bring back HEROs to pvp

PvEer's think heros are the solution to everything.

Some players take even JQ, FA & RA seriously. AB is very underrated. It's a better version of RA, except maps aren't random...

Many players would still play AB if map changed every two hours or so and rewards were better. It's interesting both of the current GW2 PvP formats remind of AB but Anet doesn't care about AB.

They didn't care neither about HA/TA/HB/JQ/FA/Codex/RA. The closest format to make a link with GW2 would be making costume brawl a permanent arena. I won't talk too fast since there's still the 7th year birthday surprise, it could be a possibility.

I mean, they made links with GW2 in PvE and didn't do anything in PvP. I'm pretty sure Codex for example would have been more active for a few weeks at least if we had WoC characters skins there...

I wouldn't mind CB. Let's wait and see.

I'll laugh if the 7th year birthday "surprise" doesn't bring any PvP updates.

I'm not a PvP'er so I can't comment on that, but I'd love to be able to take my heroes back into the Zaishen Elite.

I'm sorry, I really don't want to go back to the days of the Gwen Tease and her pro 1/4 cast rupts.

Yes. They would rather not play at all then get stomped by hero AI abusing teams. Hero builds can be extremely OP. In fact there are several cases where terrible players have been able to put together ridiculous Hero Builds abusing AI and beat top teams with them because they caught them by surprise.

It took a few games for top teams to figure out how to counter the most OP AI builds. Hero builds completely ruined mid tier, because they were better than 90% of all human guilds. People would either stop playing or start running hero builds themselves. It completely ruined mid and low tier back in 2007/08.

That said, I couldn't care less if they come back. The game is dead as is so adding heroes won't kill it any further. It will either just make the already dead scene less fun or give low end legitimate guilds even more teams to get stomped by, and cause them to hate PvP even faster.

Curious but when was the last time a top guild losing to heroes wasn't treated as LOL USUK by the rest of the community?

Btw if you say yes, I equally say no. Waiting in the GH with 8 people and getting no matches except vs. forfeit guilds is worse than playing against heroes.

Bring back heroes to PvP?

It's PvP... as in PLAYER VS. PLAYER. Having Heroes in PvP is a contradiction and shouldn't be brought back by definition in and of itself. You lose sir!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

EDIT: I guess i need some substance to my post... lol. If heroes are implemented in PvP, one of two things will happen.
1) Teams with heroes will be at a distinct disadvantage making full parties of 8 bored with GvG and HA because they will faceroll them.
2) Teams with heroes will be able to win competitive mates, making teams of full parties at a distinct disadvantage where Hero teams will faceroll them (it has happened before).

Both scenarios are very very very bad.

Of course, not playing at all is not a good solution either. So what is the solution???

Release GW2. Unfortunately that is the only solution rendoring this entire section of the forum utterly useles... Did you not read the login-thing? The people that were working on GW1 are now working on GW2. Nothing in this section of the forum is meaningful. SORRY!!!

I fail to see how low tier guilds getting beaten by AI in a 5 minute match is more enjoyable than winning against a forfeit guild. Both of them are equally boring and will most likely lead to quitting. In fact losing to heroes is probably worse as it seems to damage people's egos far more.

Adding heroes won't do what you want it to. The best decision for lower end ladder guilds is the decision they have been making for 4 years now. Which is to just avoid playing altogether. Only thing adding heroes does is help higher ranked guilds run a dumb Hero build when they can't find a guest, or use it as a last second emergency filler for someone losing connection to the server before they can hit enter into an AT match.

So sure, go ahead and add them. It does nothing to low tier play at all and the good and bad cancel each other out in higher end. Really the only thing it will do is likely make Halls slightly more active. Maybe 4 guilds will play instead of 0.

GW PvP is dead and has been since 2008/9. The only thing that can revive it is a renewed interest in it from ArenaNet. The game has no tutorial, no mention that PvP even exists unless someone accidentally presses the "observer mode" button, and even then it doesn't tell them *how* to start PvPing.

That is the reason the PvP died in the first place - when GW came out, it was designed and marketed as a PvP game (seriously, watch the early interviews, ANet says it themselves) so the game fed into PvP naturally (you get dumped into ToPK, which is now a separate outpost, after learning the basic map strats for every match type in heroes' ascent). When they removed the PvP req for world favor, and attached it to something meaningless like snorefest grind titles, that removed one of the big incentives to get people into the PvP. When they removed real life rewards for tournaments and added in measly reward points, that removed another. As time went on, ArenaNet offered fewer and fewer reasons to get into the PvP content, so it simply died as the current players got bored and quit.

Putting heroes back into PvP is not going to fix it. The matches are not going to be fun; contrary to your post, they're honestly less fun than no matches at all (or matches against forfeit teams). AI is *not fun* to play against. It's abused more often than not, and the split-second interrupts, hex spreading, etc etc that people have mentioned really destroy the game. You sacrifice so much quality adding heroes that you might as well play Draw Something instead; at least then you'd be competing against real people.

The solution to your problem is for ArenaNet to add incentives to play their PvP. Putting heroes back in does nothing but make the PvP even worse, and de-incentivizes it more than anything.

And how is a player controlling heroes against an other player controlling heroes not PvP ?? I have to deal against my opponent's tactic right ? If he decides to flag heroes somewhere, it's a part of his tactic ?

Besides, PvE is Player Versus Environment, but the Player word here is exactly the same than the one in Player Vs Player? If a player controlling heroes doesn't fit for the P in PvP, how would it fit for the P in PvE ????!!!

The fun question aside is ridiculous, and it's the same reason for players saying " lalala costume brawl is fun because it lasts only 1 week per year lalalala". Come on, we have the same formats for about 6 years now, and some are still played although they are completly bugged( FA/JQ), flawed and non fun because of cheaters and bots( CA/JQ/FA/RA/HA).

If not, then i think heroes should just be allowed AT LEAST in 1 format, to be able to do something on very empty hours and i think codex arena fits the profile.

Failed approach continues to fail. Hi strongboxes. Hi zkeys. In order to incentivize 8v8 enough to overcome the barriers to entry you need to destroy the point in every other activity. The level of reward required would make doing anything else for the rewards pointless by comparison. It used to take a hundred thousand dollars, and the barriers were lower then. Every time I've read this line in the last three or four years, all I hear is 'I play in peak times and don't have trouble getting matches, now give me stuff'.

Solution is, and always has been, to reduce or remove the barriers to entry, and fck the whiners who can't handle change. Whether that includes allowing heroes or not I don't know, but it's too late now anyway. Most formats with low or no barriers to entry are STILL doing fine in 2012 with GW2 about to come out, while 8v8s have been dead forever, and they've been trying various ways to reanimate them since 2007. Seems like a pretty simple equation.

The problem with threads like this is that it's so totally opinion-oriented. On the one hand we have people that insist that AI is not fun to play against (Auron), and on the other we have people that insist that AI is perfectly fine to play against (me). Statements like "it is more fun to play against AI than to do nothing at all" cannot be proven and is completely down to opinion. The most anyone can say is that "I find it fun to play against the AI instead of do nothing", or "I don't find it more fun ... ", and without an organized poll no progress is possible.

I'll point out three things though. One, there is nothing the AI can do that a skilled human player cannot do. Two, AI is extremely vulnerable to split. Three, if you find playing against the AI not fun, you don't play at all ... same thing as right now when there's no heroes - you don't play at all.

Here's the million dollar question: what makes you think you're qualified in imposing your opinion on lower end ladder guilds? What makes your claim of "not fun" valid for everyone, marginalizing people that do find it fun? What makes you think you can say the "best" decision for lower end ladder guilds is to avoid playing altogether? Do you have the right to dictate what lower end ladder guilds do?

/signed

i want to run 8 mesmer team.

Just because humans could hypothetically run discord spike as effectively as necro heroes didn't make it feasible. The same goes for bars with 4+ interrupts.

Doesn't the converse go for you, too? What's qualifying your assumption that there exists a huge population of players waiting in the woodwork to GvG, but never have because... they can't take their heroes?

actually the ai in this game is quite superb, they pre-weapon targets before you even ping them or even move towards them or even near them, that is something a real player can never do or predict efficiently 99% of the time, now combine that with excellent multitasking and godly interrupts.

terrible balancing, they change focus and what to balance around all the time. they focus on gvg then they focus on tombs then back to gvg then sometimes 4v4 formats then some random updates for dervs and eles which promotes button smashing at its finest, they basically butchered skills and stitched them together to make a stronger version.

this game was made for 8v8 real players, same goes for 4v4.

absolutely no reason to beat a dead horse.

if you are serious about pvp then you wouldn't ever consider playing with heroes/henchs.

this game has no instant gratification, its repetitive pvp and its boring, its been like that since 07. the incentive to play has more to do with the format rather than the pixel rewards it self.
Who hasn't done it all? once you win halls a couple of times and combine it with holding, it gets old pretty fast, there is absolutely no change to spice things up, instead they kill off build diversity which certain groups of people only enjoy playing and in doing that people have to adapt or perish(in this case quit). After that when you realize there is only a couple of builds you can play that actually has the ability to win and have fun at the same time you will absolutely be bored to death.

the major dervish update was the final nail in the coffin for tombs atleast, it just totally dumbed down alot of builds that actually require a degree of co-ordination.

Its actually the first time i have seen where id1 ha has less than 3 people standing in it.

heroes is definitely not the way to go whether you think its right, the format will still be the same in the end and it will still be dead even if they added it back after a couple of weeks.

I will agree with this. Sometimes, i usually get bored in codex after a dozen of fights( although playing against real players), and it's quite the same in GvG or HA after an hour or so.

About taking heroes : i think i finally understood your point, and won't especially disagree in the fact that it would be quite boring facing dirk/bellicus/vince every match. BUT, the problem would occur for players who're online 24/7. Casual gamers or even players logging 1-2 hours/day wouldn't bother a lot, overall it would be the same as facing the same build(bbways in HA or trip derv rang mes in GvG for example) over and over.

But still, the point is to be able to play in no time. " Addict players" are playing 24/7 today and it wouldn't change much since they can afford waiting hours for a match, whereas it would bring at least a few activity for casual players and would bring players to PvP.

I will say it again, but i think players will just want something to do in PvP alone at least, which means 1 format that can be played with heroes/henchmen. If bringing back hero battles and team arenas would be easier, codex should be played in a such way..

The problem of this thread isn't really players who can't change their opinion like jeydra said, but about players that try to play the game at anytime against people who're just doing C At casually..Sure, if i only played the C AT, i wouldn't notice the lack of players, but if you just try to play around A and B AT's, you would notice that there isn't anything to do really...

That's why I'll be the first to say that without more data we simply don't know. Right now we're just arguing opinion, and it's just going to go around in circles without getting anywhere.

The majority of the low end teams regularly run henchmen to begin with. Th pve-tier teams that attempt to purely 8-man it (I'm assuming what you mean by "legitimate") are all but non-existent this day and age. For the one or two that may exist at a given time, their options are long wait times to fight against mid-high tier and almost always lose, slightly shorter wait times to fight henchway teams, or even shorter wait times to fight heroway teams and have a decent chance of winning. For the other 90% of the low tier, that means they can use heroes themselves.

Also, to say that you would rather not play than play a game involving heroes is your opinion, not everyone else. Though I'd be willing to bet that if they're satisfied with dirk/tannaros henchways almost every game then they would be fine with heroes.

Because I witnessed it happen first hand back in 2008 when heroes were the main cause for destroying low end and mid tier GvG. I'm not some random guy who started PvPing in 2011. I began GvGing early 2007. I began leading guilds in mid 2007. I played and guested for a helluva lot of different low end and mid tier guilds throughout 2007-2008. When Hero builds started becoming popular, it was the exact same complaint from nearly everyone I played with.

People absolutely detested facing Hero builds, win or lose. On multiple occasions I would see people get off after a game vs heroes citing how upset they were that they had to play against it. I've had people quit Guild Wars in guilds I was a part of because they were not having fun facing hero guilds every 2 matches. I witnessed them ruin the game for a lot of people first hand.

So unless for some reason the opinion of losing in 5 minutes to a hero team has taken a 180 turn, it is pretty safe to say people will not enjoy it. In fact there is ample evidence to support it now. Whenever people complain about not being able to find a guild for GvG or HA, they always complain that they don't want to play for other low tier people because they lose too much. Do you really think getting more matches so that they can lose more often, and to heroes nonetheless, is something people will find enjoyable? They didn't back when I played. All evidence I've seen leads me to believe they still won't today.

On the other hand, I was playing in a rank 600 guild in 2008, and I was perfectly happy playing against heroes. I don't remember anyone complaining about facing heroes back then, although these days (2011-2012) I constantly hear complaints about resign guilds + no opponents, and I know people who quit the game because of the difficulty in getting games.

What is this ample evidence you're quoting, other than anecdotal evidence (of which I've got lots as well)? What makes your anecdotal evidence more reliable than mine?

Mine proves there are people who hate it and quit because of it. Your evidence only proves that some people look past it. I also looked past it and continued to play. Heroes didn't make me quit playing. They did make a lot of my friends and contacts quit playing though.

Like I stated in my first post, I'm all for them adding heroes back into the game. I just am of the opinion it won't help low end GvG at all, which is basically what our conversation is about since it is in response to Lemming's post about PvE tier guilds (sub 1050 rating as he defines it).

Nothing is in absolutes, we both know this. Some people will like the change and play more because of it, some will detest it and either stop playing or stay out like they currently are. I doubt that heroes will help make low tier GvG lively. It won't hurt it though, because you can't go lower than rock bottom.

I don't know anyone who quit because of playing against heroes, although I know a number of people who quit because they were completely removed. So it goes both ways.

The difference is that the people of your opinion no longer exist in the lower tier, despite the continued absence of heroes. Everyone else who has the opposite opinion or doesn't care either way stands to benefit from this change as it is much less time consuming to put together a party of heroes, and a much more interesting and attractive option compared to henchmen.



We don't. Not without a poll or something.

What do we know?
That it is much easier logistically for low-tier players to use heroes.
That there's a huge population of PvEers who love their heroes.
That there certainly wasn't a population of people waiting in the woodworks to play hero-less GvG like some of us expected.

Right, that's not what I'm talking about. Those are the shitty incentives ANet added after removing the real incentives, and they obviously never worked. Tie world favor to Halls or GvG tournaments, with the mindnumbingly easy pve grind titles giving a short access period (actually short, not "permanent" like now). And then do what you talk about - put in a tutorial. Put in a pugvg system. The barriers of entry for any PvP game will always be higher than PvE, but they can be reduced by things like a game-supported pug system to help people ease into it. The complete lack of such features is why the game died years early.

Except for the ones that died completely and were removed from the game you mean? Aside from those, RA has always been a shitfestival arena, but succeeds specifically because there's a game-supported queue feature that gets relative newbies into play without any effort on their part. JQ/FA have similar entry methods, but they're all awful as far as PvP goes. No teamwork, very little skillful play, no punishment for failure - the epitome of casual, mindless PvP.

GvG isn't as simple as either of those game types. 8v8 with a large map full of NPCs that actually matter and don't respawn, flag carrying and morale boosts, and lots of viable tactics for splitting and winning takes a hell of a lot more effort than RA, and it's part of the reason why it's more engaging.

Adding a solo-queue or auto GvG team finder will probably address the problem of a lack of matches (relatively, considering how dead the game is all around). It's definitely a better option than bringing heroes back with all their ridiculous gimmicks. The only problem would be trying to keep the hordes of puggers from getting curbstomped by any rated guild - HA kept most good teams in the later maps fighting other good teams, and the bads were left fighting mostly bads in underworld. If there's no rating system added, there's nothing stopping good guilds from queueing against the puggers, and if you simply separate them then real GvG will suffer (and at that point, what the hell's the point?).

Aside from the favour suggestion, I agree all round. I don't care either way about the favour idea, I just don't think it would work. You just get a bunch of people sitting around thinking 'someone else will fix it'. I also think there are many ways to reduce the barriers to entry/make the barriers more difficult to maintain, it's not simply a matter of pugging, although obviously that works. As you say, no matter how shitty the format, if it's easy to get into, it works. Exceptions you already noted. TA was removed because of balancing problems, likewise with HB, despite the fact that they were easy to get into and thus had plenty of players. Conversely, as we can see, no matter how good the format, if it's difficult to get new players involved, it's dead.

The ones removed were TA:
- Removed because most people just synced. And when they got to TA, they resigned and went back to RA.
- HB removed because it was plain silly. Gimmick builds and red resigns happened most of the time.


It doesn't matter much if you didn't do that. Most people did. If they brought them back, people would do that again.

"Team Arena was once very popular, but a competitive atmosphere and a degenerate metagame have caused the player base to dwindle a great deal."

"We recognize that the Hero Battles format has reached a state of acute distress. It has always been a niche format with a player base comparable to that of the Ascalon Academy, despite its tournament support. This is largely due to flaws in the core mechanics of the format, compounded by years without skill balances to keep it in check."

They couldn't balance TA, and they didn't balance HB. I was unaware that so few players played HB though, I guess it seemed busier because you only needed 2 players to start a game. Interestingly, that in itself was a barrier.

I want to say, at least they've figured this stuff out in time for gw2. WvWvW, with anonymity to the enemy, a large degree of anonymity to your own side (being just another face in the crowd), a matching system despite the fact that it's entirely pugged, and being extremely easy to enter, will obviously be a raging success. The smaller team sizes for organised matches will help, but it remains to be seen what other barriers will be in place there. If it uses a traditional elo system it will likely only have a couple of years in it, although the ability to enter wvwvw with a team will extend the life of organised pvp somewhat.

This depends only on how long you want to argue about semantics. I don't know anyone that quit because of "playing against heroes". I do however know many people that quit because "GvG isn't fun anymore" and found them bitching the most when playing against hero teams. Heroes caused more people to leave PvP, it didn't happen at once, it happened over years. Sure more people left right at once when they were removed, but it was a much smaller number than the total people leaving because of heroes.

This is the way it was, this isn't an opinion.

Actually, it is.

There's no point arguing about "people leaving because of heroes" or "leaving because GvG ain't fun because of heroes" or "leaving because there were no heroes"

It's impossible for anyone of us to know the opinions of every single person who played gvg during that time. Everything all of you are saying is just mere speculation based on your own experiences. In my experience, heroes didn't affect the amount of fun my guildies and I had. We played for fun so as long as we got matches, we were happy. It's not like hero teams were overpowered or anything. Just split. I would think some of you would know that by now. Infact, heroes probably made pvp a hell of a lot more enjoyable for us since we didn't have to sit around in our guild hall as long as we would have. Does that make me right? No. I didn't know everyone and I doubt any of you did too.

While I don't agree with reintroducing heroes into pvp, I find it silly that anyone can argue that they made gvg/ha better or worse. Unless hard evidence can be provided, all of our arguments will just be our opinions and nothing more.

You seriously think heroes were the reason? Not the appalling skill balance? The age of the game? The lack of attention from Anet?

heroes did make tombs and gvg worse, but you are saying its more enjoyable to you maybe because you have never played with a full team before? if you have you would realize facing same defensive heroway bull shit would bore someone to death, and hero teams were overpowered, there is absolutely no way a hero should have godly multitasking, preprotting and rupting.

skill balancing did contribute a portion to the games decline but certainly not the only or major factor, people still played on for years even when the skill balancing was at its worst.

every game loses players over time so you can't say its the major cause of decline in players, but other reasons did speed up its decline of players aswell.

heros was certainly a factor that sped up the decline in pvp, it provided absolutely 0 gratification of any sort and when you don't get satisfied with the result, either win or loss, you would probably stop playing.

its more to do with the stale format thats been the same for almost 5 years and did absolutely nothing to address it, and playing different formats is what gives people satisfaction.

gvg = objective has been the same forever, kill the guild lord
ha = objectives has been the same since 07

do you really expect people are going to keep playing the same format for another 5 years? people leaving is inevitable, they win it, they do it again, they get bored and they quit.

This is a case where we have to consider HA and GvG separately.

I can definitely sympathize with people in HA who had to deal with Teaseway as it was the most RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing annoying thing to ever to fight against and even good teams lost to it. The way that maps are laid out in HA lend itself to abuse - not just by heroes who could rupt but all annoying gimmicks.

In GvG my experience was completely different. The only time I can recall people complaining about heroes was after EotN when people ran Smiters boon, but that got smiter's booned. Things like the RaO pressure and spirits never really functioned well in GvG, and teaseway absolutely sucked outside of burning isle. Heck, in GvG even a randomway team can beat the best hero gimmicks.

So would I be opposed to putting heroes back in GvG? Certainly not, I don't see how it could hurt. However I would be much more cautious about re-implementing them in HA.

Then, codex arena with heroes is the key:
- noone will complain from HA/GvG
- people will be able to PvP at anytime
- people will be able to bring heroes somewhere in PvP
- ( HB+ TA)^sealed = win !
- people will be able to get their codex title for HoM more easily
- no RR ( consecutive wins) and no syncs/bots

yeh codex will be good for heroes, the title means nothing, and it will be good to deter syncers.

How so? Please enlighten me. Make sure none of them are opinion based because those are just pointless (which is what I'm trying to say).

When I actively played gvg, I almost always played in a full team. Playing against heroes never bored or bothered me and I'm pretty sure it never bothered any of my guildies or the guests that played with us because they would have said something otherwise.

Yes, it may have bothered other people but how can you say that heroes made pvp worse based purely on what people felt? You say that "defensive heroway bull shit would bore someone to death" but forget that it is just one of many possible perceptions towards heroway builds and all I'm saying is that this argument whether heroes made pvp better or worse cannot be based on perception because there are conflictiong views, even in this thread.

If anyone can give a reason why heroes made pvp worse off or better without resorting to just opinionated reasons, I'd like to hear it.

Here is a valid reason, although very poor. Also, almost every hero team would crumble when you split. I wouldn't call that overpowered. Also, I was under the impression that heroes would often interrupt the wrong skills at the wrong time and also waste a lot of energy preprotting someone who was only being auto-attacked. Am I wrong?

Idk what you guys did but my guild could easily handle heroway teams. We would split usually but at one point (and in HA) we would only run the Warriors Endurance dual "ele" spike build and still managed to beat heroway teams in 8v8. I guess that build was kinda strong eh?

For the record, I'm against reintroducing heroes into pvp. Not because they made it worse but because it wouldn't change a thing. Nothing is gonna invigorate pvp other than it going f2p.

And yea, putting heroes into CA would be a very smart move.

there may not be hard evidence suggesting it did make it worse but if they did a poll back in the days im surely every srs pvper would have ticked the option to remove heroes.

its not about the ability to handle hero teams(any 'experienced' group can) easily its actually about facing the same bull shit over and over. If you faced heroway enough usually in the first couple of maps the teams morale wouldn't get a boost infact the attitude usually goes like this "hmm another one, quick guys lets crush them fast and timer one of them to skip to halls, im sick of this shit alrdy."

infact i'd rather get beaten by a real team and have an interesting match then beat heroway all day.

if its not against dual tease mesmers that interrupt every single of your teams skills every 7 seconds(just tease alone, not including p drain and leech) and extend the match to 5-20 minutes then its teams with 6 eles or even hexway with heros which gets old super fast, if you find this fun to play against or even challenging in any aspect then i don't think this game was the right one for you.

i don't get why people find playing against heroes don't bother them.

1. its not challenging
2. its not even a real player filling that role
3. its repetitive and boring (this is a fact, if you don't find it repetitive & boring then you should stick in pve because thats exactly what you get in this game, repetitiveness and boring.)
4. no skill required since you are relying on heroes so much to win

heroways can definitely dominate lesser experienced teams and i am sure lesser experienced/ranked teams will give up much faster then the more experienced/veteran teams as they can actually beat it, which in turn totally kills the lesser experienced/ranked population faster, hence you see a huge disparity between the high ranked kids and the unranked/low rank people crying all the time about discrimination, by doing that they will probably just quit pvp altogether OR start playing heroway themselves which further fuels the bullshit.

talking from a ha perspective as that was where 90% of the population was.
excuse my crap grammar.

I don't have an opinion either way on allowing heroes in 8v8, but the argument 'everyone would rather stare at no opposing party spam than play against heroes' is ridiculous.

I think it's more "everyone would rather play farmville than gw1 matches against heroes." Heroes make PvP that bad, and did for years. That's why they were removed in the first place; a unanimous calling from everyone who did PvP on a regular basis that said "get that AI and all of its gimmickry out of my PvP."

That's what everyone IS doing. The point though, is that it's trying to speak for everyone, when in reality, it only speaks for vocal players (and we all know what percentage of a community that is), and as we can see here, it doesn't even speak for all the vocal players. Aside from that, it also assumes no changes can be made, such as slowing their reaction time with weapon spells, limiting them to one rupt, or any other kind of hacky fix. The entire argument is flawed in multiple ways.

I should have led my last post with 'I didn't have an opinion either way, but the flawed logic in the arguments against is causing one to form'. The only real argument against that I can think of is that it no matter what you do, adding NPCs devalues player skill (to varying degrees) in whatever format you throw them in. Having a finely tuned format that emphasises player skill is pretty damn pointless if no one plays it though.

Auron, posts like that that claim "everyone who did PvP on a regular basis" wanted the removal of heroes evidently exclude me from doing PvP on a regular basis, even though three years ago I played like 9 hours a day or something ... also I know plenty of people who quit because of a lack of opponents. Some friends and I even tried making a guild named "Awaiting a worthy opponent once" as a lament, but the name had already been taken.

This post hit the bull's eye.