A discussion on 7 heroes

The game is pay-to-play. You do have to buy one or more campaigns before you can play and you certainly don't play for free.

This entire thread has been in regards to PvE, so why even mention the other? And even if it was the successful "PvP" game that it strived to be in the beginning it would make things just as bad if not worse than they are now, with people going to PvP rather than PvE.

Just FYI, the meaning of pay-to-play in online gaming is slightly different from the normal meaning, and refer to games with monthly fees. Games like World of Warcraft or Warhammer Online are sold at full price just like Guild Wars, but in addition you must then pay monthly fees to be allowed to play: they're pay-to-play.

In some areas, the Henches simply don't cut it. For 95% of the campaigns, You can make due with 3 heros and 4 henches, but for some of the End NF stuff..It just falls a bit short. I'm definately all for it. It wouldnt make anything too bad. So what if people can beat a mission with more ease? People still group together, even with henches and heros around. Like its been said, the people are spread out much more, so 4/5 times, your mission district will be empty.

Anyway, the fun mission/areas are done in parties anyway. The elite missions are what makes PvE fun, and most people just rush through the missions in order to play those missions. I really dont see anything wrong with 7 heros.

Obv pay per month is what is meant. Give Anet a real reason to add 7 heroes is all I'm saying.

I really can't talk about this in detail without going off topic and getting flamed probably. I'm just saying the massive expansion of PvE is what caused the problem. If the game stuck with its original vision we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yeah, because probably no one of the people that are actually for full hero parties would still be playing ...
If PvE hadn't expanded you'd have a non-existent PvE player base and a non-existent PvP player base (or is PvE also to blame shitty balance in the game?).

The game would be different.
Empty.

Maaaybe H/H'ers would have a real reason to play the game for next year or two, so they won't just forget about GW 2.

When you get seven heroes, why not have twelve skills in pve? It's only pve after all. No influence on the meta at all and more fun.

Actually, i'm all for a second hard mode that's even harder, but with seven heroes and twelve skills. I would LOVE that, but 50% of the GW players would hate it too.

-Added a new 'insane mode' for PvE, which further increases the PvE challenge!

-In response to criticism that casual players cannot effectively play through insane mode, player-received damage has been reduced by 80% to compensate [PvE only].

That made me giggle ...

The big difference between full hero parties and changes like 12 skills, insta-win button or a skill that does 10k damage is that full hero parties would simply emulate what is already in the game - a full human party.
Full hero parties would be overpowered if a party of players playing badly without PvE skills already is.
In which case - nerf non-AI parties first.

Truth.
The "overpowered" argument simply doesn't hold.

Those games have an additional monthly fee. That doesn't make GW free, as the reference to the phrase 'pay to play' falsely implied, since you still have to pay. I think that it is normal that you pay only once for your purchase and terminology that suggests otherwise just rubs the wrong way with me. We do have rights, you know, and I don't like the way how some companies seem to look on their customers as milking cows.

It's something of a catch-22 then, on the one hand we want new real content while at the same time we want to concentrate players to make it easier to form groups.

Note that even in a smaller world more quests and missions has the same result as increasing the world size.

Source? I don't understand people who claim the game would be dead if there wasn't a massive PvE expansion. Many people could claim the game is dying/dead now and massive PvE expansion is part of the cause. How can you claim it would be dead had things been different?

Not to far off what actually happened. Hard mode was added but so was Ursan and all kinds of other OP nightfall/eotn garbage. Thus hard mode became normal mode and normal mode became easy mode.

Actually hell...hard mode for the informed just became easy mode with benefits.

GW isn't free, but it is free once you purchase it. Once a person buys the game Anet gets nothing more out of them. If a person has every expansion (as many do), then Anet gets absolutely nothing from them. Why should Anet care whether or not they want 7 heroes? In a game like WoW Blizzard feels immediate impact of good and bad decisions. There is no such measure in Guild Wars.

Also...if Anet doesn't give the players what they want they are treating them like milking cows...?

I didn't want any new PvE content. I haven't had fun in PvE since early Factions. A lot of players wanted new PvE content though, and Anet gave it to them. Thus Anet created the problem we have today, thus Guild Wars 2 was necessary. Who says Anet doesn't give the players what they want?

No, that attitude is rather displayed by Blizzard: on top of a regular game price there's an additional monthly fee. They see their customers as milking cows. Apparently, customers don't mind and have already accepted this role -- hence role-playing -- and find it normal to pay twice. This is reflected in the view that GW would be 'free-to-play' because it is payed for once. I object to that view.

What would you want for PvE? You can play Prophecies a few times, and then ... what would you want to do after your character has defeated the Lich and cleansed Tyria from these roaming Titans?

GW is free to play in that I pay once and I can play forever. Perfect for a PvP game! *wanders off*

Or maybe the fact that Blizzard gets away with it and Anet wouldn't be able to tells you a lot about the two companies?

Many people I know left because GW PvE is at it's end. There is no new content coming out - so there is no point in sticking around.
There was also the issue of people not moving onto PvP after completing PvE - so they needed to add more options to cater that population.

You pay, thus it is not free to play. You pay once, rather then once plus a periodic fee, but that doesn't make it free to play.

Neither form of payment is specifically more suited to PvP.

More about their customers. I for one prefer ANet's model.

You apparently aren't aware of this, but in the MMO industry free to play means there is no monthly (or other interval) fee.

Many people I know left because PvE got too big and PvP got too small. Experiences may differ.

Free from monthly fees. Not free of course. Doesn't it strike you as odd that WoW players are willing to pay a monthly fee and GW players generally aren't?

Ok I think this thread has run its course...

Players that care about PvE left because there were too many enjoyable things to do in PvE?

You apparently aren't aware of this, but free-to-play means players have the option to play without paying. No charge, neither once up front, nor a periodically charged fee. That is what it means in MMO land.

No. I don't want to pay monthly fees for a game, and I will thus not pay a monthly fee for WoW. Why would that be odd?

Uh thats not what I said...

Yea but the question is, would you pay a monthly fee for GW?

No to heroes lock thread I winz!! omgzz!

We wouldn't be having this conversation not because there's no problem with pugging, heroes, soloers, henchies, etc. but because ANet stuck fully with a PvP-focused game. ANet decided to add more PvE, which was good. The only "bad" that game out of it was that the world became bigger, but when you look at the alternative (nothing) who's to complain?

Arguably. 12 chars.

To which I say:

Definitely not some of the best, but I've had some pretty fun times in Guild Wars.

Isn't the reason a lot of us chose GW was because there was no fee? I refuse to pay a fee to play any game no matter how "awesome" it is. I want to pay for the initial game and be done with it.

If the game were at its original version, one year ago this forum will be filled with complaint about lack of new contents and the server would have shut down right about now or earlier.

Guild Wars is and always have been meant to be played with pixel companions and human operated pixel companions. Don't try to deny that.

The only thing Arena Net cannot possibly keep up, but try very hard to, is most probably the "grind" bit, I know that word has been overused, but, what, to a human would not become a grind after that human have done the same thing for 3 years?

A person that started playing 3 years ago most probably already completed everything that need done, (except me :P) the extremely Hard Core Guild Wars Fans most probably already are GWAMM and still log on to socialize and will stick around. The not so hard cord guild wars fan comes on once in a while to see if anything is new mostly for a day or two announcing on guild chat: hey guys I am back, then you probably never hear of them ever again... etc

Meanwhile, new players keep buying and joining the game as we type away, I see new players in Guild Wars everyday. Not in person, but you know they are new from the question they ask and things they say.

If someone has so little faith in a game, complaining that every little thing the company does is bad, instead of trying to prevent other players from getting what they want, I am guessing it is time to move one to other games.

This thread is about adding:
MORE HERO MORE HERO MORE HERO SLOTS

this would be absolutely fantastic. henchmen suck and heroes you could micro manage ahhh the possibilities.

The alternative wouldn't be nothing...the alternative would be sticking with the original focus.

What does it say about Guild Wars that its playerbase would mostly refuse to pay monthly for it yet many other games have playerbases that pay monthly? Now personally I find Guild Wars (or at least found Guild Wars) to be among the best games, but doesn't it say alot that the majority of the playerbase has so little faith in it?

Yea...just like Battle.net server shut down even though every game played on it was made before Guild Wars and every game played on it hasn't had massive expansions since before Guild Wars (or WoW). Oh wait it didn't shut down.

To me it is people like you who have little faith in the game saying the servers would be shut down by now.

Single player game in a multiplayer game. Who'd a thunkit!?

Single player game in a multiplayer game environment was not thought up by me, it was thought up someone and brought to the next level by Arena Net, if I had thought of that, I'd be rich rich rich.
It is called instancing, to make the server not lag as much

excerpt:
"Guild Wars takes instancing to the next level by instancing everything. There are obvious benefits to this. With a relatively small number of players in each zone, you don't get the huge lag spikes so common in most massively multiplayer games, especially when you enter a densely populated area. It alleviates line-ups for the opportunity to vanquish a certain monster requisite to a certain quest because someone got there before you. It also makes it to possible to have arena-like matches between consenting groups without interruption from the uninvited masses. The greatest appeal of instancing, however, is that it allows for the linear and epic style of adventures common in single-player RPGs, while still within a large online community of persistent characters."

exerpt:
"In terms of the actual player-versus-environment experience, it's a solo game which you can invite your friends (new or old, at any time) to join at any times."

Arena Net also already stated they are going to add new contents since the beginning of the game, so saying they did not stay true the their original plan is quit WRONG. WRONG WRONG

excerpt: (from above excerpt source)
"For the economists in the house, ArenaNet are planning regular (six to nine months) expansions pack for the game which add new content, continue the story, etc. Their stated aim is to make these entirely optional. This is in addition to a live team expanding the currently available game."

Like I said, I wouldn't likely buy any game that had an additional monthly fee, I wouldn't have bought Guild Wars if it had had monthly fees. I still don't know why that would be odd.

Actually we don't know if most of GW's players wouldn't pay regular fees for it. The Guild Wars playerbase consists of people who obviously choose to spend money on Guild Wars (or they wouldn't be playing it). I know that I wouldn't pay monthly for a game, any game.

You didn't respond to my point about not having any faith in the game because you thought the servers would be shut down by now. You aren't alone in thinking that though.

Are they really smarter to be expecting so much free stuff from a company that would not lose anything if they didn't implement it?

Mhh, we're on togther it appears, sorry for the edit.

They've payed for the service, so yes. It's normal for a game company to release patches even for off-line games. That company expects them to return for the next campaign, or game.

So you are really discussing PvP players in a matter that doesn't concern them in the slightest?
Why?

When I don't answer, its because I think its a waste of my time to try to explain. Besides we weren't talking about faith in the server remain open or shut in the first place (read the last paragraph) But this time I thought it was moot to try to explain, because In my opinion, it is just an excuse to avoid discussing other points that you can't answers.

However, if you like, when I said that, it was in response to your wish that GW be left at prophecies scenario, if it has been left there, then the server would be shut down by now, A possible scenario, A hypothesis, as oppose to the situation now, Guild Wars still selling, making money scenario and running strong as we type.

Now, do you have any data to support your theory that the game server will not be shut down? beside quoting other game server not being shut down? becasue its irrelavent telling people that other servers aren't shut down so Guild Wars' won't The truth is both you and I would not know, But I do have the 2008 Guild Wars sale figures to support my theory that everything added after prophecies are good for the game, there's the faith, and when I say players who lost their faith I mean players who constantly complain that the game is bad having no faith in Arena Net to deliver a good game, which in fact they did, these players just did not have faith, and the best reason is that some players just grew out of it, 3 years to be loyal to one game is quite hard and boring, since now there are so many other games out there competing, but I still think Guild Wars did a damn good job. Do You? Well, you don't obviously, cos you only like porphecies, thats where you don't have faith, and has nothing what so ever to do with servers.

I am very happy the game have new campaigns and expansion and updates. All those things you accuse for being bad since added to the game, (As I understand from what you posted, basically anything after prophecies are bad, correct me if i am wrong), despite that constant wallowing regarding additional contents to be bad for the game, Guild Wars' sale contributed USD4.9million in 2008 to NCSoft, so, if it is making money, it must be doing something right, It would probably not be making money if it had been left at prophecies and players would probably constantly be complaining that Arena Net "did not follow their original motto of wanting to add new contents every 6 months." and thus left.

I have faith in Arena Net that they will deliver what they promise, and did delivered, DO YOU?

...nothing for PvE. And all these problems would persist: players would have a hard time grouping due to how old and unrefreshed the content was, outposts would be empty, PUGs would be strained, etc.

Being willing to pay a monthly fee doesn't mean they have faith in the game. It means they're willing to pay a monthly fee.

The people that are returning for GW2 are going to return regardless of whether or not 7 heroes is implemented.

I was responding to some point someone made pages ago. I don't even remember. I think it had to do with someone using the box as some kind of 7 hero evidence which is still bad.

I've continually answered most posts. The majority of posts that want 7 heroes or "because I want to it would be fun" or "why not". In fact there is probably only 1 or 2 posters that give any legit reasons, and the reasons Anet should do it are still quite thin.

You keep contradicting yourself. I fail to see how you can have any faith in Anet or Guild Wars or anything when you say the servers will shut down unless the players are continually given new content or 7 heroes or whatever else. Eventually Anet is not going to add any new content. If you say the game will die right there I say you have no faith in the game. You are simply playing the content...you don't actually think the game has long term potential.

I'd like to see those numbers. As far as I know the game was selling much better in the past than it is now.

Their original motto was not to add new content every 6 months. That came way later.

I used to have faith in them...I lost it over the years. This is off topic though. Anet is not going to add 7 heroes. You still have faith in them?

And...?

I'm not convinced, but oh well.

So why aren't Guild Wars players willing to pay a monthly fee for it?

Because that's not the way they do business. Is it so hard to grasp that people make their own choices about pricing model they find acceptable? Earlier you've stated that it was odd when people don't want to pay monthly fees, but could you now also explain what you find so odd about that?

If they have faith the new game will be entertaining. Past experience with the company producing and maintaining earlier games will influence their decision. Their impression of what kind of play the producer is planning will influence it. If I get the impression that GW2 will force PuGs on me, I will not return, if GW2 offers independence from other players, I may return. The 7 heroes would certainly help give me the impression that the producer wants to give me the choice to PuG or not.

Because we don't like to pay monthly fees for a company that cares more about their own vision of the game than the players' preferences.

So the PvE population would be living and stable with no new content? No new dungeons? No new continents? No new game??? I'm not terribly convinced that you know what you're talking about anymore. You're either anti-heroes, or pro-PvP without any concern of the PvE game.

Because they don't have to, because they'd rather go with a business model that doesn't require 50 cents a day.