Curse

Inner Salbat · Sep 12, 2008, 01:44 PM // 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj91x

Unfortunately, it's been getting harder and harder to play with people. A lot of times I try to find people to play with, all they are doing is grinding for titles.

That's another reason PuGs are dying, I don't know about the rest but while I might find it fun to PuG getting titles it's just soo very time consuming and I don't want to bother other people with that not when I can do it by myself, and if I couldn't do it by myself I wouldn't bother with titles, I'm sure other people have got things they'd like to do why should I be selfish and ask more of there time and put them in a position of doing something they might dislike.

It's time consuming for a reason though keep you playing if "Kind of a big deal" was easy to max and required little effort everyone would have it by now and have absolutely nothing to do because maxing all those titles basically means you've done everything there is to be done, your only source of entertainment then is PvP.

sixofone · Sep 12, 2008, 01:51 PM // 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

I would have because I like content I like playing it all too so that I don't feel like I've been ripped off the 320NZD+ it cost for all 4 games plus an additional 2 for the wife to play, but without heros I would not be playing the game at all anymore.

Off Topic Forum Education

For those sick of idiot posts I present to you the [IGNORE] option.

1. Click on the menu item [User CP] (User Control Panel) in the upper left of the webpage.

2. In the Miscellaneous section click on -> Buddy / Ignore Lists

3. On the next page you'll see 2 columns of boxes 1 is for Buddy the other is Ignore, type the name of the person you wish to ignore into the top most box on the right, example : JDRyder

4. Before you leave the page Click Update Ignore List.

5. Congratulate yourself that you don't have to listen to trolls.

Thank you for this tip! I had no idea you could filter out posts that have already been made! Now I can avoid getting hooked by troll-bait! (My fault, I know, but I'm weak when it comes to pointing out faulty arguments.)

Inner Salbat · Sep 12, 2008, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

Thank you for this tip! I had no idea you could filter out posts that have already been made! Now I can avoid getting hooked by troll-bait! (My fault, I know, but I'm weak when it comes to pointing out faulty arguments.)

Your entirely welcome trolls kind of quit there trolling when no one gives them any attention and figure they've been ignored by everyone.

Skye Marin · Sep 12, 2008, 03:07 PM // 15:07

I think that 7 heroes would make the game a cake walk.

You could have nothing on your own bar, and pretty much c-space any area with little to no consequences.

The only reason to pick up anyone else to play with would be PvE-only skills, which would be demanded to be Hero-usable by players next. Also, many hero builds do a better job than players, even with PvE-only skills. They don't get distracted, don't get tired, and listen to your commands better than you do.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Inner Salbat · Sep 12, 2008, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

I think that 7 heroes would make the game a cake walk.

You could have nothing on your own bar, and pretty much c-space any area with little to no consequences.

I don't and the argument by the way to that is how is that any different from a bunch of humans even if that argument was valid?.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

The only reason to pick up anyone else to play with would be PvE-only skills, which would be demanded to be Hero-usable by players next.

That's been argued already actually and it appears those for 7/11 heros disapprove of Heros using PvE only skills, although no actual poll has been taken on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

Also, many hero builds do a better job than players, even with PvE-only skills. They don't get distracted, don't get tired, and listen to your commands better than you do.

My results playing them are quite the different, they don't listen to a single thing I target it, when I flee they stay in battle and only realize I'm gone when I'm almost a radar distants away, they have no comprehension of where the center of a mob is and will AOE a single target no where near the middle, as for warriors I refuse to put on in my party because there broken they run off and do there own thing, tired well I'd call a complete and total lack of being able to manage there energy properly them getting tired, they listen to them self sometimes that works other it doesn't and you have to kick them in the head to get them to do what there supposed to be doing.

I've been standing in a mob of 6+ I was attacking I had targeted the enemy, I checked my lag none at all, yet they where standing there dumb as posts doing nothing including the minions it wasn't until I re-flagged them and ran around the mob in circles that they finally got the picture --oh attack--.

I swear some of the stuff people do with h/h they deserve a medal for putting up with that.

Darkobra · Sep 12, 2008, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

we have already gone over this read back a few pages, just cause a lot of people want it does not make it good for the game. Plus its till only 600 people that have voted anyway, theres a lot more than 600 people playing the game.

Yes, that's a lot more than 600 people who may agree with it and tip the scales further against you. 15% isn't a lot when it comes to disagreeing.

Grouping up with foul-mouthed, intolerable children who have no intentions of working together, in your eyes, is inconceivably better for the game than a dysfunctional AI who actually tries their best?

You're missing one thing here that makes any game great: Choice. I can choose to join with friends or I can choose to play alone. Why would choosing to play alone somehow break the game?

Unfortunately for you, I have read over a few pages and I've yet to see anything of substance to say why it's game breaking.

Bryant Again · Sep 12, 2008, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkobra

Unfortunately for you, I have read over a few pages and I've yet to see anything of substance to say why it's game breaking.

^^^ This, more than anything.

trankle · Sep 12, 2008, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

I think that 7 heroes would make the game a cake walk.

You could have nothing on your own bar, and pretty much c-space any area with little to no consequences.

The only reason to pick up anyone else to play with would be PvE-only skills, which would be demanded to be Hero-usable by players next. Also, many hero builds do a better job than players, even with PvE-only skills. They don't get distracted, don't get tired, and listen to your commands better than you do.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Well, two players can already have six heroes. Is replacing one real player with a hero that gamebreaking? Is a human player that bad that his simple inclusion means the difference between a balanced and broken PvE game? I really don't think so.

Also, I'm curious which builds, besides builds relying on minion targetting, can a hero perform better than a human? The only thing I can think of that comes close is an interrupter build, but even that's a hard sell. The hero can certainly beat the reflexes of most players, but the player gains the important advantage of being able to select what to interrupt.

Finally, I thought the benefit of playing with others is that it's enjoyable to play with others. No? I don't know how your guild is set up, but do you always pair with only one other player, as two players plus six heroes is the optimal setup as laid out above?

In my opinion, the best solution is to make different playstyles as equal as possible in terms of power potential. While seven heroes will not be as powerful as a human team, it's the closest we will come. After the different playstyles have similar power potentials, then decision on how to form groups will be made based on what is enjoyable to the players. How is that bad?

DreamWind · Sep 12, 2008, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

and...wait are you not one of the usual whining crew that complains about "broken" pvp and the fact that "we have nothing left to do"? THATs the people that leave you know.

The complaints are legitimate. Nobody can blame them for leaving. I think the bolded you explained yourself nicely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Ursan was not the problem, people being rewarded for repeatedly doing the same actions over and over is the problem.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildi

If the game had remained the same as at release, the game would be dead, sherlock

The game is going to be dead regardless. Its called Guild Wars 2. Some people could argue that the game is already dead...definately from a PvP perspective. I could easily bet most people both PvE and PvP liked this game better when it was Prophecies only (before heroes existed). How hard is that to understand?

trankle · Sep 12, 2008, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I could easily bet most people both PvE and PvP liked this game better when it was Prophecies only (before heroes existed). How hard is that to understand?

I could easily bet that most GW players have brown hair.

Hey, you're right, it's easy to make claims based solely on personal opinion. Cool.

Inner Salbat · Sep 12, 2008, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by trankle

I could easily bet that most GW players have brown hair.

Hey, you're right, it's easy to make claims based solely on personal opinion. Cool.

My hair is brown

lmao

Basically anyone here disagreeing with the majority of the poll is a troll, I'm still yet to be convinced as to why this is a bad thing myself, in fact the points for that I've seen have just further re-enforced my own opinion that it is the right thing to do.

JDRyder · Sep 12, 2008, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkobra

You're missing one thing here that makes any game great: Choice. I can choose to join with friends or I can choose to play alone. Why would choosing to play alone somehow break the game?

its not playing alone its having 7heros that will make the game a lot easier then it already is. The game needs to be hard in some areas or you'd just fly past every thing and stop playing. If some people cant do the areas that are harder, they need to get better not ask for 7heros. All of the game can be soloed with H/H atm, other than a few elite areas that were made for Guilds/friends

If your bad your bad, if your good you good, its not Anets job to make the cater to your skill level.

If you just want to test builds, DL team builder and find some friends.

DreamWind · Sep 12, 2008, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by trankle

I could easily bet that most GW players have brown hair.

Hey, you're right, it's easy to make claims based solely on personal opinion. Cool.

Hey I could make a poll about it and proclaim it as truth like most of the posters here are doing if you'd like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

Basically anyone here disagreeing with the majority of the poll is a troll.

Anybody disagreeing with you is a troll. Solid! Good thing Anet agrees with the people who don't want 7 heroes!

tmr819 · Sep 12, 2008, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

its not playing alone its having 7heros that will make the game a lot easier then it already is. The game needs to be hard in some areas or you'd just fly past every thing and stop playing. If some people cant do the areas that are harder, they need to get better not ask for 7heros. All of the game can be soloed with H/H atm, other than a few elite areas that were made for Guilds/friends...

I agree absolutely with this. Seven heroes would make the game substantially easier, imo.

To address this concern in part, I would want to see ANet limit the use of 7 heroes to players who had completed a given campaign, sort of the way they offered the Razah Hero quest.

trankle · Sep 12, 2008, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I agree absolutely with this. Seven heroes would make the game substantially easier, imo.

Easier than 3 heroes and four henchies, yes. Not as easy as with seven real players.

That's the fatal flaw with "seven heroes are too powerful" or "seven heroes would break the difficulty of the game" arguments. Eight real players are more powerful than one player plus AI. It's true now, and it would be true with seven heroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

To address this concern in part, I would want to see ANet limit the use of 7 heroes to players who had completed a given campaign, sort of the way they offered the Razah Hero quest.

I like this idea, or at least the idea of having to earn the heroes through difficult quests.

zwei2stein · Sep 12, 2008, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I agree absolutely with this. Seven heroes would make the game substantially easier, imo.

To address this concern in part, I would want to see ANet limit the use of 7 heroes to players who had completed a given campaign, sort of the way they offered the Razah Hero quest.

Or give extra hero over three for each maxxed title. Kill of idea of newbies "ruining their fun" or something.

Hell, start with only one hero slot.

tmr819 · Sep 12, 2008, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by trankle

Easier than 3 heroes and four henchies, yes. Not as easy as with seven real players.

That's the fatal flaw with "seven heroes are too powerful" or "seven heroes would break the difficulty of the game" arguments. Eight real players are more powerful than one player plus AI. It's true now, and it would be true with seven heroes.

It's been so long since I grouped with 7 other real players I really couldn't say.

I do know that the last time I tried PUGing was, I think, Tahnakai Temple quite some time ago. After a few failed attempts, ragequits, and much drama from my teammates (errr... this is fun???), I finally went back into the mission with h/h and mastered it. Sadly, I find the henches and heroes to be, on average, more pleasant "company" than your average PUG.

So.... while I would agree with you that 7 heroes is easier than 3 heroes/4 henches, I am not so sure I would agree with 8 real players being more powerful than 1 player plus 7 heroes. Eight good players who know what they're doing? Definitely, that's the ideal. Eight good, well-coordinated, cooperative players are a powerful combo indeed. But how often does that happen? Most random player groups I have experienced are not better than 1 player + AI.

Provide me with a good reason, a payoff, for grouping with other players, and I'll do it more often. As a for instance, you have Regular Mode and Hard Mode now. Why not add a "Group Mode": dungeons and missions that are hard mode but can only be completed with player groups (no heroes or henches allowed)? Then offer some kind of nice reward for completion? Or possibly, just offer a bonus for any dungeon or mission completed in Hard Mode without any AI?

Sleeper Service · Sep 12, 2008, 10:24 PM // 22:24

dream you completely missed the whole argument about why ursan was bad, not surprising really.

not even gonna bother explaining this again all you'll do is post the usual cat pictures response that your kind resorts to when confused.

trankle · Sep 12, 2008, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

So.... while I would agree with you that 7 heroes is easier than 3 heroes/4 henches, I am not so sure I would agree with 8 real players being more powerful than 1 player plus 7 heroes. Eight good players who know what they're doing? Definitely, that's the ideal. Eight good, well-coordinated, cooperative players are a powerful combo indeed. But how often does that happen? Most random player groups I have experienced are not better than 1 player + AI.

Provide me with a good reason, a payoff, for grouping with other players, and I'll do it more often. As a for instance, you have Regular Mode and Hard Mode now. Why not add a "Group Mode": dungeons and missions that are hard mode but can only be completed with player groups (no heroes or henches allowed)? Then offer some kind of nice reward for completion? Or possibly, just offer a bonus for any dungeon or mission completed in Hard Mode without any AI?

Human players are more powerful than heroes for two reasons: PvE skills and (believe it or not

) brains. It's up to players to work together, but from the moment they leave town, they've already got the advantage.

As far as offering brib-... er, incentives to party with real players, they already do. Play with one real player, get six heroes. Any player on the team can use PvE skills.

And special hard areas where you must group to play...those would be the current Elite areas.

These incentives don't work in many cases because, extra advantages and rewards aside, some players just don't find it enjoyable to play with strangers.

JDRyder · Sep 12, 2008, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I agree absolutely with this. Seven heroes would make the game substantially easier, imo.

To address this concern in part, I would want to see ANet limit the use of 7 heroes to players who had completed a given campaign, sort of the way they offered the Razah Hero quest.

i agree with your other idea a lot more, buying heros slots will do some good for GW2 when it comes out, wasting time on adding in 7heros with a quest does not.