Curse

Targren · Jun 17, 2009, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

pve
fact: heroes turned guild wars into a single player game

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

Karia Mirniman · Jun 17, 2009, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

Targren · Jun 17, 2009, 02:27 PM // 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

"You Never Fight Alone" was from the Nightfall box, being the sunspear motto.

And if all of the other things you said about heroes were true, then no one would take them when a PUG is available.

Oh wait. Pugs do all those things and do it while Echo-Mending.

Abedeus · Jun 17, 2009, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

I also see a small print "You can fight solo or with other players, but if you do play with others, prepare for ragequitting after a single death, bitching about builds even if yours is better and random leaving because of siblings wanting to play now."

And a bit lower: "Not your time decides about win or loss, but the time you spend doing UWSC with Assassin, which is available only in Factions, and using skills from all campaigns". Or "Not your time (...), but how much you grind titles so your Cry of Pain does the most damage. Or make a monk, sucker."

Kendel · Jun 17, 2009, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not - Yes its been annoying for months, but 7/8 humans is more than enough.

your heroes will steal your drops - So do pugs, the difference is you KNOW they're stealing em.

will not use skills properly - Pugs again i'm afraid. The difference is you can set up a hero with skills you know they will use properly

will stay close so you party wipe - Henchman yes, Heroes no, you can flag them. However, you can't flag a pug and they do the EXACT same thing.

will have better looking armor than you - Shit happens, personally i want to kill Hayda and steal her armour since its the ONLY decent looking para armour in the game.

and run off to agro everything in the area....... - Never played with a pug? Turn your heroes off Aggressive.

Oh and to add to it:

You have no control over a pugs bar. Firestorm Monks are so awesome.

You can set up a team synergy with heroes and fill in the blanks of a team.

Etc. Getting away from pugs is what half of GW always wanted. Getting away from henchman is just as nice.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 03:47 PM // 15:47

Let me rephrase that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

There seems to be a trend that indicates that players do not like to play with other players with bad attitude.

Would anyone want to team up with a jerk? The answer is obvious.

Although not all pugs are bad, pugs are still risky. Guild members, on the other hand, are alot less risky because you know them and in a good guild, they are generally helpful and nice.

Heroes may be stupid, but they are reliable and can never leave you dangling in the middle of a mission.

Avalanche · Jun 17, 2009, 03:53 PM // 15:53

I don't know what the exact problem is..

Before heroes were introduced it sometimes had already been a pain to get a full group, at least around after a year prophecies was released.
Most of times I got mad/frustrated over pug groups, cause there was just always one funny guy in there who just had ABSOLUTELY no clue what he's doing and he got the whole group killed.
Speaking of me I just had to quit gw after 2-3 of such fails.
Also playing with a friend + 6 henches didn't work out that well.. since we weren't playing alot, thus we were no pros and couldn't handle the stupidity of some henches neither.

Now I came back to gw in december, hero system was new... and I had trouble to handle them, the few pug groups that were still around were doomed to fail.. at this point I would have agreed that heroes destroyed the game. I just read some things about heroes, got some nice builds and it worked nicely -> have had alot less moments when I rage quit gw lol
So I actually play GW more than earlier, so I think it improved the game.

Of course after playing a while with heroes I do get bored, that's when I ask a friend/guildie or whoever to tag along.

I've never been someone who likes to play alone, so most of times I just take a friend with me. But if I just want to finish some mission or farm something then heroes are just much less trouble.

Get a nice guild, make some friends -> problem solved ?

snaek · Jun 17, 2009, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by abadeus

BZZT WRONG

Try single-playering elite areas or many of the hard mode dungeons. With only 3 heroes and 4 henches. Guilds still go in 7-8 people thanks to PvE skills and the fact, that they only take skilled people instead of a PuG moron,

Quote:

Originally Posted by targren

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

i might have made my posts short and simple, but you guys take things too literally; its all about degrees. when the op asked if heroes killed guild wars, obviously guild wars isnt literally "dead"; so when i said heroes turned gw into a "single-payer" game, obviously it isn't literally that either. you can not, however, deny that heroes have headed gw into that direction. do people still play together? yes. do people still play together as much as they did before heroes? no (although recent attempts such as zq/nicholas/etc have been changing this).

to answer your post, i've h/h'd numerous eotn hm dungeons. elite areas i haven't because well....there are no henchies there, and i don't have gw2x. i have done 2p+6h which is almost the same thing.

i can assure you that if 7 heroes became a reality, it will push that degree even further. but one thing for sure, is that you can't deal with absolutes here. it is obvious that heroes didn't "kill" multiplayer to the point of it being "absolute dead", and i don't think that anyone here (including me) was trying to say that.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 04:07 PM // 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

...but you can not deny that heroes has headed gw into that direction.

If you read my posts and many others in this thread, we are already denying that. The only thing I would agree on is heroes provided a more reliable alternative to pugs but heroes complement a good guild team so they make the game EVEN BETTER.

The problem with many anti-hero posts here is they think team playing equals pugging and pugging only, they forgot what the name of this game is!

Quote:

i can assure you that if 7 heroes became a reality, it will push that degree even further. but one thing for sure, is that you can't deal with absolutes here. it is obvious that heroes didn't "kill" multiplayer to the point of it being "absolute dead", and i don't think that anyone here (including me) was trying to say that.

If you really want to FORCE people to PUG, why dont you propose getting rid of guilds and friends list? Do you know that I turned down many pug invitations to party up because I was waiting for my guild members to join?

You have to realize that pugs are risky and can fail. Guild teams are alot less risky. Heroes are popular because they are reliable, not because they are especially skillful (i.e. they tend to run around in AoE until they die and shoot at walls). I would prefer having my guild members over my heroes any day.

Longasc · Jun 17, 2009, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Let me rephrase that:

Would anyone want to team up with a jerk? The answer is obvious.

Although not all pugs are bad, pugs are still risky. Guild members, on the other hand (...) Heroes may be stupid, but they are reliable and can never leave you dangling in the middle of a mission.

Daesu, quite right.
The issue is, why do we assume that 90% of PUG players are:

1. bad players
2. jerks with a bad attitude

Is this not just sickening that we think so about other human players?
I know I do, I know that Jin and Olias never disappointed me (erm... not what you are thinking now)

I remember... attention, nostalgia ... the early days when we were looking for monks. We probably were all not that good players, our chars level 15-16 and our equipment was something like a 15-22 13%>50 purple sword. We did not even have Droknar's armor yet.

We grouped with people and repeated missions several times to get them done. Nowadays - what, we did not do it in the first try? LETS GIVE UP, I rather do it again with heroes/henchies than with you.

Well, the game got old, of course... and we got better, too. Still, something got lost.

Something needs to be done, so that we can play with real people without fearing extreme facepalm moments. Allowing people to enter instances more readily (just like WoW dungeon instances) would already be very helpful in this regard.

And the solution cannot be to dumb down GW. It needs to be made more accessible and still retain some difficulty.

I fear the whole GW system is extrem PUG unfriendly by default.. Who agrees/disagrees?

And if they cannot find a solution for this, then GW2 is in deep trouble. Because then I will really prefer to play Diablo 3 as semi-singleplayer-online-game.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 04:23 PM // 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

Daesu, quite right.
The issue is, why do we assume that 90% of PUG players are:

1. bad players
2. jerks with a bad attitude

Is this not just sickening that we think so about other human players?

I didn't even stick a percentage to it. All I said was pugs are risky so why even take the risk if you already belong to a good guild? If anyone is not in a good guild, why don't they find one instead of qq-ing about heroes?

In terms of my personal choice: good guild member > Heroes > Pugs

Do heroes destroy multi-playerism in this game? NO. They complement guild team builds well. Do heroes provide a safer alternative to pugs? Yes. And by "safer" I mean having a higher chance of succeeding in the mission without getting screwed by someone with a bad attitude, in the middle.

snaek · Jun 17, 2009, 04:25 PM // 16:25

multi-player includes pugs and it includes guild groups. it sounds like your trying to downplay pugs. i can explain the reasons why heroes have faltered guild groups less because guilds have smaller, tighter communities, etc, etc, but this does not make pugs any less of an important aspect to multiplayer.

yes, you can say that guild groups are still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect more than it did another. i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

----

you can break down the ratios like this (these numbers are in no way trying to be accurate):

pre-heroes:
40% guild groups
40% pug
20% h/h

post heroes:
40% guild groups
20% pug
40% h/h

the simple fact that if you say people h/h more often now than they did before, then this means people pug/guildgroup less often than they did before.

Longasc · Jun 17, 2009, 04:34 PM // 16:34

Well, of my buddies not many play anymore at all, so I am mostly playing with heroes. I just wonder how new players get along nowadays.

And that you prefer guildmates did not really answer the question, btw.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 04:35 PM // 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

multi-player includes pugs and it includes guild groups. it sounds like your trying to downplay pugs. i can explain the reasons why heroes have faltered guild groups less because guilds have smaller, tighter communities, etc, etc, but this does not make pugs any less of an important aspect to multiplayer.

yes, you can say that guild groups is still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect of multiplayer than it did another.

Even your claim that "PUGs are dead" is highly debatable, which I believe is why you took a step back and said they are not literally "dead". Looking at the zmissions and zquests for the day and they are not really that "dead". If I have spare time to play and I want a good laugh I still join pugs from time to time.

And what is so wrong about people preferring to team up with guild members over pugs? Pugs are risky in the first place and I would definitely prefer a good guild member that I know over a random stranger. Personally I enjoyed more guild/alliance games than I enjoyed PUGs and success rate is ALOT higher than your average pug. Furthermore, I have never seen any of my guild/alliance member capping a skill then leaving the game on purpose.

So yes, I prefer to play with reliable people that I know and game design encourages this from the very beginning, thus its name. Even if pugging has to die (although they are still very much alive) to promote better team play among guilds, then so be it. That would be better for the game anyway.

Heroes did not kill multiplayerism because heroes complement a good team build. Most pugs just do not have a good team that synergizes with each member and many of them do not work well with other team players because of their bad attitude. Why should we promote riskier bad team playing over good team playing?

snaek · Jun 17, 2009, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Even your claim that "PUGs are dead" is highly debatable, which I believe is why you took a step back and said they are not literally "dead". Looking at the zmissions and zquests for the day and they are not really that "dead". If I have spare time to play and I want a good laugh I still join pugs from time to time

in my previous post i already mentioned zq/nick/etc being benefactors in an increase of multiplayer activity. however, i do not think this is enough to offset the effect that heroes have put into place.

Quote:

And what is so wrong about people preferring to team up with guild members over pugs? Pugs are risky in the first place and I would definitely prefer a good guild member that I know over a random stranger. Personally I enjoyed more guild/alliance games than I enjoyed PUGs and success rate is ALOT higher than your average pug. Furthermore, I have never seen any of my guild/alliance member capping a skill then leaving the game on purpose.

im not saying theres anything wrong with it; i'm defending "pug = guild group", whereas you guys sound like your saying "guild group > pug".

to be honest, you guys do not sound like prolific puggers so i'm not really sure your in a position to argue the effects heroes have unto something you rarely partake in.

Gli · Jun 17, 2009, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

yes, you can say that guild groups are still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect more than it did another. i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

You're ignoring one possible scenario: more and people have congregated into guilds over time, leading to many if not most of the dedicated playerbase who do care about multiplayer playing exclusively in guild groups. If the growth of guild group activity is larger than the decline of PUG activity, you can't conclude that multiplayer has died down. Heroes or no heroes.

Longasc · Jun 17, 2009, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Maybe this is the reason why I play Mount & Blade nowadays. It is player skill over player skills, despite featuring player stats/statistics. And it is all about me and a ton of NPCs under my command.

And... it is no MMO. Still, it is a lot of fun. GW has some more player-player interaction, but not so much more anymore.

I guess Diablo 3 will be the solution. Not really a MMO, but still online and fun. At least if it becomes a bit like D1/D2.

GW2... I dunno, it should not continue the GW1 trend to become a so-so MMO, but should rather focus on being what made GW1 great.
But unfortunately, nothing what I loved about GW1 initially seems to be planned as key feature of GW2.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

in my previous post i already mentioned zq/nick/etc being benefactors in an increase of multiplayer activity. however, i do not think this is enough to offset the effect that heroes have put into place.

im not saying theres anything wrong with it; i'm defending pug = guild group, whereas you guys sound like your saying guild group > pug.

PUG != guild group. PUG stands for "Pick-up Group".

I have already said heroes are not the cause of why people generally dislike pugging. People generally dislike pugging because:

1) They have more reliable guilds/alliance members
2) Pugs are risky as you may accidentally pick-up someone with a bad attitude.
3) In that sense, heroes DO provide a safer alternative to pugs because they are reliable and they can never be "jerks with a bad attitude" even with their limited AI.

So Heroes, Guilds/Alliances, Friends list all lessen the need to random PUG because they provide more reliable alternatives. But that doesn't that they are all bad for the game.

We should encourage people to make friends and join good guilds/alliances rather than encouraging people to random PUG. Random pugs give random gaming experience, some good, some bad. Random pugging is hardly the most important element of this game, we shouldn't defend it especially over guilds/alliances, friends list, and heroes features.

snaek · Jun 17, 2009, 04:55 PM // 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by gli

You're ignoring one possible scenario: more and people have congregated into guilds over time, leading to many if not most of the dedicated playerbase who do care about multiplayer playing exclusively in guild groups. Heroes or no heroes.

no i did not ignore it, see:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

multiplayer has very likely displaced pug into guild group, but i still believe that multiplayer as a whole is down from what it used to be. (i hate restating myself but) my main argument is that if h/h increased, multiplayer decreased, whether or not that is pug or guild group it doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daesu

PUG != guild group. PUG stands for "Pick-up Group".

you misread me. i meant pug = guild group in terms of importance, where was you said guild group > pug in terms of importance. it was said in context.

Quote:

I have already said heroes are not the cause of why people generally dislike pugging. People generally dislike pugging because:

yes, and before people would still pug despite those reasons. now they can simply take h/h and not bother with it.

Daesu · Jun 17, 2009, 05:02 PM // 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

you misread me. i meant pug = guild group in terms of importance, where was you said guild group > pug in terms of importance. it was said in context.

No, random pugs are not even close to the importance of guilds.

Quote:

yes, and before people would still pug despite those reasons. now they can simply take h/h and not bother with it. basically, people now have a reason not to pug.

And people can simply choose their guild members/friends and not bother with pugs too, so what?

If those who pug also have good guilds then they have nothing to worry about. If they dont belong to a good guild then I would wonder why not?