Illconceived Was Na.9781

Chances are, like so many before you, you're using an outdated guide. The older guides use their own number system. The game didn't add the one you see in the achievement panel until years later. If you're using Dulfy, there's a conversion guide on the wiki talk pages for the relevant articles: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Talk:Golden_Lost_Badgehttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Lost_Badge_Dulfy_translation_table.jpghttps://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/en/uploads/forum_attachment/file/210804/Untitled.jpg Start with the last one; that should have everything you need.

I never mentioned disallowing spaces.You wrote, "I agree with the OP and not everyone wants to be forced to use a name with spaces." I'm talking more about people who bought GW2 on release and never touched it ever again. They probably don't even remember their character or name at this point. :pHow many people do we think that includes? How many character names? How many of those are names that the OP wants? How many that you or anyone else want? People do this in every MMORPG they start, hoard a lot of names for potential alts in the future, then realize they don't like the game and those names lay dead for eternity in this game.Yes, I'm sure that happens. The thing is: we don't know any particular player's intent, nor the intent behind the names that are unavailable. All we can say is that they aren't available right now; we can't say if they are hoarded. Obviously a single name won't be available for the masses. But freeing up a million names from a million inactive and dead accounts would free up a lot of names for active players. There's a reason other games do this.And there's a reason that other games don't. Some games do it because naming restrictions severely limit the options. Some do it because they want to please newer players more than veterans.The fact that other games do it isn't a reason that GW2 should do it. I mean, what evidence are you looking for? You can add names to your friends list and find out yourself.That tells us the name isn't available. It doesn't tell us whether it's held by an active or inactive account, nor for how long. It also won't tell us the level of the character. Everyone has a different concept of "interesting, fun and good" names.Indeed.The question is whether ANet should cater to the people who have a very narrow view of that or not. Yes and maybe they should rethink that rationale.Why?How is it to this game's benefit to force people who return to change their character names? I understand why it might be to my benefit or yours or the OP's; I don't see an argument as to why it makes sense for Guild Wars 2, a game that prides itself on being friendly to those who take long breaks.

I'm not convinced by the arguments presented that the game needs more sources of legendary armor. It's an incentive for raids, for WvW, and for PvP. There are already plenty of incentives to PvE or Fractal. Plus, I think games are more interesting when there are some substantive rewards exclusive to each type of content. I'm not against the idea. (In fact, I'd probably pursue it instead of Fractal God.) I just don't think "because I want to swap stats and I don't want to raid or WvW" is enough to convince ANet it's worth the time or effort to figure out how to implement it.

They could... except then I'd never be able to invite "sorudo" to my party or guild unless you were standing right next to me, and I could right click. To whisper you, I'd need to know your character name and your account's display name. And I much prefer a game populated with one-off names, rather than see a full map of Daenerys Targaryens. There are lots of ways to code a game to handle names. GW2 and WoW and BDO and ESO use different methods. Each has pros & cons. There's no right answer as to which is better (that depends on our preferences). However, there is a cost issue in changing the game as it exists now to cater to the preferences of a subset of players. Why should ANet spend for a different system, when the current one already offers plenty of options?

A list of previous discussions on the same topic in the "new" forums (there are plenty in the old forums, too) October 2017October 2017 alsoNovember 2017December 2017February 2018

ANet's rationale & policy has been in place for over a decade:"We do not take character or display or guild names away from valid accounts. Someone may step away and return to the game later, so the names must stay in place."

Correct. The policy was the same for the original Guild Wars.As with GW2, there were periodic requests to "free" up names and Gaile's response was consistent: "it wouldn't be fair to the people who decided to return, even years later."

Should the game inconvenience those who start playing later? Or inconvenience those who started earlier?If you can think of a reason for naming your character XYZ, then someone else can, too. Should the person who thought of it fourth or tenth get an opportunity to take the name, simply because the person who used it first hasn't played in 5 months or 5 years? There's also the matter of resources: The code to figure out which names to purge (and which names not to) is more complex than the code that doesn't care about it.The number of support requests regarding names will skyrocket, as people return from long breaks being forced to change their name.And finally, do we really think that ANet should spend resources catering to those whose creativity stops working after trying out a dozen names?

We have an official statement:It's not approved. We know this because all mods are unapproved, except in the rare case that ANet decides to work with the relevant 3rd party developer. However, common sense still applies: The mod doesn't allow people to gain rewards that others cannotIt doesn't allow people to see things that other players aren't allowed to see.It doesn't enable or make easier anything that is otherwise explicitly against the rules.PS the thread is likely to be removed; the mods generally hide any conversation about mods or modding the game, to avoid giving anyone the wrong idea.

After the mixed reaction to raid legendary armor, I doubt ANet's going to ever again try to design another set. So I think you'd get more traction from ANet (and fans) for a non-legendary armor with a fractal theme and/or a method of obtaining stat-selectable armor from fractal rewards. However, I don't think either are likely any time soon, until there's a substantial fraction of those with excessive fractal relics. I don't expect that ANet will spend a lot of energy creating a reward that competes for relics, given how few have completed the fractal titles. As a practical matter, it would probably also require challenge modes, and there remain only two fractals with CM as an option.

First time was fun.Subsequent times... it's just busy work. Chance of key makes it less unbearable. And yeah, the main reason is: I dislike the hearts. Not all of them; there are just too many, many of which are dull, tedious, and unnecessarily complicated. It's much, much more fun with mounts. I don't think I'd do another core Tyria completion without them.

How would you change things, without hurting ANet's bottom line?Charge more for the expansions? Charge veterans for the Living World too? Charge a subscription and include the episode as part of that? There aren't all that many alternatives and each alienates someone. I think I've already said this - it's not a cash issue it's visibility on content issue. Just tell me upfront or increase the price and throw it all in so there are no surprises.Yes, I think there's widespread agreement that the presentation is poor. I'm not even sure that anyone disagrees strongly with that. What appears to have happened is that the thread's title, "Living World Access To New Players," gave the impression it's an accessibility issue, throwing the discussion in a different direction. The post to which I responded called it a paywall problem, which is why I mentioned costs.

Two interesting ideas which I'd like to call out: On the other hand, ANet would probably argue that (a) there are already plenty of lures to purchase LS episodes, (b) the are already connected in lore, and © they have to draw the line somewhere, so why not at the start of the season instead of after the first chapter. Worth thinking about, even though I expect ANet's already considered both and decided against.

It hardly makes sense to assume that "showing off" is a major factor driving gem sales, just as it hardly makes sense to assume that it doesn't; we lack enough information to evaluate it.

How would you change things, without hurting ANet's bottom line? Charge more for the expansions? Charge veterans for the Living World too? Charge a subscription and include the episode as part of that?There aren't all that many alternatives and each alienates someone.

That's a pretty broad assumption to make. I've bought a lot of cosmetic items from the gem store (especially mini pets) but I couldn't care less if anyone else sees them. I buy them for me to enjoy, not for other people. But what you do isn't relevant, you're just one person. What matters is that anet makes money off ppl who buy cosmetics from the gemstore and fewer cosmetics would be sold if the ppl buying them knew other players had the option to avoid seeing them . . . If there weren't ANY players who cared about whether other players could see their cosmetics you would have a point, but there are . . .That goes both ways: how many people are there who really won't buy cosmetics if they know that not everyone would buy them? Clearly there are some. Is it a big enough group that ANet would notice a decline in sales? I think the more likely reason is that it never occurred to ANet that people wouldn't want to see effects, bling, toys, auras, etc and so it's not built into the game. And it's problematic to retrofit the code to allow the option. When dealing with human bureaucracy, a lot of things can be explained with the simple, "because we've always done it that way."

I don't see why WvWarriors shouldn't get to choose their bling However, I wonder what impact disabling minis for everyone in WvW would have on performance. We know that minis are culled when there's a lot going on, so it likely wouldn't affect Zerg v. Zerg. Even so, I think it would be worth turning them off for a week to see what people think (especially if this were combined with a bonus WXP/Bonus reward track weekend).

It didn't get a new map and neither did any other festival.

Both @Cyninja.2954 & @Vinceman.4572 have great advice: Make sure you're clear as to what you want from your chronos Make sure the non-chronos aren't themselves overly 'tough'.

Absolutely: ANet could (and probably should) make it clearer during purchase on their website. And even offer a discount if you buy the LW unlock packs when you purchase the corresponding expac. So that's an issue with presentation; it's not a problem with accessibility.

If you want to submit a ticket to Support for a refund of the price difference, you can choose to do so. They typically respond well to such requests, especially if you don't resort to hyperbole.

You're really hankering for 3 underwater legendaries?

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 explains the details below>

To my knowledge, they never explained why. However: The two databases are distinct (we know this from the desync between HoM points/GWaMM earned in GW1 and what is recorded in GW2: GW1 has to be online for GW2 to know the status of those GW1 accomplishments)We were able to choose our own display and account names for GW2, different from whatever was used for GW1.It would have been possible to use a system-created "key field" for GW2 and link that to GW1, even if what we see would only have been the display|account names we chose.Even for GW1, it was an odd choice. I'm sure they had reasons for doing it the way they did in both games; it just doesn't make sense to me from the outside. My speculations might be entirely off and even so, it's odd that they let themselves be stuck in the same situation for both games, in which we players get to choose display names and yet even they can't choose to change them without causing big issues. They know that people make inappropriate choices, they know people make mistakes, they know that there will always be legit reasons that people (or they) need or want to change how an account is recognized. So why didn't they build to allow them that option? Regardless, whether I'm correct that they could have done differently, whether they should have done so... that's all moot. The situation is now that they cannot change the display name without mucking things up and we just have to live with it.

I agree that the rules about names are obscure. Plus: before launch, one of Gaile's statements about left some ambiguity, which is why I ended up with a display name that is, well, rather ill-conceived. Plus, as @Steve The Cynic.3217 points out: a display name shouldn't be a key field in the database. The key should be some sort of unique identifier that the system chooses. That was a mistake they made in GW1 and somehow replicated in GW2 (even though it causes similar issues there). Regardless, things are as they are, not as we wish them to be or as we imagine they should have been if we were in charge. Display names are fixed And, well, that's the end of it, unfortunately. :(