Guild Wars 2

I have an idea for all the HoT is unplayable solo threads.
Make GW1 GWAMM characters a usable hero in GW2.
This would make our GWAMM characters actually useful for something and also get people to buy GW1.
It’s a win/win for Anet.
More GW1 Sales.
More Character slot sales in GW2.
Lets say you could start with a Mercenary Pack for GW2 where you could add three Heroes, but to unlock each hero you need to get that character God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals to use as a Hero.

You’re asking for a non-cosmetic advantage that expects not only the purhchase of, but a significant amount of time investment in another title.

You’re also asking for heroes, which aren’t present anywhere in GW2 for good reason. They’re a bad idea in a game built largely around organic grouping rather than GW1’s extremely rigid combat role system.

The way GWAMM integrates with GW2 already is fine. The cosmetics are the result of what could easily be considered “GW1 veteran” status, even if you weren’t a hardcore title junkie. The GWAMM title track grants the appropriate titles.

These are cosmetic unlocks, as cosmetics are the only appropriate rewards to carry from one title to the next.

Effort spent in GW1 does not and should not equate to mechanical power in GW2. That’s basically telling new players to uninstall and go play GW1, a game they may not even enjoy, or end up a second class citizen in GW2.

Well it sure is a better idea than adding a Hero to the Gem store now doesn’kitten
Actually a Hero in the Gem store would give people something to spend gems on.
I have had 12000 gems for over 3 months and nothing i want to buy.
#SadPanda

Or, you know, not adding heroes to the game at all because they are inappropriate additions to GW2.

Oh because it’s not YOUR playstyle it’s inappropriate. I love these elitists.
How about the hundreds of players that thought HoT was too hard and cant be solo’d?

If they added heroes into GW2 (and I do like that idea, just not this version of it), they’d pretty much have to be instance use only. Not for use in the Open World.

So, they wouldn’t help with most of the complaints about HoT. (And I share many of those complaints, so I’d love to have a NPC helper. I just know that’s not the right answer.)

Here’s my response in a similar thread about Heroes/Henchman:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Soloability-in-Tyria/page/2#post6153374

Beyond that, I don’t think that requiring players to play a different game to be commiserate with other players is the best idea.

Just curious, how many GWAMM characters do you have in GW1?

Monk Tank.5897:

Oh because it’s not YOUR playstyle it’s inappropriate. I love these elitists.

Uh, no, because it’s literally not a feature of the game, and making it so would be a massive power imbalance between those who have it and those who do not.

You’re asking for heroes, right? In essence you’re asking for a system which effectively doubles (or more) the survivability or damage of any given character. Then you’re suggesting that it should somehow be made available to only a select few, based upon effort in a completely different title.

GW1 was a game designed specifically around requiring certain roles to be filled any time you attempted combat. It was a game designed around strict party requirements that assumed at a basic level everywhere you went in its instanced world you were travelling with a pre-arranged party to fill all of the requisite combat roles.

GW2 is a game that assumes that in most of the game you are organically meeting up with other players for short periods of time to complete content, or are capable of journeying through these areas alone.

This has nothing to do with play style. You are literally asking to have players combat power doubled (or more) in a system that has no upper limit on number of players contributing to a given event, and not at all changing anything about the way the game is played.

Adding such a system assumes that every player has access to it, which in turn assumes it needs to be made widely available and assumes the content is designed around players possessing it.

What you are suggesting is that on virtue of having grinded a bunch of titles in a different game, you should be equivalent to two or more characters in this one. There is a reason Arenanet did away with the concept of NPC companions very early in developement. They add nothing to open world style content aside from requiring the addition of even more enemies to the world to counterbalance them.

Imagine if everyone in the game had a Ranger pet, and Rangers had two pets. Not temporarily, but all the time.

Seems to me that either these heroes would be too weak to help you do HoT group events by yourself, or they’d be too strong and the game would warp in weird ways around them.

I like GW1, but I don’t think GW1 players need any more rewards than what they have. It’s hardly in Anet’s best interest to divert existing GW2 players back to GW1, especially when they’d have to dedicate seriously non-trivial resources to do so, by building a major new feature into GW2 for it. If they were going to all the trouble of implementing a “partner” character or a hero, that’s a major, sellable feature that could headline an expansion.

How about adding the fire imp to the gemstore instead? A summonable NPC that follows you around and fights by your side. (Not restricted to below max level like in Guild Wars 1)

https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Fire_Imp_

How about giving Mini-pets skills and let them fight with you?
Or give us one generic Hero and let us pay to reskin it to any mini-pet we have unlocked.

Monk Tank.5897:

Oh because it’s not YOUR playstyle it’s inappropriate. I love these elitists.
How about the hundreds of players that thought HoT was too hard and cant be solo’d?

It’s “inappropriate” because, unlike GW1, this game is an MMO and everyone shares the same instances — the type of game just doesn’t work with the same mechanics that made sense in the older game. It’s not elitism; it’s game design.

And it doesn’t matter if “hundreds of players” thought HoT was “too hard” — the game is played by millions. Back at launch, people thought that Orr was too hard, that the learning curve between L70 areas and L80 was too high. And mostly disagreed — they changed the mob density and reduced some of the CCs, but on the whole, it was still much more difficult than a lot of people were used to.

So what happened: some people stopped playing, some avoided the area for a bit, and some (like myself) looked at how we could change to measure up to the difficulty.

You have the same options: try another game for a while, avoid the HoT zones, or change how you play.

Monk Tank.5897:

Oh because it’s not YOUR playstyle it’s inappropriate. I love these elitists.
How about the hundreds of players that thought HoT was too hard and cant be solo’d?

You mean the same content that I basically went around on my necro and soloed around 35 hero challenges to unlock reaper? Half of which were the champion spawns I soloed? In an afternoon? Some of it CAN be soloed. Unfortunately, when it’s scrub players trying to fight GROUP EVENTS solo, some of which meant to be done by at least a party, of course you’re going to be tossed around like trash.

I would love to see them add heroes to the game, but for dungeons and group story content not open world PVE. They would, of course, be as useless as any other NPC in those dungeons/story instances but I’d love to be able to take my krewe/warband/Lord Faren into them.

They don’t make sense in open world PVE (to me), they could be hidden like pets by rising player numbers I suppose but they would trivialise most content and be largely useless for difficult content.

If Destiny’s Edge (I or II), Pets and Necro minions are the benchmarks for NPC AI effectiveness, they wouldn’t be worth much.

Way before GW2 launched, ANet talked about the possibility of giving players the choice of having a companion helper or having better stats but no helper. ANet chose not to make this happen. They settled instead for Rangers giving up some performance for having a pet and made that pet non-optional.

While the idea of a a player choosing to give up some of his character’s effectiveness in exchange for a companion is intriguing, I see a number of issues.

1. We have no idea why ANet abandoned the idea, or at least I don’t. Was it too difficult to program? AI behavior in the game suggests that is the case
2. In order to make Ranger pets viable in harder content, Anet chose to give them a huge amount of damage reduction from AoE’s to counter their penchant for standing in the stuff. Such a buff would have to be given to “Heroes” or they’d die in harder content.
3. Players used to their current degree of effectiveness are not going to want to give some of that up to have a stupid, simple AI follow them around. Instead, they’d be lobbying to have both halves of the cake.
4. A flat increase with no loss of personal potency would create a balance issue. Also, ANet has tried very hard to avoid the impression that the store is Pay-to-Win, and the inclusion of purchasable power in the form of a companion would be inviting such claims, even if pay-to-win originally referred to competitive play.
5. Rendering a lot of models is a problem for some players’ PC’s. Witness the plethora of complaints about lag and DC’s in large group events. The presence of Heroes would make this worse, as there would be more models to render.
6. Most telling for me; ANet has spent a tremendous amount of dev time and money inventing and re-imagining features again, and again, and again. I’d much rather they tackled the challenge of producing more playable content on a more regular release schedule than spending resources on a feature, the idea for which they abandoned before launch.

The game could easily take a limited number of heroes in open world – one per character.
We’re fond of trotting out the same old excuses about it being an MMO and that heroes would overload the server but there are already lots of pets and summoned creatures. Ranger pets have a full AI controlling them and lesser AIs run necro minions and all manner of summoned creatures. My ele can summon two elementals and there are various single use “summon an ally” items. It would not break the game if we each had one hero or henchman with us.

I know heroes are something that divide the crowd but the introduction of heroes in GW1 extended my enjoyment of that game by at least a year, probably more. It could do the same in GW2.

DoctorDing.5890:

The game could easily take a limited number of heroes in open world – one per character.
We’re fond of trotting out the same old excuses about it being an MMO and that heroes would overload the server but there are already lots of pets and summoned creatures. Ranger pets have a full AI controlling them and lesser AIs run necro minions and all manner of summoned creatures. My ele can summon two elementals and there are various single use “summon an ally” items. It would not break the game if we each had one hero or henchman with us.

I know heroes are something that divide the crowd but the introduction of heroes in GW1 extended my enjoyment of that game by at least a year, probably more. It could do the same in GW2.

Unless there is some way to control them they’ll be like the minions. Running off to kill a aggroed moa or standing around thinking deep thoughts while you fight a boss . The heroes in Guild Wars 1 worked because the game was designed with them in mind. They were much more responsive to what you attacked and they had controls, the flags, to use to position them.

So it’s not just adding heroes. Theyll either be minion like or the Devs will have to spend time reworking the UI and how summoned NPCs behave. The game won’t have heroes without a serious dev time.

PopeUrban.2578:

You’re asking for a non-cosmetic advantage that expects not only the purhchase of, but a significant amount of time investment in another title.

You’re also asking for heroes, which aren’t present anywhere in GW2 for good reason. They’re a bad idea in a game built largely around organic grouping rather than GW1’s extremely rigid combat role system.

The way GWAMM integrates with GW2 already is fine. The cosmetics are the result of what could easily be considered “GW1 veteran” status, even if you weren’t a hardcore title junkie. The GWAMM title track grants the appropriate titles.

These are cosmetic unlocks, as cosmetics are the only appropriate rewards to carry from one title to the next.

Effort spent in GW1 does not and should not equate to mechanical power in GW2. That’s basically telling new players to uninstall and go play GW1, a game they may not even enjoy, or end up a second class citizen in GW2.

^ this x1,000

I have a GWAMM myself and I’m against this. I moved to GW2 last year because the grind for another GWAMM in a dead game was pretty much soulless. I feel for those who go back to get them now because they want the title or the AP/skins from the HoM.

If heroes were to be added, GWAMM should not be a pre-requisite. Not to mention what would you do if someone’s GWAMM was a monk/ritualist/paragon/dervish? I mean ok in theory they could do a Kieran and magically change profession, but that doesn’t seem quite right, not to mention it’s a lot of work on ANet’s end to code all this stuff. I’d rather the development time went into new fractals, legendaries, story and new areas than extending my kitten. An endeavour of this scale would eat up a lot of dev time which would be beneficial for a very small minority of the player base.

I loved heroes, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t feel they really have a place in GW2. If down the line ANet introduces heroes/henchies for dungeons, then fair enough. I don’t see that happening for many years though and it shouldn’t be gated by what you achieved in the previous title.

The pet interface would do and, yes, it would be a big development job but that does not mean it could not work in the game.

DoctorDing.5890:

The pet interface would do and, yes, it would be a big development job but that does not mean it could not work in the game.

They had to stop making legendary weapons and move the team off onto making content. I don’t see them adding something like this anytime this year, or next year.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

DoctorDing.5890:

The game could easily take a limited number of heroes in open world – one per character.
We’re fond of trotting out the same old excuses about it being an MMO and that heroes would overload the server but there are already lots of pets and summoned creatures. Ranger pets have a full AI controlling them and lesser AIs run necro minions and all manner of summoned creatures. My ele can summon two elementals and there are various single use “summon an ally” items. It would not break the game if we each had one hero or henchman with us.

I know heroes are something that divide the crowd but the introduction of heroes in GW1 extended my enjoyment of that game by at least a year, probably more. It could do the same in GW2.

Unless there is some way to control them they’ll be like the minions. Running off to kill a aggroed moa or standing around thinking deep thoughts while you fight a boss . The heroes in Guild Wars 1 worked because the game was designed with them in mind. They were much more responsive to what you attacked and they had controls, the flags, to use to position them.

So it’s not just adding heroes. Theyll either be minion like or the Devs will have to spend time reworking the UI and how summoned NPCs behave. The game won’t have heroes without a serious dev time.

Werent controls for allied npcs added relatively late in GW’s life. I dont remember them prior to Nightfall.

Ashen.2907:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

DoctorDing.5890:

The game could easily take a limited number of heroes in open world – one per character.
We’re fond of trotting out the same old excuses about it being an MMO and that heroes would overload the server but there are already lots of pets and summoned creatures. Ranger pets have a full AI controlling them and lesser AIs run necro minions and all manner of summoned creatures. My ele can summon two elementals and there are various single use “summon an ally” items. It would not break the game if we each had one hero or henchman with us.

I know heroes are something that divide the crowd but the introduction of heroes in GW1 extended my enjoyment of that game by at least a year, probably more. It could do the same in GW2.

Unless there is some way to control them they’ll be like the minions. Running off to kill a aggroed moa or standing around thinking deep thoughts while you fight a boss . The heroes in Guild Wars 1 worked because the game was designed with them in mind. They were much more responsive to what you attacked and they had controls, the flags, to use to position them.

So it’s not just adding heroes. Theyll either be minion like or the Devs will have to spend time reworking the UI and how summoned NPCs behave. The game won’t have heroes without a serious dev time.

Werent controls for allied npcs added relatively late in GW’s life. I dont remember them prior to Nightfall.

Don’t know. I started the game around then.

Even so. The game was made with heroes or the NPCs you could select at outposts in mind. They followed closely and attacked what you attacked. They didn’t act like the minions in this game which tend to be not very responsive.

GW1 was pretty much a single-player game what with instanced zones. Adding heroes made it 100% a single-player game. There was never any reason to group with other players except for some very tricky missions. In my opinion heroes basically ruined GW1. Seven little buddies that you could finely control and use their skills whenever you wanted were a lot more useful than most players, sadly.

There’s absolutely no reason for heroes in GW2. There are always other players. If you want a single-player game, why not just play one?

This is an MMORPG, GW1 was not that model, you bought a game that is made to be multiplayer for a majority of the content.

It is like buying a car and asking for it to be a plane.

Player: “But if you would just take it back, throw some wings on it, people would be able to fly and it would bring you more money— it is a golden idea!”

Salesman: “Sir the car has been built for ground transportation, and there is no infrastructure in this world for anyone to be having a flying car, and it seems like that would be quite dangerous.”

Player: “Please! I am really bad at driving around cars, they drive so close to each other and I always get into accidents— I have no intention of improving my driving, can’t you just cater to me?”

Salesman: “Well sir maybe driving a car isn’t fit for you, perhaps you could take the bus?”

k I’m done..

1. GW1 was pretty much a single-player game what with instanced zones.
Umm, no. Do you know how many people(players)i helped with heroes vanquish parts of the game that they couldn’t do themselves? Every town would funnel players together for the content in that area. I don’t know how you can say GW1 was a single player game, with or without the heroes.
2. Adding heroes made it 100% a single-player game.
Again wrong, many times trying to fill an eight player party you could substitute a player with a custom made Hero, which was a vast improvement over the henchmen’s preloaded skills. You were not forced to play a single player game.
3. There was never any reason to group with other players except for some very tricky missions.
Again, Biased opinion. Me and a buddy i have known for well over 25 years did actually play a lot together. I would bring three of my heroes and he would bring three of his and we would have fun creating builds and trying to optimize our synergy. And when someone else logged in we would both kick a hero and take a third player with his choice of hero.
4. In my opinion heroes basically ruined GW1.
That is your Opinion. Your entitled to it. But don’t think that your opinion counts more than any other players. Just because other players were enjoying their game without You, without having to listen to You, and not taking orders from You, does not constitute a GW1 was ruined by heroes rant.
5. Seven little buddies that you could finely control and use their skills whenever you wanted were a lot more useful than most players, sadly.
Actually we found two teams of four, each self sufficient with their own healer were way more optimized than one person with seven hero/hench. We could actually pull mobs in different directions and scatter in different directions.
6. There’s absolutely no reason for heroes in GW2.
Again Biased, I would love a hero. A lot of other players would like a hero, this whole “bla bla bla Heroes ruin the game” is rubbish.
7. There are always other players.
I have to disagree with you here. Playing off hours trying to get a dungeon group is not very easy.
8. If you want a single-player game, why not just play one?
Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2 were never a single player game, but you shouldn’t bash other people for playing how they like to play.
Your Gwen Stephani “This world is forcing me to hold your hand.” mentality is what makes some people leave the game.

Monk Tank.5897:

1. GW1 was pretty much a single-player game what with instanced zones.
Umm, no. Do you know how many people(players)i helped with heroes vanquish parts of the game that they couldn’t do themselves? Every town would funnel players together for the content in that area. I don’t know how you can say GW1 was a single player game, with or without the heroes.
2. Adding heroes made it 100% a single-player game.
Again wrong, many times trying to fill an eight player party you could substitute a player with a custom made Hero, which was a vast improvement over the henchmen’s preloaded skills. You were not forced to play a single player game.
3. There was never any reason to group with other players except for some very tricky missions.
Again, Biased opinion. Me and a buddy i have known for well over 25 years did actually play a lot together. I would bring three of my heroes and he would bring three of his and we would have fun creating builds and trying to optimize our synergy. And when someone else logged in we would both kick a hero and take a third player with his choice of hero.
4. In my opinion heroes basically ruined GW1.
That is your Opinion. Your entitled to it. But don’t think that your opinion counts more than any other players. Just because other players were enjoying their game without You, without having to listen to You, and not taking orders from You, does not constitute a GW1 was ruined by heroes rant.
5. Seven little buddies that you could finely control and use their skills whenever you wanted were a lot more useful than most players, sadly.
Actually we found two teams of four, each self sufficient with their own healer were way more optimized than one person with seven hero/hench. We could actually pull mobs in different directions and scatter in different directions.
6. There’s absolutely no reason for heroes in GW2.
Again Biased, I would love a hero. A lot of other players would like a hero, this whole “bla bla bla Heroes ruin the game” is rubbish.
7. There are always other players.
I have to disagree with you here. Playing off hours trying to get a dungeon group is not very easy.
8. If you want a single-player game, why not just play one?
Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2 were never a single player game, but you shouldn’t bash other people for playing how they like to play.
Your Gwen Stephani “This world is forcing me to hold your hand.” mentality is what makes some people leave the game.

I’m afraid you’ll never change the minds of some of the hero haters in this thread.

It’s a total myth that heroes ruined GW1. They actually augmented it and they meant that you could beaver away at all those lengthy titles without dragging someone along for the ride. And they were not designed in from the start. There were always Henchmen but Heroes came along much later.

I believe GW2 could accommodate heroes in some form or other and I would not be surprised to see them introduced one day, probably in the form of a single companion that would have a basic level of controllability (attack, defend etc) similar to a ranger pet except they would occupy a party slot.

Sources of future forum outrage, in no particular order:

1. Introduction of mounts
2. Introduction of heroes
3. Nerfing of HoT.
4. XPac2.

hehe

DoctorDing.5890:

The game could easily take a limited number of heroes in open world – one per character.

In what way would this be ‘easy’? The game would need new AI, new UI for managing these ‘pets’, some sort of build and gear management, and an entirely new sort of culling process to account for them. Of course, it can be done — the question is whether the value to the community is worth the effort (and is more important than any other projects that would have to be postponed, due to lack of resources).

DoctorDing.5890:

I know heroes are something that divide the crowd but the introduction of heroes in GW1 extended my enjoyment of that game by at least a year, probably more. It could do the same in GW2.

No question that heroes both ‘saved’ the game (making it unnecessary for new players to play with others) and ‘ruined’ the game (making it harder for everyone to find folks to play with).

But GW2 is nowhere close to the point that GW1 was at when Nightfall and EotM were launched. There are plenty of other changes to the game that will serve the community better, some for far less effort.

Heroes were (and are) one of the best features of GW1; that doesn’t mean they would even be a good feature for GW2.

Monk Tank.5897:

Oh because it’s not YOUR playstyle it’s inappropriate. I love these elitists.
How about the hundreds of players that thought HoT was too hard and cant be solo’d?

3 words, learn to play. Unless you mean the stupid idea of having champions in hero challenges in which case the answer isn’t to add heroes it is to change that because it is stupid.

I still havent seen a good example how heroes would work in this game without being mostly useless “i wanna see some1 micro dodges along with flagging and skills! xD”
and thats not even considering classes like elementalist and engi’s kits

You can faceroll through HoT with the correct builds/equipment… I haven’t met anyone who can not complete it(ignoring bugs of course). Plus, That’s what the GUILD in Guild Wars stands for. If your guild doesn’t help maybe it’s time to shop for another one.

I think the biggest problem is that in GW1 most everything was done in it’s own personalized instance. Here in GW2 it would create too much clutter. I loved my heroes sure, but there’s a lot of other things need fixing and implementation. I could see hero reward tracks(like the pvp ones), black lion ones, gem ones etc. Just doesn’t fit to me in current climate. Maybe all it needs is a buff to the useless NPCs in HoT Story mode. I thought they were supposed to make the dung story modes soloable? Maybe that’s a start in the direction some of you want.

PS: Add me in game, if not busy or leaving soon, I’ll hook you up with a guild that helps orr help you myself with HoT content.

/signed anti social club guy that soloed(even a ton before heroes) most if not all (minus The Deep, etc)of the GW1 content.

DoctorDing.5890:

Monk Tank.5897:

1. GW1 was pretty much a single-player game what with instanced zones.
Umm, no. Do you know how many people(players)i helped with heroes vanquish parts of the game that they couldn’t do themselves? Every town would funnel players together for the content in that area. I don’t know how you can say GW1 was a single player game, with or without the heroes.
2. Adding heroes made it 100% a single-player game.
Again wrong, many times trying to fill an eight player party you could substitute a player with a custom made Hero, which was a vast improvement over the henchmen’s preloaded skills. You were not forced to play a single player game.
3. There was never any reason to group with other players except for some very tricky missions.
Again, Biased opinion. Me and a buddy i have known for well over 25 years did actually play a lot together. I would bring three of my heroes and he would bring three of his and we would have fun creating builds and trying to optimize our synergy. And when someone else logged in we would both kick a hero and take a third player with his choice of hero.
4. In my opinion heroes basically ruined GW1.
That is your Opinion. Your entitled to it. But don’t think that your opinion counts more than any other players. Just because other players were enjoying their game without You, without having to listen to You, and not taking orders from You, does not constitute a GW1 was ruined by heroes rant.
5. Seven little buddies that you could finely control and use their skills whenever you wanted were a lot more useful than most players, sadly.
Actually we found two teams of four, each self sufficient with their own healer were way more optimized than one person with seven hero/hench. We could actually pull mobs in different directions and scatter in different directions.
6. There’s absolutely no reason for heroes in GW2.
Again Biased, I would love a hero. A lot of other players would like a hero, this whole “bla bla bla Heroes ruin the game” is rubbish.
7. There are always other players.
I have to disagree with you here. Playing off hours trying to get a dungeon group is not very easy.
8. If you want a single-player game, why not just play one?
Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2 were never a single player game, but you shouldn’t bash other people for playing how they like to play.
Your Gwen Stephani “This world is forcing me to hold your hand.” mentality is what makes some people leave the game.

I’m afraid you’ll never change the minds of some of the hero haters in this thread.

It’s a total myth that heroes ruined GW1. They actually augmented it and they meant that you could beaver away at all those lengthy titles without dragging someone along for the ride. And they were not designed in from the start. There were always Henchmen but Heroes came along much later.

I believe GW2 could accommodate heroes in some form or other and I would not be surprised to see them introduced one day, probably in the form of a single companion that would have a basic level of controllability (attack, defend etc) similar to a ranger pet except they would occupy a party slot.

Sources of future forum outrage, in no particular order:

1. Introduction of mounts
2. Introduction of heroes
3. Nerfing of HoT.
4. XPac2.

hehe

And what are heroes if not henchmen that you could customize, and had added control options? Guild Wars 1 was designed around using henchmen as an option. Customizable henchmen (heroes) and better controls were added later, but that doesn’t change that the game was designed with the idea that players could be using full sets of NPC allies.

The only way I would be okay with this is if they could help me with my story line, or LS2 say. We don’t need double the entities in open world. If you need help with something, ask in map chat. I see people call for help in HoT zones all the time, and usually at least 1 person comes to help.

Some of those achievements are really hard to do solo, so having something help with damage would be nice. Could save me a couple hours of trying over and over.