Curse

matter of time · Mar 18, 2011, 02:58 PM // 14:58

[QUOTE=Matirion Maeronta;5423214]I have to agree on the point that his comparison is incorrect... But the truth actually makes the balance go to his side.
ANET has already made it clear that titles weren't supposed to be exclusive unless you do not own the campaign they belong to. In combination with the fact that the LDoA title is a grind, just as the wisdom/chest titles are. It has more weight to be converted into an account wide title, in order to remove the exclusiveness, then that any other title has.
My advice is to check your spelling, grammar and reasoning before you post anything, all you do now is make yourself look like a random kid that complains when people want to take his toy away.

What truth?

... You know sticking to grammar and spelling is bit unfair ... comming to any conclusions based on it is bit lame ... But you are right I have made many mistakes ... That's me I don't pay too much attention to it ... just waiting when someone will use them as main argumentation

... As for argumentation ... hm ... Let me put this that way ... In my view titiles which can be acheived by exclusively one char shouldn't be account based, I hope you know what I mean? ...You can go to RA, HA, JQ with all your chars and can grind ...You can do the game content by openning chests with many chars ... But you can't do LDOA one day with you necro and the next day with ...(say ryt

... well joke but with let's say ele) for the same necro's title. You can't do the mission with one char and have it done for the next char. Especially this would be tricky on the char which has even not revealed this part of the game.
My conclusion is that if LDOA should be account based ... so every title should be ... but then the atractivenes of the game would be very harmed and limited. I hope this is quite clear and here I could use countles examples but ... i see no reason for that.

Killed u man · Mar 18, 2011, 03:25 PM // 15:25

There is alot of namecalling going on, I see no reason to. (From both sides)

The only thing I found, however, is that the con-side is extremely ignorant. All I see is one guy throwing in a random flawed statement, and then everone on their side quotes it with a "YEAAAAAH, SO TRUE" post.

Now, this would work, if every single arguement from the Con-side wasn't flawed. Every arguement has already been disproven, but for some reason they keep comming back with other, even more retarded arguements.

I'm just going to throw out there what's already been said in this thread, just so the con-side can actually see how redicilous their arguing is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by con arguement

God, people can be whiny. It's getting worse and worse. Ever since Anet started to make things easier, people are bitching things are still too hard.

No, No, No.

Play the goddamn game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disprove of the statement

k, so by making LDoA acountwide, people are magically going to have LDoA on every acount? -YOU STILL HAVE TO GET THE TITLE ON A CHARACTER, You guys seem incapable of thinking above a certain IQ level it is scaring me-

Quote:

Originally Posted by another arguement

Hero and Treasure/Wisdom are account wide for convenience; due to the nature of PvP characters it would be stupid for Hero to be character based and Treasure/Wisdom just led to people putting their Golds/Keys in storage and switching characters to ID/use them. It was time consuming and needlessly complicated.

If you could add titles to HoM with a PvP character, how would this be any more inconvenient than adding titles to HoM with a Pre-Searing character. There is no difference between LDoA and PvP-titles. They're both titles which can only be gained in a specific place, and according to your logic, characters which have never PvP'ed before shouldn't be able to show PvP titles. So you're suggesting to make PvP titles character based? After all, that is the natural consequences of arguing LDoA should be character based.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arguement

It doesn't make sense for a title which can only be progressed on one character to become account wide once the title is achieved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disprove, yet again

That does not make sense. So according to you, Sunspear, Lightbringer, all of the EOTN titles should be acount wide, as you progress in them naturally through playing the game. (And any points just accumulate to the total amount on your acount)

Quote:

Originally Posted by arguement

Oh, and you're at no disadvantage to those who hold both LDoA and LS. Your gameplay is in no way harmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disprove

Getting LDoA and LS means you need one title less, this means you can choose to not do one hard/expensive title and take LDoA instead, do survivors and just do 28 other titles.

Even more so, according to your logic (Aside from wanting to make PvP titles character based) people who find ecto dupes shouldn't get banned, as long as they don't hurt your individual playstyle? Or what about people botting certain titles. They don't hurt you, so you're pro-botting? Your arguement holds no sense, whatsoever. There is douzens of degenerative behaviours that don't affect your gameplay in a bad way, that doesn't mean they're "OK" to do. It's amazing how far away from acceptable ethics you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by And again the[B

same[/B] arguement]
I have no problem with making GWAMM easier, but I do have a problem with nonsensical adjustments like making characters who have never visited and can never visit an area have access to a PvE title solely available in that area.

Quote:

Making it account-based doesn't "give" the title to another character any more than wisdom/treasure hunter "gives" a title to a character who has opened 0 chests and identified 0 golds. You are marking the accomplishments of the player, not the character. Account-based means that the player has finished LDoA, and it counts as a title no matter whether their main is factions/nightfall or was started before the LDoA change.

It's remarkable how resilient the few-con posters are here. I know a public forum is supposed to be about difference opinions and such, but it's really astonishing how they go out of their own way to prove their right at any cost, completely disregarding any form of logic, jumping on the first thing on their mind trying to twist it into a con-arguement. Astonishing...

melissa b · Mar 18, 2011, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Agree, many of the arguments by the con side are just rewordings of the same arguments that have been shown to be either very weak, completely unbalanced, or invalid. Having said that.
/still signed

Aldric · Mar 18, 2011, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

There is alot of namecalling going on, I see no reason to. (From both sides)

The only thing I found, however, is that the con-side is extremely ignorant.

lol Yeah i noticed you don't see the need for insults......

MithranArkanere · Mar 19, 2011, 12:49 AM // 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by melissa b

Agree, many of the arguments by the con side are just rewordings of the same arguments that have been shown to be either very weak, completely unbalanced, or invalid. Having said that.
/still signed

No, they are not.

There is a single and simple reason against it:
- It's a character-achievement title, and so, it stays for the character.

You don't make account-wide protector, you don't make account-wide guardian, you don't make account-wide master of the north, if there was an 'adventurer' title for making quest, that could not be account wide either, and so, LDoA cannot be account wide.

It's not needed for GWaMM, since after the changes to survivor and drunkard getting 30 is way faster, it doesn't add anything useful that would make annoying to chance characters to make use of it like Treasure hunter or Wisdom, and once added to the HoM, it doesn't matter if the rest of the characters never get it, once is enough to make it count.

There's just no reason to make it account-wide.

Killed u man · Mar 19, 2011, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

No, they are not.

There is a single and simple reason against it:
- It's a character-achievement title, and so, it stays for the character.

You don't make account-wide protector, you don't make account-wide guardian, you don't make account-wide master of the north, if there was an 'adventurer' title for making quest, that could not be account wide either, and so, LDoA cannot be account wide.

It's not needed for GWaMM, since after the changes to survivor and drunkard getting 30 is way faster, it doesn't add anything useful that would make annoying to chance characters to make use of it like Treasure hunter or Wisdom, and once added to the HoM, it doesn't matter if the rest of the characters never get it, once is enough to make it count.

There's just no reason to make it account-wide.

According to your logic, no PvP title, chest or ID title should be acount wide, again.

No reason? How ignorant can one truly be?! An extra title for GWAMM is already a stronger reason than 95% of the stuff that does make the live update has. Then the fact that no NF or Factions character can get it. Then the fact that everyone who chose survivor can't get it either.

It's astonishing how you're litterely ignoring every counter-arguement thrown at u. I'm really about to splash water into my eyes to see wether or not I'm dreaming.

Hobbs · Mar 19, 2011, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Time for some rebuttal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

There is alot of namecalling going on, I see no reason to. (From both sides)

The only thing I found, however, is that the con-side is extremely ignorant.

First thing, lololol. Nothing further on that.

Quote:

There is no difference between LDoA and PvP-titles. They're both titles which can only be gained in a specific place, and according to your logic, characters which have never PvP'ed before shouldn't be able to show PvP titles. So you're suggesting to make PvP titles character based? After all, that is the natural consequences of arguing LDoA should be character based.

No. You have completely misunderstood. The Battle Isles are core, any character can access them at any time (except Pre-characters) and thus the same limitation of "the assassin/ritualist/dervish/paragon couldn't possibly have been in pre-searing Ascalon doesn't apply". Next, I have 493 fame on my account, in order to reach that figure I estimate I rolled at least 50 different characters, if PvP titles were character based i'd have around 5 fame right now, assuming my intake was averaged out and that I kep the last character I HA'd on. This makes no sense and removes pretty much the primary objective of PvP in Guild Wars: You can jump in at any time with a character, you don't need to spend time levelled up or earning titles each time to participate (I refer to "rank discrimination based on titles here". LDoA, on the other hand LDoA is gained on one character with no need to reroll at any time. If there is a need to make it account based, it's a completely separate one to the reason used for PvP titles to be account based so that argument is invalid.

Further, very few people will ever max a PvP title so the reason behind making PvP titles account wide is again separate to the one you argue for LDoA, i.e. so you don't miss out on a maxed title for your main.

Quote:

Even more so, according to your logic (Aside from wanting to make PvP titles character based) people who find ecto dupes shouldn't get banned, as long as they don't hurt your individual playstyle?

Wrong, ecto dupes inflate the market making high level trading even more inaccessible to those who did not participate in the dupe, so yes, it hurts my playstyle.

Quote:

Or what about people botting certain titles. They don't hurt you, so you're pro-botting? Your arguement holds no sense, whatsoever. There is douzens of degenerative behaviours that don't affect your gameplay in a bad way, that doesn't mean they're "OK" to do. It's amazing how far away from acceptable ethics you are.

I don't understand your argument, did you just compare getting LDoA to botting a title? I said "you're at no disadvantage to those who hold both LDoA and LS. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." and you replied with essentially "you're at no disadvantage to those who bot. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." You post is filled with the word "logic" yet you display very little.

Quote:

jumping on the first thing on their mind trying to twist it into a con-arguement. Astonishing...

Remember that time when you tried to use PvP titles are a justification for making LDoA account wide when the reasons for us wanting PvP titles to be account wide and the reason you want LDoA to be account wide are completely different? Seems a lot like you were jump on the first thing on your mind trying to twist is into a pro-argument. Astonishing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

According to your logic, no PvP title, chest or ID title should be acount wide, again.

I've already shown how your argument on PvP titles is ridiculous, i'll do the same for chests and ID titles now.

The style of play encouraged before these titles were account wide was that every character was forced to transfer all their golds and keys onto one character before using them. It completely took the flow out of the game because you constantly had to relog to advance one title on your main. It wasn't fun. Making the titles account wide allowed you to work on them whatever character you were on. Compare this to LDoA, LDoA doesn't require constant relogging, you can just sit on your Pre character all day and not worry that you're causing any detriment to your main. Also, making LDoA account wide won't allow you to work on it whatever character you're on, you'd still be limited to your Pre character. The argument for Chests/IDs just don't hold up when applied to LDoA.

Quote:

No reason? How ignorant can one truly be?! An extra title for GWAMM is already a stronger reason than 95% of the stuff that does make the live update has.

Nope, GWAMM is fine as it is, thousands of players already earned it, many of them earned it more than once. Making it easier isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a top priority.

Quote:

It's astonishing how you're litterely ignoring every counter-arguement thrown at u. I'm really about to splash water into my eyes to see wether or not I'm dreaming.

Here we go, every counter argument addressed one by one. Your move.

Coast · Mar 19, 2011, 11:59 AM // 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbs

Time for some rebuttal

First thing, lololol. Nothing further on that.

No. You have completely misunderstood. The Battle Isles are core, any character can access them at any time (except Pre-characters) and thus the same limitation of "the assassin/ritualist/dervish/paragon couldn't possibly have been in pre-searing Ascalon doesn't apply". Next, I have 493 fame on my account, in order to reach that figure I estimate I rolled at least 50 different characters, if PvP titles were character based i'd have around 5 fame right now, assuming my intake was averaged out and that I kep the last character I HA'd on. This makes no sense and removes pretty much the primary objective of PvP in Guild Wars: You can jump in at any time with a character, you don't need to spend time levelled up or earning titles each time to participate (I refer to "rank discrimination based on titles here". LDoA, on the other hand LDoA is gained on one character with no need to reroll at any time. If there is a need to make it account based, it's a completely separate one to the reason used for PvP titles to be account based so that argument is invalid.

Further, very few people will ever max a PvP title so the reason behind making PvP titles account wide is again separate to the one you argue for LDoA, i.e. so you don't miss out on a maxed title for your main.

Wrong, ecto dupes inflate the market making high level trading even more inaccessible to those who did not participate in the dupe, so yes, it hurts my playstyle.

I don't understand your argument, did you just compare getting LDoA to botting a title? I said "you're at no disadvantage to those who hold both LDoA and LS. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." and you replied with essentially "you're at no disadvantage to those who bot. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." You post is filled with the word "logic" yet you display very little.

Remember that time when you tried to use PvP titles are a justification for making LDoA account wide when the reasons for us wanting PvP titles to be account wide and the reason you want LDoA to be account wide are completely different? Seems a lot like you were jump on the first thing on your mind trying to twist is into a pro-argument. Astonishing...

I've already shown how your argument on PvP titles is ridiculous, i'll do the same for chests and ID titles now.

The style of play encouraged before these titles were account wide was that every character was forced to transfer all their golds and keys onto one character before using them. It completely took the flow out of the game because you constantly had to relog to advance one title on your main. It wasn't fun. Making the titles account wide allowed you to work on them whatever character you were on. Compare this to LDoA, LDoA doesn't require constant relogging, you can just sit on your Pre character all day and not worry that you're causing any detriment to your main. Also, making LDoA account wide won't allow you to work on it whatever character you're on, you'd still be limited to your Pre character. The argument for Chests/IDs just don't hold up when applied to LDoA.

Nope, GWAMM is fine as it is, thousands of players already earned it, many of them earned it more than once. Making it easier isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a top priority.

Here we go, every counter argument addressed one by one. Your move.

Seen what I just did?
Looks pretty unfun also...

Bellatrixa · Mar 19, 2011, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Right, so you're saying that by making LDOA accountwide, you wouldn't have to put in the same hours to obtain the title? That you wouldn't have to work at it on one character?

I'm sorry but the people pushing for this to be account-wide are constantly changing how they think it should be implemented and I can't see what it is they actually want other than an easier +1 to GWAMM which is entirely unnecessary.

As stated before, LDOA is a CLEARLY character-based title and I see no reason to make it accountwide other than e-peen. If you want that, go around a town /zrank-ing someone. When you display GWAMM, it doesn't show how many titles you have. All you know is that there's at least 30 on that character. If you look someone up in HoM and you see LDOA, you don't see which character they got it on. You don't get a benefit from LDOA other than a +1 to GWAMM.

I agree with Hobbs that Wisdom/Treasure Hunter used to be VERY impractical. It forced you to one character for longer than LDOA does. The fact of the matter is that if you want LDOA, you have to put in those hours of play on that character REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS ACCOUNTWIDE OR CHARACTER-WIDE. So yes, your comparison to Wisdom/Treasure Hunter is once again invalid.

As I said, making LDOA accountwide is pointless for the fact that it doesn't make the title easier, it just makes GWAMM easier when there are plenty of titles for that already. And you know, this isn't even about GWAMM. It's about common sense. If you'd asked for Drunkard/Sweet/Party to be made accountwide, I'd have understood more as they're not campaign specific titles. Don't even try to go there with Luxon/Kurz as they're linked to PvP.

There is no logical reason to make LDOA accountwide, sorry.

Killed u man · Mar 19, 2011, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatrixa

There is no logical reason to make LDOA accountwide, sorry.

People with LS and LDoA have 1 more title for GWAMM. Nothing you can bring in against this will change or nulify this arguement.

But I was midly amused on how flawed the train of thought by some people here are, and I'll just leave it at that.

No matter how you twist or turn it: People with LS and LDoA have 1 more title for GWAMM. Nothing you can bring in against this will change or nulify this arguement.

And therefor LDoA should be acountwide OR
every character should have the option to go back to Pre-Searing in one way or the other and get a revert to level1. Since the first option is alot easier, I see no reason not to implement it. Some people wanting to keep their advantage over other players isn't a reason not to implement, it's the very opposite.

Coast · Mar 19, 2011, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatrixa

Right, so you're saying that by making LDOA accountwide, you wouldn't have to put in the same hours to obtain the title? That you wouldn't have to work at it on one character?

I'm sorry but the people pushing for this to be account-wide are constantly changing how they think it should be implemented and I can't see what it is they actually want other than an easier +1 to GWAMM which is entirely unnecessary.

As stated before, LDOA is a CLEARLY character-based title and I see no reason to make it accountwide other than e-peen. If you want that, go around a town /zrank-ing someone. When you display GWAMM, it doesn't show how many titles you have. All you know is that there's at least 30 on that character. If you look someone up in HoM and you see LDOA, you don't see which character they got it on. You don't get a benefit from LDOA other than a +1 to GWAMM.

I agree with Hobbs that Wisdom/Treasure Hunter used to be VERY impractical. It forced you to one character for longer than LDOA does. The fact of the matter is that if you want LDOA, you have to put in those hours of play on that character REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS ACCOUNTWIDE OR CHARACTER-WIDE. So yes, your comparison to Wisdom/Treasure Hunter is once again invalid.

As I said, making LDOA accountwide is pointless for the fact that it doesn't make the title easier, it just makes GWAMM easier when there are plenty of titles for that already. And you know, this isn't even about GWAMM. It's about common sense. If you'd asked for Drunkard/Sweet/Party to be made accountwide, I'd have understood more as they're not campaign specific titles. Don't even try to go there with Luxon/Kurz as they're linked to PvP.

There is no logical reason to make LDOA accountwide, sorry.

There once used to be a time that chests/unid golds used to be for characters, but I guess most people forgot about it, so I'm right after all.

Missing HB · Mar 19, 2011, 03:11 PM // 15:11

If i should vote concerning what i read , i would just say /notsigned , since i almost didn't see any argument supporting the idea....

A good argument for me is that people who did or will do LDOA did/will waste a lot of time ( time where they could achieve many other titles...) thus then it would be fair to make account wide....
If we followed same logic however , drunk,festive and sweet tooth should be account wide though....

Hobbs · Mar 19, 2011, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

No matter how you twist or turn it: People with LS and LDoA have 1 more title for GWAMM. Nothing you can bring in against this will change or nulify this arguement.

And therefor LDoA should be acountwide OR
every character should have the option to go back to Pre-Searing in one way or the other and get a revert to level1. Since the first option is alot easier, I see no reason not to implement it. Some people wanting to keep their advantage over other players isn't a reason not to implement, it's the very opposite.

You didn't actually address anything I said. So I guess I have to congratulate you on a thorough, if inept, attempt at dodging the argument.

You fail to see that i'm not opposing anything to "keep my advantage", that's a straw man you continue to bring up. I'm opposing it because it's not a good idea and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Further you make a huge leap from "people have one more title available" to "LDoA should be account wide". That's not the logical conclusion to come to at all. Frankly, suck it up. If you want a character that can wear both the LDoA and GWAMM titles, make one. There's nothing stopping you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coast

There once used to be a time that chests/unid golds used to be for characters, but I guess most people forgot about it, so I'm right after all.

The whole argument comparing Wisdom/Treasure to LDoA rests on the fact that it used to be character based. So yes, I think everyone here is well aware of the basic history of the titles.

Bright Star Shine · Mar 19, 2011, 03:59 PM // 15:59

This evolved from a normal flame fest to an epic flame fest since I last visited this thread. Well, time to jump in again.

First of all, ever since I left this name-calling infested flame fest, all I've seen are semi-to-decent arguments on the cons side, and still no new arguments on the pro side besides "it makes GWAMM easier" and "it's unfair" (pro side, correct me if I'm wrong).

Also what I've seen, when they bring up very shallow and bad arguments that are easily overruled by the cons side, they kind of evade the subject and get back to the old ones.

Lemme sum it up:
pro:
-Unfair towards people with Ssin/Rit/Para/Derv main
-It makes GWAMM easier.
-You are all ignorant (that one actually makes me lol)

Tbh, GWAMM is already piss easy and should not be of any trouble to achieve. My ele has it, and I have neither Survivor nor LDoA. As for being unfair towards Ssins etc, all that matters to most people is HoM and their 50/50. Achieving GWAMM is -once again- quite easy and if you really want the title for your HoM, you can get it on an alternate character if you want, and you will still achieve the bonus. So both your problems can be solved.

Lemme give you a quick summary on how to get GWAMM:
-LB and SS (2)
-Carthography (4) (easily combined with VQ and Skill cap)
-Skill Hunter (4)
-Protector + Guardian (6)
-Survivor (1) (now that it's so piss easy anyway)
-EotN titles (5)
-Vanquisher (4)
-Money titles (3) (if you have the money)
-Kurz or Luxon (2)
That's already 31. So depending on your funds/time you can drop Kurz/lux or one of the money titles.

These were the easier ones. Tougher ones are:
-Lucky/Unluck (2)
-Wisdom/Treasure (2)

Cons:
-Lore wise, it's ridiculous
-GWAMM is already easy enough (see above)
-It's clearly character based
-Current account wide titles are account wide for a good reason (see previous posts)

Solutions:
pro side:
-Let ssins/paras/dervs/rits have access to ascalon to be fair. (In fact, that should include every Canthan/Elonian charr)
-Make it account wide

First solution: That one deserves a spot in the "Name the stupidest thing you've heard while playing Guild Wars" thread. Unless you build an in-game time machine, so it would make any sense, no.
Second one: see above arguments throughout thread.

cons side:
-stop QQing.

Killed u man · Mar 19, 2011, 04:03 PM // 16:03

I gave up because you ignore every counter-arguement. And the one I gave still stands. LS and LDoA is 1 title more than simply LS. Basic math, doesn't need explanation, can not be argued.

As long as 1 < 2, this arguement can not be refuted, I'm sorry.

There's no reason why some people should have an advantage over others because of choices they made before the survivor-change update.

I also said that there's 2 options: Either allow every character at any given time acess to pre, which will get alot of opposition from the Pre-community, or allow LDoA to be acount wide. Those are the only 2 options we have to even out this unfair balance.

I never said LDoA had to be made acount wide, I merely said either one of the 2 works, and making LDoA acountwide is the easier solution.

You just seem too hell-bend over the fact that it doesn't fit "lorewise" when I can give you a million things that don't fit lorewise, so that can't be a valid ground on stating this is a bad suggestion. And I refuse to believe someone can be as ignorant to actually believe such a thing (that lore dictates it should be a character-based title) so therefore I assumed you're merely defending your own advantage you currently posses.

My girlfriend currently has 8 PvE characters on her acount all level 20, elite armor, etc etc. She chose for LS a couple of years ago, and currently needs a couple more titles to gain GWAMM. She wants to get GWAMM on her Monk, but she also wants LDoA. Why is she getting forced to remake her monk which has a redicilous amount of hours solely because of design flaws made by Anet 4 years ago?

"Because it doesn't fit lorewise", utter redicilous...

Quote:

Cons:
-Lore wise, it's ridiculous
-GWAMM is already easy enough (see above)
-It's clearly character based
-Current account wide titles are account wide for a good reason (see previous posts)

-Lorewise it is redicilous.
-GWAMM being easy is no excuse for imbalance existing. Again, you're arguing that bots should exist in PvP because it's "easy" anyways. An imbalance exists, it shouldn't, bottom line.
-Chest opening is character based too, so is PvP. Every Norn + SS + LB title are "acountbased" yet they aren't. How do you feel about these titles? So many flaws in that arguement.
-And LDoA will be acountwide for a good reason aswell: You won't be forced to play through intire character solely to get an extra title for HoM, you can get it on character and see the progress on all characters.

MithranArkanere · Mar 19, 2011, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

According to your logic, no PvP title, chest or ID title should be account wide, again.

No reason? How ignorant can one truly be?! An extra title for GWAMM is already a stronger reason than 95% of the stuff that does make the live update has. Then the fact that no NF or Factions character can get it. Then the fact that everyone who chose survivor can't get it either.

It's astonishing how you're literally ignoring every counter-argument thrown at u. I'm really about to splash water into my eyes to see whether or not I'm dreaming.

I'm not ignored them. They are just invalid in this case. There are no logic behind them. Just selfish delusion. That is, you fail to see the logic because you want something so bad that you lie to yourself.

Every title that was made account wide has logic behind that.

For PvP characters, one slot was enough, they were deleted quite often, and so, making the titles character-based meant losing all the progress.
You also had to deleted them to get them different gear. There was no item creation panel until... I think that until Nightfall.
It was not logical to keep the titles character-based.
Until the addition of the PvP item rewards from Tolkano, nothing was lost when deleting them.
When you make a new PvP character, you will still have access to everything you unlocked: Battle Isles Outposts, Skills, Upgrades, heroes...
PvE characters have the titles too just because they are account-wide so PvP characters can always have them regardless of how often they are deleted.
All titles a PvP-only character can't get are account wide for that reason.

On the other hand, PvE characters are made to stay, if you deleted a PvE character, you'll lose all progress. Skills, heroes, outposts, quests... everything gone.

As for wisdom, treasure hunter and lucky/unlucky, they are account wide because it would be annoying to save all items to be used by them: keys, lockpicks, festival tickets, golds to id, items to salvage... people make those things too often to keep them character-based.
Drunkard, glutton and party animal are not like that. You can easily save most of the items and use them in bulks with one character, excepting the DP-related and the tonics, and so they don't need to be account-wide.

The Factions allegiance titles? Those were designed to be PvP in the first place. Then made them hybrid. Half PvP, half PvE. It's the PvP part what keeps them account-wide.

As for "An extra title for GWAMM" is not valid either.
If you want GWaMM in a character that has LDoA, you go for LDoA and GWAMM with that character.
You don't get Survivor in one character to increase the GWAMM in another.
You don't get Protector in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Guardian in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Skill Hunter in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Vanquisher in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Cartographer in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Master of the North in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get LDoA in one character to increase GWAMM in another.

All you need for GWAMM is 30 titles. And NO account-wide title is needed after the changes to survivor and drunkard. You can get a GWAMM just by completing a full cycle of ZQuests and attending to festival that has farmable quests for booze, sweets and party stuff... and of course, getting the stuff in that quest.

LDoA can't be acquired by PvP characters.
LDoA doesn't give any 'utility' benefit like the item titles.

You can add LDoA to the HoM without leaving pre too. So there's no need to make it account wide so you can add it without leaving pre either.

So what if LDoA is an extra title? It doesn't pop in your hero panel. You must stay in pre, without advancing for the other titles while you get it. With the other titles, you can go for several of them at the same time.
Take Fronis: in it, you advance with Survivor, Drunkard, Wisdom, Treasure Hunter and Delver at the same time.
While going for LDoA, you can't even go get the gifts of the huntsman, since the Vanguard Foes drop no items you can sell, and no trophies you can use for Nicholas. Each second you spend killing the enemeis that drop the trophies or searching for flowers, is a second lost killing Vanguard foes.
Since it keeps you from getting other titles while you go for it. It actually makes GWAMM slower.

And so, there's no reason to make it account-wide. And it will never be, unless ANet decides to make ALL titles account-wide. There's no logic behind it. "I want to get GWAMM faster with my Factions/Nightfall character" or "My Nightfall and Factions characters have access to one less title" are not reasons enough, and there are no other reasons.

I won't be against making all titles account-wide, since each account is limited to one user, and it's the user the one getting the stuff anyways, but that will probably never happen, and so LDoA will stay character-wide as long as they don't make such a change.

Otherwise it would be illogical. There are still quite some illogical things in the game, but that doesn't mean we should throw in one more.

Aycee · Mar 19, 2011, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Let's just make all titles account wide. We earned the achievement so why shouldn't we be able to wear the title on any character.

Killed u man · Mar 19, 2011, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aycee

Let's just make all titles account wide. We earned the achievement so why shouldn't we be able to wear the title on any character.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but even if you are, there is no valid reason not to.

Unless you have mutiple people playing on 1 acount, every character on an acount is the same player. Hobbs, etc seem to be extremely roleplay oriented players (Which is their full right) in claiming every character is a different "person" in the game, but if you're arguing achievements and HoM, you already stepped out of the intire Roleplaying/lore experience.

And when you look at the game from that angle, it seems utter redicilous that you're incapable of getting certain titles on certain characters, or that you have to get the same title multiple times on different characters of the same acount.

Kunder · Mar 19, 2011, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

And so, there's no reason to make it account-wide. And it will never be, unless ANet decides to make ALL titles account-wide. There's no logic behind it. "I want to get GWAMM faster with my Factions/Nightfall character" or "My Nightfall and Factions characters have access to one less title" are not reasons enough, and there are no other reasons..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dev quote on survivor update

Previously, the Survivor title tracked how much experience a player earned until their first death. When that character died, his progress was frozen. If the title was not maxed, the player needed to start an entirely new character in order to try again. If a character died, it often led to some very unfortunate circumstances beyond a player's control. A lag spike, a power outage, or an impromptu conga line could invalidate countless hours or days of work. There were also vast legions of characters who existed and were well established in the world long before this title was implemented; they almost certainly never obtained it.

Replace "Died" with "left Pre-Searing", and multiply the vast legions of characters before the title change by 10-20x or so. To top it off, add that players were deceived through several years by what was supposed to be the status-quo of either having LDoA OR survivor, not LDoA AND survivor. Unless you have another solution to the problem (which will most likely be much more convoluted and hard to implement), making the title account wide is the only logical choice based on the logic Anet has presented as the authority.

Also, will people please get it through their head that "lol just do it with other titles" is not a defense? You could do GWAMM with titles other than survivor before. Furthermore, plenty of people don't give a shit about GWAMM and only want max titles, in which case losing LDoA is a permanent black mark on the character.

Hobbs · Mar 19, 2011, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

You just seem too hell-bend over the fact that it doesn't fit "lorewise" when I can give you a million things that don't fit lorewise, so that can't be a valid ground on stating this is a bad suggestion.

LOL. I can show you a billion starving people so who cares if there's another starving child? I can show you 100 botting players so what does it matter if I bot? (HA! You just argued for botting!)

"Bad things exist so why not allow more" is the worst argument in existence.