Curse

DreamWind · Oct 08, 2008, 04:50 AM // 04:50

Well the annoying part is I had a long typed out respond to pamelf that got lost and I don't feel like typing it out again.

I'll just say I disagree with most of your post and leave it at that. If theres anything you want expanded on maybe I will later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

At this point we're talking about two entirely different games here: PvP and PvE, the latter which is insanely difficult to give longevity to, especially with a game like GW.

Since when did they become 2 different games? As far as I know the game is called Guild Wars...not PvE vs PvP wars. The game either has longevity or it doesn't. Actually hell you bring up an even greater argument that the expansion of PvE and development as a single player game possibly caused the loss of longevity of the game....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I can, however, easily point out which type of gamers outnumber everyone else: casuals. Which is more casual, PvE or PvP?

Neither, they can both be equally as casual if done correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Don't point to the title as proof. In no way does it point to a group of human guildees. Morrowind, Oblivion, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and many more single-player games had "guilds" in them.

Uh I can point to the title in this case because the entire concept of the game was to be guild driven. There had never been a game before (or after really) GW where guilds were such a prominent part of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

"Making it casual" = "making it easier", making it too easy is bad game design (see: UB).

The idea is to make it casual with the potential to be extremely deep. As it stands Guild Wars is mostly easy and shallow (at least for many people).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I hope that wasn't directed towards me. If so, please pinpoint where I began chopping your paragraphs into two's and three's and four's.

Its not directed at anybody. It is simply what happens when you make these long posts. Things are always taken out of context.

Bryant Again · Oct 08, 2008, 05:35 AM // 05:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Since when did they become 2 different games? As far as I know the game is called Guild Wars...not PvE vs PvP wars. The game either has longevity or it doesn't. Actually hell you bring up an even greater argument that the expansion of PvE and development as a single player game possibly caused the loss of longevity of the game....

2 largely and vastly different communities can pretty much equate to two different games. The reason you don't refer to it being largely replayable and extensive as a whole is so you don't get a PvEr's hopes up. It's why people don't say "Halo 3 has a lot of replay value" but instead "Halo 3's multiplayer has a lot of replay value." Coop multiplayer is interesting, as well, but it's still not as replayable as any form of player vs. player combat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Neither, they can both be equally as casual if done correctly.

The one factor that entirely tips the scale in player vs. AI's favor is that of competitive player behavior you find in every single PvP game. In cooperative gameplay you're playing with an attitude of teamwork and, as you can tell, cooperativeness. The same cannot be said of a deathmatch. Being told to "suck it" by an opposing enemy player is not a very appealing feature to casuals, or anyone really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh I can point to the title in this case because the entire concept of the game was to be guild driven. There had never been a game before (or after really) GW where guilds were such a prominent part of it.

DAoC, WoW, Everquest, etc...Granted, you can come back and say "but GW is even MORE focused", in which case you get a cookie, I guess.

But still. You don't point to the title and say "this is how GW is MEANT to be play'd!" It's going back to the popular argument that since it's called Guild Wars it should be easily apparent that you're going to play with players and that you should not be dismayed if you can't solo properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The idea is to make it casual with the potential to be extremely deep. As it stands Guild Wars is mostly easy and shallow (at least for many people).

For many, not for most. Why else do you think ANet toyed with the thought of UB?

One of my favorite posters here, Burst, has stated the truth numerous times in numerous threads: most players, in general, suck. It's not being mean, it's just stating that they're not very good at the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Its not directed at anybody. It is simply what happens when you make these long posts. Things are always taken out of context.

What you could have done is simply reply to my main points in full instead of little comments that are only slightly related to my argument. These kind of long-winded posts are easily avoidable as long as you stay focused.

pamelf · Oct 08, 2008, 05:56 AM // 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What you could have done is simply reply to my main points in full instead of little comments that are only slightly related to my argument. These kind of long-winded posts are easily avoidable as long as you stay focused.

QFT! No need to reply to things that aren't relevant.

In response to your 'Guild Wars' argument DreamWind; you yourself have been constantly stating that what is the original game design can't be used as an argument for the current state of the game. The game was originally meant to be far more PvP oriented than it is now. It was only after a few months that Anet realised that the PvE sector was proving so popular. With the following campaigns mention to guild is really quite secondary. Prophecies had a vaguely guild driven story line, but factions and nightfall pretty much did away with the concept of guilds as a focus and added them more as character driven incidentals.

Not to mention the actual guild action (read GvG) is PvP ONLY and thus has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. PvP is naturally always going to be multi-player, but there is no reason to keep PvE specifically multi player. Once again I notice your arguments are entirely PvP based; argument which are essentially useless in a thread about a PvE ONLY addition...

P.S. Do you think you could at least rebut my main points from the lost post? Seriously, while I may regret it, I'm curious as to what you could possibly disagree with.

DreamWind · Oct 08, 2008, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

2 largely and vastly different communities can pretty much equate to two different games. The reason you don't refer to it being largely replayable and extensive as a whole is so you don't get a PvEr's hopes up. It's why people don't say "Halo 3 has a lot of replay value" but instead "Halo 3's multiplayer has a lot of replay value." Coop multiplayer is interesting, as well, but it's still not as replayable as any form of player vs. player combat.

The PvE vs PvP divide that happened in GW was yet another big problem of the game. But whatever. Basically you hint that single player PvE is not going to have a lot of long term replay value...so why turn the game into one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The one factor that entirely tips the scale in player vs. AI's favor is that of competitive player behavior you find in every single PvP game. In cooperative gameplay you're playing with an attitude of teamwork and, as you can tell, cooperativeness. The same cannot be said of a deathmatch. Being told to "suck it" by an opposing enemy player is not a very appealing feature to casuals, or anyone really.

The idea that this behavior is mostly a PvP behavior is ridiculous but whatever again. Those things are avoidable and very exagerrated. Also 7 heroes is not cooperative gameplay, its not teamwork, hell its not even PvE. Its basically EvE with a P thrown in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But still. You don't point to the title and say "this is how GW is MEANT to be play'd!" It's going back to the popular argument that since it's called Guild Wars it should be easily apparent that you're going to play with players and that you should not be dismayed if you can't solo properly.

Meh we are going in circles. We know how Guild Wars was "meant to be played" and we know that it has always been "soloable". The tools to solo properly are already in place. We are beyond that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For many, not for most. Why else do you think ANet toyed with the thought of UB?

Because they were retarded and once again showed us that they can't balanced their game properly since Nightfall?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

One of my favorite posters here, Burst, has stated the truth numerous times in numerous threads: most players, in general, suck. It's not being mean, it's just stating that they're not very good at the game.

Ok I agree with you. Hence the idea to make the game more casual while still remaining extremely deep...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What you could have done is simply reply to my main points in full instead of little comments that are only slightly related to my argument. These kind of long-winded posts are easily avoidable as long as you stay focused.

Our main points have went way off topic at this point. There is no focus. My main points (and yours) were made a long time ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

The game was originally meant to be far more PvP oriented than it is now. It was only after a few months that Anet realised that the PvE sector was proving so popular. With the following campaigns mention to guild is really quite secondary. Prophecies had a vaguely guild driven story line, but factions and nightfall pretty much did away with the concept of guilds as a focus and added them more as character driven incidentals.

Of course this is off topic, but I'll respond. I'd argue that PvE didn't take over until Nightfall. Even Factions had a large PvP grounding with alliance battles and such. In Factions guilds were even more important due to the appearance of alliances and such...but oh well. As I said off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Once again I notice your arguments are entirely PvP based; argument which are essentially useless in a thread about a PvE ONLY addition...

How are my arguments entirely PvP based in regards to 7 heroes? My PvP based arguments have only been in response to completely off topic posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

P.S. Do you think you could at least rebut my main points from the lost post? Seriously, while I may regret it, I'm curious as to what you could possibly disagree with.

Cliffnote for me the main points you want a response to and I'll get back to you. Too lazy to go back and read it.

sixofone · Oct 08, 2008, 01:46 PM // 13:46

I think the reason why PvE didn't take predominance until NF was because in Factions ANet tried (with mixed success) to implement a means to bring more mass PvP into the PvE side of the game. I think it was a good attempt, even if it didn't work out so well (based on other posts in other threads).

The Guild Wars in GW was always intended to be in the PvP arena.

Based on the results of Factions, ANet went with the PvE side of the game - implementing Heroes, Sunspear skills and PvE only skills, etc. To the "old timers", NF was the beginning of the end - and maybe so for the game as it had been up to that point. But, it was an evolution based on what the devs were seeing in the game: more people wanting PvE content, PvP pretty much peaked, and Factions not really bringing more players into the PvP side of the game.

Now, with having provided so many Heroes, but limiting us to 3, there was still an attempt to get players to team up: 2 humans + 6 heroes. And it hasn't really worked. Most people (see the poll) still want the choice to build an all-hero team. It may be part of the power creep, the evolution of the game, to keep it from getting static and to try to provide some replay. Even if its only a few months worth. But, to most, even that would be something they want - a reason to go back in and play.

Now, given the way the game has evolved, as Pamelf said, there really isn't any reason to try and keep the PvE side of the game multiplayer. People will still have the choice to group if they prefer, but those who want to try something new would have the chance to do so.

Bryant Again · Oct 08, 2008, 04:50 PM // 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The PvE vs PvP divide that happened in GW was yet another big problem of the game. But whatever. Basically you hint that single player PvE is not going to have a lot of long term replay value...so why turn the game into one?

For every single game that has single-player/cooperative and competitive modes, there is a divide. It's not a GW thing, it's not a PvE or a PvP thing, it's a video game thing. Some are more drastic than others, some less. Either way I'm not surprised it happened.

"Why turn the game into one?" Are you implying that because it doesn't have high replay value it's not a good game? We're not playing an MMO here, we're not looking to be addicted until we die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The idea that this behavior is mostly a PvP behavior is ridiculous but whatever again. Those things are avoidable and very exagerrated. Also 7 heroes is not cooperative gameplay, its not teamwork, hell its not even PvE. Its basically EvE with a P thrown in.

How do you avoid someone calling you any slew of things after he's killed you in an arena match? There's no magical foresight that tells you "whoop ignore this guy, bad names incoming". If you don't think this is mainly a PvP thing (not just GW PvP, *all* PvP), go into Halo 3 and compare the attitudes in the campaign lobby as opposed to the slayer lobbies. Go into Dawn of War and compare the atmosphere of a comp-stop as opposed to any other vs. gametype.

And quite obviously soloing is not coop gameplay, but it's still gameplay nonetheless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because they were retarded and once again showed us that they can't balanced their game properly since Nightfall?

It wasn't just an overpowered skill. It was meant to be training wheels for more inexperienced players. However, making the hardest areas easier is not the way to "train" not-as-good players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Ok I agree with you. Hence the idea to make the game more casual while still remaining extremely deep...

You want them to find that intricate, precise, and massively difficult balance of simplicity and complexity when you just said right above that they haven't been able to properly balance their game since Nightfall?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Our main points have went way off topic at this point. There is no focus. My main points (and yours) were made a long time ago.

Then let's go back to your points and refute them, shall we?

How would 7 heroes further "hurt" Guild Wars? How did only three heroes hurt Guild Wars? NF didn't bring upon us a mass amount of soloers, it provided people who disliked pugging but wanted to solo effectively - and couldn't because of the mass of inflexibility of henchmen - to play the game how they want. It turned the alternative - playing alone - that many people wanted from a shitty route to a possible route.

As shown numerous times, heroes are not a "pick up and win" feature. You have to have to proper skills acquired for them, otherwise you're easily better off with henchmen. Because of that, and the difficult acquisition of those skills, heroes are only a tool for the experienced, something an overwhelming majority of puggers are not.

Avarre brought up a comment that there may be a few that are teetering on the edge of pugging and soloing who would go full blown hero of 7 heroes are possible. My question to that is: what's stopping them now? As is it's quite possible to be widely successful with just those 3 heroes. If the person considers those other 4 slots of henchmen to be setbacks and pins blame on them, he's not going to have a much easier time with 7 heroes.

And then there's the comment, "the tools to solo properly are already in place". We can solo the entirety of the game if we want to as is. 7 heroes are "not needed". To this I say: why add more skills after Prophecies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Cliffnote for me the main points you want a response to and I'll get back to you. Too lazy to go back and read it.

That is *your* job, sir, and ignoring that duty is a big part of why JDRyder's integrity went full-speed into the toilet.

DreamWind · Oct 08, 2008, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

The Guild Wars in GW was always intended to be in the PvP arena.

Based on the results of Factions, ANet went with the PvE side of the game - implementing Heroes, Sunspear skills and PvE only skills, etc. To the "old timers", NF was the beginning of the end - and maybe so for the game as it had been up to that point. But, it was an evolution based on what the devs were seeing in the game: more people wanting PvE content, PvP pretty much peaked, and Factions not really bringing more players into the PvP side of the game.

I mostly agree with your assessment of what happened. The problem occurred when the mass expansion of PvE and the turning of the game into a single player game that happened with Nightfall basically completely wrecked PvP. There was a mass exodus of leavers from PvP during that time due to the ridiculous balance that came with the expansion and heroes being introduced into PvP.

Now we can sit here and say that is all in the past, and that is true. But it is factual that this "change in philosophy" to a single player PvE experience that happened with Nightfall caused serious PvP damage. I'd argue it killed the longevity of the game as well. Thus you know part of my reasoning for not liking the idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

Now, given the way the game has evolved, as Pamelf said, there really isn't any reason to try and keep the PvE side of the game multiplayer. People will still have the choice to group if they prefer, but those who want to try something new would have the chance to do so.

It isn't multiplayer anymore, but I see your point. It is fair enough and probably the main point of the whole thread. Like I said 7 heroes wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I just don't like the direction the game has gone, so that makes me not like the idea in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For every single game that has single-player/cooperative and competitive modes, there is a divide. It's not a GW thing, it's not a PvE or a PvP thing, it's a video game thing. Some are more drastic than others, some less. Either way I'm not surprised it happened.

Of course there is some, but in my opinion GW did something very unique. In the beginning it wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. It kind of developed over time, and I'd argue that Anets "change in philosophy" was a big part of that. A lot of resentment came from both sides because many PvE changes affected PvP and many PvP changes affected PvE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

"Why turn the game into one?" Are you implying that because it doesn't have high replay value it's not a good game? We're not playing an MMO here, we're not looking to be addicted until we die.

I'm arguing that Guild Wars had the potential to have incredibly long replay value but now it doesn't do to it turning into a single player MMO. That doesn't mean it isn't a good game though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How do you avoid someone calling you any slew of things after he's killed you in an arena match? There's no magical foresight that tells you "whoop ignore this guy, bad names incoming". If you don't think this is mainly a PvP thing (not just GW PvP, *all* PvP), go into Halo 3 and compare the attitudes in the campaign lobby as opposed to the slayer lobbies. Go into Dawn of War and compare the atmosphere of a comp-stop as opposed to any other vs. gametype.

This argument is completely falling apart in my eyes. If this is mainly a PvP thing, then why is one of the main reasons people don't PuG (as told several times in this thread) is because people are rude to them IN PVE?? Thinking that this is mostly a PvP thing is completely false. Personally I find these experiences in both PvE and PvP to be rare, but claiming that it is mostly a PvP thing is perception not reality. Not to mention, if they did happen there is ignore/chat filter/blah blah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It wasn't just an overpowered skill. It was meant to be training wheels for more inexperienced players. However, making the hardest areas easier is not the way to "train" not-as-good players.

Agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You want them to find that intricate, precise, and massively difficult balance of simplicity and complexity when you just said right above that they haven't been able to properly balance their game since Nightfall?

They had that. It was called Prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How would 7 heroes further "hurt" Guild Wars? How did only three heroes hurt Guild Wars? NF didn't bring upon us a mass amount of soloers, it provided people who disliked pugging but wanted to solo effectively - and couldn't because of the mass of inflexibility of henchmen - to play the game how they want. It turned the alternative - playing alone - that many people wanted from a shitty route to a possible route.

NF did bring upon a mass amount of soloers...I don't know what game you were playing at the time. I'd say heroes in general helped lead to the downfall of multiplayer whether the soloers believe it or not. The real question though is "was this good for the game and it would it be better to complete what was started with Nightfall". I say no and no just from experience. Others will say yes and yes just from experience. So basically it comes down to opinion and you know what happens when that comes into play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Avarre brought up a comment that there may be a few that are teetering on the edge of pugging and soloing who would go full blown hero of 7 heroes are possible. My question to that is: what's stopping them now? As is it's quite possible to be widely successful with just those 3 heroes. If the person considers those other 4 slots of henchmen to be setbacks and pins blame on them, he's not going to have a much easier time with 7 heroes.

I think there is a legit point there. I'm sure there are players out there who are like this...they don't want to play with hench. At least they can team with ONE human if they want a full hero team. Or they can team with a few humans to each bring a hero or whatever. Hench at least give people SOME reason to team with others. With 7 heroes there will be almost no reason unless its required by the mission/quest whatever, so those who want to team WILL have a little harder time. I don't buy the argument that 7 heroes wouldn't affect the team formation rate more than 3 does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And then there's the comment, "the tools to solo properly are already in place". We can solo the entirety of the game if we want to as is. 7 heroes are "not needed". To this I say: why add more skills after Prophecies?

Good question. I say why add more pieces to chess?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That is *your* job, sir, and ignoring that duty is a big part of why JDRyder's integrity went full-speed into the toilet.

As I said, I typed out a long response but it got lost and I can't be bothered to type it all out again. Perhaps I will if I'm bored and have time.

zwei2stein · Oct 08, 2008, 08:17 PM // 20:17

They are stuck in infinite loop, aren't they?

upier · Oct 08, 2008, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

They are stuck in infinite loop, aren't they?

It's actually interesting to look at it from the outside for a change ...

Nessar · Oct 08, 2008, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

They are stuck in infinite loop, aren't they?

Yea I've been checking out this thread everyday and it's going...nowhere...sometime it does go somewhere but that stopped like 50 pages ago..

Yet it's fun to watch

Bryant Again · Oct 08, 2008, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Hurray, on-topic, go me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

NF did bring upon a mass amount of soloers...I don't know what game you were playing at the time.

Why I was playing Guild Wars - which, at the time, had a PvE playerbase spread across three continents, hundreds of outposts, all divided by thousands of districts.

...

It's obviously all the heroes' fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

With 7 heroes there will be almost no reason unless its required by the mission/quest whatever, so those who want to team WILL have a little harder time. I don't buy the argument that 7 heroes wouldn't affect the team formation rate more than 3 does.

You seemed to have pretty much missed most of what I said to JDRyder, not to mention something I posted in response to you awhile back:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Why not: Heroes are by far from being a "pick up and go" portion of the game. As is, 3 heroes don't just "gust up" random players who want to try it. It's probably safe to assume most players would put bars on heroes that are even worse than henchies. They'll only be as "good and op" as you yourself are. They're only as good as you make them, and if you don't make them good, they'll suck - and if they suck, they're not going to be appealing to the majority populous.

Most players in the game are inexperienced.
Heroes can't be used well by inexperienced players.
Most players don't use heroes.

And henchmen don't give incentive, they force it. The only way you're going to get AI even just close to being on the same footing as a human groups is if you allow the former to use PvE skills (which is another huge incentive to party up with people).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Good question. I say why add more pieces to chess?

Hit and miss.

You're pretty much arguing against the reason why expansion packs exist: for more game. That's why we saw more skills with each campaign, that's why Blizzard introduced an expansion pack to StarCraft, why Bethesda created the Shivering Isles expansion, and you can keep going back to thousands upon millions of other games that did the exact same thing.

Now do you have to make expansion packs? Are they required? Absolutely necessary? No. You don't have to make them. They're not necessary. But that's not the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

As I said, I typed out a long response but it got lost and I can't be bothered to type it all out again. Perhaps I will if I'm bored and have time.

You can't be bothered to respond to something legit and on-topic but find the time to respond to all of my off-topic bullcrap? Say 'hi' to toilet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

It's actually interesting to look at it from the outside for a change ...

<3 i no, rite?

illidan009 · Oct 09, 2008, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Bryant Again vs Dreamwind....SHOWDOWN!!! *insert cool guitar solo*
Wow this thread is still going...imo nothing is going to get changed. Get over it 7 heroes will kill the game even faster....newbs won't have a party to go with due to all the vets soloing, newbs have crap builds for heroes, they lose, QQ(understandably) and ragequit GW. GW will lose customers, GW2 will run out of funding, GG!!!(the last few were rambling statements don't quote me on them)

shru · Oct 09, 2008, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by illidan009

newbs won't have a party to go with due to all the vets soloing, newbs have crap builds for heroes

First off, what veteran GW player parties with noobs? Vets already solo with 3 hero+4 hench, or get guild groups. No vet in their right mind would put up with pugs if they've actually been around GW for more than a few years...

Quote:

they lose, QQ(understandably) and ragequit GW. GW will lose customers, GW2 will run out of funding

Already explained that noobs are on their own to begin with, but I'd also like to point out that people ragequiting GW has no effect on the customer base, as those players have already bought the game. I'd have to imagine an extremely small portion of those players so shitty they can't play the game themselves, would actually drop money on additional char slots/BMP in the online store. So no profit lost there.

Quote:

GG!!!(the last few were rambling statements don't quote me on them)

If you're gonna call your own argument rambling, why even bother with it at all? GG!!!

Quote:

Bryant Again vs Dreamwind....SHOWDOWN!!! *insert cool guitar solo*
Wow this thread is still going...imo nothing is going to get changed. Get over it 7 heroes will kill the game even faster....

Now you see why this thread is still going on? It's all a matter of opinion, and since this is Guru, you're not likely to actually persuade the person you're arguing with (especially with an argument as incoherent and broken as yours), so it's better to just beat them over the head with their own statements for the benefit of all the passers by.

Konig Des Todes · Oct 09, 2008, 04:39 AM // 04:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by shru

First off, what veteran GW player parties with noobs? Vets already solo with 3 hero+4 hench, or get guild groups. No vet in their right mind would put up with pugs if they've actually been around GW for more than a few years...

Already explained that noobs are on their own to begin with, but I'd also like to point out that people ragequiting GW has no effect on the customer base, as those players have already bought the game. I'd have to imagine an extremely small portion of those players so shitty they can't play the game themselves, would actually drop money on additional char slots/BMP in the online store. So no profit lost there.

What vet parties with noobs? The bored ones, the ones who want to re-live the "old days," and the ones wanting to laugh at pugs. I fall into all 3 *usually can't share builds though because others don't have half the skills xD, but when people want a build, I share, they get better, they thank me! :O*

Quote:

Originally Posted by shru

Now you see why this thread is still going on? It's all a matter of opinion, and since this is Guru, you're not likely to actually persuade the person you're arguing with (especially with an argument as incoherent and broken as yours), so it's better to just beat them over the head with their own statements for the benefit of all the passers by.

No, but you can blow their argument to oblivion and then shut up yourself, the other will shut up soon (apparently I ended the "Titles Coming Next Week" thread with killing a few arguments, people's stubbornness dies out sooner or later).

I'm contemplating about actually joining the debate here, but I'd need to read the whole thread, I'm sure there is lots of spam in here, don't really want to bother with that...

Bryant Again · Oct 09, 2008, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by shru

First off, what veteran GW player parties with noobs? Vets already solo with 3 hero+4 hench, or get guild groups. No vet in their right mind would put up with pugs if they've actually been around GW for more than a few years...

This is a very smart thing to bring up. PUGs have been "taking the hurt" ever since the first guild came together, and I'd consider guild groups to be a much bigger "killer" than h/h will ever be.

Inner Salbat · Oct 09, 2008, 05:13 AM // 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This is a very smart thing to bring up. PUGs have been "taking the hurt" ever since the first guild came together, and I'd consider guild groups to be a much bigger "killer" than h/h will ever be.

Not to mention when those guild split apart and people go to new ones, they would I presume keep in some sort of contact even if they are in different guilds, known as the friends list keeping vet players with there kin and no mixing with the lower population, but maybe that's getting into too fine a detail.

shru · Oct 09, 2008, 05:19 AM // 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

Not to mention when those guild split apart and people go to new ones, they would I presume keep in some sort of contact even if they are in different guilds, known as the friends list keeping vet players with there kin and no mixing with the lower population, but maybe that's getting into too fine a detail.

It's the combination of all the fine details that paint the bigger picture.

DreamWind · Oct 09, 2008, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Why I was playing Guild Wars - which, at the time, had a PvE playerbase spread across three continents, hundreds of outposts, all divided by thousands of districts.

It's obviously all the heroes' fault.

Not all, but they were a part of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And henchmen don't give incentive, they force it. The only way you're going to get AI even just close to being on the same footing as a human groups is if you allow the former to use PvE skills (which is another huge incentive to party up with people).

Just as heroes and expansion of content forced solo on many people. I don't really see your point here. Maybe we should start thinking of solutions because we obviously aren't going to agree on this. Perhaps implement 7 heroes but give extra things to human groups? I don't know and I don't really care anymore to be honest. Like I said, I just don't think the game being an almost exclusively solo game is good for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You're pretty much arguing against the reason why expansion packs exist: for more game. That's why we saw more skills with each campaign, that's why Blizzard introduced an expansion pack to StarCraft, why Bethesda created the Shivering Isles expansion, and you can keep going back to thousands upon millions of other games that did the exact same thing.

You know what Blizzard said after they released Brood War? They were pretty much like "oh crap this game is perfect as it is...if we add more content this game will not last", and they were right. They added just the right amount of content. Anet added way too much content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You can't be bothered to respond to something legit and on-topic but find the time to respond to all of my off-topic bullcrap? Say 'hi' to toilet.

Because alot of your off topic stuff is ridiculous. Your on topic points are good I'll give you that. As I said, we already mostly discussed the on topic stuff pages ago and I said they were mostly good points (except for a couple). But bringing up stuff like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How do you avoid someone calling you any slew of things after he's killed you in an arena match? If you don't think this is mainly a PvP thing (not just GW PvP, *all* PvP), go into Halo 3 and compare the attitudes in the campaign lobby as opposed to the slayer lobbies

Just tempts me too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This is a very smart thing to bring up. PUGs have been "taking the hurt" ever since the first guild came together, and I'd consider guild groups to be a much bigger "killer" than h/h will ever be.

I'm not talking just PuGs, I'm talking all human partying. The game today is a solo game with multiplayer involved. Hell I know many guild members who still party with their heroes rather than their guild. If I were to purely guess, I would guess that heroway has taken over as the dominant play style in Guild Wars. And just like having heroes in HA was a terrible idea, I don't think its a good thing for PvE either. OPINION.

Shasgaliel · Oct 09, 2008, 08:44 AM // 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by dumimare

I'm coming from World of Warcraft (frustrated by the long, tedious, grind for everything, and the fact it's becoming a chore) and I've found peace in guild wars. a bit too much of it really.

The sense of a community is one of the two most important aspects of a mmo, imo (the other one being story, but here, guild wars excels). Being all alone while questing (henchies and heroes don't count), having a real hard time finding groups for missions (i'm stuck in Rilohn Refuge atm) and the multitude of loading screens and zones makes for a real disparate, fragmented, world without any cohesiveness to the otherwise, beautifully written story.

Do you not have an issue with this?

I found it in other thread. I think it contains some insights for a few arguments used in those 100 pages. I do not want to repeat again and again the same arguments I think people reading this thread since the beginning will get my point.

I wonder how, from a time perspective Anet perceives the introduction of those 3 heroes in the first place. I am not sure they are happy with the result.

Anyway it is all trade off between pleasing some of the players playing this game for while and the ones who just joined. They do not come here for heroes but for a team play....

DreamWind · Oct 09, 2008, 08:54 AM // 08:54

That guys post is very solid.