A discussion on 7 heroes

I don't find it odd at all. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for any of the current games that require it either. I'm just saying...don't you find it odd that if Guild Wars were to implement a monthly fee it would probably be dead? Think about it.

Of course. But Anet knows that the players who bought Guild Wars 1 who are also going to buy Guild Wars 2 will not be swayed much (if at all) by 7 heroes in Guild Wars 1. Players are either buying it or they aren't. There are probably no players that are saying "hey I'm not buying Guild Wars 2 unless 7 heroes is implemented in Guild Wars 1!" All they have to do is keep up the HoM system and make promises of solo play in Guild Wars 2. Anet knows this. Its simple cost benefit stuff....and you know most of the team has moved over to Guild War 2 anyways...

I'd argue that any game with a monthly fee cares MORE about players preferences because the company gets monthly feedback...

I look at it like this. The game was built as a multiplayer PvP game with a multiplayer PvE campaign that was possible to play singleplayer. Just like any other pay once game, you play through the game and thats it. The benefit with Guild Wars was the mutiplayer markets and areas still existed for play if you chose to do that. As soon as people started looking at it as a typical MMORPG though, I think the game lost all its long term potential like games like Starcraft and others have. Once people start saying "give us new content or the game is dead" then the game loses all long term potential.

It started with Nightfall mostly, which also coincided with the release of heroes and Guild Wars transforming into a single player game. Again...Nightfall was the deathblow to this game in my eyes (for several reasons) and also at least 20 other people I know. But again...experiences may differ. Thats just my opinion, and its the reason I don't like the 7 heroes idea much today. They could implement it though...it wouldn't affect me. I just think they won't for reasons stated previously.

Kind of my point. If ArenaNet had a monthly fee to upkeep and a reason to keep people playing, the hero cap would have been removed ages ago.

To be honest, they don't keep their players playing by giving them everything they desire.

But rather by social pressure and by exploiting addictive mechanics. That includes nuking anything that player can use go through content faster. Would GW be pay2play, we would be down to 1 hero slot per player because of "ballance reasons" (aka, if people finish X in one month, they might not come back and pay fee month after that.)

Monthlies effect on game design might be ... unpleasant.

I am going to stop here and not answer you regarding server issue anymore. want to know if I have faith in Arena Net, read last paragraph.

http://www.plaync.com/us/news/2008/0...nounce_30.html

Off course it sell More (not much better) in the past because it was new and no one have it yet, the fact that its still selling when millions of people already own it and getting 4.9 million USD (1/3) of what it use to sell is impressive.

Do you have facts to support what you say? because I have read articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 right after the beta testing, stating that new content were to be added every 6 months.

In those same articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 also stated that Guild Wars is a solo game with choices to be played with Henchmen or real player.

Off course I will still have faith in them, Plan to be the first customer to pre order guild wars 2 as well if possible. In fact, I just upgraded my secondary GW account to include Nightfall several days ago, so I may have HEROS. Also planning to buy 2 more character slots and game of the year upgrade later on. Yay go me! I also plan to use that account to build a Guild with one single player in them. Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Guild Leader, Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Officers, Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Members

No, not really, GW has more in common with story driven RPG's then with grind based MMO's. Unlike MMO's it doesn't 'lock' you into buying more and more of it just to stay on top and be part of the groups and guilds and to feel wanted and needed. Though some of that did creep in.

That is such a completely narrow view! If Anet changed their pricing system to pay to play now of course it would be dead! We've already bought the expansions. Pay to play get constant game content updates for your monthly fee instead of purchasable addons. If GW were to change to pay to play at this point the player base would leave in disgust at hundreds of wasted dollars in puchased campaigns and expansions. The business model was decided, and they are sticking to it. A company simply doesn't change their business model at the end of a game's life.

If GW had been pay to play from the beginning that would be a completely different matter...But it never has been, and never will be, so any discussion along these lines are completely pointless. If this were pay to play we would be speaking to a completely different group of players than we are now. Granted i'd probably still be here (I bought GW because I liked it, not becasue it was free to play), but a lot of the player base wouldn't have bought it to begin with.

Like I said, changing a business model now would definitely kill the game, but that's not something Anet is going to do, not even for GW2. Seriously, please think before posting assinine comments.

You have faith in what they will do. You don't have faith in what they had done. I think we are talking about 2 completely different things here.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I didn't think this was even announced until after Factions. Guild Wars was an experiment....I don't think they planned to pump out an expansion every 6 months at time of release. Again..I could be wrong and I don't mind hearing if so.

Why keep bringing up the past. Its well established it has no bearing on today.

You can't be serious. "Some" of it creeping in is a real understatement.

I never said they were going to do it. I think you are underestimating the effects of a monthly fee in a game for both the players and the company though. Let me phrase it this way...would you pay monthly if Anet added 7 heroes? Theres a question that deserves a thread! I'm assuming the answer is overwhelmingly no. So why should Anet add 7 heroes again?

This thread sucks nowadays.

For the most part one can ignore what crept in, thanks to H/H. With 3+4 heroes you could ignore it completely.

No. Because that would take it the way the grind MMO's have gone.

Ignoring the problem doesn't mean its not there. It exists in the game everywhere.

How do you figure that? If people aren't willing to pay for 7 heroes, why should Anet implement it?

That's not what you asked, you asked if people would be willing to pay a monthly fee for heroes. If people buy secondary sets just to get 3 additional heroes, I reckon people would be willing to pay something for 4 additional heroes. But asking a monthly fee just for heroes seems a bit over the top.

You sure? It's also a cheap and effective way to get more money from your players in ways they won't notice.

From the start, Guild Wars has always been in favor of the "soloers". With everything being so demanding and so strict, it's hard to see how Guild Wars ever became so group happy in the beginning. Heroes weren't something that damaged the game, they were a solution. Soloers have been in existence since way back in Proph, some started sooner rather than later, some for personal reasons and others "for the lulz". All heroes did was allow the possibility for it to become easier with "possible" being the obvious keyword. If you sucked at the game, heroes were going to make things difficult. If you were very knowledgeable and knew the resources, things would be less strained. Yes, pugs would be less likely to have knowledgeable players, but they shouldn't have to rely on them in the first place (note: this is not me saying "l2p").

With the Guild Wars universe becoming so large, what would you rather they do? Not expand on PvE and let the PvE world become desolate, old, and stale? Not provide easier soloing options, still losing players in the long run? With the PvE world ever increasing, ever expanding, there was little that could be done. If more in-depth party searches and player groupings were possible we would see them by now, as ANet as shown us quite clearly that they want us to play with other people. However, forcing us to do that by hamstringing us if we don't is not the proper way to encourage that. Make me want to play with others, don't force me to. Find out why quite a few players would rather play alone, then come up with a solution.

ANet's already come up with an answer, though: Guild Wars 2 will be completely soloable. If that's not an indication of how much the multiplayer aspect didn't work in GW1, then I don't know what is.

Repeating that isn't helping.

No no...I mean if Anet came out and said hey we are adding a monthly fee to Guild Wars. We also have plans to add 7 heroes it will be well worth it! Would you do that? Would anybody?

Thats true, but I think those companies have to care more because their decisions directly affect their monthly profits.

I don't agree with this. As I said before, Guild Wars to me has always been a multiplayer driven game with the option to play solo. It was never in favor of the soloers and in my opinion never should have been.

Expand the original vision. Grow a playerbase and keep your game alive from there.

This is their fault. I think Anet dropped the ball. They never really found a way to effectively do this short of perhaps missions and battles and such that require mutiplayer. My issue here is that too many people are shooting off about all the worst things of playing multiplayer while refusing to mention the good things. Remember...this game is called Guild Wars. To me the best things in PvE require multiple human teams or Guilds. I can't even bear to play this game solo. Of course...to me the best thing in the game is PvP so my opinion probably isn't worth much here.

Its not an indication of that at all. If anything its an indication that the company did some radical change over the past 3 years. We really don't know whether GW2 will be solo focused of multiplayer focused at this point. There can't be a focus on both though. Games that attempt that almost always fail...

You'd like to think. A p2p game can get away with just as much as a f2p game and still have more cash in their pocket.

Has it always been in ANet's intentions to get people to play together? Yes. Is they way the game set up entirely against that? Yes.

That's exactly what they did. Instead of expanding upon the PvP of Guild Wars, they did it for the PvE as well. It was inevitable that these multiplayer setbacks would start to have larger and broader effects.

It's not that we're forgetting to mention the "good things", it's that the good things are so easily overwritten by the bad. A good experience is one that is largely or entirely full of negative experiences, and a person just coming into the party and calling you a "faggot" for 10 seconds straight could quite easily ruin that. And when instances like this start to happen numerous times in a row, coupled with the numerous failures and other faults many experience in pugs, you start to lose faith.

I do feel, though, that they started to learn a bit in GW:EN. The quests and missions are much less strict, you won't get a huge "FAILURE" when an NPC just wanders off and is killed in one hit.

World of Warcraft.

And besides, it's already been answered in the GW2 FAQ that the only areas in the game not soloable are the end game raids.

Your rephrasing is exactly the same. No I wouldn't pay a monthly fee if Anet added 7 heroes, because I am playing a free to play MMO. My point still stands that the bought chapters would be wasted money if a payment plan were introduced now.

If I had to buy the option to have 7 heroes from the online store, now THAT I would do, because it fits into Anets business strategy, but 7 heroes is simply not enough of a change to make a game pay to play. If they announced that as of January next year they were making the game pay to play but would be releasing brand new content (i.e. areas, quests, missions) every month and weekly updates then I might consider sticking around for pay to play, but assuming that 7 heroes is enough of an insentive to have us disregard the previous money spent and accept pay to play is just foolish.

Your question does NOT deserve a thread, because GW ISN'T pay to play. Your whole argument is not an effective counter to a wish for 7 heroes.

Because you are the one that wants to make reference to how Guild Wars was originally meant to be. Go back and read your own posts. My bringing up the past articles is telling you it wasn't as you think it was. Stop twisting the facts.

Do you know how stupid and arrogant that sound? For someone to tell another person where their faith lies when they don't even know the first thing about this person beside their very cute avatar?

And that someone happens to have spent more then 200 dollars several days ago (in their monastary unit) on Guild Wars an EXISTING product, as in SOMETHING ALREADY DONE BY ARENA NET. /sarcasm Boy! it was fun throwing money at Arena Net for something I don't have faith in ...

You may see it that way, but out of all the MMOs I've played Anet can easily rank in the top 3 on this matter. At the very least Anet is active in the community, at least more so than Everquest2, WoW, Rappelz, Perfect World, Lineage 2, and the plethora of other uninvolved companies I've seen. Don't cast them into the shadows because they won't give you exactly what you want. People asked for something to do early on because they had beat the game, and thus titles were born. Later to this day people whine and whine about titles because you have to spend time on them.

See my point? Give a man a fish, and he'll want another. Give him another, and he'll want some tartar sauce. Keep giving the man what he wants and eventually he'll want the moon! Give someone a million dollars and they'll complain about having to pay taxes.

Free MMOs that only have an initial cost have a budget to stay on, methinks. So condemning them for not making your wishes true is pretty cold hearted. Especially when 7 heroes (although nice to have) are completely unnecessary, and would be nothing more than a convenience.

Maybe. The thing is they can't make any stupid decisions or they will face a mass exodus of leavers. In Guild Wars there is no measure as to how bad Anet's decisions with the game are.

It is now. I'd argue it didn't used to be.

Then that's exactly what they didn't do...expand upon their original vision. They simply changed it which in turn led to larger setbacks. I think we talked about this before with no resolve though and I doubt it will happen here.

Uh wow...who the heck have you been playing with? My experiences in 3 years of Guild Wars have went nothing like that. In fact most of my multiplayer experiences have been with Guilds, friends, with scattering of pugs and I had almost none of your said experiences...

I agree with you. Now imagine if they spread this throughout the game and promoted multiplayer more than they did.


I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the description...but thats beside the point. As I said...GW2 is indication that the company has made radical vision changes. I'm not a fan.

Because I keep rephrasing my question until you get my point. WHY should Anet implement 7 heroes? They would get almost NOTHING out of it. Adding them to the online store would cause outrage. If it is going to be added at all (which is highly doubtful) it will probably be free. You have to make the case to Anet why 7 heroes should be added, not to me. I don't see a good case anywhere in this thread.

Its exactly how I think it was and I'll pull out Anet founders words to prove it if necessary. The only reason the past is even being brought up by me is because various others keep bringing it up and it tempts me to respond.

Meh...I said we are talking about 2 completely different things. You still don't understand that. I'm not even bringing it up, no use talking about the past anymore.

Try stating it clearly next time instead of bloating it in a whole lot of nonsense about business models.

Your statement above is clear, however once again completely assinine. Does Anet get anything out of skill updates? Balancing? Weekend events? Any update the Anet does, do they get anything out of it? No; except to keep their players interested, playing, and therefore purchasing more producst from them in future.

This is something a great deal of players feel would have a positive effect on their gameplay. Therefore if this is implemented i will probably keep playing far longer than if what I would if it doesn't get implemented. If I keep playing, GW is still in my mind, making me more likely to purchase GW2 or any additions in the online store, or any future expansions/campaigns. THAT is what anet gets out of it. The promise of future business. What else are anet meant to get out of a game other than sales? Seriously. Think.

There have been plenty of good points raised for and against the implementation of 7 heroes; none of which have come from you, or JDRyder.

I think it is now the time to close this thread. Many arguments have been said on both sides. Now they are all repeated and posts become more of personal attacks than discussion arguments. Sorry to say it, but it all becomes more and more pointless. I would suggest to create the same poll thread again let say in January and see if something changes and let the people think it over. Also if we keep doing this poll regularly it will be more visible for Anet. I am quite sure they are not following this one since page 40 or so.

Why? Despite the heat, people frequently raise interesting points about the game and some of those I wouldn't have wanted to miss, even those I don't agree with.

This only has a point if ArenaNet are even listening to us, if there not then what is the point?

Someone might well be tuning in but even when not, the point is for us to share our thoughts and opinions. I've found it useful and my own thoughts about the game, and in particular it's multiplayer aspects have changed.

Give me at least 4-5 heroes anet gods

@ Amy above: I agree. This debate has been fairly interesting, especially when someone raised a valid point and I would reconsider my opinion on the matter!

I disagree with Dreamwind that the arguments in favor have been "very thin". From my perspective, it has been the arguments against that haven't held up under scrutiny. The input from those who, due to where they live, makes H&H a far more viable option for them (cf. Pamelf and others), on top of the people who prefer the H&H option for a variety of reasons (schedules, spread of the player-base, bad/difficulty of the PUG experience, etc.) makes this more than "just because I want it." Nor have the imba arguments held up since 1+7 is not as o.p. as 8 human players could be.

Short of adding 7 heroes, I thought it was worthwhile to read people's input regarding what might be done to improve cooperative gameplay. (Not that there was much offered, and it may have been a bit off-topic, but, still, I would like to see the game continue to survive!)

Isn't that part of the purpose of a forum? To exchange ideas?

You don't seem to have a whole lot of experience with MMO's. Ever been to the WoW forums?

Besides: the only way you're going to see a "mass exodus" is if you create something that makes it unplayable and enjoyable for everyone, not just the "leet". All games are fueled by casuals.

It didn't used to be because there was less game to play. See how the future of PvE was inevitable?

The problem with "expanding on their original vision" would be that they would not be even as close to being as successful as they are now. While in addition to creating more content for PvP, ANet - after seeing how wildly large and popular PvE became to be - also expanded upon PvE. It could've originally been in their intentions, we don't know, but the bux were always going to lie in PvE. Isn't that what this is all about?

The problems in PvP have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the problems in PvE, so we can drop this here.

With PUGs. "Experiences vary", and wow do they ever.

It would be a nudge, but not an overhauling fix. That's about the best they could do, however, or else they'd be crossing the line of making their game too easy.

Then argue against it. WoW, according to what you said earlier, should be an outright significant failure. But it is not. It's quite possible to cater to both and win from it.

This is just like a JD post, by the way. My points have been chopped up and can now be taken out of context.

108 pages and 2150 posts later...nah, I'd have to disagree with that. Its just a rant fest.

So let's just derail altogether, amirite?

This thread has always served one purpose: to discuss why/why not ANet should implement the use of 7 heroes, and seeing the discussion there hasn't really been very many reasons not to.

That's half correct; but for those of us who have been part of this discussion from the beginning it is still interesting. I see that it's hard for someone coming in at the 100 odd pages mark, but I have enjoyed, and am continuing to enjoy the discussion.

You've got a point--it would be a bit more productive then. You go first.

Again, you are making adding 7 heroes sound like a switch they can flip. It isn't like a weekend event that they do regularly and can input into the game in seconds because they have done so many. It would almost certainly require a lot of work when a lot of the company has moved full time to GW2.

As for your balance and skill updates "keeping the players interested and playing", go over to Glads arena and tell me the last time anybody was happy with a skill update. More people have left PvP from skill balances than joined this game. Change is not always a good thing.

Sorry but there is never a promise of future business. As I said before, 7 heroes is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who does or doesn't buy GW2. It is even extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor in who buys any of the GW1 expansions.

As I said, people here are continually making cases to forum posters instead of to Anet. I read almost this entire thread, and 90% in favor are "why not" or "because it would be nice". Maybe some of my points aren't good to you, but I'm sorry its still better than 90% of this thread.

There isn't a point. Anet is not adding 7 heroes whether they read this or not. They don't even discuss it, and every public mention of it the answer has been no.

The arguments against can't hold up because they are arguing against people who say "why not" constantly and claim they are right based on that. It is very hard to argue against "why not" because every legit point raised will be met with a "why not".

I still think the case has to be made to Anet "WHY". Only like 2 posters in this thread have done it with any real points. As for the cases you brought up, all of those needs can be met with the current system of heroes and hench. Anything more than that is almost always a "because I would like it" argument. Very few have made the case why 7 heroes would be better then 3heroes and 4 hench to ANET.

Maybe fueled by casuals, but kept alive and given longevity by hardcores. Good games at least.

No.

Source? I'd argue they could have easily been more successful...but everything is theorycrafting nowadays.

Maybe not this particular issue of 7 heroes, but many other problems in PvE have caused disaster in PvP over the years. Many of them are still in place. Off topic.

I suppose they do. Theres a reason the game is called Guild Wars though.

Its not making it too easy, its simply good game design. If they want a more casual multiplayer game they need these types of things.

No no, I'd argue that WoW doesn't fit the mold of catering to both. Of course its successful. Off topic.

How do you think I feel?

I think I understand DreamWind....are you a primarily PvP player? That's not a dig, I actually want to know. A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a PvP mindset, whereas the addition of 7 heroes would clearly be PvE only.

I'm a Guild Wars player. I fail to see how what I do in the game has anything to do with the legitimacy of my arguments.

It's not the legitimacy, it's the approach.

As long as they are legit. You didn't respond to my previous post.

Knowing you are a PvP player changes a reading of your posts as well. It's all context. It is actually an important point to know, as the majority of us posting come from a PvE mainly standpoint which makes the reading of our posts different also.

I didn't respond to your previous post because it wasn't necessary. But if you want me to I will:

You are right, adding 7 heroes isn't a switch they can flip. But neither was adding M.O.X. The difficulty of the implementation is not what's in debate here. What we're debating are the relative merits vs. the demerits of having them and whether it would be worth implementing. We all know that if the choice came to implement it it wouldn't be like flicking a switch. But if it's keeping players interested then it might be worth the effort for Anet to do, which is what most of the pro points seem to be driving at.

As for your second point, skill updates were just an example. Some have been positive, some have been negative, but Anet didn't know what the reception to changes would be until it was implemented. Do you think they actively went out to annoy players? Simple answer; no. They worked for game balance, whether players liked it or not is totally moot and has no bearing whatever on this argument as game balance is not affected.

You're right, there is never a promise of future business, but given the overwhelming poll response (yes I know it's not an accurate reading, so save that counter) there are at least over 700 of us who will continue to buy GW products if this is implemented. We may continue to purchase even if they don't implement it, but with its implementation from the statistics above their odds of future sales are drastically increased. We've already said that the addition of 7 heroes opens up so much more game play and creative scope that we don't currently posses that it would definitely keep us playing far longer than we would otherwise.

You are in no position to claim this at all. Reps do read the forums, and this topic has been discussed. Whether they read it this week, or a month from now doesn't really matter; it's here and we're being heard from both sides. If there's no point then by all means, stop posting. There has only been one public mention of 'no' and that was by Gaile going back over a year ago. You've said yourself, the game has changed since then, and if opinion is overwhelming Anet may very well consider changing their stance. If they don't read it we still have interesting discussion, if they do, well we may just have our voices heard.

From a business standpoint 'because I would like it' is definitely a valid point. But like you said, valid points have already been raised. Your responses fall into the 'why not' category and you really offer no reason not to. No concrete reason. We on the affirmative side have offered countless concrete, physical reasons why we would like (yes I say like because I will fully admit this is purely a want, not a need) 7 heroes. We've even admitted that we can play with H/H at the moment, and most of us choose it over PUGs. The creative options that could be opened up by raising the hero cap however are countless, and for me this is the main reason why H/H will never be 7 heroes. I want to express that creativity, create builds, try out new things, all of which I cannot do in the current setup.

At this point we're talking about two entirely different games here: PvP and PvE, the latter which is insanely difficult to give longevity to, especially with a game like GW.

lol aight

Scenario One: ANet expands PvE content by creating new areas and new worlds, resulting in the PvE game being more populated and enjoyed.

Scenario Two: ANet doesn't expand on PvE content.

It's easily seen which option is better for PvE. With the first, ANet adds more content at the cost of strained groups. With the second Guild Wars loses players altogether due to a constantly stale world. It's similar to what we're seeing now, except with about a 1/10th of the content and a few years back.

I don't have a source, and neither do you. So don't ask me for one.

I can, however, easily point out which type of gamers outnumber everyone else: casuals. Which is more casual, PvE or PvP?

Don't point to the title as proof. In no way does it point to a group of human guildees. Morrowind, Oblivion, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and many more single-player games had "guilds" in them.

"Making it casual" = "making it easier", making it too easy is bad game design (see: UB).

Then you don't play enough WoW, in all honesty. While the "solo content" isn't as polished as the group endgame content, there is far from nothing to do by yourself, not to mention that you have the option to choose to participate in instances while reaching max level. You can play entirely by yourself 1-70 if you so wish.

I hope that wasn't directed towards me. If so, please pinpoint where I began chopping your paragraphs into two's and three's and four's.

Well the annoying part is I had a long typed out respond to pamelf that got lost and I don't feel like typing it out again. I'll just say I disagree with most of your post and leave it at that. If theres anything you want expanded on maybe I will later.

Since when did they become 2 different games? As far as I know the game is called Guild Wars...not PvE vs PvP wars. The game either has longevity or it doesn't. Actually hell you bring up an even greater argument that the expansion of PvE and development as a single player game possibly caused the loss of longevity of the game....

Neither, they can both be equally as casual if done correctly.

Uh I can point to the title in this case because the entire concept of the game was to be guild driven. There had never been a game before (or after really) GW where guilds were such a prominent part of it.

The idea is to make it casual with the potential to be extremely deep. As it stands Guild Wars is mostly easy and shallow (at least for many people).

Its not directed at anybody. It is simply what happens when you make these long posts. Things are always taken out of context.

2 largely and vastly different communities can pretty much equate to two different games. The reason you don't refer to it being largely replayable and extensive as a whole is so you don't get a PvEr's hopes up. It's why people don't say "Halo 3 has a lot of replay value" but instead "Halo 3's multiplayer has a lot of replay value." Coop multiplayer is interesting, as well, but it's still not as replayable as any form of player vs. player combat.

The one factor that entirely tips the scale in player vs. AI's favor is that of competitive player behavior you find in every single PvP game. In cooperative gameplay you're playing with an attitude of teamwork and, as you can tell, cooperativeness. The same cannot be said of a deathmatch. Being told to "suck it" by an opposing enemy player is not a very appealing feature to casuals, or anyone really.

DAoC, WoW, Everquest, etc...Granted, you can come back and say "but GW is even MORE focused", in which case you get a cookie, I guess.

But still. You don't point to the title and say "this is how GW is MEANT to be play'd!" It's going back to the popular argument that since it's called Guild Wars it should be easily apparent that you're going to play with players and that you should not be dismayed if you can't solo properly.

For many, not for most. Why else do you think ANet toyed with the thought of UB?

One of my favorite posters here, Burst, has stated the truth numerous times in numerous threads: most players, in general, suck. It's not being mean, it's just stating that they're not very good at the game.

What you could have done is simply reply to my main points in full instead of little comments that are only slightly related to my argument. These kind of long-winded posts are easily avoidable as long as you stay focused.

QFT! No need to reply to things that aren't relevant.

In response to your 'Guild Wars' argument DreamWind; you yourself have been constantly stating that what is the original game design can't be used as an argument for the current state of the game. The game was originally meant to be far more PvP oriented than it is now. It was only after a few months that Anet realised that the PvE sector was proving so popular. With the following campaigns mention to guild is really quite secondary. Prophecies had a vaguely guild driven story line, but factions and nightfall pretty much did away with the concept of guilds as a focus and added them more as character driven incidentals.

Not to mention the actual guild action (read GvG) is PvP ONLY and thus has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. PvP is naturally always going to be multi-player, but there is no reason to keep PvE specifically multi player. Once again I notice your arguments are entirely PvP based; argument which are essentially useless in a thread about a PvE ONLY addition...


P.S. Do you think you could at least rebut my main points from the lost post? Seriously, while I may regret it, I'm curious as to what you could possibly disagree with.

The PvE vs PvP divide that happened in GW was yet another big problem of the game. But whatever. Basically you hint that single player PvE is not going to have a lot of long term replay value...so why turn the game into one?

The idea that this behavior is mostly a PvP behavior is ridiculous but whatever again. Those things are avoidable and very exagerrated. Also 7 heroes is not cooperative gameplay, its not teamwork, hell its not even PvE. Its basically EvE with a P thrown in.

Meh we are going in circles. We know how Guild Wars was "meant to be played" and we know that it has always been "soloable". The tools to solo properly are already in place. We are beyond that.

Because they were retarded and once again showed us that they can't balanced their game properly since Nightfall?

Ok I agree with you. Hence the idea to make the game more casual while still remaining extremely deep...

Our main points have went way off topic at this point. There is no focus. My main points (and yours) were made a long time ago.

Of course this is off topic, but I'll respond. I'd argue that PvE didn't take over until Nightfall. Even Factions had a large PvP grounding with alliance battles and such. In Factions guilds were even more important due to the appearance of alliances and such...but oh well. As I said off topic.

How are my arguments entirely PvP based in regards to 7 heroes? My PvP based arguments have only been in response to completely off topic posts.

Cliffnote for me the main points you want a response to and I'll get back to you. Too lazy to go back and read it.