A discussion on 7 heroes

I think the reason why PvE didn't take predominance until NF was because in Factions ANet tried (with mixed success) to implement a means to bring more mass PvP into the PvE side of the game. I think it was a good attempt, even if it didn't work out so well (based on other posts in other threads).

The Guild Wars in GW was always intended to be in the PvP arena.

Based on the results of Factions, ANet went with the PvE side of the game - implementing Heroes, Sunspear skills and PvE only skills, etc. To the "old timers", NF was the beginning of the end - and maybe so for the game as it had been up to that point. But, it was an evolution based on what the devs were seeing in the game: more people wanting PvE content, PvP pretty much peaked, and Factions not really bringing more players into the PvP side of the game.

Now, with having provided so many Heroes, but limiting us to 3, there was still an attempt to get players to team up: 2 humans + 6 heroes. And it hasn't really worked. Most people (see the poll) still want the choice to build an all-hero team. It may be part of the power creep, the evolution of the game, to keep it from getting static and to try to provide some replay. Even if its only a few months worth. But, to most, even that would be something they want - a reason to go back in and play.

Now, given the way the game has evolved, as Pamelf said, there really isn't any reason to try and keep the PvE side of the game multiplayer. People will still have the choice to group if they prefer, but those who want to try something new would have the chance to do so.

For every single game that has single-player/cooperative and competitive modes, there is a divide. It's not a GW thing, it's not a PvE or a PvP thing, it's a video game thing. Some are more drastic than others, some less. Either way I'm not surprised it happened.

"Why turn the game into one?" Are you implying that because it doesn't have high replay value it's not a good game? We're not playing an MMO here, we're not looking to be addicted until we die.

How do you avoid someone calling you any slew of things after he's killed you in an arena match? There's no magical foresight that tells you "whoop ignore this guy, bad names incoming". If you don't think this is mainly a PvP thing (not just GW PvP, *all* PvP), go into Halo 3 and compare the attitudes in the campaign lobby as opposed to the slayer lobbies. Go into Dawn of War and compare the atmosphere of a comp-stop as opposed to any other vs. gametype.

And quite obviously soloing is not coop gameplay, but it's still gameplay nonetheless.

It wasn't just an overpowered skill. It was meant to be training wheels for more inexperienced players. However, making the hardest areas easier is not the way to "train" not-as-good players.

You want them to find that intricate, precise, and massively difficult balance of simplicity and complexity when you just said right above that they haven't been able to properly balance their game since Nightfall?

Then let's go back to your points and refute them, shall we?

How would 7 heroes further "hurt" Guild Wars? How did only three heroes hurt Guild Wars? NF didn't bring upon us a mass amount of soloers, it provided people who disliked pugging but wanted to solo effectively - and couldn't because of the mass of inflexibility of henchmen - to play the game how they want. It turned the alternative - playing alone - that many people wanted from a shitty route to a possible route.

As shown numerous times, heroes are not a "pick up and win" feature. You have to have to proper skills acquired for them, otherwise you're easily better off with henchmen. Because of that, and the difficult acquisition of those skills, heroes are only a tool for the experienced, something an overwhelming majority of puggers are not.

Avarre brought up a comment that there may be a few that are teetering on the edge of pugging and soloing who would go full blown hero of 7 heroes are possible. My question to that is: what's stopping them now? As is it's quite possible to be widely successful with just those 3 heroes. If the person considers those other 4 slots of henchmen to be setbacks and pins blame on them, he's not going to have a much easier time with 7 heroes.

And then there's the comment, "the tools to solo properly are already in place". We can solo the entirety of the game if we want to as is. 7 heroes are "not needed". To this I say: why add more skills after Prophecies?

That is *your* job, sir, and ignoring that duty is a big part of why JDRyder's integrity went full-speed into the toilet.

I mostly agree with your assessment of what happened. The problem occurred when the mass expansion of PvE and the turning of the game into a single player game that happened with Nightfall basically completely wrecked PvP. There was a mass exodus of leavers from PvP during that time due to the ridiculous balance that came with the expansion and heroes being introduced into PvP.

Now we can sit here and say that is all in the past, and that is true. But it is factual that this "change in philosophy" to a single player PvE experience that happened with Nightfall caused serious PvP damage. I'd argue it killed the longevity of the game as well. Thus you know part of my reasoning for not liking the idea.

It isn't multiplayer anymore, but I see your point. It is fair enough and probably the main point of the whole thread. Like I said 7 heroes wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I just don't like the direction the game has gone, so that makes me not like the idea in general.

Of course there is some, but in my opinion GW did something very unique. In the beginning it wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. It kind of developed over time, and I'd argue that Anets "change in philosophy" was a big part of that. A lot of resentment came from both sides because many PvE changes affected PvP and many PvP changes affected PvE.

I'm arguing that Guild Wars had the potential to have incredibly long replay value but now it doesn't do to it turning into a single player MMO. That doesn't mean it isn't a good game though.

This argument is completely falling apart in my eyes. If this is mainly a PvP thing, then why is one of the main reasons people don't PuG (as told several times in this thread) is because people are rude to them IN PVE?? Thinking that this is mostly a PvP thing is completely false. Personally I find these experiences in both PvE and PvP to be rare, but claiming that it is mostly a PvP thing is perception not reality. Not to mention, if they did happen there is ignore/chat filter/blah blah.

Agree.

They had that. It was called Prophecies.

NF did bring upon a mass amount of soloers...I don't know what game you were playing at the time. I'd say heroes in general helped lead to the downfall of multiplayer whether the soloers believe it or not. The real question though is "was this good for the game and it would it be better to complete what was started with Nightfall". I say no and no just from experience. Others will say yes and yes just from experience. So basically it comes down to opinion and you know what happens when that comes into play.

I think there is a legit point there. I'm sure there are players out there who are like this...they don't want to play with hench. At least they can team with ONE human if they want a full hero team. Or they can team with a few humans to each bring a hero or whatever. Hench at least give people SOME reason to team with others. With 7 heroes there will be almost no reason unless its required by the mission/quest whatever, so those who want to team WILL have a little harder time. I don't buy the argument that 7 heroes wouldn't affect the team formation rate more than 3 does.

Good question. I say why add more pieces to chess?

As I said, I typed out a long response but it got lost and I can't be bothered to type it all out again. Perhaps I will if I'm bored and have time.

They are stuck in infinite loop, aren't they?

It's actually interesting to look at it from the outside for a change ...

Yea I've been checking out this thread everyday and it's going...nowhere...sometime it does go somewhere but that stopped like 50 pages ago..

Yet it's fun to watch

Hurray, on-topic, go me!

Why I was playing Guild Wars - which, at the time, had a PvE playerbase spread across three continents, hundreds of outposts, all divided by thousands of districts.

...

It's obviously all the heroes' fault.

You seemed to have pretty much missed most of what I said to JDRyder, not to mention something I posted in response to you awhile back:

Most players in the game are inexperienced.
Heroes can't be used well by inexperienced players.
Most players don't use heroes.

And henchmen don't give incentive, they force it. The only way you're going to get AI even just close to being on the same footing as a human groups is if you allow the former to use PvE skills (which is another huge incentive to party up with people).

Hit and miss.

You're pretty much arguing against the reason why expansion packs exist: for more game. That's why we saw more skills with each campaign, that's why Blizzard introduced an expansion pack to StarCraft, why Bethesda created the Shivering Isles expansion, and you can keep going back to thousands upon millions of other games that did the exact same thing.

Now do you have to make expansion packs? Are they required? Absolutely necessary? No. You don't have to make them. They're not necessary. But that's not the point.

You can't be bothered to respond to something legit and on-topic but find the time to respond to all of my off-topic bullcrap? Say 'hi' to toilet.

<3 i no, rite?

Bryant Again vs Dreamwind....SHOWDOWN!!! *insert cool guitar solo*
Wow this thread is still going...imo nothing is going to get changed. Get over it 7 heroes will kill the game even faster....newbs won't have a party to go with due to all the vets soloing, newbs have crap builds for heroes, they lose, QQ(understandably) and ragequit GW. GW will lose customers, GW2 will run out of funding, GG!!!(the last few were rambling statements don't quote me on them)

First off, what veteran GW player parties with noobs? Vets already solo with 3 hero+4 hench, or get guild groups. No vet in their right mind would put up with pugs if they've actually been around GW for more than a few years...

Already explained that noobs are on their own to begin with, but I'd also like to point out that people ragequiting GW has no effect on the customer base, as those players have already bought the game. I'd have to imagine an extremely small portion of those players so shitty they can't play the game themselves, would actually drop money on additional char slots/BMP in the online store. So no profit lost there.

If you're gonna call your own argument rambling, why even bother with it at all? GG!!!

Now you see why this thread is still going on? It's all a matter of opinion, and since this is Guru, you're not likely to actually persuade the person you're arguing with (especially with an argument as incoherent and broken as yours), so it's better to just beat them over the head with their own statements for the benefit of all the passers by.

What vet parties with noobs? The bored ones, the ones who want to re-live the "old days," and the ones wanting to laugh at pugs. I fall into all 3 *usually can't share builds though because others don't have half the skills xD, but when people want a build, I share, they get better, they thank me! :O*


No, but you can blow their argument to oblivion and then shut up yourself, the other will shut up soon (apparently I ended the "Titles Coming Next Week" thread with killing a few arguments, people's stubbornness dies out sooner or later).

I'm contemplating about actually joining the debate here, but I'd need to read the whole thread, I'm sure there is lots of spam in here, don't really want to bother with that...

This is a very smart thing to bring up. PUGs have been "taking the hurt" ever since the first guild came together, and I'd consider guild groups to be a much bigger "killer" than h/h will ever be.

Not to mention when those guild split apart and people go to new ones, they would I presume keep in some sort of contact even if they are in different guilds, known as the friends list keeping vet players with there kin and no mixing with the lower population, but maybe that's getting into too fine a detail.

It's the combination of all the fine details that paint the bigger picture.

Not all, but they were a part of it.

Just as heroes and expansion of content forced solo on many people. I don't really see your point here. Maybe we should start thinking of solutions because we obviously aren't going to agree on this. Perhaps implement 7 heroes but give extra things to human groups? I don't know and I don't really care anymore to be honest. Like I said, I just don't think the game being an almost exclusively solo game is good for it.

You know what Blizzard said after they released Brood War? They were pretty much like "oh crap this game is perfect as it is...if we add more content this game will not last", and they were right. They added just the right amount of content. Anet added way too much content.

Because alot of your off topic stuff is ridiculous. Your on topic points are good I'll give you that. As I said, we already mostly discussed the on topic stuff pages ago and I said they were mostly good points (except for a couple). But bringing up stuff like:

Just tempts me too much.

I'm not talking just PuGs, I'm talking all human partying. The game today is a solo game with multiplayer involved. Hell I know many guild members who still party with their heroes rather than their guild. If I were to purely guess, I would guess that heroway has taken over as the dominant play style in Guild Wars. And just like having heroes in HA was a terrible idea, I don't think its a good thing for PvE either. OPINION.

I found it in other thread. I think it contains some insights for a few arguments used in those 100 pages. I do not want to repeat again and again the same arguments I think people reading this thread since the beginning will get my point.

I wonder how, from a time perspective Anet perceives the introduction of those 3 heroes in the first place. I am not sure they are happy with the result.

Anyway it is all trade off between pleasing some of the players playing this game for while and the ones who just joined. They do not come here for heroes but for a team play....

That guys post is very solid.

See, that's what happens when people rely on the information on the box in a constantly changing game.
At this point in time - PvE is a single-player game.
And if it wasn't a single player game - it would be empty.
Well, emptier.

I bet this weekend we will see an increase in players, because of the double Kurzick/Luxon gain.

All playing single, with their heroes, planting flags

But given the shady state of the servers - is the increase in player numbers REALLY something we want to strive for?

I'm honestly curious as to how you would have liked to see GW PvE develop. In previous posts, you seem to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd have preferred if the world map had not gotten bigger than the Prophecies map, that no skills should have been added after release, and that adding more content was detrimental to the game.

So, how would you like to have seen PvE develop, and how would that lend itself to replayability and longevity?

The very idea of vanquishing with 3 necroes, 3 SF eles, and a good AI tank gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. In my pants.

Yeah, you can get the job done with 4 henchies in the party. But replacing those 4 henchies with 4 more heroes would be SO AWESOME.

*A Part*. How much of a part? How much have they helped? How much have they harmed as opposed to how much they have helped? How can we be so sure that NF's lack of interest wasn't due to other concerns, like the quality of the campaign, the Sunspear title requirements, and the fact that there's already two other massive continents of game to explore?

Bear in mind these few chief facts: PvE is huge, partying limitations have always been set in stone, Guild Wars is instanced. Heroes are part of a solution, not a hindrance. I hadn't been playing at all for a month until heroes were introduced, then my GW activity soared through the roof.

If you're going to point fingers at anything, have it be the henchies and the horrendous requirements for parties - 8 necessary archetypes!? (and you wonder why people prefer to solo). The henchies alone contribute more to soloing desires than heroes will ever hope to achieve, while the party requirements just add more salt on the wound in additions to the already strict limitations of the GW engine.

Granted, I will say that heroes did "take" more people away from pugging, but the by far largest audience it addressed were people who weren't happy being forced to play with pugs.

Anything - anything - is better than hamstringing people who choose not to play with others. Soloers are already having to struggle with lackluster/predictable AI and 1/8th of the amount of PvE skills possible in human parties.

You know what Bethesda did after it released it's first Morrowind expansion? It made another. Same with Bioware regarding Neverwinter Nights which has quite the list of expansions. Were any of those expansions bad? Nope.

It's not that ANet added "way too much" content (can't say I'm disappointed at all about all the stuff there is to do in PvE ), rather that there were some areas in the game that were a bit rusty (largely PvP, but we're talking about PvE here).

The straining of multiplayer in PvE is not a self-manufactured and easily curable flaw. PvErs wanted more game, ANet knew the consequences. The only reason ANet didn't implement better party and communication functions is because they couldn't.

If you're going to blame anyone for anything here, blame ANet for making such a damned fun game. If so many people didn't enjoy and love the game we wouldn't even need to add more to it!

So in otherwords, yes? You "can't be bothered" to actually contribute to the discussion but you can totally put forth the effort to talk about off-topic bullshit? Good to know.

And it's your opinion that I not only disagree with but just don't get: how else are you going to add more game to PvE without increasing the game world and it's areas? What else can you do to help the inevitable state of strained partying without further lowering the skill threshold?

Prophecies didn't have it good because it was simple yet contained "depth" (you could play the whole way through with mending and frenzy on your bar) and most well-polished of the bunch (the first skills Warriors get are Frenzy and Heal sig!) but because everyone was playing it. Players were all along the same route, doing the same missions, doing the same quests - i.e. concentrated. But that's only because Prophecies was one game, one campaign.

In general, Prophecies was successful because it was something new, different, and compact, not because it got "everything right". Nostalgia can quite easily cloud judgment.

PS: Please respond to my points in full, not in "bitz".

Having 7 heroes would bring back a huge interest in PvE, for myself at least, and make certain PvE titles slightly more attainable (admittedly i'm bored to bloody death, after discovering i can't get EotN points in normal mode!).
Time after time my party wipes in many hard mode areas, but it's never my monks that let me down, it's the weakest links like Eve or Herta.

It's frustrating.

Well you are basically right somewhat. I don't mind new skills/professions/armor/weapons/items/quests/etc being added to PvE though. There were 2 big problems. The #1 problem (for me at least) was the addition of these classes and skills brought down PvP tremendously so I would have liked to see them in PvE only. The other problem is that the huge expansion of the world in terms of mass (which I don't think should have happened) essentially is what made the game a single player game. Another guy in another thread put it well that the world and community is very disconnected now, and I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that if you turn the game into a single player game (as Anet has mostly done and even they refuse 7 heroes), then you also kill the replayability. Single player games for the most part are not as replayable as multiplayer games. MMO PvE is not going to have endless replayability and longevity regardless of what is done. Thus, the replayability and logevity was mostly supposed to come from PvP while those who played through PvE just beat the game and moved on or continued to play through the new stuff and with the community (or PvP if they feel like it). I'm not sure if I expressed all this clearly, but its how I feel about the situation even though it is long and kind of off topic.

We don't know the specifics. We only know that they were a part and thats all that matters for the purposes of what I was saying.

Heroes are not a solution to a problem. They are a patch to a problem. The problem still remains. Not only that but its arguable that other leaks have sprung because of them. And as I said before, experiences will differ. Within months after Nightfalls release I essentially quit playing Guild Wars seriously and became a more casual log on once in a while player.

You keep pointing out the "limits" of 8 players. To me that is one of the benefits on the game...the teamwork required. Its particularly special in PvP where Guild Wars is one of the best team PvP games ever (well at least it used to be).

So a complete change in the game philosophy was what was required to make some people happy. Yea ok...I'm glad to know we have a company who can follow through on plans/promises. And nobody is or ever was forced to play with pugs. There are guilds/alliances/friendlists/blahblah.

Anet doesn't agree. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually did though. They have caved on almost every other radical game changing decision. To me the addition of 7 heroes would be an admittance of failure from Anet. The final admittance that they failed at keeping their original vision, and failed to keep their game multiplayer.

And Blizzard released 1 expansion for Starcraft. I don't see your point here. In my opinion it is clear that Anet added too much content, ESPECIALLY from a PvP view but even a PvE only player should be able to see it. Just look at the game for crying out loud. 90% of it is disconnected and dead. Why do you think many people want to solo to begin with? Many are probably forced to. I also don't buy that Anet couldn't implement better party and communication functions, because they did try with not the greatest results. The problem is that they created such a massive problem and realized they couldn't fix it, so they just patched it so everybody could pretend it wasn't a problem. Well I know it was a problem. The problem I have is they never should have created the massive problem to begin with.

If so many people did enjoy and love the game, we wouldn't need to add more to it.

I responded to your actual on topic points ages ago. I only respond to off topic bullshit now because thats all I keep reading.

I stated that above and in pieces through a bunch of other posts.

It didn't get everything right. But it got a shitload more right than what the game is today. The game was far more pure. I've heard people say its just nostalgia before, but I find that to be a load. Everybody I know thought the game was better in Prophecies. And this is all PvE players I'm talking about here, but this is particularly true in PvP which simply got more inbalanced as time went on. Nearly every single PvP player I know that used to play this game has quit. But whatever. Its just nostalgia!

I have been.

Anet agree, and that is why they are making GW2. They realized their game world was simply getting too bloated, and instead of adding even more new content into the mix they decided to start again with a clean slate. Anet and GW's players are fully aware that GW1 isn't a perfect game, and thus these sorts of suggestions so that we can make the most out of a game that everyone admits has become flawed by countless updates and extensions. We have so many heroes, and a ridiculous number of skills, a huge number of areas and a gigantic number of quests that can be completed. For such a bloated game world 7 heroes would help us PvErs explore it to its fullest extent, and even enjoy it to it's fullest extent. It is quite frankly impossible to take part in everything this game's PvE has to offer with PUG's. I don't think I've been in an area in the last 2 years that had even 1 other player in it who wanted to do the same non primary quest as myself. There are so many places that can only be done with H/H because the players simply aren't around. It's not an ideal situation for anyone; players or designers, however adding the option of 7 heroes means we can make the most of the game we have now, while waiting for a brand new game to attempt to overcome the obstacles that GW1 has faced.

Another idea;

Since Anet makes their profit selling games and we can already get a second account to run six heroes then why don't they just streamline that?

They could simply do something that allows you to bridge two accounts so they know you actually own two separate accounts and want to use them in tandem. You would then specify which account is your main and which is your secondary. This would in turn trigger an ability to put the main on the secondary account in something like AI mode so it will fill the seventh slot and act like a hero or hench.

It would be a win/win we get a seven hero team they get to sell a whole lot more Guild wars games and expansions.

No, we don't know the specifics - which is why you don't say "heroes killed GW" or assume how "bad" they were for the game based on a personal experience; you and your friends are a very small sample size. I won't deny that I enjoy heroes and am able to understand the concerns, but due to all the other facets that I've recognized I don't see them as much - if at all - a problem.

It sounds great on paper - until it becomes realized that that "teamwork" is required for *every single area in the game*, and that most of those areas require 8 people. More on that later.

The failure was that they weren't able to keep the other one healthy. While they were able to maintain a fun and delicious PvE, the PvP was riddled with too many balancing concerns. The fact that there were constant skill rotations should have been a huge red flag saying "fix THESE before adding more".

And I do agree with you that 7 heroes are an admittance of failure, but not of the same sort. It's ANet's realization that the way they built PvE - requiring a large handful of people for each area, constructing a very limited game engine (in terms of social features) - was the reason at fault. Granted they could have made the explorable areas easier (or even soloable) and leave the mission outposts void of any AI options, but that's further proving the problem.

The fact that GW2 will be so largely soloable is the final nail in the coffin. It may be seen as ANet simply "changing their philosophy", but I find the more likely reason is because of how hard it is to maintain and force such a multiplayer aspect from GW1. Proof? See the current stage of GW1, look upon the inevitable dead-ends in terms of PvE expansion while bearing in mind player parting. ANet's learned a lot with GW1, and the fact that they're completely overhauling it with GW2 shows just that. If making the entire game soloable (save for the "raids") will prevent all of this from happening again, then I'm all for it.

I'm stitching all these together because if replied to seperately I might as well be repeating myself.

The first part is an oversight worthy of Ryder. "Even a PvE only player should be able to see it"? See what, that they have so much content to explore and enjoy, to play through, to experience, to conquer? Please don't assume the thoughts of the many. The second part ("90% disconnected" etc.) is ignoring all of the other possibilities. Assuming that so many are strained, what's the reason for that? Is it the heroes, the henchies, the bad attitudes mostly associated with PUGs turning people away, the age of the game, the size of the game, the difficulty of the game, the on and on and on and on???

I mentioned earlier how they aren't able to implement better grouping options because they didn't exist yet. When I said that it wasn't saying that they just aren't going to do it, but that they couldn't - and based on the fact there's absolutely zero reason to *NOT* have those features, especially when Guild Wars already puts too much emphasis on party gameplay and that it's the NUMBER ONE thing ANet needs to add to their game, I'm much more towards the "impossible" route.

In regards to "we wouldn't need to add more to it": Sure, that's one of two possible paths. But the other one - making your playerbase even more happy by releasing new content - is much more likely to win many more players. It's why Valve releases new weapons and gamemodes, why Bungie releases new maps (and now single-player content as well), and why ANet followed in the exact same path. The problem that ANet had, however, was that they created more than they could handle. They should've learned from Blizzard who knew that adding too many options could lead to an unbalanced crapheap (proof? See what happened with Dawn of War).

I don't think it's a matter of GW PvE becoming "bloated", but instead becoming tired. Games don't last forever, no matter how many times you dress them up.

I don't think Pamelf's request was off-topic.

Adding new classes and skills is not the same as adding new dungeons and areas. The former let's you play the content in a new way while the latter lets you experience new content in a familiar way, and due to how caught up you can get with your characters it's usually more applauded to implement new areas to play in.

How is it "pure"? The fact that it didn't used to have so much "crap"?

That's where I'm going to have to end that, since many are going to disagree with your definition of what made the game unpure.

Then why are my posts chopped up to bajeezus and back? Granted they're not as drastic JD did, but none is better than any.

Heroes didn't kill guild wars. The game just kept getting bigger and bigger. As a result, the player base was spread thinner and thinner. Some outposts are all but empty. It's darn near impossible to get a pick-up group in some of the later factions missions. Seriously, try getting a henchless/heroless group together in Hatchery or Eternal Grove. Heroes provided a rather stylish band-aid to a serious problem. The perfect solution would be to have enough real live players in all places... but failing in that, heroes do a sufficient job of making your party a little more adaptable/flexable than what Hench alone would allow.

Now with three heroes and four hench, there are few places in the game that are impossible to overcome. And for those places, please don't tell me you can't find 1 friend, one lonely friend who can tap in three heroes of their own in order to give you a hand. If that is the case, your problem is a little bigger than not having enough active hero slots. I'll leave you to think that over.

1 Vote for "3 heroes are sufficient".

I think we understand what each other are trying to say finally. Basically I think the game was better off before heroes, but you are saying since the game has become what it is then 7 heroes is reasonable. Thats fair enough. I just dislike what the game has become and have hopefully shown why throughout my posts.

I didn't say heroes killed GW. I said they were a part of making the game worse than it used to be. You also bring up my and everybody I know's experience as a "small sample size", but then bring up your own experience of not seeing heroes as a problem. Aren't you a small sample size as well?

They were riddled with balancing concerns because of the additions to PvE. In that sense, the additions to PvE caused the inbalance in PvP. See what I mean?

Its not hard to maintain multiplayer in GW1. The problem is they didn't do it. They made the decision to turn it into a single player game.

Also think about this point. I think its fair to assume that most people who are playing Guild Wars a lot have already beaten all the content. So why are they still playing? They are probably replaying the game for reasons other than the content. Perhaps it is for the community or for the titles or for their characters or for farming or for various other reasons. None of those required the massive land expansion that caused the fragmented world.

Yes Anet probably will show what they learned in GW1 for GW2...and that is great for soloers...but I am strongly suspecting bad for people who enjoy multiplayer and PvP and possibly everything else. Just a guess of course, but I wouldn't be shocked at all if I turn out to be right.

I'm not assuming the thoughts of many, I'm simply stating the obvious that the world is disconnected. And yes its true that all the things you mentioned were probably contributing factors, including heroes. Thats why I think some of them should have never happened.

Its impossible because they added some of the above contributers and added to a growing problem. I think I said earlier that they made the problem so large to a point where it was impossible to fix.

I agree with what you say here, particularly the bolded. I'm not convinced that you make the playerbase even more happy by releasing new content though. Maybe temporary happiness, but not long term happiness. I think you make the playerbase happy by making a good replayable game and keeping it updated (Blizzard and Valve are masters at this). Instead Anet threw a bunch of content at us (some of it suboptimal) and wanted us to be happy. But we aren't happy. We just want more content or 7 heroes or whatever else and don't care about what happens to the quality of the game. Enter Guild Wars 2.

I understand what pamelf is trying to say now as stated above.

More applauded by who? Not by me, but oh well. I would much rather play the game in new ways (called replayability) than experience new content in a familiar way (causing discontent unless constant new content is released). Even worse, it causes the company to feel pressured to release constant new content so it often comes out shallow or with problems. See Nightfall.

Yes to your question. But yes many will disagree with my definition. But many (I'd easily say most) will also agree that the game was better back then.

They are? Hum...I think I am responding to the prominent points.

Quote Wars may be more fun than Guild Wars, but it's also a pain for anyone else who wants to read anything. Try to quote the gist of your adversary's argument, and then reply, including all your rebuttals into a single set of paragraphs.

You're not the only ones reading, remember.

Well we all read the "experiences may change" too you know, we expected the game to develop but here is the the gotcha! the statements stated on the box are the boundaries or fixed limits of change that can be expected, to do anything less is fraud to do anything more is a bonus.

I don't use my experience of why heroes aren't a problem, just why I use them. I use what I see and what we all know - huge gameworld, the inaccessibility of heroes, the faulty party system, the lack of a global player search - as to what to "pin the blame" on and why heroes aren't a problem.

It wasn't the additions to PvE, it was simply the additions of new professions and skills. It wasn't a PvE-only thing, they were added to both gametypes.

It's less that ANet "didn't maintain the multiplayer" and less that they couldn't. This is again going back to the lacking party-search improvements: These days they're a necessity for every online party-based RPG, and the only reason for ANet to not put in something that would save their game is because they can't (and I don't see how they've made it "impossible" when this very thing, the better party-search, is something that would solve (or help) that "impossible" problem).

And no, it's not fair to assume what "most people" have done or are doing in Guild Wars. Don't assume the thoughts of many.

It's all about choice. The difference with the choice in GW2 is you're not totally screwed if you can't find other people to play with. Just enter the mission solo and they won't be at a disadvantage.

There's a huge difference between what Blizzard have (largely with WC3 and SC), what Valve has (CS:S, TF2) and what ANet has - and that's user created content. Being able to create and play new gametypes, maps, levels, weapons, characters, etc. ALL multiply the amount of game you can have nearly a ten-fold.

No matter what you do and how polished you make it, you will never be able to emulate the amount of replayability that comes with custom content. Some may stand paramount by bearing incredible mechanics, others stay standing due to a never-ending supply of new, player-made gameplay.

How would adding new classes cause less discontent than adding new areas? Couldn't a person be just as bored of a new class as they can be with a new area? Could a person be bored even quicker with new classes instead of new areas, and vice versa?

Sure, but how many will blame heroes as a problem? Or new continents as a problem? New skills as a problem? New professions? New PvP modes? New etc. etc.? Don't assume.

We are doing a bit too many personal attacks in this thread. If it can't be controlled then it will be closed.

Mod Edit: If you have a problem with moderation or moderator's, you will need to PM Inde regarding this. Public discussion of moderation, moderator's, etc is not permitted by the Forum Rules. Perhaps now is a chance for you to read the Forum Rules and take note of section #15.

Y'know, there's something people don't realize:
Heroes were a good thing, because people could take with co-operative AI instead of being with people they didn't want to be with in the first place, who will ragequit because of n00bish behavior.
Think about it. We want to enjoy the game at our own pace!

7 heros isnt going to kill off this game anymore then the delay for GW2 will. ill bet with all the copies sold there isnt more then 500,000 accounts in use right now. probably closer to 250,000 active(active being someone who still logs on a minimun of 4-5 hours a week). theres no good reason to not give us 7 heros. not many will play in a PuG anymore for the obvious reason already stated in this thread and other threads. giving us 7 heros might be the only thing that breaths life in the game other then more content between now and the end of 2009 to early 2010 when GW2 might be released

I vote no. I'm out.

We can already take 7 AIs with us, only we can't customise 4 of them, which is a major downer. It's my party, why can't I make it how I like?
Heroes are a fine addition to the game, 7 of them is not unbalanced. That's like saying any kind of skill synergy between players is unbalanced.

Besides, when your not in a guild and all your friends are offline, what then? PuG? I'd probably have more luck on my own.

Is this how it goes?

You: Okay guys we're gonna go vanquish/do mission/quest etc.

Heroes: Cool, can we come?

You: Yes, 3 of you can because those complete strangers over there want to come too and that means only 3 of you can go

Heroes: Wt??

You: I know, we have no control over them, jeez, can't even flag them for the most part.

Heroes: Why are you taking them and not us then?

You: Good question

Here's a reminder for the Live team how they can make the majority of the playerbase happy by one implementation: 7 heroes.



No need to create my own topic when we have this one and the search function working again on guru. It would be nice to see it get stickied.