How did Heroes kill Guild Wars?

I.e. based on experience and experiences vary. Thank you.

You still aren't seeing why what you are saying does not get us anywhere. You are basically using the choice argument...that is you are assuming that every possible choice is a good thing which in and of itself is false. You are basically saying "since we have the choice to use heroes they are good". You have to tell me WHY they are good...in reality I see 1 way they are good and about 20 why they are bad.

Nobody has been forced, is being forced, or ever will be forced. This is another thing I see pop up that makes no sense. How about the people who when they play Guild Wars are forced to play a solo game with heroes in it? Now do you get why what you say still gets us nowhere? You have to tell me why heroes are good for the game as a whole. All I see in this thread are personal experiences similar to what I see in the balance threads with people who don't want anything nerfed but refuse to look at the game as a whole because the inbalance is fun for them.

I am simply voicing opposition. That is the point of this topic after all and that is also the point of forums. Get back to us when you want to add anything useful.

We've been over this before. Would you like to ask Anet to give us hard statistics on who plays solo and who doesn't? I'd be glad to ask but I know I wouldn't get an answer. That is probably the only way you will be satisfied on this issue. It reminds me of the people who thought there were more PvP players than PvE players back in the old days before Anet gave us the actual stats. To me it is foolish to think this game is still a multiplayer game.

As long as there is a choice in playing style it is good for the game as a whole because everyone is unique and different, it lends to the game's diversity. Yet in a sense, everyone has the same potential to grow in the game since we are all playing the same game.

i want to stress this point, because this is an important issue imo. proph days, many people played just to have fun. nowadays, people take gw as srs bsns with all the titles and items to grind out. this makes people rage a lot more on pugs creating hostility between people.


opposed to the socializing going on in h/h? i mean, the quotes that mhenlo and devona say are pretty interesting, but i never considered replying to them.


to be honest, this thread isn't going anywhere, because the puggers are trying to argue pugging vs h/h, while the hero supporters are trying to argue pugging vs guild/friend groups. i've already stated earlier that heroes did not have a very big effect on guild groups, but it had a heavy impact on pug groups.

a pugger simply does not have a choice to pug, simply because there isnt many people pugging anymore. your a guild grouper, so your still happy because you have your option still available to you.... but puggers have lost their option. this is not debatable, you simply can not find a pug group for many things in gw as easy as you used to.

Actually...

I haven't had much trouble getting into groups. I also play with Guildies, and I H/H when I feel like it.

I haven't found pugs to be the totally negative experience others have made it out to be. But I do need to be in the mood for it. Same as when I group with my Guildies.

But, there are times when I don't feel... sociable...times when I just want to grab some Heroes and Henchies, and take my frustrations out on poor hapless monsters.

In my mind, all three options-pugging for the halibut, doing HM with Guildies, or just plain foolin' around with heroes-are all equally valid. It all depends on how I feel at the time. On what I want to do...

That is not true in the slightest. For example, say there is a skill that does 10 billion damage. Many people would enjoy using it because it fits their playstyle. That doesn't make it good for the game. How are heroes good? For every one thing you say is good I can probably list at least two that are bad.

If we're not getting any actual statistics, I really don't see what there is to argue about.

As I said earlier, we only know very little: NF was released, Heroes were released, less players have been playing with others since then, or even earlier. We do not know why. Until we do get some hard cold facts, we have nothing to go on. Our guesses are as good as anyones.

No one here is saying that Guild Wars is the same as it used to at release (but those that are should probably check outposts more). But the causes of that can't be pointed at.

If even I can start as a pugger myself and still enjoy the game today as a pugger or guild/alliance team member or heroes user, anybody can. I dont consider myself as any great socialite either.

Despite what you said puggers can still pug in this game and even if they can't find random stranger to party them, they can still make friends or join guilds to play with other humans. Instead of forcibly pushing yourself (i.e. being pathetic) into someone's team who prefer to solo anyway, why dont you look to join someone who actually prefer the company of other human players instead? It is not a zero sum game. Try to spend some efforts adapting to the times.

Heroes are simply good just because they are an additional option for people to play this game. Limiting options like you suggest, by forcing everyone to play a certain way, decreases play style variety and is not good for the game.

Maybe we need a petition to get those stats then. I am looking at this as objectively as possible without stats. Either way, I bet Anet doesn't want us to see the stats because it would prove what I am saying, and they don't want people to know that what I'm saying is true.

Did you even read my last post? Not all options are necessarily good.

It's pretty near impossible to be "objective" about something when there's no information about how it happened. NF was released, and either people started to notice that less people were in outposts or people just started to dwindle in outposts. Everything after that is personal bias and theory.

@below: Sorry if it comes off as "if" since any idiot can see that GW is no longer as populated. No, I'm strictly asking "how".

To me you are not asking HOW it happened....you are asking IF it happened. IF it happened we know HOW it happened.

This option is good.

Why do we need more than one reason why the presence of heroes is a good thing? As long as it outweighs the sum of all reasons why they are bad, 1 reason is fine.

Here's the reason why I think they're good.

Heroes are good because they make the game more enjoyable for people who prefer to play without strangers in their party, without taking away anything from people who want to play with strangers in their party, other than the companionship of people who don't want to play with them in the first place.

Now, I'd like to see your 20 reasons why they are bad.

By 'nowadays', you mean like since 3 months after Prophecy's release, right?

That's so sad.

I don't know about you, but I don't find failing fun. If I want to laugh about failing at Guild Wars, I go play with my friends and not random people. Yes, Prophecies was very different, because everyone was equally bad (for the most part), but there were still areas like THK where you'd see exceptionally terrible players who were unable to find groups. Should others be forced to carry these players through the game? No. It was mentioned elsewhere, though I don't remember where, that the problem is that the game isn't able to tell bad players that they are bad at the game. It's true.

@DreamWind
It's amazing how you guys can argue that PUGs are necessary for the survival of Guild Wars and that heroes have killed the game. Even from an objective standpoint that's ludicrous. How many people do you think would stop playing if they became unable to use heroes to do things in hard mode? It's certainly at least as many as those complaining that no one wants to play with them, and more than the number that supposedly quit because of heroes. There are any number of reasons that people stop playing, and the introduction of heroes is definitely not high on that list.

People will play with others if they want to do so. Making them unable to do anything without playing with others would be a horrible decision. Guild Wars has, from the very start, been about convenience and being able to solo clear areas with henchmen was a selling point. Unlike most other games, you don't need to sit around and wait for a group to go do something. Henchmen just aren't going to cut it in Hard Mode with their crappy bars. Heroes aren't perfect, but they are better. Removing the ability for people to load up H/H and just go to do something is bad. Period.

You can argue the semantics all you want. Guild Wars is a multiplayer game that people can play in single player mode with NPCs. Guild Wars is a single player game with the option to play with others. All that matters in the end is how many people prefer each one. Since both options have large followings, it's best to just keep both options. Advocating a change that would alienate a large portion of a game because you personally believe that heroes are a bad option for the game is hardly objective. Removing the ability to H/H would be a worse choice than keeping the status quo. If you honestly believe that removing H/H would return Guild Wars to some golden era where players happily grouped with others and loved it regardless of the outcome, then I'm sorry, but you're delusional. You know what would happen? People would quit. They're used to the now, and there's no going back.

IMO heroes were both a good and bad thing. They were good in the sense that they cannot leech off of you as a real player could if willing. They cannot scam or ridicule you... Well they could if programmed that way, but that's not the point. They make it easier for people to hop in and go do something. I get the feeling they were basically added in as a preemptive strike against the community dying out or becoming too anti-social. Henchmen were already there for that I suppose, but a whole party of henchmen is failtastic in every sense of the made up word. That and they just add more depth to the game. Who gives a crap about henchmen despite their personalities and background stories? Heroes have that AND they are a major part of each campaign. They were a good thing IMO.

Heroes bad? Perhaps to some. Remember though, that without them it would be PuG, guild, or henchmen. Living in a world without heroes? No thank you. I don't PuG anymore, and never will so long as I have a couple friends online and heroes. Most PuGs no matter how well thought out usually dissolve into some rambo type wiping the group repeatedly. Not that it's impossible to get good PuGs. Often enough it's just not worth the effort finding a good PuG. Guildies/Friends/Heroes or it's adios. Heroes give people the option to wing it with a half decent party (literally) and let us drop in and take the helm on the battlefield. It's nigh impossible these days to make your team listen to you for five seconds. Nothing like doing nightfall missions on HM only to see half your group get bombed instantly and rage because they apparently turned into a Lemming and rushed into a boss mob. Heroes are a godsend. I can vanquish and do HM missions with a couple of friends and fill the rest with heroes. Give them a good build and go to town.

That's all I care to say.

EDIT: Actually come to think of it I don't really see anything bad with heroes other than the birth of lolhero battles and the fact that they can't comprehend some builds.

Titles encouraged people to play with hench more than heroes did.

"Hold on while I scrap this part of the map"
"Can we go this way, I know it's the long way, but I need it on my map?"
"I really really need to cap this skill from the boss on the other side of the map"

It also encouraged farming even more, to get sweet tooth and drunkard. So yeah, the game was in a downward spiral way before heroes came onto the scene, from a combination of titles, and PuGs being absolutely terrible. Mending Wammos all over the place, people who had no idea what they were doing, etc etc.

Proof?

Although I could give you 20, I don't need to. Using your logic I only need to give you 2. So here it goes..

BUT before we get to those 2 reasons, I will state that your supposedly good reason already has a flaw in it. The flaw assumes that I am only talking about pugs amd I'm only talking about PvE (more on that when I respond to the next guy). This has nothing to do with strangers. It has everything to do with Guild Wars becoming a single player game. I really don't care who people are playing with. The point is it DID take away from people who want to play with others, because now others will likely not play with them when they may have before. I haven't even touched the problems caused in PvP yet...

Now for those 2 reasons.

PvE- Contributed to GW being a solo non unique game. Contributed to teamwork, strategy, and tactics being nonexistant...essentially the death of the team. Contributed to a solo mentality, where even many guilds may not play with each other due to heroes (my friend who is in one of the biggest PvE guilds in the game even made this comment to me)...essentially the death of the Guild Wars (we might as well call the game AI Wars). Contributed to the death of pugs. I suppose Bryant Again will post and say I have no evidence on some of these, so I posted a lot of reasons to counteract.

PvP- Killed HA almost singlehandedly. Also severely decreased GvG population singlehandedly (to a lesser extent). Any AI in PvP is essentially a joke. I suppose I could also say HB is possibly the worst thing in the entire game, but that would be a knock on the format more than heroes themselves.

I am not saying heroes killed the game. I am saying heroes contributed to the decline of the game. Big difference.

And although I do feel that pugs are a good part of any online game, I am also not limiting this problem to pugs. In fact while pugs were affected by heroes, that is probably one of the problems that is least important. Heroes affected EVERY SINGLE part of the game from PvE to PvP. It was a sweeping action that changed everything from the game itself to the players who played it. I am tired of all these posts going on and on about how pugs and people were bad anyways. Yes that is a problem (that was not directly helped by heroes ironically), but that isn't the major problems I am talking about.

Now we touch on another problem with heroes...they are completely inbalanced when compared to the AI you are fighting against in PvE. As far as I'm concerned, nobody should be able to beat HARD mode without a team in a game where team work and guilds are key. We are playing a game called Guild Wars where we can use AI to beat nearly anything in the game without a team or a guild. It is ridiculous IMO. Heroes contributed to the game becoming easy...and for anybody competent the game is unbelievably easy nowadays even in HARD mode (the mode that is supposed to be hard).

The worst part is that whatever challenge is left in Guild Wars no longer comes from areas where it matters. In Prophecies, many areas (such as THK) were hard because you needed a team coordinated enough to do them. Team coordination and strategy was critical and were true skill. Nowadays all we have to do is roll some heroes and roll any area in the game (outside of some elite areas but nobody does those anyways because FoW and UW have better rewards and are also stupidly easy now thanks in part to heroes). Skill in Guild Wars PvE no longer comes from team related criteria...it comes from being able to slap the best equipment and inbalanced bars on your heroes (sprinkle in some PvE skills and consumables if you wish) and mashing your head against your keyboard. Thats how I see it. There is no longer a barometer letting players know how badly they suck, which is one of the biggest problems with the game and is caused in large part by the existence of heroes. I could probably argue that the PvE game takes no skill thanks largely in part to heroes, but I won't because being able to smash your head is an art form, and there are noobs who will post saying the game is still hard. /endrant

Nobody has ever been forced to play with others except in some PvP.

I know H/H won't be removed. People love them and they serve as a perfect patch to cover up all the problems ANet will never fix. I know the game will never go back to the so called "golden era" where everything was supposedly milk and honey. That isn't the point though. The question this thread asked was if heroes negatively affected the game, and my answer is yes 90% of the time.

Heroes did not kill GW.
That is just called power creep.
No one force you to use them.

Hopefully you didn't miss my edit in regards to this, but I'll elaborate as well, just in-case. And to which I say:

Er, what?

We have a start and a finish. At the start things were populated. Now far less so. I'm definitely asking *how* it happened. This entails how much each "problem" contributed to the whole.

And to that we dunno.

Which isn't true.

But now that they have an other option they don't. Doesn't that tell you that it's a good option, if so many people find the game more enjoyable playing that way?

Death of the team? Hardly. People who want to team up will team up and actually do team up. You can stamp your feet and deny it, but it's true. If it's become less prevalent, it's because the people who don't want to do it, don't have to do it and actually don't do it. Sounds like a perfect setup to me.

So your friend's experience leads you to believe this is the case in many guilds? Well, my experience tells me differently. Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

Of course heroes contributed. They made it easier for players to avoid them, which obviously they want to, because they do. Heroes aren't the reason, they're a catalyst.

There are several more compelling reasons to explain the decline of PvP. Players leaving the game and not being replaced by fresh blood because of the ever-increasing difficulty threshold to get into PvP because of new professions and a very big pool of skills. Nightfall-era PvP doesn't compare to Prophecies-era at all; the exact effect of heroes can't be measured against all other developments/changes, except through useless anecdotal evidence and conjecture.

You know..its not fair.. i come here in hopes to post up my thoughts.. and then you come and steal away my shining moment.... No in all seriousness very well put counter on your side.. completely agree. Even though i slightly agree with a PUG killers that heroes are. Puging sometimes has its moment and heroes took away slightly from it... BUt it doesnt mean no one pugs no more.. so yeah the quoted poster still is wrong.. i think there is to much emotion and personal vendeta against heroes rather then rational thought and..facts...

Experiences do not go for a fact either.....I personaly find that heroes complete missing spots in the Guild team when needed.. especialy in small guilds when a usual member that play an ele is gone doing Speed Clear and there is no 1 to replace....And we for a FACT know that our other ele is good at MICROING heroes.. that way we do not need to take on a PUG and at the same time have decent performance....PUGing in my opinion is to get into a guild or get some one into your guild......

In any case heroes save time, trouble, and ensure a productive and fun gameplay.. rather then shifty feeling when playing is a LEEROY Wammo -_-

The biggest problem came in Pvp, where you can go and hold halls with 2 heros, because sadly, the heros play better than half of the actual people do, who dc, or go afk mid match, or just plain don't know what their doing.

They kind of ruined pve, but pvp was hit the hardest, alot of people i know stopped Toomzing and gvging after.

Just one vicious cycle going downwards.

They didnt really solve anything Imo.

People say they helped people form teams, yet anet shouldn't have released 4 campaigns in the first place with all these missions and towns, the percent chance enough people could meet at all times to do the mission together is relatively 0.

They should have either created campaigns with less missions, or simply waited for more people to play.

There's not enough people to span 4 different campaigns, and the numbers just shrinking everyday.

Do you have any official evidence of this happening besides the fact that jumpin on the "OH NOES GW IS DEAD" bandwagon..because according to the Anet copies were sold and numbers of them get more and more... Sure there are people who buy extra chapters,accounts...but it doesnt mena more people dont come into play.. so yeah im waiting ont the officla link where it states "THe Populated of once very active COORPG game Guild Wars has been diminishing daily for the past 2 years" title -_-

What logic? He gave one reason. I hope you actually have twenty, but I doubt it.

The majority of players who H/H are the same players that used henchmen exclusively anyway. If there are really so many players that want to group with other players, why is it so hard to find others to play with? Surely there can't only be seven others in any given outpost at a time. These are probably the same players who get stuck if there is a dearth of healers, because they refuse to grab an NPC monk and go.

That's great. You're on the wrong thread, and every change since the release contributed to the decline of the game, too.

Still haven't convinced me that it was a bad thing. Players can now change up their team build if it doesn't work instead of mindlessly zerging and hoping it works just once.

This is all your opinion. The "Guild Wars" refers to GvG and other PvP aspects of the game. PvE is set up poorly and does not teach players how to PvP; this is why we see such terrible bars in places like RA, AB, JQ, FA, etc. Just because it is possible to clear almost every in the game using H/H, doesn't mean that it is easy. It still requires the player to be competent, especially in starting areas. It will always be easier to use a full player team, unless you can only find idiots to group with. Do you find permasins or 600 smite groups to be somehow better than H/Hing when clearing areas? Hint: the issue isn't Heroes.

Heroes really aren't a large part of the problem. Yes, they made the game easier for people who were already not playing with full player teams by giving them better tools to work with, but in terms of making the game easier, they are only a tiny aspect. PvE skills and consumables really made a much, much larger difference. Monster AI also really needs fixing if you want the game to be difficult. There really never was any way for the game to let players know that they suck. If they couldn't do it with henchmen, it just means that the henchmen AI sucked. If they can't do it with players, it just means that their team sucked. If they couldn't solo it, it just means that their class is underpowered and Anet sucks at balancing. Bad players are too bad to realize that they are bad.

And there is no reason to start now, as some of the suggestions posted on Gurus are advocating.

No, the name of the thread is "How did Heroes kill Guild Wars?" not "Did Heroes negatively impact the game?".

I was able to clear areas like THK with just henchmen in the Prophecies era. Does that mean henchmen negatively impacted the game, despite being a core part of the game from its launch?

Read my earlier post. More option, more diversity, to fit different play style.

Let me tell you what is imbalanced. Imbalanced is the ability to bring 24 overpowered, totally unfair PvE skills per team. It is THAT ability that generates overpowered teams like Ursanway, Cryway, and who knows whatever PvE skill way would be next which requires all members of the party to bring PvE skills for it to work. A H/H team can NEVER accomplish that. Cryway and Ursanway were ALOT more powerful than any H/H combination that anyone knows of.

If you think THK is hard, you should try HM DoA. THK is not hard, most people fail simply because they get over confident and split up instead of grouping near the king. HM DoA is so hard that there is yet no viable 6 heroes build to clear it and even clearing NM DoA is a challenge with 6 heroes. But a human team can clear HM DoA WITH ITS 24 PVE SKILLS PER TEAM allowance yet again. So how are heroes more overpowered compared to a human team again?

It takes way more skill to micro heroes out of a devastating AoE attack (because of dumb AI), than it is to play with a human team that can act independently on their own. And you want to talk about cons? Heroes can never ever bring cons, humans do. EVERY overpowered team build that comes out of this game require a human team because the heroes AI is either too dumb to use the build well (e.g. SF) or because heroes can't equip any overpowered PvE skills. A human team has always been more powerful than any H/H team, that is a KNOWN FACT!

AFAIC, Heroes didn't "kill" Guild wars. PUGs almost did, and heroes saved it. A good example of how

I think that yes, heroes are bad for the game. It was clearly designed to be a multiplayer game, and that's where it's at its best, but heroes make it a lot easier to just go it alone, so most people do.

oH Oh so you say it easy wiht Heroes right.....YOU know how much EASIER IT IS WITH FULL PLAYER PARTY.........So what is you point really?...i dont see,just trolling i assume...

In any case once more the example given by the posters above me are great and undeniable =)

i didn't really want to reply to this thread anymore because its full of biased opinions, but i wanted to clear up curseman's point, which is perfectly valid. he did not mean it was easier, as in it takes less skill and knowledge; he meant that its easier in terms of accessibility and getting the group set-up and playing. it takes merely seconds to add a hero to the team, whereas it can take minutes and in some cases impossible to add a pug to the team.

i really don't understand how one can argue against this. the sole purpose of heroes is to replace a human player. thats the only reason they exist. so how can you even suggest that the multiplayer aspect of gw is not dying when people are being replaced by heroes?

Oh I guess we are talking about 2 different things really. You are questioning why things are less populated...I am questioning why the game became a singleplayer game. Either way we could probably say heroes contributed at least in some part. I am not simply saying that the game became a singleplayer game BECAUSE the game is less populated.

You don't know it isn't true. It is much more likely that I am correct until we have evidence that proves it.

It tells me nothing. How many people enjoy the other option more but have more difficulty doing it (or left the game) thanks in part to heroes and a declining team playerbase?

Irrelevent. You didn't address the fact that less teams are forming because of heroes and you fail to realize that nobody was EVER forced to team. Repeat after me: NOBODY HAS EVER HAD TO TEAM UP IN GUILD WARS.

Meh...now you are starting to sound like Bryant. I'll email Anet so maybe we can get some real evidence to support me already.

As far as I'm concerned Guild Wars is 2 different games...before heroes and after. I paid for the game before heroes not after (my friend actually bought me NF and EoTN). You are basically saying that since a lot of people didn't want to play Guild Wars the way it was built, heroes are good so they don't have to. Before heroes people didn't like Guild Wars?

You ever wonder why people leave PvP? We know PvP has had a lot of problems, but if you are telling me there is no evidence that heroes killed HA and dropped PvP population in other areas you clearly have not played much PvP. Heroes caused an EXODUS in HA. Before heroes there was 7-10 districts...immediately after there was roughly 2-3 districts. The population in HA has never returned to its former self and likely never will. Heroes were DEVASTATING to PvP, and that is a FACT.

He said that if he has more reasons for heroes being good rather than bad, than heroes are good. Unfortunately he gave one good reason and I gave two. So I win. =D

Again...you are stuck in the mentality that I am only talking about pugs here. As to your point, a lot more people would play in pugs because pugs are still better than 7 henchies. Also, I am not saying that heroes caused the problem of population spread (although it may have contributed slightly is irrelevent). I am simply responding to the thread and saying that heroes did cause many problems.

There have been many positive changes such as J menu, observer, etc etc etc. There have also been many bad changes such as PvE skills, consumables, power creeps, etc etc etc. Heroes were good in SOME ways, but my claim is they did more bad than good. I suppose the people still left playing Guild Wars mostly like heroes, because the people who don't like them probably don't play anymore and aren't posting here. Guild Wars became a different game after heroes, that is all.

Ok you are correct here. The problem...heroes don't help the issue, they hurt it.

It means that in my book. No team skill required=easy. Very little personal skill required after heroes are well setup=easy.

All that matters is they were an aspect. Anything that made this game easier was bad for it. Easier to understand and pick up yes...easier to beat no.

Ah...so now we reach the heart of the problem. The best way to get better in this game is to play with people better than you. The barometer for knowing you suck is when other people tell you so (by telling you to change your build etc) or when you fail at something. Both of these are GOOD things as they allow you to become a better player. What do heroes promte? They made is so everybody who sucks can completely avoid all of this. Not only that, but it allows sucky players to succeed by themselves! Heroes were a godsend to sucky players, but a hellspawn for the difficulty and challenge of the game as well as the idea of "skill>time". Yes powercreep is a factor, but at least it didn't allow avoidance of problems.

Nobody is advocating forcing anybody to do anything.

Well...the problem with the word "kill" is that it has many definitions. Many people say Guild Wars isn't dead until the servers go down. Saying heroes killed Guild Wars would get me nowhere. I prefer to say it the other way because it is still on topic and doesn't get the asshats that say the game isn't dead on my back.

Read my other post. Not all options are good. You are turning this into a circle without answering my question.

Correct, which is why they should have been nerfed. H/H builds are already too strong. Anything stronger is ridiculous.

Of course THK isn't hard anymore. The good thing about THK though was that it promoted team ability. Anything that promotes team skill is good...anything that takes away from it is bad IMO. DoA is a good example of how screwed up Guild Wars is nowadays (in more ways than one). The idea that only good teams can beat it is a good thing. The idea that other areas that are beatable with H/H have better and easier to grind for rewards than DoA is hilarious.

So human teams are better because heroes can't abuse stuff as much as humans. The abusable crap shouldn't exist and is off topic anyways. So much inbalance...meh I give up. Team required skill>Individual no required skill. That is all.

Doesn't the first sentence contradict the second?

Because people are not being replaced by heroes. Henchmen are being replaced with heroes. GW was meant to be soloable from its day of release with henchmen, heroes just made it more enjoyable.

Also, i am in full agreeance that heroes SAVED guild wars. Without them, pugs would have ended up killing the game themselves.

The original release box of guild wars said that you could play with others or play alone, solo play in PVE has been an option since the games release.

Not allowing solo play in a game and forcing grouping is a very bad tactic, just about every MMO on the market today can be played solo.

Why exactly does it bother pug players that I choose to log into guild wars or any other game and play solo? Why is how I play my game any concern of theirs? If grouping was forced in this game and solo play was not an option, I, as well as maybe 75% of the PVE community would not be here today.

Because they are terrible at the game, can't solo, and can't finish anything?

It's really a sad state of affairs when mission/quest completion percentage is higher with heroes/hench than it is with people...and it's not close, not even remotely close.

I actually got most of my legendary guardian title from 2 man hero way. I made the builds on most times, the other person was great and loaded up what I asked, and everything turned out to be a walk in the park. Then I vanquished most of cantha with the same guild, then got bored with vanqing and stopped there, but yesterday I vanqed one of the Z mish bounty areas while killing Ghial.

So I do play with others sometimes from my guild / alliance, but I never join random pugs. Those people dont even know how to make a working skill bar, let alone have the strategic sense to adapt or synergise with their whole team.

And then they come on guru to complain about heroes killing the game because people dont want to play with them lol.

Oh, don't get me wrong...a decent guild group can roll most places. Hell, a 2-person Heroway can do nearly anything in the game (and was generally what I did for HM, along with doing half the places with h/h).

But someone would just need to be really desperate to join a random PuG. I mean, they are full of useless builds, idiots, and people who leech/go afk mid-fight/leave if they die. The only time I'd even consider PuGing would be if I was really bored and decided to help someone, but even then I'd get pissed off with it.

I mean, I'd go to Viz Square where I know people would get stuck, with my assassin in 15k kurzick or canthan armor, offer to help, and be denied because "assassin suck", even though I had clearly beaten the mission before, along with subsequent missions. That amount of stupidity really turns you off playing with random people.

All I'm going to say, simply put, it removed further interaction within the playerbase, less of a connection more of a single player feeling. Can't see anyone refuting that fact. There once was a time when players used team chat, talked about builds, had a giggle, made connections, formed guilds. All from pairing up and doing a mission with multiple people/reactions/suggestions so on, can't say heroes did anything good in the long term for Guild Wars sake.

To be fair, people being bad caused people to stop playing with them. Hell, I henched all of factions with 6-7 characters.

The moment that I realized that playing with other people was a waste of time, was when I struggled with THK for several days, PuG after PuG failing and failing. Grab hench, roll the mission.

It was then that it pretty much dawned on me that playing with other people, aside from the "interaction" (which was, most of the time, unpleasant). Since then, PuGs have failed to restore my faith in them.

I don't mean to be rude but when exactly did you pick up playing GW. Way back in 2005 many of the missions could not or barely be completed with henchmen, and ther were no heroes....

Julyish 2005.

And yes, all missions could be completed with hench. Including THK, Abaddon's Mouth, and Hell's Precipice. They were in fact more difficult than nowadays due to the lack of heroes, and lack of stronger Factions/Nightfall/EotN skills, but they were very much doable.

As was all of Sorrow's Furnace, and some of the Titan's quests. Of course FoW and UW weren't possible, but that's what a guild and friends are for.

I can take it one step further. I win.