Curse

glountz · Jan 24, 2007, 03:24 PM // 15:24

To the OP.

I play from "only" 18 months.

I joined GwGuru on Nov 2005 (but I read it from august).
Your post is completely un-new. I will try to be short.

Some advices:
_ Stop re-writing Flame Prophecies of A-Net. They will live well, with or without you.
_ Bring something new to the table than the "PVE Vs PVP", "Heroes=Meanies" topics discussed ad nauseam. If you have nothing new to say excepted a rant, don't make a thread.
- If you're bored with the game, or unhappy with the evolution of the game, quit it. Nobody will blame you for that. There several other customers eager to take your place. No need to post as if your leaving will be a loss for GW community.

IMHO:
ANET gave us a game without fees. I would expect from such a game to be ugly, badly designed, and boring. GW is far from that.
Each expansion was great. Nightfall was super great. I was disappointed in Factions, but I must say I finished it anyway.
I feel sometimes bored or fed up with the game (more with players than with the game actually) and stop playing. I always end to return to the game.
When GW won't fulfill my desires, I will stop playing.
And I won't shout it on Fansites forums like my virtual death was meaning something.

Chet Ingram Kabak · Jan 24, 2007, 03:44 PM // 15:44

glountz,

The point is that I would rather see the game changed, than stop playing it.
Nightfall was not super great. It was just "OK". Super great is your opinon. "Just OK, but frustrating" is my opinion.

If you have nothing to actually add to the conversation (such as what you think should be changed, or should not be changed) please refrain from flaming other people who do not agree with you.

We want to see the game changed. That is why we post here. If you do not, simply say you like it the way it is, and leave it at that.

Thank you

Navaros · Jan 24, 2007, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Strongly disagree with OP's idea to nerf Hero options. They should buff them and let the player have 7 Heroes, not nerf them.

Heroes and Henchmen allow most players to enjoy the game, therefore to nerf them in PVE would be ridiculous. If the majority of players didn't like Heroes/Hench way better than PUGs (and with rock solid good reasons why) then PUGs would not be dead. Therefore to nerf Heroes in PVE would ruin PVE for the majority of players and should not be done. Guild Wars is supposed to be an individual choice to play alone or with other players - it even says so on the Guild Wars retail box. Therefore to nerf Heroes in PVE to appease the minority of players who love PUGs would be absurd.

I played since WPE and Heroes are a godsend because joining horrible PUGs with ludicrously bad players is no longer required. Amen that it's not!

If they wanna bring team work back then they can give monsters 8 skills and make monsters use good tactics to provide a challenge in PVE (not DoA's version of buffing monster stats to ludicrous levels!). That would make good players preferable to Heroes/Hench.

Not sure why OP is complaining about the economy, it's extremely easy to buy almost everything in the game other than Fissure armor or torment weapons.

OP is right about the lack of variety of environments after Chapter 1 and that "forced quests/locked gates" are major pain that should not be in the game. Very good point there.

OP is also right that the devs seem to spend way more resources on PVP even though PVE has way more players hence it would be logical to reverse that and give PVE more resources to make PVE better.

Omega X · Jan 24, 2007, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chet Ingram Kabak

THANK YOU. This is what I have been saying all along. Everyone seems to think I am against Heros completely. I am not. I am saying the WAY they were implemented was poorly done, and needs to be re-evaluated...otherwise the problems people perceive will only get worse with time.

You agreed with someone saying that Hero usage should be reduced to 1 Hero. I'm not quite sure what that will accomplish since Henchmen are still there.

Will your so called plan restrict Henchmen too?

Because the only thing I've been reading so far is trying to force people back into grouping. Something that a lot of people didn't like in the first place, because of the abuse and lack of insight of the game involving their apparently less tactful human teammates.

But in the end, Guildmates will still group over everyone else, PuGs will still suck, and everyone else just wanting to play the game when they can will have it hard once again.

MegaMouse · Jan 24, 2007, 04:19 PM // 16:19

I do not think the OP is saying he wants to force players to group with other players. Just that the way hero's are now doesn't promote grouping with other players. I think that Factions with its Allainces and Farming for points to control is truly what killed the spirit of community in Guild Wars not so much the Hero's. I say put a 1 hero cap in missions so that the other choices will be group with other players and have them choose which hero to take if the mission does not require one, and have the leader be the one who chooses the hero not everyone, doing that will keep arguments from cropping up on who's hero is better.

Mega Mouse

Thallandor · Jan 24, 2007, 04:40 PM // 16:40

I agree with the OP on almost all issues except green items (there are already non prefect green items-noob greens, but i suppose that was not what he meant specifically) and on restricting Hero.

Tortoise · Jan 24, 2007, 04:50 PM // 16:50

Limiting heroes is not the answer. There are plenty of people out there that simply do not want to group with a bunch of random other people. I can think of plenty good reasons why that could be: not having enough time to randomly do missions over and over, not being a peope person, playing a build you enjoy but that others might consider crap, not wanting to drag down a group because you're unfamiliar with the mission, or simply the fact that in some missions groups are hard to get. Have we all forgotten how horrible it was to get a pug in the Ring of Fire missions in Prophecies?

Heroes and henchies are a great addition to the game. They allow me to play on my own pace, when I want to. I can go afk in the middle of a mission and not destroy a group. I can play at a relaxing pace whilst talking to a friend and most importantly: I can log in and start playing 2 minutes afterwards. No waiting around for a group, no discussions, no wasting of my precious time. I've been playing DDo recently and there is nothing more frustrating then logging on and seeing there aren't enough players available to group with so you can actually play the game.

If some people feel grouping should be encouraged then they need to lobby for encouragements. For all I care full human groups get a bit more money drops and a better chance for rare items. Frankly: I don't care. Do not however take something out of the game that had very good reasons to be implemented in the first place.

Chet Ingram Kabak · Jan 24, 2007, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Henchmen can remain as they are, because they have set skills, set attributes, and set AI patterns that are not controlled by the player.

Guildmates -should- group together. That is the point of a Guild. That does not mean that they will not pick up PUG players, and in fact, guild groups picking up PUGs tend to be rather successful, and a rewarding experience for everyone. The Guild group has enough people to drive the party forward, while the PUG player can learn new strategies and playstyle from the group.

There will always be bad PUGs...but when everyone has such a low, demeaning view of their fellow players that they rarely (if ever) play with them, why bother with an Online Massively MULTIPLAYER game? Go buy Oblivion and have fun.

Guild Wars was meant to be multiplayer...and that is the essence of the game, IMO. If you're a loner, or 'not a people person' why are you playing a game meant to surround you with people? Again, Oblivion comes to mind.

As far as better rewards for full-player groups: I think it's a GREAT idea, Tortoise!

Loviatar · Jan 24, 2007, 05:01 PM // 17:01

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MegaMouse

I do not think the OP is saying he wants to force players to group with other players. Just that the way hero's are now doesn't promote grouping with other players.

garbage ..........take away/reduce my heroes and it will FORCE me to group or use henchmen in place of heroes.

the problem is that the decent fun players have mostly joined guilds

the problem is GUILDS

IF YOU ELIMINATE ALL THOSE GUILDIES THAT PLAY TOGETHER YOU HAVE A HUGE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PEOPLE TO GROUP WITH.

Quote:

I say put a 1 hero cap in missions so that the other choices will be group with other players and have them choose which hero to take if the mission does not require one, and have the leader be the one who chooses the hero not everyone, doing that will keep arguments from cropping up on who's hero is better.

Mega Mouse

Mega Mouse that is not a CHOICE that is group or forget it.

if i am forced to group i will play the chapters i have until the servers die without buying another.

@ Chet Ingram Kabak

Quote:

glountz,

The point is that I would rather see the game changed, than stop playing it.
Nightfall was not super great. It was just "OK". Super great is your opinon. "Just OK, but frustrating" is my opinion.

facts of life 101 for you

you and a very small *vocal minority* want it changed back/

Anet has the logs which tell them how a change is received by the players and if a huge majority love something (heroes) they will not get rid/cut back on them to please that tiny group.

Chet Ingram Kabak · Jan 24, 2007, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Quote:

Anet has the logs which tell them how a change is received by the players and if a huge majority love something (heroes) they will not get rid/cut back on them to please that tiny group.

Then let's see the statistical data from Arena-Net that support your theory.
I would be very interested to see it. IF the evidence supports your theory, then that will be the end of the conversation, and those of us who do not agree will seek alternatives. If not, then Arena-Net may need to rethink their strategy.

If you do not have this statistical data, then it's just a case of "me vs you", which is NOT the point of this thread.

Let me be clear on this. This is NOT A CONFRONTATIONAL THREAD. Do not treat it as such, please. You are free to express your opinion about the issues and topic, but keep it civil.

In any case, this is a place for those who want a venue for expressing their opinon on what can and should be changed. As I have asked other people, please limit your comments to what you think should or should not be changed. If you believe it is fine as it is, say so, and leave it at that (with a supporting argument).

tre_peter · Jan 24, 2007, 06:08 PM // 18:08

I've only being playing since the official release but I agree with the general feeling of the OP. However I feel too optimistic about the next chapter to be worried. I have faith that they know there needs to be big changes, and they are going to do it.

I hope, that the next chapter won't be another 'doom and gloom' story driven, grinding chore. I hated the realm of torment, fighting massive mobs of over-poweed enemies while under the effect of enviromental hinderance. Not that it was hard, just took so long, also, I find this method of 'increasing the difficulty' forces us to take Heroes and not team with strangers. Also, you feel so alone, despite the motto of the game.

Rescuing bunny rabbits, solving team based puzzles and operating levers in a lush environment would be nice lol.

Loviatar · Jan 24, 2007, 06:44 PM // 18:44

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chet Ingram Kabak

Then let's see the statistical data from Arena-Net that support your theory.

they will not be publishing their data for the other game companies to look over.

the theory is simple

from early beta people have asked them to fix/improve/make useful the henchmen.

the henchmen are vastly improved and the heroes are simply another henchman upgrade.

does not the fact that heroes are being praised all over by most people except a few *i wanna pug* threads mostly posted by the same person over multiple stes mean anything?

Anets actions on the use of heroes will show which way most players want it to be.

another item.

someone who starts a thread with something like this

Quote:

Greetings!

This is an article targetted toward two specific audiences, so I ask in advance that if you do not belong to one of these two audiences, please DO NOT post here.

This article, and it's subsequent discussion, are meant for Arena-Net Developers, and disgruntled Long-time players of Guild Wars.

has already lose the arguement by saying if you dont agree dont post and specifying DISGRUNTLED posters only

Trevor Reznik · Jan 24, 2007, 07:02 PM // 19:02

PvE gets far, far more attention than PvP. The development of all those areas and monsters which you apparently don't like is much more than PvP gets. Yeah, we get some skill balances tossed to us every few months. Great. 4 new GvG maps per expansion. Whee.

Here's your problem: you found out that PvE does, in fact, suck. It's not fun to play. Your initial moments of happiness w/ Prophecies were incorrect to have.

In short: do us, and everyone else, a favor: quit. Most others have already, and they're correct to do so.

ubermancer · Jan 24, 2007, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor Reznik

PvE gets far, far more attention than PvP.

GW is a PvP game that has a PvE tutorial. They might sink more man-hours into PvE, but it is PvP that is the game's focus.

Polarbear1492 · Jan 24, 2007, 07:08 PM // 19:08

Oh please.
PvE does not "in fact, suck". That is your sole opinion. Many people ONLY PvE and you have no right to lessen the opinions of others.
PvE may have bad qualities but it is certainly not a failure.

Lonesamurai · Jan 24, 2007, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubermancer

GW is a PvP game that has a PvE tutorial. They might sink more man-hours into PvE, but it is PvP that is the game's focus.

Trevor, does that sound like he's actually trying to get you to realize something that we already know?

yes Ubermancer, thats exactly the point, PvP is the end game of the game... Unlike WoW and other games that give you uber Loot or Godlike Armour

Trevor Reznik · Jan 24, 2007, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubermancer

GW is a PvP game that has a PvE tutorial. They might sink more man-hours into PvE, but it is PvP that is the game's focus.

And therein lies GW's failure. It'd be the equivalent of devoting way more time + effort to the presearing portion of PvE than the rest of the game.

Point of GW = PvP. Development of GW = PvE. So the devs are developing content for something that isn't the point-why is this? No one knows.

Chet Ingram Kabak · Jan 24, 2007, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

does not the fact that heroes are being praised all over by most people except a few *i wanna pug* threads mostly posted by the same person over multiple stes mean anything?

This is a conjectural statement, and without proof, has no basis.

Quote:

Here's your problem: you found out that PvE does, in fact, suck.

Since your opinion is that you dislike PvE in this game, I fail to see how you have anything to add to the conversation, of a constructive nature. Thank you for your input though. :-)

For those that still fail to read my original post in it's entirety, please understand the intention of this thread. I will reiterate it for everyone, as a reminder. This thread is here for constructive criticism of the game, with the goal of finding compromises and solutions to allow those that enjoy the game, to continue enjoying the game to the fullest extent possible. Posts here should reflect the attitude of helpfulness and willingness to provide positive ideas on what things could be made better, or reasons why things are best left as they are.

Thank you all in advance for remaining true to the purpose of this thread.

Navaros · Jan 24, 2007, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chet Ingram Kabak

There will always be bad PUGs...but when everyone has such a low, demeaning view of their fellow players that they rarely (if ever) play with them, why bother with an Online Massively MULTIPLAYER game? Go buy Oblivion and have fun.

Guild Wars was meant to be multiplayer...and that is the essence of the game, IMO. If you're a loner, or 'not a people person' why are you playing a game meant to surround you with people? Again, Oblivion comes to mind.

That's right, there will always be bad PUGs and that is precisely why most people take a dim view of them and should not be forced into them.

Your opinion of what equals fun - ie: forcing people to PUG against their will - is not more valid than the opinion of the majority of players who hate PUGs and do not want to be forced to group with them. It seems to be a common misconception among those who want to force everyone to PUG that their opinion of what fun is or how they like the game to be should be forced upon other players who hate their forced-PUG idea. That is not a correct way of thinking.

Despite many claims so from forced-PUG advocates, Guild Wars is not meant to be a forced-multiplayer game for PVE --- if one reads the back of some versions of the Guild Wars retail box it states that very clearly.

There are many reasons to still play an online game even if one does not enjoy the torture of enduring ludicrously bad PUG strangers. Ie: Titles, better-looking armor, emotes etc, all of which can be showed off to other people as good achievements in the game.

The suggestion to remove Guilds from the game to encourage PUGs is 100% just as valid as the suggestion to nerf Hero options. Both of them are equally unfair and ridiculous ideas.

Trevor Reznik · Jan 24, 2007, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chet Ingram Kabak

Since your opinion is that you dislike PvE in this game, I fail to see how you have anything to add to the conversation, of a constructive nature. Thank you for your input though. :-)

Sorry, it's an objective fact. You have to work with facts to make any valid argument.

Fact 1: PvE gets much more time investment than PvP.
Fact 2: PvP takes skill to win.
Fact 3: PvE does not take skill to win.
Fact 4: Skills are balanced for PvP with a very tiny glance towards PvE.
Fact 5: Tournaments revolve around PvP.

Everything is focused on PvP except for development resources. This is why you're upset with the game-you've graduated from PvEschool in chapter 1, and you're ready for more. The problem is you can't admit to yourself that what you want is PvP, but you want more of it, in different sizes, etc. A.net is failing to deliver new content and balance to PvP, instead hoping that by throwing PvE expansions out the door they'll keep people happy, but they won't, which is the whole point of this thread. The reason PvE expansions don't keep you happy is that you're beyond PvE after playing it for a little bit. It'd be like reading Dr. Seuss books to yourself as a 30 year old. Sure you loved them as a kid, but are they really that enjoyable? No.