Curse

Reason · Jul 19, 2007, 11:47 AM // 11:47

But the point of the title is to SURVIVE, it is not, hey, how many times can dia, and get to retry in 4 years. This title is meant to be hard, and you only get 1 try for a reason, and as for having to start a new char, no the people who have had one for 2 years should not, they should live with the fact that they can only max 23 of the 25 availible titles (LDoA is the second for those who are about to question my flawless math, and not counting account based)

Gawa · Jul 19, 2007, 12:03 PM // 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

But the point of the title is to SURVIVE,

Exactly,i agree with you

Cheers for responding, i guess my real question should be:

Why should it not be account based, like other elements of the game are.

That would solve the issue of older chars being able to do achieve the title (by the player having a new char attain the title - thus proving they survived without dying) While still keeping the same kudos to the title. Surely if i went out and made a whole new char just to gain the title, and ultimately after alot of hard effort attained the title.. that should be enough dedication to show..

Arcane_Penguin · Jul 19, 2007, 12:09 PM // 12:09

/notsigned

Would take away the challenge from Survivers title, get to lvl 20, then go and do all the easy lvl 1-15 quests for the xp >.<

Survivors title is ment to be a challenge!

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 01:49 PM // 13:49

/notsigned

as someone who got their R3 Survivor the hard way i'd be a bit annoyed if others cud afford to screw up and try again. it's MEANT to be hard to get, quit whining about it being character based and how it's "stupid" that u lose it when u die (it's the whole point... >.>), not to mention if someone farmed the title on a monk for example, then cud show it off on their sin alt, it wud be a bit stupid (my sin is R2 now

)

dsnesnintendo · Jul 19, 2007, 01:54 PM // 13:54

I dont remember who (if you do post the name) but someone here once said

If their was a cure for cancer would you not allow others to have it just because you beat cancer without it?

Sythius · Jul 19, 2007, 01:55 PM // 13:55

/unsigned
I think they should reset your deaths to 0 each time you get a title, but you owuld still have to get all that XP which you owuld of to get it.
(Isn't it 140,000 experience?)
Though they should also still have ti so you can find out your total total deaths.

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsnesnintendo

I dont remember who (if you do post the name) but someone here once said

If their was a cure for cancer would you not allow others to have it just because you beat cancer without it?

funny enough, this ISN'T about curing cancer, this is about giving people already at a position (level 20) to nail this title easily, which is a bit absurd. it's like giving a test aimed at a 10 year old to college grad, the grad is already fully equipped to nail it easily.

Reason · Jul 19, 2007, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawa

Exactly,i agree with you

Cheers for responding, i guess my real question should be:

Why should it not be account based, like other elements of the game are.

That would solve the issue of older chars being able to do achieve the title (by the player having a new char attain the title - thus proving they survived without dying) While still keeping the same kudos to the title. Surely if i went out and made a whole new char just to gain the title, and ultimately after alot of hard effort attained the title.. that should be enough dedication to show..

Fine, then I want my Treasure Hunter account based.

Now, I guess what I am trying to say is that it would cheapen the title to not start at lvl 1 and get that 1 chance, because that is all part of it, not starting at lvl 20, with max armor, pimped out heroes and decent builds. the point is to go from scratch and take it all the way.

GG leave it the way it is and deal with it.

QQ

Gawa · Jul 19, 2007, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostkai

funny enough, this ISN'T about curing cancer, this is about giving people already at a position (level 20) to nail this title easily, which is a bit absurd. it's like giving a test aimed at a 10 year old to college grad, the grad is already fully equipped to nail it easily.

...the problem here is that some people are only seeing one part of the OP's suggestion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP

If what i suggested isnt then possable then why not make the survivor title an account title as apposed to a char title? ie once accuired on one char can be shown accross all and more importantly counts as a maxed title accross all.

That (making Survivor Title account based) is what a number of us are advocating, not that people who have died at level 20 can get it; but rather a new char could go and get it. ie the same amount of work has to be done!

The only argument against this is from some people who say they dont want someone to be able to display the title if that particular char didnt get it...
Heck even though that seems a bit much, i could say, ok..dont allow the displaying of that title on other chars, but do allow it to account to the total title count over the account.

edit -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

GG leave it the way it is and deal with it.

QQ

Unfortunately you arent living up to your namesake. When someone discusses something reasonably with you, you saying, "deal with it. QQ" is disappointing. You didnt even answer my question; or read what i actually said, since you are still talking about starting at level 20 for some reason, which is not what i was saying.

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 03:15 PM // 15:15

applying it to a account just isn't reasonable, you've got R3 on 1 char, yet another char has over 1000 deaths.... how is THAT eligible for survivor?

Earth · Jul 19, 2007, 03:24 PM // 15:24

/unsigned.

Say, I have level 20 Warrior with 500 deaths, and I have a ranger with 0 deaths, who is level 20, and has the r1 survivor title. Does that mean the warrior has survived too? No. The ranger has survived, not the warrior.

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Earth X

/unsigned.

Say, I have level 20 Warrior with 500 deaths, and I have a ranger with 0 deaths, who is level 20, and has the r1 survivor title. Does that mean the warrior has survived too? No. The ranger has survived, not the warrior.

QFT

even if you can't display it, what your suggesting guys means it'll count toward their max titles, which it shouldn't, they haven't earned it.

Mitchel · Jul 19, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Ok, but then give my Paragon Legendary Defender of Ascalon.

Gawa · Jul 19, 2007, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Earth X

Does that mean the warrior has survived too? No. The ranger has survived, not the warrior.

I appreciate that. I do.
However, the point is that many people can never get the chance to earn it... everyone agrees that is a less than ideal situation, and one which this thread is trying to do something about. Trying to make the best of an original flaw in the introduction of the title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostkai

even if you can't display it, what your suggesting guys means it'll count toward their max titles, which it shouldn't, they haven't earned it.

I disagree, they would have earnt it, with one of their characters, just like you did with one of yours.

Its not about laziness or wanting something for nothing, its about the fact that players with their main char who played before the title even existed..simply can never get the title.

Its trying to reach a compromise to give everyone an equal chance at it. Is that so bad? Is what you are saying is.. bad luck, but live with it or start over again... You would feel good saying that to people that have had chars that have been playing since the game came out..?

Its about new players who obviously wont know about every detail of every title before they start playing (and thus died)..can simply never get the title.

Even me, ive played for 3 months and learnt a lot about the game, i thought the title was for anyone who achieved the required xp without dying, at any stage of a chars career. The title is optional, of course, but i dont see why anyone would want to deny others the chance to do the exact same amount of work to let their main char have the same chance of getting the same number of titles as you?

milan · Jul 19, 2007, 03:55 PM // 15:55

Of course people have a chance to earn it. I'm on number four for legendary survivor right now. I've deleted two older characters and remade them, same names, same armour, same weapons.

The character I remade this time was 25 months old.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from remaking.

Griff Mon · Jul 19, 2007, 03:55 PM // 15:55

I have 3 survivors. I lost the most recent one at 520K-killed. I do not agree with any of this. It is the toughest, most frustrating title to get out there because you can lose it after many many hours of grinding experience, and you can lose it in a very short period of time. Once it is gone, it is gone and there is nothing you can do. You can spend a year in pre getting LDOA, you can map forever, you can skill hunt, etc., and never lose progress.

But Survivor is irreversible and once you die, thats it. Start over with a new character or live with it. That is the reputation of the title, that is the frustration of the title, and that is how it is setup.

Change nothing. You cheapen the value of the title any other way. Old character before the title began? Make a new one if you want the title. You don't get wisdom points, drunk points, treasure hunter points, sweet tooth points for stuff you consumed in the past.

I am frustrated as hell by it, and will likely start over again with a new character someday, but I would never want it changed.

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawa

I disagree, they would have earnt it, with one of their characters, just like you did with one of yours.

of course i respect your opinion on the subject, but that Character has NOT earned anything, the player has sure, but it's unfair to earn it on one char and give it to all, if that was the case i'd want my drunk,sweet,treasure,wisdom,cartographer titles on ALL my chars then, it's just not practical

Gawa · Jul 19, 2007, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by milan

Of course people have a chance to earn it. I'm on number four for legendary survivor right now. I've deleted two older characters and remade them, same names, same armour, same weapons.

The character I remade this time was 25 months old.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from remaking.

heh, fair enough mate, i must bow out in the face of that sort of extreme action of deleting a char that is over 2 years old. You are of course right, we can delete and restart. If that is a course of action you dont mind having to take then of course what im saying is moot.

I personally feel its a pitty that that is the only recourse to someone, which flys in the face of rpg char development and find it hard to believe that is the way that ANet intended it.

Maybe its just me, but i only have 1 main char and deleting it would seem mad given the time ive spent on it. It would take years to complete all facets of this game, on 1 char..so thinking of making more than 1 primary char is boggling to some of us :P

That being said, each to their own and fair enough to you for your choices. Cheers

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostkai

of course i respect your opinion on the subject, but that Character has NOT earned anything, the player has sure, but it's unfair to earn it on one char and give it to all, if that was the case i'd want my drunk,sweet,treasure,wisdom,cartographer titles on ALL my chars then, it's just not practical.

I know mate, cheers, its not ideal, but then i dont think the implementation of the title was.

However, gold and faction and even skill unlocking and i think a few other things are shared over an account, so to say its "unfair to earn it on one char and give it to all", is not really the best argument ;P

I reckon ill bow out of the discussion now as ive taken up enough airtime :P, but if i may say, in closing, its not really like those titles you mention, because all of those are achievable at any stage to anyone on a char, new or old. Its not the same principal. Survivor is impossible to earn unless you make a new character, and if you want to make that char your main char to gain all titles on..that means dumping your orginal main char.

WhiteWasabi · Jul 19, 2007, 04:25 PM // 16:25

/SIGNED!!!

Yes! It is the same player working for a title and putting in the hours to make a survivor on the account. I think ALL titles should be account based. Every single title should be account based. Who cares which character you have done it on. It is supposed to be 1 player per account. So if you are the only player why shouldn't the titles all be account based.

ghostkai · Jul 19, 2007, 04:29 PM // 16:29

I suppose at the end of the day, while impractical and sometimes "unfair" it's the reason WHY everyone wants the title, the very reason it's become infamous among the community.
The only reason why those of us who have achieved the rank 3, or are in the process of it disagree with the changes is because it would really "dumb down" (not literally, metaphorically) the title. I've been in the game since first beta, I know I can never get the title on my main, but imho would it REALLY be worth it? with all the other titles out there (also seems funny for a level 1 to have 5th tier treasure hunter and max LB and SS don't it?). But of course this is just one gamers opinion, most probably influenced by the fact he's achieved the title the hard way.