Curse

Shadowspawn X · Nov 08, 2009, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Heroes are OP in factions and prophesies, the only way they had a negative impact on the game is that there is a generation of people who run discordway and sabway for everything and have no sense on how to build a winning bar for themselves or their heroes. Pugging has always been fine thats how you build your friends list.

Kali Magdalene · Nov 08, 2009, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I cant' believe I'm posting in this bad thread again, but I can't help it. Me and Bryant Again have already been over every angle of hero vs antihero.

The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine. But when I say everything was better before Nightfall, I mean EVERYTHING. In Prophecies you could get a team basically anywhere in the game.

Other good arguments include trying out different skillbars in different combinations, building teams rather than single characters and not requiring other people's time to do it, being able to go anywhere and start playing instead of spending your time spamming the district with LFT, not having to spend upwards of an hour finding a monk because so many monks were tired of putting up with many PUGs' abusive crap, being able to try certain kinds of skillbars without putting up with crap from other players who only want cookie cutter builds.

I played before Nightfall, and just about the only thing that was better was the population - both in terms of people only having access to one or two campaigns (and thus being easier to find in either), and in terms of overall population. Guild Wars' population isn't dropping across the entire game because of heroes, it's dropping because it's been around for years, Anet explicitly put it into maintenance mode with a small live team after Eye of the North, and the remaining population is now spread across four campaigns instead of two.

I mean, sure, I have no doubt some people left because of heroes, but I don't think that's the driving force behind GW's overall decline. If we didn't have heroes, we'd still have it - except more people would likely leave because without heroes, some areas are much more difficult to simply hench.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

Heroes are OP in factions and prophesies, the only way they had a negative impact on the game is that there is a generation of people who run discordway and sabway for everything and have no sense on how to build a winning bar for themselves or their heroes. Pugging has always been fine thats how you build your friends list.

Just out of curiosity, how is this different from pre-heroes? ISTR the same arguments about people using cookie cutter bars and being unable to make their own skill bars back in Prophecies and Factions.

Zahr Dalsk · Nov 08, 2009, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Don't people realize that the game was built as a guild/team game, particularly a guild game?

Guild Wars has been intended from the start to be doable with AI and to support those of us who prefer to play in that manner. You make the mistake of assuming that it's intended for playing with people only.

Vulturion · Nov 08, 2009, 11:40 PM // 23:40

In answer to the OP question: nope, because there's nothing to miss for me.

Played from shortly after launch through to Nightfall never teaming with anyone but my brother - after the first month or so of noobishly enduring the cons and abuses of the PUG & open-guild 'community' - during which Guild Wars secured its place as my favorite MMO ever.

Since subsequently Heroes have done nothing but enhance our solo/duo gameplay experience, I've no nostalgia about the days when the rest of our party slots were filled with AI sidekicks using deliberately sub-par skillbars.

For me, Guild Wars has only ever changed for the better.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Nov 08, 2009, 11:40 PM // 23:40

I only play if I can get at least one other player, as far as I can tell heros are just superior to henchs for filling up the empty spots.

DreamWind · Nov 09, 2009, 12:36 AM // 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene

I played before Nightfall, and just about the only thing that was better was the population - both in terms of people only having access to one or two campaigns (and thus being easier to find in either), and in terms of overall population.

That wasn't the only thing that was better, but yes it was a big thing. Let me put it this way...the biggest and best argument for heroes today is that the population of this game is so small and spread out that heroes feel almost required. That they are required doesn't mean it is the best situation though. The best situation was before the problems that required them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene

Guild Wars' population isn't dropping across the entire game because of heroes, it's dropping because it's been around for years, Anet explicitly put it into maintenance mode with a small live team after Eye of the North, and the remaining population is now spread across four campaigns instead of two.

I mean, sure, I have no doubt some people left because of heroes, but I don't think that's the driving force behind GW's overall decline..

It isn't the driving force, but it was a factor. I didn't say the population dropped because of heroes, but it certainly dropped in part due to the culture of the game changing. A lot of people who bought the game for a multiplayer experience (in both PvE and PvP) left the game when it became overcrowded with solos and AI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Guild Wars has been intended from the start to be doable with AI and to support those of us who prefer to play in that manner. You make the mistake of assuming that it's intended for playing with people only.

Correct, but that doesn't address my point. Heroes changed the game's philosophy and the community's culture.

But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Zahr Dalsk · Nov 09, 2009, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Correct, but that doesn't address my point. Heroes changed the game's philosophy and the community's culture.

Except they didn't, aside from helping to support those of us who don't like playing with people, and already played with henchmen anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.

They're meant to be beaten with an AI team.

/thread

Axel Zinfandel · Nov 09, 2009, 01:06 AM // 01:06

Anet's View of GW has always been to make it a game for the casual gamer, correct me if I'm wrong.

by common sense to me at least, Heroes seem to be a natural progression of their view.

That being said though, I played GW back when it was just prophesies (back when you had to spend points to fix attributes :P), left, and came back some time after Nightfall came out.

IMO, GW is better with heroes, because I was never one to particularly -like- playing with human players.

Kali Magdalene · Nov 09, 2009, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That wasn't the only thing that was better, but yes it was a big thing. Let me put it this way...the biggest and best argument for heroes today is that the population of this game is so small and spread out that heroes feel almost required. That they are required doesn't mean it is the best situation though. The best situation was before the problems that required them.

Sorry, better for me. I liked pugging, and that's just not as much of an option now - but I don't blame that on heroes.

I'll add that while there was demand for certain cookie cutter builds in pugs, there was less of it. I mean, it was pre-Ursan and SF, so people had a lot more leeway, if they weren't a mesmer or assassin (but then, I always took mesmers or assassins in my groups, 'cause I like them).

Edit to add: I certainly appreciate the ability to solo as needed (something I did pre-Nightfall, so this isn't new to me), especially when I did have a bad pug experience, including players who didn't understand aggro, or players who blamed their poor play on the healers (and I played a monk fairly frequently). It's something when going all henchmen actually decreases an area's difficulty.

Quote:

It isn't the driving force, but it was a factor. I didn't say the population dropped because of heroes, but it certainly dropped in part due to the culture of the game changing. A lot of people who bought the game for a multiplayer experience (in both PvE and PvP) left the game when it became overcrowded with solos and AI.

That's entirely possible, but it could also be people moving on, finding new stuff, not getting enough new stuff here, etc. The main reason I'm around now is because I ended up leaving for entirely different reasons (my old computer started a long slow death and couldn't run GW), and it just took awhile for me to check back in once I replaced it. But then, I've never played as hardcore as many other people do.

Quote:

Correct, but that doesn't address my point. Heroes changed the game's philosophy and the community's culture.

But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.

I'll disagree with this. It's a matter of reducing the number of humans necessary to get into an area from 8 to 2-3, which increases accessibility to content. I'd rather see that than UWSCs.

DreamWind · Nov 09, 2009, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Except they didn't, aside from helping to support those of us who don't like playing with people, and already played with henchmen anyways.

If you don't think heroes drastically changed the game, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

They're meant to be beaten with an AI team.

/thread

Get back to me with Anet confirmation of this. If they say elite areas are supposed to be beaten by AI, then they are bad. Don't you think Anet limiting heroes is saying something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene

I certainly appreciate the ability to solo as needed (something I did pre-Nightfall, so this isn't new to me), especially when I did have a bad pug experience, including players who didn't understand aggro, or players who blamed their poor play on the healers (and I played a monk fairly frequently). It's something when going all henchmen actually decreases an area's difficulty.

It's a matter of reducing the number of humans necessary to get into an area from 8 to 2-3, which increases accessibility to content. I'd rather see that than UWSCs.

You've never needed more than one human. And sure I'd rather see what we have now rather than UWSC, but I'd rather see a lot of other things than what we have now.

Kali Magdalene · Nov 09, 2009, 03:57 AM // 03:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You've never needed more than one human. And sure I'd rather see what we have now rather than UWSC, but I'd rather see a lot of other things than what we have now.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Elite areas don't have henchmen? If you want to have a full team of 8, you'll need at least two humans. You could do it solo, but that's not always what you want to do, is it?

And of course, Urgoz' Warren and The Deep can have up to 12 people.

Zahr Dalsk · Nov 09, 2009, 05:25 AM // 05:25

[QUOTE=DreamWind;4934472]If you don't think heroes drastically changed the game, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Read the past thread for an explanation. All heroes did was made it much more easy to have fun. I know you hate fun; you've been establishing that for months, but a lot of us play games to have fun. Hence, AI parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Get back to me with Anet confirmation of this. If they say elite areas are supposed to be beaten by AI, then they are bad. Don't you think Anet limiting heroes is saying something?

Read your Prophecies box, the game is meant to be beaten by AI. Elite areas sadly don't seem to be, since henchmen aren't allowed there, and No Fun Allowed Guys like you have their way.

DreamWind · Nov 09, 2009, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Read the past thread for an explanation. All heroes did was made it much more easy to have fun. I know you hate fun; you've been establishing that for months, but a lot of us play games to have fun. Hence, AI parties.

That is not all heroes did, and until you see the other side of the coin you will always be blinded with the opinion that heroes were nothing but good. Not everybody thinks the way the game changed is "more fun".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Read your Prophecies box, the game is meant to be beaten by AI. Elite areas sadly don't seem to be, since henchmen aren't allowed there, and No Fun Allowed Guys like you have their way.

Please...bringing up what is on the Prophecies box is perhaps the worst argument ever brought up (second to don't like it don't use it). All that matters is AI is allowed anywhere and that is all people need for anything in the game. AI beating other AI.

Gun Pierson · Nov 09, 2009, 06:41 AM // 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.

The idea is here since the first multiplayer RPG's popped up. In singler player games, an Ai party exists since the old days. Ever since, it's a popular gaming feature as it increases the depth of the game.

a few examples:
- single player with ai party: Eye of the beholder (1990)
- single/multi player with ai party: Baldur's gate series (1998)

Ai party was here first, co-op possibilities were later introduced. First when LAN technology arrived, followed by the arrival of the internet afterwards.

The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.

FoxBat · Nov 09, 2009, 07:27 AM // 07:27

Eye of the beholder doesn't have an AI party. It's a party of 4-6 players that YOU MICRO ENTIRELY.

Baldur's Gate series has an AI but it's laughably bad. What makes that series compelling is again, the fact that you can pause the action and micro all commands with detailed strategy.

Now there are a few people who might have some crazy keyboard extensions to play all their hero skillbars in realtime, but the fact is that 99% of people are choosing hero bars that are mostly autopilot. Unlike the very long and venerable series of SP RPGs, some dumb AI is playing the game for you instead of you.

There is something (debateable) to be said about GW being solo-able, but the fact that this is achieved by 7 bots is really sad. There's not really such a thing as a good player or a bad player anymore when the 7 bots constant "skill" is such a huge factor in determining success or failure - and 90% of that is just build setup, which is usually copy pasted and you can't modify for the majority of your gameplay. If I can't micromanage additional party members then I much prefer doing away with them, so the micro I put forth from my individual character actually makes a difference. GW2's supposed system of few AI helpers and scaling difficulty/encounter size sounds like a vastly better solution.

Darth The Xx · Nov 09, 2009, 07:41 AM // 07:41

While I only picked up the game after EoTN came out, I did not have access to heroes for a very, very long time (first game was faction, then i got proph until finally NF+eotn) and I have to say, it wasn't bad but! relative to how nice it is to have heroes, it was really crappy.

If I couldn't form a full group I would have to take henchmen with Blessed Light and Healing Breeze on their bars

not to mention "tanks" using Charge. I still do think however that running with people is usually faster than with heroes as the AI is just retarded sometimes.

AtomicMew · Nov 09, 2009, 07:45 AM // 07:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.

^Pretty much this.

There's already tons of activities you can do that require real players. But for the most part, I'd rather not deal with the teeming masses of noobs out thereh just to get through storyline. The fact that h/h is 99% of the time better than a full pug team you can get is saying something... that's happens to NOT be in support of your argument.

Stop thrusting your view on how this game should be played on other people. Majority of PvE vets don't agree, as evidenced by this thread and A.net doesn't agree with you, as evidenced by how heroes are implemented (FAR before msot towns became deserts).

Bryant Again · Nov 09, 2009, 07:58 AM // 07:58

I was writing up a really big post until I realized that there wasn't much I really needed to say (and er, nevermind, it ended up being big anyways, doh).

Personally, the only way I see heroes as a "problem" is due to the fact that the bar is set SOOO LOOOW in PvE. Being successful is incredibly simple, and this just isn't a byproduct of PvE skills and overpowered builds but the design of PvE itself: poor scaling (higher level does not always equate to difficulty), poor AI, and horrid monster team compositions flood the entire Guild Wars world.

The way I see it, if PvE was actually created decently, balanced wonderfully, and maintained well, having to control 7 AI teammates would be hard. It would essentially have to be like playing 8 different builds, it would have to require - oh what's that word - skill. People would *want* to play with other players because it would mean they only have to focus on playing one character.

But in the current PvE world, you don't have to do that. It's because PvE is a completely broken landscape that I could sympathize with people considering heroes problematic. But I don't advocate the removal of them nor shun their appearance, I blame the near entirety of the gameworld for having no depth, and just because the game world is broken doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

So for me, I don't see heroes as a problem. I see the fact that I can play HM in the nude with Frenzy always on as a problem.

DreamWind · Nov 09, 2009, 08:27 AM // 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.

First I must say, both of the examples you gave are very bad (as FoxBat pointed out).

But your post completely contradicts itself. If games evolved to be more co-op, then how is it gaming evolution for this co-op game to go the route of AI vs AI? I call that de-evolution.

But sure...it is a part of GWs success. It is also part of GWs failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

But for the most part, I'd rather not deal with the teeming masses of noobs out thereh just to get through storyline. The fact that h/h is 99% of the time better than a full pug team you can get is saying something... that's happens to NOT be in support of your argument.

The fact that you mention a masses of noobs full pug happens to be NOT in support of your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Stop thrusting your view on how this game should be played on other people. Majority of PvE vets don't agree, as evidenced by this thread and A.net doesn't agree with you, as evidenced by how heroes are implemented (FAR before msot towns became deserts).

LoL at thrusting my views on people. I am simply giving my opinion on when and why the game was better before heroes. If I was in control of this game I would be in the position to thrust my views on you, but I'm not.

As for Anet not agreeing, fine. But since when does everything Anet does=good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But in the current PvE world, you don't have to do that. It's because PvE is a completely broken landscape that I could sympathize with people considering heroes problematic. But I don't advocate the removal of them nor shun their appearance, I blame the near entirety of the gameworld for having no depth, and just because the game world is broken doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Yea...this is basically the conclusion we came to in that very long hero thread a while back. All I'm saying is...while heroes may seem good given the state the game is in...it certainly is not the greatest situation. I would have much rather them stuck with the model they were going with in the beginning.

upier · Nov 09, 2009, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I cant' believe I'm posting in this bad thread again, but I can't help it. Me and Bryant Again have already been over every angle of hero vs antihero.

The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine. But when I say everything was better before Nightfall, I mean EVERYTHING. In Prophecies you could get a team basically anywhere in the game.

Let us put that aside though because it is in the past and there are people who would still rather play with AI. Here is my problem. Everybody continually uses their worst pug experiences and empty districts as some sort of justification for the greatness of heroes. Don't people realize that the game was built as a guild/team game, particularly a guild game?

Whether people realize it or not, heroes DID change the game drasitcally. They changed the entire philosophy of Guild Wars. Guild Wars used to be a team game with the option to hench. Since heroes, Guild Wars has become a solo game with the option to team. There is a gigantic difference. The game has changed and the community has changed. If you like how the game is now then more power to you. But a large part of the reason the majority likes heroes now is because the majority who don't like what the game has become as a whole have quit and aren't posting about it.

While I don't put all the blame on heroes for all this change, they certainly take a lot of it. They were the single biggest shift in gameplay in the history of Guild Wars.

I'd never imagine I'd see the day when Dreamy would be advocating heroes!
You go girl!