Curse

DreamWind · Oct 07, 2008, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You'd like to think. A p2p game can get away with just as much as a f2p game and still have more cash in their pocket.

Maybe. The thing is they can't make any stupid decisions or they will face a mass exodus of leavers. In Guild Wars there is no measure as to how bad Anet's decisions with the game are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Has it always been in ANet's intentions to get people to play together? Yes. Is they way the game set up entirely against that? Yes.

It is now. I'd argue it didn't used to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's exactly what they did. Instead of expanding upon the PvP of Guild Wars, they did it for the PvE as well. It was inevitable that these multiplayer setbacks would start to have larger and broader effects.

Then that's exactly what they didn't do...expand upon their original vision. They simply changed it which in turn led to larger setbacks. I think we talked about this before with no resolve though and I doubt it will happen here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

A good experience is one that is largely or entirely full of negative experiences

Uh wow...who the heck have you been playing with? My experiences in 3 years of Guild Wars have went nothing like that. In fact most of my multiplayer experiences have been with Guilds, friends, with scattering of pugs and I had almost none of your said experiences...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I do feel, though, that they started to learn a bit in GW:EN. The quests and missions are much less strict, you won't get a huge "FAILURE" when an NPC just wanders off and is killed in one hit.

I agree with you. Now imagine if they spread this throughout the game and promoted multiplayer more than they did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

World of Warcraft.

And besides, it's already been answered in the GW2 FAQ that the only areas in the game not soloable are the end game raids.

I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the description...but thats beside the point. As I said...GW2 is indication that the company has made radical vision changes. I'm not a fan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Your question does NOT deserve a thread, because GW ISN'T pay to play. Your whole argument is not an effective counter to a wish for 7 heroes.

Because I keep rephrasing my question until you get my point. WHY should Anet implement 7 heroes? They would get almost NOTHING out of it. Adding them to the online store would cause outrage. If it is going to be added at all (which is highly doubtful) it will probably be free. You have to make the case to Anet why 7 heroes should be added, not to me. I don't see a good case anywhere in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Because you are the one that wants to make reference to how Guild Wars was originally meant to be. Go back and read your own posts. My bringing up the past articles is telling you it wasn't as you think it was. Stop twisting the facts.

Its exactly how I think it was and I'll pull out Anet founders words to prove it if necessary. The only reason the past is even being brought up by me is because various others keep bringing it up and it tempts me to respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Do you know how stupid and arrogant that sound? For someone to tell another person where their faith lies when they don't even know the first thing about this person beside their very cute avatar?

And that someone happens to have spent more then 200 dollars several days ago (in their monastary unit) on Guild Wars an EXISTING product, as in SOMETHING ALREADY DONE BY ARENA NET. /sarcasm Boy! it was fun throwing money at Arena Net for something I don't have faith in ...

Meh...I said we are talking about 2 completely different things. You still don't understand that. I'm not even bringing it up, no use talking about the past anymore.

pamelf · Oct 07, 2008, 08:29 AM // 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because I keep rephrasing my question until you get my point. WHY should Anet implement 7 heroes? They would get almost NOTHING out of it. Adding them to the online store would cause outrage. If it is going to be added at all (which is highly doubtful) it will probably be free. You have to make the case to Anet why 7 heroes should be added, not to me. I don't see a good case anywhere in this thread.

Try stating it clearly next time instead of bloating it in a whole lot of nonsense about business models.

Your statement above is clear, however once again completely assinine. Does Anet get anything out of skill updates? Balancing? Weekend events? Any update the Anet does, do they get anything out of it? No; except to keep their players interested, playing, and therefore purchasing more producst from them in future.

This is something a great deal of players feel would have a positive effect on their gameplay. Therefore if this is implemented i will probably keep playing far longer than if what I would if it doesn't get implemented. If I keep playing, GW is still in my mind, making me more likely to purchase GW2 or any additions in the online store, or any future expansions/campaigns. THAT is what anet gets out of it. The promise of future business. What else are anet meant to get out of a game other than sales? Seriously. Think.

There have been plenty of good points raised for and against the implementation of 7 heroes; none of which have come from you, or JDRyder.

Shasgaliel · Oct 07, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

I think it is now the time to close this thread. Many arguments have been said on both sides. Now they are all repeated and posts become more of personal attacks than discussion arguments. Sorry to say it, but it all becomes more and more pointless. I would suggest to create the same poll thread again let say in January and see if something changes and let the people think it over. Also if we keep doing this poll regularly it will be more visible for Anet. I am quite sure they are not following this one since page 40 or so.

Amy Awien · Oct 07, 2008, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Why? Despite the heat, people frequently raise interesting points about the game and some of those I wouldn't have wanted to miss, even those I don't agree with.

Inner Salbat · Oct 07, 2008, 12:10 PM // 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Why? Despite the heat, people frequently raise interesting points about the game and some of those I wouldn't have wanted to miss, even those I don't agree with.

This only has a point if ArenaNet are even listening to us, if there not then what is the point?

Amy Awien · Oct 07, 2008, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Someone might well be tuning in but even when not, the point is for us to share our thoughts and opinions. I've found it useful and my own thoughts about the game, and in particular it's multiplayer aspects have changed.

Headchopperz · Oct 07, 2008, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Give me at least 4-5 heroes anet gods

sixofone · Oct 07, 2008, 03:37 PM // 15:37

@ Amy above: I agree. This debate has been fairly interesting, especially when someone raised a valid point and I would reconsider my opinion on the matter!

I disagree with Dreamwind that the arguments in favor have been "very thin". From my perspective, it has been the arguments against that haven't held up under scrutiny. The input from those who, due to where they live, makes H&H a far more viable option for them (cf. Pamelf and others), on top of the people who prefer the H&H option for a variety of reasons (schedules, spread of the player-base, bad/difficulty of the PUG experience, etc.) makes this more than "just because I want it." Nor have the imba arguments held up since 1+7 is not as o.p. as 8 human players could be.

Short of adding 7 heroes, I thought it was worthwhile to read people's input regarding what might be done to improve cooperative gameplay. (Not that there was much offered, and it may have been a bit off-topic, but, still, I would like to see the game continue to survive!)

Isn't that part of the purpose of a forum? To exchange ideas?

Bryant Again · Oct 07, 2008, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Maybe. The thing is they can't make any stupid decisions or they will face a mass exodus of leavers. In Guild Wars there is no measure as to how bad Anet's decisions with the game are.

You don't seem to have a whole lot of experience with MMO's. Ever been to the WoW forums?

Besides: the only way you're going to see a "mass exodus" is if you create something that makes it unplayable and enjoyable for everyone, not just the "leet". All games are fueled by casuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

It is now. I'd argue it didn't used to be.

It didn't used to be because there was less game to play. See how the future of PvE was inevitable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Then that's exactly what they didn't do...expand upon their original vision. They simply changed it which in turn led to larger setbacks. I think we talked about this before with no resolve though and I doubt it will happen here.

The problem with "expanding on their original vision" would be that they would not be even as close to being as successful as they are now. While in addition to creating more content for PvP, ANet - after seeing how wildly large and popular PvE became to be - also expanded upon PvE. It could've originally been in their intentions, we don't know, but the bux were always going to lie in PvE. Isn't that what this is all about?

The problems in PvP have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the problems in PvE, so we can drop this here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh wow...who the heck have you been playing with?

With PUGs. "Experiences vary", and wow do they ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree with you. Now imagine if they spread this throughout the game and promoted multiplayer more than they did.

It would be a nudge, but not an overhauling fix. That's about the best they could do, however, or else they'd be crossing the line of making their game too easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the description...but thats beside the point. As I said...GW2 is indication that the company has made radical vision changes. I'm not a fan.

Then argue against it. WoW, according to what you said earlier, should be an outright significant failure. But it is not. It's quite possible to cater to both and win from it.

This is just like a JD post, by the way. My points have been chopped up and can now be taken out of context.

Martin Firestorm · Oct 07, 2008, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

This debate has been fairly interesting

108 pages and 2150 posts later...nah, I'd have to disagree with that. Its just a rant fest.

Bryant Again · Oct 07, 2008, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Firestorm

108 pages and 2150 posts later...nah, I'd have to disagree with that. Its just a rant fest.

So let's just derail altogether, amirite?

This thread has always served one purpose: to discuss why/why not ANet should implement the use of 7 heroes, and seeing the discussion there hasn't really been very many reasons not to.

pamelf · Oct 07, 2008, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Firestorm

108 pages and 2150 posts later...nah, I'd have to disagree with that. Its just a rant fest.

That's half correct; but for those of us who have been part of this discussion from the beginning it is still interesting. I see that it's hard for someone coming in at the 100 odd pages mark, but I have enjoyed, and am continuing to enjoy the discussion.

Martin Firestorm · Oct 07, 2008, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So let's just derail altogether, amirite?

You've got a point--it would be a bit more productive then. You go first.

DreamWind · Oct 07, 2008, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Your statement above is clear, however once again completely assinine. Does Anet get anything out of skill updates? Balancing? Weekend events? Any update the Anet does, do they get anything out of it? No; except to keep their players interested, playing, and therefore purchasing more producst from them in future.

Again, you are making adding 7 heroes sound like a switch they can flip. It isn't like a weekend event that they do regularly and can input into the game in seconds because they have done so many. It would almost certainly require a lot of work when a lot of the company has moved full time to GW2.

As for your balance and skill updates "keeping the players interested and playing", go over to Glads arena and tell me the last time anybody was happy with a skill update. More people have left PvP from skill balances than joined this game. Change is not always a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

THAT is what anet gets out of it. The promise of future business. What else are anet meant to get out of a game other than sales? Seriously. Think.

Sorry but there is never a promise of future business. As I said before, 7 heroes is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who does or doesn't buy GW2. It is even extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who buys any of the GW1 expansions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

There have been plenty of good points raised for and against the implementation of 7 heroes; none of which have come from you, or JDRyder.

As I said, people here are continually making cases to forum posters instead of to Anet. I read almost this entire thread, and 90% in favor are "why not" or "because it would be nice". Maybe some of my points aren't good to you, but I'm sorry its still better than 90% of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

This only has a point if ArenaNet are even listening to us, if there not then what is the point?

There isn't a point. Anet is not adding 7 heroes whether they read this or not. They don't even discuss it, and every public mention of it the answer has been no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

I disagree with Dreamwind that the arguments in favor have been "very thin". From my perspective, it has been the arguments against that haven't held up under scrutiny. The input from those who, due to where they live, makes H&H a far more viable option for them (cf. Pamelf and others), on top of the people who prefer the H&H option for a variety of reasons (schedules, spread of the player-base, bad/difficulty of the PUG experience, etc.) makes this more than "just because I want it." Nor have the imba arguments held up since 1+7 is not as o.p. as 8 human players could be.

The arguments against can't hold up because they are arguing against people who say "why not" constantly and claim they are right based on that. It is very hard to argue against "why not" because every legit point raised will be met with a "why not".

I still think the case has to be made to Anet "WHY". Only like 2 posters in this thread have done it with any real points. As for the cases you brought up, all of those needs can be met with the current system of heroes and hench. Anything more than that is almost always a "because I would like it" argument. Very few have made the case why 7 heroes would be better then 3heroes and 4 hench to ANET.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Besides: the only way you're going to see a "mass exodus" is if you create something that makes it unplayable and enjoyable for everyone, not just the "leet". All games are fueled by casuals.

Maybe fueled by casuals, but kept alive and given longevity by hardcores. Good games at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It didn't used to be because there was less game to play. See how the future of PvE was inevitable?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The problem with "expanding on their original vision" would be that they would not be even as close to being as successful as they are now.

Source? I'd argue they could have easily been more successful...but everything is theorycrafting nowadays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The problems in PvP have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the problems in PvE, so we can drop this here.

Maybe not this particular issue of 7 heroes, but many other problems in PvE have caused disaster in PvP over the years. Many of them are still in place. Off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

With PUGs. "Experiences vary", and wow do they ever.

I suppose they do. Theres a reason the game is called Guild Wars though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It would be a nudge, but not an overhauling fix. That's about the best they could do, however, or else they'd be crossing the line of making their game too easy.

Its not making it too easy, its simply good game design. If they want a more casual multiplayer game they need these types of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then argue against it. WoW, according to what you said earlier, should be an outright significant failure. But it is not. It's quite possible to cater to both and win from it.

No no, I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the mold of catering to both. Of course its successful. Off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This is just like a JD post, by the way. My points have been chopped up and can now be taken out of context.

How do you think I feel?

pamelf · Oct 07, 2008, 11:32 PM // 23:32

I think I understand DreamWind....are you a primarily PvP player? That's not a dig, I actually want to know. A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a PvP mindset, whereas the addition of 7 heroes would clearly be PvE only.

DreamWind · Oct 08, 2008, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

I think I understand DreamWind....are you a primarily PvP player? That's not a dig, I actually want to know. A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a PvP mindset, whereas the addition of 7 heroes would clearly be PvE only.

I'm a Guild Wars player. I fail to see how what I do in the game has anything to do with the legitimacy of my arguments.

pamelf · Oct 08, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm a Guild Wars player. I fail to see how what I do in the game has anything to do with the legitimacy of my arguments.

It's not the legitimacy, it's the approach.

DreamWind · Oct 08, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

It's not the legitimacy, it's the approach.

As long as they are legit. You didn't respond to my previous post.

pamelf · Oct 08, 2008, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

As long as they are legit. You didn't respond to my previous post.

Knowing you are a PvP player changes a reading of your posts as well. It's all context. It is actually an important point to know, as the majority of us posting come from a PvE mainly standpoint which makes the reading of our posts different also.

I didn't respond to your previous post because it wasn't necessary. But if you want me to I will:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DremWind

Again, you are making adding 7 heroes sound like a switch they can flip. It isn't like a weekend event that they do regularly and can input into the game in seconds because they have done so many. It would almost certainly require a lot of work when a lot of the company has moved full time to GW2.

As for your balance and skill updates "keeping the players interested and playing", go over to Glads arena and tell me the last time anybody was happy with a skill update. More people have left PvP from skill balances than joined this game. Change is not always a good thing.

You are right, adding 7 heroes isn't a switch they can flip. But neither was adding M.O.X. The difficulty of the implementation is not what's in debate here. What we're debating are the relative merits vs. the demerits of having them and whether it would be worth implementing. We all know that if the choice came to implement it it wouldn't be like flicking a switch. But if it's keeping players interested then it might be worth the effort for Anet to do, which is what most of the pro points seem to be driving at.

As for your second point, skill updates were just an example. Some have been positive, some have been negative, but Anet didn't know what the reception to changes would be until it was implemented. Do you think they actively went out to annoy players? Simple answer; no. They worked for game balance, whether players liked it or not is totally moot and has no bearing whatever on this argument as game balance is not affected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Sorry but there is never a promise of future business. As I said before, 7 heroes is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who does or doesn't buy GW2. It is even extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who buys any of the GW1 expansions.

You're right, there is never a promise of future business, but given the overwhelming poll response (yes I know it's not an accurate reading, so save that counter) there are at least over 700 of us who will continue to buy GW products if this is implemented. We may continue to purchase even if they don't implement it, but with its implementation from the statistics above their odds of future sales are drastically increased. We've already said that the addition of 7 heroes opens up so much more game play and creative scope that we don't currently posses that it would definitely keep us playing far longer than we would otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There isn't a point. Anet is not adding 7 heroes whether they read this or not. They don't even discuss it, and every public mention of it the answer has been no.

You are in no position to claim this at all. Reps do read the forums, and this topic has been discussed. Whether they read it this week, or a month from now doesn't really matter; it's here and we're being heard from both sides. If there's no point then by all means, stop posting. There has only been one public mention of 'no' and that was by Gaile going back over a year ago. You've said yourself, the game has changed since then, and if opinion is overwhelming Anet may very well consider changing their stance. If they don't read it we still have interesting discussion, if they do, well we may just have our voices heard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The arguments against can't hold up because they are arguing against people who say "why not" constantly and claim they are right based on that. It is very hard to argue against "why not" because every legit point raised will be met with a "why not".

I still think the case has to be made to Anet "WHY". Only like 2 posters in this thread have done it with any real points. As for the cases you brought up, all of those needs can be met with the current system of heroes and hench. Anything more than that is almost always a "because I would like it" argument. Very few have made the case why 7 heroes would be better then 3heroes and 4 hench to ANET.

From a business standpoint 'because I would like it' is definitely a valid point. But like you said, valid points have already been raised. Your responses fall into the 'why not' category and you really offer no reason not to. No concrete reason. We on the affirmative side have offered countless concrete, physical reasons why we would like (yes I say like because I will fully admit this is purely a want, not a need) 7 heroes. We've even admitted that we can play with H/H at the moment, and most of us choose it over PUGs. The creative options that could be opened up by raising the hero cap however are countless, and for me this is the main reason why H/H will never be 7 heroes. I want to express that creativity, create builds, try out new things, all of which I cannot do in the current setup.

Bryant Again · Oct 08, 2008, 03:17 AM // 03:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Maybe fueled by casuals, but kept alive and given longevity by hardcores. Good games at least.

At this point we're talking about two entirely different games here: PvP and PvE, the latter which is insanely difficult to give longevity to, especially with a game like GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No.

lol aight

Scenario One: ANet expands PvE content by creating new areas and new worlds, resulting in the PvE game being more populated and enjoyed.

Scenario Two: ANet doesn't expand on PvE content.

It's easily seen which option is better for PvE. With the first, ANet adds more content at the cost of strained groups. With the second Guild Wars loses players altogether due to a constantly stale world. It's similar to what we're seeing now, except with about a 1/10th of the content and a few years back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Source? I'd argue they could have easily been more successful...but everything is theorycrafting nowadays.

I don't have a source, and neither do you. So don't ask me for one.

I can, however, easily point out which type of gamers outnumber everyone else: casuals. Which is more casual, PvE or PvP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I suppose they do. Theres a reason the game is called Guild Wars though.

Don't point to the title as proof. In no way does it point to a group of human guildees. Morrowind, Oblivion, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and many more single-player games had "guilds" in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Its not making it too easy, its simply good game design. If they want a more casual multiplayer game they need these types of things.

"Making it casual" = "making it easier", making it too easy is bad game design (see: UB).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No no, I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the mold of catering to both. Of course its successful. Off topic.

Then you don't play enough WoW, in all honesty. While the "solo content" isn't as polished as the group endgame content, there is far from nothing to do by yourself, not to mention that you have the option to choose to participate in instances while reaching max level. You can play entirely by yourself 1-70 if you so wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

How do you think I feel?

I hope that wasn't directed towards me. If so, please pinpoint where I began chopping your paragraphs into two's and three's and four's.