User talk:Erasculio/Fellowship Title

This is a very well thought out and presented idea. There is only one thing that I would like to consider doing differently: "Legendary Defender of Ascalon and Legendary Survivor also count as a single unique title. This is because a single character may not max both of those, so the players who currently have the "Kind of a Big Deal" title could feel bad if both were counted for the Fellowship title." Note that KoaBD players are able to receive titles like 'Legendary Skill Hunter' which a Fellowship player might not get if they spread the titles on many charactes. Yes, it is possible to do them on the same character too, but I think this balances the situation. Besides, KoaBD players are also gaining the benefits from the Fellowship title so why would they complain? -- (gem / talk) 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you : ) And I couldn't agree more with you - exactly thanks to titles like "Legendary Skill Hunter", "Legendary Cartographer" and so on, I think it would be more fair if LDoA and Survivor counted as two different titles. However, this is something players who do have KoaBD complained about in the discussions that led to this suggestion, as something that would make the title unfair, and etc. For the sake of compromise I kept that rule there,but even I don't agree that much with it. Erasculio 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot... I've got eight characters overall, and maxing a single title on one guy is already hard enough for me. If I farm enough Lightbringer points on one character to max the title, I think I'm going to want a break from him/her afterwards. :P There's a lot of room in the title-naming area as well; "I've Got Friends In High Places" or something of the like would fit right in with the "I Have Many Leather-Bound Books" crowd. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts

• How do you reward those who do put in the time, those who do do the work on a single character? How do you denote their acheivements as special? Up till this (proposed point)the KoBD was the only way. Titles should not be an easy thing to get, they are recgonition to large undertakings, and the average player may not want to tackle them on one character.....But for those who have put forth the effort, it would be eroded......now pretty much everyone has the title and benifits they have worked toward. There needs to be unique aspects for those who work on titles, something not everyone can get. Recgonition....a way of saying, this character has been everywhere, has done everything, and I did it all with this character.....its KoaBD

I also like to see my progress on other characters, how much of the map I have left to beat, the title is like a goal for me, something to work toward.

Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, and think it is well thoughtout, I just don't think it should be implimented in GW, maybe 2, but not in 1..... Med Luvin 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You will still have the ability to show off the KoaBD title with the character who has deserved it. This title would just give you the additional opportunity to show off the achievements of your KoaBD character on other characters in the form of another title. This isn't supposed to replace KoaBD, but be an additional title. -- (gem / talk) 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what Gem said. The idea here is not to remove or replace KoaBD - that title will still be there, being as unique and as special as it is today. The system proposed here is for something different, aiming to reward players who have a different playstyle. Also do notice that (somewhat ironically, but anyway) a player that reaches KoaBD not only keeps his unique title and those accomplishments, but he also will earn the Fellowship title (given how he would have 10 unique titles on his account). KoaBD characters get more benefits than they current have with this system, not less. Erasculio 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An alternative, though I can already imagine problems with it, would be to make the KoaBD and Fellowship title tracks independent in some way- since to me, the point of a new title like the Fellowship one would be to have an alternative to KoaBD. So that a player could choose between the Fellowship title being shown, or the KoaBD being show. Somewhat like the mutually exlusive Defender of Ascalon and Survivor titles. Besides, the maximum titles acquired for either one would be the same number. Yukiko 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if I understood your comment correctly, but from what I know here, the Fellowship title would be completely separate from the Kind of a Big Deal title, with the exception of the similarities with title-counting and whatnot. If a character had enough titles for KoaBD, they would also have enough for Fellowship, but generally, they would want to show of KoaBD, because it's harder to get. Fellowship would be a good way to show off their overall work on the other characters that didn't have KoaBD. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 06:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The main question is...

...why? Can you make a case FOR having this title track? One that is separate from simply making most of those titles account based. --Karlos 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the one and only point for the whole thing. Ofcourse it can be discussed whether or not that is a good reason or not. I myself am fairly neutral since I mainly play on one character. Ofcourse this would allow me to add the survivor title to the tally and also would allow me to display the title on other characters, but those aren't very important things to me. I can understand why many people want something like this, but I haven't yet seen very heavy arguments for or against. -- (gem / talk) 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why not just lobby for having X, Y and Z titles become account wide? Why reinvent the wheel? --Karlos 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Those ideas have already been tried, and shot down. Like Gaile mentioned on that subject, having a level 5 with Seeker of Wisdom seems strange; same for Explorer, Vanquisher, and so on. There aren't really any titles of the sort that would translate well to account-wide. This idea on the other hand, allows a player to show off all the work he's done across his account, while still having the title make sense. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the feeling the "why?" is the main point of the introduction. Let me know if that's not clear enough for you. Erasculio 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The case is fairly easy to make. Making reputation titles account-based would allow all characters to immediately gain the benefit of a max rank in them. It would make Nightfall a lot easier if you had R8 Lightbringer as soon as you reach Chantry of Secrets. This title, on the other hand, would not affect gameplay in any way. For other titles, making them account-based would allow you to display nonsensical titles. For example -- "Elonian Vanquisher" on a level 1 character in Pre-Searing Ascalon. This title would make sense on that level 1 character, however, since it shows the character is owned by an account with a lot of other accomplishments, even though it's immediately obvious the accomplishments aren't on that character. -- bcstingg (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say this. The idea of blindly converting all titles to account based is stupid and i don't think( at least i hope ) anybody who has been pushing for account based titles has suggested this.

What I and most others have been suggesting is that a select few character based titles, who's completion can essentially be irrelevant of one particular character's achievements be converted to account based; namely: Seeker of Wisdom, Drunktard, Sweet Tooth and other such titles. The completion of these titles simply involves transferral of items from 1 character to another, and it would be completely possible to have a lvl 3 Connoisseur of confectioneries.

There is also argument for, although perhaps less strong, that the largely grind based titles such as treasure hunter, light bringer, asuran, etc.. This is partly so that no particular class is disadvantaged in attaining these titles. Can you imagine trying out for the treasure hunter title with a necromancer? If your going to have to spend hours at a time on these titles, you'd want to do it using a class that makes achieving it easier. Yes the campaigns would be a bit easier after maxing the titles, but thats only because you don't have to grind out the titles every time you replay the story, thus you can focus on the story, and that, i think is a plus.

The titles that are campaign specific, ie the ones that involve you going out and adventuring, progressing in the story line: survivor, defender, explorer, vanquisher(debatable), protector etc, would remain character based.--WikiWu 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

/signed on this idea

I think it's a great idea Erasculio, and very well presented. This would probably silence my friend, he's always stating that his main character has all the "bling bling" and mine is a nooblet that doesn't even have the Kind of a Big Deal. I seriously hope Anet implements this. /signed Kailden Jera 10:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. /signed Alaris 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Im with this as well.I just realized that if i had always used my main i would be very near level two of KoaBD. IMPLEMENT PLEASE! seriously - leave a link to this on Galie's talk page. this needs to be seen.

/signed 70.51.126.84 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

/signed Unindal 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

main statue earnings

"The main statue at the "Honor" monument (this one) would be earned through the calculation: 1*(your own unique titles) + 0.5*(unique titles on other characters)." Was it intentional that someone could max this by achieving only 2/3's completion of KoaBD title track?--WikiWu 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't the one who wrote the formula, so when I read your comment, I thought "crap, how are we going to fix that now?". But the person who did the formula, Alaris, is wiser than I am - he probably foresaw that problem and already added a way to avoid it. Notice how the calculation does not use the Fellowship title itself - rather, it calculates the unique titles on "other characters". So one character with 10 maxed titles (and nothing else on other characters) would have PKM and Fellowship rank 2, but his Honor monument would see only his 10 unique titles (as the other characters have no unique titles themselves). This would likely be something a bit confusing to implement, but I think it's a good way to deal with the problem you mentioned. Erasculio 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I c, well that would make a bit more sense to me then.--WikiWu 11:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Too hard for A-Net?

I wouldn't think this one would be too hard to put in. All they need to do is add in another title counter, maybe coded as a binary byte type thing, so when you max a title, it is put up by a different amount. E.G. you have just protector of tyria maxed, the byte is set to 1. You also have Protector of Cantha maxed, the byte is set to 3 (2 + 1); the same way the djinn are coded into the save data for the Golden Sun games. And it wouldn't take too much work for already-gained titles to count, as far as I can see. Maybe a simple statement in whatever the C/Java version of this is:

If ProtTyria = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 1
ElseIf ProtCantha = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 2
ElseIf ProtElona = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 4
ElseIf GuardTyria = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 8
ElseIf GuardCantha = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 16
ElseIf GuardElona = 1 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 32
ElseIf VanqTyria = 62 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 64
ElseIf VanqCantha = 37 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 128
ElseIf VanqElona = 52 Then
    AccTitles = AccTitles + 256

and so forth. I feel they really ought to implement this, as this seems to be the best thought out suggestion there is. Because of the current mess of having less prestige if you space out titles between your characters, I have had to cut down to three characters: an ele, a necro and a monk. If they implemented this, I'd be straight back onto having one of each. —Ebany Salmonderiel 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheaper KoaBD?

I kinda like the idea, but from what i can see, if both KoaBD and the Fellowship titles are maintained, then the Fellowship title would be treated just like a cheaper version of the KoaBD title, as since most people right now (even though i could be wrong here) has a "main character", anyone displaying the Fellowship title, would immediately be recognised as an alternative/secondary character for that player, and thus, ppl would still "value" KoaBD over Fellowship regardless. IMO this should replace the KoaBD title OR simply change it's functioning, and i like the tag names on the KoaBD titles better than the fellowship ones =P, anyway, my 2 cents 200.153.140.186 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KoaBD would be seen more prestigious ofcourse. Fellowship is a 'cheper' title just like you say. That's exactly the point. You can show the achievements on nay character, but it doesn't count as much as the KoaBD because it's spread out. -- (gem / talk) 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

HOM, statues and dysplays?

so getting this title would allow for like sin that dosnt have like the survivor title display that monument if my para has it? i don't really know how to phrase this question but i hope i get the basic idea across. and if that would be the case then i think this is a grate idea, though its a little more complex for my liking. i think the hole part about the unique pet is unnecessary and should just be like koabd after rank 3 everyone would be able to charm it on that account.75.172.47.109 07:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)