Curse

Crom The Pale · Oct 02, 2007, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsumi Rikyu

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet and I by no means want to get involved in a flame war, but has any thought been given to letting us buy more than one copy of GW2 to bring more than one character into the new game? This way, if you want to get the benefits of more than one of your GW1 characters' Hall of Monuments you can, but you have to spend more money buying more copies of GW2 and create separate accounts. This would allow the players to get the benefits of more than one character's Hall of Monuments if they want and A-Net would make more money without creating too much more hassle for them. This seems like a simple solution to me.

An interesting idea! I do not know the mechanics of it but linking 2 GW2 games to the same GW1 account might not be possible. It sounds a little bit like trying to link two prophicies accounts together.....

lyra_song · Oct 02, 2007, 06:52 PM // 18:52

so to listen my few minor concerns...

Add:
-ability to display more weapons (My Shiro's Blades!)
-ability to display more pets
-mini-pets customized for accounts (but useable only once to unlock)
-ability to display upgraded hero armors (this is a no brainer...come on)

Gripes:
-Armors displayed that were dyed under the OLD DYE system will remain perpetually RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up

lucifer_uk · Oct 03, 2007, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

-ability to display more pets

Before we found out the ins and outs of the HoM I was looking forward to capturing all the pets in the game. Was a little disappointed in the lack of pet monuments.

Agyar · Oct 03, 2007, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Who cares, you know the rewards you may or may not get in GW2 are going to be pre-order/minipet-esque rubbish anyway.

Lonesamurai · Oct 03, 2007, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_uk

Before we found out the ins and outs of the HoM I was looking forward to capturing all the pets in the game. Was a little disappointed in the lack of pet monuments.

heh, you wanted Guild Wars: Pokemon huh?

*Joke with a hint of a small want from me too*

Mohnzh · Oct 03, 2007, 01:10 AM // 01:10

I love seeing someone say: "Everybody agrees with me" only to be responded to with a resounding "No we don't". Yeah, I don't see many people that want the HoM to be account based. I only have titles on one character, and don't have hardly any time in any other characters. I still want it to be character based and not account based. I just want to be able to organize which titles, pets and heroes get displayed.

lyra_song · Oct 03, 2007, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

heh, you wanted Guild Wars: Pokemon huh?

*Joke with a hint of a small want from me too*

We already have pokemon! They are called heroes

Go Koss!! Use Savage Slash!

Vinraith · Oct 03, 2007, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

heh, you wanted Guild Wars: Pokemon huh?

*Joke with a hint of a small want from me too*

Yup, ridiculous as it is that would be kind cool.

Captain Arne Is PRO · Oct 03, 2007, 02:44 AM // 02:44

Gaile told me to post this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

NO.

draxynnic · Oct 03, 2007, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Personally, I blame the account-based HoM meme on the placeholder armours that we saw before (and during, but that's when the truth came out) the preview event. Until a video was released showing the Monument of Resiliance, everyone was assuming it was character-based... and then a monument was shown showing armour from both genders and more than one profession. Since one character obviously can't have armours from multiple professions, people started thinking that it was acoRED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO-based... when in fact it was just because at the time the Hall was showing a male and female example of armour coming from the crafter in question rather than your character's actual armour.

On the topic of a compromise, may I suggest the following:

1) In GWEN, the Hall remains character-based.

2) In GW2, the choice can be made to give the inheritence of multiple characters to one character. When you think about it, it makes sense that multiple characters can all be in the family history of a character born two centuries afterwards.

3) Doing so combines the benefits of all the titles in each character's monument - this way, getting different titles on different characters is equivalent to getting them all on one character, but if you have the same title multiple times you don't get extra benefits from it.

4) I'll leave it up to the peanut gallery as to whether KOABD or other "combination" titles can be inherited by combining titles in the above fashion (no, my ancestors individually may not have been a God Among Mere Mortals like your ancestor Sir Whatsit, but Sir Whatsit is the only one of any note in your family history, while mine includes three or four that were, collectively, kind of a big deal) or whether it actually requires the title to be present on a single character

X Cytherea X · Oct 03, 2007, 03:55 AM // 03:55

FOR ALL MONUMENTS: the ability to manually rearrange statues. or at least make random rearrangement cycle through EVERY possible arrangement. that way i can arrange them in the EXACT order i want. currently this is impossible.

RESILIENCE: i can understand players' complaints about this, but showing every armor in the color you dyed it in requires a shitload of coding AND server space to save all that data for millions of players. impractical, and i can understand why anet made it function the way it does. it is annoying however. i suggest they simplify the monument of resilience by displaying all armor in the generic "golden brown" color of the statues in other monuments.

COMPANIONSHIP: show upgraded hero armor. show real pet.

- i am fine with the monuments of valor, honor and devotion. just fix the rearrangement option.
- HoM should stay character-based. having it account-based is stupid, illogical and would result in a huge mess.

Vinraith · Oct 03, 2007, 04:47 AM // 04:47

I rather like draxynnic's idea about multiple characters contributing to the inheritance of a single GW2 character. The best part is, that wouldn't require any effort at all on Anet's part now, since I'm guessing they haven't actually done anything with that bit of GW2 yet at this early stage.

fenix · Oct 03, 2007, 04:57 AM // 04:57

I like how people think Titles should be account based. Answer this; If titles were meant to be account based in HoM, why does KoaBD exist? Because it would be account based too.

Stupid idea making titles account based, it would completely take away all the effort people put into one character.

As for pets, there should be better monuments, my Lynx monument sucked.

Crowell The Fallen · Oct 03, 2007, 09:38 AM // 09:38

The only change I want is the ablility to other weapons, like theTormented Weapons, to the weapons monument...

I think i can say confidentally that everyone would welcome this change? yes?

lucifer_uk · Oct 03, 2007, 10:06 AM // 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

heh, you wanted Guild Wars: Pokemon huh?

*Joke with a hint of a small want from me too*

Yeah I did lol

Why not make a beastmaster title out of it too? Mind you I don't really like the idea of profession limited titles.

Well they really need to improve the pet side of the pokedex... *cough*I mean HoM*cough*.