Talk:Faction

Okay, I changed it back to Faction (Luxon). My understanding so far is that in the context of this page, it refers to faction points for Luxon. While the Luxon Faction refers to the group to which you can be aligned. --161.88.255.140 02:06, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Will the two of you stop stepping on each other's toes and trampling all over mine? &mdash; Stabber 02:06, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Take a chill pill Stabber. :P  As for the points, see the two new quests Establish the Kurzick Settlement and Establish the Luxon Settlement and see how the reward is stated: 250 Kurzick Faction, that looks like points to me.  Actual screen shots of the quests can be seen in Talk:Earthborn Ettin.  --Rainith 02:09, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * See below. &mdash; Stabber 02:12, 24 March 2006 (CST)

In-game Appearance

 * For quest rewards, the terms "Luxon Faction" and "Kurzick Faction" are used.
 * From the Hero panel under "Faction" tab, the bars are labeled "Balthazar", "Luxon", and "Kurzick" only. The mouse-over description mention "You gain faction with the God of War", "You gain faction with the Luxons", and "You gain faction with the Kurzicks".
 * In PvP, when killing a foe, the green text shows "+x Faction", while victory messages use "Faction with Balthazar"
 * The dialogue at the Priest of Balthazar (rewards) only say "Faction"

Idea 1
To correspond to:
 * Faction (Balthazar)
 * Faction (Luxon) (redirected from Luxon Faction)
 * Faction (Kurzick) (redirected from Kurzick Faction)



Any questions? &mdash; Stabber 02:12, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Idea 2

 * Faction (Rewards) (or some other term in the brackets)- overarching article describing general concept, linking to specific articles on how to acquire faction of each type and what they can be spent for:
 * Faction (Balthazar)
 * Faction (Luxon)
 * Faction (Kurzick)

Idea 3

 * Faction (points) - overarching article describing general concept, linking to specific section in other articles on how to acquire faction of each type and what they can be spent for:
 * PvP (for Faction with Balthazar)
 * Luxon
 * Kurzick

Discussion
'''note: the discussion began when only idea 1 was proposed. '''


 * Dagnabit - I tried replying, and kept getting edit conflicts - you beat me with the screen print! Anyway, here was my original post:
 * Sorry Stabber. Anyway, the above is my understanding of it, and I could be off-base on this.  If someone else has a different understanding, let me know.
 * The quest reward is one thing; but how does it display in the Hero window? (I don't have GW on this PC, so can't check).
 * BTW, how's Elder Scrolls Oblivion? --161.88.255.140 02:14, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * What do those point bars say if you hover your mouse over them? --161.88.255.140 02:15, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Amazon fucked up the shipping, so I don't have it yet. Which is why I am still wasting time with GW. And they wouldn't even let me cancel so I could go down to the local Target and get it off a shelf. I've had words with the idiots at Amazon.&mdash; Stabber 02:16, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Why not just Balthazar Faction, Luxon Faction and Kurzick Faction? That seems like it would correspond more with the in game terms, and would reduce the amount of parentheses needed.  Then this article here could be dumped as a disambig page, and made just about Faction (alliance) with a small note at the top directing people looking for Guild Wars Factions to that page.
 * If any of this is contradicted in game with info, my apologies, I'm at work so I can't get into the game right now.
 * Oh and IMO Oblivion is ok, but they need to release a patch for it as a lot of people who more than meet the system requirements (myself included) are having major issues. --Rainith 02:20, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Because Balthazar Faction is not used in game, to the best of my knowledge. &mdash; Stabber 02:21, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * And what is used in game to represent that Faction gained with Balthazar or something to that effect, so we use that. --Rainith 02:27, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Well, the skill window used to say "Faction - Balthazar". Now it just has a single panel listing all three kinds of factions, as shown above. I did search for in game mentions of Bally's Faction when we had the debate earlier (see Talk:Faction (alliance)), but didn't find any other mention besides the old hero window. &mdash; Stabber 02:30, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Let me clarify my position, I'm not against the Faction (xxx) idea, I'm just saying why do that and have redirects and this disambig page and all that, if we can use the actual terms from the game and get around it. --Rainith 02:30, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * To repeat myself, there is no in game term used for for Bally's faction. At the Priests of Balthazar it just says "faction", as the image below shows. &mdash; Stabber 02:32, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Have they done changes to how it displays in PvP? That's the only place that I can think of to see it.  It used to just show "+25 Faction".  Is that still all it shows? --161.88.255.140 02:35, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Nope. Still says "+25 Faction", etc. &mdash; Stabber 02:37, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Unless you want to treat "Faction with Balthazar" as it shows up in flawlesses as a keyword. &mdash; Stabber 03:41, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Another point would be that we have in the past created our own terms for things that the game either left ambigous or without terms. See: Collectable Drop, that term shows up nowhere in the game. Originally here we listed them as Collector Items, then it was thought that that could lead to too much confusion with the items that you can get from collectors. So PanSola suggested Collectable Items, but the thought was people refer to the special items (like the Yule Cap) as collectable, so it was changed to the current Collectable Drops. There is no reason we can't be bold and create our own term for something that ANet has been lax in creating, but has adequately defined. --Rainith 02:42, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * I have no problem with a GuildWiki created term; but I think that Luxon Faction is too easilly confused with the political Luxon Faction group. I find that Faction (Luxon), or Faction points (Luxon), or even Luxon faction points would be clearer. --161.88.255.140 02:52, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * What do those new faction bars show when you float your mouse over them? Does that text spell out a clearer in-game name? --161.88.255.140 03:06, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * I think using the in game capitalizaion Luxon Faction for the points and Luxon faction  for the entity would work. Because it looks like we will have Luxon Faction and Kurzick Faction linking from quests and possibly missions too now.  --Rainith 03:07, 24 March 2006 (CST)

I think the game is trying to make it abundantly clear that it is all "Faction." I believe the scoring system will likely be quite similar (i.e. 20 faction points for a distinct kill and so forth). Basically, the different factions are "earned" in PvPing "for" different causes and the different factions will be spent differently I assume depending on what each Faction diety has to offer.

So, I am in favor of one over-arching Faction (PvP) article that explains the concept and then three separate Faction (Balthazar), Faction (Luxon) and Faction (Kurzick) to explain how to gain each type of faction and what you can spend it on. We need to look ahead here, I am assuming Chapter 3 will have Faction (Republicans) and Faction (Democrats) or Faction (Osiris) and Faction (Horus) or whatever.

I am against Luxon Faction, Kurzick Faction and what not. --Karlos 09:16, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * I partially agree with Karlos. I support a over-arching article, but I don't think Faction (PvP) is the appropriate name.  Faction (points) will be simple and clear.  I think "Faction with Balthazar" is THE Faction (PvP).  The C2 faction system seems more PvE oriented, considering if you create a PvP-only character,you cannot participate in the Luxon-Kuricks conflict (or so I've heard).  Additionally, instead of having individual Faction (Balthazar), Faction (Luxon), and Faction (Kurzick) articles, I think the specifics of gaining each type of faction should just be a section within the PvP, Luxon, and Kurzick articles respectively. -SolaPan 10:08, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * No matter how many times you say it, faction is not all about PvP, Karlos. Especially the Luxon and Kurzick kinds of factions. &mdash; Stabber 10:08, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * I submit and withdraw my suggestion. :) --Rainith 10:38, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * "submit and withdraw" is like saying "In'n'out" d-: -SolaPan 10:46, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * It seems to be only gained from doing PvP stuff, but there are hints of a possible PvE usage when they say you can buy gems with them. I could be wrong, we'll find out in 5 hours. :) Still, is there opposition to make it a Faction general article and then separate articles for the specifics? I think this disucssion will be much more nelightened in about 5 hours too. --Karlos 10:49, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * We already have a pair of quests giving Faction as rewards, that's DEFINITELY PvE. And I'm confident in assuming that any PvP-only characters can only stay on Battle Isles, and do the arenas, guild battle, and HA.  By purchasing Factions, all they get are professions and skills.  If PvP characters cannot access something, it's probably wrong to put that something under an overarching article about PvP (though there are the Shiverpeak and Ascalon arenas as a precedent...). -SolaPan 11:08, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Oh, I remembered... Points is not good because it's mentioned in the update with reference to Alliances and standing. How about Faction (Rewards)? The Priests on the Battle Isles seem to be implying that. --Karlos 11:16, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Best idea yet. Just do it, man. I got your back. &mdash; Stabber 11:20, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Wait what? Can you be more specific about what aspect of teh update with reference to Alliances and standing makes "points" not good? -SolaPan 11:25, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * The heck, jsut re-read the update notes for 3/23. They used the term "Faction Points", now, tell me again waht's wrong with it o_O -SolaPan 11:27, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * Read the territory section:
 * There are several potential Alliance Battle maps. Map layouts vary, but all the maps have the same goal: be the first side to reach 500 points. Points are gained by controlling strategic locations on the map and by killing enemies. Only one map is active at a time, depending on where the current battle lines are located. As the battle shifts deeper into Luxon or Kurzick territory, the Alliance Battles are biased to favor the losing side. 
 * These unqualified points override your usage of points. If you want to move Faction to "Faction Points" that's a different debate, but Faction (point) to me implies Faction with regards to points, which I am not sure is the best way to describe what this Faction is. --Karlos 13:29, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Those unqualified "points" have nothing directly to do with factions, so I don't see any implication that "Faction (points)" would be associated with those unqalified points. -SolaPan 10:14, 27 March 2006 (CST)

Bump, I still favor idea 3. One overarching article for the general idea, let existing articles elaborate individual details. -PanSola 19:28, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Faction with Kurzik
If you read the manual carefully you will see that Kurzick is not a country name, neither is Luxon. They are people names. Like British and French I assume. So, you can't say "Faction with Kurzick" and "Faction with Luxon" that is not proper English. This is why they call it "Kurzick faction" and "Luxon faction." You would say "this guy is Kurzick" not "this guy is from Kurzick" and therefore, you would say "this faction is with the Kurzick nation" (or faction or whatever) and not "this faction is with Kurzick." --Karlos 13:12, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * "Faction (Luxon)" still makes sense with this arrangement, as it's like saying "Victory Points (French)". (I don't particularly mind having "Luxon faction", either, depending on what's more correct and what the majority prefers, of course.) --130.58 13:20, 24 March 2006 (CST)