Curse

Red Sonya · May 06, 2008, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Manatee

Like I said before, and it bears stating again, there are 5 zones where Henchmen cannot go, The Fissure of Woe, The Underworld, The Deep, Urgoz Warden, and The Domain of Anguish. Furthermore, the Deep and Urgoz need highly specialized builds. If Henchmen aren't allowed down there, then let me take in a hero based party, or put in 'ascended' or specialized henchmen so I can get down there with AI. The deal was I'd be able to H&H everything without having to mess with the average dingbat, It's BS that I can't H&H the elite missions. Even if they implemented the 7 heroes(11 for urgoz/deep) just for those zones, and you couldn't leave those zones with them(only enter the elite missions) that'd be just fine. I do believe I can H&H every other aspect of the game(vanquished all but 3 elonian zones 1+3+4 well on my way with canthan and prophecies zones and done many H&H guardian missions), I HAVE 2+6'd the FoW and parts of the UW. It is possible to 4 man the FoW with just heroes. There's no good reason they won't let us take 7 heroes down there, not one. Not one technical, not one balance-wise, not even a 'social' one.

Whatever GW2's mechanics are it will be a totally different game, GW1 is based around the concept of a 4, 6 or 8 man party, and plays like a 8 man RTS, and has almost always had the option to take AIs instead of humans(an option I exercised early and often). The advent of customizable AIs wasn't a bad design decision, it was brilliant. It was a decision that saved the average social pug player and soloist alike. It re-invigorated PvE and added a new layer of strategic play. Adding 20+ heroes, and only allowing 3 at a time per player was the dumb thing to do.

The 'it takes to many resources to implement' thing is bull too, all they have to do is add a second/third row of buttons beneath the radar, make the hero panels scalable, and fiddle with the party drop down box so you can add them in. In terms of the programming it took to get GW up and running in the first place, that should be child's play for even a low level code monkey to pull off.

The ELITE zones weren't meant to be played with henchies. They are meant for grouping. If you want 6 heroes you still have to group with someone. Plus even though you get those other heroes you don't have individual control over them so they are nothing more than super uncontrollable henchies. Plus one less in the group since if your friend leaves there's only 7 of you left. Solo all of the ELITE areas with these groups? Specially DOA? HAH I think not. You might do FOW and possibly UW, but, I highly doubt you get very far in the others. Nope just wasn't meant to be. Meant for you to group with HUUUUUMAAANS play together get stuff together and use UB not heroes.

HuntMaster Avatar · May 06, 2008, 01:18 AM // 01:18

I don't think anet knew playing with people would suck so bad, So they should compensate players with additional heroes so that we get what we want. If an area allows a party of 8, I want 7 heroes, If an area allows a party of 12, I want 11 heroes, If an area allows a party of 20, i want 19 heroes.

What difference does it make to people who dont use heroes anyways? Why are they so against it? I say play the game how you want and I will do the same, What buisness is it of theirs how I play or who I play with? If players stop with in-game abuse, and all the unneeded BS that comes with player parties everyone would probably not use heroes and henchies, But since that will never happen and Jerks will forever be a part of the community I see no reason why Anet is unwilling to add in this option that many of us want, Unless ofcourse they wish to drive off a portion of their player base.

I think anti hero players simply want to subject others to their abuse so they can entertain themselves. Which is not a valid reason

Things change in the game all the time, mostly for the worse. Skill nerfs, loot scaling, extreme event lag and skipped events in districts due to errors. Anet is ok with these things and they are harmful, adding heroes is reasonable and it would not affect anyone but the players using them.

But this discussion is going no where fast. I would like to have more heroes but I can live without them. Either way I will not be forced to play by someone elses standards. I know many people who are fed up with Anets bs, and are not going to support gw2 or anything ncsoft or anet releases just as they no longer support battlenet or blizzard for their ill treatment of the fans. Whats the point of playing a game that promotes more frustration than enjoyment?

So enjoy it while it lasts, which wont be long if things keep up as they are.

Crom The Pale · May 06, 2008, 03:31 AM // 03:31

What about an alternative to 7 heros....

What if they bumped up the max lvl of heros, say to 24 while requiring a quest for each lvl above 20 rather than gaining exp?

Another option would be to remove the attribute cap of 12(before runes) and allow a Hero to spend as many points as possible into one attribute?

While these options would still require Hench to be used the buffed up Hero's should more than make up for the bad AI/Skill bars of the Hench.

What other options are there to improve the game for those that play solo while not hindering those that play with friends?

HuntMaster Avatar · May 06, 2008, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

What about an alternative to 7 heros....

What if they bumped up the max lvl of heros, say to 24 while requiring a quest for each lvl above 20 rather than gaining exp?

Another option would be to remove the attribute cap of 12(before runes) and allow a Hero to spend as many points as possible into one attribute?

While these options would still require Hench to be used the buffed up Hero's should more than make up for the bad AI/Skill bars of the Hench.

What other options are there to improve the game for those that play solo while not hindering those that play with friends?

Having a full party of heroes would in no way hinder people who play with friends.

adding more quests, attribute increases, level increases would require more work than allowing 7 heroes.

allowing 4 more heroes would not be a lot of work nor would it have any harmful effects to an already weak social community. The only difference is that instead of henchmen you would have heroes. Nothing more, nothing less. The game is already broken in many many ways, Anet will not fix it, Hence GW2, but they could atleast make the game more appealing to those of us who do not need to be surrounded by other people to feel important or to show off. And those who just like to play with friends wont be bothered either way.

What would happen if those players who play alone began playing in groups with others just to fail the group? it would become so frustrating for those who just want to socialize that they would then begin requesting additional heroes so the soloer's would stop aggroing 3-5 mobs at once.

Granted you can ignore, boot them from party, but how many times would this happen? Maybe these people would wait til near the end of the mission then fail the party just to futher the frustration level. I'm not advocating this, nor am I the one who put this thought in my head, But if PvE'ers get what they want in PvE, maybe they wont go to PvP just to ruin your win. Maybe there would be less leroy jenkins in each group. Maybe each type of player could begin to truely enjoy the game like never before.

Guildwars is about to change, one way or the other. And I fear for its future. Hostility breeds Hostility, Respect breeds Respect.

strcpy · May 06, 2008, 04:14 AM // 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterSasori

There you go.

Excellent, your advice is if I don't like what the box says I should go play a game released in 2000? I guess I have to wonder why you don't go play a game that doesn't allow solo play if it is that important to you?

Quote:

The only thing I came but didn't expect was the amount of grinding despite the advertisement. I just don't think this is the game you should be soloing at. Course everyone wants the short cut unless they go Ursan.

And, why particularly do you think I shouldn't be soloing it? It has *always* been designed around that since day one (it was one of GW core requirements). If you want a game that doesn't have AI you have WoW, SWG, LOTRO, EQ2, and many many many others. I have one and one only, Diablo II only comes close and is eight years old. Even should there be another game that allows it there is no reason to say I have to go play it as, again, solo play is an integral part of GW.

Quote:

The point is that pugs are still part of the game - It doesn't matter whether or not soloists are one of the biggest group. If 7 heros discourage the pugs, then it shouldn't be implemented. As I said before, the one good thing about Ursan is that it brings together people that wouldn't have considered before, into a pug.

*shrug* I don't care too much either way if I could take the hench into those last few areas. I did quite well before heroes were released, though I would like to play with better team builds than what I currently do. Plus a larger player base is easier to find PUGs on - I still do it from time to time and if heroes had not been done I would most likely have left some time ago. I know many others that way.

Anet wants to encourage PUGs whilst allowing people to nearly fully solo the game (the only areas that they wish to restrict you just don't have the option). Arguing that the people who solo the game should go elsewhere is ignoring their design goals *significantly* more than 7 heroes would ever do so I can't believe you truly believe in their goals (you are only using them here because they happen to reinforce this part of your argument).

Quote:

Unless you can prove it with hard facts, it remains subjective.

Of course I can't as I don't have server logs - however that is about the time people started complaining and we started experiencing the decline. During that time PUG's died and the vast vast vast majority of people that were around then experienced the same thing. Your choice to rail against that if you wish, just recall that to most people if you are that incapable of seeing what happened you are mostly not going to get listened to otherwise.

Quote:

You look like an idiot claiming that everyone is happy with the situation - that's totally biased. Not everyone has a good guild to party with or has the ability to solo 90% of the game. If you're one of those good for you, but there are others in the GW community that require more pugging.

I may look stupid if I had remotely said so (or even implied it - since this post is nearing 1000 posts I would have to say it is obvious many are unhappy), however since I didn't I'll leave it up to how that makes the accuser look. I simply stated that there is no other game in it's class, AI has always been a large part of the game (and, because of that, telling people who play with it to go elsewhere because this isn't the game for them is a stupid thing to say), and PUGs died well before the release of Factions.

If you have required a PUG since about 6-8 months since the game release and within the first month of each chapters release then this game probably isn't going to be much fun. If you are on at peak times you can get one for a mission fairly easily but it will most likely die a horrid death. Off peak times or for quests or anything other than Ursan title farming then you might as well forget it. Plus 7 heroes would go a long ways towards helping that class of people out so, as far as being "helpful" is concerned you are kinda shooting your own argument there.

Quote:

This still isn't meant to be a solo game it's all about team effort. There's a reason why ANet didn't put all 7 heros for the individual player. The heros gave players more flexibility on what they want in a party, but unless they want to be stuck with henches, they can go for other people.

This game has always been about being a casual online RPG wherein you can play with the AI or friends. In fact, I have the original GW box in front of me right now, on the side with the warrior cover under the heading "It's Your Adventure" the last line reads "Join with friends or play solo with a band of skillful henchman" (emphasis mine). Now, it is quite arguable that the hench aren't terribly skillful, but it is obvious that the game has always meant to be a solo game if you choose to play it that way.

So, I say again if *you* want a game that doesn't allow solo play GW has never been the game for you and you should go elsewhere. The design team for GW2 has stated many times that they are keeping the design goal of the whole game being soloable so GW2 isn't going to be for you either (unless they change their minds). I would also guess that if 7 heroes is going to make or break the game for someone they might as well go elsewhere too as (if it ever does happen) I doubt it will be anytime soon and that is no matter how much I or the community in general wants them.

Red Sonya · May 06, 2008, 04:26 AM // 04:26

Quote:

solo with a band of skillful henchman"

emphasis HENCHMEN not 7 heroes.

HuntMaster Avatar · May 06, 2008, 04:34 AM // 04:34

Even Gw EoTn promotes solo play

Quote from box
"Have you got the skills?
made for level 20 players- from exciting solo adventures all the way up to true master level quests."

How many total heroes are in the game? And we only get to use 3? This entire discussion is LOLishis. the game should have updated to allow max party of heroes with the release of gwen. The game promotes solo play, Find a new arguement.

pumpkin pie · May 06, 2008, 04:47 AM // 04:47

I like to think Guild Wars isn't promoting any particular play style, it should be "flexible". puggers will get to pug, and players who wants 7 heros should get it, simple. We/Me who don't like to pug never try to stop puggers from pugging, why should it be the other way around?

HuntMaster Avatar · May 06, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I like to think Guild Wars isn't promoting any particular play style, it should be "flexible". puggers will get to pug, and players who wants 7 heros should get it, simple. We/Me who don't like to pug never try to stop puggers from pugging, why should it be the other way around?

Finally a rational gamer! Inform the news we have a unique sighting! Pumpkin pie should be a mod!

Dawgboy · May 06, 2008, 06:14 AM // 06:14

If they allowed 7 heroes I'd buy GWEN the next day.

The only attraction the expansion has for me is the hero population, and if I can't use more than 3 at once I don't need any more than I have now.
I couldn't care less about ursan and monuments. There's more content, but I'm still plodding along(after almost 1700 hours and 35months) in the other 3 continents with various characters.

Even early on I usually henched. Lots of times I didn't really have a choice, as I work till midnite and lots of towns are deserted when I play. That's gotten worse now, with everyone spread out over 4 games and nm/hm.

I can't see how this would be negative to anyone. If I want to do the mission myself I will, even if it gimps me. If I'm feeling sociable and see someone looking for a party, I might do that. Having 7 heroes wouldn't effect my decision, it would only make the solo play more enjoyable.

EPO Bot · May 06, 2008, 07:10 AM // 07:10

It WOULD make those titles more useful and allow me to use the complete GW spellbook i unlocked to it's fullest extend.

Perhaps seven heroes would be nice, providing Anet added a little feature that made playing with pugs more desirable. Extra gold and better chanse to get rares/ectos for each player in the team perhaps?

But what about the henchies? Guess they would still be good if you had four smiters and needed some healing but still...

strcpy · May 06, 2008, 08:31 AM // 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I like to think Guild Wars isn't promoting any particular play style, it should be "flexible". puggers will get to pug, and players who wants 7 heros should get it, simple. We/Me who don't like to pug never try to stop puggers from pugging, why should it be the other way around?

My general opinion on the matter too - unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the one of very many people that count

. At least allow hench in the end game areas if not all heroes. There are areas of the game that are pretty much 100% off limits (unless I want to put up with the crap that made me go hench in the first place - well before heroes).

BlackSephir · May 06, 2008, 11:59 AM // 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

And that's all it advertised that you could solo

Yeah, and 7 heroes is IMPROVED soloing because heroes are improved henchmen.
Last time I checked, improvement is good.
And last time I checked your post history- you're a troll.

bhavv · May 06, 2008, 02:27 PM // 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

And honestly if you really want a single player rpg then perhaps you should play a single player rpg...

Which single player RPG is the same thing as GW?

Oh wait, none?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

And last time I checked your post history- you're a troll.

Yes she is. /agree.

ParanoidDenny · May 06, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

Oh FFS Anet just add the 7 heros and stop all the whining.

bhavv · May 06, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

The wine wont stop untill we have some bread to eat with it too. The bread in this case is 7 heroes.

Give us the bread and the wine will be consumed.

Red Sonya · May 06, 2008, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

Yeah, and 7 heroes is IMPROVED soloing because heroes are improved henchmen.
Last time I checked, improvement is good.
And last time I checked your post history- you're a troll.

But, they never advertised IMPROVED SOLOING w/7 heroes.

Shadowlance. · May 06, 2008, 04:47 PM // 16:47

I also share the opinion that ANet should implement the option to allow us to utilize more heroes. I do not enjoy pick up groups that much. I enjoy playing Guild Wars today with H/H and have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I will not be able to explore the content offered by areas like DoA and the Elite Missions. My real life schedule only allows gaming time in small chunks, and I often need to be AFK in the middle of a mission. So not only do I not enjoy PUGs, but the PUGs would not enjoy having me either.

One thing I have loved about GW is how it is flexible to your own personal gaming style. I like the solo game, and it's pretty much the only way I can play at this stage in life. ANet please open up more hero utilization options for us.

For those of you who say certain areas like the Elite Missions are mean to be played with humans, I say "why do you care"? You will never see me in your PUG anyway. More heroes will not change that. So your argument has no implication to you, but you only say it to downgrade my gaming experience?

Gun Pierson · May 06, 2008, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

But, they never advertised IMPROVED SOLOING w/7 heroes.

On my nightfall box it says: 'Recruit a TEAM of fearless heroes who will fight at your side and follow orders in combat. Customise armour, equip weapons and lead your team to battle.'

I want to make a team of heroes and the box says I can. It doesn't say a team with only 3 heroes.

If all the peeps who want 7 heroes would donate 10 dollar/euro, we could rent a corps of lawyers and sue Anet

In the meantime we all specialise in the fine art of sabotaging pugs. Feel the wrath.

MasterSasori · May 06, 2008, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote: