Curse

Yelling @ Cats · Jun 21, 2009, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highlander Of Alba

Yes you had to be careful and flag ect but it was also fun back then also

Flag? lol

You couldn't flag henchies back in the day, fwiw

DreamWind · Jun 21, 2009, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

In a singleplayer game, you can never ever play with other humans. You are contradicting yourself again. If it is a single player game, how can game be less or more populated?

Meh...have you been reading my posts? Singleplayer game with multiplayer option...its not multiplayer with singleplayer option. I don't know how else to explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

It is much more likely that you are wrong since we already have evidence to prove that.

Show me your evidence plz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Most parts of PvE is easy enough, so which areas are you having such a problem?

If the others areas that are more difficult, I can't rely on H/H. I have to rely on the over powered human teams to succeed.

Nobody needs to team for hard areas anymore because it is much easier to beat easy areas with H/H and get better rewards for doing so!!!!!!! That means integrity of game=shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

That is not true at all. There are many missions/quests that make it very hard or impossible to accomplish without teaming up with other human players.

Any area that requires the use of teamwork to succeed is good for the game. I laughed out loud at your use of the pre searing res sig quest as an example though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

You can always not install NF and EOTN and ebay them off. If you hate heroes so much

Eh I had to install NF for PvP purposes back in the day...little did I know what I was getting myself into. X_X And don't get me wrong...I don't hate heroes. I am simply saying they were a detriment to the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

As for heroes in PvP, ANet has decided to remove heroes because of all this bitching. I know for sure that some guilds would have to give up on GvG because they rely on heroes to make up a full team since they dont have enough members that are interested in a regular GvG.

It is already too little too late. Removal of heroes now will most likely do nothing. The problem was their original introduction...THAT is what caused the problems in PvP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Alot of things contributed to an exodus in HA that have alot more impact than heroes.

Sure...but heroes were quite probably the biggest impact. I've never seen such a drastic population change over night. All the other problems in PvP have led to slow decline. Heroes were a turbo decline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Uh...like you? Aren't you an example of a contradiction to what you just said?

I don't play much anymore. I still post here once in a while though to check up on the game. I did play nonstop for 2 years after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

I think you should just quit GW and play chess then.

You think things that make GW easier than it already is are good for it? LoL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Better? And you are supporting pugging? Please dont say that your average pugger is a better player...

You do know that in 90% of cases, people who complain about other players or complain when others critique their build, are generally the bad ones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

So the person controlling the H/H has no choice but to prepare, so how can he effort to even suck? Pugs are the ones that allow sucky players to succeed.

If by skill and preparation you mean putting all the best stuff and bars on your heroes, then yes I suppose skill is alive and well in this game. -_-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Didn't you just advocated a nerf to heroes and forcing people to party up?

No? I said heroes were detrimental to the game. Nobody has ever been forced to party nor should they except in PvP and areas that are supposed to be challenging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Not all options maybe good, but this one is because it caters for a wider variety of playing style.

Sigh...back to my original post. A wider variety of playing style is not necessarily good if that playing style is degenerate to the game. This can be seen in many inbalances that people do not want touched because it would affect their playing style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

What are you talking about? A H/H team is weaker than a human team so how can they be too strong? Stronger than what?

I said any human build that is able to beat areas more mindlessly than a H/H build should be nerfed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Lol! What team skill? Most pugs just do not have team skills. They join the team with different buidls, no synergy, so what team skill are you talking about? And if you happen to be lucky enough to party with people who would leave the missions after capping the skills they need, then that would teach you something about the "team skill" pugs provide.

Geez dude you keep missing my point. =( I am saying that any area that promotes team skill is a good thing. It has nothing to do with pugs. Perhaps your guild group has to be able to work together good enough to beat an area. THK is easy now with H/H but back in the day it was not. You are correct in the fact that your average pug could not beat THK. And that is a good thing! THK was a barrier between coordinated teams and bad teams. The fact that many areas that used to be team oriented (not just THK) can now be beaten with H/H is sad. What is even sadder is that there is no REASON to team because many H/H beatable areas have better rewards. I already said this like 3 times right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

So now you are admitting that human teams are more overpowered than H/H teams because they can abuse more stuff.

Ok...I am really close to giving up now. ;(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Dreamwind, why do you think people should have to group? You know none of us would ever want to play with someone as unpleasant, spiteful, and hateful as you, someone who believes that others should stop having fun because it isn't the kind of fun you like.

If you have been reading my posts, you would know that I don't think people should have to group except in areas where groups should be required (like PvP or a team skill PvE area). I also fail to see how you think I am unpleasant, spiteful, and hateful. LoL. You're statement on fun also doesn't respond to my point...if something is degenerate to the game should it be left in just because something is having fun with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Sure...just keep on contradicting yourself over and over.

How did I contradict myself? Nobody has ever had to team up in Guild Wars outside of areas where they SHOULD have to team up. I already said this like 3 times (again).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Not scientific proof, just proof. We don't want proof of your claims, we want proof of anyone's.

Fair enough. Maybe you could help me get some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsarc

If you were paying attention, there are A LOT of suggestions that stop people from being able to do anything without grouping. If that isn't forcing them to group, then I suppose their other option is to stop playing? GG troll.

I already responded to this. Honestly you are barely worth responding to anymore. While I completely disagree with Daesu, at least he is responding to my points. Meanwhile you sit here and throw around the troll word in a thread where people like me are SUPPOSED to respond. Kthxbai.\

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

statement 1: heroes saved gw.
statement 2: heroes have decreased the multiplayer of gw.

conclusion: both are correct

I disagree with statement 1. How can heroes save GW if GW was never dead? We got a lot of people in here saying heroes were the savior of the game. If that is the case then you are saying GW was dead before Nightfall which is absolutely asinine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

(dreamwind, sorry to say but its a lost cause man. anet sacrificed game integrity in order to appeal to the masses. even if your principles are in the right place, you are heavily outnumbered here. but at least they are somewhat trying to get back on the right track by removing heroes completely from gvg/ha in a future update.)

Fair enough. Just because I am outnumbered doesn't mean I'm not going to give my opinion in a thread that asks for it however. Its just funny how my opinion is getting me attacked by some people though lol. Its like these people have never used a forum before.

Bryant Again · Jun 21, 2009, 02:32 AM // 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Fair enough. Maybe you could help me get some.

Probably the most we can do at this point is just ask around, see why people are no longer grouping, etc. Maybe a poll asking when/how long people started to go solo, why, if they were content before heroes released or not...just a lot of things. But even then that's only talking to a couple hundred players regarding changes and directions that affect millions.

Gigashadow · Jun 21, 2009, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Polls are a very tricky subject. In addition to trying to get a random sample of GW players, rather than just people interested in replying to polls, you need to worry about (the following list pulled from the Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making):

The order in which the questions were presented
The context in which the questions appeared
Whether the question format was open or closed
Whether the question contained catch phrases
The range of suggested response alternatives
The order in which the response alternatives were presented
Whether middle categories were provided
Whether problems were framed in terms of gains or losses

DreamWind · Jun 21, 2009, 03:04 AM // 03:04

I was more thinking we somehow get Anet to give us the numbers of how many people solo with heroes and those who play in human teams. I know they are capable...they have done so with skill useage as well as player counts for PvE and PvP.

Sai Rith · Jun 21, 2009, 03:19 AM // 03:19

Heroes made GW more tolerant IMO. I would generally try to start a PUG during a new mission, but most of the time the PUGS failed. Hard.

Euphemism · Jun 21, 2009, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

i don't really feel like replying to this fail thread anymore, but i would like this argument resolved. so here it goes:

statement 1: heroes saved gw.
statement 2: heroes have decreased the multiplayer of gw.

conclusion: both are correct; heroes saved gw because the majority of people prefer smaller scale multiplayer and singleplayer gameplay. gw changed to conform to the majority, and this has upset the minority--but because they are the minority they are automatically wrong. in other words, heroes only saved gw because the majority of the population perceives it so.

please stop yelling at each other.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the issue. More emphasis on the conclusion than on the statements.

I first played GW almost 4 years ago, then quit due to not having time for it. I'm now playing again. Back then, I chose to play with henchmen over PUG, until at some point I joined a small guild (then I mostly played with guildmates and henchmen). That puts me in the 'smaller scale multiplayer'/singleplayer category.

Dreamwind, it seems like you're approaching this from the point of view that GW was and should be primarily a multiplayer game, with the possibility of singleplayer secondary. Therefore, the addition of heroes is a sacrilege because it destroy that aspect of the game.

However, how can you be sure that Guild Wars was meant to be that way? Are you one of the original developers? Did some of the developers say. 'Guild Wars should be pure multiplayer, we added the henchmen grudgingly'? As snaek said, you're part of a minority that feels that way. Being a minority doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make you right, either.

In the end, it looks like the addition of heroes made a lot of people happy and a few people unhappy. Well, that's life.

I do think you're right about heroes in PvP, though. But as I've never played much PvP, I don't think that opinion's worth much.

Zahr Dalsk · Jun 21, 2009, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Guild Wars is indeed, a singleplayer game just as much as it is multiplayer.

And always has been:

faraaz · Jun 21, 2009, 08:11 AM // 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Guild Wars is indeed, a singleplayer game just as much as it is multiplayer.

And always has been:
*img snipped to prevent scroll fodder*

Wow Zahr, you just owned every single q.q'er in this thread.

MY HERO!

DreamWind · Jun 21, 2009, 08:52 AM // 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphemism

Dreamwind, it seems like you're approaching this from the point of view that GW was and should be primarily a multiplayer game, with the possibility of singleplayer secondary. Therefore, the addition of heroes is a sacrilege because it destroy that aspect of the game.

However, how can you be sure that Guild Wars was meant to be that way?

Well let us think about it...they made a game called Guild Wars where guilds (and PvP originally) were the primary focus, the teams require 4-8 players, and henchmen are significantly worse than the average player. I'd say all that promotes a multiplayer game. To me it is almost as if they added henchmen as a "just in case" measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Guild Wars is indeed, a singleplayer game just as much as it is multiplayer.

And always has been:

Uh...so you post a picture saying you can play with henchmen and claim it proves anything about heroes?

Longasc · Jun 21, 2009, 09:38 AM // 09:38

The ability that one can play a MMO all alone is a very modern idea but it is very popular. The origin of the idea was that most classes could not solo in EverQuest.

People can do that in newer MMOs, for example World of Warcraft. You cannot do "instances" all alone, but you can level up to 80 without ever talking to another human player if you want.

And now the beef: We cannot solo in Guild Wars. We have some farming builds for some class combos, but these often cannot clear a whole area, just farm a specific mob group.

This is why henchmen and heroes are necessary in Guild Wars to allow soloplay.

The problem is that we have our favorite team setups in mind, and we know that this team of heroes/henches and you as a player will succeed.

Now take a look at a PUG: Monk AFK, one leaver, one guy is getting on your nerves. Success is a gamble. There could be nice players, you could even find some friends, or have fun. But most people just prefer to get the mission done and not try it over and over.

If the party dies in a GW mission, it is game over.
Now take a look at other games: If the party dies, they end up on the graveyard and then go back to their corpses to try again.

We also have this in GW:EN dungeons, they are lot like instances in other games, you are allowed to fail and try again. Death Penalty and getting kicked in HM after reaching 60% DP for everyone is also a mechanic that is absent from many other MMOs.

As people nowadays think everything that makes them win by default is cool and a good skill or a good update (/rant off) and play with an instant gratification and entitlement to win all the time mentality, there is no wonder why Heroes were the final nail in the coffin, the dead of players grouping together at all. Players were already reluctant to group in times of Henchmen, and Heroes are so much better.

How can they make grouping more attractive? What do they plan for GW2, more singleplayer style or a more social experience, which was once the hallmark of MMOs.

We have only stone old, limited information what they envision for GW2.
Heroes apparently will get reduced to 1 companion.

It is not just heroes and henchmen who favor singleplayer+AI gameplay in GW1. The whole design is party unfriendly.

It seems they want to strengthen the multiplayer part somewhat for GW2. I just wonder how they will do it.

Can you imagine how shitty it would be if we start out with skills like Save Yourselves, There is Nothing to Fear, minion and spirit spam builds in GW2 and no limiters like DP and so on?

If they really want us to be able to play solo and group for missions only, it will no longer be like Guild Wars 1. It would be an entirely new design.
All classes would need some basic healing and fighting abilities and be able to overcome the odds for instance. Sounds pretty much like an Asia Grinder with en masse slaughter of mobs in explorables.

Avarre · Jun 21, 2009, 09:39 AM // 09:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Guild Wars is indeed, a singleplayer game just as much as it is multiplayer.

And always has been:

'[your] worth with every battle at skill, not hours [spent]'.

I'm not sure I'd trust the box much. We've been through this before.

angelsarc · Jun 21, 2009, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I already responded to this. Honestly you are barely worth responding to anymore. While I completely disagree with Daesu, at least he is responding to my points. Meanwhile you sit here and throw around the troll word in a thread where people like me are SUPPOSED to respond. Kthxbai.\

If you actually responded to what you quoted, you wouldn't be a troll. All you do is keep referring people to your previous posts and repeating the same things over and over. Hi, when people quote your posts and respond to them, the response is not to refer them to that post again.

You keep saying that people are not forced to do anything with others and that you don't advocate forcing people to team up with other real players. You also claim that people shouldn't have to team up in areas that don't require team skill, but it's glaringly obvious that you have problems with H/H in general and don't want people to be able to H/H. Which is it? In your ideal world, would people be able to use H/H to do anything or not? Are there signposts that say "Use of Heroes is allowed here." and they are forbidden everywhere else? If the choice is between H/Hing, teaming up, or not doing it at all, then not allowing H/Hing IS forcing people to team up. Stop contradicting yourself.

Hanok Odbrook · Jun 21, 2009, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I've seen several threads saying that the introduction of Heroes in Nightfall was one of the killers of GW.

I'm not sure I understand the logic. Sure, outposts became more empty with a lack of humans...but how does that kill GW?

They didn't - but there are many opinions on why PUGing has declined over the last four years.

What Heroes allowed for (and Henchies previously) was for players to be able to log in and have the ability to play whenever they want without needing to spend time forming a group. This is a necessity in a game designed for the casual player who does not normally have oodles of time to play, let alone try to form a suitable party.

Heroes came about because of the limitations of the Henchies, and were an inevitable addition to the game (anyone who DIDN'T see them coming had some serious blinders on). Taking Anet's original business model into consideration, the player base would have capped out at some point, and adding two campaigns per year would have seriously stretched the grouping options mightily thin, especially in older campaigns. Some form of mechanic that would allow for solo play would have become necessary in any event in order to allow for playing less populated campaigns.

In all reality, changes will still need to be made to GW to keep it viable, especially once GW2 is released and we see a dramatic drop in the population as players migrate over. That's why any suggestion that zones should require grouping is "less than ideal" shall we say in nice terms. It's all well and good to promote co-operative play in a multi-player oriented game, but imposing hard limits on zones that will prevent play outright because there simply is no one to group with is not the correct solution. If anything, after GW2 is released and Anet gets a good indication of how successful the franchise will be, I think we will see many more changes to GW1 that will almost certainly turn it into a primarily single-player oriented game.

Hanok Odbrook

the_jos · Jun 21, 2009, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsarc

In your ideal world, would people be able to use H/H to do anything or not? Are there signposts that say "Use of Heroes is allowed here." and they are forbidden everywhere else? If the choice is between H/Hing, teaming up, or not doing it at all, then not allowing H/Hing IS forcing people to team up. Stop contradicting yourself.

I can't answer for DreamWind but I know how I think about this.

I would favor teaming up with humans more than playing solo.
And in some areas making playing without full human teams impossible.

You want to play with AI only? Sure, you can play about 80% of the game that way. But teaming with humans will net you about 2x as much loot compared to playing with AI.
And certain high-end areas are off-limit. See it as a relay race (think that's the word, the running sport where you hand over sticks).
You might be the best individual runner in the world, the moment you can't perform as member of a team it means nothing in certain situations.

And if you don't want to team up with others? Well, that just means you can't do certain things.

But you paid for the content?
Yes, sure. You also paid for the content of HA, but without teaming up with other human players you won't see much of it. Oh, and without nice PvP players seeking profit you can't even get a crystalline without playing HA.
So people are restricted in content already.... And people playing HA even get rewarded with some emote thing representing an animal depeding on rank. Also something PvE players have no acces to. But you paid for it, A-net should open /dragon for everyone!

I don't see why there can't be content in PvE that is resticted to full-human teams. As long as there is plenty of stuff to do solo this isn't too bad. And if you really, really, really want to play an area that requires a full-human team you just have to play with other humans. It's a choice, you play with humans or you don't play the area.

Hanok Odbrook · Jun 21, 2009, 06:29 PM // 18:29

The only problem there is with your argument is that PvP is voluntary, and understood that live players is a requirement - np with that concept, you skip it because you choose to skip it.

However, PvE is a different story. You can have the choice to party or not to party, but what happens when that choice is taken out of your hands? This was the whole reason for H/H to begin with (see my above post). But what happens when there is no one available for me to play within the span of time I need? In this scenario, I pretty much have no way to play any part of any campaign unless a Z-Quest was attached to it, or enough players were interested in playing that area for the same reason I logged in to play. Epic failure there.

Keep human party reqs to PvP where it belongs. We need to ensure PvE remains Player vs. Environment and not Player vs. Play When Someone Else Decides You Can.

Hanok Odbrook

Burst Cancel · Jun 21, 2009, 07:01 PM // 19:01

This thread should have ended with Cthon's post, frankly.

The forced party mechanic is one of the root problems with this game, and is an incredibly high artificial barrier to any kind of serious play. Success depends a great deal on something that has nothing to do with the game at all - finding 7 other people who are at least as good at the game as you are. Why should people have to play Facebook before they get to play Guild Wars?

The party mechanic is why titles became such an issue. As far as metrics of player skill go, titles are just slightly above "completely ****ing useless". And yet, the party mechanic forces players to assess the skill level of other players on-the-fly, and usually without ever seeing their actual performance. So either you make the "grade", or you go home; nobody has the time or patience to figure out if you're actually any good. That's not good for any competitive community.

ElinoraNeSangre · Jun 21, 2009, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicken Ftw

They didn't kill anything. I and many others wouldn't play with randoms before heroes. When unable to make full guild/friend groups, always preferred retarded AI and bad builds of henchmen to the even worse option of the pug. All heroes did is allow the people who weren't about to pug anyway to have vastly improved, customizeable versions of henchmen.

The idiocy of the average player and the sense of entitlement (running bad bars and refusing to change, etc) killed the pick up group. The pug was dying long before heroes were introduced.

Chicken Ftw FTW.

This sums up exactly what I'd say about it.

Here's the thing. Guild Wars is a game that's been around a while. It's not soloable in the traditional sense of the word for the most part, you usually need a party of some sort if it's you or others. In some ways that's good, and others bad.

Another thing is the fact that everything is instanced. Let me state, I love instancing. I love having my own sandbox. But now that I've played some other games, I also see the value of non-instancing. My ideal model is a shared world with instances. Not only can people play by themselves without relying on extra players, they can also run into people with similiar goals, play alongside them, and it becomes easier to group. Instead, in GW, we get the worst of people in outposts. They're sitting around board and being annoying. No one wants to group with that.

I love that GW is different from other games, it gets me a fix I can't get elsewhere, but lately it feels like where I go for my antisocial fix. And in an MMO, that doesn't translate well.

And the other thing that caused a population decline (I won't really say killed because I don't think GW is THAT dead) is the fact that this game wasn't meant to go on and on and on. People ran out of things to do. What do you do when you've done everything? I used to farm to stay busy when I was bored, but any builds I used would end up nerfed. So, now I admit I usually just play a game where I keep finding stuff to do, instead of getting bored to the point of farming a ton.

upier · Jun 21, 2009, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

If you had any idea what you were talking about I wouldn't need to question it. Saying that the game isn't dead just because your guild isn't dead, and a couple of zquest zones aren't dead isn't an argument.

Look at the whole game. Player numbers have plummeted. You used to find large numbers of players, everywhere, now all the towns are empty except for the few larger ones, and zquest ones.

Clearly the game is dying, and heroes are a reason for it. If you don't realise this, then really, stop posting. You can blatantly ignore the information that people are posting, and sprout nonsense.

Look at the size of the PvE content.
Look at some of the basic rules of GW.

Yes, I agree.
If heroes or hench would not exist, we'd see MUCH more players in outposts. Quite simply because no one could leave them since we'd be all waiting for a healer.

DreamWind · Jun 21, 2009, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsarc

If you actually responded to what you quoted, you wouldn't be a troll. All you do is keep referring people to your previous posts and repeating the same things over and over. Hi, when people quote your posts and respond to them, the response is not to refer them to that post again.

The reason I repeat myself is because there are a bunch of people who are responding to my posts without reading them or responding to my posts without understanding what I'm saying. In the case of Daesu, half of the stuff he says has already been answered by me in previous posts. And for an example of what I'm saying here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsarc

In your ideal world, would people be able to use H/H to do anything or not? Are there signposts that say "Use of Heroes is allowed here." and they are forbidden everywhere else? If the choice is between H/Hing, teaming up, or not doing it at all, then not allowing H/Hing IS forcing people to team up. Stop contradicting yourself.

Looks like we've found one of those people. Honestly if you don't know my answer to this yet, you haven't been reading my posts. It is as simple as that. Small hint: Some areas should be soloable and some shouldn't. I still claim that heroes ruined a lot about this game.