Selling In-Game Advantages (The Great Debate Over Mercenary Heroes)

Why can't you understand that I have already called for screenshots and timing if you can prove, once and for all, a pve achievement that cannot be beaten using just standard heroes?

Having such an OP sword would allow you to clear DoA HM much faster than otherwise possible, wouldn't it? But for MH, nobody has shown that it has such an advantage over using just standard heroes. If you say they are the same thing, then prove it.

For example, if you can prove:

a) Best timing from the community for clearing DoA HM with just standard heroes, without cons, using a warrior, is 2 hours.

b) Best timing from the community for clearing DoA HM with merc heroes, without cons, using a warrior, is 1 hour.

If you can show that vast disparity, then you have proven that MH does give an unfair advantage. If you can't, then you can't say that they do.

The time it takes 2 random people on this forum to do DoA with/without MH has nothing to do with the unfairness of MH without a free 'zaishen-hero' type alternative.

But, if for some reason you think a DoA clearing contest with heroes/MH is the ultimate judge of its fairness then... Right now, there is a DoA w/heroes thread in Hero section of forum. Lots of people have been trying to do with all sorts of team setups, using heroes and MH. Right now, the fastest/easiest times are done by a sin primary who runs 4 mesmer spike. Which is basically the SC team build transferred to heroes. But of course, this requires MH.

But none of this has anything to do with the argument. The point is that MH go beyond skins and eye candy and are something that directly impact Pve gameplay. Whether or not the 7 nec team build is better than the 3/2/2 hero build is irrelevant. The point is that now there are some players who have access to an infinite number of solo team builds, while others are restricted by what professions the current heroes have. And the only difference between these two sets of people, are that some have payed GreedNet while other haven't.

Please stop reposting your "provez it!" garbage over and over. This argument isn't about whether someone with MH can clear some random area faster than someone else can with just heroes. The 'advantage' (if we must use this word) isn't a difference in speed doing something. The 'advantage' is simply having access to any hero team build setup you want just cause you payed $45.

And I disagree. Just because you keep repeating that MH gives an unfair advantage without proof and with mere speculations, doesn't mean it automatically becomes the truth.

If I remember right, the guy who used MH also used cons so of course the timing would be better those who don't use cons.

And you don't need those other builds which are inferior to builds that can be done with just standard heroes.

And please stop spouting your "just because I repeated myself 100 times" it means all you have to believe me garbage argument.

If merely having "access" to something is proof of an unfair game advantage then having access to more Xunlai storage panes or specific costumes would fall into the same category but yet people accepted them. Access to more heroes doesn't automatically translate to an in-game advantage. It only translates to more "fun" for people who like to play with hero builds, not necessarily an advantage. I don't know why you still don't get it.

So far all the experiments done in the heroes forum are indicating that you don't need MH to have the best builds and this runs contrary what you have been claiming. Repeating yourself another 100 times is not going to make any difference to the truth. You need supporting proof.

I was with you up to this point, but it's these feelings that unsettle me. There has been nothing but language from the team indicating they take a careful approach so as to not cross the invisible line toward cash shop power drinks and what-not. Could it be the above? They'd be silly to not take notes, but I doubt the basis for continued updates for GW is all about market research for GW2. That's entirely pessimistic and kind of insults this game's continued life. I should hope you don't believe this is what GW is reduced to.

How many people buy GWEN just for the advantages and not the story or cosmetic rewards?

Yes, it started a long time ago when I complained that the Kuunavang mini pet allowed players to translate real life money into in-game gold. But most people argued back that it is fine, the scope of the word advantage has been limited.

The rest is history, then skill unlock packs, pet unlock packs, xunlai storage panes, fire imp, GOTY, makeovers, and now merc packs. People just dont bother unless something that they REALLY WANT ends up in the store.

How can people even believe that Mercs don't give an in game advantage?

• Extra Xunlai storage panes give an advantage
• /bonus weapons give an advantage
• BMP gives an advantage
• Fire Imp in Presearing gives an in game advantage

There is no question that Merc heroes give an advantage to those who pay for them.

A player who pays for this type of content has access to things a player who does not pay for the content has a lack thereof.

Whether or not the advantage given is excessive is the question.

I do not believe any of the content listed above is excessive except the Merc heroes.

I think the Fire Imp in pre-searing is many times more excessive than any merc hero.

I'm curious, how is an imp that allows a person to get only a harmless title faster than others or farm presearing faster more excessive than Merc heroes?

Merc heroes allow you to do over 99% of the game's worth of content more efficiently than any other player who lacks Mercs.

They're both similar in the sense that they give advantages in speed, but Merc heroes affect a much, much large palette of Guild Wars.

Presearing is one of the smallest niches of Guild Wars with such a minimal impact upon postsearing that both their respective in game economies are almost completely isolated.

How does the imp even begin to compare its less than 1% of content affected to over 99% from the Merc heroes?

Because it can be easily proven that the Fire Imp grants alot more power in pre-searing than without one.

While I don't need Merc heroes to get into 99% of the game's worth of content more efficiently. The heroes forum showed that the best build combinations can be done through standard heroes. Getting MH gives you access to some unique hero combinations, but those combinations tend to be inferior to those that can be filled by just standard heroes.

Show me a pve achievement that can only be done by exploiting merc heroes, and can't be done through using only standard heroes.

I paid for a few Mercs. Price was a bit steep, but I like to think of it as supporting Anet. I like Guild Wars. I like the work and effort that was put into it. I like the way Anet has treated it's community. I like to go with a 1 Dollar = 1 Hour gameplay rule, and currently, I have payed 5 cents for every hour that I've played Guild Wars.

I'd say I've gotten my money's worth. I'll chip in a little, be supportive, and have fun until GW2 comes out. Until it can be proven that Mercs are better, this thread shouldn't really exist.

The difference between your Jesus Sword and a merc hero is that the jesus sword is stronger than any other max sword while the merc hero is as strong as any other hero.

Can you tell the difference?

I can.

There are currently 27 heroes in game: 19 require nightfall, 10 require eye of the north, 1 requires prophecies and nightfall, 1 requires factions and nightfall, 1 requires prophecies and eye of the north and 1 requires prophecies+nightfall+factions.

Players also have the ability to have up to 8 extra heroes partially customizable that requires buying an upgrade called "mercenary slots".

Until a certain point in the life of guild wars the model was 1 standalone campaign every 6 months.

That model lasted exactly 2 campaigns after the original game.

I'm not exactly sure what people would be doing with 11 campaigns by now, all with their missions just to fill time, powerful enemy threatening to conquer/destroy the world storyline, 11 tutorial areas, an extra 5000 skills and some 18 new professions (that probably would be indistinguishable from others), etc.

That model has obvious limits and so the game was pretty much killed after GWEN and Guild Wars 2 was announced so Anet would be unburdened of the campaign model.

What we have now is an upgrade system - instead of people buying a complete package of content in one go, they buy bits and pieces.

I won't be surprised if in Guild Wars 2 you get upgrades to unlock new areas instead of expansion packs.

I understand that some people don't like this model and this model wasn't the one that was in place when they bought the game years ago.

It is obvious that more content will always give an advantage to a player, even if it is only a cosmetic advantage in some cases. As long as that content falls in the category of expanding the game instead of this jesus sword is so much better than every other sword, it is fine.

In the end this isn't a discussion about merc heroes or storage panes - it is a discussion about business model.

If the merc heroes came with an expansion that added war in kryta and some new outposts in the unused mountains of factions for winds of change and anet boxed it, everyone would be happy, even though, this way people that don't want merc heroes can enjoy wik and woc for free.

Everybody is whining here about the game "being fair". It's a game, hay, and it's PvE, why exactly does it have to be fair? Servers don't run without income and MH:s make definitely better income than costumes. I don't care if they give advantage to some, I keep playing like I did before. People claim they "can't play the game the way THEY wanted", oh hay, if mercenary heroes are the thing you've always wanted to play with, you have been playing wrong game for five years.

The difference is that it would have been new playable content. Mercenary heroes (theoretically) just make it possible to do things faster, so it kind of feels like we've been given the chance to buy a sword that does 30-50dmg.
The thing is that it was Anet that said they wanted to make a game where everyone started on an even playing field and differences would come from skill not from who had the bigger check book or more time to grind.

I don't know that mercenary heroes really give all that much of an advantage (my apologies if it's been proven in this thread, I haven't read it all) as it seems like most are going with 3 necro, 2 mes 2 rit teams or some other variation that doesn't require more than 3 of the same hero. If there isn't any benefit, then MHs are really just a cosmetic addition.

And really, if they do create a nearly game breaking in game benefit, Anet will probably nerf it somehow. ^^

I do plan to get these on my two accounts some day. It'd be neat to play with my other characters while coloring red dots black. I don't feel at a disadvantage now not having them yet either.

Are they better than regular heroes somehow?

The merc slot is, but the hero created by that slot is in no way different.

That is why people aren't saying "but I can't make 3 assassin heroes!".

It is just circumstantial that at moment certain professions are better heroes than others and might be more useful in bigger numbers.

To be exact, 3 ritualists have some uses and so does something like 4-5 mesmers (which allow to replicate mesmer spikes of SC teams).

If you buy the unlock skill packs and the unlock item packs, you have a head start over someone that is starting to play PvP at the same moment you are, for example. Actually the weapons will be stronger.

orly

Good enough, yes. But "best?" Empirically? Really?

Again, I'm not claiming that the differences are huge - refer to my previous post if you need. I'm in full accordance with you that in all possible hypothetical situations, However, the difference between having no mercenary heroes and having five of them is from less than 888,030 to 10,000,000 potential teams. To claim that in no situations will that elevenfold difference in variety be relevant is incredibly bold. (Also, since someone else brought it up, even if in the current state of balance, you'll never need more than three of any class, that doesn't necessarily hold for the future.)

It'd be a lot easier to show you more evidence of mercenary heroes making a difference if, you know, everyone had them.

Perhaps my pessimism is excessive, but even ignoring that, the potential slippery slope implications for the remainder of GW's lifespan are relevant.

I did, three times. You can't exactly PvP without having access to all the skills.

The difference is that the Fire Imp (or preorder weapons, or skill unlocks) don't increase the power cap except at levels below 20, which I believe we can agree as being, in the long run, trivial.

The game was designed and marketed around the principle of being "fair." Luckily enough, most people actually would care if that were to change more significantly.

How does a statistic just fly out of ones ass like that?

@ this person
lets not use Just here, $45 is money.
If you guys are going to go and try to convince Anet otherwise, make sure you argue for my refund then.

Presumably, 99% of the game supports the usage of heroes.

I agree with you that most of those areas probably don't actually require mercenary heroes for optimality, though.

Is there some kind of growing movement to make me waste my time/money?
I'm doing HoM solely for the items, and payed for mercs solely for the combination. Turn everything into Cosmetic A.K.A a waste of time.

Single profession groups have been around for ages, they've just required other people to do it. The tiny advantage of the Merc Heroes is that now it doesn't. Whether the advantage of Merc Heroes is tiny or not, it is an advantage. But, more importantly, we've all payed for "advantage" already many, many times in GW, so this is nothing new.

They are better because they allow you to create team setups that you can't do with heroes because you are limited to the hero professions they have made.

Its as simple as that. That is the advantage/unfairness/whatever you wanna call it. It doesn't matter how MH-only team builds compare with hero team builds. It doesn't matter which builds become the new meta. It doesn't matter how some random ppl in the Hero Subforum are fairing with/without MH.

All that matters, is that if i want to create some hero team setup (like 7 monks, or 4 paragons, or 3 mesmers, or 1000 necros, or 4 dervishes), then i can't without paying money. It doesn't matter if those team builds i create are better than the next guy's hero-only setup.

Daesu and others keep asking for 'proof' of how MH are better than heroes. Thats the proof right there. People who payed for MH can now make whatever hero team builds they want, while those who didnt pay are still restricted. It doesn't matter if someone's done DoA with MH faster than someone else with only heroes. It doesn't matter if you or others think that some certain hero setup is still better than any MH setup. It doesn't matter if 7 necroes are completely useless. I don't know how i can make myself more clear. The 'advantage' is being able to run anything hero setup you want because you payed. It has nothing to do with how MH are faster or better or stronger or safer or anything. I don't care if running 7 monks is 100000 times slower than running 2rit/3nec/2monks. Why can the next guy who payed $45 get to run 7 monks, while i can't?