Curse

upier · Oct 09, 2008, 09:36 AM // 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

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....

See, that's what happens when people rely on the information on the box in a constantly changing game.

At this point in time - PvE is a single-player game.
And if it wasn't a single player game - it would be empty.
Well, emptier.

Arduin · Oct 09, 2008, 09:43 AM // 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

At this point in time - PvE is a single-player game.
And if it wasn't a single player game - it would be empty.
Well, emptier.

I bet this weekend we will see an increase in players, because of the double Kurzick/Luxon gain.

All playing single, with their heroes, planting flags

upier · Oct 09, 2008, 10:08 AM // 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

I bet this weekend we will see an increase in players, because of the double Kurzick/Luxon gain.

All playing single, with their heroes, planting flags

But given the shady state of the servers - is the increase in player numbers REALLY something we want to strive for?

trankle · Oct 09, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

They had that. It was called Prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I say why add more pieces to chess?

I'm honestly curious as to how you would have liked to see GW PvE develop. In previous posts, you seem to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd have preferred if the world map had not gotten bigger than the Prophecies map, that no skills should have been added after release, and that adding more content was detrimental to the game.

So, how would you like to have seen PvE develop, and how would that lend itself to replayability and longevity?

creelie · Oct 09, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

... 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.

The very idea of vanquishing with 3 necroes, 3 SF eles, and a good AI tank gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. In my pants.

Yeah, you can get the job done with 4 henchies in the party. But replacing those 4 henchies with 4 more heroes would be SO AWESOME.

Bryant Again · Oct 09, 2008, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Not all, but they were a part of it.

*A Part*. How much of a part? How much have they helped? How much have they harmed as opposed to how much they have helped? How can we be so sure that NF's lack of interest wasn't due to other concerns, like the quality of the campaign, the Sunspear title requirements, and the fact that there's already two other massive continents of game to explore?

Bear in mind these few chief facts: PvE is huge, partying limitations have always been set in stone, Guild Wars is instanced. Heroes are part of a solution, not a hindrance. I hadn't been playing at all for a month until heroes were introduced, then my GW activity soared through the roof.

If you're going to point fingers at anything, have it be the henchies and the horrendous requirements for parties - 8 necessary archetypes!? (and you wonder why people prefer to solo). The henchies alone contribute more to soloing desires than heroes will ever hope to achieve, while the party requirements just add more salt on the wound in additions to the already strict limitations of the GW engine.

Granted, I will say that heroes did "take" more people away from pugging, but the by far largest audience it addressed were people who weren't happy being forced to play with pugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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?

Anything - anything - is better than hamstringing people who choose not to play with others. Soloers are already having to struggle with lackluster/predictable AI and 1/8th of the amount of PvE skills possible in human parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

You know what Bethesda did after it released it's first Morrowind expansion? It made another. Same with Bioware regarding Neverwinter Nights which has quite the list of expansions. Were any of those expansions bad? Nope.

It's not that ANet added "way too much" content (can't say I'm disappointed at all about all the stuff there is to do in PvE

), rather that there were some areas in the game that were a bit rusty (largely PvP, but we're talking about PvE here).

The straining of multiplayer in PvE is not a self-manufactured and easily curable flaw. PvErs wanted more game, ANet knew the consequences. The only reason ANet didn't implement better party and communication functions is because they couldn't.

If you're going to blame anyone for anything here, blame ANet for making such a damned fun game. If so many people didn't enjoy and love the game we wouldn't even need to add more to it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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:

Just tempts me too much.

So in otherwords, yes? You "can't be bothered" to actually contribute to the discussion but you can totally put forth the effort to talk about off-topic bullshit? Good to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

And it's your opinion that I not only disagree with but just don't get: how else are you going to add more game to PvE without increasing the game world and it's areas? What else can you do to help the inevitable state of strained partying without further lowering the skill threshold?

Prophecies didn't have it good because it was simple yet contained "depth" (you could play the whole way through with mending and frenzy on your bar) and most well-polished of the bunch (the first skills Warriors get are Frenzy and Heal sig!) but because everyone was playing it. Players were all along the same route, doing the same missions, doing the same quests - i.e. concentrated. But that's only because Prophecies was one game, one campaign.

In general, Prophecies was successful because it was something new, different, and compact, not because it got "everything right". Nostalgia can quite easily cloud judgment.

PS: Please respond to my points in full, not in "bitz".

Tactical-Dillusions · Oct 10, 2008, 12:33 AM // 00:33

Having 7 heroes would bring back a huge interest in PvE, for myself at least, and make certain PvE titles slightly more attainable (admittedly i'm bored to bloody death, after discovering i can't get EotN points in normal mode!).
Time after time my party wipes in many hard mode areas, but it's never my monks that let me down, it's the weakest links like Eve or Herta.

It's frustrating.

DreamWind · Oct 10, 2008, 11:40 AM // 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by trankle

In previous posts, you seem to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd have preferred if the world map had not gotten bigger than the Prophecies map, that no skills should have been added after release, and that adding more content was detrimental to the game.

So, how would you like to have seen PvE develop, and how would that lend itself to replayability and longevity?

Well you are basically right somewhat. I don't mind new skills/professions/armor/weapons/items/quests/etc being added to PvE though. There were 2 big problems. The #1 problem (for me at least) was the addition of these classes and skills brought down PvP tremendously so I would have liked to see them in PvE only. The other problem is that the huge expansion of the world in terms of mass (which I don't think should have happened) essentially is what made the game a single player game. Another guy in another thread put it well that the world and community is very disconnected now, and I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that if you turn the game into a single player game (as Anet has mostly done and even they refuse 7 heroes), then you also kill the replayability. Single player games for the most part are not as replayable as multiplayer games. MMO PvE is not going to have endless replayability and longevity regardless of what is done. Thus, the replayability and logevity was mostly supposed to come from PvP while those who played through PvE just beat the game and moved on or continued to play through the new stuff and with the community (or PvP if they feel like it). I'm not sure if I expressed all this clearly, but its how I feel about the situation even though it is long and kind of off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

*A Part*. How much of a part? How much have they helped? How much have they harmed as opposed to how much they have helped? How can we be so sure that NF's lack of interest wasn't due to other concerns, like the quality of the campaign, the Sunspear title requirements, and the fact that there's already two other massive continents of game to explore?

We don't know the specifics. We only know that they were a part and thats all that matters for the purposes of what I was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Bear in mind these few chief facts: PvE is huge, partying limitations have always been set in stone, Guild Wars is instanced. Heroes are part of a solution, not a hindrance. I hadn't been playing at all for a month until heroes were introduced, then my GW activity soared through the roof.

Heroes are not a solution to a problem. They are a patch to a problem. The problem still remains. Not only that but its arguable that other leaks have sprung because of them. And as I said before, experiences will differ. Within months after Nightfalls release I essentially quit playing Guild Wars seriously and became a more casual log on once in a while player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If you're going to point fingers at anything, have it be the henchies and the horrendous requirements for parties - 8 necessary archetypes!? (and you wonder why people prefer to solo). The henchies alone contribute more to soloing desires than heroes will ever hope to achieve, while the party requirements just add more salt on the wound in additions to the already strict limitations of the GW engine.

You keep pointing out the "limits" of 8 players. To me that is one of the benefits on the game...the teamwork required. Its particularly special in PvP where Guild Wars is one of the best team PvP games ever (well at least it used to be).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Granted, I will say that heroes did "take" more people away from pugging, but the by far largest audience it addressed were people who weren't happy being forced to play with pugs.

So a complete change in the game philosophy was what was required to make some people happy. Yea ok...I'm glad to know we have a company who can follow through on plans/promises. And nobody is or ever was forced to play with pugs. There are guilds/alliances/friendlists/blahblah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Anything - anything - is better than hamstringing people who choose not to play with others.

Anet doesn't agree. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually did though. They have caved on almost every other radical game changing decision. To me the addition of 7 heroes would be an admittance of failure from Anet. The final admittance that they failed at keeping their original vision, and failed to keep their game multiplayer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You know what Bethesda did after it released it's first Morrowind expansion? It made another. Same with Bioware regarding Neverwinter Nights which has quite the list of expansions. Were any of those expansions bad? Nope.

It's not that ANet added "way too much" content (can't say I'm disappointed at all about all the stuff there is to do in PvE ), rather that there were some areas in the game that were a bit rusty (largely PvP, but we're talking about PvE here).

The straining of multiplayer in PvE is not a self-manufactured and easily curable flaw. PvErs wanted more game, ANet knew the consequences. The only reason ANet didn't implement better party and communication functions is because they couldn't.

And Blizzard released 1 expansion for Starcraft. I don't see your point here. In my opinion it is clear that Anet added too much content, ESPECIALLY from a PvP view but even a PvE only player should be able to see it. Just look at the game for crying out loud. 90% of it is disconnected and dead. Why do you think many people want to solo to begin with? Many are probably forced to. I also don't buy that Anet couldn't implement better party and communication functions, because they did try with not the greatest results. The problem is that they created such a massive problem and realized they couldn't fix it, so they just patched it so everybody could pretend it wasn't a problem. Well I know it was a problem. The problem I have is they never should have created the massive problem to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If you're going to blame anyone for anything here, blame ANet for making such a damned fun game. If so many people didn't enjoy and love the game we wouldn't even need to add more to it!

If so many people did enjoy and love the game, we wouldn't need to add more to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So in otherwords, yes? You "can't be bothered" to actually contribute to the discussion but you can totally put forth the effort to talk about off-topic bullshit? Good to know.

I responded to your actual on topic points ages ago. I only respond to off topic bullshit now because thats all I keep reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And it's your opinion that I not only disagree with but just don't get: how else are you going to add more game to PvE without increasing the game world and it's areas? What else can you do to help the inevitable state of strained partying without further lowering the skill threshold?

I stated that above and in pieces through a bunch of other posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In general, Prophecies was successful because it was something new, different, and compact, not because it got "everything right". Nostalgia can quite easily cloud judgment.

It didn't get everything right. But it got a shitload more right than what the game is today. The game was far more pure. I've heard people say its just nostalgia before, but I find that to be a load. Everybody I know thought the game was better in Prophecies. And this is all PvE players I'm talking about here, but this is particularly true in PvP which simply got more inbalanced as time went on. Nearly every single PvP player I know that used to play this game has quit. But whatever. Its just nostalgia!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

PS: Please respond to my points in full, not in "bitz".

I have been.

pamelf · Oct 10, 2008, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

And Blizzard released 1 expansion for Starcraft. I don't see your point here. In my opinion it is clear that Anet added too much content, ESPECIALLY from a PvP view but even a PvE only player should be able to see it. Just look at the game for crying out loud. 90% of it is disconnected and dead. Why do you think many people want to solo to begin with? Many are probably forced to. I also don't buy that Anet couldn't implement better party and communication functions, because they did try with not the greatest results. The problem is that they created such a massive problem and realized they couldn't fix it, so they just patched it so everybody could pretend it wasn't a problem. Well I know it was a problem. The problem I have is they never should have created the massive problem to begin with.

Anet agree, and that is why they are making GW2. They realized their game world was simply getting too bloated, and instead of adding even more new content into the mix they decided to start again with a clean slate. Anet and GW's players are fully aware that GW1 isn't a perfect game, and thus these sorts of suggestions so that we can make the most out of a game that everyone admits has become flawed by countless updates and extensions. We have so many heroes, and a ridiculous number of skills, a huge number of areas and a gigantic number of quests that can be completed. For such a bloated game world 7 heroes would help us PvErs explore it to its fullest extent, and even enjoy it to it's fullest extent. It is quite frankly impossible to take part in everything this game's PvE has to offer with PUG's. I don't think I've been in an area in the last 2 years that had even 1 other player in it who wanted to do the same non primary quest as myself. There are so many places that can only be done with H/H because the players simply aren't around. It's not an ideal situation for anyone; players or designers, however adding the option of 7 heroes means we can make the most of the game we have now, while waiting for a brand new game to attempt to overcome the obstacles that GW1 has faced.

Cobalt · Oct 10, 2008, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Another idea;

Since Anet makes their profit selling games and we can already get a second account to run six heroes then why don't they just streamline that?

They could simply do something that allows you to bridge two accounts so they know you actually own two separate accounts and want to use them in tandem. You would then specify which account is your main and which is your secondary. This would in turn trigger an ability to put the main on the secondary account in something like AI mode so it will fill the seventh slot and act like a hero or hench.

It would be a win/win we get a seven hero team they get to sell a whole lot more Guild wars games and expansions.

Bryant Again · Oct 10, 2008, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

We don't know the specifics. We only know that they were a part and thats all that matters for the purposes of what I was saying.

No, we don't know the specifics - which is why you don't say "heroes killed GW" or assume how "bad" they were for the game based on a personal experience; you and your friends are a very small sample size. I won't deny that I enjoy heroes and am able to understand the concerns, but due to all the other facets that I've recognized I don't see them as much - if at all - a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You keep pointing out the "limits" of 8 players. To me that is one of the benefits on the game...the teamwork required.

It sounds great on paper - until it becomes realized that that "teamwork" is required for *every single area in the game*, and that most of those areas require 8 people. More on that later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Anet doesn't agree. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually did though. They have caved on almost every other radical game changing decision. To me the addition of 7 heroes would be an admittance of failure from Anet. The final admittance that they failed at keeping their original vision, and failed to keep their game multiplayer.

The failure was that they weren't able to keep the other one healthy. While they were able to maintain a fun and delicious PvE, the PvP was riddled with too many balancing concerns. The fact that there were constant skill rotations should have been a huge red flag saying "fix THESE before adding more".

And I do agree with you that 7 heroes are an admittance of failure, but not of the same sort. It's ANet's realization that the way they built PvE - requiring a large handful of people for each area, constructing a very limited game engine (in terms of social features) - was the reason at fault. Granted they could have made the explorable areas easier (or even soloable) and leave the mission outposts void of any AI options, but that's further proving the problem.

The fact that GW2 will be so largely soloable is the final nail in the coffin. It may be seen as ANet simply "changing their philosophy", but I find the more likely reason is because of how hard it is to maintain and force such a multiplayer aspect from GW1. Proof? See the current stage of GW1, look upon the inevitable dead-ends in terms of PvE expansion while bearing in mind player parting. ANet's learned a lot with GW1, and the fact that they're completely overhauling it with GW2 shows just that. If making the entire game soloable (save for the "raids") will prevent all of this from happening again, then I'm all for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

And Blizzard released 1 expansion for Starcraft. I don't see your point here. In my opinion it is clear that Anet added too much content, ESPECIALLY from a PvP view but even a PvE only player should be able to see it.

Just look at the game for crying out loud. 90% of it is disconnected and dead. Why do you think many people want to solo to begin with? Many are probably forced to. I also don't buy that Anet couldn't implement better party and communication functions, because they did try with not the greatest results. The problem is that they created such a massive problem and realized they couldn't fix it, so they just patched it so everybody could pretend it wasn't a problem. Well I know it was a problem. The problem I have is they never should have created the massive problem to begin with.

...

If so many people did enjoy and love the game, we wouldn't need to add more to it.

I'm stitching all these together because if replied to seperately I might as well be repeating myself.

The first part is an oversight worthy of Ryder. "Even a PvE only player should be able to see it"? See what, that they have so much content to explore and enjoy, to play through, to experience, to conquer? Please don't assume the thoughts of the many. The second part ("90% disconnected" etc.) is ignoring all of the other possibilities. Assuming that so many are strained, what's the reason for that? Is it the heroes, the henchies, the bad attitudes mostly associated with PUGs turning people away, the age of the game, the size of the game, the difficulty of the game, the on and on and on and on???

I mentioned earlier how they aren't able to implement better grouping options because they didn't exist yet. When I said that it wasn't saying that they just aren't going to do it, but that they couldn't - and based on the fact there's absolutely zero reason to *NOT* have those features, especially when Guild Wars already puts too much emphasis on party gameplay and that it's the NUMBER ONE thing ANet needs to add to their game, I'm much more towards the "impossible" route.

In regards to "we wouldn't need to add more to it": Sure, that's one of two possible paths. But the other one - making your playerbase even more happy by releasing new content - is much more likely to win many more players. It's why Valve releases new weapons and gamemodes, why Bungie releases new maps (and now single-player content as well), and why ANet followed in the exact same path. The problem that ANet had, however, was that they created more than they could handle. They should've learned from Blizzard who knew that adding too many options could lead to an unbalanced crapheap (proof? See what happened with Dawn of War).

I don't think it's a matter of GW PvE becoming "bloated", but instead becoming tired. Games don't last forever, no matter how many times you dress them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I responded to your actual on topic points ages ago. I only respond to off topic bullshit now because thats all I keep reading.

I don't think Pamelf's request was off-topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I stated that above and in pieces through a bunch of other posts.

Adding new classes and skills is not the same as adding new dungeons and areas. The former let's you play the content in a new way while the latter lets you experience new content in a familiar way, and due to how caught up you can get with your characters it's usually more applauded to implement new areas to play in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

It didn't get everything right. But it got a shitload more right than what the game is today. The game was far more pure...

How is it "pure"? The fact that it didn't used to have so much "crap"?

That's where I'm going to have to end that, since many are going to disagree with your definition of what made the game unpure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I have been.

Then why are my posts chopped up to bajeezus and back? Granted they're not as drastic JD did, but none is better than any.

countesscorpula · Oct 10, 2008, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Heroes didn't kill guild wars. The game just kept getting bigger and bigger. As a result, the player base was spread thinner and thinner. Some outposts are all but empty. It's darn near impossible to get a pick-up group in some of the later factions missions. Seriously, try getting a henchless/heroless group together in Hatchery or Eternal Grove. Heroes provided a rather stylish band-aid to a serious problem. The perfect solution would be to have enough real live players in all places... but failing in that, heroes do a sufficient job of making your party a little more adaptable/flexable than what Hench alone would allow.

Now with three heroes and four hench, there are few places in the game that are impossible to overcome. And for those places, please don't tell me you can't find 1 friend, one lonely friend who can tap in three heroes of their own in order to give you a hand. If that is the case, your problem is a little bigger than not having enough active hero slots. I'll leave you to think that over.

1 Vote for "3 heroes are sufficient".

DreamWind · Oct 11, 2008, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Anet agree, and that is why they are making GW2. They realized their game world was simply getting too bloated, and instead of adding even more new content into the mix they decided to start again with a clean slate. Anet and GW's players are fully aware that GW1 isn't a perfect game, and thus these sorts of suggestions so that we can make the most out of a game that everyone admits has become flawed by countless updates and extensions. We have so many heroes, and a ridiculous number of skills, a huge number of areas and a gigantic number of quests that can be completed. For such a bloated game world 7 heroes would help us PvErs explore it to its fullest extent, and even enjoy it to it's fullest extent. It is quite frankly impossible to take part in everything this game's PvE has to offer with PUG's. I don't think I've been in an area in the last 2 years that had even 1 other player in it who wanted to do the same non primary quest as myself. There are so many places that can only be done with H/H because the players simply aren't around. It's not an ideal situation for anyone; players or designers, however adding the option of 7 heroes means we can make the most of the game we have now, while waiting for a brand new game to attempt to overcome the obstacles that GW1 has faced.

I think we understand what each other are trying to say finally. Basically I think the game was better off before heroes, but you are saying since the game has become what it is then 7 heroes is reasonable. Thats fair enough. I just dislike what the game has become and have hopefully shown why throughout my posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

No, we don't know the specifics - which is why you don't say "heroes killed GW" or assume how "bad" they were for the game based on a personal experience; you and your friends are a very small sample size. I won't deny that I enjoy heroes and am able to understand the concerns, but due to all the other facets that I've recognized I don't see them as much - if at all - a problem.

I didn't say heroes killed GW. I said they were a part of making the game worse than it used to be. You also bring up my and everybody I know's experience as a "small sample size", but then bring up your own experience of not seeing heroes as a problem. Aren't you a small sample size as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The failure was that they weren't able to keep the other one healthy. While they were able to maintain a fun and delicious PvE, the PvP was riddled with too many balancing concerns. The fact that there were constant skill rotations should have been a huge red flag saying "fix THESE before adding more".

They were riddled with balancing concerns because of the additions to PvE. In that sense, the additions to PvE caused the inbalance in PvP. See what I mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The fact that GW2 will be so largely soloable is the final nail in the coffin. It may be seen as ANet simply "changing their philosophy", but I find the more likely reason is because of how hard it is to maintain and force such a multiplayer aspect from GW1. Proof? See the current stage of GW1, look upon the inevitable dead-ends in terms of PvE expansion while bearing in mind player parting. ANet's learned a lot with GW1, and the fact that they're completely overhauling it with GW2 shows just that. If making the entire game soloable (save for the "raids") will prevent all of this from happening again, then I'm all for it.

Its not hard to maintain multiplayer in GW1. The problem is they didn't do it. They made the decision to turn it into a single player game.

Also think about this point. I think its fair to assume that most people who are playing Guild Wars a lot have already beaten all the content. So why are they still playing? They are probably replaying the game for reasons other than the content. Perhaps it is for the community or for the titles or for their characters or for farming or for various other reasons. None of those required the massive land expansion that caused the fragmented world.

Yes Anet probably will show what they learned in GW1 for GW2...and that is great for soloers...but I am strongly suspecting bad for people who enjoy multiplayer and PvP and possibly everything else. Just a guess of course, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if I turn out to be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The first part is an oversight worthy of Ryder. "Even a PvE only player should be able to see it"? See what, that they have so much content to explore and enjoy, to play through, to experience, to conquer? Please don't assume the thoughts of the many. The second part ("90% disconnected" etc.) is ignoring all of the other possibilities. Assuming that so many are strained, what's the reason for that? Is it the heroes, the henchies, the bad attitudes mostly associated with PUGs turning people away, the age of the game, the size of the game, the difficulty of the game, the on and on and on and on???

I'm not assuming the thoughts of many, I'm simply stating the obvious that the world is disconnected. And yes its true that all the things you mentioned were probably contributing factors, including heroes. Thats why I think some of them should have never happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I mentioned earlier how they aren't able to implement better grouping options because they didn't exist yet. When I said that it wasn't saying that they just aren't going to do it, but that they couldn't - and based on the fact there's absolutely zero reason to *NOT* have those features, especially when Guild Wars already puts too much emphasis on party gameplay and that it's the NUMBER ONE thing ANet needs to add to their game, I'm much more towards the "impossible" route.

Its impossible because they added some of the above contributers and added to a growing problem. I think I said earlier that they made the problem so large to a point where it was impossible to fix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In regards to "we wouldn't need to add more to it": Sure, that's one of two possible paths. But the other one - making your playerbase even more happy by releasing new content - is much more likely to win many more players. It's why Valve releases new weapons and gamemodes, why Bungie releases new maps (and now single-player content as well), and why ANet followed in the exact same path. The problem that ANet had, however, was that they created more than they could handle.They should've learned from Blizzard who knew that adding too many options could lead to an unbalanced crapheap (proof? See what happened with Dawn of War).

I agree with what you say here, particularly the bolded. I'm not convinced that you make the playerbase even more happy by releasing new content though. Maybe temporary happiness, but not long term happiness. I think you make the playerbase happy by making a good replayable game and keeping it updated (Blizzard and Valve are masters at this). Instead Anet threw a bunch of content at us (some of it suboptimal) and wanted us to be happy. But we aren't happy. We just want more content or 7 heroes or whatever else and don't care about what happens to the quality of the game. Enter Guild Wars 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I don't think Pamelf's request was off-topic.

I understand what pamelf is trying to say now as stated above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Adding new classes and skills is not the same as adding new dungeons and areas. The former let's you play the content in a new way while the latter lets you experience new content in a familiar way, and due to how caught up you can get with your characters it's usually more applauded to implement new areas to play in.

More applauded by who? Not by me, but oh well. I would much rather play the game in new ways (called replayability) than experience new content in a familiar way (causing discontent unless constant new content is released). Even worse, it causes the company to feel pressured to release constant new content so it often comes out shallow or with problems. See Nightfall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How is it "pure"? The fact that it didn't used to have so much "crap"?

That's where I'm going to have to end that, since many are going to disagree with your definition of what made the game unpure.

Yes to your question. But yes many will disagree with my definition. But many (I'd easily say most) will also agree that the game was better back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then why are my posts chopped up to bajeezus and back? Granted they're not as drastic JD did, but none is better than any.

They are? Hum...I think I am responding to the prominent points.

Avarre · Oct 11, 2008, 03:39 AM // 03:39

Quote Wars may be more fun than Guild Wars, but it's also a pain for anyone else who wants to read anything. Try to quote the gist of your adversary's argument, and then reply, including all your rebuttals into a single set of paragraphs.

You're not the only ones reading, remember.

Inner Salbat · Oct 11, 2008, 01:11 PM // 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

See, that's what happens when people rely on the information on the box in a constantly changing game.

At this point in time - PvE is a single-player game.
And if it wasn't a single player game - it would be empty.
Well, emptier.

Well we all read the "experiences may change" too you know, we expected the game to develop but here is the the gotcha! the statements stated on the box are the boundaries or fixed limits of change that can be expected, to do anything less is fraud to do anything more is a bonus.

Bryant Again · Oct 11, 2008, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I didn't say heroes killed GW. I said they were a part of making the game worse than it used to be. You also bring up my and everybody I know's experience as a "small sample size", but then bring up your own experience of not seeing heroes as a problem. Aren't you a small sample size as well?

I don't use my experience of why heroes aren't a problem, just why I use them. I use what I see and what we all know - huge gameworld, the inaccessibility of heroes, the faulty party system, the lack of a global player search - as to what to "pin the blame" on and why heroes aren't a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

They were riddled with balancing concerns because of the additions to PvE. In that sense, the additions to PvE caused the inbalance in PvP. See what I mean?

Its not hard to maintain multiplayer in GW1. The problem is they didn't do it. They made the decision to turn it into a single player game.

Also think about this point. I think its fair to assume that most people who are playing Guild Wars a lot have already beaten all the content...

It wasn't the additions to PvE, it was simply the additions of new professions and skills. It wasn't a PvE-only thing, they were added to both gametypes.

It's less that ANet "didn't maintain the multiplayer" and less that they couldn't. This is again going back to the lacking party-search improvements: These days they're a necessity for every online party-based RPG, and the only reason for ANet to not put in something that would save their game is because they can't (and I don't see how they've made it "impossible" when this very thing, the better party-search, is something that would solve (or help) that "impossible" problem).

And no, it's not fair to assume what "most people" have done or are doing in Guild Wars. Don't assume the thoughts of many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes Anet probably will show what they learned in GW1 for GW2...and that is great for soloers...but I am strongly suspecting bad for people who enjoy multiplayer and PvP and possibly everything else. Just a guess of course, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if I turn out to be right.

It's all about choice. The difference with the choice in GW2 is you're not totally screwed if you can't find other people to play with. Just enter the mission solo and they won't be at a disadvantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree with what you say here, particularly the bolded. I'm not convinced that you make the playerbase even more happy by releasing new content though. Maybe temporary happiness, but not long term happiness. I think you make the playerbase happy by making a good replayable game and keeping it updated (Blizzard and Valve are masters at this). Instead Anet threw a bunch of content at us (some of it suboptimal) and wanted us to be happy. But we aren't happy. We just want more content or 7 heroes or whatever else and don't care about what happens to the quality of the game. Enter Guild Wars 2.

There's a huge difference between what Blizzard have (largely with WC3 and SC), what Valve has (CS:S, TF2) and what ANet has - and that's user created content. Being able to create and play new gametypes, maps, levels, weapons, characters, etc. ALL multiply the amount of game you can have nearly a ten-fold.

No matter what you do and how polished you make it, you will never be able to emulate the amount of replayability that comes with custom content. Some may stand paramount by bearing incredible mechanics, others stay standing due to a never-ending supply of new, player-made gameplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

More applauded by who? Not by me, but oh well. I would much rather play the game in new ways (called replayability) than experience new content in a familiar way (causing discontent unless constant new content is released). Even worse, it causes the company to feel pressured to release constant new content so it often comes out shallow or with problems. See Nightfall.

How would adding new classes cause less discontent than adding new areas? Couldn't a person be just as bored of a new class as they can be with a new area? Could a person be bored even quicker with new classes instead of new areas, and vice versa?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes to your question. But yes many will disagree with my definition. But many (I'd easily say most) will also agree that the game was better back then.

Sure, but how many will blame heroes as a problem? Or new continents as a problem? New skills as a problem? New professions? New PvP modes? New etc. etc.? Don't assume.

Inde · Oct 11, 2008, 10:35 PM // 22:35

We are doing a bit too many personal attacks in this thread. If it can't be controlled then it will be closed.

Grj · Oct 11, 2008, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Mod Edit: If you have a problem with moderation or moderator's, you will need to PM Inde regarding this. Public discussion of moderation, moderator's, etc is not permitted by the Forum Rules. Perhaps now is a chance for you to read the Forum Rules and take note of section #15.

Lishy · Oct 11, 2008, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Y'know, there's something people don't realize:
Heroes were a good thing, because people could take with co-operative AI instead of being with people they didn't want to be with in the first place, who will ragequit because of n00bish behavior.
Think about it. We want to enjoy the game at our own pace!

R_Frost · Oct 12, 2008, 02:39 AM // 02:39

7 heros isnt going to kill off this game anymore then the delay for GW2 will. ill bet with all the copies sold there isnt more then 500,000 accounts in use right now. probably closer to 250,000 active(active being someone who still logs on a minimun of 4-5 hours a week). theres no good reason to not give us 7 heros. not many will play in a PuG anymore for the obvious reason already stated in this thread and other threads. giving us 7 heros might be the only thing that breaths life in the game other then more content between now and the end of 2009 to early 2010 when GW2 might be released