So do you miss...
Shadowspawn X
Heroes are OP in factions and prophesies, the only way they had a negative impact on the game is that there is a generation of people who run discordway and sabway for everything and have no sense on how to build a winning bar for themselves or their heroes. Pugging has always been fine thats how you build your friends list.
Kali Magdalene
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
I cant' believe I'm posting in this bad thread again, but I can't help it. Me and Bryant Again have already been over every angle of hero vs antihero.
The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine. But when I say everything was better before Nightfall, I mean EVERYTHING. In Prophecies you could get a team basically anywhere in the game. |
I played before Nightfall, and just about the only thing that was better was the population - both in terms of people only having access to one or two campaigns (and thus being easier to find in either), and in terms of overall population. Guild Wars' population isn't dropping across the entire game because of heroes, it's dropping because it's been around for years, Anet explicitly put it into maintenance mode with a small live team after Eye of the North, and the remaining population is now spread across four campaigns instead of two.
I mean, sure, I have no doubt some people left because of heroes, but I don't think that's the driving force behind GW's overall decline. If we didn't have heroes, we'd still have it - except more people would likely leave because without heroes, some areas are much more difficult to simply hench.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X
Heroes are OP in factions and prophesies, the only way they had a negative impact on the game is that there is a generation of people who run discordway and sabway for everything and have no sense on how to build a winning bar for themselves or their heroes. Pugging has always been fine thats how you build your friends list.
|
Zahr Dalsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Don't people realize that the game was built as a guild/team game, particularly a guild game?
|
Vulturion
In answer to the OP question: nope, because there's nothing to miss for me.
Played from shortly after launch through to Nightfall never teaming with anyone but my brother - after the first month or so of noobishly enduring the cons and abuses of the PUG & open-guild 'community' - during which Guild Wars secured its place as my favorite MMO ever.
Since subsequently Heroes have done nothing but enhance our solo/duo gameplay experience, I've no nostalgia about the days when the rest of our party slots were filled with AI sidekicks using deliberately sub-par skillbars.
For me, Guild Wars has only ever changed for the better.
Played from shortly after launch through to Nightfall never teaming with anyone but my brother - after the first month or so of noobishly enduring the cons and abuses of the PUG & open-guild 'community' - during which Guild Wars secured its place as my favorite MMO ever.
Since subsequently Heroes have done nothing but enhance our solo/duo gameplay experience, I've no nostalgia about the days when the rest of our party slots were filled with AI sidekicks using deliberately sub-par skillbars.
For me, Guild Wars has only ever changed for the better.
Kerwyn Nasilan
I only play if I can get at least one other player, as far as I can tell heros are just superior to henchs for filling up the empty spots.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene
I played before Nightfall, and just about the only thing that was better was the population - both in terms of people only having access to one or two campaigns (and thus being easier to find in either), and in terms of overall population.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene
Guild Wars' population isn't dropping across the entire game because of heroes, it's dropping because it's been around for years, Anet explicitly put it into maintenance mode with a small live team after Eye of the North, and the remaining population is now spread across four campaigns instead of two.
I mean, sure, I have no doubt some people left because of heroes, but I don't think that's the driving force behind GW's overall decline.. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
Guild Wars has been intended from the start to be doable with AI and to support those of us who prefer to play in that manner. You make the mistake of assuming that it's intended for playing with people only.
|
But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.
Zahr Dalsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Correct, but that doesn't address my point. Heroes changed the game's philosophy and the community's culture.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.
|
/thread
Axel Zinfandel
Anet's View of GW has always been to make it a game for the casual gamer, correct me if I'm wrong.
by common sense to me at least, Heroes seem to be a natural progression of their view.
That being said though, I played GW back when it was just prophesies (back when you had to spend points to fix attributes :P), left, and came back some time after Nightfall came out.
IMO, GW is better with heroes, because I was never one to particularly -like- playing with human players.
by common sense to me at least, Heroes seem to be a natural progression of their view.
That being said though, I played GW back when it was just prophesies (back when you had to spend points to fix attributes :P), left, and came back some time after Nightfall came out.
IMO, GW is better with heroes, because I was never one to particularly -like- playing with human players.
Kali Magdalene
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
That wasn't the only thing that was better, but yes it was a big thing. Let me put it this way...the biggest and best argument for heroes today is that the population of this game is so small and spread out that heroes feel almost required. That they are required doesn't mean it is the best situation though. The best situation was before the problems that required them.
|
I'll add that while there was demand for certain cookie cutter builds in pugs, there was less of it. I mean, it was pre-Ursan and SF, so people had a lot more leeway, if they weren't a mesmer or assassin (but then, I always took mesmers or assassins in my groups, 'cause I like them).
Edit to add: I certainly appreciate the ability to solo as needed (something I did pre-Nightfall, so this isn't new to me), especially when I did have a bad pug experience, including players who didn't understand aggro, or players who blamed their poor play on the healers (and I played a monk fairly frequently). It's something when going all henchmen actually decreases an area's difficulty.
Quote:
| It isn't the driving force, but it was a factor. I didn't say the population dropped because of heroes, but it certainly dropped in part due to the culture of the game changing. A lot of people who bought the game for a multiplayer experience (in both PvE and PvP) left the game when it became overcrowded with solos and AI. |
Quote:
|
Correct, but that doesn't address my point. Heroes changed the game's philosophy and the community's culture. But on a side note, even if GW is intended to be AI-able, the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO. |
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
Except they didn't, aside from helping to support those of us who don't like playing with people, and already played with henchmen anyways.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
They're meant to be beaten with an AI team.
/thread |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene
I certainly appreciate the ability to solo as needed (something I did pre-Nightfall, so this isn't new to me), especially when I did have a bad pug experience, including players who didn't understand aggro, or players who blamed their poor play on the healers (and I played a monk fairly frequently). It's something when going all henchmen actually decreases an area's difficulty.
It's a matter of reducing the number of humans necessary to get into an area from 8 to 2-3, which increases accessibility to content. I'd rather see that than UWSCs. |
Kali Magdalene
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
You've never needed more than one human. And sure I'd rather see what we have now rather than UWSC, but I'd rather see a lot of other things than what we have now.
|
And of course, Urgoz' Warren and The Deep can have up to 12 people.
Zahr Dalsk
[QUOTE=DreamWind;4934472]If you don't think heroes drastically changed the game, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Read the past thread for an explanation. All heroes did was made it much more easy to have fun. I know you hate fun; you've been establishing that for months, but a lot of us play games to have fun. Hence, AI parties.
Read your Prophecies box, the game is meant to be beaten by AI. Elite areas sadly don't seem to be, since henchmen aren't allowed there, and No Fun Allowed Guys like you have their way.
Read the past thread for an explanation. All heroes did was made it much more easy to have fun. I know you hate fun; you've been establishing that for months, but a lot of us play games to have fun. Hence, AI parties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Get back to me with Anet confirmation of this. If they say elite areas are supposed to be beaten by AI, then they are bad. Don't you think Anet limiting heroes is saying something?
|
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
Read the past thread for an explanation. All heroes did was made it much more easy to have fun. I know you hate fun; you've been establishing that for months, but a lot of us play games to have fun. Hence, AI parties.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
Read your Prophecies box, the game is meant to be beaten by AI. Elite areas sadly don't seem to be, since henchmen aren't allowed there, and No Fun Allowed Guys like you have their way.
|
Gun Pierson
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
the idea that people can AI areas that are meant to be beaten with a human team is pretty ridiculous IMO.
|
a few examples:
- single player with ai party: Eye of the beholder (1990)
- single/multi player with ai party: Baldur's gate series (1998)
Ai party was here first, co-op possibilities were later introduced. First when LAN technology arrived, followed by the arrival of the internet afterwards.
The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.
FoxBat
Eye of the beholder doesn't have an AI party. It's a party of 4-6 players that YOU MICRO ENTIRELY.
Baldur's Gate series has an AI but it's laughably bad. What makes that series compelling is again, the fact that you can pause the action and micro all commands with detailed strategy.
Now there are a few people who might have some crazy keyboard extensions to play all their hero skillbars in realtime, but the fact is that 99% of people are choosing hero bars that are mostly autopilot. Unlike the very long and venerable series of SP RPGs, some dumb AI is playing the game for you instead of you.
There is something (debateable) to be said about GW being solo-able, but the fact that this is achieved by 7 bots is really sad. There's not really such a thing as a good player or a bad player anymore when the 7 bots constant "skill" is such a huge factor in determining success or failure - and 90% of that is just build setup, which is usually copy pasted and you can't modify for the majority of your gameplay. If I can't micromanage additional party members then I much prefer doing away with them, so the micro I put forth from my individual character actually makes a difference. GW2's supposed system of few AI helpers and scaling difficulty/encounter size sounds like a vastly better solution.
Baldur's Gate series has an AI but it's laughably bad. What makes that series compelling is again, the fact that you can pause the action and micro all commands with detailed strategy.
Now there are a few people who might have some crazy keyboard extensions to play all their hero skillbars in realtime, but the fact is that 99% of people are choosing hero bars that are mostly autopilot. Unlike the very long and venerable series of SP RPGs, some dumb AI is playing the game for you instead of you.
There is something (debateable) to be said about GW being solo-able, but the fact that this is achieved by 7 bots is really sad. There's not really such a thing as a good player or a bad player anymore when the 7 bots constant "skill" is such a huge factor in determining success or failure - and 90% of that is just build setup, which is usually copy pasted and you can't modify for the majority of your gameplay. If I can't micromanage additional party members then I much prefer doing away with them, so the micro I put forth from my individual character actually makes a difference. GW2's supposed system of few AI helpers and scaling difficulty/encounter size sounds like a vastly better solution.
Darth The Xx
While I only picked up the game after EoTN came out, I did not have access to heroes for a very, very long time (first game was faction, then i got proph until finally NF+eotn) and I have to say, it wasn't bad but! relative to how nice it is to have heroes, it was really crappy.
If I couldn't form a full group I would have to take henchmen with Blessed Light and Healing Breeze on their bars
not to mention "tanks" using Charge. I still do think however that running with people is usually faster than with heroes as the AI is just retarded sometimes.
If I couldn't form a full group I would have to take henchmen with Blessed Light and Healing Breeze on their bars
not to mention "tanks" using Charge. I still do think however that running with people is usually faster than with heroes as the AI is just retarded sometimes.
AtomicMew
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.
|
There's already tons of activities you can do that require real players. But for the most part, I'd rather not deal with the teeming masses of noobs out thereh just to get through storyline. The fact that h/h is 99% of the time better than a full pug team you can get is saying something... that's happens to NOT be in support of your argument.
Stop thrusting your view on how this game should be played on other people. Majority of PvE vets don't agree, as evidenced by this thread and A.net doesn't agree with you, as evidenced by how heroes are implemented (FAR before msot towns became deserts).
Bryant Again
I was writing up a really big post until I realized that there wasn't much I really needed to say (and er, nevermind, it ended up being big anyways, doh).
Personally, the only way I see heroes as a "problem" is due to the fact that the bar is set SOOO LOOOW in PvE. Being successful is incredibly simple, and this just isn't a byproduct of PvE skills and overpowered builds but the design of PvE itself: poor scaling (higher level does not always equate to difficulty), poor AI, and horrid monster team compositions flood the entire Guild Wars world.
The way I see it, if PvE was actually created decently, balanced wonderfully, and maintained well, having to control 7 AI teammates would be hard. It would essentially have to be like playing 8 different builds, it would have to require - oh what's that word - skill. People would *want* to play with other players because it would mean they only have to focus on playing one character.
But in the current PvE world, you don't have to do that. It's because PvE is a completely broken landscape that I could sympathize with people considering heroes problematic. But I don't advocate the removal of them nor shun their appearance, I blame the near entirety of the gameworld for having no depth, and just because the game world is broken doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
So for me, I don't see heroes as a problem. I see the fact that I can play HM in the nude with Frenzy always on as a problem.
Personally, the only way I see heroes as a "problem" is due to the fact that the bar is set SOOO LOOOW in PvE. Being successful is incredibly simple, and this just isn't a byproduct of PvE skills and overpowered builds but the design of PvE itself: poor scaling (higher level does not always equate to difficulty), poor AI, and horrid monster team compositions flood the entire Guild Wars world.
The way I see it, if PvE was actually created decently, balanced wonderfully, and maintained well, having to control 7 AI teammates would be hard. It would essentially have to be like playing 8 different builds, it would have to require - oh what's that word - skill. People would *want* to play with other players because it would mean they only have to focus on playing one character.
But in the current PvE world, you don't have to do that. It's because PvE is a completely broken landscape that I could sympathize with people considering heroes problematic. But I don't advocate the removal of them nor shun their appearance, I blame the near entirety of the gameworld for having no depth, and just because the game world is broken doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
So for me, I don't see heroes as a problem. I see the fact that I can play HM in the nude with Frenzy always on as a problem.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
The idea that you call ridiculous, made generations of gamers happy and it's part of gaming evolution and part of the success of several games and companies. It's also a part of GW's success.
|
But your post completely contradicts itself. If games evolved to be more co-op, then how is it gaming evolution for this co-op game to go the route of AI vs AI? I call that de-evolution.
But sure...it is a part of GWs success. It is also part of GWs failure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traversc
But for the most part, I'd rather not deal with the teeming masses of noobs out thereh just to get through storyline. The fact that h/h is 99% of the time better than a full pug team you can get is saying something... that's happens to NOT be in support of your argument.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traversc
Stop thrusting your view on how this game should be played on other people. Majority of PvE vets don't agree, as evidenced by this thread and A.net doesn't agree with you, as evidenced by how heroes are implemented (FAR before msot towns became deserts).
|
As for Anet not agreeing, fine. But since when does everything Anet does=good?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
But in the current PvE world, you don't have to do that. It's because PvE is a completely broken landscape that I could sympathize with people considering heroes problematic. But I don't advocate the removal of them nor shun their appearance, I blame the near entirety of the gameworld for having no depth, and just because the game world is broken doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
|
upier
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
I cant' believe I'm posting in this bad thread again, but I can't help it. Me and Bryant Again have already been over every angle of hero vs antihero.
The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine. But when I say everything was better before Nightfall, I mean EVERYTHING. In Prophecies you could get a team basically anywhere in the game. Let us put that aside though because it is in the past and there are people who would still rather play with AI. Here is my problem. Everybody continually uses their worst pug experiences and empty districts as some sort of justification for the greatness of heroes. Don't people realize that the game was built as a guild/team game, particularly a guild game? Whether people realize it or not, heroes DID change the game drasitcally. They changed the entire philosophy of Guild Wars. Guild Wars used to be a team game with the option to hench. Since heroes, Guild Wars has become a solo game with the option to team. There is a gigantic difference. The game has changed and the community has changed. If you like how the game is now then more power to you. But a large part of the reason the majority likes heroes now is because the majority who don't like what the game has become as a whole have quit and aren't posting about it. While I don't put all the blame on heroes for all this change, they certainly take a lot of it. They were the single biggest shift in gameplay in the history of Guild Wars. |
You go girl!
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Yea...this is basically the conclusion we came to in that very long hero thread a while back. All I'm saying is...while heroes may seem good given the state the game is in...it certainly is not the greatest situation. I would have much rather them stuck with the model they were going with in the beginning.
|
Gun Pierson
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
First I must say, both of the examples you gave are very bad (as FoxBat pointed out).
But your post completely contradicts itself. If games evolved to be more co-op, then how is it gaming evolution for this co-op game to go the route of AI vs AI? I call that de-evolution. |
Games have become more complex, and because you can't pauze the game like in BG, there must be a script in place that brings your party on equal ground somehow. Some argue the script is too good (sabway etc.), others say heroes and henchies are dumb.
The sweet spot or balance is what Bryant has been talking about if I'm not mistaken.
So why are henchies and heroes around? because you can't solo the game. Why do people want to play solo? Because it's still a fundamental part of gaming, but it's not the only part anymore ofcourse. Imo a good RPG game nowadays has it all, good solo play, good coop options versus AI, good PVP.
Rexion
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by upier
I'd never imagine I'd see the day when Dreamy would be advocating heroes!
You go girl! |
Dreamy said that it changed the game drastically, not drastically for the better.
Dreamy said that Guild Wars has changed from a team game with the option to solo to a solo game with the option to team.
Dreamy said there were less empty areas pre-heroes.
none of those statements advocate heroes.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by upier
I'd never imagine I'd see the day when Dreamy would be advocating heroes!
You go girl! |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
For me, I feel that if Guild Wars' PvE did not go down such a broken path, that even having heroes available at the start wouldn't impact the player base too much if at all.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
It's not one story or the other, it's about more options and what's fun.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
Imo a good RPG game nowadays has it all, good solo play, good coop options versus AI, good PVP.
|
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Interesting thought. Unfortunately we can't know this. We only know what DID happen...and that is what we have now. Heroes to me are nothing more than a patch to the broken path.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
That is fine, but we are talking about an online game. So...whatever is put into the game affects the game I play whether I use it or not. I simply feel that the game changed to something less fun when this new option was introduced.
|
upier
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rexion
I guess you have no reading comprehension.
Dreamy said that it changed the game drastically, not drastically for the better. Dreamy said that Guild Wars has changed from a team game with the option to solo to a solo game with the option to team. Dreamy said there were less empty areas pre-heroes. none of those statements advocate heroes. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
The only good argument for heroes is that they allow people to play in empty areas. Fine.
|
And that brings us to how he views the game:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
The game has changed and the community has changed. If you like how the game is now then more power to you. But a large part of the reason the majority likes heroes now is because the majority who don't like what the game has become as a whole have quit and aren't posting about it.
|
So based on that, there are certain options:
1. a MASSIVE do-over. Either by turning it into a single player game (and by single I mean, SINGLE - no parties whatsoever!) or creating options that will bring back multiplayer - which would probably be best done with the removal of the instancing and a massively improved party search system. And the GW Live team has ... 3 members that spend their days hunting down competition winners?
2. heroes.
3. the game closes down.
Pick one.
So yes, based on that I can see why Dreamy would not oppose heroes.
Or would you describe him as either delusional or ... well, delusional once again?
Seriously most of that post was just some crazy ass propaganda in the lines of "You know why heroes are bad? Because heroes starts with an "h". And you know what else starts with an "h"? Hitler!". It's a superb example of CHOOSING TO IGNORE the facts about the current state of the game.
(Khmm, I guess it would be better if I quoted Dreamy and spoke directly to him. So yeah, wrong quote ... to lazy to modify everything, so just think of this as if I am talking to you Dreamy.)
kartmaster
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceQ
^
| That. I am also ,as someone else said, in an inactive guild. all my friends have stopped playing GW. So to get my guardian and vanq will you get 7 people together in all the outposts and wait for me? No, I have actually been to mission outposts in tyria where I was the only one in the outpost. so your telling me that I have to wait there for 3-7 other people to pitch up? I am sorry, I started GW with Factions. My friend and I both got our protector titles with henchies. Then NF came out. we got our protector title with heroes (was great since we could really slap together a good team). Sure we pugged some of them, (esp Cantha since the time limits really caught up with you if you where using just henchies.) So lets be really honest, the 3 maps are Huge, do you really expect people to be spread out all over them right now? The largest concentration of people are still in EotN. I am using the Zquests to do the missions to get my Guardian Title, do those then if you "miss the good old days". If you don't like the mission... log off and go outside or a mall and go watch a movie. I vanquish regions here and there when the mood strikes me... I was half way with the region outside Amnoon Oasis (forget the name), when I had to leave for a bit... the "bit" turned into 3 hours. My h/h just stood there waiting without complaints. Now you tell me if I where to do that in a pug... lol No, they did not ruin the game. They did not make it better either. What makes a game good or bad is yourself. If you keep telling yourself that the game was ruined by white items, you are going to believe that the game is ruined. It is all in each persons mind. I still enjoy the game, the only annoying thing is that I can't have 7 heroes (yea yea i know), but I stated it is an annoyance.. not a game breaker. I solo missions/quests/vanqs because I can, and I can do them at my own pace on my own time. I really don't know why I am typing all of this. I will just get a "your a noob" sticker and they will almost instantly fall into the whole (Heroes/55/600/SF) ruined the game. Did they really? or is it just you don't know how to use them? I still solo the chamber or UW with my 55, I experiment with 600 when I feel like it. I don't have an SF assassin, and you know what? The world has not come to an end. Besides WW2 was worse, people actually died there. This is just a game. If you don't like it anymore, why are you still playing? |
Great post.
Arduin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by upier
So based on that, there are certain options:
1. a MASSIVE do-over. Either by turning it into a single player game (and by single I mean, SINGLE - no parties whatsoever!) or creating options that will bring back multiplayer - which would probably be best done with the removal of the instancing and a massively improved party search system. And the GW Live team has ... 3 members that spend their days hunting down competition winners? 2. heroes. 3. the game closes down. Pick one. |
Hugh Manatee
Customizable henchmen is something that should have been available from day #1, they fixed the problem, like how weapons should have had an inscription slot from the beginning(only they didn't fix the problem entirely by ret-conning the non-insc weapons or allowing full hero parties).
Again, it didn't change squat to most players, either they played with guildies and random pugs and filled slots with henchmen/heroes as needed or anti-socials like myself who grew jaded after fail after repeated fail of the moron pubes who infest the game said ****it and started playing GW like a hybrid RTS, wrangling AI that're just now getting decent, and having a pretty fun time at it if I do say so myself, so when flags, AI panels and customizable AI were added it was a godsend.
The population was already on the decline, and getting more scattered between factions and proph zones, that this effect coincides with the introduction of heroes and the release of NF, it doesn't mean it correlates to it. What the intro of heroes did do was solve a problem that's been in the game since day #1(you couldn't tweak the henchmen's bars for an area, like giving alesia hex removal for the jungle or condition removal VS undead ect, or have a warrior with shields up if there were a bunch of rangers), and solve an inevitable problem of population decline, and it came at just the right time. If it hadn't people would just be using guildies and henchmen instead of guildies and heroes, and folk like myself and others would still be shirking the dumbass hoards for AI parties(though dumb, they are predictable), only since said population is on the decline it would have meant more and more hench parties for the sociable player, that were ill suited to any given area, and more random pug failure.
Again, it didn't change squat to most players, either they played with guildies and random pugs and filled slots with henchmen/heroes as needed or anti-socials like myself who grew jaded after fail after repeated fail of the moron pubes who infest the game said ****it and started playing GW like a hybrid RTS, wrangling AI that're just now getting decent, and having a pretty fun time at it if I do say so myself, so when flags, AI panels and customizable AI were added it was a godsend.
The population was already on the decline, and getting more scattered between factions and proph zones, that this effect coincides with the introduction of heroes and the release of NF, it doesn't mean it correlates to it. What the intro of heroes did do was solve a problem that's been in the game since day #1(you couldn't tweak the henchmen's bars for an area, like giving alesia hex removal for the jungle or condition removal VS undead ect, or have a warrior with shields up if there were a bunch of rangers), and solve an inevitable problem of population decline, and it came at just the right time. If it hadn't people would just be using guildies and henchmen instead of guildies and heroes, and folk like myself and others would still be shirking the dumbass hoards for AI parties(though dumb, they are predictable), only since said population is on the decline it would have meant more and more hench parties for the sociable player, that were ill suited to any given area, and more random pug failure.
Cuilan
A new party search tab or system for finding players who want to do something but aren't at the outpost would be superior.
Shadowspawn X
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by upier
If the game has empty areas - heroes are a viable solution.
|