Curse

Jetdoc · Nov 17, 2006, 02:53 PM // 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I argue that the people who are using heroes didn't want to PuG in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I'm arguing that the availability of PuGs may be going down because people - in this case, the 'in between people' - want it to go down because they prefer to hench.

So, you and I agree that the availability of PuGs is decreasing.

You also agree that people that USED to PuG are no longer utilizing PuGs because they are now using heroes, from the above statements.

So, based above the above, are you simply arguing about INTENT?

I, in no way, am arguing about intent. I am simply stating a fact - the availability of PuG's is going down because of the introduction of heroes. More people that used to PuG are no longer, which decreases the number of PuGs available for those who WANT to PuG.

Less people playing with other players = gravitating more toward a single-player game.

That, I believe, is NOT a good thing for a multiplayer game like GuildWars, as I've said in many threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

Most of the people you quoted don't actually support your case.

For the record, this is the exact same argument we have been having since practically the first few pages of this thread. Nothing new has been presented from either side.

Again, arguing semantics about quotes now. Since these posters aren't here to defend their posts, I won't even attempt to argue with you on this. You simply asked for examples of subjective evidence since it was just "me and Nemon" that feel this way, and I provided some examples. I can provide a dozen more if you want, and you'd simply argue points about their semantics as well.

I agree with your last point. But at least you now acknowledge that YES - heroes are impacting the availability of PuGs, which causes more players to play the game in single player mode. We simply differ about the degree of that impact.

TadaceAce · Nov 17, 2006, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Lets be logical here, I can bring myself and 3 heroes and create a team build that all synergize with each other, or I can group with 3 pugs who don't synergize at all with me and spam mending when taking damage. I can understand grouping with 1 other person but a full group of pugs is just illogical unless your gonna go through the hassle of fixing their horrible builds.

SpeedyKQ · Nov 17, 2006, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I argue that the people who are using heroes didn't want to PuG in the first place.

I hear this over and over again and it just isn't true. I mostly use heroes because everyone else is using heroes and it takes so long to find groups. A vicious circle.

Sure, I'm beating everything in my sleep, but no cool experiences, no memories. I'd rather be pugging.

I remember this one pug in Raisu Palace where the warrior would run to the front, gather aggro, then run to the back, swap out his sword, and start wanding things. Comedy gold. I was monking and had to hustle like hell, and the group beat the mission anyway, barely, with just a couple of seconds to spare before the emperor would die. Last night I did the same mission with heroes and hench, C-spacing my way through everything, got a master time, and had way less fun.

trf2374 · Nov 17, 2006, 04:13 PM // 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I argue that the people who are using heroes didn't want to PuG in the first place.

Given the choice between PuGing with competent, reliable players or henching, I'd choose PuGing. The problem is finding competent players for a PuG. Find a way to raise the skill level of the "average" GW PuGer, and I'd happily start PuGing again on a regular basis.

There are just too many downsides. Time wasted forming the PuG because people are picky, leechers, people leaving after capping an elite, ragequitters, disconnects, idiots, flaming and no coordination. Those are just the ones I can think of atm.

Nemon · Nov 17, 2006, 04:38 PM // 16:38

You dont need to fix any builds, NF is piss easy. I've PuGed the entire game, most with _totaly random_ PuGs, completed most on first try, and even mastered some. When i went looking for masters groups i normally got them and mastered almost all on first try.

I keep hearing how much PuGs suck and players take the "wrong" skills, but my experiance is that it doesnt matter even if it were true. I think only under 10% of my PuGs i would classify as being bad.

Sanji · Nov 17, 2006, 04:48 PM // 16:48

The downfall of the pick up group has been building up for a long time and it's pretty ridiculous to be so angry about heroes when there are so many other things that contribute more.

Balthazar Faction is just like heroes, a positive feature that contributes to the downfall of PuGs. Those who wanted to unlock for PvP are no longer forced to PuG through the linear game X number of times. They can unlock the easy to reach skills in PvE and unlock the ones that are a pain in the butt to reach with Balthazar Faction. Good for the game, bad for people who need warm bodies to fuel their random groups.

Anet took a hard line against running past storyline missions, this combined with the swelling rank of outposts in the game and characters a player is bound to have with the new expansions hurts PuGs. A person is much less likely to be in the right place with the right profession as the numbers of both increase. If I'm at the Gate of Madness with my Paragon, there's not much I can do for the teams that have been crying for a "real" Monk, Necro, or Elementalist for thirty minutes.

And that's the last point I have. PuGs are dying because they can still be inflexible and the process of joining one and being in one a still chore. Heroes are a great tool which everyone can use, one being that PuGs can use them to make PuGing better and more accessible to people who don't have thirty minutes to build a group in an outpost. Anyone who raises their noses at heroes and refuses to take them to flesh out incomplete groups is just as much to blame at the downfall of PuGs as solo players.

Rera · Nov 17, 2006, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

You also agree that people that USED to PuG are no longer utilizing PuGs because they are now using heroes, from the above statements.

So, based above the above, are you simply arguing about INTENT?

I have been arguing about intent since the very beginning. If you are only now beginning to understand this then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I am simply stating a fact - the availability of PuG's is going down because of the introduction of heroes.

(emphasis added)

I'm arguing that heroes aren't a problem, they're a solution - that's where intent comes into play. My argument is that heroes only make a positive difference - people who didn't want to PuG, but felt that henchmen were inadequate, can now take heroes. If heroes weren't there, the situation would only be different in that the people I mentioned above would be forced to PuG. Hence, heroes are a solution for people who thought that henchmen were inadequate for their needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Less people playing with other players = gravitating more toward a single-player game.

That, I believe, is NOT a good thing for a multiplayer game like GuildWars, as I've said in many threads.

Less people playing with other people is fine if people don't *want* to play with other people. You could easily maximize the multiplayer experience by forcing everyone to play together, simply by removing henchmen and heroes. How long do you think GW would last then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Again, arguing semantics about quotes now. Since these posters aren't here to defend their posts, I won't even attempt to argue with you on this. You simply asked for examples of subjective evidence since it was just "me and Nemon" that feel this way, and I provided some examples. I can provide a dozen more if you want, and you'd simply argue points about their semantics as well.

It's not a matter of semantics if the quotes aren't even supporting your case implicitly, nevermind explicitly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I agree with your last point. But at least you now acknowledge that YES - heroes are impacting the availability of PuGs, which causes more players to play the game in single player mode. We simply differ about the degree of that impact.

No, you continue to miss my point, so I'm going to try to make it clear now.

Heroes are not directly responsible for any perceived decrease in the availability of PuGs.

The thing that frustrates me about this entire argument is that you people continue to pin the blame for lack of PuGing on heroes, when in fact the problem is with the PuGs themselves.

Consider the following breakdown of GW players:

1) People who never PuG
2) People who don't want to PuG, but do because they don't know how to use henchmen, don't have guildies, etc.
3) People who are 'on the fence' - PuG sometimes, hench sometimes, can't decide definitively which is better
4) People who want to PuG, but can't because there's nobody to PuG with
5) People who always PuG

I think that covers everyone.

Now, the group that you are concerned about, Jetdoc, is group 4. Also, SpeedyKQ, this is the group that you fall into, based on your post here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedyKQ

I mostly use heroes because everyone else is using heroes and it takes so long to find groups. A vicious circle.

So SpeedyKQ, I ask you, what would you do if heroes weren't there? Would you take henchmen, or would you wait around as long as necessary for a PuG? If you take henchmen instead of waiting, heroes aren't making the difference for you, specifically, are they? And if you used to wait as long as necessary, why can't you do that now?

In any case, the point is, why does group 4 even exist? It exists because of groups 1 and 2, not because of heroes. And why do groups 1 and 2 exist? You already know the answer to that question.

One interesting thing you'll notice is that, if groups 4 and 5 had enough people in them, the other groups wouldn't actually matter. Members of groups 4 and 5 could just PuG with each other, and everyone would be happy. But according to your arguments, groups 4 and 5 don't even have enough people to sustain themselves. Therefore, you rely on the other groups to play with you. The obvious solution, then, would be to find ways to make them want to.

Oh, here's a convenient example of my point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by trf2374

Given the choice between PuGing with competent, reliable players or henching, I'd choose PuGing. The problem is finding competent players for a PuG. Find a way to raise the skill level of the "average" GW PuGer, and I'd happily start PuGing again on a regular basis.

There are just too many downsides. Time wasted forming the PuG because people are picky, leechers, people leaving after capping an elite, ragequitters, disconnects, idiots, flaming and no coordination. Those are just the ones I can think of atm.

This is a person that would PuG if PuGs didn't completely suck. Read the part I emphasized, it's important. How many of us in group 1 are in the same boat? From what I've read, almost all of us.

I don't think anyone starting GW expects to play a single-player game. I know I certainly didn't. Why did it end up that way? Because people lose faith in other players. This has nothing to do with heroes. It has to do with the quality of the GW playerbase.

Loviatar · Nov 17, 2006, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I don't think anyone starting GW expects to play a single-player game. I know I certainly didn't. Why did it end up that way? Because people lose faith in other players. This has nothing to do with heroes. It has to do with the quality of the GW playerbase.

possibly an online version of Baldurs Gate with the OPTION to play with friends is developing.

i know that Mintz(sp) and his miniature Giant Space Hamster companion would be much more fun to be with (and reliable) than the the average pug

with better heros i see Anet getting the casual MMORPG player and possibly the single player RPG market as well if they increase quest/exploring content.

in any case heros are not the problem

people have been begging from the start to improve the hench AI so.............

*i can finally do xxxxx without a brainless/nasty/obscene/etc PUG*

people finally have a VIABLE alternative to the existing pug community and are grabbing heroes because they have been burned so many times already.

nagojohn · Nov 17, 2006, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Hero's has been the dream come true for my wife and I. No longer do we have to wait for pug's and wipe or take henchies and wipe. We have created a wonderful team condition build that has taken us through area's and missions we would constiently wipe in with PUG/Henchies. I salute Anet for providing Hero's.

Thank you Anet!!!!

Jetdoc · Nov 17, 2006, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

If heroes weren't there, the situation would only be different in that the people I mentioned above would be forced to PuG.

Heroes are not directly responsible for any perceived decrease in the availability of PuGs.

The thing that frustrates me about this entire argument is that you people continue to pin the blame for lack of PuGing on heroes, when in fact the problem is with the PuGs themselves.

Consider the following breakdown of GW players:

1) People who never PuG
2) People who don't want to PuG, but do because they don't know how to use henchmen, don't have guildies, etc.
3) People who are 'on the fence' - PuG sometimes, hench sometimes, can't decide definitively which is better
4) People who want to PuG, but can't because there's nobody to PuG with
5) People who always PuG

I think that covers everyone. Now, the group that you are concerned about, Jetdoc, is group 4.

I don't think anyone starting GW expects to play a single-player game. I know I certainly didn't. Why did it end up that way? Because people lose faith in other players. This has nothing to do with heroes. It has to do with the quality of the GW playerbase.

Now you are finally starting to see MY standpoint.

You view heroes as a cure to a problem - and that problem is playing with other players you don't know. Yes, I agree - that is because the Guild Wars playerbase is very unpredictable. Heroes are the solution to that because they are predictable.

However, MY standpoint is that the introduction of heroes also CAUSES another problem - gravitating the game away from the multiplayer standpoint to a single-player experience.

So, in your argument, you simply stop at "people aren't playing in PuG's because they are bad."

I take it one step further and say "but people would continue to play in PuGs and would learn to overcome their shortcomings if it weren't for heroes."

You view heroes as a positive change, as it satisfies the immediate desires of players in Guild Wars to be more efficient and less frustrated. I view heroes as a negative change because of the negative impact they are having on the multiplayer nature of the game.

I appreciate debating on these types of subjects, but in the future, Rera, please refrain from any sort of comment that, implicitly or explicitly, belittles the person you are debating with. It's not necessary to get your point across.

Rera · Nov 17, 2006, 08:31 PM // 20:31

Just out of curiosity Jetdoc, did you read the statements by nagojohn and Loviator, right above your post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I take it one step further and say "but people would continue to play in PuGs and would learn to overcome their shortcomings if it weren't for heroes."

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere.

First of all, your argument only applies to group 2. Group 1 never had any problems with henchmen, so the introduction of heroes, while appreciated, doesn't actually change their PuG status. Do you agree?

Now, let's look at group 2. They don't actually want to PuG, but they feel like they have to, because they don't have guildies to help them and they can't manage with henchmen on their own. Therefore, they end up PuGing. Heroes make the biggest difference to these people, because now they can play the game the way they want to play it!

But according to you, that's a bad thing. You want to sacrifice the wants of group 2 in order to satisfy your desire to have more people to PuG with. Furthemore, you don't do this by making PuGs better and making more people want to PuG. You would rather just take away their choice altogether. By removing heroes, you want to force group 2 back to PuGing, rather than giving them a choice between heroes and PuGing. Why? Consider this: it's extremely telling that, when given the choice between heroes and PuGs, a lot of people choose heroes. The fact that you, yourself, assume that people prefer heroes to PuGs (ie. "if heroes didn't exist, people would PuG" - indicating that heroes are a superior choice) should tell you something. What is the real problem here? Can heroes really be the issue if many people actually prefer them? Aren't you just using heroes as a scapegoat?

Why do you continue to dodge the real issue: why don't groups 1 and 2 want to PuG, and how do we fix it?

Jetdoc · Nov 17, 2006, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

And you continue to dodge the real issue: why don't group 1 and 2 want to PuG, and how do we fix it? Heroes are a scapegoat.

That's the problem - you simply cannot improve the quality of the GW playerbase.

In fact, I would argue that the introduction of heroes has DECREASED the quality of the GW playerbase (at least as it relates to PuGs).

Why? Because many of those quality players you mention in Group 2 that would have played in PuGs are no longer doing so.

So, it becomes a vicious self-destructive cycle. Quality players that didn't like PuGs due to the unpredictability stop playing in PuGs and instead play with heroes. What's the result? The quality of PuGs deteriorates. What does that cause? More quality players stop using PuGs because they are even more unpredictable than before. And then? The quality of PuGs further deteriorates.

This is my concern. Although you view heroes as a scapegoat, I view it as a catalyst to the moving of the game from the multiplayer aspect to the single player realm.

Another thing to consider (albiet I'm gonna get reamed for this) - how do you expect to improve the quality of the GW player multiplayer environment if you take some of the higher quality players out of that environment? How do the "lower" quality players learn?

I would argue that many of them learn through that random, chance PuG with a very good player. I'm afraid that, with the introduction of heroes, those opportunities will become more and more scarce.

Jetdoc · Nov 17, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

I don't think anyone starting GW expects to play a single-player game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

By removing heroes, you want to force group 2 back to PuGing, rather than giving them a choice between heroes and PuGing.

Again, heroes have been introduced, so there is no way A-Net will remove them from the game. As I've stated in other threads, I think that providing incentives to players that join human groups to "disincentivize" (is that a word?) people from utilizing heroes is one thing A-Net can do to move the game back to the multiplayer realm.

The two statements above are very telling. People generally buy Guild Wars to participate in a multiplayer environment. With that purchase, they generally are of the understanding of all of the shortcomings (and unpredictability) of playing with other people. Before, the option to play Guild Wars in single-player mode was available, but not appealing due to its difficulty.

Now, with the introduction of heroes, it's not only available, but is almost encouraged, as it is simply more efficient and less frustrating than playing with other people.

So, what does that mean? Do they start advertising Guild Wars as primarily a single-player game (from the PvE standpoint) like Loviatar proposed? Is that really where A-Net should go with this?

I personally believe that would be a mistake, given the multiplayer roots of Guild Wars. I even sense a bit of sadness in your post above, given your original intentions when you purchased the game.

Rera · Nov 17, 2006, 10:10 PM // 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

That's the problem - you simply cannot improve the quality of the GW playerbase.

I disagree that you can't improve the playerbase. There is one solution that is both easy to implement and (in theory) should be immediately effective: make the game harder. In the Prophecies I remember, back when THK was considered difficult, PuG groups in Hell's Precipice actually weren't that bad - why? Because THK filtered out all of the players who didn't know enough to progress with the game.

Now, what if *every* mission was like that? Wouldn't the PuGs in later missions be more reliable? Wouldn't you have some confidence that people might know what they're doing if they were able to beat missions X, Y, and Z? But no, instead of seeing this, a lot of people are demanding the opposite. Make the game easier. Gates of Madness is too hard. Rilohn Refuge is too hard. Moddok Crevice is too hard. Are they really? Or is that people just can't be bothered to use their brain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

how do you expect to improve the quality of the GW player multiplayer environment if you take some of the higher quality players out of that environment? How do the "lower" quality players learn?

How did the 'quality' players learn in the first place? They did it themselves. Nobody really taught me how to play warrior. I learned not to Frenzy in PvE because I noticed that I died alot when I did it, not because someone told me not to use it. I learned about aggro, pulling, kiting, bodyblocking by actually trying it - going into an area, getting my ass handed to me, wondering why it happened, and trying to fix the problem. Being a better player amounts to using your brain - everything else comes naturally with experience. Players now have even less excuse. Veteran players have already figured out a lot of things for you - all you have to do is ask a question, read a forum, watch obs mode. The information is there if you want it.

But actually, I've made a misstep here. A lot of forums are garbage. Take a look at some of things posted in the individual profession forums. To this day there are still people posting warrior builds with Healing Breeze. And before you even tell these people what a good build actually looks like, you first have to convince these people that Breeze really sucks. I find this patently ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I even sense a bit of sadness in your post above, given your original intentions when you purchased the game.

You're right, there is. I find it sad that now, a year after I bought Prophecies, my first reaction to seeing "LFG" is to turn off local chat. When did this happen? Why did it happen?

Every once in a while, I try pugging again. I'll be in a mission town with my hero-hench team, but some PuG 7/8 needs that last monk, so I'll join them to help them out. The experience is always disappointing, and so I stop PuGing again for a while. And that, I think, is what happens to a lot of us.

Age · Nov 17, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by glountz

That astonished me. You're saying you're pugging because you've not enough guildies/friends?
Who is the anti-social then?
Get a good guild. Or get good friends.
My guild collapsed, I joined a new one. And I have still a lot of friends to play with. Therefore I don't need to PuG.
Alliance made things even better, as it is your little "buddy-bag" when you feel alone or need competent fellows to do some difficult mission on Masters.
PuG are unecessary, because there are guilds, alliances, and now Heroes that replace easily and efficiently lacking buddies.

I am not anti social it is just that I lost some guildies long story.I am very querry about recruiting as to who is interested in joining a guild and sticking with it.I don't steal from other guilds that probably took some of my guildies away.I would ask those out there if they were really happy in thier current guilds if they were already in one.I don't have any real life friends playing GW either.I would say that haveing 100 members in a guilds is some what ridiculous 30 max.

Nemon · Nov 17, 2006, 10:34 PM // 22:34

The more i think about it the more i realize the root cause of all these problems _is_ hench. In every other game i play the community has no viable option to reject their fellow players, and as a result people learn to deal with each other. In GW there has always been the option to reject other players, and now it's destroying the core "multiplayer" aspect of the game.

Clearly there are practical, inescapable reasons for hench but ultimately they have bread a very intolerant community.

Age · Nov 17, 2006, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemon

The more i think about it the more i realize the root cause of all these problems _is_ hench. In every other game i play the community has no viable option to reject their fellow players, and as a result people learn to deal with each other. In GW there has always been the option to reject other players, and now it's destroying the core "multiplayer" aspect of the game.

Clearly there are practical, inescapable reasons for hench but ultimately they have bread a very intolerant community.

Think of it this way GW without Henchmen if this were the case getting group together would be faster and get moving on.

Beat_Go_Stick · Nov 17, 2006, 11:56 PM // 23:56

I'm definitely not looking forward to playing this chapter alone but, based on what I've seen in the lower levels, I won't have much of a choice

I have been in some seriously horrific PuGs....PuGs that made me want to collect addresses from my team, cut out pieces of my brain, and mail them out with a set of "installation instructions". But I also found people I enjoyed playing with that way. My friend list grew, and eventually I found that I could start a group and fill in the gaps with people I had randomly played with.

Now (returning to the game Guildless and with a mostly greyed out friends list) I have these heroes (well, hero right now) who, while infinitely more predictable and customizable than most generic PuGs, just don't cut it for me. I can't talk to him. He won't make me laugh. I suddenly felt more than ever like I was sitting in my living room playing a game all by myself.

I'll have to see how it actually goes for me as I get further into the game but, so far, I'd take a little frustration from other real people to an AI any day of the week.

Chicken Ftw · Nov 18, 2006, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemon

The more i think about it the more i realize the root cause of all these problems _is_ hench. In every other game i play the community has no viable option to reject their fellow players, and as a result people learn to deal with each other. In GW there has always been the option to reject other players, and now it's destroying the core "multiplayer" aspect of the game.

Clearly there are practical, inescapable reasons for hench but ultimately they have bread a very intolerant community.

Actually, in every MMO I've ever played, I've ended up shunning any form of PUG. I'd either go solo and grind for a while or play with guildies/friends, depending on what I felt like doing. Guild groups/friends have ALWAYS been better than a random team of people. Random groups usually fall apart 'cause some guy's mom calls so he afks, another has a huge epenis and won't stfu about his leet drops, the third starts calling higher level players botters and lower level ones noobs, fourth guy notices your level and starts begging for gold, fifth person has no idea how to play his class.... whee.

In GW, henches just let you fill a spot if a guildie's not online or something - I wasn't going to PUG regardless. I'd rather try to solo (entering 1/8) a mission than PUG it nowdays, there's about an equal chance of failure. Henches aren't the problem, the large number of clueless, unskilled people are the problem. If more people knew how to kite, how to use cancel stances, why healing breeze generally sucks, etc etc... I'd consider using a PUG once more. Until then, I'm sticking with what works, which is guildies/henches.

Learn to deal with each other? Like hell. I'll quit the game before learning to tolerate morons. Games aren't supposed to be frustrating, why should you be forced to group with horrible players? >_>

Antheus · Nov 18, 2006, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Ironically, I find that heroes apeal to people who aren't team players in the first place. Team play requires acceptance of others, cooperation, colaboration, trust, and other factors. This includes dealing with annoying people, poor players, noobs and leets, and more. That, by very definition, is team play. Such will also never be satisfied with any group they join, since they don't have control over it.

I found good PUGs to be plentyful in NF. Not only that, but after every single PUG being so good, I stopped using henchies completely. Their behaviour is simply too simplistic, and even their gameplay tactics are in most cases useless.

Some classes excel when playing with henchies, a ranger is a notable one. For some reason, AI works flawleslly with them. They are however horrible for backline classes. They don't know how to pull or direct the battle, and as most squishes can't direct combat, it makes for a poor experience.

This, combined with overabundance of warriors, explains why there's an apparent lack of grouping. It's not. But warriors have always been abundant and have had trouble grouping. In NF, rarely any group should need more than one.

Overall, heros are a nice addition, especially with regards to damage dealing, but claiming they are better than players is an extreme overstatement. Everyone has right to not join a group that looks disfunctional, and being selective (not by rank or other artificial symbols) makes PUGs the best way to go.