Curse

bhavv · Sep 24, 2007, 06:17 PM // 18:17

For the voting discussion...

If the case of the online votes only being a minority, and not being taken into consideration is true, then why did Anet revert Ha back to 8v8 after the same proportion of forum voters (70-80%) voted for HA?

Care to explain that one? They listen to PVP players but dont care what PVE players have to say?

The actuall voting results would be the same if everyone that plays the game voted for it. The majority of guildwars players (easilly over 70% of the whole player base in the actuall game) would want to be able to use 7 heroes. That isnt speculation or hype, make an in game vote possible and you would wee the results would be the same as on the forums.

Gattocheese · Sep 24, 2007, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Anet already said you cant forget about the solo players.

But i have to say a "no" on seven heros. In my opinion, i believe that mmo's main intent is to have a large online community in which to play with, chat and other things. Being able to control so many heros would mean your playing a single player game in my eyes and not playing a massive multiplayer online game.

Saying that you just want the choice to use 7 heros ends up to be bad. The community is already filled with alot of ignorance, allowing that choice would make most of the community even more unfriendlier.

IMO, people who want to play solo or who are anti-social should stick to single player games. MMOs are there so that you'll play with other people. This arguement about playing alone in a game thats for a massive amount of people from all around the world is ironic.

Rachel Crow · Sep 24, 2007, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quick few rant arguement stoppers below:

-7 heroes is no different then 3 heroes 4 hench = wrong (builds are important if you are smart)

-7 heroes discourages PuG playing = wrong (hero/hench players will still never PuG, sorry but if you want them in your group...too bad they don't do PuG. PuG people will PuG, Hero/Hench people will Hero/Hench get over it)

-When Proph came out and everybody PuG, it used to be better = wrong (was nice but if you saw the stupid bars you used to play with back then, and the dumb builds other people had (wammo mending with FDS against fire monsters...etc, you probably wouldn't PuG with yourself. Yes they were good memories, impossible to happen once you learn how to play. [EG. people who think THK is hard in Hardmode probably havn't even tried it with Hero/Hench yet)

-7 heroes makes the game unbalanced = wrong (there is a reason Heroes can't use PvE skills. 8 humans with Pain Inverter and Asuran Scan = unbalanced (or some other PvE skill build depending on team build)

That's just how it is though, I personally don't care if we to have 7 or 3 but there are obvious benefits to having 7 over 3.

Benefits below:

-Getting masters on hard mode missions more viable (try doing eternal grove masters hardmode as a warrior. Bring 2 hero monks to keep party safe but lack DPS on one side, or bring DPS heroes but lack healing, either way pain in the butt using henchmen)

-Elite areas like DoA will be accessed by a whole new market of players (the big group of Hero/Hench players)

-In game economics will be improved (people can farm easyer and do elite areas more often solo creating better items in circulation, and more people will rune/weapon up more heroes at a time now buying those items...bots be damned (Altrumm Ruins people, just go and say "I don't need your bot farmed items anymore")

-Can finally spread out properly in PvE areas against AoE monsters (no longer will you have a group split 1, 1, 1, 1, 4 (4 = the henchmen they seem to die pretty easy against AoE attacks)

Conclusion below:

I posted in the most nerdy way I could so all can understand. If we did finally get an option for 7 heroes there would be way less dumb arguements, and PuG people will still be unaffected even if they are afraid they will never be able to PuG again. However, seeing as Anet can't even fix a simple graphical glitch on the Sunglasses armour, I highly doubt they even care to try and improve GW1 anymore.

Mr_Cynical · Sep 24, 2007, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Why would human + seven heroes be overpowered? A player plus 7 guildies is much more powerful. The 'three heroes for balance' rubbish could just as easily mean 'three people from the same guild for balance'. It would make about as much sense.

Vinraith · Sep 24, 2007, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

IMO, people who want to play solo or who are anti-social should stick to single player games. MMOs are there so that you'll play with other people. This arguement about playing alone in a game thats for a massive amount of people from all around the world is ironic.

Guild Wars is not an MMO. It was not advertised as an MMO, and I would not have purchased the game if it had been. It does not have the characteristics of an MMO game, nor should it. Single player capability was advertised on the original GW box, so the game is supposed to be accessible both for multi and single player.

If the idea of Guild Wars was to force social play down everyone's throats, that idea should have been stated up front. Instead we were told that single play was possible, and indeed single play has been continuously supported throughout the lifetime of the game. To suddenly try to claim that this game is an MMO and those of us that like to play solo should, essentially, "get out" is preposterous. IMO players that want to force this to be an exclusively multiplayer game should stick to exclusively multiplayer games and leave the rest of us to play as we like.

nugzta · Sep 24, 2007, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Just enable 7 heroes in HM. PuG only do normal PvE since they are incompetent none of them is even bother doing HM. Everybody is happy.

Gattocheese · Sep 24, 2007, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

Guild Wars is not an MMO. It was not advertised as an MMO, and I would not have purchased the game if it had been. It does not have the characteristics of an MMO game, nor should it. Single player capability was advertised on the original GW box, so the game is supposed to be accessible both for multi and single player.

If the idea of Guild Wars was to force social play down everyone's throats, that idea should have been stated up front. Instead we were told that single play was possible, and indeed single play has been continuously supported throughout the lifetime of the game. To suddenly try to claim that this game is an MMO and those of us that like to play solo should, essentially, "get out" is preposterous. IMO players that want to force this to be an exclusively multiplayer game should stick to exclusively multiplayer games and leave the rest of us to play as we like.

While i agree with you that Guild Wars started solo play from the start, also stated in my link, but you are wrong sir. Guild Wars is an MMO, was advertised as an MMO, and requires you to have an ONLINE connection. I agree that this game wouldnt be what it is without the solo play, it may have never even have gotten this far.

I havent complained about imbalances or anything else. I just think that asking for 7 heros is too much. It tends to seperate the already torn community. Anet also agrees that 7 heros is too much.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/400/400429p1.html

Vinraith · Sep 24, 2007, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Quote:

I just think that asking for 7 heros is too much. It tends to seperate the already torn community.

As others have pointed out, it isn't "separating the already torn community" in hard mode because there's no one to play with in hard mode. It isn't "separating the already torn community" in places like DoA that have become ghost towns either. Adding content that is inaccessible to single players is bad enough, adding content that's inaccessible to single players AND that there's never anyone to group with to do is just stupid.

I still want to know when "or adventure alone with a party of skilled henchmen" from the original box had "except in the areas where there's good loot" appended to it.

And yes, I know Anet thinks 7 heroes is "too much." Anet's wrong, for hundreds of reasons that have already been stated hundred of times.

the_jos · Sep 24, 2007, 07:45 PM // 19:45

I want to make one thing clear.
Except a few missions/quests (thinking Eternal Grove HM, which is very hard) it's very possible to H&H the entire game.
I have several people in the guild that got their vanq. or protector titles with just H&H, saying it cannot be done is an insult to them.
Requesting 7 heroes is a matter of 'would like'/'nice to have' and not 'must have'.

The HA change was from 8 -> 6 -> 8 where the first 'vocal minority' were the people that wanted 6 players and later the 'vocal minority' were the people that wanted 8 players back.
Please let's not forget that.

This will not happen with heroes, I think the large majority of the players would support full hero parties or just don't care.
However, just saying that something needs to be done because most people are likely to support it might sound good, but would also require A-net to dedicate resources to this and change design mechanics.
I do understand that A-net dedicates those resources to other parts of the game that require more attention in their opinion.

Bryant Again · Sep 24, 2007, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

While i agree with you that Guild Wars started solo play from the start, also stated in my link, but you are wrong sir. Guild Wars is an MMO, was advertised as an MMO, and requires you to have an ONLINE connection.

No, other people have advertised it as an MMO. ANet has never stated that Guild Wars is a massively multiplayer online game. Check out the synposis on the main site, it never mentions it there, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

I havent complained about imbalances or anything else. I just think that asking for 7 heros is too much. It tends to seperate the already torn community. Anet also agrees that 7 heros is too much.

So they're against having 7 heroes, but fine with 8 people having overpowered PvE skills?

I don't mind if they're against it and I don't mind if we're stuck with three. I just want a good reason.

Vinraith · Sep 24, 2007, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Quote:

saying it cannot be done is an insult to them.

Actually it's a compliment. I applaud their remarkable patience and ability to continue enjoying the game through massive frustration. I also applaud their willingness to put up with a system that was grievously punishing them for not bringing along other people. More power to them, that's for sure.

zwei2stein · Sep 24, 2007, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

... It tends to seperate the already torn community. Anet also agrees that 7 heros is too much. ...

Actually, no.

See, people who dont want to pug ... well, they dont pug. regardless of how many heroes they can use. Ever since prophecies.

People wanting to pug, they do it anyway, again, regardless of how many heroes they can use.

Forcing people to pug does not help comunity at all.

Really, improving gameplay for non-pugers is not that bad.

Jetdoc · Sep 24, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Crow

Quick few rant arguement stoppers below:

-7 heroes discourages PuG playing = wrong (hero/hench players will still never PuG, sorry but if you want them in your group...too bad they don't do PuG. PuG people will PuG, Hero/Hench people will Hero/Hench get over it)

-When Proph came out and everybody PuG, it used to be better = wrong (was nice but if you saw the stupid bars you used to play with back then, and the dumb builds other people had (wammo mending with FDS against fire monsters...etc, you probably wouldn't PuG with yourself. Yes they were good memories, impossible to happen once you learn how to play. [EG. people who think THK is hard in Hardmode probably havn't even tried it with Hero/Hench yet)

-7 heroes makes the game unbalanced = wrong (there is a reason Heroes can't use PvE skills. 8 humans with Pain Inverter and Asuran Scan = unbalanced (or some other PvE skill build depending on team build)

-In game economics will be improved (people can farm easyer and do elite areas more often solo creating better items in circulation, and more people will rune/weapon up more heroes at a time now buying those items...bots be damned (Altrumm Ruins people, just go and say "I don't need your bot farmed items anymore")

I posted in the most nerdy way I could so all can understand. If we did finally get an option for 7 heroes there would be way less dumb arguements, and PuG people will still be unaffected even if they are afraid they will never be able to PuG again.

I've said my peace in these types of threads many, many times, but it is posts like the one above that keeps me coming back for more.

1. Dismissing the impacts to PuGs is a very foolhearted position. Simply put, some players solely PuG and some players solely use heroes and henchmen. However, there are a great many players that are rather ambivalent to playing with other people or playing with AI. These players make a choice weighing the pros and cons of human players versus AI every time they enter a town.

If 7 heroes were instituted, many of these players would choose using 7 heroes over playing with other people for the simple efficiency of forming a party without hardly any downside.

That would likely decrease the availability of PuGs in many areas. I am yet to see anyone dispute this position with a rationale argument, other than the normal platitude you see above..."people who want to PuG will always be able to PuG."

2. Stating that "if you've learned how to play, you don't play in PuGs anymore" is flawed in so many ways, I don't even know where to begin.

3. There are many advantages (and disadvantages) that seven heroes have over seven human PuG players. See aiiane's article here http://aiiane.net/gw/?p=5 for a good compare/contrast of those differences. The use of PvE only skills by human parties compensates for those differences partially - but you have to consider all of the inherent advantages of being able to control the actions of every member of your party in that evalaution.

4. Regarding the economy, I think that the point is up to debate. If seven heroes allow for solo farming (especially in hard mode) of many areas that would be difficult to solo farm, you can expect a ton of gold to be inserted into the economy. More gold in circulation without improved ways to remove that gold generally leads to inflation. This will be partially offset by the influx of more rare items, but for the most part you could expect prices to increase, which is either a good or bad thing based on your perspective.

In short, dismissing those that are a bit worried about the introduction of seven heroes as "having dumb arguments" is a bit shortsighted. There is a reason that there have been many 50+ page threads on this very subject, and why A-Net has to pause at introducing a facet that has the possibility of dramatically changing the landscape of the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Gattocheese · Sep 24, 2007, 08:19 PM // 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

No, other people have advertised it as an MMO. ANet has never stated that Guild Wars is a massively multiplayer online game. Check out the synposis on the main site, it never mentions it there, either.

http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/

lolz...you make me laugh. dont forget Jeff Strains speech he titled "How to create a successful MMO" I am sure that he doesnt represent Anet. Stupid arguement get back to the main subject.

I agree with a poster above, 7 heros is something you would like to have. Not something that is on top of Anets priority list since we have lived and enjoyed the game without it so far. I can see the apeal of having 7 heros and understand all the upsides for it. But i just dont agree with the nature of the beast being this is a community based game.

wetsparks · Sep 24, 2007, 08:32 PM // 20:32

With the only option of bring 3 heros, the ones that get used the most (when not required by a mission or quest) is monk, necro (mm), and ele (most likely SF) and by smart people a mesmer to interupt. Casters may bring a mele of some sort but I think that henchman mele would be used better as they are pretty much throw aways anyways and heros can be put to better use. I would like to see 7 heroes just for shear variety. In EotN I bring two different hero groups, in the Norn area I bring LoD monk, interrupt mesmer, and sf ele. In all other areas I bring LoD monk, MM, sf ele. After that I make due with henchman for the other monk, a necro for blood rit, ele for more firepower, and either another ele or a warrior/ranger whatever for some mele attack. That is what I find to be the most efficient and since I always run it, most boring. What 7 heroes would do is make more options to make the game funner.

Loviatar · Sep 24, 2007, 08:40 PM // 20:40

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/

lolz...you make me laugh. dont forget Jeff Strains speech he titled "How to create a successful MMO" I am sure that he doesnt represent Anet. Stupid arguement get back to the main subject.

what does that have to do with the fact that the only people who called GW an MMORPG were the moron reviewers who could not do anything but stick a square peg in a familiar round hole.

here is why JEFF STRAIN was invited to this conference and why he was qualified to speak completely separate from GW

read it and understand

Quote:

Jeff Strain, Co-Founder and Programmer, currently leads the production and art teams for Guild Wars. Prior to the founding of ArenaNet, Jeff was the team lead and lead programmer of Blizzard's massively multiplayer role-playing game, World of Warcraft. He was also a senior programmer on both Warcraft III and StarCraft, and a programmer on Diablo. Jeff was the creator of the StarCraft Campaign Editor and was employed at Blizzard for four years.

Bryant Again · Sep 24, 2007, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

lolz...you make me laugh. dont forget Jeff Strains speech he titled "How to create a successful MMO" I am sure that he doesnt represent Anet. Stupid arguement get back to the main subject.

1up.com. Not ANet. And it's illogical to assume that Guild Wars is an MMO just because Jeff Strain wrote that article. And if you say that Guild Wars *is* an MMO, how come ANet haven't proclaimed it themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

But i just dont agree with the nature of the beast being this is a community based game.

I wish I could say the same, but Guild Wars is just too damn big as it is to find people for groups these days. PUGs are even less common due to the way GW:EN is set up, both gathering most of the players and having no clear-cut route through it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

If 7 heroes were instituted, many of these players would choose using 7 heroes over playing with other people for the simple efficiency of forming a party without hardly any downside.

Most people pretty much do that anyways, especially in GW:EN where the henchie builds are kick ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

4. Regarding the economy, I think that the point is up to debate. If seven heroes allow for solo farming (especially in hard mode) of many areas that would be difficult to solo farm, you can expect a ton of gold to be inserted into the economy. More gold in circulation without improved ways to remove that gold generally leads to inflation. This will be partially offset by the influx of more rare items, but for the most part you could expect prices to increase, which is either a good or bad thing based on your perspective.

You have 7 heroes with you. It's not solo-farming. You would not get anymore drops than someone bringing along henchies.

Jetdoc · Sep 24, 2007, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Most people pretty much do that anyways, especially in GW:EN where the henchie builds are kick ass.

You have 7 heroes with you. You would not get anymore drops than someone bringing along henchies.

1. My point is that MORE players will use AI that currently do. It simply exacerbates the current problem.

2. What about those Hard Mode areas where it is very, very difficult to use heroes/henchmen to farm (but it would be very possible to use 7 heroes to farm)?

Gattocheese · Sep 24, 2007, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Wow, getting alot of feedback for calling GW a MMO. Maybe i should start a new thread? lol . I am sure that Anet wants to be distinguished from other MMO's and think this game is a new type of game on its own. Just isnt gonna happen.

I will use me as an example of how i played GW. Prophicies, PUG 50%. Factions PUG 50%, Nightfall PUG maybe 3% if i am lucky. So the introduction of heros had an impact on me. I would rather play with control over heros than PUG now. So you cant say that the introduction of 7 heros wont have some sort of impact on some players. Henchs are rather awful, alot of people only play with 2 or 3 human players in a party. Now you get 7 heros in the picture, the impact may only be a small percentage of players, but still you increase the number of people playing this game solo. I personally dont like that direction. I greatly understand why 7 heros would be awesome, i just dont think its healthy for this type of game. MMO LOLZZ

Both soloing it and playing with people have to keep their plus sides. Soloing it or playing with 2 or 3 human players is the majority now. I do enjoy where GW is at right now, but what would be the purpose of having the online part of the game with 7 heros? So you can chat and be in a guild? So you have the choice but may never or rarely use it. Thats a bad direction. It should be more open ended than that. The online aspect and the solo aspect have to hit a median. If not they should just make GW2 basically offline for pve and online for pvp. Orrrrrrrr....you can just play a offline single player rpg :O Dont you hate that when people say that!

6am3 Fana71c · Sep 24, 2007, 09:54 PM // 21:54

...Or just tweak henchmen in Proph, NF, and Factions so that they have better skill bars, like in EotN, and enable 7 heroes for HM. So that way, I think, everybody is happy.