Curse

FireFox · Dec 04, 2007, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

Maybe you wanted to pick Oblivion instead of GW?

qft..... ...

BlackSephir · Dec 04, 2007, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

Maybe you wanted to pick Oblivion instead of GW?

Does Oblivion have pvp? Is it similiar to GW?
Oh, it isn't, even skill-gain is different.
Besides, I picked the right thing. I wanted an online game which I could play solo- and GW is that kind of game!
You little fail, you. Tsk, tsk.
How you keep breathing is a mystery.

I pity the fools who have no idea what they're buying...

grottoftl · Dec 04, 2007, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

If you want solo play, why are you logging onto the internet for it? Games like Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Zelda, and even Leisure Suit Larry (

) have much richer story development and graphical ability.

An online game is social by its very nature.

i dont get this "second life" mentality. you know why these people play online games? is to PLAY THE GAME and enjoy the content it offers. saying a person shouldnt play online games because they play alone is invalid. not to mention very stupid and acting like a social nazi. do you think developers make these online games with socializing as the main focus? no, they want to make an incredible that anyone can enjoy and PLAY. thats what every type of game is all about, who cares if you play alone or with other people just as long as you play it. i believe the social aspect is just a bonus to the gaming experience.

everyone failed to give a valid reason why soloing shouldnt be allowed in online games

bamm bamm bamm · Dec 04, 2007, 12:36 AM // 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

Still waiting to hear a good, constructive reason why heroes should not be in GW2 other then "This is an MMO, you have to play with others" or "I don't like playing with heroes so nobody else should be able to".

I would say that 'pugging' is generally considered part of the difficulty of a mission, and when everyone solos, all the good people H/H or group together and all the inept people have no-one to learn from. Everyone gets into the habit of only talking to their guild members, and the social aspect of the game dies on it's arse. The gap between the skilled and the inept becomes huge. As it stands now, people like most of the posters here breeze through the game without trying, while most other people struggle. I think H/H is partly to blame for this. Of course, a campaign-based content system is partly to blame for the existence of heroes in the first place. And people don't just breeze through campaigns because of H/H, and they're not 'the death of talking' either, but it all contributes to a very walled and hierarchical community.

I think they've found a good middle-ground with one companion. I agree that 7 H/H is too much, but I also agree that AI companions is a GW 'thing' they should continue with in some form. I'm not necessarily set on 1 companion, but I agree with 'less than a whole party of them'.

Bryant Again · Dec 04, 2007, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

I would say that 'pugging' is generally considered part of the difficulty of a mission, and when everyone solos, all the good people H/H or group together and all the inept people have no-one to learn from. Everyone gets into the habit of only talking to their guild members, and the social aspect of the game dies on it's arse. The gap between the skilled and the inept becomes huge. As it stands now, people like most of the posters here breeze through the game without trying, while most other people struggle. I think H/H is partly to blame for this. Of course, a campaign-based content system is partly to blame for the existence of heroes in the first place. And people don't just breeze through campaigns because of H/H, and they're not 'the death of talking' either, but it all contributes to a very walled and hierarchical community.

I think they've found a good middle-ground with one companion. I agree that 7 H/H is too much, but I also agree that AI companions is a GW 'thing' they should continue with in some form. I'm not necessarily set on 1 companion, but I agree with 'less than a whole party of them'.

Well written and quoting for emphasis. Another killer to the social aspect is how cut up the community is. Instanced areas sure are cool, but it has come with a nasty nasty price.

Arkantos · Dec 04, 2007, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

I would say that 'pugging' is generally considered part of the difficulty of a mission, and when everyone solos, all the good people H/H or group together and all the inept people have no-one to learn from. Everyone gets into the habit of only talking to their guild members, and the social aspect of the game dies on it's arse. The gap between the skilled and the inept becomes huge. As it stands now, people like most of the posters here breeze through the game without trying, while most other people struggle. I think H/H is partly to blame for this. Of course, a campaign-based content system is partly to blame for the existence of heroes in the first place. And people don't just breeze through campaigns because of H/H, and they're not 'the death of talking' either, but it all contributes to a very walled and hierarchical community.

So basically what you're trying to say is instead of the good players breezing through the game with h/h, they have to struggle and pug with the bad players?

Tbh I don't see a problem with people only playing with H/H and guildies, and people only wanting to talk to guildies. You really can't blame them. Look at the average GW pugger. They have bad builds, fail to understand what to do in the game and most of them are ignorant immature assholes. People shouldn't be forced to play with others that act like 8 year olds that have no clue about the game. Even before heroes were introduced, people didn't want to pug.

As it's been said before, people aren't around all the time. Remove heroes and someone has to choose between guildies and pugs. If guildies aren't online, someone is forced to play with bad players. If someone is forced to play with bad players, they won't play at all.

With the introduction of heroes, people were happy they could get harder stuff done by themselves. Take away heroes and people are going to be mad. ANet said Guild Wars is a game where you can play with others or solo. Now because of people who think that everybody should play with others, heroes should be removed? That's going to do nothing but get people mad.

Heroes didn't ruin the social aspect of the game. The community chose heroes over others. That's the communities fault. If you want Guild Wars to be social, then the community needs to learn to be social. If they can't, why do you want to force them to? A player forced to play with others is a mad player. A player that will quit your group if one thing goes wrong. A player that will bitch and moan if you have xx on your bar. That's not a player you want to play with.

In the end, the people who bought Guild Wars because you could play it solo will get screwed over because others want a social game. How fair is that?

Ken34 · Dec 04, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Mancer

I'd prefer no heroes or "companions". I don't mind henchies, but limit them. Why even play an online game if you want to just sit there and play by yourself?

because i dont play games to get headaches or get into fights with people i do not even know, if i wanted that, i can just go to a bar or school. i play games for stress relief and to have fun. i get ALOT more fun out being able to efficiently complete missions with AI that listens to me then with humans who do random things or things that just make no sense.

Bryant Again · Dec 04, 2007, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

As it's been said before, people aren't around all the time. Remove heroes and someone has to choose between guildies and pugs. If guildies aren't online, someone is forced to play with bad players. If someone is forced to play with bad players, they won't play at all.

Possibly one of the leading reasons for ANet's sudden direction. While the party system in Guild Wars has indeed been fun, it's also drastically isolating and has shown to cause quite a divide. It will be missed, but it should really help things socially in the long run.

I pwnd U · Dec 04, 2007, 12:53 AM // 00:53

No matter what happens whether they put them in or not, all players are not going to PUG. They will either run with Guild mates or they will just go with henchies. You can't force people to play with other players without people throwing fits.

bamm bamm bamm · Dec 04, 2007, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

So basically what you're trying to say is instead of the good players breezing through the game with h/h, they have to struggle and pug with the bad players?

Well, in an ideal scenario the game would be playable if a person was only with his companion, on his own, in a large group, or any other configuration. But in lieu of that, I'm saying you should struggle with some players, who might be bad. Hey, it's character building.

Arkantos · Dec 04, 2007, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

Well, in an ideal scenario the game would be playable if a person was only with his companion, on his own, in a large group, or any other configuration. But in lieu of that, I'm saying you should struggle with some players, who might be bad. Hey, it's character building.

There are few players in Guild Wars who are actually good. You'll be playing with some players who are more then likely to be bad. That's why people choose dumb AI over dumb players. If there were less completely horrible players in Guild Wars, there would be more successful pugs, so there would be more people willing to pug. Until then, pugs are bad and for the most part pugs are dead.

bamm bamm bamm · Dec 04, 2007, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

There are few players in Guild Wars who are actually good. You'll be playing with some players who are more then likely to be bad. That's why people choose dumb AI over dumb players. If there were less completely horrible players in Guild Wars, there would be more successful pugs, so there would be more people willing to pug. Until then, pugs are bad and for the most part pugs are dead.

I'm not sure about 'a few' but the bad players certainly outnumber the good. I agree with 'pugs are dead because people are stupid'. I guess my extension would be 'people are stupid because pugging was never encouraged'. I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think pugging should be compulsory, just taking half a team of humans, strangers or not. Pugging should be a choice, and the fall-back option when friends aren't available. That's not a game-breaker for most people outside the GW fan community, who will make up most of the GW2 players anyway.

But as I say, I would rather solo play be an option, but if the sequel is going to be team-play only, I want to see a team partly constructed of people.

CHannum · Dec 04, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Mancer

I'd prefer no heroes or "companions". I don't mind henchies, but limit them. Why even play an online game if you want to just sit there and play by yourself?

Because some people like options. I'm a married father of two, think I've got the sort of disposable time the fully socialised version of a game in this vein takes? There's a reason I've quit WoW twice and wound up recently buying Guild Wars as a substitute.

I love it when I can actually meet up with a friend in game, it's a lot of fun. However, much of the time that's simply impossible. I want the option to play solo AND the option to play with people.

Mineria · Dec 04, 2007, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's been stated that the whole game can be played solo, so there'd be no point.

Also stated that you can have one companion with you if you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

Regardless, while I'm ok with the D2 design it's a marked step down from GW1, where you had a full party dynamic to manage with heroes.

That makes me a bit confused.
Won't we be able to play like now with full human and/or h+h party's in GW2?
If so, that would suck.

CHannum · Dec 04, 2007, 02:51 AM // 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

I guess my extension would be 'people are stupid because pugging was never encouraged'.

I don't know, most of my experience of PUGs is from WoW where it's not even an option to do a lot of stuff solo and it didn't seem to improve the experience of a random party any.

It's not just a matter of playing skill, it's also the differing expectations. At one end you've got people are literally playing just for fun. They don't really care about doing it right, they don't care about formations, pulling, aggro management - they're perfectly content to try and get through something by brute force and ignorance. At the other end, you've got the control freak perfectionists who either try and boss everyone around and/or quit 1/4 of the way through because "everyone sucks".

Real life friends or a compatible guild get around this by grouping people with similar outlooks on the game. Otherwise, you get what you get everywhere, a random slice of humanity with the expected results. Forcing or otherwise strongly encouraging any particular play style just leaves everyone else alienated and either quitting or never buying the game in the first place.

Ghost Omel · Dec 04, 2007, 02:58 AM // 02:58

Wait Wait so you telling me if i Decide to do a Mission or somehting without Guildies or Henchmen/heroes i automaticaly become a Bad Horrible player AkA Pug

PuGs arent always bad passed load of things with random PuGs no problem maybe you exagerating or play constatly with bad ppl hehe

AuraofMana · Dec 04, 2007, 03:06 AM // 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by mage767

Sounds like Neverwinter Nights.

You mean WOW.

nugzta · Dec 04, 2007, 03:07 AM // 03:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Omel

Wait Wait so you telling me if i Decide to do a Mission or somehting without Guildies or Henchmen/heroes i automaticaly become a Bad Horrible player AkA Pug

PuGs arent always bad passed load of things with random PuGs no problem maybe you exagerating or play constatly with bad ppl hehe

We are strangers, I dont know you and you dont know me. You may be a good player but you are outnumbered by many bad PuGs. So Im not taking my chances.

If Anet somehow can make a system to tell good and bad players in PuG (highly unlikely), I might consider to PuG. It would lead to discrimination in grouping but it will weed out the majority of bad players. But as it stands now, heroes is still better method.

Bryant Again · Dec 04, 2007, 03:21 AM // 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineria

That makes me a bit confused.
Won't we be able to play like now with full human and/or h+h party's in GW2?
If so, that would suck.

From the sounds of it, instanced missions and areas will be scaled according to party size. Think Hellgate.

I think all we're being given is an AI companion (just 1) and that's it.

arcanemacabre · Dec 04, 2007, 03:21 AM // 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

Well, in an ideal scenario the game would be playable if a person was only with his companion, on his own, in a large group, or any other configuration. But in lieu of that, I'm saying you should struggle with some players, who might be bad. Hey, it's character building.

This isn't directed at you, bamm, but I am quoting you because it addresses this. The concern to play solo is not just because some people don't like to play with bad players. For me, it's entirely because I want to play at my own pace, not others. This goes both ways, too. If I want to just get something done, like a specific mission/quest, I don't want to waste time getting a group together, then waiting for everyone to adjust their build, and then every five minutes have to wait for someone to identify a drop, go to the bathroom, feed their fish, whatever. It also means if I want to pause for any of those reasons myself, I don't want to be inconveniencing others in their desire to just play.

"So why don't you just go play a single-player game?"

Many have refuted this with the simple "I like Guild Wars, and I bought Guild Wars because it was a game you could play on your own." There is also more to it. I like to play GW with friends, too, on occasion. I also to like to PuG, from time to time. I don't want to be forced to PuG all the time. Now name me a game where I could do all that, and play solo when I want. Oh, right, Guild Wars. Thank you, but I am playing the game that is right for me, despite the fact that you "It's a social game!" people want to change it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you guys are playing the wrong game? Ever consider it?