How did Heroes kill Guild Wars? - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

17 Jun 2009 at 12:57 - 121

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

pve
fact: heroes turned guild wars into a single player game

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

Karia Mirniman

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Feb 2007

17 Jun 2009 at 14:24 - 122

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

17 Jun 2009 at 14:27 - 123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

"You Never Fight Alone" was from the Nightfall box, being the sunspear motto.

And if all of the other things you said about heroes were true, then no one would take them when a PUG is available.

Oh wait. Pugs do all those things and do it while Echo-Mending.

Abedeus

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jan 2007

Niflheim

R/

17 Jun 2009 at 15:01 - 124

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

'GrindWars can be played singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. Please note: You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not, your heroes will steal your drops, will not use skills properly, will stay close so you party wipe, will have better looking armor than you and run off to agro everything in the area.......

But don't forget that 'You never fight alone'

I also see a small print "You can fight solo or with other players, but if you do play with others, prepare for ragequitting after a single death, bitching about builds even if yours is better and random leaving because of siblings wanting to play now."

And a bit lower: "Not your time decides about win or loss, but the time you spend doing UWSC with Assassin, which is available only in Factions, and using skills from all campaigns". Or "Not your time (...), but how much you grind titles so your Cry of Pain does the most damage. Or make a monk, sucker."

Kendel

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2009

17 Jun 2009 at 15:27 - 125

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

Yes, I remember reading the small print on the box:

You will be forced to take heroes whether you like it or not - Yes its been annoying for months, but 7/8 humans is more than enough.

your heroes will steal your drops - So do pugs, the difference is you KNOW they're stealing em.

will not use skills properly - Pugs again i'm afraid. The difference is you can set up a hero with skills you know they will use properly

will stay close so you party wipe - Henchman yes, Heroes no, you can flag them. However, you can't flag a pug and they do the EXACT same thing.

will have better looking armor than you - Shit happens, personally i want to kill Hayda and steal her armour since its the ONLY decent looking para armour in the game.

and run off to agro everything in the area....... - Never played with a pug? Turn your heroes off Aggressive.

Oh and to add to it:

You have no control over a pugs bar. Firestorm Monks are so awesome.

You can set up a team synergy with heroes and fill in the blanks of a team.

Etc. Getting away from pugs is what half of GW always wanted. Getting away from henchman is just as nice.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 15:47 - 126

Let me rephrase that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

There seems to be a trend that indicates that players do not like to play with other players with bad attitude.

Would anyone want to team up with a jerk? The answer is obvious.

Although not all pugs are bad, pugs are still risky. Guild members, on the other hand, are alot less risky because you know them and in a good guild, they are generally helpful and nice.

Heroes may be stupid, but they are reliable and can never leave you dangling in the middle of a mission.

Avalanche

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Apr 2009

17 Jun 2009 at 15:53 - 127

I don't know what the exact problem is..

Before heroes were introduced it sometimes had already been a pain to get a full group, at least around after a year prophecies was released.
Most of times I got mad/frustrated over pug groups, cause there was just always one funny guy in there who just had ABSOLUTELY no clue what he's doing and he got the whole group killed.
Speaking of me I just had to quit gw after 2-3 of such fails.
Also playing with a friend + 6 henches didn't work out that well.. since we weren't playing alot, thus we were no pros and couldn't handle the stupidity of some henches neither.

Now I came back to gw in december, hero system was new... and I had trouble to handle them, the few pug groups that were still around were doomed to fail.. at this point I would have agreed that heroes destroyed the game. I just read some things about heroes, got some nice builds and it worked nicely -> have had alot less moments when I rage quit gw lol
So I actually play GW more than earlier, so I think it improved the game.

Of course after playing a while with heroes I do get bored, that's when I ask a friend/guildie or whoever to tag along.

I've never been someone who likes to play alone, so most of times I just take a friend with me. But if I just want to finish some mission or farm something then heroes are just much less trouble.

Get a nice guild, make some friends -> problem solved ?

snaek

Forge Runner

Join Date: Mar 2006

N/

17 Jun 2009 at 15:56 - 128

Quote:

Originally Posted by abadeus

BZZT WRONG

Try single-playering elite areas or many of the hard mode dungeons. With only 3 heroes and 4 henches. Guilds still go in 7-8 people thanks to PvE skills and the fact, that they only take skilled people instead of a PuG moron,

Quote:

Originally Posted by targren

Misfact.

Read the back of the prophesies box. GW was supposed to be singleplayer or multiplayer, depending on player preference. This was way before heroes showed up.

fact: Heroes changed the single-player Guild Wars experience.

You can't say much more than that about Heroes' effect on GW and stay honest.

i might have made my posts short and simple, but you guys take things too literally; its all about degrees. when the op asked if heroes killed guild wars, obviously guild wars isnt literally "dead"; so when i said heroes turned gw into a "single-payer" game, obviously it isn't literally that either. you can not, however, deny that heroes have headed gw into that direction. do people still play together? yes. do people still play together as much as they did before heroes? no (although recent attempts such as zq/nicholas/etc have been changing this).

to answer your post, i've h/h'd numerous eotn hm dungeons. elite areas i haven't because well....there are no henchies there, and i don't have gw2x. i have done 2p+6h which is almost the same thing.

i can assure you that if 7 heroes became a reality, it will push that degree even further. but one thing for sure, is that you can't deal with absolutes here. it is obvious that heroes didn't "kill" multiplayer to the point of it being "absolute dead", and i don't think that anyone here (including me) was trying to say that.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 16:07 - 129

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

...but you can not deny that heroes has headed gw into that direction.

If you read my posts and many others in this thread, we are already denying that. The only thing I would agree on is heroes provided a more reliable alternative to pugs but heroes complement a good guild team so they make the game EVEN BETTER.

The problem with many anti-hero posts here is they think team playing equals pugging and pugging only, they forgot what the name of this game is!

Quote:

i can assure you that if 7 heroes became a reality, it will push that degree even further. but one thing for sure, is that you can't deal with absolutes here. it is obvious that heroes didn't "kill" multiplayer to the point of it being "absolute dead", and i don't think that anyone here (including me) was trying to say that.

If you really want to FORCE people to PUG, why dont you propose getting rid of guilds and friends list? Do you know that I turned down many pug invitations to party up because I was waiting for my guild members to join?

You have to realize that pugs are risky and can fail. Guild teams are alot less risky. Heroes are popular because they are reliable, not because they are especially skillful (i.e. they tend to run around in AoE until they die and shoot at walls). I would prefer having my guild members over my heroes any day.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

17 Jun 2009 at 16:14 - 130

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Let me rephrase that:

Would anyone want to team up with a jerk? The answer is obvious.

Although not all pugs are bad, pugs are still risky. Guild members, on the other hand (...) Heroes may be stupid, but they are reliable and can never leave you dangling in the middle of a mission.

Daesu, quite right.
The issue is, why do we assume that 90% of PUG players are:

1. bad players
2. jerks with a bad attitude

Is this not just sickening that we think so about other human players?
I know I do, I know that Jin and Olias never disappointed me (erm... not what you are thinking now)

I remember... attention, nostalgia ... the early days when we were looking for monks. We probably were all not that good players, our chars level 15-16 and our equipment was something like a 15-22 13%>50 purple sword. We did not even have Droknar's armor yet.

We grouped with people and repeated missions several times to get them done. Nowadays - what, we did not do it in the first try? LETS GIVE UP, I rather do it again with heroes/henchies than with you.

Well, the game got old, of course... and we got better, too. Still, something got lost.

Something needs to be done, so that we can play with real people without fearing extreme facepalm moments. Allowing people to enter instances more readily (just like WoW dungeon instances) would already be very helpful in this regard.

And the solution cannot be to dumb down GW. It needs to be made more accessible and still retain some difficulty.

I fear the whole GW system is extrem PUG unfriendly by default.. Who agrees/disagrees?

And if they cannot find a solution for this, then GW2 is in deep trouble. Because then I will really prefer to play Diablo 3 as semi-singleplayer-online-game.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 16:23 - 131

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

Daesu, quite right.
The issue is, why do we assume that 90% of PUG players are:

1. bad players
2. jerks with a bad attitude

Is this not just sickening that we think so about other human players?

I didn't even stick a percentage to it. All I said was pugs are risky so why even take the risk if you already belong to a good guild? If anyone is not in a good guild, why don't they find one instead of qq-ing about heroes?

In terms of my personal choice: good guild member > Heroes > Pugs

Do heroes destroy multi-playerism in this game? NO. They complement guild team builds well. Do heroes provide a safer alternative to pugs? Yes. And by "safer" I mean having a higher chance of succeeding in the mission without getting screwed by someone with a bad attitude, in the middle.

snaek

Forge Runner

Join Date: Mar 2006

N/

17 Jun 2009 at 16:25 - 132

multi-player includes pugs and it includes guild groups. it sounds like your trying to downplay pugs. i can explain the reasons why heroes have faltered guild groups less because guilds have smaller, tighter communities, etc, etc, but this does not make pugs any less of an important aspect to multiplayer.

yes, you can say that guild groups are still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect more than it did another. i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

----

you can break down the ratios like this (these numbers are in no way trying to be accurate):

pre-heroes:
40% guild groups
40% pug
20% h/h

post heroes:
40% guild groups
20% pug
40% h/h

the simple fact that if you say people h/h more often now than they did before, then this means people pug/guildgroup less often than they did before.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

17 Jun 2009 at 16:34 - 133

Well, of my buddies not many play anymore at all, so I am mostly playing with heroes. I just wonder how new players get along nowadays.

And that you prefer guildmates did not really answer the question, btw.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 16:35 - 134

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

multi-player includes pugs and it includes guild groups. it sounds like your trying to downplay pugs. i can explain the reasons why heroes have faltered guild groups less because guilds have smaller, tighter communities, etc, etc, but this does not make pugs any less of an important aspect to multiplayer.

yes, you can say that guild groups is still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect of multiplayer than it did another.

Even your claim that "PUGs are dead" is highly debatable, which I believe is why you took a step back and said they are not literally "dead". Looking at the zmissions and zquests for the day and they are not really that "dead". If I have spare time to play and I want a good laugh I still join pugs from time to time.

And what is so wrong about people preferring to team up with guild members over pugs? Pugs are risky in the first place and I would definitely prefer a good guild member that I know over a random stranger. Personally I enjoyed more guild/alliance games than I enjoyed PUGs and success rate is ALOT higher than your average pug. Furthermore, I have never seen any of my guild/alliance member capping a skill then leaving the game on purpose.

So yes, I prefer to play with reliable people that I know and game design encourages this from the very beginning, thus its name. Even if pugging has to die (although they are still very much alive) to promote better team play among guilds, then so be it. That would be better for the game anyway.

Heroes did not kill multiplayerism because heroes complement a good team build. Most pugs just do not have a good team that synergizes with each member and many of them do not work well with other team players because of their bad attitude. Why should we promote riskier bad team playing over good team playing?

snaek

Forge Runner

Join Date: Mar 2006

N/

17 Jun 2009 at 16:45 - 135

Quote:

Even your claim that "PUGs are dead" is highly debatable, which I believe is why you took a step back and said they are not literally "dead". Looking at the zmissions and zquests for the day and they are not really that "dead". If I have spare time to play and I want a good laugh I still join pugs from time to time

in my previous post i already mentioned zq/nick/etc being benefactors in an increase of multiplayer activity. however, i do not think this is enough to offset the effect that heroes have put into place.

Quote:

And what is so wrong about people preferring to team up with guild members over pugs? Pugs are risky in the first place and I would definitely prefer a good guild member that I know over a random stranger. Personally I enjoyed more guild/alliance games than I enjoyed PUGs and success rate is ALOT higher than your average pug. Furthermore, I have never seen any of my guild/alliance member capping a skill then leaving the game on purpose.

im not saying theres anything wrong with it; i'm defending "pug = guild group", whereas you guys sound like your saying "guild group > pug".

to be honest, you guys do not sound like prolific puggers so i'm not really sure your in a position to argue the effects heroes have unto something you rarely partake in.

Gli

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

17 Jun 2009 at 16:46 - 136

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

yes, you can say that guild groups are still alive and kicking, but you can't say the same for pugs. therefore, heroes "killed" multiplayer when you speak of multiplayer in its entirety (both pugs and guild groups), even if it affected one aspect more than it did another. i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

You're ignoring one possible scenario: more and people have congregated into guilds over time, leading to many if not most of the dedicated playerbase who do care about multiplayer playing exclusively in guild groups. If the growth of guild group activity is larger than the decline of PUG activity, you can't conclude that multiplayer has died down. Heroes or no heroes.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

17 Jun 2009 at 16:47 - 137

Maybe this is the reason why I play Mount & Blade nowadays. It is player skill over player skills, despite featuring player stats/statistics. And it is all about me and a ton of NPCs under my command.

And... it is no MMO. Still, it is a lot of fun. GW has some more player-player interaction, but not so much more anymore.

I guess Diablo 3 will be the solution. Not really a MMO, but still online and fun. At least if it becomes a bit like D1/D2.

GW2... I dunno, it should not continue the GW1 trend to become a so-so MMO, but should rather focus on being what made GW1 great.
But unfortunately, nothing what I loved about GW1 initially seems to be planned as key feature of GW2.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 16:49 - 138

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

in my previous post i already mentioned zq/nick/etc being benefactors in an increase of multiplayer activity. however, i do not think this is enough to offset the effect that heroes have put into place.

im not saying theres anything wrong with it; i'm defending pug = guild group, whereas you guys sound like your saying guild group > pug.

PUG != guild group. PUG stands for "Pick-up Group".

I have already said heroes are not the cause of why people generally dislike pugging. People generally dislike pugging because:

1) They have more reliable guilds/alliance members
2) Pugs are risky as you may accidentally pick-up someone with a bad attitude.
3) In that sense, heroes DO provide a safer alternative to pugs because they are reliable and they can never be "jerks with a bad attitude" even with their limited AI.

So Heroes, Guilds/Alliances, Friends list all lessen the need to random PUG because they provide more reliable alternatives. But that doesn't that they are all bad for the game.

We should encourage people to make friends and join good guilds/alliances rather than encouraging people to random PUG. Random pugs give random gaming experience, some good, some bad. Random pugging is hardly the most important element of this game, we shouldn't defend it especially over guilds/alliances, friends list, and heroes features.

snaek

Forge Runner

Join Date: Mar 2006

N/

17 Jun 2009 at 16:55 - 139

Quote:

Originally Posted by gli

You're ignoring one possible scenario: more and people have congregated into guilds over time, leading to many if not most of the dedicated playerbase who do care about multiplayer playing exclusively in guild groups. Heroes or no heroes.

no i did not ignore it, see:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

multiplayer has very likely displaced pug into guild group, but i still believe that multiplayer as a whole is down from what it used to be. (i hate restating myself but) my main argument is that if h/h increased, multiplayer decreased, whether or not that is pug or guild group it doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daesu

PUG != guild group. PUG stands for "Pick-up Group".

you misread me. i meant pug = guild group in terms of importance, where was you said guild group > pug in terms of importance. it was said in context.

Quote:

I have already said heroes are not the cause of why people generally dislike pugging. People generally dislike pugging because:

yes, and before people would still pug despite those reasons. now they can simply take h/h and not bother with it.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 17:02 - 140

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

you misread me. i meant pug = guild group in terms of importance, where was you said guild group > pug in terms of importance. it was said in context.

No, random pugs are not even close to the importance of guilds.

Quote:

yes, and before people would still pug despite those reasons. now they can simply take h/h and not bother with it. basically, people now have a reason not to pug.

And people can simply choose their guild members/friends and not bother with pugs too, so what?

If those who pug also have good guilds then they have nothing to worry about. If they dont belong to a good guild then I would wonder why not?

Seraphim Angel

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Nov 2008

Sacred Knights of Orr [SKoO]

P/

17 Jun 2009 at 17:04 - 141

I would agrue the point heros MADE this game for tons of people not Kill it. I know alot of people who would not be playing this game if it was not for heros. Yea they are not as good as actual players but they are almost 100% dependable and they wont just up and leave or go afk for no reason.

snaek

Forge Runner

Join Date: Mar 2006

N/

17 Jun 2009 at 17:27 - 142

Quote:

Originally Posted by daesu

No, random pugs are not even close to the importance of guilds.

says you?

Quote:

And people can simply choose their guild members/friends and not bother with pugs too, so what?

If those who pug also have good guilds then they have nothing to worry about. If they dont belong to a good guild then I would wonder why not?

they could have done that before heroes were implemented, but they chose not to. many people still choose not to because now they have heroes.

again, your downplaying pugs as if a thing should not exist. its pointless to argue about the concern of pugs of dying when that person wants pugs to die.

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

17 Jun 2009 at 17:35 - 143

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

again, your downplaying pugs as if a thing should not exist.

Ding ding ding ding. We have epiphany.

reaper with no name

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2009

FaZ

D/

17 Jun 2009 at 17:36 - 144

I still don't understand when people say that PUGs are dead. I don't usually have that much trouble finding them unless I'm on the international server. If all my experiences with PUGs have been during the "dead" times, then how chaotic must they have been back when they were alive? It must have been impossible to choose!

Gli

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

17 Jun 2009 at 18:15 - 145

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

no i did not ignore it, see:

You did ignore it.

You said:
Quote:

i mean, unless your willing to argue that heroes have promoted more guild group activity to offset the balance of less pugging, then you simply can not say multiplayer has not died down.

I said:
Quote:

You're ignoring one possible scenario: more and people have congregated into guilds over time, leading to many if not most of the dedicated playerbase who do care about multiplayer playing exclusively in guild groups. Heroes or no heroes.

The difference is, you're saying heroes might have promoted more guild group activity. I'm saying it happened regardless of heroes. You can't blame heroes for that. It makes no sense. Guilds formed because they allowed more reliable play, heroes or no heroes.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

17 Jun 2009 at 18:20 - 146

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

says you?

Guilds are alot more important than random pugging. Just look at how many in-game features are centered around guilds and alliances and look at how many in-game features are centered around random pugging. Where does ANet spend resources at?

Quote:

they could have done that before heroes were implemented, but they chose not to. many people still choose not to because now they have heroes.

People choose not to random pug because they belong to good guilds too or they socialize and make friends online. So what is your point?

Quote:

again, your downplaying pugs as if a thing should not exist. its pointless to argue about the concern of pugs of dying when that person wants pugs to die.

I am not saying random pugging should die. I am saying that as a feature, they are less important than guilds/alliances and team playing, even heroes.

The original cry from anti-hero posts has been "QQ I can't find human players to pug with because of heroes". Well they cant find human players to pug with because of guilds/alliances and friends list too so why dont they QQ about that?

Besides, why can't these people find other human players to play with? If they aren't in a good guild, and they like to play with other humans, then they should take the effort to find one rather than QQ about heroes here. If they can't find one because they are so much of a jerk that they have been kicked out of guilds after guilds, then all the more you shouldn't be advocating FORCED partying with such people.

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

17 Jun 2009 at 19:43 - 147

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Well they cant find human players to pug with because of guilds/alliances and friends list too so why dont they QQ about that?

Then they'd have to accept that it's because no one wants to play with them, rather than blaming it on a technology issue.

UnChosen

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

17 Jun 2009 at 20:23 - 148

Thankfully in GW2 the grouping seems to be more WoW like (as in no grouping at all), with open world...the only way to have a multiplayer game is to make it so people interact in such a way where it doesn't involve any cooperation. So in the next game all the anti-social can go their merry way while still being forced to "group" by having to see other players' ugly characters....win-win.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

17 Jun 2009 at 22:58 - 149

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

i might have made my posts short and simple, but you guys take things too literally; its all about degrees. when the op asked if heroes killed guild wars, obviously guild wars isnt literally "dead"; so when i said heroes turned gw into a "single-payer" game, obviously it isn't literally that either. you can not, however, deny that heroes have headed gw into that direction.

Only if you can point to it.

Personally, I'm finding other things to point to: the mass of the PvE world, the limitations of the party search system, the general aging of the game, and how unforgiving mistakes can be.

Not only that but where are statistics of people who usually use henchmen and solo anyways, of people who have moved from grouping to pugging, and people who were largely inactive before heroes came out?

I think this thread is one of many good examples of how ANet can make pugging with "newbies" less discouraging. They need to make being unskilled less of the killing blow in GW2 than it is in GW1.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

18 Jun 2009 at 00:40 - 150

Since I am one of the few people saying heroes contributed to the downfall of Guild Wars, let me make myself more simple and clear.

All this crap about Pugs and Guilds is irrelevent to the point. Guild Wars used to be a multiplayer game with a single player option. Now because of heroes it is a single player game with a multiplayer option REGARDLESS of anything else. There is a HUGE HUGE difference and it has all but killed the game for me and everybody I used to play with right alongside Anet's destruction of PvP which heroes also contributed to.

Age

Hall Hero

Join Date: Jul 2005

California Canada/BC

STG Administrator

Mo/

18 Jun 2009 at 01:05 - 151

It also made recruiting a lot harder as grouping was one of the best ways to pick up new guildies.Guilds have mostly dried up unless you do some sort of pvp.Yes it took away the social aspect of the game as when I do play I find myself talking to AI.I don't get this when playing PWI as i have world chat to listen to when solo questing.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

18 Jun 2009 at 02:03 - 152

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There is a HUGE HUGE difference and it has all but killed the game for me and everybody I used to play with right alongside Anet's destruction of PvP which heroes also contributed to.

This is ridiculous. If you can't beat a hero in pvp then you should give up on pvp in the first place. Heroes are so dumb that anyone with half a brian can beat them. Heroes use roughly the same AI as NM monsters except they have no pve skills, no extra energy regen, only level 20, and you can't be mobbed at the start. If you cant even beat that, then you should give up on pve too.

People who complain that heroes destroy the social aspect of the game are either:

1. Lazy - Do not want to lift a finger to help themselves find a good guild. They rather QQ in the forums because they enjoy showering themselves with self-pity. Most of the anti-hero people belong in this group.

OR

2. Lame - They get kicked out of every good guild they tried. Rare, but there must be some.

There is no excuse to blame heroes for their own failure to help themselves find other human players to play with. If even I can find a good guild in minutes, anyone can.

Laraja

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2007

Somewhere over the rainbow

Descendents of Honor

Rt/

18 Jun 2009 at 02:18 - 153

In my opinion it's the people themselves who are killing this game and people who take the idea of being anonymous to mean they can be complete asshats.

When I first started GW about 15 months ago, I got stuck in so many bad, horrible horrible PUGS with name calling, bitching, whining, moaning, people screamining at each other. I'd get screamed at for watching the cutscenes because I was new and had never seen them. I was NEW for god's sake. I had never played the game but I was expected to be as experienced as someone who had been playing since day one. Unless you were running a second character (or third or forth) through the game, you were doomed to get some dickwad making snide nasty remarks.

PEOPLE and their inability to even had a modicum of decency killed grouping for me. A decent, polite group is a freakin' oxymoron. I said screw them all, and thanks to Anet I had a semi decent option of Henchmen. I didn't even have heros at the time because I didn't have NF or EotN at the time, just Factions and Prophs.

Now things are a bit different. I'm a decent player and have HM unlocked on all the campaigns, but this is due to finding (it took me over a year) a decent guild who doesn't put up with hissy fit bull$hit.

So for me heros and henchmen didn't kill the game, it freakin' saved it.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

18 Jun 2009 at 03:41 - 154

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

This is ridiculous. If you can't beat a hero in pvp then you should give up on pvp in the first place.

You apparently completely missed the point. Not surprising coming from a hero supporter. Heroes contributed to the death of PvP. There is no dispute about that even amongst most people who disagree with me. It has nothing to do with how hard to beat they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

1. Lazy - Do not want to lift a finger to help themselves find a good guild. They rather QQ in the forums because they enjoy showering themselves with self-pity. Most of the anti-hero people belong in this group.

Theres no need to find a good guild anymore. If anything, many of the pro-hero people fit your first criteria nicely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

2. Lame - They get kicked out of every good guild they tried. Rare, but there must be some.

This, again, fits mostly pro-hero people. They use heroes because they might have got kicked out of a guild or pug (because they suck too bad to be in any decent guild or pug), then they come on these forums and proclaim people suck and heroes were a godsend, when in reality they sucked and the people telling them so were probably the actual godsend.

Long story short, this game was best when it was a multiplayer game. Heroes contributed to GW being a singleplayer game, and as a singleplayer game it lacks in comparison to most other singleplayer games.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

18 Jun 2009 at 05:01 - 155

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Long story short, this game was best when it was a multiplayer game. Heroes contributed to GW being a singleplayer game, and as a singleplayer game it lacks in comparison to most other singleplayer games.

Are you reduced to simply stating your opinion without backing them up?

How is this a singleplayer game when my guild's schedule is packed with events every day of the week? How is this a singleplayer game when I see lots of pugs/players forming groups for zmission and zquests every day? How is this a singleplayer game when I see so many active guilds recruiting in our alliance, in these forums, and in the game?

Too bad but you sound like the single guy sitting in a corner in a packed party. Instead of getting to know people all around you, you decided to just sit there and qq about yourself.

Khyr Lord of Kaoz

Academy Page

Join Date: Jun 2009

Tasmania

House of Kaoz

N/R

18 Jun 2009 at 05:16 - 156

I wouldn't PLAY GW if not for heroes. There seems to be some sort of attitude that all MMOs and people who play them want to be social. I have ONE person that I play with most of the time and that's it. We each take three heroes.

Some people DO play MMOs for social interaction. There is nothing wrong with that. But those people aren't the only people playing and they aren't the only ones who have a say.

You need to cater to BOTH groups. That's what Z-quests were intended to do. That and Nicolas the Traveler.

But just because GW was one way once upon a time, and it evolved into something that other people besides "you" want to play, don't make it out to be a bad thing. I'm not a 20 year old, I'm closer to 50 (much closer) and frankly, the rude, obnoxious nature of the kids in pugs is a complete turn off. You may love bickering and stupidity, but I don't. It's not how I choose to relax.

Heroes didn't kill GW. It MADE GW. It separates it from other games of the ilk, opening up availability to a lot of players who wouldn't play most MMOs.

There are SO MANY MMOs floating around. GW is strong because it's different. I can't name five MMOs that are as strong as GW more than four years after first becoming available.

The fact is, for a game this old, GW is REMARKABLY robust. Nothing killed it, and if it's still going, then they've done more right than wrong.

Live with it.

fenix

Major-General Awesome

Join Date: Aug 2005

Aussie Trolling Crew HQ - Event Organiser and IRC Tiger

Ex Talionis [Law], Trinity of the Ascended [ToA] ????????????????&#

W/

18 Jun 2009 at 05:22 - 157

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Are you reduced to simply stating your opinion without backing them up?

How is this a singleplayer game when my guild's schedule is packed with events every day of the week? How is this a singleplayer game when I see lots of pugs/players forming groups for zmission and zquests every day? How is this a singleplayer game when I see so many active guilds recruiting in our alliance, in these forums, and in the game?

Too bad but you sound like the single guy sitting in a corner in a packed party. Instead of getting to know people all around you, you decided to just sit there and qq about yourself.

Have you only played GW for a year and a half or something?

If you were around 3 years ago, you'd understand this thread. Clearly, you didn't, and as such do not understand it. Best bet is to stop posting.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

18 Jun 2009 at 05:30 - 158

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Have you only played GW for a year and a half or something?

If you were around 3 years ago, you'd understand this thread. Clearly, you didn't, and as such do not understand it. Best bet is to stop posting.

I have been playing this game for more than 4 years and clearly you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so stop posting.

bhavv

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2006

18 Jun 2009 at 05:30 - 159

Heroes did not destroy any aspect of the game and they were in fact good for PVP.

If H/H parties were still allowed in HA and GVG, there would actually be a lot more people playing them.

The clever approach would have been to make a seperate HA and GVG game for parties with AI characters, and a seperate one for full player teams.

H/H parties in GVG would only be allowed to play unrated and unranked games, H/H in HA would be limited to fewer maps that are suited to H/H play and no final HoH map with the chest.

People would still enjoy H/H play in PVP with these limitations for faction and fame farming. And dont go saying that it would cheapen the fame title track when that has already been done with spikes, IWAY, Mathway, old school Vimway etc etc.

I enjoy playing 1v1 H/H GVG scrimmages, and enjoyed H/H in HA too while it was there.

Of course before you start whining at my suggestions, seperation of full player parties and AI parties would enable you to PVP without facing any AI teams.

I dont understand why anti AI players should be determining how others enjoy playing the game. For me, all I want is heroes with my chosen skillbars. They play what I want and however I want without complaining, going AFK, or rage quitting on me.

fenix

Major-General Awesome

Join Date: Aug 2005

Aussie Trolling Crew HQ - Event Organiser and IRC Tiger

Ex Talionis [Law], Trinity of the Ascended [ToA] ????????????????&#

W/

18 Jun 2009 at 05:34 - 160

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

I have been playing this game for more than 4 years and clearly you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so stop posting.

If you had any idea what you were talking about I wouldn't need to question it. Saying that the game isn't dead just because your guild isn't dead, and a couple of zquest zones aren't dead isn't an argument.

Look at the whole game. Player numbers have plummeted. You used to find large numbers of players, everywhere, now all the towns are empty except for the few larger ones, and zquest ones.

Clearly the game is dying, and heroes are a reason for it. If you don't realise this, then really, stop posting. You can blatantly ignore the information that people are posting, and sprout nonsense.