Curse

sixofone · Oct 01, 2008, 01:37 PM // 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

With 7 heroes, why would anybody need a pug or a guild or friends? The game would already be easy enough, they wouldn't need help.

Because they're not teaming up for ease of play. They're teaming up because that's how they have fun.

Not everyone groups simply because it makes the game easier. Just as not everyone wants 7 heroes to make the game easier. It's about what we enjoy. Period.

upier · Oct 01, 2008, 02:05 PM // 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I struggle to see how you make the leap from one statement saying "play alone with a party of henchmen" to "the game was meant to be played solo with 7 heroes". Read the rest of the box and the website. The rest is all multiplayer information. How can you claim the game was meant to be anything? I can claim the game was originally meant to be a multiplayer game with the option to play solo and have a legit point.

100s of quests.
10s of missions.
4 games.
Multiple servers.
Multiple districts.
The search party function limited to only the city you are in.
10 classes - 8 man parties - the need to have specific classes (the monk is just godly).
People having completed pretty much everything that can be done - no new content and an expiry date already present (the announcement of GW2) - which basically means that the game is dying (relatively speaking of course - compared to what it used to be!).

I really don't think the way the game was meant to be played is working anymore. The game is just too big to support multiplayer as the primary gameplay style.

eximiis · Oct 01, 2008, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

With 7 heroes, why would anybody need a pug or a guild or friends? The game would already be easy enough, they wouldn't need help.

Enough with the 7 heroes will make the game easy a hell.

8 humans with 28 (overpowered) pve skills and human brain will make the game easier then 20 heroes on the map.

Sjeng · Oct 01, 2008, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

With 7 heroes, why would anybody need a pug or a guild or friends? The game would already be easy enough, they wouldn't need help.

Because they're not teaming up for ease of play. They're teaming up because that's how they have fun.

Not everyone groups simply because it makes the game easier. Just as not everyone wants 7 heroes to make the game easier. It's about what we enjoy. Period.

QFT. you said it. *applauds*

oh, and, eximiis, 8 humans x 3 PvE skills = 24 PvE skills

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Not everyone will group purely 'because it is fun'. A lot of players would be willing to play the game offline. Those people do not benefit the playerbase in any way, and in an online game, that is important.

You can make an argument for 'players will like it, so add it', but it is to the game's benefit to try to keep as many players playing together as possible. You can probably increase sales by catering as widely as possible, but at which point do you draw the line?

Also, enough of the 'lol humans are better so heroes aren't op' nonsense. The point is that by giving stronger non-player options, you increase the size of the playerbase that has no reason to group ever because a hero group allows them to do anything. When both the supply of grouping players and demand for them goes down, it's obvious that for a lot of people, the team play aspect is going to vanish.

There will always be some that do not function this way, but your enjoyment is no consolation to the person that buys the game, sees nobody to group with, turns to wiki and heroes, then leaves, bored.

Though really, this is a change that doesn't matter. It's the kind of thing ANet reads about and thinks 'meh, whatever'. It'll likely get thrown to the playerbase like a bone to a dog to make sure they stay around.

I don't mind forum discussion, and it's my job to encourage it, but really. This thread is like watching, in the current economic panic, people arguing about the aesthetics of the Dollar. In the scope of Guild Wars design, this is not serious business. It's a band-aid change, but then again, at this stage, who cares and why not?

Sjeng · Oct 01, 2008, 02:57 PM // 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Not everyone will group purely 'because it is fun'. A lot of players would be willing to play the game offline. Those people do not benefit the playerbase in any way, and in an online game, that is important.

The point is that by giving stronger non-player options, you increase the size of the playerbase that has no reason to group ever because a hero group allows them to do anything. When both the supply of grouping players and demand for them goes down, it's obvious that for a lot of people, the team play aspect is going to vanish.

you make a good point there Avarre, but I'm not sure the statement that 7 heroes will cause more people to choose for heroes instead of PUGs is true.

As I see it, people who do not want to play with others, already make use of H/H.
Of these people, those who have trouble with certain missions or w/e using H/H, will then turn to people they know ingame, such as guildmates or alliancefriends.
And if they have no guild or friends ingame, and still don't want to play with PUGs, they'll simply quit, or keep trying with different hero/henchmen setups untill they do succeed.

So 7 heroes would perhaps make things easier for them, but this isn't the kind of people that is going to help the multiplayer base anyway.
The ones who DO like to play with others, will seek out others to play with, be it via forums, guilds, alliances or party-searches. Give them 7 heroes, and they won't care, as they prefer real people anyway. Otherwise, why buy an MMORPG in the first place?

and if the box states you can use 7 heroes in the future, it won't matter, as the ones buying the game in order to play solo with 7 heroes, wouldn't have helped the Multiplayer base anyway. These people would simply not have bought the game.

So basically, as you say, it won't really matter much to the game. 3 heroes or 7 heroes, it will not change the amount of people looking for other people to PUG with, it will most likely only make things more enjoyable for those who wish to play solo. 7 heroes will not suddenly change peoples minds from playing with other people to playing with 7 heroes all of a sudden. If you enjoyed playing with people before, you still will look for real people (in guilds or w/e), and if you don't, then you were probably using H/H already.

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 03:04 PM // 15:04

It'll have a marginal effect. I can definitely believe there are some PuG players who are teetering on the edge, and the idea that they can just control a full party would send them that way.

While personally I find heroes altogether a generally bad idea, adding the change will make people happy - but these players are mostly already playing H/H, so for them, it's a practically cosmetic change.

I'd rather design changes be made than ones like this.

Bryant Again · Oct 01, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

100s of quests.
10s of missions.
4 games.
Multiple servers.
Multiple districts.
The search party function limited to only the city you are in.
10 classes - 8 man parties - the need to have specific classes (the monk is just godly).
People having completed pretty much everything that can be done - no new content and an expiry date already present (the announcement of GW2) - which basically means that the game is dying (relatively speaking of course - compared to what it used to be!).

I really don't think the way the game was meant to be played is working anymore. The game is just too big to support multiplayer as the primary gameplay style.

Precisely. but then again, ANet knew that this was going to happen from a start. With a game that's as limited as Guild Wars, with an ever increasing gameworld, with very strict class archtypes, with unforgiving missions (lose your NPC = FAIL the mission) and with those rather huge party requirements (for reference, the early raids in WoW are 10 man!), the multiplayer aspect was tumbling down as soon as its feet hit the ground.

You just can't have a large emphasis on multiplayer in a game like Guild Wars. That's why ANet is completely reverting it in GW2. It's somewhat of a shame that it's going to be persistant and without AI parties, but the fact that we won't need them is a huuuuuuge step forward.

sixofone · Oct 01, 2008, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

You can make an argument for 'players will like it, so add it', but it is to the game's benefit to try to keep as many players playing together as possible. You can probably increase sales by catering as widely as possible, but at which point do you draw the line?

Also, enough of the 'lol humans are better so heroes aren't op' nonsense. The point is that by giving stronger non-player options, you increase the size of the playerbase that has no reason to group ever because a hero group allows them to do anything. When both the supply of grouping players and demand for them goes down, it's obvious that for a lot of people, the team play aspect is going to vanish.

There will always be some that do not function this way, but your enjoyment is no consolation to the person that buys the game, sees nobody to group with, turns to wiki and heroes, then leaves, bored.

Well, for the last point here, the same is true in reverse: the player who buys the game, sees that he basically has to group, joins a PUG and leaves frustrated.

But, aside from that, it does seem to become a question, then, of: How do you encourage people to group? Not force, but encourage - make it worth their time and make it an enjoyable experience?

I'd be interested in any real statistics on: People who Group (PUG or Guild) vs. people who solo (H&H). Across all the GW accounts, are the H&H'ers the minority, or the majority, of the playerbase?

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

Well, for the last point here, the same is true in reverse: the player who buys the game, sees that he basically has to group, joins a PUG and leaves frustrated.

Except we've already established H/H work.

Quote:

But, aside from that, it does seem to become a question, then, of: How do you encourage people to group? Not force, but encourage - make it worth their time and make it an enjoyable experience?

Step one is making the game good. If the game is good, more people play it. Repetitive title crap does not lend itself to playing with people, and the actual game is too dry at this point. There's a serious lack of replayability that isn't grind related.

Inner Salbat · Oct 01, 2008, 03:28 PM // 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Precisely. but then again, ANet knew that this was going to happen from a start. With a game that's as limited as Guild Wars, with an ever increasing gameworld, with very strict class archtypes, with unforgiving missions (lose your NPC = FAIL the mission) and with those rather huge party requirements (for reference, the early raids in WoW are 10 man!), the multiplayer aspect was tumbling down as soon as its feet hit the ground.

You just can't have a large emphasis on multiplayer in a game like Guild Wars. That's why ANet is completely reverting it in GW2. It's somewhat of a shame that it's going to be persistant and without AI parties, but the fact that we won't need them is a huuuuuuge step forward.

In a persistent world MMO's actually make sense in an instants MMO they don't, I discovered that little nugget playing another game, countless times I've been trying to finish an objective in the game and out of nowhere (probably on the same quest line) people come in to help them self and you, and most of the time they hang around to make sure you got it completed too, it's just a better world for an MMO game, instants is fine for small parts of it but for the entire game? no because it makes the game appear empty even if it's not, because people are spread all over the place.

sixofone · Oct 01, 2008, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Step one is making the game good. If the game is good, more people play it. Repetitive title crap does not lend itself to playing with people, and the actual game is too dry at this point. There's a serious lack of replayability that isn't grind related.

We're getting a bit off-topic, here, but I am interested - I totally agree that grind does not promote group play. So, what would add to the game?

I really think ANet expected that PvP would be the dominant attraction of GW, and that's why they put very little effort into the henchmen AI. People would want to play with each other. The reality, however, became the reverse. People preferred the crappy AI to playing with real people. (Oh, not everyone - don't even start that! But, enough that ANet tried improving the AI, and even gave us Heroes so we had customizable henchmen. It was a sales gimmick, but I think they were responding to a desire in the community for more independence - i.e., solo-play.)

So, what would make playing with others, grouping up, a better option than having the ability to do all heroes?

Numa Pompilius · Oct 01, 2008, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

So, what would make playing with others, grouping up, a better option than having the ability to do all heroes?

Unfortunately we know the answer to that: the human group must be so much superior to the AI group that it outweighs the noob-calling, drop-outs, penis-drawings, general cluelessness, and loss of leadership.
The PvE skills were supposed to give humans that edge, but with the exception of original Ursan they, overpowered though they are, are not sufficient to outweigh the downsides of pugs.

Yawgmoth · Oct 01, 2008, 03:56 PM // 15:56

If I wanted a single-player game I would buy something else.
Playing GW solo with H/H is soo boring it makes me Alt+F4 after 10 minutes.

And there is practically no way to play with others - not only it's close to impossible to find someone wanting to do the same thing, for example vanqiush a zone in Tyria, almost all people who left and want to play with others are just terrible at the game, so bad the only reason they want to pug is that they fail playing alone.

3 heroes is already too many.
The effect of their addition was devastating to the multiplayer aspect of pve.

sixofone · Oct 01, 2008, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Unfortunately we know the answer to that: the human group must be so much superior to the AI group that it outweighs the noob-calling, drop-outs, penis-drawings, general cluelessness, and loss of leadership. The PvE skills were supposed to give humans that edge, but with the exception of original Ursan they, overpowered though they are, are not sufficient to outweigh the downsides of pugs.

Well, the human (real player) side of the equation is completely out of ANet's hands. They can't be responsible for penises, griefing, and ineptitude. But, can they make it more profitable, both in terms of gold, xp, and drops, to party with a full human team vs. 1+6/7? Can they make the reward greater for having all real players?

eximiis · Oct 01, 2008, 04:18 PM // 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

If I wanted a single-player game I would buy something else.
Playing GW solo with H/H is soo boring it makes me Alt+F4 after 10 minutes.

And there is practically no way to play with others - not only it's close to impossible to find someone wanting to do the same thing, for example vanqiush a zone in Tyria, almost all people who left and want to play with others are just terrible at the game, so bad the only reason they want to pug is that they fail playing alone.

3 heroes is already too many.
The effect of their addition was devastating to the multiplayer aspect of pve.

GW is stated as a Group game AND a solo game, so if i want to buy a solo game i can buy GW.

If they did'nt had heroes, ppl would play with henchmen, so the effect on pugs would be the same. There's nothing that prevents ppl to pug or to play with guilds.

There is just too much content in GW to have full district with pugs in all outpost. This is why you have Henchmen, then they added Heroes to be able to customize our play style and the diminution of players. Now the game is dying, 90% of the outpost are empty, ppl play with guilds, grind title aka raptor farm (which is boring)

Next step to make non-puggers happy = 7 heroes.

Edit : playing with H/H make the game boring for YOU, we (the others) don't want to press Alt-F4, We press Alt-F4 when in a pug and we see someone with mending and life siphon yieling Pew pew pew. S***, B****. etc...

Numa Pompilius · Oct 01, 2008, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

But, can they make it more profitable, both in terms of gold, xp, and drops, to party with a full human team vs. 1+6/7? Can they make the reward greater for having all real players?

I haven't pugged much, but my impression from the times I have was that human teams already get much better drops than AI teams.

Now, I may be wrong about that, but I wouldn't really mind if droprates were noticeably higher in all-human teams than in teams with AI's in them.

eximiis · Oct 01, 2008, 06:06 PM // 18:06

They could put in double drop, or even crystaline sword drop from every foes as long as your in human team, i'd still play with heroes, much more fun !!

Paloma Song · Oct 01, 2008, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by eximiis

playing with H/H make the game boring for YOU, we (the others) don't want to press Alt-F4, We press Alt-F4 when in a pug and we see someone with mending and life siphon yieling Pew pew pew. S***, B****. etc...

But see, the world and therefore the game revolves around him. He doesn't care that you don't want to play with him. He wants the game to force you to play with him. People like that will never be happy until they can control you to serve their needs, and fighting 7 heroes is exactly how they achieve it.

It's only a matter of time before Anet gives up the ghost, recognizes they left their game to rot and rot it has, and how much 7 heroes are both wanted and needed.

DreamWind · Oct 01, 2008, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

No one should be claiming anything it is both, and if you cannot accept that it's both as form of meeting half way to resolving this area of debate then your lacking the ability of common reason and should look at it from a fresh perspective.

We have already said it is both. I am saying that the game was mostly designed as a multiplayer game when it came out even though the option to play solo was there. Anybody who can't see this is out of their mind. But this is off topic as the game today has changed. That is why I think bringing an old box into this thread as some kind of evidence for 7 heroes is a waste of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

Because they're not teaming up for ease of play. They're teaming up because that's how they have fun.

Not everyone groups simply because it makes the game easier. Just as not everyone wants 7 heroes to make the game easier. It's about what we enjoy. Period.

So if I enjoy doing 1,000,000 damage to monsters should it be added to the game? Not everything you enjoy should be added to the game. It doesn't matter if people are teaming up because thats how they have fun if direct negative effects come along with the addition. Anet has to ask themselves if that would be good for their product to turn it into a completely single player game. At least as it stands now you have to have at least 2 humans for max heroes and you have to play with henchmen if you want to solo. Those give some players SOME reason to party with humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by exiimis

Enough with the 7 heroes will make the game easy a hell.

The game is already easy as hell without 7 heroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You just can't have a large emphasis on multiplayer in a game like Guild Wars. That's why ANet is completely reverting it in GW2.

I don't see why not. The game was built from the ground up for it. The problem happened when Anet strayed from their vision and then the game because a cookie cutter single player game instead of an epic massive multiplayer game. The day heroes came out was the day Guild Wars ceased being an MMORPG (or a CORPG) to me. It became a single player game just like any basic console game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paloma Song

But see, the world and therefore the game revolves around him. He doesn't care that you don't want to play with him. He wants the game to force you to play with him. People like that will never be happy until they can control you to serve their needs, and fighting 7 heroes is exactly how they achieve it.

Those people aren't selfish. They are simply responding to something they think would be bad for the game as a whole. For example, a whole LOT of people want the old soul reaping or Ursan back in the game. Does that mean it should be added? A lot of people feel the same way about 7 heroes.