Curse

sixofone · Sep 23, 2008, 10:05 PM // 22:05

For me, it's less about being "anti-social" as it is about simply acknowledging the fact that I can't type and play at the same time. I know I'm still pretty average as a player - which is fine with me, I'm playing to have fun anyway. But, I didn't want to be the n00b getting people killed when I first started GW, and H&H let me learn at my own pace. (And I thought getting killed was a bad thing. Turns out, it only matters if you're going after the Legendary Survivor title.)

Plus, building hero skill bars taught me a lot about the professions, and why some skills just work better than others, and how they synergize.

I don't know that Anet is trying to force players to change their play style. The option to play solo has always existed in the game. Granted, Prophecies henchmen suck, especially in the early parts of the game. But, I don't think it was designed that way to force players to PUG or form a guild. Really, I think they expected that people would simply prefer to play with real people vs. henchmen AI, and so not a lot of depth went into them. (I mean, come on - a lot of single player games have incredible AI, for mobs certainly, to pose a real challenge to the player. No reason friendly "follower" AI couldn't be just as smart.)

wilebill · Sep 23, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Behind this request in general is the idea that the hench are obsolete or inferior. Except for a few areas, the hench work fine for me. Further, I seem to somehow acquire all of the elite weapons I can store; loot is good enough.

Cobalt, I think you are right about the vision of the lead designers. Over the history of this game since the release of Prophecies I have posted a lot of messages trying to show them the error of their group oriented design. And they have improved things for solo players a lot since then.

But their original vision of group play is to a great extent hard coded in stone in the basic game design of GW1. I think they have done as much as they are going to do in giving us three heroes. And, for most casual players, 7 heroes will not help since they do not know how to set them up as well as the hench in the first place.

We can hope they make a game with broader appeal in GW 2. Warhammer offers a new model of cooperative play that ANet can study. We will see how popular it proves to be.

From what I have been able to tell from previews, Sacred 2 seems to have a better model for solo players as well. ANet can also see how that turns out.

sindex · Sep 23, 2008, 10:45 PM // 22:45

At first, I rather enjoyed playing with random people (PUG’s) towards the beginning of GW lifespan, but after awhile it became apparent that I had minus 75% successes rate at getting things done with them. Overall, there are those out there who like to grief, scam, leave, leech, and cause other problems to the player base. A good majority of these problems you have to set aside when you’re just dealing with borderline AI. If I had to choose to take up more social aspects of the game, it’s better to pick a good guild over that of PUG’s any day.

The only reason why I would join any type of PUG, would be for the sheer entertainment value. It also reaffirms the idea of why I don’t use PUG’s anymore.

Akimb0 · Sep 24, 2008, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Pugs fail most of the time to be honest. Heroes for me were the greatest invention ever. I could form a party based around a concept or idea that I wanted, rather than trying to jam together a mis-match of random player builds. If I want to play with human players I have a guild to ask, if I want to play on my own, or if I'm in one of the many missions where there arn't even pugs to pick from, why should I/we have to suffer with the rather poor henchies? At the end of the day if you could have 7 heroes, but didn't want to use them, you wouldn't have to, if you did want to, you could. I'd like that choice.

Quaker · Sep 24, 2008, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

How about give everyone what they want and drop the silly argument that the game wasn't meant to be played that way.

I'm not sure it's ANet that makes that argument - that just sounds like what forum posters say.
ANet may not want another Ursanway on their hands. Every one and his dog would download the uber 7 hero builds and .....

snaek · Sep 24, 2008, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by illidan009

While I'm not saying ppl like OP doesn't exist in a decent number, A LOT more people would rather PuG...if you don't like being social on a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER online game, then go play ESIV:Oblivion...it's so much better in that regard. On an MMO people would generally like to play with others...accomadating a few for the worse of majority is bullcrap. And don't tell me it won't affect the number of the PuGs b/c it will KILL it.

gw isnt -all- that multiplayer
i wish it was
but its ppl like teh op that -kill- gw
(altho i think anet does it moreso)

fireflyry · Sep 24, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Imo it's simply a balance issue.

The fact is heroes are often using OP'd builds which makes them just as, if not more effective and efficient, as any human player will ever be.You are also able to create build synergy easily and quickly.

Anet failed in making H/H a more desirable and usually more efficient option than pugging.End result:People PuG way less, overall PuG quality and skill levels goes down the drain, cue a snowball.

To me it's never a question of forcing a player to do anything, it's about presenting options and making the options equally viable.The problem is the desirability and power of H/H greatly outweighs the social aspect of the game.

This was seldom an issue in Prophecies as the henchies sucked and were generally a last resort.The advent of heroes and better hench AI, builds and skill use really killed the desirability and effectiveness of PuG's outside high-end areas where specific human team builds are still more effective.

If you place pugging, in general, on a weaker power tier than H/H the end result is obvious.

Anet can easily fix this by making GW2 soloable with AI assistance while keeping PuG's on a higher power tier.

Bryant Again · Sep 24, 2008, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Good post, OP.

I think, all in all, ANet really wanted GW to be a very sociable game. But given its mass and all of the roadblocks (entirely instanced, limited party search) it just didn't quite cut it.

Either way, when all's said and done, it's very easy to understand why GW2 is going to be for a very large majority of the game soloable.

@above: I think it's very hard to argue that heroes are OP. Granted, you're able to replace the work of 7 other people, but that becomes severely limited with the bad AI, limited build usage, and lack of PvE skills.

maraxusofk · Sep 24, 2008, 02:06 AM // 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

@above: I think it's very hard to argue that heroes are OP. Granted, you're able to replace the work of 7 other people, but that becomes severely limited with the bad AI, limited build usage, and lack of PvE skills.

heroes are as good as the ppl who control them. if a player is smart wit the builds (or just copy wut someone else made), then the heroes will be OP'ed if they are given a OP build.

fireflyry · Sep 24, 2008, 02:18 AM // 02:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Good post, OP.
@above: I think it's very hard to argue that heroes are OP. Granted, you're able to replace the work of 7 other people, but that becomes severely limited with the bad AI, limited build usage, and lack of PvE skills.

It's a statement which covers a multitude of facets.

In general, 8 humans will overpower any hero team out there.

What one has to take into account is, time taken to get 7 other people, build synergy, player skill, player experience, rate of success, time taken to complete goal, etc, etc, etc.

On the flipside we also have OP'd options like triple necro hero teams which blow up 99% of the game.

H/H is overpowered in the respect it is a vastly more desirable option when compared to pugging for the majority of the game for a huge number of reasons.

This needs to be balanced.

The trend is already in game and imo has lead to the current state of GW.

pumpkin pie · Sep 24, 2008, 02:30 AM // 02:30

To the OP: no I don't think Arena Net is trying to make its players iinto something they are not, I only think they want to be the best game producers and to get us to pay for the best game they've produce.

PS: off topic
Who says players have to play with other players in a Massive Multiplayer Online Game?

Just think about it, guild wars has massive players playing on their server everyday, thats massive multiplayer online. yes or no? the answer is yes, weather they choose to interact or not is another matter.

if players say, no, i want to play alone in PvP, there will be a problem that people might think you nuts, but when players on MMO that play PvE say, no, i want to play alone, with H/H, theres no problem at all, why? because its player vs Environment in a massive multiplayer online game, the massive player base is just what it is lots of massive players online, weather they interact or not is base on what part of the game they want to play. these massive players are not require by default to play with other players just because the game genre is MMO.

sindex · Sep 24, 2008, 02:49 AM // 02:49

I have this feeling that sooner or latter GW 2 will turn to it’s GW 1 roots in dealing with PUG’s. I highly doubt the whole “Companion System,” is going to fix the problems of the past. Don’t get me wrong I like sociable games but I can’t stand pure idiocy just for the sake of laughs. When you’re on the other end of the “grief-stick” you’ll end up having no sympathy for the third party.

Cathode_Reborn · Sep 24, 2008, 05:11 AM // 05:11

I love how they assume that H/H'ers are anti-social.

They obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the social life of an average gamer. They really don't.

Dr Strangelove · Sep 24, 2008, 05:16 AM // 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathode_Reborn

I love how they assume that H/H'ers are anti-social.

They obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the social life of an average gamer. They really don't.

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that someone who prefers playing by himself instead of in groups is probably on the introverted side of things. Nothing wrong with that.

Savio · Sep 24, 2008, 05:57 AM // 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that someone who prefers playing by himself instead of in groups is probably on the introverted side of things. Nothing wrong with that.

Given a choice between a PUG and H/H, most good players would choose H/H.

I don't get the OP. Since the start there has been the option to use henchmen, and that option became better with the addition of heroes. Saying that not giving players 7 heroes is forcing people to be social is like saying that a person who shares only half his lunch with you is a greedy jerk for not giving you all of it.

As for the design of the game encouraging anti-social aspects, I don't know how beneficial it would be to encourage PUGs.

Cathode_Reborn · Sep 24, 2008, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that someone who prefers playing by himself instead of in groups is probably on the introverted side of things. Nothing wrong with that.

If an average person, who has a job/school and plenty of friends outside the game wanted to play something with others, I think they're more likely to bring them over for split-screen action on a console. If they wanted to play GW and not somethin else, I'd imagine that they'd H/H if they have a decent understanding of the game, rather than joining a group of randoms who are likely to whine, moan, and wipe.

4thVariety · Sep 24, 2008, 06:32 AM // 06:32

ArenaNet only rewards efficiency:

* Your build has to be up to the task, else you fail even if you are the best player in the world.

* Rewards scale to time! This is very important, the faster you do something, the more reward you will get. This will lead to:
(1) People demanding you to use whatever build is perceived as the fastest.
(2) People doing things alone, because waiting costs time and that means less rewards.

* The lootscaling rewards the Solo-Farmer. It does not reward the socializer, it does not reward the team effort. Most of the time you are better off farming something alone.

If we really want groups to dominate the face of Guild Wars, if we really want to reward the social teamplay, then the reward structure of the game has to change. But that is not likely to happen, since ArenaNet obviously believes that Solofarming is better than grouping. Solofarming was never really the target of any nerf. No balance update tried to remove solofarming in its entirety. So we have to recognize that Anet wants it over anything.

The same cannot be said for group farming. As soon as some type of group farming yields too much reward (read: more than the best solo farmers), then it will be hit hard with the nerfhammer. Ursan was banished, Cryway is under observation, that is sending the message to players that grouping is not something ArenaNet really wants.

Sure, you do not get punished for grouping, but you will also not be rewarded. if you farmed the same area alone, you would have earned more money. That is one of the cornerstones GW is build upon. That's why the game appears to be anti-social. The day people earn more money by grouping is the day people stop asking for 7 heroes or stick to solofarming. So bring over the lootscaling to hardmode so people stop solofarming. Increase the lootdrops for every human player on the team. Socializing should be rewarded, not efficiency alone. Full human team will get more drops than two player Sabway.

But since ArenaNet worships the religion of efficiency and solofarm showboating we will never get any reward for grouping. ArenaNet will stick to that dogma. Which is a MAJOR argument against GW as a social gaming platform. After all, people will still sit alone in front of their computer. Without an incentive to interact with the other pixels on the screen, they will most likely not do it.

tmakinen · Sep 24, 2008, 07:36 AM // 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Your build has to be up to the task, else you fail even if you are the best player in the world.

I vastly prefer that over the standard MMO approach 'you must be at least level <X> and have <leetequipment> to stand a chance against <bigbadmonster>'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

the faster you do something, the more reward you will get

I believe this to be the cornerstone of the modern economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

The lootscaling rewards the Solo-Farmer

Bzzzt. Wrong, loot scaling punishes solo farming and has negligible effect on team farming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Solofarming was never really the target of any nerf

Bzzzt. Wrong, there have been several nerfs directly pointed at particular solo farming runs like the UW Chaos Planes permasin farm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

The same cannot be said for group farming. As soon as some type of group farming yields too much reward (read: more than the best solo farmers), then it will be hit hard with the nerfhammer.

Too bad that facts disagree with your proposition here as well. UB became available on August 31, 2007 and nerfed on August 08, 2008, almost a year later. The easy permasin farm became available on May 22, 2008 and nerfed on July 07, 2008, a little over a month later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

So bring over the lootscaling to hardmode so people stop solofarming.

Let me break the news to you: Loot scaling has always affected Hard Mode, it was specifically implemented for it. Also, if you kill solo farming solo farmers will just quit the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Socializing should be rewarded

I thought that socializing was its own reward? What kind of socialist welfare system would you suggest, that you get 100 gold every time you invite somebody to your party?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Without an incentive to interact with the other pixels on the screen, they will most likely not do it.

I think that there are lots of incentives to interact and all the people I know are eager to play with other people. If you are having difficulties in that respect then maybe it's not game designers' fault that they aren't forcing people to play with you.

4thVariety · Sep 24, 2008, 09:17 AM // 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

I believe this to be the cornerstone of the modern economy.

an economy which is not designed to foster socializing - in contrast to a social game!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Bzzzt. Wrong, loot scaling punishes solo farming and has negligible effect on team farming.

It merely pushes solofarming into the hardmode. But once people got their unlimited invincibility combo running it doesn't really matter which mode you're in. The game does not punish you in HM solofarming, it rewards you even more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Bzzzt. Wrong, there have been several nerfs directly pointed at particular solo farming runs like the UW Chaos Planes permasin farm.

There has been no attempt to stop the approach the permasin did. It was merely an attempt to limit his income. The concept of the permasin doing it alone was never attacked by the nerf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Too bad that facts disagree with your proposition here as well. UB became available on August 31, 2007 and nerfed on August 08, 2008, almost a year later. The easy permasin farm became available on May 22, 2008 and nerfed on July 07, 2008, a little over a month later.

While Ursan was completely removed from the game by giving it a rhythm which proved to be incompatible to the game, the permasin nerf was no nerf at all. Merely a minor annoyance costing some time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

I thought that socializing was its own reward? What kind of socialist welfare system would you suggest, that you get 100 gold every time you invite somebody to your party?

I suggest AneraNet acknowledges that people do not play for single reasons, but for multiple reasons and that the reward system should address all of them. I could say the same way: "Isn't being able to kill all monsters alone reward enough? Why give out money to that player?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

I think that there are lots of incentives to interact and all the people I know are eager to play with other people. If you are having difficulties in that respect then maybe it's not game designers' fault that they aren't forcing people to play with you.

Please name three incentives to interact with other people. No intrinsic ones, but incentives given FROM the game TO the player.

Once a player crosses a certain bridge he will come to think of lonewolfing as the best approach to the game. If the game can upset this train of though it will be a better one. Why would I group with a total newbie if I created a new character now? If the game can answer that easy question, it will be much more social in nature. Not because people aren't 'greedy scum', but because the game's design exploits that for a purpose. (btw, it doesn't need to be a gold reward. even Tutor titles would suffice)

tmakinen · Sep 24, 2008, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Please name three incentives to interact with other people. No intrinsic ones, but incentives given FROM the game TO the player.

rare items
reward chests for elite content
all of PvP