Player mindset vs Character mindset

As some of you might know, theres a lot of threads in the suggestion forum (sardelac) concerning possible changes implemented into the game.

Some of these ideas range from small details, new skills, gameplay changes, balance fixes, armor tweaks, class ideas, new areas, etc.

However, theres quite a few ideas that seek to radically change the game mechanics of PvE, based on the so called "Player Mindset" instead what exists currently, which is the "Character mindset".

As I define it, the perfect Player Mindset example is PvP as we know it. This is where skill matters, so that in the event of two equal characters fighting, the player is the decider of the outcome based on his actions (before the fight and during).

This means that whatever is happening in the game is happening to the player and because of the player, and the character in play is irrelevant. The causality of events in play are directly attributed to the player's own merit and not the character in play. All the interaction and events are based on players and how they behave in their teamwork and how they perform against each other, and not the characters, with exception to some areas where NPCs can decide an outcome (the old old old old version of Tombs for example) of a match.

This includes anything with an accountwide effect such as:
PvP characters
PvP title tracks like: Hero, Gladiator, Champion, Luxon/Kurzick allegiance,
Unlocking skills/mods/runes
Lucky/Unlucky title track
Gaining Hard Mode
Unlocking Heroes for PvP characters



This is quite opposite of what I consider the "Character Mindset". This is what I consider PvE.

As I define it, this is the mindset that, whatever is happening on screen is irrelevant to the player's own choices and actions. The events unfolding are intrinsically tied to the character, and a player's decisions cannot alter what will ultimately happen.

No matter now you good you are, how fast you beat Frost Gate, you will never be able to save Rurik. You cannot control it, it is not your decision, but the character's to NOT save Rurik. Even if you fail, it does not affect the mission since you can always try again with the same exact mission.

The player's own skill only matters in the speed of progression through the storyline. The storyline does not change no matter how good you are. The storyline doesn't care what your rank is, or how old you are, or how many times you beat the game. All that matters is the current character and how many quests and missions that character has finished.

Examples:
Storyline Progress
Quest Progress
Outpost/Town availability
Skill availability
Hero availability
PvE Title Tracks - Sunspear/Lightbringer/Norn/Asura/Dwarven/Vanguard
Treasure Hunter / Wisdom
Sugar Rush / Drunken Title track


These are the two very contradictory mindsets that make up Guild Wars.

Using these as the frame, i want to jump into the topic of the various suggestions, and where Anet's decisions are at, what are the ones some players want to change, and ultimately what I feel should be the best balance for the game.

The various suggestions and ideas and implementations, in its simplest forms emerges as a result of applying the "Player Mindset" into something that is currently of the "Character mindset" or vice versa.

Cases to study:

Sunspear/Lightbringer - With the requirement of Sunspear/Lightbringer ranks to progress through the gameplay, some players have posted ideas to make these titles accountwide, similar to the implementation of Kurz/Lux 10k faction requirement (before allegiance or rank was linked to PvE skills). I feel that this idea of change is irrational. The SS/LB ranks are linked into story progression. They are just extensions of the quest trees, but the progress is indicated through points. Anet could have easily just taken out SS and LB ranks and given players a longer primary quest tree and it would be the same exact thing. Changing this to account based radically alters the flow of the game.

Wisdom/Treasure Hunter title - This one is kinda screwed up and inconsistent. Lucky/Unlucky is account based and is linked directly to lockpicks, yet the treasure hunter title and wisdom is character based. Some players have one main wisdom character they use to ID golds and to salvage. To me, this title makes a lot sense as a character title. HOWEVER...for the sake of player convenience, and with no real cost or detrimental affect on gameplay, making this account-wide, or Player based would be very favorable to enhance the player's experience in the game.

Access to all unlocked skills at every Skill Trainer NPC - Previously, a character could only purchase specific skills from specific skill trainer NPCs. This made it so certain outposts had skills you could only get there. It made Ember Light Camp the destination as well as some obscure outposts, since you couldn't get skills many any other way. Anet implemented a change so that any unlocked skills could be purchased from skill trainers even as early as Ascalon City. The unlocked skills pool was previously only relevant to PvP characters. With this change, as well as addition of tomes, unlocking skills with one character or through PvP can affect all characters, giving them access to more skills that the player has unlocked. While this change makes things more convenient and faster for the player, it has no real affect on gameplay and in fact enhances experience by giving them the larger skillpool to begin with on new characters. Although one could argue that with this advent, it homogenizes player builds instead of diversifying it as what was possibly originally intended. The idea seems to have been made so players didn't have always the same skills when starting out as other players and could choose to play through the game without Anet forcing builds on them through what skills were available in outposts, as well as skill rewards. To me this change feels imbalanced and seeks to only favor players with UAS'ed accounts over newer players.

Unlock Gates / Outposts - These type of suggestions manifested since Factions. Players want faster access to outposts and towns without having to progress through the main storyline with repeated gameplay. I think these ideas are counter-intuitive (although not without sympathy) to the game's design, which implemented the gates in the first place to prevent quick access to the whole map. However the gates themselves are controversial in being artificial barriers and seems to artificially lengthen gameplay. I think the concept of beating the game once and then being able to make new characters who have easy access to towns and outposts does not promote a better gameplay experience, but rather simply the ability to simply skip gameplay sections altogether. I have posted an idea of instead adding NEW ways to replay the game to enhance gameplay, rather than skip it.

Unlock Hardmode by beating the game with 1 character - I thought this one was a stupid idea until closer examination. The option to play hardmode is only available to lvl 20 characters. The option only becomes available if the player has beaten the game once. However, having the option of hardmode doesn't create any sort effect on the character's outcome or the player's outcome. All it does it make the gameplay more difficult. Because of that, this option as an account-wide unlock makes sense to me than making it character based.

Account based Weapon customization - Ive seen this idea float around and i think its very cool. Weapon customization, to me, has always been the concept of making a weapon stronger for the character at the cost of being able to use it with anyone else or reselling it. However with the addition of heroes, they have access to a player's customized weapons. I think it would not be detrimental to have players access to customized weaponry as an account based and not a character based system, since weaponry is available in full power from your storage already, and customization is cheap and available in major towns. This change would not affect anything since it would still be unsellable, and players are already transferring full power weapons between characters anyway.

PvE skill Tracks into account based - I have mentioned title tracks as part of story progression. Now lets look at it as part of skill progression.

Presently, theres 3 types of PvE skill tracks:
Factions: PvP and PvE based
Nightfall: PVE & Ranks are Requisite for game progress (up to an extent)
EoTN: PvE & Ranks are results of game progress

Factions uses an account based system for its PvE Title track. It is account based because it is is tied to faction which can be gained in Alliance Battle, or through questing. This is creates a situation where a player's PvP experience can directly influence the strength of their character in PvE through the PvE skills. PvP experience can make the character stronger. But at the same time, you can gain the same faction through faction farming.

Nightfall's PvE skills are tied to SS/LB tracks, which ive mentioned as merely ways to track quest/game progress. The minimum requirement to progress in the game is easy, but maxing the track to gain maximum PvE efficicacy is not required at all, and is completely optional.

EoTN's PvE skills are tied to specific tracks per group. Gaining points is done through killing monsters, quests and turning in books. There is no minimum requirement for the title tracks to progress through the game.

Players have made suggestions to take the NF/EoTN tracks and make them like the Factions tracks which are account based. Imo, this is bad suggestion, for NF, since it is directly tied to game progress. Making this account based would allow players to skip sections of the game. For EoTN, it would allow instant access to armor sets which have track requirements, which is effectively the same as allowing players to skip sections of gameplay.

The PvE title tracks are a pain to max out, but I think the best way to make it do-able and still maintain gameplay integrity is to give players maxed PvE skill attributes once they finish the storyline with that character. This creates a good medium between grindy-ness and easy access. This would be my solution rather than making the titles account based.

-------------------------
In conclusion....We should follow Anet's example on how to approach these situations. Game mechanic changes should enhance gameplay, change the level of difficulty, change things around, etc, and not take away or allow skipping whole sections as a reward.

*looks around*
*rolls into marumari form and sneaks out the door*

I believe that was well thought out, and I agree with you on the points you made.
/clap

Worst timing ever!1!1!1!11!!!!1
Did you hear about the bear yet?!?!

Nice post Lyra. A good read that I originally thought was going to be one of the most QQ or ZOMG ANET RULES threads ever. But instead I was treated with something with reason, something that is severely lacking on these boards, and the gaming community in general.

But now that you have been all serious, you need to post something completely inane or you might alienate yourself from the rest of gaming and GW society. Quickly!

/cheer

Very nicely said and well thought out.
I agree with you, for the most part.

This is really well thought out and very well written, /applause.


*Looks at mini Polar Bear and screams*

This will really help my KoaBD title track.... I'll sign it, if you're looking for support.

If you're just looking for input, I say, there are many solutions, this one has it's pro's and it's cons, just like the rest. No worse than some of the other ones I've seen, so I'll sign it.

I don't think you quite get the point of his post man. He is not proposing a solution or an idea, he is theorizing on the reason why things are they way they are and such, not saying all tracks should be account wide...

He is detailing the theory on WHY certain tracks aren't account wide.

One thing Lyra I think you either didn't feel like writing about and such, but its not just tracks which are thought over over this principle of player vs character mindset, but in how people view the game as a WHOLE should be. I see this with every update, there is equal part yay and equal part nay, and the reasons are 89% equivalent with your theory.

I can get behind basically all of that, though if you're going to hand out max title effects PvE skills need to be toned down considerably. Of course, they already need to be toned down considerably...

Had to run this past my lawyer first. j/k

Nice post with some 'food for thought'.

I got the solution part from the last paragraph.

"The PvE title tracks are a pain to max out, but I think the best way to make it do-able and still maintain gameplay integrity is to give players maxed PvE skill attributes once they finish the storyline with that character. This creates a good medium between grindy-ness and easy access. This would be my solution rather than making the titles account based."

Sounds like she's proposing an idea to me. I realize the post explains his point, but it just sounds like he's backing up the final paragraph as a solution to the figurative problem. And as I said, I'm for it.

Though I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say it would help my title track because I think they'll become account based. It will help because maxing grind titles involving combat will be much easier. I should have explained that in more detail.

The next person who calls me "he" gets kicked in the head. ;p

Anyway, im just making a broad summary on some of the goings ons in Sardelac (it gets intense in there) and the various ideas that have sprouted from those various threads.

Its not a suggestion, just a reiteration.

I would like some feedback on how i've applied these two gaming mindsets to gameplay mechanics as a result of various discussions.

Well if your solution isn't a suggestion, and you just want feedback, it seems like a logical conclusion, and gj fishing it out of all the QQ threads in that forum. I would never have had the patience to do that.

Whilst I agree with most of your conclusions, I disagree with your basis:

This represents only the most rudimentary form of Guildwars PVE, which I would consider the "tutorial mode" for the game. Once you've finished all the and quests missions real PvE begins. It is here that start pushing the boundaries of pve - finishing zones as fast as possible faster with fewer human teamates and genuinely competing with other players. This is where the lines between the game types blur and PvE becomes just as player focused as PvP.

People that want to skip the story mode by unlocking gates and having account wide titles do so because they want to avoid going through tutorial mode again and just get down to playing real PvE without the restrictions.

Indeed, well-written, ma'am. Though of course, you know what's coming. ^_~

One thing I believe is important to recognize, is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the current setup. Merely being radical does not immediately imply that a change is bad. It is also oversimplistic to state that if a current situation is inferior to a new model, then the current setup was a mistake to implement. Decisions have to be made to fit the current environment.

As an example, there are two basic states of undergarments for humans: diapers and underwear. If your subject is six months old, you might make the decision to use diapers; but one to three years later, you would do well to reevaluate the situation. At that time, underwear might be a better choice--but that doesn't mean that diapers weren't the right choice previously.

************************************************** **

Sunspear/Lightbringer versus Kurzick/Luxon
I find this a really interesting case, as I'm sure you do. In terms of PvE gameplay, there is really very little between the two. In terms of RP, Sunspear Points as a mechanic represent your character building reputation and skills necessary to be an effective leader. Lightbringer points can be viewed in a similar manner, though the best RP explanation is that your character gains more favor or power against evil as they fight.

Kurzick and Luxon faction really don't differ all that much, do they--especially not from Sunspear points. Like SS, the Kurzick and Luxon faction points represent reputation that you build in order to prove yourself an effective ally of the faction.

In this case, consistency demands that one method match the other, doesn't it? If Sunspear points represent your individual character's efforts to prove themselves a capable Sunspear recruit or ally, and are also a fundamental game mechanic with levels that must be reached to allow further progression with the storyline... then shouldn't Kurzick and Luxon faction be the same? Even if the point is made that Kurzick and Luxon faction are tied to PvP arenas, that doesn't change the core reasoning, does it? RP-wise, your character is proving themselves to their leadership--whether that be through completing Sunspear or Factions quests, through securing lands and support or through defending a faction against enemy forces.

It's a very difficult thing to advocate leaving the entire system as it is, because both Sunspear Points (at Sunspear Sancutary) and Faction points (before Eternal Grove and Gyala Hatchery) act as choke points to PvE characters. However, whlie individual Elonians characters must acquire the points themselves, the original and current setup of the game allows me to farm the 10,000 points on one character. Then, before I spend the faction, I can run any number of characters through the Befriending the Kurzicks/Luxons quest. In fact, if you decided to store up 10,000 for each side, any PvE character could simultaneously complete each faction's Befriending quest. How's that for roleplaying? ^_^

Shouldn't two such similar systems, with similar roles in the game, at least have consistent mechanics? Your post addressed why SS/LB points and titles should not be altered to match the Kurzick/Luxon system... but what about the other way around? Shouldn't Kurzick/Luxon be modified? Or are they best left with one as Player-based, one as Character-based, because that was their original setup?

((By the way... changing SS/LB to Kurzick style "radically alters the flow of the game"? If memory serves, aren't there only two choke points in the questline regarding SS points--one on Istan and the other at SS Sanctuary? All this change would accomplish is allowing you to save the time spent getting more points, right?))

************************************************** **

Wisdom &Treasure versus Lucky
Ah, but here you DID point out the obviously oddity; very good. Though, I would offer a question. You said:
My question is, in what way is this not detrimental to gameplay--either increasing the time needed by making titles character-based, or decreasing the same with player-based titles? If we assume that making Sunspear points account-based will be detrimental to gameplay because they will decrease the time needed to get past two choke points... then isn't this roughly the same thing?

So far as I can tell, the only real difference is the wisdom/treasure titles do not strictly affect the story, but a change to the Sunspear title track would alter an individual character's effort to prove him- or herself to the Order of the Sunspears. This is a strictly RP-continuity difference, rather than one of actual gameplay, isn't it?

************************************************** **

Of course, I'm not replying in order to start forum ping pong on these various topics. Rather, I'm merely replying to the underlying factors you have pointed out. For example, you reject the notion of making Nightfall and Eye of the North title tracks account based, because of how they allow PvE characters to cruise through storyline segments and acheive high-end armor that character did not earn. However, Kurzick faction operates in exactly this fashion. If one character farms faction, other characters benefit in that they can avoid performing faction-gaining quests and fights or earning high-end armor beyond getting to the crafter.

What this means is that, even in these similar instances, both Player-based and Character-based methods have been used, and wouldn't you say both to some success?

However, I think something we can not overlook is the question about which method would be better for any given situation. It is not enough to say that a certain mechanic, once made under one method, must remain in that method or else gameplay is drastically altered. In fact, I would dare say your identification of the two methods is very, very much at the heart of any such discussion, ne?

Kurz/Lux was designed to be a PvP title (spare me the "AB isn't PvP" rants please, you know what I mean). It wasn't until much later that they made the PvE skills. That's why it's account based and that's why it takes so f**king long to max (it's also why, in my opinion, it was a mistake to link PvE skills to it).

And yet there are plenty of quests that give Kurzick and Luxon faction; indeed, it's far faster gain faction from Scoutmaster Arne's quest in Melandru's Hope, than it is to fight in Alliance Battles or Fort Aspenwood & Jade Quarry.

Kurzick and Luxon faction were not originally designed to be strictly a PvP title. As the "Befriending the Kurzicks/Luxons" quest in House zu Heltzer and Cavalon show, these points are tied into the design of PvE.

I consider the Kurz/Lux title tracks to be the true anomally, the only system currently in place the successfully ties the PvE and PvP system together. Some players dislike tying PvE and PvP and I think this is why NF didn't have the same system.

In my opinion the PvE skills shouldn't have been linked to the Luxon/Kurzick Allegiance anyway.

Luxon and Kurzick faction CAN BE completely PvP (however the rewards for PvP do not really outweigh the effort)
or
It CAN BE completely PvE.

Its up to the player. Anet created a system that works well for both.

A big difference between the Luxon/Kurzick 10k requirement vs SS/LB requirement is that the Luxon/Kurzick quests do not "build up" the storyline.

In fact, the 10k requirement is rather arbitrary, since you CAN do just PvP with a PvP character and ignore the quests altogether. This creates a big disconnect from PvE, yet affects it directly. This is quite unique.

The 10k requirement is actually MORE of a grind because it doesn't represent specific actual gameplay, just time spent. You could spend that time doing Alliance Battle, Fort Aspenwood/Jade Quarry, leaching points, faction farming, or doing quests. The game is basically telling you "gain 10k, i dont care how you do it". And since its MUCH MUCH faster to gain points through very boring FFF, how is this a superior design choice? This vagueness gives the player choice, but at the same time, removes any sort of proper sense of just how much time is it supposed to represent.

Meanwhile, the quests in the Command Post build up the command post by adding more NPCs, and give you SS points at the same time. It isn't arbitrary. The rank is designed to build up through playing the quests.

I don't consider LB/SS to be the player "proving" themselves. Its simply a graphical representation of specific quests you have beaten in the area that requires a certain rank.

I've said it before, you could take away the LB/SS ranks and just replace it with a longer primary quest chain and there would be ZERO difference in the gameplay, other than removing the choice of what order to do some quests. Making LB/SS into account based would not work as well because of that reason.

We can make a hypothetical comparison. Say Prophecies has a PvE title track called "Champion of Ascalon". Prophecies has a natural choke point at Sanctum Cay. In order to start the Sanctum Cay mission, you must have rank 7 Champion of Ascalon. In order to gain these ranks, you must play through the missions and quests from Ascalon to Sanctum Cay. By the time you reach Sanctum Cay, you are already at the proper rank.

This is how the SS rank requirement works. Its not about the title. Its about the quest chain. Removing this quest chain removes a big chunk of very specific gameplay through specific quests.

Another IMPORTANT factor we must point out is that the 10k Luxon/Kurzick requirement is consumable, while Sunspear/LB is not. A player can use up the 10k points and have to regain faction in order to continue with more characters, and gaining this faction is irrelevant to the storyline or method used by the player.

Fun read =), thanks.

I prefer a game that rewards the player rather than the character.
I really like account based skill titles because it feels more like the player is earning them rather than their character. The player is free to use them as they wish on any other character.
I think character rewards are fine in some parts, but too much and you begin to get a vicarious sense of accomplishment, which I think can lead to addiction, in that more and more emphasis is being put on a character you nuture, rather than the player's own accomplishments.
The player should be more important than the character.

Lyra did a nice write up. I'm glad he went to all that trouble.
You are the man Lyra.

>_>;

(1234567)

Well, at least you're already wearing the helmet LOL



Nice read Lyra. Best I've had in quite some time.

So now we know! Based on some previous posts, I now know quite a bit about your character ; ) (not your GW character, but you personally.)

Nonetheless, another very well written thread, Lyra.

Shame it didn't bring any controversy, this way is will be buried under tons of worthless but flame inspiring threads.

For me, I do everything to be able to PvE in "Player" context, such as having heroes equipped the same way on all characters (so that my primaries are exchangeable by changing character and nothing else), or having all outposts unlocked... while storyline is unchangeable, its basically same "you can affect it" in PvP where your progress in halls is not based on your quality, but is also preset by game (sequence of maps) and can be ended by you failing, but you are free to restart (just like you would restart normal mission). Eventually as you win, you still cant dictate stuff like rewards.

As a summary of things that are, things that could be, and things that probably should be, I think you did a fantastic job at summarizing the current state of things. I do have some small ideas to express pertaining to what you have written, such as PVP vs PVE. Pvp we all know as player vs player, and it has account wide accomplishments. Pve is respectively player vs environment. Now the key word there is environment. You are saying that the "tutorial", or mission and questing portion of the game is all tutorial work. So things such as LB/SS points are a part of that tutorial. Then after this point in the game you say the Pve turns somewhat into Pvp where in a sence players are fighting with and against eachother to find new, faster ways to succeed. So according to that, shouldn't all things after the "tutorial" be account wide? By all things, I literally mean all things. The Gaurdian tittle track, Wisdom, Treasure Hunter, Drunkard, and Sweettooth. That being said, I have to ask you directly, should Max Tittles be account based or character based? It forces you to grind, giving the game purpose, but it does not directly effect your storyline. So in a clearer way, shouldn't it be PvP orriented, account based, as apposed to PvE orriented, character based, under the belief that it does not directly affect your progression through the game? Things like protector and cartographer I believe are character based because they rely on you doing quests, and missions, but surivor doesn't. Isn't it more of a ,"You've gone without dying for a long time doing something." Like your point on how it doens't have direction, guidance, or reason to your success in the game. It doesn't tell you how long to spend obtaining it, or why you should. Getting protector is saying, beat the game and learn more about the story line. Cartographer is telling you to quest and adventure. That's just my two bits on titles and what you've said. My opinion, re-evaluate them all, and base them on whether or not they are important to the story lines evolution and progression. If they are, character based and reward people for them(they have with skills), if they aren't, account based and don't reward people for them. Not trying to argue in any way at all.. Just a thought... a rather lengthy one at that, but none the less still just a thought.

What SHOULD the focus of this game be? I'd ask what the focus of any game should be, but we should focus on Guild Wars, I guess.

At the core of any discussion, is the question that I think we posters have some real disagreement on. Should Guild Wars be largely a character-based or player-based experience?

Whoops, sorry buddy. I was quick to the punch and assumed you were thinking Lyra was saying "account-wide titles for everyone!". My apologies. I shall insert foot in mouth.

Oh and Lyra, I am very sorry. I am jaded to the masses of weird males playing female characters and then bringing them over to RL. I am embarrassed

I think it should be player based, but what with the high quantity of grind and such, ArenaNet clearly has a burning desire to make it as character based as possible.

redfeather: go to youtube and look up "Meia Lua Reversao". Thats what i feel like kicking with right now.

zwei2stein: Even though maps in PvP are not player controlled, the experience in PvP is. For example, the builds you run into, and how the enemy behaves is PURELY by a player. PvE monsters do not grief, they do not resign, they dont trash talk, they don't phrase. They builds and quality of combat are dictated by the meta and players and not a preset monsters AI. How much fun youre going to have is based for the most part because of other people you are playing with and against.

While your approach and mindset to PvE might be player-based, the game mechanics for the most part certainly are not. Otherwise, all heroes would be shared among all characters.

carnage-runner: Well the problem is you are taking pure grind titles with no storyline connection and comparing them with story based titles. And then we take into consideration its current usage of the title and if it can/should be account based or character based.

Drunkard and Sweettooth - Consumables titles. These are PURE grind titles. Its strictly a money sink. Theres no quest or story or mission tied to these titles. These titles have no detriment or benefit if it was account OR character based. However...making them account based would defeat the purpose them being money sinks, since to be most effective in draining your cash and time, it should be character based. I can give or take it, I really don't care about these titles.

Guardian - Although this is optional, this are DIRECTLY tied to mission performance and effectiveness as well as mission progress. I don't see how this can become account based, since characters do not share mission success/bonuses/failures. At the same time, a player playing through Prophecies as a monk will have a different experience playing it as an Elementalist, so i dont see this being share-able. The guardian title is proof that you can beat the game as a monk and get all bonuses/masters, this is unrelated to your performance as an elementalist.

Cartographer - Again, this is tied to mission/game progress. You cannot get 100% cartographer without beating the game (or at least getting to the VERY VERY LAST parts). This is unshare-able because progress is not shared by characters.

Personally I would like to point out a major flaw in the account based titles like Hero or Gladiator or Champion. Rank is gained by a player, regardless of the class they play. A R10 warrior is also a R10 monk, even if the player has never played monk in their whole life.

Perhaps a good way to look at it is CLASS based and add more specific titles. R10 warrior is only an Rzero monk, which is more appropriate for that person.

By pointing out this flaw, we can see that making some titles like Guardian/Protector/Cartographer cannot work because it falls for the same exact flaw.

A Guardian monk is not a Guardian elementalist, no matter how good the player is. The title is proof of progress.

Personally i see PvE storymode as tutorial and High-End PvE (UW/FoW/Deep/Urgoz/DoA) as the end game contents. PvP is seperate since there is no tutorial to PvP other than to PvP.

-----------------
Red: I think the focus should be FUN, and that should be the guiding factor, not strictly to player or character based. Focusing on this is too narrow, and we can have fun mixing up both.

Zahr: Theres no mandatory grinds in the game....

Great OP Lyra!! This is the most intelligent thread I have ever read on Guru. Let's keep it going folks...

I think that one of the great things about GW is that you can choose if it is character based or player based. I think it largely depends upon the individual.

Many people like to RP and for them the game is definitely character based.

I tend to find it player based, as I like to play multiple classes/characters and try to increase MY skill and knowledge of those classes. That's how I have fun and enjoy my time on GW.

I do think that ANet has been moving in more of a character based direction recently though with the emphasis they have placed on titles and the HOM.

But again, grinding those titles and filling that HOM is entirely each individual's choice. I would rather spend my time trying out a Paragon for the first time...

In conclusion, Choice FTW!!

This is true only if you're playing Guildwars in a vaccuum. PvE players are competing with one another, developing thier own metas for dealing with the static monsters and otherwise engaging in the same sets of competitive behaviours that exist in PvP. Which is why the next statement applies equally to both PvE and PvP.

I'm not really interested in whether guardian is account based or character based as achieving it does not make your character stronger than then next person's, however I need to point out that segregating based on class is meaningless because builds within a class vary as much as builds between classes.

See above. One could equally say that An SS/Warder is not a guardian MB/HP EMo.

Except the skill effecting titles

The only competitive PvE are challenge missions and aspenwood/jade quarry, the latter falling more into PvP.

Once you enter a zone, only the persons you invited in your party affect your experience (people harrassing you via PM don't count).

Racing to find treasure or build armor or farm faster or some other arbitrary goal is competitive behaviour, and can influence what your goals might be, but the actual gameplay is still versus monsters.

It doesn't make you stronger. All it is an indicator that you did that goal with that character, regardless of the build you chose.

But guess what. If you get guardian with a monk, you used a monk. Not a warrior. And a monk cannot equal a warrior.A monk is a monk, a warrior is a warrior.

Segregating via class is not an accurate way to predict player performance either, but since Guild Wars doesn't keep track of various combat stats like Damage caused, damage taken, monsters kill, health healed, damage prevented, attacks blocked, attacks interrupted, enchantments removed, hexes removed, conditions given, conditions added, etc. etc, We do not have a true way to measure player's performance. Still, my idea is better than /rank as it is ;P

This would be true, if you couldn't reset your builds and each character was locked into one build once you set them into it. But they aren't.

If you could swap out your character's primary profession, there would be no need for character based titles. Of course, there would be no need to replay the game either.

They are mandatory because...? PvE skills are fun, overpowered and useful, but hardly mandatory.

Theres no mandatory PvE skills. I've beaten Nightfall without using Lightbringers Gaze.

That is the way that you play and thats fine, but it is simply not true accross the board. I'm not playing against the monsters in GW anymore than I'm playing against the bunkers in golf.


They're mandatory because without them the playing fields are not level. Its no fun playing against people who have a giant head start on you and its no fun playing against people that you have a giant head start on.

Imo everything should be account based, even protector titles, however to make this work there would have to be a major overhaul of all of gw, which i am hoping gw2 will be.
Personally i think that if you have achieved something once, you should not have to achieve it again just because you want to try another character.
Doing the same thing over and over and over again just to reach what you have already reached is just stupid.
If all of your characters add to your knowledge about the game, why should not all your characters add to the one thing that shows your time spent/skill/knowledge about the game (currently titles).
Everyone does not like to play the same character for month after month, so why punish everyone that want to learn about the other classes and get better at the game as a whole (imo you cant know the game unless you have seen all sides of it).
So, in gw2, please make the account, aka the actual player skill, the thing that shows other people what you have accomplished, and not just a single over played character.
/end rant

How did you use golf as an analogy? You aren't playing against people because Guild Wars has no score.

If you and your buddy decide to race to see who can fill up their HOM the fastest, thats competition, but it isn't spurred by any specific in game mechanics. PvE has no competition against people, except in the Challenge missions and the aspenwood/jade quarry as ive mentioned.

As such, the players have no real choice, since all the PvE interaction is NPC controlled. The only real choice is to play or not play a mission or quest.

Last I checked you can't use PvE skills in PvP...so how can you be "against" people?

You could say its not fun to try to get into groups when other people have higher PvE skill rank and can get into groups easier than you, but this is also not a gameplay competitive mechanic.

Plus Ive already outlined in my OP my idea to give people who beat the game access to max attribute after you beat the game.

--------
Zhack - Even in PvP, each instance of battle is a different instance.

Lets say you fought a team in PvP, and you won.

The next time you meet that same team, its not the same battle, your previous victory is irrelevant except in increasing your skill against that team, only the current situation of the battle matters.

You don't have the right to say "Oh i gotta fight again!" when it was your choice to fight again.

Repeating something by nature is repetitive.

Its not about punishing anyone.
Its the matter of starting over anything.

Play a game of chess.
Then start a new game.
Why should the previous game matter except in giving you insight into how to play the next game?

Golf is the perfect RL sporting activity to make comparisons. You enter an instance by yourself (zone==course), overcome environmental obstacles (bunkers/waterfeatures==monsters) to achieve a goal (ball in hole==boss dead) and get a score (shots==/age).

You seem ok with the fact that competitive missions are played against other people, you just need to realise that the only difference between them and normal pve is the fact that the scores are published.

The same way you play against people in golf - you complete the course and compare scores.

Not really fussed about pugging.

One I'm quite happy with, I was taking issue with your assertion that there's no mandatory grind.

Which i still disagree. What in the game forces you to grind?

And by force I mean theres no alternatives or choices, and its not compulsion or impulse.

There is no way to compete against a fully pve leveled team without grinding out all the rep levels yourself.

Lets say that we are talking about competitive PvE (like a challenge mission like Dragon's Throat).

What in the challenge missions is "mandatory" in any sense? All challenge missions are optional and not part of the primary story quest/mission tree.

How is this forcing anyone into doing anything (mandatory grind)? What about the rest of the game?

Are you saying because Timmy has max level Ursan skills, that you are forced to grind for Ursan, even though you've never met this person and this person's gameplay has no effect on you (unless its psychological like envy/jealously/self-esteem issues)?

I really don't understand how someone else's pve skill level "forces" me to do something.

Because...I've never maxed any PvE skill tracks, and I have guildmates who have maxed pve title tracks.

Competition in Guild Wars is purely up to the player.
If you find competition in PvE, thats all you, its not the game.
If you feel the need to max out everything, thats still all you.
No gameplay mechanics forces you to max out the PvE skill title tracks, since they are designed to be optional titles.

Of course i could go into another one of my arguements about how "If you give someone an easier option, everyone picks the easier option and then it doesnt become optional but really because mandatory", however you would have to prove that maxing out title tracks is easier and the logical mandatory choice for every player when faced with the decision of doing that or some other alternative choice in situations regarding their builds.

Its easier to just be better and not rely on the crutch than take the time to max it out. To me, playing the normal way without relying on PvE skills at max strength and being able to handle ANYTHING is way easier than taking the boring time to grind to max a pve skill title track just to be able to use certain skills at their max power.

They are exactly as mandatory as as any other part of the game. To state the obvious One can't play in dragon's throat without playing in dragons throat any more than Once can compete in DoA without playing in DoA.

The mandatory grind exists because PvE skills cannot be used at full effectiveness without doing it. Without fully effective PvE skills level playing fields don't exist.

To stay with the golf analogy, I don't care about Timmy any more than I care about his handicap. I do care about the latest club tournament and the course records. It does matter when half the people in the tournament are hitting off the ladies tee.

From my perspective, your way of playing is just as alien. Without measuring and comparing your performance you have no way to determine success or failure which takes any enjoyment out of the game. The difference is that I'm willing to accept that people play the game differently.

I've already shown you how GW PvE is just as competitive as Golf, unless you're going to tell me competition is not part of golf either.