Curse

TabascoSauce · Mar 01, 2007, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I do not disagree on making the game more efficient, only your method.

Since we are in agreement about making the game more efficient, what ideas do you have?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

aubee · Mar 01, 2007, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyra_song
I do not disagree on making the game more efficient, only your method.

Since we are in agreement about making the game more efficient, what ideas do you have?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

I can't speak for anyone else, but one thing I would like to see is for the "roadblocks" that prevent you from moving on to any given area without completing certain quests or missions to be taken down for your account once you complete a chapter with one character. I.e. open all the gates and activate all the missions for a chapter for an account after one character has completed that chapter.

I love playing the game, and play it all with multiple characters, but it would be nice if you could take a second or third character through only to where you want to go after you've already done it all once. This kind of unlocking would still prevent the running of others who haven't completed a chapter, and characters would still have to actually travel to the area they wanted to go to, but it would cut out some of the boredom of repeating anything you didn't enjoy so much the first time through. You could just "play through" instead.

Please disregard if someone has already proposed this idea. I haven't read the whole thread yet.

cthulhu reborn · Mar 02, 2007, 12:04 AM // 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Oh man I am about to split my sides laughing here.

What you really meant to quote is.......

my opinion is if you are not willing to play the character linearly in a rigid fashion which is the way I prefer to play the game and will necessarily force on you, dont create it in the first place.

Contrary to some opinion, it will not break the game, any more than having a character go through the Droknar's run. Well, there is a qualitative difference there in that this is a Droknar's run for an ascended and mature character, not a low-level.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Well, ignorance is bliss, as they say. What you will or will not do is rather less important to game developers than what people in general are likely to do with it. This whole idea has the possibility of killing the game simply because if many players cannot resist the temptation it might indeed make the game a whole lot less interesting to play.

A new game has hungry players for new content. It depends from player to player how many times you can enjoy going through a continent, but by lowering thresholds too much for the sake of a few you take out a lot of gameplay and that will make the game boring. We may not like barriers and boundaries but without them a game becomes pointless.

As the thread shows there are a multitude of people who disagree with your view on this anyway so I sincerely doubt this would serve the greater good of the GW players in general.

If indeed you find it too much work to put all of your characters through each continent then don't.

You do not need all classes to be everywhere. In fact I would go as far as to say that with a warrior, a necro an ele and a monk you will need no more characters to go through more than one continent and so the max number of characters you will need to go through each continent is 4 since no other classes will be really needed to be able to help others with the missions of any continent.

You may bring a mesmer but it's not required, you may bring a dervish but a warrior will do. You may bring a Ritualist but you don't need to. A few core classes is all you need.

Why would you need unlocks for characters if you do not need to bring them there to be multi-functional? The only reason would be is because you want to....if you want to then just go through the story line.

lyra_song · Mar 02, 2007, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Since we are in agreement about making the game more efficient, what ideas do you have?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Before i start. I want to make sure everyone is with me. Agree or disagree with this analysis.

Guild Wars Prophecies - Least contraining. Missions are linked via primary quests, but missions can be done without doing the primary quests.

Guild Wars Factions - Most constraining. Missions are linked via primary quests. Missions cannot be entered without primary quests and maps are sectioned into small sections.

Guild Wars Nightfall - Middle road constraint. Missions are linked via primary quests and quests must be done to do missions. Areas are broken up into larger sections but still require missions to be finished.

Tromador · Mar 02, 2007, 01:28 AM // 01:28

In the interests of seeing where you are going with this

/Signed.

Broadly agree.

Cacheelma · Mar 02, 2007, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orbberius

Yes... that's why people are suggesting a change. Just because one part of the game was initially designed in one way doesn't mean it can't be changed later on. Particularly in this case, the change won't need a rewrite of the engine or anything complicated.

O really?! Can I request a "jump" feature in a game of CHESS too? It would add a whole new dimention to the game you know? Playing chess is so "RIGID" right now without any jumping.

And bah, like someone said, you don't need to use it. Just keep playing your own way while I jump around with my bishops.

TabascoSauce · Mar 02, 2007, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

As the thread shows there are a multitude of people who disagree with your view on this anyway so I sincerely doubt this would serve the greater good of the GW players in general.

If indeed you find it too much work to put all of your characters through each continent then don't.

You do not need all classes to be everywhere. In fact I would go as far as to say that with a warrior, a necro an ele and a monk you will need no more characters to go through more than one continent and so the max number of characters you will need to go through each continent is 4 since no other classes will be really needed to be able to help others with the missions of any continent.

You may bring a mesmer but it's not required, you may bring a dervish but a warrior will do. You may bring a Ritualist but you don't need to. A few core classes is all you need.

? Really.

I see a 50/50 split in this thread on making the game more efficient. Read the post right before your last. Your logical fallacy is defined in wikipedia, "Argumentum ad populum". Even if your assertion of the majority on your side is true, that does not add credence to your argument. Refer to history for a lot of examples of the majority being wrong.

The really funny thing is that I mocked you for trying to push your method of playing the game on others, and then you respond by......
(da dum ching)
Telling me how I should play the game.

I think I will play the game as I see fit. The difference between us is that I do not see my way as being superior and explain it to others.

So I get it that you are happy with the current state of the game. Do you have some other relevant logical arguments, or is your entire arsenal merely 1) appealing to an unscientifically determined possible majority, and 2) dictating to others how they should play the game?

So lets recap. I think that the game can and should be made more efficient so that I can experience more of it on my limited time budget. I make no bones about this being a purely selfish request. You respond with vaguely worded assertions that the game will become less playable not for you but for all (see "Appeal to fear" in wikipedia) and that it would destroy the game.

Uh, maybe those do not apply to me, sir.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

TabascoSauce · Mar 02, 2007, 03:36 AM // 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

O really?! Can I request a "jump" feature in a game of CHESS too? It would add a whole new dimention to the game you know? Playing chess is so "RIGID" right now without any jumping.

You sir are too funny not to answer.

Chess is a static entity and does not have campaigns added to it, making it a larger game with more pieces to control.

Refer to "association fallacy" and "irrelevant conclusion" in wikipedia.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

TabascoSauce · Mar 02, 2007, 03:42 AM // 03:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Before i start. I want to make sure everyone is with me. Agree or disagree with this analysis.

I agree with your statement that Prophecies is the most flexible, Nightfall considerably less so, and Factions the most constrained. Is that sufficient?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

arcanemacabre · Mar 02, 2007, 05:07 AM // 05:07

The people disagreeing with the idea in the OP need to conisder two main things:

1) The idea is flexible, got a problem with the wide-open, "all towns open for all characters", offer a better solution, don't just say "NO"

2) How the game is, right now, doesn't really need a change, it's mostly fine, and most people have enough time to pretty much do what they want to do - in 3 continents. The primary problem here is more and more continents that open up MULTIPLY the problem of not having enough time to do what you want to do.

This is especially relevant if each chapter gives us as much content as each chapter has given us so far. That includes not just explorable areas/towns, but new character classes to try out, as well. Stop looking at your simple chair, and realize that (supposedly) every six months, that chair gets taller, and taller, before you realize you can't climb up it anymore.

I'm not terribly worried about this for one main reason: I'm comfortable that Anet has thought about this and is most likely thinking of their own fix. Best thing we can do is offer up ideas, something that at least most of the community agrees with.

lyra_song · Mar 02, 2007, 05:18 AM // 05:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Chess is a static entity and does not have campaigns added to it, making it a larger game with more pieces to control.

Actually, comparing it to another game would fit more this way.

Chess board = Guild Wars.
A single game of chess = A character slot
A new added campaign = Makes each game longer

Again, pieces and size of the game does not matter.

If i have 17 character slots, thats equivalent to me playing 17 games of chess simultaneously.

This is all about time spent vs time available.

The flaw in the idea for unlocking the map for other characters is the fact that it still boils down to the basic selfishness (as you yourself admitted).

----------------------

This defense keeps popping up that "One shouldnt force how they play the game on someone else."

This would be a valid retort, if the idea presented was actually an alternate way to play the game.

The idea, instead is to skip playing parts of the game.

---------------------

Anyways....

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

How the game is, right now, doesn't really need a change, it's mostly fine, and most people have enough time to pretty much do what they want to do - in 3 continents. The primary problem here is more and more continents that open up MULTIPLY the problem of not having enough time to do what you want to do.

This is especially relevant if each chapter gives us as much content as each chapter has given us so far. That includes not just explorable areas/towns, but new character classes to try out, as well. Stop looking at your simple chair, and realize that (supposedly) every six months, that chair gets taller, and taller, before you realize you can't climb up it anymore.

I'm actually WAY WAY more concerned over skill balancing for PvP vs how much there is to do in PvE.

We can overcome large amounts of content just by playing it, that's not a problem at all, but skill balancing the larger and larger list of skills is going to be a HUGE undertaking for Arenanet. Having LARGE amounts of content should'nt be seen as a problem! Youre paying for content after all XD. Nonetheless, it can be overwhelming.

As is, Chapter 4 is delayed (im happy) and i believe Anet is re-examining their business model SPECIFICALLY to address both these situations perhaps. But thats just me being optimistic.

Meat Axe · Mar 02, 2007, 05:27 AM // 05:27

TobascoSauce, quit using references to wikipedia and triple posting. It's annoying and pointless.

Anyway, I think somewhere in the middle would be the right idea. I don't think that once a player unlocks a town, it should show up on every other character they own. Or even if they finish the game, all outposts show up. There has to be some effort made to get through the game with a character. This would also get annoying for someone like me, who only wants a town on my map if I've actually made the effort to get there.

I particularly liked how they did Nightfall. You could basically explore all of a certain area of the game (Istan, Kourna, Vabbi), but to advance to the next area you had to complete the missions. So I would be quite happy if they used this style for any future campaigns they release.

However, I can understand how boring it would get to play this content over and over. So maybe they should make it so that you have to finish the game with one character, and all barriers and such are unlocked to enable players to run through areas like in Prophecies (they'd still have to complete the tutorial islands, but you can do that in just an hour or so). I think that missions should be kept locked until you've done the relevant quests and such, but since you can just join a party doing a later mission, you can quite easily get around this restriction.

DarkSpirit · Mar 02, 2007, 08:06 AM // 08:06

Actually I like bringing new characters through the storyline over and over again. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought 14 chars through Nightfall without some level of enjoyment and I do feel a certain level of accomplishment at the end of it all.

Having all towns unlocked after going through it once means that I can only play the game once which is too limiting and I would probably get sick of the game much sooner.

After completing the campaign with 1 char, if I dont enjoy playing my other chars through it, I may as well delete them. As for how I enjoy this game, it is the journey that matters, not the destination. If I want a level 20 with max armor and equipment immediately, I'll create a pvp char. I dont see a point having my other chars accelerated through the game after the first char has completed it. I am not in any hurry to start feeling bored and not know what to do next in pve after the first char completes.

cthulhu reborn · Mar 02, 2007, 10:23 AM // 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

? Really.

I see a 50/50 split in this thread on making the game more efficient. Read the post right before your last. Your logical fallacy is defined in wikipedia, "Argumentum ad populum". Even if your assertion of the majority on your side is true, that does not add credence to your argument. Refer to history for a lot of examples of the majority being wrong.

The really funny thing is that I mocked you for trying to push your method of playing the game on others, and then you respond by......
(da dum ching)
Telling me how I should play the game.

I think I will play the game as I see fit. The difference between us is that I do not see my way as being superior and explain it to others.

So I get it that you are happy with the current state of the game. Do you have some other relevant logical arguments, or is your entire arsenal merely 1) appealing to an unscientifically determined possible majority, and 2) dictating to others how they should play the game?

So lets recap. I think that the game can and should be made more efficient so that I can experience more of it on my limited time budget. I make no bones about this being a purely selfish request. You respond with vaguely worded assertions that the game will become less playable not for you but for all (see "Appeal to fear" in wikipedia) and that it would destroy the game.

Uh, maybe those do not apply to me, sir.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Spare me the psycho babble.....you do have a very descending manner and you do believe you are superior because you have an obvious attitude that you feel you are right no matter what anybody says. God (if he exists) could come down from heaven and tell you how it is and you woul still look at him and say 'sure, whatever'

Incidentally...the majority can be wrong, but selfish desires are not a good source of information for how to make a game fun for a large group of people. Of course the majority isn't always right but the opposite is also true. You are simply ignoring the fact that it is you who wants to tell people how the game should be played disguised in the shape of so called choices or freedom. But as there is no absolute freedom and no action is without a consequence (which selfish people tend to ignore completely), your only hope in any merit to your comments is the off chance that you may perhaps be right because you accidentally had a good idea. Of course I doubt that this is the case her but that would be clear.

What you perceive as me telling you how to play is not that at all. I am simply saying what I feel makes sense considering the circumstances (game mechanics, human nature etc). It is pragmatism from my viewpoint and if you don't agree with me that's fine. You don't have to follow my reasoning and I can't say anything about that. I may remainin unbelief that you have the viewpoints you have but that's fair enough.

Bottom line is that I think you're a lazy gamer and that if this would happen it would ruin the game for non lazy players. However, there may be a solution that will appeal to both sides.

If it were implemented in the game just like that it would be bad. Human nature wills that if you have an option you will use it even if you don't really want to or it's detrimental to you....we just can't resist. (quick D&D example: party goes into an empty room with a red button on the wall with a sign that says 'do not touch the button - you will die' Guess what happens? Someone will push the button..without fail)

But it's easier to resist if it costs you.

As rewards have to come at a price the choice would have to be, do the effort in game or get unlocks as you suggest and pay for it with real cash. One way or the other it will have to cost you and as the saying goes "time is money". Like it or hate but that's the most basic mechanic: Effort gives reward...if you want to skip one effort you have to spend energy elsewhere to earn the rewards.

If it must be than make it an unlock pack that you can buy at the GW store; then you have your choice.

cthulhu reborn · Mar 02, 2007, 11:10 AM // 11:10

You know what....nevermind. This whole thing is going out of control. We disagree and we are never gonna get out of that. Fair enough by me.

I think I got caught up here in a senseless spiral that will only drag this on. My views are there and so are yours and they are just not the same views. As to not let it spiral in to a heated ad hominem forum fight and as I accept that I have my part in this, I will withdraw from this discussion before it gets too ugly.

My apologies to those who feel it had already gone too far.

Tromador · Mar 02, 2007, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Chess analogy is bad - Chess is PvP. We are talking about PvE.

Incidentally I'm just going to go along with what Tabasco is saying... I've nothing to add to his already cogent arguments.

Sadom · Mar 02, 2007, 12:07 PM // 12:07

My biggest problem with not having access to areas uncovered by other characters is for playing FoW/UW. But this can be a different problem/solution alltogether.

My problem here is the following.
Guildie: "Anyone wanna go FoW. Need one more warrior"
Me: "Ooh ooh, I got a warrior, I wanna go FoW"
Guildie: "Pff, not you again, anyone else?"
... a few minutes of silence...
Guildie: "Ok, you can come"
Me: "Sweet, where do we meet?"
Guildie: "Chantry of Secrets"
Me: "Damn, my warrior is Canthan, I can only access FoW through Zin Ku Corridor."
Guildie: "I can only access it through Chantry"
Guildie2: "I can go from NF and Proph but not factions"
Guild Leader: "I can go from all three with all my characters and I have FoW armor on all my characters and I am teh win."
Guildie3: " I can go from factions and NF, but not proph."
Guldie4: "I can't come, I'm in FoW and got 2 shards allready. Just solo it noobs."

See, I can get to FoW and UW but not from all places with all my characters. That sucks.

Otherwise I also agree with the OP, I'd be nice to be able to go to all areas and cap elites and farm greens without the grind. But I do think that the primary missions should only be do-able if you do them in cronological order. So end-game mission only after you did all the rest. Only access to outposts and towns should be unlocked.

Braggi · Mar 02, 2007, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Guild Wars Prophecies - Least contraining. Missions are linked via primary quests, but missions can be done without doing the primary quests.

Guild Wars Factions - Most constraining. Missions are linked via primary quests. Missions cannot be entered without primary quests and maps are sectioned into small sections.

Guild Wars Nightfall - Middle road constraint. Missions are linked via primary quests and quests must be done to do missions. Areas are broken up into larger sections but still require missions to be finished.

agreed, but that's only part of the truth.
prophecies offers max armor in the last quarter of the game, and strings out supply of skills to motivate people to play everything. Elite skills are mostly located in the last quarter, the "full" skill trainer even later. Available builds from the start are very limited because even unlocked skills may not be available for a newly created characters.

factions offers max armor, elite skills and access to the skill portfolio almost instantly, but introduced excessive partitioning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

A new game has hungry players for new content. It depends from player to player how many times you can enjoy going through a continent, but by lowering thresholds too much for the sake of a few you take out a lot of gameplay and that will make the game boring. We may not like barriers and boundaries but without them a game becomes pointless.

<snip>

You do not need all classes to be everywhere. In fact I would go as far as to say that with a warrior, a necro an ele and a monk you will need no more characters to go through more than one continent and so the max number of characters you will need to go through each continent is 4 since no other classes will be really needed to be able to help others with the missions of any continent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

The flaw in the idea for unlocking the map for other characters is the fact that it still boils down to the basic selfishness (as you yourself admitted).

<snip>

The idea, instead is to skip playing parts of the game.

No - for one thing ANET massively changed the metagame with the expansions.
As already mentioned, in the beginning it was considered equivalent to use a PvE or PvP character for PvP. PvP was originally considered "the endgame" for at least a part of the playerbase. Now it gets more and more tedious to keep several PvE characters up to date, to the point where it gets way too timeconsuming and boring (read grind) to play half a campaign just to get one skill. arcanemacarbre did the maths - you started with 4*1=4, now you have 8*3=24... So the gap keeps widening to the point where you will need a dedicated PvP slot for most classes. The argument runs also true if you just want a special PvE build.

The math gets in the way again if I want to help someone in PvE, my character choises get limited, without gain gameplaywise.

There was a very good article from Björn Lilleike some time ago, comparing game design to landscape gardening. As a designer you better watch out for dirt tracks, where people leave the designated path (i.e. how the designer thinks you should play) and take shortcuts. They do it for a reason. A bad designer will erect fences. A good one will improve the attractivity of the main road and think about trade offs for taking the short cut.

Braggi · Mar 02, 2007, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadom

Otherwise I also agree with the OP, I'd be nice to be able to go to all areas and cap elites and farm greens without the grind. But I do think that the primary missions should only be do-able if you do them in cronological order. So end-game mission only after you did all the rest. Only access to outposts and towns should be unlocked.

My opinion in a nutshell.

Orbberius · Mar 02, 2007, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadom

Otherwise I also agree with the OP, I'd be nice to be able to go to all areas and cap elites and farm greens without the grind. But I do think that the primary missions should only be do-able if you do them in cronological order. So end-game mission only after you did all the rest. Only access to outposts and towns should be unlocked.

This is a nice implementation. You still have to follow the order of the mission path if you want to complete the game on a second character, but all other outposts are unlocked for that character.