Curse

Sleeper Service · Oct 11, 2007, 10:42 AM // 10:42

oh sorry Mineria i didn't understand...

Ok you see your name on the top of the page where it says you are logged on?
just bellow (on a dark brown bar), slightly to the left, the word "Search" with a small downwards pointing triangle should be visible.

click that.

on a side note its possible to finish the main story arc in 2 weeks on the 3 campaigns (although if it was a first timer thats a bit dubious, was he using a Walkthrough/FAQ?) there is NO WAY that your friend even scratched the surface. content or skill wise.

If one is determined to just finish a game(any game) then you can be sure that it can be done in a couple hours(or less)...but its not a very enjoyable experience.

Etta · Oct 11, 2007, 10:48 AM // 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

LOL it was a reference to Baldurs Gate.
The merchs=heroes you tag along with there can start to argue and so on.
Exactly like players do some times.
But if you never played that game you don't know the fun part of it either.

The different is that the AI in BG was design from the single player pov. (yes I know BG has online play). The AI scripts were meant to enchant the role playing and give the AI some personality. It's fun yes, but you can't really compare that with real people.

When real people has an argument in GW, it will be ugly, immature and stupid and this happen in most of the pug teams.

Mineria · Oct 11, 2007, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

oh sorry Mineria i didn't understand...

Ok you see your name on the top of the page where it says you are logged on?
just bellow (on a dark brown bar), slightly to the left, the word "Search" with a small downwards pointing triangle should be visible.

click that.

on a side note its possible to finish the main story arc in 2 weeks on the 3 campaigns (although if it was a first timer thats a bit dubious, was he using a Walkthrough/FAQ?) there is NO WAY that your friend even scratched the surface. content or skill wise.

If one is determined to just finish a game(any game) then you can be sure that it can be done in a couple hours(or less)...but its not a very enjoyable experience.

Thank you

I looked for it for ages, and thought it might be some sort of suscriber only feature. *feels nub*

Well, he used the wiki and looked at my builds.
He is one of those players that belongs under the category 'power gamers' I guess.
GW is not the only game he rushed through, even WoW he managed to fly multiple characters through like a rocket.
He got that new FPS.. Bioshock, played it on hardest setting and was done in 2 days.
I guess he should try the PvP part of GW, prolly there where he can meet players that are more like him, and get a real challenge.
Atm. he is hooked up on Rappelz... 150 levels of pure grind.. ewk

Suviq Habo · Oct 11, 2007, 12:06 PM // 12:06

I have read through the previous posts and wanted to voice my opinions. I understand why Anet (and some players) think 7 heroes is not a great idea. I understand why a lot of players think it is a great idea. For me, 7 heroes would be great.

Playing DOA these days has just got boring. I have watched it go from teams that would fill up so fast I couldn't get in, to 1 group trying to form for several hours. Back when groups forming fast was starting to die out I decided to try to build my solo (plus 3 heroes) groups so I didn't have to worry about getting into a group. I came up with my builds so I can do all of DOA with just 3 heroes.

Foundry normal mode in a pug would take about 5 hours. Now I can solo (with 3 heroes) in hard mode in about 2 hours. So why would I ever go get into a pug if I can do it 2 1/2 times faster and not have to worry about someone screwing me up and getting us wiped. Also, with it taking 2 hours, sometimes I will get half way through and have to leave. If I am in a group, I can't do that. With my heroes, they will sit and wait for me to come back and not complain I was gone for 2 hours.

So for me, what would it matter if I have 3 heroes or 7 heroes, I don't pug anyway, and I can do the most difficult area with just 3 heroes? Well if I had 7 heroes I would try to make runs through foundry, and the like, faster and easier. It also would allow people that can't do those areas to have chances. It would also promote these areas and get them populated again.

For the hard core gamers that are already dealing with only 3 heroes, it would help them speed up and make things easier. For the casual players, it would give them chances to be able to play these more difficult areas.

I would suggest to Anet to go into DOA about 6:00 pm on a weekday and try to find a group that can actually complete 1 of the areas. I guarentee it will take at least and hour just to get a group, not to mention that the group will most likely fail. Remember, with 5 areas to complete, needing 8 specific classed players, finding a group to do what area you need with the class you are, will be very difficult. Here is another challenge, go into DOA and try to get into a group doing any of the areas of DOA, with a paragon/assassin/ritualist/mesmer. Now remember, both of these challenges are to find a group that can actually complete any area of DOA.

With the introduction of GW:EN, the elite areas of the game in other campaigns have just died. How is anybody going to have fun in an elite area if they can't find a group, can't kill more than 1 group in any area of that elite mission, or be able to solo with only 3 heroes? So the answer to my question will undoubtedly be they won't play those areas. Well then your pretty much screwing people out of content. How is that fair to anybody?

Bryant Again · Oct 11, 2007, 01:30 PM // 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

Yeah, absolutely against the idea.

Like I said, it's a lose-lose situation on ANet's part. The game's really huge as it is, and there are plenty of mission outposts that are empty (even before heroes this was the case). They were implemented because the playerbase was too spread out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

I can see that some may have more fun with 7 heroes, but at the same time I can see some advantages and disadvantages such an option will bring into the game.
Which weight is greater is up to Anet to conclude, I think they already did.

I've said numerous times that there's no way we can tell what will happen if we have 8 heroes. It could either help or hinder, the playerbase is way to unpredictable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

Do you think bots are ok as well?

I actually really don't care about bots. Money gives no advantage. But you're comparing bots to heroes, so that's pretty funny.

The AI of them can only go so far. There are numerous things with them you have to watch out four, most obvious being that some are crappy with certain builds and you have to flag them alot so they don't stand dumbly in that Meteor Shower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

For the pause button, uhm.. you can't park you party at an already cleared spot?

What? Sometimes RL calls, and I have to be "oh shit brb!" and have to answer a phone, door, etc. If I was in a PUG, they'd be pissed. But heroes don't care.

And why would I not afk at an already cleared portion of the area? What made you think I would?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

And just because it is made possible to use heroes, you think you should be able to use 7 at once?

No. I don't think I should be given anything. It would be something cool to have, but it's the only thing - although illogical - that they can do to "encourage" people to PUG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

What's the problem doing it with H+H?
You can even get the protector title with H+H.
I think it's more about different type of gamers, but both you and me know it is not possible to please everyone.

You can complete anything in the game with H/H - Protector, Vanquisher, nearly anything. Dunno what you mean.

What my point in that particular quote was that he's gonna run into some nasty pugs and the game will start to look differently for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

Worked for me to, was a comment to you saying that you didn't looked hard.
I don't see a search box on the guru forums....

Wrong person.

Looks like I'm in another TL;DR quote duel.

the_jos · Oct 11, 2007, 04:16 PM // 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I was just having a great argument over alliance chat about 7 heroes with a monk that was trying to H/H marga coast HM. He kept failing and got 60% DP, saying over and over he hated H/H and only wanted to play with humans (Heroes ruined the game etc, they should be removed).

Oh yes, I recall that argument

I did not get into it at that time, because I was too busy keeping up with our rushing Boris while doing a Bog vanquish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

If your a monk and your party keeps dying and getting 60% DP, doesnt that just tell you wake up and try to learn how to monk better?

Nope, you need better aggro control and more defense in your team build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I am blunt when I see terrible skill bars or people playing badly and say it clearly 'That bar sucks', or 'Your doing it completely wrong, learn to play better'.

Well, I know how to say that in a somewhat nicer way, without offending people too much. There is no need to insult.
Just something like 'you use this skill, but it's not as effective since you also use that skill' or 'why use that skill while the enemies out there have/do X that makes it less effective' will do the trick most of the time.

The problem vanquishing with H&H as a monk is that you have a more reactive role than when playing offensive caster.
Even while playing prot-monk.
When playing nuker, you are working more on dealing damage and let your AI take care of the healing. With a good hero monk build, this is quite easy.
As healer or protter, you are more busy keeping the team in the right position and migrating damage.

I can see the problem, have to try vanq Marga on my monk tonight
Hope I can tel EotI that we are better than they are

Mineria · Oct 11, 2007, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Bryant Again
You actually overlooked what i responded to..

So instead of wasting my time going back and re-quoting it, I wish you good luck with your crusade for the 7 heroes.

Bryant Again · Oct 11, 2007, 09:32 PM // 21:32

And you completely missed my point. I know that we're not getting 7 heroes, it's way too unpredictable what will happen. I just find ANet's reasons for it rather comical.

xcenic · Oct 11, 2007, 09:33 PM // 21:33

wow this game still is alive??

the_jos · Oct 11, 2007, 11:06 PM // 23:06

Going off-topic again:

Quote:

They were implemented because the playerbase was too spread out
......
It would be something cool to have, but it's the only thing - although illogical - that they can do to "encourage" people to PUG.
.....
What my point in that particular quote was that he's gonna run into some nasty pugs and the game will start to look differently for him.

The thing A-net can do to improve PuG (but they probably won't in GW1) is not adding more heroes.
If they really want to encourage people to play more outside their guild/alliance groups (or H&H), they need to implement better teaming options.
The problem of people being too much spread is that they can't find each other anymore.
Having a party-search window that is limited to the outpost you are in is not helping when you are there alone.
Good example is Gyala.
A couple of days ago we got there for a vanquish with several guildies and were surprised to find some players there (for mission).
The outpost has been almost abandoned since ages (even before NF) and teaming was always hard.
People still want to play the mission, but don't want to wait for ages for a stranger who might never show.

The problem of the 'nasty PuG' is different.
When I want to meet new people to team up with later, I just play an average HM mission with them.
This shows quick if they are worth teaming up with again and if they might be an asset to more difficult things.
Being the harder missions or vanquishing.

For example, I don't take PuG on vanquish (well, hardly ever).
I only invite people on my friends list (besides guild/alliance).
People on my friends list have 'proven' that they are the kind of player I want to team up with.
Think the same is true for my guildies. They sometimes invite people I don't know, but most of them are from their friends list.

In all the time I've vanquished (only guild/alliance so far, no H&H) I've teamed up with a PuG twice.
One was someone looking to join our guild (did not work out, since he was in wrong timezone) and someone we met by accident while doing a vanquish in Elona.
A guildie put a 'lf players for vanq' in local instead of alliance chat and got a reply from someone in the outpost.
So we took him and had a great time.

I think this is something important to understand for people that still PuG and want to PuG in HM.
It's still possible for missions, but it will be hard for vanquish and some missions.
Vanquishing just takes too long to trust a 'random' player.
And since vanq is connected to a title, people want results (I don't mind, play for fun, not for titles).
The best thing people that want to team up for HM can do (besides joining a dedicated HM guild) is working on their friends list.

Bryant Again · Oct 12, 2007, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

Going off-topic again:

Well, both this and heroes are concerning PUGs, so I'd consider it relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

The thing A-net can do to improve PuG (but they probably won't in GW1) is not adding more heroes.
If they really want to encourage people to play more outside their guild/alliance groups (or H&H), they need to implement better teaming options.
The problem of people being too much spread is that they can't find each other anymore.
Having a party-search window that is limited to the outpost you are in is not helping when you are there alone.

A totally universal party-search window would indeed be a much, much far better option. But if they could've done that, I'm sure it would've been implemented with the release of the current (and poor) party search window. As it is right now, the only thing the party-search feature is doing for you is saving you the time and effort of having to keep pressing enter+up.

Of course, even if that *was* available, I'm sure there would be times where you just can't find anything to do what you want to do, in which case heroes help far much more than hurt.

zamial · Oct 12, 2007, 02:25 AM // 02:25

In the year 2009 the guild wars community is spread to thin over multiple games, A-net decides to finally allow 7 heroes, space and time are ripped apart and the world as we know it ends.

CHunterX · Oct 12, 2007, 03:40 AM // 03:40

If they improved search to allow players to continually search while in an instance, and allowed players to search all cities through one search panel, forming PuGs wouldn't be as hard. I would love to be able to seek for a PuG for The Deep, DoA, or Slavers' while out soloing bosses for greens, or from the comfort of my Guild Hall. Alas, this will never happen, seeing as Areanet keeps getting the Search function wrong even though its been done right in other games.

Wotan · Oct 12, 2007, 04:29 AM // 04:29

I'm all for the 7 heroes since the introduction of heroes has killed community play anyway

Bryant Again · Oct 12, 2007, 04:35 AM // 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHunterX

If they improved search to allow players to continually search while in an instance, and allowed players to search all cities through one search panel, forming PuGs wouldn't be as hard. I would love to be able to seek for a PuG for The Deep, DoA, or Slavers' while out soloing bosses for greens, or from the comfort of my Guild Hall. Alas, this will never happen, seeing as Areanet keeps getting the Search function wrong even though its been done right in other games.

Like the auction house, it may just not be technically possible.

strcpy · Oct 12, 2007, 05:05 AM // 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

A totally universal party-search window would indeed be a much, much far better option. But if they could've done that, I'm sure it would've been implemented with the release of the current (and poor) party search window. As it is right now, the only thing the party-search feature is doing for you is saving you the time and effort of having to keep pressing enter+up.

That would do more for PUG's than anything.

As I still maintain, those that want to PUG will, those that do not will not - seven heroes or not. I just don't see it changing anything. I am one of those that H/H everything and would LOVE 7 heroes, PUGs are only done under two circumstances - one of the two game missions that force it or if I'm goofing off. That's not to say I screw around - I still play as good as I am capable of, however good/bad that may be - but that a "bad" PUG isn't bad as I'm not invested in getting it done.

For instance, I still have a Necromancer sitting at Unwaking Waters. It is possible that if I were farming from there my Monk or Dervish may notice a someone asking for a necro and is mostly full, I will occasionally switch over and have a go at it (then again I may not be interested in doing so at that point either). But since I have no farming run there the only way I can know that is happening is when I decide to go play that mission and that normally means I want to beat it and no PUG.

Most of us with multiple characters are that way, there is a lot of things I'm willing to do if I know about them. It's not uncommon to log on to "do something" which usually results in farming or picking a character and clearing a quest or two. Due to the way the game is formated even on the times I'm willing to PUG something it isn't something that just casually happens - I have to be looking for it to occur and chances are that isn't going to happen. Not to mention the person who actively *wants* to pug would have to rotate around every mission they currently have a character looking to do, not to mention trying a form a group for more difficult quests.

You can not "encourage" PUG's through technical restrictions when the issue isn't technical but social, the best you can do is give people the ability to be social. GW has never been really good at doing that. The inclusion of AI is why so many people like me flocked to the game - I have no other alternative that is anywhere as good a game as GW is and would not regularly PUG anyway. The ones that would regularly PUG went elsewhere not because many of us use the AI but because the difficulty in playing that way and it has been like that (complaints with a steady decline in percentage looking to PUG) since at least 2-3 months into release when I joined.

Though, in the end, as others have said I suspect that if it would have been easy to do Anet would have done it already. Hopefully that is something that will be done in GW2.

Bryant Again · Oct 12, 2007, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

That would do more for PUG's than anything.

Well yeah, that's the point.

Sleeper Service · Nov 11, 2007, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Full Hero team -CLOSED THREAD
7 Heroes <B -CLOSED THREAD

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 up and 2 down

Gaile said no. Quit bringing up these pointless topics....

Maybe the Guru mods should sticky her answer to this question in all the forums on Guru....

source: 7 Heroes <B

- maybe. on the other hand Gaile Says a Lot of Things on the heading of each forum thread as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

every few days this crops up. Theres no doubt that theres a very real demand for this option....

And there's no doubt that ArenaNet isn't going to do it.

Source: Full Hero team

-probably. but you know...while there is life. Whats more there are some seriously good reasons to enable this, the downside being the oposition is mostly "philosophical".

Gaile Greys answer 09/06 far too long to quote fully.

-A few choice bits that are either simply WRONG or deliberately misleading.

" The all-hero party is not under consideration at this time. The matter was discussed thoroughly during design, then was revisited again recently. Both extensive discussions resulted in the decision to not enable the all-hero party. We have given detailed reasons why this is so, and those reasons are based on both practical and philosophical elements of design. And at present, we cannot foresee that the all-hero party will be added to the game in the future."

-There are NO practical reasons, it is a 100% PHILOSOPHICAL standpoint.

"Therefore, new or bumped threads, posts, emails, PMs, and petitions are simply unnecessary."

-They are NECESSARY for player/clients to expose their view and thoughts on the subject. It we were to take what was said above at face value GWGURU would not even exist.

"(...)
You may discuss what you choose to discuss. I do not presume to tell you to not continue to discuss this or any matter. But on this matter, we will no longer be commenting, and there is absolutely no interest by the design team is spending time reading the same comments, repeated ad infinitum. Far better for them to be viewing other areas of concern about which they are still making an assessment than demand they read half a dozen threads about the same tired and, at least for now, closed subject."

-Translates into: "the design team does not give a damm about this request. we aint gonna read no more of your QQing regarding this matter cause we aint gonna change kthxbye".

Very well, nevertheless its a moot point. PLAYERS want to talk about it, Anet can go on and shell out useless updates like greyed out items or debatable PvP influenced skillballances all they want, maybe some other clever company with simply implement the concept first.

"So where this started as "Would be more fun to..." it has definitely turned to a "We must have this or [the game is not playable] or [you don't care about your customers] or [I'm going to quit]." Now, saying, "I do not choose to play in a PUG" is entirely reasonable, if that is your choice, and provably, the PUG is not your own option. "I must have seven heroes or I cannot play the game" is unreasonable and untrue.(...)"

-Simply wrong. MANY gamers have expressed their thoughts, opinions and reasons regarding this subject in other ways than stated above. Even if some DID express themselves in that manner it really boils down to the same thing anyways: it would be more fun.

"the "there is no other choice; I must have an all-hero party" is simply not rational. The designers look at the big picture and make their decisions based on an overall view of the game. Everything from pet controls to how to spend faction to party size to AB leaving issues to monster spawns to chest drops to skill balance to a thousand and one other issues will pass their appraisal. But having made the assessment on this issue, and more than once, the matter is now closed(...)"

-Again, misleading. 7 heroes is unbalancing WHY? in what way is it less unbalancing than 2 human players and 6 heroes? SINCE WHEN IS PVE BALANCED.

to the mods. its better to have ONE thread to discuss this in than multiple closed ones.

Snow Bunny · Nov 11, 2007, 01:39 AM // 01:39

They won't do it.

ANet wants you to play with idiots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mokone

Face it, heroes are better than you

Vinraith · Nov 11, 2007, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

ANet wants you to play with idiots.

"Encouraging people to play together," which of course really means "hobbling SP to the degree we can get away with" does seem to be part of their design philosophy. I'm not sure why they're so hellbent on getting people that don't want to PUG to do so, though. The vast majority of online gamers only play with people they know or by themselves, after all. Very few people really enjoying putting their gaming experience in the hands of random people.