How did Heroes kill Guild Wars?

Nope. This thread is legit and not an attempt to troll.

And I am being serious.

I can respect that, I would have just worded it differently.

That doesn't work for me because the west boss takes too long to kill. Maybe for other primary, it will be faster. By the time I run back to the east bombard, it is almost gone. I can do this much faster with human players without ever losing a single bombardment. I want to find out if there is a 3 heroes+4 henchies build to achieve the same thing with the same amount of ease. You have to convince me that it is faster and easier to use H/H for that mission in order for me not to rely on human players.

If you can prove that for ALL missions and areas it is cheaper (in time and difficulty) to use H/H over human players, then what Dreamwind says about heroes replacing human players make sense. But if having human players make ALL missions and areas cheaper (in time and difficulty) to complete, then heroes do not replace human players. In many areas, it just seems to me that using H/H to complete, takes more effort than relying on other human players.

My former guildie played ranger so that should not be the main problem
But he put a lot of time in learning to H&H the game and controling his heroes.

The main primary I expect problems with is someone playing monk, specially when healing/protting. It's not easy calling targets while making sure red bars don't go down too much.
The next is assassin except when playing something like critical barrager.
The class depends too much on the rest of the team to keep him clear to spike a priority target. It's also far easier to focus on one target as team, something H&H teams do. The other classes seem doable to me.
H&H instead of human players indeed depends on waiting time.
Playing with humans is always easier but a 2/6 team often won't gain more than 30 mins back. On small vanquishes the gain won't get past 15 mins.

This is a rough estimation though.

Foundry HM. Can't think of any 2-person + hero team except the regular Famine Farming team. Not sure if they can finish up the areas last bosses though, I'm not a farmer. And you need a human monk to 600 the area.
So options are very limited.
I think I remember TAM/GoE played a build that could include heroes. Not sure if it still works and TAM and GoE were at the top of the game back then (dunno about their current status).

I used a mixed necro team at Dzagonur (two MM + SS).
One MM flagged near Ele Boss to keep those foes away.
What helps a lot here is speed boosts and knowing movement of foes.
Devona as hench will help with charge, you could go /P and invest some points in Command for skills like 'Fall Back' (I think that's the one). Or put it on the MM hero and drop Soul Reaping somewhat.
Boss down means moving to the next boss.
A couple of remaining foes isn't going to cause much of a problem.
Most annoying foes for you as ranger will be the rangers with their blocks I guess.
If you have EotN put Pain Inverter on them, gets them down fast since Whirling Defence will put out a lot of damage when minions are around them.
Anything that gets rid of stances also helps (there is a necro skill, rigor mortis I think) when no PI is available. Would need some micro control though.

But this is one of the missions that's far easier played with a human player for sure (same for Eternal Grove).

Last thing to say: this ain't for the regular player.
First of all, most 'regular' players have little to find in Hard Mode besides disappointment.
Next it requires some serious investment in the game, more than most players would be willing to put in.
But it's not about if everyone can do it. It's about if it's possible if you are dedicated enough to make H&H work. And I think the answer to that is yes for all HM content outside Elite areas.

Compare it to the stuff [agro] was doing around the time they were in the same alliance as we. They were speeding up UW and FoW clears, and set some record times for Deep.
Not everyone likes doing that, they had the dedication to go out and do it.
I think they, together with some other high end PvE guilds, were the people who enabled Speed Clears to emerge. The knowledge they gained back then is now common knowledge.

So what is your point in this discussion? That your former guildie is such elite player far beyond most of us? So what, have you seen my former guildie's big brother's girlfriend's cousin? Or are you saying because he did it with H/H before, so that makes it easier for anyone to do that with H/H?

If someone is playing a monk, it is probably much easier to form a human team for that mission. Why would the monk choose to H/H when it is harder to do so?

Why dont we have a little competition then. You screenshot your time with just heroes and henchies and I'll do this with my human team and we compare which is faster.

On UWSC, a human team can do it in 15mins or less. Do you want to show how long it is to do that with 6 heroes?

So, you are saying that I need to even micro my heroes? Wait a minute, using H/H is suppose to be easier right? If it is harder, then doesn't it require more skill? And doesn't that mean heroes cannot fully replace human players?

That's right. Since most people would go the easier route for missions, why would they choose H/H over humans? How is it that Dreamwind kept insisting that heroes replace human players? Is he still stuck in the easy mission areas?

But the point of contention is, are heroes a replacement for human players in this game? In the easier missions, perhaps because H/H makes more sense since they are faster to form. In the tougher missions, elite missions, in HM, where the best drops in the game are, heroes dont replace humans. And even if you can do it with H/H, most people dont because it is just not worth the time/gold investment to do that when a SC team can do it so much faster. I have said this to Dreamwind many times.

Did Heroes kill GW - not really, it was already dying due to lack of imagination and any clue of how to construct a MMO.

e.g. We have PvP titles to encourage PvP, we have nothing that actually encourages players to PuG.

The game has been continually dumbed down to that time > skill - play through PvE and grind or quit.

Anet could have taken PvE any number of ways to extend shelf-life but chose not to. Factions started as a good idea but was totally botched.

Heroes simply gave players an opportunity to get a quick 3PS fix without the need to participate in the MMO environment.

GW might have a lot of subscribers, but a large proportion of them only play to get a quick fix. Anet have stated as much.

Quite sad really.

In HM? Are you kidding? Outside of the most high end of areas like Slavers Exile and DoA a team of H/H will generally suffice in HM. With at the very most, flagging, and the odd targetted skill usage depending on build structure.

Speed clears do not count for anything because every single 1 completely abuses broken skills/mechanics to function. 55s, 600s and permasins, the latter 2 should of been removed immediately from the game, not encouraged. They can't be compared to regular H/H or balanced teams in an attempt to prove a point.

Sure you can do that, but it is still much easier to complete it with a human team. I didn't even need to flag or micro anything, all I needed was to just play my own character. And most players would choose the route that is easiest for them to succeed.

Doesn't matter, sticking to the topic, that still proves that heroes do not replace human players.

Unless, of course, the humans suck. You always know what H/H are going to do, whereas humans run the gamut from epic to less than worthless (ie, actively harming your attempts to beat the mission). When you average the time lost by all of the failed parties you get with PUGs, plus the additional time it takes to make the PUG in the first place, I think it's pretty clear that for most tasks, especially in HM, H/H just does it faster.

I don't think anyone ever said that heroes replaced humans...they just made other humans optional for 99% of PvE.

True, I did say that heroes are more consistent in an earlier post. But other than the poor attitude of some players, an average human player should perform better than a dumb hero who tries to shoot through walls repeatedly and an average human player is able to run out of AoE reliably rather than running within it and dies.

There is still the option of partying with other reliable human players that you know and trust.

I dont think that percentage is even near as high as 99%. But whatever, it is the HM elite areas that have the best drop in the game and those are still much tougher with a H/H than with a SC team.

Nope, this was indeed legit. Nothing is wrong with the wording.

I can tell you that if this came from anyone that we'd still be seeing these quote wars. So chill.

Heroes make it difficult for beginners to find a group. When i tried the nightfall campaign that everyone had heroes and rarely did i see a group made up of all human players. I remember when prophecy first came out it wasn't like that. No matter how good you are, u still needed a group. No matter how noob you were still able to get into a group. it was more cooperative and more enjoyable. You also had a faster learning curve because other players could give you advice on how to play.

The problem is we can't really tell if that's solely a hero problem, or if it's much of a hero problem at all.

We don't know if heroes were just a "spur of the moment" sort of idea or if they were actually created in response to what ANet was seeing with the players.

For me, Prophecies was good until I started to get near THK. The missions then started to get a bit more tough and the groups I was in were starting to whipe a bit more. It wasn't until THK itself where I took part in 10 consecutively failed PUGs, all losing at the very last part. Then I tried it with henchmen and *aced* it.

That was when I not only started to pug less, but realized when I needed to pug I was having troubles: "GROUP LOOKING FOR MONK" will forever be etched into my eyes.

If additional human party members weren't optional - the game would simply be unplayable for a very big number of players.
Well, the game that we have now, that is. For the game to be available to a big number of players - it would demand a number of HUGE changes.
I guess heroes were cheaper.

Oh ok.. thast what i was trying to say the whole Time.. so i gues we were debating about diferent things wether it was my lack of understanding or vice-versa not pointing fingers here.. So yeah. the bolded part is right on.. simplified version of what i was trying to say using the examples.. Alright then yeah we can go back to the old 2 sides of the debate here =)

The question is based upon an assumption, not necessarily a truism. The question I used is a more honest one that allows the same discussion without a bias. I said I accepted Zinger's saying that it was not a troll. Having said that the "Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" could lead you to question the intent of some posters when they try to be legit. Time to chill out now.

You are in the nightfall campaign and you dont have your own heroes?

Not really. When my level 4 just graduated from pre-searing I couldn't find a group in ascalon city to do the next quest, so I had to use henchies.

People only join quests that they are interested in for themselves. I rarely see a level 10 helping out a level 4 on a quest that he has already done. Usually the level 10 would just be interested to get to his next stage in the game for himself.

Everytime I try giving advice on how to play to someone, they always rage quit, so now I stop.

Guild Wars was advertised as a coop mmo. What makes a mmo a mmo is your interaction with people. When heroes were introduced it completely negated that principle. The first thing I noticed when I got NF when it launched as that I would see everyone with a full party but none would be live players. Just heroes and henchmen.

This was shocking, because prophecies and factions you NEEDED to group. It was encouraged. NF and onwards, not much so. From a broader perspective what Anet did was the unthinkable. You know how in most mmorpgs using automated programs are forbidden? Anet essentially implemented a automated program and labelled it as the "hero system".

One of the worst parts is, they allowed them in pvp! Which took out the "P" part because they weren't players but bots. At this point its probably to late to do anything with heroes as in completely removing them. Since everyone has became reliant on them. The only thing they could do is to somehow change the game to were grouping with live players is more beneficial than grouping with bots.

I don't know about you guys, but I really miss the days of needing to group with live players.

But then the population problem arises: what happens when you start to see less and less people in the game? Without heroes how stressed would one be when attempting to "LFM"?

This could be the reason, or part of, why ANet implemented heroes. We still don't know the full reasons of why, though.

That's bad : ( Sans that I don't see how Zinger's post is biased but instead just generally negative.

People fail, Heroes own - people stopped PuG-ing - GW cooperation died.

For me heroes did kill a big part of the game, grouping with Guildies and random people. They should have limited it to having 1 hero per person, not 3.

Guild Wars till Heroes arrived : awesome multiplayer game.

Guild Wars since Heroes arrived : average single player game.

Heroes didn't kill GW at all..
It gave the playerbase exactly what they wanted.

Someone with common sense will realize a majority prefer henchmen and heroes with players for the more harder areas.
And an intelligent company knows that they should give players what they want.

Personally, I have an awesome time with my and my heroes
Customization is what I'm all about. Only problem is we're limited to only 3 and no pve skills..

Here's where I'd really like to see some figures and why ANet has implemented heroes.

Were they just a "fun idea" by ANet for more variety?

Or were they in response to the number of people actually soloing and the general declining of the population and increase of the gameworld?

That's not true. Heroes will not stop you from grouping with guildies or random people. It is people that made that choice.

Since most of the outposts are quite empty anyway, without heroes, many of us would quit this game because it becomes impossible to find enough people to do the quest you want, other than zquests. Without heroes, this game is just not worth playing waiting for 1hr+ to form a group.

I was trying to cap a boss's elite skill outside of zquests for my title, but you guessed it, the outposts were mostly empty. I wonder how long it will take to find 7 other players that need to kill that same boss in an arbitrary outpost, without heroes and henchies.

Nope I disagree. Most players will choose what is most convenient for their time they have to play. Not what is most easiest. It takes time to put together a group/pug. Most players don't have that kind of time. Heroes helped the game last longer than it would have without them.

Depending on the situation, using heroes using isn't always the most time consuming option. You can attempt Foundry HM over and over with 6 heroes but I would argue that it is faster with a good human team. So which option saves you more time overall?

You are singling out one venture Daesu I'm talking about the game as a whole and peoples time as a whole not just one tough area. Apples to oranges.

Who cares about the easier areas in NM? You pass those very quickly anyway. This is why you usually dont see many people in those missions to party up with. Many people pay to be ran because they dont want to stay there longer than they have to.

It is the tougher elite missions in HM that people farm over and over after hitting level 20 that characters spend more of their time in. For these missions, it is the SC human teams that are dominant, not H/H teams.

This thread is still going lol. Might as well make a quick post.

This was basically the simple conclusion of my argument. Thanks.

I would like to see the figures and know the reasons as well. I think this is yet another problem with heroes...even if they WERE a good idea, they were implemented horribly. They casued a tremendous amount of irreversable damage. Even if heroes are good now, the past damage they caused is not worth it to me.

You have to ask yourself WHY people made that choice. Is it because guildies are bad or because heroes are good enough to not need anything else?

Yet another problem. HM replaced NM, just like heroes replaced humans. I have a problem with both.

Sigh...Daesu we just keep going in circles with you. This has already been answered.

There could be many reasons why some people choose heroes. I choose heroes sometimes because I cant find enough people in the outpost that are not afk. I choose heroes sometimes because I know I would be interrupted soon and I would afk in the mission for an hour or so. This way I can start the mission, play for 15 mins, then go afk for family obligations, then come back and resume the mission. There are many other reasons why people use heroes.

Heroes, as they are now, can never ever replace humans. I have established that far back in this thread but arguments that are directly opposed to yours never seem to register in your head.

Heroes AI are too dumb. They shoot against walls, and dont run out of AoE effectively. Heroes also cannot equip PvE skills, bring cons, and they also cant use certain builds effectively.

That's because you are too stubborn to listen, and kept repeating the same arguments without addressing my counter arguments.

He debates with same person over and over excluding other at all time.....But yeah i support your statement completely.. made same points myself but did not get response in any way.. Kudos to you.

Uh...heroes did replace humans in many cases and CAN replace them in 99% of cases. There is no argument that is directly opposed to this. The only thing you can use is Bryant's position that "we don't truly know without proof", but even that doesn't work when we know that heroes can do nearly everything humans can in what is left of Guild Wars (easy PvE).

They don't need to be as smart as humans. They only need to be smart enough to beat all of PvE, which they are.

You aren't even using arguments anymore. You continually keep saying "humans are better than AI because humans can do things better/faster", which is constantly repeated, answers nothing, solves nothing, and is almost off topic frankly. So humans can farm hard areas faster with inbalanced stuff that shouldn't exist...who cares? What does that have to do with all the problems that have been brought up?

I responded to you pages ago. You haven't added anything new since then, mostly only agreeing with other people's posts.

My Opologies then... seems ages ago.. But indeed you are correct.. seems like every one just regurgetates their already posted ideas... which locks the circle . So same information just differently srinkled with examples.... all have spoken...I just want some 1 from the developers team come in and say their reason and on that lock the post so no more "But but but thats not wqhat happened" things would come.

That is ridiculous. Is something inferior a replacement to something that is better? Are the Corollas a replacement for the Ferraris? Why dont you try replacing someone's Ferrari with a Corolla and ask him what he thinks of that?

People know that human players are superior and that heroes only have a limited set of builds that they can run effectively because of their limited AI. Otherwise everyone would be using Anton/Zenmai SF heroes, wouldn't they? Besides, almost all the PUGs that I joined prefer to wait for a human monk player to be available rather than take hero monks, unless no human monk shows up after a long wait. If a hero is really as good or better than a human player then why would they do that?

Not true. There are so many things and so many builds that heroes cannot use effectively that human players can. Just go ahead and check pvxwiki and see how many builds are for human players vs how many are for heroes?

If heroes really replace humans then there would be no need for such seperation between hero builds and human builds now, would there?

They are certainly not smart enough to beat all of PvE. Especially without all the extra work that are often needed to micro manage them. In many areas, it is much tougher to use H/H than to use a human team. I have stated many missions like HM Aurora Glades, HM Eternal Grove, HM Dzagonur Bastion, HM elite areas, and more, that people usually use a human team to help them get through.

Because human players are more effective in all areas of PvE that is why heroes do not replace humans. Even if you take the NM easy areas, or any areas that you can think of, they can be more easily accomplished through a human team. But I have already named many areas, that are much harder to be cleared through a H/H team, than with a human team.

The main advantage heroes provide is not power, a full human team is always more powerful with better intelligence, cons, and pve skills. The main advantage of heroes is the convenience of not needing to LFG in town, which makes them more suitable for the easier missions. In this respect, heroes are more of a replacement for henchies, not human players. For the harder missions, using just H/H becomes a much more difficult accomplishment than using humans.

Could you share some examples of this damage?

If all you want is getting from A to B within the speed limits of your country you will most likely do as well with your Corolla as with your Ferrari and at the same time use less fuel.
When I look at the fuel/mile ratio a Ferrari is far inferior compared to the Corolla when you comply to the speed limits most countries have.

Taking a human or hero monk depends a lot on team layout and strategy.
I hate monking in a mainly hero team because they jump all over the place and clump together so it's hard to tell which one is taking the hit. If they don't take the hit together because of AoE. But in a mainly human team I'd wait for a human monk if it doesn't take too long. Those are better suited for specific actions.
The same for strategy. Yesterday I monked for a 4 human player team in Mineral Springs (NM) to get some scalps. Hero monks cannot deal with those conditions and will either get hit or burn their energy.
But in a 8/8 mixed team (4 human/4 heroes) I would have played another profession and left monking to heroes. This would not have given a huge disadvantage over a 8/8 human team. Dead foes ain't going to hurt the team.

Nope. Heroes are better at reacting than most humans, most humans are better at predicting than heroes. This calls for different builds.

This is only looking at one side of the coin. Humans are more effective doing stuff but heroes have the advantage of virtually no waiting time.
It's the balance between waiting time and the time needed to get things done that determines if it's better to take humans or heroes.

You are focussing on one element of humans vs heroes, their ingame performance. Sure humans have the advantage here. But it's like the Corolla/Ferrari comparisation. Your example implies that you are comparing on something that makes the Ferrari superior. Speed, value, comfort, car-peen.
I can easily state that the Corolla is far superior in other areas. Fuel consumption, value for money, maintenance costs, insurance.

All you seem to think of is how fast you can finish things, but for many getting from A to B is all they need to do. No need for Ferrari's to do that.

People who buy a Ferrari over a Corolla do not care about that. Obviously a Ferrari is a higher prestige car with a much greater power and speed. Many people buy Ferrari because they have something that Corollas dont and not every country/state has such a low speed limit.

Precisely my point that a hero monk is inferior to a good human monk.

I dont see the advantage of a 4/4 team vs a good human team, a good human team would still be far superior. A 4/4 team is not a H/H team by the way, it is a hybrid team.

Their disadvantages far outweigh that. Why do you think I try to avoid bringing melee heroes? They run around the AoE till they drop, they sometimes stand next to the enemy without attacking, and sometimes they run back and forth doing nothing. Although their simple AI is more suitable to play a caster, they dont perform many builds well. They also dont manage their energy well and tend to spam. I can go on.

Didn't you admit earlier that in many HM missions+bonus, it is much easier to accomplish with a good human team than it is to accomplish with just H/H? This is because a good human team is more powerful than a H/H team.

Sure, and I have said that too. However, that contradicts what Dreamwind said about heroes replacing humans.

Read my post above again, I have already said that heroes do grant a shorter wait time in town. But that is balanced against their lesser power which is evident in difficult missions. Therefore heroes do NOT replace humans, as much as Corollas do NOT replace Ferraris.

If I want a better team, I would call my friends and guildies for help and wait a little longer. If I dont need a better team, I would just take my heroes and avoid the wait. Heroes are just a different option, more suitable for the easier areas.

Hey people, from my point of view, Guild Wars isn't dead or been killed at all so the main question is invalid. No it's perhaps not as thriving and vibrant as certain periods of time, which won't be duplicated without a "2" after the name, but there still are players all over and people are still logging in for events. For the past year and some until I've been back in GW more I've been playing AoC. Now that is a game that's felt dead since about a month after release. The difference is that AoC is a game in main focus development so they have an 'obligation' to fix things, change things and add content to try and get players - dig out of a hole. Unfortunately they do it very slowly, but that's another topic.

Regarding heroes, put me on the side that believes their addition did nothing less than extend play - for me and many people. While playing fulltime and maintaining guild numbers we always played and did missions like we always did pre-hero, except filling in an open spot if necessary with one of them rather than a hench. However, there are many things that I did that I would never or rarely have grouped for even without heroes, but they made it much easier and more fun to do. Vanquishing, Skill Hunting and Cartophraphy are a few examples for me - things I had a system and a list for completion that tended to get messy and slow with too many people going in all directions. A game like AoC that has all of it's endgame pve content designed for groups you either don't do anything or you try to get a group or you mess around on alts until your guilds raid time. There isn't an option.

Well...I have mostly stated all of them somewhere in this thread. In particular I'd say the damage to PvP is not reversable, but there have been many things in PvE as well. For now though I'll just say that the damage to PvP was not worth whatever benefit heroes may bring today...at least not for me.

Your example does not fit at all. I hope I don't have to explain why.

So what? Instead of answering all the other problems with heroes that have been listed in this thread, why do you keep repeating the mantra that humans are better than heroes?

You seem to be fascinated with my statement that heroes replaced humans for some reason because you keep trying to prove it wrong. You seem to be focused on the power level of humans vs heroes (which by itself is a huge off topic problem) while ignoring everything else that is being said. Ok let me settle this once and for all hopefully:

Heroes did not replace humans. Instead, heroes CAN replace humans for 99% of the tasks available in the game. The difference here is heroes did not replace henchies, because henchies can't beat many areas while heroes can, meanwhile both heroes and humans can beat most areas. Do you understand what I'm trying to say yet? Now lets stop focusing on this ONE thing I said and start responding to all the other issues. What about the irreversable damage caused? What about the singleplayer game? What about the screwed up difficulty challenge? Etc etc. Are you going to say these all didn't happen?

Uh...nearly all of it. I know for a fact I could roll heroway and beat basically all of Guild Wars right now, and I haven't played PvE in a LONG time. With 6 heroes it would be even easier. Hell I could probably beat it with physicalway (thats what worked in the past I doubt its changed now). PvE is easy, and has been for quite some time. The only reason I would need humans is to farm something faster. You continue to argue that humans are required because they can speedclear areas faster. So what? The goal of the game is not to see who can speedclear areas or turbofarm the fastest, and if it is the game is a pile of garbage.

The only reason to even use humans is because they have better cons and skills. The intelligence barely matters anymore in this game. The AI is sufficient enough to beat the game, and that is a problem. No intelligence is required to play Guild Wars anymore. Its either I roll AI and beat it, or I grab humans using mindless cons and skills and beat it. Both are a problem.