User talk:Linsey Murdock/Questions7

"This character literally got me my job."

Any chance we could get the story behind this? Sounds like something interesting. Erasculio 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey now that's still a work in progress, you sneaky little thing, you. :P

It's a fairly good story, one day you might even get me to tell it, but right now I am sleepy. - Linsey talk 05:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Future Plans?

Linsey, this weekend or anytime are you going to be able to drop some of your long term GW1 plans on us ever? Rock on. --Ravious 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This (http://eu.plaync.com/eu/news/stream/games_convention_special_3/) actually answered my question, to the degree I wished. But, if you had anything else to add. :) --Ravious 11:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats with the annoying sound effects on that clip? -- Salome 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they were doing the interview before a crowd in front of the NCSoft ultra-screen of Aion. --Ravious 13:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh I'm listening to that now. - Linsey talk 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Izzy saying new Realms of the Gods would be a smart place to start for adding larger new content (I think it was Izzy, it might have been Mike) is the most exciting thing I have heard about GW, although he did say he didn't know if it was happneing. Thanks for linking that podcast, it was interesting hearing about possible new content. 122.104.161.96 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regina, at the PAX X-fire thingy, warned against "wishing" for content of that magnitude, and at the panel they said "nay" to a Sorrow's Furnace type update, which I would consider a Realm of the Gods update to be. It's going to be interesting seeing what comes. --Ravious 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Linsey, just so you're aware of it: recently people here were discussing how some talk pages in the wiki are being handled as if they were forums, how the wiki doesn't really support (even to a technical degree) that kind of thing, and how some of those talk pages needed a more careful control by the admin system here in order to be useable. One page in which that was done was Isaiah's talk page (as described on the notice here), in order to help him use his talk page.

So if you would like help to manage things in your talk page, if you feel like people are posting too much stuff that doesn't belong here but rather in the suggestions pages, if you feel people are using your talk page more to talk among themselves than to talk to you, or anything along these lines, feel free to ask the community for help. Erasculio 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many people who will be willing to help clean up the page if Linsey isn't happy with how its direction is going. As I'm pretty certain your veiled reference about suggestions is to a discussion spawned by a mechanics idea I had, I'll note this: I've already stated twice in it that I will move it myself if she says the word -- and I know there are others who would do the same, so at that point it would be a bit of a race to see who noticed her request first. Just waiting on feedback from her for whether it needs moving or not since this was the page where it was suggested I put it when I asked around initially. -Binary 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If everyone decided that they'd run something by Linsey instead of the suggestions page, then Linsey's talk page would be terribly cluttered and unorganized. It's simple; your comment was a suggestion and as such belongs in the suggestions section. Period. Why should you get the special privilege of posting it here first? Your suggestion is no more important than anyone else's really. And I'm sure that Erasculio wasn't trying to single you out with his post, so playing the victim doesn't really help here. Kokuou 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more the suspicious timing that he posted it right after my post showed up. And as I have said over, and over, and *over* again it'll be gone as soon as Linsey says that's where it needs to go -- this was where I was told would be best. Nobody seems to know for sure whether it should be taken away (I've had people with responsibility for such things look at it and decide they don't know for certain), so I am in fact just waiting for her say-so. While we're at it though, isn't this now contributing to clutter, disorganization, and turning into a discussion among people excluding her too? -Binary 05:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not hijack this section from Erasculio. Please continue this discussion on this page. Kokuou 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

i just want to say its funny that you guys wanted to get rid of the suggestion pages but now your stating that is the place you want people to put the ideas.75.172.47.227 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lately I have been insanely busy with MOX release, so I haven't been able to maintain my page as well as usual. Plus, I just got back from a six day vacation.

There has been a great deal of discussion here at Anet about these issues you have brought up and we are working on an official response. Until that time, I would prefer to just leave everything as is and I will try to be more diligent in maintaining my page. Thanks guys! - Linsey talk 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Golems!

← moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Lore2

Just a thought

Perhaps when your arching you could add (Archived) into the edit summery so we know you arhcived the subject? Plz and thanks! =) — Wolf 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I often do, but this time I was just doing some real quick cuz the page had gotten out of hand. - Linsey talk 23:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

kk, understood — Wolf 23:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey Linsey. I notice that your talk page is increasingly used as a forum to post and discuss suggestions. Is this something you want, or would you prefer them to be placed on the suggestions portal? Backsword 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the suggestions portal isnt used for a few reasons one people feel like they dont get seen by anet. and two they wouldnt get seen because the organization for them is horrid. i for one avoid that part of the wiki.i think making this kind of suggestion should only be made when those two things change.75.172.44.33 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I already answered this question if you scroll up a little bit. Basically, I'd like to leave everything as is until we have an official response (which is being worked on) to this issue. - Linsey talk 16:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Xunlai Marketplace

Linsey - Is the fabled Xunlai Marketplace trading system on your radar for further development? I believe that this would be one of the most valuable features you could add to the game and to the community. Perrin42 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and I can 80% guarantee is in her archives), Linsey has said she cannot comment on unreleased material found in the gw.dat such as the XMP. Sorry. --Ravious 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

its also been brought up that info in the gw.da has been released because it is on everyone's computer, that plays guild wars.75.172.44.33 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment. - Linsey talk 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Any comment on why it was there to begin with? — Wolf 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment. - Linsey talk 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if she can't comment, don't try and force her. Decisions are taken as a team so it's not Linsey's fault that she can't comment. --MageMontu 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy buddy, I wasn't trying to force anything, I just thought I might ask. She can't comment, so I guess I'm never gunna no, I'll live. — Wolf 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We should totally archive this. --Ravious 22:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its goin nowhere pretty fast. — Wolf 22:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sry wolf if I sounded angry ^^, I was trying to make a point. Again sorry. --MageMontu 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all good, and point made. — Wolf 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean so next time I can be 81%+ certain. --Ravious 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks Linsey. I'm still looking forward to the day that you can comment. I agree with Ravious - we should archive this. Question asked, and answered. Perrin42 14:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vael Bug?

Dunno if this is suppose to be this way but since the last update Vael has been spawning every time i zone into a explorable. I tested it and rezoned a few times and he spawned every time. ~ Kurd 01:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We didn't go anywhere near that code, so I don't know why it would change. - Linsey talk 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

wait what Vael Victus 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn it Vael didnt we tell you before to stay out of other ppls zones ;)Manitoba1073 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have checked this myself on Live and he seems to be working properly. Does the issue persist still? - Linsey talk 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No must have been a coincidence then(10 times :p),you can archive this ~ Kurd 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Character

Hi, a question; is it possible to add a function that locks a character so it cant be deleted? Thank you all, for a great game. 86.145.182.199

I don't think its possible to put the system your talking about in place, however they could put a system such as "Add a time delay to this characters deletion" "by doing this any time you try to delete this character you will have to wait xxx months and then confirm you want to delete the character." I think that would be a better implement. Naru 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This was already here and here and I'm pretty sure here too. Dig around the archives... — Poki#3 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just don't get high or drunk one night and delete your main charactor with 5000 armbraces and 20 sets of FoW o,0. The system they have is very secure. It says "Are you SURE you want to delete this character?, If so type their name and click accept"--'ÑöẊĭƑý 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how difficult it would be to add something like this from a coding perspective, since I'm not a programmer, but I don't know if it is really a big enough issue to warrant investing the time in implementing this. You already have to type in your characters entire name in order to delete it. - Linsey talk 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunspear Title Grind on Istan

I cringe every time I consider creating a nightfall character because of the inane boring long arduous unenjoyable task of grinding sunspear title 1 point at a time from selected mobs before I can progress in the primary classes. I know it is supposed to introduce people to the Sunspear title system but for people who already know about it, it is so painful to go through every time. I will thoroughly enjoy creating a new character in Factions and going through Shing Jea Island quests and working my way out. I enjoy the slow progression of creating a new prophecy character and working out of pre-searing up to Lion's Arch but I HATE having to grind my sunspear title on Istan just to get off of the place. It's no secret experienced players don't want to spend large amounts of time in low level areas, but it makes no sense then to introduce a painful and boring grind to keep us there longer than we want to be, doing things we don't want to do. If the title worked like the blessings in EotN and everything counted it wouldn't be too bad, but as it is it's frustrating slow and boring. Could you please either remove the title requirement for progression [it's required for the 15 attribute point quests for nightfall toons anyway] or seriously buff the sunspear faction gained from the low level quests so that completing all the ones from the first three towns puts you at 50 points away from the title, instead of the measly 10 we get for only some of them? I generally don't like Istan and can't wait to get off of it, but forced title grind often leaves me with a new character sitting somewhere in Istan not being played because I detest title grinding, especially when I have no choice for progression. 122.104.165.13 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just ask a lvl 20 friend or to two to help. My partner, a friend and I often help our new NF characters with the 'sunspear grind', the new character gets all the bounties on the Plains of Jarin as the lvl 20s massarce everything in sight. Usually takes us 2 quick runs killing everything and the new character doesn't need to do some more story related grind when it goes to the Sunspear Rank and also gets all of their attribute points too. I do not like the grind but this way its quick and we usually have a good laugh as we go along 000.00.00.00 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I just leveled up 3 NF characters in the last couple months. Title grind is something I plan on addressing soon. :D - Linsey talk 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, just make it account wide. -- NUKLEAR ^IIV 08:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

O.o Must be just me, but so far all three of my Nightfall-starting characters have never had to actually go through this 'grind' you talk about. I always have more than enough points to reach the appropriate ranks by the time you need them just from playing the game normally. I can understand how rushing past everything can make you not have enough points, but do all of you honestly have to grind your sunspear rank on istan every time? Silavor 04:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt tough for me, except for on my Prophecies Ranger, but then they updated that. Gawd that was infuriating... ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 08:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If they make titles account based, especially those related to PvE only skills, I might actually consider playing PvE again. --Draikin 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had to grind title points in Istan, and it's not very fun. There are no plans currently to make these titles account wide. I don't think it would really be necessary if the ways of getting title points were better. And that is what I plan to address. - Linsey talk 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, can something be done for obtaining armors in eotn. I hate having either to grind on the title or complete the expansion just to get an armor. --MageMontu 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with mage montu i had to grind on about 4 ch so i could get the different types i wanted. yes i am insane and have 10 ch all with 15k-10k armor.... also if not making them account based i would like to see maybe a system that if one ch maxs it or has like rank 5+ all your other ch would get a huge buff in points, until they eather get it maxed to or reach the same amount of points as your other higher ranked ch. i only found the ss title and lb titles to be annoying when i got to the main land and you need rank 7 to do a main quest, but at that point i just went and vanquished an istan area. also i think that right when you first encounter marginights you should be able to get a lb bounty for them, cuz i found that its much much harder to get lb points but it was more worth you wile to get lb points because it helps so much in the last part of the game. another idea would be to add ss and lb points to mission rewards. like 500 points for Standard, 1k Expert, 2k Masters.75.172.47.109 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I don't agree with making the Sunspear title account-wide. That would mean that my brand-new level 1 dervish or paragon would be a Legendary Spearmarshal, which just doesn't make sense. But I would like to see easier Sunspear point acquisition on Istan. I've had several characters who did all of the quests leading up to The Honorable General, but then had to run around and mindlessly kill more things to be able to get to First Spear. Other characters have avoided this scenario by clearing the Plains of Jarin as soon as possible (i.e., right after doing Chahbek Village). This helped with both attribute quests and the Honorable General, but it was very tedious. --Nkuvu 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Linsey, I think you should re-evaluate making all titles account-wide. This is what makes it unattractive to play multiple characters. I really can't bring myself to farm Lightbringer, Sunspear, Norn, or any other title to max on more than one character. Even for the story-based ones (Sunspear), it's really nothing more than an irritation to have to get more points with yet another character. I've already done it once, I've played through the story, I just want to get my next character to the higher-end areas so I can try a different play style (or get that other armor) and play with my friends. If it's 10 hours or 1 hour, it doesn't really matter, having to go through it again and again is repetitive and boring. Skill hunter, yeah, Cartographer, maybe, but I think all of the other titles ought to be combined on accounts. That would allow me, even encourage me, to play all of my characters again. Perrin42 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Making all titles account-based would be a good intermediate step to the ultimate goal of elimination of titles in the game being ANYTHING more than 100% pure vanity. --136.142.214.19 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But grinding isn't fun. If Asura title came from completing all the Asuran missions and quests it wouldn't be a grind, you're playing the game. Making all creatures count for the bounty made this a little less painful but the reduction in points per kill sort of counters this. I finnally got off of Istan and forgot there is a third title grind after you reach the command post. I just went to Cantha instead :P. Maybe I will come back if Linsey makes some changes to title grind. It's good to see you are shaking up some of the more stale less fun areas of GW. Keep up the good work. 122.104.161.96 06:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of research on the "grind" titles recently and crunched tons of numbers on how you get these titles. If you complete every quest in Istan, you do get just over 1k Sunspear points, which puts you right at rank 6. Now, I don't want to mess with that a whole lot, since I know a lot of work went into carefully doling out the Sunspear points to get you to the rank necessary to advance the storyline. However, I do think there are some holes there, and I am working on filling them. As far as the EotN titles go, I think that the numbers are ok for the most part the first time around. Ranking up these titles the second time around is a different story. However, if you take away the armor, weapon and consumable crafters that are tied to these titles, they are mostly for vanity. It's the need to grind on the title just to get your armor that makes it really annoying. So I plan on addressing that more than the actual numbers of the title. That said, the repeat Dungeon rewards could get a boost as well as a couple other things. - Linsey talk 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not being an armor collector, I'd have to say that besides consumables, the only reason I will be working on EotN titles on my non-title hunting characters will be for the PVE skills. It would be nice if the points you get while getting the PVE skills would be enough to get you to level 6/7 in each title (when combined with points gained from just doing the storyline). Sunspear, once you get off the island, at least scales well throughout the game, even as you take multiple characters through. It would be nice if the SS blessings weren't so specific, but you get SS to a usable level just by getting a character through the game, so I'm fine with it how it is. Thanks for putting so much work into adjusting the grindyer titles. It is greatly appreciated! (I have like 12 or 13 level 20s.) BladeDVD 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was originally thinking of more low-level grind. For example, to complete The Honorable General, you must obtain 300 points. I don't know how much of that can be obtained through quests, I'll have to take a look. But every time I've done this quest, it has required me to go out and kill monsters a fair bit. There aren't enough quests that you can do to obtain this level, which means you can't enter Beknur Harbor or Blacktide Den and complete any of the quests there. Once off the island, though, the Sunspear bounties scale up a bit, and there are several more quests available with point rewards (I've never had an issue meeting the Sunspear General requirement for the Sooper Seekrit Sunspear Hideout quest).

But I do have to say that getting to rank 5 in Asuran points was insanely tedious on my fourth character to do so. The books are nice, but there are only so many times I want to repeat quests. So a change there would be very welcome.

Edit: Just realized that I'm repeating myself from my earlier post on the subject -- that wasn't my intention, so feel free to disregard this bit entirely. --Nkuvu 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The competitive missions need to reward better

Both Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood need to reward better. This double reward weekend still makes it hardly worthwhile (unless you are mapping), so should not the normal reward be at least 1500 for a win (the minimum you get for winning in ordinary AB)? Jade Quarry may need to reward 2000 faction for a win to draw people to play. They are not so bad for Balthazar, but definitely not good for Faction. Further, it is clear the missions (espcially FA) favors the Kurzicks (i.e., biased unfairly)--more bugs favor Kurzicks than favor Luxons, for instance. Susan 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurzicks have to survive for 5+ minutes, while the Luxons simply have to kill 1 guy. I hope you are kidding. And if the Kurzicks lose, they get like 200 faction, but if the Luxons lose, they still get large amounts. Overall, very slighted towards Luxons in Faction amounts. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in an above section, suggestions like this belong on the suggestions page. Thanks. Kokuou 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reward Kurzicks for running amber (every 5 amber they bring the NPCs in they get 1 at the end of the match). And if Luxons are controlling both mines when they win they get 1 jadeite shard. And up the faction base for losing/winning teams.--75.94.77.148 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebalancing rewards in these areas is on my list of things to do as part of a bigger "reputation" title rebalancing project that I am currently working on. - Linsey talk 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that got my intention...I'm curious now! 145.94.74.23 09:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rep title rebalance? Oh? Does that mean that maybe Kurzick/Luxon will be available to common mortals so they can use that go get GWAMM? (yes, I know I'm contradicting myself there) -- Alaris 15:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For old time's sake!

... and tyrian cartography... do you think, for just one weekend, we could get the tyrian arenas back? The ones from days of old. Maybe remove the restriction, or hey for that Costume Brawl, maybe use THOSE arenas? :o That'd be so loverly! Vael Victus 04:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a better use for the now closed arenas would be challenge missions. Hero armor of Prophecy armor types can be added as well as "drops" from those areas. By turning them into Challenge missions, they can be kept open indefinably for the Tyrian Cartographers. Although the arenas are not needed for the title. The monsters to attack in waves I propose for each arena are:

• D'Alessio Arena: First set of waves: Skales and Mergoyles. Second set of waves: Caromi Tengu. Third set of waves:Orrian Undead. Each set being 1-2 waves. (First set is 1, second and third are 2)
• Fort Koga:First set of waves: Moss Scarabs and Wind Riders. Second set of waves: Maguuma Centaurs. Third set of waves: White Mantle. Each set being 2-3. (First set is 2, second and third are 3)
• Amnoon Arena: First set of waves: Storm Kin and Minotaurs. Second set of waves: Losaru Centaurs. Third set of waves: Forgotten. Each set being 3-4 waves. (throw in the occasional Sand Wurm) (First set is 3, second and third are 4)
• The Crag: First set of waves: Hydras and Flesh Golems. Second set of waves: Mursaat. Final set of waves:Titans. Each set being 4-5 waves each. (First set is 4, second and third are 5)

Just my thought on how to bring those arenas back. Of course, just bringing them back to bring back the actual arena is good too. Azazel The Assassin 22:11 15, September 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit that would be awesome. Ahh yeah, I'll be Linsey could do it, too. Prophecies, as we all know, is lacking. I don't know about the custom armor for the heroes (in terms of modeling) but that'd be great! Good thinking. I'd hire you if I had a million dollars. Vael Victus 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But put a big boss at the end of each, for instance: A fairly big high health necromancer undead boss for D'Alessio, A white mantle general for the Fort Koga, A giant sand wurm for Amnoon Arena (Maw, King of the Sands would be awesome) and A HUGE titan for the Crag. And...not a prophecies kind of boss. Make them like NOX ROX AND ...SOX? I forget atm.--The Gates Assassin 11:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NOX, ROX and POX they where. — Wolf 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

i would like to point out you dont need those arenas to get the title. secondly having a huge heath bar dost = a hard boss. i found the mox quests to not be changeling at all. besides the hole where the hell is wuts his names secret layer but i found the answer to that in 3 mins when some one posted it on one of the forums. i for one was kind of hoping for a long scavenger hunt to find out where it was and what exactly happened.75.172.47.227 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I don't want to go through extra bullshit just to get the title because the GW planners weren't insightful enough to know they'd have titles one day. Vael Victus 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

oh so all this un-needed work, is because your lazy and don't want to have to do what everyone who dose not have those areas. had to do to get the title. also the title is already super easy if you use textmod. gg you FAIL!75.172.47.227 07:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazy? No, I'm not a lazy person. Unmotivated? Quite, especially when I know it's just due to their incompetence and lack of insight, on top of the fact that I'm 99% certain it's going to mean bullshit in GW2 because they'll probably just give us a hat or a minipet or some lame bullshit that doesn't actually do anything. I already use(d) texmod. It's kind of funny when people say "gg" like that to their own argument and then I own it, because it only makes you look like that much more of a prick. gg you FAIL xD!! Vael Victus 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

your probably right about what it amounts to, but you said you wanted the title so you still fail. and you just made your self look like the dick imo.75.172.47.227 20:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe that's what I was going for! >:( Vael Victus 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea personally.....Mr. IP, I don't know if thats a personal attack or just something weird to say. Blood 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into making sure you don't need access to those arenas to get the title and even on top of that there is leeway so that you don't have to have EVERY pixel uncovered. Please don't bring this kind of bickering onto my talk page. Disagreeing about something isn't a good reason to be rude. - Linsey talk 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alliance Battles

Hi Linsey! Is it possible if we can have 6 players per team in alliance battles please? If you do decide to do this, raising the number of shrine defenders would be appropriate. Thanks:)--Lancy1214 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a need for this? Although an 18 vs 18 battle would be fun. --MageMontu 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't. Having 6 to a team allows for too much organization and ease of capping, which is not what AB is about.--The Gates Assassin 13:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made this for a funner suggestion and added twist to the rather boring 4vs4 and 8vs8 battles. To much organization? Shouldn't people who take the time to organize have an advantage over those who don't? Ease of capping? Did you not read the part where I stated "raising the number of shrine defenders would be appropriate"? While alliance battles don't depend on capping, there is a HEAVY reliance on them.--Lancy1214 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are 8 eles at the shrines as opposed to 3, nuking them takes them out all in one nuke anyway. The point of AB is to have an almost playground like area, everyone can go there, everyone can just join a random team and have fun. What you're suggesting should be completely separate from AB. --The Gates Assassin 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we would increase the party size in AB. Not only would it dramatically change the way the area is played, but a huge amount of special coding went into making AB work the way it does, changing it would not be a trivial matter. - Linsey talk 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

character section screen

i know you have a lot on your plate but is it possible to add some more sorting category's to the character section screen? like by birth, profession, or height. or my dream would be make it so you can just drag and drop where you want your characters. don't worry too much about this because i know your the only designer and you have a lot on your plate already! thanks! 75.172.44.33 09:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even something that I could do. It would be for a UI programmer to do. I'll bring it up as a requested feature at the next Live Team meeting and see if it's something we could put on our list of things to do. - Linsey talk 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Linsey!75.172.44.33 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

HoM Update

Being the Game Dev working on GW1 matters, I take it you are dealing with the Hall of Monuments update? I was wondering if that update changes titles, making some from character based to account based? As im sure your aware, currently the HoM promotes the playing of a single character. Many character based titles take alot of time/grind/gold to achieve so getting them on more that one character is unviable. So players are basically forced to select one of their characters are obtain all the titles with it. Many guildwars players have multiple characters (im sure most do) and rather than freely play all of their characters as before, theres a pressure to only concentrate play on one. Im sure the upandcoming HoM update might change this state of play, but chaging some of the titles from character based to account based would help matters. For example, treasure hunter and wisdom titles are very time consuming and gold intensive, they would be better account based (like the lucky title) to spread the burden and the benefit of any advancement. Im sure theres more that could be changed as well. --Just One More Thing 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The June 24th developer update doesn't say anything about changing the titles themselves. -- Gordon Ecker 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordon, read Linsey's response up here. Something's probably going to change, we just don't know what or how.--Pyron Sy 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: would an account-wide HoM only display achievements of characters that have visited the HoM, or could it, say, display an account's Legendary Defender of Ascalon statue without the associated character needing to leave Pre-Searing? --Valentein 03:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i think that the LDOA title should be the only title that can be placed in a monument with out having to leave pre. other then that there are a lot of titles that i think would beifet from a system that once you got the top level of the title (survivor, ss, lb, gwen titles.[though gwen titles should be acount wide seeing that you need a certain lvl to get armor.]) it would then become an account wide title. i hope some of the titles become account wide; party animal, sweet tooth, drunkard, just to name a few. 75.165.101.71 04:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, is something going to be done about dedicated miniatures and weapons? These items should be bound to an account rather than a single character. So the weapons can be used by all the characters on out account. --Just One More Thing 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dedicated minis can already be used by any character. For weapons I'm hoping that each of my chars can put a weapon in the set. Ranger puts a bow, Warrior puts a sword etc. That way even if they're customised I can still fill the hall without having to load up one characters heroes with customised weapons. Sadie2k 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me make clear that any changes we make to titles will be part of a larger general title rebalancing and will not be connected to the HoM changes.

The only titles that I am considering making account wide are Wisdom and Treasure Hunter. I don't think any of the other titles warrant the change at this time. I that some players are concerned that making these titles account wide will make farming unlucky points much harder. Rest assured if we decide to move forward with this, we will be taking a look at unlucky and adjusting the way you get points towards the title at the same time.

You will only be able to view achievements that you have placed into the HoM from the account version. I am making a post-it to look into finding a way for LDoA to be entered into the HoM without having to leave PreSearing. Don't expect anything, cuz I'm not sure it will be possible at all, but I will look into it.

I don't think that developing and coding a new version of customized for weapons put in the HoM is necessary or worth the great amount of effort it would take at this point. Now that we have announced the account changes to the HoM, players can put weapons into the HoM on characters that will used the customized versions.

- Linsey talk 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One question still remains, has it been determined what will happen with duplicate titles, armors and such? — Wolf 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. It just checks to see if you have an achievement in one of your halls and then displays that. That is all. - Linsey talk 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So, if, say, you have maxed Lightbringer on two characters, it will show two statues? — Wolf 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like it would check to see if you have a Lightbringer statue in any character's Hall of Monuments, and if so, give the option of displaying it. I doubt you'd get two (but of course this is just a guess). --Nkuvu 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not show two. - Linsey talk 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that bit. I think all my questions have been answered now =D Thanks again! — Wolf 22:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

just showing one statue is how i thought account wide would work same with armors that other professions dont have, would just show the profession that has the armor set in question, other wise it would show your current ch with the apropet armor.75.172.44.33 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, What will happen if you have Elite Imperial armour which is only available to Assassins and Ritualists in your Hall of Monuments? Will your other non Rit or Assassin characters just not have that armour appear at all in the Hall or will there be a statue of the character that got that armour. So lets say my Assassin got the Elite Imperial Armour will my Mesmer who can never get that type of armour have a statue of my Assassin in the hall of monuments?(Marsc 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Wait, so the account based version will, for want of something better to say, just be the same as your main, who generally has most of the titles on your account? There's only one title that my main doesn't have, that one of the others does, which is Legendary Survivor. And we'll only be able to display one status of the title? So, one would guess this would be the same with the armor? But, does raise the question, as above, in regards to armor thats exclusive to only certain professions. If thats the case I'm so not excited about the switch, just means, in my situation and many others, the Account Based HoM will just look like my main characters one. Not sure how, with with limited information, its supposed to encourage or be benefitical for people to play their other characters when most people's main will have most, if not all, of the titles associated with the account. Ehh, I hate it when little bits of important information are dribbled out, just comes across as so disappointing. 118.92.205.189 19:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Linsey the easiest way to allow the LDoA holders to get their titles into the HoM without leaving pre would be to make the title account wide. Then any character can place it in the HoM allowing the perma pre character to stay in pre. I can honestly say that would be a real solution to a real problem. Where as a lot of these account based requests for titles don't solve any problems , but cater to a small group of people with their own agenda who been crying for years instead of playing the game. Creating 10 or more toons then crying because they don't have time to get them all though the game or accomplish anything on them is not a play style its just stupid.Shadowspawn X 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

@Shadowspawn X firstly making personal(not at me but at the people who want to see these changes) attacks dose not help anything. secondly unless they make it so you can make any profession at the start of any campaign if you own it, it makes no sence to have that title account based. also making and playing 10 toons is a play style because all of the professions play extremely differently. just because you don't enjoy all the professions dosnt mean the people who do should get penalized for it. lastly the main goal of making more titles account wide is to reduce grind.75.172.44.33 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There some very good suggestions in this post, specifically The Kind of a Big Deal title track should count unique max'ed titles on an account. This change won't make GWAMM easier - it will still require 30 different max'ed titles.

Id also like to note why people are trying to gain 6 levels of KoABD, thats 30 different titles. They want it for their Hall of Monuments, to unlock the Honor Monument. If you changed that requirement and made it lower, it would mean folks would not have the burden of trying to achieve so many titles. The GWAMM title would still be intact, but only for folks who wanted the prestige, and not those pressured into doing so by the Honor monument requirement. --Just One More Thing 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That post you referenced also had a lot of good rebuttals that you conveniently left out. Here is one of the better points made against that. Making the KoaBD track account wide hurts players of multiple characters by punishing people with duplicate titles on multiple characters. They will get screwed with every title that becomes account based. Especially people with multiple toons in the KoaBD track. This is probably the most unfair and punitive change possibly looming. If a person has three characters who are PKM or two characters GWAMM you think wiping that out and nullifying every character they individually developed is helping to make multi-character play a viable playstyle? You are destroying multi-toon play with that philosophy. There are people who have all protectors titles on every profession playing all 10 characters equally and you want to give some one with protector on just one toon the same honor of wearing the title on every class that they have earned?

'

Also you seem to think people max the titles for the HoM, but yu are wrong we already maxed the titles and were sitting at 22-25 maxed titles before EoTN and HoM even cam out. The HoM was made for us to have somewhere to put our stuff and preserve it. It is not there for someone who never bothered with titles to jump up and try to fill it up all of a sudden in a mad rush to keep up with the jones. Thus trying to get everything they scuffed at for 2 years watered down so they can play catch up in five minutes. Shadowspawn X 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a very small percentage of players have GWAMM on multiple characters in the same account, so its not an issue if the update benefits the majority. --Just One More Thing 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like the proposed KoaBD suggestion effects not just GWAMM but all duplicate titles people have on their account. I clearly put an example of multiple protector title holders as an example as well and you ignored it trying to appeal to GWAMM hate. Deal with hard facts and not emotional hot buttons please.Shadowspawn X 13:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are so many different styles of play that no change is going to make everyone happy, as I've said in other posts, making KoaBD title track account based for me would eliminate any desire to further develop/achieve with my other characters. I am one of those people who have 3x prot titles on all 10 professions, and am working my way to KoaBD on most, and almost to GWAMM on my main. If this were to become account based, I would simply finish the 4 titles I still need on the one and then would have no further reason to play. I agree that it is diminishing the accomplishments of those of us who have been working to develop multiple characters to keep those people happy who don't want to spend the time/do the work required to do the same. -- Wyn 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the game playing titles should never become account wide. That means all chapter-only titles (protector, skill hunter, but also sunspear, lightbringer, etc). Only the core titles (wisdom, treasure hunter, sweettooth, etc) should ever become account wide. --Lady Rhonwyn 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat lost at why are people talking about making chapter-only titles account based, given how Linsey mentioned that she's not going to change those. Changing specifically the KoaBD title to be account based would help, though, as it would solve a discrepancy the game has - someone with one character that earns Skill Hunter for each chapter plus the Sunspear title is going to end with 5 maxed titles and one rank of the KoaBD title; someone with four characters who earns each Skill Hunter with each character and the Sunspear title with a different character is going to end with 4 maxed titles and no rank on KoaBD in anyone. Both players have done the same accomplishments and earned the same titles, but thanks only to a difference in playstyle, one player is rewarded more than the other. Making Skill Hunter and Sunspear account based would cause the same problem, only the other way around, so that would not be a solution either.

The problem is that changing how the KoaBD title works now would risk alienating players who already have the title. This is the same problem Arena Net faces when changing how any title is earned, though. For example, we know there will be an update next month that will make earning titles to be easier. Isn't it likely that such change will bother those who have already earned those titles through the "hard way"? Isn't it also going to make earning those titles faster, and therefore make players who are currently aiming for those titles to play less? Isn't it a way to "keep those people happy who don't want to spend the time/do the work required" to earn the titles as they currently exist? In the end, it's a choice Arena Net can make knowing they will please some players and displease others.

IMO, no title should be made account based other than Treasure Hunter and the Wisdom title, not even KoaBD. But I think a new title could be added to the game in order to reward players who have earned enough accomplishments to have KoaBD, but don't possess said title thanks to how they have been playing multiple characters (something like this). Erasculio 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Erasculio. -- Alaris 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For reasons already expressed by others, I don't really like the idea of making KoaBD an account wide title. And while Erasculio's suggestion is a fine one, I am very hesitant to add new titles to the game. On top of my hesitation, there are some hard technical reasons why it would be very difficult to implement the titles you suggest. - Linsey talk 19:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a try. Thanks for the reply, Linsey. Erasculio 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't necessarily what you were hoping to hear. :) - Linsey talk 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's still rather cool to be able to brainstorm something with the community and then be explained by a developer why the resulting idea would or not work, very few games allow this kind of thing : D Hopefully our next idea will be more feasible. Erasculio 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are some titles not acount based?

IE Treasure hunter, the skill hunter titles. Wisdom, drunk, party, sweets. i kind of understand drunk, party, and sweets, seeing as they are only 2 ranks. but i really don't get skill, treasure, and wisdom i for one just move all my golds to one ch so i can have some sort of chance of getting the title but that is also bothersome and time consuming.75.172.47.109 07:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to hear that Linsey wants to tweak the title grind a little bit (see the section before this one for her statement). But what is intersting to me: Is it possible to combine some titles (wisdom & treasure hunter, which I think the community can agree upon are the most reasonable) so they can be made account wide titles? And is this idea even considered with developers (and why not)? Gorani 08:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When changing a title, there's the problem that some players who already got it are likely going to be bothered by the changes. If Treasure Hunter suddenly became account-based...What about the guy who reached the maximum rank by giving each and every key to one character, and would now get pissed because people could get the same title without having as much work as he had? Worse, what about the guy who earned the title with two or more characters in his account, and would then see at least 50% of his work becoming a waste?

Do I particularly care about those players? No, I couldn't care less - if all titles I have were changed so they require less grind, I would be very happy to know that new players (and even myself on different characters) would have to grind less in order to achieve something. But still, some of the players I described above do exist, and Arena Net has to know they're here (even if in the end frustrating them is seen as an acceptable outcome for the greater good of the game). Erasculio 12:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the most annoying things is to transfer all golds you find to your wisdom hunter for identification and open chests only on this one too (while you play other characters as well). If there would be a possibility for an account wide wisdom & treasure hunter title, I would salute ANet for introducing it for enhanced gameplay & fun for the vast majority of players and being bold enough to make the tiny (but very vocal) population of people who try to max it on two or more characters unhappy. I hope we get some sort of response from Linsey. Gorani 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see wisdom and skill hunter account based, I also hope we get a response about this topic from someone at Anet. :)Naru 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erasculio, i do think there are people who have treasure and wisdom maxed, but i think that party of people is extremely small. it takes 10,000 chests and golds to get those maxed i have played about 2k hours and i only have rank2 wisdom and rank1 treasure. and i try when i play that ch to get keys and open chests. as for golds that is hella more random and that is after iding all the golds across 10 ch. yes i have a few other ch that have like 1 or 2 id's but that was from eather when i was super tired and forgot or when i was still a nub and didn't know about titles and how they worked.75.172.47.109 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Making the Treasure Hunter and Wisdom titles account-wide is something that I have been considering. The necessity of having to move keys and golds over to one character is just not fun. My ele is half way through rank 3 in both tracks so I know how much of a chore it is to have to do that and I don't think it is something that is in keeping with general Guild Wars design philosophies. I am not, however, considering making the Skill Hunter title track account-wide. Having to open 10,000 chests on a single character is a monumental task. Having to do it on multiple characters is perhaps unreasonable, but I don't feel that capturing 290 skills is an unreasonable task to accomplish on multiple characters. Especially with the existence of Skill Tomes. - Linsey talk 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WOOT well i am glad you are thinking about changing it and i desperately hope you do. my problem with skill hunter is the money that is required. not the amount of time or how hard/easy it is, and my thought is that i want to cap all the elite skills for each class on there ch... 75.172.47.109 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I hate playing some classes and opening chests cause I know that in the end it's not going to count towards my title because I play about 6 characters in various areas of the game, so I never bother with chests even when I can afford the keys. I also hated moving my keys across. Elite skill capping is pretty easy though and should be kept character based. Wisdom isn't too bad if u transfer all gold items to the same character, it's not like a chest which can't be moved, but I would never bother to do that, I have about 4 characters JUST under rank 1 wisdom because of this lol. 122.104.161.96 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then it sounds like that is more a problem with the cost of skills, and not a problem with the title itself. - Linsey talk 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the skill hunter should stay account based. It makes more sense that way (if I learn something, does my brother/sister know it too automatically?) But I'd love to see the wisdom and treasure hunter title account wide. Can't wait for that update! It would mean all my characters can open chests, and not only the one that has done everything already. --Lady Rhonwyn 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all the 'Activity' titles should be made account wide (Incorrigible Ale-Hound, Life of the Party, Connoisseur of Confectionaries, Treasure Hunter, Source of Wisdom). The 2 other Activity titles are already account wide (Blessed/Cursed by Fate). All of these are very time and gold intensive, i think they suit spanning all a players characters. As previously mentioned I think doing this would greatly free up play and allow us not to worry about concentrating on just one of our avatars over another. None of them are easy to max, I highly doubt there are players out there who have maxed these same titles on more than one of their chars. --Just One More Thing 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever thinks about all those people who took the time to max these titles (Treasure/Wisdom) on a single character? Everything I've done in this game gets easier and easier for others to do making the titles completely worthless. I opened the Z chest 1000 times and then they add a title for Zaishen keys. I feel f*cked because I get no points. The guy who farmed 1000 ecto's with a A/Me posts me his r9 in my face and says: "haha, you noob!" and never touched PvP. People who max some titles attach value to them. People who want to max them but are too lazy to max them like others had too? I fail to see why they should be rewarded for crying. Switching items from one character to another is easy, other games don't even have a storage where you can switch items from one character to another on your own account. Linsey, the question you need to ask yourself: You want to give older players another stab in the back? And second; what was Anet's idea behind high max numbers in the first place, that everyone gets everything or that only dedicated people get it. More and more get the feeling that the game is turning into a noobfest where everyone gets the titles added for free. I guess I want some PvP titles maxed as well, can't you make them easier to achieve? Just the view from some players who spend very very very much of their time to max certain titles. Before people flame, I'm absolutely not telling that titles make you better than the rest. I'm only upset about how Anet treats older players by making everything easier to achieve. A new player should still take the same time to max a title like the older players. It's just fair to keep it that way. Edit: The problem is also, people will have to choose between GW2 and other games sooner or later and why would I wanna start a game that gets easier 2 years after release, I better buy it then because the company behind it rewards the newer players and not those from day 1. Ate(Ate of DK 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Anyone who took the time to max out treasure hunter or wisdom on a single character won't lose anything. The people whose efforts will be moot are the ones who maxed out the same grind-intensive and/or expensive title on multiple characters, I don't think there's that many of them. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon. Besides, it would hardly be a 'stab in the back' to older players, Ive played this game over 3 years, i find the update very logical. It wouldnt make the titles easier to max, just deemphasize the need to concentrate play on a single character. Lets look at account wide titles from another perspective, imagine if pvp titles were character only; how would that suit you to know that only the character you used to earn the points could show whatever merit he earned? That would be no good either. --Just One More Thing 03:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Making titles such as Incorrigible Ale-Hound, Life of the Party, Connoisseur of Confectionaries, Treasure Hunter, Source of Wisdom, account based would not make them easier to achieve, it would just make them more COMVIENENT to achieve. I've played 2200+ hours, and 1400 of those are on my warrior, whom I funnel all my gold and sweets and such over to, in order to get such titles. I play on mainly my warrior, and have spent very little time enjoying any of my other TWELVE characters. I feel cheated. I feel cheated b/c I must exert all my resources and play time over to ONE character and am not able to enjoy many others. If I spent all 2200+ hours of gameplay on one character, My warrior would be a God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals already. If it's so easy to funnel REASOURCES over to one character, then I see no difference between a person who got max wisdom on one charcter and someone who did it between golds over account. Both mean the same thing, that the player has gotten and identified over 10,000 golds. What character it was ID'd on should be irrelivent. How about a question for you. I think we would all agree that it's easier to funnel z-keys over to one character and always open the chest on the same character that it owuld be to do the same thing with lockpicksa and golds. If this is true, why is the Z Title account based? Hmmmmmmm? --Wolf 04:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with making Treasure Hunter Account based. The sheer cost 'demands' that this is made more accessible to the casual player. ID's I have mixed feelings about as, yes, it IS a pain shifting them around various characters, but, as they 'drop for free' as well as come from chests, the title doesnt strictly deserve to be account wide. Ale Hound should also be account wide (because the time thing again for the casual player) whilst the "insta-click" ones like Sweets and Party shouldn't. While I dont believe some titles should be cheapened, I do believe some should be made more realistic to the casual player. Faction is one thats always irritated me due to ludicrous cap, but thats another story Zilken 10:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reason why Treasure Hunter shouldn't be account based. Grinding unlucky points for the unlucky title will take even longer. Those who are after it use characters who have no treasure hunter title in HM to make sure that the chance of destroying Lockpicks is high. (86.82.36.54 10:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Assuming golds drop at a certain rate, then the title is based on the time spent playing the game, not which particular character your are playing. However, because of the time constraints involved in completing one of these titles players tend to pick their 'main' and that character gets all the golds to id, even though they dropped for another of that players characters. Irrespective of who it drops for, it is the player/account that effectively gets the gold drop, not the character. Unless ANET allocates gold drops with ID, meaning only that only that character the gold dropped for can ID it, then this will be the case, unless something changes. Account wide title changes would only really affect players who are trying to achieve these titles multiple times on one account. I'm guessing that there would be very few. Although if the titles where changed then ANET could give a one off reward to people who achieved them before the changes.

My second comment concerns the mismatch between the Drunkard, Party Animal and Sweet Tooth title tracks. For ST you need to purely consume such items, and for PA 'use' the party item, however for drunkard, you need to 'use' at least 5 items for any effect and maintain this for a period of time. I don't think this is conducive to a safe gaming environment, where people are encouraged to take breaks by the game, but for titles purposes are required to be present for longer periods of time, or to stop marcos being used within the game. I think Drunkard would be better served, if it was based on the amount of 'uses' like ST and PA.

Finally, 'Unlucky' does not give any benefits, where as 'lucky' does... should this be changed? --Rea 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For Drunkard, there are Firewaters, Spiked Eggnogs and Aged Dwarven Ales which can provide 3 minutes toward the Drunkard title with one item being used. You still have to wait, but that's because the title is minutes spent drunk, not # of drunkard points consumed. About the only thing I would suggest for changing Drunkard is adding an effect icon or 2, so that it's easier for people to play the game drunk and be able to notice that they need to drink more. And why should being Unlucky and loosing, reward you? Doesn't make sense to me.

Party Animal has a 3 point item, Sweet tooth too, my problem with drunkard is the waiting time.... I don't think it is conducive to a safe gaming environment, it encourages long bouts of play, with, as you point out, the title being based on 'minutes drunk' and not the actual amount consumed. With ST and PA, you have to click the 1000, or 10,0000 time to achieve the title, once the items have been acquired. For Dunkard, you have to click, (add up the points to 3 or 5 etc) and then click again, in the correct time period. There is a finite amount of drunkard points you can achieve in a 1 hour time frame. With ST and PA, it is basically as fast as you can click. Is it safe to promote excessive gaming time?

As for Unlucky, it was a question but I think that no reward means that people are less likely to achieve it, where is the incentive? Lets face it, it is a restricted title, where you can only accumulate points towards it on specific times and days, or go looking for lots of chests with a detrimental effect. Should it even be a title give these boundaries or should something be done to it?--Rea 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with treasure hunter title as it is, I open all chest no matter what (ask friends when I run them places, "Oh no he is going after a chest!", but I can see how other people would save keys for one character so I have no problem if they change this title. I do move all my rare to my oldest character to ID and salvage upgrades with this character so being account based means more time playing for me. I don't bother with party animal, sweet tooth, or drunkard titles but I do have a request about drunkard, is there a way to add a intoxication icon so I know when to take a drink, I use alcohol combined with Dwarven Stability to farm places with KD and watching a title when farming is just not possible.--Shayne123 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I agree with keeping Skill Hunter character based. It's IMO one of the easiest titles to get, and making it account based would make so many players would "accidentaly" get it. For example: I have one character of every profession sans monk, each with all the elites for their primary profession. If Skill Hunter were suddenly made account-based, without even trying to earn the title I would find myself at around 4/5 of it, missing only the Monk Elite skills to max everything. I don't think that's fair for those who have actually sought and earned the title.

But...There is one problem with the Skill Hunter title, IMO, which is more a matter of how some titles work than a matter of the SH title itself. If I get all Prophecies elites with my Necromancer, all Factions elites with my Assassin and all Nighfall elites with my Dervish...I would end with 3 characters having each one point in the "Kind of a Big Deal" title track. While if I got all elites with my warrior, I would end with one character having four points in the "Kind of a Big Deal" title track - each campaign title plus Legendary Skill Hunter. Considering that it's not easier to earn those 3 titles with the same character than earning one with each character, we end with one playstyle (using always the same character) being rewarded more than another (using different characters). The result is that players may feel like they're being encounraged to use one character as their "main" and leave everyone else behind. Erasculio 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This problem could be semi solved with the HoM changes that would allow account wide achievements to be displayed. However, the problem would be that if you purely displayed achieved titles, then you would only displayed all three, individual titles, and not legendary SH as none of your characters have achieved it, unless of course ANET chooses an account wide cumulative method. The same problem will exist for any title that transcends the expansions/campaigns e.g Cartography, Guardian, Vanquisher etc and also the influence this has on the KoaBD title track.--Rea 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This relates to GW and hopefully GW2 development too. I always thought that your characters were kind of like a "warband" to use Charr terminology. Therefore, I think that your reputation should bleed over to your warband. Regardless, I am looking forward to your ideas Linsey. Although I must say with WAR coming and having a LOTRO perma-sub. my GW time has tanked. Your updates keep bringing me back to read up on the state of things. [baseless conspiracy theory] Now only if NCSoft would allow ANet to release GW2 info instead of wanting ALL the limelight on stupid Aion. [/baseless conspiracy theory] --Ravious 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer treasure/wisdom titles to remain character based, as I like the personal stat tracking the titles provide. I like knowing that my Mes finds about 1.4 times the amount of chests/golds my Nec finds, in roughly the same playtime and XP gained. I like wondering why. But then I'm probably not the target audience for titles, as I consider most pve titles to be stuipd grind and have no intention of going out of my way to raise my rank in them. (Guardian/Protector/Vanquisher are nice incentives to play everywhere, however.) *ducks and runs* 134.130.4.46 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This may the wrong place to mention this but i have always found it unusual that wisdom/treasure hunter requires you to max it before the statue goes into the HOM, but achieving rank 3-4 in other titles such as gamer,zaishan,luxon,kurzick ect allows you to have a statue,it would be nice if you consider dropping the rank needed for the statue as 10,000 points is a long way to go =) Frozenwind 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see more consideration towards making some titles Account Based as opposed to Character based. A comment to Frozenwind's comment, I was also thinking this but then again the statue appearing at a low rank for me is a slap in the face as it doesn't seem to count to the interaction of the Statue in the back, I spent much gold and time standing on those Nine Rings to get to tier 2 to put the statue up and now I feel like I've cheated myself of time and money, it gives me a little statue but then again its interaction with the Monument itself is unclear.

Personally, because of the requirement of some titles I'd like to see Wisdom and Treasure Hunter changed to Account Based. Dunkard; it would be nice to be on Use like Party Animal and Sweet Tooth [/begs on the note of Party Animal can we please ... PLEASE ... have fireworks traders put into the game as a regular feature /begs], Drunkard or if not, please give us an on-screen icon to give us a visual que, more than the effect because that gives me a headache so I switch it off... would keep it on unless Arenanet actively wants me to have a seizure or something... /shrugs never know, they don't seem to like me with the gold drops and lag lately .... >.< ^_^ I jest, I jest.

The skill titles aren't that hard to amass so there's no need to change that.

I'd personally like some consideration to the ceilings of some of these titles, such as the Alligience titles. My partner and I are working on the Kurz title at the moment and also there's the promise of mass experience [which becomes irrelevant after a point], gold and amber/faction points its one of the most incredibly boring thing to do... it would take 13 complete days of my life to complete that title in the simpliest and probably fastest form... it feels like a job but then again I've been sucked into the Hall of Monuments, which is my own fault... don't get me started on the Hall of Monuments >.< ... ok... I'm rambling now...

In Summary: Consideration towards changing some titles, like Wisdom and Treasure Hunter, to account base = good. 000.00.00.00 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A player should never feel he's losing or wasting something or not getting properely rewarded simply because he's playing on a different character than one chosen title grinder. The most obvious example is the Treasure Hunter title - if you want to play a different character than the one with the title, you're screwed. Bad lockpick retain rates and it's loss not adding to your title hurts. Wisdom title is just a minor annoyance of having to transfer the unids, but there are no reasons against updating it aswell. For some titles there is a good reason they should remain character-based - Storyline titles like Sunspear or other reputation titles (they could use some boost for other characters if you already maxed them once, but shouldn't be acc-based) or Skill Hunter (every character caps his skills separately), Protector/Cartographer/Guardian/Vanquisher (all reflect specific achievenemts of a character). But there is one title that should definately be changed - the Kind of a Big Deal title track should count *unique* max'ed titles on the account!. It's the one big fat title that makes playing other characters than the main much less appealing and adds the feeling of wasting time. It should be the one achievement aggregation of a player, not of a character. That's also why specific achievement titles should stay char-based - this one should sum them up, no matter where they are! HoM going account-based was a great idea and a step in the right direction, (it was a huge disappointment for not being like this from start), but it's not enough - practically it only matters for GW2 and we're still in GW1 that needs a fix. Oh, and even an account-HoM cares about your KaoBD rank and you can't get it high without extreme dedication to just 1 character. It's not about making anything easier - it's about making it more friendly to players who like to play more than 1 char.--Yawg 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding KoaBD being account based...*cough*cough* (yep, shameless plug : D) Erasculio 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Yawg. More convient =\= easier. The HoM goign account wide is a good step, And more of my characters would finally see more often play time of KoaBD wasn't already going on my warrior. I'm a little ashamed of how much time I have sunk into my warrior and not much effort has gone into many of ym other charcters. Heck, my warrior is my only char that has beaten all 3 campaigns and EotN! --Wolf 03:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

on that front im a little more hard core then wolf when it comes to my ch's that have completed the games but i do like the idea and the encouragement of erasculio's title idea. and just thinking about it from a lore prospective. if all your ch were in some sort of "war band" or "clan" or kind of "family" transferring that stuff to gw2 would make more scene because it would be like your way of life lives on 200 years latter in gw2. which is a cool way of thinking about it, and would kind of explan how your ch would could have desendents that are charr or asuren.75.172.47.109 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Raise the max levels a bit when some titles become account based. Like treasure hunter 25.000 chests and 25.000 ID's. And make GWAMM at 35 titles. Would be so cool, then I have something to do. (Ate of DK 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)).

25K IDs and chests? You making it sound like people would be hitting max wisdom and treasure hunter really quick. Even as someone who has preferred to dedicate time on a single character, I've yet to get more than 900 IDs from playing the game. (Without buying golds or farming) Drop rates of items isn't going to change just because people are playing different characters. They're asking for a way to work on Wisdom and Treasure Hunter titles without being stuck using a single character, so it's more likely that the time invested would be the same for getting 10k ids over an account or a single character. If you need more to do for titles, then there's always PvP titles. 75.146.48.190 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two main kinds of titles: Achievement titles and Grind titles. In achievement titles, each point earned is unique an can be earned only once:

• Once a mission is done, you don't get more Protector/Guardian points for making it again.
• Once an area of the map is explored, it can be covered and revealed again.
• Once a skill is captured, it can't be captured again.
• Once an area is Vanquised, you don't get more vanquisher.
• Master of the North points cant by making the same thing again and again, each dungeon, quest, vanquishing and area explored is individual.

In grind titles, are points are the same, it doesn't matter which, where or when do you get points. You can open chests anywhere again and again and you'll get points again and again, and kill the same monsters; and drink, eat and party with the same items in the same place, and stand in the same circle, and open chests in the same region of the same area, and identify the same type of item, each experience point is indistinguishable from the rest, etc...
There are also three types of grind titles:

• PvP titles. All PvP titles are already account-based. And no one is against that.
• Plot-related grind titles. Those related to an affiliation of the NPCs in the game. Making them account wide would be a bit of a trouble, and they have already made less important their rank when using skills linked to them. Maybe they should be easier the more characters in the account max them, but they should not be account wide right now.
• Pure grind titles. The rest:

Lucky/Unlucky, Wisdom and Treasure Hunter, are similar titles related in both behavior and circumstances. Most people goes for those titles with a single character, and most people must move all golds to identify and save all keys for one character. That's annoying. People should pick keys and be able to use them right away and pick golds and identify them without regrets. Regrets are bad. In the case of unlucky being 'slower' due to increase in lockpick rates, the unlucky points given should increase the higher the rate of success on keeping the lockpick. They are the best candidate to become account wide.
Party, Sweet and Drunk are basically 'gold sink' titles. Sweet Tooth is the fastest one to get and can be bought with some time. Drunkard still takes time, but can be also bought. Party Animal is the most limited due to the lack of supply. In the case of this three titles, it doesn't matter wich character use the item, the effect will be the same. Profession doesn't matter for them, and much like rare items can be identified by any character of the account regardless of which one picked it, any character of the account can use festive items regardless of who acquired them. In this case, people do also go for them with a single character, and then either give the remaining items to other, or to another single character. This makes people have a 'party character' they always must in Festivals if they want to gain points effectively. Drunkar is also a nuisance, since if you want to get points for it, you must stick with the same character keeping track of your drunk level. Being them account wide or not is not very important, but NPCs should offer items for Party animal (Canthan and Maguuman merchants, and a Nightfall collector) and drunkar should be less annoying to keep track, something like changing the drunk levels from {2 sober, 3 drunk} to {5 sober, 20 drunk} so people can drink a lot and stay drunk for some time before checking the level, it should have an effect icon showing the level of drunkenness like the Necromancer minion counter.
Another thing that could be done is having two tabs in the Hero panel: One for Character-based titles and one for account-based titles.

• Achievement titles would appear only in the character-based panel.
• Grind titles would appear in both: The points earned by the character in the account panel, and the sum of all points earned by all characters in the account panel. The effects given by the titles would be calculated with the account rank.

That way people would be able to both keep track of the points earned by each character and earn points without regrets of getting them spread between all the characters. This would also have the advantage of being able to keep track of the points each character earns in PvP. In the special case of PvP characters, PvP title points should be saved 'by profession' instead of by character, since two PvP characters of the the profession in the same account are completely the same. MithTalk 12:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agrees with everything Mith said --> Wolf 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that is exactly how i feel about titles. and i think a good compermize to the sunspear light bringer ec, is once they are maxed on one ch you get a bonus on all your other ch. i think if it was done that way it would make the people who already got the tile happy and would make the people who are about to get the title happy and it would promote playing on other ch, and would cut down on grind.75.172.43.90 21:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"Making the Treasure Hunter and Wisdom titles account-wide is something that I have been considering. The necessity of having to move keys and golds over to one character is just not fun. ... I know how much of a chore it is to have to do that and I don't think it is something that is in keeping with general Guild Wars design philosophies. ... Having to open 10,000 chests on a single character is a monumental task. Having to do it on multiple characters is perhaps unreasonable..." Linsey, thank you, thank you, thank you! (If you could combine characters totals that would be cool, because in my noob days I used to open with whichever character got the key) You've just made my day and I'm hopeful you progress this through to the game. Colour me happy! (Don't I sound like a right kid, lol) – josəph 09:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Mith, except that the proposed solution might involve more work than they are willing to put in. I think that making these titles account-wide, and giving more points towards unlucky when breaking them at higher retain rates, would be splendid. Early confirmation that this will be done (and points will be added across characters) would also free us up now to gain these points however we want. -- Alaris 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation either way would be better than an extended "maybe". 24.179.144.91 02:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The GW1 Live Team has a lot on their plate atm, and anything more than maybe might not come until they are actualy working on it. --Wolf 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Poke! Just a reminder that some of us would love to hear about this idea coming live! I'm talking about Treasure Hunter and Wisdom being account-wide, and adding points across all characters. Thanks! PS: yes I know you're all busy, I respect that, but I'd love to hear confirmation & date of possible implementation if at all possible, in large part because I'm currently working on those titles. -- Alaris 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the account based wisdom and treasure titles is not going to help anybody max anything so why do it? Making wisdom account based is not going to make more golds drop for your account so whats the point? If you do not chest run on a daily basis you will never max treasure. Funny thing is everyone QQ'ing about they need a account based wisdom and TH will still not max it. General consensus is that somehow all the randomly encountered chest across an account will somehow lead to a maxed title. It will do nothing but knock off 1% or 2% of ten thousand big whoop. Don't waste your time on cosmetic changes to appease the masses Linsey. Now if you wanna eliminate some grind make rep titles account based. Leveling up pve skills on multiple toons is far more unreasonable. Also what is this sense of entitlement about maxed titles? Did Anet intend for every player to max every title? Titles show our uniqueness so don't dumb them all down so everyone has everything, let us all be different and make decisions about what we choose to max with our play time. Thanks for reading. Shadowspawn X 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet people HAVE maxed those titles. Personally, an account wide wisdom / treasure hunter wouldn't be about maxing either title, but about getting the peripheral benefits from the titles on all my characters with respect to using lockpicks and salvaging runes/inscriptions, rather than having to mess about passing all golds (for id/salvage) to the character that has the highest ranks of collector/TH. I for one welcome account wide Collect/TH. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 07:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

@Shadwo "Also what is this sense of entitlement about maxed titles?" its not an entitlement thing its that people dont want to have to grind. you still have to do the same work as everyone else.75.172.44.33 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

@Shadow. Account-based will help me. I am currently working on TH and Wisdom for my Ranger. So I either run chests, or farm to afford lockpicks. But if it were account-based, I'd be able to open all chests I see while farming on my other characters, which would add quite a few chests to the title per run. This is the main thing for me. I'd also be able to ID those items instead of transferring them too, but that is less problematic TBH. So at least your whole argument about that helping nobody goes down the drain. As for rep titles, if they want to make that account-based, it's fine with me... but I know there's far more opposition for that. -- Alaris 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

@Shadow. It's not about MAXING TH or wisdom, it's about having the benefits apply to all characters/not having to skip all chests on secondary characters b/c they aren't the TH or ID'er. --JonTheMon 13:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally got around to reading through all this (boy that is a lot of text). I can't say for absolutely certain that Treasure Hunter and Wisdom will be made account wide. I can say that we very much want to and are looking into doing it, but there is a slight possibility that we won't be able to for technical reasons. Slight. - Linsey talk 22:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Skill Tomes

Is there any good reason to keep skill tomes Hard Mode only items? Buying skill tomes on the secondary market comes close to how much skills should cost (1 plat per skill is way too much, and skill points are never ample enough, and outfitting multiple characters is simply not an option at that cost). Why not make it so any monster (or boss) that's level 22+ (for example) has a chance of dropping a (normal) skill tome, independent of whether it is hard mode or fun mode? I can understand keeping elite skill tomes to HM only, however. On a related note, would it be too much to ask for a tome trader? They seem to be in sufficient supply on the trade channels at the same rates runes and the like were before the rune trader was available. --136.142.214.19 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like you HAVE to have a gazilion skills on every character... your first skills cost less then 1k, skill points are never a problem unless you're going for Elite Skill Hunter too early, and you earn a good number of both money and skill points by selling drops, doing quests and missions. That said, I say a big yest to a Tome Trader. — Poki#3 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You forget that the game is by and for (at least in its concepting and theory) casual players. As a casual player myself, none of that which you mentioned is true. And, yes, you DO have to have a wide variety of skills on the character -- that's where the game comes in, playing with different skills and builds. --136.142.214.19 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, skill points have never been an issue for my characters, and eventually you just start getting skill points to burn. (My main has a few hundred skill points, despite being Legendary Skill hunter and having a lot of nonprimary profession skills available, not to mention the purchase of consumables in EOTN.) And I'll third a tome trader, it'd be useful to cut down on the wtb/s party searches for them. 75.146.48.190 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) A trader for Elite Tomes would make the Skill Hunter title a bit too cheap, IMO. But a trader for common tomes is almost a necessity, I think, given how cheap the tomes are expected to be (less than 1k, so people are not very likely to waste their time trying to sell one). The problem is that adding traders to the game apparently isn't easy - a long time ago, in an interview Jeff Strain mentioned how adding traders to the game is hard, as they act across the entire (real life) world and so are heavy on the servers, or something along these lines. Erasculio 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that NPC Traders are just RESELLERS, they don't generate them. Elite skill hunter is already an entirely buyable title - very expensive and taking a lot of time WTB spamming, but still buyable. And note that the sell prices at Trader would be higher than the average market value - that's how they work - you save the time but you need to pay extra. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the trader sould-out of some kinds of Elite tomes pretty often - there aren't so many of them in circulation to supply a buying spree of someone who wants multiples fast. Capping the elites will remain The Way to do this title. I stronly support the idea of adding the trader, as a PvP player I'd love a fast way of selling the tomes I get from Zaishen Chest without having to waste hours WTS spamming --Yawg 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well i do think that the amount of beginning skills you get for cheaper then 1k should be more then it is now i found my self at 1k skills in no time. i think if you made it so the skill trainer was able to sell a range of normal skill tomes for $500 but at 2 skill points instead of one would make it balanced enough so people would still want to get them from trading and hard mode. but would add a way to get skills at a cheeper price. so the skill trader in kamadam would only trade paragon, dervish and then the one at the sunspear sanctuary would have 2 different professions, and so on. so that way it would bring meaning to go to certain towns, and that those towns for that campaign would be the only ones that have those profession tomes, but each campaign would have all 10 professions. this would also make the 100k skill trainer for your guild hall and which guild hall you have more important and more worth having. (because right now he is hella worthless along with the weapon guy but that is another topic)75.172.47.109 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you people are finding your skill points (and your money). I bankrupted my primary character, both money and skill points, and I don't even have half of the skills available for his primary/secondary combination yet. This being my primary character, he has gone through all of Prophecies, most of both Factions and Nightfall, and some of GWEN (until I realized it sucks, but that's an entirely different thread). --71.240.84.93 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

tomes (and if you suggested elite tomes...) shouldn't be available on merchants, then the skill trainers should be pointless as u'd be able to buy any skill (unless you haven't unlocked every skill yet) right in the beginning. buying tomes is like 250-350g and getting skillpoints doesn't take any time at all due to, well, nearly anything u do in PvE gaining u exp. and you don't even need all the skills on a pve, the useful 20% of them is enough unless you're going to PvP with it, and then.... PvP chars are better if u wanna save gold. --AnorithTalk 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A trader isn't a merchant. Traders operate on supply and demand, so I bet there would be occasions when tomes would just be sold out. Also, Unlocked skills are already available at the skill trainer, regardless of location (the only limitation is campaigns). — Poki#3 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The other limitation is unlocked elite skills not being available at trainers. — kyrasantae 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We wanted Hard Mode to have it's own unique rewards, which is where skill tomes come in. You can buy skills from trainers or go out capping so it is not necessary for tomes to be readily available. There are currently no plans to add a tome trader to the game. That all said, I do recognize that it would be really nice if these were more conveniently accessible and while we don't intend to add a tome trader to the game, I do want to work on improving trade as a general solution to the problem. - Linsey talk 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)