Mercenary System Curiosity

[SoulGuardian.6203]

All you need to understand is that I want to form my own party of characters that I created, together in a team. The way I want.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why should I not have Pyre Fierceshot warband while playing my own private story?

It's not because of lack of skills.

It's the joy of creating something yourself.

 

If I want to recreate the original hero party, including Jora, Gwen, Pyre Fierceshot, etc as my team; which part is so confusing?

Edited September 28, 2021 by SoulGuardian.6203

[Rasimir.6239]

12 hours ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

They did a fantastic job in GW1.

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

Apples and oranges.

 

GW1 is an instanced game. You have to actively team up with somebody to end up in the same instance with them, which in turn means you know about the number of ai heroes/henchman joining the map, too.

 

GW2 is an open world MMO with dozends of players in the same map instance, with potentially many strangers impacted by individual player actions and their (potential) pets/heroes/companions/mercenaries/whatever.

 

If you want to experience an MMO with a "mercenary" system, try ESO. They implemented a companion system in their latest expansion that is pretty similar to the heroes from GW1. Personally I find it primarily annoying that "my" world is now polluted by all these companions tagging along with most players.

[Salvatore.3749]

20 hours ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

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.

This still doesn't make sense. Why would the hero be stronger or weaker than the player overall?

Sure, I understand providing  the heroes with good equipment, but why is that a bad thing if a player wants to do that?

• That may improve the economy of the GW2 as more people spend time making legendary equipment and buying materials.
  • That's not really a bad thing is it? Do I think every single player will do it? No. But, so what if they did?

The heroes would have equivalent DPS and the ability to be customized to the player's needs.

• I never said they would be stronger or weaker than the player, so why is that coming up in your hypothetical? 
• Again, so what if players want to use the heroes or not? Why is it a bad thing?

As an fyi, Guild Wars 1 was not balanced around heroes. Guild Wars 1 was balanced around players working together and if an individual player so chose, they could use the heroes. In actuality, heroes weren't introduced until the last campaign, the last expansion, and Guild Wars Beyond content (which is the precursor to living world). You could only get the heroes at the start of a campaign or at max level after you finished 1 campaign and purchased Guild Wars Nightfall and/or Guild Wars Eye of the North. 

It would be the same thing here. Heroes wouldn't be available until later in the game and they certainly would never become a crutch or be stronger or weaker than the player. In Guild Wars 2, if you recall early game or low level areas there is a levelising system.  If a new or veteran player goes to those areas, the level is capped to like 25, 35, 70, etc. Why would that be different for heroes? Have you taken that system into account. Ascalonian Catacombs gives a level cap of 35 for players, why would it not do that for heroes? Have you considered what makes Guild Wars 2 unique and how it could work versus how it wouldn't work? 

Remember, I said instanced content, dungeons, story mode, and fractals. Low tier fractals would benefit most. Maybe raids or strikes regardless if they effective or not. There is much content with level caps available for new players. So your "crutch" actually defeats itself when taking into account the uniqueness of Guild Wars 2. What's the difference between a few unskilled players, and 1 unskilled player with a few heroes attempting a dungeon? Nothing as both groups are struggling to learn the game. What about whether or not they are still learning to command heroes? Nothing. It's just part of playing the game with a new mechanic.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749
Clarity and grammar

[Salvatore.3749]

3 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

GW1 is an instanced game. You have to actively team up with somebody to end up in the same instance with them, which in turn means you know about the number of ai heroes/henchman joining the map, too.

GW2 is an open world MMO with dozends of players in the same map instance, with potentially many strangers impacted by individual player actions and their (potential) pets/heroes/companions/mercenaries/whatever.

If you want to experience an MMO with a "mercenary" system, try ESO. They implemented a companion system in their latest expansion that is pretty similar to the heroes from GW1. Personally I find it primarily annoying that "my" world is now polluted by all these companions tagging along with most players.

Just to catch you up to speed, I said instanced content only. Not open world. I actually argued against making heroes available for open world because it doesn't make sense when there are so many players already available.

I even said GW1 provided individuals with instanced maps where as GW2 only provided instanced maps in story mode content, dungeons, fractals, raids, etc. 

[Kurrilino.2706]

3 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

Apples and oranges.

 

GW1 is an instanced game. You have to actively team up with somebody to end up in the same instance with them, which in turn means you know about the number of ai heroes/henchman joining the map, too.

 

GW2 is an open world MMO with dozends of players in the same map instance, with potentially many strangers impacted by individual player actions and their (potential) pets/heroes/companions/mercenaries/whatever.

 

If you want to experience an MMO with a "mercenary" system, try ESO. They implemented a companion system in their latest expansion that is pretty similar to the heroes from GW1. Personally I find it primarily annoying that "my" world is now polluted by all these companions tagging along with most players.

 

You must have missed the fact that Necros and Rangers already have henchmen with them.

They can even issue commands to them.

This already works great and i haven't seen open world coming to an end yet.

 

Just refine this system a little and we have dang fine henchmen

[kharmin.7683]

7 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

You must have missed the fact that Necros and Rangers already have henchmen with them.

They can even issue commands to them.

This already works great and i haven't seen open world coming to an end yet.

 

Just refine this system a little and we have dang fine henchmen

That isn't a valid comparison to the heroes in GW1, which is what is being asked for in this thread.  In GW1, heroes could be spec'd out and given a wide variety of skills to use and the player could even choose when to have a particular hero use a specific skill.  This is no where close to what ranger pets and necromancer minions do.

[Astralporing.1957]

On 9/27/2021 at 8:17 PM, Salvatore.3749 said:

I was wondering why you were quick to respond. You definitely didn't like the hero system at all lol. 

Honestly, I did like the hero system since you had more control over them than you did henchmen. However, some content is gatekeeped via meta builds by other players and I recall GW1 much easier to complete certain missions once we had heroes for instanced content.

GW2 doesn't provide players an individual instance though, so I can see the argument from a technical/game development standpoint where everyone using a party of mercenaries at once could be tedious on the system. 

I like the idea of instanced content only, which would be more reliable since we would have our own maps. 

It's not an issue of individual instances. It's the problem with AI and GW2 combat system. Basically, the active combat system, that is heavily dependable on positioning and active defences (dodges, and actually not being where attacks land), as well as pushing the gameplay more towards proactive over reactive makes any companion AI either mostly useless (if it's too dumb to play well in such environment) or brokenly OP (if it actually was smart enough to play well or was coded to "cheat" the system somehow).

The problems were already visible in GW1 - some builds/game approaches were completely unusable on heroes (i.e. they were absolutely unable to play prot monk builds, because it required predicting actions, and AI could not do that). It worked, because that game still left quite a lot of options open for heroes to take. In gw2, it would be much, much worse however and i honestly doubt it could work at all.

[Astralporing.1957]

23 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

You must have missed the fact that Necros and Rangers already have henchmen with them.

They can even issue commands to them.

This already works great and i haven't seen open world coming to an end yet.

This actually works extremely badly (which is why we've got a no-pet Ranger elite spec, btw). Pet/minion AI being extremely dumb, and them not contributing much to their classes is a very old issue. And it is exactly because they don;t contribute much that they do not cause any problems with the game (well, apart from making quite a number of rangers/necros unhappy).

[Tyncale.1629]

15 hours ago, SoulGuardian.6203 said:

All you need to understand is that I want to form my own party of characters that I created, together in a team. The way I want.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why should I not have Pyre Fierceshot warband while playing my own private story?

It's not because of lack of skills.

It's the joy of creating something yourself.

 

If I want to recreate the original hero party, including Jora, Gwen, Pyre Fierceshot, etc as my team; which part is so confusing?

I LOVED fiddling with my Hero team in GW1, I would love to be able to do that in GW2 if only for the Dungeons which are completely abandoned content anyway.  But I understand that the effort would very likely not be worth it for Anet.  But maybe I could finally do all dungeons paths in my own pace. 🙂

[Salvatore.3749]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It's the problem with AI and GW2 combat system. Basically, the active combat system, that is heavily dependable on positioning and active defences (dodges, and actually not being where attacks land), as well as pushing the gameplay more towards proactive over reactive makes any companion AI either mostly useless (if it's too dumb to play well in such environment) or brokenly OP (if it actually was smart enough to play well or was coded to "cheat" the system somehow).

The problems were already visible in GW1 - some builds/game approaches were completely unusable on heroes (i.e. they were absolutely unable to play prot monk builds, because it required predicting actions, and AI could not do that). It worked, because that game still left quite a lot of options open for heroes to take. In gw2, it would be much, much worse however and i honestly doubt it could work at all.

That first line is actually the most concern I have. How will heroes know when to dodge and when to make the judgment to attack versus dodge? Do they need to prioritize it based upon health? It would almost need to be as complex as the command system as the Tales Series. If you have ever played a tales game like Tales of Symphonia, which had even more active combat than Guild Wars 2 on the Nintendo Gamecube, you would see what I mean. Essentially, you could command your allies to position themselves based upon their health, enemy health, when to cast certain techniques, and even have shortcuts to have them cast their techniques at any given time. You could even have them prioritize evades, blocking, and counterattacking instead of being purely offensive. 

Such a system was not perfect, but when configured correctly, the AI party could perform incredibly well. I could even prioritize my healer, to heal until the boss enemies were at 10% health and have them cast meteor for added DPS. 

The tales games are way more complex than GW2 since one character could perform 100+ hit conbos. 

As for your second paragraph, you're absolutely right. There were some builds that required a human brain for it to be effective in high level content. That's exactly why I said story, living world, low tier fractals, and instanced content would benefit best. I wouldn't want the heroes replacing people in high tier fractals or harder raids, and I don't think it would even be remotely possible since we as players have to fight tougher AI through knowledge and expertise. 

Again, disclaimer, if players want to try to fight high tier fractals and raids, then let them, even if they don't win because that's just playing the game. 

Also again, I don't want heroes to replace players in niche content and I don't think they could do so effectively. Even so, the communities that like to work with other players could still work with one another. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Sobx.1758]

3 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

I never said they would be stronger or weaker than the player, so why is that coming up in your hypothetical? 

Didn't you?

22 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

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. 

Here you say the casual player wouldn't be able to play fractals/raids, but would somehow be able to be compensated by playing with bots (~mercenaries). If the player wouldn't be able to play through the content with other players, but would be able to play through it with proposed by you, well, legal bots, then it's safe to say those bots would be stronger and able to mostly carry those players through content. And that's what's wrong with it. If you want an auto-play game, there are plenty of them on smartphones. Don't bring that kitten to action mmorpgs.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Salvatore.3749]

11 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Didn't you?

Here you say the casual player wouldn't be able to play fractals/raids, but would somehow be able to be compensated by playing with bots (~mercenaries). If the player wouldn't be able to play through the content with other players, but would be able to play through it with proposed by you, well, legal bots, then it's safe to say those bots would be stronger and able to mostly carry those players through content. And that's what's wrong with it. If you want an auto-play game, there are plenty of them on smartphones. Don't bring that kitten to action mmorpgs.

I didn't.

You left out the part from other posts where I said this would allow for solo gameplay during instanced content and would not replace players in high tier or niched environments. And in the context of "wouldn't be able to play through the content", that meant that players could choose to play with other players or not, or choose to play with mercenaries or not. 

It wouldn't be on auto play since GW2 is more complex and can't be played on autoplay.

Same question to you, how would the way someone else wants to play this game impact you?

Also, did you see the post about the levelising system that is unique to Guild Wars 2?

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Sobx.1758]

34 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

I didn't.

You left out the part from other posts where I said this would allow for solo gameplay during instanced content and would not replace players in high tier or niched environments. And in the context of "wouldn't be able to play through the content", that meant that players could choose to play with other players or not, or choose to play with mercenaries or not. 

It wouldn't be on auto play since GW2 is more complex and can't be played on autoplay.

Same question to you, how would the way someone else wants to play this game impact you?

Also, did you see the post about the levelising system that is unique to Guild Wars 2?

So what exactly would it "compensate" to those players? If the casual player wants to play casually, then they create/join squads or parties accordingly and play with whomever they want, however they want. How is still controlling your own character on top of the rest of the party/squad any more casual than just joining other casual players and playing through the content with them?

And solo gameplay is already possible in the instances where it's supposed to be possbile. Story/drms are examples of that.

"It wouldn't be on autoplay", but you've tried comparing it to tales of symphonia system (while claiming it had more active combat than gw2), which most of the time seems to be an autobattler. So I'm calling it for what it seems to be aiming for. If it's not that, then I don't see how it's supposed to be casual friendly.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Salvatore.3749]

58 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

So what exactly would it "compensate" to those players? If the casual player wants to play casually, then they create/join squads or parties accordingly and play with whomever they want, however they want. How is still controlling your own character on top of the rest of the party/squad any more casual than just joining other casual players and playing through the content with them?

First not all instanced content allows for squads and sometimes players. Why should a casual player who wants to play alone be forced to play with people if they don't want to do so, but still want to enjoy the game? I already answered this same question. Simply because they want to play the game that way, don't have time, want the complexity, like to be strategic, or whatever reason. Same question to you, why are you against players playing Guild Wars 2 a different way than how you play it? How is it that you would be impacted by someone else not wanting to play the game the way you want them to play it?

As for your next question, again, people may want to play alone and not try to coordinate with other people. See my other posts about why players don't want to play with other players or why they are prevented from playing with other.

Let's define compensate and let's define the other words within compensate.

Compensate: 

: to provide something good as a balance against something bad or undesirable :

to make up for some defect or weakness.

: to give money or something else of value to (someone) in return for something (such as work) or as payment for something lost, damaged, etc.

I'm using it in the context of the third definition, maybe the first can work, maybe there is an argument to be made for the second definition.  The value given to casual and solo players is freedom and time. And could even be used as an exclusive term. Here, giving players the choice to play on their own, not spend time looking for a party, not spend time trying to work with a party, spend the time to make a party of their own, and interact and enjoy the game are all things that can be provided to players who choose to play instanced content. Thereby allowing people to enjoy the game in a new light. Essentially providing people with time constraints to play the game solo or with parties. Therefore, the hero system would actually provide people with the ability to focus on the things they want to do in-game and have more fun doing it. 

As a whole, your arguments, and a few other people's arguments, revolve solely around how you play GW2, and how you expect GW2 to be played by people who join in. You don't want to see changes to way the game is played even though some people are forced to work with you, and don't like being forced to play the game the way you want it to be played simply because they don't have the time, energy, or ability to commit to playing hours of instanced content solo or with disorganized PUGS. Your arguments are conclusory and say why it shouldn't work and how bad it could potentially be because other players don't want to play the same way you want to play the game and completely removes the consideration of freedoms that other players want. 

Not everyone wants to do story mode, LW, or dungeon with a speed clear group, party, or squad. Some people like to enjoy the content in different ways, and some want to do it solo. Some would rather be stressed out solo and with heroes rather than with PUGS who want you to have a meta build, or dungeons, stroll, and take it at their own pace, 

In essence, I'm talking about players having freedom to play GW2 the way they want to and your suggesting to only prevent players having this freedom because that is not how you want to play the game or would like to see others play the game. Regardless if those players don't become great or skilled, wouldn't you want great or skilled players in your party anyway? So what's stopping you from kicking the unskilled players and finding better skilled players?

The question still stands, how does someone else who plays GW2 impact the way you play GW2 from an experience perspective? 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Sobx.1758]

26 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

First not all instanced content allows for squads and sometimes players. Why should a casual player who wants to play alone be forced to play with people if they don't want to do so, but still want to enjoy the game? I already answered this same question. Simply because they want to play the game that way, don't have time, want the complexity, like to be strategic, or whatever reason. Same question to you, why are you against players playing Guild Wars 2 a different way than how you play it? How is it that you would be impacted by someone else not wanting to play the game the way you want them to play it?

As for your next question, again, people may want to play alone and not try to coordinate with other people. See my other posts about why players don't want to play with other players or why they are prevented from playing with other.

Let's define compensate and let's define the other words within compensate.

Compensate: 

: to provide something good as a balance against something bad or undesirable :

to make up for some defect or weakness.

: to give money or something else of value to (someone) in return for something (such as work) or as payment for something lost, damaged, etc.

I'm using it in the context of the third definition, maybe the first can work, maybe there is an argument to be made for the second definition.  The value given to casual and solo players is freedom and time. And could even be used as an exclusive term. Here, giving players the choice to play on their own, not spend time looking for a party, not spend time trying to work with a party, spend the time to make a party of their own, and interact and enjoy the game are all things that can be provided to players who choose to play instanced content. Thereby allowing people to enjoy the game in a new light. Essentially providing people with time constraints to play the game solo or with parties. Therefore, the hero system would actually provided people with the ability to focus on the things they want to do in-game and have more fun doing it. 

As a whole, your arguments, and a few other people's arguments, revolve solely around how you play GW2, and how you expect GW2 to be played by people who join in. You don't want to see changes to way the game is played even though some people are forced to work with you, and don't like being forced to play the game the way you want it to be played simply because they don't have the time, energy, or ability to commit to playing hours of instanced content solo or with disorganized PUGS. Your arguments are conclusory and say why it shouldn't work and how bad it could potentially be because other players don't want to play the same way you want to play the game and completely removes the consideration of freedoms that other players want. 

Not everyone wants to do story mode, LW, or dungeon with a speed clear group, party, or squad. Some people like to enjoy the content in different ways, and some want to do it solo. Some would rather be stressed out solo and with heroes rather than with PUGS who want you to have a meta build, or dungeons, stroll, and take it at their own pace, 

In essence, I'm talking about players having freedom to play GW2 the way they want to and your suggesting to only prevent players having this freedom because that is not how you want to play the game or would like to see others play the game. Regardless if those players don't become great or skilled, wouldn't you want great or skilled players in your party anyway? So what's stopping you from kicking the unskilled players and finding better skilled players?

The question still stands, how does someone else who plays GW2 impact the way you play GW2 from an experience perspective?

If the system is simplyfied then it's either mostly useless or it completely carries that single player through the content. If the system is complex enough to NOT be useless, while at the same time NOT carry the single player through the content, it means it will be heavily reliant on the skill of the player, so it would actually add actions/awarness/complexity to that player, which is the opposite of being useful to the casual ones, which according to you this system would be aimed at. Developing a full, complex system that would actually work (while not being either useless or auto-play) would take so much time and effort that it's doubtful it will be worth it for anyone involved. I'd rather have them rework unused/outdated weapons, skills and traits instead. And after that I'd rather have them work on LS/expansions/balance/maps/events/rewards/whatever else. That's what's wrong with this idea and that's how it impacts me. Because if someone wanted to play rts or jrpg, maybe they shouldn't conciously pick an action mmorpg and then be wondering why it doesn't play like the previous 2 genres.

 

26 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

In essence, I'm talking about players having freedom to play GW2 the way they want to and your suggesting to only prevent players having this freedom because that is not how you want to play the game or would like to see others play the game.

No, I'm not against "players having freedom" (they can alreayd play how they want and with whom they want) -I'm against the introduction of some kind of "legal bots" into the game that's an action mmorpg.

26 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

So what's stopping you from kicking the unskilled players and finding better skilled players?

I don't see the relevance to the previous post, but maybe I just missed something. To answer this question: nothing. And what stops casual players from playing with other casual players? Also nothing.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Salvatore.3749]

20 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If the system is simplyfied then it's either mostly useless or it completely carries that single player through the content. If the system is complex enough to NOT be useless, while at the same time NOT carry the single player through the content, it means it will be heavily reliant on the skill of the player, so it would actually add actions/awarness/complexity to that player, which is the opposite of being useful to the casual ones, which according to you this system would be aimed at. Developing a full, complex system that would actually work (while not being either useless or auto-play) would take so much time and effort that it's doubtful it will be worth it for anyone involved. I'd rather have them rework unused/outdated weapons, skills and traits instead. And after that I'd rather have them work on LS/expansions/balance/maps/events/rewards/whatever else. That's what's wrong with this idea and that's how it impacts me. Because if someone wanted to play rts or jrpg, maybe they shouldn't conciously pick an action mmorpg and then be wondering why it doesn't play like the previous 2 genres.

To answer you first question, as I read between the lines, it's simply about balance. Your concern with the system is the possibility that system would be either OP and hard to control or easy to control and useless. Some players want complexity and some players want to build their parties to perform certain actions only or tackle certain content. The system doesn't necessarily have to be aimed solely at casual players, I actually never said it would be aimed at casual players. In fact it was the loaner players who would benefit from it, those who like to play the game their way. In actuality, everyone likes to play their game their way whether or not they do what the majority wants them to do.  In essence, someone who is casual could pick up this system as well as a hardcore player. Someone who wants to replay a dungeon, or run a dungeon farm on their own could do so. 

As for the time constraint for whether or not it can be developed, I suggested that ANET make it a one-time purchased system for people to use to cover the cost of development like they did in Guild Wars 1. (Seriously, did you read that post? Only because it answered your question and I'm not trying to repeat myself much here). 

Overall, this system would be there for anyone who would consider using it. 

Considering Guild Wars 2, there is instanced content where players have to work with people and can't find a group. If you look at the instanced content forums, people have asked for raids to be soloable because they can't find parties due to time constraints and other stuff. As far as it being an RTS, Guild Wars 1 was a live action Strategy Game and Guild Wars 2 built upon it and made it better in some ways with soloing in mind. But, it has evolved into parties being required in certain content areas. Thus, it's changed to being a traditional MMO that requires people to complete objectives and people aren't always available for other people to play this game or willing to work with players who do not have meta builds or don't want to do speed clears (I'm pretty sure I have already said this). Again, your argument came down to you don't want to see the game played in a different way: "Because if someone wanted to play rts or jrpg, maybe they shouldn't pick an action mmorpg". 

Your other comments about weapon skills and stuff are for a different topic. But, I would like to see those adjustments too. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Mungo Zen.9364]

3 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

This still doesn't make sense. Why would the hero be stronger or weaker than the player overall?

Sure, I understand providing  the heroes with good equipment, but why is that a bad thing if a player wants to do that?

• That may improve the economy of the GW2 as more people spend time making legendary equipment and buying materials.
  • That's not really a bad thing is it? Do I think every single player will do it? No. But, so what if they did?

The heroes would have equivalent DPS and the ability to be customized to the player's needs.

• I never said they would be stronger or weaker than the player, so why is that coming up in your hypothetical? 
• Again, so what if players want to use the heroes or not? Why is it a bad thing?

Wow, you didn't read my post did you.

If you give players a tool, expect all players to use that tool and optimize it.  The developers will therefore need to balance the game around that parameter.  The net result is either adding more power to the player, or more complexity to the game (by adding new systems, like a Hero system)

Why not ask for 10x the damage and health pool so you can solo content instead?  Whether you have a Hero or player buffs, you are asking for more power to overcome a challenge that may not be intended to be overcome by a solo player.

10 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

The question still stands, how does someone else who plays GW2 impact the way you play GW2 from an experience perspective? 

Because the game is balanced across all players and game modes.  All players are affected by these changes even when they are targeting a specific game mode.  How many times has a PvP change affected a PvE build or vice versa?  You cannot expect a change to not affect a large group of the players.

However, I think I see your position.  You feel that a solo player should have access to group content without the group.  Your suggestion is to add more power via heroes instead of asking for a scaled down version of these instances for solo players, or buffs to players directly.  Either way, you are asking for the balance to be broken to play the game in a way unintended.

And where do you draw the line?  If Story instances are okay, why not Dungeons? If Dungeons are okay, why not Fractals?  If T1 fractals are okay why not T4?  If Fractals are okay, why not Strikes and Raids?  Why shouldn't I be able to play the game 'my way' and earn Legendary armor from Raiding....SOLO!!!

6 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

I suggested that ANET make it a one-time purchased system for people to use to cover the cost of development like they did in Guild Wars 1.

So a player would need to pay to win?  I am guessing you don't think like a sales or marketing person.  "Hey new player having problems playing the game, make a cash purchase and you can have it easier with a Hero!"

Look, something 'Optional' should have no impact on the game, like skins or dyes.  You add a system that makes it easier for some players, and some players will feel it is mandatory.  Can you imagine the posts from new players on the forums "I bought the game but then had to spend 20$ on this Hero as well?"

It feels like you are considering your needs and position in a vacuum and not considering the impact of changes on a global level.  With the suggestion to add a paid hero that is optional, it would have to be really useless for most players not to feel it was mandatory.  If it provided even 1% uplift for the player, then why wouldn't everyone use it?

[Salvatore.3749]

2 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

1. Wow, you didn't read my post did you.
2. If you give players a tool, expect all players to use that tool and optimize it.  The developers will therefore need to balance the game around that parameter.  The net result is either adding more power to the player, or more complexity to the game (by adding new systems, like a Hero system)
3. Why not ask for 10x the damage and health pool so you can solo content instead?  Whether you have a Hero or player buffs, you are asking for more power to overcome a challenge that may not be intended to be overcome by a solo player.
4. Because the game is balanced across all players and game modes.  All players are affected by these changes even when they are targeting a specific game mode.  How many times has a PvP change affected a PvE build or vice versa?  You cannot expect a change to not affect a large group of the players.
5. However, I think I see your position.  You feel that a solo player should have access to group content without the group.  Your suggestion is to add more power via heroes instead of asking for a scaled down version of these instances for solo players, or buffs to players directly.  Either way, you are asking for the balance to be broken to play the game in a way unintended.
6. And where do you draw the line?  If Story instances are okay, why not Dungeons? If Dungeons are okay, why not Fractals?  If T1 fractals are okay why not T4?  If Fractals are okay, why not Strikes and Raids?  Why shouldn't I be able to play the game 'my way' and earn Legendary armor from Raiding....SOLO!!!
7. So a player would need to pay to win?  I am guessing you don't think like a sales or marketing person.  "Hey new player having problems playing the game, make a cash purchase and you can have it easier with a Hero!"
8. Look, something 'Optional' should have no impact on the game, like skins or dyes.  You add a system that makes it easier for some players, and some players will feel it is mandatory.  Can you imagine the posts from new players on the forums "I bought the game but then had to spend 20$ on this Hero as well?"
9. It feels like you are considering your needs and position in a vacuum and not considering the impact of changes on a global level.  With the suggestion to add a paid hero that is optional, it would have to be really useless for most players not to feel it was mandatory.  If it provided even 1% uplift for the player, then why wouldn't everyone use it?

1. I did read your posts and they didn't respond well to mine. 

2. As for the tool optimization, true. Some people will use it and optimize it as best as possible. But, ANET doesn't balance the whole game around 1 unique function. They actually stray from it and that's one of the biggest pain points because they do it once and leave it alone for a while or make tiny updates.

3. That was actually discussed prior to launch and was then scrapped because not everything was going to require a party. In actuality, a lot of content required parties and there was not such a huge power creep at the time. It wasn't until one major update where the power creep actually empowered players in PvE . 

4. The game is not balanced across all game modes. I've said it before, I'm a hardcore PvPer so I know you are factually incorrect. There are separate skills for PvP and PvE respectfully. My Daredevil's pulmonary impact trait does more damage in PvE than it does in PvP. Hard to Catch has a reduced recharge in PvE than it does in PvP. Mirage has two dodges in PvE and one dodge in PvP.  There are sharp differences between skills, traits, and mechanics in PvP/WvW when compared to PvE. 

5. Yes, but not quite. People who want to play solo should have access to group content, especially when they cannot find groups. Would this be a power creep? That's actually a good question, and I see your point, it could be a power creep and make dungeon farming easier and low tier fractals easier to complete. However, ANET has abandoned dungeon content and made it known, thus, it could essentially revive dungeons. 

6. I draw the line at all instanced content. Your fear is that there is a possibility a player could "shortcut" their way to legendary armor, but that's still really hard and unlikely. There is only one shortcut to getting a legendary weapon in this game and that's purchasing it off the Black Lion Trading post and that costs a lot of gold. However, I have said it multiple times, I do not want the mercenary system to replace players in niches or high tier roles, and don't think it would be possible as the damage would just not be there. It could be possible, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

7. Guild Wars 2 used to be a purchase only game and then became free to play. It was a one time purchase for me. However, considering they moved to the Black Lion Trading Company for micro-transactions, I am thinking in line with their marketing and sales strategy. I actually have a background in sales and one of the quickest ways to make money in video games while preventing toxicity is by providing in-game currency, quality of life improvements, and cosmetics. This would be a quality of life improvement. Again, this still wouldn't be a crutch for a new player due to the levelising system. 

8. As far as the when you can purchase it, I said it should be made available to players who have at least 1 level 80 character and gain access to it post game. While it's not fully fleshed out, it still makes sense to make available to purchase for those who want it. Just like for people who buy build storage because it's better overall quality of life for them and their builds. Would it really be a bad thing from a capitalist perspective to have people paying money to the game developers? Especially if they need more money after the layoffs they conducted.

9. Alright, I'll bite the mandatory bug. Why would it be mandatory if it's optional? There seems to be a large section of players who would not want the hero system on this forum post alone. No one is forcing them to buy it, but it would be there if they wanted to buy it. The only reason they would see it as mandatory is if they liked the idea of completing story content and felt that spending money on it would be worth it. Just like the platinum airship pass where you unlock all waypoints in the game or the copper fed salvage-o-tron. Those are quality of life purchases that people do make to play the game faster and more efficiently. This would be the same thing. It's not really pay to win because you are not beating other players. And honestly, what's stopping me or you from dropping $200 in the gem exchange to buy a legendary weapon or two? Seriously, we can already pay to win that way. If I wanted to, I could buy twilight for my guardian or ranger and start smashing people in WvW who don't have legendary or ascended equipment. In essence, it's already mandatory to have legendary and ascended gear to meet meta build requirements, WvW zergs, speed clear requirements, and successfully complete high tier fractals, raids/strikes. The player community made it mandatory not the developers. And the community chose that all on it's own. 

You can't control what the player community wants. 

Funny enough, I'm not really considering myself since I'm not a fan of PvE in this game since the story got all messed up. So I primarily play PvP, then WvW, and then every once in a while do some PvE content. Granted, it seems like there are lot of people who do want this system and want to play with it. There are quite a bit who don't want it because people are afraid the game will be too easy or won't be played by other players the way they want to play the game. 

 

[Kurrilino.2706]

39 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

Why not ask for 10x the damage and health pool so you can solo content instead?  Whether you have a Hero or player buffs, you are asking for more power to overcome a challenge that may not be intended to be overcome by a solo player.

 

 

You kinda miss the whole point.

The point is to still have a group but no relying on other players.

Beside that, the endless fun of equipping, coloring and skilling the own group is priceless.

 

The content would still require you not being solo, you have to use your group

 

Just as an example, nobody would eqip and skill a tank because no group would accept this member in our DPS-Meter meta.

But we would be able to create an almost unkillable tank with constant taunting and Aoe damage crew mates in our group. This would be dream come true for all the oldschool gamers who left GW2 because of no holy trinity.

This might even bring millions of fans back to the game

Edited September 29, 2021 by Kurrilino.2706

[DarcShriek.5829]

"Companions have been hidden due to high population".

[Mungo Zen.9364]

16 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

You kinda miss the whole point.

The point is to still have a group but no relying on other players.

Beside that, the endless fun of equipping, coloring and skilling the own group is priceless.

 

The content would still require you not being solo, you have to use your group

 

Just as an example, nobody would eqip and skill a tank because no group would accept this member in our DPS-Meter meta.

But we would be able to create an almost unkillable tank with constant taunting and Aoe damage crew mates in our group. This would be dream come true for all the oldschool gamers who left GW2 because of no holy trinity.

This might even bring millions of fans back to the game

I haven't missed that point though.  I think you are missing the point that giving a single player the power to overcome 5 or 10 man content solo might be game breaking in multiple ways.

You want to play a different game within the GW2 universe, and while that game does sound interesting to me, it isn't the game we have nor is it something readily adapted to the existing game.

[Mungo Zen.9364]

29 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

1. I did read your posts and they didn't respond well to mine. 

2. As for the tool optimization, true. Some people will use it and optimize it as best as possible. But, ANET doesn't balance the whole game around 1 unique function. They actually stray from it and that's one of the biggest pain points because they do it once and leave it alone for a while or make tiny updates.

3. That was actually discussed prior to launch and was then scrapped because not everything was going to require a party. In actuality, a lot of content required parties and there was not such a huge power creep at the time. It wasn't until one major update where the power creep actually empowered players in PvE . 

4. The game is not balanced across all game modes. I've said it before, I'm a hardcore PvPer so I know you are factually incorrect. There are separate skills for PvP and PvE respectfully. My Daredevil's pulmonary impact trait does more damage in PvE than it does in PvP. Hard to Catch has a reduced recharge in PvE than it does in PvP. Mirage has two dodges in PvE and one dodge in PvP.  There are sharp differences between skills, traits, and mechanics in PvP/WvW when compared to PvE. 

5. Yes, but not quite. People who want to play solo should have access to group content, especially when they cannot find groups. Would this be a power creep? That's actually a good question, and I see your point, it could be a power creep and make dungeon farming easier and low tier fractals easier to complete. However, ANET has abandoned dungeon content and made it known, thus, it could essentially revive dungeons. 

6. I draw the line at all instanced content. Your fear is that there is a possibility a player could "shortcut" their way to legendary armor, but that's still really hard and unlikely. There is only one shortcut to getting a legendary weapon in this game and that's purchasing it off the Black Lion Trading post and that costs a lot of gold. However, I have said it multiple times, I do not want the mercenary system to replace players in niches or high tier roles, and don't think it would be possible as the damage would just not be there. It could be possible, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

7. Guild Wars 2 used to be a purchase only game and then became free to play. It was a one time purchase for me. However, considering they moved to the Black Lion Trading Company for micro-transactions, I am thinking in line with their marketing and sales strategy. I actually have a background in sales and one of the quickest ways to make money in video games while preventing toxicity is by providing in-game currency, quality of life improvements, and cosmetics. This would be a quality of life improvement. Again, this still wouldn't be a crutch for a new player due to the levelising system. 

8. As far as the when you can purchase it, I said it should be made available to players who have at least 1 level 80 character and gain access to it post game. While it's not fully fleshed out, it still makes sense to make available to purchase for those who want it. Just like for people who buy build storage because it's better overall quality of life for them and their builds. Would it really be a bad thing from a capitalist perspective to have people paying money to the game developers? Especially if they need more money after the layoffs they conducted.

9. Alright, I'll bite the mandatory bug. Why would it be mandatory if it's optional? There seems to be a large section of players who would not want the hero system on this forum post alone. No one is forcing them to buy it, but it would be there if they wanted to buy it. The only reason they would see it as mandatory is if they liked the idea of completing story content and felt that spending money on it would be worth it. Just like the platinum airship pass where you unlock all waypoints in the game or the copper fed salvage-o-tron. Those are quality of life purchases that people do make to play the game faster and more efficiently. This would be the same thing. It's not really pay to win because you are not beating other players. And honestly, what's stopping me or you from dropping $200 in the gem exchange to buy a legendary weapon or two? Seriously, we can already pay to win that way. If I wanted to, I could buy twilight for my guardian or ranger and start smashing people in WvW who don't have legendary or ascended equipment. In essence, it's already mandatory to have legendary and ascended gear to meet meta build requirements, WvW zergs, speed clear requirements, and successfully complete high tier fractals, raids/strikes. The player community made it mandatory not the developers. And the community chose that all on it's own. 

You can't control what the player community wants. 

Funny enough, I'm not really considering myself since I'm not a fan of PvE in this game since the story got all messed up. So I primarily play PvP, then WvW, and then every once in a while do some PvE content. Granted, it seems like there are lot of people who do want this system and want to play with it. There are quite a bit who don't want it because people are afraid the game will be too easy or won't be played by other players the way they want to play the game. 

 

I guess I haven't the words to connect with you on these points then.

I can keep saying it and you can keep not understanding it.

We simply do not have a common ground for terms like Pay2Win and QoL.  You acknowledge my point then decide the Dungeons are dead content so that erases the validity of it?  This is a frustrating conversation and if that was your goal, you have succeeded.

 

I hate talking to people who do not try to engage in good faith by reading and interpreting what is being read.

PS - At no point did I state a position on this.  I did ask 'why y'all want to play alone' because, if you read the other threads on this topic, that has been a common refrain.  Why do you want to not play with other people?  Why are you not willing to figure out how to be a good group member, using the tools and builds made available to you?  Why do you think it is okay to not play the game the way it is presented?

[Salvatore.3749]

12 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

I guess I haven't the words to connect with you on these points then.

I can keep saying it and you can keep not understanding it.

We simply do not have a common ground for terms like Pay2Win and QoL.  You acknowledge my point then decide the Dungeons are dead content so that erases the validity of it?  This is a frustrating conversation and if that was your goal, you have succeeded.

 

I hate talking to people who do not try to engage in good faith by reading and interpreting what is being read.

PS - At no point did I state a position on this.  I did ask 'why y'all want to play alone' because, if you read the other threads on this topic, that has been a common refrain.  Why do you want to not play with other people?  Why are you not willing to figure out how to be a good group member, using the tools and builds made available to you?  Why do you think it is okay to not play the game the way it is presented?

It seems more like you don't want people to play alone. That's what I'm understanding from your points. 

You haven't actually stated a position on this and that's why I don't understand what you are saying. What are your takes on it? You have only said it would never work for multiple power creep related reasons. 

I answered why people want to play alone in multiple posts and so did others. 

Here are the answers: TIME & FREEDOM!

Seriously, time is not respected in GW2 and this game takes a lot of time.

Some people like to play alone and be loaners in the MMO game. They like being around people, but not interacting with them 100%. And some people do not have the time. Some people want the freedom to play the game their way and make the most of their time without having to rely on other people. 

It takes time to form relationships and develop a good bond with other players. It takes time to craft meta equipment. It takes time to learn different raids. GW2 consumes a lot of time that some players lack.

It's okay to play a game with a new mechanic or in unique ways. It's not so much as not playing it the way it is presented, it's playing it a way that is meaningful to players as we grow older and have to adapt for actual life. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

To answer you first question, as I read between the lines, it's simply about balance.

Come on, it's not exactly "reading between the lines" when I already spelled it out, right? 😛

Quote

Your concern with the system is the possibility that system would be either OP and hard to control or easy to control and useless. Some players want complexity and some players want to build their parties to perform certain actions only or tackle certain content.

"build their parties to perform certain actions only or tackle certain content" -a.k.a ~pick one bot to tank, 1 bot to dps, 2 bots to spam heal = self-play content. And this didn't exactly answer to my concerns?

Quote

The system doesn't necessarily have to be aimed solely at casual players, I actually never said it would be aimed at casual players.

But in the post I've quoted you've immediately went from "those players would prefer to play alone" to justifying why it's ok for the casual players ("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.").

So if it wasn't clear enough before -that's one of the things that pretty clearly suggested to me who this is directed at and what type of "gameplay" it's supposed to be.

Quote

In fact it was the loaner players who would benefit from it and who like to play the game their way. In actuality, everyone likes to play their game their way whether or not they do what the majority wants them to do.  In essence, someone who is casual could pick up this system as well as a hardcore player. Someone who wants to replay a dungeon, or run a dungeon farm on their own could do so. 

Already wrote about it in the post you've just responded to: "Because if someone wanted to play rts or jrpg, maybe they shouldn't conciously pick an action mmorpg and then be wondering why it doesn't play like the previous 2 genres."

This is not an rts or jrpg. This is an action mmorpg. If I want to play FIFA22, I don't pretend gw2 should give me an option to play it more like that game. I pick the genre accordingly to what and how I want to play.

Quote

As for the time constraint for whether or not it can be developed, I suggested that ANET make it a one-time purchased system for people to use to cover the cost of development like they did in Guild Wars 1. (Seriously, did you read that post? Only because it answered your question and I'm not trying to repeat myself much here). 

I disagree with usage of bots in mmorpgs and making them "legally purchased from the developer" somehow doesn't make the idea any better. Probably even the opposite.

Quote

Overall, this system would be there for anyone who would consider using it. 

Honestly, I don't see how that changes ANYTHING about what I said? Of course it would still be a choice. Playing alone or in a group is still a choice right now. I don't get what you're responding to with this sentence. Auto-play is auto-play. Telling me that "someone can choose to use or not use auto-play" doesn't address that it's still auto-play (or so complex that it's useless for casual players, which was supposed to be kind of the selling point according to your previous posts). 

Quote

Considering Guild Wars 2, there is instanced content where players have to work with people and can't find a group. If you look at the instanced content forums, people have asked for raids to be soloable because they can't find parties due to time constraints and other stuff.

That has been proven to be a wrong claim over and over again. Those threads aren't there "because there are no squads to play in". This has been addressed enough time to stop pretending that's a thing -there are squads of varying levels of players, so pretty sure anyone actually wanting to learn the content has every possibility to do so.

Quote

As far as it being an RTS, Guild Wars 1 was a live action Strategy Game and Guild Wars 2 built upon it and made it better in some ways with soloing in mind. But, it has evolved into parties being required in certain content areas. Thus, it's changed to being a traditional MMO that requires people to complete objectives and people aren't always available for other people to play this game or willing to work with players who do not have meta builds or don't want to do speed clears (I'm pretty sure I have already said this). Again, your argument came down to you don't want to see the game played in a different way: "Because if someone wanted to play rts or jrpg, maybe they shouldn't pick an action mmorpg". 

Your other comments about weapon skills and stuff are for a different topic. But, I would like to see those adjustments too.

No, it came down to what this game is, down to the core of its very genre, so it's not some "what I want it to be", it's "what it actually is". The content that's supposed to be playable solo IS possible to be played solo, while the content that's supposed  to be a group effort of multiple players is also consistently played that way. Introducing some sort of "legal bots" for the sake of pretending that "it would let people make a choice" is just a cop-out forhaving a party of bots legally carry single players through content. If someone wants to keep playing solo then they're free to keep playing content that's made to be played solo, right?

The comment about weapon skills and stuff would be for a different topic if I wanted to talk about it indepth, except it's about the workload in similar -ingame mechanics- field. The "placeholder" traits themselves are in the game for so long that if anet suddenly decided to invent a self-playable party of bots to push some singleplayer-oriented people through content instead of fixing what they promised to fix for the actually active players, I don't really think it would end well in the eyes of the general playerbase. You repeatedly asked "why do I care" -that's one of the reasons, so I felt it has to be mentioned.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Mungo Zen.9364]

17 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

It seems more like you don't want people to play alone. That's what I'm understanding from your points. 

You haven't actually stated a position on this and that's why I don't understand what you are saying. What are your takes on it? You have only said it would never work for multiple power creep related reasons. 

I answered why people want to play alone in multiple posts and so did others. 

Here are the answer: TIME & FREEDOM!

Seriously, time is not respected in GW2 and this game takes a lot of time.

Some people like to play alone and be loaners in the MMO game. They like being around people, but not interacting with them 100%. And some people do not have the time. Some people want the freedom to play the game their way and make the most of their time without having to rely on other people. 

It takes time to form relationships and develop a good bond with other players. It takes time to craft meta equipment. It takes time to learn different raids. GW2 consumes a lot of time that some players lack.

It's okay to play a game with a new mechanic or in unique ways. It's not so much as not playing it the way it is presented, it's playing it a way that is meaningful to players as we grow older and have to adapt for actual life. 

 

I don't care if players play alone or not.  I have played most of this game solo as it stands.  I have engaged in group content when I could but, for example, I haven't the time to get into Raiding and earn my Legendary armor, so I don't engage in it, and I don't sweat it.

I actually do not care for pugging and would rather be able to do group content with a guild or reliable group of friends, but I don't have a group of reliable friends or guildies to do this with.  This limits my ability to engage in some group content, so I don't engage in it, and I don't sweat it.

I have never been in a T4 fractal, never been in a Raid, and only a handful of Strikes.  I have run DRM solo or 2 person, so no CMs.  Do I want to do this content?  Yes.  But due to personal limitations listed above, and what the game can offer, I simply decided that it was content I couldn't engage in at this time, and I am okay with this.

On the flip side, when I have engaged in group content I use the tools provided in the game to the fullest.  That means using meta builds (even though I hate the play for a lot of these builds), suffering LFG and Pugs and the like.

I am probably the target player for your Heroes P2W option.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mungo Zen.9364