Curse

Emanuel Zorg · Aug 29, 2007, 08:29 PM // 20:29

I'm sure I won't write anything here that hasn't already been written by someone else, but I'll throw in my comments anyway.

I don't care if the HoM is account-based. Each of my characters has separate accomplishments and it seems reasonable to separate them. What I'd like to see is:

Fellowship
Allow me to display any pet and its name. It makes no sense to me that (for example) keeping a stalker since pre-searing and through all of your adventures only represents enough "fellowship" for a generic "animal companion" statue, while doing a spider run gets you a special one. If the prestige pets will 'unlock' something in GW2, let them, but don't limit what can be displayed.

Valor
Let me display any weapon. My starter sword or a collector weapon if I so choose. It seems reasonable to require customization to do this. Simply allowing any weapon to be displayed should be easier to code than other proposals I've seen which would need to check to see if a weapon meets certain requirements. And again, if a certain weapon should confer some benefit in GW2, let it, but don't limit the display to only those weapons that should confer some benefit.

Resilience
I can understand why the armor art here is generic -- it looked to me like a whole new model. So it's no wonder they're not going to make 70+ new models for all of the elite armor.

But there's no need to do that! Just take my character model and the armor I'm wearing, retexture it with a 'bronze' texture, and display that. Number of new models required: Zero. And it's more personalized to boot. I suppose the stumbling block here would be if applying one texture to all faces of a model doesn't look right. I wouldn't know.

So mostly all I'd like to see is less restrictions on what can be displayed. As it stands right now, we can only display what someone else has decided is worthwhile. I'd rather just be able to display things that I like or accomplishments I consider important, rather than what's considered by someone else to be prestigious. Maybe I'd like to put a Banana Scythe and a Candy Cane Bow in my monument of Valor because I think it's funny, and that's more important to me than a vanity weapon display. Again, if GW2 unlocks/benefits is an issue, there's no need for the unlocking component to be linked to what can be displayed.

ReSpAwNeD · Aug 29, 2007, 09:21 PM // 21:21

/signed I have 4 high end minis (out of a collection of 32+ mini's) customized unwillingly (oversight on my part). *sigh*

Listen to the ppl Anet

*sigh* I have nothing more to say I am all bickered out.

Ctan · Aug 29, 2007, 10:19 PM // 22:19

/signed as many times as you like ^^
Silly you've put it all fantastically and i hope these changes do happen because i was crestfallen when HoM wasnt acount based

Jaythen Tyradel · Aug 29, 2007, 10:55 PM // 22:55

OK, just thought of something that MAY POSSIBLY relate to PVE titles.
The Norn and Ebon Vanguard both mentioned about having a "Book" that keeps note of our accomplishments. We could interact with them at the time of the preview, but they could not sell/give us the book. The NPC's told us to come back a week later.
Could this be part of the way we enter/record/keep track of PVE titles for the HoM?

Just wondering...

Minsc · Aug 29, 2007, 11:05 PM // 23:05

/signed

i agree with all points

Harmless · Aug 30, 2007, 02:53 AM // 02:53

/signed

Definitely want it account based.

Siirius Black · Aug 30, 2007, 03:18 AM // 03:18

Jaythen, you might be up to something.... but... regardless, one thing is sure. Anet has decided to make some changes. I'm sure that they will try to accomodate most of our concerns regarding the Hall.

How many changes?? I guess we have to wait until tomorrow at midnight to find out. What I know for sure is that I'm buying the expansion.

tmakinen · Aug 30, 2007, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Ok, I've been thinking over this issue for some time and here's my take on it: First of all the largest schism comes from the fact that ANet sees HoM primarily as a vehichle for manipulating player benefits in GW2 whereas the player base sees it as a way to record achievements made in GW itself. These two things are different and partially overlap only because that's a design decision made by ANet. They could have created a GW only HoM and a completely separate mechanism for GW2 bonuses but decided to combine these two into one. I'm now trying to play Devil's advocate and examine the features of HoM from both points of view.

Account vs. character based
This is actually more complicated than it sounds. Do we want to have one hall for all the characters on an account to avoid the '10 halls full of almost nothing' issue? Remember that even with character specific halls we are already having problems with showing all minipets, heroes or armors. Another way to divide the things would be to have separate 'wings' for different stuff: one hall for all the minipets, another for heroes and so on. At the end this is just an issue of displaying items (what players are interested in) - the inheritance (what ANet is interested in) is not affected by any way whether Valet Parking's HoM has a statue of Vabbian armor or the wardrobe wing of tmakinen's HoM has a statue of Valet Parking's Vabbian Armor. At the current state HoM completely meets the objectives of ANet but is nowhere near what players expected. ANet could go an extra mile here without having to drop their design objectives. Grade: C

Devotion
Some sort of customization is mandatory but the current per-character one is way too harsh. The hatmaker approach would be ideal. At the current state I won't use this feature at all. Grade: D

Fellowship
Since most heroes are practically shoved in when you play the game, it makes complete sense to require a bit of extra effort for displaying them. Concerning the animal companion, it looks like ANet has decided that some pets like spider are 'rare' enough to warrant an unlock in GW2 and the 'generic' ones are just noted with a generic statue that won't unlock anything. They could have gone as far as only make a statue for those rare pets and not accept generic ones at all. When recording a pet, it should be told whether it unlocks anything in GW2, and ANet could go another mile here as well by using pet specific statues and pet names. While it's irrelevant to the inheritance issue it's very relevant to players. Grade: B

Honor
This doesn't make any sense, so it must be a wookiee. Why are only account-wide titles recorded and per character? Why are only PvP titles recorded in a PvE feature? Why are the limits so high that for many of them there isn't (and probably won't be) a single player in the entire community that can claim the honor? Why can you record minipets which require no effort whatsoever to acquire and cannot record titles that take an insane amount of effort to acquire? The defense rests its case. Grade: F

Valor
This is just like the bonus items of GW in that it's a set of equipment with fixed stats - more of a convenience than anything spectacular, or even personal. It's not about displaying your favorite weapon, that doesn't make sense and would be an unacceptable requirement for GW2 if people could carry over whatever junk they have found in the original game. Who knows whether the weapon system even stays the same? The devs can adjust this fixed set of equipment according to new specs. Adjusting every possible weapon in GW with every possible stat would be impossible. But ANet has made a mistake here as well, it must be account based like the current bonus items are instead of character based, otherwise it doesn't make any sense either. Grade: C

Resilience
This completely meets the design criteria of ANet: there will be several prestige armor sets in GW2 that you can only unlock by acquiring the respective set in GW and recording it here. For this end, it's irrelevant what you are actually wearing in GW, and it's irrelevant what profession you are since there won't be a 1-on-1 correspondence between professions of GW and whatever classes GW2 will have. On the other hand players want a statue of themselves wearing whatever mix of armor they like to use. There is a simple solution to this because players are asking for something that cannot possibly be incorporated with the current system: make an additional statue of the player character in whatever armor the player wishes to use somewhere in HoM, completely separate from the prestige armor rack. It's just eyecandy without unlocks, just like a specific pet statue but ANet could easily do that to make the HoM appear more customized. Grade: B

Also, I must touch the issue of rewards. There are fair and unfair ways to do it and until GW2 comes out we won't know which one it is. I would, however, make a petition for a fair deal just because an unfair one is, well, unfair. Whatever the system is, it should meet the following criteria:
* a player with one character having done rewardable deeds A and B should get the same reward as another player with two characters, one having done A and another B (corollary: KoaBD rank by itself cannot be grounds for a reward)
* a player with two characters, both having done the rewardable deed A, should get twice the reward that another player with one character having done A

And lastly, if whatever rewards can be unlocked in GW2 are not game-imbalancing ones, why is ANet so concerned who gets what within one account? It doesn't make sense, either.

I'd love to hear something, anything, from Gaile at this point ...

tmakinen · Aug 30, 2007, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Also, why do the percentages on the poll add up to 102.45% ? Are you sure that you're not using a Diebold machine to count the votes ...

arcanemacabre · Aug 30, 2007, 08:23 AM // 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaythen Tyradel

OK, just thought of something that MAY POSSIBLY relate to PVE titles.
The Norn and Ebon Vanguard both mentioned about having a "Book" that keeps note of our accomplishments. We could interact with them at the time of the preview, but they could not sell/give us the book. The NPC's told us to come back a week later.
Could this be part of the way we enter/record/keep track of PVE titles for the HoM?

Just wondering...

Very good idea, Jaythen! If this was not the way it was intended, it's very possible that it may be changed to be included. I was very curious to how the books will work.

Jk)Phoenix · Aug 30, 2007, 09:23 AM // 09:23

/signed

account based is teh way! agreed with all points

Swatu · Aug 30, 2007, 10:38 AM // 10:38

/signed

I agree whit all what you write

Katinka · Aug 30, 2007, 11:03 AM // 11:03

/agree

why you can only put GW:EN items in the The Monument of Valor and no HoH weapons, they are rare high end too

fenix · Aug 30, 2007, 11:14 AM // 11:14

/disagree

I disagree with a few things:

1) Account based. What a joke. Turn peoples accomplishments into nothing, since you can do them over multiple characters?
2) Your poll is terribad. Tickboxes?
3) Your options are terribad. Two are 'Account Based', one is 'just changes', and one is 'no changes'. How does that help?
4) You have worded them poorly, EXCEPT for the 'Account Based' one, and the 'no changes' one. People are naturally going to be drawn towards those two.
5) The point of HoM is to carry over CHARACTER achievements to other CHARACTERS in GW2. How does Account based accomplishments help here?

My suggestion? Get someone over here who can make a proper poll, reword things, and then try again. Currently it's quite a terrible poll, as people do not understand the options.

Oh and sure, flame me, but you know I'm right.

tmakinen · Aug 30, 2007, 11:51 AM // 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Account based. What a joke. Turn peoples accomplishments into nothing, since you can do them over multiple characters?

That statement doesn't parse ...

Your rank in the Kurzick Allegiance title track is 'nothing' because you have used one character to do FFF and another for AB? Yeah, right ...

Your Legendary Survivor and Legendary Defender of Ascalon are both 'nothing' because they are not on the same character? Well, you'll only get them on the same character by using a bannable exploit.

Your Incorrigible Ale-Hound and Grandmaster Treasure Hunter are both 'nothing' because they are not on the same character? Well, instead of drinking while running chest you have to use twice the amount of time with two characters, one just running and another just drinking, so that's clearly 'nothing'.

Your Legendary Survivor and Leather-bound Books are both 'nothing' because they are not on the same character, since LS was not available when you created your primary character? Birthday presents be damned, let's reroll our main toons once per month and still go for Mahogany, anything less is clearly 'nothing'.

silz · Aug 30, 2007, 11:51 AM // 11:51

No flames from me as everyone is entitled to sate their own opinion, and all opinions are important in this debate

one counter to the arguement that "account based titles turning peoples acheivements into nothing" though, and this relates to the Tresure Hunter and Wisdom Seeker titles.

The counter argument is that, for example, say take a maxed Tresure Hunter title. Take somone playing on one character who maxes the title (player A), compare them to someone who buys/finds the same number of keys, finds the same number of high end chests, and opens them with 5 characters(Player B). Both players A and B have invested the same amount of time, effort, and in game gold to open these high end chests, Player A gets the title, Player B does not, yet there is no difference in the amount of work or effort the two have put into the game.

As another example take the Wisdom Hunter title, Player A id's all the gold items on one character, Player B with his 5. Both players have again spent the same time and effort in acheiving the number required for a max title. Player A gets it, player B does not.

Seeing as both Player A and Player B have invested the same amount of time and effort to accumulate the same number of opened chests and identified golds, how can Player B actually be told he should work for the title?

Do I actually agree in making these titles account based, the more I think about it, as a wholesale change, no I do not.

However, and this is just a suggestion, what if A-Net were able to offer a one off, non-reversable, opportunity to me as a player combine the title progression on these tracks (Treasure and Wisdom [and possible Legendary Survivor and LDoA]) from all my characters onto one?

I personally would accept. My Warrior is my primary character on which I am now concentrating (but is only my fifth oldest on the account), I would gladly resolve this whole mess by leaving the titles on a per character base, but being able to do a one off, one way transfer from my 11 other characters. Slayer gets a boost on his Wisdom and Treasure Tracks yes, but all the other 11 get their title tracks reset down to zero.

Just a thought............
This way, the time and effort on the account to date gets "recorded", but only once, and can only be inherited once on a character to character basis in GW2

Sjeng · Aug 30, 2007, 12:31 PM // 12:31

/signed!!!
PLEASE make it account based.
/signed!!!
and with PvE titles as well.
/signed!!!
Yeah I wanna see my own character's statue with MY armor!
/signed!!!
I wouldn't mind my minipets being customized to a character, as long as you can clone your customized minipets to other characters on the same account by means of a Toy-maker NPC that would function exactly like the festival hat maker NPC. That would save storage room as well.

/signed signed triple signed!!! the only way the HoM would be of ANY value and use would be to implement all the OP's suggestions.

Jongo River · Aug 30, 2007, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

1) Account based. What a joke. Turn peoples accomplishments into nothing, since you can do them over multiple characters?

Currently, people who play more than one character have their accomplishments considered nothing, by default. It's one of the reasons I hate the whole fudged up title system. So much about it seems to be about selectively rewarding players who only use one character - i.e. how is a player who protects or explores each continent on 1 character superior to one who does each continent with a different character? Why reward choosing to stick with your first character as an achievement? Consolidating that bias in the HoM is pretty damned offensive to players like me.

Don't even get me started on the more general insanity behind some titles (like pursuing every elite skill on one character, rather than the ones they'd actually be useful for)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

2) Your poll is terribad. Tickboxes?
3) Your options are terribad. Two are 'Account Based', one is 'just changes', and one is 'no changes'. How does that help?
4) You have worded them poorly, EXCEPT for the 'Account Based' one, and the 'no changes' one. People are naturally going to be drawn towards those two.

I thought they were worded well and offered a pretty complete range of options. But, then, I don't use "words" like "Terribad".

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

5) The point of HoM is to carry over CHARACTER achievements to other CHARACTERS in GW2. How does Account based accomplishments help here?

Fair rewards for all players. There's not much point in a scheme to encourage us over to GW2, when it arrives, if that scheme actively discriminates against a sizeable portion of the player base. Hell, I read nonsense like you've spouted and find myself itching to just delete my toons and turn my back on this increasingly anal little game for good. If Anet shares your opinion, Anet can go to hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

My suggestion? Get someone over here who can make a proper poll, reword things, and then try again. Currently it's quite a terrible poll, as people do not understand the options.

Oh and sure, flame me, but you know I'm right.

Ha, ha. Funny.

Sjeng · Aug 30, 2007, 12:53 PM // 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by silz

one counter to the argument that "account based titles turning peoples achievements into nothing" though, and this relates to the Treasure Hunter and Wisdom Seeker titles.
[...]
Seeing as both Player A and Player B have invested the same amount of time and effort to accumulate the same number of opened chests and identified golds, how can Player B actually be told he should work for the title?
Do I actually agree in making these titles account based, the more I think about it, as a wholesale change, no I do not.
However, and this is just a suggestion, what if A-Net were able to offer a one off, non-reversable, opportunity to me as a player combine the title progression on these tracks (Treasure and Wisdom [and possibly Legendary Survivor and LDoA]) from all my characters onto one?
I personally would accept. My Warrior is my primary character on which I am now concentrating (but is only my fifth oldest on the account), I would gladly resolve this whole mess by leaving the titles on a per character base, but being able to do a one off, one way transfer from my 11 other characters. Slayer gets a boost on his Wisdom and Treasure Tracks yes, but all the other 11 get their title tracks reset down to zero.

And then how would that work? Would you never ever use your other characters for chest runs ever again? That would seriously take away a lot of the fun in GW imo. I like to play different characters with different professions. So if my guild decides to do a chestrun, and they need an elem, do I say: "no thanks, I only chestrun with my Warrior anymore", and miss out on all the fun? Treasure hunter and wisdom collector should be account wide. Just add the whole thing up.
Now survivor and LDoA are totally different things. Keep that character based.

Quote:

This way, the time and effort on the account to date gets "recorded", but only once, and can only be inherited once on a character to character basis in GW2

I think the inheritance will be account to account in GW2, as there will be different professions in GW2. And I sure hope so.

oh and btw: fenix, I think you're terribad. The poll is very clear to me, and the OP's suggestions are explained in a clear and non-biased way, with well supperted arguments. Your arguments arent very well supported at all. Yay to Jongo. Boo to you.

silz · Aug 30, 2007, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Sjeng,

I understand what you are saying, and I approached my suggestion on the basis that we as the community were not previously aware of the character to character inheritance, and were therefore unaware that working on different characters simultaneously could be detrimental to the inheritance in a GW2 character.

Now that we are aware of the emphasis A-Net are giving, let us combine our progress on a one off basis, thereafter if we wish to continue helping Guildies out with a character other than our main one, at least we are doing so knowing the implications of it. Namely that if you have chosen to combine the title tracks onto one main, you can start the track again on the others.

It seems clear to me at least that A-Net are aiming at a one to one transfer of benefit at a character level, if thats the case I can only express my opinion that I would like the opportunity to decide if I transfer everything I have done on 12 characters in GW on the Wisdom and Treasure Hunter titles to one character as at the release of GWEN, and then thereafter I have an informed choice of whether to multi-character or split my time between characters. At least it gives me a choice to combine or keep separate, or to be forced to play one character and forgoe everything on the others in a search to maximise the benefit (if any) going into GW2.

I'll accept its not a perfect solution, but at least it provides me, as a player with the opportunity of making the choice on how I progress from here.