Curse

oscarmk · Mar 30, 2010, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

Nothing positive to be gained here and that should be obvious. Nothing. But a lot of terribad things instead:

1. It's a move in a totally wrong direction - instead of introducing even more incentives for multiplayer and providing means for players to group more easily it would be providing one LESS reason to play with someone else. Even in a "dying" game it's a terrible move.

2. It's only making the game easier for a solo player when the game isn't hard at all.

3. Selling actual game advantages in store is a completely horrible idea and would be the final nail in the coffin of the good old business model. What's next then? Maybe selling extra skill slots on your skillbar for PvE so you can wtfpwn everything even easier?

This absolutely terribad suggestion doesn't improve the game AT ALL, it's not an improvement of anything but just making it unnecessarily easier for a solo player. Easier is not better, especially when it wasn't any hard at all.

So it's clearly WRONG WAY.

Talking about actually improving the game, I'd much rather see them REDUCE the number of heroes in party per player to 2, that's a good number well balanced for 8 man teams and that's the number which should have been used from the start. With a limit of 2 per player heroes wouldn't hurt the game anywhere as much as they did, the game wouldn't turn singleplayer and tricks with using 2 or 3 accounts wouldn't be worthwhile. Heroes would still work perfectly for filling missing slots in human parties, which is important in a game with so much content and decreasing number of players, so their role would be retained.
Then add a global lfg system and it's pure win.

Quoted for truth.

Painbringer · Mar 30, 2010, 08:42 PM // 20:42

For us anti-social time strapped individuals it would allow us to clear areas never thought possible and all alone. Hit an area and need a break the heroes don’t mind. Granted with the team build options it would decimate areas. But to be honest it would be a fun addition for me. So I vote Yes it would be a nice addition and would add a lot of things to do at least for me. Maybe even hold me off till GW2 comes out.

byteme! · Mar 30, 2010, 08:52 PM // 20:52

/signed I really shouldn't have to explain myself.

Charlie Dayman · Mar 30, 2010, 09:04 PM // 21:04

There are a lot of times I wish that there was a fourth hero slot. I'm quite fond of the idea of having a fully customizable team so I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more slots added.

Lanier · Mar 30, 2010, 09:16 PM // 21:16

While I am totally for player interaction, puging, and the like, I think allowing 7 heroes would have a positive impact on the game. The reason why I do not think it would make anti-player interaction any worse is because most of the people who do not like pugs just use henchies anyway. Therefore, I think those players who like playing with others will still pug Zquests and the like and players who dont like playing with others will still only play with npcs.

I also like this idea because I like to make up and play gimmicks in pve that require certain builds. At the same time, I never really leave town anymore without an ER protter and a mm. This makes it difficult to be able to play fun, made up team builds when 2 of my 3 hero slots are automatically taken.

FoxBat · Mar 30, 2010, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Heroes were a mistake that killed the game, but at this point 7 wouldn't matter much compared to 4. All the elite areas where they'd make a difference are virtually unpuggable anyway. As per Anet's time I'd rather they just add some existing henchmen to the elite missions. UW/FoW already have them in the appropriate outposts, just unban them (set to 20 upon entering though), bring the usual NF crew to DoA and we'll be good.

zwei2stein · Mar 30, 2010, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

...
H/H can already steamroll almost the entire game, no need for any help here. It's the multiplayer aspect of the game that needs reviving.

-Global lfg system
-Vanquishing ZQuests.
-Improved map travel (remove the need to go through Kamadan/LA)
-additional incentives to group with others, could be improved drops or better buffs or build synergies...
thats just the beginning of what should be done instead of ruining the game even further.

Several notes on things that kill partying:

-Improved map travel is not an option, there are other hurdles than that that prevent effective party formation:

1) Party is bound to one instance. You can not be in same party while sitting in kammadan as your friend in temple of ages.

- this kills off communication. vanquishing party can not for example talk about strat when one party member is in other outpost (or in explorable)
- player can not multitask. You might want to join party and watch trade spam while people talk. You might want to do quick solo farm run or test build in isle of nameless.
- people are asked to commit to team before they can gauge it effectivelly. that means that you have to drop whatever you are doing and head to outpost where party forms.
- in fact, party should persist when character gets offline (to, say, quickly get item from mule).

2) Communication is ineffective:

- players can not gauge party resources at peek. You simply can not see whether or not blue bars are empty or full. This impedes flow of game and party is simply not able to regulate its speed to match ability of players (go faster if everyones is topped off, go slower is everyone is down)
- there is not easy way to inspect players. simple ability to see party member bars without needing then to be pinged is going to ease party management. this is something you can be afraid off, but ability to coordinate pug of people who can not be bothered to ctrl+click bars and weed out "starter skills only" bars is going to help immenselly. Hint to make you feel safer: people who will tend to kick people because they do not like bars because of one skill choice will end up in empty parties soon enough to get a hint.

3) Parties are too commited to instance. Instance is too commited to party.

- player leaving is gone without replacement. Be it Hench, Hero or different Player.
- similary, it is impossible to invite late comer. Player can not replace AI with human in middle of mission.
- basically, there is no flexibility: once you enter instance, your option is to stick it to the end or abort completelly. There is no way to salvage party where some elitist jerk ragequits and takes his buddy with him.
- cost of joining bad party that fails is too high (a lot of time spent for zero reward).

4) Skillbars and lack of leaders are bane of pugs.

- party in gw is quite complex, players can not easily form party by mixing and matching roles. As such, set up time is horrible (and lack of setup time result is horrible party).
- players generally hate to lead party because of added responsiblity and stress of herding 7 strangers.
- ideally, game should be able to group people to party based on their bars. Party should be ensured to contain healthy mix of healing, damage and utility by just clicking "random".

5) There is lack of feedback from game

- bad player can have illusions of awesomeness. cold, hard numbers might not convince everyone, but they sure would make some people think.
- even someone who is good needs to be shown that he is not going to be top kid all the time.
- noone likes another human player telling your that you suck. few like telling others that they suck too. game showing you scoreboard is acceptable (note: scoreboard only needs to show you your numbers and your relation to rest of party.).

----

See, heroes fix this all:

You do not need to wait for people to travel. You can form party and enter explorable on your own.
You have good overview of how your party handles mobs.
They are not going to get DC or ragequit.
You do not need to be proactive when building party. It is just always there.
Sucking in game is only your own fault and you are empowered to fix easily.

Players simply do not have tools that are advanced enough to allow easy party formation and management.

Simply put, game needs party/instance interaction redesigned. Then, you can have pugs that work.

rick1027 · Mar 30, 2010, 09:49 PM // 21:49

i see no positive change or negative change right now if there areas i want to do that require heros i log into my second account get 6 total heros and when i get to the area i log it out. with 7 hero itll just be easier for me i do things with my guild and only them so having more hero spots isnt make my experience any more negative ill still do things the way i do by having less heros what some are saying you really think itll make me want to play with more pugs no ill load up on more henchies then i do for normal areas. i dont get where you think itll force me to play with pug it wont i didnt play with them before herios were introduced and found i still dont play with them with heros so the amount of heros wont make me play with pugs any more or less.. only thing itll do is give me incentive to get better at areas i hardly visit due to the hero only limit doa mainly

Schmerdro · Mar 31, 2010, 12:08 AM // 00:08

I'm not sure if I posted these somewhere else on Guru, but here they are again:

Arguments for keeping the 3 hero cap:

1. Encourages teaming up with at least one other real player.

2. This is too complicated to change (extra flags, too many skill bars on the interface etc). We do not have enough information about GW's code or budget, to reasonably estimate if a change would even be possible.

3. Heroes are too good compared to a normal human.

4. The current system, with 3 heroes, is good enough, as evidenced by the players who posted their success with h/h.

5. We want Arena-Net to focus on doing other things and not bother with changing this.

Arguments for raising the hero cap:

1. Players should not be forced to play a game based on the beliefs of anybody other than themselves. We've also heard some horror stories when people tried to team up with random PuG's. You can also raise the hero cap but still require people to take at least one henchman or player in 6-man or 8-man parties; there is no reason to keep it the way it is.

2. We already know that one player can control 6 heroes in an 8-man party, and 9 heroes in 12-man parties. Nobody was asking for extra flags or other fancy stuff, we just want to be able to change their equipment and skill bars.

3. A human player has access to PvE skills and can apply tactical advice from the wiki or other knowledgeable players, therefore heroes are not always better than a normal human.

4. Changing that system would simply make the game more fun, which is usually a desirable trait. It would also encourage players to use uncommon heroes, which would add more replay value. In certain areas, real players are very hard to find and henchmen are simply not good enough.

5. The majority of players, on the 2 major GW forums, disagree. Yes, they may not be representative of all GW players, but it's the only statistic that is available. Secondly, this does NOT prevent anybody from doing anything, it only gives more options.

gremlin · Mar 31, 2010, 12:19 AM // 00:19

When I first got this game I pretty much played none stop 5 or 6 days a week for sure and maybe at the peak 10 hours a day.

Not everyone wants to play those hours and many cannot, but even in the early days you spent a greater part of your gaming time sitting in a town with half a party spamming for new players.
While you did that other players were leaving the party out of frustration, you jumped from district to district to get a party.

For those that only play a couple of hours at a time ie those with a life pve always was a bit hit and miss.
You could spend half your online time getting a party that may or may not be any good and even then some would have to leave part way through the longer missions.

Pve is a solo game that is occasionally played with friends whereas pvp is a human vs human game, its also if you believe the comments the only worthwhile part of the game the only part where any skill is needed.

So why not have more heroes it will not end up with the game being removed from the servers as they will still be needed for those playing pvp and those trading.

Besides its an excellent way of determining what the result will be and whether its a viable rout to take in GW2.

rkubik · Mar 31, 2010, 12:52 AM // 00:52

I think it would be most valuable especially once the game ages even more and the player base dwindles. If the elite areas are still going to be playable it is only reasonable that they be included. If not you will have many "elite" areas that wont get played as the lack of players will not be available to PUG and the chance of finding a guild that is active will be tough in my opinion. It only seems advantageous for Anet to do it sometime down the road. If GW2 comes out many players will migrate and eventually many will just leave the game the people that continue to play will need someone to play with and if Anet wants to continue to sell GW1 then they would have to keep it alive somehow or no one will buy it if areas of the game cannot be accessed.

Chthon · Mar 31, 2010, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Several notes on things that kill partying:

-Improved map travel is not an option, there are other hurdles than that that prevent effective party formation:

1) Party is bound to one instance. You can not be in same party while sitting in kammadan as your friend in temple of ages.

- this kills off communication. vanquishing party can not for example talk about strat when one party member is in other outpost (or in explorable)
- player can not multitask. You might want to join party and watch trade spam while people talk. You might want to do quick solo farm run or test build in isle of nameless.
- people are asked to commit to team before they can gauge it effectivelly. that means that you have to drop whatever you are doing and head to outpost where party forms.
- in fact, party should persist when character gets offline (to, say, quickly get item from mule).

2) Communication is ineffective:

- players can not gauge party resources at peek. You simply can not see whether or not blue bars are empty or full. This impedes flow of game and party is simply not able to regulate its speed to match ability of players (go faster if everyones is topped off, go slower is everyone is down)
- there is not easy way to inspect players. simple ability to see party member bars without needing then to be pinged is going to ease party management. this is something you can be afraid off, but ability to coordinate pug of people who can not be bothered to ctrl+click bars and weed out "starter skills only" bars is going to help immenselly. Hint to make you feel safer: people who will tend to kick people because they do not like bars because of one skill choice will end up in empty parties soon enough to get a hint.

3) Parties are too commited to instance. Instance is too commited to party.

- player leaving is gone without replacement. Be it Hench, Hero or different Player.
- similary, it is impossible to invite late comer. Player can not replace AI with human in middle of mission.
- basically, there is no flexibility: once you enter instance, your option is to stick it to the end or abort completelly. There is no way to salvage party where some elitist jerk ragequits and takes his buddy with him.
- cost of joining bad party that fails is too high (a lot of time spent for zero reward).

4) Skillbars and lack of leaders are bane of pugs.

- party in gw is quite complex, players can not easily form party by mixing and matching roles. As such, set up time is horrible (and lack of setup time result is horrible party).
- players generally hate to lead party because of added responsiblity and stress of herding 7 strangers.
- ideally, game should be able to group people to party based on their bars. Party should be ensured to contain healthy mix of healing, damage and utility by just clicking "random".

5) There is lack of feedback from game

- bad player can have illusions of awesomeness. cold, hard numbers might not convince everyone, but they sure would make some people think.
- even someone who is good needs to be shown that he is not going to be top kid all the time.
- noone likes another human player telling your that you suck. few like telling others that they suck too. game showing you scoreboard is acceptable (note: scoreboard only needs to show you your numbers and your relation to rest of party.).

----

See, heroes fix this all:

You do not need to wait for people to travel. You can form party and enter explorable on your own.
You have good overview of how your party handles mobs.
They are not going to get DC or ragequit.
You do not need to be proactive when building party. It is just always there.
Sucking in game is only your own fault and you are empowered to fix easily.

Players simply do not have tools that are advanced enough to allow easy party formation and management.

Simply put, game needs party/instance interaction redesigned. Then, you can have pugs that work.

GW2 devs should treat this post like the Bible.

snaek · Mar 31, 2010, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

wall of text

a lot of which can be overcome by learning good teamwork. all i get from this post is that people don't want to have to put up with the work required to be in a good team. not to mention that practically none of this applies to organized guild groups, rather only to randomway pugs. sure the party interface can be improved, but i would list this near the bottom of the many reasons why pugging is in the state it is in now.

don't get me wrong--you bring up a lot of good points about successful pugging. and i agree that much of what was said should be taken into consideration when designing a good party interface. however, i do not agree that the party interface killed pugging nor heroes being the "fix" to this.

heroes do not fix a person's terrible teamwork abilities, it only gives reason for it not to exist at all.

i have been pugging since the beginning of gw, and my experiences have been overall very positive. in recent times, i have been especially impressed by the pug quality that zq's have brought about. no, my problem has never been the pug quality, rather the pug quantity--rarely anyone pugs nowadays. heroes are the blame for that, not the "fix".

Bryant Again · Mar 31, 2010, 03:28 AM // 03:28

People who want to pug will pug, people who want to solo will solo.

Personally I do not find pugging in this game terribly fun. In Left 4 Dead I'll always search for other people to play with in a heartbeat, but there's just way too much on the line in a mission in GW to warrant trusting strangers.

I'm definitely not opposed to the idea of 7 heroes. But I'd much rather actually want to play with other people.

My own theory? The game on it's Normal setting is too hard. It's very easy to be bad in Guild Wars, and the game needed to accommodate for that.

GWfan#1 · Mar 31, 2010, 04:27 AM // 04:27

I cant believe how many people want more heroes. I think its a bad idea and would have a negative outcome. Back when GW was still a newer game people always played together and many people think GW was more fun back then, whether it be everyone was a newb or the lack of heroes...just more fun imo

FyrFytr998 · Mar 31, 2010, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phineas

The point at which ANet do this is also the point at which their product should be taken off the servers as it becomes single player. I wonder how many would continue to play the same game in a locally hosted GW that saw no other human players? Would it have the same attraction? Not for me.

I don't agree that pugging was dying long before NF. Factions did thin out the player base a little, but it was only in areas like Sorrows Furnace and UW/FoW that smaller teams were regularly forming. Even Tombs was 8-man B/P teams in the main. Only when NF arrived did those with that chapter start running around with a perma-4 above their head. This was the beginning of the end of the PuG in my opinion.

1. I would, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alone on this aspect. There a quite a few players out there with limited playing time due to real life obligations. Being able to fully customize the whole team would open the ENTIRE PvE game. Which leads me to #2.

2. Exactly my point "FOR" full hero teams. If I want to do the UW/FoW areas now. I would need to fill a specific role in a team. Which has shown to be quite hard for certain classes. Or go with a 4 man hero team and be pretty much limited to farming. Anything other than those two options is a dice roll, and usually ends up turning out badly.

Targren · Mar 31, 2010, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWfan#1

I cant believe how many people want more heroes. I think its a bad idea and would have a negative outcome. Back when GW was still a newer game people always played together and many people think GW was more fun back then, whether it be everyone was a newb or the lack of heroes...just more fun imo

Back when GW was still a newer game, 90% of the game was not composed of ghost towns.

Bryant Again · Mar 31, 2010, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Back when GW was still a newer game, 90% of the game was not composed of ghost towns.

I don't think that that's the issue. I think most of us just gave up.

That isn't to say "shame at you", rather to say "who wouldn't?".
So many missions that took so long to find a group - only to fail at the start.
So many good runs only to fail right at the end with no chance of starting over at a checkpoint.
So many missions ruined by one person enacting disaster.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

It's just hard having to put up with so much all the time.

Targren · Mar 31, 2010, 05:54 AM // 05:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I don't think that that's the issue. I think most of us just gave up.

That isn't to say "shame at you", rather to say "who wouldn't?".
So many missions that took so long to find a group - only to fail at the start.
So many good runs only to fail right at the end with no chance of starting over at a checkpoint.
So many missions ruined by one person enacting disaster.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

It's just hard having to put up with so much all the time.

What you listed is definitely true, but I think that those are further causes of the abandonment.

To this day, I have to be feeling REALLY generous to group with a guildie in Aurora Glade or Eternal Grove. Not because they're particularly hard anymore, but because, back then...*points to Bryant's list* Yeah...

So now you've got far fewer players, far more missions/explorables, and ROI for repeating most of them ranges from 'poor' to 'are you RED ENGINEing kidding me?'.

Claiming that going from 3->7 heroes now would damage the game is just ridiculous, and I don't agree that it was bad for the game when they were introduced, either. I would have quit the game in a few months if my options were henchmen-AI-with-braindead-skillbars or forced pugging. But they came, and I got several years of enjoyment out of it instead.

Bryant Again · Mar 31, 2010, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Claiming that going from 3->7 heroes now would damage the game is just ridiculous, and I don't agree that it was bad for the game when they were introduced, either.

Good example?

Look at Left 4 Dead.

Perfectly easy to set up with AI partners - and possible on Expert, too! - but people still go way out of their way to play with others.

Different attitude with Guild Wars.

ANet only has to pinpoint why that is.

Now I know it's not entirely fair to compare the two games - being entirely different genres and all - but it shows that people want to play with other people.