Why does ArenaNet want to change its players' lifestyle?

So OK... I've been reading the thread about customizable hench and/or full hero parties.

And then I read this:
http://news.mmosite.com/content/2008...509308,1.shtml

Now that's what I call healthy. So yeah there are a bunch of people out there that just don't like to socialize with "strangers". And it's really OK, they're not weirdos, as normally you wouldn't walk up to a complete stranger in the street asking if they want to "party" with you. So I can see where that comes from.

What I can't explain is ArenaNet trying to force people into being "social". Everybody plays a game the way they like, can't really see the point of game designers trying to change the personality of the people that play the game.

So either ArenaNet is not going after the shy/not so social gamers and they are loosing that segment of the market or they want to force them to change their personality to fit their game design.

Both cases lead to one conclusion: poor "design" in this particular perspective.

So how about ArenaNet drops that mentality and accommodates different play styles and different player personalities and allow people that want to take full hero parties out do that, and people that want to play with other people do that. Doesn't seem reasonable to me to force any side to play any different than they want to.

And those that believe it's a really bad idea because it will cause pugs to be even more rare one question: do you really want to pug with the people that want to play alone all times and say nothing? Probably not. And so don't they.

As a thought:
How about give everyone what they want and drop the silly argument that the game wasn't meant to be played that way. That does not matter, all it matters is how people play it and want to play it.

I, for one, don't care. I like pugs, but I would also love to be able to play on my own when European districts are all empty (and americans asleep), because again I want to achieve things even if there is no one around at the time I play, and I can't really change my schedule so that I play when most people are online. You know... this is a game I play when I get some free time and that is at random times. It's not actually driving my life and my schedule.

Just some 2 cents.

WAR is open world and has random encounters.

Public Quests still theoretically put you into a non-committed group with other people that are fighting for a single goal, you just don't have to find them beforehand or stick with them after the PQ is over. The PQs have 3 stages, you can't do 2 and 3 without help from other players.

Full hero parties in GW wouldn't put you in such situation at no place, ever. All areas are instances.

Let's not diverge into a discussion of WAR. It's not the point I am trying to make here, WAR just happened to be the subject of that review. The remark that people are more or less social and want to play more or less socially applies to GW as well.

There are 'public quests' in GW in which you don't have to join a party to enjoy the action and it's still a community effort - various festival games like collecting those glowing orbs during the Dragon Festival come to mind. In GW1 this kind of activity must happen inside outposts and the restriction is one of the main reasons for why ANet decided to pursue GW2. They have specifically stated that community efforts where anybody can decide to help (or not) at any time will be a large feature enabled through persistent explorables.

Also, if you're so inclined, you can already play through the PvE side without ever partying up with another player. The henches are there and they're good enough for HM as well. If you're failing with 3 heroes + 4 henches then the option to have 7 heroes instead wouldn't exactly help a lot because the problem lies elsewhere.

This is a circular problem.

It starts with the fact that just because you own the same game or anything else it doesn't mean that you have the same objectives or the same way to approach the game.

Then a large percentage of the players are young males. That brings egoccentric and the know all to the table.

I know flare is bad. I know inferno is bad. But that guy is using it. If I say something to the other person, there's a good chance that he/she will see it as a personal attack and he/she will think "who the hell is this guy/girl to tell me how to play the game". This is the game aspect.

On the social aspect, age differences, different kinds of beliefs and sense of humor, might cause rifts.

So its not that unexpected that given the choice to the stuff their way, some players choose to do so, without having to spend time approaching other people.

Now, the reverse is, that playing a game with someone that is fun and/or a competent player is rather more interesting experience.


So, you have a two-fold problem. If you force people to play with each other, some will try, get frustrated and leave the game. Others will find someone that as a compatible personality/set of goals and then stop partying with other people.

If you give the players option to do their stuff alone, they wont look for people to party, meaning newer players will have problems finding more seasoned players that can give them some hints. Also eventually, those seasoned players will accomplish whatever their goals were, and without a group of friends they will move on another game.

If you don't give those players means to play the game the way they want, when they want, they will also leave, so there is no easy way around it.

I've a partner to play a good amount of time. And its great fun. I found it by chance, but now I invite random people less and less, cause most of the time is an hassle, although, in some rare occasions you can find a nice person.

In the end you can't force anyone to party with someone they don't want to. But the designers also have the right to choose what kind of game they want. There are no magic wands though.

No you can't

While I do agree with you that henches are there and are an option, they are not a viable option though.

I used to play with my friend most of the time. After he decided to go play other games I was forced much more to wait for hours and hours to get parties for trying out HM dungeons. By the time I could form the party, my free time that I planned to play gw was up (it took 2h at least every time, and sometimes I was not successful in finding not even one person to join me). So my PvE time in guild wars for the last month has been: waiting for hours to form a pug or, having been fed up with that from previous days waits: h/h.

H/h just did bad in the dungeons I tried. So for quite a long time now I haven't achieved much in PvE.

And I believe ArenaNet, besides all that I have mentioned before, disregards a very important aspect as well. Since my friend left gw, and I don't seem to have possibilities to continue playing, I am basically pushed towards another game. Most probably the same my friend left for.

Just like friends make a community and they spread the word around, the same thing can happen in reverse. Friends can leave and they take with them all of their friends.

I don't really want to move on to another game, but I also don't want to be spending my spare time in front of the screen spamming "lfp" to no results. Sometimes (in the weekends) that works pretty cool, but whenever I want to play during the week... there's no one there and nothing I can do with h/h.

Yes you can. With proper builds you can do 99% of PvE H/H. In NM and HM.

The only thing you can't do is elite areas. No Henchmen.

cuz half of the people on GW aren't as smart as my heroes

100% true.

And I don't know the solution to all this to be honest. All I know is that I am tired of spamming "lfg" all available time to play gw, instead of actually playing.

I also know what allowing me to fully customize my party will get me going on with this game, a viable option for (lets face it) a dying game. That would at least keep me around for maybe even GW2 time.

I also do know that I would pug if that would be an option. I do that in weekends mostly, so the full hero party won't kill my social instincts for sure.

And lastly I know that if I leave gw now for another game I will never be back, not even for GW2. I just don't have time to invest in two games.

It's just impossible to have social instincts in deserted outposts, don't you think? So in a way I am hoping they would make the "deserted outpost" situation cope-able until GW2 so that I don't leave

Best thing is find a decent guild. How? Don't ask me.

About desert outposts - that is a reason they decide to kill gw. Too many starting-mid level content. C'mon 3 starting campaigns to level ur characters and cap skills?

There are just too many places where people can be. Probably GW2 will be a more vertical game, with less content for lower levels and more end-game (I guess gws endgame was supposed to be pvp).

Although in GW2 they might be adopting Diablo strategy - you can finish the game alone, but you get better rewards and more challenge with more players. How they propose to do make all classes self sustaining without stuff like potions (plz don't bring them!!!) is the true question.

This isn't PuG wars. This is GUILD wars. If I wanted to group with random n00btards who will fail the mission, I would play World of Warcraft.
The single player, yet still online aspect is what attracted me to GW.

All I can say is that this article is stupid and I am disappointed in their lacking of common sense.
The reason people aren't pugging is because there is 4 different worlds in the game. And even if we did have less areas: Are they saying that newbs should be partying with grievers will will bitch and moan about any mistake a newb makes? Stuff is fine the way it is. I still see people PuGing. If people have beaten the game, how is that anyone's fault? It's their broken mechanics.

Problem is that in classical MMO you can be social in many more ways than in GW and you have much more opportunities to interact with other players:

* You see random strangers around doing their stuff. Generally, even if they are killing foes you want to kill they help you out by making killing easier thanks to lesser density of mobs.
* You can help out if you see someone is loosing battle, someone can help you out. Or you can ignore them.
* You can cast some long lasting buff on random person you meet on road. Possibly triggering "retaliation" in form of different buff. OR you two can just pass eachother.
* If you see someone doing same quest you can opt to ally for that quest. Or not. Or you can even just help out someone doing different quest which is hard.

In GW you have to choose up to 7 players and then do X with them.

That is huge difference: in GW you are kinda forced to be social with quite a lot of people all the time. Game is designed around fact that there is no "alone time". And it gets tiring fast.

U'mmm, I agree.
However, just to note, more and more girls are playing these MMO's now.
People are bored........XD
Plus I like the GW system, Vs. all others, just wish there was a instance "OFF" button for certain things.

There's a huge incentive to get people to play with each other. Players playing with other people will play longer, start communities that keep them tied to the game, and are able to enjoy more complex gameplay. What's more, they'll bring their friends in to play too.

It's nice to be able to play alone when you feel like it, but it's in Anet's best interest that you make some friends.

The below is a quote from:

ArenaNet's James Phinney (Game Design Team Lead)

"Guild Wars lets you play the way you want to play. We've had a few years now of observing our players and their tendencies and preferences. Whether their play-style focuses on exploration, story, wealth, collection, achievements, socializing, PvP, playing solo or with strangers or friends, our goal is to give them a rich and rewarding experience playing the game they want to play. With Guild Wars 2, we'd seek to diversify their options even further."

I don't think you have to worry about Anet "forcing" players to do anything.

Ok off topic I know but this is simply not true.

You can not individually flag your four henchmen. They do not have builds that utilize all 8 skill slots. Most importantly, you can not customize their builds and armor to contend with a particular set of foes or a particular boss.

This game is one part skill and one part finding the right build. This is why pvxwiki and the whole template system exists in the first place. If another player has already created and tested a build that works in a given scenario, why reinvent the wheel?

Not to mention how much this cuts down on party formation time (a bit on topic there). Throw me (or my heroes) a good build template any time. If it looks cool, I'll try it. If not I'll keep what I'm using.

Ok off topic over.

This is not how they truly design their games though. They almost always have a tunnel vision way things are going to happen and then throw a veneer of things that are only 'diversity' on the surface.

to the OP

u see guild wars is a mmo. as much as it likes to hide this fact, it still somewhat has this model. the objective of an mmo is to be massive, multiplayer, and online. the key word here is multiplayer (which ironically means playing with multiple players). anet allowing ppl to bring one heroe is already one too many. if anet allowed ppl to bring all their heroes to solo these quests, wut is the point of playing an mmo? why not just pick up a single player console game?

a lil off topic here but ask any of the old timers in guild wars from way back, and they will tell u the best time of gw was before heroes were added when ppl actually grouped up for things. there were alot of retards but that was part of the fun of pugs. i guess having 1 hero in gw2 is an ok compromise. we will see how that turns out.

I believe the GW game designers envisioned the game as a social game with everyone forming guilds, or pug teams and fighting their way through PVE or going head to head in PVP. Henches were to be more of a novelty only used to fill in spots on human teams as needed.

Right from the start that concept did not fly because people will play they way they want to play and that did not sit well. So for the longest time they have been trying to funnel people in to their vision of how we the player should play, from horrendous drop rates if you use henches, to nerfs to stop solo builds, nerfs to areas to retard soloing, to areas where it requires you to have a human party.

The more they tried the more we rebelled against it until they partially
caved in (though still clinging to their vision) and gave us three heros and only three. Because they were hoping we would still pug and guild our way because three only gives us a half a group at best.

It is this vision of how we should play this game and the designers reluctance to let it go that is really keeping us from getting seven heroes. Three was a compromise, seven would be capitulation to the masses and they simply refuse to do that.

Whether its stubborn pride, delusion, or misguided ego on part of the lead designers they will hold on to that vision until the end trying to convince themselves they are standing on principal when they are really just being foolish. I doubt they will ever no just how much their principal may have cost them in the wallet, no one will, but you can bet it has.

While I'm not saying ppl like OP doesn't exist in a decent number, A LOT more people would rather PuG...if you don't like being social on a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER online game, then go play ESIV:Oblivion...it's so much better in that regard. On an MMO people would generally like to play with others...accomadating a few for the worse of majority is bullcrap. And don't tell me it won't affect the number of the PuGs b/c it will KILL it.

For me, it's less about being "anti-social" as it is about simply acknowledging the fact that I can't type and play at the same time. I know I'm still pretty average as a player - which is fine with me, I'm playing to have fun anyway. But, I didn't want to be the n00b getting people killed when I first started GW, and H&H let me learn at my own pace. (And I thought getting killed was a bad thing. Turns out, it only matters if you're going after the Legendary Survivor title.)

Plus, building hero skill bars taught me a lot about the professions, and why some skills just work better than others, and how they synergize.

I don't know that Anet is trying to force players to change their play style. The option to play solo has always existed in the game. Granted, Prophecies henchmen suck, especially in the early parts of the game. But, I don't think it was designed that way to force players to PUG or form a guild. Really, I think they expected that people would simply prefer to play with real people vs. henchmen AI, and so not a lot of depth went into them. (I mean, come on - a lot of single player games have incredible AI, for mobs certainly, to pose a real challenge to the player. No reason friendly "follower" AI couldn't be just as smart.)

Behind this request in general is the idea that the hench are obsolete or inferior. Except for a few areas, the hench work fine for me. Further, I seem to somehow acquire all of the elite weapons I can store; loot is good enough.

Cobalt, I think you are right about the vision of the lead designers. Over the history of this game since the release of Prophecies I have posted a lot of messages trying to show them the error of their group oriented design. And they have improved things for solo players a lot since then.

But their original vision of group play is to a great extent hard coded in stone in the basic game design of GW1. I think they have done as much as they are going to do in giving us three heroes. And, for most casual players, 7 heroes will not help since they do not know how to set them up as well as the hench in the first place.

We can hope they make a game with broader appeal in GW 2. Warhammer offers a new model of cooperative play that ANet can study. We will see how popular it proves to be.

From what I have been able to tell from previews, Sacred 2 seems to have a better model for solo players as well. ANet can also see how that turns out.

At first, I rather enjoyed playing with random people (PUG’s) towards the beginning of GW lifespan, but after awhile it became apparent that I had minus 75% successes rate at getting things done with them. Overall, there are those out there who like to grief, scam, leave, leech, and cause other problems to the player base. A good majority of these problems you have to set aside when you’re just dealing with borderline AI. If I had to choose to take up more social aspects of the game, it’s better to pick a good guild over that of PUG’s any day.

The only reason why I would join any type of PUG, would be for the sheer entertainment value. It also reaffirms the idea of why I don’t use PUG’s anymore.

Pugs fail most of the time to be honest. Heroes for me were the greatest invention ever. I could form a party based around a concept or idea that I wanted, rather than trying to jam together a mis-match of random player builds. If I want to play with human players I have a guild to ask, if I want to play on my own, or if I'm in one of the many missions where there arn't even pugs to pick from, why should I/we have to suffer with the rather poor henchies? At the end of the day if you could have 7 heroes, but didn't want to use them, you wouldn't have to, if you did want to, you could. I'd like that choice.

I'm not sure it's ANet that makes that argument - that just sounds like what forum posters say.
ANet may not want another Ursanway on their hands. Every one and his dog would download the uber 7 hero builds and .....

gw isnt -all- that multiplayer
i wish it was
but its ppl like teh op that -kill- gw
(altho i think anet does it moreso)

Imo it's simply a balance issue.

The fact is heroes are often using OP'd builds which makes them just as, if not more effective and efficient, as any human player will ever be.You are also able to create build synergy easily and quickly.

Anet failed in making H/H a more desirable and usually more efficient option than pugging.End result:People PuG way less, overall PuG quality and skill levels goes down the drain, cue a snowball.

To me it's never a question of forcing a player to do anything, it's about presenting options and making the options equally viable.The problem is the desirability and power of H/H greatly outweighs the social aspect of the game.

This was seldom an issue in Prophecies as the henchies sucked and were generally a last resort.The advent of heroes and better hench AI, builds and skill use really killed the desirability and effectiveness of PuG's outside high-end areas where specific human team builds are still more effective.

If you place pugging, in general, on a weaker power tier than H/H the end result is obvious.

Anet can easily fix this by making GW2 soloable with AI assistance while keeping PuG's on a higher power tier.

Good post, OP.

I think, all in all, ANet really wanted GW to be a very sociable game. But given its mass and all of the roadblocks (entirely instanced, limited party search) it just didn't quite cut it.

Either way, when all's said and done, it's very easy to understand why GW2 is going to be for a very large majority of the game soloable.

@above: I think it's very hard to argue that heroes are OP. Granted, you're able to replace the work of 7 other people, but that becomes severely limited with the bad AI, limited build usage, and lack of PvE skills.

heroes are as good as the ppl who control them. if a player is smart wit the builds (or just copy wut someone else made), then the heroes will be OP'ed if they are given a OP build.

It's a statement which covers a multitude of facets.

In general, 8 humans will overpower any hero team out there.

What one has to take into account is, time taken to get 7 other people, build synergy, player skill, player experience, rate of success, time taken to complete goal, etc, etc, etc.

On the flipside we also have OP'd options like triple necro hero teams which blow up 99% of the game.

H/H is overpowered in the respect it is a vastly more desirable option when compared to pugging for the majority of the game for a huge number of reasons.

This needs to be balanced.

The trend is already in game and imo has lead to the current state of GW.

To the OP: no I don't think Arena Net is trying to make its players iinto something they are not, I only think they want to be the best game producers and to get us to pay for the best game they've produce.

PS: off topic
Who says players have to play with other players in a Massive Multiplayer Online Game?

Just think about it, guild wars has massive players playing on their server everyday, thats massive multiplayer online. yes or no? the answer is yes, weather they choose to interact or not is another matter.

if players say, no, i want to play alone in PvP, there will be a problem that people might think you nuts, but when players on MMO that play PvE say, no, i want to play alone, with H/H, theres no problem at all, why? because its player vs Environment in a massive multiplayer online game, the massive player base is just what it is lots of massive players online, weather they interact or not is base on what part of the game they want to play. these massive players are not require by default to play with other players just because the game genre is MMO.

I have this feeling that sooner or latter GW 2 will turn to it’s GW 1 roots in dealing with PUG’s. I highly doubt the whole “Companion System,” is going to fix the problems of the past. Don’t get me wrong I like sociable games but I can’t stand pure idiocy just for the sake of laughs. When you’re on the other end of the “grief-stick” you’ll end up having no sympathy for the third party.

I love how they assume that H/H'ers are anti-social.

They obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the social life of an average gamer. They really don't.

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that someone who prefers playing by himself instead of in groups is probably on the introverted side of things. Nothing wrong with that.

Given a choice between a PUG and H/H, most good players would choose H/H.


I don't get the OP. Since the start there has been the option to use henchmen, and that option became better with the addition of heroes. Saying that not giving players 7 heroes is forcing people to be social is like saying that a person who shares only half his lunch with you is a greedy jerk for not giving you all of it.

As for the design of the game encouraging anti-social aspects, I don't know how beneficial it would be to encourage PUGs.

If an average person, who has a job/school and plenty of friends outside the game wanted to play something with others, I think they're more likely to bring them over for split-screen action on a console. If they wanted to play GW and not somethin else, I'd imagine that they'd H/H if they have a decent understanding of the game, rather than joining a group of randoms who are likely to whine, moan, and wipe.

ArenaNet only rewards efficiency:

* Your build has to be up to the task, else you fail even if you are the best player in the world.

* Rewards scale to time! This is very important, the faster you do something, the more reward you will get. This will lead to:
(1) People demanding you to use whatever build is perceived as the fastest.
(2) People doing things alone, because waiting costs time and that means less rewards.

* The lootscaling rewards the Solo-Farmer. It does not reward the socializer, it does not reward the team effort. Most of the time you are better off farming something alone.


If we really want groups to dominate the face of Guild Wars, if we really want to reward the social teamplay, then the reward structure of the game has to change. But that is not likely to happen, since ArenaNet obviously believes that Solofarming is better than grouping. Solofarming was never really the target of any nerf. No balance update tried to remove solofarming in its entirety. So we have to recognize that Anet wants it over anything.

The same cannot be said for group farming. As soon as some type of group farming yields too much reward (read: more than the best solo farmers), then it will be hit hard with the nerfhammer. Ursan was banished, Cryway is under observation, that is sending the message to players that grouping is not something ArenaNet really wants.

Sure, you do not get punished for grouping, but you will also not be rewarded. if you farmed the same area alone, you would have earned more money. That is one of the cornerstones GW is build upon. That's why the game appears to be anti-social. The day people earn more money by grouping is the day people stop asking for 7 heroes or stick to solofarming. So bring over the lootscaling to hardmode so people stop solofarming. Increase the lootdrops for every human player on the team. Socializing should be rewarded, not efficiency alone. Full human team will get more drops than two player Sabway.

But since ArenaNet worships the religion of efficiency and solofarm showboating we will never get any reward for grouping. ArenaNet will stick to that dogma. Which is a MAJOR argument against GW as a social gaming platform. After all, people will still sit alone in front of their computer. Without an incentive to interact with the other pixels on the screen, they will most likely not do it.

I vastly prefer that over the standard MMO approach 'you must be at least level <X> and have <leetequipment> to stand a chance against <bigbadmonster>'.

I believe this to be the cornerstone of the modern economy.

Bzzzt. Wrong, loot scaling punishes solo farming and has negligible effect on team farming.

Bzzzt. Wrong, there have been several nerfs directly pointed at particular solo farming runs like the UW Chaos Planes permasin farm.

Too bad that facts disagree with your proposition here as well. UB became available on August 31, 2007 and nerfed on August 08, 2008, almost a year later. The easy permasin farm became available on May 22, 2008 and nerfed on July 07, 2008, a little over a month later.

Let me break the news to you: Loot scaling has always affected Hard Mode, it was specifically implemented for it. Also, if you kill solo farming solo farmers will just quit the game.

I thought that socializing was its own reward? What kind of socialist welfare system would you suggest, that you get 100 gold every time you invite somebody to your party?

I think that there are lots of incentives to interact and all the people I know are eager to play with other people. If you are having difficulties in that respect then maybe it's not game designers' fault that they aren't forcing people to play with you.

an economy which is not designed to foster socializing - in contrast to a social game!

It merely pushes solofarming into the hardmode. But once people got their unlimited invincibility combo running it doesn't really matter which mode you're in. The game does not punish you in HM solofarming, it rewards you even more.

There has been no attempt to stop the approach the permasin did. It was merely an attempt to limit his income. The concept of the permasin doing it alone was never attacked by the nerf.

While Ursan was completely removed from the game by giving it a rhythm which proved to be incompatible to the game, the permasin nerf was no nerf at all. Merely a minor annoyance costing some time.


I suggest AneraNet acknowledges that people do not play for single reasons, but for multiple reasons and that the reward system should address all of them. I could say the same way: "Isn't being able to kill all monsters alone reward enough? Why give out money to that player?"


Please name three incentives to interact with other people. No intrinsic ones, but incentives given FROM the game TO the player.

Once a player crosses a certain bridge he will come to think of lonewolfing as the best approach to the game. If the game can upset this train of though it will be a better one. Why would I group with a total newbie if I created a new character now? If the game can answer that easy question, it will be much more social in nature. Not because people aren't 'greedy scum', but because the game's design exploits that for a purpose. (btw, it doesn't need to be a gold reward. even Tutor titles would suffice)

• rare items
• reward chests for elite content
• all of PvP