Poll : Make LDOA account wide?

[QUOTE=Matirion Maeronta;5423214]I have to agree on the point that his comparison is incorrect... But the truth actually makes the balance go to his side.
ANET has already made it clear that titles weren't supposed to be exclusive unless you do not own the campaign they belong to. In combination with the fact that the LDoA title is a grind, just as the wisdom/chest titles are. It has more weight to be converted into an account wide title, in order to remove the exclusiveness, then that any other title has.
My advice is to check your spelling, grammar and reasoning before you post anything, all you do now is make yourself look like a random kid that complains when people want to take his toy away.

What truth? ... You know sticking to grammar and spelling is bit unfair ... comming to any conclusions based on it is bit lame ... But you are right I have made many mistakes ... That's me I don't pay too much attention to it ... just waiting when someone will use them as main argumentation ... As for argumentation ... hm ... Let me put this that way ... In my view titiles which can be acheived by exclusively one char shouldn't be account based, I hope you know what I mean? ...You can go to RA, HA, JQ with all your chars and can grind ...You can do the game content by openning chests with many chars ... But you can't do LDOA one day with you necro and the next day with ...(say ryt ... well joke but with let's say ele) for the same necro's title. You can't do the mission with one char and have it done for the next char. Especially this would be tricky on the char which has even not revealed this part of the game.
My conclusion is that if LDOA should be account based ... so every title should be ... but then the atractivenes of the game would be very harmed and limited. I hope this is quite clear and here I could use countles examples but ... i see no reason for that.

There is alot of namecalling going on, I see no reason to. (From both sides)

The only thing I found, however, is that the con-side is extremely ignorant. All I see is one guy throwing in a random flawed statement, and then everone on their side quotes it with a "YEAAAAAH, SO TRUE" post.

Now, this would work, if every single arguement from the Con-side wasn't flawed. Every arguement has already been disproven, but for some reason they keep comming back with other, even more retarded arguements.

I'm just going to throw out there what's already been said in this thread, just so the con-side can actually see how redicilous their arguing is:

If you could add titles to HoM with a PvP character, how would this be any more inconvenient than adding titles to HoM with a Pre-Searing character. There is no difference between LDoA and PvP-titles. They're both titles which can only be gained in a specific place, and according to your logic, characters which have never PvP'ed before shouldn't be able to show PvP titles. So you're suggesting to make PvP titles character based? After all, that is the natural consequences of arguing LDoA should be character based.

Even more so, according to your logic (Aside from wanting to make PvP titles character based) people who find ecto dupes shouldn't get banned, as long as they don't hurt your individual playstyle? Or what about people botting certain titles. They don't hurt you, so you're pro-botting? Your arguement holds no sense, whatsoever. There is douzens of degenerative behaviours that don't affect your gameplay in a bad way, that doesn't mean they're "OK" to do. It's amazing how far away from acceptable ethics you are.
It's remarkable how resilient the few-con posters are here. I know a public forum is supposed to be about difference opinions and such, but it's really astonishing how they go out of their own way to prove their right at any cost, completely disregarding any form of logic, jumping on the first thing on their mind trying to twist it into a con-arguement. Astonishing...

Agree, many of the arguments by the con side are just rewordings of the same arguments that have been shown to be either very weak, completely unbalanced, or invalid. Having said that.
/still signed

lol Yeah i noticed you don't see the need for insults......

No, they are not.

There is a single and simple reason against it:
- It's a character-achievement title, and so, it stays for the character.

You don't make account-wide protector, you don't make account-wide guardian, you don't make account-wide master of the north, if there was an 'adventurer' title for making quest, that could not be account wide either, and so, LDoA cannot be account wide.

It's not needed for GWaMM, since after the changes to survivor and drunkard getting 30 is way faster, it doesn't add anything useful that would make annoying to chance characters to make use of it like Treasure hunter or Wisdom, and once added to the HoM, it doesn't matter if the rest of the characters never get it, once is enough to make it count.

There's just no reason to make it account-wide.

According to your logic, no PvP title, chest or ID title should be acount wide, again.

No reason? How ignorant can one truly be?! An extra title for GWAMM is already a stronger reason than 95% of the stuff that does make the live update has. Then the fact that no NF or Factions character can get it. Then the fact that everyone who chose survivor can't get it either.

It's astonishing how you're litterely ignoring every counter-arguement thrown at u. I'm really about to splash water into my eyes to see wether or not I'm dreaming.

Time for some rebuttal

First thing, lololol. Nothing further on that.


No. You have completely misunderstood. The Battle Isles are core, any character can access them at any time (except Pre-characters) and thus the same limitation of "the assassin/ritualist/dervish/paragon couldn't possibly have been in pre-searing Ascalon doesn't apply". Next, I have 493 fame on my account, in order to reach that figure I estimate I rolled at least 50 different characters, if PvP titles were character based i'd have around 5 fame right now, assuming my intake was averaged out and that I kep the last character I HA'd on. This makes no sense and removes pretty much the primary objective of PvP in Guild Wars: You can jump in at any time with a character, you don't need to spend time levelled up or earning titles each time to participate (I refer to "rank discrimination based on titles here". LDoA, on the other hand LDoA is gained on one character with no need to reroll at any time. If there is a need to make it account based, it's a completely separate one to the reason used for PvP titles to be account based so that argument is invalid.

Further, very few people will ever max a PvP title so the reason behind making PvP titles account wide is again separate to the one you argue for LDoA, i.e. so you don't miss out on a maxed title for your main.


Wrong, ecto dupes inflate the market making high level trading even more inaccessible to those who did not participate in the dupe, so yes, it hurts my playstyle.

I don't understand your argument, did you just compare getting LDoA to botting a title? I said "you're at no disadvantage to those who hold both LDoA and LS. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." and you replied with essentially "you're at no disadvantage to those who bot. Your gameplay is in no way harmed." You post is filled with the word "logic" yet you display very little.


Remember that time when you tried to use PvP titles are a justification for making LDoA account wide when the reasons for us wanting PvP titles to be account wide and the reason you want LDoA to be account wide are completely different? Seems a lot like you were jump on the first thing on your mind trying to twist is into a pro-argument. Astonishing...

I've already shown how your argument on PvP titles is ridiculous, i'll do the same for chests and ID titles now.

The style of play encouraged before these titles were account wide was that every character was forced to transfer all their golds and keys onto one character before using them. It completely took the flow out of the game because you constantly had to relog to advance one title on your main. It wasn't fun. Making the titles account wide allowed you to work on them whatever character you were on. Compare this to LDoA, LDoA doesn't require constant relogging, you can just sit on your Pre character all day and not worry that you're causing any detriment to your main. Also, making LDoA account wide won't allow you to work on it whatever character you're on, you'd still be limited to your Pre character. The argument for Chests/IDs just don't hold up when applied to LDoA.



Nope, GWAMM is fine as it is, thousands of players already earned it, many of them earned it more than once. Making it easier isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a top priority.

Here we go, every counter argument addressed one by one. Your move.

Seen what I just did?
Looks pretty unfun also...

Right, so you're saying that by making LDOA accountwide, you wouldn't have to put in the same hours to obtain the title? That you wouldn't have to work at it on one character?

I'm sorry but the people pushing for this to be account-wide are constantly changing how they think it should be implemented and I can't see what it is they actually want other than an easier +1 to GWAMM which is entirely unnecessary.

As stated before, LDOA is a CLEARLY character-based title and I see no reason to make it accountwide other than e-peen. If you want that, go around a town /zrank-ing someone. When you display GWAMM, it doesn't show how many titles you have. All you know is that there's at least 30 on that character. If you look someone up in HoM and you see LDOA, you don't see which character they got it on. You don't get a benefit from LDOA other than a +1 to GWAMM.

I agree with Hobbs that Wisdom/Treasure Hunter used to be VERY impractical. It forced you to one character for longer than LDOA does. The fact of the matter is that if you want LDOA, you have to put in those hours of play on that character REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS ACCOUNTWIDE OR CHARACTER-WIDE. So yes, your comparison to Wisdom/Treasure Hunter is once again invalid.

As I said, making LDOA accountwide is pointless for the fact that it doesn't make the title easier, it just makes GWAMM easier when there are plenty of titles for that already. And you know, this isn't even about GWAMM. It's about common sense. If you'd asked for Drunkard/Sweet/Party to be made accountwide, I'd have understood more as they're not campaign specific titles. Don't even try to go there with Luxon/Kurz as they're linked to PvP.

There is no logical reason to make LDOA accountwide, sorry.

People with LS and LDoA have 1 more title for GWAMM. Nothing you can bring in against this will change or nulify this arguement.

But I was midly amused on how flawed the train of thought by some people here are, and I'll just leave it at that.

No matter how you twist or turn it: People with LS and LDoA have 1 more title for GWAMM. Nothing you can bring in against this will change or nulify this arguement.

And therefor LDoA should be acountwide OR
every character should have the option to go back to Pre-Searing in one way or the other and get a revert to level1. Since the first option is alot easier, I see no reason not to implement it. Some people wanting to keep their advantage over other players isn't a reason not to implement, it's the very opposite.

There once used to be a time that chests/unid golds used to be for characters, but I guess most people forgot about it, so I'm right after all.

If i should vote concerning what i read , i would just say /notsigned , since i almost didn't see any argument supporting the idea....

A good argument for me is that people who did or will do LDOA did/will waste a lot of time ( time where they could achieve many other titles...) thus then it would be fair to make account wide....
If we followed same logic however , drunk,festive and sweet tooth should be account wide though....

You didn't actually address anything I said. So I guess I have to congratulate you on a thorough, if inept, attempt at dodging the argument.

You fail to see that i'm not opposing anything to "keep my advantage", that's a straw man you continue to bring up. I'm opposing it because it's not a good idea and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Further you make a huge leap from "people have one more title available" to "LDoA should be account wide". That's not the logical conclusion to come to at all. Frankly, suck it up. If you want a character that can wear both the LDoA and GWAMM titles, make one. There's nothing stopping you.


The whole argument comparing Wisdom/Treasure to LDoA rests on the fact that it used to be character based. So yes, I think everyone here is well aware of the basic history of the titles.

This evolved from a normal flame fest to an epic flame fest since I last visited this thread. Well, time to jump in again.

First of all, ever since I left this name-calling infested flame fest, all I've seen are semi-to-decent arguments on the cons side, and still no new arguments on the pro side besides "it makes GWAMM easier" and "it's unfair" (pro side, correct me if I'm wrong).

Also what I've seen, when they bring up very shallow and bad arguments that are easily overruled by the cons side, they kind of evade the subject and get back to the old ones.

Lemme sum it up:
pro:
-Unfair towards people with Ssin/Rit/Para/Derv main
-It makes GWAMM easier.
-You are all ignorant (that one actually makes me lol)

Tbh, GWAMM is already piss easy and should not be of any trouble to achieve. My ele has it, and I have neither Survivor nor LDoA. As for being unfair towards Ssins etc, all that matters to most people is HoM and their 50/50. Achieving GWAMM is -once again- quite easy and if you really want the title for your HoM, you can get it on an alternate character if you want, and you will still achieve the bonus. So both your problems can be solved.

Lemme give you a quick summary on how to get GWAMM:
-LB and SS (2)
-Carthography (4) (easily combined with VQ and Skill cap)
-Skill Hunter (4)
-Protector + Guardian (6)
-Survivor (1) (now that it's so piss easy anyway)
-EotN titles (5)
-Vanquisher (4)
-Money titles (3) (if you have the money)
-Kurz or Luxon (2)
That's already 31. So depending on your funds/time you can drop Kurz/lux or one of the money titles.

These were the easier ones. Tougher ones are:
-Lucky/Unluck (2)
-Wisdom/Treasure (2)

Cons:
-Lore wise, it's ridiculous
-GWAMM is already easy enough (see above)
-It's clearly character based
-Current account wide titles are account wide for a good reason (see previous posts)

Solutions:
pro side:
-Let ssins/paras/dervs/rits have access to ascalon to be fair. (In fact, that should include every Canthan/Elonian charr)
-Make it account wide

First solution: That one deserves a spot in the "Name the stupidest thing you've heard while playing Guild Wars" thread. Unless you build an in-game time machine, so it would make any sense, no.
Second one: see above arguments throughout thread.

cons side:
-stop QQing.

I gave up because you ignore every counter-arguement. And the one I gave still stands. LS and LDoA is 1 title more than simply LS. Basic math, doesn't need explanation, can not be argued.

As long as 1 < 2, this arguement can not be refuted, I'm sorry.

There's no reason why some people should have an advantage over others because of choices they made before the survivor-change update.

I also said that there's 2 options: Either allow every character at any given time acess to pre, which will get alot of opposition from the Pre-community, or allow LDoA to be acount wide. Those are the only 2 options we have to even out this unfair balance.

I never said LDoA had to be made acount wide, I merely said either one of the 2 works, and making LDoA acountwide is the easier solution.

You just seem too hell-bend over the fact that it doesn't fit "lorewise" when I can give you a million things that don't fit lorewise, so that can't be a valid ground on stating this is a bad suggestion. And I refuse to believe someone can be as ignorant to actually believe such a thing (that lore dictates it should be a character-based title) so therefore I assumed you're merely defending your own advantage you currently posses.

My girlfriend currently has 8 PvE characters on her acount all level 20, elite armor, etc etc. She chose for LS a couple of years ago, and currently needs a couple more titles to gain GWAMM. She wants to get GWAMM on her Monk, but she also wants LDoA. Why is she getting forced to remake her monk which has a redicilous amount of hours solely because of design flaws made by Anet 4 years ago?

"Because it doesn't fit lorewise", utter redicilous...

-Lorewise it is redicilous.
-GWAMM being easy is no excuse for imbalance existing. Again, you're arguing that bots should exist in PvP because it's "easy" anyways. An imbalance exists, it shouldn't, bottom line.
-Chest opening is character based too, so is PvP. Every Norn + SS + LB title are "acountbased" yet they aren't. How do you feel about these titles? So many flaws in that arguement.
-And LDoA will be acountwide for a good reason aswell: You won't be forced to play through intire character solely to get an extra title for HoM, you can get it on character and see the progress on all characters.

I'm not ignored them. They are just invalid in this case. There are no logic behind them. Just selfish delusion. That is, you fail to see the logic because you want something so bad that you lie to yourself.

Every title that was made account wide has logic behind that.

For PvP characters, one slot was enough, they were deleted quite often, and so, making the titles character-based meant losing all the progress.
You also had to deleted them to get them different gear. There was no item creation panel until... I think that until Nightfall.
It was not logical to keep the titles character-based.
Until the addition of the PvP item rewards from Tolkano, nothing was lost when deleting them.
When you make a new PvP character, you will still have access to everything you unlocked: Battle Isles Outposts, Skills, Upgrades, heroes...
PvE characters have the titles too just because they are account-wide so PvP characters can always have them regardless of how often they are deleted.
All titles a PvP-only character can't get are account wide for that reason.

On the other hand, PvE characters are made to stay, if you deleted a PvE character, you'll lose all progress. Skills, heroes, outposts, quests... everything gone.

As for wisdom, treasure hunter and lucky/unlucky, they are account wide because it would be annoying to save all items to be used by them: keys, lockpicks, festival tickets, golds to id, items to salvage... people make those things too often to keep them character-based.
Drunkard, glutton and party animal are not like that. You can easily save most of the items and use them in bulks with one character, excepting the DP-related and the tonics, and so they don't need to be account-wide.

The Factions allegiance titles? Those were designed to be PvP in the first place. Then made them hybrid. Half PvP, half PvE. It's the PvP part what keeps them account-wide.

As for "An extra title for GWAMM" is not valid either.
If you want GWaMM in a character that has LDoA, you go for LDoA and GWAMM with that character.
You don't get Survivor in one character to increase the GWAMM in another.
You don't get Protector in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Guardian in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Skill Hunter in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Vanquisher in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Cartographer in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get Master of the North in one character to increase GWAMM in another.
You don't get LDoA in one character to increase GWAMM in another.

All you need for GWAMM is 30 titles. And NO account-wide title is needed after the changes to survivor and drunkard. You can get a GWAMM just by completing a full cycle of ZQuests and attending to festival that has farmable quests for booze, sweets and party stuff... and of course, getting the stuff in that quest.

LDoA can't be acquired by PvP characters.
LDoA doesn't give any 'utility' benefit like the item titles.

You can add LDoA to the HoM without leaving pre too. So there's no need to make it account wide so you can add it without leaving pre either.

So what if LDoA is an extra title? It doesn't pop in your hero panel. You must stay in pre, without advancing for the other titles while you get it. With the other titles, you can go for several of them at the same time.
Take Fronis: in it, you advance with Survivor, Drunkard, Wisdom, Treasure Hunter and Delver at the same time.
While going for LDoA, you can't even go get the gifts of the huntsman, since the Vanguard Foes drop no items you can sell, and no trophies you can use for Nicholas. Each second you spend killing the enemeis that drop the trophies or searching for flowers, is a second lost killing Vanguard foes.
Since it keeps you from getting other titles while you go for it. It actually makes GWAMM slower.

And so, there's no reason to make it account-wide. And it will never be, unless ANet decides to make ALL titles account-wide. There's no logic behind it. "I want to get GWAMM faster with my Factions/Nightfall character" or "My Nightfall and Factions characters have access to one less title" are not reasons enough, and there are no other reasons.

I won't be against making all titles account-wide, since each account is limited to one user, and it's the user the one getting the stuff anyways, but that will probably never happen, and so LDoA will stay character-wide as long as they don't make such a change.

Otherwise it would be illogical. There are still quite some illogical things in the game, but that doesn't mean we should throw in one more.

Let's just make all titles account wide. We earned the achievement so why shouldn't we be able to wear the title on any character.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but even if you are, there is no valid reason not to.

Unless you have mutiple people playing on 1 acount, every character on an acount is the same player. Hobbs, etc seem to be extremely roleplay oriented players (Which is their full right) in claiming every character is a different "person" in the game, but if you're arguing achievements and HoM, you already stepped out of the intire Roleplaying/lore experience.

And when you look at the game from that angle, it seems utter redicilous that you're incapable of getting certain titles on certain characters, or that you have to get the same title multiple times on different characters of the same acount.

Replace "Died" with "left Pre-Searing", and multiply the vast legions of characters before the title change by 10-20x or so. To top it off, add that players were deceived through several years by what was supposed to be the status-quo of either having LDoA OR survivor, not LDoA AND survivor. Unless you have another solution to the problem (which will most likely be much more convoluted and hard to implement), making the title account wide is the only logical choice based on the logic Anet has presented as the authority.

Also, will people please get it through their head that "lol just do it with other titles" is not a defense? You could do GWAMM with titles other than survivor before. Furthermore, plenty of people don't give a shit about GWAMM and only want max titles, in which case losing LDoA is a permanent black mark on the character.

LOL. I can show you a billion starving people so who cares if there's another starving child? I can show you 100 botting players so what does it matter if I bot? (HA! You just argued for botting!)

"Bad things exist so why not allow more" is the worst argument in existence.

Well, the vote totals don't seem to be changing much from a percentage standpoint (the ratio of yes votes to no votes has remained fairly consistent since the poll went up.)

So, regardless of their reasons, the poll clearly has shown the more players favor LDoA remaining a character title rather than a account-based title.

Of course, however, as with any election, the side that is losing will do everything in their power to keep to argument rolling in the hopes it will change minds, which does not seem to be happening here.

The community HAS spoken, some just don't like what they have to say.

Viva Democracia!

Multi quote time!

Since when do you decide when arguments can or can not be refuted? Christians also say that the fact that god exists can't be refuted, yet, there is still no proof. Hurr durr.
But to answer anyway: it is sad that you need LDoA that badly but until you convince Anet otherwise, it's still characterbased.

So, you're saying, everyone who had something given to them prior to a certain update are in advantage and should not be? Well in that case I want uncods to drop again, because I didn't decide to start playing GW prior to the moment they were removed, and I think those people have an advantage over me. (I clearly don't, I'm just bending arguments to fit my point, like you have been doing the entire time too)

There is also a 3rd option you forgot, and I did mention in my post: drop it, stop QQing. Your reasoning is also utterly flawed here. Since when should Anet be forced to choose either one? And giving them 2 ridiculous options to choose from is kind of a bad gesture, no? That's like choosing the lesser of 2 retarded evils.

So, because already so many things don't fit lore-wise, another one doesn't matter, right? Again, good reasoning.

This is one of your most flawed arguments tbh. No one is forcing her to delete her monk. If she wants GWAMM on it, there are more than enough possibilities to get it. Unless there were only 30 available titles and LDoA was mandatory for GWAMM, your argument isn't valid. (Surprise)

Again, one of your beautiful examples of putting words in my mouth I never said. You're even worse than my gf from time to time. I never said anything about bots, nor did I approve of anything. And where the hell did I say PvP is easy?

Treasure is account wide the last time was checked, and so was every PvP title. And ehm, rep titles are charr based. You are quite confusing me with your reasoning here. Not that you haven't done that before but this one si especially strange.

When will it be account wide? I never saw Anet state that it would be? Also, you're blaming us for wanting to keep it charr based for e-peen, yet here you are saying you want to be able to show it to others, which kind of defines e-peen.

Also makes about as much sense as a character being able to wear "Legendary Hero" without ever stepping foot into Heroes' Ascent...

Oh wait. Pretty sure I've seen one or two in Pre-Searing...

At this point in the game's lifecycle, and with the changes to Survivor a poignant example, it makes no sense to keep titles character based at all anymore.

As for the argument that new characters shouldn't have the Protector or Guardian or whatever titles to display, exactly how does it matter? Having those titles doesn't mean said character can't load up, grab a Zmission and go do HM Dasha Vestibule. Or simply do a mission for any reason.

Also, the argument for character individuality and role-playing was tossed out by ANet the moment the HoM was unveiled, as well as Mercenary Heroes. For $45, you can literally play with every character on your account simultaneously. The HoM displaying account wide accomplishments to individual characters makes no sense in game does it?

The simple fact of the matter is, the game is old, with little new content being released (WiK is simply Diablo II-esque re-skinning of enemies and new spawns with a few scripting updates), and overpriced cosmetic content being the new model for cashflow. Players are LESS inclined to play multiple primary professions and experience less of the gameplay precisely because to get the most benefit you have to concentrate on one character unless you have thousands of hours to waste grinding, which was the opposite intent of the game in the first place!

I would argue that the game would see a revival of sorts by making all titles account wide, which would encourage players to dust off old characters or make new ones without feeling gimped to having to spend a bajillion hours farming titles to bring them in line with their "main" a concept that wasn't supposed to be in GW from the outset.

That's an interesting point... In fact , although it gets more and more ridiculous after every update , it seems that they just want to make the game easier than it already is...

But well , then once again i will come with my old arguments. If the game comes on end of his lifecycle , why aren't they allowing heroes in PvP ? Overall , it would still be player vs player ( since 1 would control them) and it would furthermore help players to get titles easily ...

I really see no logic in their updates

You just want HB back^^

Thats the thing though. Anyone can title grind 30 titles with enough time and effort and get a GWAMM.

And yes, it seems ANet is on track to making titles easier to achieve.

But is that wrong? I say no, since titles in the long run have no gameplay effect (aside from rep skills and LB) and Guild Wars was billed at one time as a grindless MMO.

If titles were to follow their initial concept, then all rep titles for example should have been max-able after one NM and one HM playthrough, and not require countless hours of grinding. The Vanquisher title tracks are literally titles that reward single minded grinding of the entire game lol.

Or PvP tracks taking thousands of hours to max even IF you never lose one match, Luxon/Kurzick requiring SC vanqing to be completed in a mortal lifespan, etc.

While I don't advocate giving out free titles to every new player the moment they install the game as some of the more ridiculous and reactionary players would claim, I would say that a title that is achieved on any character should be applied to all characters, even for GWAMM, as that title should reflect the player's accomplishments, not a single character, as that leads to "main-ing" and ignoring 9 out of 10 professions.

Unless of course a player spends 23 hours a day for the last six years doing nothing but scraping maps and failPUGging RA for a point here and there, but that doesn't sound like fun to me, more like mindless drone work.

Why make LDOA account wide? Did your other characters survive the searing (which took place a full two years before the present, I might add)? Do you have a Dervish that just couldn't seem to shake that elusive Gwenn? Hell I say if ANet were to make LDOA account wide they should just start making up titles like "Adelbern's Avenger!" for characters who didn't live through the Guild Wars (ALL of them, since it's before game storyline).

Let's follow a plot pattern please. I vote no.

Ahh... Sadly, I can relate.

Your not the first person to use the lore argument but its an ubalanced one....other titles don't follow lore but were changed to improve the game. A change to LDOA will bring back back balance to titles and will be inline with anet wanting characters that were created before titles to be able to access them as stated in their developer update for the survivor change.

Also your if a than z example is beyond rediculous. How does anet changing LDOA to balance titles have anything to do with anet throwing all logic out the window.

Neutral: I don't really care either way. I don't have LDoA and probably won't get it (have a level 13 in pre but that char has been there for 2 years) because there is no need for it (already have GWAMM and 50/50).

Well how about getting Protector of Elona on a factions made character? I'm pretty sure the first couple of missions happened BEFORE our characters hopped on that boat to Nightfall. Just saying.

In Nightfall and Prophecies, I get a message saying I am reliving historical events when I enter missions on my Canthan Necro.

Just sayin.

I guess people really don't read most of the text in the game, huh?

I assume you're referencing Treasure/Wisdom. Again, I reiterate, these titles were changed to make them easier, less grindy, more integrated into normal play. Yes, it damaged lore (in a minor way, it's not like it changed the entire history of the game), but it gave a huge benefit. Making LDoA account wide won't make it easier, less grindy or more integrated into normal play. In other words, it's completely different to Treasure/Wisdom. Those titles were made account wide so you could work on them across multiple characters, making LDoA account wide simply isn't the same.

If they'd wanted LDoA to be this way, don't you think they'd have done it when they did the last title overhaul, that is, this month? You keep saying that making LDoA account wide is ANet's intention, yet it's a relatively easy change and they haven't done it.

So is survivor, and it took them 5 years to change it, so you can throw that arguement out the window.


This is unrelated to the issue at hand. If you get chest hunter on character which never left prophecies, and you make an Elonan one, you have max chest hunter based on a character living 3 years in the past. I don't see any text explaining that.

Again, lore is no excuse not to implement this.

Why do bosses have glow around them? Why do some bosses not have glow? How come the Tyra Dessert and the Elonian Wastes don't perfectly match up? How come you can get PvP titles on a character that's never been to PvP before? How come you can beat Shiro and the Lich over and over again? How come, after you beat the game, you can still go the first outposts, and they're still in ruin getting tormented by the end-game boss you just beat? How come you can replay missions?

If you want to talk about lore, go play WoW, as it makes alot more sense than GW. There is very few things that make sense lorewise in GW, because gues what: it's not rocket scientists that made up the GW lore, it's writers who did it for "the crack". I'm fairly sure not one of them believed people would ever be taking GW lore as serious as you guys are, that's why there is so many flaws in GW lore. (You can find all of them on the official wiki)

Again, the only remaining arguement is that you want to keep your advantage over other players with the extra title you have. That's the only arguement I can't refute, but given the fact that such behaviour shouldn't get promoted anyways, I see no reason to anyways.

Seems like you aren't paying any attention at all. I've said I was in favour of making Survivor easier, LDoA easier, Treasure easier and Wisdom easier. So no, it's no about keeping prestige at all. Besides, I don't even have an LDoA character and I had GWAMM without Survivor so there's no "advantage" for me to keep. Further, as has been mentioned previously, just because there are faults in the lore doesn't mean you should introduce more, especially ones as glaring as characters being awarded titles that it is impossible for them to access. It's possible for PvE characters to access PvP so that title crossover doesn't really matter but it is impossible that Canthan and Elonian characters could have been in Pre.

You aren't paying any attention to what is being written, just building up straw men and knocking them down. It's incredibly boring.

It's gotten to the point where I feel a couple of you will take any other persons points, discount them, and then accuse them of just wanting to keep their (your) perceived advantage over others (you).

You asked for opinions but discount every one of them if it differs from your own.
Again, the poll clearly shows (and has shown since within a few hours of it being up) that the community is almost 3-2 in favor of LDoA remaining char based rather than account based.

Bottom line, this argument, at this point in time, should be over. The thread no longer has a discussion 'feel' to it and should probably be closed before it gets any worse.

This poll means nothing, 300people never represent the community.
Numbers can give a whole wrong impression so like this one is.

So lore argument was countered so you introduce a counter-counter argument..."just because there are faults in the lore doesn't mean you should introduce more" it's great to stick to lore and if providing balance to LDOA without hurting lore could be achieved in a sensible way thats great...however the alternatives are not as practical as simply making LDOA accountwide and ANET has shown the lead by making survivor go against lore in order to allow characters created before the title to achieve that title.

"It's gotten to the point where I feel a couple of you will take any other persons points, discount them, and then accuse them of just wanting to keep their (your) perceived advantage over others (you)." some people on the con side have an unusually strong passion against all posts from the pro side. Some of these posters likely have hidden or unspoken agendas (not all).

"You asked for opinions but discount every one of them if it differs from your own.
Again, the poll clearly shows (and has shown since within a few hours of it being up) that the community is almost 3-2 in favor of LDoA remaining char based rather than account based."
Yep opinions are good, and people from the con side have "discounted" every conflicting opinion from the pro side. As far as the poll results so far. Anet has said in one of the developer updates every change upsets someone. 35% is a significant number of players. These players could really use this change. So are you saying minority opinion doesn't count?

"Bottom line, this argument, at this point in time, should be over. The thread no longer has a discussion 'feel' to it and should probably be closed before it gets any worse."
Why so the idea can't be forgotten and discounted thus benefitting the con side. Sounds like a politican wanting to bury an issue and people to forget it.

Now back to what I wanted to orginally post. Has anyone initially voted no but reconsidered their position after reading through this thread and why?

What are some benefits that would be a result of this change for you?
For me personally, I could take my main which is already GWAMM and finish the last pve title available for it.

No, I haven't reconsidered my stance on it. My main is a Canthan Necro who is about to hit r4 for GWAMM and I have no LDOA character although I do have a couple of chars in pre, one of whom I will go for LDOA on for lulz. Yes, it would make GWAMM easier for my Necro but tbh, I find it easy enough as it is and the changes that would have to be made to make LDOA accountwide are too awkward and complicated in terms of game development and lore. If it WAS implemented now, I wouldn't benefit whatsoever other than being able to achieve GWAMM more easily which I currently have no issues over anyway.

still /notsigned.

Are you being blind on purpose? I was responding to someone's question, hence my quoting their post and replying with an answer. In terms of the topic, they were asking how something else was relevant to lore and I explained it. Why do you have to pick arguments with everyone? Is it because you can't stand people having logical opinions that go against what you want?

As far as I know, ANet explained the change to Wisdom/Treasure Hunter as making the title less clumsy as the character-based version made people feel restricted to playing one character, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. Please, for the love of Grenth, learn to read!