Talk:Title

/Archive

Title-Specific discussions:
 * /Champion
 * /Gladiator
 * /Hero (Title)
 * /Faction - for both Luxon and Kurzick tracks
 * /Luck - for both Lucky and Unlucky tracks


 * /Skill Hunter
 * /Cartographer - for both campaigns
 * /Protector - for both campaigns
 * /Drunkard
 * /Treasure Hunter
 * /Wisdom
 * /Survivor
 * /Big Deal

Alphabetical Order?
The article states the titles with equal progression will be in alphbetical order I can disprove that. Cartographer is clearly before Skill in the alphabet is it not? COrrect me if i'm wrong in some way Lyra Valo 15:53, 25 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Whoever that is (I'm guessing you) must have earned 2 continents in Skill Hunter before they (you) earned the 2 in Cartographer. -- MiniKold 16:52, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Nevertheless they are in "equal progression", 2 of 3. The rule should be about which was completed first to be consistent with your explanation. Rather, I'm thinking that that user actually progressed further in the 3rd Skill Hunter title than in the 3rd Cartographer title, thus the Skill Hunter would have progressed more (even though not shown), which would be consistent with the rule above. Just as a note, even if that person only owns 2 campaigns, he'd now have some progression on the Skill Hunter title for the third campaign because of the Core Elite skills, but no progression possible on the Cartographer. Alaris 10:10, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I had earned Cartographer first, and I was most likely ahead in 3rd Skill Hunter. But I am unsure.
 * Easy to check: just check which of the two is ahead, and see if that corresponds with the order of Legendaries. You can also check if making progress can change the order. Alaris 09:49, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Change in Luck Title?

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Lucky --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Hunter or Hunting

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Treasure Hunter --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Chop Chop time?
Is it time to break this into sub-artiles linked by the master Title article? I think each title track should go in it's own article so that tips and guides can be placed there. Also so that referencing the specific title from other articles is cleaner. Thoughts? --Karlos 07:10, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmmm ... I find the article not too long yet (especially since it could be shortened by a lot switching most sections to table format, avoiding redundant text). We have much longer article in this wiki that could have been split, but weren't. Also, I don't think that linking to individual titles will happen very often from articles other than user pages.
 * Having said that, I wouldn't mind chop-chop, as long as we also keep an overview in the Title article. :)
 * Karlos, I know you probably hate the idea, but what about working with inclusions to have all the titles both in individual articles and all in one combined article at the same time? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:34, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * P.S.: Regardless of the split I'll switch some of the sections to table format now. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:35, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am always loathed to the inclusion scheme, but if it's just in one article (title) and all the others are just straight forward articles, It's not that big of a deal. It's not religion, it's a wiki. :) --Karlos 08:39, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * How can you say that? Heretic! Burn him, burn him!!! ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:56, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Just put on max superior runes and if you die with 55 life, you get resed with one life. You don't even need aggroed enemies, you just need a vampiric item, your one health goes down instantly, this title doesn't exist I think.
 * I guess the anonymous edit above was meant to go in the "survivor" title discussion section. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:53, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos, you wanna go for it? I'll add this task to my to-do list, but first I have to do those gods' statues articles. They've been on my list for ages! --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:53, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm in favour of keeping it together, but if it does get split up, I think it should be split into account-based titles and character-based titles. Giving each article its own title sounds like overkill. -- Gordon Ecker 03:38, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The article is growing more and more, and some titles are getting a lot of links from other articles. I think it is definetly enough to warrant splitting. Shall we vote? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:11, 27 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Anyone? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:37, 31 October 2006 (CST)


 * For starters, and to give people a better idea, I've chop-chopped the Champion, created a separate article for it, but also included it in the title article. The title article looks exactly as it looked before, but the champion is still separate. Do you like it? I do. Unless anybody objects by the end of the week I'll process all titles in the same manner. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:07, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Still see absolutely no good reason for this. --Rainith 06:20, 31 October 2006 (CST)


 * No good reason?? Check "What links here". There are more than 100 links to the article, even if you don't count the links from user and talk pages, and pretty much all of these links are meant for an individual title (Cartographer, Drunkard, Survivor, Lightbringer, ...), hence linking to a section of the article. This isn't like key or chest, where splitting into all the individual keys/chests was decided to be overkill, even though they are actually individual items. I'd say splitting is well warranted. The talk page was already split by individual titles for a good reason (see top of page). --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:43, 2 November 2006 (CST)
 * All solvable with redirects to this article... --Rainith 11:08, 2 November 2006 (CST)
 * Oh, please! Yes, of course it's "solvable" by a redirect workaround, but is it feasible? Let's put ALL the content of GuildWiki in ONE big article and make all the individual articles redirects to it, shall we? ;)
 * Don't get me wrong. Usually I'm in favor of keeping information together rather than splitting it, because a big article often gives a better overview and avoids redundancy. But in this case I have to say there is little benefit. The individual titles have very little to do with eachother except that they are all titles (which can be covered by a single sentence). There is little need for a big overview. Who wants to see ALL the progressions of ALL the titles? And even if, it can easily be done by inclusion, like I've done with the Champion article. The most compelling argument for me are the 100+ links. Yes, they can be covered by redirects, but IMHO redirects to sections of an article are really cumbersome and should be avoided. If an individual section of an article gets a lot of links that alone is sufficient evidence for me that a separate article for that section is warranted. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]]  02:58, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * I'll start a vote. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:41, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Phew. I'm done with creating articles, created a navbox, created the "old style" title overview (with inclusions) and last but not least edited the title article. It is now very brief, with only a short decription and a table of available titles. Have a look and comment. I still have to fix all links that are now broken, and I want to move the talk sections to the correct articles, but at the current server speed that will take me another day or two. -- 11:26, 14 November 2006 (CST)


 * Now that the server is back to lightning fast speed I was finally able to complete this in a reasonable time. I fixed all links (except links on user pages, talk pages and game update and news pages). I also moved the talk pages listed at the top of this talk page to the respective title. I'll also move the various sections on this talk page to the correct talk page if they apply to an individual title. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Vote: Split?
'''Please do not vote any more. The vote is closed, and the result is kept here only for documentation.''' -- 05:06, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Should the title article be split?

... into individual articles for each title, like it's been done (as a test) for the champion article?


 * No, keep them together in one big article.
 * --Xeeron 05:44, 12 November 2006 (CST) I like browsing the different titles on one page.
 * -- &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:33, 12 November 2006 (CST) - I'm not opposed to split with inclusion, but I don't think split without inclusion is a good idea.
 * Yes, split, ...
 * (...with inclusion - akin champion - so the title article will keep its look)
 * -- James Sumners 06:49, 7 November 2006 (CST) I want to see all titles and all title progressions.
 * --NieA7 07:08, 7 November 2006 (CST) (more important we present coherent information than it's easy to edit)
 * (...without inclusion - so the title article will only be an overview list)
 * --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:41, 6 November 2006 (CST)
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) I would vote for inclusion, but that would confuse new contributors when they try to edit the article.
 * --Lord Ehzed 06:30, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 08:29, 7 November 2006 (CST) - I also vote for a nav-bar for the titles to be created to put on each title page. (Note: Further discussion regarding navbar moved to separate section below!)
 * - Foo 09:02, 9 November 2006 (CST)
 * --Gusnana1412 15:24, 10 November 2006 (GMT +1)
 * Sign here for support
 * Other (specify)
 * Sign here for support

This vote will be open for 1 week, until Monday the 13th of November. The deadline may be extended in case of a stalemate outcome of the vote.

For discussion see the section above! -- 02:41, 6 November 2006 (CST)


 * °Bump° Just a friendly daily reminder: 6 days left to vote :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:55, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * Daily reminder: 5 days left --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:55, 8 November 2006 (CST)
 * Give me an F. Give me an O. Give me a U. Give me an R. F-O-U-R days left! --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:04, 9 November 2006 (CST)
 * Final call. Only 1 day left. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:04, 12 November 2006 (CST)
 * I didn't know this was going on...  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:33, 12 November 2006 (CST)
 * That's why I bumped it so often. :p :D
 * Anyway ... Hereby I declare the vote closed. The result is pretty clear. I'll create an article for each title, and I'll fix all links to the title article. The title article will contain a list.
 * I'll create the articles in such a way that inclusion is possible. I consider also creating Title overview, which would include all titles. This should make those happy who voted for "No" or "Yes, with inclusion". --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:01, 13 November 2006 (CST)
 * Jeeez, GWiki is too frickin' slow to do things like this. I can do like one edit per 15 minutes. :( I'll finish this tomorrow. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:00, 13 November 2006 (CST)
 * I'll be surprised if you ever get it done. This slowness, and apparent lack of concern on the server administrator's part, is driving me away from the wiki. It is the best resource available, but it might as well not exist if it takes twenty minutes to pull up a page. -- James Sumners 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Navbar
Note: This discussion has been moved here from the vote section above in order not to clutter the vote process and to keep discussion separate. -- 06:31, 8 November 2006 (CST)


 * Jyro X wrote: I also vote for a nav-bar for the titles to be created to put on each title page. Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 08:29, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * Yes, a similiar nav bar as for the miniatures. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2006 (CST)
 * Does this look okay? Details are subject to discussion, of course. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:31, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Protected
Why did you make this article protected Skuld? - Stexe

If no other admins beat me to it, I'll unprotect it two weeks from the end of the Dragon Festival. Unless other people think it needs extended protection (in which case please state so). - 13:41, 6 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it would be a good idea to monitor this page after the protection is removed. It may need extended protection.  As it is now, any registered user can still edit it, only anon edits have been excluded.  --Rainith 15:49, 6 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Have a look at the history, from the edit summarys you can see just how much anon vandalism there is &mdash; Skuld  02:14, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I've added this to my watch list, so I'll keep an eye on it as well.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:04, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

Death Title
I know that the Death Title Track is absolutely uncomfirmed, but it would still be nice to read something about it in the article. At least something like "There are rumors about a Death Title Track which would supposedly trigger at 100 000 character deaths, but this is probably not true..." etc etc... So it would be something like a comment rather than part of the article. Yeah, I know I should do it myself, but I'm still new and I'm afraid of screwing things up. Otherwise, I don't know that much about the history of this rumor myself.. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adul (talk &bull; contribs) 07:47, 23 July 2006 (CDT).


 * I'd rather not have that in the article, it is pure speculation for now ST47 [[Image:Romu-icon.png|User:ST47/Romu_of_SFI]] [[Image:Romu-unlock.png|User:ST47/Account#Unlocked_Elites|8px]] (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Okay, no problem. I'm into it, actually, because I've never heard anyone saying anything about reaching 100 000 deaths which isn't really such a big deal as it can be done in about 2 weeks.And I've got enough work to do on my comp, so why not try it during? I'll tell you if I found something. Adul 10:36, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * please don't remove the unsigned template, as it messes up the time of posting [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] [[Image:Romu-icon.png|User:ST47/Romu_of_SFI]] [[Image:Romu-unlock.png|User:ST47/Account#Unlocked_Elites|8px]] (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry, I still need to get used to this. Adul 10:43, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The general rule is that we don't post rumors. If there is something rumored to exist (a Death-title track for example), ask about it in the talk page for the appropriate article.  The last thing that we want is for the pages of the wiki to become full of rumor and speculation to the point that they are essentially useless.
 * The only exception to this that I can think of is the Terror Shield article. And the only reason that was added was because that fake was soooo prevalent and talked about when it first came up.  The point of that article was to try to help people and stop them from being fooled.  --Rainith 13:00, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I am sure there is no death title. The lower levels of titles are shown even when you have a very low count. Ie I can see the drunkard title with only a few minutes of drunkness. The people with 100,000 deaths would surely see a title in their title tab if one existed. Gaile also said a line or two about it in the latest Gaile talk. She said it might be cool or something. Can't remember. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Ditto. There was a guy over at gwguru who posted his 1.000.000th (yes, that's 1M, not 100K) death's screenshots. He would know of a title track, would he not? --Ishmaeel 02:46, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The maximum dying frequency is about 4 deaths/minute = 1/(10 sec wait for ress + 5 sec invulnerablility). So dying 10^6 times lasts 10^6 deaths/4 dpm = 250000 minutes = 173 days. If anyone got that he used an account just to farm deaths... That sounds like a fake!
 * You can die faster than that 5 sec of invulnerability with a vamp weapon...but it still would take forever. And not all title tracks show progress starting from the way begining...survivor for example.
 * YOu can also get any character in the game down to 55 HP with low armor and have them stand at a rez-shrine with aggro all around it and just keep dying over and over. That would be more than 4 deaths per minute. It would be closer to around 6. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 05:52, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Rank 13 Achieved

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Hero (Title) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

new glad title

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Gladiator --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Big Deal Track

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Maxed titles rank --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Sunspear Titles

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Sunspear rank --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

20 consecs = 1 point in RA/TA

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Gladiator --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

New "title effects"
Dislike that idea alot. So far ANet has thankfully stayed away from giving rewards (other than the ego boosting sort) for farming. So now you need the most farming related title of them all to successfully salvage weapons? Blah. I would not mind them adding a glowing halo or such, but anything that has effects on the game (and not only the visuals) is a bad idea imho. Will my mini-kuunavang start to deal damage as well? Meh. --Xeeron 16:50, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeh. This sucks man. I'm losing faith in the one expansion which I actually had faith in. I hope Nightfall wont be such a disapointment as Factions. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I thought I were the only one going to hate this. Obviously not, nice to hear. The rewards would be nice, if the titles would be possible for everyone to reach. The treasure hunter is not, I would say. You have to be good at chest farming and have money for keys, or play for years. Not my style of "casual play". Though, weapons still have minor effects, if you play good. I have more doubts about the Lightbringer title. Will it cause elitism in PvE too now? Or how will it work? &mdash; Stylva  18:11, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Worse yet, the wisdom title track is character-based. So if you really want the title, you need to decide which character is going to go for it, then give all gold items to that one character to identify.  A bit of a pain needing to shuffle through storage to transfer items whenever you want it identified. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm going to add my objections to this too. The biggest thing Anet seemed to be stressing was rewarding skill and not time spent grinding. I'm not going to speak about Lightbringer, as there's no information stating how it will be earned, but the Wisdom title explicitly rewards grinding. Boo-urns --[[Image:SmallMapleLeaf.jpg|User:ImbrilShadowfire]] Imbril Shadowfire  18:25, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

I think you guys are missing ANet's point. In case you are not aware, the title system is ANet's way of keeping PvEers happy and busy. Happy by satisfying their ego with something to show their PvE achievements other than becoming level 100 and lookin gdown on people, and busy because most will take a lot of work and keep you in the game instead of running off to WoW.

So, for them to give in-game effects to some of the titles is a logical thing to do. I can bet that the effects in general will be minor but will make the title owner proud and boastful and so forth. As one who has a bunch of titles and worked hard at many of them, I am happy. But I also know it won't be a big edge, because then, as Xeeron said, grind will become required, something ANet will never allow. --Karlos 18:33, 20 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well I am not against titles, I have quite a few of them myself, but I dont see why people need another reward for that. So far I have seen people being happily spending hours and days just running around walls to get the cartografer title. The titles did work, there was no need to change it. And the wisdom title was the worst of the lot they could have choosen for it as well, since there is no way a casual gamer can ever achieve that one. --Xeeron 19:00, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * On the other hand, I seldom find weapons I want to keep but want to salvage a mod off. Either, I want the weapon as it is, I want the mod, or I can change the mod to a mod I like. It's not a very big issue with the Wisdom title for me after all. It's to see how the Lightbringer title turns out, but they have probably thought it out in a nice way. &mdash; Stylva  06:11, 21 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I think you missed the point of the kool thing about the wisdom title advantage. You can basically try and salvage the perfect Sundering mod off that sundering Falchion of Ogreslaying nad then get the Ogreslaying mod, so now you can try again. It's a HUGE advantage over the previous 50/50 flip a coin technique (not to mention the odds of actually getting Iron Ingots). --Karlos 07:57, 21 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I rarely find a weapon with two perfect mods I want, but yes, I see the nice thing in that. Though, it's not so big that you really have to get the Wisdom title just for that. Imho. But I still think that titles that affect gameplay should be possible to get for casual gamers. &mdash; Stylva  08:03, 21 October 2006 (CDT)


 * What Stylva said: The idea is nice, but why involve the wisdom title? --Xeeron 08:05, 21 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like this idea. Gives me another reason to try to get titles, but, I bet these advantages won't be big enough to "OMG I CAN NOW 1 HIT KILL ANY DEMON11!1!1!*shiftlock*". Remember, ANet always tries to make everyone happy, casual players or people who can dedicate themselves to a title, titles are obviously something to be grinded. Casual players might not be winning anything with THIS feature, even though that after one year playing even a casual player might have a decent title. But remember, it's not like the bonus titles will give are going to be something to break the balance of the game, which is obviously GW's essence, heart, soul, or whatever you may want to call it. There are other features which will benefit the casual players, like for example the build save/load feature, which is going to save A LOT of time, a preciousity to most players. Just think that it's something new for grinders to achieve, which will not spoil gameplay, or allow some player to get as strong as South Park's WoW villain. Thanks A.Net, for everything announced on that newsletter because it made me even more excited to play Nightfall. Ericdanie 09:19, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

The Treasure Hunter and Seeker of Wisdom titles

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Treasure Hunter --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Legendary Defender of Ascalon title

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Defender of Ascalon --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Lightbringer

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Lightbringer --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Skill Hunter really maxed?

 * Note: The content of this talk section has been moved to Talk:Skill Hunter --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:37, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Cleanup?
Anonymous User:80.201.2.226 added a cleanup tag, without explaining what exactly needs to be cleaned. I don't see any major flaws in neither content nor formatting of the article. Unless anybody explains by tomorrow, I'll remove the tag. -- 07:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * I also don't see any flaw, and since the declared time is up, I'm removing the tag. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 08:49, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks! Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about it. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:56, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Could use some clean up at the moment :) --Deathwing 16:42, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Numbers for titles?
Should there be a number for each title indicating, which rank that title is? E.g. Hero and Lightbringer have it, but Gladiator and Commander don't have it.


 * Hero should have it as it matches with a player's rank, none of the other titles should though (IMHO, others may disagree). I'm not sure why Lightbringer has it.  --Rainith 14:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * It's much easier to see, what bonus will be granted, e.g. for the Treasure Hunter Title if one can see, which Title belongs to which number, now one has to count manually. There are two ways of implementing th number:



! Title !! Gamer Points needed
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Skillz (1) || 1000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Pro Skillz (2) || 2000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Numchuck Skillz (3) || 4000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Mad Skillz (4) || 7000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Über Micro Skillz (5) || 12000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * Gosu Skillz (6) || 20000
 * - align="center" valign="top"


 * }
 * This is as it's in the game.



! Rank !! Title !! Gamer Points needed
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 1 || Skillz || 1000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 2 || Pro Skillz || 2000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 3 || Numchuck Skillz || 4000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 4 || Mad Skillz || 7000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 5 || Über Micro Skillz || 12000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 6 || Gosu Skillz || 20000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 7 || ??? || ???


 * }
 * This is the second way, which, in my opinion, looks better than the 'Near-InGame'-Solution. 62.68.27.65 19:39, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * What about it? Anyone interested in implementing the numbers, too? Or against it? 84.152.45.150 10:44, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * As I stated above, I'm personally against it. --Rainith 10:48, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * At least titles like Wisdom or all PvP-titles should have it cause you could almost instantly see, what bonus you get from this title, e.g. salvage bonus, BP-cap...


 * Personally for adding the numbers. - Lord Ehzed 15:00, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not adding imho. Foo 21:32, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * I like the first suggestion very much, but the second is worse than no number at all. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Well, let's start voting...
 * Pro version 1
 * Me
 * Gem
 * Lord Ehzed (this one or version 2?)


 * Pro version 2
 * 134.130.4.46 12:42, 13 February 2007 (CST)


 * Against all (let it as is)
 * Rainith
 * Foo

Legendary titles
Somebody who's better at formatting then me should get information on Legendary Cartographer, Legendary Guardian, Legendary Vanquisher and Legendary Skill Hunter up. I'd do it myself, but it would be terrible and just need redone anyways. -Gildan Bladeborn 02:47, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

I see somebody modified the front page to say "(3 titles + Legendary)" which is nice, but there isn't a Legendary Protector title. The Protector titles instead contribute towards Legendary Guardian as that requires 6 titles. I removed that line next to Protector accordingly. -Gildan Bladeborn 03:41, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Available Titles Table
I find the current layout of the table quite confusing, and I find myself having to wrap my brain around it again and again, whenever I look at it. I am referring to the partition at the lower right quadrant. Now I see the logic behind it (LDoA, Sunspear and Lightbringer are campaign specific and the Protector, Cartographer, etc. are not quite "Core") but the layout just seems counter-intuitive to me. I believe many find it confusing too, seeing the repeated anon edits adding Legendary titles to the top cell.

I propose to reformat the table as follows: Change the "Core" title to "Core and Multi-Campaign", remove the extra sub-column from the "Character Based" column and move the Protector, Cartographer etc. titles to the top row of the Char-based column. Like so:



! Campaign !! Account-based !! colspan=2 | Character-based !Core (or multi-campaign)
 * Champion
 * Champion

|- !Prophecies -none- !Factions -none- !Nightfall
 * Gamer
 * Gladiator
 * Hero
 * (Un-)Lucky (2 Titles)
 * colspan=2 |
 * Survivor
 * Drunkard
 * Treasure Hunter
 * Wisdom
 * Maxed titles
 * Sweet Tooth
 * Protector (3 Titles)
 * Cartographer (3 Titles + Legendary Title)
 * Guardian (3 Titles + Legendary Title)
 * Skill Hunter (3 Titles + Legendary Title)
 * Vanquisher (3 Titles + Legendary Title)
 * Defender of Ascalon
 * Defender of Ascalon
 * Faction Allegiance (2 Titles)
 * Faction Allegiance (2 Titles)
 * Commander
 * Sunspear
 * Lightbringer
 * }
 * Lightbringer
 * }

Yours truly, --Ishmaeel .ping ; .peek; 16:52, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Since somebody went and royally screwed up the table today, I'm implementing this as it's much better then the current version. -Gildan Bladeborn 17:11, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I've made a modification. I think it's ok now. Foo 20:18, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Much better now with the core and multiple campaign titles separated. Good job! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 21:17, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks Gildan, thanks Foo. Me like it. Future generations of anons will be indebted to you, I'm sure.--[[Image:lazyeyes.png]]Ishmaeel .ping ; .peek; 03:53, 22 April 2007 (CDT)