Curse

pamelf · Mar 25, 2008, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

The 1 mil $ then is:
Do people that hero/hench everything that they can - party with people for the the things that they can't hero/hench or just don't do them?

I'm with you. I just don't do them. It's far too annoying trying to get a pug together, then having to deal with all the annoying people who have no idea how a team is even meant to work. It usually takes a few tries to get together a good pug group, and frankly, in those few tries I've usually learnt to do the thing I wasn't able to in H/H anyway. The good thing about henches is that they're predictable; learn their behavior patterns and you'll usually get through. Pugs aren't. And they're usually bad.

upier · Mar 25, 2008, 12:53 PM // 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

I found the whole "we want players to play together cooperatively" vision of Anet to be complete bollocks from the get-go. And for them to enforce so many stuff to make sure we MUST play together? That's pathetic.

I actually don't mind this stance.
But like you said - the big problem is how it's executed in GW.
Rather then being something we strive for - because it would be fun or it would offer additional benefits (which is the reason why I sometimes play with people - and in those cases "being effective" (which is absolutely possible with h/h) becomes a secondary goal (unless we are dealing with Ursan of course)) - it's something that is forced onto us.
A.Net is the big bad nanny swinging her whip and going - You need to do this and you will like it!

And I really don't see how they could do anything about that in an instanced game. An instanced games lacks the community aspect - so when people play pretty much all the time in a single-player environment - there is nothing appealing about playing with other people. Because one is confined to a small room all the time - one does not even see if one is missing anything.

Don't force playing with people onto us - make it a viable (or better yet a BETTER) alternative then playing with heroes.

But until that happens - playing with people isn't something I'd strive for.
So by giving me only 3 heroes - they are limiting what I can do and limiting my fun with the game. With them trying to sell a product - I don't see how NOT catering to my desires is something they are striving for. Especially since catering for my desires EXPANDS what the game is about.
It's an interesting concept they have going - and I just hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.

tmr819 · Mar 25, 2008, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

ANet obviously primarily want people playing with other people, as all research shows that it's the social interaction which keeps people hooked to MMORPGs, ...

This is interesting. Is this really true? Maybe it all depends on how you define "social interaction"...

I like the social interaction in MMOs, too. But to me, the social interaction is primarily just having the option of grouping with other players occasionally and always being able to talk with my friends via Guild Chat. It's Guild Wars' solo-ability using AI (along with being a fun game, of course) that is its chief selling point for me -- and this is what has kept me in this game for so long. There are just so many other MMOs out there that coerce players to group to "get to the good stuff." If GW1 did that, too, I wouldn't be playing it. Period.

If ANet offered "Seven Heroes" as an option for purchase, the people buying the option would (most likely, I expect) be people already soloing just about everything. If that is the case, then from a "we must encourage people to play with other people standpoint", introducing a feature like this would have ZERO impact on how often players group together.

The interface clutter issue is really a nonissue, as I think most people would be perfectly happy with the additional four Heroes functioning as basically "customizable henchmen" -- i.e., with no additional skill bars and flags, etc.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 25, 2008, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Allowing 7 heroes would mean that people can play alone with their heroes and the game will become "solo play" instead of "cooperative play".

Got my point?

The thing is that you can already play the entire game, all three campaigns and the expansion, alone.

I know, because I've done so. I've done all missions and with bonus/masters in normal and hard mode, all with three heroes and four henches.

The only areas I can not complete are the ones where ANet artificially stops me from even trying: the elite areas.

People who can't complete the chapters with heroes & henches probably wont be able to do so with 7 heroes either. People like me will simply have an easier time because we'd be allowed to tailor our teams - and we could finally do the elite areas.

The ban on seven heroes doesn't make me PUG (which I wouldn't do anyway, if I couldn't solo I'd give up the game completely), it just keeps me from completing UW, DoA, the Deep and Urgoz.

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 01:54 PM // 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The thing is that you can already play the entire game, all three campaigns and the expansion, alone.

I know, because I've done so. I've done all missions and with bonus/masters in normal and hard mode, all with three heroes and four henches.

The only areas I can not complete are the ones where ANet artificially stops me from even trying: the elite areas.

People who can't complete the chapters with heroes & henches probably wont be able to do so with 7 heroes either. People like me will simply have an easier time because we'd be allowed to tailor our teams - and we could finally do the elite areas.

The ban on seven heroes doesn't make me PUG (which I wouldn't do anyway, if I couldn't solo I'd give up the game completely), it just keeps me from completing UW, DoA, the Deep and Urgoz.

Please don't quote parts my post out of context. The point of the post isn't how 7 heroes will affect the game; it's about how ursan and 7 heroes affect the game DIFFERENTLY. And why you can't expect Anet to allow 7 heroes simply because we have ursan now. It's different.

Ursan promotes teamplay; it allows you to complete difficult task like urgoz/doa/uw/difficult bonus objectives/quests/whatever easily WITH PEOPLE.

7 heroes would promote soloplay; it would allow you to complete difficult task like urgoz/doa/uw/whatever SOLO.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 25, 2008, 02:03 PM // 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

7 heroes would promote soloplay; it would allow you to complete difficult task like urgoz/doa/uw/whatever SOLO.

And my point was that soloplay is already perfectly viable. Seven heroes would not radically change the game, simply mean that I could tackle the elite areas where I'm not allowed to take henches.

Ursan, on the other hand, is simply a broken skill (because it synergizes with itself due to the AoE knockdown), and the only reason ANet doesn't fix it is because it sells EotN.

Ursan and 7 heroes are completely separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they're outstanding issues in the guild wars universe.

Bryant Again · Mar 25, 2008, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

*snip* Ursan and 7 heroes are completely separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they're outstanding issues in the guild wars universe.

(Note: I do "snips" so people don't think that portions of text are the whole point of people's posts."

Both have a common ground around the realm of "balance": a counter-point to 7 heroes is that it would be "too overpowered". UB is then brought in to show that it's the most overpowered thing in the game and it's only available to human pugs.

Generally, their brought to show a contradiction. "So 7 heroes would be overpowered, eh? Lemme show you to the Bear".

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

And my point was that soloplay is already perfectly viable. Seven heroes would not radically change the game, simply mean that I could tackle the elite areas where I'm not allowed to take henches.

Viable? How much viable? Viable enough to let you complete difficult areas like DoA and UW and stuff SOLO?

Oh wait, you said it yourself already, NO.

7 heroes would allow you to do JUST THAT. Oh wait, you said it already too.

Basically that's why I said 7 heroes would give you the ability to SOLO the difficult areas like DoA/UW/whatever. And it's something Anet doesn't seem to favor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Both have a common ground around the realm of "balance": a counter-point to 7 heroes is that it would be "too overpowered". UB is then brought in to show that it's the most overpowered thing in the game and it's only available to human pugs.

Generally, their brought to show a contradiction. "So 7 heroes would be overpowered, eh? Lemme show you to the Bear".

Then I'd say the whole arguement is wrong. It's not about something being overpowered (Anet clearly doesn't care about overpowerness in PvE. See: PvE skills), it's about something that would allow the forbidden soloability in difficult, elite areas.

Jetdoc · Mar 25, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The ban on seven heroes doesn't make me PUG (which I wouldn't do anyway, if I couldn't solo I'd give up the game completely), it just keeps me from completing UW, DoA, the Deep and Urgoz.

Have you ever completed UW, FoW, DoA, the Deep or Urgoz?

Numa Pompilius · Mar 25, 2008, 02:20 PM // 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Have you ever completed UW, FoW, DoA, the Deep or Urgoz?

Nope; completed 5 of the UW quests, and think I can probably complete all of FoW, but haven't yet.
I don't pug, and the guild I started with have evaporated over the last three years. Which is fine by me, according to me GW is a single-player game.

EDIT: Regarding the overpoweredness of 7 heroes: Gaile asked the developers, and they said the game had not been balanced for 7 heroes. As has been pointed out, that simply does not make sense. I think the devs didn't understand the question: they only use the term "balance" for PvP, which suggests they thought what Gaile asked was something like bringing 7 heroes into TA or GvG.

Bryant Again · Mar 25, 2008, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Then I'd say the whole arguement is wrong. It's not about something being overpowered (Anet clearly doesn't care about overpowerness in PvE. See: PvE skills), it's about something that would allow the forbidden soloability in difficult, elite areas.

I'm not too concerned about the elite areas, though. In fact I can understand and sympathize why they do so. Most of the people for 7 heroes, the viewpoint I most agree with, is just to allow more flexibility and enjoyment in putting together your own team.

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'm not too concerned about the elite areas, though. In fact I can understand and sympathize why they do so. Most of the people for 7 heroes, the viewpoint I most agree with, is just to allow more flexibility and enjoyment in putting together your own team.

It still doesn't have anything to do with overpowerness, as you can already make up a team with skills of your choice with your friends (again, it's something Anet tries to make sure you have to do).

Bryant Again · Mar 25, 2008, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

It still doesn't have anything to do with overpowerness, as you can already make up a team with skills of your choice with your friends (again, it's something Anet tries to make sure you have to do).

Neither do, but the counter argument against 7 heroes does have to do with balanced and being "overpowered," which is what I've been referring to.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 25, 2008, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

It still doesn't have anything to do with overpowerness

This is true; balance, even difficulty, is a non-issue in PvE.
The reason ANet apparently doesn't like the idea of 7 heroes is that social interaction is what keeps people playing. That's why they're constantly trying to get people to PUG (with elite areas, and with PvE skills), and why GW2 is going to be persistent and not have heroes: graphics and gameplay make people start playing, but social interaction makes them stay playing.

I understand their motivation. I just don't happen to be one of the players for which this holds true.

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 02:53 PM // 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

This is true; balance, even difficulty, is a non-issue in PvE.
The reason ANet apparently doesn't like the idea of 7 heroes is that social interaction is what keeps people playing. That's why they're constantly trying to get people to PUG (with elite areas, and with PvE skills), and why GW2 is going to be persistent and not have heroes: graphics and gameplay make people start playing, but social interaction makes them stay playing.

I understand their motivation. I just don't happen to be one of the players for which this holds true.

From the look of it, you're not alone. I, for one, feel the exact same way.

Look at WoW, for example. I don't think those 10,000,000 active accounts are owned only by those who enjoy cooperative play; seeing how more than half of WoW content is "Soloability with optional cooperative playability".

No matter what the research says, I don't believe that social interaction is a way to go. Have you read the part about GW2 where they said they're making it more solo-friendly?

I don't know how much "more" though, judging from how they try to force us to group in GW1 still.

tmr819 · Mar 25, 2008, 03:01 PM // 15:01

If were King (of the Guild Wars Design/Development Team) for a day (not Prince, not Duke...

), I would...

(1) Allow the use of 7 Heroes for all areas where henches are available now
(2) Nerf Ursan in a major way
(3) Significantly increase the rewards for completing Elite Areas (The Deep, etc., [including Slavers])
(4) Remove the option of using EITHER Heroes OR Henchmen for all Elite areas [including Slavers])
(5) Introduce some single central staging outpost for all Elite areas [again, including Slavers])
(6) Sit back and see what happened.

Why? Because from a design standpoint, I think Elite areas *should* be difficult and *should* require grouping with real players. By the same token, I think that the remainder of the game should be solo/group optional, challenging, and fun (7 heroes!).

I think this would be consistent with ANet's desire to both encourage grouping but also cater to the casual-player/solo player constituent for the bulk of the game.

OK, I know what you're thinking -- that you're very VERY glad I am not King of the Guild Wars/Design Development team.

Gun Pierson · Mar 25, 2008, 03:11 PM // 15:11

The complete conversation with Gaile happened over a course of several weeks:

me: Miss Gray why can't we play with 7 heroes?
Gaile: Because the devs don't think it's a good idea.

(few days later)
me: Miss Gray, why do the devs think 7 heroes is a bad idea?
Gaile: Because they think it's imba, that's why.

(few days later)
question in my first post

There are 3 counter arguments from the quote earlier in this thread:
1) balance
2) social interacting
3) infrastructure

At the time I made this thread I thought the imba argument was the only one. I don't see balance and infrastructure as a problem anymore and what's more: I almost always play with real life friends since we started with prophecies' release. I don't pug in general except for DoA HM full run as we're not with enough in our guild. As a matter of fact we're only a few friends and we play in pairs of 2 men + 6 hero teams most of the time. Before Nightfall it was 2 men + 6 hench most of the time for the exception of the occasional pug back then.

Now we have dozens of synergy builds for 2men/6 hero teams and it's fun to play them and experiment etc. But when my other friends are not online (they're more casual players in terms of time), I have to loose the synergy builds and take 4 hench. No prob, I played through the 'whole' dam game in HM with those hench noobs. It was frustrating at times to the point the fun was gone, but I did it. No pug forming groups were around most of the time btw.

If they allow 7 heroes, I will still choose to play with my real life friends over 7 heroes any day, cause it was actually one of the main reasons we started playing GW, the coop play amongst ourselves, while avoiding pugs whenever we can. The prob arrises when they're not online. So the social argument has no effect on us.

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

If were King (of the Guild Wars Design/Development Team) for a day (not Prince, not Duke...

), I would...

(1) Allow the use of 7 Heroes for all areas where henches are available now
(2) Nerf Ursan in a major way
(3) Significantly increase the rewards for completing Elite Areas (The Deep, etc., [including Slavers])
(4) Remove the option of using EITHER Heroes OR Henchmen for all Elite areas [including Slavers])
(5) Introduce some single central staging outpost for all Elite areas [again, including Slavers])
(6) Sit back and see what happened.

Why? Because from a design standpoint, I think Elite areas *should* be difficult and *should* require grouping with real players. By the same token, I think that the remainder of the game should be solo/group optional, challenging, and fun (7 heroes!).

I think this would be consistent with ANet's desire to both encourage grouping but also cater to the casual-player/solo player constituent for the bulk of the game.

OK, I know what you're thinking -- that you're very VERY glad I am not King of the Guild Wars/Design Development team.

No, I wish you were. You've just described many aspects that exist in a better game and make it as successsful as it is (I'm talking about WoW here in case you don't know).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

The complete conversation with Gaile happened over a course of several weeks:

me: Miss Gray why can't we play with 7 heroes?
Gaile: Because the devs don't think it's a good idea.

(few days later)
me: Miss Gray, why do the devs think 7 heroes is a bad idea?
Gaile: Because they think it's imba, that's why.

(few days later)
question in my first post

I'm not too sure how Gaile asked the developer. But the answer given out (imba) seems to be all about PvP. If that's the case I'd say it's PATHETIC that both the developer and Gaile don't try to clarify the question/answer and make sure that this is all about PvE (I can't believe that Gaile would misunderstand the question, but she should've clarified it still).

The social argument doesn't apply to you? Well, sorry, but they didn't design the game with just you in mind (not that I like how it is).

Regulus X · Mar 25, 2008, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Why do players insist on shooting themselves in the foot? Ursan may be imba, but it's fruitful in PvE farming. What great difference is there between using four standardized pwnage skills as opposed to 8 other skills? Ursan provides a glorious means of hard-mode farming and promotes buying EotN to the fullest. If you're looking for a challenge in having to put builds together, there's really only so much you can come up with, and the most prime/effective builds are always being posted up on websites all over the internet. Any less and your build's winding up less-viable & weak. Sure, it may not even matter to casual or new players... but then again, was DOES matter to them o_o? Prolly nothing. They don't care, they just hate, QQ and continue to ruin the game by nagging the Dev's to death, twisting their arm until they nerf whatever they QQ about. Ya'll can sit there and hate on me all day & call me a retard, but it's just the way I see things and feel about it. I don't even use Ursan, and yet I think of how it'd rob other players of their farming joy. Haters aren't thinking of others, they only think of themselves and of leveling their hatees down to their grounds.

Commander Ryker · Mar 25, 2008, 03:29 PM // 15:29

Ursan has been talked to death. Move on.

~closed~