Mercenary System Curiosity

[Salvatore.3749]

16 hours ago, Ausar.9542 said:

How would this work in open world? There are 50 players on the screen for a boss fight, and each of them have 4 NPC mercenaries. what would happen? 

It wouldn't work for open world since Guild Wars 2 does not provide individual instanced maps to players who connect. It would be a development nightmare for them to swap to that. However, for dungeons, living world, fractals, strikes, (maybe raids), it would be useful. Especially for those people who don't have much time. 

[kharmin.7683]

The AI for the NPCs in the instanced content is terrible.  I can't imagine adding to that mess.

[Salvatore.3749]

16 hours ago, synk.6907 said:

GW2 is more of an action-focused combat setup, and while build certainly has an effect you also are in motion a lot more, in part due to the evasion on dodge and similar skills being an integral part of the game and in part because enemies have more varied attacks and patterns. I don't expect automated companions will be able to appropriately dodge in and out of attacks, weapon swap, and use class skills like a player can to have appropriate effect in GW2 content. Look at ally NPCs in instances -- how often are they buffed to champion and legendary status or given the Determined buff to make up for walking into damage and basically spamming 1?

 

 

Yeah, for sure. To me, my characters adventure together. But that's a "headcanon" thing -- it won't fit MMO game mechanics.

See that's the question I have, could the mercenaries dodge the orange attack patterns as they light up? I think you could so long as you had a command available to do so. Like flagging them. In GW, you could flag a hero mid skill to cancel it and move them away from a trap in Nightfall or EotN, but as for the dodge mechanic itself, would it work all the time? Maybe not, but traitlines that provide damage on dodges could be very effective, but limiting at the same time. I just thing that if we were provided decent UI and controls for them, we could be commanding while fighting and I think that's important.

It would be sweet to have a healing ele, ranger, and minion master with my thief or revenant in living world stories. 

[Salvatore.3749]

8 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

It's story, proper immersion is way more important than whether or not "they can theoretically complete the content for you". In other RPGs NPC partners are decently strong and you can actually feel the impact if they have to, for whatever reason, leave the party. In GW2 they just feel like immortal trash mobs with the ability to revive you if they feel like it which makes all that constant talk that "the commander needs their strength" and "they helped too" sound empty.

Theoretically, they could work well so long as we have proper commands for them. Or even the ability to switch between the characters in real time. 

[Salvatore.3749]

11 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

The AI for the NPCs in the instanced content is terrible.  I can't imagine adding to that mess.

The AI is only terrible because we don't have control over the AI. I'll never forget playing where Braham decided to fight all the mobs and never res me. Or the time where Braham got stuck popping his healing shield for 3 minutes while all the mobs targeted me. 

That's the problem, we can't actually tell our NPC companions in the instances where to move, when to fight, when to heal us, etc. If we could do that, they wouldn't be so terrible. 

[Cyndercat.7615]

People ask for this over and over but they never address how to overcomes the tons of problems this would create. AI either being too OP and face tanking oneshot aoes trivializing even the hardest combat, or being useless like they are now and dying to everything. 

 

They cant even weapons swap, or jump. How will they complete fractals when half involve small jumping puzzles. Again if they just teleport they ignore all the mechanics and make the content stupidly easy. Even dungeons would have this problem. Look at the laser puzzle in coe. Thinking they could complete raids is laughable.

 

Heros in GW1 were a good solution to the game heading toward maintenance mode as gw1 didnt rely so hard on movement for its gameplay, but it just doesnt work in gw2.

[Sobx.1758]

If you're interested in what people think about it, just go read the previous thread, there's plenty of pretty fresh opinions going around there, not sure why some people feel the need to repeat same thread every week?

Edited September 28, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Salvatore.3749]

1 hour ago, zombyturtle.5980 said:

People ask for this over and over but they never address how to overcomes the tons of problems this would create. AI either being too OP and face tanking oneshot aoes trivializing even the hardest combat, or being useless like they are now and dying to everything. 

 

They cant even weapons swap, or jump. How will they complete fractals when half involve small jumping puzzles. Again if they just teleport they ignore all the mechanics and make the content stupidly easy. Even dungeons would have this problem. Look at the laser puzzle in coe. Thinking they could complete raids is laughable.

 

Heros in GW1 were a good solution to the game heading toward maintenance mode as gw1 didnt rely so hard on movement for its gameplay, but it just doesnt work in gw2.

I think the elephant in the room is how would commanding other units (even though the main character is "The Commander"), actually work in a balanced method. I think for instanced combat, it would have to be tailored to certain instances. 

For fractals, if the player has to do the jumping puzzle, then the one player does the jumping puzzle while the AI waits or commanded to wait or the mercenaries can follow the player through. Or after the player finishes the puzzle, the mercenaries can fast travel/teleport like the current AI does. 

They could totally weapon swap and jump, devs could add that function like they could to a skill bar for the player to command. As for jumping, is it required in all living world story or instanced story content? No. So there is a possibility it could work. 

I'm not saying they would work for everything, certainly not raids, not even strikes, but for dungeons and instanced story mode and living world content, yeah, they could work well. They could even have some living world stories be single player only since there are jumping puzzles.

What I'm trying to make clear is that there are workarounds available and I think a good portion of players would even pay for it. I would drop $20 for 3 mercenary slots just to have backup in instanced content. Going back and playing HoT story missions with mercenary/heroes at my command would be a new take since the commander was supposed to lead multiple troops. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[mindcircus.1506]

19 hours ago, Ausar.9542 said:

Like in Living Story instances? Yeah I could rock with that

Honest question:

LW Story instances are balanced around the lowest common denominator. They are balanced to be doable by a player who is improperly geared, with a bad build.
They become exponentially worse as a gaming experience the more people you bring, as all parts of the encounter become trivial and less interesting.
What is to be gained by investing the resources in a system like this via systems and AI programming?

[Tails.9372]

2 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

In instanced content, if you don't have the meta build, you are gatekeeped by other players

Only in high level play where people expect to see efficient runs but you don't need to bring a meta build for e.g. public DRMs, Shiverpeaks Pass or T1 fractals (having at least a cohesive build however would be appreciated, as would some AR if you want to play fractals).

[Salvatore.3749]

55 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

 people expect to see efficient runs

That section right there is why I advocate for the mercenary system. 

I had another thread where I commented on a returning thief player's frustration. The frustration was that he was not able to find a raid or strike party because he didn't want to use the meta build or meta build's equipment and struggled to find a party. 

I told him it comes down to time. GW2 is very disrespectful of players' time when they have families, work, children, health issues, etc. Thus, people want meta builds and meta parties for efficiency purposes alone. If legendary gear didn't take so long to gain, we wouldn't have this issue for more casual players. And the legendary equipment isn't as big of an issue as the balance for certain professions as compared to others. Look at thief, there is no ability for thief to provide much support to a party or squad outside of damage. Ranger, Mesmer, and Warrior can provide unique boons and boosts that thief cannot. Weaver ele may not be the best support choice over tempest ele for parties that want party sustain. 

From the standpoint of the casual player who wants to spend an hour or two on a dungeon or mid level fractal, we can't. 

In the end, it would be more respectful of casual players's time and hardcore players' time as well. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[mungozen.2379]

3 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

In instanced content, if you don't have the meta build, you are gatekeeped by other players, thus prevented from enjoying the content. Plus, some content requires you to wait for people to join, find people to stick around, find players who don't die often, can synergize builds with you., etc.

Unfortunately, as MMOs are designed there will always be a large group of hardcore players who want meta builds and do not want to work with other people who want to try things or play casually. Guild Wars was designed for casual PvE players and pvpers, whereas Guild Wars 2 attempted to cater to casual PvE players and pvpers, but it has struggled over the years since the meta builds are required by hard core players and meta equipment is so time consuming to make. 

Thus, it would be easier for people who want to play at their own pace who may not have 3 hours every single day to commit to making a legendary weapon. I myself only have 2 hours a week that I can spend playing GW2.. So for people like me, instanced content with mercenaries would be helpful. 

I think your reading other threads on this topic you might see that some have given a lot of thought as to what you are suggesting. What you are thinking sounds fine, but having played games where mercenaries/henchmen/bots were available it meant less people were inclined to play with each other since it was ‘faster and more convenient’ to play alone. 
 

Consider this, in order for you to be successful in content, say fighting a fractal boss, there is a minimum DPS and skill required to complete the fight. If you do not want to use a ‘meta’ build, or prefer to use something that offers less DPS you need other players to make up the difference. If you are playing with bots of some form, then they need to make up that difference for you. 
 

How powerful does the bot have to be to overcome the average persons lack of skill or build knowledge?

Your comments about meta builds, which are only required in the hardest of content, I think point to a gap that is okay.  You may only need a meta build for T4 fractals, and some raids and strikes. Content that can require the best out of a player. Do you think having a helper bot should allow you to make up that difference between skilled players who do what they need to to complete content, and a casual who doesn’t have time to invest in nor desire to make a build that supports that content?
 

Where do you draw the line?  The more powerful you make the helper bots, the less skilled the player tends to be.  What is the minimum skill level required to play the game and what level of content should one expect to complete with that minimum skill level?  
 

[Salvatore.3749]

1 hour ago, mindcircus.1506 said:

Honest question:

LW Story instances are balanced around the lowest common denominator. They are balanced to be doable by a player who is improperly geared, with a bad build.
They become exponentially worse as a gaming experience the more people you bring, as all parts of the encounter become trivial and less interesting.
What is to be gained by investing the resources in a system like this via systems and AI programming?

See, I often recall HoT's release where story missions were incredibly difficult at the time of release, when ascended equipment was hard to achieve, and there was barely any adventurer profession who had marauder's equipment or heavy armor professions with other HoT stats. 

When you think about these types of facts, upon HoT's release all players were disadvantaged. New players are still disadvantaged unless they jump to PoF and then to HoT (which storyline wise, doesn't make sense). It would be better if the mercenary system was added to the core game for new players and returning players to play or replay story content. With AI, you wouldn't have people to account for, but you would have AI that you could directly command. 

Even though the living world stories are "balanced to be doable [with] improper gear", that doesn't actually mean they are easily doable, it means it's just significantly harder than if you had proper gear or meta gear. So why not add commandable AI to up your power coefficients?  

I remember LW 1 with exotic equipment was difficult - which we can't even replay to prove it. LW2 was still difficult with exotic equipment. LW 3 didn't really get any easier if you had the same equipment. It really came down to dying multiple times to try all over again. It wasn't until a few balance patches and power creep that players were actually able to complete LW efficiently. Even with the power creep, ANET is still developing content to make the content harder.

For instance, look at the Silverwaste map legendary champions, how easy are they to kill with a party of 8 players? Very. A Cele Ele with full ascended gear can easily kill those monsters. Before, they were difficult because the power creep wasn't there. 

To answer your question, and what I'm hinting at is efficiency. With AI mercenaries, you can equip them with several leftover equipment that you may not use as patches and nerfs to builds occur, you can fight through story missions and LW content more efficiently, you could easily solo dungeons (because those were forgotten about), and you could even eliminate the party member errors if you know how to run a dungeon by yourself. 

 

 

[Salvatore.3749]

44 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

I think your reading other threads on this topic you might see that some have given a lot of thought as to what you are suggesting. What you are thinking sounds fine, but having played games where mercenaries/henchmen/bots were available it meant less people were inclined to play with each other since it was ‘faster and more convenient’ to play alone. 

Thank you for the questions. You asked some good ones. I think that's just it, some people want to play alone. And they want to play the game their way. There was actually a speech years ago about the loaners in MMOs (like 2008), some people like to be around people, but don't have time for the commitments that some MMOs require, even though MMOs are their preferred style of game. People are sociable, but some are more than others, and some don't necessarily want to be forced to play with other people. The mercenary/hero system in Guild Wars provided that to people who liked to play the game their way without having to conform to what the other players want or just want to play because they enjoy the story or just want to play it alone. At the time, this percentage in MMOs was actually higher than what one may think. If I recall, based on the surveys it was like 15% (15% of millions of players is a lot of people). Having bots would give those people the option to play through something alone as well as the option to play with other people at certain times. 

 

44 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

Consider this, in order for you to be successful in content, say fighting a fractal boss, there is a minimum DPS and skill required to complete the fight. If you do not want to use a ‘meta’ build, or prefer to use something that offers less DPS you need other players to make up the difference. If you are playing with bots of some form, then they need to make up that difference for you. 
 

How powerful does the bot have to be to overcome the average persons lack of skill or build knowledge?

Your comments about meta builds, which are only required in the hardest of content, I think point to a gap that is okay.  You may only need a meta build for T4 fractals, and some raids and strikes. Content that can require the best out of a player. Do you think having a helper bot should allow you to make up that difference between skilled players who do what they need to to complete content, and a casual who doesn’t have time to invest in nor desire to make a build that supports that content?
 

Where do you draw the line?  The more powerful you make the helper bots, the less skilled the player tends to be.  What is the minimum skill level required to play the game and what level of content should one expect to complete with that minimum skill level?  
 

To your first point, fair, and true. That's literally the state of GW2, the harder the content, the less things that work. If you don't use something that works, other team members have to pick up the slack, and that sucks for them and for you if you want to try something different.

I don't think the bot has to be powerful, the bot needs to be commanded and told what to do. Players would need to have that ability to control them and equip them with gear. The bots can be given a targeting system, defensive functions, and offensive functions, and players would need access to their skill bars and trait lines. 

I don't think bots will have the ability to be better than skilled players who are hardcore pvers or raiders simply because those players focus on it.  The heroes/mercenaries would likely be useless at some point in instanced content because they wouldn't have the expertise that players do n certain content such as T4 fractals and raids. But, they could provide a unique balance to pve content for those players who are more casual. However, for hardcore content that requires the best out of a player, a bot at this time can't compensate and I'm not advocating for them to do so, simply because that would undermine the raiding and pve community as whole, which is not something I would want. Could it be possible? Maybe, but that's a lot of factors for a player to command in the middle of content. 

I draw the line in content that is already very difficult. From an objective viewpoint, high tier fractals, harder raids, harder strikes, and things that are traditionally niche for players in the community, is where the line is drawn. It's the obvious line so that it doesn't circumvent those communities as a whole. 

Obviously, the minimum skill level to play this game varies. Check out Boot's bad build videos on youtube. The answer to your question is the skill level varies depending on the profession you play. Thus, I'm advocating for story instances, living world, dungeons, and other non-niche content.

If raids or strikes are included in that content, then I'm okay with it. Theoretically if someone wants to use heroes/mercs in a T4 fractal to play, then you should let them, but I doubt the bots could replace players in such niched content. Especially if they have enough legendary and ascended gear to do it, otherwise, players will still likely group together. And if people think it's stupid to allow that because it will never work, I'm a firm believer in stupid should be punished, so let people play the game how they want to, even if it means they are failing the content. If they figure out how to succeed, then good for them, but that sounds incredibly tedious with all the dodging and one hit kills the party would face. 

Mind you, I'm a hardcore pvper, and casual pver. I'm someone who can work with random players in forced play together content, while still being a casual just want to get the story done type of player. Thus, I don't want to replace players in niche communities because I know when it sucks to be paired with bots in pvp that I can't fully command.  

Edited September 28, 2021 by Salvatore.3749
grammar

[MarkoGold.7126]

23 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Out of curiosity, who would want a-mercenary system similar to that of Guild Wars 1? 

Essentially, GW1 had heroes that you could command, but with the mercenary slots, you could use your own characters as heroes and place them in your party in the game.

Do you think it be cool to have your other characters joining your side and fighting through PvE?

me! xd i would instantly replace all raid pugs with mercenaries or heroes. 

[Salvatore.3749]

1 minute ago, MarkoGold.7126 said:

me! xd i would instantly replace all raid pugs with mercenaries or heroes. 

I imagine it would be a bit easier at times if you just want to farm. 

[mungozen.2379]

28 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Thank you for the questions. You asked some good ones. I think that's just it, some people want to play alone. And they want to play the game their way. There was actually a speech years ago about the loaners in MMOs (like 2008), some people like to be around people, but don't have time for the commitments that some MMOs require, even though MMOs are their preferred style of game. People are sociable, but some are more than others, and some don't necessarily want to be forced to play with other people. The mercenary/hero system in Guild Wars provided that to people who liked to play the game their way without having to conform to what the other players want or just want to play because they enjoy the story or just want to play it alone. At the time, this percentage in MMOs was actually higher than what one may think. If I recall, based on the surveys it was like 15% (15% of millions of players is a lot of people). Having bots would give those people the option to play through something alone as well as the option to play with other people at certain times. 

 

To your first point, fair, and true. That's literally the state of GW2, the harder the content, the less things that work. If you don't use something that works, other team members have to pick up the slack, and that sucks for them and for you if you want to try something different.

I don't think the bot has to be powerful, the bot needs to be commanded and told what to do. Players would need to have that ability to control them and equip them with gear. The bots can be given a targeting system, defensive functions, and offensive functions, and players would need access to their skill bars and trait lines. 

I don't think bots will have the ability to be better than skilled players who are hardcore pvers or raiders simply because those players focus on it.  The heroes/mercenaries would likely be useless at some point in instanced content because they wouldn't have the expertise that players do n certain content such as T4 fractals and raids. But, they could provide a unique balance to pve content for those players who are more casual. However, for hardcore content that requires the best out of a player, a bot at this time can't compensate and I'm not advocating for them to do so, simply because that would undermine the raiding and pve community as whole, which is not something I would want. Could it be possible? Maybe, but that's a lot of factors for a player to command in the middle of content. 

I draw the line in content that is already very difficult. From an objective viewpoint, high tier fractals, harder raids, harder strikes, and things that are traditionally niche for players in the community, is where the line is drawn. It's the obvious line so that it doesn't circumvent those communities as a whole. 

Obviously, the minimum skill level to play this game varies. Check out Boot's bad build videos on youtube. The answer to your question is the skill level varies depending on the profession you play. Thus, I'm advocating for story instances, living world, dungeons, and other non-niche content.

If raids or strikes are included in that content, then I'm okay with it. Theoretically if someone wants to use heroes/mercs in a T4 fractal to play, then you should let them, but I doubt the bots could replace players in such niched content. Especially if they have enough legendary and ascended gear to do it, otherwise, players will still likely group together. And if people think it's stupid to allow that because it will never work, I'm a firm believer in stupid should be punished, so let people play the game how they want to, even if it means they are failing the content. If they figure out how to succeed, then good for them, but that sounds incredibly tedious with all the dodging and one hit kills the party would face. 

Mind you, I'm a hardcore pvper, and casual pver. I'm someone who can work with random players in forced play together content, while still being a casual just want to get the story done type of player. Thus, I don't want to replace players in niche communities because I know when it sucks to be paired with bots in pvp that I can't fully command.  

I don't mean to be reductionist but, here is what I am reading as devils advocate.

A player who doesn't have the skill, time or commitment to learning and playing their profession in a way that would provide the highest level of success, could have access to a helper bot that requires the player learn something new to help them?  Like, from a design perspective you are asking for a solution to the games complexity, and the solution is for more buttons to push to make the game easier.  But, isn't that just moving the complexity of the game around?  Why not ask for the professions to be easier to use in general?

As well, if you are giving players a crutch like a helperbot, and players learn how to use the helperbot to their advantage, use it with the most efficiency and best results, how will that player fair when they are in a position without the bot?  They have to learn the game with and without the bot.  Another potential increase in complexity. Another point of friction for players to work around.

 

[Salvatore.3749]

11 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

A player who doesn't have the skill, time or commitment to learning and playing their profession in a way that would provide the highest level of success, could have access to a helper bot that requires the player learn something new to help them?  Like, from a design perspective you are asking for a solution to the games complexity, and the solution is for more buttons to push to make the game easier.  But, isn't that just moving the complexity of the game around?  Why not ask for the professions to be easier to use in general?

As well, if you are giving players a crutch like a helperbot, and players learn how to use the helperbot to their advantage, use it with the most efficiency and best results, how will that player fair when they are in a position without the bot?  They have to learn the game with and without the bot.  Another potential increase in complexity. Another point of friction for players to work around.

 

It's not necessarily a crutch, so much as it is another tool for players to use in their arsenal. When used effectively, such a tool could actually be a new skill that diversifies gameplay. There could be the option to bring the heroes or not. 

Your statements make it seem like it's a crutch to reduce the complexity of the entire game, where in actuality, it's not really a crutch for the entire game, but only a tool for certain content and different way to play such content. The option to use or not use the heroes/mercs should be made available.

Also, I guess the question is does it matter if individual players lean on heroes in certain content? And why does it matter if they want to play the game that way? How does it affect other players when those players would prefer to play alone with bots? See, a casual player will likely never convert to hardcore fractal player or raider since they like to play casually. Such a system would compensate for them. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[mungozen.2379]

1 minute ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

It's not necessarily a crutch, so much as it is another tool for players to use in their arsenal. When used effectively, such a tool could actually be a new skill that diversifies gameplay. There could be the option to bring the heroes or not. 

Your statements make it seem like it's a crutch to reduce the complexity of the entire game, where in actuality, it's not really a crutch for the entire game, but only a tool for certain content and different way to play such content. The option to use the heroes/mercs should be made available.

Also, I guess the question is does it matter if individual players lean on heroes in certain content? And why does it matter if they want to play the game that way? How does it affect other players when those players would prefer to play alone with bots? See, a casual player will likely never convert to hardcore fractal player or raider since they like to play casually. Such a system would compensate for them. 

In software development we use a tool called 'user stories' where you take user experiences and understand them to modify or adapt the software.  User stories help understand the optimal way to shape the software to match user experience and expectations.  A User Story is literally how the person uses the software and the issues or success they have with it.

What would the user story look like for a new player being introduced to GW2 + helperbots?  How do you explain to a new player that this tool helps them by adding complexity, but only sometimes, under some circumstances can they use it.  Think about how GW2 has implemented pretty much everything forever, with a lot of rough edges around it (or specifically, with little to no clear in game information), and how introducing a new player to helperbots would go.

How do you keep that player from leaning on the helperbot too much?  How do you set the right expectations?  What happens when a player wants more help than the helperbot can provide?  Or using a helperbot yet continuing to fail at the content it was meant to help with?

This is what I meant about adding and moving the complexity around.  It's like arbitrarily adding 3 new skill buttons on the screen and saying these will help.  What about the other 10-25 skill buttons I already have?  Why add more buttons and suggest this will make it easier?  Why not ask for less buttons with more impact?  How do you explain to a new player, someone who has never seen GW2 that having some extra buttons makes the game easier?  Many newer players ask for less complexity in this game already, that's part of the skill ceiling that prevents them from excelling in this game.

[Salvatore.3749]

7 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

 How do you explain to a new player that this tool helps them by adding complexity, but only sometimes, under some circumstances can they use it. 

It's not about only using it sometimes, it about whether or not they want to use the function. Then it's about determining how the function works when applied. Some things, like jumping puzzles in LW or Fractals will require the heroes to teleport/fast travel or be flagged to wait. That's when there is a time where they cannot be used. 

 

9 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

How do you keep that player from leaning on the helperbot too much?  How do you set the right expectations?  What happens when a player wants more help than the helperbot can provide?  Or using a helperbot yet continuing to fail at the content it was meant to help with?

Why does it matter if they choose to lean on hero or not? That's something you haven't answered.

You keep calling it a helperbot, but it's not really a helperbot, it's only a tool for the players to use or not use.

Again, why would it matter if they keep failing? They would just have to learn how to play with them to overcome the difficulties. The heroes wouldn't necessarily make it so that GW2 is on easy mode. It's there for variety purposes and for people who want to play solo. Failing and learning is part of playing the game. If people want to play it one way and others want to play it a separate way, should it matter? How does this affect players who don't want to use the heroes? How is it a negative impact on players who don't want to be forced to play with other players? 

Your perspective comes from someone who wants people to be forced to play together and that causes other players to suffer finding a pug, achieving the meta, not being able to play certain content because there are not enough players who want to partake in that content. 

12 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

How do you explain to a new player, someone who has never seen GW2 that having some extra buttons makes the game easier?  Many newer players ask for less complexity in this game already, that's part of the skill ceiling that prevents them from excelling in this game.

You tell them, it's there if they want to use it or not. Give it to them when they can do their first dungeon, which was level 35 or once they have one character reach level 80.

Again, it's just catering to individual player decisions. It's not really that complex, it may be from a technical development standpoint, so why not make it a paid for function like they did in Guild Wars 1? $20 for 3 character slots to aid you in PvE instanced content sounds  like a good bargain and good motivator for a videogame development company that likes microtransactions. 

I'm not a big math person, but here are some theoretical numbers using $20 and a small portion of the player database (10K players). $20x10K=$200K is pretty good if that many people buy it in a month. For a game with millions of players and a large number of microtransactions, this would be motivation enough for the developers to come up with a system to make it easier for new players to use.  

[Tiviana.2650]

I dont know about that system, but i would like to play an evil faction, maybe join the branded or w/e new bad faction is coming out in EoD. i like to mix it up and not always play the good guy.

[Kurrilino.2706]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:44 PM, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

Why y'all want to play this game alone?  I'd like to see Anet invest in more methods to connect players in better ways than an excuse to not play with anyone else.

 

 

Because it's fun to equip an own group and put it together exactly as i want it.

Colors and weapons and all.

Other people have a free will and don't care what i want.

That is a big problem in MY world

[Kurrilino.2706]

7 hours ago, zombyturtle.5980 said:

People ask for this over and over but they never address how to overcomes the tons of problems this would create. AI either being too OP and face tanking oneshot aoes trivializing even the hardest combat, or being useless like they are now and dying to everything. 

 

They did a fantastic job in GW1.

There is no reason to assume this can't be done here in GW2. 

Your concerns are not really valid since it's just making up the most extreme problems someone could imagine.

[Kurrilino.2706]

8 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

The AI for the NPCs in the instanced content is terrible.  I can't imagine adding to that mess.

 

Because we can't control them.

GW1 has already proven how to implement it perfectly.

[mungozen.2379]

2 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Why does it matter if they choose to lean on hero or not? That's something you haven't answered.

I'll create an example that hopefully illustrates my thoughts here:

In this fictitious scenario, Steve the Player is fighting Joe the Boss. 

Steve has 100 HP and 2 abilities. 

• Ability 1 is 10 HP Attack on a 1 second CD
• Ability 2 is a 50 HP Heal on a 5 second CD

Joe has 100 HP and 2 abilities.

• Ability 1 is a 10 HP attack on a 1 second CD
• Ability 2 is a 50 HP attack on a 4 second CD, but roots him in place with a 2 second charge up time
• Joe will also always move towards Steve when not using Ability 2
• Joe will Enrage and deal 1000 HP to Steve after 100 seconds

All Steve needs to do is 100 damage to Joe before Joe does 100 damage to Steve or within 100 seconds.

I would assume that most players would be able to determine one or two strategies to be successful in guiding Steve to overcome Joe.  As the developer, I anticipate the play pattern to be:

1. Steve runs in and attacks a few times, but also takes a few hits
2. When Joe starts powering up Ability 2, Steve would run away to avoid the bigger hit, and possibly use the healing as well
3. Repeat until Joe is dead

But what happens if the player guiding Steve isn't adept at dealing 100 damage before Joe kills them?  Ahha, a helper of some form!!!

Let's say we add a mercenary hero, and that mercenary hero will have the same abilities as Steve.  Now Steve has the help and over 100 seconds is able to deal 100 damage to Joe and be successful!

Except, what if I don't need that help, yet I have access to it?  What if I realize that Steve with a Hero means they can kill Joe in 5 seconds and skip using the heals or worry about the big attack?

Okay so maybe having a Hero having the same abilities as me is too strong, lets say the Hero hits for 1 and heals for 5.  The Hero is doing  a lot less work but, hmmm, if I was an efficient player, why wouldn't I use the Hero even if it only added 10% DPS?

Statement:  If a tool exists that makes the game easier for a player, expect the best players to optimize its usage for their benefit.  Game developers will balance the game around this type of usage.

Suggesting that someone will use the Hero thing if they 'need' it is kinda like saying I only want to use Exotic items and not Ascended or Legendary because I don't need the extra DPS and sustain.  Most people will use the thing that gives them 'more' since more =  easier and faster.