Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arcady
Maybe you wanted to pick Oblivion instead of GW?
|
Should there be heros in GW2
FireFox
BlackSephir
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arcady
Maybe you wanted to pick Oblivion instead of GW?
|
Oh, it isn't, even skill-gain is different.
Besides, I picked the right thing. I wanted an online game which I could play solo- and GW is that kind of game!
You little fail, you. Tsk, tsk.
How you keep breathing is a mystery.
I pity the fools who have no idea what they're buying...
grottoftl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arcady
If you want solo play, why are you logging onto the internet for it? Games like Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Zelda, and even Leisure Suit Larry (
 ) have much richer story development and graphical ability.An online game is social by its very nature. |
everyone failed to give a valid reason why soloing shouldnt be allowed in online games
bamm bamm bamm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arkantos
Still waiting to hear a good, constructive reason why heroes should not be in GW2 other then "This is an MMO, you have to play with others" or "I don't like playing with heroes so nobody else should be able to".
|
I think they've found a good middle-ground with one companion. I agree that 7 H/H is too much, but I also agree that AI companions is a GW 'thing' they should continue with in some form. I'm not necessarily set on 1 companion, but I agree with 'less than a whole party of them'.
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm
I would say that 'pugging' is generally considered part of the difficulty of a mission, and when everyone solos, all the good people H/H or group together and all the inept people have no-one to learn from. Everyone gets into the habit of only talking to their guild members, and the social aspect of the game dies on it's arse. The gap between the skilled and the inept becomes huge. As it stands now, people like most of the posters here breeze through the game without trying, while most other people struggle. I think H/H is partly to blame for this. Of course, a campaign-based content system is partly to blame for the existence of heroes in the first place. And people don't just breeze through campaigns because of H/H, and they're not 'the death of talking' either, but it all contributes to a very walled and hierarchical community.
I think they've found a good middle-ground with one companion. I agree that 7 H/H is too much, but I also agree that AI companions is a GW 'thing' they should continue with in some form. I'm not necessarily set on 1 companion, but I agree with 'less than a whole party of them'. |
Arkantos
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm
I would say that 'pugging' is generally considered part of the difficulty of a mission, and when everyone solos, all the good people H/H or group together and all the inept people have no-one to learn from. Everyone gets into the habit of only talking to their guild members, and the social aspect of the game dies on it's arse. The gap between the skilled and the inept becomes huge. As it stands now, people like most of the posters here breeze through the game without trying, while most other people struggle. I think H/H is partly to blame for this. Of course, a campaign-based content system is partly to blame for the existence of heroes in the first place. And people don't just breeze through campaigns because of H/H, and they're not 'the death of talking' either, but it all contributes to a very walled and hierarchical community.
|
Tbh I don't see a problem with people only playing with H/H and guildies, and people only wanting to talk to guildies. You really can't blame them. Look at the average GW pugger. They have bad builds, fail to understand what to do in the game and most of them are ignorant immature assholes. People shouldn't be forced to play with others that act like 8 year olds that have no clue about the game. Even before heroes were introduced, people didn't want to pug.
As it's been said before, people aren't around all the time. Remove heroes and someone has to choose between guildies and pugs. If guildies aren't online, someone is forced to play with bad players. If someone is forced to play with bad players, they won't play at all.
With the introduction of heroes, people were happy they could get harder stuff done by themselves. Take away heroes and people are going to be mad. ANet said Guild Wars is a game where you can play with others or solo. Now because of people who think that everybody should play with others, heroes should be removed? That's going to do nothing but get people mad.
Heroes didn't ruin the social aspect of the game. The community chose heroes over others. That's the communities fault. If you want Guild Wars to be social, then the community needs to learn to be social. If they can't, why do you want to force them to? A player forced to play with others is a mad player. A player that will quit your group if one thing goes wrong. A player that will bitch and moan if you have xx on your bar. That's not a player you want to play with.
In the end, the people who bought Guild Wars because you could play it solo will get screwed over because others want a social game. How fair is that?
Ken34
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thunder Mancer
I'd prefer no heroes or "companions". I don't mind henchies, but limit them. Why even play an online game if you want to just sit there and play by yourself?
|
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arkantos
As it's been said before, people aren't around all the time. Remove heroes and someone has to choose between guildies and pugs. If guildies aren't online, someone is forced to play with bad players. If someone is forced to play with bad players, they won't play at all.
|
I pwnd U
No matter what happens whether they put them in or not, all players are not going to PUG. They will either run with Guild mates or they will just go with henchies. You can't force people to play with other players without people throwing fits.
bamm bamm bamm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arkantos
So basically what you're trying to say is instead of the good players breezing through the game with h/h, they have to struggle and pug with the bad players?
|
Arkantos
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm
Well, in an ideal scenario the game would be playable if a person was only with his companion, on his own, in a large group, or any other configuration. But in lieu of that, I'm saying you should struggle with some players, who might be bad. Hey, it's character building.
|
bamm bamm bamm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arkantos
There are few players in Guild Wars who are actually good. You'll be playing with some players who are more then likely to be bad. That's why people choose dumb AI over dumb players. If there were less completely horrible players in Guild Wars, there would be more successful pugs, so there would be more people willing to pug. Until then, pugs are bad and for the most part pugs are dead.
|
But as I say, I would rather solo play be an option, but if the sequel is going to be team-play only, I want to see a team partly constructed of people.
CHannum
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thunder Mancer
I'd prefer no heroes or "companions". I don't mind henchies, but limit them. Why even play an online game if you want to just sit there and play by yourself?
|
I love it when I can actually meet up with a friend in game, it's a lot of fun. However, much of the time that's simply impossible. I want the option to play solo AND the option to play with people.
Mineria
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
It's been stated that the whole game can be played solo, so there'd be no point.
Also stated that you can have one companion with you if you want. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vinraith
Regardless, while I'm ok with the D2 design it's a marked step down from GW1, where you had a full party dynamic to manage with heroes.
|
Won't we be able to play like now with full human and/or h+h party's in GW2?
If so, that would suck.
CHannum
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm
I guess my extension would be 'people are stupid because pugging was never encouraged'.
|
It's not just a matter of playing skill, it's also the differing expectations. At one end you've got people are literally playing just for fun. They don't really care about doing it right, they don't care about formations, pulling, aggro management - they're perfectly content to try and get through something by brute force and ignorance. At the other end, you've got the control freak perfectionists who either try and boss everyone around and/or quit 1/4 of the way through because "everyone sucks".
Real life friends or a compatible guild get around this by grouping people with similar outlooks on the game. Otherwise, you get what you get everywhere, a random slice of humanity with the expected results. Forcing or otherwise strongly encouraging any particular play style just leaves everyone else alienated and either quitting or never buying the game in the first place.
Ghost Omel
Wait Wait so you telling me if i Decide to do a Mission or somehting without Guildies or Henchmen/heroes i automaticaly become a Bad Horrible player AkA Pug
PuGs arent always bad passed load of things with random PuGs no problem maybe you exagerating or play constatly with bad ppl hehe
PuGs arent always bad passed load of things with random PuGs no problem maybe you exagerating or play constatly with bad ppl hehe
AuraofMana
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mage767
Sounds like Neverwinter Nights.
|
nugzta
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghost Omel
Wait Wait so you telling me if i Decide to do a Mission or somehting without Guildies or Henchmen/heroes i automaticaly become a Bad Horrible player AkA Pug
PuGs arent always bad passed load of things with random PuGs no problem maybe you exagerating or play constatly with bad ppl hehe |
If Anet somehow can make a system to tell good and bad players in PuG (highly unlikely), I might consider to PuG. It would lead to discrimination in grouping but it will weed out the majority of bad players. But as it stands now, heroes is still better method.
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mineria
That makes me a bit confused.
Won't we be able to play like now with full human and/or h+h party's in GW2? If so, that would suck. |
I think all we're being given is an AI companion (just 1) and that's it.
arcanemacabre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm
Well, in an ideal scenario the game would be playable if a person was only with his companion, on his own, in a large group, or any other configuration. But in lieu of that, I'm saying you should struggle with some players, who might be bad. Hey, it's character building.
|
"So why don't you just go play a single-player game?"
Many have refuted this with the simple "I like Guild Wars, and I bought Guild Wars because it was a game you could play on your own." There is also more to it. I like to play GW with friends, too, on occasion. I also to like to PuG, from time to time. I don't want to be forced to PuG all the time. Now name me a game where I could do all that, and play solo when I want. Oh, right, Guild Wars. Thank you, but I am playing the game that is right for me, despite the fact that you "It's a social game!" people want to change it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, you guys are playing the wrong game? Ever consider it?
Ken34
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arcanemacabre
This isn't directed at you, bamm, but I am quoting you because it addresses this. The concern to play solo is not just because some people don't like to play with bad players. For me, it's entirely because I want to play at my own pace, not others. This goes both ways, too. If I want to just get something done, like a specific mission/quest, I don't want to waste time getting a group together, then waiting for everyone to adjust their build, and then every five minutes have to wait for someone to identify a drop, go to the bathroom, feed their fish, whatever. It also means if I want to pause for any of those reasons myself, I don't want to be inconveniencing others in their desire to just play.
"So why don't you just go play a single-player game?" Many have refuted this with the simple "I like Guild Wars, and I bought Guild Wars because it was a game you could play on your own." There is also more to it. I like to play GW with friends, too, on occasion. I also to like to PuG, from time to time. I don't want to be forced to PuG all the time. Now name me a game where I could do all that, and play solo when I want. Oh, right, Guild Wars. Thank you, but I am playing the game that is right for me, despite the fact that you "It's a social game!" people want to change it. Perhaps, just perhaps, you guys are playing the wrong game? Ever consider it? |
guild wars is like the perfect game, u can do the missions yourself or if you felt like it interact and PuG with others. I was originally a full time PuGer when i first started playing this game, and there were certain missions that just seemed really hard for no reason, now that i got nightfall and i have heroes, i do these missions by myself, and i wonder "how in the world was i afraid of this mission, its a joke". but at the same time, ive been in some glorious PuGs for stuff like ring of fire missions or THK, and it is the best feeling in the world when everyone is working together doing thier job and taking it seriously, nothing beats that feeling of good teamwork with human players, probably the best experience guild wars has to offer.
Isileth
As for people asking why solo players play an online game.
Because I like GW. It has all the features I enjoy.
Wasnt a level based grind.
Skill > Time
Limited skill on your bar so the rest of your team actually matter.
PvP
It was also advertised as a game you can play solo.
Dont turn round and say it shouldnt be played solo.
You are welcome to play the game how you like, let us do the same.
Because I like GW. It has all the features I enjoy.
Wasnt a level based grind.
Skill > Time
Limited skill on your bar so the rest of your team actually matter.
PvP
It was also advertised as a game you can play solo.
Dont turn round and say it shouldnt be played solo.
You are welcome to play the game how you like, let us do the same.
leprekan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alexandra-Sweet
I hope they will atleast force people to take atleast one other human player, like they have now with heroes.
|
People have VERY selective memory on this topic. It wasn't a utopia before heroes. Even in the first week there were jerks and attempted ripoffs. Things did not improve with each week that passed either. It may have seemed better for getting a pug .. we were ALL starting out new and NEEDED eachother .. called limited options. But what happens when that initial wave of people is out of that area? How about little Timmy that gets it 3 months later? The antihero people need to get a clue (not saying you are one) taking them out of the game would be a step backwards.
Lagg
Heroes, loot scaling and Ursan Blessing.
That's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say.
AuraofMana
Quote:
|
Wasnt a level based grind. Skill > Time Limited skill on your bar so the rest of your team actually matter. PvP |
Another one is no longer true if you change a 5 letter word into another 5 letter word.
Isileth
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AuraofMana
One of the above is no longer true.
Another one is no longer true if you change a 5 letter word into another 5 letter word. |
People are suggesting that players who purchased it to play solo shouldnt have. Which would be bad enough without factoring in it was advertised as a game you can play solo.
ayame ftw
henchman yes / heros no
Mineria
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
From the sounds of it, instanced missions and areas will be scaled according to party size. Think Hellgate.
I think all we're being given is an AI companion (just 1) and that's it. |
Bit of a shame thou, since having the ability to bring a complete party of AI makes the game more interesting even for those who prefer to go solo all the way.
Not a very original idea either, its then just like being a huntard bringing its pet.
Mineria
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ayame ftw
henchman yes / heros no
|
Saying "no" and not even explaining why.
This sound to me like you don't own Nightfall, neither Eye of the North.
Or your having problems finding someone to play with?
Ever tried to look around on the fansite forums?
Guild are recruiting all the time, and there are even people looking for others to pug things with.
Or your against the heroes because you got no clue how to set their skills bars, and then no one else should be allowed to use them?
Isileth
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mineria
So like Dungeons & Dragons Online but with 1 AI companion only to take.
Bit of a shame thou, since having the ability to bring a complete party of AI makes the game more interesting even for those who prefer to go solo all the way. Not a very original idea either, its then just like being a huntard bringing its pet. |
AuraofMana
I like the concept that you can make any team setup you want, but the MMO factor is pretty important in a MMORPG. Still haven't thought up any solutions to that.
Then again, GW2 DID sound like where your characters are more powerful compared to what it is in place now (more WOW-like, as mentioned by my MANY MANY BURNING FLAMES) as mentioned above. We really have to wait and see until more infos are released. What we think we know are purely based on what GW1 is (sadly GW2 should be based on what GW1 was all about IN THE BEGINNING instead of WOW and latter GW1).
Then again, GW2 DID sound like where your characters are more powerful compared to what it is in place now (more WOW-like, as mentioned by my MANY MANY BURNING FLAMES) as mentioned above. We really have to wait and see until more infos are released. What we think we know are purely based on what GW1 is (sadly GW2 should be based on what GW1 was all about IN THE BEGINNING instead of WOW and latter GW1).
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mineria
Bit of a shame thou, since having the ability to bring a complete party of AI makes the game more interesting even for those who prefer to go solo all the way.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mineria
Not a very original idea either, its then just like being a huntard bringing its pet.
|
nightwatchman
Just wanted to bring up another memory from the glory days of pugging. This was from before heroes, and at a time when most people hadn't worked out how to do all the missions in their sleep.
Sitting in a packed THK district with 5 or 6 teams all desparately spamming "6/8 lfg two monks and go".
Even when there were pugs, they weren't the right pugs.
Sitting in a packed THK district with 5 or 6 teams all desparately spamming "6/8 lfg two monks and go".
Even when there were pugs, they weren't the right pugs.
Neriandal Freit
I've voted 'No' for the Heroes.
I highly missing having to team up with a bunch of people (or better yet, your guildies) that you don't know and hoping you all worked together and had your skills set right.
I wouldn't mind this however for heroes: A Limitation. We are allowed to say have two heroes total for our character, we get to pick them and then they are there for good. That way we could feel like we could also focus on them while advancing each of our characters with out going "...I have to spend xxx on Hero Monk weapons just so I can go and do this mission."
I highly missing having to team up with a bunch of people (or better yet, your guildies) that you don't know and hoping you all worked together and had your skills set right.
I wouldn't mind this however for heroes: A Limitation. We are allowed to say have two heroes total for our character, we get to pick them and then they are there for good. That way we could feel like we could also focus on them while advancing each of our characters with out going "...I have to spend xxx on Hero Monk weapons just so I can go and do this mission."
Isileth
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neriandal Freit
I highly missing having to team up with a bunch of people (or better yet, your guildies) that you don't know and hoping you all worked together and had your skills set right.
|
Both options can be viable at the same time.
Neriandal Freit
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Isileth
You still can. Dont make others who dont enjoy that have to however.
Both options can be viable at the same time. |
Hence why I made my other suggestion I will be in favor of.
pumpkin pie
I am going to regret saying this, because I absolutely must have heros and hench, but for the sake of people who wants to pug.
Pay to get henchmen to join your party, and no sharing of loots and gold with henchmen only with heros.
Pay to get henchmen to join your party, and no sharing of loots and gold with henchmen only with heros.
Isileth
@Neriandal Freit (Because I type to slow)
You seem to be making the mistake in thinking if you limit solo play people will pug instead.
Most players will either carry on going solo or just quit.
Even should those players join you, do you really want people who dont actually want to be pugging on your team?
And then going past that further, why is your gameplay experience more important than theirs? Why should they be made to pug just so you have someone to play with?
You seem to be making the mistake in thinking if you limit solo play people will pug instead.
Most players will either carry on going solo or just quit.
Even should those players join you, do you really want people who dont actually want to be pugging on your team?
And then going past that further, why is your gameplay experience more important than theirs? Why should they be made to pug just so you have someone to play with?
Mordakai
This conversation has gone off track.
GW2 will be soloable, according to everything I've read. Anet's not going to bite the hand that feeds it.
The discussion is not whether GW2 will be soloable or not, the question is should we have one Companion, 3 Heroes or More?
And what are the real pros / cons adding more Heros?
GW2 will be soloable, according to everything I've read. Anet's not going to bite the hand that feeds it.
The discussion is not whether GW2 will be soloable or not, the question is should we have one Companion, 3 Heroes or More?
And what are the real pros / cons adding more Heros?
Isileth
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mordakai
This conversation has gone off track.
GW2 will be soloable, according to everything I've read. Anet's not going to bite the hand that feeds it. The discussion is not whether GW2 will be soloable or not, the question is should we have one Companion, 3 Heroes or More? And what are the real pros / cons adding more Heros? |
Im not a fan of running Jack of all Trades builds that are often required when you reduce the player numbers down.