Curse

Adul · Oct 09, 2010, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Are they really better off with a leaver?

Let's face it, PUGs will get less and less frequent. That shouldn't mean that everyone without an active guild has to stop playing elite content.

thelessa · Oct 10, 2010, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

^let's say that there is this guy named bob who gets to play by himself with 7heroes...meanwhile a pug team sits in the outpost for hours and hours looking for someone to fill the last spot 7/8.

Shoot if your team is 7/8 waiting for one more real person to make it 8/8 it is just silly, just grab a hero/hench and go, waste of time waiting for that last person to maybe show up.

Xsiriss · Oct 10, 2010, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Seriously these arguements agaisnt 7 heroes get weaker and weaker every time the topic comes up, all it can do is good at this late stage of GW. Quit whining and find a guild if you love puging so much.

MithranArkanere · Oct 10, 2010, 05:15 PM // 17:15

There are many ways to compensate solo vs party play.
They can just do things like better drops or increased gold drops the more people is in, and the PvE skills can only be used by players, and most people will agree that some of those skills make things rather easier.

Right now, if people don't want to wait to play with people they'll just grab the 4 henchmen they think are best, 3 heroes, and go alone.

7 heroes won't really change that.

Bryant Again · Oct 11, 2010, 10:03 AM // 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelessa

Shoot if your team is 7/8 waiting for one more real person to make it 8/8 it is just silly, just grab a hero/hench and go, waste of time waiting for that last person to maybe show up.

And this is why I use heroes.

I can't imagine playing Left 4 Dead without people, playing TF2 without my bros feels incredibly hollow, playing Firefight in Halo without homies is dreadfully boring, and Demon's Souls would be no where near as fun without people to play with and/or against.

So why am I so anti-social in Guild Wars?

No denying: There's an interesting appeal in being able to nigh instantly start a mission in GW. However, playing with other people in other games is insanely fun. That should be enough appeal in itself to get me to play with other people.

That's not the case for me with Guild Wars, and that's because that same 'fun' I'm hoping to enjoy is really easy to ruin:

-You take forever in putting together the 'perfect party': Everyone has good builds, everyone's excited, and everyone's polite. But for some reason things don't work out and you get steamrolled. That's a huge discouragement.

-Same thing as above except you get to the final two seconds of the mission before you all mess up and get steam rolled. A much bigger discouragement.

-Someone leaves after the mission starts, and there's nothing you can do besides going on without one person who restarting.

What ANet needed to do was make playing with others a whole lot more forgiving. While they've done a few things to help address this - i.e. EotN no longer restarting the entire mission when everyone dies - there were still a lot of iffy issues.

If I'm given a choice to play with a team of people or a team of bots, I should want to play with people. If not, then there's something wrong.

thelessa · Oct 11, 2010, 03:29 PM // 15:29

I am not against pugging, I have been in some really great pugs, and some really sorry ones too (within the last month). But most times I will just grab my heros and hench and go, having 7 heros would just make it a better then having to grab hench.

fireflyry · Oct 11, 2010, 03:48 PM // 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xsiriss

Quit whining and find a guild if you love puging so much.

Quit whining and actually contribute to the debate.

When did any serious argument against 7 heroes involve pugging?Like 7 heroes would effect pugs in any way that wasn't ruined years ago and rolling with guildies is hardly the same.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

That's a fine argument against 7-hero parties. Requiring human interaction for certain achievements isn't an outrageous expectation. I don't think anyone would expect to be able to beat Urgoz or Kannaxi with just heroes, just as I don't think anyone serious about farming would do it with just heroes.

The truth is that if you never roll with other people, some things will be impossible, and even with 7-hero parties, some things will likely remain impossible... just not as many. I can see how many people can think increasing accessibility is good or bad, and I respect both sides.

However, if I was Anet, I would be inclined to increase accessibility because it gives more new content to more people, which may increase their HoM investment, encouraging them to get GW2. Anet knows that players who are against increased accessibility probably already have a strong HoM investment, and will get GW2 anyways. Of course there may be exceptions (some people saying that they feel betrayed), but knowing how the internet works, I'd imagine most are exaggerating their threats and in the end, the numbers would speak clearly.

Basically, if adding 7 heroes can get more people into GW2 than it would drive away, (and there aren't any clearly better alternatives) then they will do it.

Cool post.

My only rebuttal would be the cheapening of every single title, merit, item, etc in the game.

Non-subscription attains a degree of leniency but WTF do people want and what are they truely arguing for?

An online single player MMORPG?

lol

Missing HB · Oct 11, 2010, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

online single player MMORPG?

No , as many people said it , game is dying , and having 7 heroes allowed would be great in order to play at some hours ( especially in pvp).

fireflyry · Oct 11, 2010, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

No , as many people said it , game is dying , and having 7 heroes allowed would be great in order to play at some hours ( especially in pvp).

We are discussing GW yes?

Anon-e-mouse · Oct 11, 2010, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfHerder

You have a valid point and I agree, mostly. Yes, some nerfing improves the overall balance of the game and keeps HM end game content challenging.

Except that's the ONE thing it doesn't do. So you nerf a skill to uselessness. Guess what, that red dot you're about to kill, yes it's using that now very nerf'd skill.. So you kill it even quicker with the other skills that weren't nerf'd (cos anyone in their right mind doesn't use nerfed skills anymore), and then p*** yourself laughing at how quick the poor shlep died.

No nerfing skills does NOT make the game harder.. cos the monsters use the same fecking skills...

snaek · Oct 11, 2010, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by anon-e-mouse

No nerfing skills does NOT make the game harder.. cos the monsters use the same fecking skills...

yes it does, because humans know how to use the skill in question with better potential, whereas the ai couldn't. so the effectiveness of the skill/build goes down maybe 40% for a human, but only 10% for ai, thus effectively still being harder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelessa

Shoot if your team is 7/8 waiting for one more real person to make it 8/8 it is just silly, just grab a hero/hench and go, waste of time waiting for that last person to maybe show up.

perhaps i should've included the original post i was replying to because you've taken it a bit out of context. the argument was that heroes would allow bob to play by himself with 7 heroes, while still allowing the pug team he left to play with a full human team. as you pointed out, the "full-human" team now becomes a hybrid human/hero team, which would likely be the most common occurence in gw. the point still stands that full human pug teams will become more rare upon the introduction of 7 heroes.

Adul · Oct 11, 2010, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

perhaps i should've included the original post i was replying to because you've taken it a bit out of context. the argument was that heroes would allow bob to play by himself with 7 heroes, while still allowing the pug team he left to play with a full human team. as you pointed out, the "full-human" team now becomes a hybrid human/hero team, which would likely be the most common occurence in gw. the point still stands that full human pug teams will become more rare upon the introduction of 7 heroes.

And this is what I'm trying to argue against here. Those who do not want to PUG have other options even now. Let's revisit Bob the antisocial player for a moment. This time he is in an outpost and would like to vanquish a nearby explorable area. Now you happen to be there again in a party of 7 human players, and you are looking for the last person to fill the remaining slot in order to vanquish a nearby area. Bob acknowledges that you plan to vanquish the same area he does, but being the jerk he is, he decides to recruit 3 heroes and 4 henchmen into his team and go out vanquish the area alone.

The same would have happened if he was allowed to take 7 heroes instead. Nothing would have changed. Fortunately a nice guy named Tim comes along and joins your party because he wants to. Tim doesn't care how many heroes he's allowed to take because he likes to complete in-game tasks in a human team and therefore will join you regardless.

Anon-e-mouse · Oct 11, 2010, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

yes it does, because humans know how to use the skill in question with better potential, whereas the ai couldn't. so the effectiveness of the skill/build goes down maybe 40% for a human, but only 10% for ai, thus effectively still being harder.

Boy are you just plain wrong. Ok, case in point.. Splinter Weapon. Most (if not all) of the (non-EOTN) NPC's using this skill are in Kurzick lands. Before it was nerfed, a fair few players had trouble with this area, because the Spirit Warden's (and some Dredge) used to chuck this about with gay abandon, and it hurt when all your henchies copped it, cos you'd often get all 6 splinters. Once it was nerfed... well Kurzick land was much easier to complete.

So don't bleet on about how nerfing makes the game harder, it just plain doesn't.

fireflyry · Oct 11, 2010, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adul

And this is what I'm trying to argue against here. Those who do not want to PUG have other options even now.

To idealistic imo.

If you present a person...let alone a GAMER with a goal it will always end in the path of least resistance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adul

Bob acknowledges that you plan to vanquish the same area he does, but being the jerk he is, he decides to recruit 3 heroes and 4 henchmen into his team and go out vanquish the area alone.

The same would have happened if he was allowed to take 7 heroes instead. Nothing would have changed.

You forgot speed, efficiency, economics, build options etc, etc.

H/H is not different to 7 heroes....it's an endless chasm of difference imo.

Bryant Again · Oct 11, 2010, 09:01 PM // 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

To idealistic imo.

H/H is not different to 7 heroes....it's an endless chasm of difference imo.

In L4D it's far easier to set up a single-player game than a multiplayer one, yet it wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is now if it wasn't for the co-op mode (which is further strengthened by the versus mode).

Of course, GW isn't the same type of game - but if that's the reason for co-op being so active in one as opposed to the other, what could those reasons be?

Adul · Oct 11, 2010, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

You forgot speed, efficiency, economics, build options etc, etc.

H/H is not different to 7 heroes....it's an endless chasm of difference imo.

I know what you're saying, but this is all assuming PUGs are more efficient than H/H teams. This is arguable and depends on a lot of factors.

If a player deems H/H more efficient to PUGs already, then presenting him with the option to use 7 heroes will not make a difference. He will choose to go alone either way.

If a player views PUGs to be the most efficient method of doing something, e.g. better than H/H or 7 heroes, then he will always prefer PUGs, again no difference.

However, if someone thinks that PUGs are superior to H/H, but 7 heroes are superior to PUGs, then his decision is indeed swayed by allowing him to use 7 heroes.

Now of course this is over-simplified and doesn't take into account factors like different setups being optimal for different tasks, frustration caused by failure, or the desire to put enjoyment before efficiency, but it is a simple reality model.

Taking into account the various situations that come to my mind, I think that the actual effects of 7 hero teams on PUG frequency would be about as harmful as is the constantly declining player activity over a period of several months.

NerfHerder · Oct 11, 2010, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anon-e-mouse

Except that's the ONE thing it doesn't do. So you nerf a skill to uselessness. Guess what, that red dot you're about to kill, yes it's using that now very nerf'd skill.. So you kill it even quicker with the other skills that weren't nerf'd (cos anyone in their right mind doesn't use nerfed skills anymore), and then p*** yourself laughing at how quick the poor shlep died.

No nerfing skills does NOT make the game harder.. cos the monsters use the same fecking skills...

I dont think you read the statement directly under your quote. Taking what I said out of context.

Quote:

You have a valid point and I agree, mostly. Yes, some nerfing improves the overall balance of the game and keeps HM end game content challenging. Power creep, unchecked, makes the game too easy.

But, throwing the nerf bat at alot of the skills is just as bad as buffing them. Ultimately its a yin and yang of buffs and nerfs that helps balance. You cant really pick one or the other. In a game with as many skill combinations to balance as GW has, it will always be broken and always need constant skill updates. I like that the game is "broken". Balanced never changing skills would be too boring to play for 5 years.

I even prefer balancing power creep with skill buffs, unless its something like SF or Ursan. Getting skill buffs is just more fun. But, every so often it is necessary to nerf a rediculously OP skill. I dont like the smiters boon route, I'm talking well thought out nerfs, kinda like what they did for SF. SF is still OP imo, but its more balanced than it was.

My main point for bringing skill balance up, is that it should take priority over most of the GW:B updates. That way my Ele wont get laughed at when she tries to do damage in HM Crisis in Cantha. And, when my Derv puts LFG in party search for Crisis in Cantha, the pugs say "add the Derv!".

snaek · Oct 11, 2010, 09:57 PM // 21:57

there are way more bobs than tims in gw. sad but true. pugging is not solely about want, but also numerous other factors including availability, difficulty, etc. the more bobs there are in gw, the less harder it becomes for the tims to find a pug, eventually leading to tims becoming bobs.

keeping a multi-player game alive isn't always such an easy task--something that a single-player game never even has to worry about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anon-e-mouse

Boy are you just plain wrong. Ok, case in point.. Splinter Weapon. Most (if not all) of the (non-EOTN) NPC's using this skill are in Kurzick lands. Before it was nerfed, a fair few players had trouble with this area, because the Spirit Warden's (and some Dredge) used to chuck this about with gay abandon, and it hurt when all your henchies copped it, cos you'd often get all 6 splinters. Once it was nerfed... well Kurzick land was much easier to complete.

So don't bleet on about how nerfing makes the game harder, it just plain doesn't.

you are still neglecting the fact that the player cannot abuse splinter weapon either. what you are saying is only true for a player that did not abuse splinter weapon. which in practice, i suppose you can say it does make the game easier if you assume that the majority did not abuse splinter weapon.

Ayuhmii Shanbwa · Oct 11, 2010, 11:21 PM // 23:21

some just dont understand that people who play alone, stay alone, but if those people get 7 heroes, and say the game already is too easy, then they will stop using 7 heroes one day, so pugs never die, just too bad that most pugs are plain bad

not only is it hard to find people to play with, but its also hard to find pugs who can help you, not counting z quests and wanteds and such

for those who got sick of bad pugs, and that most left the game, so they cant play with friends anymore, 7 heroes can encourage them to keep playing/come back to gw

now that we have a GW2 HoM calculator i saw alot coming back, but will leave once its done
7 heroes may help gw to stay alive for some longer than it would be without 7 heroes

Aba · Oct 11, 2010, 11:45 PM // 23:45

Quote:

for those who got sick of bad pugs, and that most left the game, so they cant play with friends anymore, 7 heroes can encourage them to keep playing/come back to gw

fail arguement right there.... Heros and henchies are there for a reason.
And no henchies don't suck , it's the person controlling them, so......