This is why I play RA in spite of its flaws. I returned to GW after a 2-year hiatus and it's just as fun as ever, primarily because I can just click a button to play PvP instead of waiting around trying to form a group. (I'm impatient, so RA was always my preference.)
If they really wanted to improve things, they'd make better tools for group formation. Like, an interface for building a group request (you can specify minimum number of monks, for instance). Then have it make a DING sound when all your requirements are met, so you can go have a bite to eat while you wait. All this inviting and talking to people is too much effort and too much waiting around.
RA can be good, but the fun only lasts for so long. I can only go 2-3 runs of RA before I get bored and rage out.
It would be nice to be able to play other forms of PvP with friends. Unfortunately most of those people quit, and the remaining I have aren't enough to form a team anymore. Not to mention, a party formation system wouldn't do nearly as much nowadays due to low population. That is why I like my proposal. Honestly I'd like to hear more arguments AGAINST the proposal because I haven't seen a good one yet.
Honestly I'd like to hear more arguments AGAINST the proposal because I haven't seen a good one yet.
I gave you the main argument in the first reply to this thread. It's obvious you missed it so let me clarify visually: (and I hope I don't have to actually EXPLAIN it, though I must confess I expect I will have to..)
I gave you the main argument in the first reply to this thread. It's obvious you missed it so let me clarify visually: (and I hope I don't have to actually EXPLAIN it, though I must confess I expect I will have to..)
PvP
Your answer solves nothing, because it doesn't respond to any of the concerns brought up in this thread nor does it address needs of the game. Simply saying "it is player vs player thus it should require players" while cute and ideal, doesn't address problems in an un-ideal game.
Your answer solves nothing, because it doesn't respond to any of the concerns brought up in this thread nor does it address needs of the game. Simply saying "it is player vs player thus it should require players" while cute and ideal, doesn't address problems in an un-ideal game.
I knew it. Here follows a more elaborate explanation.
PvP is exactly that, player vs player. While HB was considered pvp it was much less pvp than other formats where heroes were restricted. By definition I guess you could run 1 player with 7 heroes vs another player with his 7 heroes and call it pvp, but the pve element is much bigger. You keep saying you dislike pve but you seem very indifferent with regards to facing players or environment. How would you rate for instance the zaishen challenge? All AI in a pvp setting, pretty much what you petition for.
It all comes down to where you draw the line. I'm not sure where you draw yours but personally I don't think heroes should have a place in pvp at all.
Whether population is declining or gw is dead is irrelevant. Those issues need to be dealt with by other measures. If you allow for more AI usage pvp ceases to be pvp by definition. When I log on to play pvp I expect to face real people, not heroes or interrupt bots or what not.
I suggest you try the other options currently available, FA/JQ, zaishen elite, RA, AB(perfectly puggable) or pve. Or you could join the rabid gang campaigning for HBs revival.
From the ghostly hero to master architect gunther, every form of PvP has NPC elements of some kind that have an impact on the gameplay. Even pets can be likened to heroes as neither can be directly controlled by the player (although the hero offers a higher degree of control). There never was such thing as pure pvp in Guild Wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard
When I log on to play pvp I expect to face real people, not heroes or interrupt bots or what not.
In some formats, we're getting to the point where you either log on and fight henchies or you log on and don't get a match. Try Ha/GvG at non-euro hours and you'll see what I mean.
You keep saying you dislike pve but you seem very indifferent with regards to facing players or environment. How would you rate for instance the zaishen challenge? All AI in a pvp setting, pretty much what you petition for.
I petition for being able to play period. If given the choice between:
1. Me and 1-2 friends with heroes playing HA/GvG
or
2. Clinging to the ideal that I will be able to gather humans around my schedule and not being able to play as a consequence
I would rather choose 1. If I don't have that option, I must choose 2 (like so many others have).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard
It all comes down to where you draw the line. I'm not sure where you draw yours but personally I don't think heroes should have a place in pvp at all.
I didn't either until recently. I thought Nightfall was a disaster on this as well as many other things. But how large do you think the PvP community is now? I know finding HA teams is nearly impossible during the hours I can play, and even GvG has tremendous wait times. How large to you think the PvP community would be with a 0 AI cap? How much growth would there be with a larger cap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard
Whether population is declining or gw is dead is irrelevant. Those issues need to be dealt with by other measures. If you allow for more AI usage pvp ceases to be pvp by definition. When I log on to play pvp I expect to face real people, not heroes or interrupt bots or what not.
The population decline simply can no longer be dealt with by in game means. Unless you can come up with a miracle solution that I haven't heard of? Again, it comes down to whether people can play or not. I would rather play with AI than not play at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard
I suggest you try the other options currently available, FA/JQ, zaishen elite, RA, AB(perfectly puggable) or pve. Or you could join the rabid gang campaigning for HBs revival.
RA is the only format you listed that I consider even remotely interesting, and even that is borderline. Hence the reason my GW sessions for the past 6 months or so have been log on, play 2 rounds of RA, rage out, play a better game. Perhaps other formats needs to be more accessible today?
I hate playing with/against heroes. If my options are wait half an hour to find an 8th or take a hero, I will wait. If my options are take a hero or not form, I will not form. If you bring heroes back to PvP, I'm gone. That's another slot that is going to have to be filled by a hero. I am, by far, not the only person that feels this way.
Hero based parties and less parties overall really is an un-ideal game.
I petition for being able to play period. If given the choice between:
1. Me and 1-2 friends with heroes playing HA/GvG
or
2. Clinging to the ideal that I will be able to gather humans around my schedule and not being able to play as a consequence
I would rather choose 1. If I don't have that option, I must choose 2 (like so many others have).
Sure, it might be more fun for you & a friend to play every once in awhile for shits & giggles with 6 heroes. But it sucks for the people you face who are forced to play against crap 75% AI teams.
And at the very least, you should be arguing for more henchmen to be allowed in matches, because they just spent time giving guildhall henchies decent bars that aren't as broken as heroes.
To be honest, I don't think adding back heroes is a good shorttime or longtime option of the population decline. At least to me, the increase of heroes really brings down the title of PvP. Heroes are pretty much always going to be inferior, bugged, or abused. PvP, in my opinion, should be what it actually stands for: Player versus Player. I wouldn't mind, for instance, if HB was implemented as a PvE concept rather than inside the PvP environment. As for ways for ANet to solve the problems of the decline now, I really don't have an answer except: more options, more balancing, and more motivations--for PvE/PvP transition.
If my options are wait half an hour to find an 8th or take a hero, I will wait.
If my options are wait half an hour to find an 8th or take a hero, I will take a hero because in that half hour 2 people will leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Dr
If my options are take a hero or not form, I will not form.
Exactly. And isn't that a problem to you? You can't form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Dr
If you bring heroes back to PvP, I'm gone. That's another slot that is going to have to be filled by a hero. I am, by far, not the only person that feels this way.
Of course not. But if there are more people who would join than leave, does it really matter anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Dr
Hero based parties and less parties overall really is an un-ideal game.
The game is already un-ideal. I hated heroes when I had an ideal vision for the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy Gus
Sure, it might be more fun for you & a friend to play every once in awhile for shits & giggles with 6 heroes. But it sucks for the people you face who are forced to play against crap 75% AI teams.
I suppose this is the only problem. Fortunately it is not a problem for me or anybody I know. Taking the example of me and my friend...we play with a schedule when it is nearly impossible to find a team anyways, and frankly, not many other teams are playing either. HA is basically dead and GvG has long wait times. There is no way in hell we have time to form a team under those conditions. But hey...as long as some people are having a good experience with this game still right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam Jar
As for ways for ANet to solve the problems of the decline now, I really don't have an answer except: more options, more balancing, and more motivations--for PvE/PvP transition.
You act as if all of those haven't been tried already.
Wow, GW really is officially dead when even little Shindy quits RA.
As far as heroes are concerned, i'd say they're great in pve (better than 90% of the pugs you'd otherwise most often have to play with), but have no place in pvp...or they shouldnt have much of a place, at least. max 1-2 heroes sounds like a suitable number.
One of the most important aspects of GW has always been its pvp side - take that away and there's no reason one should continue pvping by using heroes as a replacement for players, if one can do pve with heroes (i am honestly grateful for heroes in pve, but i simply cant stand the sight of them in pvp - I don't need to give some indept reasoning to that, it's very simple and has already been explained before).
The assumption that a game filled with heroes and only a handful of players will stay alive is wronged. Better let it RIP then trying to make a zombie out of it, don't you think so?
Last edited by urania; Dec 21, 2009 at 07:51 AM // 07:51..
Exactly. And isn't that a problem to you? You can't form.
If the cure is adding heroes, then the cure is worse than the disease. What PvE really needs right now is a D2 styled reset. This is another case of the cure being far worse than the disease as that would only result in ragequits and people leaving the game forever.
Quote:
You act as if all of those haven't been tried already.
Anet has tried one and only one method of balancing the game. Huge buff updates followed by tiny slow nerf updates. While a balanced game needs only minor tweeking, a large number of people feel that there is a lot wrong with the game and a lot cannot be fixed by minor tweeking. Anet hasn't tried anything else, and as much as I hate the idea of the pvp/pve split, with it there is no excuse to not try something large and different.
Of course the root of the problem is that the community isn't getting new players and the root of that problem is that Anet's monitization method works fine for a brand new thriving game, but works horrendously for a 4 year old dwindling game.
If you were or are a off and on GW player then HB was the best PvP option if you disliked or grew tired of RA because it allowed people to log on whenever they pleased without knowing anyone and engage in some action. The argument a lot of people have against HB is that it was pve like because of the heroes. However if you were any good in HB you MICROd the hero skill bars thus one person was actually filling the role of four people. If you like CA then you probably loved TA and in my opinion they should have JUST LEFT HB and replaced TA with CA. Now we are left with CA which yes was neat for a week but now seems dull and dead, and in my opinion CA is not any better than TA was.
In conclusion, it is my opinion ANET did themselves and the players a disservice by removing a PvP that allowed heroes because the attrition rate from what I've seen has sky rocked and players are left with one less PVP format.
If you didn't like HB that's fine. If you thought HB was not a real PvP that's your opinion which is also fine. I thought PvP was defined as one player playing against another player..be it with heroes or without.
If you were or are a off and on GW player then HB was the best PvP option if you disliked or grew tired of RA because it allowed people to log on whenever they pleased without knowing anyone and engage in some action. The argument a lot of people have against HB is that it was pve like because of the heroes. However if you were any good in HB you MICROd the hero skill bars thus one person was actually filling the role of four people. If you like CA then you probably loved TA and in my opinion they should have JUST LEFT HB and replaced TA with CA. Now we are left with CA which yes was neat for a week but now seems dull and dead, and in my opinion CA is not any better than TA was.
In conclusion, it is my opinion ANET did themselves and the players a disservice by removing a PvP that allowed heroes because the attrition rate from what I've seen has sky rocked and players are left with one less PVP format.
If you didn't like HB that's fine. If you thought HB was not a real PvP that's your opinion which is also fine.
I loved when HB was around, RR days gave me a lot of cash/zcoins to burn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrible Surgeon
I thought PvP was defined as one player playing against another player..be it with heroes or without
From wikipedia "Player vs player, or PvP is type of multiplayer interaction within a game between two or more live participants. This is in contrast to games where players compete against computer controlled opponents, which is similarly referred to as player versus environment (PvE) or player versus monster (PvM); as such, the terms are most often used in games where both activities exist, particularly MMORPGs, MUDs and other computer role-playing games."
RR was imo the main problem with HB at the end. But only noobs abused and did RR which in fact could have been fixed by ANET in 3 seconds. As far as player vs. player goes you failed to acknowledge the fact that HB involved TWO PLAYERS fighting against each other and the HEROES...according to your supplied definition of PvE, GvG is just as much PVE as HB was because of the presence of the NPCs...which in fact are ENVIRONMENTAL oppositions and outnumber the actual real players i might add.
Last edited by Terrible Surgeon; Dec 22, 2009 at 04:55 AM // 04:55..
If the cure is adding heroes, then the cure is worse than the disease.
The way I look at, heroes are not a cure to the disease. Instead they are a drug that makes the symptoms go away. There is no cure for the disease currently, but I'd much rather not have to deal with the symptoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Dr
Of course the root of the problem is that the community isn't getting new players and the root of that problem is that Anet's monitization method works fine for a brand new thriving game, but works horrendously for a 4 year old dwindling game.
Of course. But how do you propose we solve the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunkard
From wikipedia "Player vs player, or PvP is type of multiplayer interaction within a game between two or more live participants. This is in contrast to games where players compete against computer controlled opponents, which is similarly referred to as player versus environment (PvE) or player versus monster (PvM); as such, the terms are most often used in games where both activities exist, particularly MMORPGs, MUDs and other computer role-playing games."
Actually, he was right. By definition 1 human and 7 heroes vs 1 human and 7 heroes is still PvP. I still think HB was garbage though.
Reverend, your views are kinda biased though. You are on both QQ and Guru forums and Dong was around for a while so people semi know you. Other things you have going for you is you actually have a /rank, you have HA unlocked and the fact that you know how to play the game. Alot of people do not have this. Basically, you have to pander to the masses not the few.
Heroes are needed, anyone who thinks otherwise should log onto gw, type /rank and then smash there face on the desk when they see a glowing emote come out of their character. For those who say "oh we have henchmen now!", the henchmen idea was a really good idea....until the bars were released and every pvp'er left in the game lol'ed at what a joke all of the bars were.
Being able to play when you want to is one of the reasons pve and ra are such successful formats outside of the low learning curve required to play. TBH though, more people would play if all you needed was 2-4 people instead of 8. The other thing plaguing these larger pvp formats is that if you are not experienced, and you do find a way to actually get in a group, there is an extremely good chance that group will rage as soon as they fight the first gimmick or ranked group that they come across.
Even my guild which has 20+ people who are r9+ has a hell of a time forming simply because we have a life outside of gw. Most of us have jobs and/or are in school so we can't all get on at 5pm est and just play for 8 hours straight like some guilds do. On top of that, us American's get completely screwed after the euro's go to bed simply because gw is dead during american times and there is no such thing as an asian play time any more. Atleast when you could take 2 heroes, you could just grab 6 and go. Now you have to sit around spamming GLF 1 non-afker who isn't soo bad that pveland rejected them.
FYI, people not being able to play is what will kill pvp faster than anything else you do to it. And before you try to argue that fact I will quote all the retards who say stuff like "pvp means player vs player not hero vs hero, lol im so clever" You need groups to play, if people can't get in, there will be no groups, which means no play. Have fun sitting in id1 or in zaishen getting No Opposing Party for 15+ minutes.