Still, that lazy option is your idea, not mine. So, don’t use your own lazy proposal and pretend is mine. I already explained what my idea is and also why your lazy idea can’t be real. Do you seriously expect me to defend your own idea? I only can tell you that I agree with you: Skadefryden’s idea for Account Reputation is the worst proposal possible, and Skadefryden’s lazy proposal is even worst, so I hope Blizzard doesn’t listen to you, implement it and make us lose our legacy’s reputation. If that happens, I have a clear mind it won’t be my fault, it will be yours. It is your proposal after all.
PD: Your idea can’t happen because the factions system is used on more things than what you see in your reputation tab. There are hundreds of hidden factions in the game. Every NPC in the game has an associated faction, and everything works based on that system assigned per character. So, they can’t update all reputations to make it account bound. Probably they can’t change a single reputation. What is more simple is to create a new system on top of it that could be created as account bound. Just like the renown system works. And create an account renown /reputation based on the character’s reputations they want. So, no, I don’t believe your lazy idea is possible. If Blizzard did what you ask, there will be way more things broken than just the 6 factions you mention.
Yeah would be nice for it to happen so easily. Like I said they’ve got the tech to do it, it’s just a matter of dedicating a team to sorting it. I’m surprised they didn’t implement it the same time that chrome time came in. Even if they just went down the lazy route and made reps account wide and combined all rep gained from current chars. Most of them are outdated so it wouldn’t really matter. Similar to when the honor system changed.
No, that is false. The OP has never written that so-called lazy proposal. In fact, it was the first one who mentioned a lazy proposal, but my lazy proposal is explicitly different than yours.
Only in your posts can we find this one we are arguing, and your words belong to you. When we find a proposal originated in your words, you can’t deny the authority of your own proposal. So, I will continue calling that “lazy” proposal Skadefryden’s proposal because you are the only one who has written that Blizzard will make account-bound reputation breaking those 6 factions.
No, but I have read your words, and your words belong to you, and the only thing you have expressed in your words is giving your own lazy proposal and insisting so much on wanting me to defend your own idea from you. Maybe if you try to debate like a rational person giving your own opinions and answering each other opinions instead of trying to argue against your own made-up ideas, maybe then we could have a rational debate.
The only we have done is that you have come up with an idea that we both agree is wrong, but you are unable to accept that idea is yours. You can’t impose your idea on others.
It is completely in line with OP’s way of thought, and of course it was written by me when describing why OP’s short-sightedness is erroneous. This is not my idea in any way.
My actual take on account-bound reputation is as following:
It must be an opt-in reputation mirrour on a faction-per-character basis, then it could work with any eligible factions and be quite useful for harvesting the fruits of another character’s reputation grind.
I don’t think it makes sense to require one character to be exalted with the faction as any shared reputation lower than Exalted do anyway require additional reputation grind to reach Exalted, and other characters might not even need to get that high reputation to begin with to obtain whatever they needs from the quartermasters.
No, you are wrong. This is not in line with the OP’s way of thought because the OP has never expressed in any way his opinion about those six factions, which means you can not rationale reach any conclusion about this with OP’s idea. You can’t say his idea breaks those factions, nor you can’t say his idea doesn’t break those factions because the OP never detailed that part. A rational debate will require you to ask him how he thinks these factions should be taken into account in an account-bound system and once he answers you you are free to argue HIS idea.
That is why that idea is yours. You have modified that idea at your will with information that the OP never expressed to reach the conclusion you want to accuse the OP then (and me) of your own idea.
Lack of expression is an expression of ignorance and indifference. OP have had the opportunity to correct themselves and state their position on these six factions, but we have gotten nothing. Which means OP’s first post still stands where no exceptions are made.
The OP doesn’t need to detail his idea to fix any problem you imagine with a system that doesn’t exists yet. It is not his job to define letter by letter how any future system works. That’s the developer’s job. Expressing the opinion “I want account reputations” is as valid as detailing letter by letter how you want account reputations to work. And sometimes, being simple is better. It is more useful to Blizzard just to know how many people want this because, at this point, we are arguing something so simple as account reputation yes or account reputation no, and once one answer has been decided is the moment where implementation matters, and even so Blizzard will choose their own implementation and they won’t do your, mine nor anyone else letter by letter.
In the end, I believe a simple suggestion like the OP one telling just what he wants is more useful for devs than over detailed suggestions like yours or mine.
This suggestion is like eating ice cream. We can argue for hours about what flavor we want. There are dozens to choose from. But it is a waste of time to do that when we have not decided if we will have ice cream for dessert or not. The OP wants it, but without making the decision to eat ice cream, you criticizing his favorite flavors is a waste of time. And even after that, it won’t be him, me, nor you, the one who made the decision to let us eat it, nor the flavor we will eat. The only thing we can do is let them hear what we want and wait for their decision.
It is not blizzard’s intention that you min max the game in 2 days. They want you to be perma subbed in that is why everything is dragged out for months and timegated. I honestly dont give 2 squirts what you do.
If you want reputations account wide, then the ability to complete the objective should also be accountwide, otherwise the game outright rewards per character playing multiple characters. The best way to play one character should not be to play 2 or more.
True, SOME people are asking this for many years with intent to “finish” the game faster and go for other games.
Thing is it goes against Blizzard goal of keeping players subbed as long as possible.
Would anyone in Blizzard shoes do it differently? I wouldnt
I think when they make these things more alt friendly you will get more players playing more characters.
When they changed the 100 Exalted Reps to be account wide (used to be you needed all the rep on one char) I went and did that achievement. I had mained Pally TBC to Cata and my Shammy MOP til now. So I had rep nearly done on my pally or my shammy but I only got the motivation to finish those when they all counted toward one achievement.
If they at least allow all recipes to be BoA then I’d go and collect them all and then get the materials to craft those items for mogs or achieves.
Currently I’m not bothering as I’m not grinding 50 (or more, how many reps have gated recipes?) reps on my Leatherworker, Blacksmith, Tailor, Engineer etc.
I’ll grind a rep once for the achieve (currently on 105) but I’m not grinding them again (they aren’t really fun the first time and they certainly aren’t the 4th time).