Guild Wars, are henchman better players?

[Drakron]

This happened to me today, I was doing "Ruins of" mission and someone was asking for help so I joined with him.

Now I played the missions with henchman so far and I am a careful player, I wait to regain health, I spot enemy patrols and do my best to not get into a fight were a patrol gets to join in (I go eliminate patrols) and best of all I see red dots pop up and STOP, deal with the anoying scorpians and move on.

Now henchman dont attack or move on their own so my tactic so far works relative well but henchman are dumb not not join in at times.

But when I sided with that player you know what he did ... he CHARGED a patrol and instead of stopping when red dots pop up in the mini map he continued on alerting everything on the path ... result, 3 pissed off mobs him dead and I praying to survive (did not, I would have restarted the mission anyway).

What pisses me off that in order to reach that mission you have to complete two other missions, how the hell someone with a complete lack of reguard to tactics managed to beat then is beyond me (my guess is he was lucky enough to be joined by more powerful, able player that drag him ... if he did not end up killed and they finished the job).

I dont like to rant on poor players (I seen him when I res on the mission asking for help but said nothing, just gathered my henchmans and beat it at first trial with then) but why on earth such people dont even try to learn basic tactics, I play a E/Me and when I battle I try to use some tactics ... I win some and I lose some, some people just rush ...

In a way I am sad because the other (two) people I played with so far were good players.

I dont want to play the game with only henchman but really, if you cannot find a good player for a mission you really are better off with henchman, they might be dumb but there are people that make henchman look elite players.

 

[merry andrew]

I dont want to play the game with only henchman but really, if you cannot find a good player for a mission you really are better off with henchman, they might be dumb but there are people that make henchman look elite players.

I try to go half and half. For missions where tactics are vital, I just use henchmen. I've wasted more time with parties of people who don't seem to have much of a clue about what they're doing than I have finishing quests/mission at -60% morale with some good ole henchmen.

 

[Shagnak]

I find that I always do missions with people. Even strangers. The "worst case scenario" unfortunately pops up more than it should. But, oh well.

When I'm just idling about, exploring or doing quests, I often find myself with just henchies (or maybe one other like-minded player and henchies). On average I find Im more successful that way, and since Im just piddling about for the sake of exploring and such, I dont want to waste other's time.
BUT...I would rather play with 'real' people anyways simply due to the comraderie. And when the shit really does go down the tubes, a tank like Tama/Deathboy and firepower like Penny or Aglethe really does make a difference (sometimes the henchies seem a bit underpowered).

I don't think its just one rule like henchies > players, players > henchies.
Sometimes I have had an easier time with henchies, after a party of players got wiped out. Sometimes it has been impossible with henchies, so I've joined (or gathered) a party of higher lvl players to be successful.

But Drakron is right, it only takes one moron sometimes to bring a party down.

Edit: err...so my answer to the topic's question is: SOMETIMES
If in a good group there is often pressure to roll right on and do as many missions etc as possible. It's a good idea if you have a group full of players who can afford to waste a few hours.
:wink:

 

[Shevek]

By the time you get to the later missions (particularly in the volcanic island archipelago), npcs become near worthless. Players may suck, but by the later levels, npc healing/tanking/whatever cannot compare to a player with a decent/infused loadout. This makes group forming an issue at times when healers are hard to come by. Also, basic tactics become near nonexistent later. Players simply work on establishing single/few pull tactics similar to mmos of today. The game turns into a bit of a mindless ritual that just about anyone can do adequately.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

But when I sided with that player you know what he did ... he CHARGED a patrol and instead of stopping when red dots pop up in the mini map he continued on alerting everything on the path ... result, 3 pissed off mobs him dead and I praying to survive (did not, I would have restarted the mission anyway).

I was waiting for you to make the Leeroy joke.

I feel compelled to buy Guild Wars. It's as boring as Diablo though, isn't it?

 

[Shagnak]

Players simply work on establishing single/few pull tactics similar to mmos of today.

Or IWD1 and 2. Or Morrowind. And many others. :wink:
Pull tactics are a must for many RT games.

 

[Surlent]

I tend to do story missions starting from Shiver Peaks with pcs and exploration areas with henchmen / guild members. I do also the first story missions with henchies, since those areas are still infested with noobies and it gives your character some starting loot.

Still henchmen will *never* be as good as pc team working closely together. I have played enough with henchmen to the point where i just loathe them. They get the job done when there's not enough pcs available which often than not means monk healer. Granted I would never want an asshole pc monk who just does what pleases because he thinks he's so goddamn important to the group.

You get noobs and assholes in every multiplayer, but overall my experiences in gw have been very positive. Most ppl know the game enough well to follow directions or target same enemy if you call.

henchman dont attack or move on their own

AHHAAHHAH. Just wait till you get to places where you want to avoid aggro.

It's as boring as Diablo though, isn't it?

Gameplay is pretty on the same par, you whack monsters or players by pressing skills buttons or pointing mouse to enemies. You can use only 8 skills at time though, so there's some planning for skillsets. Personally I think co-op makes it worth it, but everyone can have their own opinion on that.
Ya probably know that thread where Saint pointed some criticism, you might want recheck it. Though they have finetuned the game little since Saint last played it.

 

[Shevek]

Players simply work on establishing single/few pull tactics similar to mmos of today.

Or IWD1 and 2. Or Morrowind. And many others. :wink:
Pull tactics are a must for many RT games.

Im gonna exclude Morrowind from my response since I think combat in the game sucked.

As far as the IE games, I can see what you are saying about pull tactics being employed in some encounters there. However, I would say that there is a fundamental problem in comparing the two titles. In the IE games, you controlled many characters. As such, even the act of pulling a monster often involved considerably more involvement from the player. You had to see the entire battlefield and use a plethora of spells to get desired results. In GW, its simply judiciously wandering about until your agro circle is in the right spot (if you are the puller - as I said, like mmos) then wailing away on the damn thing with one of eight skills.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The issue with pick-up groups is that when you join one, or start one, there's usually no 'designated leader' because nobody actually steps up to the batting plate to take a swing at leading the party. Everybody assumes that whoever's running in front is the leader, and like mindless sheep (it's a common human trait) they tend to follow him, even when he leads them off a cliff. Everybody assumes that everybody else knows what they're doing and the end result is failure. It's the purest example of democracy that I can conceive.

The point I'm trying to make is simply this: somebody must step up and lead the party, and make it very clear that you are leading - always stand in front, even if you're a mesmer (as I am), monk or even elementalist. It's easier to do so if you happen to be familiar with the missions, so while I'm capable of stepping up to the position having played through the game, I probably wouldn't do so in a mission I wasn't familiar with first - like the Underworld or the Fissure of Woe, of which I'm barely familiar. You have to make it clear, before the mission starts, or during the beginning, that somebody needs to lead. There's no point in jumping blindly into the fray hoping that *somebody* knows what they're doing. That would be like a blind man leading the blind.

Once you've an established leader in the group (preferrably yourself), it should be easy to control the rest of your party's actions, and if they ever go against you, it's simple enough to reprimand them for their stupidity, either through an object lesson or sheer persistence of willpower. Object lessons are often far too costly in missions, and only work in wilderness areas. For instance, someone might think himself brilliant by running off in his own separate direction while the rest of the team is fighting. Scold him, but if he doesn't listen - let him go off on his own. When he dies, the lesson of his refusal to listen to will have served him well.

Of course, it takes a certain amount of effort to keep a group together, which is why most people prefer to be lead around instead of stepping up to lead. I find this to be utterly counterproductive to the party itself, because losing some way into the mission is certainly a lot more frustrating than leading. I'm sure you can agree with that. On the other hand, the fact that most people don't mind being lead around should be very useful to you as a leader. The last thing you want in a party is two 'leaders' with separate sets of instructions. Just establish yourself within the party and everything should go according to your plan.

 

[Shevek]

Gameplay is pretty on the same par, you whack monsters or players by pressing skills buttons or pointing mouse to enemies. You can use only 8 skills at time though, so there's some planning for skillsets. Personally I think co-op makes it worth it, but everyone can have their own opinion on that.
Ya probably know that thread where Saint pointed some criticism, you might want recheck it. Though they have finetuned the game little since Saint last played it.

I would argue that D2 had a superior skill/ability system. Also, the KoTOR-like perspective used in GW makes the combat considerably more chaotic than D2 (leading to far more brain-numbing gameplay).

 

[Sol Invictus]

By the time you get to the later missions (particularly in the volcanic island archipelago), npcs become near worthless. Players may suck, but by the later levels, npc healing/tanking/whatever cannot compare to a player with a decent/infused loadout. This makes group forming an issue at times when healers are hard to come by. Also, basic tactics become near nonexistent later. Players simply work on establishing single/few pull tactics similar to mmos of today. The game turns into a bit of a mindless ritual that just about anyone can do adequately.

This is mostly untrue. Players who know what they're doing will have a very easy time defeating those missions. The first, and most important thing to do is the creation of the party: it has to be well balanced, and equipped with the right skills for the mission. Certain missions require the use of (insert class here) to counter (insert monster here). There wouldn't be much point in a 6-warrior 2-monk party, especially if the monsters you encounter happen to be mesmer disablers. There wouldn't be much point to an all-elementalist damage dealing team, either - especially since they can't manage the enemy's damage distribution.

That said, pull tactics are important in this game, but they're nowhere as important as they are in other games, and the difference between Guild Wars and MMOs is the fact that party wipes are really quite uncommon unless you make a deliberate effort to play like an idiot. A party of 8 can easily counter a group of monsters double, if not triple their size, if they know what they're doing, and don't panic. Running from melee attackers is a good way to die fast, due to the critical damage you receive from getting hit in the back (while running). Pull tactics aren't guaranteed to work, either. Unlike other MMOs, monsters in Guild Wars consist of skill sets. In any other game, you could easily win through sheer attrition (e.g. producing more damage than the enemy), but not so in Guild Wars. How are you going to cast a spell if the enemy has a Backfire spell cast on you? Skill is a necessity in the later missions. You want players with the ability to disable or counter enemy attacks. Focusing on specific targets is important. Simply pulling a group of a few monsters and having every player fight each target individually is a great way to die.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Gameplay is pretty on the same par, you whack monsters or players by pressing skills buttons or pointing mouse to enemies. You can use only 8 skills at time though, so there's some planning for skillsets. Personally I think co-op makes it worth it, but everyone can have their own opinion on that.
Ya probably know that thread where Saint pointed some criticism, you might want recheck it. Though they have finetuned the game little since Saint last played it.

I would argue that D2 had a superior skill/ability system. Also, the KoTOR-like perspective used in GW makes the combat considerably more chaotic than D2 (leading to far more brain-numbing gameplay).

Would you care to explain why you think D2 has a superior skill and ability system? I just don't understand how you can say that. The skill setup in in D2 consisted of using 2, maybe 3 common skills. You would play through the entire game with those 2-3 common skills and nothing else. A Paladin would use Zeal and the speed aura (Conviction?) at any time, and switch to the elemental resistance aura when facing certain enemies. Likewise, an Amazon would summon a Valkyrie, and use Multishot or Strafe shot at all times of play. There was no switching, no counter-attacks, nothing of the sort.

In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Players simply work on establishing single/few pull tactics similar to mmos of today. The game turns into a bit of a mindless ritual that just about anyone can do adequately.

It seems I missed this when I posted my last reply. That's got to be the dumbest load of shit I've ever read about Guild Wars.

Guild Wars is neither Diablo 2 nor is it World of Warcraft. It's a skill based game, not an attrition-based game where all you do is mindlesly click your mouse button until a monster dies. Try playing something besides a Warrior-Monk, you silly douchebag.

 

[Astromarine]

I'll go on record stating why for me Guild Wars > all MMORPGs. No aggro system. That whole EQ-inspired deal with a fictitious aggro "counter" for each member, that has to be carefully managed, is the most horrible, immersion-killing, ultra-mechanicist, anti-visceral-gameplay invention possible.

 

[Shevek]

Ex, seriously, you have to learn to be just a little more mature when having these online conversations. We all, more or less, know what we are talking about. We have all played many types of games. We just want different things out of these titles and trying to "tell people off" to anger them is not the best way to engage in intelligent conversation.

Anyways...

As to your first reply... I am perfectly capable of constructing the perfect party in my head. I also am more than capable of figuring out the card collecting gameplay enough to know what works well together. Thats not the problem. The problem is that in that perfect party I, the player, am a cog in a machine. Like most MMOs, you just fill in a role and constantly rehash the same ole button mashing encounter after encounter. Pull. kill. Pull. Kill. The skillset is not deep and the combat is brain-numbingly boring. As for backfire...D2 had magic thorns too, its nothing new. Most rpgs have stuff like that to throw players off.

While I concur that there isnt a heck of a whole lot of reactive skills in D2, I would state that you only get a total of 8 for your character in GW. Moreover, much of the adaption and reaction in D2 came from how you navigated the battlefield (something nearly totally absent from GW thanks to the KoTOR-like perspective). Playing a Sorceress in D2 (something I did in hardcore - great fun) took something like ten times more thought than it does an Elementalist in this game (which, admittedly, still isnt alot) even though her spell list is nowhere near as robust.

As to your second segment of vitriol... I found my builds in D2 just plain more interesting. Throw/Frenzy/Shout/WW/Etc Barbs were infinately more interesting to play than Warriors in this game. Assisting group members targets then using any of the assorted bleeds/knockdowns is simply not as interesting as navigating the battlefield against a horde of 20+ monsters in D2. Frenzying from group to group and having to constantly adjust. Laying down a grim totem to break em up. move here, dashing there, etc. In GW, its just the same ole same ole knockdown, power attack, blah blah blah of anything I see in front of me after i hit 't' to assist. Its damn mind numbingly boring and it takes ZERO thought. Maybe its the perspective. Maybe its the pace. Maybe its the reliance on the group. But the game is for mental midgets. It takes no independent thought to excell here. I get compliments on how i play and I just think..heh..what are these people..morons..Ive tried some other classes. Elementalists, monks, etc..They are all the same. You fall into a boring routine of assisting and firing off one of a few skills. Hell, playing a enchanter in EQ took more thought than this and EQ was pretty boring and dumbed down.

 

[Astromarine]

Your perspective MIGHT be correct in singleplayer, but I find that removing the "cog" aspect from multiplayer sucks sucks SUCKS. D2 Multiplayer was a frantic, mind-numbing, everymanforhimself rush for the next mob and piece of loot. Random groups in GW work lightyears better than random groups in D2.

The other piece of "strategy", if you will, that is in GW and is missing from D2 is the planning of the build before a mission. I'm still fairly early so for now my basic build works for all I need to do, but I expect that pretty soon I'll have to start planning WHICH 8 skills to take to a mission with my party. That's something your Barb couldn't do in D2.

 

[Astromarine]

Your perspective MIGHT be correct in singleplayer, but I find that removing the "cog" aspect from multiplayer sucks sucks SUCKS. D2 Multiplayer was a frantic, mind-numbing, everymanforhimself rush for the next mob and piece of loot. Random groups in GW work lightyears better than random groups in D2.

The other piece of "strategy", if you will, that is in GW and is missing from D2 is the planning of the build before a mission. I'm still fairly early so for now my basic build works for all I need to do, but I expect that pretty soon I'll have to start planning WHICH 8 skills to take to a mission with my party. That's something your Barb couldn't do in D2.

 

[Shevek]

The loot table may make party play more feasible but it in no way makes it more tactical or less boring.

As for build shuffling, with my builds, Ive noticed that I rarely have to shuffle my skills around. I have two mains, a W/R and a E/N. I have never felt the need to reshuffle my skills around for PVE. I would argue that most players try to work towards builds than are good overall. I could see the whole card battler aspect coming into play in PVP but, heh, I minus well be playing Etherlords if I wanna get into Tragic the Gathering gameplay.

 

[merry andrew]

Once you've an established leader in the group (preferrably yourself), it should be easy to control the rest of your party's actions, and if they ever go against you, it's simple enough to reprimand them for their stupidity, either through an object lesson or sheer persistence of willpower.

Very true. I had this work for me through two missions tonight. Granted, I knew how to direct the party. If I hadn't already done the mission, I dunno how things would have gone. Insults and constantly spamming questions works great

 

[Sarvis]

We just want different things out of these titles and trying to "tell people off" to anger them is not the best way to engage in intelligent conversation.

*snip*

But the game is for mental midgets. It takes no independent thought to excell here. I get compliments on how i play and I just think..heh..what are these people..morons..

Ah hypocrites...

 

[Sarvis]

Anyways... Like Shagnak I pretty much just use henchies for exploring. I've gotten mostly good mission groups, but I usually just get people in the guild to go so they mostly know what they are doing.

Sounds like you just happened to grab a complete moron for your group.

 

[Drakron]

Well he was asking for help with a quest but had no idea what the quest was, it was the mission.

That sould have tip me off but it was the "Ruins of" mission and you need to beat 2 other missions before you are allowed there, so either he done then or someone teleported him there.

Rushing is a incredible bad tactic in Guild Wars and pulling does not work since monsters in a mob are linked, if one enters combat mode then all monsters he is linked to enter combat mode.

 

[Shevek]

We just want different things out of these titles and trying to "tell people off" to anger them is not the best way to engage in intelligent conversation.

*snip*

But the game is for mental midgets. It takes no independent thought to excell here. I get compliments on how i play and I just think..heh..what are these people..morons..

Ah hypocrites...

Care to explain that little back handed slap? I was just stating that people who i group with and can clearly see what I do compliment me as if I am doing something amazing. I think they have to be a few cans short simply because what I am doing, right in front of them, is so uncomplicated its laughable. I do not see how exactly this compares to the name hurtling and the brash remarks being tossed about here. Anywho...

 

[Sarvis]

We just want different things out of these titles and trying to "tell people off" to anger them is not the best way to engage in intelligent conversation.

*snip*

But the game is for mental midgets. It takes no independent thought to excell here. I get compliments on how i play and I just think..heh..what are these people..morons..

Ah hypocrites...

Care to explain that little back handed slap? I was just stating that people who i group with and can clearly see what I do compliment me as if I am doing something amazing. I think they have to be a few cans short simply because what I am doing, right in front of them, is so uncomplicated its laughable. I do not see how exactly this compares to the name hurtling and the brash remarks being tossed about here. Anywho...

Wow... and you're calling US mental midgets? I mean, I QUOTED the statements that led to my remark and everything.

Here's the simple version:

1) You say trying to "tell people off" is not the best way to engage them in intelligent conversation.
2) You imply that the people who like the game (most of us here) are mental midgets.
3) Since 2) is exactly what you were complaining about in 1) I pointed out that you are being a hypocrite.

Simple enough?

 

[Surlent]

pulling does not work since monsters in a mob are linked, if one enters combat mode then all monsters he is linked to enter combat mode.

Many enemies are linked to mobs, but mobs can be near together. Late in the game you will see why pulling is good tactic, when there's hordes of enemies stacked together.

 

[Drakron]

I am not even close to there.

As a update I replay "Ruins of" mission for the bonus with a team of all human players and it run like clockwork, only the Ranger died once near the end (not his fault, I suspect he needed more amor) that I res'd on the spot (I decided that it was best for the monk to keep healing and Signet Res puts people back at 100%, unlike monk res) and we got the mission and the bonus, besides the Ranger death there were not many problems ... profitable for me too with a black dye drop.

But we had a high level (pretty much lv 13+) with a good grasp of tactics and well builded besides the Ranger that I suspected was underarmored (but hold his own most of the time).

One of the players said he done it 5 times and he losted the last time because others were rushing mobs and not giving him time to regain energy (as anyone playing a caster know, we need time to restore the energy pool) so human players are a mixed bag, you can have a great time on a mission or 5 minutes later you are back trying it again.