Curse

R_Frost · Aug 04, 2009, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

A game that is 4 years old, with a new one on the way, should use any means possible to keep a workable percentage of their player base. If 7 heroes would accomplish this then I think it should be done.

i agree with this. ive watched my friends list become full of people offline. ive switched guilds and alliances looking for more activity. there are just times when i play that no one is on and it would be nice to load up 7 heros with skill bars i can select then a gimped party of me, 3 heros and 4 henchies(with the henchie bars being barely better then most noobs that try and get into your party). 7 heros would give me the chance to take a profession that most people look down on into elite areas. ill still group up with guild and alliance mates when a call goes out in alliance chat but thats it. im not in the hurry up and lets get done play style that this game has turned into. A-net once said there was no way the could give us more storage, change names or how our character looks too and look what happened. instead of trying to continually fix this game, leave it as is, un-nerf some stuff that still needs to be un-nerfed, give us 7 heros and fix or change the mistakes they made in GW1 with the release of GW2. i feel as i play GW1 that unless theres some solid info about GW2 and a release date, by next year there will be even less players left playing other then the big event weekends.

Jetdoc · Aug 04, 2009, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Caring for the activities of multiple characters requires micromanagement.

You are correct - it requires more management skills to manage a team of heroes than it does a single person. Whether it requires a player to be more "skilled" is a different matter.

In other words, I'm not sure that the "skill" that Guild Wars was trying to promote when it was first created were those related to managerial skills.

Improvavel · Aug 04, 2009, 06:18 PM // 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

You are correct - it requires more management skills to manage a team of heroes than it does a single person. Whether it requires a player to be more "skilled" is a different matter.

In other words, I'm not sure that the "skill" that Guild Wars was trying to promote when it was first created were those related to managerial skills.

It was resource management - from skills, to team build, to energy management, to recharge of skill management, etc.

A thing long lost in PvE due to the way PvE mobs evolved - both in size, skills used and "help AI" cheats.

Lets face it - any given bar requires the same amount of skill to play regardless if the rest of the team is composed by humans or AI.

People only say that h/h is overpowered because the average level of the GW player is inferior to that of AI - both the henchmen/heroes and average player knows nothing about what is important and what is happening in the game, but the AI never hits the wrong button, have lag or cast a skill that requires something without the requirement being met.

Additionally AI will focus, something some humans can't do (although a big advantage of humans is engaging 2 or 3 targets simultaneously).

And, heroes of a player that knows what he is doing have a good selection of skills, runes and weapons, something an average player might not have.

That is why a hero (and heroes from professions with passive resource management like necros and paragon even have an extra advantage over players that think a bigger energy pool = energy management) is generally superior to an average human player.

But that doesn't mean the AI is OP. Just means the humans aren't learning/evolving due to several reasons that can be simply because the average player in GW has a very low amount of hours played and especially if we discount the farming hours from that amount.

The guilt of poor skill choice by the human players falls on the number of available skills, especially since many of the skills available are bad or inferior to a handful.

If the only available elite for monks was WoH you could bet all monks would run that skill instead of some other one. Why do you see warriors running Gladiator's Defense? Because it is there. And it is the same for every profession.

PvE only skills was a (bad) way of Anet fixing that by "telling" the players "here pick 3 of these, they are all frigging powerful and now go beat the game". It also allows Anet to escape with poor level design like in DoA.

But just because the Hero>average player, that doesn't mean the Hero is overpowered, because any slightly above average player>>>>>>>>>>hero.

Yeah, henchmen looks more like the average player, especially some of those ass builds with healing breeze and heal other.

Daesu · Aug 04, 2009, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

DoA is a bad example, since you've pretty much got to play a specific 4-class meta even as human players to have a prayer. And the reason H/H are prohibitively hard (not impossible) to use in Dzagonur HM is not because of the heroes, it's the damn henchmen requirement. 1 Human + 7 Heroes + 0 bad-barred morons would certainly be doable.

Even 2 humans with 6 heroes it is hard because Dzagonur requires alot of running around. Some level of intelligent splitting would help this immensely. Knowing when to attack and when to fall back to the Whispers group if you need help. In fact, any mission where splitting would help is difficult to achieve in a H/H team. Not impossible but alot more difficult than in a full human team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

You are correct - it requires more management skills to manage a team of heroes than it does a single person. Whether it requires a player to be more "skilled" is a different matter.

In other words, I'm not sure that the "skill" that Guild Wars was trying to promote when it was first created were those related to managerial skills.

Managing 8 characters at the same time is more difficult than just managing 1 character. For H/H, you are managing a team all at the same time, in a full human team you are only managing your own character. For example, if you are hit by AoE damage, you run out of it right away, but since heroes are dumb they may not follow you out of the AoE enough. They could be busy casting something. This is why it takes a higher level of skill to manage a team than a single character. You also need to plan out where to flag heroes in order to prevent them from clumping and be susceptible to spells like spiteful spirit or even chaos storm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

People only say that h/h is overpowered because the average level of the GW player is inferior to that of AI -

I dont even think that is true. The AI is alot more stupid than the average player. They only know how to spam skills, they have poor energy management, and they try to shoot through walls without knowing that they dont even have line-of-sight! The average player shouldn't have this problem.

Since the AI tend to spam, a passive energy management like soul reaping works well which is why necro heroes are common. Paragon heroes works because they tend to clump together and be in shout range, but their attacks only work well in a flat plain since they can't judge line-of-sight, they can keep shooting at an obstacle trying to kill something behind it.

Bryant Again · Aug 04, 2009, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

7 Heroes makes singleplayer the encouraged playstyle.

Or is it how shitty playing with others can be?

Here are just some of the things to make multiplayer much more friendly.

Jetdoc · Aug 04, 2009, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

This is why it takes a higher level of skill to manage a team than a single character.

You've reinforced my point. It takes a higher level of managerial skills to handle a team of heroes/henchmen. It takes leadership skills to lead a group of humans trying to accomplish a goal. The human element, more times often than not, is a harder skill to develop. In my opinion, that is one of the core skills that Guild Wars was intending for players to develop in the quest to prove that skill > time. I'm not sure if micromangement skills (i.e. placing flags) was one of the top "skills" they were hoping that players would develop.

But meh...it's in the eye of the beholder.

Lishy · Aug 04, 2009, 08:46 PM // 20:46

God, stop trying to reinforce your dumb argument against 7 heroes.
You're basically begging people to play with you who don't want to play with you and h/h anyways, because you have the delusional idea that it will "kill" PuGGing.

Also, GW is a multiplayer Co-RPG much in the nature of Seiken Densetsu 3 and Secret of Mana. You can basically solo those games with AI too. But you have the CHOICE to play with friends.
Difference is though, GW is online, allowing you to play with friends without being in physical contact.

Improvavel · Aug 04, 2009, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

You've reinforced my point. It takes a higher level of managerial skills to handle a team of heroes/henchmen. It takes leadership skills to lead a group of humans trying to accomplish a goal. The human element, more times often than not, is a harder skill to develop. In my opinion, that is one of the core skills that Guild Wars was intending for players to develop in the quest to prove that skill > time. I'm not sure if micromangement skills (i.e. placing flags) was one of the top "skills" they were hoping that players would develop.

But meh...it's in the eye of the beholder.

Henchmen came bundled with the game though.

I'm sure henchmen where there because Anet realized the complexities of their own game and how much hassle forming a team for every single quest can be.

And no one is asking to introduce something that isn't present in the game already, just to expand on a game concept and playstyle already existent adding depth to it.

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 04, 2009, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Micromanagement is precisely what defines GW skill, and, I dare say, always has.

Heroes require more micromanagement than a single character.

Thus, heroes require more skill.

QED.

Jetdoc · Aug 04, 2009, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Micromanagement is precisely what defines GW skill, and, I dare say, always has.

I completely disagree.

Bryant Again · Aug 04, 2009, 09:50 PM // 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I completely disagree.

Gonna agree with this. For PvE there is very, very little skill in play and instead most everything is put into build organization and structure. The "problem" with Guild Wars is that builds are easy to copy, hence so is the skill.

Also, it's good to note that soloers have to deal with heroes not knowing how to properly use good builds. I remember way back when I gave him the SS Necro build and he would rarely echo SS, instead using it for anything else.

Flagging also takes a bit of getting used to, but it's really easy if you bind flag and unflag to two accessible keys. For me it's X and V.

For those wondering, this is my stance on the issue:

I would LOVE to see 7 heroes - but only if they give a major fix and overhaul to those looking to play with others first. I really feel that the grouping aspect could be improved in so many ways.

JaiGaia · Aug 04, 2009, 10:27 PM // 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I would LOVE to see 7 heroes - but only if they give a major fix and overhaul to those looking to play with others first. I really feel that the grouping aspect could be improved in so many ways.

I agree. However Id like to take a look at this discussion in say 6-8 months and i have a feeling that the 7 heroes discussion wont be so much of one as a necessity of 7 heroes for lack of players period. One that is probably already foreseen as forthcoming from both Anet and NCsoft and in some ways hoped for [ players migrating to their new game Aion but still enjoying GW1 from time to time]. Not to mention other AAA titles coming out on release soon, It also helps take the pressure off of them a bit. I believe that shortly after the release of AION sometime after the new yr, we will begin to see a flutter of GW2 info which wont bring ppl back but will make ppl begin paying attention again more often.

Off subject here but ultimately this i believe is NCsofts plan we are bored w/ GW1 which is their main money maker on the NA/Eu market. Aion is supposed to be their new baby they are introducing to help us on the in between time of waiting on gw2 as well as introduce a new game to the "west". Now some ppl would think these two games would compete but they wont. Read Jeff's [NCWest] How to build a successful MMO, he talks about subscriptions and what not and making decisions, current financial difficulties for the world abroad say this decision will be even more so important in long run. But remember GW2 wont need subscription if they hold true to their intents of no sub fees, while still being able to subscibe to another game, NC is hoping ur subbing to AION. This is their hope to break further into that WoW number divide and conquer, they dont need to prove GW is a success, because its already there.

Sword Hammer Axe · Aug 04, 2009, 10:34 PM // 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Gonna agree with this. For PvE there is very, very little skill in play and instead most everything is put into build organization and structure. The "problem" with Guild Wars is that builds are easy to copy, hence so is the skill.

Honestly I think this is a problem in most MMO's. Diablo 2, WoW, Lineage etc.

I know a lot of people disagree with me regarding D2 since "You also gotta know your class and stay clear of monsters if you are in a pinch and find the right equipment and manage the skills correctly and find the right skill combinations etc". Well yes, but if that is skill then GW PvE requires skill too since all those things count there as well.

The only RPG I've played that requires more skill than build is Oblivion, and that is a solo player game. The reason hereto is that the amount of skill options are very limited and the effects are relatively minor compared to the effectiveness of the enemies.

That's my opinion at least :P

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 04, 2009, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I completely disagree.

Micromanagement: the timing of using your skills. Choosing which skill to use for that precise moment. Calculating energy use and requirements. Quickly taking in the battle and choosing which skill to use and when. That's precisely what playing Guild Wars is about - in other games, we call it micromanagement. Handling tactics, or, one might say, governing short-term local actions of unit(s) you control.

Unless you think GW skill is defined by, say, what build you bring (lolwiki) or how much you rage at your team in chat (lolPUGs), or do not know what micromanagement is. In that case, your disagreement is perfectly valid.

fenix · Aug 04, 2009, 10:52 PM // 22:52

ANet added heroes because it meant players can do zones with Heroes and Henchmen if they don't have friends.

They shouldn't (read as; they never will) make it 7 heroes. They should make better/smarter henchmen.

[DE] · Aug 04, 2009, 10:56 PM // 22:56

The poll question is wrong.
It asks if I would prefer to have 7 heroes.

Of course I would prefer to have 7 heroes over the shitty henchmen that we are currently given.

However, the correct question to ask is -
Would allowing players to bring 7 heroes be good for the health and balance of the game?

And that is an obvious no.

Gun Pierson · Aug 04, 2009, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

Would allowing players to bring 7 heroes be good for the health and balance of the game?

And that is an obvious no.

People already play with 6 heroes, even solo. That 7th hero must be some kind of doomsday machine it seems.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 04, 2009, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

ANet added heroes because it meant players can do zones with Heroes and Henchmen if they don't have friends.

They shouldn't (read as; they never will) make it 7 heroes. They should make better/smarter henchmen.

I have to agree with making the henchmen smarter, but adding 7 heroes at this point in GW really wouldn't have that much effect on the game.

[DE] · Aug 04, 2009, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Assuming all players are competent.

P = Player, H = Hero

8P > 7P 1H > 6P 2H > 5P 3H > 4P 4H > 3P 5H > 2P 6H > 1P 7H

This would be the logical assumption. However, you have to realize that not all players are competent, heroes can run certain builds inhumanely well, and can also run most builds better than the majority of Guild Wars players.

Now combine that with giving someone the option of playing the game solo with 7 of those heroes, or trying to find groups with people they aren't sure they can rely on. As soon as you allow 1 man + 7 heroes, you are essentially ruining PvE. There's almost zero need for a group anymore. The game turns into a single-player RPG where you go to Guru to find what 7 hero builds you need to equip to steamroll through every single Elite zone.

The fact is, by allowing 7 heroes you're replacing human error with A.I. error. I can guarantee you that the A.I. will make a lot less mistakes than the majority of players that we have in this game. While the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum you have to remember that you're facing other A.I. in PvE. Technical play is rewarded a lot more in PvE than spontaneous and unpredictable play is (like in PvP). Obviously, heroes have a much better chance than humans of succeeding at the technical aspects of the game.

The 7th hero alone isn't the doomsday machine.

It's the 7th hero combined with the other 6 that forms Captain Plane- err.. the doomsday machine.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 04, 2009, 11:50 PM // 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

Assuming all players are competent.

P = Player, H = Hero

8P > 7P 1H > 6P 2H > 5P 3H > 4P 4H > 3P 5H > 2P 6H > 1P 7H

This would be the logical assumption. However, you have to realize that not all players are competent, heroes can run certain builds inhumanely well, and can also run most builds better than the majority of Guild Wars players.

Now combine that with giving someone the option of playing the game solo with 7 of those heroes, or trying to find groups with people they aren't sure they can rely on. As soon as you allow 1 man + 7 heroes, you are essentially ruining PvE. There's almost zero need for a group anymore. The game turns into a single-player RPG where you go to Guru to find what 7 hero builds you need to equip to steamroll through every single Elite zone.

The fact is, by allowing 7 heroes you're replacing human error with A.I. error. I can guarantee you that the A.I. will make a lot less mistakes than the majority of players that we have in this game. While the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum you have to remember that you're facing other A.I. in PvE. Technical play is rewarded a lot more in PvE than spontaneous and unpredictable play is (like in PvP). Obviously, heroes have a much better chance than humans of succeeding at the technical aspects of the game.

The 7th hero alone isn't the doomsday machine.

It's the 7th hero combined with the other 6 that forms Captain Plane- err.. the doomsday machine.

Many people here claim that GW is either dead or dieing, so why should it hurt to allow 7 heroes?