Curse

Crom The Pale · Dec 05, 2008, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

I'm someone who was MiA from GW for a long long time. Then came back and decided to give PUGs a chance.

After days and days, I'm back with H&H (exceptions are guildies and mesmer meetings).

These are the things I had to go through with PUGs:

1. Leechers. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but 3 leechers within few days? This is really despicable. I am not talking about occasional afkers, but intentional leeching.

2. Afkers. Selfish people who think that online is 100% fictional world, and that PUGs don't matter, that PUGs are not people. Hey, if I PUG, I dedicate my time to PUG group. I'm not going to make excuses every 5 min "oh im sorry, i have IRL so you dont care, deal with it". Well if you have IRL what are you doing in online game, and why are you wasting time of others people, just take H n H.

3. Leavers. OK, sometimes a person has to go. No blame here. But in longer missions etc, you need someone reliable. And heroes are more so.

4. Incompetence. I am not talking about beginners who didn't grasp the game yet. I am talking about veterans who still seem to have horrid skill bars. When I PUG, I have one rule: DONT SHOW ME YOUR SKILLBAR. I don't want to know, and don't torture me please

Ignorance is bliss. And they equip heroes with worse skills than henchies have (!).

5. Attitude, lack of organization and discipline.

May I have 7 heroes pls. Not for higher efficiency, but more fun.

I agree with all of this.

One of the big problems I have always had with GW was that Anet tried to split the difference between making a single player game and a multi player game. It can be done, just not the way they attempted it.

They way I see it, and I know many will dissagree but this is just my opinion, is this...

1) Explorable zones between cities should have been made much more single player freindly so people could solo, and I dont mean H/H I mean wander around all alone.
2) Quests/Missions should be harder and shorter in length so that they require team work but not a huge time commitment. (other than planing and set up)
3) A few more Elite zones that require much larger parties and take longer. (UW/FOW/SF/Deep/Urgoz/DOA - all of these could have been 12+ party size with the matching level of difficulty as places that "Elite" players could gather and have some solid gaming fun.)
4) Completing any quest/mission/dungeon on hard mode should have spawned a chest with an appropriate reward (one time only drop maybe/green item/gold R9 inscribed X based on profession of player opening chest/exp item towards any title/ect...)
5) Some kind of a special reward for people completing a quest they have already completed with somebody that still requires it (ie. promote people helping others with quests)

I think these would have made GW a much better game, then again I could be wrong.

What Now · Dec 05, 2008, 04:32 AM // 04:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Bulldozer

to the OP: While your complaint MIGHT be legitimate, it is worth pointing out that a large percentage of the players of GW don't necessarily want to play with other people. In my opinion, that is one of the true reasons GW has been successful, the fact that it is a game where you can play online with your friends OR do most/all of it by yourself. At any rate, I certainly have very little desire to be forced to play with random (and often incompetent) strangers. If you want it to be a true social experience, where you play with only human players, that is exactly what PvP is all about. PvP is a hell of a lot of fun, but its easy to get tired of all the asshats you run into, so I for one am very glad I can take a break from that and play on my own without being at a huge disadvantage.

Well being world of warcraft it was made soloable...oh wait you mean this game? Guild wars? Where the reason for hench is if you can't get a full team, if you wanted to play alone then you wouldn't really need them in a typical sense would you?

When I first started all there was were bad hench who were semicapable and when you're new to the game you can't even control them to an efficient point yet so I was forced to eventually team up.

At that point I grew up. Yes I GREW UP. I hated playing with people, putting up with the bad, settling, but hey that's life and it's what makes the missions new and interesting every time and the game has changed me so much and I've become so much more social. Not some antisocial dork playing Runescape complaining how there's other people in the world. I'm happy, I hated heroes being released and the lack of teamwork that actually encouraged. But hey that's life, their choice in their game.

What Now · Dec 05, 2008, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

I agree with all of this.

One of the big problems I have always had with GW was that Anet tried to split the difference between making a single player game and a multi player game. It can be done, just not the way they attempted it.

They way I see it, and I know many will dissagree but this is just my opinion, is this...

1) Explorable zones between cities should have been made much more single player freindly so people could solo, and I dont mean H/H I mean wander around all alone.
2) Quests/Missions should be harder and shorter in length so that they require team work but not a huge time commitment. (other than planing and set up)
3) A few more Elite zones that require much larger parties and take longer. (UW/FOW/SF/Deep/Urgoz/DOA - all of these could have been 12+ party size with the matching level of difficulty as places that "Elite" players could gather and have some solid gaming fun.)
4) Completing any quest/mission/dungeon on hard mode should have spawned a chest with an appropriate reward (one time only drop maybe/green item/gold R9 inscribed X based on profession of player opening chest/exp item towards any title/ect...)
5) Some kind of a special reward for people completing a quest they have already completed with somebody that still requires it (ie. promote people helping others with quests)

I think these would have made GW a much better game, then again I could be wrong.

Which is where the WoW comes in, didn't they already state that in GW2 not using heroes and such would buff up your main guy more? Because they were disappointed in the lack of solo content in the game, which I personally have learned not to care for. If most the game ended up solo people wouldn't be nearly as good as they are now, I learned not to flarespam as a good source of damage from another person and I'd have never worked out several nukes and AoE damage > huge single damage if you do the math.

But seriously this game doesn't seem like something they WANT you to solo, hence DoA and hero limitations in PvP, it's just more fun and more of a challenge to find a reliable team. So in the PvE antisocial sense GW2 will be your game but you can't dread people forever, you'll be giving up too many precious memories or laughs from stupid stuff. What would it be like when every story begins with "I was soloing...." instead of "Me and my buddy were doing...and he said...and I said.." dunno just seems to add more amusement into the game imo. But in the end soloing an entire game to grind levels and not give a flying fudge about game mechanics will make the pvp just like wow, a zergfest in battlegrounds where noobs endlessly c space things to death and show off their ubergear from months of grinding to noobs that hit nothing on them.

Anothing thing, WHY PUT WOW AS A GAME YOUR LOOKING AT WHEN MAKING GW2 ANET WHY. Most the game is PvE and in PvP you know better than to think its balanced, sure since their implementing more PvP their trying harder to balance it but for how long was it good armor and rouge >GOD. Rather go back to Runescape than play a game like WoW again and realize no matter how smart or good I am when your armor resists all my bull for 30 minutes I'm f'd.

Ranted off topic. But yea. Basically I think GW2 is going to be meant a lot more for the solo players than this game can ever be due to the fact that even if you wanna play alone YOU CANT because you have to have H+H. Which to you might be alone but all they ever were really was a substitute for lack of players if needed. Peace.

Crom The Pale · Dec 05, 2008, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Now

Which is where the WoW comes in, didn't they already state that in GW2 not using heroes and such would buff up your main guy more? Because they were disappointed in the lack of solo content in the game, which I personally have learned not to care for. If most the game ended up solo people wouldn't be nearly as good as they are now, I learned not to flarespam as a good source of damage from another person and I'd have never worked out several nukes and AoE damage > huge single damage if you do the math.

But seriously this game doesn't seem like something they WANT you to solo, hence DoA and hero limitations in PvP, it's just more fun and more of a challenge to find a reliable team. So in the PvE antisocial sense GW2 will be your game but you can't dread people forever, you'll be giving up too many precious memories or laughs from stupid stuff. What would it be like when every story begins with "I was soloing...." instead of "Me and my buddy were doing...and he said...and I said.." dunno just seems to add more amusement into the game imo. But in the end soloing an entire game to grind levels and not give a flying fudge about game mechanics will make the pvp just like wow, a zergfest in battlegrounds where noobs endlessly c space things to death and show off their ubergear from months of grinding to noobs that hit nothing on them.

Anothing thing, WHY PUT WOW AS A GAME YOUR LOOKING AT WHEN MAKING GW2 ANET WHY. Most the game is PvE and in PvP you know better than to think its balanced, sure since their implementing more PvP their trying harder to balance it but for how long was it good armor and rouge >GOD. Rather go back to Runescape than play a game like WoW again and realize no matter how smart or good I am when your armor resists all my bull for 30 minutes I'm f'd.

Ranted off topic. But yea. Basically I think GW2 is going to be meant a lot more for the solo players than this game can ever be due to the fact that even if you wanna play alone YOU CANT because you have to have H+H. Which to you might be alone but all they ever were really was a substitute for lack of players if needed. Peace.

I think maybe you missunderstood what I was talking about. The only part of the game that I was suggesting as being solo is the parts between the cities, not any of the story related elements/quests/missions/dungeons.
The idea being that people could log in and just run around solo killing and exploring, however if they wanted to enjoy the story or move beyond a certain point in the world they would have to join a party and complete some quests/missions.

GW2 should not be a copy of WoW in any way and I realy believe it will hold far closer to GW than to any other game.

Bryant Again · Dec 05, 2008, 11:08 PM // 23:08

Wow. I haven't seen that much obvious spite in a looooong time.

First things first:

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

The fact people are steam rolling through HM and countless Legendary Vanquisher among many other titles are constantly being maxed effortlessly basically throws the whole "HM is meant to be hard and it's meant to be for good players" theory out the friggin window.

Honestly this doesn't make much sense. How does the fact that people are improving their play mean that HM isn't meant for more experienced players? Unless you're saying that all of those people suck at the game...

All of the game's static content has been available for quite some time now. If there weren't more people catching on to it I would've been surprised that people can suck even that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

Same goes for DoA. If good teams with a balanced setup (using no gimmicks) can waltz in and be done with it in 1.5 hours that throws the whole HM is meant to be hard out the window. You guys were looking for a challenge and got none. Well maybe initially when everything was all new but that challenge is long gone.

Uh. What?

So the fact that good players are able to complete not-so-easy content means that...that content is not challenging?

I'll have to sum up by saying that the most important facet to all this is that above all else, difficulty is largely subjective. When it first came out yeah I definitely considered Hard mode an actual hard mode. These days for me it's a "not normal" mode. For other its impossible mode, easy mode, cheap mode, lame mode, etc.

Above all else, Hard Mode was only meant to be a harder version of Normal mode. It was never meant to be "elite only" mode. If you can get way with more in NM than in HM, then HM has done it's job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Now

But hey that's life, their choice in their game.

Experiences vary. For every person having an overall positive pugging experience there is someone who hasn't.

Besides, people should be allowed to play as they want. With people, without people, doesn't matter. Not to mention that there are some people that don't really have a choice in soloing.

MStarfire · Dec 06, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

To sum up the OP:

I have no friends and thanks to Guild Wars, I don't need them!

Antares Ascending · Dec 06, 2008, 06:57 AM // 06:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

HM gives players a false sense of accomplishment. You often hear things like HM is supposed to be hard. HM is only for people who are capable. Bad players don't belong in HM. The list goes on and on. The reality of it all is a joke. HM is nothing but...

The fact people are steam rolling through HM and countless Legendary Vanquisher among many other titles are constantly being maxed effortlessly basically throws the whole "HM is meant to be hard and it's meant to be for good players" theory out the window.

Same goes for DoA. If good teams with a balanced setup (using no gimmicks) can waltz in and be done with it in 1.5 hours that throws the whole HM is meant to be hard out the window. You guys were looking for a challenge and got none. Well maybe initially when everything was all new but that challenge is long gone. Given time, some pugs will learn and get better as well provided they get a positive experience in their gaming.

Gotta love people who complain about 'gimmic' builds. They aren't gimmics, they are good builds that work.

Always amazed to see the same people jump at a chance to vent about how everthing GW is wrong. Why are you still here then??

Hm is bad, henchies are bad...nearly as bad as Heros or..dare I say it...pugs.
Normal mode is bad to, everything dies in 10 seconds or less.

I think GW is a great game and bargain to boot. One can play at whatever level suits them, when they want and how they want.

SumoutoriDreams · Dec 06, 2008, 09:27 AM // 09:27

I think the people who call HM a failure inwardly desire another increased difficulty level. Any AI of a foe in large amounts can be figured out, exploited, and defeated, if the developers make such possible. If these players got their wish and it snowballed, it would get to the point where no one could win. And GW has never been that kind of game.

If you really want a challenge, change your build to something clearly inferior. Be creative. But dont complain when you use the same optimized builds over and over with the same results and then complain that something is wrong. Its not healthy.

Tamuril elansar · Dec 06, 2008, 01:45 PM // 13:45

Guild wars is a corpg(competitive online role playing game), not an MMORPG.
and btw, corpg means that a game is focused on pvp

so if you want to do something that takes at least a bit effort and if you want to play with other people, go to pvp.

Zebideedee · Dec 06, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Playing with others = they quit, lose connection, blame everyone but themselves for failure, take ages to load (sorry that was just being mean lol) & anything but wiki builds get moaned at. I only play in non H/H parties now with my guild and when helping lower levels.

Tyla · Dec 06, 2008, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antares Ascending

Gotta love people who complain about 'gimmic' builds. They aren't gimmics, they are good builds that work.

He didn't complain about gimmicks once, only excluded them from use in DoA as a legitimate completion. Also, gimmicks rely on one-trick-ponies or very little mechanics and are lost without them. I'm assuming he means Cryway, which utilises both a tank (loses aggro, team collapses) and a single skill that makes up all of the damage needed to kill from multiple players.