Curse

Karia Mirniman · Oct 03, 2008, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Another thing, Guild Wars is like playing Diablo 2 online or Neverwinter Nights which both had large sales figures as well and can be played online at no cost per month. Guild Wars has over 5 million sales over three years time, but, hardly has that many people playing anymore.

Neverwinters is much more open to the community and the CEP http://nwn.bioware.com/players/cep.html makes so much possible. The community supports the game with content almost as much as the developer.

I originally voted against 7 heroes (less challenge, quicker to finish the game and move on) but now, having stopped playing for a while and restarted, feel differently.

A-net would be stupid not to give the community 7 heroes to play with and stupid not to the give us a harder mode of play ( can’t be that hard to add ) plus area nasties; things that make you run away or get the right skills, spells that go off like bombs (sometimes) ~ maybe even weapons that break,

Basically content.

I don’t care what content. GW is haemorrhaging bored players and isn’t going to get major medical attention (the staff is in gynae looking at the scans of GW2) so the only option is more content, 7 heroes would keep going the good done by adding MOX and that little fire imp.

Akaraxle · Oct 03, 2008, 03:04 PM // 15:04

30/04/2010 Update notes:

Added "HARDER Mode". Monsters in HARDER Mode do quadruple damage.

Bryant Again · Oct 03, 2008, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You had little faith in the game to begin with then. I think the game had the potential to be one of the best competitive video games ever but not anymore. Real games never die. (SC, CS, blah blah all the standard).

The only games that die are the ones that people didn't think were that good unless they get constant expansion.

Ah, but we're talking about PvE here. Two different crowds, two wildly different games. It's not that I didn't have faith in the game to begin with, it's that what they had wouldn't last, and if they wanted PvE to remain popular (i.e. multiplayer) then yes they would need to add more and more game into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

They could have expanded the content in other ways. That discussion goes completely off topic though so whatever. I'm just saying this game should have never went solo for purposes of this thread.

For the sake of the PvE crowd, no you could not. Hence bigger game worlds, more chopping of the population.

And I was going to reply to your post, Red Sonya, until I read "lulz game is easy for everybodie!" and "heroes ish OP", then I didn't even bother.

DreamWind · Oct 03, 2008, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

A-net would be stupid not to give the community 7 heroes to play with and stupid not to the give us a harder mode of play ( can’t be that hard to add )

I think they would be stupid to do it without any legit reason to do so. If this game was pay to play I could see them doing it to make the players happy. But its not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Ah, but we're talking about PvE here. Two different crowds, two wildly different games. It's not that I didn't have faith in the game to begin with, it's that what they had wouldn't last, and if they wanted PvE to remain popular (i.e. multiplayer) then yes they would need to add more and more game into it.

For the sake of the PvE crowd, no you could not. Hence bigger game worlds, more chopping of the population.

Well the game was meant to be a PvP game *wanders off*....but like I said I won't go into that because it would get wildly off topic.

Amy Awien · Oct 04, 2008, 12:18 AM // 00:18

The game is pay-to-play. You do have to buy one or more campaigns before you can play and you certainly don't play for free.

Bryant Again · Oct 04, 2008, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Well the game was meant to be a PvP game *wanders off*....but like I said I won't go into that because it would get wildly off topic.

This entire thread has been in regards to PvE, so why even mention the other? And even if it was the successful "PvP" game that it strived to be in the beginning it would make things just as bad if not worse than they are now, with people going to PvP rather than PvE.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 04, 2008, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

The game is pay-to-play. You do have to buy one or more campaigns before you can play and you certainly don't play for free.

Just FYI, the meaning of pay-to-play in online gaming is slightly different from the normal meaning, and refer to games with monthly fees. Games like World of Warcraft or Warhammer Online are sold at full price just like Guild Wars, but in addition you must then pay monthly fees to be allowed to play: they're pay-to-play.

thor hammerbane · Oct 04, 2008, 04:33 AM // 04:33

In some areas, the Henches simply don't cut it. For 95% of the campaigns, You can make due with 3 heros and 4 henches, but for some of the End NF stuff..It just falls a bit short. I'm definately all for it. It wouldnt make anything too bad. So what if people can beat a mission with more ease? People still group together, even with henches and heros around. Like its been said, the people are spread out much more, so 4/5 times, your mission district will be empty.

Anyway, the fun mission/areas are done in parties anyway. The elite missions are what makes PvE fun, and most people just rush through the missions in order to play those missions. I really dont see anything wrong with 7 heros.

DreamWind · Oct 04, 2008, 06:11 AM // 06:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

The game is pay-to-play. You do have to buy one or more campaigns before you can play and you certainly don't play for free.

Obv pay per month is what is meant. Give Anet a real reason to add 7 heroes is all I'm saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This entire thread has been in regards to PvE, so why even mention the other? And even if it was the successful "PvP" game that it strived to be in the beginning it would make things just as bad if not worse than they are now, with people going to PvP rather than PvE.

I really can't talk about this in detail without going off topic and getting flamed probably. I'm just saying the massive expansion of PvE is what caused the problem. If the game stuck with its original vision we wouldn't be having this discussion.

upier · Oct 04, 2008, 07:25 AM // 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I really can't talk about this in detail without going off topic and getting flamed probably. I'm just saying the massive expansion of PvE is what caused the problem. If the game stuck with its original vision we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yeah, because probably no one of the people that are actually for full hero parties would still be playing ...
If PvE hadn't expanded you'd have a non-existent PvE player base and a non-existent PvP player base (or is PvE also to blame shitty balance in the game?).

The game would be different.
Empty.

Abedeus · Oct 04, 2008, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Obv pay per month is what is meant. Give Anet a real reason to add 7 heroes is all I'm saying.

Maaaybe H/H'ers would have a real reason to play the game for next year or two, so they won't just forget about GW 2.

EPO Bot · Oct 04, 2008, 07:59 AM // 07:59

When you get seven heroes, why not have twelve skills in pve? It's only pve after all. No influence on the meta at all and more fun.

Actually, i'm all for a second hard mode that's even harder, but with seven heroes and twelve skills. I would LOVE that, but 50% of the GW players would hate it too.

Avarre · Oct 04, 2008, 08:10 AM // 08:10

-Added a new 'insane mode' for PvE, which further increases the PvE challenge!

-In response to criticism that casual players cannot effectively play through insane mode, player-received damage has been reduced by 80% to compensate [PvE only].

upier · Oct 04, 2008, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

-Added a new 'insane mode' for PvE, which further increases the PvE challenge!

-In response to criticism that casual players cannot effectively play through insane mode, player-received damage has been reduced by 80% to compensate [PvE only].

That made me giggle ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

When you get seven heroes, why not have twelve skills in pve? It's only pve after all. No influence on the meta at all and more fun.

The big difference between full hero parties and changes like 12 skills, insta-win button or a skill that does 10k damage is that full hero parties would simply emulate what is already in the game - a full human party.
Full hero parties would be overpowered if a party of players playing badly without PvE skills already is.
In which case - nerf non-AI parties first.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 04, 2008, 11:09 AM // 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Full hero parties would be overpowered if a party of players playing badly without PvE skills already is.

Truth.
The "overpowered" argument simply doesn't hold.

Amy Awien · Oct 04, 2008, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

... in addition you must then pay monthly fees to be allowed to play: they're pay-to-play. ...

Those games have an additional monthly fee. That doesn't make GW free, as the reference to the phrase 'pay to play' falsely implied, since you still have to pay. I think that it is normal that you pay only once for your purchase and terminology that suggests otherwise just rubs the wrong way with me. We do have rights, you know, and I don't like the way how some companies seem to look on their customers as milking cows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm just saying the massive expansion of PvE is what caused the problem. If the game stuck with its original vision we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's something of a catch-22 then, on the one hand we want new real content while at the same time we want to concentrate players to make it easier to form groups.

Note that even in a smaller world more quests and missions has the same result as increasing the world size.

DreamWind · Oct 04, 2008, 06:13 PM // 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Yeah, because probably no one of the people that are actually for full hero parties would still be playing ...
If PvE hadn't expanded you'd have a non-existent PvE player base and a non-existent PvP player base (or is PvE also to blame shitty balance in the game?).

The game would be different.
Empty.

Source? I don't understand people who claim the game would be dead if there wasn't a massive PvE expansion. Many people could claim the game is dying/dead now and massive PvE expansion is part of the cause. How can you claim it would be dead had things been different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

-Added a new 'insane mode' for PvE, which further increases the PvE challenge!

-In response to criticism that casual players cannot effectively play through insane mode, player-received damage has been reduced by 80% to compensate [PvE only].

Not to far off what actually happened. Hard mode was added but so was Ursan and all kinds of other OP nightfall/eotn garbage. Thus hard mode became normal mode and normal mode became easy mode.

Actually hell...hard mode for the informed just became easy mode with benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

Those games have an additional monthly fee. That doesn't make GW free, as the reference to the phrase 'pay to play' falsely implied, since you still have to pay. I think that it is normal that you pay only once for your purchase and terminology that suggests otherwise just rubs the wrong way with me. We do have rights, you know, and I don't like the way how some companies seem to look on their customers as milking cows.

GW isn't free, but it is free once you purchase it. Once a person buys the game Anet gets nothing more out of them. If a person has every expansion (as many do), then Anet gets absolutely nothing from them. Why should Anet care whether or not they want 7 heroes? In a game like WoW Blizzard feels immediate impact of good and bad decisions. There is no such measure in Guild Wars.

Also...if Anet doesn't give the players what they want they are treating them like milking cows...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

It's something of a catch-22 then, on the one hand we want new real content while at the same time we want to concentrate players to make it easier to form groups.

Note that even in a smaller world more quests and missions has the same result as increasing the world size.

I didn't want any new PvE content. I haven't had fun in PvE since early Factions. A lot of players wanted new PvE content though, and Anet gave it to them. Thus Anet created the problem we have today, thus Guild Wars 2 was necessary. Who says Anet doesn't give the players what they want?

Amy Awien · Oct 04, 2008, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Also...if Anet doesn't give the players what they want they are treating them like milking cows...?

No, that attitude is rather displayed by Blizzard: on top of a regular game price there's an additional monthly fee. They see their customers as milking cows. Apparently, customers don't mind and have already accepted this role -- hence role-playing

-- and find it normal to pay twice. This is reflected in the view that GW would be 'free-to-play' because it is payed for once. I object to that view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I didn't want any new PvE content. I haven't had fun in PvE since early Factions.

What would you want for PvE? You can play Prophecies a few times, and then ... what would you want to do after your character has defeated the Lich and cleansed Tyria from these roaming Titans?

DreamWind · Oct 04, 2008, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

No, that attitude is rather displayed by Blizzard: on top of a regular game price there's an additional monthly fee. They see their customers as milking cows. Apparently, customers don't mind and have already accepted this role -- hence role-playing

-- and find it normal to pay twice. This is reflected in the view that GW would be 'free-to-play' because it is payed for once. I object to that view.

GW is free to play in that I pay once and I can play forever. Perfect for a PvP game! *wanders off*

Or maybe the fact that Blizzard gets away with it and Anet wouldn't be able to tells you a lot about the two companies?

upier · Oct 04, 2008, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Source? I don't understand people who claim the game would be dead if there wasn't a massive PvE expansion. Many people could claim the game is dying/dead now and massive PvE expansion is part of the cause. How can you claim it would be dead had things been different?

Many people I know left because GW PvE is at it's end. There is no new content coming out - so there is no point in sticking around.
There was also the issue of people not moving onto PvP after completing PvE - so they needed to add more options to cater that population.