Guild Wars 2

I would like to have the option where i can decide to explore maps solo and bring heroe’s with me. Like we could in gw1.
Because now u end up in full maps that makes youre game crash after crash or you end up in empthy maps where u cant compleet stuff because of group events and stuff

Heroes would be nice but there’s no way they are going to make npcs so powerful that they could do meta events for you.

You have to gear and make them strong yourself.

This will never happen in non-instanced content.

I’ve long suggested they implemented a hero system for instanced content. There’s no way it would work for the open world, though.

There are consumable in the core game with them you can summon pets or turrets to flight with you for five minutes.

please, no. detrimental to social aspect of MMO. besides, exploring is easily doable without companion in this game.

Make GW2 Mercenary Pack.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I always thought adding all those hero’s to the Hall of Monuments was going to get us something in GW2.

As much as I loved my krewe in Guild Wars 1, I don’t ever see that happening in this game. It’s just not designed for them.

azizul.8469:

please, no. detrimental to social aspect of MMO. .

No it isn’t.

Nice idea, but I fear it’s not practical.

Jeffrey.1426:

Because now u end up in full maps that makes youre game crash after crash…

Have you looked into the 64bit Beta game client? People were crashing are saying that it has solved a lot of the crashes.

If you want to play solo, there are way better games out there than GW2 for that. Start with Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim, Dragon Age: Inquisition and their DLCs for a good 100-150 hours of better gameplay, better story and better graphics.

MMOs are meant to be played with others. You strip the multiplayer part out and they are really, really hollow compared to single player RPGs.

No carrot at the end of a raid is going to change the way i play. Not now, not never..but keep trying though.

i’d rather them just make dungeons and their rewards scale to the amount of people in the instance. especially now that nobody wants to do dungeons.

Heroes ruined GW1, why bring them into GW2 and ruin this too?

Endless Soul.5178:

As much as I loved my krewe in Guild Wars 1, I don’t ever see that happening in this game. It’s just not designed for them.

Pretty much this.

When GW2 was originally announced, and for quite some time after, there was supposed to be a ‘companion’ system. Which was basically for those who wanted to play solo you’d get a single NPC companion to play throughout the game with who would evolve as you level up and do more things. This was all to ensure you can beat the game solo.

They scrapped it for a reason.

Tom Gore.4035:

If you want to play solo, there are way better games out there than GW2 for that. Start with Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim, Dragon Age: Inquisition and their DLCs for a good 100-150 hours of better gameplay, better story and better graphics.

MMOs are meant to be played with others. You strip the multiplayer part out and they are really, really hollow compared to single player RPGs.

It is clear you do not understand introverts.

Ive played GW2 mostly solo since launch. Ive had a lot of fun doing the misc things like jump puzzles, and from time to time ill hop in to the world events. I am not part of a guild, and my friends list is small and contains inactive people.

I love the guild wars lore. I love the guild wars world. Just because it is an online game doesn’t mean it has to all be social group content. I enjoy it because I get that sense of feeling that people are there, doing their own thing, vs a single player game where I know they are all just AI.

They shouldn’t exclude introverts ion all of their game design.

Lazarus: I appreciate that some people are introverted and prefer to play alone but ANet in no way excluded introverts in their game design.

With the exception of Group/World events and some champions, pretty much everything in “core” PvE is easily soloable. Including now your entire Personal Story.

HoT is too new for me to speak to but I have done 100% map completion on more than one character completely solo.

So I just can not agree that introverts are excluded.

Dear lord, aren’t the pets bad enough? Do you really want to drag along a companion too? Why? Besides, if it’s the strength you’re worried about, there are better, more fun ways. Combat mounts would be one option. Power armor is another. Personally, I’d go with some power armor. That’d be cool. Maybe as a mastery for the next expansion or mastery add-on? That way it will only work in the new areas (and new PvP zones), and yet, the zones won’t be built around having one of those power armors. They makes things a bit easier, but aren’t all-powerful, either. Heck, maybe let them run on steam, so we have them for a limited time and a decent cooldown?

I think they learned their lesson with GW1 about the detrimental effect of customizable npcs that are as or more capable than players on the social end of their game.

The system was fine in GW1 as everything was designed around forming groups and doing strictly tuned content. GW2 is simply not designed this way, not to mention writing the AI to use existing professions, dodges, and other mechanics properly would be quite time consuming and challenging.

Wish.5832:

Heroes ruined GW1, why bring them into GW2 and ruin this too?

Nope, heroes extended the life of GW1, it was a very wise move by ArenaNet.

Without heroes GW1 would have died a slow painful death, and because of heroes it’s still very playable even today.

I like the idea but with a slight twist. I would like the heroes to only be selected from your own characters. This way you would have to make and equip each one and they would become a more personal extension of your current character.

Solid Gold.9310:

Wish.5832:

Heroes ruined GW1, why bring them into GW2 and ruin this too?

Nope, heroes extended the life of GW1, it was a very wise move by ArenaNet.

Without heroes GW1 would have died a slow painful death, and because of heroes it’s still very playable even today.

The contrary is true. Before nightfall, people in towns in GW1 were actively looking for parties, making friends, and generally were more invested in the game. After nightfall people used towns almost exclusively for trade. Every single person I know that tried the game after the nightfall release that didn’t like it told me the same thing:

I wish there were people that actually wanted to party in this game.

Heroes didn’t save GW1. They were responsible for the lack of longevity in its pve content.

Yes, you can still solo stuff in GW1 to this day. You wouldn’t have to solo stuff were it not for the inclusion of heroes and the detailed ai command interface update. These two things fundamentally changed the direction and focus of pve in the game.

Eh, heroes have the positives and negatives. However, the main thing is that GW1 isn’t massively multiplayer, except in cities. There is no “open world” content in the game, so heroes can easily take the place of player characters for those able to micromanage the builds and skills.

In GW2, only dungeons, stories, and raids are instanced, of which stories can certainly be solo’d and some dungeons already can be. That means there’s not all that much that could make use of heroes. And it’s a huge amount of effort: balancing skills with heroes in mind, setting up the AI, figuring out how it affects rewards and achievements.

Plus, it’s not even clear that there’s an issue. When GW2 launched, a lot of people felt it was difficult and then learned how to make use of the game’s mechanics. HoT launched less than a month ago. Some of us are still learning the new mechanics — especially the new foes.

And finally, the game is wildly popular and there are tons of folks playing. There are still all sorts of ways to team up with like-minded folks.

tl;dr Heroes are a useful (and fun) solution to a problem that the game doesn’t have yet.

If GW2 reaches the point that it’s difficult for anyone to form groups for instanced content

Lazarus.3970:

Tom Gore.4035:

If you want to play solo, there are way better games out there than GW2 for that. Start with Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim, Dragon Age: Inquisition and their DLCs for a good 100-150 hours of better gameplay, better story and better graphics.

MMOs are meant to be played with others. You strip the multiplayer part out and they are really, really hollow compared to single player RPGs.

It is clear you do not understand introverts.

Ive played GW2 mostly solo since launch. Ive had a lot of fun doing the misc things like jump puzzles, and from time to time ill hop in to the world events. I am not part of a guild, and my friends list is small and contains inactive people.

I love the guild wars lore. I love the guild wars world. Just because it is an online game doesn’t mean it has to all be social group content. I enjoy it because I get that sense of feeling that people are there, doing their own thing, vs a single player game where I know they are all just AI.

They shouldn’t exclude introverts ion all of their game design.

They’re not excluding anyone. There’s plenty of solo content in HoT. Just not all of it is soloable, as it shouldn’t be in an MMO.

Solo & heroes? I’d love it! Don’t say its impossible, because with stanced maps everything is possible!

Albadaran.1283:

Solo & heroes? I’d love it! Don’t say its impossible, because with stanced maps everything is possible!

Yes it would be possible in instances.

Not in open maps, it would be chaos.

Monk Tank.5897:

Make GW2 Mercenary Pack.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I always thought adding all those hero’s to the Hall of Monuments was going to get us something in GW2.

You got many things, armors, weapons, minis, pets and titles.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Hall_of_Monuments#Rewards

What else where you expecting?

azizul.8469:

please, no. detrimental to social aspect of MMO…

So what you’re saying is, all the sociable people playing this game, who likely have many friends and guild members that they often play with, would rather choose AI heroes over playing with real people? That makes absolutely no sense.

Not everyone is sociable, we are all different after all, and when you combine that with the fact that most single player games do not offer the same amount, quality and type of content available in many MMO’s, you will always find a lot of solo players playing MMO’s. Besides, many players who are not that social still enjoy the odd bit of group play and sometimes enjoy joining random players in the open world. Also, MMO’s offer that little something extra that no single player game can offer: Lots of characters controlled by real people. Because there are a lot of real people running around, it kind of gives the game a different feel to it, compared to a single player game, even if you do not wish to join those people at that time. And even the less sociable people like to be sociable sometimes. And no matter how good the AI or the dialog is in a single player game, it will never (at least not yet) be a substitute for the unpredictable and sometimes interesting and entertaining nature of real people.

Everyone is entitled to play this game how they like and the devs would do well to make as many players as possible as happy as possible. More happy players = more profits. The end result, of designing your MMO to only suit the most sociable among us, would be limiting your potential profits.

The term MMO doesn’t stand for social only gameplay, it means a game that has a lot of players playing in it at any given time. Though many often take it to mean a social game. The term MMO doesn’t state HOW those players should play the game, that is down to the devs to decide. For example, Second Life is a social game, while GW2 is a fantasy adventure themepark. There is no hard and fast rule that says all MMO’s must be designed to encourage all players to join up and play together, that is something that has been assumed by the more social players among us. Of course, MMO’s will always have a lot of group based content, and that is fine and normal, but that doesn’t mean an MMO shouldn’t/couldn’t have soloable content, nor does it mean it should it shy away from offering a way for solo players to tackle (all be it less effectively) group content on their own (using NPCs).

The whole notion that AI controlled heroes would reduce the social aspect of the game is utter rubbish. If you are a social player you will, 99.9 times out of 100, seek out real players over AI controlled NPCs. All this system would do is offer a way for the less sociable among us to be able to play more of the content that is available.

As to having this kind of system in GW2, like others have said, I do not think this would work in open world content, for practical reasons. Can you imagine a big meta event with each player taking 4-9 heroes each? It would get ridiculous, let alone the potential lag issues. However, I would like to see an instanced only hero system implemented, as that would open up more content for many players. So long as a real player will always be the more efficient option, which will always be the case, I see no issue with adding something like this and do not think it will impact the social aspect of the game in the slightest.

I will just add though, I do not think heroes should be efficient enough to help a solo player tackle a raid. I have no problem with allowing a player + heroes to TRY doing a raid, but I think it should be almost impossible, or at the very least take two to three times as long with heroes than it would with real players. The reason being is that raid content should be tough, tough enough to challenge a full group of real players in top gear. And because AI, if programmed to be efficient, will always react much faster than any human, hero AI will need to be programmed to be less efficient than humans, otherwise you risk all players (sociable or otherwise) taking heroes for their efficiency. So with this in mind, a raid cannot be balanced around the AI heroes, because a full group of humans will find it easy. So raiding with heroes needs to be a hell of a lot harder than raiding with humans.

I completely agree that ANet ought to consider the less-social players. I don’t agree that the only solution to that is to introduce high-cost features that support less-social gameplay.

GW1 wasn’t truly “massively multiplayer” — it was basically a wide-area-network game with non-server-dependent, 100-person lobbies that made it easy (in its heyday) for folks to find groups and that later made it easy (in its nadir) for folks to play without groups. GW2’s design is based around 100s of people playing together; GW1’s design was based on ~8 players grouping up.

Rin.1046:

Everyone is entitled to play this game how they like

Not exactly. I’m only entitled to stretch my arm as far as the person next to me won’t have to worry about my fist hitting their nose; there are limits.

Rin.1046:

and the devs would do well to make as many players as possible as happy as possible. More happy players = more profits.

Again, there are limits: no game is going to please every potential type of player. Each choice is going to be great for some, mediocre for many, and terrible for a few.

Rin.1046:

The end result, of designing your MMO to only suit the most sociable among us, would be limiting your potential profits.

By this logic, ANet should also put a server in every country, since lag currently limits potential profits by discouraging the more distant among us from playing. Except that the potential profits (in that case) are dwarfed by the costs and maintenance. Similarly, redesigning GW2 to support less-social gameplay has huge costs, higher maintenance, and it’s not in the least clear that it would generate a lot more profit.

Every design decision gets weighed by ANet in terms of appeal to specific groups, appeal to the community in general, potential sales, and actual costs, effort, and future support. Not every ‘good’ design choice makes sense for every game; not every choice that makes things harder on one group is bad for the game overall.

tl;dr There are plenty of ways to enjoy a solo experience in other games, including playing via Steam; GW2 doesn’t have to cater to it.

(And again, I’m not against heroes per se — I just think it is an expensive solution to a problem that the game doesn’t have, at least not yet.)

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

…snip…)

I agree, there are of course limits to everything. All I was saying is that a developer of an MMO, if they want to cater to a wide audience, shouldn’t limit their game too much. Only catering to the sociable would do that.

And you’re right about the weighing of costs. I am sure Anet do weigh these things up, but if something is requested by a lot of players, it is worth at least considering. The heroes system did work well in GW1, but maybe GW2 would benefit from a different solution. Either way, making more of the game better for the less social would indeed add cost, so I agree with you there.

I guess my main gripe was with people commenting about how MMO’s are only for social people, which I consider to be a misnomer.

GW2 does cater, to some degree, to the less sociable players. There is a lot of stuff you can do solo. But you can’t deny that there is more to do for those who are social, because they can do the solo stuff (with friends) AND the group stuff. If that is Anet’s intent, then that is fine. It is a developer decision after all.

I myself am kind of a hybrid player, in many respects. I am not really that social, but when I am I enjoy engaging people in conversations and can be the complete opposite of anti-social. So I kind of sit on the fence with issues like this, and try to see things from both sides. MMO’s are social environments that is true, but that is not all they are and that environment is not, and should not, always be enforced. GW2 is a massive fantasy world that lets us run around exploring the land and taking part in adventures. We can do most of it solo if we choose, so Anet clearly want us to have some freedom in the way we play. If heroes would be too expensive to develope for the potential profit, then fair enough. But I do know that they would make a lot of players happy if they added such a system. Personally, I am ok playing the game without it, but I cannot deny I would be very happy to see a heroes system.