Why have 25 heros to use 3 at a time?

Yes, i use the 3-Necro setup, because it freakin' works. Prior to that i took a heal-prot monk (dunkoro), an MM (MoW cos i didn't like the look of Olias, at least until Livia) and an interrupt mesmer (Norgu, rapidly replaced by gwen).

so now all my heroes bar the necros sit there doing squat, only possibly being wheeled out when mastering Nightfall quests that require them, even so their prescence is a nuisance, between me and a friend one of us will bring the 3-necro build, the other bringing the required hero and some other general support. After that they go back in the box.

I did level them all to 20, only because i was SS farming and level has little effect when in a junundu, so it seemed and obvious way to do 2 tasks at once, and their skills all changed to the same anyway.

Actually, i get out certain heroes to give them new armour, put their statue up and then put them away again. Oh, i also dump good but unsellable weapons on them, the ones that don't get pre-order weapons, anyway.

Guild Wars is social tactical game about managing limited resources.

This is why you can only list 8 skills at a time, instead of all of them (such as in WoW), and why you only get control over 3 members of your team. For half of the PvE game, groups can only be up to 4 anyway, so you have full control there and can be as anti-social as you want.

But further in, you should have learned something from that experience, and you should be able to handle working in a group where not all of the factors are under your control.

It is a social game, all about experiencing it with others - both in PvE and PvP. That they give you 3 heroes is already too many in this regard.

If they ever took GW offline, made it solo like Oblivion, then sure, they'd have a reason to give you a full hero team. But it is still online, still social, and the point is still to PUG as a means to improve the experience.

*offers dictionary*

But its not arcady.

People are welcome to PuG, I in no way want to stop people pugging, if people have fun doing that then good for them.

That doesnt mean everyone has to.

GW is a game where you can go solo, its advertised on the box, it was reinforced with the addition of heroes in Nightfall, it was reinforced again in GW:EN by adding more heroes and giving more people access to heroes. So no its not meant to be a game where you have to PuG and socialise and have a jolly good time with others, you can if you want to, but you dont have to.

No matter what im not going to PuG. Dont make the mistake of thinking that by removing solo options everyone will PuG instead.


I do agree with you on it being a tactical game however, where coming up with team builds that work is a key part of the game.
With a team of players you can change all 8 builds. With h/h you only have control of 4. This means for most of the game you are forced into setting up your builds to cover for the poor hench builds.



And just to state it again, GW is advertised as a game you can play solo so disagreeing based on you not liking people who dont play with others is really irrelevant.

Now see, I can find on the box where it says "play solo," but I can't find where it says "this is a social game and you'll have to play it with others to complete some areas."

See, if I did see that on the box I'd never have bought the game, so you're going to have to show me the fine print that you clearly think I missed. If they wanted to make a game where you would have to PUG sometimes they should have honestly advertised it as such.

I got the original Prophecies box and the 1 million edition here, but no where on them does it say something about solo... EU versions btw.

So since I don't see it on the box I looked into the Manuscripts.
All I could find there was this on page 62:

Going to scan the box covers and the manuscript later and file it up.

Well that's pretty intriguing...I wonder why they did that? Maybe the American was a mistake?

Yes, they stated that you could play with henchmen. Did they mention if the henchmen were viable, stupid or had horrible builds? Nay. So in essence we kinda got what we payed for in that respect.

Actually the box specifically refers to the henchmen as "skillful" which I think we can all agree was just an outright lie.

Well I have the EU version as well.
But if you look around the forums you will see im not the only one who quotes it so its deffinately there.

Well actually yes, yes they did.
Band of skillful henchmen

And then when they added heroes, thats deffinate proof of making solo play viable.
Then again in GW:EN with more heroes and greater hero access.

So trying to pass solo play off as not being a valid form of play isnt going to work.

And who defines "skillful?" PCGamer? Check out their build suggestions in that GWEN mag.

As far as ANet knew at the time, that warrior build on the other side of the box was skillfull.

It works fine, and even more so with heroes and only four of them. My point is not that "solo play is unviable," yet that ANet doesn't owe us anything.

This thread would be so more awesome if it was "Why have 3 heroes to use 25 off at a time?"

Not quite sure what you mean by the PCGamer comment. This is Anet who said it was skillful.

Of course they dont owe us. They dont owe us extra storage, they dont owe us events, they dont owe us new content.

That doesnt mean that
1) People wont ask for it
2) They wont provide it


At the end of the day this is a business. They are going to want as many people as possible to move onto GW2 since that means more money.

Right now GW2 is still a way off and GW isnt going to be having any major new content added. So when people are bored with what GW currently has to offer they will leave.

Right now the solo player has access to a lot less than others. So they have less content to get through until they leave.


And before anyone mentions it again, yes we know its possible to h/h HM and high end areas. But right now doing so requires specific builds because you have to build around the henchmen. To me that gets boring very fast.

I dont want to have to run the same build everytime just because im covering for a henchmen.
I dont want to have to take a charge warrior with less than 8 skills on his bar just because there are more important roles to fill.
I dont want to take 2 hench monks only to have to add another monk for condition and hex removal that they lack.


Granting 7 heroes will keep the game going longer for a lot of people.

It was also ANet who let those horrid builds go into their magazine. It was recommended that Jora brought Healing Hands as her elite.

Instead of quote warring with you I'll get right to the point:

And could it also kill it for more?

Given other certain things that have been added and tweaked with in the past, anything is unpredictable. Yes it would be awesome, I would *love* to have 7 heroes, but we have no idea what the consequences could be.

As one example I gave, a lot of people don't prefer to H/H because "henchmen suck." That would of course have to be a very misinformed comment because a large majority of missions can be henched, and *all* of the game can be hero henched.

So what if this pugger, now with the option of having 7 heroes, decides to now go with heroes for everything? That's fine if he wants to, but it would lessen the people available for a PUG.

Fact(s) of the matter are this: We know PUGing is tough enough as it is, we know that the whole game can be hero henched excluding elite missions (which are probably easier with real people anyways), and we really have no idea what will happen *if* 7 heroes are implemented.

So ANet is going to do what's safe, and that's nothing. You are still very able to play the game with only 4 heroes. 7 heroes are not needed, they're wanted.

Ok so the people who would go with 7 heroes over a PuG who currently dont h/h at the moment.

They would prefer to go solo, but currently PuG because they feel h/h is disadvantaged.

You would stop them playing how they would prefer just so you have more people to PuG with?


The only people who would switch to 7 heroes are those who want to use 7 heroes. Those people who prefer PuGs will stay in PuGs. A lot of people play the game for the social interaction, so they will continue to play with PuGs because its why they purchased the game to begin with.


We have had this discussion before in that its a game and you dont need anything.

But no, going solo you dont get access to all the game. You miss out on team builds, you are limited in what builds you can run etc. To me thats a big part of the game.

And you're excluded from some Elite area's that don't have henchmen at all. Either it should be forbidden to use heroes in there or they should add henchmen. Solo people were allways excluded from those area's.

7 heroes would make so many people happy that Anet realises they would not buy GW2 because there are not going to be heroes and henchmen in GW2. They decided to keep you playing and being not happy because that's the way they'll get you to buy GW2.

They're a company selling games is what counts.

[/conspiracy mode]

Depends on the mentality. I was thinking more along the lines of someone who likes to PUG, but doesn't want to try H/Hing due to his lack of faith in henchmen. 7 heroes are available, he tries it out, and he likes it as well. He no longer PUGs because of that.

Being "forced to PUG" because of the henchmen is very different.

This is what I mean. How can you be so sure that it'll be as simple as that? There could very possibly be people like the example I've stated above. How many people? Don't know, and that's the point: We know little.

Agreed, and that's something that I was thinking about after I posted that.

But you can still play through the whole game. Yes, it's limiting in what you can do, but my needs are not more important than the needs of anyone else. I'd love to have 7 heroes because, as I've said, it makes it much more personal and flexible. But I'd rather have 3 then have to put people at a disadvantage.

Well still in that case its the players choice of which he prefers. So in that case he would prefer to go solo but is currently unable to do so.

We do know to some degree however.

Those players who prefer to PuG over solo play will carry on PuGing.
A lot of players already h/h.
A lot of players only play with friends/guilds/alliance.

So already thats 3 large groups of players who wouldnt be removed from the "PuG pool" simply because they either prefer it, or are already not using PuGs.

I have to disagree here, because to me the game isnt just the different areas.
If im killing something in the Crystal Desert, or killing something in the Realm of Torment it makes very little difference to me.
I see the majority of the game being made up of all the different playstyles, mechanics etc.

Since I can only change 1/2 of my team that limits playstyles so much. So to me its a huge ammount of the game that I cant experience.


It also works the other way round. Solo players shouldnt be disadvantaged to support PuGing.

With 7 heroes would PuGing be reduced? Possibly
With 7 heroes would PuGing die? No (Due to reasons above)

With 7 heroes would solo players finally have access to most of the game? Yes (minus a few elite areas simply due to the mechanics there)


To me it seems a minor reduction in the ease of PuGing to allow a whole group of players to actually be able to access the full game.


And that minor reduction in PuGing could easily be offset with improvements to the party search system or something along those lines.

As much I would like this feature to be implemented, and believe me i really do want this!, one the most annoying thing a person can encounter is a 12 yr old spamming all kinds of BS on teamchat when your in a mission. I would have to say no.
My reason is Guildwars is meant to be played with other people. With a 7 hero party, this would dramatically decrease the chance of getting a people group together. Personally I prefer to H/H my way through the game, because it's faster and much more efficient, but it does get boring really fast! Why? Because, its much more fun to play with other players, the unpredictability and messiness of a pug group, for good or for bad, makes the game.
So my vote is no. Sorry guys.

Sorry macie, GW is not meant to played with other people. (Will people read threads before posting?)

You have the option of playing with others or going solo. Thats why a lot of people purchased the game with the sole purpose of playing solo.

And if you prefer PuGing as you say, no one would force you to take 7 heroes.
No one wants to stop people PuGing.

[QUOTE]that was only on the original chapter

Nightfall says

from the box by the way

In Nightfall the adition of heroes. That was a huge boost to solo play.

In GW:EN more heroes and greater access to heroes.


Both of those show support for solo play so no its not only the original chapter.


oh and also on the Nightfall box

A team of heroes, not half a team. A full team.

Point is he didn't have a problem pugging before. It's okay to play how you want, but adding alternative methods and playstyles when there's not much of a problem in the first place can alienate a lot of players. Not to mention that some playstyles restrict the playstyles of others.

That's a risky assumption to take, and part of the problem.

Firstly, h/h players are not at a disadvantage in the slightest. Since the main concern is simply being able to play through the areas successfully and not with "missing out on the game", that point is moot.

Secondly, the bolded part is the unknown. How reduced will pugging become? How harder would pugging be? We don't know, ANet doesn't know, no one knows. Part of the reason ANet will make no move to increase hero size: We don't know what will happen.

Many of these improvements have been suggested ever since Prophecies. By now, I think it's safe to assume that these additions are as possible as an auction house.

Yeah, Anet introduced heroes in a chapter that was supposed to force people to play together, THAT makes sense. Heroes are great when I've actually got a friend online with time to play, but since I'm an adult with a job (and friends with other adults with jobs) coordinating that can be a problem. I can't imagine why Anet would want to inconvenience the older demographic that plays their game, but that does seem to be the plan with regards to the high end areas.

You want to group, we don't, I really never will understand why your preferred style of play should take precedence over ours. Fortunately, by and large, it doesn't. This game is a fantastic SP experience but for the elite zones and HM. If they'd just get around to that, everyone could be happy and play the game as they please.

For the same reason people with tough schedules don't complain about WoW being too inaccessible: It's just how the game is.

The elite missions can be brutal and time consuming tasks, and I don't really think allowing them to be hero'd could really help you're problem. If you don't have the time to set up for an elite mission with a group, I don't know if you'd have the time to complete one (unless, as I've stated, you've been through it a *numerous* amount of times and can complete with no hands.)

I can't really comment about Hard Mode. I've vanquished about only 30 areas so far (only so few because, well damn I'm bored) only with heroes and henchies. Experiences vary.

Ut oh, in before close?

I used to be happy with vanilla ice cream. I thought it was fantastic.
Then I tried chocolate and now vanilla just doesnt do it for me.

Should we ban chocolate ice cream to keep vanilla sales up?

I dont think it is. People who choose to PuG over going solo are suprise suprise, chosing to PuG over going solo. Adding 7 heroes doesnt take that choice away. People who play for social interaction, who enjoy the random nature of PuGs etc still will carry on if that is what they prefer.

Really have to disagree here as well. Are you suggesting that having to have 4/8 of your team not using 8 skills, using extremely poor builds, using fixed builds isnt a disadvantage?


Yes we dont know how reduced it will be. But it will still be a viable form of play.

Just as I purchased the game to play solo, others purchased it to play with others.
Just as I wont suddenly start pugging, they wont suddenly start playing solo.

Besides just because you dont know what exactly will happen is no reason not to change something. Look at the addition of heroes for example.

They couldnt have known how many people would use them but they put them in anway.

Well considering a party search feature was added. All it needs is improving.
Also think about extra storage, extra char slots. All these things got added, all of them asked for by the players. Just because something isnt added instantly doesnt mean it cant and wont be added.


*Edit to include Bryants above post*

Because some players like myself have to go afk quite often. With a group of players I cant expect them to sit and wait 10-15 mins while I go do whatever I need to do.
With heroes they dont quit if I go afk suddenly.

No reason to close this thread. Its a good discussion, good points from both sides, no flaming etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that is meant to be discussed.

But WoW's an MMO, Anet's always maintained (and I've always agreed) that GW isn't. I'd never buy an MMO, and this is one reason why, but there's no reason an action RPG that is supposed to be able to be played SP should have the same scheduling problems as an MMO.

As to set up time, I can find quite a few hours to play, I just can't find the same hours as my friends that have the game (at least not without a great dealing of schedule finangling).

Depends on the budget, and this isn't really a fair comparison since you eating chocolate ice cream doesn't really affect someone eating vanilla. If someone uses heros and hencies (eating chocolate), that lessens the chance for people pugging (eating vanilla.) It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's just not as simple since people PUG for numerous reasons, some believing it to be how you're supposed to play, others doing it because it could be more effective for them, or because they're inexperienced. Not only just because they enjoy social interaction.

I guess I can't really comment as I've had little problem with them. Sure the builds suck, but the builds of my heroes more than make up for it.

How reduced it will be lessens its viability.

Actually, ANet included them due to the reason that henchmen just weren't enough for the huge and expansive world that was becoming Guild Wars. At this point, they knew that many places were going to be deserted, places where certain roles were needed where henchmen weren't available.

Well considering a party search feature was added. All it needs is improving.
Also think about extra storage, extra char slots. All these things got added, all of them asked for by the players. Just because something isnt added instantly doesnt mean it cant and wont be added.

You'd be surprised how lenient people can be towards multiple AFK's. Generally, if people have the patience and will to do a 4 hour elite mission they probably wouldn't mind if someone had to go use the bathroom suddenly.

As to other reasons for going afk, I can only say *shrug*. I can only say limit what happens and set aside some time.

I only said that because Unienale was observing the thread...and it *is* starting to go in circles.

Again to sum up my point: You can complete any of the campaigns with the heroes and henchies as it stands. The only reason do add 7 at this point is to increase the enjoyment for a few people. But we do not know how that could affect people who enjoy pugging. We can only assume and predict, nothing concrete - and that's what ANet wants: something with proof. If they don't have that proof, they won't do anything.

The players asked for elite and hardcore dungeons, and ANet delivered. Even though GW isn't an MMO, it does have a lot of relations to one (elite dungeons being one of the many.)

Same here, really. My friends have much different school schedules that I have. If I really wanted to, I could probably post a tread here somewhere on Guru telling people my schedule and seeing who I could play with. But I'm not terribly excited about having to go in those dungeons again.

Where do you see the solo?



And as for those saying their box says different, screen-shot/scan or it never happened.

Ok well I have a different box to you then Mineria.

Although I still purchased mine in England so I assume there are different ones floating around. I dont own a scanner so hopefully someone else will post it here for you.

But your comment made me chuckle. Because you can dismiss a whole argument by pretending there is only 1 box GW comes in

*Edit*

Found this on another site
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...light=box+flap

So

Mineria,

It's on the US retail box. I'm not going to bother to scan mine, your opinion simply isn't important enough for me to go to the trouble to find the box in question. You can believe me and the dozens of others who've posted the quote from the US retail box or you can live in "the Euro version is the only version, pics or America doesn't exist" fantasy land, I really don't care. People like you are exactly why I don't PUG in games like this.

Where's another game "like this"? A "MMOG" (quotes because we're discussing the issue of soloing here) where you can play by yourself if you want to? I am not aware of other games "like this" where you can play 95% of the game by yourself, even though it's an online-only game. Nitpicking about the box wording aside, this is pretty much uncharted territory in the history of online "multiplayer" games.

Furthermore, what makes one box's version of the game better than another? So the boxes are in conflict? That doesn't mean the one that supports your point of view automatically wins.

[QUOTE]i have told you this several times before now actually read it.

I......H/H......ONLY

SINCE EARLY BETA

I H/H........ME/MYSELF/AND I........SOLO

is it finally clear that i am not pushing or even participating in group play ?

Anet tested how many heroes was the limit and 3 was decided on.

since you can still fill a full party with 4 henchies it is not trying to force people together.

the on;y places that does not work is elite farm areas and HM.

most of the player base will never get to the elite areas and get squashed in HM

My game box states that I can either play with other player or use “skillfull” henchmen, too.
I could scan post a picture here, it is however written in German so I’m not sure if that would help anyone here.

Though I am for a 7 hero party, I think we should stop discussing what the Prophecies box says and what not. Somebody is going to write “Yeah ok, you can run around with 7 henchmen, but that doesn’t mean you should be allowed to have a 7 hero party as well” anyway …
Besides, the game changed heavily over the past years and everything the box says is more or less outdated.

I’d like to play with seven heroes, because GW offers me over 1000 skills but limits me in they way I can use them, because I have only 3 heroes available and additional henchmen with rather bad skill bars.

Now try to create a whole team build and ask a PuG, if they could give it a try. Good luck.

Because we have to drag the henchmen through it.

I find NM to be very easy, I play with less than 8 members to try and make it harder.

I want to do HM, but while im forced into taking a charge warrior with less than 8 skills or a monk with no condition removal, monks with no energy management etc its just not going to work.


They dont conflict, one mentions it the other doesnt. If the other box had said "Play with others all the time with no AI" then it would be in conflict.


I have to say thats one of the annoying things about it. Its the only game I know of like it, yet it gives a half hearted effort towards delivering it. Which is a shame.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that a game like this has never before been done. By having the 3 hero limit, they are trying to help people who would rather do the game solo (it could be a 1 hero limit, after all) but at the same time they are trying to keep the people who like to group happy by not having a full team of AI.

One thing that should be obvious to people who have been playing Guild Wars is that they really didn't know what they were doing when they started. There wasn't a long-range plan in place as far as skills, classes, skill text, game mechanics, etc. Anet is making up the rules/restrictions as they go along, and as a result, they aren't always completely sticking to what appeared to be "core beliefs" in the beginning.

My opinion? I ask to see how the other boxes look alike, since its not printed like that on the versions we get here in the local shops.

About the 7 Heroes, I couldn't care less if you get them.
I just find some of the points written here claiming why you need them are misleading and wrong.
If you write something is impossible when it is not, your simply making a fake statement or?

About the last thing in your comment, don't worry, you wont find people like me pugging. I play with guild, alliance and friends.

@unienaule (Because im to slow typing)

I of course fully appreciate that, the problem really seems to stem from the fact Anet is trying to please both camps. But going halfway is never really a good thing to do. You end up annoying both sides while failing to please neither.

Currently PuGing is viable all over the game (Given enough people wanting to pug that specific area).

Solo play is much less viable due to enforced limitations.

While PuGing can be done everywhere, with enough time to get a team together, no matter how long a solo player stands in an outpost looking for more heroes to join its not happening.


At the end of the day I really dont see that adding 7 heroes would be the death of pugging. To many people enjoy pugging for it to go away.

I got a question to this.
What exactly do you mean with less viable?

As for missions in normal mode, all can be done with h+h, without it being to hard.

As for quests, well there are some end game quests that can be hard with the henchmen, not because they are henchmen, but simply because their level is to low. As example the titan quest at Lions Arch.

Vanquishing in hard mode can be hard to at the places where you can take more then 4 in a party, and the henchmen lack in levels.

Elite missions, well they require 2-3 players (some require a 12 man party), and I don't think that is something that should be changed.
Reason for me disagreeing on the elite part is simply because it is something implemented for teaming up.
And that it is elite, not a casual solo go to play place.

Quoted for truth.


One more thought about the 7 hero thing, if it ever should be implemented.
If they will work like the current 3, the Hero bars should be made resize-able

Well you pretty much summed it up for me there, but then add to it the fact that not all henchmen have 8 skills, most run awful builds. Even the good ones are unlikely to fit into your team build so you have to change to fit the henchmen.

When the mechanics require other players obviousely not much can be done. But its only a small part compared to what is gained from adding 7 heroes.

I do have to disagree with elite areas should be for players only however. There is no reason someone who plays solo should be considered less of a player.

Seconding Minera on this: H/Hing is fine, easily doable, and much less of a hassle (and strangely a higher survival rate, experience varies) than a PUG.

Having to focus around the builds of the henchmen is just one of the things that we have to sacrifice when going solo. Some people want more, though. I'm thankful for everything that we get coming from ANet.

Here's a viewpoint on it:

A lot of people consider grouping and playing with others to be exceedingly difficult. So why not make what're supposedly the hardest areas in the game harder?

That aside, you can still group up by joining with people to find a schedule via this forum or whatnot. You will have to set aside some time for it and work a bit harder, but it's all what you want to do.