I would just like to remind you about Hero's

I don't see why you'd find it hard to believe, given that most of the people posting are saying exactly that. People hate to PuG, mutiplayer game or not - why? Look at their reasons: GW players usually suck, are rude, immature, ragequit, etc. All true, and all convincing reasons not to PuG.

Nemon, take another look at all of the posts in this thread and all over the forums. The majority of these people hate PuGs, and would not PuG unless absolutely forced to. I have not seen any evidence of what you have suggested.

I refuse to run circles around the same argument with someone who continues to make up idealistic and convenient rationales for player behavior. Given the anti-PuG posts in this thread and all over GWG forums, the only logical conclusion I can draw from the evidence is that people despise PuGs because heroes and henchmen are superior in nearly every practical way.

I don't think anyone here has said they'd take henchies over a guild group (assuming your guild isn't full of idiots of course). Supposedly, the people in a guild aren't the average PuGer. The average PuGer makes Stefan look bright and Mhenlo a spectactular healer. I wish I could say differently, but it's the truth. Want to see it in real fashion? Take a few guild members and add a few PuGers and see if there's a difference between them during a mission. Your guildies will (supposedly) work as a team and follow orders, while it's very hit & miss (usually miss) with PuGers.

I absolutely disagree, Rera. Your argument is based on the premise that "unless you can provide absolute solid evidence that there is a direct correlation between the introduction of heroes and the decreasing availability of PuG's, then it must not exist."

I have given an example. I can give many more examples. However, one can argue "well, that may be caused due to X factor and Y factor" until the cows come home.

Unfortunately, that won't do anything to convince people that heroes are having a negative impact on the availability of PuGs. Simply put, it is a very logical conclusion to reach that (i) improving the "efficiency" of utilizing NPC's in completing missions and quests will cause more people that would not normally use those NPCs to use them and (ii) the more people that decide not to PuG because of (i) above will ADD to the general decline in available PuGs.

To assume otherwise, and to state that "unless you have proof it doesn't exist", is simply flabbergasting. You would feel the exact same way if I demanded that "for you to prove that heroes aren't negatively impacting the availability of PuGs, please provide evidence that the only people using heroes are those that would have used henchmen in the past." It's a completely unreasonable request.

Again, you're on the other side of the generalization coin.

Yes, there are certain people that "despise" PuGs. And yes, it is mainly because henchmen are more controllable and therefore less risky and more efficient.

And yes, there are people that embrace PuGs with all of their limitations due to a desire to play a multiplayer game.

However, there is a large portion of the population in between those two extremes. I believe (although you'll ask me for "solid evidence", which is nearly impossible in a game of this size) that many of these players have been "swayed" by the introduction of heroes to avoid PuGs, because it is simply too darn easy to take heroes and henchmen and overpower certain parts of the game.

And, I believe, it is that fact that is negatively impacting those players who embrace PuG's, as their availability is impacted by those "in between" players that are now using heroes.

Call it semantics, call it "unsubstantiated", call it "idealistic" or whatever other convienent term you want to apply to the opposing opinion - but that is a trend that many of us are seeing in the game.

Actually, that's wrong. Remember "post hoc; ergo propter hoc"? The way I read your argument is this: PuGing declined after Heroes were introduced, therefore Heroes are the cause of the decline. In other words, "A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B" which is logically false. I'm simply pointing out this fallacy by suggesting that any number of other factors could have caused the decline in PuGs.

The fact that we can argue "it was cause by X factor or Y factor" about your statement implies that we have no reason to believe it. You'll notice that you can't form such an argument against what I'm saying, because my statement is based on the written statements of many other players.

The reason I place so much emphasis on evidence is because without it, you can make whatever claims you want and say that "this is what I observe, so it must be true." Furthermore, while I have not seen any evidence of what you suggest, I have seen evidence of what I am talking about - it's all around you, staring you in the face, but you seem determined to ignore it. In other words, this isn't a matter of what I think, this is a matter of what I'm reading right here, on the forums. The message I get is that PuGs are terrible and people don't like them. If you are getting a different message, I welcome you to show me the support for your case.

This statement implies that these people prefer the power and ease-of-use of Heroes to the social aspect of PuGs. Because, if this were not true, then they wouldn't be swayed.

I'd like to hear the outcry of how many people are no longer PuGing because they're in good guilds, and no longer need to. Really, would that be a problem? Is it really any different than people taking heroes instead?

EDIT: In case no one can read into what I'm saying: It's a hypothetical.

1. That's the problem with your argument - you are demanding OBJECTIVE evidence to support my position, yet you are providing SUBJECTIVE evidence to support yours.

Unfortunately, objective evidence in a game the size of Guild Wars is always subject to scrutiny. SUBJECTIVE evidence is never subject to scrutiny, because it is an OPINION, and opinions cannot be disproved.

2. There are many, many things in life that are based on observations and logical conclusions. There are many other reasons that those observations can be explained. But, when those observations are taken as a whole with those logical conclusions, they can support a view.

Since you quote legal concepts, you do realize that circumstancial evidence is allowed to be considered by a jury in a court of law, correct? And it is the jury's duty to weigh that circumstancial evidence, along with other logical arguments, in forming their conclusion as to whether an event occurred or not.

THAT is what many of us are stating in this thread, and what many are observing in game. Simply dismissing those observations and arguments because objective evidence cannot be supplied to satisfy your requirements is absolutely...flabbergasting.

3. I absolutely agree with your concept that those "in between" players are tending to use heroes over PuGs because they are easier to use. And because they are more efficient. Absolutely, positively no argument there.

But THAT is what I see is the problem. Because more people that may have PuG'd in the past are now gravitating towards using heroes, then LOGICALLY fewer people are joining PuG's. Fewer people joining PuG's LOGICALLY means that the availability of PuG's is going down.

You have not presented any valid counterargument to that logical chain of arguments, other than "prove it".

I've edited your above post to properly reflect the message BOTH of us are receiving.

That would be true, since Nightfall doesn't encourage multiplaying in that respect. I find there's no mistake about the implementation of hero system for PvE though (PvP is another matter which I can't comment on), but realisticly, solving one problem may inevitably cause another problem. It may be better for ANet to find some ways to differentiate the benefits between playing with human players and bots.

It's an undeniable fact that hero system is enjoyed by many players so it may not be wise to take away that option. For e.g. I remembered in Diablo II that a game with larger party yields more powerful monsters and better chances of drops; such was the way that most players preferred playing with others. However, that system was easily abused as it is possible to join another player's game (you could just join another's game to farm items) but due to instancing, I doubt it should be much of an issue in GW. Just a thought.

We have two kinds of people.

1) Henchmen users
2) Puggers

1) In group 1, those who always used henchmen will welcome the existence of heroes, and use them accordingly. The only time they ever use a Pug is if the mission absolutely demands it.
2) In group 2, puggers will continue to pug. There are a couple kinds of puggers.
a. They are scrub players and therefore cannot utilize henchmen or heroes properly, so they will continue to pug.
b. They are new, so they cannot use heroes effectively because they either don't have unlocks or just do not understand the entire system of aggro etc.
c. They are a developing player that will realize henchmen and heroes are superior to pugs. These players will end up resorting to henchmen and heroes in the end. Introduction to heroes or not.

I don't think heroes has changed anything, except cut down on situations to where a pug may be a necessary evil for them.

So, my conclusion is: Those who use henchmen/will end up using henchmen will always favor henchmen over pugs, because pugs are morons. Those who use pugs will keep using pugs until they learn better, or they simply preferring pugging, despite the overwhelming evidence of idiocy present.

3) Guildie teams

OK... everyone seems to keep forgetting the whole Guild/Friend aspect?

Ya know, in the past of multiplayer games, it was always small groups of friends that get together to play a game (old school lan party). This is how I view Guilds. It should go without saying (but I'm gonna say it anyway), but guildies still outshine heroes/henchies or pugs any day.

PuGs are how some people get their kicks, but they are simply not the end-all be-all way of playing with other humans.

Actually, you are more than welcome to provide the same kind of evidence I am citing. Where are all of these people that want to PuG but can't? So far it's been you and ... Nemon? Is that it? Find me threads about how much heroes suck because they take away from the PuGing experience.

Who said anything about a court of law? It was a statement about logic, and why your reasoning is wrong.

I'm not arguing that the availability of PuGs isn't going down. 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.

If you wanted to be really accurate, you'd replace 'some' with 'most', but I guess that's too much to expect.

Hopefully, this will show how subjective evidence is simply not supportive of any overreaching statements about how players feel about the game. Anyone can find 100 OPINIONS supporting theirs. Those that scream loudest do not make a majority.

I would love for you to articulate then what you mean...the two statements above DIRECTLY contradict one another.

You just admitted that you concur that the availability of PuG's is going down because people that previously would have utilized PuGs are now utilizing NPCs. But then, in the same breath, you state that my observation - that the availability of PuG's is going down due to the introduction of heroes - is not logical.

Are you arguing in circles here? You don't believe my argument that PuGs are becoming less available because I cannot provide objective evidence to that fact, but then you turn around and say that you believe that PuG's are becoming less available?

Most of the people you quoted don't actually support your case. Several of them don't even talk about whether they have had problems finding PuGs. Three_plat_per_fame actually disagrees with you, since he thinks that people have no confidence in henchmen but heroes would fix the problem. HollowSoul actually supports my argument - note that his reasoning is that "as they add more and more towns/outpost/missions to the entire world its all seeming to take on a more ghost town atmosphere". In other words, heroes are not the issue! Alotia doesn't seem to know what he supports: "GW does Not need heroes. Heroes are a waste of space. What we needed was better henchie AI and maybe the abilty of changing their skills." Henchmen with better AI and changing of skills? Doesn't that sound remarkably like what heroes are designed for?

You're losing track of your own argument. We aren't arguing about whether the availability of PuGs is decreasing - if you read my past statements pretty much all of them assume that PuGs are decreasing. The argument is about why they are decreasing.

Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that heroes are to blame for the decrease in PuGs, and that people who want to PuG are unable to.

My argument is that heroes are not the problem. I argue that the people who are using heroes didn't want to PuG in the first place. I argue that the release of new chapters thins out player populations.

This is why what you call 'subjective' evidence works. We are talking about why people don't PuG. How better to find out then to ask them?

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.

Quoted for undeniable, resounding truth. <3

I started The Troubled Keeper (since that quest is impossible to do with 1 person) with 3 people (me (Necromancer), another person from my alliance (Assassin), and a certain moderator...(Warrior)) with me bringing my 3 heroes (it's a secret ATM...) and the Assassin brought 2 Monk Heroes. We made it to the last wave, then we died.

Afterwards, the certain moderator left, and the Assassin brought an MM Hero. We beat the mission easily.

Heroes FTW. Humans FTL.

What if your Guild isn't big enough as well as your friends list and sure we have alliance guilds but they could be off doing something else.I agree though it would be better with guildies but if you don't have enough I would prefer to pug it and I had a riot on the Fire Island missions it was great fun.The thing with Nightfall is that there are 2 new classes that ppl have to learn how to play.

2 real players, 6 heros is all you need.

I used heroes up till RoT, then I was just bored of them, I had spent the entire game with absolute silence around me, no talking or anything....just....nothing.

I dont have a problem with PuGs, I normally have the most fun with then rather than hench or heroes, and once you get to the RoT, 95% of the players there know what they are doing (exept for one guy who was saying 'WTB FOW ARMOUR') but I did the last 3 missions with 2 different pug groups. We did gate of madness without a single death, and did the final mission with nobody going under 1/4 health, and when I was playing I relalised that I missed all the comments and talking between people when they are in a mission. Most people say "go with guildies' but we are a pvp guild, sure we help people out, but only 1 or 2 of us at a time, that and im only the second person in my guild to finish NF

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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?

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

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:

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:

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? >_>

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.