of your argument. Your argument is an increase of efficiency for the player, correct?

...whereas you have yet to provide a logical distinction between "unlocking after one playthrough" and "unlocking from the beginning".

What is the difference? What does the player with one playthrough gain that a new account definitely doesn't have? Why does the account with one playthrough deserve the unlocks, whereas the new account does not?

Thank you for providing and definitively explaining the logical distinction between "unlocking after one playthrough" and "unlocking from the beginning", which also happens to be the difference between our positions. I mean wow, that is really concise. I'm glad that no one got confused and thought they logically meant the same thing! That's silly. Not to mention impossible.

(da dum ching)

apples =/= oranges

Maybe you should explain to us, since you obviously agree to the root problem of "X = Time is increasing" with every campaign released, why you want total unlocks for efficiency.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Burst Cancel · Mar 05, 2007, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Taking the easy way out again, huh?

"unlocking after one playthrough" and "unlocking from the beginning" are equally valid. There's nothing special about playing through the game one time that makes you qualify for unlocks. Playing through the game once doesn't make you good at it, and playing through the game with a monk in one campaign, with one set of skills, doesn't indicate you know anything about playing a warrior in another campaign with another set of skills.

There is no meaningful or relevant distinction between an account with a character that's played the game once, and an account that's brand new.

I'm still waiting for the part where you actually face the argument and tell me why you think an account with a character that's played the game once deserves unlocks, whereas a brand new account does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Maybe you should explain to us, since you obviously agree to the root problem of "X = Time is increasing" with every campaign released, why you want total unlocks for efficiency.

Please look up reductio ad absurdum again. A reductio argument assumes the opponent's stance is correct, then proceeds to show that the stance produces an absurd result. So no, I don't "obviously agree" to any "root problem", and I don't want total unlocks for efficiency. I'm showing you that your argument logically results in total unlocks and is therefore an invalid argument.

I don't understand why you even bother with wikipedia, since it's clear that you are either unwilling or unable to actually read it and apply the knowledge.

Honestly, this argument isn't that complicated and shouldn't require all of these posts. If you would just stop beating around the bush and actually address the subject matter, we can conclude this and be on our way.

Cacheelma · Mar 05, 2007, 02:28 AM // 02:28

sigh...Burst, I don't think you should waste your time here. It's very obvious to us now how someone on this thread fails to provide any valid arguement or proper response to your messages. Trolling the forums and acting like "I'm too smart to explain my (faulty) idea" is a lot easier than giving an "actual" explanation after all.

Trying to look "smart" and funny is cute for the first few times. But doing it again and again is annoying and....*gasp*....STUPID.

Tiny Killer · Mar 05, 2007, 07:52 AM // 07:52

To me, the humor of the whole thing is people quoting from wikipedia.

TabascoSauce · Mar 05, 2007, 03:09 PM // 15:09

You sure are quick to declare victory.

Reductio ad absurdum is literally using the others argument against them. Nowhere does it say you can modify the argument. In fact, that defeats the purpose of showing an argument to be absurd, since you are showing a derivative or modification of the argument to be absurd. Lets see a good example, and a bad example.

-----

Valid use of Reductio ad absurdum:

Father- Why did you start smoking?
Daughter - All my friends were doing it.
Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

Here, the father refutes the daughter's justification by showing the absurdity of its consequences. His is not talking about her girl scout troop, or her schoolmates. He stays with the original argument that her friends provide justification to smoke. That keeps the integrity of the original argument.

Invalid use of Reductio ad absurdum:

Father- I don't think the police should arrest teenagers for soft drug possession.
Daughter - So, you are basically arguing the police should not enforce the law and we should live in a society of violent chaos.

She alters his original premise, violating the integrity of the original argument.

You have to refute the original argument, not a derivative or altered copy.

-----

You chose door number 2. I think it is funny that you followed the following steps to get where you are now:

1) Change the original argument because you cannot refute it without alteration, specifically "unlocking after one playthrough" and "unlocking from the beginning"
2) inform me that the burden of proof for your change is mine
3) argue speciously that a remedy for the original problem is flawed, therefore the original problem is flawed, when you are not even debating the original problem
4) declare victory

Unlike you, I want this issue thoroughly debated, even with specious arguments. The problem will only get worse with new campaigns, as has been shown before. So back to debating civilly.

Time = X to get Result = Y is still increasing with every campaign release.

I do not have to prove that there is a logical distinction between "unlocking after one playthrough" and "unlocking from the beginning". You have that one covered.

I think a more appropriate step than declaring victory would be to prove to me that the result of "unlocking after one playthrough" will be identical as you claim to "unlocking from the beginning", because that is the basis of your claim, and has never been proven by you aside from emotional assertion that it is true, without factual backup.

Since you base your whole argument on a refutation by mutual exclusion, you must already be aware that it affects your assertion as much as mine, since your statement cannot be true in all circumstances either. There is no proof that they will get better enough to exceed an arbitrary skill level denoting "newbie", and there is no proof that they will stay at the same skill level below "newbie". Welcome to the two edged sword, bro.

That leaves us with a common sense argument of a learning curve, where a players performance will improve over time.

That common sense argument also refutes the claim that "unlocking after one playthrough" will be identical to "unlocking from the beginning" simply because of different player skills learned over time.

Next you will be refuting the learning curve? This I would like to see.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Burst Cancel · Mar 05, 2007, 11:37 PM // 23:37

A "derivative" argument, as the term is normally used, is fine for a reductio argument, because a derivative argument must logically follow from the original argument, and is therefore equally valid.

For instance, in the father/daughter example you are quoting, the girl's original argument is, "All of my friends were doing it", with the limitation of the activity being smoking. The father uses the derivative argument with the limitation removed. Similarly, your original argument is, "unlocks for convenience, after one playthrough", and my derivative argument removes the limitation of "after one playthrough".

As for the logical equality of "unlocks after one playthrough" and "unlocks at the beginning", it's interesting that you would bring up burden of proof now, considering that you already tried to prove a difference earlier (eg. "newbies would ruin the game"), and failing. In actuality, I have already explained once why I believe the two arguments to be logically equivalent, which is why I asked you to refute my argument if you wished to continue the discussion.

But, here we are again. My assertions:
a) One playthrough with one character does not imply skill in any other characters.

Self-explanatory. Someone who beat the game with a warrior has no experience monking. Therefore, they cannot be beyond a "newbie" level, no matter where you set the bar.

b) One playthrough is, in general, insufficient to elevate one above the status of newbie.

As "newbie" is a subjective consideration, I will specify a "newbie" as being one of less than ordinary skill. I believe this to be a reasonable definition, because our primary concern here (as voiced by you) is your belief that newbies ruin the PuG experience for other people, who we consider to be those of ordinary skill. The average player, "one of ordinary skill", has experienced more than a single playthrough of the game. Without actual statistical server data, this statement must necessarily be an assumption, but I believe it is a valid assumption based on the age of the game and observations both in-game and on the forums. Therefore, the average player who has experienced only one playthrough will be below the threshold of ordinary skill and therefore is a newbie.

The broader argument here is that your requirement of "one playthrough" is arbitrary. It could easily be any other number of playthroughs, including 0, up to the point where a player could be considered one of ordinary skill and therefore no longer a newbie. Said another way, "after one playthrough" and "from the beginning" are different in an obvious way, but not one that is significant. The analogy I would draw here is, "10 year olds should be allowed to drive" and "9 year olds should be allowed to drive". Are the two arguments technically different? Absolutely, one specifies an age of 10 and one specifies an age of 9. But for the purposes of determining whether they should be allowed to drive, the difference has no relevance.

TabascoSauce · Mar 06, 2007, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The broader argument here is that your requirement of "one playthrough" is arbitrary. It could easily be any other number of playthroughs, including 0, up to the point where a player could be considered one of ordinary skill and therefore no longer a newbie.

It is arbitrary, and certainly there is no guarantee of any skill level at any time in Guild Wars. I am sure we could swap funny anecdotal stories all day about stupid situation we have seen from players. In addition, I concur with your agreement that 9 or 10 year olds should not be able to drive.

If you are looking for an absolute guarantee of player competence after 'x' play throughs, then no logical argument can persuade you because no logical argument can be formed - it cannot be guaranteed one way or the other. Some will be competent from the start, and some will never reach it.

So yes, this requires the choice of an arbitrary number of completions, in this specific example of unlocks across all characters on a per account basis.

The only other reason I support this idea is simply because it seems easy to me to implement for ANet. Most likely, this can be done by flipping a bunch of zeroes to ones in a database. I appreciate what they do for us with this game, and would hate to have them coding all night and day for something far more complex, such as using several of your characters at once, keeping track of where they have been and what equipment they have so exploits are not possible. This idea is the simplest one I have seen.

Like anything else, taking it to either extreme breaks the argument. I think what we may disagree on, and which is an opinion and not fact and therefore impossible to prove logically, is that definition of extreme. Maybe you feel that unlocks are extreme, while I see them as merely making the game more efficient.

The game will have a quotient that can be indexed as related to "efficiency". Unlocking everything like PvP will raise it almost to 1, and it also can be lowered almost to 0 if ANet chooses to. I think that the efficiency quotient can and should be raised to where it was with Prophecies, considering that now there are 3 campaigns and more than double the characters allowed without buying extras, which we all probably have.

Lyra_song, as well as others, has made a convincing argument that total and absolute unlocks for cities, maps, items, etc renders the game less of a game, as everything is available to a player from the beginning. That is an extreme position and while evidently valid for PvP where all characters start at 20th level, it will affect PvE more in that the progression is really only measured through 20th level, at which point the player is as powerful as he/she is going to get as far as attribute points, and skills become the primary vehicle of expansion.

The other absolute extreme is a game that will take longer than the lifetime of a human to complete. Not likely to happen.

There are other ways to achieve the efficiency speedup, and if you do not like this one possible answer, then you can choose to support another, or none of them.

I understand that you disagree with the base premise. Your probably like Guild Wars the way it is now. So that is cool, I cannot logically change your opinion any more than I can logically convince you say, to be or not be insulted by the recent editorial about PvP.

Its all good
TabascoSauce

Tempy · Mar 06, 2007, 12:30 AM // 00:30

So because I chose to make a Dervish and take her through first...therefore my 21 month old with over 5 million experience points is a newbie? Or any of my other characters, all of which have no less than 800, 000 points?

Once again NOT about NEW characters.

Burst Cancel · Mar 06, 2007, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Tempy, that position is even less defensible.

Why should your old, existing characters get unlocks for new campaigns? The "increasing time" argument no longer holds if you're talking about existing characters, because you already had previous time to complete previous campaigns. For instance, if you started a character in Prophecies, you had the entire time from whenever you bought Prophecies to the Factions release date to beat Proph. Then, you had the time between the Factions release and the Nightfall release to beat Factions.

In other words, the time it is taking you to play your old characters is not increasing relative to the amount of time you are given. Each new campaign comes with its own 6-month block for you to play it in. The only way you could conceivably argue for convenience is if you are starting completely new characters, because those characters *do* take longer and longer to "catch up". But old characters should *already* be caught up, so they deserve no benefits according to the "increasing time required" argument.

TabascoSauce · Mar 06, 2007, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Why should your old, existing characters get unlocks for new campaigns? The "increasing time" argument no longer holds if you're talking about existing characters, because you already had previous time to complete previous campaigns.

Well, not quite. With Prophecies, you had 4 characters to play, and one campaign to play in. With Factions, you have 6 characters, and 2 campaigns. With Nightfall, you have 8 characters and 3 campaigns. To completely play through permutations for Prophecies (excepting extraneous uncountable data including deleting and making new characters) equals 4 character-campaigns. Make that 12 for Factions, and 24 for Nightfall. I am sure that you can do the math for a 4th etc release. Even counting all previous character campaigns, the delta between campaigns is increasing, as there are simply more permutations. That would be +4, +8 and +12 respectively.

I can state that there are six times the possible permutations simply based on character slots and campaigns from prophecies to nightfall. This does not even attempt to take into account every possible character build combination now that we went from 6 classes to 10.

The number of skills is also increasing. I am sure someone can provide specific numbers, but based on the hint books we have ~450 skills in Prophecies, we added ~250 more uniques in Factions, and another ~300 uniques in nightfall. That is a lot of gold right there you have to get, let me tell you. And a lot of elite skill hunting.

All this takes increasing amounts of time. If you actually play the game as opposed to absolute draconian efficiency, the game is not over in 2 days, or 2 weeks, or 2 months if you are trying to complete any campaign (but specifically Nightfall) with 8 (or more) characters!

Based on your personal drive and efficiency, if you cut to the absolute bone will running a half-dozen characters through the bare minimum of Nightfall be possible in a single weekend? Sure, I believe it possible. You will need toothpicks for your eyes, but I believe that the real mountain dew types could do it. Is that any way to play the game? Not really, as you miss the experience of sightseeing, if nothing else.

So to sum up, maybe all the people who do not like the idea are simply super-efficient, and do not see this as needed. Well, I am not super-efficient, and have seen enough posts from other people like me that want to enjoy Guild Wars while still getting a majority of the skills and seeing a majority of the game.

And even for the super efficient, what will you do at episode 6? If the 2 character slots more per campaign holds true, then that is 14 characters x 6 campaigns = 84!

No one will be able to keep up with that. Maybe we should discuss the problem now while we are not yet at the breaking point.

All good
TabascoSauce

Burst Cancel · Mar 06, 2007, 03:14 AM // 03:14

Running permutations in this case is misleading because, again, Tempy is talking about existing characters. An existing character going into Factions has already completed Prophecies, and an existing character going into Nightfall has already completed Prophecies and Factions. Therefore, each additional campaign only adds 1 campaign per existing character to your workload, which is exactly the same workload as you had when you started the game. Therefore, the argument of increasing workload *does not* support unlocks for existing characters, because their workload is not increasing relative to the amount of time available.

The argument of increasing workload does support the need for unlocks for *new* characters for *previously* played chapters. For instance, Factions adds 2 professions. The workload for each of these two professions is 2 campaigns, instead of the normal 1, because these characters have not played through Prophecies. This demonstrates the principle of increasing workload. Therefore, the argument would suggest that these 2 new professions get unlocks for previously played chapters to bring the workload per character back down to 1 campaign as usual.

Of course, when you apply the argument to new characters, we then get into our previous argument of "unlock after one playthrough" vs. "unlock from the beginning" etc., on which we have agreed to disagree, so I won't go into that further.

Again, bottom line:
1) Workload for existing character is only increasing by 1 campaign per chapter, which is exactly the same was when the game was first released. Therefore, the argument of increasing workload does not apply to them.
2) Workload for new characters is increasing by x campaigns per chapter, where x is the total number of campaigns already released. This is an increasing workload, so a convenience argument would apply to them.
3) I do not agree with the convenience argument, but we've already dropped it.

lyra_song · Mar 06, 2007, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Well...the question that is still unanswered is.

Why should this be implemented, other than for the sake of convience?

Regardless of how exponential the increase in time and gold the cost to beat a campaign is (which is self-imposed), what does the argument boil down to?

Because it would be nice? .-.

Matsumi · Mar 06, 2007, 07:21 AM // 07:21

The only reasons I've seen so far have been

1. procrastination
2. laziness
3. having 36 or more character slots with some kind of a pack-rat problem
4. wikipedia
5. one character did it, now the rest should have it handed to them like the heroes.
6. because they want it, and want to play however they want, even if it means skipping out on content and getting ran everywhere (basically not having to play the game), because they see it as an improvement to the game some how. Which seems to only be a benefit to 1 and 2.

I've recently deleted a couple of characters and started new ones, and the time it took to get through all campaigns starting from Prophecies was less than 4 days. Since that was incredibly easy and took such a short time, I started a mesmer in nightfall and have already gotten done with it, now working on Factions and Prophecies. I don't get runs anywhere either, just thought I'd mention that. Also, I took my time, since I kind of enjoyed going through all the campaigns again. If all those towns and missions plus skills were already available to me, it probably would have taken me less than an hour to do all that.

No thanks. I think it would take a lot away from the game. If people find it so repetitive and time consuming, maybe it's time to try some PvP? Or, you could delete some of your 2 year old characters that are living in the bat cave, and start new ones, have a fresh start. Besides, you'll be right back where you left off in no time, minus all the vanity armor collections. Also, if you picked an ugly face or hair-doo, you can do it again! yay, lol

TabascoSauce · Mar 06, 2007, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matsumi

The only reasons I've seen so far have been

1. procrastination
2. laziness
.......etc

It is just as easy for us to make sweeping judgmental statements about you.

If I wanted to go to your level, then I could say that you were were obviously an unemployed nerd that is scared of leveling the playing field because that would deprive you of the only arena where you can win.

I submit to you that I am not lazy, and you are not an unemployed nerd.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

cebalrai · May 11, 2008, 06:39 PM // 18:39

*bump* for Thizzle's purposes.

And yeah, it doesn't always seem too terribly consistent which titles are account vs character-based. Weird.

AnnaCloud9 · May 11, 2008, 07:09 PM // 19:09

This is a good subject, as it sums up my thoughts since the announcement of GW2 and the transfer of accomplishments from GW1. If this has been mentioned in this thread already, forgive me, I lost patience about 1/2 way through the thread...

Has it been stated, officially, that only one character's accomplishments/hall of monuments will be transfered? I ask this honestly, for if this is the case, then I have felt that my continuing enjoyment of the game has led me to play a single character for the sake of GW2.

Before the Hall of Monuments was created, I did use all of my (10) characters regularly, and did strive to achieve a uniqueness about them by getting individual titles for them. It gave the character a purpose after it finished all 3 campaigns (and a usefulness so to speak). I wasn't interested in achieving the KoaBD titles whatsoever. All of my characters have finished all campaigns. I did this for the pure fun of bringing each and every profession through. Each one was a neat, unique experience. I enjoyed it.

But with the lack of account-based titles, there's no real purpose for my ele to achieve even a single level of cartography (even if she is at 96.7% average across all 3 continents) when my ranger already has it. My necro can stop progressing in the Skill Cap title as well now, since my ranger took over that job having achieved Cartography titles on 2 lands, and the focus to combine achievements has shifted for the sake of transfer to GW2. As for treasure hunting/wisdom tracks, my ranger has far exceeded all my other characters, therefor is the designated 'unlocker/identifier' of the group. This also means I don't pack lockpicks/keys with any of the other characters any longer...therefor they wander aimlessly through already explored and vanquished lands without any real...purpose?

So I pose this question: What can my other characters do once they've experienced 2-3 years of playtime, but have absolutely no function to further my future with Guild Wars? Forget the enjoyment of doing it factor - I've enjoyed them many many times over and over again.

Thizzle · May 11, 2008, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilmo

What's the point in playing PvE if you start off with all outposts?

lol.. go straight to high end areas and get droks armor or whatever, go straight to ring of fire islands and cap whatever you want, go straight to the seer and get infused, or just go straight to the final mission to get the endgame items?

ridiculous..

The point is your so bored of playing another campaign that you don't even want to go through again that's the point. I totally agree everything account based.

Belonah15 · May 11, 2008, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matsumi

3. having 36 or more character slots with some kind of a pack-rat problem

Not quite 36 ... yet

Esan · May 11, 2008, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnaCloud9

So I pose this question: What can my other characters do once they've experienced 2-3 years of playtime, but have absolutely no function to further my future with Guild Wars?

Each character has 45 storage slots and 25 heroes. Each hero has two weapon slots and 5 each of armor and insignia slots. That's quite a lot of storage space for your main character.

Lord Natural · May 11, 2008, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Yes. They made their choice when they destroyed the running game after prophecies. Doing the boring campaigns 6 times = not fun.