Curse

bhavv · Apr 28, 2009, 10:41 AM // 10:41

This is not another 7 hero thread, this is a HYPOTHETICAL question based on the new microtransaction model asking if you would pay to be able to use more heroes in PVE ONLY (NOT IN HA or GVG). I feel it is appropriate to be able to discuss this now as if people turn out to be willing to pay for this, it might provide an idea for what Anet can sell in the future.

- 1 extra hero slot for your account, works on all characters in PVE for $9.99.

I would buy two right away and use 5 heroes + 2 hench, and buy the other two later on once 5 heroes got boring.

There are lots of people who wouldnt be interested in this, and will think it is a bad idea (Glad defence or defy pain warriors who think heroes suck will likely think so), but for the people who do want extra heroes in GW, would you pay $9.99 per extra hero slot like I would if this option ever became available?

Lets see how many people will fork over up to $40 to Anet, and how many will whine =D.

Hyper.nl · Apr 28, 2009, 10:52 AM // 10:52

/whine

I would love the full hero party, as said many times before. But it gives quite an advantage over people who do not have it, so it would be unfair to charge real money for it. And people already paid for heroes with their purchase of GW Nightfall and GW:EN.

A fair amount of in-game gold would be nice tho, like 25k per slot.

ps. Double thread?

bhavv · Apr 28, 2009, 11:06 AM // 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyper.nl

/whine

I would love the full hero party, as said many times before. But it gives quite an advantage over people who do not have it, so it would be unfair to charge real money for it. And people already paid for heroes with their purchase of GW Nightfall and GW:EN.

A fair amount of in-game gold would be nice tho, like 25k per slot.

ps. Double thread?

How is it an unfair advantage when heroes suck? (According to all the pugs that are now forming for Zaishen missions).

P.S. I believe this one is the updated edited thread, so ignore the other one.

Gli · Apr 28, 2009, 11:12 AM // 11:12

I wouldn't pay for that, apart from the fact that I'd think it would be a bad thing to offer. I don't need more than 3 heroes.

upier · Apr 28, 2009, 11:16 AM // 11:16

I do not do MTs.
I do want all hero parties though.

But since this extends beyond vanity - I feel it should be made into a core element, meaning accessible to everyone out of the box.
If it would be available for purchase only - I'd probably re-evaluate if I want to continue playing GW. If I felt my enjoyment of the game is seriously reduced - I'd rather quit then actually buy them.

DreamWind · Apr 28, 2009, 11:22 AM // 11:22

So let me get this straight...you are ok with spending $40 (basically the cost of the game itself) to remove the hero cap. Are you kidding me?

Raccoon · Apr 28, 2009, 11:25 AM // 11:25

I want seven heroes, but not by paying for it. Don't go giving anet anymore ideas.

Bryant Again · Apr 28, 2009, 11:30 AM // 11:30

Exact same viewpoint as Upier.

I don't think I need to go into how wrong this feature would be, as desirable as it is.

Ariena Najea · Apr 28, 2009, 11:31 AM // 11:31

Having additional content (or altering content) added to the game that affects gameplay is fine, but it should not cost money. Guild Wars is meant to be able to be played to the full extent of its gameplay right out of the box, with no additional purchases needed. Doing this goes against that, and would serve only to alienate large portions of the player base.

Although there appear to be parallels between an idea such as this and the release of the Stylist NPC, there are key differences. Although the Stylist provides a service that cannot be obtained through standard character creation, the changes are only cosmedic and do not affect gameplay in any capacity.

bhavv · Apr 28, 2009, 11:36 AM // 11:36

I want to give them more ideas =D.

The thing is, that when everyone wants an extra feature for free, regardless of whether or not they would admit to it, a lot of the people would be willing to pay for it if free is not an option. You will get complaints, but people will still buy the feature that they really really want if the option to do so is available.

Shadow Slave · Apr 28, 2009, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

How is it an unfair advantage when heroes suck? (According to all the pugs that are now forming for Zaishen missions).
.

Heroes suck in the sense that surely the ZQuests have been implemented to help reunite the community.

Playing with Heroes kinda defeats the object imo >.> meh

Obviously it would be an advantage to have more heroes - unless you feel they are only as good as Hench (??) - in which case, what's the point in buying a slot.

I think it's an interesting idea though - I can see lots of people going for it. Just not me.

Zahr Dalsk · Apr 28, 2009, 11:38 AM // 11:38

I'd rather $5 each, since I'd be getting all four... but yes, even at $9.99 each I'd probably get a full set of them; been waiting for it far too long.

bhavv · Apr 28, 2009, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So let me get this straight...you are ok with spending $40 (basically the cost of the game itself) to remove the hero cap. Are you kidding me?

Or I can buy another trilogy, painfully plod through every mission again, and then run both accounts for 6 heroes.

Or if the option was available, I could just add that feature to my current account with my legendary cartogropher, and use more heroes wherever I want.

If people are willing to buy a second account to use 6 heroes, then what is the problem with paying the same amount to have it added to your existing account?

I would rather pay $40 to unlock 7 hero use on my GW account rather than buy a second one.

Ratson Itamar · Apr 28, 2009, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariena Najea

Having additional content (or altering content) added to the game that affects gameplay is fine, but it should not cost money. Guild Wars is meant to be able to be played to the full extent of its gameplay right out of the box, with no additional purchases needed. Doing this goes against that, and would serve only to alienate large portions of the player base.

Although there appear to be parallels between an idea such as this and the release of the Stylist NPC, there are key differences. Although the Stylist provides a service that cannot be obtained through standard character creation, the changes are only cosmedic and do not affect gameplay in any capacity.

PvP Packs say hi.

CyberNigma · Apr 28, 2009, 11:48 AM // 11:48

Normally I am not against RMT in-game advantages so long as those same advantages are able to be had via in-game grind (time vs money). If not then I'd say no, and in this case where the advantage is only had via RMT and not attainable in-game, I'd definitely say no. Even though PvE players aren't directly competing, I guess there is still some competition in the marketplace and someone with a full hero party will have an advantage to gather goods for that marketplace than someone without.

I personally like to see everything based on skill, but when that's not feasible, gaining in-game advantages via the two methods - the normal western MMO method of time/grind and the eastern method of RMT are equal in my opinion. RMT benefits me because I work and have other responsibilities, whereas time/grind benefits the kiddos, college students, and those without other responsibilities that can poor more time into the game. It's like the old days of washing dishes/doing a chore to pay for a meal (time/grind for people with more time than money) or paying outright for your meal and leaving (RMT for people with more money than time).

So, offer them both ways or neither way at all. If they did offer them both ways, I'd of course buy them as I'm a professional with other responsibilities and have not the time to grind out stuff like that, but would really like to use a full party of heroes when I don't want to party up with other players. It would also give the kids/students a chance to grind out new heroes seeing as they may not have the funds to buy them.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that the most preferred method to me would be to remove the cap or have some small quest to do so. However, they have made it clear that will not happen.

If money is an incentive to change their minds, then yea - so be it. However, again, if money changes their minds then it should be attainable in both manners since it does give an advantage - via in-game grind (those with plenty of time but no money) or via RMT (those with money but no time for grinding, just playing for short periods). Grinding something is no more 'earning' than RMT in my opinion since they're both about time spent attaining something - RMT being time spent actually working to get the money to buy that item as opposed to time spent grinding in-game to buy that item.

As far as the value of buying extra hero slots, that's up to each individual. I can't justify spending large amounts of time in-game if that's the way to grind out heroes, but I can justify plumping down some cash so that I can play missions with more heroes when I don't party up. I enjoy the time playing missions and stuff (otherwise I wouldn't have tried to justified the money spent buying the game and time spent playing it), but my time is too valuable to grind out something that I think may make other parts of the game more enjoyable for me.

This would have been the best way to handle the storage situation as well. If they needed infusions of money in order to justify the development time (which I'm sure they probably did and will need to do so in the future) then also offering grind-versions of storage tabs would have sufficed. Converting time to money, they could have made it take X length of time to grind out the storage tabs OR just buy them outright. Then nobody is left out eventually. Ultimately I imagine that upper management will say no more development if it's not justified in returns, then nobody gets anything. Developers have to account for their hours/time and management has to account for that time within context of the budget. Whether they allow for that within the maintenance/customer support budget there I have no idea.

This one in particular though probably has more to do with some core value they have about not having a full party of heroes than anything else.

bhavv · Apr 28, 2009, 11:53 AM // 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Slave

Heroes suck in the sense that surely the ZQuests have been implemented to help reunite the community.

Playing with Heroes kinda defeats the object imo >.> meh

Obviously it would be an advantage to have more heroes - unless you feel they are only as good as Hench (??) - in which case, what's the point in buying a slot.

I think it's an interesting idea though - I can see lots of people going for it. Just not me.

No. Heroes suck in the sense that the majority of puggers dont know how to use them. All those teams that get to 6/8 and wait around for 30-60 minutes to fine two human monks that end up sucking even more then taking two hench monks would have.

To me, heroes dont suck, otherwise I wouldnt want them. But if you actually try doing the Z quests and asking all the half full teams if they want heroes to fill up the gaps, usuall reply will be 'no, heroes suck', and then you run of to do the mission once your party is full after waiting for almost an hour, and realise that they suck more than your H/H would have.

If you know how to use H/H that is. Everytime I try to pug, I genuinely hate the experience, and find H/H far more enjoyable, even better is 2 players / 6 heroes, but this is even harder to find and setup than a pug is for me.

I am also far too inactive now to be in a guild, usually I only play whenever updates are released for a few days, and then stop untill the next updates. Its not that I dont want a guild, but that after I have been gone for 3 or 4 weeks, I log back in to find that I am no longer in the guild that I joined several weeks ago.

So I am a 100% solo player and want to be able to enjoy my games to the fullest while playing solo, this is why this issue of full hero partie is worth paying for to me.

slowerpoke · Apr 28, 2009, 11:57 AM // 11:57

best not give them such ideas

not that im against it but the QQ would be epic

Targren · Apr 28, 2009, 11:59 AM // 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

This is not another 7 hero thread, this is a HYPOTHETICAL question based on the new microtransaction model asking if you would pay to be able to use more heroes in PVE ONLY (NOT IN HA or GVG). I feel it is appropriate to be able to discuss this now as if people turn out to be willing to pay for this, it might provide an idea for what Anet can sell in the future.
.

No.
Not just No. HELL no. GO RED ENGINE GO NO!

I've dealt with a lot of dipshit moves by Anet to date, and just moved on and played the game. THAT would be a /ragequit moment.

Shayne Hawke · Apr 28, 2009, 12:04 PM // 12:04

This directly affects the game. You are allowing people the option to purchase something that will give them a distinct edge over those who don't. That is not a good product for ANet to be putting onto the market. Having a full hero party is something that would have to come to everyone, or nobody at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratson Itamar

PvP Packs say hi.

And? That's not an edge over players by any means. All players in the game can unlock any set of skills they want through PvP or PvE play. Using the unlock pack simply speeds up this process. If it were to, say, give you access to a unique few skills that you couldn't obtain unless you bought the PvP Pack, then yes, it would be a product supporting unfair play in GW.

Nanood · Apr 28, 2009, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Sure.. why not. That would save some running around for things like sabway and other hero setups.. I'd buy it !