Curse

Karate Jesus · Mar 20, 2011, 05:46 PM // 17:46

I've been gone for the last few days, so I apologize for missing some of the flow of this thread. I've read over the comments so far, and I find quite a few things interesting. Here are some of my observations:

Quote:

Absolutes

It seems that the vast majority of the people giving their opinions here are either on one side of the spectrum or the other. I assume this is because we're on a forum, and those without a qualm just don't comment.

One example would be how people answered the question: What kind of impact have you personally seen or felt stemming from the introduction of Mercenary Heroes?

Everyone seemed to assume that this question meant, "Is there an in-game advantage to Mercenary Heroes?" When, in fact, I was hoping for people to post positive results as well.

Quote:

Small Advantages/Justifiable Advantages vs. "Slippery Slope"

There seems to be two main camps of thought on the advantages of Mercenary Heroes. I don't think anyone could appropriately argue that Mercenary Heroes don't provide at least a small advantage (regardless of how many have said so).

The main argument seems to be either that the advantages are so small that they're trivial or that they're justifiable due to similar purchases (new campaigns) providing a similar advantage.

The contrary arguments (seemingly led by lemming) pose the question: how much are we willing to forgive? For example, if larger advantages begin to be sold, such as a new profession, would you be willing to forgive that?

And the last argument that I've seen pretty common is the value of the product. We have to justify if spending $45 USD (the cost of a full game) is worth the reward of 8 customizable heroes. And then, there's the lack of a "free" mercenary hero.

Quote:

7 Heroes vs. 7 Players

There's something I'd like to say here that I'm just not seeing in this thread.

Yes, 7 players of the same profession (or otherwise) will always be better than the advantages you can gain from 7 heroes. However, what people seem to be forgetting is that forming a party with 7 heroes is typically much easier and faster than with 7 people. Just an observation.

Quote:

Final Comment

The last thing I'll say is that I'm surprised how many people have been repeating the same arguments. I know we tend to hive mind around here, but I'm genuinely surprised that there aren't more varied responses, especially from those of the "No Advantage" camp. I keep expecting to see a new perspective.....

However, I appreciate everything you guys have posted here and it's opening my eyes to what people think about this. I'm starting to wonder if we should add some type of poll to this thread.

Xiaquin · Mar 20, 2011, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadfalk

Besides that, it qualifies as semi-content, it contains new unexplored maps, "new" characters, new weapons, more storyline, and, in a way, more skills.
Also, like any campaign, by full storyline (master's = discovery, IMO) completion, it nets ~30K.

Thus it adds to GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE, the keyword for most people to pay for cash content.

Now compare it to the mercheroes, they qualify for nothing except new heroes, the characters are known, they're inferior to their classic counterpart (read : players), on equal foot with the normal heroes and, like all heroes, superior to henchmen.
MH's add no content.they give no money unobtainable w/o them.no storyline.no new weapons.no new characters nor maps.

Now, if the MH's would have to be recruited by class-generic quests (Zaishen Drilling : *class*, similar to the EotN line, multiple tasks in one quest) done on the to-be MH would add new maps, characters, probably weapons, money and thus qualify as GAMEPLAY CONTENT, making more people motivated to do it.

What im trying to say is that lots of people are feeling scammed - MHs seem an exorbitantly expensive advantage to the majority of not(-yet) buyers, and a exorbitantly-expensive cosmetic feature to lots of buyers.

I'm not sure why wrapping a game advantage in content is the difference between OK and not OK.

A small amount of money will allow me to purchase Prophecies, but if you have more money, you can purchase the full series and almost immediately gain access to heroes and new skills, without needing to experience these games. You will blow through the rest of Prophecies, while I will comparably struggle.

This is something everyone has come to accept. MH is an option that's available to everyone, regardless of the campaign purchased. This means heroes for Factions and Prophecies players, finally, without needing to buy, install and play a new game. It's a win for everyone, yet it seems envy wins the day.

It's depressing how the focus is not on how something can benefit all, but how it's unfair to help others more than themselves.

Daesu · Mar 20, 2011, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

The main argument seems to be either that the advantages are so small that they're trivial or that they're justifiable due to similar purchases (new campaigns) providing a similar advantage.

And still there is no answer to this from those who are against mercenary heroes.

One can buy a HUGE advantage right now over some other players by getting the EOTN campaign with its profession-agnostic PvE skills, cons, and additional heroes. It is already converting real life money into in-game advantage there!

Quote:

The last thing I'll say is that I'm surprised how many people have been repeating the same arguments. I know we tend to hive mind around here, but I'm genuinely surprised that there aren't more varied responses, especially from those of the "No Advantage" camp. I keep expecting to see a new perspective.....

You forgot to include the argument that everyone can only have a max of 7 heroes so if you have 7 necro heroes, that means you would have 0 mesmer and 0 rit heroes in your team. It is a trade-off! So that small advantage cancels out and one can even argue that a 7 necro heroes team would be a weaker team than a team with 3 necro, rit, and mesmer heroes.

Saint Scarlet · Mar 20, 2011, 06:17 PM // 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xiaquin

But don't you contradict yourself here? PvE skills have subjugated and displaced, not balanced, and they are not minor advantages, they are massive. Remove the content world and look at what it did to GW; this is not right to ignore.

PvE skills are part of the game, they come with each campaign when you buy the game. Yes they give an advantage but not one that you have to buy with RL money, its available to everyone who owns the game regardless of their RL cash flow situation.

On another note the BMP is not playable "off the bat" by new players so does not in any way give anyone an advantage. They are there for the lore of the game, yes it has rewards but then so does completing any campaign.

Merc heros are something you buy for 1 of 2 reasons.

1- You have always wanted to play the game with all your chars alter egos running around with you.
2- You want to be able to run some funky builds that require having more of 1 profession than the games allow
3- You have too much money to burn so bought it because you can(not really a main point but i'll only get corrected if i don't mention it)

Now with this in mind how is this not an advantage over other players who do not have the money to purchase the Mercs. With the BMP it is no advantage as you aren't getting something which can be abused in the game. Using 8 necros is abusing the mechanics of the game, as it allows for people to make builds that were previously human only but can now be done by anyone who can buy it.

If people disgaree it is an advantage then why not get Anet to create 5 more heros that can be given any profession, then put it in the game with a quick quest update. I bet the majority of people who bought the Mercs will complain and the reason is because they had an advantage that others didn't, any that don't complain about it bought them for aesthetics only.

Daesu · Mar 20, 2011, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Scarlet

PvE skills are part of the game, they come with each campaign when you buy the game. Yes they give an advantage but not one that you have to buy with RL money, its available to everyone who owns the game regardless of their RL cash flow situation.

Define game. I can still play the "game", as in GW, without EOTN. But the guy who bought EOTN would clearly have more PvE skills than I do, giving him an unfair advantage due to him spending real life money.

Quote:

Merc heros are something you buy for 1 of 2 reasons.

1- You have always wanted to play the game with all your chars alter egos running around with you.
2- You want to be able to run some funky builds that require having more of 1 profession than the games allow
3- You have too much money to burn so bought it because you can(not really a main point but i'll only get corrected if i don't mention it)

Now with this in mind how is this not an advantage over other players who do not have the money to purchase the Mercs.

How is this an advantage? Lets look at your reasons:

1. You have always wanted to play the game with all your chars alter egos running around with you.
Ans: Is that an advantage? No, that is purely cosmetic like the costumes that have been in the store for a long time already.

2- You want to be able to run some funky builds that require having more of 1 profession than the games allow
Ans: Is that an advantage? Maybe yes or maybe not. The best builds that people have came up with in the heroes forum do not require merc heroes. Just because a build is "funky" doesn't necessarily mean it MUST be a good build or that it is the best build possible, giving an advantage in the game.

In order for this to be advantage, you must PROVE once and for all that the BEST POSSIBLE HEROES TEAM BUILD IN THE GAME REQUIRES MERC HEROES! Which nobody here has proven.

3- You have too much money to burn so bought it because you can(not really a main point but i'll only get corrected if i don't mention it)
Ans: Is that an advantage in the game? Not everyone playing this game is as rich or as poor as everyone else. That would and has always been the case for ALL games. Totally irrelevant argument here.

Saint Scarlet · Mar 20, 2011, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Define game. I can still play the "game", as in GW, without EOTN. But the guy who bought EOTN would clearly have more PvE skills than I do, giving him an unfair advantage due to him spending real life money.

Game as i define it is that a game has playable content and a storyline(as everyone has different interpretations even with clearcut facts).

Yes that person has an advantage for buying a game/expansion that you didn't but it's still not a purchasable upgrade to the game which Merc heros quite clearly are.

EDIT: As i said before it takes time for things to be discovered, tbh we have not give it enough time for people to find that, 8 same prof build, thats runs through foes like a hot knife through butter. At the moment most people seem to be waiting for someone else to discover it and post on PvX and in the meantime are just running rit's and nec's(mes too, to a lesser degree).

And as for an advantage a friend of mine who purchased the upgrade ran a 8 Para FoW run in 40 mins, so just shows how broken this upgrade can be.

ensoriki · Mar 20, 2011, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz

Sure, if all conditions are perfect the new player with BMP might save an hour or two compared to the new player without BMP (although both have to learn gameplay, tactics, skill usage, etc, no new player will complete BMP right off the bat in an hour). On one hand I agree that the BMP does give an advantage like this. However, it is very insignificant and, more importantly, temporary. BMP does not give something you cannot get in-game by other ways (and in 99.9% of cases faster, except perhaps for brand-new players). Additionally, the BMP costs 4-5 times less than Mercs and actually gives you new gameplay.

The point being that in-game advantages have been purchaseable before Mercenaries. In addition while I don't deny there is an advantage, there is not always an advantage of Mercenaries. Though I know you are aware already, I'll restate that the advantage is in scenario's where having more of a profession than we normally can have in a hero team is faster. That advantage is not going to pop up in every situation, and I would even say that unless the player base found those situations it's not shown that there is an overall dominating advantage to mercenaries. While the advantage is greater to BMP, you did say that BMP's advantage was insignificant.

So then I'll ask a question. Just how significant does the advantage have to be to the point it matters. Or is it just permanence of the advantage, as again unless otherwise shown I think it can safely be assumed the Mercenaries are not always advantageous.

@ OP

Quote:

It seems that the vast majority of the people giving their opinions here are either on one side of the spectrum or the other. I assume this is because we're on a forum, and those without a qualm just don't comment.

I don't have a qualm with it. I don't have mercenaries, and if I think the benefits are here to stay I'll consider picking them up.

Daesu · Mar 20, 2011, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Scarlet

Yes that person has an advantage for buying a game/expansion that you didn't but it's still not a purchasable upgrade to the game which Merc heros quite clearly are.

Isn't this thread just about "Selling In-Game Advantages" (presumably through real life money)? Whether it is a purchasable upgrade or a campaign is besides the point.

Buying a campaign already grants you an in-game advantage, against those who don't own said campaign, through real life money.

I think many of you who have complained about merc heroes are twisting the words "in-game advantage" when you really mean additional "in-game FUN". Why? Because none of you have proven that the best possible heroes team build in the game now, requires merc heroes. Otherwise, give me a 7-hero team that REQUIRES merc heroes and show (through clearing an elite area in the fastest time) that it cant be beaten using regular heroes. If you can't, then how can you call merc heroes as granting any unfair in-game advantage?

If the best possible heroes team build, doesn't require merc heroes, then having merc heroes would just be a FUN element (to play around with builds and so on) which people want to be provided FOR FREE by twisting this to an in-game advantage argument.

Karate Jesus · Mar 20, 2011, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Buying a campaign already grants you an in-game advantage, against those who don't own said campaign, through real life money.

Daesu, that point has already been made ad nauseum. Maybe we could try to move past it? Unless, of course, you have some new element to add to the discussion. Otherwise, it's becoming rather emotional and unhelpful to the thread.

Just an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

[b]Otherwise, give me a 7-hero team that REQUIRES merc heroes and show (through clearing an elite area in the fastest time) that it cant be beaten using regular heroes.[/b

lemming has already linked to a screenshot of a speed clear done with mercenary heroes.

ensoriki · Mar 20, 2011, 06:48 PM // 18:48

It would be in your best interest then Karate if you want to get some variations of perspective to summarize and include the various arguments already made in your opening post.

Daesu · Mar 20, 2011, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

Daesu, that point has already been made ad nauseum. Maybe we could try to move past it? Unless, of course, you have some new element to add to the discussion. Otherwise, it's becoming rather emotional and unhelpful to the thread.

Just an opinion.

I only mentioned it because Saint Scarlet addressed that point. My main point is shown in bold above.

If nobody can prove that the BEST possible heroes team build requires you to have merc heroes, then how can they say that having merc heroes grant an in-game advantage?

As far as I know right now, the BEST heroes team builds, do NOT require you to have merc heroes. Having merc heroes is just a FUN element which people are twisting it to an in-game advantage argument to demand merc heroes for free.

melissa b · Mar 20, 2011, 06:49 PM // 18:49

What about the consequences of not selling advantages? Perhaps less skill updates? No winds of change? Live-team gone? Servers closed? Ever hear the expression win the battle lose the war? Maybe only selling costumes doesn't pay the bills or provide accetable profit?

Examples Anet removes all advantages....bans people with 2+ accounts...removes fire imp and bonus weapons...removes extra storage panes...etc. Than says they don't have enough money and closes guild wars 1.

Karate Jesus · Mar 20, 2011, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

It would be in your best interest then Karate if you want to get some variations of perspective to summarize and include the various arguments already made in your opening post.

The questions were left open-ended for a reason. I wanted to see what people felt without leading them.

I think a poll would probably be an easier way to summarize the perspectives of the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

If nobody can prove that the BEST possible heroes team build requires you to have merc heroes, then how can they say that having merc heroes grant an in-game advantage?

Well, lemming already linked this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Having merc heroes is just a FUN element which people are twisting it to an in-game advantage argument to demand merc heroes for free.

And I think you're misrepresenting those who have the opposite opinion of yourself, which just isn't fair.

As far as I can tell, no one has claimed that mercenary heroes should be free. 2-3 people suggested that giving one mercenary hero would be a smart business move to tease us into buying and a few have suggested that they should be cheaper, but that's it.

Also, your arguments are becoming increasingly emotional and disassociated. Maybe you should slow down a little. Again, just a suggestion. I don't want this thread to become the trollfest the last one was.

NerfHerder · Mar 20, 2011, 07:48 PM // 19:48

One of the things that makes GW an awesome game is that you can play through the entire game(end game content included) without ever playing with a real player. However, the solo player with only one account never had the chance to say, set up a spike team of 3-4 Mesmers on his team. Merc Heroes bridges the gap(slightly) between the solo player and the social player. The social player(real players) will always have an advantage, so I dont see the issue. If anything, it promotes more balance between different types of players.

The solo player with two accounts has had access to 8 necros for a long time now. They paid money for an ingame advantage. No one complains about that. Granted your other "real necro" isnt very effective unless you do alot of microing. Merc Heroes just makes this an easier process and adds one more AI hero.

The only slippery slope I see here is Anet giving the community what they want. And at the bottom of that slope is customer satisfaction. The more bells and whistles we buy, the better our odds are of getting content and skill updates. So if a slight ingame advantage gets content out faster, it's a price I'm willing to pay. DLC is here to stay, and I'm glad Anet is testing the limits of what they can sell players in GW1. I'm sure the feedback of DLC from GW1 will be taken into consideration when they make DLC for GW2.

gremlin · Mar 20, 2011, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daeheru

Um... what??

I was being ironic or maybe sarcastic never was good with big words.

NerfHerder · Mar 20, 2011, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

Well, lemming already linked this.

About this image, everyone should really read through the thread if you going to use this as an example. It takes tactics, experience, lots of microing, and most importantly alot of skill to accomplish times like this. Not just anybody can replicate that time, I dare anyone to try it. My hat goes off to PoM for this accomplishment, job well done sir. But, he admits it takes alot of work. If 4 mesmers made DoA HM cake walk w/o cons for everyone, then we might have an issue. Thats simply not the case. Take away the obviously OP SF/ER combo and Cons, having the 3-4 mesmer becomes trivial in comparison.

Xenomortis · Mar 20, 2011, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

In order for this to be advantage, you must PROVE once and for all that the BEST POSSIBLE HEROES TEAM BUILD IN THE GAME REQUIRES MERC HEROES! Which nobody here has proven.

You have this the wrong way around.

Consider two players with the same primary profession trying to achieve something (e.g. a dungeon or a vanquish). Both have identical progress but one has Mercs, the other does not.
It is clear that the player without mercs does not have an advantage over the one that does (any setup run by this player can be run by the other).
However, since the player with mercs has open to him, more options, it is possible that he can construct a setup that is superior to anything the other player can for whatever it is that they want to do.

If you want to state that mercs do not confer a strict advantage, it is you that must show that the best possible setups for every profession in every circumstance does not require the use of Merc heroes.

To actually claim that is ridiculous. No matter how small of an advantage it may be, having mercs is an advantage and it is an advantage you have to pay for. You may never make use of that advantage, but it is still there.
That said, this is not something that hasn't been pulled by A.Net before; we have the Fire Imp for example and the comparison to owning the expansion and all the campaigns has been made (and I still have not seen a decent reason as to why that comparison is invalid).

I'll say it now; I don't know if I'm against this or not, but the claim that mercs are not an advantage is simply false.

Crystal Lake · Mar 20, 2011, 09:24 PM // 21:24

I don't believe the mercenaries are some huge advantage. Maybe a small one as in you can finish a vanquish or dungeon 10 or 15 minutes faster? At Most? That is provided the person knows how to set up a good team. I've downloaded "free" games and many restrict what you can do with the 'free' version.

Honestly, GW has build a model I wish more companies would use. I have no troubles with them trying to raise more cash with things that don't affect 99% of game play. If we want good game-play from Anet/GW then they must continue to pay salaries, etc. to the game developers who create these games. It seems like sometimes people forget that.

ogre_jd · Mar 20, 2011, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

In order for this to be advantage, you must PROVE once and for all that the BEST POSSIBLE HEROES TEAM BUILD IN THE GAME REQUIRES MERC HEROES! Which nobody here has proven.

No. They have to prove that there are viable, high-end builds that you need more than the available number of primary profession Heroes and which would wipe (not just complete a bit slower) on the proposed content test if you had to resort to a secondary of that profession instead of a primary.

Xiaquin · Mar 20, 2011, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

I'll say it now; I don't know if I'm against this or not, but the claim that mercs are not an advantage is simply false.

Correct, one could easily make a party using mercenary heroes in such a way that another solo player could not do, and therefore has a technical advantage. However, the discussion needs to turn to dissecting this advantage and judging its power, and when compared to having just one human ally with a library of heroes, any advantage gap not only diminishes, it's surpassed. The human factor will always be superior to AI, and I think that is what's missing in this discussion.

However, I have to repeat the point about game balance. If MH are considered advantageous and unacceptable, as they create a direct purchasable reward, is it not time to consider the root of the problem, that some professions are too powerful? What if mesmers, necromancers and ritualists weren't a cut above the rest? What if rangers, warriors and elementalists were revamped and offered compelling and attractive primary benefits? Arguably then much of the alarm here would diminish, as having a homogeneous party wouldn't be an advantage at all.