Is Anet Deterring Players from Playing Many Characters?

Since we are in agreement about making the game more efficient, what ideas do you have?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

I can't speak for anyone else, but one thing I would like to see is for the "roadblocks" that prevent you from moving on to any given area without completing certain quests or missions to be taken down for your account once you complete a chapter with one character. I.e. open all the gates and activate all the missions for a chapter for an account after one character has completed that chapter.

I love playing the game, and play it all with multiple characters, but it would be nice if you could take a second or third character through only to where you want to go after you've already done it all once. This kind of unlocking would still prevent the running of others who haven't completed a chapter, and characters would still have to actually travel to the area they wanted to go to, but it would cut out some of the boredom of repeating anything you didn't enjoy so much the first time through. You could just "play through" instead.

Please disregard if someone has already proposed this idea. I haven't read the whole thread yet.

Well, ignorance is bliss, as they say. What you will or will not do is rather less important to game developers than what people in general are likely to do with it. This whole idea has the possibility of killing the game simply because if many players cannot resist the temptation it might indeed make the game a whole lot less interesting to play.

A new game has hungry players for new content. It depends from player to player how many times you can enjoy going through a continent, but by lowering thresholds too much for the sake of a few you take out a lot of gameplay and that will make the game boring. We may not like barriers and boundaries but without them a game becomes pointless.

As the thread shows there are a multitude of people who disagree with your view on this anyway so I sincerely doubt this would serve the greater good of the GW players in general.

If indeed you find it too much work to put all of your characters through each continent then don't.

You do not need all classes to be everywhere. In fact I would go as far as to say that with a warrior, a necro an ele and a monk you will need no more characters to go through more than one continent and so the max number of characters you will need to go through each continent is 4 since no other classes will be really needed to be able to help others with the missions of any continent.

You may bring a mesmer but it's not required, you may bring a dervish but a warrior will do. You may bring a Ritualist but you don't need to. A few core classes is all you need.

Why would you need unlocks for characters if you do not need to bring them there to be multi-functional? The only reason would be is because you want to....if you want to then just go through the story line.

Before i start. I want to make sure everyone is with me. Agree or disagree with this analysis.


Guild Wars Prophecies - Least contraining. Missions are linked via primary quests, but missions can be done without doing the primary quests.

Guild Wars Factions - Most constraining. Missions are linked via primary quests. Missions cannot be entered without primary quests and maps are sectioned into small sections.

Guild Wars Nightfall - Middle road constraint. Missions are linked via primary quests and quests must be done to do missions. Areas are broken up into larger sections but still require missions to be finished.

In the interests of seeing where you are going with this

/Signed.

Broadly agree.

O really?! Can I request a "jump" feature in a game of CHESS too? It would add a whole new dimention to the game you know? Playing chess is so "RIGID" right now without any jumping.

And bah, like someone said, you don't need to use it. Just keep playing your own way while I jump around with my bishops.

? Really.

I see a 50/50 split in this thread on making the game more efficient. Read the post right before your last. Your logical fallacy is defined in wikipedia, "Argumentum ad populum". Even if your assertion of the majority on your side is true, that does not add credence to your argument. Refer to history for a lot of examples of the majority being wrong.

The really funny thing is that I mocked you for trying to push your method of playing the game on others, and then you respond by......
(da dum ching)
Telling me how I should play the game.

I think I will play the game as I see fit. The difference between us is that I do not see my way as being superior and explain it to others.

So I get it that you are happy with the current state of the game. Do you have some other relevant logical arguments, or is your entire arsenal merely 1) appealing to an unscientifically determined possible majority, and 2) dictating to others how they should play the game?

So lets recap. I think that the game can and should be made more efficient so that I can experience more of it on my limited time budget. I make no bones about this being a purely selfish request. You respond with vaguely worded assertions that the game will become less playable not for you but for all (see "Appeal to fear" in wikipedia) and that it would destroy the game.

Uh, maybe those do not apply to me, sir.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

You sir are too funny not to answer.

Chess is a static entity and does not have campaigns added to it, making it a larger game with more pieces to control.

Refer to "association fallacy" and "irrelevant conclusion" in wikipedia.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

I agree with your statement that Prophecies is the most flexible, Nightfall considerably less so, and Factions the most constrained. Is that sufficient?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

The people disagreeing with the idea in the OP need to conisder two main things:

1) The idea is flexible, got a problem with the wide-open, "all towns open for all characters", offer a better solution, don't just say "NO"

2) How the game is, right now, doesn't really need a change, it's mostly fine, and most people have enough time to pretty much do what they want to do - in 3 continents. The primary problem here is more and more continents that open up MULTIPLY the problem of not having enough time to do what you want to do.

This is especially relevant if each chapter gives us as much content as each chapter has given us so far. That includes not just explorable areas/towns, but new character classes to try out, as well. Stop looking at your simple chair, and realize that (supposedly) every six months, that chair gets taller, and taller, before you realize you can't climb up it anymore.

I'm not terribly worried about this for one main reason: I'm comfortable that Anet has thought about this and is most likely thinking of their own fix. Best thing we can do is offer up ideas, something that at least most of the community agrees with.

Actually, comparing it to another game would fit more this way.

Chess board = Guild Wars.
A single game of chess = A character slot
A new added campaign = Makes each game longer

Again, pieces and size of the game does not matter.

If i have 17 character slots, thats equivalent to me playing 17 games of chess simultaneously.

This is all about time spent vs time available.

The flaw in the idea for unlocking the map for other characters is the fact that it still boils down to the basic selfishness (as you yourself admitted).

----------------------

This defense keeps popping up that "One shouldnt force how they play the game on someone else."

This would be a valid retort, if the idea presented was actually an alternate way to play the game.

The idea, instead is to skip playing parts of the game.

---------------------

Anyways....

I'm actually WAY WAY more concerned over skill balancing for PvP vs how much there is to do in PvE.

We can overcome large amounts of content just by playing it, that's not a problem at all, but skill balancing the larger and larger list of skills is going to be a HUGE undertaking for Arenanet. Having LARGE amounts of content should'nt be seen as a problem! Youre paying for content after all XD. Nonetheless, it can be overwhelming.

As is, Chapter 4 is delayed (im happy) and i believe Anet is re-examining their business model SPECIFICALLY to address both these situations perhaps. But thats just me being optimistic.

TobascoSauce, quit using references to wikipedia and triple posting. It's annoying and pointless.

Anyway, I think somewhere in the middle would be the right idea. I don't think that once a player unlocks a town, it should show up on every other character they own. Or even if they finish the game, all outposts show up. There has to be some effort made to get through the game with a character. This would also get annoying for someone like me, who only wants a town on my map if I've actually made the effort to get there.

I particularly liked how they did Nightfall. You could basically explore all of a certain area of the game (Istan, Kourna, Vabbi), but to advance to the next area you had to complete the missions. So I would be quite happy if they used this style for any future campaigns they release.

However, I can understand how boring it would get to play this content over and over. So maybe they should make it so that you have to finish the game with one character, and all barriers and such are unlocked to enable players to run through areas like in Prophecies (they'd still have to complete the tutorial islands, but you can do that in just an hour or so). I think that missions should be kept locked until you've done the relevant quests and such, but since you can just join a party doing a later mission, you can quite easily get around this restriction.

Actually I like bringing new characters through the storyline over and over again. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought 14 chars through Nightfall without some level of enjoyment and I do feel a certain level of accomplishment at the end of it all.

Having all towns unlocked after going through it once means that I can only play the game once which is too limiting and I would probably get sick of the game much sooner.

After completing the campaign with 1 char, if I dont enjoy playing my other chars through it, I may as well delete them. As for how I enjoy this game, it is the journey that matters, not the destination. If I want a level 20 with max armor and equipment immediately, I'll create a pvp char. I dont see a point having my other chars accelerated through the game after the first char has completed it. I am not in any hurry to start feeling bored and not know what to do next in pve after the first char completes.

Spare me the psycho babble.....you do have a very descending manner and you do believe you are superior because you have an obvious attitude that you feel you are right no matter what anybody says. God (if he exists) could come down from heaven and tell you how it is and you woul still look at him and say 'sure, whatever'

Incidentally...the majority can be wrong, but selfish desires are not a good source of information for how to make a game fun for a large group of people. Of course the majority isn't always right but the opposite is also true. You are simply ignoring the fact that it is you who wants to tell people how the game should be played disguised in the shape of so called choices or freedom. But as there is no absolute freedom and no action is without a consequence (which selfish people tend to ignore completely), your only hope in any merit to your comments is the off chance that you may perhaps be right because you accidentally had a good idea. Of course I doubt that this is the case her but that would be clear.

What you perceive as me telling you how to play is not that at all. I am simply saying what I feel makes sense considering the circumstances (game mechanics, human nature etc). It is pragmatism from my viewpoint and if you don't agree with me that's fine. You don't have to follow my reasoning and I can't say anything about that. I may remainin unbelief that you have the viewpoints you have but that's fair enough.

Bottom line is that I think you're a lazy gamer and that if this would happen it would ruin the game for non lazy players. However, there may be a solution that will appeal to both sides.

If it were implemented in the game just like that it would be bad. Human nature wills that if you have an option you will use it even if you don't really want to or it's detrimental to you....we just can't resist. (quick D&D example: party goes into an empty room with a red button on the wall with a sign that says 'do not touch the button - you will die' Guess what happens? Someone will push the button..without fail)

But it's easier to resist if it costs you.

As rewards have to come at a price the choice would have to be, do the effort in game or get unlocks as you suggest and pay for it with real cash. One way or the other it will have to cost you and as the saying goes "time is money". Like it or hate but that's the most basic mechanic: Effort gives reward...if you want to skip one effort you have to spend energy elsewhere to earn the rewards.

If it must be than make it an unlock pack that you can buy at the GW store; then you have your choice.

You know what....nevermind. This whole thing is going out of control. We disagree and we are never gonna get out of that. Fair enough by me.

I think I got caught up here in a senseless spiral that will only drag this on. My views are there and so are yours and they are just not the same views. As to not let it spiral in to a heated ad hominem forum fight and as I accept that I have my part in this, I will withdraw from this discussion before it gets too ugly.

My apologies to those who feel it had already gone too far.

Chess analogy is bad - Chess is PvP. We are talking about PvE.

Incidentally I'm just going to go along with what Tabasco is saying... I've nothing to add to his already cogent arguments.

My biggest problem with not having access to areas uncovered by other characters is for playing FoW/UW. But this can be a different problem/solution alltogether.

My problem here is the following.
Guildie: "Anyone wanna go FoW. Need one more warrior"
Me: "Ooh ooh, I got a warrior, I wanna go FoW"
Guildie: "Pff, not you again, anyone else?"
... a few minutes of silence...
Guildie: "Ok, you can come"
Me: "Sweet, where do we meet?"
Guildie: "Chantry of Secrets"
Me: "Damn, my warrior is Canthan, I can only access FoW through Zin Ku Corridor."
Guildie: "I can only access it through Chantry"
Guildie2: "I can go from NF and Proph but not factions"
Guild Leader: "I can go from all three with all my characters and I have FoW armor on all my characters and I am teh win."
Guildie3: " I can go from factions and NF, but not proph."
Guldie4: "I can't come, I'm in FoW and got 2 shards allready. Just solo it noobs."

See, I can get to FoW and UW but not from all places with all my characters. That sucks.

Otherwise I also agree with the OP, I'd be nice to be able to go to all areas and cap elites and farm greens without the grind. But I do think that the primary missions should only be do-able if you do them in cronological order. So end-game mission only after you did all the rest. Only access to outposts and towns should be unlocked.

agreed, but that's only part of the truth.
prophecies offers max armor in the last quarter of the game, and strings out supply of skills to motivate people to play everything. Elite skills are mostly located in the last quarter, the "full" skill trainer even later. Available builds from the start are very limited because even unlocked skills may not be available for a newly created characters.

factions offers max armor, elite skills and access to the skill portfolio almost instantly, but introduced excessive partitioning.

No - for one thing ANET massively changed the metagame with the expansions.
As already mentioned, in the beginning it was considered equivalent to use a PvE or PvP character for PvP. PvP was originally considered "the endgame" for at least a part of the playerbase. Now it gets more and more tedious to keep several PvE characters up to date, to the point where it gets way too timeconsuming and boring (read grind) to play half a campaign just to get one skill. arcanemacarbre did the maths - you started with 4*1=4, now you have 8*3=24... So the gap keeps widening to the point where you will need a dedicated PvP slot for most classes. The argument runs also true if you just want a special PvE build.

The math gets in the way again if I want to help someone in PvE, my character choises get limited, without gain gameplaywise.

There was a very good article from Björn Lilleike some time ago, comparing game design to landscape gardening. As a designer you better watch out for dirt tracks, where people leave the designated path (i.e. how the designer thinks you should play) and take shortcuts. They do it for a reason. A bad designer will erect fences. A good one will improve the attractivity of the main road and think about trade offs for taking the short cut.

My opinion in a nutshell.

This is a nice implementation. You still have to follow the order of the mission path if you want to complete the game on a second character, but all other outposts are unlocked for that character.

Chess analogy is fine. The analogy mentions nothing about the nature of the gameplay. It could be for PvP or PvE.

The analogy can fit ANY sort game actually.

What matters in the analogy is what character slots are represented by, which is the number of individual games that simultaneously are being played.

----------

The suggestion is only convincing in so far as to prove that:

1) Playing a lot of character slots takes a lot of time as more and more campaigns are added and will only increase geometrically.
2) Not everyone has the same amount of time to play.

It doesnt make any compelling logical conclusion to convince anyone as to WHY such a change NEEDS to be implemented.

It's a very appealing idea because it would be very convenient for a lot of players, including myself but thats not enough of a reason.

=========

Yes but all this can be bypassed by running.

The PvE and PvP chars were never equal for PvP. Before Balthazar faction, before implementation of armor locking and adding more weapon slots, a PvP char would never have the same potential as as a fully UAX'ed PvE char.

These changes were punctuated by releases of expansion, but were, imo, neccessary changes and might have occured even if the expansions were not released at the time.

As it stands presently, PvP chars are in a better position, since they have access to ALL unlocked skills (a situation i hope Anet resolves eventually).

Yes this is true. This is the consequence of having a lot of characters. A consequence that everyone should have seen coming.

Maybe Anet intentionally only gave us 4 characters because their future intentions would create this situation?

I don't really know why its so unreasonable to create content and expect the content to be played through...And its not even forced content. Its content you PAID for. You paid for the opportunity to play through the game.

That sounds very interesting and i certainly agree.

Yes, good game design should give you the choices and multiple choices on how to tackle a certain problem.

But at the end of the day, its still you going from point A to point B. It really is "freedom within limitations".

You can run around Kourna and explore it all you want, but if you wanna get to Vabbi, do those missions. XD

I'll not get into the whole illusion of freedom and fate and time as a web and irrelevance of choices...thats off topic. ^^

Sadom this is the idea you want:

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10075967

OK, what if the efficent "shortcut" is actually storyline-based, since there is this huge barrier called "linear missions".

The way the three chapters are working now, much of their storyline actually take place at the same time - correct me if I'm wrong. Pre-sear out of the way, it could be said the training on Shing Jea, the time on Istan, and escaping Ascalon take place all at the same time, right? Which is why when you get to Lion's Arch, Consulate Docks, and Kaineng City, you can travel to the other lands in their respective storyline ports/outposts.

So.... simply put another point, later in the story of each land, that you can travel to those later parts in the other campaigns. Say, in Desolation (Ruins of Morah, maybe), you can go to Crystal Desert (possibly right after "ascension", in Dragon's Lair), and maybe travel to Unwaking Waters (to avoid the Kurzick/Luxon faction BS), and all vise-versa.

To fit in the story, this could be where each side is really feeling the effects of Abaddon, and you can choose which continent you wish to combat a part of him. To give more freedom, without too many "handouts", no unlocking of other outposts when you make this jump, but you can run backwards through, like you can now through the early missions.

Is this a decent compromise idea?

Yes... It is...

My hat is off to you, sir. I may quote your quotation.

I submit to you that the first point you mentioned above establishes a continuous and worsening change in the nature of the game itself, specifically:

1) equal opportunity in PvP arenas between PvE and PvP characters
2) the capacity of players who prefer PvE to play a complete set of characters through, as well as going back and playing previous campaigns for enjoyment

I fail to understand how you can reason that there is not a need to alter the game to make it more efficient. We covered this before, in that you perceive a static situation for this game, when in fact you mention in point number one above that this is not the case.

Is it that you are simply personally resistant to the idea presented in this thread? That is understandable, and was obviously the case with cthulhu reborn, who if he is reading this message I apologize to, inasmuch that people in forums tend to disagree and I am always happy to point people at wikipedia for logical errors when I feel like they are borderlining on ad hominem attacks as an explanation.

I will make a point to go back and search the forum(s) for any ideas to make the game more efficient, and bring back those threads. I have no ego invested in this particular idea of unlocking campaigns, so for further review I would be happy to mention those as well as some others that would be equally satisfying, and almost certainly mentioned elsewhere:

1) Doing away with heroes and using your own characters in your party, moving 4 (or 8) characters around at a time! That would be awesome.
2) Completely unlocking all areas of old campaigns, when you buy a new one such that your characters have free reign in Prophecies and Factions when Nightfall is purchased, without actually unfogging the explorable areas for you on a per character basis of course.
3) As the OP mentioned, having all characters access to a town when it is reached by one of your own.
4) As I was campaigning for, opening up 75% of all campaigns when a particular character has completed one, so that all the early fedex missions are optional as opposed to mandatory

This is not all the ideas mentioned I am sure, merely the ones that come to me right now.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

>Doing away with heroes and using your own characters in your party,
>moving 4 (or 8) characters around at a time! That would be awesome.

FWIW it's what I was hoping for when I first heard of the hero system. No need to level super-henchies and acquire gear for them, while at the same time getting your other toons without as much repetition.

That said they could also unlock full access to a campaign upon getting a protector or cartographer title on one toon.

this and other threads here and at other sites have one thing in common.

regardless of lofty statements about i want to experience the full range of characters/professions GW has to offer they all boil down to a common goal.

i want to skip past the game i claim to want to experience

the common destination is the high end content with the latest farming build in the least time possible.

you dont want to play the character you want to high end farm and skip playing the actual game.

in your own words *ITS BORING AND I DONT HAVE THE TIME*

Let me rephrase your post, because you sir misstated what you meant!

What you meant was:

I want to skip past the parts of the game I have already played at least once that I dont want to experience another 6 or 7 times even though Loviatar said it was really keen

And this:

is really this:

the common destination is the high end content with the latest farming build because I have already reached there with a character and fought my way through without Loviatar's help and think that going through it another 6 or 7 times would be kind of a drag although he is welcome to play the game as he sees fit and do it again another 22 times if he wants

and lets skip to the end:

in your own words that were not put in my mouth by Loviatar who thank goodness knows everything and is willing to tell us exactly so *ITS BORING AND I DONT HAVE THE TIME TO PLAY THROUGH THIS GAME ANOTHER 6 OR 7 TIMES CAUSE LOVIATAR SAID THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY THE GAME AND HE SURE LIKES TO EMPHASIZE POINTS WITH SCREAMING AND BOLDNESS EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF HIS ASSERTIONS*

Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine, or anyone else. Hey, at least I am not sending you to wikipedia to figure out what exactly is wrong with your logical argument, because you have none.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Some people play this game for farming and others, like myself, for the game content.

Maybe ANet should release another game called Guild War Farming where all you do is farm day and night and the chars look like variants of "old Macdonald".

As long as it is a different game and players cant interact between them, so the economy is preserved, I am fine with that.

[QUOTE]no as in this case you are provably wrong.

also in the future do not put words in my mouth as i put none in yours.

also do not try to get cute by trying to add to or alter what i said.

disagree if you want but stop with the you really meant something else

NOW TO THE MAIN POINT

i meationed

this thread
other threads
other sites

i made no reference, quote,or anything that refered to you in my post.

why the blow up over it?

what i stated was accurate across threads/forums/sites

the main goal (for most of them) is high end farming without going through the main, boring, ive done it game.

Some of you remind me of Dinosaurs, and other obsolete things. Just because its change doesn't mean its bad. On top of that it would be an OPTION to do so.

If you are getting bored of GW it doesnt take half a brain to realise you should take a break go play other games and come play GW in a few weeks again.

Ive already mentioned out how to fix this problem without affecting PVE at all.

Also, this point is for PvP, so it really does not impact the situation.

The game is getting bigger per campaign. The time it takes to play through is increasing.

However. These increases and pressures are self imposed.

The game does not dictate how many characters you must play. The game does not dictate how many hours a week you must play.

[quote]I fail to understand how you can reason that there is not a need to alter the game to make it more efficient. We covered this before, in that you perceive a static situation for this game, when in fact you mention in point number one above that this is not the case.[quote]

What needs to be altered is player perception.

Do you need to beat the game and collect every skill for every character?

I work monday through friday. My job is very boring. However, i get paid for my efforts. If i could go to work monday, and be paid as if i worked all week, that would be just great. But thats not happening.

Job = Game.
Effort = Playing the game.
A day of work = 1 character slot
A day's worth of pay = 1 character beating the game and unlocking towns/outposts.

I would like to have access to end game content and unlocked towns for all multiple characters by only doing one. This should be implemented because it is beneficial to me and not-detrimental to anyone.

Thats just wishful thinking. Its unrealistic. Its overly demanding and it doesnt address the problem at hand.

The real problem is either:

1) You dont have the time to spend playing video games (this is me).

or

2) You have the time but dont want to spend the time but you want end result.

Ouch....thats just mind boggling....i not gonna start. x.x

o.o guh...no comment.

we know what i think of this.

i treat this the same as above.

Conversely, just because it is a change doesn't mean it is good either. Otherwise, let's reset everyone to level 1 right now. That's a change right? If you oppose that, you are a dinosaur.

Sir, altering what you said is a dramatic way of repudiating your argument, the basic premise of which was skipping content. I could have pointed out in a dry british fashion that the word skipping is not precisely true, because we would be skipping content that we had already played through, which by adding those few words changes the meaning entirely.

A better phrasing would be for you to say in your posts "the option of not repeating content that has already been played".

But huh, that does not sound as bad and fearful as the all boldy-fonted and scaaaaaaaaaary:
That makes for a less exciting post on your part. Bummer.

If all you have to offer is sweeping statements about how I or other people have sinister or greedy motives for improving the game, then expect to me mocked or repudiated.

Your one definable statement in the post was about farming and access to later zones. I am not a farmer, but I see a hole in your logic that farmers will benefit from easier access for the multitude of characters that they skippedy doo dah forward. Um, farmers do not need multitudes, they need one or two, so making the game more efficient will not help them as much as you think.

By other posts in this forum, maybe a day or 2 of dedicated play in GW to get to the later zones to farm in any of the campaigns is all it takes. And that is the basis of your argument? Faster access to later zones. A day or two. Faster access. A day or two. I am weighing it in my hands here, and that is not as compelling as you seem to think it is. So that is the crisis? A day or two for the farmers. Hmmm.

There goes your fear-mongering argument. Do you prefer this form of response as opposed to the other one?

Thx!
TabascoSauce

I will make your post smaller to hit the high points.

The focus of your argument seems to be altering player perception, namely moving it in-line with your perception. That has an attribute bias, because inherently your way must be correct.

I sir cannot agree that your point of view is any less or more than mine.

I believe that ANet has made it clear that they consider skills to be collectibles, even going so far as to offer a title for skill hunter. So your idea that people would need to collect all skills is rewarded and acknowledged by ANet. I think the final nail is the collectible skill pins, which are only tokens of the skills in-game, but represent the collectibility of them as a whole.

Of course you are supposed to get as many skills as you can. I see advertisements all the time for "forming group to cap". It is the collectible part of the game, and one of the yardsticks for how much of the game you have experienced.

I am not going to go over PvP packs again, as we have covered that already.

If we were to compare our respective sides, I am merely trying to alter the game and make it easier for me to get more, for purely selfish reasons. I do not seem to be alone in this wish, either. My way changes the options you have available as a player as well, affecting your gameplay and making you more efficient like me, having all boats rise with the tide and stay equal.

But you trying to change my perceptions of the game, with the attitude that the problem is not the game, it is me. I am the flaw. That is not a very persuasive argument.

In other words, you are not debating the argument I am making, you are debating the flaws in me. I regret to say that it appears your ability to demonstrate a logical chain of reasoning how changes to the game harms you or anyone else within the game itself is nonexistent, and all that remains is to go after me, imply that I am the problem.

I accept that you prefer the game the way it is. I do not accept that I am the flaw. Who would?

I guess this discussion between us comes to an end at this point. Where is there to go? I will campaign on to change the game, of course.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

i truly thank you for shooting down your own arguement for skipping parts to reach the parts you want to get to so effectively.

if playing *a day or two* to get to the parts you want is beyond your available time or effort than simply make fewer characters.

good nite

Okay that was FUNNY. Woohoo! You raise the banner and declare victory!

Woohoo! Hey, wait a minute, that TabascoSauce guy said getting to uh, wait, what was it, um, hmmmm, something, oh yeah Farming zones. What is a Farming zone? Is it the boss bad guy at the end? Noooooooooooo. Lets see what else Farming zones is not!

Farming zones =/= finishing the campaign
Farming zones =/= capturing any skills
Farming zones =/= leveling up your heroes
Farming zones =/= equipping your players and heroes
Farming zones =/= saving up for the new armors (ancient armor rocks btw)
Farming zones =/= sightseeing the new terrain in the zones
Farming zones =/= playing the game

However....

Farming zones === Farming zones

Oh man. Bummer. And so as not to annoy anyone, definitely do not go and see "irrelevant conclusion" in wikipedia, because it says you are using a statement, that may in and of itself be valid, as proof that something else is valid, when no relation exists between the two.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

Well first of, stop calling me sir. ;P

Second, you keep pulling up things ive answered already.


The focus of my argument is to point out the flaw in the OP's idea and your modification of the OP's idea. That being that both are based on personal gains rather than a gameplay improvement.


I have mentioned before that i would rather Anet add incentives to play through multiple times, or make modifications to the game to make it play differently/easier/harder/faster when you are doing multiple characters.

I would go even further to say, that Skills are the real core of this game. Your build is who you are. PvP is all about the metagame. Gaining skills is the one of the very few ways to develop your character (in pvp, develop your account).

That being said, giving easy access to skills in PvE defeats the collectability and development aspect of your character.

Let as make this point clear. I do not have an argument for how this change will harm my experience because it will not harm my experience. Like i said, it would actually be a positive change for me.

There is really nothing wrong with the idea other than the fact that it has no logical reason to happen.

I see ArenaNet as making many compromises between making the game a challenge and still playable. This is a delicate balance and Anet has not even perfected this.

Some of these gameplay changes include:
Making Heroes lvl 15 for Foreign characters.
Allowing lvl 17 players to gain the quest Time Is Nigh.
Lowering the costs of Armbrace of Truths from 100 gems to 60
Adding Balthazar Factions
Allowing players to purchase unlocked skills at skill merchants
Removing Refund Points
Adding Inscriptions and Insignias
etc.

These changes vary from "giveaways" while some are new options to play and some are genuine fixes to flawed game design.

The idea being discussed is neither a fix to flawed game design, nor is it a new option to play (skipping is not playing). It is a giveaway.

Compared to the giveaways or as I call them "pity buffs", this giveaway does not seek to improve gameplay in any way.

I might even go as so far as to say this idea is detrimental because it takes away content that you paid for by giving it to you instantly, instead of giving you the gameplay experience of earning it. I might. ;P

=============

On another note.

I feel there are several ideas that can be implemented which could "functionally" be in lieu of the OP's idea, while still fitting with the themes and experience of Guild Wars.

The first idea is Legacy Quests aka Game Plus Mode.

The second idea really centers around opening up the gameplay to be much free-er much more like Prophecies as opposed to making it quest based (as my legacy idea) but still has the same functionality.

This involves removing gates and allowing non-chronological access to missions with a specific limitation.

That limitation being, for one (1) character to have to have unlocked gates, one (1) other character must beat the game the normal way.

The unlocked gates are activated via an NPC when the character reaches the "docks" area (Kaineng Center or Kamadan).

Without gates and non-chronological mission access, players have a much more accelerated and less frustrating and linear gameplay (just like Prophecies).

Under the reasoning that your entire account of PvE characters should be granted map access and other advantages based on your accomplishments with any single character, would it likewise be reasonable to give PvE characters the option of automatic lvl20 and access to all unlocked skills and equipment?

If you're going to use the convenience argument, it's hard to see why the game should have to be played at all. Why should you be required to play through the game first before you unlock skills and areas? Players should be given the option of starting all of their characters with full unlocks - that's the ultimate in convenience, and nobody is being forced to play that way. If you want to go through the game the 'normal' way, you are more than welcome to do so.

My apologies, I mean no offense.

Thx!
TabascoSauce