Curse

RTSFirebat · Jul 04, 2009, 09:49 PM // 21:49

For me heroes did kill a big part of the game, grouping with Guildies and random people. They should have limited it to having 1 hero per person, not 3.

Lagg · Jul 04, 2009, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Guild Wars till Heroes arrived : awesome multiplayer game.

Guild Wars since Heroes arrived : average single player game.

Lishy · Jul 04, 2009, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Heroes didn't kill GW at all..
It gave the playerbase exactly what they wanted.

Someone with common sense will realize a majority prefer henchmen and heroes with players for the more harder areas.
And an intelligent company knows that they should give players what they want.

Personally, I have an awesome time with my and my heroes
Customization is what I'm all about. Only problem is we're limited to only 3 and no pve skills..

Bryant Again · Jul 04, 2009, 11:08 PM // 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTSFirebat

For me heroes did kill a big part of the game, grouping with Guildies and random people. They should have limited it to having 1 hero per person, not 3.

Here's where I'd really like to see some figures and why ANet has implemented heroes.

Were they just a "fun idea" by ANet for more variety?

Or were they in response to the number of people actually soloing and the general declining of the population and increase of the gameworld?

Daesu · Jul 05, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTSFirebat

For me heroes did kill a big part of the game, grouping with Guildies and random people. They should have limited it to having 1 hero per person, not 3.

That's not true. Heroes will not stop you from grouping with guildies or random people. It is people that made that choice.

Since most of the outposts are quite empty anyway, without heroes, many of us would quit this game because it becomes impossible to find enough people to do the quest you want, other than zquests. Without heroes, this game is just not worth playing waiting for 1hr+ to form a group.

I was trying to cap a boss's elite skill outside of zquests for my title, but you guessed it, the outposts were mostly empty. I wonder how long it will take to find 7 other players that need to kill that same boss in an arbitrary outpost, without heroes and henchies.

Red Sonya · Jul 05, 2009, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

And most players would choose the route that is easiest for them to succeed.

Nope I disagree. Most players will choose what is most convenient for their time they have to play. Not what is most easiest. It takes time to put together a group/pug. Most players don't have that kind of time. Heroes helped the game last longer than it would have without them.

Daesu · Jul 05, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Nope I disagree. Most players will choose what is most convenient for their time they have to play. Not what is most easiest. It takes time to put together a group/pug. Most players don't have that kind of time. Heroes helped the game last longer than it would have without them.

Depending on the situation, using heroes using isn't always the most time consuming option. You can attempt Foundry HM over and over with 6 heroes but I would argue that it is faster with a good human team. So which option saves you more time overall?

Red Sonya · Jul 06, 2009, 01:31 AM // 01:31

You are singling out one venture Daesu I'm talking about the game as a whole and peoples time as a whole not just one tough area. Apples to oranges.

Daesu · Jul 06, 2009, 05:16 AM // 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

You are singling out one venture Daesu I'm talking about the game as a whole and peoples time as a whole not just one tough area. Apples to oranges.

Who cares about the easier areas in NM? You pass those very quickly anyway. This is why you usually dont see many people in those missions to party up with. Many people pay to be ran because they dont want to stay there longer than they have to.

It is the tougher elite missions in HM that people farm over and over after hitting level 20 that characters spend more of their time in. For these missions, it is the SC human teams that are dominant, not H/H teams.

DreamWind · Jul 06, 2009, 07:42 PM // 19:42

This thread is still going lol. Might as well make a quick post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Guild Wars till Heroes arrived : awesome multiplayer game.

Guild Wars since Heroes arrived : average single player game.

This was basically the simple conclusion of my argument. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Here's where I'd really like to see some figures and why ANet has implemented heroes.

Were they just a "fun idea" by ANet for more variety?

Or were they in response to the number of people actually soloing and the general declining of the population and increase of the gameworld?

I would like to see the figures and know the reasons as well. I think this is yet another problem with heroes...even if they WERE a good idea, they were implemented horribly. They casued a tremendous amount of irreversable damage. Even if heroes are good now, the past damage they caused is not worth it to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

That's not true. Heroes will not stop you from grouping with guildies or random people. It is people that made that choice.

You have to ask yourself WHY people made that choice. Is it because guildies are bad or because heroes are good enough to not need anything else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Who cares about the easier areas in NM? You pass those very quickly anyway.

Yet another problem. HM replaced NM, just like heroes replaced humans. I have a problem with both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

It is the tougher elite missions in HM that people farm over and over after hitting level 20 that characters spend more of their time in. For these missions, it is the SC human teams that are dominant, not H/H teams.

Sigh...Daesu we just keep going in circles with you. This has already been answered.

Daesu · Jul 06, 2009, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You have to ask yourself WHY people made that choice. Is it because guildies are bad or because heroes are good enough to not need anything else?

There could be many reasons why some people choose heroes. I choose heroes sometimes because I cant find enough people in the outpost that are not afk. I choose heroes sometimes because I know I would be interrupted soon and I would afk in the mission for an hour or so. This way I can start the mission, play for 15 mins, then go afk for family obligations, then come back and resume the mission. There are many other reasons why people use heroes.

Quote:

Yet another problem. HM replaced NM, just like heroes replaced humans. I have a problem with both.

Heroes, as they are now, can never ever replace humans. I have established that far back in this thread but arguments that are directly opposed to yours never seem to register in your head.

Heroes AI are too dumb. They shoot against walls, and dont run out of AoE effectively. Heroes also cannot equip PvE skills, bring cons, and they also cant use certain builds effectively.

Quote:

Sigh...Daesu we just keep going in circles with you. This has already been answered.

That's because you are too stubborn to listen, and kept repeating the same arguments without addressing my counter arguments.

Ghost Omel · Jul 06, 2009, 08:04 PM // 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

There could be many reasons why some people choose heroes. I choose heroes sometimes because I cant find enough people in the outpost that are not afk. I choose heroes sometimes because I know I would be interrupted soon and I would afk in the mission for an hour or so. This way I can start the mission, play for 15 mins, then go afk for family obligations, then come back and resume the mission. There are many other reasons why people use heroes.

Heroes, as they are now, can never ever replace humans. I have established that far back in this thread but arguments that are directly opposed to yours never seem to register in your head.

Heroes AI are too dumb. They shoot against walls, and dont run out of AoE effectively. Heroes also cannot equip PvE skills, bring cons, and they also cant use certain builds effectively.

That's because you are too stubborn to listen, and kept repeating the same arguments without addressing my counter arguments.

He debates with same person over and over excluding other at all time.....But yeah i support your statement completely.. made same points myself but did not get response in any way.. Kudos to you.

DreamWind · Jul 06, 2009, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Heroes, as they are now, can never ever replace humans. I have established that far back in this thread but arguments that are directly opposed to yours never seem to register in your head.

Uh...heroes did replace humans in many cases and CAN replace them in 99% of cases. There is no argument that is directly opposed to this. The only thing you can use is Bryant's position that "we don't truly know without proof", but even that doesn't work when we know that heroes can do nearly everything humans can in what is left of Guild Wars (easy PvE).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Heroes AI are too dumb. They shoot against walls, and dont run out of AoE effectively. Heroes also cannot equip PvE skills, bring cons, and they also cant use certain builds effectively.

They don't need to be as smart as humans. They only need to be smart enough to beat all of PvE, which they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

That's because you are too stubborn to listen, and kept repeating the same arguments without addressing my counter arguments.

You aren't even using arguments anymore. You continually keep saying "humans are better than AI because humans can do things better/faster", which is constantly repeated, answers nothing, solves nothing, and is almost off topic frankly. So humans can farm hard areas faster with inbalanced stuff that shouldn't exist...who cares? What does that have to do with all the problems that have been brought up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Omel

He debates with same person over and over excluding other at all time.....But yeah i support your statement completely.. made same points myself but did not get response in any way.. Kudos to you.

I responded to you pages ago. You haven't added anything new since then, mostly only agreeing with other people's posts.

Ghost Omel · Jul 06, 2009, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I responded to you pages ago. You haven't added anything new since then, mostly only agreeing with other people's posts.

My Opologies then... seems ages ago.. But indeed you are correct.. seems like every one just regurgetates their already posted ideas... which locks the circle . So same information just differently srinkled with examples.... all have spoken...I just want some 1 from the developers team come in and say their reason and on that lock the post so no more "But but but thats not wqhat happened" things would come.

Daesu · Jul 06, 2009, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...heroes did replace humans in many cases and CAN replace them in 99% of cases.

That is ridiculous. Is something inferior a replacement to something that is better? Are the Corollas a replacement for the Ferraris? Why dont you try replacing someone's Ferrari with a Corolla and ask him what he thinks of that?

People know that human players are superior and that heroes only have a limited set of builds that they can run effectively because of their limited AI. Otherwise everyone would be using Anton/Zenmai SF heroes, wouldn't they? Besides, almost all the PUGs that I joined prefer to wait for a human monk player to be available rather than take hero monks, unless no human monk shows up after a long wait. If a hero is really as good or better than a human player then why would they do that?

Quote:

we know that heroes can do nearly everything humans can in what is left of Guild Wars (easy PvE).

Not true. There are so many things and so many builds that heroes cannot use effectively that human players can. Just go ahead and check pvxwiki and see how many builds are for human players vs how many are for heroes?

If heroes really replace humans then there would be no need for such seperation between hero builds and human builds now, would there?

Quote:

They don't need to be as smart as humans. They only need to be smart enough to beat all of PvE, which they are.

They are certainly not smart enough to beat all of PvE. Especially without all the extra work that are often needed to micro manage them. In many areas, it is much tougher to use H/H than to use a human team. I have stated many missions like HM Aurora Glades, HM Eternal Grove, HM Dzagonur Bastion, HM elite areas, and more, that people usually use a human team to help them get through.

Quote:

You aren't even using arguments anymore. You continually keep saying "humans are better than AI because humans can do things better/faster", which is constantly repeated, answers nothing, solves nothing, and is almost off topic frankly. So humans can farm hard areas faster with inbalanced stuff that shouldn't exist...who cares? What does that have to do with all the problems that have been brought up?

Because human players are more effective in all areas of PvE that is why heroes do not replace humans. Even if you take the NM easy areas, or any areas that you can think of, they can be more easily accomplished through a human team. But I have already named many areas, that are much harder to be cleared through a H/H team, than with a human team.

The main advantage heroes provide is not power, a full human team is always more powerful with better intelligence, cons, and pve skills. The main advantage of heroes is the convenience of not needing to LFG in town, which makes them more suitable for the easier missions. In this respect, heroes are more of a replacement for henchies, not human players. For the harder missions, using just H/H becomes a much more difficult accomplishment than using humans.

Bryant Again · Jul 06, 2009, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I would like to see the figures and know the reasons as well. I think this is yet another problem with heroes...even if they WERE a good idea, they were implemented horribly. They casued a tremendous amount of irreversable damage. Even if heroes are good now, the past damage they caused is not worth it to me.

Could you share some examples of this damage?

the_jos · Jul 07, 2009, 10:40 AM // 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

That is ridiculous. Is something inferior a replacement to something that is better? Are the Corollas a replacement for the Ferraris? Why dont you try replacing someone's Ferrari with a Corolla and ask him what he thinks of that?

People know that human players are superior and that heroes only have a limited set of builds that they can run effectively because of their limited AI. Otherwise everyone would be using Anton/Zenmai SF heroes, wouldn't they? Besides, almost all the PUGs that I joined prefer to wait for a human monk player to be available rather than take hero monks, unless no human monk shows up after a long wait. If a hero is really as good or better than a human player then why would they do that?

If all you want is getting from A to B within the speed limits of your country you will most likely do as well with your Corolla as with your Ferrari and at the same time use less fuel.
When I look at the fuel/mile ratio a Ferrari is far inferior compared to the Corolla when you comply to the speed limits most countries have.

Taking a human or hero monk depends a lot on team layout and strategy.
I hate monking in a mainly hero team because they jump all over the place and clump together so it's hard to tell which one is taking the hit. If they don't take the hit together because of AoE. But in a mainly human team I'd wait for a human monk if it doesn't take too long. Those are better suited for specific actions.
The same for strategy. Yesterday I monked for a 4 human player team in Mineral Springs (NM) to get some scalps. Hero monks cannot deal with those conditions and will either get hit or burn their energy.
But in a 8/8 mixed team (4 human/4 heroes) I would have played another profession and left monking to heroes. This would not have given a huge disadvantage over a 8/8 human team. Dead foes ain't going to hurt the team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

If heroes really replace humans then there would be no need for such seperation between hero builds and human builds now, would there?

Nope. Heroes are better at reacting than most humans, most humans are better at predicting than heroes. This calls for different builds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Because human players are more effective in all areas of PvE that is why heroes do not replace humans. Even if you take the NM easy areas, or any areas that you can think of, they can be more easily accomplished through a human team. But I have already named many areas, that are much harder to be cleared through a H/H team, than with a human team.

This is only looking at one side of the coin. Humans are more effective doing stuff but heroes have the advantage of virtually no waiting time.
It's the balance between waiting time and the time needed to get things done that determines if it's better to take humans or heroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

The main advantage heroes provide is not power, a full human team is always more powerful with better intelligence, cons, and pve skills. The main advantage of heroes is the convenience of not needing to LFG in town, which makes them more suitable for the easier missions. In this respect, heroes are more of a replacement for henchies, not human players. For the harder missions, using just H/H becomes a much more difficult accomplishment than using humans.

You are focussing on one element of humans vs heroes, their ingame performance. Sure humans have the advantage here. But it's like the Corolla/Ferrari comparisation. Your example implies that you are comparing on something that makes the Ferrari superior. Speed, value, comfort, car-peen.
I can easily state that the Corolla is far superior in other areas. Fuel consumption, value for money, maintenance costs, insurance.

All you seem to think of is how fast you can finish things, but for many getting from A to B is all they need to do. No need for Ferrari's to do that.

Daesu · Jul 07, 2009, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

If all you want is getting from A to B within the speed limits of your country you will most likely do as well with your Corolla as with your Ferrari and at the same time use less fuel.
When I look at the fuel/mile ratio a Ferrari is far inferior compared to the Corolla when you comply to the speed limits most countries have.

People who buy a Ferrari over a Corolla do not care about that. Obviously a Ferrari is a higher prestige car with a much greater power and speed. Many people buy Ferrari because they have something that Corollas dont and not every country/state has such a low speed limit.

Quote:

The same for strategy. Yesterday I monked for a 4 human player team in Mineral Springs (NM) to get some scalps. Hero monks cannot deal with those conditions and will either get hit or burn their energy.

Precisely my point that a hero monk is inferior to a good human monk.

Quote:

But in a 8/8 mixed team (4 human/4 heroes) I would have played another profession and left monking to heroes. This would not have given a huge disadvantage over a 8/8 human team. Dead foes ain't going to hurt the team.

I dont see the advantage of a 4/4 team vs a good human team, a good human team would still be far superior. A 4/4 team is not a H/H team by the way, it is a hybrid team.

Quote:

Nope. Heroes are better at reacting than most humans, most humans are better at predicting than heroes. This calls for different builds.

Their disadvantages far outweigh that. Why do you think I try to avoid bringing melee heroes? They run around the AoE till they drop, they sometimes stand next to the enemy without attacking, and sometimes they run back and forth doing nothing. Although their simple AI is more suitable to play a caster, they dont perform many builds well. They also dont manage their energy well and tend to spam. I can go on.

Didn't you admit earlier that in many HM missions+bonus, it is much easier to accomplish with a good human team than it is to accomplish with just H/H? This is because a good human team is more powerful than a H/H team.

Quote:

This is only looking at one side of the coin. Humans are more effective doing stuff but heroes have the advantage of virtually no waiting time.
It's the balance between waiting time and the time needed to get things done that determines if it's better to take humans or heroes.

Sure, and I have said that too. However, that contradicts what Dreamwind said about heroes replacing humans.

Read my post above again, I have already said that heroes do grant a shorter wait time in town. But that is balanced against their lesser power which is evident in difficult missions. Therefore heroes do NOT replace humans, as much as Corollas do NOT replace Ferraris.

If I want a better team, I would call my friends and guildies for help and wait a little longer. If I dont need a better team, I would just take my heroes and avoid the wait. Heroes are just a different option, more suitable for the easier areas.

Clobimon · Jul 07, 2009, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Hey people, from my point of view, Guild Wars isn't dead or been killed at all so the main question is invalid. No it's perhaps not as thriving and vibrant as certain periods of time, which won't be duplicated without a "2" after the name, but there still are players all over and people are still logging in for events. For the past year and some until I've been back in GW more I've been playing AoC. Now that is a game that's felt dead since about a month after release. The difference is that AoC is a game in main focus development so they have an 'obligation' to fix things, change things and add content to try and get players - dig out of a hole. Unfortunately they do it very slowly, but that's another topic.

Regarding heroes, put me on the side that believes their addition did nothing less than extend play - for me and many people. While playing fulltime and maintaining guild numbers we always played and did missions like we always did pre-hero, except filling in an open spot if necessary with one of them rather than a hench. However, there are many things that I did that I would never or rarely have grouped for even without heroes, but they made it much easier and more fun to do. Vanquishing, Skill Hunting and Cartophraphy are a few examples for me - things I had a system and a list for completion that tended to get messy and slow with too many people going in all directions. A game like AoC that has all of it's endgame pve content designed for groups you either don't do anything or you try to get a group or you mess around on alts until your guilds raid time. There isn't an option.

DreamWind · Jul 07, 2009, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Could you share some examples of this damage?

Well...I have mostly stated all of them somewhere in this thread. In particular I'd say the damage to PvP is not reversable, but there have been many things in PvE as well. For now though I'll just say that the damage to PvP was not worth whatever benefit heroes may bring today...at least not for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

That is ridiculous. Is something inferior a replacement to something that is better? Are the Corollas a replacement for the Ferraris? Why dont you try replacing someone's Ferrari with a Corolla and ask him what he thinks of that?

Your example does not fit at all. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

People know that human players are superior and that heroes only have a limited set of builds that they can run effectively because of their limited AI.

Not true. There are so many things and so many builds that heroes cannot use effectively that human players can.

If heroes really replace humans then there would be no need for such seperation between hero builds and human builds now, would there?

Because human players are more effective in all areas of PvE that is why heroes do not replace humans.

So what? Instead of answering all the other problems with heroes that have been listed in this thread, why do you keep repeating the mantra that humans are better than heroes?

You seem to be fascinated with my statement that heroes replaced humans for some reason because you keep trying to prove it wrong. You seem to be focused on the power level of humans vs heroes (which by itself is a huge off topic problem) while ignoring everything else that is being said. Ok let me settle this once and for all hopefully:

Heroes did not replace humans. Instead, heroes CAN replace humans for 99% of the tasks available in the game. The difference here is heroes did not replace henchies, because henchies can't beat many areas while heroes can, meanwhile both heroes and humans can beat most areas. Do you understand what I'm trying to say yet? Now lets stop focusing on this ONE thing I said and start responding to all the other issues. What about the irreversable damage caused? What about the singleplayer game? What about the screwed up difficulty challenge? Etc etc. Are you going to say these all didn't happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

They are certainly not smart enough to beat all of PvE.

Uh...nearly all of it. I know for a fact I could roll heroway and beat basically all of Guild Wars right now, and I haven't played PvE in a LONG time. With 6 heroes it would be even easier. Hell I could probably beat it with physicalway (thats what worked in the past I doubt its changed now). PvE is easy, and has been for quite some time. The only reason I would need humans is to farm something faster. You continue to argue that humans are required because they can speedclear areas faster. So what? The goal of the game is not to see who can speedclear areas or turbofarm the fastest, and if it is the game is a pile of garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

The main advantage heroes provide is not power, a full human team is always more powerful with better intelligence, cons, and pve skills. The main advantage of heroes is the convenience of not needing to LFG in town, which makes them more suitable for the easier missions. In this respect, heroes are more of a replacement for henchies, not human players.

The only reason to even use humans is because they have better cons and skills. The intelligence barely matters anymore in this game. The AI is sufficient enough to beat the game, and that is a problem. No intelligence is required to play Guild Wars anymore. Its either I roll AI and beat it, or I grab humans using mindless cons and skills and beat it. Both are a problem.