Curse

R!ghteous Ind!gnation · Sep 26, 2007, 02:02 PM // 14:02

This is very simple...
SKILLED players > Heros
Heros > average player
3 games + 1 expansion = Lack of player base in many areas

Lack of skilled players available to help and inferior henchmen are serious problems for the average player to run any type of congruent build, thus necessitating 7 heros as opposed to the 3 heros and 4 broken henchmen that are available to us now.

Jetdoc · Sep 26, 2007, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

So your complaint, in essence, is that 7 heroes will give people the option not to play PUG, thus making it harder for those of you that do want to PUG. In other words, your ability to play the game the way you want to is more important than their ability to play the game the way they want to.

Actually, other than in the "elite" areas (which I completely disagree with, by the way), you currently have the OPTION to play solo with AI. If seven heroes were instituted, I'm afraid that those who want to participate in a multiplayer PuG will not have ANY OPTION to do so in many areas of the game. It's not about "playing one way being better than playing another way" - it's about even having the CHOICE to do so!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

If there are not enough to pug does that not suggest that people would rather play solo in those areas?

From what I can tell by your post you are saying because some people want to play in a team, those that dont should be made to. Its a choice, and it seems people are chosing to play solo.

And in reply to you being forced into using AI due to lack of players. Would you rather there wasnt any AI? Then you wouldnt be able to do it at all!
No one is forcing you to go with them. There just arent enough people there. This would be the same even without h/h.

That is currently true in a few remote areas of the game. Again, my point is that the number of those areas would likely greatly accelerate if seven heroes were introduced, for the reasons I enumerated above. So, instead of not being able to PuG in 3-4 mission towns, that could become 10-15 mission towns. That starts to dramatically impact whether someone that wants to play the game in a multiplayer PuG will even have the option to do so at all for a material portion of the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekling

It is up to you to be adult enough to work out how find people to play with. ie. If there's no PuGs forming, put that friends list, guild and alliance chat to use.

The last thing I want is people in a PuG who'd rather not play that game. People that are 'forced' into having to join up with a group of strangers for whatever reason.

Again, it's my opinion that the day that the multiplayer PvE scene is isolated to only playing with people that you know would be a sad day, especially to newer players in the game.

Regarding your second point, as I've said above, the group that I'm concerned would be impacted by this is NOT those that already use (or want to use) AI exclusively - it is those that are ambivalent (i.e. really don't care which one they use) to using AI or real people. What you've said above - that these ambivalent players are somehow "forced" to play with other people or actively "do not want to" play with other people goes against the very meaning of the word ambivalent.

Verek · Sep 26, 2007, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Really, as someone who enjoys pugging when I have the time to do it. The last thing I want is people in a PuG who'd rather not play that game. People that are 'forced' into having to join up with a group of strangers for whatever reason.

QFT.

Why would anyone want to play with people that are coerced into a PuG.

That's obviously gonna make me real sociable. /sarcasm

just give us 7 heroes and get over it, if you want to PuG do so but leave the rest of us to play the game how we want to.

zwei2stein · Sep 26, 2007, 02:12 PM // 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirosae

I've had a couple more thoughts about all of this.

The problem, as i see it, is that Heros are actually kinda bad in all ways other than multi-targetting and reaction speed, but that the average player is even worse. If true, that means that 7H isn't actually the problem. The problem is that the skill levels are so low for so many people.

It seems to me that the '7H = no more PUG' problem goes away if you stop people from sucking so bad, and PUGs naturally become better than 7H. I have an idea:

Disclaimer: This idea is ridiculously far fetched and won't be introduced into GW because it's such a huge amount of effort for no financial gain on the part of Anet. Any similarities to persons live or dead is purely co-incidental and no correspondan
...

Actually, this was in game already: Ascension fight, where you were supposed outdoai with your build.

Main flaw is that is possible abuses.

You will get people who want "i dont suck" title, but wont put in brains. That means gimmick builds designed to beat each this challenge without much thinking. No matter what challenge you put to players, they will figure out how to make life easier for themselves.

Soon you will have, i.e. Mesmer interrupt challenge pwned by Me/R who brings BHA ... If you constrait build options, you just get more optimized builds. If you allow only one build, you will get detailed "how-to-beat" guildes on wiki which anyone could follow.

Bottom line is, if this hypothetical title would exist, people would want it asap to get to groups and will likely not learn stuff from it. Its MMO players mindset to have their "truth" about how something is played, if you make monk pass preprot-and-no-rebirth test, he will likely return to having rebirth on his bar and not use preprot but straight healing anyway (and will complain about this tutorial telling him stupid things, because heal other owns) Basically, any info will be discarded by people who should listen to it.

Think about it as farming: People are capable using 55 build without understanding thing about how it works. They take build AND follow instructions, and win. I wouldnt expect those tests to be any different, in worst case just follow instructions and win.

Your ranger-learns-dshot-power would turn to: target enemy and press 1 asap you see him cast fireball.

---

But players skill is only one pasrt of PUG problem, and minor one.

Unskilled "newbie" player who has no idea can still be converted to good players if he listens. And i would prefer him in group anyday over:

"noobs", people who refuse to learn and consider themselves godly already.

At first glance, you wont recognize which is which, thou noob will likely have 15 armor. They will usually have equally bad builds, but difference is in how they talk and how they react to constructive discussion.

Jetdoc · Sep 26, 2007, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

Have you considered that exactly the opposite may happen? For example there would be a lot of people using full hero parties to complete DoA (which is currently almost deserted, the only groups there are the ones duo farming), which would actually result in more people being there. Eventually there would also be people that decide to form a PuG instead of going with seven heroes, which would mean other people that only PuG might have a chance at finding a team again.

This is highly, highly unlikely. Yes, there may be the rare circumstance that someone that was intending to use seven heroes would have a "change of heart" and decide to PuG instead, but I would gather that the number of multiplayer participants that would be added in that scenario would be far outweighed by the number of ambivalent players that would decide to use seven heroes over attempting to join a PuG.

shirosae · Sep 26, 2007, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Your ranger-learns-dshot-power would turn to: target enemy and press 1 asap you see him cast fireball.

My thinking wasn't that it'd be a small d-shot this dummy casting fireball 2 minute long exercise, but an actual mission. Like, imagine doing Gate of Pain, and being told specifically to d-shot the Tortureweb Dryders. Sure, you can d-shot the first thing you see... but then you die because the mission has been set up to steamroll you unless you d-shot the lynchpin of the enemy build.

But yes, balancing that to be an effective learning experience would be a nightmare, and the resilience of the argumentative stupidity of people knows no bounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

But players skill is only one part of PUG problem, and minor one.

Unskilled "newbie" player who has no idea can still be converted to good players if he listens. And i would prefer him in group anyday over:

"noobs", people who refuse to learn and consider themselves godly already.

At first glance, you wont recognize which is which, thou noob will likely have 15 armor. They will usually have equally bad builds, but difference is in how they talk and how they react to constructive discussion.

But don't you see? The reason that people who otherwise would PUG but don't, is that they don't believe in the quality of PUGs. There are plenty of people who don't pug for other reasons like time, hassle of being with a group, whatever. But the people who could potentially be converted to PUGing avoid them due to the quality of the average GW player.

There are other issues, but as soon as you remove that omg-GW-pugs-suck issue, the pressure is alleviated from all the others. People slowly become willing to PUG, PUGs become commonly more effective than 7H, and 7H can't destroy what's left of PUGing.

The people who would normally listen to advice and learn would still do so from training/tutorials, and at least some of the people who won't will get stuck.

Some people would do whatever the mission requested and go back to sucking, i agree. It's a good point ...i don't know if there's any way to deal with those people.

Isileth · Sep 26, 2007, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

That is currently true in a few remote areas of the game. Again, my point is that the number of those areas would likely greatly accelerate if seven heroes were introduced, for the reasons I enumerated above. So, instead of not being able to PuG in 3-4 mission towns, that could become 10-15 mission towns. That starts to dramatically impact whether someone that wants to play the game in a multiplayer PuG will even have the option to do so at all for a material portion of the game.

Here I think you are really missing the point.
If this is limited to a few areas where people cant normally pug it doesnt help the casual player. They still have the same problems in all areas not effected by this change.

Its not about making a few areas that dont see much use possible to do with a decent team. Its about making all areas accessible to all players with the ability to run a decent team.

Adding 7 heroes will reduce the number of players to pug with less than adding a new game ever did. Infact it will go a long way to counter this as those dead areas will now be accessible with a decent team again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

It's not about "playing one way being better than playing another way" - it's about even having the CHOICE to do so!

And again you hit upon the key point.
At the moment people have the choice to pug.
People dont have the choice to solo in a decent team however.

With the change...
People who want to pug still can. It might be more limited than it is now but it will still be an option.
People who want to solo will now be able to do so with a team on the same level as a decent pug.

So 1 option becomes slightly limited.
BUT it introduces a whole new option that we never had before.

1 group of players gets a slight decrease in the ease of playing the game how they want.
Another group (And as stated earlier the larger group) gets to finally play how they want. This will also open up new areas to time limited players as well.

Why is the ability to pug as effectively as now more important than the ability to solo at the same level as a pug?

It is just a small decrease to one option while creating a whole new option.

zwei2stein · Sep 26, 2007, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirosae

My thinking wasn't that it'd be a small d-shot this dummy casting fireball 2 minute long exercise, but an actual mission. Like, imagine doing Gate of Pain, and being told specifically to d-shot the Tortureweb Dryders. Sure, you can d-shot the first thing you see... but then you die because the mission has been set up to steamroll you unless you d-shot the lynchpin of the enemy build.

I understood that you meant more complex missions. You wrote it actually.

But result is still same: Pres-1-when-you-see-enemy-cast-whatver-skill-it-is.

Besides, there is no difference between d-shoting dummy casting fireball and dshoting some other skill in mission at enemy in group. Instructions in how-2-beat sections on wiki will be nearly identical.

---

re2:

I will repeat my point: its not players failing to be good at GWs, its players failing to be good at being cooperative and generally good companions.

You can see a bit of this attittude right here in this thread: "I want other players to be forced to play with me by making their solo options sucky"

It has less to do with skill and more with attitude.

R!ghteous Ind!gnation · Sep 26, 2007, 04:14 PM // 16:14

The reasons that people are giving for opposing this make absolutely no sense.
Lets say you want to vanquish FoW and don't have/can't find a guild that is at all intersted in doing this (or whatever your chosen task is)... most pugs fall apart right after they complete the forge quests... thats less than 1/3 of the total FoW. So your average player cannot complete a FoW vanquish becuase he/she cannot bring enough heros and henchmen cant go there, pugs fall apart, and there is NO build that can completely solo FoW/UW. So what are they to do? Anet should give 7 heros... period. If you want to use 3 and fill the other 4 with other players then please do so, if you want to use 2 heros and fill the rest with players/henchmen or whatever... thats fine too... but come on, why cant i use 7 heros if i need to do accomplish my goals.

Additionally there is really no need to add more heros to the storyline... for example the Zaishen fill in any needed holes (example: to get a full paragon team, anet could simply implement a recruitable Zaishen paragon that can be recruited infinatly to fill the other 5 slots) and the player can then equip the heros Zaishen paragon recruit (1), Zaishen paragon recruit (2), etc. as we already equip the heros we have. This would add more flexibility to builds and allow any player to choose how he/she wants to play without much work (adding hero storylines and skins).

the_jos · Sep 26, 2007, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

Is it not a need that a casual player is unable to access high end areas because they dont have the time?

I do understand this point, but only up to the point where there are no (high level) hench are available.
However, that's a 'fix this area' request and not a generic 'give us 7 heroes, because we need them'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

Is it not a need that the casual player is forced into a weaker team because they dont have time to find a pug?
Is it not a need that someone who has to go afk often has to join a weaker team?
Is it not a need that someone has to join a weaker team because very few pugs will accept their class?

H&H the weaker team?
When I read this thread a lot of the postings I see read behind the lines various rants that boil down to 'PuGs suck'.
And now you are telling me that H&H is even worse than PuG?
Sorry, I am not really buying that as an argument.

Now there are some decent PuGs out there that outperform H&H and you might be lucky enough to find those.
In that case the H&H would give a disadvantage. I agree on that part.

With both GWEN and NF, it should now be able to assemble a team that is up to about any task.
I know there are some areas where this is not possible and I do understand the request for better grouping possibilities there.
However, the generic solution of 7 heroes is overkill.

Jetdoc · Sep 26, 2007, 04:34 PM // 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

Why is the ability to pug as effectively as now more important than the ability to solo at the same level as a pug?

It is just a small decrease to one option while creating a whole new option.

This is where we differ. I believe this could be a removal of an option (i.e. not being able to PuG in many areas) compared to enhancing an existing option (replacing 4 henchmen with 4 heroes).

As I've said in other threads, I am wholeheartedly in support of providing AI (i.e. H/H) in areas that currently do not allow them (e.g. The Deep, Urgoz, DoA, UW, FoW), as I believe that AI users should have the OPTION of using them in all areas.

Draikin · Sep 26, 2007, 04:57 PM // 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

This is highly, highly unlikely. Yes, there may be the rare circumstance that someone that was intending to use seven heroes would have a "change of heart" and decide to PuG instead, but I would gather that the number of multiplayer participants that would be added in that scenario would be far outweighed by the number of ambivalent players that would decide to use seven heroes over attempting to join a PuG.

Didn't you just say that those ambivalent players are the ones that "really don't care which one they use"? If they don't care, why is it suddenly "unlikely" that they would still join PuGs when they are available? You're jumping to conclusions yourself here. Apparently the mere thought that including 7 heroes might have an impact on PuGs is enough for Anet to dismiss the idea altogether, which is the main reason you constantly see threads, polls, petitions, e-mails, etc... appear time and time again simply because the community doesn't understand that kind of reasoning.

Jetdoc · Sep 26, 2007, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

If they don't care, why is it suddenly "unlikely" that they would still join PuGs when they are available? You're jumping to conclusions yourself here.

The ambivalence exists today when comparing a PuG to a H/H party. I believe that the preference would be swayed to using AI if 7 heroes were introduced, for both efficiency and power reasons.

Isileth · Sep 26, 2007, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

I do understand this point, but only up to the point where there are no (high level) hench are available.
However, that's a 'fix this area' request and not a generic 'give us 7 heroes, because we need them'.

Perhaps high end areas wasnt really the best term to use. Its really any area that takes a long time to complete, so the high end areas just spring to mind instantly. But this also includes dungeons and stuff like vanquishing.
So we arent talking about a few areas. We are talking about most of the game. (since HM is the same size + all the high end areas in NM)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

H&H the weaker team?
When I read this thread a lot of the postings I see read behind the lines various rants that boil down to 'PuGs suck'.
And now you are telling me that H&H is even worse than PuG?
Sorry, I am not really buying that as an argument.

We are taking into account here that h/h can never be as powerful as a team of players. A bad pug can often be worse than h/h yes. But running h/h you can never have a decent team. You have a fairly "meh" team at best. It might be better than a good portion of pugs but you are still at a disadvantage to any good pugs and anyone that plays with a guild/alliance etc has a huge advantage over you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

This is where we differ. I believe this could be a removal of an option (i.e. not being able to PuG in many areas) compared to enhancing an existing option (replacing 4 henchmen with 4 heroes).

As has been stated before, the option to pug wouldnt suddenly dissapear. There are many like yourself that will always want to pug. They will continue.

As for enchancing an existing option, yes when it comes down to it thats what it is. However when that "option" results in you being weaker than someone who takes the other option. Is it really a fair option?

People who can only use h/h are being forced into a weaker team, essentially casual players are being punished because they cant dedicate enough time to the game. (Please note I am not at all suggesting Anet did this on purpose, as I said they allow the casual gamer a lot more than most games. However when it comes down to it there is a big difference between the options so there is a punishment for playing a certain way)

And again this will not remove the option of playing in a pug. There are plently of people out there who prefer pugging and so will cary on. Then there are guilds/alliances/friends that you can also play with. You will not be stopped from playing with real players. That option will always remain. It just might take a little longer to form a team unless you have friends online.

However the advantage is that the option of going solo reaches the same level as going in a pug. Meaning the casual player isnt punished.

Please note im counting a full Hero team to be on about level with a standard pug.
Reasons are while Heroes will react faster, follow calls etc.
They wont move out of AoE, they will happily interrupt pointless skills, they dont offer advice on a mission that a player can, you cant really split your team to cover 2 objs (You can but then all control over targeting, AoE etc is lost. So most of the time death follows swiftly).

Quick edit to reply to Jetdocs above post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

The ambivalence exists today when comparing a PuG to a H/H party. I believe that the preference would be swayed to using AI if 7 heroes were introduced, for both efficiency and power reasons.

Again, and I had hoped people had realised this point by now, a hero team is not more powerful than a team of players. It really isnt a valid argument simply because it isnt true. A decent team of players will far outclass a team of heroes. (Note a decent team of players, obviousely bad players are going to be...well bad)

Also again you state these people would prefer this option. So why would it be a bad thing for these people to get what they would prefer? It would take some players away from the option you prefer.
Why is that the right option? Why should the 2 not be balanced? People should not be forced to pug just to have a decent team. Then those that cant pug are forced to have the weaker team no matter what!
However, those that want to pug, those that prefer it, will carry on pugging. Losing some players who would prefer not to pug will not stop pugging.

Star Gazer · Sep 26, 2007, 05:26 PM // 17:26

but you are still saying that your way of playing is better than ours. I, still, have not seen a valid reason to not introduce 7 heros.

I have a wife and 2 kids. If my wife needs me in the middle of DoA, you think the "elite" players in there would give a shit? No. OMG DUMBASS WARRIOR YOU SUX0RZ" is what they would say. 7 Heros gives me an opportunity to actually SEE some of these elite areas (because, after all, I did pay anet to give me access/free will to play these areas).

Do I care about your pugs? No. I could care less if they were non exsistant. hell, the local chat MIGHT actually include somewhat of a discussion, instead of 'omg noone invite warx hes a total nubcakez loflrofl.' Should you care about 7 heros? No. You should care less also. Why? My gaming has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. I enjoy my time with my heros, and you enjoy your time with your pugs. So please, give me a valid reason to interupt MY gameplay because you think yours is better.

Jetdoc · Sep 26, 2007, 05:32 PM // 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

As has been stated before, the option to pug wouldnt suddenly dissapear. There are many like yourself that will always want to pug. They will continue.

And again this will not remove the option of playing in a pug. There are plently of people out there who prefer pugging and so will cary on. Then there are guilds/alliances/friends that you can also play with. You will not be stopped from playing with real players. That option will always remain. It just might take a little longer to form a team unless you have friends online.

Please note im counting a full Hero team to be on about level with a standard pug.

Again, and I had hoped people had realised this point by now, a hero team is not more powerful than a team of players. It really isnt a valid argument simply because it isnt true.

1. As I said above, I believe that the number of "ghost towns" out there would increase with the introduction of seven heroes. This effectively removes the option to PuG in those towns.

2. There are many people in this thread and other threads that disagree with you - many people believe that seven heroes are more powerful than your standard PuG (e.g. the "PuG's suck" commentary you find in many of these threads). Aiiane has a great article on this that I posted earlier in the thread. You may be swapping out "standard PuG" for "full guild/alliance group" in your thought above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Gazer

Do I care about your pugs? No. I could care less if they were non exsistant. Should you care about 7 heros? No. You should care less also. Why? My gaming has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. I enjoy my time with my heros, and you enjoy your time with your pugs. So please, give me a valid reason to interupt MY gameplay because you think yours is better.

It has absolutely nothing to do with saying that one person's style of gameplay is better than another's.

What you have to realize that not everyone in the game is either in the camp of (1) I only use AI or (2) I only use PuGs. It is the impact of the introduction of seven heroes on THOSE "middle" players, and how that adversely impacts the availability of PuGs, that is the concern.

You have to focus on how something that would benefit you would impact (both directly and indirectly) others when evaluating whether a change should be made.

Isileth · Sep 26, 2007, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

1. As I said above, I believe that the number of "ghost towns" out there would increase with the introduction of seven heroes. This effectively removes the option to PuG in those towns.

Yes the number of people pugging will drop. But they dont want to pug so why should they be forced to? Also it wont drop to the point no one will be able to pug. There will always be people who prefer to pug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

2. There are many people in this thread and other threads that disagree with you - many people believe that seven heroes are more powerful than your standard PuG (e.g. the "PuG's suck" commentary you find in many of these threads). Aiiane has a great article on this that I posted earlier in the thread. You may be swapping out "standard PuG" for "full guild/alliance group" in your thought above.

No I assure you im refering to a pug not a guild/alliance group.
Pugs can build 8 bars to counter the coming area, a h/h team can only customize 4. That is a huge difference on its own.
Then factor in the wasteful ints, refusal to move out of AoE etc and you can see why the current teams are hugely inferior.

Now take a team of 7 heroes. You can customize all 8 bars.
They still will waste ints, they will still stand in AoE, they wont kite, they wont stand in wards, they cant combo skills, they have general poor skill usage (MS cast when only 1 thing is left alive for example). The list goes on.

Can you see now why a pug is extremely superior to the current h/h setup and still has massive advantages over the 7 hero teams. Pugging would remain the better method, but it would increase solo to a point where its a valid option. And those that have to take h/h will actually be able to experience more of GW.

Edit again to include Jetdocs last edit (Stop typing so fast

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

It has absolutely nothing to do with saying that one person's style of gameplay is better than another's.

What you have to realize that not everyone in the game is either in the camp of (1) I only use AI or (2) I only use PuGs. It is the impact of the introduction of seven heroes on THOSE "middle" players, and how that adversely impacts the availability of PuGs, that is the concern.

You have to focus on how something that would benefit you would impact (both directly and indirectly) others when evaluating whether a change should be made.

So those middle players who given the option of 7 heroes would take it over a pug. The fact they would prefer to go with 7 heroes than a pug counts for nothing? We shouldnt look at it as more people this change would benefit, but we should see it as taking them away from another option?

It wouldnt take anyone away. They would CHOOSE to go with 7 heroes. Therefore not only would this change benefit the casual player but also people who are in the middle camp.

The reason they arent going solo currently is because the options arent balanced. To play in the way they would prefer they would be weakened. So they choose not to.

Verek · Sep 26, 2007, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Do I care about your pugs? No. I could care less if they were non exsistant. hell, the local chat MIGHT actually include somewhat of a discussion, instead of 'omg noone invite warx hes a total nubcakez loflrofl.' Should you care about 7 heros? No. You should care less also. Why? My gaming has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. I enjoy my time with my heros, and you enjoy your time with your pugs. So please, give me a valid reason to interupt MY gameplay because you think yours is better.

Couldn't have said it better myself, give me a valid reason why I should give a shit about how others play the game? I don't. So why others should dictate how I play is idiotic.

If you want to PuG, PuG. But don't gimp my play style for some idealistic reason that I might want to socialize, because, I don't.

When I want to socialize I'll go out with my Family and Friends, when I want to play a game I'll play that game how I want to and not how others would want me to.

R!ghteous Ind!gnation · Sep 26, 2007, 06:10 PM // 18:10

I have created an official Petition to introduce 7 heros as well as a petition to allow Zaishen heros of all types to allow for 7 heros of even an individual class...

Please post your opinions and sign / notsign here

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10202642

BlackSephir · Sep 26, 2007, 06:26 PM // 18:26

That probably won't do anyting. AN says 'no' so it's 'no' then