GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Mission overviews (Eye of the North)

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

i think we should name the missions in EotN "Quissions" because they are not really missions...and they're not really quests so they are a composite "Quission"

I like "Questions" better. Quest and ions. Nilator 21:54, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
Yes, "Missions" in GW:EN differ from those in the three "Chapters". Each Chapter has presented differences in the way the Storyline is moved ahead. If it advances the storyline, it is a Mission. Cogito 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I like missions....because they are missions....--Santa'sGonnaKillYou 12:20, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
I think they are Missions. They are on the map. You can do them as often as you want to. You have this end-of-mission picture at the end (the scroll). The only thing that is crazy: Your group can be wiped and resurrected. --Warrior's Endurance.jpg numma_cway 13:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
According to Gaile, they're officially designated repeatable primary quests. -- Gordon Ecker 16:55, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
The mission ends if all party members die. The quest fails when key hero dies. In these missions or quests you can't fail due to party die, or follower dies. Crowley 02:06, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
  • There is still plenty of editing to do in all the pages listed here.
Many pages in this group (Missions, remember?) are tagged as "This quest-related article is a stub."
What is the difference between a Mission and a Quest? Those linked pages say "Quests have no impact on the overarching storyline". "A mission . . . is an expedition to perform a specific task". I have long considered that "Specific Task" to be specifically to advance the Storyline. Most players seem to have this impression also, judging by the way they use the "Player Search" function in outposts.
  • Should the "stubs" among the pages listed here be edited to put them under "Mission stubs"? That would make it easier for editors to organize the tasks they want to focus on.Cogito 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the quest 'Heart of the shiverpeaks?' it is primary Dwarf Quest and yet it is not on here..... ,Tom,

You will find it, when the time has come. --Warrior's Endurance.jpg numma_cway 13:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
  • Isn't it past time for the above two lines to be removed? They are no longer relevant, since HoS is now listed in the Article.Cogito 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't blank others' comments. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mission Arcs?[edit source]

ive heard of three story arcs (one asura, one ebon vanguard and one norn)

are they represented in the three "swimlanes" leading downwards, or all three should be completed? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.158.109.73 (contribs) .

All three arcs must be completed. -- Gordon Ecker 16:55, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The Beginning of the End[edit source]

somebody should take that out. J1j2j3 11:07, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Why? It's a primary quest. -- Gordon Ecker 19:20, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Mission Map[edit source]

Is anyone working on a summary map for the mission locations as per the other three campaigns? Bonsai nine 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eye of Agony[edit source]

With all due respect to Gordon Ecker, who created the "swimlanes", I am sorry to say that the current mission layout is not helpful. If, because this is a "work in progress", the standard rules don't apply, my apologies. But I have some issues with the current version of this page.

  • The three columns for the three campaigns serve no purpose; the only split in the storyline that is campaign dependent is the starting mission. Everything else occurs without relevance to the originating campaign.
  • The current layout kind of implies that only characters from a specific campaign can perform a specific story arc - which is not the case.
  • The bands of color are simply annoying. I understand their purpose and, for the story arcs they make some sense, but not for the entire table.
  • Lastly, unless this is a new format for the Mission Overviews, it does not comply with the existing format in use.

I guess my question is: Does the Wiki Community think we should change this pages' layout? Obviously, my vote is YES! -- Sabardeyn 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you reckon you can do one that matches the usual format, then just do it ... that's the whole idea of wikis after all. Bonsai nine 07:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the layout better then the ones for the other campaigns. I would vote for an implementation of something similar there rather then a change here... :) The layout does in mind not imply that each campaign can do a certain storyline just look at where the arrows are. There is only 1 arrow going from "The Beginning of the End" for example. I can agree that the colour coding is a bit strange but it serves its purpose well I think.--Winterbay 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To me, it's fine. It is rather obvious, cept for one thing, that, say the Prophecies line is : What Lies Beneath -> Beginning of the End -> Against the Destroyers -> (here comes the odd part) ONE of three -> rest. That is the only problem I see. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (s)talkpage 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*[edit source]

The new format for this page sucks. Last time I checked this page, it was actually useful for seeing which quests needed to be done in a particular order vs. which you could do anyway you want. You could easily see which quests were prerequisites for which. Now all that information is missing. Now it's just a list of quests. Isn't there already a page that's just a list of quests in GWEN? What was a useful map to the quests in GWEN has been reduced to a redundant, pointless page.  :( --68.187.144.97 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plus someone decided to take this format without asking or telling anyone, to use it on the campaigns as if they were the same as a 3-5 hour storyline expansion, which makes Shing Jea headmaster quests occupy more space then the whole campaign.
I couldn't stand the new format, so I reverted it. It took me a few tries, but I think I got it.76.176.179.131 06:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Charr missions to easy?[edit source]

Last night i completed all 3 charr misssions and the quests inbetween in less than 80 minutes, this strikes me as ridiculous as this is essentialy 1/4 of the EOTN storyline. I cannot complete the other sets of 3 missions in such a short space of time.My only thought on why this is is that you HAVE to fight the destroyers on the other mission sets where as in this you do not.Due to various exploits i was able to do this in under 80 minutes on a para with inadequate h/h.Im not asking for it to be made harder or the others to be made easier i just think its rather pitiful. Arcadia --82.109.33.232 13:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those missions are the shortest out of the three paths and I was very surprised too. *walks away* 222.153.233.228 13:15, 24 October 2008

While i can remember the flaws/exploits in the mission i will name them: 1st mission, weakening the base is a complete waste of time as it saves 1 seige devourer and 4 foes(i think) and to fully weaken the base you run around the whole map killing small groups.Once in the base you can select your targets targets at will none of the charr go "wtf is that human doing in our base?" this makes this quest do able in 10 minutes tops. 2nd mission, selecting which mobs to fight as most are stationary or start as allies makes thie easier having 13 people in your party in your team to take out mobs of 2-8 seems slight overkill. 3rd mission, a few monk spells on the saurus and your through,forgetting about the devourers aves more time still.Then the major flaw simply run to the quest marker to start the dialog where burntsoul summons the destroyersnd run back the charr and destroyers will then fight to the death and you simply pick of the few survivors. All of these factors added to the fact that the charr have generally sucky builds which rely on AoE make this far to easy Thinking about it now with proper planning these missions should all be do able in under 1hour easily. Arcadia --82.109.33.232 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Quests inbetween are missing. There's an exploit there, too. You can skip almost everything of the Siege Devourer training; just kill the Saurus first and then go go back to Doomlore. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 14:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ty did not know that, im sure the list goes one i will give the title "I feed Whisk'as to the charr" (and possibly userbox if i can b asked) to the person who does this mission and quests in the shortest time, im sure under a hour is possible and proper builds under 45 mins might be to. Arcadia --82.109.33.232 14:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't know about that exploit for Against the Charr, though it's unnecessary since either way that is the fastest one. For Warband of Brothers, there are some huge groups that you have to fight, which are trouble sometimes. Your Charr allies are pretty sucky overall too. Assault on the Stronghold is super easy with a bonder, and you'd be dumb to fight both Charr and Destroyers at same time. :]
Anyway, I didn't include the quests, but I have done all three missions in < 45min, maybe 30. Charr run pretty balanced builds and while they are easy with a party of humans, their mass AoE is a big problem with H/H since they are too dumb to scatter from, say, Meteor Shower. So you either need to carry huge firepower and kill them before it becomes an issue, or take tons of defense, or learn to manually flag. Which is a pain. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Now do the same thing with the Asuran Missions.--Łô√ë Fear.îğá†ħŕášħ 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)