As unienaule said, you need ONE other person to make a full human/hero team.
Anet has said the 3 hero per player constraint is a deliberate balance design decision. People should accept this is about as likely to change as the level 20 cap, 8 skills, and 1 secondary profession.
Requesting a cross-outpost signup process or other improved ways to build groups could conceivably result in a change to the game. QQ'ing about not being able to play with 7 heroes is pointless.
No Option For 7 Heroes: Gaile Grey
hallomik
Series
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KiyaKoreena
Fully agree with you.
Honestly, for the people whining they should allow people to have 7 heros out at one time because they can't find another person to play with: Find a better guild! |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by semantic
There are 2 really basic reasons we can't have 7 heroes:
1. the game would be stupid easy. Everywhere. 2. you'd feel useless. Heroes would pull so much weight, you could AFK and barely notice the difference. |
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unienaule
Sure, some people will rage against me saying that, but I routinely built 6-8 man teams in the old days of prophecies with PuGs, and if you really tried and didn't go the second you had 8 people, it was usually pretty good.
|
Those old days are dead. The playerbase, slightly increased, is now spread across over sixty missions on three continents. Because of this, it's obvious that PUGs are becoming harder and harder to form. Another problem is the party-size: 8-limit parties are starting to become the standard in the Guild Wars campaigns.
The reason many people choose heroes over real people is because they're more reliable. That does not mean that they are better real players, but that's what the party leader is doing - they're reducing the risk while reducing the viability.
ANet's actions and comments, like Mordakai has noted, have pointed to one thing: Things aren't going as planned. It's easily assumed that ANet wants people to play together, but they way that the whole game is currently set up goes against it.
I can fully understand why ANet won't allow us to have 7 heroes. In fact, I sympathize with them - allowing 7 heroes would eliminate any reason to play with another person, and that's something ANet does not want to do.
artay
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Series
Riddle me this: What exactly makes the game stupid easy with 7 heroes that doesn't make it stupid easy with 7 people? One could argue that the other people in your party "pull so much weight, you could AFK and barely notice the difference". Oh and on easy- er... normal mode- that is what i do- but with a team of all henchmen! The henchies can hold their own in most areas of the game without help. Perhaps you would think that all party sizes should be reduced to 4 max so that we feel more important and pull more weight?
|
Henchman have some of the above. But I still think they should keep the limit to 3.
Mesmer in Need
Im fine with three heros. I dont want to have 7 skill barts taking up half my screen trying to manage all my heros and playing for myself at the same time. Just finish your party with hench or a friend and his heros.
Some Guru Named Kai
Heroes are nice as a filler, which may or may not have been anet's intention. For example, pre-Nightfall, we all remember those dreadful days of THK when no monks were available or reliable 
( not to mention those "monks on strike" were pretty funny ). Now a group of 7 or 8 won't have to wait days on days to find a suitable monk, sorry Mhenlo, can't have you Healing Touch the frontline!
But anet's intentions are always been encouraging people interaction, hence why they limit heroes. 7 heroes is AI overkill, PvE would be a breeze even with hard mode. It would take a Harder Mode to then satisfy the QQ'ers.
( not to mention those "monks on strike" were pretty funny ). Now a group of 7 or 8 won't have to wait days on days to find a suitable monk, sorry Mhenlo, can't have you Healing Touch the frontline!But anet's intentions are always been encouraging people interaction, hence why they limit heroes. 7 heroes is AI overkill, PvE would be a breeze even with hard mode. It would take a Harder Mode to then satisfy the QQ'ers.
Cebe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zinger314
And ArenaNet's primary reason for not allowing 7 Heroes is to create more human-based groups?
|
If you were allowed 7 Henchmen per team, the starter areas would be full of people who went to Vabbi, loaded up 7 heroes and mapped to Kamadan so that they could have a party of 8 for clearing out the Plains of Jarin. The Hard Mode explorable areas in the starter regions aren't made for 8 players, even in Hard Mode.
While you're at it I don't see why you didn't complain that you weren't allowed 11 heroes so you could do Urgoz Warren with them.
Also, let's look at the Temple of Ages, Zin Ku Corridor and Chantry of Secrets. If you could just load up with henchmen there would be absolutely no incentive to group with anyone else for the UW and FoW.
I suggest if you want a game designed to y our own specifications you go design one yourself.
Traveller
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scottyboysn
All the extra heroes would do for me is replace henchmen, not people. Who is really concerned about the henchmen's feelings? Come on.
|
In an earlier interview, Gaile stated that ANet could make henchmen better, but they won't, since people wouldn't play with real people at all after that. This was before they introduced heroes, so they did come back a bit. ANet seems so concerned about losing the social aspect of GW, but they have themselves ruined a big part of it by allowing spammers and leechers to keep going.
The thing is, often with a limited time to play, it's just much easier to take henchmen and heroes, spend a bit about setting their skills and just doing the task (and usually succeeding) instead of spending ages trying to find people to do it with, especially in missions and areas which are less populated or if you happen to play a class not particularly wanted in PUGs (Mesmers and assassins, anyone?)
The worry about hero skillbars cluttering the screen sounds rather artificial as well. For me, heroes do their job well I and don't feel the need to micro-manage them most of the time or even have their skillbars visible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver
Also, let's look at the Temple of Ages, Zin Ku Corridor and Chantry of Secrets. If you could just load up with henchmen there would be absolutely no incentive to group with anyone else for the UW and FoW.
|
Cacheelma
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zinger314
Gaile made a response to the idea of improving Henchmen instead of allowing 7 Heroes:
You'd think that the designers of the game would know why Healing Breeze and 10e spells are bad on Henchmen Monks... I think it's a ploy to make us feel important. |
So basically, when you see a hench doing something stupid/using lame skills, please remember that it's intended.
It's a damn shame, but.....what else can we do?
Ludo
Perhaps the 3/8 hero limit is to simulate real parties. In most random pugs you get 3 or 4 good players, 2 or 3 decent but misguided players, and a couple lulu's. And maybe a leaver and a long term disconnect (what use is a player who is missing half the mission). It's like having a few great hero's and Aleisa along as your second healer. It's fair enough.
Traveller
Maybe they could add the chance to have 7 heroes in your party, but mixed it up with real-life PUG behaviour: 1 hero who draws penises in the mini-map, 1 who refuses to play with you since you're a wammo, 1 who ragequits when you have a few casualties, 2 who bicker on and on about each others' builds, 1 who goes AFK at the start of the mission and 1 actually a good player.
Cebe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Traveller
Maybe they could add the chance to have 7 heroes in your party, but mixed it up with real-life PUG behaviour: 1 hero who draws penises in the mini-map, 1 who refuses to play with you since you're a wammo, 1 who ragequits when you have a few casualties, 2 who bicker on and on about each others' builds, 1 who goes AFK at the start of the mission and 1 actually a good player.
|
Mr.Bimble
I'm quite happy with three heroes. Made me wonder though, how much time I spent just hanging round waiting to get in a group to do a mission before heroes became available. Ive been playing about 10 months,I'm a much better player than when I started. I still make mistakes, but when I do my heroes dont walk out or slag me off,which happens occasoinally with "real people".
And there is pvp for social contact with like minded souls.PvPers,always helpful,fun,and laid back,and so keen for you to be on their team.
We are not as social as some would have us be.I like playng with others,but time constraints make this unsuitable. If I'm by myself I can quit a mission,heroes and henches arn't let down,real people can be.Especially if they are new and do want helping around. Theres more to say, but its not really useful or informative.Basically I just love playing this game.People heroes and henchies all add something to it for me
And there is pvp for social contact with like minded souls.PvPers,always helpful,fun,and laid back,and so keen for you to be on their team.
We are not as social as some would have us be.I like playng with others,but time constraints make this unsuitable. If I'm by myself I can quit a mission,heroes and henches arn't let down,real people can be.Especially if they are new and do want helping around. Theres more to say, but its not really useful or informative.Basically I just love playing this game.People heroes and henchies all add something to it for me
Sectus
I don't understand why Anet doesn't just leave this up to the players.
Incentive to play with human players is just stupid. If people really want to play with AI teammates, they should be allowed to do so! People who wanna play with humans will still do so, no matter how many heroes you can add.
Super-henchmen? Human players are already potentially a lot more powerful than all henchmen and heroes, so why would it be so bad that singleplayers would be able to select 4 more heroes instead of weak henchmen?
Interface is also an argument which isn't that important. If I'm gonna have 7 heroes, I won't have all their skill bars open. I'll only keep open the skillbars for the few heroes I really need to have some manual control over.
I really think Anet should re-consider this with the mindset of allowing the players to choose themselves how they want to play the game.
Incentive to play with human players is just stupid. If people really want to play with AI teammates, they should be allowed to do so! People who wanna play with humans will still do so, no matter how many heroes you can add.
Super-henchmen? Human players are already potentially a lot more powerful than all henchmen and heroes, so why would it be so bad that singleplayers would be able to select 4 more heroes instead of weak henchmen?
Interface is also an argument which isn't that important. If I'm gonna have 7 heroes, I won't have all their skill bars open. I'll only keep open the skillbars for the few heroes I really need to have some manual control over.
I really think Anet should re-consider this with the mindset of allowing the players to choose themselves how they want to play the game.
baz777
I’m quite happy with the present set up.
However, allowing one more hero, (4 total), would be a compromise and allow people a few more options.
However, allowing one more hero, (4 total), would be a compromise and allow people a few more options.
arcanemacabre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sectus
Incentive to play with human players is just stupid. If people really want to play with AI teammates, they should be allowed to do so! People who wanna play with humans will still do so, no matter how many heroes you can add.
|
I, personally have nothing to worry about. My wife plays GW with me, so I always have a teammate with 3 heroes. I don't even know what the henchmen are in NF because I've never had to use them. That doesn't mean I don't think others shouldn't have that option should they choose to play that way. Some of the limitations in this game have a very fascist feel to them...
Pandora's box
Hmmm I don't have any problems leaving heroes as they are. What disturbs me are the continuing attemps to get players stick together in teams. We have done that for 2 years, its good to have an option to team up, but please leave the idea of online games being a teamsport. They are not! Anyway, as for me, GW2 should really offer the freedom to solo everywhere, with decent rewards.
Its about time GW1 starts making steps into this direction, rather than sticking to ideas which have proven not to work! (according to the postings here, take a look at other games and discussions in forums, mostly all noses are pointing to the same direction - this is the only game I know where players *always* seem to dissagree about the most common subjects...)
Its about time GW1 starts making steps into this direction, rather than sticking to ideas which have proven not to work! (according to the postings here, take a look at other games and discussions in forums, mostly all noses are pointing to the same direction - this is the only game I know where players *always* seem to dissagree about the most common subjects...)
Cymmina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Traveller
The worry about hero skillbars cluttering the screen sounds rather artificial as well. For me, heroes do their job well I and don't feel the need to micro-manage them most of the time or even have their skillbars visible.
|
I'm quite happy to take 3 heroes and 4 henchmen, exept when it comes to Tyria, the land of the shitty henchmen. Lina is the only henchmen of the lot I would consider decent. Devona, Thom, and Stephen are better than most wammos, so no complaints here. That leaves Reyna or Aidan and their craptacular Practiced Stance and Kindle Arrows to round out what passes for a team. The other campaigns have decent henchmen, why can't Tyria?
Take humans? I think not. The pugs I've been in for HM have really soured things for me. It's not like normal mode where you can still get through the mission even when you have retarded wammo battle resing with Resurrect or the party leader agro pulling with Koss. Sadly, those are my actual HM experiences for this past weekend.
Most of the people who are worth doing HM with have already completed it or aren't interested in doing it at all.
Cacheelma
They want us to team with each other, but for some reasons the "search" panel that we have is limited to.....local area only.
Tell me, in which mission/outpost do you see more than 1 district? Yes, correct, the main towns (LA, Kamadan, Kaineng) in which nobody cares about teaming since they're too busy using GW's robust trading system (Chat panel)....
So...with only 1 district, the Search panel isn't really any more convenient than....say..."Monk LFG mission+Bonus" spam every minute or so.
Recap: If Anet really want us to play with each other, give us some kind of global LFG system. Otherwise, just give us the option to use full hero team ALREADY.
Tell me, in which mission/outpost do you see more than 1 district? Yes, correct, the main towns (LA, Kamadan, Kaineng) in which nobody cares about teaming since they're too busy using GW's robust trading system (Chat panel)....
So...with only 1 district, the Search panel isn't really any more convenient than....say..."Monk LFG mission+Bonus" spam every minute or so.
Recap: If Anet really want us to play with each other, give us some kind of global LFG system. Otherwise, just give us the option to use full hero team ALREADY.
Patrick Smit
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Some Guru Named Kai
7 heroes is AI overkill, PvE would be a breeze even with hard mode. It would take a Harder Mode to then satisfy the QQ'ers.
|
Spazzer
Oh man. If I was still stuck on Eternal Grove I would blow my lid.
Luckilly, I managed to grab someone who was willing to go through it with me. About five or six tries later, we managed to squeek the mission on pure luck.
I'm 100% certain that neither one of us will do Eternal Grove in HM ever again. This will be true of pretty much everyone who does that mission in HM. I would really hate to be the odd man out--the last person in the world who wants to do that mission and cannot.
Luckilly, I managed to grab someone who was willing to go through it with me. About five or six tries later, we managed to squeek the mission on pure luck.
I'm 100% certain that neither one of us will do Eternal Grove in HM ever again. This will be true of pretty much everyone who does that mission in HM. I would really hate to be the odd man out--the last person in the world who wants to do that mission and cannot.
Traveller
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cymmina
You don't watch your heroes' DP, enchantment/hex information, keep track of who still has res sigs? I play support characters, and you better believe I do (and wish I could have it for all teammates). There are design limitations as to why we can't control more than 3 heroes, deal with it.
|
Then again, I don't play a monk (only class I don't have a character)
And sure, Gaile and ANet seem adamant about not changing the hero limitation. We do have to deal with it, but I don't think we shouldn't voice our opinion on the matter just the same.
william1975
I can understand the decision made before Nightfall came out, 7 heroes would have been rediculous at that time, I managed to complete Factions, with heroes and henchies, at masters, apart from eternal grove and gayla hatchery, where I needed 1 other player with heroes for masters.
I also understand the point of it making the interface unmanagable, I can just keep track of 3 heroes, could possible stretch to 4, but 7 would be impossible.
I also see the reasoning behind this, Anet wants to promote some kind of interplayer activity, and with access to all heroes that would become virtually imposible, as many have noted few pug now, how many would if they introduced 7 heroes to party with.
The main problem that has arisen is twofold. One is the vast amount of area that can be chosen to play in, and the second is the advent of Hard Mode.
Anet have obviously realised that campaigns have diluted the playerbase across too vast a region, this is why the campaign option has be dropped for GW2. Hard Mode was a fantastic idea, unfortunatley it is extremely difficult with the hero/Henchie part to do. PUG's would be ideal if they were commonplace, but with the aforementioned dilution this is a wearisome task, and as many note there is little guarantee of any decent players, let alone 8.
The solution of a global search may help, personally I doubt that, as people probably want to do particular thing with their time, not jump all over the world to different places.
Sadly the easiest option would be to join a dedicated and large PVE guild, one that regualarly devotes time to Hard Mode, or does runs through a Campaign. I myself am in a tiny guild, with my wife alone, we do thing together, and still find it difficult with 2 human 6 heroes, but it is easier. When we get tired of the difficulties we will most likely join a bigger guild.
I just pray that GW2 does not fall into this same trap that GW has, I understand what Gaile and the design team has said and accept it, however a solution would be nice, as this is a rather disturbing problem for the playerbase
I also understand the point of it making the interface unmanagable, I can just keep track of 3 heroes, could possible stretch to 4, but 7 would be impossible.
I also see the reasoning behind this, Anet wants to promote some kind of interplayer activity, and with access to all heroes that would become virtually imposible, as many have noted few pug now, how many would if they introduced 7 heroes to party with.
The main problem that has arisen is twofold. One is the vast amount of area that can be chosen to play in, and the second is the advent of Hard Mode.
Anet have obviously realised that campaigns have diluted the playerbase across too vast a region, this is why the campaign option has be dropped for GW2. Hard Mode was a fantastic idea, unfortunatley it is extremely difficult with the hero/Henchie part to do. PUG's would be ideal if they were commonplace, but with the aforementioned dilution this is a wearisome task, and as many note there is little guarantee of any decent players, let alone 8.
The solution of a global search may help, personally I doubt that, as people probably want to do particular thing with their time, not jump all over the world to different places.
Sadly the easiest option would be to join a dedicated and large PVE guild, one that regualarly devotes time to Hard Mode, or does runs through a Campaign. I myself am in a tiny guild, with my wife alone, we do thing together, and still find it difficult with 2 human 6 heroes, but it is easier. When we get tired of the difficulties we will most likely join a bigger guild.
I just pray that GW2 does not fall into this same trap that GW has, I understand what Gaile and the design team has said and accept it, however a solution would be nice, as this is a rather disturbing problem for the playerbase
Theus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by william1975
I can understand the decision made before Nightfall came out, 7 heroes would have been rediculous at that time, I managed to complete Factions, with heroes and henchies, at masters, apart from eternal grove and gayla hatchery, where I needed 1 other player with heroes for masters.
I also understand the point of it making the interface unmanagable, I can just keep track of 3 heroes, could possible stretch to 4, but 7 would be impossible. I also see the reasoning behind this, Anet wants to promote some kind of interplayer activity, and with access to all heroes that would become virtually imposible, as many have noted few pug now, how many would if they introduced 7 heroes to party with. The main problem that has arisen is twofold. One is the vast amount of area that can be chosen to play in, and the second is the advent of Hard Mode. Anet have obviously realised that campaigns have diluted the playerbase across too vast a region, this is why the campaign option has be dropped for GW2. Hard Mode was a fantastic idea, unfortunatley it is extremely difficult with the hero/Henchie part to do. PUG's would be ideal if they were commonplace, but with the aforementioned dilution this is a wearisome task, and as many note there is little guarantee of any decent players, let alone 8. The solution of a global search may help, personally I doubt that, as people probably want to do particular thing with their time, not jump all over the world to different places. Sadly the easiest option would be to join a dedicated and large PVE guild, one that regualarly devotes time to Hard Mode, or does runs through a Campaign. I myself am in a tiny guild, with my wife alone, we do thing together, and still find it difficult with 2 human 6 heroes, but it is easier. When we get tired of the difficulties we will most likely join a bigger guild. I just pray that GW2 does not fall into this same trap that GW has, I understand what Gaile and the design team has said and accept it, however a solution would be nice, as this is a rather disturbing problem for the playerbase |
Longasc
The reasoning is pretty shallow.
First, why do we want 7 heroes?
Is really the only reason that we cannot find people for playing hard mode? After all, you only need one friend and you have a full team of heroes.
I think the flawed logic is that you can suddenly do a mission you failed with 4 heroes and 3 henchmen before with 7 heroes.
Nothing wrong with 7 heroes, but it does not solve the "problem" some people seem to have:
1. having not even one friend it seems
2. not being able to do all hard mode missions with heroes and hench
This said, Aurora just needs a trick to be done - let the NPCs guard the last portal and run crystals.
Sanctum Cay can be henched easily, too. Just do the bonus and the mission seperate, makes it much easier.
Sorry, I think 3 heroes is enough to control. 7 are overkill, just clutter the screen. And still do not bring victory. We have only max 2 heroes of a class, you cannot have an optimum build being the only human player. You can talk as much as you want, Henchmen are not so much worse than heroes...
Furthermore, the wish to hench Hard Mode is ridiculous. What's next? Make hard mode easier?
It is perfectly doable, and some people should get over the fact that not everyone can do hard mode or win the monthly tournament or whatever.
First, why do we want 7 heroes?
Is really the only reason that we cannot find people for playing hard mode? After all, you only need one friend and you have a full team of heroes.
I think the flawed logic is that you can suddenly do a mission you failed with 4 heroes and 3 henchmen before with 7 heroes.
Nothing wrong with 7 heroes, but it does not solve the "problem" some people seem to have:
1. having not even one friend it seems
2. not being able to do all hard mode missions with heroes and hench
This said, Aurora just needs a trick to be done - let the NPCs guard the last portal and run crystals.
Sanctum Cay can be henched easily, too. Just do the bonus and the mission seperate, makes it much easier.
Sorry, I think 3 heroes is enough to control. 7 are overkill, just clutter the screen. And still do not bring victory. We have only max 2 heroes of a class, you cannot have an optimum build being the only human player. You can talk as much as you want, Henchmen are not so much worse than heroes...
Furthermore, the wish to hench Hard Mode is ridiculous. What's next? Make hard mode easier?
It is perfectly doable, and some people should get over the fact that not everyone can do hard mode or win the monthly tournament or whatever.
semantic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Personette
...
As for arguments about 7 heroes being overpowered - well, the same argument applies to 7 competent HUMAN players, and that's obviously encouraged in the game. If you have seven really good human players, yeah, an eighth person can slack off and everyone else will be fine. If you have seven or eight really good human players, PvE is your oyster. How does it makes sense to say that that's good, but having a single human player with 7 heroes in the same situation is bad? ... |
What's more, it is often possible to make up for a lack of coordination between 8 skill bars with coordinated execution. GW PVE seems to be designed with this in mind. The Red Dots are given a set of skills and behaviors to work with. Very good, hard counters to those skills are available to players, but if players bring something other than the hard counters, good coordination while employing other tactics can see them through. This works because Red Dot skillsets are limited, and generally not dual-class.
The fundamental problem of coordination (both before and during a fight) is removed for a 1 + 7 Hero team. As it stands, you can set 4 dual-class bars, and if you plan on using henchmen to fill out the team, you usually have to make a few compromises. You can make up for those compromises with tactics and execution. If you could set all 8, not only would you not be forced to make compromises, you would have plenty of room left over for 'throw-away' skills, or slots that you left blank or intentionally disabled (because you only brought a particular hero or two for access to 3 or 4 skills from your available pool, and you don't want them wasting time or energy on something unnecessary). Tactics and performance would become irrelevant. Every fight would be AI (fixed and limited on the side of Red Dots) vs. AI (flexible and essentially unlimited for heroes), with the winner a foregone conclusion. I just don't think PVE is designed to challenge that level of coordination, otherwise it would be impossible to master with anything less.
Lord Natural
I'm starting to think 7 heroes in HM might be reasonable. Been playing through Tyria and NF missions on HM, and though the early missions were pretty easy, it's getting to be a real pain as I reach the last couple of missions. I have no doubt that it's still possible with the current H&H setup, but it can be pretty frustrating nonetheless. I can't remember the last time I saw a HM group forming. There were a couple doing great northern wall, the day HM came out, I think.
btw has anybody gotten the Guardian titles in Elona and Tyria with just H&H? I'll feel better knowing it's been done at least
btw has anybody gotten the Guardian titles in Elona and Tyria with just H&H? I'll feel better knowing it's been done at least
Tarun
Approximately 15 heroes, and we can only use three. gg...
Hyper Cutter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tarun
Approximately 15 heroes, and we can only use three. gg...
|
Edge Martinez
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Longasc
The reasoning is pretty shallow.
... Furthermore, the wish to hench Hard Mode is ridiculous. What's next? Make hard mode easier? It is perfectly doable, and some people should get over the fact that not everyone can do hard mode or win the monthly tournament or whatever. |
And yes, we can only use 3 heroes.
I mean seriously... know what? I have dozens of skills. I want to be able to use all of them all the time. Why just 8? That's so limiting. Furthermore, I want to use all 12 heroes. Yep... all 12. On top of that, I don't think it's right that I lug around 3 swords and 2 shields. I want to be able to have a shield strapped on each arm, a sword in each hand, and my minipet can wield the third one. And once you do all that, I'll find something else to moan about when I could have been playing the game.
Lord Oranos
Why on gods earth do you want to play with bots? I thought this was online for a reason?
Amy Awien
Regarding the interface argument when using seven heroes ... it could remain the same as it is now, you would just use 4 heroes for the spots that are now filled up with henchmen and you'd use the regular henchman controls.
Spazzer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tarun
Approximately 15 heroes, and we can only use three. gg...
|
garethporlest18
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord Oranos
Why on gods earth do you want to play with bots? I thought this was online for a reason?
|
I've been wanting 7 hero's for a long time, it'd be nice to have me be able to set up all the builds myself, instead of having 4 henchies. Only place I will PUG is FoW, otherwise ya'll can fall down some stairs, I'm not gonna play with you, I've dealt with too much stupidity in PUG groups (mostly in FoW), that I quit them unless I need them for the missions. I will admit sometimes you get cool people, but that's rare.
Oh and I use this game as a chat room and will continue to do so. A lot more fun than actually playing now. Haha.
Oh and, no the game will not be easier (who gives a flying rats tail if it's easier for a few people) for the majority of folks with 7 heroes. Not for me at least, I play a warrior and I'm pretty certain other classes have it a lot easier than us, for the most part. Cause of the certain heroes we have to take.
D8tura
I party with my guildies and their heroes for the simple fact that most of the people are hard to play with without resorting to name calling (eg n00b) the first time the group runs into trouble. PUG's are a fate worse then 60 DB
I can see the argument that no one will group with 7 heroes
I can see the argument that no one will group with 7 heroes
Jetdoc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zinger314
Yes, because there are always 8 people looking for Eternal Grove HM or Hell's Precipace HM. The fact that people would want to do these missions solo with 7 Heroes means that they are idiots and anti-social. [/blatantsarcasm]
|
Theus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jetdoc
All you need is one other person. 2 real people + 6 heroes...
|
Qual
7 heroes = lame, buy a single player game....
Theus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qual
7 heroes = lame, buy a single player game....
|
There was FAR to much pugging in the game.
Far to much.
You ROFL'ed my COPTER by the way.
Tarun
Main reason a lot of people want 7 hero usage instead of 3 is because it's rare/next to impossible to find people to do anything Hard Mode with you.
Heroes are better than hench, and I'd rather take heroes with me than hench, especially when I can't find players who have a similar goal.
Heroes are better than hench, and I'd rather take heroes with me than hench, especially when I can't find players who have a similar goal.