Curse

Sjeng · Aug 30, 2007, 01:34 PM // 13:34

I see, well, your point is clear then.
I'd still prefer Treasure hunter and Wisdom titles to be account wide though.
I mean: farming faction points is account wide. Why not farming chests/golds?
And I stress again that focusing on one character will become boring quickly to many players. Why does anet want that anyway?

uber n00b · Aug 30, 2007, 01:44 PM // 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipside3

/signed

I had hoped the HoM would be more like a massive storage locker. Like the mini-pets. Instead of a copy of my mini-pet on the shelf... I'd like to put the actual pet there so I don't have to carry it around in my inventory.

Same with armor. If I could put the actual set of armor on a rack in the HoM, then I could buy more armor sets since the extra set wouldn't be clogging my inventory.

I was expecting a place that could store tons of stuff, and organize it for me. I had also hoped it would say list all the quests I had accomplished across all the campaigns, showing me what was still left to do. But that was just a random dream.

Pretty much what I was expecting

/signed

Emanuel Zorg · Aug 30, 2007, 01:55 PM // 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

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.

You're implicitly suggesting that displaying and unlocking must go hand-in-hand. Why? Why not allow anything to be displayed, but only certain weapons count for an unlock? This would allow the monument to better suit the players' purposes, while still allowing the same functionality in GW2.

I think the fundamental issue that has caused so much disappointment for many is that it looked like the HoM would be a player-centric feature that allowed us to create a fairly customized hall that showed whatever accomplishments we were proud of. Players like me thought of the GW2 transfer feature as secondary to this, and I suppose I just thought that while we'd be able to display what we wanted, a GW2 unlock would occur if we put the "right" things in the hall. Instead, it looks like it was designed with only the GW2 transfer feature in mind, with what you can put in certain monuments narrowly defined by what will unlock something in GW2.

Dragon Lord · Aug 30, 2007, 02:16 PM // 14:16

/signed and discuss

ShadowStep · Aug 30, 2007, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

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

Well thats why you would setup a system that has your titles account based but shows you which of your chars have achieved it, eg. click on Monument of honor, tet bo pops up and reads: Shadowtep has achieved Protector of Cantha, etc. etc. Space Joe Blogs has achieved Protector of Cantha, etc.etc.

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?

This point has been stressed before. Some of us have over half a dozen chars(myself included) but we might not want that many in GW2. I might only want 2. So what you are saying is I need to create the same amount of chars as we had in GW1 to get all the benefits of the HoM? I think that's a bit of a crappy deal.

Torino Cowell · Aug 30, 2007, 02:48 PM // 14:48

/signed

the minipets need to be account based , i don't see too much need for the others to be. also pvp, gamer + fortune titles. no need for the rest to be though . the NPCs would be nice , things like "hair stylist" and "identify changer" where you can change your characters name ( those who have and inappropriate name can , why can't those who follow the rules) once . i just hope anet listens to this post , alot more was expected from HoM

tmakinen · Aug 30, 2007, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel Zorg

You're implicitly suggesting that displaying and unlocking must go hand-in-hand. Why? Why not allow anything to be displayed, but only certain weapons count for an unlock? This would allow the monument to better suit the players' purposes, while still allowing the same functionality in GW2.

If you read my (admittedly long) post carefully, it should be clear that I am not suggesting that (in fact, I explicitly say that it wouldn't have to be the case and the reason it is they way it currently is can be traced back to ANet's decisions). The entire point of my post can be condensed to:

1. If we assume HoM to be feature complete, the design guidelines of ANet can be deduced from that (and those are then elaborated)
2. The interests of ANet and the player base don't currently meet
3. There are several areas where ANet can get closer to the wishes of the player base without having to abandon their design
4. There are some expectations among the players that just aren't realistic and cannot be met without a complete redesign

HoM was not designed to be a storage - that's what Xunlai is for. It's for recording things, and it doesn't make any more sense to record a random weapon than to demand that we should be able to equip random loot armor pieces on a character. If you really want, it could be a feature of the character statue that I suggested to have a specific weapon visible.

Emanuel Zorg · Aug 30, 2007, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

HoM was not designed to be a storage - that's what Xunlai is for.

I agree, and I think the proposals to use it for storage or as a ranger pet stable are pretty far out there. I don't think these will happen.

Quote:

It's for recording things, and it doesn't make any more sense to record a random weapon than to demand that we should be able to equip random loot armor pieces on a character.

I don't think these are really analogous at all, because we already can equip any random weapon we find. Allowing the hall to simply record any weapon is simpler from a design perspective, and more customizable from a player perspective. I show the monument a weapon. It scans it, customizes it, and displays the weapon and its stats. No checks are needed to make sure a weapon meets certain criteria. It doesn't matter if you or the developers don't think it makes sense to record a particular weapon -- each individual player can decide for themselves what makes sense to display. And later, if some particular weapon should unlock something in GW2, it can.

I get where you were coming from in analyzing ANet's design goals, but I think it's possible for them to still meet those goals while allowing the players more customization options. If the only goal is to unlock something in GW2 and they have no plans to meet alternative goals, then you're right -- it doesn't make sense to allow the display of any random weapon. But if the goal of a monument like valor is to display a character's most prized weapons, it makes sense to allow that player to decide which weapons are most prized -- not predefine for them a few choices.

In short, I think both the goal of GW2 benefits and player customization can be met without a complete overhaul.

oracleofwoe · Aug 30, 2007, 04:16 PM // 16:16

/signed needs to be account based otherwise i've started a new toon for ldoa for absolutely nothing

Gwene · Aug 30, 2007, 04:23 PM // 16:23

/signed

Definitely want to be able to memorialize weapons other than just Eye of the North. I worked to hard for several greens to not be able to show a something for it.

- this may be off topic but in GW2 it would be nice to apply the bonuses from the hall to whatever character you select. For example, if I only have one char in GW2, I should be able to get all of my monument "bonuses" on that char instead of having to have 5 charaters in GW2 tied to 5 chars in GW1. I'm not saying all chars should get all bonuses, it should be a - use it once on one char and it's gone type of thing. Otherwise you are forced to create multilple GW2 chars just to reap your hard earned rewards. I would prefer to decide how many characters I create based on what I feel like playing without feeling obliged to create char after char just to keep up with my own previous gaming.

bianca periwinkle · Aug 30, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

I had just assumed that Hall of Monuments would unlock items to a Guild Wars 2 account similar to the way collectors editions (or bonus packs from pre ordering) do now. eg, the icy glacial sword for preordering GW:EN.

And yes, I too thought it would be account based.

And I have 16 character slots :S (plus my kid's, which has a further 15)

swfergus · Aug 30, 2007, 05:55 PM // 17:55

/signed on all points

WasAGuest · Aug 30, 2007, 07:39 PM // 19:39

/signed - with a different approach to the shared aspect.

Rather than share a single HoM between characters, a re-vamp on some titles ought to be done.

Example: I'll use a few titles here for the example; Cartographer and Wisdom to start. These are both "knowledge" based titles in terms of role playing. One shows the land that has been discovered and mapped out, and the other shows what has been learned from gaining items of value.
Knowledge is shared.
When the earth was mapped out, people exchanged and traded maps to share and exchange knowledge. They told each other were places of interest were at, and even today, we trade maps and locational information.
Wisdom is passed on between friends and families in so many ways even today. In simple conversations or in writings of importance or in the simplest of journalism.
These two examples stand out to me since these types of knowledge is shared; just as the players' character's share a storage.

Reputation titles: These are the worst IMO for grind in the game. Lessening them even a little will help greatly.
Passed down reputation is not unheard of. Think towards the common "Mafia movies" where to get "in", one has to speak for you. If the Mafia movies are not in mind, think simple night clubs where someone knows the door man and gets everyone else in. The person "speaking" for the other is always already "in" and as such opens the gate for the new person to get a foot in the door much easier.
I would suggest a ratio of 1:3 as pass along reputation between all characters. Such as, a primary characters gets 3 ranks in the rep title, a rank 1 is passed on to the others. 6 ranks would share down 2. Once maxed and another character can then begin working on that same title once again sharing 1:3. This doesn't stop the effort of the titles, but eases the sheer amount of grind that comes with them.

In the long run, this still opens up lots of replay and even encourages players to bring more characters up and through the campaigns as the grind will no longer hold them back or discourage them from making another character*.
The HoM would then be more accessible to those that enjoy more than one character as well as help the newer characters long without having to do the grind and instead can focus on the game's content (quests and missions) and then move into HM for those.

It's important to note; note all titles should be shared as such, and limits to "mapping" would have to be put in place so that characters could only map to where they have personally been - that's not to say they do not know prior that Sardelac is not right outside Ascalon (for example); they just wouldn't be able to map there till they've been there.

*This is of course if they think like me and see the sheer amount of grind the titles take and say "Forget that! I'm not spending that much time on that again." - This way of thinking for me, means there is little or no interest in long term play or repeat business from myself.

Jennie · Aug 30, 2007, 08:09 PM // 20:09

/signed.... agree with everything in the main post.... would like to add something to it though... imo should be able to display any title there... only the max ones should be able to unlock stuff in GW2 but it would still be nice to be able to post them all in there while you work on them.

Thermoblaze · Aug 30, 2007, 08:57 PM // 20:57

/signed everthing!!!!

Konrow · Aug 30, 2007, 09:20 PM // 21:20

/signed totally. I couldn't have said it better myself Silly. HoM has been a letdown for me and i'm really angry that the titles i worked so hard for can't be displayed. I got some of them solely for the purpose of posting them at the HoM. Personally i don't see the reasoning behind the titles. I say anet should take this matter seriously.

Graphik Desine · Aug 30, 2007, 10:59 PM // 22:59

/signed on minipets----if i customize it to my main char, i will never be able to use that minipet ever again on my warrior, for instance, unless i wait until the very end right before gw2 comes out--then i could see that, but currently---i cannot customize, as i love moving minipets around on different chars. but wait like 2 years to finally customize then trash them, and pull them out. already some people trashed their pets after customizing, but won't be able to use on other chars

/signed on armors--necro fow---and wow look! rit and sin fow. .______.'

what? why...i don't even have a sin or really like them all that much. hopefully that was just preview ._.

/signed on pvp titles--i burnt myself out on getting my tiger emote for now--but cant display till i'm r12? you have got to be kidding. a tiger isn't enough for my hall? and for others---a BAMBI isn't enough either???? gogo gadget meta! sigh

though i am not going to be a picky critic--and ream everything aNet worked on--i actually do think these things need to be slightly modified. but we do have to remember that this hall of monuments is supposed to function as just what it is now. i do not think that the hall itself needs to be "given a facelift" in looks (what was everyone expecting? too much? doesn't look the way they thought it was going to? that's kinda not up to the players to design the HoM--rather, the aNet design team)--but a couple of the kinks do need to be worked out with our accomplishments. i do not agree with the entire petition, but at least these 3 things DO need looking at, in my opinion.

*i cannot find my actual stance in the poll choices, as it seems a little biased and/or limited, so i cannot vote. and i would hate to add my stance in there as slightly false because i have a suggestion that is not mentioned, at least not from what i read. maybe i missed it, as there is a lot of reading here and might have skimmed over it on accident.

maybe try making the HoM character AND account based, such as how hero battles is set up. assign [choose character's name among all] to the HoM, then you will have a combination of pve and pvp titles, and straggling items like minipets could be just account based. and allow us to add several types of armors, heroes, etc to it as we find/buy/craft things on all of our characters.

[if you would like me to add my suggestion in a separate thread, i will do so. otherwise, it stays here.]

House Silvermoon · Aug 30, 2007, 11:09 PM // 23:09

/signed

all ur arguments make a world of sense.

OlMurraniKasale · Aug 30, 2007, 11:43 PM // 23:43

I am updating my previous post. BOOOO to the hero armor pieces being required. I just spent the entire afternoon trying to get even ONE, and people in the outposts were getting them, some two or three and i got ZERO. In all these months of trying since NF came out, sometimes doing nothing but that I got ONE!

Well at least Olias and Razah (already has his best set) can go into the HoM. Booo to hero armor! Cosmetic dung idea.

Lucifer PVP · Aug 31, 2007, 12:32 AM // 00:32

gaile just confirmed it ... HoM is going to remain character based