Update - 2/17

Dunno if it would work - and it could hardly be called abuse - but two PC with it might feed a MM nicely and have a party at +damage

I suppose BuH rezzed chars do not get DP when they get killed by mobs?

Is not queueing your skills really that hard to do?

My biggest issues with the economy have never been around botters, it's been around the poor design on ArenaNet's side of things. Guild Wars has always favoured farmers (aka grinders) for loot. You don't get nice things by playing the game and completing content, you get it by finding the most efficient way to farm the exact same area as much as possibly in as little time as possible so you have a greater chance of that 0.22% Dryad Bow will drop. You want a relatively common Woe Spreader? Either farm it yourself (using unintended gameplay which many people can't do) or spend hours looking for a seller because ArenaNet didn't put in place an auction house.

IGN nailed it on the head when they reported on the mass bot bannings earlier last year. Instead of applauding ArenaNet for taking action against the cheaters, they asked why players were resorting to a computer program to run through the "boring and tedious" parts of the game. Why does the game have boring repetitive and tedious parts to it that players feel a desire to complete if they aren't fun? The number of players banned (and the spectrum from which they came from - most of us know at least one person) should show you this was a wide spread problem kept in check only by the vague threat of banning. I'm not saying making getting rewards insanely easy, I'm just pointing out the grind to get rewards (polar bear, dyad bow, FoW armour) is too high that people will have to grind to get it instead of enjoying content and completing it while receiving a worthwhile reward. Binding dungeon drops to players is the classic fix for this but ArenaNet would rather give grinders something to do a throw the people who like to earn their loot under the bus instead.

Survivor can be done many ways, but it's become a personal achievement as opposed to something you show off to others. Why? Because boxing is as close to cheating you can get for that title. It's also a convenient little grind. Survivor is about surviving risk. Dwarven boxing entirely removes the risk (unless you're stupid) making achieving the title meaningless.

Honestly, it's not different from boxing aside from the actual survivor toon not being present. Personally I think it takes more skill to run Kathandrax than it does to complete dwarven boxing.

I'd be more interested in GWAMM becoming an account wide title. As a a big user of alts ot frustrates me that ArenaNet has made the biggest achievement in the game exclusive to players who favour a single character as opposed to those of us who achieve many titles across all of our characters which is significantly more work because it requires completion of campaign content for each time yet it actually cripples your advancement towards GWAMM and there is not equivalent title for players with lots of alts. I just hope someone at ArenaNet stops ignoring the reality that many players will complete the same content across multiple toons and find it frustrating that there is no reward for them. The alt discrimination needs to be fixed, just how long before someone fixes it?

They do suck compared to scythes. (in pve , i'm not interested in pvp at all, too much QQ/randomness). I can dish out more dps hitting 3 targets then hitting one despite popular belief that hitting 3 targets is hard to achieve (body block ftw). Of course while having shitton of dmg buffs on me (SaH,splinter, Judges insigght etc).
Out off hammer elites Earth shaker is only one i can use since it's aoe. I'm not spending all that hard earned adrenaline on BB just to 4 sec KD random hm foe (i'm talking about general usage).

Survivor:
n
1. a person or thing that survives

Survive:
1. To remain alive or in existence.
2. To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere
3. To remain functional or usable

Your wondering why quote a definition that most people with a grasp of the english language ought to know. Well its simple, everyone in the game is a survivor. Just think about it for a second. I mean you get res'd but you go through hardships and places that no ordinary person would ordinarily "survive" through.

Changing a title to one that closer matches the ideology of the game is sound in argument. Sure there are ways to be "cheap" about it but essentially it just boils down to a bit of text and a good feeling.

It's easy to think that because you come from a country that has amazing internet, that people using lag outs as an excuse is a joke. Think of this for instance (my country - South Africa) we have really bad internet, I mean our best internet is a 4mb line! Most Americans run at (I think) 100mb line?

And thats the best, I run on a 348kb line which at times is seriously choppy.
I am not gonna pretend I don't title hunt because its what I do and sure you can argue for or against it till the cows come home. It wont change anything, I will still do it and have fun doing it and try to do the best I can for my chars.

I begun gws with no knowledge made a whole bunch of chars AND THEN found out about titles (including LS) Obviously they all died and I only got interested in titles a month in. I am sure you have felt the regret of getting rid of one of your chars to make space for a survivor char (if you are that way inclined). I played through, serious about doing survivor the legit (Legit = ordinary playing means) way and I got really far but guess what. Internet fun. Death. Ok stop. Remake (aawww). Try again. This time something quicker, Kilroy. Internet. Death. Remake (dammit!). Again Kilroy with scrolls etc...boom internet. Death (Goes hulk!). Eventually I got legendary survivor through skill cap bonus week and kilroy. It was both frustrating and personally rewarding. Its for a similar reason that I can't do rollerbeetle racing (rubberband ftw).

I don't care how people get their titles. Its personal.
But don't default Anet for trying to bring a title in line with the game. Also we are also all speculating here haha but, *Holds thumbs* I can get the title on my main (the only one I refused to remake regardless of survivor, she is also my main title hunter), if this changes happens I get 30/30 and gwamm. If not, I will get it another way.

Regardless its about fun.
My 2cents.
Good work Anet.

I'm glad you have honor and morals, I was begining to wonder if anyone else did too. But this is collecting a reward for a quest a character didn't complete. I'm having trouble seeing what is so unclear about that to so many people. They try to justify it with things like:

But they are not anywhere close to the same thing - buying Kath hammers is pure, cut and dry cheating - every bit as against the rules as botting or gold-buying is. Boxing is lame, but at least you hit something and make kills within the rules. (It's really just a side note that I don't think it should count toward the title because of the absence of death-risk, but it is at least legitimate XP gain. There's a huge difference there.) Farming mobs, vaettirs or otherwise, is completely legitimate in any circumstance. I don't expect everyone to play the storyline through to get the title, but doing it without cheating/exploiting isn't really that much to ask.

and since I'm such a huge fan of analogies:

What if there was a way to collect the quest reward for, say, Mallyx, without ever stepping foot in DoA? Would that be cheating? I bet some armbrace holders might think so, since that particular reward includes a gemset instead of just XP and a little gold, and they might even raise a stink about it, and claim it affects thier gameplay. Exact same thing only Kath gives a smaller amount. Its cheating, plain and simple. If you didnt do that dungeon, why would it be ok to collect a reward from it? If Anet would enforce their own EULA on a less than arbitrary basis, it would be perma-bannable (and damn sure should be, if we we're all gonna play by the rules. That's the part that isn't supposed to be subjective, after all.)

I made a mistake in my earlier post when I grouped the lame-ness of Kilroy in with the exploit of Kath Hammers. I did say a few times I don't see them as the same thing, though. They aren't. Again, for those with difficulties who still havent let that go: My problem is with Kath Hammers, and I believe that unless that exploit is removed from the game, the Survivor title should remain unchanged, because they should not knowingly open the door for a ton of new cheaters to collect on it. If that is removed, then the idea that post-death characters can obtain it really isn't that bad, whether thier method is "lame" or purely epic as long as it is legitimate XP gain, then at least we know they earned it one way or the other, and everyone's opinion of that particular method would be just that, a subjective opinion.

oh and:

Reading comprehension really is FTW, especially if you can follow it up with applied reasoning. I said very plainly that I know that the cheats in my analogies were things that caused me to lose the games I was playing and this isn't - and that the point was it affects overall gameplay experience, not gameplay mechanics. There is a difference between game mechanics and game rewards and another difference between tangible reward and sentimental reward, and we've already discussed those differences. I never stated there was a detraction from gameplay mechanics, but there is from the overall gaming experience, which encompasses more than just simple mechanics. And your idea that the only thing that could mean is about bragging right or "epeen" excellently shows the limited scope of your thinking ability. Once again, I'm not looking for any bragging rights to the survivor title, I'm not trying to limit the number of those who have it so I can be amongst some "few elite", (a laughable notion already, though thats not an excuse to make it worse) I'm asking to keep everyone playing by what are supposed to be the rules.

I'm surprised you still haven't realized this is a game, and the nature of said game. And its even more amusing that in an argument like this you EXPECT others to justify their rationale to you, which smacks of hubris.

There's an old saying in golf, "the best wood in the bag is the pencil." Technically it can be considered cheating, especially if the game you're playing is competitive, however, when playing a round of golf by oneself, the only one who's cheated out of the experience or the game itself is the player, and no one else.

Regardless of your convoluted and contradictory reasoning, there is no way to "cheat" in Guild Wars, since all players are bound by the same rules. Your problem in reconciling that with Survivor is that there is more than one way to get it, doesn't fit with your narrow view of how it should be, and for some reason feel the need to impose your style of play on others. And ALL for a title that has absolutely no gameplay effect.

If we used your logic, buying costumes is cheating, because it skips the customization process of acquiring money and mats through gameplay for armor, and instead allows players to look different without playing.

Should probably get some better ones then...

Not if everyone is bound by the same rules. Also, rules to change over time as the game expands and evolves, and players have to adjust. Lots of people didn't like the Shadowform nerf, but the playerbase has adjusted just fine for example.

Of course they would, but not due to gameplay, it would be due to economic devaluing of the armbrace itself, assuming its not one of the dupes still. Again, if the gameplay is the same for everyone, or they have the same options, then its not cheating. Using your logic one could claim playing a SoS Ritualist is cheating because it ignores armor, whereas Elementalists don't. Sounds silly right? That's your argument in a nutshell.

If it was plain and simple, people wouldn't be arguing with you. It isn't cheating, its utilizing an exploit. However, even given this, running Kilroy requires the player to play, as does farming Vaettir or any other XP farm. Buying Hammers may seem like its "less" but it still required someone to play it, who did not collect the reward, and transferred the reward to another character.

The same amount of gameplay is going on, either way, hence not cheating.

Ban people for selling Hammers? Then you might as well ban people for selling ectos. Its the exact same concept, a character can acquire FoW armor without ever stepping foot into the Underworld. AND the armor is a trophy in the HoM. So according to your logic, any trade for something is now a bannable offense.

They are. Its a repeatable quest turn in for XP and gold. Whether you run it on an alt or run it yourself, the gameplay is exactly the same. Your problem is you identify the "lame-ness" of the end result and dismiss the fact that someone is playing the game as intended, just putting the rewars on a different character, which is their right to do so.

So because a few people exploit a silly quest turn in, you're against opening up the Survivor title to all those players whose characters were created before it was even available? Sounds to me like curing a cold by killing the patient.

Again, you contradict yourself. You've obviously missed the concept of the slippery slope, and whose job it is to judge what is and isn't right. As you said, whatever method is used is up to subjective opinion, whether by the player or those around him. What does it matter then how it is obtained? I have a Survivor that earned it through normal gameplay, another a double xp elite cap weekend, and another through Kilroy. Is one less valid than the other? Nope, as it was MY decision how to go about it, and MY experience is all that matters to me when it comes to MY characters. If every single other person in the game did it with Kath Hammers, I couldn't care less, and neither should anyone else, its so silly.

You're right, Kath and Kilroy aren't cheats, good of you to acknowledge that.

How, exactly? It affects your experience surely, since you're the one who chose how to go about it, but it affects NO ONE ELSE, making yourself the only one accountable for the method used. Whether you have some moral anguish or guilt over it is irrelevant, none of the rest of us care.

But you've missed the point, that Survivor and its methods for attainment are solely up to the player, and have no bearing or affect on the rest of the game, period. Same with the reward, tangible or otherwise, it has no far reaching consequences or effects.

You're making a giant baseless assumption that you're right, which you aren't. You haven't given one concrete example of how "lame-way"ing the Survivor title detracts from the gameplay experience, not ONE. As its a title of personal achievement, its worth whatever importance the player places on it. If they just want it ASAP for the HoM, they can buy Hammers. If they want to roleplay it and get it only after an epic time and quest and slaughter investment, they can do that too. Each players method and its subjective value are only truly important to the player, as it should be.

Its a title, with no gameplay value. Apart from having it just to have it, for the HoM or whatever, it boils down to distinction which is of course what a title is in the first place. The more difficult the attainment of said title (such as being Knighted by the Queen of England) the more prestige is attached to it.

With the ability to easily acquire the Survivor title, very little prestige is attached to it, so your argument against allowing other to have it is stupid in the extreme.

Then you shouldn't have any problems with it NOW. Everyone does play by the same rules. As I mentioned above, I used three different strategies to get Survivor, that are accessible to anyone. Had I the cash for Hammers, I might have done that too. The methods used are irrelevant, as long as all players have the same access, which they DO. Hence, your entire argument on the basis of fairness and rules lawyering is invalidated.

Good day sir.

Please stop using analogies. They're awful (and I don't mean analogies in general; I mean yours). Using Kath hammers requires having someone finishing the dungeon x amount of times equal to x amount of hammers used. It's just another form of buying a title. Are you against buying zkeys to obtain the zaishen title? It's the same thing. Are you against buying party points to obtain Life of the Party? It's the same thing. Are you against buying alcohol to obtain Incorrigible Ale-Hound? It's the same thing. Are you against buying sweets to obtain Connoisseur of Confectioneries? It's the same thing. Are you against buying unidentified golds to obtain wisdom title? It's the same thing (seeing as you didn't obtain the unidentified golds yourself). Why is it that survivor is put on this pedestal?

And specifically towards your Mallyx analogy. If there was some proxy item to obtain the rewards of the quest without doing it, there would be NO problem that farmers would have with it. No additional gemsets would be produced than what is now. The price of the proxy item would be in line with the rewards that it produces (just like the hammers).

And since you seem to be harping about the EULA, please quote the lines that lead to the conclusion that buying hammers is cheating and thus bannable. If there is, I could say there are A LOT of people that need to be banned for their illegitimate sweet tooth, drunkard, party animal, zaishen, and/or wisdom titles.

which is against the rules. You can try to justify breaking the rules and the agreement you made not to do so all day long, but it doesn't change the fact.

We finally agree.

So...as long as the honest join the dishonest, since they can, its all fine, right? Your logic is based in the fact that I could use the exploit as well, and just choose not to, but that doesn't make it ok. If an ATM is dispensing cash that it shouldn't be, it's the bank's job to stop it. (which is what I am asking Anet to do, and I don't really see it as that much to expect)
But taking that money just because its available isn't any less stealing, whether everyone has the chance to grab it or not, and the idea that "since the bank hasn't fixed their faulty machine, that makes it ok" is also wrong.

You were right the first time:

See, "cheating", and "breaking the rules" are the same thing.

And since my analogies are so bad, then by all means, let's use yours. I like it very much. It's pretty accurate.
But, in all fairness, you forgot the part where that golfer, who is "technically cheating" by pencil-whipping a score he didn't earn, then goes into the clubhouse and posts his hole-in-one scorecard up on the wall. Thats wearing the title, and its dishonest. It also changes the overall golfing experience for the day for other players. Thats your e-peen theory again, and just because your subjective opinion of that is derisive, it doesn't change that this experience has an affect on the honest Golfers on the course. And, just because your opinion is that their experience being lessened is their own fault for "liking something as stupid as golf", that doesn't mean their experience wasn't affected. Perhaps they're competing. They do have that right, after all, and in my own subjective opinion, it's a shame that the dishonest get to interfere with that. Whether they are right or wrong to feel that way is irrelevant, the part that is fact instead of opinion is that the golfer did not play by the rules.

But now, when this cheating golfer goes and collects the free round of golf the establishment offers to Hole-in-one achievers on their next visit, he isn't only cheating himself anymore. See, he agreed when he entered this public golf course to only write down the scores he actually earned. This game is that clubhouse, the points they earn towards the rewards in the next installment are that free round. And the other golfers who played the same course that day have been treated unfairly. Of course they could pencil-whip their scores too, but the fact that they don't doesn't make it any more fair to them.

No matter how minor your opinion of the value of that free round of golf is, the action was still dishonest, unfair, and against the rules; and no amount of justification you try to assert will ever change that. And being barred from playing on that particular course in the future is not an extreme reaction on the part of the owners of the clubhouse, and many people may find it completely appropriate.

As for your opinion that he was playing alone so only cheated himself...if the man had his own course on his own property and really was playing alone, it would be a completely different story, I would agree with you there. But he chose to play on a public course, and agreed to do so by the rules of that course, and is a part of the collective players of that course. It wasn't his private living room wall he posted that scorecard on for only himself to see, after all, and the free round wasn't really his to collect. If he had put that card in his pocket and went home, then he could have written any score on it he wanted, or written the first act of Hamlet on it - it wouldn't matter. But thats not the case, and nothing can justify hanging it on the public scoreboard.
As for the methods used by the other golfers to get their scores, they really don't matter, if they wrote down the scores they actually shot. But collecting the rewards for Kath Hammers while not doing the dungeon is adding a hole-in-one to your scorecard (XP Bar, xunlai chest, HoM, GW2) that you didn't shoot.
(on a side note, getting the title by boxing is just using a space-age titanium club and having walls that run along both sides of the strip between you and the hole that limit how far you can slice and don't let the ball go in the sandtrap. Its still technically golfing, and if the course manager allows those scores, then it's fine for them to be allowed, I guess. But at least you're hitting the ball and counting real strokes you actually took and not just making up shit scores on your card and posting those and collecting your free round for it. There is a difference.)

a) All that is not forbidden is permissible.
b) All that is forbidden but not policed is not forbidden.

Unless you can persuade the devs to buy into your sense of honor, that honor won't buy you a cup of coffee. You're absolutely correct that there's a negative externality, and that this is why rules are made and enforced. But if the devs choose to let it slide, then it's legal and that's that.

Morality may have a place in your life, but it has no place in competitive processes. Since the quantity of ultra-rare shinies is limited/fixed, the acquisition of those shinies in an MMO is a competitive process.

Small update - feb 22
What is it?
Wiki is down.

Q_Q you have to wait to que them. Impatience and waiting don't go together.

Here, my good chum.

Chum is a slang term for a (usually male) friend.

I learned a new word.



Update - Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Bug Fixes
Fixed a bug that prevented Nicholas the Traveler from appearing for certain players.

Maybe it's just me but he seems to be completely gone now, tried with a character who has completed WiK and tried with a character who hasn't completed eye of the north or prophecies, zoned in and out multiple times and can't seem to see him

It looks like Nick got moved across the zone when they fixed him.

Again your logic is flawed. Never mind that most of what you quoted from my post was completely out of context (to be expected I suppose given that your position isn't really defensible), but unless a player is duping items, BREAKING the game and then taking advantage, etc., etc. there is no way to cheat.

Everything in game right now is a product of ANet. The only way to cheat would be to use third party programs to modify the client and then send the modded info to the server. In fact, one could consider the Texmod program a cheat, when using, say, the Cartographer assist overlays, because they enable the player help that is not intended.

THAT is more cheating than any example you've given.

Nope, not really. See above.

Honesty or lack thereof isn't entering the issue, you need to get past the idea that people who use the Kath Hammers turn in are somehow godless, soulless heathens sacrificing babies or something. Its not an exploit, and if you stop quoting out of context and actually read you'd possibly understand that, given sufficient reading comprehension. And my logic is sound, what isn't is your judgement and holier than thou attitude.

If it exists in game, then it isn't an exploit or cheating. Using your logic, any given 8 skill build that is more efficient than another is cheating. In fact, taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion would see every player restricted to one build, and one class, since any differentiation is exploitation of the system.

Silly right? I know.

Terrible analogy as usual, because what you're describing isn't taking place. The only way what you describe could be the case is if people were getting free Kath Hammers, or free quest rewards with no effort on behalf of the playerbase.

But its not, is it? And you have to see that before you'll understand the reality. A player, whether you want to admit it or not, is acquiring Kath Hammers through gameplay, and then either uses it himself, OR trades it as a commodity to someone else, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TRADE IN THE GAME. The buying player also has to play to come up with the cash or tradeable items to pay for the transaction, so on BOTH ends of the trade, there is legitimate gameplay.

Again, no one is CHEATING the system, they're playing as intended, simply using the reward differently than you might like, but its not your place to mandate how players play.

I've been right the whole time, unfortunately for you.

Not always, because one can break the rules without necessarily cheating in most game systems. But please, explain something to me, and that is HOW can a player in GW cheat or break the rules? All the characters exist in the game system, and are subject to its rules. Its impossible to cheat unless a flaw in the system exists, such as the Armbrace duping incident, which ANet quashed relatively quickly.

But doing a item required quest turn in is neither breaking the rules or cheating, you seem terribly confused on these points.

Thank you.

Technically speaking, the golfer could also be adding his handicap to his score, which many sports do, and its an old joke more than anything else. Also, I don't know many golfers who post a faked scorecard, because eventually they'll get found out and scoffed at when they can't repeat the process. And really, the only person it affects is the golfer, especially since the golf community doesn't normally take scores at face value without verification and/or witnesses.

It may be dishonest, but it has no effect on the game itself, golf still marches on.

You must have never played golf. No such thing as an honest golfer lol. You said yourself that the e-peen theory is wrong or innaccurate, yet here you are quoting it as the prime motivator. Silly.

You assume their experience is being lessened, and I ask you how you make such a wild and baseless statement. A faked scorecard at a clubhouse isn't going to dissuade people from playing the game, nor will it change the rules, and I can't see how my experience of golf, which is generally considered a very personal game anyways is lessened in any way?

Assuming your statements have any basis in fact, the GW community has already deemed the Survivor title worthless because it is easy to obtain through multiple venues. So opening it up to others who were unable to attain it for any reason has no deleterious effects on the game.

And it has no effect on the game. No one stopped the other golfers from competing, in any way. They can choose to play or not. You're acting as if one dishonest act has invalidated the entire game. All it invalidates is the player's reputation.

And I say again, hoping that it gets through, that a GW player cannot help BUT play by the rules, as the game is its own universe. There are the occasional incidents, but by and large there is no way to actually cheat. Again, your logic is demanding that all are forced to play a specific and narrow way, which is the exact antithesis of what GW is about.

You're taking my analogy a bit far, but explain to me how achieving the Survivor title via Kath Hammers is ANYTHING like you just described? In point of fact, if ANet changes the Survivor title such that at any time a character acquires 1,337,500 xp without dieing regardless of prior death count, the exact OPPOSITE of what you describe is happening, which is that rather than one player getting a title advantage over others, the title now becomes a non-issue.

Banning for cheating is fine. Turning in a quest reward is not cheating. Acquiring the item for said quest reward through gameplay or trading is not cheating. Therefore gaining Survivor via Kathandrax Hammers is not cheating.

Unless of course you contend that any repeatable quest is cheating, but that would be silly.

First off you're making a bunch of baseless presumption on a simple analogy and taking it way too far. You're assuming that every cheating golfer ALWAYS posts his scorecard, which is an incredible fallacy.

Let me ask you this, do you really want your idea pushed into reality? Do you want only one way to get Survivor? You must realize the foolishness of such an idea. Gaining Survivor is based off of collected XP. If you say one method is valid and others aren't, then you're forcing other people to adhere to your playstyle. Not rules, not EULAs, but your specific idea of how the game should be played.

If you get rid of Kath Hammers, where is the line drawn, and why? Should we then eliminate Kilroy? How about double xp skill cap weekends? Why not skill cap XP entirely? Nerf every single build that allows farming, since XP is gained that way too? Get rid of the XP system entirely?

Where does it stop?

Please explain to me how players that have never been in the Underworld can have FoW armor? And why isn't that cheating?

But, according to your logic, both methods must have the same end result, the same prestige. Someone posts Survivor on their character, it should have the same impact regardless of the method used.

So you're saying that the experience of screen golfing and its attendant prestige should equate the same as a full round of golf? I can't imagine Tiger Woods being given the PGA cup for playing indoor video golf, can you?

See, the danger of analogies is that if you don't understand them, it possible to get them all out of context and misrepresent them, which you pretty much did to the letter.

If you read nothing else, make sure you get this: what we've been discussing isn't cheating, you're just pissy because you don't agree with a certain playstyle.

It's also the bloody fish bits and guts you toss into the water to attract sharks.

One can have FoW armor without going into the Underworld because the armor crafter is in the FoW, and you can buy the needed ectos from other players or the Rare Material Trader.

And why are certain quest rewards like Hammers and Prismatic Gelatinous Material able to be turned in by anyone, but other rewards like the Spectral Crystal and the Exquisite Surmia Carving are only able to be turned in by the person who did the quest? Sounds like a bug or an unintended feature to me.

I know that, my tongue in cheek question above was to show the hypocritical nature of complaining about what amounts to a trade in one instance, but not having an issue with it in another.

Getting FoW armor by trading for mats or gathering it all yourself is exactly the same as trading hammers for xp or gathering all the xp yourself.

Or that ANet is just experimenting with different quest design? Making all quests the same would be quite boring no? Its the same argument that Sir Cusfreak uses ad infinitum, that there is only one way and that is his way. And that the rest of us are amoral heathens consorting with demonic forces.

Why not require each player, who wants to get his armor infused kill an Eidolon? Why is it, no matter how many people are in the group, there is ALWAYS enough Spectral Essence to go around, even though there is only one? /sarcasm

The quests for the Spectral Crystal (Crystal Method) and the Exquisite Surmia Carving (Temple of the Damned) both have the requirement of killing the boss at the end (Eldritch Ettin and Murakai respectively) in the quest.

The quests for the Gelatinous Material (Watch It Jiggle) and the Hammers (Kathandrax's Crusher) simply have 'Retrieve x Item' in the quest log. Which is why you can take the quest and turn it in immediately if you have the Hammer in your inventory.

The easiest thing to do would to be to add the requirement to kill the boss at the end of Kathandrax and the Ooze Pit before you can claim the reward. Either way, I don't really pay it much mind. I have my survivor for the HoM, and if the changes occur I'll be killing worms outside Boreal to get it on my Rit for 30 titles. I don't really care how others get their titles as long as I can feel proud about how I got mine.

EDIT: A few spelling errors fixed.

The people who think that its like any other trade seem to be overlooking some very basic concepts about the meaning and usage of the word "Experience." Where's that handy-dandy dictionary people were throwing around earlier? Anyway, in my ever-so-humble opinion, experience isn't like materials, or consumables, or weapons, or other items intended for trading. And quest rewards are for the players who completed their respective quests. Its not exactly rocket surgery. We don't complete a quest on one character and collect the reward on another anywhere else in the game, we don't build up the XP from our last 50 kills and sell it in town when we get done, because experience is one of those things that is only for the character that earned it, and items and loot are not. Some features of the game are for trading, and I'm pretty sure experience isn't intended to be one of those features. Some things are inherently achievement-based, some aren't, and I for one will never believe that this trade is just like any other.
I've stated my case, and been told that some agree and some don't, but the only people who matter are the powers that be, and all arguments aside I really do hope they will consider these things if they decide to make further changes to the title requirements and include some changes to the quests/reward items as well.

lol hammers and prismatic are whatever are we really crying over this?
Money rules the world kids, GW no different, Wisdom, drinking, sugar these titles are all money titles. If someone wnats to pay for their survivor what's it matter. Another way to get a crappy title.

Experience, or "XP" in almost every usage of the word in regards to videogames, denotes the player characters "learning something" and then applying it. Sort of like a warrior learning how to fence with a sword, he won't learn and apply until he's actually fought and killed with it.

It is not meant to be the esoteric idea of character building, as that's something that would have to be role-played and is sorely lacking in most MMOs.

So no, no one is overlooking any basic concepts, you're just once again trying to find something that isn't there. What experience is in this game is painfully obvious to most.

Once a character reaches level 20, he ceases to gain any more raw power and simply relies on the accumulation of skills. Experience over that mark still accrues, and gives skill points.

Now what oh what to do with 700+ extra skill points? Why, turn them into consumables! And sell them for profit! Literally, you're trading experience to others to make their gaming easier.

You may never believe it, but the fact of the matter is, Kath Hammer trading IS just like any other trade, the only difference is your holier-than-thou attitude.

I also hope they consider what has been said, and throw your ideas out as being too limiting and regimented.

You STILL haven't answered how someone who's never gotten a Glob of Ectoplasm drop is able to acquire Obsidian armor. FoW armor is every bit as much of a "prestige item" as the Survivor title, and whether you want to admit it or not, the stark reality of the situation is that people can forego repetitive farming in favor of trading, services or otherwise.

The same principle applies to Kilroy and Kath Hammers. Just because you want everyone to ignore the obvious, and bury their heads in the sand won't make it so.

Well... you can get all the ectos you need for obby armor dropped, from Banshees in FoW or from certain foes in ToPK.

However, you are also overlooking one source: the rare material trader.

There is no such trader as an XP trader except for an experience boosting scroll trader.

I somewhat agree that XP shouldn't be tradable in the form it currently is, Kath Hammers for example. I don't have any problem with using scrolls and boxing or snow wurms though, because then at least you are actually gaining the XP yourself.

Ditto!

Real life or a virutal setting. nothing new under the sun.

/facepalm

I KNOW that you can get ectos from other sources than playing in the Underworld, that's the point I'm making to Sir Cusfreak is that one can acquire something (Obby armor) without having to play in the designated area designed for acquisition!

I thought that was obvious.

Whether you or Sir wants to admit it, players trade experience all the time, one form being consets, which directly contributes to acquisition of XP faster.

XP scrolls also increase the rate over "normal" and according to Sir Cusfreak's logic should also be a bannable offence because its not "playing as intended."

And as to "gaining the xp yourself" I've made the point repeatedly which seems to be ignored that a player buying Kath Hammers had to get the money from somewhere, most likely playing the game which solves the main contention. Its safer to trade Hammers of course, but so is Kilroy, wurm farming, etc.

There is literally no difference objectively in the methods used to gain XP, only the subjective value or importance placed on such methods by the player that determines the value of the title in the first place, which is a personal accomplishment and offers no in-game value or advantage.

Seriously, its like talking to a brick wall.

/facepalm x2?

I just said that I agree that you can buy obby armor, but the difference is that you can actually buy stuff like that from rare material trader while there is no such trader for XP. The only way is Kath Hammers for example, which practice I said I somewhat disagree with.

And "playing the game" to buy Kath Hammers is exactly why they shouldn't be tradable: you are not playing (earning them) on the survivor character, defeating the whole point.

/facepalm x4?

You're missing the point a bit.

And there IS a trader for XP, called the Rare Scroll Trader. You're paying gold to directly increase the XP gain. It may not be as blatant as Kath Hammers, but its there.

Not to mention that Kath Hammers COST quite a bit more. Its a tradeoff you see, the less risk for the title, the more cash you pay.

Just like many of the consumables titles, it would take considerable time to farm the various items yourself, so people buy them from others, getting the title sooner than intended.

And what is REALLY the difference between Kath Hammers, Kilroy+scrolls and wurm+scrolls? Time.

As to the "point" being defeated, well isn't that the case with many of the titles, such as Kurz/Luxon supposedly being a title earned through faction combat able to be farmed through repetitive and faster Vanquish speedclears?

The "point" is that titles are only worth what the player thinks they are, and in the end has no effect on gameplay as the titles themselves (except PvE ranks) offer no gameplay benefits and are not tradeable.

Even if EVERYONE got Survivor tomorrow, there wouldn't be any deleterious effects on the game, since most view the title as easy to acquire anyways with little prestige if any, and IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

/bangs head against brick wall

XP gained by that character. That is where I draw the line. You don't. Fine. But you can at least acknowledge that.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

But aside from the technical arguments related to the morality or honor of Kath Hammers (or any other quick route to Survivor), can it REALLY be argued that the Survivor title is that important in the first place?

My long diatribes notwithstanding of course lol.

I mean, we've all been arguing back and forth about whether its fair, right, morally justified, et al for Kath Hammers and/or quick routes to Survivor. My main contention though is that even if ANet bestowed Survivor on everyone TODAY, the game would not change, people would be happy with their +1 title for HoM, and the game would go on with barely a hiccup of "oh gee, that's nice."

Read your post's and repeat above till it knocks sense into what you think your saying.

The difference between kath hammers/ooze thingy and doing things with scrolls is with kath hammers you do nothing to gain that experiance pretty much where doing kilroy or wurms you actually have to kill things your self to gain the experiance the scrolls only make the process that little less painfull.

Why anet have let it slip for so long i don't know maybe they do see it as a way of gaining the title, unlikely but possible and yes i know it states in the quest that you only ned to obtain the item but it should really mean you need to obtain the item on the char your turning the quest in with ie they need to do the dungeon themself to get the hammer.

Edit: Yes i know your original intent was survivor gives no meaningfull benefit to anyone. Something else popped into my head old fast faction farm was similar to giving "free experiance and that got fixed and was not as bad as the kath hammers are now and yeah there were other reasons the fff got fixed but that was one of the reasons.

How can a character that does nothing afford Kath Hammers?

/brick wall

um guildmates can give them to you

wait for it.....



Free




It proably never happnes but it could.

Thats one opinion. There are others. One matters about as much the next. I hope the people who's opinions DO matter (the powers that be) will make the right decisions.


We're really getting nowhere here. I think you're a moronic ass, you think I'm a moronic ass, I think I have a basis for being correct, so do you, whatever.
It moved beyond 'discussion'. I state an opinion, you state an opinion of my opinion along with your opinion of the topic, and I fall into the response and feed the troll. My bad. Let's stop now. Neither of us will ever get through to the other.

So...Can I join your guild?

plus it's going to happen. we seen the /deaths exp etc... at the last update

so save your hammers / ooze and sell them fast to make a buck (or platinum) before it get's patched

And how did those guildmates acquire them?

Apparently, none of you are familiar with First Cause.

Kath Hammers don't spawn out of nothing, for free. It requires a player to beat a dungeon.

Therefore the game is being played, and a reward is issued. How that reward is used is up to the player.

I thought this was all very obvious, but apparently not.

@ Sir Cusfreak - I don't think you're a moronic ass, which by the way is not very nice. I simply think you're unwilling to see the other side. I get that there is a moral vacuum in gaming, MMOs in particular. People want their shinies (items or titles) NOW, and are willing to pay.

Is that a fault of human nature? Or game design that emphasizes repetition and grind? Its probably a mixture of both.

But WHILE the issue exists (bad humans and limited game design) we might as well have as many options as possible.

And given that the game is nearly six years old, for all but the few new bloods that trickle in the game is very much repetition, so ANY changes and shake ups (Mesmer/Dervish update, Guild Wars Beyond for example) are quite welcome I would think.

yes sir there for noobs like me will spam WTS Kath Exp hammer 5k | buy my exp

Hope the FB is tommrrow!

The whole point in the matter is the game IS NOT being played by the survivor char to gain that experiance as intended for the survivor title.

In every other way of gaining survivor the survivor char has to be there/take part/do something to gain the experiance from quests and or killing foes where as with the hammers/ooze all they need is to have enough hammers and be run to the dungeon to collect the experiance that they did not earn on that char and saying they earned the money to buy the hammers will not count because survivor for all intents and purposes was never meant to be a title that you could out right buy like sweets or party or the many other titles you can buy. It just happens that 2 quests offered the possibility to buy the title out right unfortunately.

You people are funny, who cares about survivor anyway?

You act like your dog got stabbed, it's a title with no uses, hell, it only adds like 0.2 points to HoM, who really cares?