Curse

Bryant Again · Nov 09, 2009, 09:24 AM // 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

For me, I feel that if Guild Wars' PvE did not go down such a broken path, that even having heroes available at the start wouldn't impact the player base too much if at all. If the challenging content required considerable effort from all players in the party, then having to fill all those spots by yourself would be a remarkably daunting task. It is indeed true that it would be one person going in alone with no other human teammates, but he'd have to play seven more classes - and play them well - rather than having the privilege of only paying attention to his own. In such a case it would even by highly commendable if he succeeded.

Gun Pierson · Nov 09, 2009, 09:32 AM // 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

It's not one story or the other, it's about more options and what's fun. You and Foxbat are nitpicking what AI is or not. My point was that heroes/controlled party members have been around for a long time because it brings more depth to the game and that's always been fun for many players. So they didn't need to leave out a popular feature because co-op appeared. Heroes are an extension of you, it's still you vs AI.

Games have become more complex, and because you can't pauze the game like in BG, there must be a script in place that brings your party on equal ground somehow. Some argue the script is too good (sabway etc.), others say heroes and henchies are dumb.

The sweet spot or balance is what Bryant has been talking about if I'm not mistaken.

So why are henchies and heroes around? because you can't solo the game. Why do people want to play solo? Because it's still a fundamental part of gaming, but it's not the only part anymore ofcourse. Imo a good RPG game nowadays has it all, good solo play, good coop options versus AI, good PVP.

Rexion · Nov 09, 2009, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

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

I guess you have no reading comprehension.

Dreamy said that it changed the game drastically, not drastically for the better.
Dreamy said that Guild Wars has changed from a team game with the option to solo to a solo game with the option to team.
Dreamy said there were less empty areas pre-heroes.

none of those statements advocate heroes.

DreamWind · Nov 09, 2009, 10:45 AM // 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

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

Hahahaha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For me, I feel that if Guild Wars' PvE did not go down such a broken path, that even having heroes available at the start wouldn't impact the player base too much if at all.

Interesting thought. Unfortunately we can't know this. We only know what DID happen...and that is what we have now. Heroes to me are nothing more than a patch to the broken path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

It's not one story or the other, it's about more options and what's fun.

That is fine, but we are talking about an online game. So...whatever is put into the game affects the game I play whether I use it or not. I simply feel that the game changed to something less fun when this new option was introduced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

Imo a good RPG game nowadays has it all, good solo play, good coop options versus AI, good PVP.

In a perfect world I suppose. But I'm not even convinced the game you are describing even exists.

Bryant Again · Nov 09, 2009, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Interesting thought. Unfortunately we can't know this. We only know what DID happen...and that is what we have now. Heroes to me are nothing more than a patch to the broken path.

It's true we can't know this. But isn't the path with the most resistance the one least traveled? If the PvE-sphere was actually balanced and constructed to be a much more tactical and skill-based environment, wouldn't heroes be that much harder to use effectively when in addition to the players own character - and thus their supposed popularity wouldn't be to where they are now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That is fine, but we are talking about an online game. So...whatever is put into the game affects the game I play whether I use it or not. I simply feel that the game changed to something less fun when this new option was introduced.

How would you feel about heroes if the gameworld was not complete garbage and thus they were no longer the "golden tickets" they are now?

upier · Nov 09, 2009, 12:18 PM // 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

I guess you have no reading comprehension.

Dreamy said that it changed the game drastically, not drastically for the better.
Dreamy said that Guild Wars has changed from a team game with the option to solo to a solo game with the option to team.
Dreamy said there were less empty areas pre-heroes.

none of those statements advocate heroes.

Let's look at what was said and let's get rid of the fluff:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine.

If the game has empty areas - heroes are a viable solution.

And that brings us to how he views the game:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

And based on that, can GW be currently classified as a game where multiplayer is realistic option? In a game where players are spread out over 4 games, 2 modes, where the game has a system of classes which means one can't just pick up 8 RANDOM people, but rather needs to fill the party with certain role and those roles are NOT available to all classes, and where the game contains absolutely NO decent party search system (which is KINDA the core of the multiplayer problem rather than heroes!).

So based on that, there are certain options:
1. a MASSIVE do-over. Either by turning it into a single player game (and by single I mean, SINGLE - no parties whatsoever!) or creating options that will bring back multiplayer - which would probably be best done with the removal of the instancing and a massively improved party search system. And the GW Live team has ... 3 members that spend their days hunting down competition winners?
2. heroes.
3. the game closes down.

Pick one.

So yes, based on that I can see why Dreamy would not oppose heroes.
Or would you describe him as either delusional or ... well, delusional once again?
Seriously most of that post was just some crazy ass propaganda in the lines of "You know why heroes are bad? Because heroes starts with an "h". And you know what else starts with an "h"? Hitler!". It's a superb example of CHOOSING TO IGNORE the facts about the current state of the game.
(Khmm, I guess it would be better if I quoted Dreamy and spoke directly to him. So yeah, wrong quote ... to lazy to modify everything, so just think of this as if I am talking to you Dreamy.)

kartmaster · Nov 09, 2009, 01:45 PM // 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceQ

^
|
That. I am also ,as someone else said, in an inactive guild. all my friends have stopped playing GW. So to get my guardian and vanq will you get 7 people together in all the outposts and wait for me? No, I have actually been to mission outposts in tyria where I was the only one in the outpost. so your telling me that I have to wait there for 3-7 other people to pitch up? I am sorry, I started GW with Factions. My friend and I both got our protector titles with henchies. Then NF came out. we got our protector title with heroes (was great since we could really slap together a good team). Sure we pugged some of them, (esp Cantha since the time limits really caught up with you if you where using just henchies.)

So lets be really honest, the 3 maps are Huge, do you really expect people to be spread out all over them right now? The largest concentration of people are still in EotN.

I am using the Zquests to do the missions to get my Guardian Title, do those then if you "miss the good old days". If you don't like the mission... log off and go outside or a mall and go watch a movie.

I vanquish regions here and there when the mood strikes me... I was half way with the region outside Amnoon Oasis (forget the name), when I had to leave for a bit... the "bit" turned into 3 hours. My h/h just stood there waiting without complaints. Now you tell me if I where to do that in a pug... lol

No, they did not ruin the game. They did not make it better either. What makes a game good or bad is yourself. If you keep telling yourself that the game was ruined by white items, you are going to believe that the game is ruined. It is all in each persons mind. I still enjoy the game, the only annoying thing is that I can't have 7 heroes (yea yea i know), but I stated it is an annoyance.. not a game breaker. I solo missions/quests/vanqs because I can, and I can do them at my own pace on my own time.

I really don't know why I am typing all of this. I will just get a "your a noob" sticker and they will almost instantly fall into the whole (Heroes/55/600/SF) ruined the game. Did they really? or is it just you don't know how to use them? I still solo the chamber or UW with my 55, I experiment with 600 when I feel like it. I don't have an SF assassin, and you know what? The world has not come to an end.

Besides WW2 was worse, people actually died there. This is just a game. If you don't like it anymore, why are you still playing?

I don't remember writing this, but that sure sounds like me.

Great post.

Arduin · Nov 09, 2009, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

So based on that, there are certain options:
1. a MASSIVE do-over. Either by turning it into a single player game (and by single I mean, SINGLE - no parties whatsoever!) or creating options that will bring back multiplayer - which would probably be best done with the removal of the instancing and a massively improved party search system. And the GW Live team has ... 3 members that spend their days hunting down competition winners?
2. heroes.
3. the game closes down.

Pick one.

Seems like Anet wanted to pick number one -> Guild Wars 2

Hugh Manatee · Nov 09, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Customizable henchmen is something that should have been available from day #1, they fixed the problem, like how weapons should have had an inscription slot from the beginning(only they didn't fix the problem entirely by ret-conning the non-insc weapons or allowing full hero parties).

Again, it didn't change squat to most players, either they played with guildies and random pugs and filled slots with henchmen/heroes as needed or anti-socials like myself who grew jaded after fail after repeated fail of the moron pubes who infest the game said ****it and started playing GW like a hybrid RTS, wrangling AI that're just now getting decent, and having a pretty fun time at it if I do say so myself, so when flags, AI panels and customizable AI were added it was a godsend.

The population was already on the decline, and getting more scattered between factions and proph zones, that this effect coincides with the introduction of heroes and the release of NF, it doesn't mean it correlates to it. What the intro of heroes did do was solve a problem that's been in the game since day #1(you couldn't tweak the henchmen's bars for an area, like giving alesia hex removal for the jungle or condition removal VS undead ect, or have a warrior with shields up if there were a bunch of rangers), and solve an inevitable problem of population decline, and it came at just the right time. If it hadn't people would just be using guildies and henchmen instead of guildies and heroes, and folk like myself and others would still be shirking the dumbass hoards for AI parties(though dumb, they are predictable), only since said population is on the decline it would have meant more and more hench parties for the sociable player, that were ill suited to any given area, and more random pug failure.

Cuilan · Nov 09, 2009, 04:37 PM // 16:37

A new party search tab or system for finding players who want to do something but aren't at the outpost would be superior.

Shadowspawn X · Nov 09, 2009, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

If the game has empty areas - heroes are a viable solution.

This is a key statement. The truth of the matter is the game is thriving and there are usually no empty areas. PUGs are alive and well. Heroes are great for solo or filling in gaps in a PUG. Neither method is superior to the other as both have their pro's and cons.